Tax Obesity?

Should we tax obesity? Although it's an older study, this article resurfaced on my twitter feed today. The focus is on how we can use taxes to modify behavior, including sin taxes on such things as cigarettes and alcohol. The author, Dr. Gruber, does point out that taxing obesity is trickier than these other specific items, and first makes a case for sugar-sweetened beverages.

In my opinion, there are good reasons to tax sugar-sweetened beverages. We should not tax sugar-sweetened beverages because of obesity. Sugar-sweetened beverages are not good for anyone, regardless of weight. Personally, I think these policies should be targeted to industry, not individual purchasers.

The next, idea, however, is "ultimately, what may be needed to address the obesity problem are direct taxes on body weight". As Dr. Gruber points out, it's hard to imagine this in federal tax policy, but we already do it through employer-sponsored insurance. Many others have made many arguments specific to employer-based health insurance, so let's think about this from a broader idea of "tax" of any form.

What is the motivation of a tax on obesity, be a tax on wages to the IRS or through health insurance premiums? In economics, the concept is that taxing something discourages consumption. This worked well for cigarettes--as taxes increased, consumption declined. (We'll set aside the much more complicated issues surrounding cigarette taxes.)

The problem is that most "sin taxes" target a behavior or an item. Taxing obesity would be taxing a characteristic. What would we need in order to actually implement an effective tax on obesity?

• We would need to be able to target the tax, so we would need to be able to measure obesity. This measure would need to be easy to obtain and have a clear tie to the health issues we are concerned about. BMI is easy to obtain, and I guess people could report it on their 1040, but it is not clearly tied to health issues. In fact, the only measures tied to health issues are the existence of health issues. 

• A tax would only be effective if it addresses something changeable. So, we would have to assume a perfect correlation between individual behaviors and weight. So, by changing a specific set of behaviors, you would lead to the exact desired weight. Of course, we know that doesn't happen.

• A tax would also only be effective if it doesn't induce other risky behaviors. What good is a tax on cigarettes if everyone began to smoke an equally dangerous alternative? By taxing a specific weight, wouldn't the motivation be to do anything to reach that weight?

We can't tax obesity, because there is nothing about it that is taxable. Yet, this idea is regularly raised, in the popular press and in science. Obesity is a characteristic. There are no other characteristics I can think of that we tax. We do tax behaviors, but not what people look like. We also don't tax diseases. We tax cigarettes, but we don't impose a tax  when someone is diagnosed with lung cancer.

There are plenty of ways to leverage policy in order to improve obesity. Taxes aren't one. Taxing health insurance is not one. Health insurance is actually an important tool to help people obesity improve their health--why would we restrict that?We can only address obesity be recognition of what it is and by using policy to support individual efforts to improve their health, not to punish them.

Is Obesity a Disease?

Is obesity a disease? This is a question I ask myself regularly and have many internal debates in my efforts to answer.

On the one hand, I want the health consequences of obesity to be taken seriously. In the spirit of The Obesity Society's "I Treat Obesity Seriously" campaign, I want people needing treatment to have access to it. I want people to have access to evidence-based, sound treatments, with plenty of options between the extremes of "just eat less" and bariatric surgery.

On the other hand, obesity is currently defined as a size. As Dr. Sharma told us at this week's Your Weight Matters Convention, anatomical descriptions of obesity don't tell us anything. By using definitions--even if they can be calculated with numbers--that ultimately rely on visual cues, I worry we further stigmatize people who have obesity.

In order to think of something as a disease--and treat it seriously, we (1) need a definition that demonstrates health impact, (2) we need ways to screen and identify individuals with a disease, and (3) we need treatments to offer them.

The CDC, and pretty much everyone else, defines obesity based on BMI. Of course, BMI doesn't distinguish fat from muscle, subcutaneous fat from visceral fat, healthy people from unhealthy. There have been some good attempts to "score" obesity in terms of health, including the Edmonton Obesity Staging System. They are huge improvements, but we don't have enough evidence to define obesity using them alone. Does my BMI-defined obesity remain "obesity" because I think Prevacid is the best drug ever invented, or do I need to have actual GERD? Is a tight airplane seat enough functional limitation, or does it have to reach the point I buy velcro shoes?

