NationStates Jolt Archive

Obesity can put a great strain on your body, but what of its impact on the environment?

Item:

LONDON (Reuters) - Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

"When it comes to food consumption, moving about in a heavy body is like driving around in a gas guzzler," and food production is a major source of greenhouse gases, researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in their study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

"We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend toward fatness, and recognize it as a key factor in the battle to reduce (carbon) emissions and slow climate change," the British scientists said.

They estimated that each fat person is responsible for about one tonne of carbon dioxide emissions a year more on average than each thin person, adding up to an extra one billion tonnes of CO2 a year in a population of one billion overweight people.

The European Union estimates each EU citizen accounts for 11 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year.

Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE53I2RG20090419?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Reading this short article, I genuinely felt impelled to examine my habits and their impact on the environment. While it's obvious that a fat person requires more calories (and therefore consumes more resources and produces more CO2) at their BMR, it struck me as problematic that an ethical judgment should be made as to one's habits in terms of calorie intake.

My weight falls within the "normal" category on a standard BMI chart. That doesn't mean, however, that I consume fewer calories each day than an obese man. I enjoy taking long walks, and I use weights and do calisthenics (i.e. push-ups, sit-ups, etc.) pretty much every day. The result is that I probably consume and burn more calories, at a normal weight, than a sedentary obese man does on a typical day. What of the ethics of exercise, then? It's enjoyable, and probably good for my health, but none of my exercise routine is absolutely necessary, and all of it consumes resources and produces CO2.

Bit of a quandary, no? Ignoring externalities such as eventual healthcare costs and the price of food, it seems to me that these choices can be seen in a similar light. So I thought I'd ask what everyone thinks about the ethics of food consumption, and post a poll. The issue: do you think there ought to be sanctions of any kind (including social) for overconsumption of food? If you do, do you make a distinction between those who eat to excess for a definite purpose (sport, exercise, etc.) and those for whom it's an unhealthy habit?

Can't we just put fat people on hamster wheels and the longer they keep running, the longer Mc. Donalds will have power?

It's not like someone overweight is going to be convinced by environmental factors when they're seemingly unconvinced by a mirror.

It's not really about weight anyway, it's about health and people with weight can be just as healthy as stick insects.

The problem is in the messaging, health and exercise should be something to celebrate, how much better you feel, rather than some sort of guilty burden, finger-pointing 'you're too fat' messaging that just builds a barrier in people's brains.

Using guilt to change people's attitudes should be left to religion, and hopefully die out along with it.

It's not like someone overweight is going to be convinced by environmental factors when they're seemingly unconvinced by a mirror.

It's not really about weight anyway, it's about health and people with weight can be just as healthy as stick insects.

The problem is in the messaging, health and exercise should be something to celebrate, how much better you feel, rather than some sort of guilty burden, finger-pointing 'you're too fat' messaging that just builds a barrier in people's brains.

Using guilt to change people's attitudes should be left to religion, and hopefully die out along with it.

It's not about guilt necessarily, though guilt can and does change habits. Social marketing, for example, is effective in many cases, where one's sense of obligation to the community (or the planet, here) can be used as a motivator. People can be motivated toward taking action to achieve a social benefit by sanctions or rewards.

It's not about guilt necessarily, though guilt can and does change habits.

Tends not to be effective over the long-term, good for short-term results but not long-term behaviour, well not the desired long-term behaviour at least - and to some extent it is about guilt/shame, that it's wrong when your brain is telling you that eating is a pleasure, it creates a confliction and that can be as harmful as being overweight in the first place.

Social marketing, for example, is effective in many cases, where one's sense of obligation to the community (or the planet, here) can be used as a motivator.

I don't know, the greatest joy in taking part in social programmes is not the fulfillment of obligation but the joy of participation in achievement.

People can be motivated toward taking action to achieve a social benefit by sanctions or rewards.

Sure but the sanction/benefit becomes the goal rather than the action itself, the pleasure is from the reward/escaping sanctions and therefore remains a short-term function ultimately.

Can't we just put fat people on hamster wheels and the longer they keep running, the longer Mc. Donalds will have power?

And you a Pagan! I'm ashamed of you!

I don't know about your coven, but in mine, there were no thin people. There were no somewhat overwweight people. Every Pagan I ever knew was grossly obese - for some reason it seems to be part of the religion - at least in some parts of California.

It's not about guilt necessarily, though guilt can and does change habits. Social marketing, for example, is effective in many cases, where one's sense of obligation to the community (or the planet, here) can be used as a motivator. People can be motivated toward taking action to achieve a social benefit by sanctions or rewards.

