Yes, so there's been a lot of science talk going on, some of which I'm very familiar with, the study that you quote from University of Pittsburgh I'm not familiar with. But I would take issue with your comment about the studies all being funded by the drug companies. The vast majority of information that we have at CDC comes from a study called NHANENS, the National Health And Nutrition Examinations Study which is a government-funded study that applies questionnaires and does examinations, and that's where we get the data about the increasing weight of the population over the time, the increase of weight of children, the rising diabetes, and the ability to link those two on a population basis. I think the comments that were made that everybody who is obese is gonna have problems is not true. There are people who are overweight and obese who will live a long, healthy life and never have a health problem. But the vast majority of people who are obese will develop problems, will develop many of the problems that you experienced. And the good news is that a lot of those things are reversible as weight goes down. I was just in D.C. today for the launch of the White House initiative around obesity, and I talked with Secretary Sebelius, and Secretary Duncan, and Secretary Vilsack about what they're doing to address obesity, and they were talking about the things that you were talking about, and that you were talking about, about getting physical education into the schools, about getting healthy foods into neighborhoods. And we visited corner stores where there were no fresh foods and vegetables. How do you expect someone to make a healthy choice if there's no choice to be made? So I think there's a lot of agreement around that. But we have to be careful with the science, science can be used ... you can twist science, and we all do it when we've got a point we wanna make, especially when we feel passionate about it, but it's really important that you don't look at studies that are funded by a drug company that is invest-interested that you know your data resources (absolutely), and I think you have to be really careful to not use science that can be very inflammatory that can cloud the issue.
If we agree that the greatest resource that any country has is its people, wouldn't it stature reason that we would wanna protect that resource? And that being the case we would want to have access to affordable healthy foods for all. Physical activity available for safe playing, safe activities for youth and seniors, but more importantly, doesn't that an entire back into the responsibility of the government to go ahead and also to make sure that companies which provide unhealthy options have to help pay for any other types of health diseases, shouldn't they be forced to have to share some of that burden, are you also with the proposed sugary beverage, soda tax?
I think that that goes back to the, the sort of food police legislation that makes me nervous on a societal, sort of personal freedom's level. I mean, I have issues with nanny laws, I don't wanna live in a nanny state that tells me this is good or this is bad, I think that is a much more complex issue. You talked about the food police, and yet nutritional labels have proved quite successful, and perhaps helping people self-moderate.
I think food labels are one of those things that you either love or you hate. They also encourage a sort of numbers of obsessed behavior. But as far as that goes, you sort of butt up against the way capitalism and our sort of economic business model functions, I think that those businesses are gonna come back and say "Well, we took the risk to be in these areas and it's our, you know, our sort of legal duty to our stockholders to turn as much of profit as we can." And if that mean supersizing stuff so that you pay 34 cents more and we make 34 cents more profit, you know, that's what they're going to do, so I think that the question then becomes a really large one about the way we do business in America. What we talk right now have a tax on sugary items and we don't on non-sugary items, I mean, I don't have a problem, I think there's agencies out there and individuals that are bringing information to the American people that we need. I think it's good to know what's in things that manufacturers aren't telling us. I think the nutritional labels are a guide that is absolutely critical for all of us fat or thin to make healthy choices. I think that it's very really important to be careful with over-legislation and bigger government, but on the other hand, you know there's a fine line, and I think it's really important also to be able to get the information out there to people. I think it's good to put ingredients and things, I mean I have food allergies, there are certain things that will kill me. What's wrong with the nutritional label to know how much calories are in it?
I think that is place into the numbers obsessed sort of culture that we have, and it want… I need that to stay in a healthy way. I think that goes back to conflating weight and healthy.
I testified on behalf, in support of calorie counts, calorie labeling I mean, which helps people. We found that at Starbuck people will buy about 100 calories less at luncheon than they were before. It's that people, it gives them information, people can disregard it, they can do what they want. But I think transparency, corporate transparency is a great thing. Let's be honest about it, let's put the information out there, and people do with it as what they will. But where, I just wanna try to answer that question which is a provocative one, where do we draw the line? It's reasonable to say risky drivers, higher insurance. The actuarial scientists and statisticians are drawing the line, and they say they're signing this amount of risk, thus this cost to certain behaviors, and that's what's driving us, because that's the industry that's setting it.
Crystal has a point she wants to make.
Well, yes, I think that if you're gonna tax soft drinks, which I find, you know, really interesting. I think that why do we have pesticides on our apples? Why is it ok that we even have that allowed in this country at all? So I think that's another question, I mean if that's even a consideration which I think is actually absurd, because I think people, you know, should be allowed to make choices for themselves and not be charged because of it, especially when it comes to a drink, like coke, I think, I don't think so. However, I do think that if we're even going to discuss that, why do we even have pesticides on our fruit and our vegetables? And when it comes to the point that was made over there, yes, taxing people because of obesity is insane, because it's a condition that I believe even obesity that you're born with. That is what you were born with, that you have a body set point, and you go on and say, well, we're just gonna charge you extra money, sorry, you were born this way.
Nobody had that set point a few hundred years ago, only there if you did (Of course, they did) Now it's the overwhelming majority. I mean, there just hasn't been that big a genetic shift. But what we do know is we consume 300 to 500 excess calories than we did 40 or 50 years ago. And that's where, although you say it's very complicated, eating 300 to 500 more calories a day is a pretty good hint to why we are a lot fatter that we used to be. I just really don't understand. Are you saying that obese people are obese because of genetics, not because of behavior?
I'm saying that there's a lot of things, and there's no one reason. And the argument Can I just ask about you?
Yeah. Are you obese simply because you have an obese gene and you don't overeat ‘cause you're talking about eating healthy foods, eating in moderation, exercising, wait a minute, I kinda say it here, and so I'm just asking about you, I'm not condemning or making any statements, I just want to know are you the size you are because you overeat, or are you the size you are, you know, overeat, be healthy or junk food or what. Are you the size you are because you're just genetically predisposed? Or is it both?
I can totally answer that, I am this size because I dieted for 20 years, Well, dieting doesn't get you to that size.
It does, actually, because it gets you to the point where you lose a little bit of weight and then you regain, and you usually regain, I think it's like 10% of what you lost, I can't remember the exact statistic on that. I know, I did the same thing.
And so when you go through the cycle of weight gain and reloss and gain and loss and gain and loss, you do wind up at this size. I know, I did, I was bigger than you, a lot! I couldn't have sat here.
I would never be a thin person, I was not before my dieting behaviors and But you are not answering my question. She's saying that you've given up.
It's not about giving up, it's the thing like I gave up dieting because it was a loser game for me, it made me fatter, it made me incredibly unhealthy, it made me full of self-loathing, and it made me believe every societal message that we have. |