For that matter, how we are we going to implement and screen any sort of health-based measure like this? Do I have to have a high BMI? I could have high percent body fat and a low BMI. What about all of the people who have a low BMI and conditions associated with obesity? If we use size as the fundamental requirement for defining obesity, how do we get past the stigma of the current societal perceptions of size? BMI is used because it's so easy to calculate. Really identifying when a high BMI is problematic requires more effort--a fasting lipid panel, for example, along with many other assessments.

One of our greatest challenges is that there are too few treatments for obesity. Intensive lifestyle interventions can work, but they don't always, and they aren't readily accessible to everyone. There are a few new drugs, but pharmaceutical treatment continues to struggle to overcome the black mark of Phen-Fen. Obesity treatment research is painfully hampered by the perception that obesity is the fault of the person with the obesity. The unremarkable success of current treatments has led to a focus on prevention, assuming treatment will never work. But we don't know that treatments won't work--we just haven't found them yet. What if we stopped trying to find cancer treatments because early efforts were not successful?

The "obesity epidemic" is not something that we can solve overnight. Prevention is a key element, but until we regularly use health-focused definitions, recognize the complex factors underlying obesity, and develop effective treatments, we will never succeed. Paraphrasing Ted Kyle, we are "writing off an entire generation, perhaps two generations." And we are doing this because of our unwillingness to accept that the failure is actually our own. We researchers, clinicians, and policymakers have failed people who have obesity because it's easier to say "people just need self-control" than "we have done a terrible job defining this disease and developing treatments."

Passing the blame is simply unfair. We will only ever be able to "Treat Obesity Seriously" when we take responsibility for developing serious health-focused definitions, step away from body size stigma, and focus our energy on real, effective treatments.

The Researcher's Promise

I've had one of those days where I'm questioning whether researchers should even be allowed to present their findings to the general public.

It started with the report on the increase in autism rates. I don't want to minimize the devastating effects of autism on families. But it reaches a point that it defies credulity. A jump from 1 in 88 to 1 in 68? In two years? And with a nearly fourfold variation between the lowest and highest states? (Alabama and New Jersey. Can you think of some differences between Alabama and New Jersey to explain that?)

Another study reported that a third of school-age kids have borderline or high cholesterol. These were kids between 9-11, a time we know cholesterol increases naturally--and is probably a necessary increase. And we have no clue how or if this affects them as adults. (By the way, this was just a meeting abstract, not a peer-reviewed paper.)

And, of course, there's the study showing that toddler obesity plummeted, one with significant issues I've already written about. Another writer posted about it recently, raising a different set of (equally valid) problems. An interesting tidbit there was that the author of that piece was not giving media interviews. (And I'm trying to not be bitter that no one cared when I made my arguments a month ago!)

As a researcher, I've had to learn to understand the media, and learn to understand how to present my findings. I'm sure I've stumbled. But this is something we, as researchers, absolutely HAVE to learn--how to explain what we've found. And we have to be absolutely sure what we are presenting is accurate, not just statistically, but in how it gets presented.

Why is this so important? These three studies tell me 1) autism is increasing at a rate that will eventually make it the scourge of the US, 2) a third of kids need intensive cholesterol interventions, and 3) obesity is all better. None of these things are true. Autism prevalence is still a mystery tied up in diagnosis rates and societal norms for "disorder". The only kids who really have cholesterol problems are a small group with genetic hypercholesterolemia--the rest are probably just growing. Obesity, or whatever we want to call this increase in body size, is pretty much unchanged.

Our studies, when promoted in the media, are the foundation of public discourse. They determine the policies that get developed, the programs that get funded, how the public perceives health problems. Carefully putting information in the public domain is our responsibility. We work so hard to do good work and get it into the journals. But that is only the first step. Of course we don't have complete control over the media--but too many of us denigrate journalists as not understanding researchers. That's not true at all, in my experience. We, the researchers, seem to not understand the rest of the world.

I think we need a researcher's promise (with some inspiration from the Girl Scouts).

"On my honor, I promise to always try to ensure my work serves the people of this world, to take an active role in translating the message to non-researchers, and to generously offer my knowledge and time in making research have only a positive impact."

I'm willing to consider edits on that promise!

Be Wary of the Headlines: Has Toddler Obesity "Plummeted"?

Yesterday, a study was published showing the prevalence of obesity in children and adults over the last decade.

The headline that was commonly seen was "Toddler Obesity Plummets". This insinuates that the main story out of this study is that we are winning the "battle against obesity".

Let's look at two things: What the study says about toddler obesity and what it says overall.

