I think that article unfairly blames the fast food industry for obesity when there are numerous reasons why America is so fat today.

For me, the scariest thing is that every time we discuss changing either one people note that the most difficult part is overcoming the influence and power of major corporations.

These things are central to the quality of peoples lives, but the decision makers are the corporations potentially profiting from it all.

stopping people from getting preventable disease is impossible because some people are just too stubborn to stop doing what they want no matter how bad it is. However, if we can cut the incidence way down, that will lower costs enough that at least the rest of us can be free of a lot of the burden.

Well, I would say, not just the case of Diabetes, but you also have obesity caused by eating junk food and its related health issues and their costs.

But yeah, asking people to get their act straight by eating healthier, and exercising regularly is a one way express train to not getting re-elected.

Well there are a lot of things people do that negatively affect their health.. so if you're going to go down that road you'll have to go down lots of other roads as well.

Let me head this off:

Is it really an externality if the consumer of the product is the one that pays for their own health? Traditionally, economists have defined externalities as stuff that impacts parties not involved in the transaction. That's not what's going on here - the consumer is the one that the costs fall upon, and they are a party in the transaction.

And before you hit me with the "well, health care is government subsidized to some extent", realize that the argument you'd be making would essentially allow, even mandate, the government to regulate every activity that could _possibly_ have health risks. Is that really reasonable or what the public needs?

IMHO, the fundamental problem is the poor eating and cooking habits of Americans combined with a sedentary lifestyle, not some sort of inherent issue with cheap food never being healthy. Has anyone ever demonstrated that you can't make healthy food cheap? I see tons of cookbooks claiming otherwise...

I do agree that the government needs to stop subsidizing stuff, as that appears to be driving both the high cost of health care AND the crazy amount of corn syrup in everything.

@outlulz: So because there are so many reasons, we shouldn't do something about the main one?

Anyways, Pollan makes a good case for why food reform is necessary, but a little short on practically how to implement said reform (much like the current healthcare debate). Think-tank programs? Ad campaigns against soda? That's the best he's got?

Here's a concrete, practical idea, could be implemented with a single, swift, stroke of a pen: end all subsidies for corn. If HFCS wasn't so cheap, we wouldn't see it in our food.

Yes he does. This is a real problem, not because you got get an occasional cheeseburger but because there are enough people who literally live on this crap. They also are not choosing the salads even if they are on the menu.

These same people are some of the most expensive to treat when this all does catch up with them. Their conditions are usually chronic that either take a long term care plan to reverse or simply are permanent. Then there are those who suffer the results and refuse to change.

There is also the low level problem that even having a good portion of your diet from this stuff. It is a step backward in over all health that undoes the good things you eat. What people don't see that is just as bad as living on McDonalds is what is in all the pre-packaged food at the grocery store. Full of fat, salt and corn syrup.

Banning trans fats isn't the solution. Moving subsidies towards healthy minimally processed foods so they are cheaper is the best way to deal with this. Maybe give people a tax credit if they can prove their consumption is mostly healthy foods over the total year. Someone who spends that extra money to eat healthy should be rewarded in some manner. I would love to see a massive shake up of the school lunch program. The junk they feed kids is as bad as eating McDonalds every day.

KFC is not cheap.

There's also a lot of money to be made selling expensive food - Whole Foods has made a killing peddling overpriced food to yuppies afraid of becoming fat like (generally) poorer people.

I think the reason Americans tend to be fatter than other countries is that we're a nation of immigrants and descendants of former slaves. In our grandparents' time, food was scarce, and that attitude survives, even though food is abundant and cheap now.

Husssssssssh!
Don't talk about holistic, realistic solutions to America's problems: you'll upset the Conservatives!
They like to get red-faced explaining how pouring billions of taxpayer's dollars a year to Big Agra so junk food is priced artificially low is a Libertarian paradise exactly like George Washington intended!

@outlulz - Well, fast food is incredibly popular in the U.S., and is widely consumed. When one hamburger can account for 1/2 (let's say 1,000 calories) the suggested caloric intake for an adult, you're already on the road to overeating; not to mention that burger is probably pretty unhealthy.

American LIFESTYLES are unhealthy. While living in the U.S., I worked in the video-game industry and loved it. I also sat most of the day, even outside of work, and exercised very little.

Brazilians...wow. They walk and bike every where. Sure, many of them do that because they simply can't afford a motorcycle or car...but...you see the effects of just WALKING a lot. Thin people. Lot of thing people. And you see the same thing in Europe...where people exercise more, and walk more. Thin people.

Oh, I think Pollan makes his case, hands-down.

Right now, there are powerful, influential groups who make a lot of money from Americans being obese and sick. If their self-interest were shifted to Americans being healthy, we'd see a rapid shift in the political and cultural landscape.

When German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the world's first national health insurance in 1883, it wasn't because he was some sort of commie liberal peacenik - he was, in fact, a right-wing royalist who promoted and ran the Prusssian side of the Franco-Prussian War. Bismarck invented national health insurance because of the national security benefits. After all, the sooner workers and their families could get better quicker, the sooner they could get back to work and paying taxes and contributing to the economy. And, of course, healthy workers make healthy soldiers if needed.

We face the same issues in the US, except we're running 126 years late. I'd hate to see what would happen if we got in a war, and the current US population of sick, obese couch potatoes had to actually fight it and support it by manufacturing war materiel, and couldn't do it using video game controllers.

While I love my burgers and steaks, in my ideal world, all the government subsidies that currently go to corn, soybeans, beef, pork, etc. would go to fresh fruits and vegetables. It's insane that carrots and grapes cost more per pound at the supermarket than chicken or hamburger.

@savvy999: Hello, savvy999? The state of Iowa is on the line, they would like to have a word with you.

@savvy999: Actually, that's a good idea. My first reaction was "they'll just put sugar in it," but then I remembered that sugar is far more expensive than HFCS. So in theory, food producers would put less sugar in food. Either that or find a cheaper form of sugar.

Good article. Interesting to see what will happen when big corporate interests square up to fight big corporate interests.

As good as Michael Pollan's point may be, he is simply deluding himself if he thinks there is any chance in hell that government, at this time, is going to get a national conversation started about how we can reform our food system to make it more healthful. Right-wing teabaggers are putting Hitler mustaches on Obama because he dares to suggest that more people should have health insurance. They see in that very rational and time-honored hope a vast left-wing conspiracy to take away our freedoms and foist a culture of abortion and euthanasia on an unsuspecting public. Now, can you imagine the reaction if these people thought the government was trying to "take away" their Big Macs?

@Kimaroo - 20% More Kitty Added!: Great! Let's address them all, one at a time. Cutting off farm subsidies for food that makes Americans fat and sick is a great place to start.

It's like cigarettes. I'm all in favor of people having the choice to smoke. I just want to encourage them not to, by making it expensive and a lot of bother.

@TCama: No, they'll put in sugar for that "Same great taste!" and just jack up the price.

@savvy999 Unless most Americans eat fast food for most meals of the week fast food can't be the main reason. Lack of exercise and eating habits at home would be the more logical culprit. Just because Susie didn't eat at McDonalds last night doesn't mean she didn't drink 24 oz of soda and have a high fat content home cooked meal.

Personally I think it has more to do with lack of physical activity than what we eat. Generally most people work at jobs that don't require any physical exertion, and then they go home and watch TV until they go to bed. If there was more activity in the day people would not get so fat. I used to have a normal 8 hour a day job and then work out a couple hours a day 5 days a week, and I was thin and in good shape. Then I went to law school where I studied 14 hours a day, and then began working 14 hours a day, and don't work out anymore, and now I am fat. My eating habits have not changed one bit, the only change is that I get no physical activity.

i think because it's freedom of choice? I mean unless you want some sorta socialistic approach then by all means, lets have the government put higher taxes on food many people rely on due to being POOR!

stupid

I think this idiot answered his own question about why they wont' go after them. Because MILLIONS OF JOBS WILL BE LOST.

@theogre: I think I'm healthier now than I was when I drove to work. So in that way, I agree that Brazilians, when they have to walk or bike everywhere, are healthier. However, skinny doesn't mean healthy, so I want to know about poverty levels as well.

As it turns out, Brazil has one of the highest income inequality levels in the world, with more than 43% of earners taking in the highest 10% of income, and 1% taking the lowest 10% of income. Compare this with the United States, which has 30% taking the hgihest 10% of income and 2% taking the lowest 10% of income.

@Trai_Dep: Keep da gubmint out mah food-hole! If'n I want deep fried Mowntun Doo, I'mma git it!

@Al Swearengen: Our food intake should rise and fall according to our physical activity. Why don't they? Well, food tastes good, and it's marketed so well!

I live in downtown Detroit, where I live closer to three or four different fast food restaurants than to a grocery store, and closer to dozens of fast food restaurants than to a QUALITY grocery store. I'm lucky enough to have transportation, but others aren't so lucky, so they turn to places like CVS and corner stores to buy their "groceries" because they are the only places within reach, and the only places that are open late when they get off of work...the grocery stores close at 7 or 8 at night. It really is an important dilemma.

@Erwos: It's not just "to some extent," though--it's a problem that disproportionately affects the poor and the elderly, the two biggest recipients of government-subsidized health care. And the slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy--it's not new for government at various levels to be involved in activities with health risks, and it's only in alarmist counterarguments that it's turned into control of everything people do.