Guilt never helped me (or anyone I know) change habits. All guilt ever did for me was piss me off - and not at myself or my habits, but at the person who was so ill-advised as to try to guilt me into anything.

And you a Pagan! I'm ashamed of you!

I don't know about your coven, but in mine, there were no thin people. There were no somewhat overwweight people. Every Pagan I ever knew was grossly obese - for some reason it seems to be part of the religion - at least in some parts of California.

People really should stop taking everything I say seriously.

Also, you can't really go on anecdotal evidence, because every Pagan I've met in NC is thin. I guess like the rest of society, the weight of Pagan is on a spectrum.

Tends not to be effective over the long-term, good for short-term results but not long-term behaviour, well not the desired long-term behaviour at least - and to some extent it is about guilt/shame, that it's wrong when your brain is telling you that eating is a pleasure, it creates a confliction and that can be as harmful as being overweight in the first place.

It's hard to predict. Some social marketing campaigns have been very successful, while others have been disasters. I'm not an expert on the topic, but from what I've seen, it's pretty variable. I do think it would be difficult, but, managed correctly, it's probably possible to promote more moderate consumption.

People really should stop taking everything I say seriously.

Also, you can't really go on anecdotal evidence, because every Pagan I've met in NC is thin. I guess like the rest of society, the weight of Pagan is on a spectrum.

And every Pagan I have met in London, has been of all kinds of body shape.

And every Pagan I have met in London, has been of all kinds of body shape.

And every pagan I have met was either on fire or being dunked in a river :p

I'm on the fat side, I walk anywhere that its possible to, but (and its a big butt *rimshot*) I live about 10 miles from any place I need to go on a regular basis.

I'm on the fat side, I walk anywhere that its possible to, but (and its a big butt *rimshot*) I live about 10 miles from any place I need to go on a regular basis.

Do you think people who are grossly overweight ought to be encouraged to reduce for ecological reasons, or at least to take the environment into account when makeing that decision?

Do you think people who are grossly overweight ought to be encouraged to reduce for ecological reasons, or at least to take the environment into account when makeing that decision?

I'm kind of a live and let live person, regardless of what I think of people's choices I let them make them. So... I think people who are horribly overweight should be encouraged to lose it by the best route for them, but nobody has any right to force them to.

Rubbish.

One tonne of CO2 per year is actually a small fraction (5-20% depending how it is calculated) of the CO2 emissions per capita in developed countries.

Ethical decisions like not flying half around the world for a two week holiday, not using airconditioning unless conditions are really extreme, and not buying a new car one year earlier, would have vastly more impact than losing some weight, for the individual who -- OMG, shock and horror, burnt a third of a ton of carbon this year.

Blame the victim, anyone?

I'm kind of a live and let live person, regardless of what I think of people's choices I let them make them. So... I think people who are horribly overweight should be encouraged to lose it by the best route for them, but nobody has any right to force them to.

That's cool. I certainly wasn't advocating compulsory weight reduction. PSAs or taxation would be the likely route if our environmental policy were to address obesity directly in the future.

Rubbish.

One tonne of CO2 per year is actually a small fraction (5-20% depending how it is calculated) of the CO2 emissions per capita in developed countries.

Ethical decisions like not flying half around the world for a two week holiday, not using airconditioning unless conditions are really extreme, and not buying a new car one year earlier, would have vastly more impact than losing some weight, for the individual who -- OMG, shock and horror, burnt a third of a ton of carbon this year.

Blame the victim, anyone?

You're right, of course, about the amounts. I suppose what I'm asking is whether consumption of food ought to be placed in the same category as other types of non-essential consumption or whether discretion in choosing one's eating habits amounts to a sort of protected ethical value.

Fat people. The only people left we can make fun of, taunt, and openly discriminate against with impunity any more, eh?

Fat people. The only people left we can make fun of, taunt, and openly discriminate against with impunity any more, eh?

Nah, I don't think that's the intent. It isn't "you're fat, and therefore a bad person." It's just a fact that increasingly obese populations are adding to our carbon footprint. So it's more "your habits are not ecologically sound - please consider changing them." Not that some people don't stereotype fat people as being lazy or whatever else, but the purpose of sanctions would be to help reverse the trend, rather than to cause hurt feelings.

The problem is with the assumption we can all be skinny. White people have a higher albedo, so reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere. Doesn't this increase climate change? Oh, but you can't change your skin color, so that's all right then. But fat is obviously a choice, because why else would there be so many fat people?

