the obesity debate is full of humbug and denial. Fat is a class issue, but few like to admit that most of the seriously obese are poor.
This is not about the nanny state telling Boris Johnson to keep off the claret in his club. It's about people like us telling people down there in the underclass to eat up their greens. Health professionals say "we" must exercise more and stop eating fast food, but mostly they really mean "them."
It's an old story -- trace it back to the poor laws. The middle classes like to worry about the morals, health and drag on public expenditure of the poor. Horrendous projections for what obesity will cost the UK's National Health Service naturally worry taxpayers forking out to fill hospital beds with poor fat folk.
ILLUSTRATION: TANIA CHOU
True, many of us middle-class folk are overweight, but most of the dangerously obese -- the 22 percent with a body-mass index in the red zone -- are to be found carless in public housing and not in the leafy suburbs where kids are driven to school in sports utility vehicles.
It is poor children at most risk of ballooning, in danger of losing limbs and eyesight to diabetes as they grow up. It's wrong to talk about "fat cats" when the privileged are usually thin and sleek, with bodies well-exercised by gyms and personal trainers on diets of radicchio and sparkling water.
Kinder experts look for sympathetic reasons why the poor are fat and unhealthy. Fresh fruit and vegetables are expensive, they say. There is no transport to get from public housing to healthy groceries. Poor women are too hard-pressed to have time to cook proper meals, so they snack. It's hard for poor children to exercise in dangerous concrete jungles, with no cars to take them to ballet and judo lessons. Or maybe, sadly, these people just don't know what's good for them.
All these may be contributory factors. The uneducated may not read small print on deliberately incomprehensible food labels to detect the difference between kJ and kcal. Unlike neurotic middle-class mothers, they may not follow every scare about tartrazine and the hazards of genetically modified foods or dream up hypochondriacal allergies for lack of anything else to worry about in what is, remember, the safest and healthiest time ever.
So why are the poor getting dangerously fat? They are mainly a little better off and food has become cheaper. They are not ignorant. Most women have spent their lives obsessing over body size, perusing diets in magazines and daytime TV shows. Never has there been more information about what food is fattening and what is not. Public health advice is puny beside this great surfeit of diet and fitness info.
What's more, these messages are vigorously reinforced by every fashion and celebrity news page telling us thin is beautiful, fat is horrible. Tabloids spend fortunes on paparazzi snaps of some celeb on the beach who has "let herself go." Star-cellulite-in-bikini is worth as much as star-in-illicit-love-nest. Fergie fat or thin is regular fare.
No child needs to be told fat is bad when right from nursery school it's the fat kids who get tormented for being slow, ugly and undesirable -- a message often reinforced by teachers who see them as losers too. From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Harry Potter, heroes are skinny and lithe, while nasty children are fat porkers. Who doesn't want to look more like Posh Spice than Roseanne Barr?
So what's gone wrong? Most of us wrestle with food, torn between denial and desire, between fridge and gym, eating and regretting. It is very hard yet girth grows by the decade.
Most people I know live in a Bridget Jones cycle of boom and bust with the scale. But mostly the middle class stays the right side of dangerously obese. In the highest echelons, those superthin lettuce-eaters Tom Wolfe calls the social x-rays know that thinness radiates high status, as surely as bound feet did in old China.
"You can't be too rich or too thin," said Dorothy Parker.
But fat means poor and out of control. People who feel they have no control over their own lives give up. What's there to struggle and make sacrifices for? No job, no prospects, no point.
A little of what you fancy compensates for life's big disappointments. So drinking and smoking and eating the wrong things become small treats in desolate lives.
Being out of control becomes a mindset ever harder to climb out of. No job becomes no status, no hope and, rapidly, unemployable semi-despair, whatever the job market out there.
Poor children at school know their low status from the day they walk in. The little girl with perfect kit, sparkly trainers and lovely lunchbox is always admired over the shabby kid who never went to ballet and only had a packet of Wotsits for breakfast. The rest of us have very good social incentives not to give in to temptation -- and even then often fail -- but those who have nothing easily give up.
The traditional middle-class reaction is to teach poor mothers how to become better managers; a family can eat healthily on very little, they opine. See how low-paid vicars bring up their broods on a pittance.
Though when I recently tried living on the minimum wage, even without children, I found I couldn't manage, counting every penny and eating nothing but lentils, rice, potatoes, pasta, cabbage and oranges. It's a miserable, life-denying way to eat, but that's not the point.
Even with more money, the poor would probably eat themselves into an early grave if there was not much else to live for.
Why defer gratification if there isn't going to be any compensating gratification?
It is inequality and disrespect that makes people fat: obesity took off 25 years ago, up 400 percent in the years when inequality has exploded.
People will only get thinner when they are included in things that are worth staying thin for. Offer self-esteem, respect, jobs or some social status, and the pounds would start to fall away.
The inequality-obesity link is mirrored internationally. America has by far the most unequal society and by far the fattest. Britain and Australia come next. Europe is better and the Scandinavian countries best of all. No doubt there are also social policy reasons for this: the best social democracies pick up family problems earliest and offer most support, putting people back on their feet, preventing social exclusion. But the narrower the status and income gap between high and low, the narrower the waistbands.
Of course, we need tough labelling laws and a ban on advertising junk to children in schools and on TV. It's a disgrace that there are virtually no safe cycle lanes in cities. Every school needs great dance, aerobics, sport and fun in after-school clubs. It's shocking the government is so craven about controlling the excesses of the food and drinks industry.
But let's not fool ourselves: only a genuine drive toward a society that doesn't leave out a quarter of its citizens will send the bathroom scales tipping in the right direction.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers