FORGET the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. Recently, the federal government has come up with a revolutionary new concept: the War on Fat.
Congress has put together a $200 million legislative package targeting Americans' waistlines. IMPACT (Improved National and Physical Activity Act) provides money to schools and nutritional centers to promote education on obesity, as well as funding for programs like bike paths and recreational centers. The only problem? The War on Fat is as superfluous as the rolls of flab around the collective American stomach, and this legislation does little to address the problem of obesity in this country.
Congress has rightfully identified this as a problem. An estimated three quarters of the American population is either obese or overweight, according to a report last September in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., rightfully points out that obesity is "an epidemic we know is contributing significantly, substantially, to over 300,000 deaths a year."
The fact that obesity is a major problem doesn't change the uselessness of the legislation. For example, Congress wants to ensure that health programs in high schools cover nutrition. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., asserted, "We want to be sure that we are getting young people off to the right start to the extent that we can."
It's painfully obvious from this plan that no one in Congress remembers their high school days. Under this plan, the same teacher that taught us all the dangers of alcohol (and we all know how well that worked) will be encouraging students to "think slim." Does anyone really have confidence in the health teachers of America to be able to make the Food Pyramid exciting and appealing to teenagers?
Likewise, federal funding for things like parks, bike paths, gyms and other recreational facilities isn't necessarily bad - the question is why it's necessary. The effect that an increase in America's bike paths will have on the obesity problem is negligible. Bike paths already exist, and if people don't use them now, they won't in the future simply because there are more of them. Like the rest of IMPACT, it is a solution for the sake of a solution - and not even one that works.
What Congress has chosen to ignore is that in many cases, obesity is a product of our culture and society. Many people who are genetically and hormonally obese won't have this control over their problems. However, it should be obvious that many facets of our society - from consumerism to collective laziness - contribute to the problem of obesity.
While Congress can't change society, this legislation isn't having much "impact" either. Building bike paths and gyms isn't going to mean much if no one's going to use them anyway. But far be it for those in Congress to believe they can't simply legislate a problem away.
Almost everyone will be happy with IMPACT. Towns will get better recreational facilities and parks. Schools and nutritional centers will get more funding. Health groups will applaud it. But all this legislation really amounts to is a giant step sideways.
IMPACT does nothing to change the culture of McDonalds and Burger King, and any meaningful change has to come from society itself. Granted, this country is schizophrenic as far as body image goes. We live in a society where obesity and anorexia simultaneously exist as major health problems.
There is a thin line (get it?) between simply making fat jokes and making some people aware of the grave health risks they face. But it should be possible to discourage obesity without creating such a stigma that would encourage eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia.
However, the "solution" that Congress has come up with would be laughable, if it didn't cost the American public $200 million. The new "War on Fat" is nothing more than legislative masturbation. For there to be any change, we as a society need to get the obese of America running scared - and hey, maybe they'll lose a few pounds that way.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily opinion editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
