Government campaigns to fight obesity can work

By | May 4, 2010, 7:25am PDT

Summary: To those who argue obesity is a choice, government-funded programs in Oregon offer a better choice. To those who call it inevitable, the experience of Oregon shows it is not.

To all the cries of “big brother” and “nanny state” that come here whenever I touch on preventable causes of death and campaigns to fight back I have one word.

Oregon.

A study published in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine this week describes a childhood obesity epidemic that has gotten noticeably worse since 2003.

Nearly one-third of all school-age children in 2007 were overweight, the study says, and nearly 22% of Mississippi kids were clinically obese, headed for a short life of heart attacks and diabetes.

The exception? Oregon, where the obesity rate was below 10%.

“Individual, household, and neighborhood social and built environmental characteristics accounted for 45% and 42% of the state variance in childhood obesity and overweight, respectively,” the study said.

Walkable neighborhoods, households built around activity, and individual decisions to get out there account for half the difference in obesity rates.

Where does the other half come from? Government.

Oregon officials were upset to find their adult obesity rate of 22% was the highest west of the Rockies, and began developing a plan early in the last decade to fight back. The statewide program was launched in 2007, with coordination from universities, state government and local government.

Under the banner of the Nutrition Council of Oregon, located in the state’s Department of Human Services, a campaign was launched against junk food ads last year.  The campaign, dubbed Toomanyads, has its own Facebook page. (The illustration comes from that page.)

For poor neighborhoods the Oregon State Extension Service launched a program called Food Hero, which uses social networking to create home dinner “makeovers” built around healthier ingredients.

All this dovetails nicely with the Let’s Move campaign launched early this year by First Lady Michelle Obama. Oregon is the model proving this can work.

To those who argue obesity is a choice, government-funded programs in Oregon offer a better choice. To those who call it inevitable, the experience of Oregon shows it is not.

To those who hate government so much they would rather watch their neighbors’ kids die from obesity rather than admit a coordinated effort can do some good, there is not a lot I can say, except the Oregon program costs a lot less than giving kids insulin.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years. At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog. DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air. My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist since 1978, and has covered technology since 1982. He launched the Interactive Age Daily, the first daily coverage of the Internet to launch with a magazine, in September 1994.

Talkback Most Recent of 8 Talkback(s)

  • The issue is more exercise than nutrition ...
    ... I think it is better that the government encourage or require kids to embark on exercise programs at the end of school, than try to change their diet. I don't see where our diets are all that different from a generation ago. (In fact I think it has improved.) However kids now play video games and do all this electronic stuff, instead of doing physical exercise. (How times have changed. I remember when my Mom used to yell at me for physically playing too much.)
    ZDNet Gravatar
    P. Douglas
    4th May 2010
  • No, it's about intrusion.
    Just on the surface, looks good, kudo's to Oregon. Advertising campaigns, SUPPORT and information to transition your lifestyle, that is a Government program I can get behind. It would be the next step(s) that COULD cause even you some heartburn.

    How long COULD it be until weight is a GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED line item in how much healthcare costs you? Following that, when does MANDATORY cholesterol testing come into force? When could it be OK to penalize those who are diabetic who DON'T have a gym membership?

    I am all for the type of Government that offers a "hand up" and what you write sounds like that. I am opposed, however, to Government that mandates how you WILL proceed. That's why I dislike the "forced purchase" of healthcare at the FEDERAL level (states can and some already do, which is their right) because it is the NEXT item that is authorized by this nibbling of rights. If the Federal Government can force people to purchase health insurance, why can't they force you to join a union, buy a gym membership, maintain a BMI of less than X or else pay a penalty.

    So, we need watchdogs (you included) to laud where they do it right, but attack when they do it wrong. Where they have BANNED junk food, the problems are sometimes worse because kids OVERLOAD more before/after school. Educate, not mandate.

    TripleII
    ZDNet Gravatar
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    4th May 2010
  • The Slippery Slope TripleII
    One problem I have with criticisms like this is how quickly you go down the slippery slope in order to make a point. There is nothing here about mandating weights - nothing. But since you can't find anything to object to you throw up a straw man and beat him up.

    I'm not criticizing you personally. This is a general problem in how we discuss what government is or is not doing.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    5th May 2010
  • I gave 2 examples.
    @DanaBlankenhorn Mandating the purchase of healthcare as a condition of being allowed to be alive IS the start of the slippery slope. Once the Supreme Court rubber stamps this, there will be more intrusion. Especially when the cost overruns start being 2-10 times the CBO estimates. It may start as a tax rebate if you join a gym, or keep your BMI in a certain range, but no Government in the history of the world EVER doesn't exploit new rights.

    The other example is the unintended consequence of Government intervention as stated, banning has backfired where junk food is readily available outside school. So, instead of removing the regulations (again, this is government, it won't happen), you will likely see fast food and/or junk food being banned within 6 blocks of school or a special "school proximity sin tax" or anything those who like to TELL others how to live are apt to do. I would ask you, why aren't you looking or demanding they repeal a policy that is making things worse and try something else. When they refuse, you learn it is about control, not an actual goal (laudible that it is)

    My Union example, well, there is already incentive to join a Union. Want ANY stimulus money in your paycheck, only unionized companies get any.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    6th May 2010
  • RE: This is NOT the U.S. Government's job
    Unfortunately they aren't doing their job (protecting our borders, ensuring our freedoms and rights are PROTECTED not trampled on by said government) because their too busy infringing on it's citizens rights to make their own decisions for themselves and their family.


    I know how to read a product label.

    The are just having a party wasting our money then telling us they need more because they've squandered what we already gave them. I don't need the government running ads for anything trying to tell me what I should or should not be doing. As you can see in counties in California and New York, Mass., etc... it leads to further government intrusion where they start banning things because after all it's in your best interest and the government knows better.
    First show me you can protect the borders and actually follow the Constitution (not twist it to your "interpritation" then and only then tell me how to live my life....
    ZDNet Gravatar
    devlin_X
    6th May 2010
  • Devlin
    The Austin Lounge Lizards had a great song about your attitude.

    It's those
    teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
    (Let's build a thousand mile fence)
    teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
    (It's just common sense)
    teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
    (Like the Berlin Wall)
    teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs
    (Land mines and all!)
    teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs

    Total immigration was down in 2009, by the way. Including illegals.

    Whatever you do against brown people in the name of fighting immigration is OK, but suggesting you do things to save your life is "wasting our money" and an "interpritation" of the Constitution?

    OK, then...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    7th May 2010
  • Nice try Dana....
    @DanaBlankenhorn you can change the subject but that doesn't change the facts. I said nothing about immigration or welfare mothers, or people on drugs. Yours is a predictable tactic of the left when approached by an undefendable truth. The government needs to get out of the business of micro managing our lives. Stop telling us how to live our lives and do the job they had been designed and authorized to do. When the government squanders our money on advertising, or finds it needs to ban foods because it may make us obese it is heavy handed government intrusion. Their job is to protect our borders, defend the country, and defend our rights not steam roll them.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    devlin_X
    11th May 2010
  • TripliII
    I called you on the slippery slope and you went right back down. But it's easier to claim "the gummint is gonna ban junk food" than argue against saving your own life.

    The thing about "only Union companies get stimulus" is, frankly, false. You are probably thinking of the Davis-Bacon Act, which once called for government contractors to pay prevailing local wages so the government wouldn't be in the business of screwing the middle class. Just so's you know where on truth street the lie started.

    Wheee!
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    7th May 2010

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources