Gluttons for punishment

The 20th century has seen an explosion in waistelines commensurate with the range of food products available to hoggish consumers. This phenomenom is not limited to, but is most obvious in the western world where the sight of an overweight person is a normal everyday occurence. In an age of supposedly unparalleled progress and knowledge we have arguably the unhealthiest population ever. To state the obvious this doesn't seem quite right. We know more about the chemical constituents of food and the vitamins and minerals they provide than ever before, we know more than ever about the benefits of a healthy diet and regular exercise and yet we still go on blindly stuffing unhealthy, over-size portions of crap down our throats at unprecedented levels and limiting our daily exercise to reaching for the TV remote.

The economic and social costs of obesity exceed an estimated US$100 billion in the US per year alone. 75% of adult americans are either overweight or obese. The statistics for the U.K and Australia aren't much more flattering. It would be easy to point the finger at unethical marketing practices of large companies that produce junk foods. Undoubtedly they must shoulder their share of blame however to single out a single company or industry is to suffer from the same myopic thinking that is responsible for the current problem we inhabit.

We have forgotten what food is for - basic nourishment for the body to keep it alive and well. The fact that we can choose between 14 different types of salad dressing or from a myriad range of flavoured soft-drinks is celebrated as a marvellous achievement of modern technology and innovation. That such foods have little or no nutritional benefits and contribute towards fatal diseases and expensive medical treatments is not mentioned. In the face of such suggestions the usual platitudes are offered up as inevitable truths by those with the most to lose. They chide us about the importance of the jobs they provide, the valuable export dollars they contribute to the economy and the freedom of choice for consumers. To get rid of them they say, would lead to unemployment and poverty. Of course these are false arguments, there is no reason why the same people cannot be employed in researching, producing and selling nutritious products. All it takes is the ability to imagine a different way of doing things, a more inclusive approach that takes into account the consequences for society rather than the narrow self serving logic that the profits of large faceless companies must trump the health and well-being of real people.

In recent years measures have been underway to heighten consumers awareness about what they cram down their flabby necks. The compulsory labelling of ingredients and the ban on advertsing by junk food producers aimed at young children are positive steps, however despite these efforts the kilos keep piling up. It's not likely anytime soon that large companies will adopt socially responsible and ethical policies, we must therefore take responsibility for our own health and well-being. People complain about not having enough time to exercise, about being forced to grab anything they can find to eat because they are "always on the run", yet remarkably these same people can still manage 4 hours of TV per day or some other mind numbing activity that requires a minumum of physical movement.

Naturally as the rolls of blubber increase so do the number of medical problems experienced by over indulgent gluttons. As expected the spiralling cost of medical treatment and procedures is deflected onto ordinary taxpayers with the unjust result of the more healthy members of society sharing the burden of the proportionally challenged. If it has been deemed sensible to apply a user pays system to roads and other utilites then why not to greedy consumers?

If it can be determined that your medical problems have been caused by your rapacious appetite for salty, sugar coated, oily snacks and lack of physical activity then you should be prepared to stomach the consequences. Maybe some of the people displaced from their jobs in sweets factories can be re-trained and employed as 'Fat inspectors'. Their job would be to monitor the fluctuations in weight of the general public. Once a month a Fat inspector would appear at your door with a pair of calipers and a set of scales under his arm. If you fall outside your 'ideal weight limits' then you will be fined. Failure to reduce your frame to more healthy proportions would incur steeper fines. The accumulated monies would be used to alleviate the swelling costs of health insurance for those who don't deserve to be punished for the excesses of the over-indulgent. The pig-eyed encouraged to think twice about the consequences of hoeing into that next donut or chocolate bar.