Campos and Brownell Chew the Fat

Jacob Sullum | September 20, 2007

This week the Los Angeles Times ran a debate between Yale obesity expert Kelly Brownell and University of Colorado law professor Paul Campos, author of The Diet Myth: Why America's Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous to Your Health. On the question of the health risks posed by weighing more than the government says you should, which is the focus of Campos' book, Brownell comes across as dismissive and evasive. "It is sad that we debate this issue at all," he declares in the second paragraph of his first essay, likening Campos and other skeptics of the War on Fat to people who question gravity, global warming, and the connection between smoking and lung cancer. Yet in the first paragraph Brownell attributes diabetes and other diseases associated with obesity to "poor diet and physical inactivity." The extent to which health is impaired by extra weight per se, as opposed to the poor diet and physical inactivity that tend to accompany it, is precisely the scientific question Campos raises, and Brownell dodges it completely.

In the second installment of the debate, which is supposed to address the question, "Why is our flab state business?," both contributions are disappointing. Brownell's answer is that the government already acts in various ways that affect diet and activity levels, so it might as well get even more involved and make sure its influence is positive. In short, since the government subsidizes corn and sends surplus cheese to schools, it should ban commercials for sugary breakfast cereals and redesign cities to discourage driving. Campos, who as a law professor ought to have some interest in the subject, does not address the grounds for government action at all, simply reiterating his point that public officials should not mislead people about the health hazards of exceeding their "ideal" weight.

In the third round, Campos implicitly concedes that the government has a duty to "improve public health," by which he means discouraging Americans from making decisions that might lead to disease or injury. His policy recommendations, however, are limited to disseminating better information about nutrition, exercise, and weight. Brownell, of course, goes further, but his proposals, which include ad restrictions and federally funded fruit in schools, are still remarkably lame for someone who aims to clean up America's "toxic food environment" and reverse the "obesity epidemic." He does not even seem to have convinced himself that the policies he advocates would be effective. He endorses mandating nutrition information on restaurant menus, for instance, then slams the food industry a few paragraphs later for arguing that "education is the answer to nutrition problems."

I took on Brownell and other fat warriors in a 2004 reason article and reviewed Campos' book last year.

Comments

|9.20.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Get used to the fact that "the government has jurisdiction over everyone and everything" is the default view of experts these days.

Edward|9.20.07 @ 4:08PM|#

I'm trying to imgagine a world without the government. It's hard. Do we have any historical examples?

|9.20.07 @ 4:16PM|#

"I'm trying to imagine a world without the government. It's hard. Do we have any historical examples?"

Pre-Colonial indigenous peoples? Although tribal leagues seemed to have arranged a sort of state in some cases. Austrailian Aborigines have a very interesting organizational concept. All of these examples, however, are based on a small family/tribal structure, which is not really comparable to a multi-million population with an industrial base and the Internet...

|9.20.07 @ 4:21PM|#

"Get used to the fact that 'the government has jurisdiction over everyone and everything' is the default view of experts these days."

What are you quoting, exactly? I don't see that line referenced anywhere in the above post.

|9.20.07 @ 4:37PM|#

For some reason Mr. Sullum's summary of the debators' positions doesn't seem to be in good faith. Is "since the government subsidizes corn and sends surplus cheese to schools, it should ban commercials for sugary breakfast cereals and redesign cities to discourage driving" really an accurate view of an arguments made by a highly learned individual?

The Extispicator|9.20.07 @ 4:53PM|#

Rule #1 on obesity: don't feed the troll.

This whole "epidemic" reminds of the of the Onion T-Shirt "I wish somebody would do something about how fat I am."

|9.20.07 @ 4:53PM|#

If you assume you are your "brother's keeper", there is no limit to what you may impose on your "brother" in the name of "protecting" him. It becomes impossible to say "this much control and no more," for there is always "something else you can do."

Tym|9.20.07 @ 4:55PM|#

"I'm trying to imagine a world without the government. It's hard. Do we have any historical examples?"

Medieval Iceland.

|9.20.07 @ 5:07PM|#

Edward,

Colonial Pennsylvania up to ~1700 (well, it had a government - which was deadlocked due to a pissing match between the locals and the crown governor. The upshot was that the colonists ignored the governor, except for teenage boys who mocked him obscenely when he went out in public)

Medieval Iceland and Ireland.

Iceland slipped back into monarchy after about 3 centuries.

