A Solution to American Obesity

In recent years, Americans have been experiencing what some consider to be a problematic trend. The obesity epidemic, as some call it, is causing huge problems. Heart disease is our number one killer, and diabetes is afflicting more and more people every year, including children who have limited choices about the food they eat.

In addition to human suffering, obesity carries a huge economic cost. Nearly 10% of our health care expenditures go towards treating people who have the disease. This cost comes back to each of us as increased health insurance premiums and inflated government health spending. Obesity has become a massive burden on an already overweight health care system.

Ironically, America suffers from obesity when around the world, approximately one billion people go hungry every night. Although some progress has been made to feed the poor around the world, much more work needs to be done before this problem has also been solved.

I must admit that I am less interested in solving world hunger than I am in increasing American public health. However, these problems are related, and I believe that there is a simple solution to obesity in America that will also make a small dent in hunger throughout the world. The plan is quite easy to imagine and very easy to implement. Obesity and malnutrition simply represent imbalances in energy stores, and these energy stores can be easily distributed to other countries to increase the health of all involved. The most important question is what food sources we take from our country and distribute to our brothers and sisters on the other side of the world.

I have spent a long time meditating on this subject, and it appears to me that we can best supplement the diets of the malnourished by giving them protein of the highest quality. Of course, protein of this quality comes best when we can find a source that closely matches the variety and quantity of amino acids that our bodies possess. The protein source that most remarkably matches this qualification is simple: it is human flesh.

I suppose that some who read this may consider this an absurd idea. I thought the same thing when I first imagined it. But before you judge my plan harshly, please think of it this way: instead of worrying about obesity becoming an epidemic, why not consider it a virtue? For what higher end of life is there than to provide service to others? And what greater service can someone render than to give their life to sustain another? These men and women can enjoy a carefree youth and then be used as quality meat products before they develop debilitating diseases and exorbitant health care bills. And besides, think of how happy people around the world will be to receive American bacon, sausages, and a whole range of charcuterie to supplement their diets!

This proposal will help to reduce our obesity rates in at least three ways. First, those who are presently obese will be taken from our society, reducing some of the aggregate suffering caused by obesity in the United States. Second, those who might become obese will think twice about what they eat and more will remain trim. Finally, many who are genetically predisposed to obesity will be removed from the population and their harmful alleles will leave with them. Taken together, a large purging today followed by modest exports down the road may effectively open the doors for a lean, mean, America.

Now I must be clear that I do not recommend the disgusting and absurd proposition of years gone by that we sell the flesh of infants to others. Children have no choice about the matter, and as freedom-loving Americans, we must refrain from choosing another man’s fate for him. Besides, why transport the flesh of a child to another country when who knows but he may become a lean, healthy individual? Instead, let us give every child a chance to prove that they can remain small, and then ship off only those that grow up well-marbled and tender.

This brings me to another important point that I must not neglect. Some may object to my proposal on the grounds that it takes away freedom. I reject this notion outright, and instead propose that my ideas not only conform to the principles of liberty and freedom, but also to the newly created American values of consumerism and instant gratification of desires. While some call out for reductions in obesity through self-control, I cry for increased freedom to eat what we want, when we want, and as much of it as we want—without the plaguing guilt that obesity might otherwise cause. Then, when the time is right, those who have chosen to raise this war cry will be enlisted to serve throughout the world. They will sit with deep respect on the humble tables of people who will give grace that they have received such a wonderful gift from the United States.

This added respect to our image should not be overlooked. While some few have been pleased to receive some of the intellectual gifts of the American founding in their countries, think how many more will be pleased with a tender pot roast on a Sunday afternoon. I know that I think about burgers much more often than I think about the virtues of a republican government. How can we assume that others would not be predisposed to do the same?

Now I must confess that others have proposed some less effective approaches to solve our obesity problems. I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments to address them, and I apologize that you must suffer through a discussion of silly nonsense. However, I consider it a matter of academic responsibility to address these issues in some detail.

Bad Idea #1: Change Food Subsidies

Some have suggested that many Americans have adopted their current obesity-causing diet because fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are more expensive than processed, fatty foods made from refined ingredients. These people sometimes condemn government subsidies on the inputs for these processed foods and wonder why these subsidies cannot be balanced to resemble food quantities recommended by the Food and Drug Administration.

This idea is absurd for a number of reasons. First, this would alienate the poor, who, although disproportionally obese, are also disproportionately disinterested in disgusting hippy foods like whole-wheat breads and vegetables. Cutting food subsidies that contribute to a major portion of their diet would wreck havoc on their lifestyles and lead to further inequality within the population. Second, we have little evidence to believe that people in general would switch from processed foods to rabbit chow if it was cheaper. The human brain is wired to enjoy fatty, carbohydrate-rich foods. Who are we to take these cheap, simple pleasures away from millions of Americans only to replace them with poor-tasting foods with historical ties to impoverished societies? Finally, enacting this legislation would be an uphill battle against major lobbyists from the meat, dairy, and fast food industries. These forces have already slapped down several attempts to encourage nutrition, and they likely cannot be beat by anything less than a tremendous effort.

My plan, on the other hand, celebrates the brain’s God-given love for calorie-laden foods. Mass consumption during times of plenty is an essential mammalian survival technique, and I will not be known as someone who advocates distancing man from his instincts. Americans are already voting for processed foods with their wallets, even when prices are comparable. Plus, we are known the world over for the incredible contributions that McDonalds and KFC have made to the simplicity and flavor of eating on the go. Why not continue to work with the food industry we have already mastered?

Bad Idea #2: Change the Way Schools Deliver and Teach about Food

Another ridiculous idea suggests that we change the content of school lunches and food education. For example, British celebrity chef Jamie Oliver has been backing two major changes: invest in healthier school lunches and teach children how to cook ten wholesome recipes while they are in school. Others have also suggested that we remove junk-food-heavy vending machines from schools.

I must admit that these ideas have some merit. However, they do represent a direct attack on our glorious food culture. Do we really want our traditional fast food replaced with silly, outdated customs like home cooked meals? Plus, changing the content and delivery of school lunches would cost a large amount of money, which Mr. Oliver suggests would be around $6500 per school per year. This would be a massive entitlement to children that our budget crunched government simply cannot afford.

Teaching children how to cook wholesome meals, I contend, will damage families. How would you feel if your child came home from school and insisted that he cook an inexpensive lentil soup when you have already slaved over a hot cell phone to order a couple of pizzas? Parents will not appreciate the efforts of educators to remove traditional family fare from their tables.

I must also say that I do not believe that removing vending machines from schools will reduce the quantity of junk food that youth eat and drink. Children will just buy it in stores to bring it to school with them. But if we remove vending machines from schools, we may lose an opportunity to teach children an important value: the principle that they can have anything they want anytime they want it. Personally, I believe that these machines should be fitted with credit card readers which will further reinforce this lesson while decreasing the price elasticity of demand of soda, allowing schools to access even greater revenues streams.

My proposal has a much more compelling outlook. Educating people about the problems associated with an unhealthy diet is hard and expensive, while teaching them about the virtues of opulent eating is easy and cheap. My proposal will save money for schools by increasing vending machine revenues and decreasing kitchen costs. In addition, my measures would allow parents to save precious tax dollars when they write off their obese children as charitable contributions when they turn 18.

Bad Idea #3: Require Fad Diets to Show Stricter Warnings

Another suggestion that keeps coming up is a request to provide further restriction on so called “fad diets.” Like drugs and nutritional supplements with spurious health claims, these proponents say that these diets should carry a warning on their labels that says, in essence, that no valid research has been conducted to prove that the diet can help people lose weight.

This argument is just silly, because everyone knows that these diets don’t work. Placing a warning label on fad diets would be like placing a sticker on chicken nuggets to tell consumers they don’t lay eggs. We have known how to cure obesity in almost all cases for a very long time—a person simply eats fewer calories than he or she burns. Everybody knows this, but we still love fantasizing that we can lose weight without having to make any long-term changes to our lifestyles. Fad diets and American’s go together like the magazines that promote them and chocolate bars at the checkout. And besides, what else would we have to talk about at work when our team’s season ends in defeat and the TV is only playing reruns of the Office? Fad diets are already regulated enough with the words “results not typical.”

My thesis is much more inspiring. Instead of regulating harmful fad diets, we should give them no reason to exist at all. In many historical societies, the wealthiest and most attractive people were the fattest, and I think we could benefit by encouraging this same image. Under my proposal, we would rebrand American youth as plump princesses and portly princes, embarking on a mission to save the world from hunger.

Conclusion

As I conclude this paper, I must disclose that I do not have any personal investment in this issue. I am far too small to be used for meat, and my only heavyweight family member was able to miraculously lose over one hundred pounds many years ago. Sadly, this means that I have no honor to gain for my family by giving of our means to the people of the world. However, I trust that many of you will not be left out in the cold, and that the courageous donation of your family members will be a beacon of virtue that you can hold up to inspire your family for many generations.

I admit that this idea is still in its infancy, and that there are many problems that still need to be worked out. However, I believe that there are also many other promising incentives to my plan that I have not had time to explore in this post. I hope that you will take the time to deeply consider this proposal, and to use it as a baseline to other plans you might imagine. As always, I am more than happy to consider any other proposal, so long as it is as easily implemented and obviously successful as mine. I look forward to working with you as we solve the obesity epidemic and increase the collective benevolence of the people of America.