Nah, I don't think that's the intent. It isn't "you're fat, and therefore a bad person." It's just a fact that increasingly obese populations are adding to our carbon footprint. So it's more "your habits are not ecologically sound - please consider changing them." Not that some people don't stereotype fat people as being lazy or whatever else, but the purpose of sanctions would be to help reverse the trend, rather than to cause hurt feelings.

Wouldn't it reduce the carbon output of the population more if y'all were to pick on the urban sprawl people more? I mean I hear on the radio every day about how the "sale of new homes" is down and that's supposedly a "really bad thing for America"........why do we need new homes again? The city is full of already built homes near work/school/grocery stores. Why do people need to build outside of the city? They use more resources, non-local resources, and tear down trees and destroy wildlife habitats, so they can have oversized houses that are using more energy than they should to heat/cool/water the landscape........and then they end up commuting into the city for anything they need. How much are they hurting the environment? Why doesn't anyone do anything about them?

If we could convert human fat into bio-diesel, liposuction might see a comeback. :)

The problem is with the assumption we can all be skinny. White people have a higher albedo, so reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere. Doesn't this increase climate change? Oh, but you can't change your skin color, so that's all right then. But fat is obviously a choice, because why else would there be so many fat people?

The massive increase in rate of obesity over the last few decades is not the result of changes to the gene pool. Metabolism varies among groups and among individuals, body type varies among groups and among individuals (etc.) but the choices we make and the changes in lifestyles and culture have driven the spike in obesity. Not that it's even relevant. We try to promote good habits as social policy whether they're completely achievable or not.

The problem is with the assumption we can all be skinny. White people have a higher albedo, so reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere. Doesn't this increase climate change? Oh, but you can't change your skin color, so that's all right then. But fat is obviously a choice, because why else would there be so many fat people?

You have it backwards there, white people would reduce global warming as they reflect sunlight out of the planet, while darker people are contributing to global warming. At any rate, its clear fat is a choice for many people.

Wouldn't it reduce the carbon output of the population more if y'all were to pick on the urban sprawl people more? I mean I hear on the radio every day about how the "sale of new homes" is down and that's supposedly a "really bad thing for America"........why do we need new homes again? The city is full of already built homes near work/school/grocery stores. Why do people need to build outside of the city? They use more resources, non-local resources, and tear down trees and destroy wildlife habitats, so they can have oversized houses that are using more energy than they should to heat/cool/water the landscape........and then they end up commuting into the city for anything they need. How much are they hurting the environment? Why doesn't anyone do anything about them?

Those are all good points, and, as BunnySaurus said, there are many major contributors to climate change. Individual consumption is only one piece of the puzzle. It's going to be very interesting to see how the new economy and new environmental policy changes individuals' habits. I've seen a bunch of commentators predict a "new austerity" for the U.S. (meaning, less non-essential spending and more sensible consumption patterns) but the jury's still out on whether it's going to happen, I think.

Those are all good points, and, as BunnySaurus said, there are many major contributors to climate change. Individual consumption is only one piece of the puzzle. It's going to be very interesting to see how the new economy and new environmental policy changes individuals' habits. I've seen a bunch of commentators predict a "new austerity" for the U.S. (meaning, less non-essential spending and more sensible consumption patterns) but the jury's still out on whether it's going to happen, I think.

You completely missed my point.

You completely missed my point.

People already are focusing on sustainable development and urban sprawl. There are many ways of approaching climate change, and many distinct causes. The explosion of obesity has enlarged our carbon footprint - that's what this thread is about. It isn't the only contributor, and it isn't an either/or, where you either focus on obesity or on other contributors. That's why I said that the obesity epidemic is only one piece of the puzzle, and cited BunnySaurus, who had some numbers.

You completely missed my point.

Really? So "new austerity" isn't anything like what you were proposing?

If we could convert human fat into bio-diesel, liposuction might see a comeback. :)

Doctor used 'human fat to power car' (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5393763.ece)

... I hear on the radio every day about how the "sale of new homes" is down and that's supposedly a "really bad thing for America"........why do we need new homes again? ...Why doesn't anyone do anything about them?

The housing industry acts as a starter engine for the rest of the construction industry, and the construction idnustry is itself a large part of the economy. So if you can get people buying new homes, you can get a large chunk of the economy rolling. Mere environmental concerns associated with an ever increasing use of habitat are not nearly as important because no one makes any money on them.

