TheAgitator.com
More Fat Links
Tuesday, June 29th, 2004At long last, a bit of restraint and perspective begins to emerge in the obesity debate.
Here’s an AP article on that distinguishes between “overweight” and “obese,” and ntoes that while fat warriors lump the two together, many health researchers don’t find the same health risks with moderate overweight that they find in the obese.
And here’s an article affirming a point Paul Campos made at the obesity conference — that though African Americans (particularly women) tend to carry more weight than whites, there’s no conclusive evidence that it affects morbidity rates.
Finally, in the latest issue of Broadcasting & Cable (subscription — sorry, Brian Lowry points out the obvious: for all the media hype concerning obesity, how come you never hear television journlists make the case for watching less television?
Nick [Nickelodeon) News' Linda Ellerbee addressed [obesity] in her special Look Before You Eat, which aired last weekend. It engaged kids about nutrition without tackling the threat posed by planting themselves in front Nickelodeon for hours on end.
Good point. Peter Jennings is fond of pointing out how the food industry is great at giving us more and more food at cheaper and cheaper prices (and how, I guess, that this is bad thing). But why not apply the same standards to Jennings’ bread and butter?
How about a special on how we have more and more TV options, which makes it harder to peel ourselves off the couch for a jog? If Kraft and McDonalds are to blame, hell, let’s go after ABC and Disney, too. Curious silence from the TV journalists on that front.
Our noble host writes:
“How about a special on how we have more and more TV options, which makes it harder to peel ourselves off the couch for a jog?”
I can just imagine some of the typical responses:
1. Jog? Where? We need more park space! Which of course means more restrictions on development and “sprawl.” Let’s bring back Title I so we can all lose weight!
2. Yes, of course TV is bad! We must immediately impose a tax (oops, sorry … a “surcharge”) on cable TV and satellite bills to fund anti-obesity programs. Aw heck, let’s put it on the phone bill too, like every other byzantine fee we already have there — one more won’t hurt.
3. On the other hand, we could limit access to children’s TV — auction one slot per cable/satellite system, and let Nick, Disney, PAX, etc., bid for the access, with the proceeds going to the government to fund childhood obesity prevention programs. (PBS would, of course, be exempt.)
Brian Lowry is ingenius. Why didn’t the trial lawyers think of it for themselves? TV is most definitely more addictive than eating at MickyD’s. Who have we been kidding? We need to get a class action lawsuit going right away.
We must immediately impose a tax (oops, sorry … a “surcharge”) on cable TV and satellite bills to fund anti-obesity programs. Aw heck, let’s put it on the phone bill too, like every other byzantine fee we already have there — one more won’t hurt.
The All-Knowing Michael Jacobsen and his cronies at CSPI are one step ahead of you, Kip. Yes, we all know that they’re been arguing for so-called “twinkie-taxes” on “junk” food, like sodas and twinkies. But you might not also know that Jacobsen has proposed a similar tax on items that supposedly contribute to sedentary lifestyles, such as cable, video games, and movies. Curiously, Mr. Jacobsen left out other items such as comfortable recliners and beds that just BEG to be laid on, or books, magazines and newspapers, which require an equal amount of physical activity as those evil video games and DVD’s.
…and what about the networks profiting from selling TV time to McDonalds and the like- and for that matter profiting from selling air time for alcohol. If *they* were truly concerned *they* would stop accepting money to run these ads. Or how about a disclaimer before every crappy 1/2 hour sit-com stating that viewers may be subjected to random hypnotic ads that could lead to impulsive overeating, which could lead to obesity????????
Wouldn’t it be funny if we held a conference similar to the Obesity Summit, which discussed television’s contribution to the obesity epidemic?
I mean, the facts speak for themselves. A recent study quoted by Paul Campos showed that, over the past 25 years, during the so-called obesity epidemic, adolescent caloric intake has gone up by a whole 1%, while adolescent physical activity has dropped by 20%. So, if anything, TV, books, and video games have contributed more to the “epidemic” than food.
[I put the word epidemic in quotes because I don't fully agree that that's what it is.]
Evan,
Just goes to show: never argue reductio ad absurdum with absurd people.
(A phenomenon observed, incidentally, when the litigation flames lept from tobacco to food — people dug up lots of old quotes from tobacco defenders along the lines of “what’s next — fast food?”).
“there’s no conclusive evidence that it affects morbidity rates.”
Morbidity rates, sir? I don’t believe I’ve heard that term before. Am I missing something?
Actually Nickelodeon runs commercials all day telling kids to go out and play.The commercials are actually pretty clever (your basketball misses you, your shoes need to go outside, etc).
I’ve always thought it was odd that they did so.
IIRC they actually had one where the kid was watching Nick and he was motivated to go and play.
Why should I pay more for cable, DSL, and food? Let’s tax the fat people themselves: Every body fat percentage point over 15% for men, and 30% for women is now a $500.00 fine. That will get the horizontally challenged on Tae-bo right quick.
Good for Nickelodeon, then! Ah, but with the twits at such mindless celebrators of socialism as ABC, they just sit around and blame food, without even a hint of irony; Peter Jennings actually pleaded, on-air, for government intervention into the food arena. I wonder how Mr. Jennings would feel if the government also placed restrictions on how much TV one could watch, effectively hurting his position. Ha ha ha, always fun to see statists get bit in the ass by their own designs…like Lou Dobbs and his newsletter. Dobbs is always deriding and lambasting companies that outsource, but what happens when those companies are good investments? Should Dobbs ignore his protectionist principles and give his readers good investment advice? Or will he stick to his guns, and thus, lower the value of his newsletter. Bwah ha ha!
Why would you tax the fat people?
Why not just kill the welfare state, let health insurance companies factor in all risks when they figure your premiums, and let the fat people bear the burden of their own physical conditions. Higher premiums via free-market insurance is a much better motivator than simply stealing their money at gunpoint.
We should sue car companies because they are keeping us from doing all that walking that we should be doing.
I don’t know Radley. There’s something about a television special to deride the amount of television we watch that just seems a bit odd to me.
Since TV pundits are attacking food, I think that food producers should attack TV. McDonald’s should print information on their french fry cartons about how people who watch more TV die younger, or encouraging people to demand that Congress ban hour-long TV shows since they lead to long sedentary periods. Revenge is sweet.
I like that idea.
Ban hour long programs and mini-series type specials.
Man would the TV industry have a fit if someone came up with that.
How about someone doing a Spurlock (McDonalds guy) and watch EVERY bit of TV that they asked you to watch.
KipEsquire – I remember a line in Inherit the Wind in which the defense lawyer says something like, “If a man buys a carving knife and carves up his wife, we don’t arrest the hardware store owner, do we?” *sigh* It’s getting so you can’t make jokes any more.
the solution here is simple, folks…. make sure all new televisons can only be powered by bicycle generators – the more tv you watch, the fitter you get….
Sitting here reading TheAgitator right now is keeping me from going to the gym…
I’m gonna sue your ass, Radley!