Despite progress among young children, there’s more work to be done in the U.S.
Headlines last week offered a glimmer of hope on obesity: A government study found that the obesity rate for children ages 2 to 5 dropped by about 40 percent between 2003 and 2012. That comports with another recent government report finding that young, poor children in several states are healthier. This is encouraging but no reason for complacency. In fact, last week’s announcement shows that obesity remains a daunting problem that demands more effort — from Americans and their government.
Assuming the results reflect a real and significant trend, what will happen when these children grow up? For Americans older than 5, obesity rates have stayed about the same in recent years. A third of adults are obese, and 17 percent of all children are morbidly overweight. The positive spin on these findings is that Americans’ waistlines have finally ceased to expand. We’d suggest that the country should not be comfortable that the ravages of obesity — diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer and more — will diminish the living standards of merely a third of our countrymen, even if some of their children and grandchildren end up better off.
Meanwhile, maintaining even a diminished quality of life for overweight people is expensive. Researchers in 2012 estimated that keeping the obesity rate steady would save some $550 billion over the next two decades, compared with scenarios public-health experts feared. But that still would leave annual spending on obesity-related disease at about $150 billion.
The government should stop subsidizing crops such as corn, which gets converted into high-fructose corn syrup. It should conduct more research on what’s behind the plateauing obesity rate and the improvement in toddlers. New labeling requirements for store-bought food, proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, will help.
More difficult to implement, but probably more effective, would be direct financial incentives. Many public-health activists want to tax sugary drinks. Understandable, but studies and simple reasoning argue for taxing the underlying culprit, sugar, wherever it appears. A partial step would be to reform the food-stamp program to promote healthier eating, as has already happened in a similar program.
All of the burden can’t fall on government. Health insurers have begun to take a bigger role in encouraging physical activity and reasonable diets, such as by adjusting premiums or other payments. They should continue looking for ways to reward people who improve their lifestyles.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.