Really? So "new austerity" isn't anything like what you were proposing?

Nope.

Nope.

So you don't consider large houses in the Suburbs to be the antithesis of "less non-essential spending and more sensible consumption patterns"? That is despite them being completely reasonable, essential spending, you still think they're wasteful?

Anyway, it'll never happen unless the US develops very serious ecological problems. Which given our current population density is still a ways off. There are simply too many people making too much money on it, and that is because its what people want. I know I hope to one day have a large house with a nice yard and so forth.

...

Anyway, it'll never happen unless the US develops very serious ecological problems. Which given our current population density is still a ways off. There are simply too many people making too much money on it, and that is because its what people want. I know I hope to one day have a large house with a nice yard and so forth.

Why?

I've never understood the USian dream of having a big house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and weed-free yard. I think it has something to do with the way we have elevated land ownership to some sort of desirable thing, which can be traced back to feudalism.

I can understand wanting the ability to do what you want with your home, but any arrangement will be limited by others unless you live in the middle of nowhere. Many suburbs have tons of annoying bylaws that make that hope a mere pipe dream.

I guess if you're really into commuting and paying to heat and otherwise maintain more space and land than you need, go ahead.

Why?

I've never understood the USian dream of having a big house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and weed-free yard. I think it has something to do with the way we have elevated land ownership to some sort of desirable thing, which can be traced back to feudalism.

Well, as my mom put it once, when you're done you have something left (that is you own something, whereas renting you never end up with anything) my brother was quick to point out that "in the end" you're dead and therefore you have nothing. But it may be in part due to wanting to leave something to your heirs.

I can understand wanting the ability to do what you want with your home, but any arrangement will be limited by others unless you live in the middle of nowhere. Many suburbs have tons of annoying bylaws that make that hope a mere pipe dream.

Well, I'm not set on the Suburbs thing, but I hope to have a batch of kids sometime, so the space, both in and outside will be nice. Plus I grew up in a decent sized house inside of a city actually (I'm not sure what the limits on large are here, so we may be imagining different things, although I did always want a mansion :p), as a result such an environment is more comfortable to me.'

The first time I went into the 'Burbs it was pretty scary actually. Everything looked the same and every street was the name of a fucking tree. Almost never made it back out. I am much more used to a bit of character in the places I live.

I guess if you're really into commuting and paying to heat and otherwise maintain more space and land than you need, go ahead.

What else should I do with all the mega-bucks I'm bound to be making later on in life?

So what happens if I lose weight by the Atkins diet. More meat less grain ???

So what happens if I lose weight by the Atkins diet. More meat less grain ???

Then you just lose about ten or fifteen pounds because you've basically dehydrated yourself. Continued use of the Atkin's diet will make you sick.

Not sustainable from either ahealth prespective or an ecological perspective.

Obesity can put a great strain on your body, but what of its impact on the environment?

Bit of a quandary, no? Ignoring externalities such as eventual healthcare costs and the price of food, it seems to me that these choices can be seen in a similar light. So I thought I'd ask what everyone thinks about the ethics of food consumption, and post a poll. The issue: do you think there ought to be sanctions of any kind (including social) for overconsumption of food? If you do, do you make a distinction between those who eat to excess for a definite purpose (sport, exercise, etc.) and those for whom it's an unhealthy habit?

Yeah, this is another area where I want to see government involved in making decisions for me.

Yeah, this is another area where I want to see government involved in making decisions for me.

The government needn't be involved. Sanctions, as I mentioned, can be merely social. IGovernment involvement, if it occurs, might be limited to PSAs (or other awareness efforts) or health programming. I'm not saying the government ought to be drinking your milkshake. :tongue:

The government needn't be involved. Sanctions, as I mentioned, can be merely social. IGovernment involvement, if it occurs, might be limited to PSAs (or other awareness efforts) or health programming. I'm not saying the government ought to be drinking your milkshake. :tongue:
Well, we've successfully demonized smokers to the point where anything can be done to curtail their liberties and it's considered justifiable. I suppose the enviro-health extremists need another target.

Since the airlines have already started attacking fatties, why shouldn't the rest of us pile on.

You know, its funny. Some people have said some really, really awful things about fat people under the guise of a 'joke'.

Replace 'fat people' with 'jews', and the jokes get a lot less 'funny'.

You know, its funny. Some people have said some really, really awful things about fat people under the guise of a 'joke'.

Replace 'fat people' with 'jews', and the jokes get a lot less 'funny'.

Or a lot more funny.

Also, 666 etc. I R TEH DEVILZ

I think there may be a cause and effect reversal here. I think it is as much the driving habit that leads to obesity as obesity leading to the driving habit.

Wouldn't it reduce the carbon output of the population more if y'all were to pick on the urban sprawl people more? I mean I hear on the radio every day about how the "sale of new homes" is down and that's supposedly a "really bad thing for America"........why do we need new homes again? The city is full of already built homes near work/school/grocery stores. Why do people need to build outside of the city? They use more resources, non-local resources, and tear down trees and destroy wildlife habitats, so they can have oversized houses that are using more energy than they should to heat/cool/water the landscape........and then they end up commuting into the city for anything they need. How much are they hurting the environment? Why doesn't anyone do anything about them?

You completely missed my point.
I don't think I missed it. I saw Sprawlburbia turn Long Island, NY, from one of the most fertile farming regions in the US, one of the most productive commercial fishing regions in the US, and one of the most supportive environments for migratory birds on the North American eastern seaboard, into a near wasteland of polluted and paved-over dirt. Nothing but McMansions and car dealerships as far as the eye can see. Pollution so heavy it has been traced to cancer clusters among the residents. And the fishing is gone. Just gone. A 300-year-old industry wiped out. Experts doubt the oyster and scallop beds will ever come back, no matter what is done.

And all that happened in less than 20 years.

I don't care how much any given fat person consumes. They'll do less damage to the planet if they live responsibly, even if they never lose a pound. And so will skinny people.

Then you just lose about ten or fifteen pounds because you've basically dehydrated yourself. Continued use of the Atkin's diet will make you sick.

Not sustainable from either ahealth prespective or an ecological perspective.

Been on it for well over 2 years and I haven't been sick yet.
given I am doing it like the book says which after the first few weeks I bring back in carbs until I find my maintenance level.

Been on it for well over 2 years and I haven't been sick yet.
given I am doing it like the book says which after the first few weeks I bring back in carbs until I find my maintenance level.

Have you ever tried shirataki?

Have you ever tried shirataki?

Is that like harikiri?

Is that like harikiri?

Hopefully not. :p

It's a noodle made from soluble yam fiber and sometimes a little tofu for texture. It's extremely low calorie and carbs and supposedly pretty tasty. Considering my activity level, low carb diets aren't for me, but I have a cousin that could benefit greatly from such a noodle.

Hopefully not. :p

It's a noodle made from soluble yam fiber and sometimes a little tofu for texture. It's extremely low calorie and carbs and supposedly pretty tasty. Considering my activity level, low carb diets aren't for me, but I have a cousin that could benefit greatly from such a noodle.

Sounds.... delicious

I suspect we could train ourselves to enjoy pretty much anything, you can experiment with sugar in tea and/or coffee - I don't take sugar in either now but I used to take a lot, you can quite easily lessen the amount each time and your brain seems to adjust accordingly.

The obesity epidemic has many causes but all could ultimately be solved by changing how we talk about health, not as a burden but as a real joy, to actively take part in one form of sports or another.

I play 2 hours of tennis on Thursdays and Sundays and then Moto-X on Saturdays - I went through a period of just lying on the couch at weekends, happy enough to have done with the week, I'm naturally thin so nothing really shows but now the extra energy from regular sports has been so beneficial in other ways.

It's a bit like smoking, all the literature - aside from a few - talk about how 'hard' it is to give up, what a sacrifice one has to make, the crutches one requires to help you through 'cold turkey'.

It's just so entirely the wrong way to approach it, one should talk of the liberation that comes from quitting, it makes the whole thing so easy.

So, yum yum to your yam-based tofu noodle soup, no matter how bland that sounds.

Sounds.... delicious

I suspect we could train ourselves to enjoy pretty much anything, you can experiment with sugar in tea and/or coffee - I don't take sugar in either now but I used to take a lot, you can quite easily lessen the amount each time and your brain seems to adjust accordingly.

The obesity epidemic has many causes but all could ultimately be solved by changing how we talk about health, not as a burden but as a real joy, to actively take part in one form of sports or another.

I play 2 hours of tennis on Thursdays and Sundays and then Moto-X on Saturdays - I went through a period of just lying on the couch at weekends, happy enough to have done with the week, I'm naturally thin so nothing really shows but now the extra energy from regular sports has been so beneficial in other ways.

It's a bit like smoking, all the literature - aside from a few - talk about how 'hard' it is to give up, what a sacrifice one has to make, the crutches one requires to help you through 'cold turkey'.