Ireland was invaded by England. The Irish did have government but not sovereign government. There was competition between various courts, clans and kinglets. Google "Brehon law" if you're interested. Incidentally, the phrase "beyond the pale" - meaning something so indefensibly immoral as to mark one as unfit for human society - got its meaning from British horror at Irish Law. England's early occupation basically divided up the island into two parts, "the Pale" where British law was enforced, and "outside the Pale" where the traditional Irish law held sway. Since the Irish generally didn't execute people for crimes but forced them to pay compensation to the victims, the British viewed the law as being barbarically soft on crime. Essentially, things that were "beyond the pale" were so vile that only and Irishman would stoop so low to do them. ;)

Modern Somalia could also be classed as without government. There are some interesting papers on the web on the subject, but most of them are flawed since they lump the more prosperous Northern Somalia with the less prosperous south:

Northern Somalia has a government that no-one recognizes, because the UN. wanted to impose a government over the whole country. Southern Somalia is not lawless however: the clans act as protection services, and justice is more restitutive (the criminal's clan pays off the victims after all parties reach a consensus) than retributive. However, it never stabilized - the U.N., then the CIA, then Islamist militants all kept intervening. However, Somalia's standard of living shot up dramatically after the previous state collapsed. this is not, of course, saying much since the economic policies of the Marxists government in the 1980's basically caused total economic collapse. However by some measures of health and wealth, the people living in the benighted south are better off than their neighbors living in conventional African states, but not their neighbors to the North.

Paul|9.20.07 @ 5:16PM|#

In the third round, Campos implicitly concedes that the government has a duty to "improve public health,"

As I've said before, yes, by protecting us from clear and present dangers. The government's job is to close down the broad street pump.

Obesity, trans-fats, smoking etc., are all contextual dangers. The government has no business in that business.

Paul|9.20.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Tom: What are you quoting, exactly? I don't see that line referenced anywhere in the above post.

In a way, it is:

Brownell's answer is that the government already acts in various ways that affect diet and activity levels, so it might as well get even more involved and make sure its influence is positive.

Everytime a new head grows on the snake, it is always justified by pointing to some other regulation that is similar in the eyes of the regulator. The logic flows that we already regulate so-and-so, so why not this too?

|9.20.07 @ 5:28PM|#

Oh, I understand the sentiment behind B.P.'s comment. I was referring to his use of quote marks around a phrase as if he were citing another's writing.

After wasting my time searching in vain to learn whom he was quoting, I got frustrated and decided to just be a nitpicky jerk.

leadbones|9.20.07 @ 5:33PM|#

Even when I ran 3 miles everyday after 2 hours of wrestling practice (best shape of my life, 4% bodyfat), I still couldn't get beneath what the damn chart said was my ideal weight. The BMI is flawed...

Or I have lead in my bones

|9.20.07 @ 5:45PM|#

I don't suppose anyone even mentioned the benefits of big breasts and round butts?

didn't think so.

|9.20.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Quote marks can also be used to set text apart from the rest of a sentence, especially for folks who don't know how to create italics and such.

Paul|9.20.07 @ 6:15PM|#

I don't suppose anyone even mentioned the benefits of big breasts and round butts?

Warren, I thought these were self evident?

B.P. Italics:

Less than+i+greater than at the front, less than+/i+greater than at the end.

|9.20.07 @ 6:56PM|#

If you assume you are your "brother's keeper", there is no limit to what you may impose on your "brother" in the name of "protecting" him. It becomes impossible to say "this much control and no more," for there is always "something else you can do."

Aresen, it gets even better when you can "protect" his soul, too. And really, isn't your soul more important than your body? These health crusaders don't even see the similarities.

|9.20.07 @ 7:38PM|#

B.P.:

Just be careful with that whole "set text apart" mentality (see, I just quoted you), or else you'll tumble down into the special living hell where these folks all reside:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/quoteabuse/

|9.20.07 @ 11:30PM|#

Don't bother me with your pedantics, Tom, I'm busy whipping up a batch of my own stem cells.

|9.21.07 @ 8:39AM|#

Less than+i+greater than at the front, less than+/i+greater than at the end.

By jove, I think I've got it!

thanks

|9.21.07 @ 9:09AM|#

If you assume you are your "brother's keeper", there is no limit to what you may impose on your "brother" in the name of "protecting" him. It becomes impossible to say "this much control and no more," for there is always "something else you can do."

So does forcing a libertarian-style government on people, whether they want it or not, count?

|9.21.07 @ 12:26PM|#

"Listen up, motherfucker... you're going to keep making your own choices regarding your life whether you like it or not! I'm forcing you not to use force to achieve the ends you want!"

that's the kind of forcing-on-me I could deal with