I don't have a solution either, but speaking as an Iowa neighbor from a pretty corny state already, I find the corn boondoggles absurd from the get-go, and the popularity of counterproductive manufacture of ethanol and HFCS is making it tough for people to use corn for better ends. So I guess we're on the same page on the folly of subsidizing stuff that probably shouldn't exist at all, let alone cheaply.

Giving communities money to build playgrounds that could actually be used by children up to age 16 (instead of just the ones they have around here who are built for those age 4 and under) would probably help a lot. Incentives could be given to communities who provide opportunities for fun and free exercise for the population of the community. This would include reopening public swimming pools and staffing them properly. Over the years I have seen the kids around here get fatter and fatter because the green spaces and playgrounds have pretty much disappeared or now cost a fee that a lot of poor families cannot afford to pay. You cannot blame the families when the community does not provide the resources to live a healthy lifestyle.

I live in Niagara Falls and it used to be free for locals to park at the falls, now it costs $10 or more. As a kid I would go there all the time just to walk around and my parents would be able to park for free. Now that they are charging $10 no matter what to park its become impossible to even visit it, and any free spaces are now occupied by parking meters. This was a source of exercise for a lot of people in my area and now its just too expensive to visit for the locals. I don't understand why they can't give up a few parking spaces if you can prove you live in the city.

@Trai_Dep: I see, no liberals vote for farm subsidies. Let me know when you get back from Neptune.

This is also the first I've heard of farm subsidies being championed by Libertarians, as well. You might be a little confused about the Libertarian ideology.

@varro: It's not that we're fatter than other countries (we are for the moment, but we're going to be overtaken soon), it's that we're so much fatter than we used to be forty years ago, when all the things you describe were also true. What's changed since then? Diet and the prevalence of cheap, unhealthy convenience foods.

@captadam: McDeath Panels!

@Skankingmike: Except that the government is already subsidizing food. They're just subsidizing foods that are bad for us. If you think the government shouldn't be involved because of free choice, then you really CAN'T defend the current system.

To government, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems!

I know this is going to sound oh-so-1950s of me...but why aren't we teaching Cooking Class in High School anymore? I swear this is a HUGE part of the issue now.

At my old office, the younger co-workers looked at me like I had a third eye when I'd mention the word "easy" and "roasting a whole chicken" in the same sentence. They thought I was talking crazy and thought that picking up that grocery store rotisserie bird was way better - nevermind how they kept that sucker "moist" all day or the chemicals that went into making it taste of "lemon." Most of them were downright proud of not knowing how to cook and mentioned 99 cent menus as reasons that they didn't need to learn how.

I'm telling you - the whole learning to cook, sew and basic shop and auto repair classes were valuable lessons for everyone. Now it seems like they've either disappeared or become vague ideas in part of one massive class where someone remembers making toll house cookies...

Large numbers of young folks leave home nowadays not knowing how to cook. It's scary. It's also how people like Sandra Lee get cooking shows on Food TV where she does "semi-homemade" using a ton of pre-packaged crap.

Sorry guys, what I eat is my choice, meaning I choose the end result.

I don't want any "food reform".

I have a creative idea, let's just leave everything alone, if some one is obese it isn't KFC's fault, it's their own fault and inability to not shovel large quantities of food down their throat.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for that, but I really don't care, people need to take responsibility for their own actions, this isn't the company's fault, it isn't the government's fault, it isn't our countries bountiful supply of food's fault, it is the fault of the person who decides to use McDonald/Burger King/KFC/Etc as their primary food source.

You know eating that everyday can kill you, everyone knows this, but it doesn't stop them.

And as for it being too cheap, I'm sorry a loaf of bread and some lunch meat for the week for lunch is less than 2 or 3 days worth of fast food.

@outlulz: Too many factors which make fast food a necessary evil in so many households, like both parents having to work because if one is unemployed you lose your house. No one is home long enough to cook all three meals unfortunately, and the food I've seen in the present day school system is nastier than fast food (except in the cases where they cart in McDonalds or Pizza Hut). Subsidies for shit food have to go.

People used to have standards.

High profit-margin food is to blame. Most people can only afford food with a production cost of cents after retailers and shareholders get their cut (minus huge marketing expenses).

@morganlh85: I agree with you, people have to eat regardless and if there are no options they will do what they have to do to get food. Not all communities have the resources to allow a healthy lifestyle, which is something I think the US really needs to work on. Transportation in a big city isn't always easy and you cannot reasonably expect a person to carry 20 bags home by themselves on a bus in order to feed their family.

Some people are lucky to live close by a farmers market, a co-op or another store where they have tons of healthy options but inner city situations like the one you describe are way more common I think. Even if you live near a grocery store with lots of options its usually 20% food that you should eat including the produce section and 80% processed foods that you probably shouldn't be eating. Its difficult and time consuming to sift through the 20% of food in the grocery store that is genuinely healthy for you to consume. Not everyone has time for a 3 hour grocery trip and tons of time to prepare meals at home after that.