It's just so entirely the wrong way to approach it, one should talk of the liberation that comes from quitting, it makes the whole thing so easy.

So, yum yum to your yam-based tofu noodle soup, no matter how bland that sounds.

Personally, I'm more of a habit-changer than a self-deceiver. When I lose weight, it's typically due to a higher activity level and more frequent smaller meals of more wholesome foods. But if I were already considerably obese, the advantage of a low calorie 'substitute' for pasta wouldn't be lost on me. But it has to be a reasonable substitute. Fortunately, people don't just eat pasta. There's usually some sort of sauce or soup or additional ingredients of some kind. Since I've never tried it, I can't tell you how reasonable a substitute it is, but if I felt the need to cut calories and/or carbs, I'd definitely have to at least try it.

Sounds.... delicious

I suspect we could train ourselves to enjoy pretty much anything, you can experiment with sugar in tea and/or coffee - I don't take sugar in either now but I used to take a lot, you can quite easily lessen the amount each time and your brain seems to adjust accordingly.

The obesity epidemic has many causes but all could ultimately be solved by changing how we talk about health, not as a burden but as a real joy, to actively take part in one form of sports or another.

I play 2 hours of tennis on Thursdays and Sundays and then Moto-X on Saturdays - I went through a period of just lying on the couch at weekends, happy enough to have done with the week, I'm naturally thin so nothing really shows but now the extra energy from regular sports has been so beneficial in other ways.

It's a bit like smoking, all the literature - aside from a few - talk about how 'hard' it is to give up, what a sacrifice one has to make, the crutches one requires to help you through 'cold turkey'.

It's just so entirely the wrong way to approach it, one should talk of the liberation that comes from quitting, it makes the whole thing so easy.

So, yum yum to your yam-based tofu noodle soup, no matter how bland that sounds.


You hit the nail right on the head. When I began to run cross country, I was not very active, okay, I was a slacker. Before I started running, I was thin, but pretty unhealthy when it came to food cunsumption.

After I started running, I actually felt like I had more energy, and I actually enjoyed it. At one point, I decided to stop drinking soda, and see how long I could last without reverting back to it. My increased energy encouraged me to change my diet in other ways as well. Quitting not only gives you a sense of accomplishment, but you actually feel better too. Don't worry, almond butter and flavored water are delicious, it just takes some getting used to.

This section comes from this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/21/obesity-pill-health-politics):

Polite society can't stand solutions that make things easier for the *individual, yet loves answers that appear to control the problem from above, by decree. This is just as much an easy answer for the council as a pill is for the obese person: no effortful, expensive ideas – playing fields, outdoor gyms, free leisure centre usage – just a big, red "no", stamped on planning applications. Every policy idea you hear about the obesity "epidemic" shares this easy-answer quality – take away their benefits, restrict their use of the NHS, tax their chocolate, tax their *benefits so they can't afford chocolate, starve them! Even at their most benign, policymakers concentrate on the cheapest end of the spectrum – an educational campaign, a poster campaign, the dissemination of messages that have been around for decades and have precisely no impact.

I point this out not for soft-hearted, liberal reasons, not to say how unjust it is, how poisonous, the one-way-street of this debate, where the individual is expected always to take the hard path. Rather, a most cursory examination of the impulses behind overeating, after you've filtered out considerations like fatty food costing less, reveals that they have nothing to do with people being ignorant, or insufficiently reprimanded. They are all about boredom, hopelessness, demoralisation and a low sense of self-worth.

The factors are mainly emotional, and the disapprobation of society – whether tacit, or expressed through chicken availability or tax penalties – does not help. It's interesting that, when you listen to doctors at the coalface of the obesity problem, in the gastric-band business, or dealing with infertility or type-2 diabetes or heart disease, they never come up with punitive solutions, they always talk about prevention of obesity, and how hard weight loss is.

It's only those at some remove from all this who think bullying is going to help. And ultimately, I don't think these disciplinary solutions are intended to help, or rather, framed with any thought of actual efficacy. It's just a way of saying, "Eurgh! I can't abide fat people!". It would actually be better, for policy, for the obese and for society, if the people who get off on this moralising were still allowed to pelt missiles at the fat, in a purpose-built fairground environment.

Viewing the solution as some sort of punishment feeds into the idea that obesity is some sort of reflection on character, that they're weak-willed, they can't help failing on diets, it's all so hard - if anything, it strengthens the processes that allow people to excuse themselves for being unhealthy.

Wrong-headed.