First, the study did indeed find that toddler/preschool (ages 2-5) obesity in 2011-2012 is much lower than it was in 2003-2004. However, what it also showed is that the drop happened right after--in 2005-2006. In fact, if you look at the authors' previous work, you can see that it was much lower in 2001-2002. For some reason, 2003-2004 was anomaly in NHANES, or in obesity rates. The rates went from ~10% to ~14% to immediately back down to about ~10%.

To say that toddler obesity has plummeted in the last decade in disingenuous at best. It has only decreased when making the very specific comparison of one two-year cycle. The trend over the last decade is not significant. The authors do acknowledge the importance of the comparison, but do not discuss the very important difference in 2003-2004.

Second, although obesity in young children dominated the headlines, the paper actually examined children and adults at all ages. The real story of this paper, in my opinion? Nothing has changed. It hasn't changed for young children or teenagers, for young adults or older adults.

Don't let a shocking headline distract you.

The Stigma of Childhood Obesity

Some colleagues and I recently received a rejection of a letter to the editor of JAMA. When we saw this cover, we were immediately struck by the child in the middle, and decided a letter was needed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the rejection, given that JAMA recently rejected another piece of mine on how stigma pervades the medical and scientific communities that work on childhood obesity. (That piece, however, was accepted by another in the JAMA family, JAMA Pediatrics, and will be published July 1.)

The refusal to engage in the discussion is as informative as the original point we were trying to make. Below is the image on the cover, which should link you to Dr. Zylke's description--my apologies to those who can't access it freely. I think our letter was appropriate and true.
 



 

Dear Dr. Zylke,

It was with great excitement that child health researchers came across a special issue of JAMA focused on child health last week.  Unfortunately we found this issue’s cover alarming.  The illustration promotes the stigmatization of obesity that has not only pervaded popular culture, but, as so clearly demonstrated here, the research and medical communities, as well.
   
On the cover, we instantly saw a portrayal of an obese child with a large soda-an image that managed to meet all three criteria for defining pejorative images from the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University media guidelines.¹  While you say this image tried to portray “problems stemming from social or environmental issues,” the use of a picture of an individual child with a large soda to reflect the high prevalence of obesity among children is stigmatizing in that it recognizes the individual behavior without also recognizing the larger environmental roots.  

Far more disturbing are the subtleties apparent in the image.  The fact that so many people in the scientific community must have looked at this obese girl—with an awkward facial expression, unflattering clothing, and avoiding the world—as an honest representation of childhood obesity is truly disheartening.  Social constructs of disease place responsibility on different individuals, assigning blame in ways that portray children as either victims or perpetrators.² On this cover, nearly all these children are either promoters of their own health or “victims” of their diseases, except this child, who is shown as a perpetrator of hers.  

In your description of the cover’s more idyllic images, you quote Norman Rockwell: “I paint life as I would like it to be.” We would like to offer up another of Mr. Rockwell’s quotes: “Right from the beginning, I always strived to capture everything I saw as completely as possible.” The narrow, incomplete and negative view of the obese child so painfully portrayed on the cover demonstrates the narrow, incomplete view that many people have of obese children and obesity itself. 

If we only focus on the doubt and difficulty of changing individual behaviors, we will not reduce the prevalence of obesity as significantly as if we address systemic factors.  Continual perpetuation of stigmatizing images of obese children reinforces beliefs that obesity is a problem driven only by individual behaviors. Such stigma serves to dehumanize obese people, and may even serve to perpetuate obesity itself.³





Asheley Cockrell Skinner, PhD

Stephanie E. Hasty, BA

Eliana M. Perrin, MD MPH 

References

1.         Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Guidelines for the Portrayal of Obese Persons in the Media. 2012; http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/bias/media/MediaGuidelines_PortrayalObese.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2013.

2.         Herek GM, Capitanio JP, Widaman KF. Stigma, social risk, and health policy: public attitudes toward HIV surveillance policies and the social construction of illness. Health Psychology. Sep 2003;22(5):533-540.

3.         Puhl RM, Latner JD. Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation's children. Psychological Bulletin. Jul 2007;133(4):557-580.

Do we really know the best nutrition policy?

If it's possible to reblog from wordpress to here, I don't know how. But here's the link to an amazing blog post from Laura Schoenfeld, about nutrition policy in the US.

I'm not even going to try to write much more about it, because she does such a great job. All I can say is that we really take for granted that our nutrition recommendations are based on science and evidence.