3

Making a big deal out of the obesity crisis

John Hoffman, producer behind the new HBO documentary "The Weight of the Nation," dicscusses why we need to pay attention to America's obesity epidemic now.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

Kai Ryssdal: You want to think about food in this country nowadays, calories are pretty much how we do it. There are laws saying restaurants have to post calorie totals for everything -- they're the first thing we look for when we flip over that pint of ice cream or cookies we're thinking about. A better metric, though, might be cholesterol or blood pressure or joint pain or shortness of breath. All of which -- and more -- are tied to our collectively growing waistlines. A new documentary tonight on HBO chronicles and criticizes obesity in America. It's called "The Weight of the Nation." John Hoffman is the executive producer. John, welcome to the program.

John Hoffman: Thank you. I'm glad to be here.

Ryssdal: Are you trying to turn obesity into a campaign, I guess? Much like breast cancer has turned into.

Hoffman: I would say we're trying to sound a very, very loud alarm. I don't know that we're setting out to establish a campaign where we're going to be revisiting this every year. This is an issue that the nation has to address, has to make a priority. You have 1 out of 3 children born today who will develop diabetes in their lifetime. And in the instance of obesity, it's driving our health care costs possibly to the point of bankruptcy. I could go on and on citing reasons why this really has serious consequences for the future competitiveness and health of the country.

Ryssdal: Here's another one: Did I read someplace that obesity-related expenses contribute to something like $200 billion a year in health care costs?

Hoffman: That's right. And by 2018, it's expected to be $300 billion. And half of that will be borne by Medicare and Medicaid.

Ryssdal: So here comes the part of the interview where I say what a lot of people think, but are afraid to say it. There's a school of thought out there that goes: You know what, if these people who are overweight would just get off the couch and get some exercise and eat a little less, we'd take care of this.

Hoffman: There's no question that for people to lose weight, they do need to exercise more, they need to eat less. One way to think about obesity is that it's an unintended consequence of progress -- comparable to global warming.

Ryssdal: That's a great line actually -- unintended.

Hoffman: It's only in the past really 50, maybe 100 years, where you have a population that has food at arm's reach at all times. The policies that were put in place that shaped our agricultural system, that enabled to feed this growing nation -- none of these policies envisioned a world that would result in us eating more and moving less. But we've solved some major public health problems. We did it with smoking sensation and no one really believed that that was possible 30 years ago. They could not envision a world where we could use policy, we could use the marketplace -- to taxation -- to really shape purchasing behaviors. Some would argue that we have to employ the same tactics to really reshape our food environment.

Ryssdal: That was a long and brutal struggle, though, the whole war against tobacco and it's ongoing and there is success. But the food industry and the soft drink industry and the consumer rights industry will mount ferocious opposition to efforts to legislate this problem away.

Hoffman: If we were all to cut our consumption of food by 100 calories a day, that would cost the food industry between $30-40 billion a year. Now, how do you ask an industry to voluntarily not grow, but shrink by $30-40 billion a year? It's not going to happen. But we have to have industry at the table as a participant in rethinking the American diet because they have engineered a diet which is not only not health promoting, but it is damaging to our nation's health and to the health of children and we just -- we are better than that.

Ryssdal: John Hoffman is the vice president of documentary films at HBO. He's also the executive producer of "The Weight of the Nation," which is on HBO tonight. John, thanks a lot.

Hoffman: Thank you.

About the author

Kai Ryssdal is the host and senior editor of Marketplace, public radio’s program on business and the economy. Follow Kai on Twitter @kairyssdal.
hithere's picture
hithere - May 15, 2012

Good to know money is more important than saving lives.

America!

gypsyfan's picture
gypsyfan - May 14, 2012

One of the statistics quoted in the story provided a great, but missed, opportunity to really put things in perspective. Paraphrasing; "If only 100 calories per day were cut from a persons diet it would provide a great health benefit but would cost the food industrusy $20(?) billion, a sum the food industry will fight to save." An exceptionally valuable insight would be the proportion of the whole represented in the figures; 100 calories out of a 2,500 calorie per day diet is only 4%. Does $20 billion represent only 4% of the cost to the food industry? There are valuable conclusions to be drawn - and more points to ponder - when those simple insights are added. How about it?

MoondayLetters.com's picture
MoondayLetters.com - May 14, 2012

The Regulators will always have the best answer to to make Your life and Our society better by changing Your behavior, and by golly if you don't change your self-and-society destructive behavior by virtue of their enlightened knowledge and reasoning…well…then…let's regulate baby (in this case via tax policy). The guest argued that this worked for smoking, therefore why not use it for eating habits to reduce obesity. Why stop there, how about for eating meat (think of all the harm, ecological, physical, and medical that eating meat causes) and oh, how about for…ummm….for not meditating (a 5% Not Meditating tax, as regular meditation has been shown to reduce heart problems among other ailments) and how about for…well…give them some time, they'll think of something.

Every aspect of life affects every other aspect of life, good, bad, and other. Listening to music while driving affects traffic safety. Free speech can be used to hurt people. Watching television can lead to watching too much television which can lead to a sedentary lifestyle and increase healthcare costs. The price of living in a free society is that people make a variety of choices and sometimes bad things happen (and they might even be expensive), but, and here's the clincher--you get to live in a free society. The cost-benefit analysis of The Regulators usually fails to take that into consideration, probably because they've already figured out the best way to live and just want you to get with the program For Your Own Good You Fool.

Recent studies have shown that the increase in child obesity rates have begun to level off and likely even decline--research it. Maybe education, awareness, and advertising played a role. If Coke spends 100 million to keep that red can in your head then I assume government and private organizations could do the same to advocate for eating well and exercising. However, those methods leave too much power in peoples own hands to manage their own lives--that kind of heresy won't stand when we've got The Regulators.