Something different for the blog, but something I feel many members of the forum may appreciate reading. The following article has been written for “The Beaver”, the LSE student paper. We would like to feature more alternative writing on the blog, it doesn’t have to be all Hip-Hop related. So if you fancy writing an article, write one, and email it over to us!

Obesity – should junk food be banned?

By 2010, 31% of men and 28% of women will be obese (their body mass index (BMI) will be above 30). You might think, a drastic problem needs a drastic solution – and you might be right. Those with a propensity for banning rather than thinking will be very tempted to point the finger at junk food, which a growing number of people (voluntarily or not) are consuming at an increasing rate and in increasing quantities, as a result of which they are becoming obese. So, ban junk food then? No.

I believe that banning, in any given circumstance, is too radical a measure for it to be anything but a last resort. In this case however, it is a poor recourse altogether. This is because of three reasons: one, junk food is but a symptom of larger issues linked with obesity; two, junk food is not the sole cause of obesity; and three, even if it were, there are major logistical problems that would make it impossible to ban.

We all agree that obesity is bad, and that something must be done to curb its increase, and eventually reduce it. However, (leaving out circumstances where obesity is caused by physical conditions beyond the individual’s control), it is clear that junk food isn’t the problem – it’s overcomsumption of it that is. And overconsumption is tied to a number of other issues. We need to understand why people eat junk food to the point of becoming obese.

Unfortunately, healthy food is more expensive than junk food. Even if some ‘healthy’ fast-food is available, such as Pret a Manger (which incidentally is partially owned by McDonalds), it is not hard to understand why an individual on minimum wage would rather get more food for his money at McDonalds, rather than a small sandwich and a £2 bottle of crushed fruit at Pret. Few real alternatives to junk food exist, although this is slowly changing. Poverty is therefore an important factor in explaining obesity, and banning junk food won’t solve it in any way, shape or form.

Since obesity will affects a million children in Britain by 2010, it is also time to stop ignoring parental responsibility. If we take the maxim ‘healthy body, healthy mind’, then it follows that an unhealthy body is related to an ‘unhealthy’ mind – which we can take as education and information. Eating habits are thoroughly linked to family habits: if parents habituate their children to a balanced diet, it is unlikely (though not impossible), that they will wholly and massively turn to junk food in the future, even if it is available to them. Conversely, if the KFC family bucket is all they have experienced, it would be difficult to expect them to better their diet as adults. Banning junk food would in no way solve the underlying problem.

As well as societal malfunctions being the cause of obesity, there are other factors which fall outside of the ‘junk food’ category, notably alcohol. You can’t very well ban one of several alleged causes of a problem, without banning the others. All that remains to be said is to wish good luck to the brave soul who might attempt to ban alcohol.

Finally, UK experts have identified sleep deprivation as a potential cause of obesity, as the hormonal changes involved encourage the body to consume more sugary and starchy products to boost energy. These examples suggest that banning junk food wouldn’t dent obesity figures as much as one might expect.

Nevertheless, let us for a minute imagine that junk food is indeed the sole cause of obesity – how would be go about banning it? The logistical problems are huge. What is ‘junk food’ anyway? The ever-reliable Wikipedia defines junk food as “unhealthy” food that has a “low or poor nutritional value”. The immediate cause of obesity may be related to one’s sugar, fat and salt intake, and junk food therefore incorporates a lot of these. This still doesn’t get us very far. Let us take an example: chips. Most people would agree that chips are junk food. They are full of fat and salt. But what about oven chips? Should they be classes in the same category as fried chips? And what about Tesco’s ‘Healthy Living’ range of chips? These have less than 3% fat, and have low levels of sugar and salt. Admittedly they taste of nothing, yet they still qualify as chips. Should they be regarded as junk food, and should they be banned?

Similarly, this general definition of junk food includes many things that one wouldn’t normally associate as ‘junk’. Go and tell a Frenchman that his ‘charcuterie’ and ‘patisserie’ (both of which have high levels of fat, for little nutritional value) will be banned. You will not be popular. And, interestingly enough, France has one of the lowest obesity prevelances in Europe, about 10% according to the North East Public Health, compared to 22% in Britain. This ‘French paradox’ surely illustrates that most definitions of junk food can encompass a wide variety of different food types, not all of which lead to obesity. Banning all of these would be non-sensical and ineffective. Not to mention incredibly frustrating.

I am in no way denying that obesity is a problem, nor ignoring the fact that a majority of taxpayers are paying for a minority’s problem, which is by and large self-inflicted. However, banning junk food is not a fitting solution. Take this analogy. If smoking has not been banned, there can hardly be a reasonable case for junk food to be banned: while it has been scientifically proven that the first cigarette has an almost irreversible harmful effect, and that it harms others around you as well as yourself, a doctor or scientist has yet to announce that every cheeseburger you eat brings you one step closer to death, and the death of everyone in the burger’s vicinity. The danger of one cigarette is clearer than that of one burger, and as a result, if governments must insist on banning something, cigarettes should take priority.

Of course, eating junk food is down to common sense, which a majority of people still have. Junk food can still be enjoyed in small quantities. You may or may not agree with the alleged therapeutic powers of chocolate – but you cannot ban it because a minority abuse it. If obesity exists, its founding causes should be tackled first, rather than turning a blind eye and banning their consequences – which admittedly is a much easier solution.

Society should also stop sending out mixed messages: obese individuals may be able to justify their diet by criticising size 0 catwalk models, who also risk being ‘banned’, regardless of whether their ‘condition’ arises from anorexia or bulimia, or simply from a small frame and a high metabolism; conversely, anorexic individuals can justify their behaviour, not irrationally, by pointing out that the ‘war on fat’ indicates to them that fat is a bad thing. We need to figure out a working definition of how healthy and heavy we want our population to be, before we take any action as radical as banning an entire food category, which is so ill-defined in the first place.

If Britain is really serious about tackling obesity, it might seek to change the way corporate advertising encourages consumption by hiding valuable information from the consumer; it might tax food whose nutritional value is below a certain level; it might educate parents to educate their children better, and inculcate them with better eating habits; but it won’t ban junk food. Or maybe I just don’t want to give up pudding…