@pecan 3.14159265: I wonder what life is like for a Brazilian living at that lower 10% compared to an American at the same level here.

It's not fast food, but eating out in general. Portion sizes are much larger than they used to be (who needs a platter of food to sit on their asses all day). We spend 8+hrs a day in an office chair and then 1-2hrs a day in traffic(not everyone can live close to their job).

Is it the fast food that's the greater evil, or every other restaurant? Is ordering a #2 really worse than ordering a dinner in a sit-down restaurant? Arguably...no. The fast food is generally smaller portioned.

The catch is, there's a point to where it wouldn't matter what it cost, people will still eat it. I don't cook much. While I can do a decent job, I find it frustrating to spend 45-60 minutes preparing a proper meal, only to eat it in 10 minutes with a book. That's just the time factor. Add in the cost of the food and fast food starts looking even better.

One thing I sometimes I feel I have to fight in our family, is the consumption of all these pre-packaged foods. Fast food, boxed food, frozen pre-prepared foods, and more all has too much fat, too much salt, and more. I've taken to calling fast food Crap-In-A-Bag(tm).

And this isn't a cost issue. A few basic staples and you can prepare a decent meal for a reasonable cost. For instance, I've gotten the kids off frozen pizza by making it from scratch myself. I make the dough, roll it out, and even throw it in the air, and then whip up my own sauce. The kids love it (especially the throwing the dough!), and it tastes really fresh.

However, this takes time. 2-3 times longer than tossing a frozen platter into the oven. And in our current stress-filled lives full of activities and jobs, we've replaced the value of a well-cooked meal with the value of time. We want it now, because we have things to do, work to finish, and a myriad of other things going on, so we can finally get to bed and start it all anew in the morning.

So it's not what we're eating, but how we're looking at food. We're treating ourselves like a car, running ourselves up to random gas station for a quick fill, and take off.

I trust NO ONE to reform our food system. Anytime it's been done in the past, it leads to famine. This road leads to fascism.

Call me pro-choice on food.

@bobert: We drastically changed our eating habits about six years ago. Years of working office jobs and always being too busy to cook made some non lifestyle related health problems suddenly worse for both of us. We spent a couple of years and some huge medical bills getting both of us healthy again. Now our grocery bills are crazy expensive because we buy fruits, veggies and decent meat. We also eat lots of oats, brown rice, lentils and beans. It helps keep our grocery bill down but they are still much higher than people eating cheap crap.

I would love to see subsidies change overnight. People are worried about the big ag conglomerates making a stink. What about all those produce growers in the southern states? I bet they would be willing to make some noise if they thought they could get subsidies for growing veggies. If that argument ever made it to the public square I think big ag would lose the argument.

The issue is that we subsidize all sorts of foods (potatoes for instance) for no reason other than as a corporate give-away, and do not subsidize/incentivize things that COULD give people healthier CHOICES.

For instance--

Research is showing the one of the reasons so many kids have allergies is that they don't eat fresh/locally grown produce-- which helps build up antibodies (when young children eat, say, locally made honey, you injest all sorts of pollens and allergens in small quantities and build their immune systems).

So... what if, by spending the same amount we spend no on subsidies, we could make it so eating a fast food meal cost the same as eating a healthy meal. A lot of the poor food choices people make is due to lack of alternatives in cost.

Incentives for local farmers and producers to sell w/in 100 miles of where the food is grown?

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I know they subsidize food, they have food stamps and farm bills.

They have stock piles of food. And it's super cheap to buy food in this country because of that.

That said, we have had constant education that things are unhealthy for us. The next step that he wants is for the government to get overly involved in freedom of choice.

You have the option of what you eat nobody forces you to eat crappy food you do.

@Erwos: The thing is, though, is that junk food is artificially priced thru farm subsidies. Billions/year. Add to that tax policy, which favors large corporate agribusiness over sustainable, family-held, smaller farms.
In other words, the state is already intruding to a large extent in this area. In a perverse fashion that harms society.
So the question is not IF the government should get its hands in this sticky mess, but rather, since it already is, how should it do so in a way that creates the fewest externalities?

@captadam: They are also quickly being seen as a pack of lunatics. The shock value has worn off and they are not getting the attention they did a few months ago. The tea parties are met mostly with mocking now. The health care protests are really not being taken seriously either.

These people will complain about everything the government does for the next 4 years because they are mad that a black man is in the White House and Democrats are running the government.

@gjones77: I agree completely but there are others here that love government reforming. Even if that means even larger government.

@bobert: "I'd hate to see what would happen if we got in a war, and the current US population of sick, obese couch potatoes had to actually fight it and support it by manufacturing war materiel, and couldn't do it using video game controllers."

Yes, if we did have to revert back to spears and shields, we'd sure be in trouble!