Tackling obesity: a cause for social conservatism | OC Comment
The obesity epidemic that has swept the West has received relatively little media attention despite the devastation it has wreaked. Causing an estimated 40,000 premature deaths and costing £27 billion to wider society, along with the innumerable accompanying long-term side effects, obesity is a serious public health risk that is strangely ignored. Compared to other long-term diseases like cancer or heart problems, obesity has been relegated to the sidelines. Most political figures maintain an embarrassed silence on the topic, while even our habitually outspoken Prime Minister has only intermittently commented on the issue. This is made all the more striking when one considered the degree to which this issue is dear to Boris Johnson’s heart; he blames his excess body weight for his extended hospitalisation after being infected with COVID-19.
This is compounded by the benefits resolving obesity would bring. Currently, more than 1 out of 4 British adults are overweight, and 36% are obese. Resolving obesity would save 5.1 billion pounds of taxpayer money spent on the NHS. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that obesity is a problem that we would be much better without. Yet this only answers one of the key questions. Two remain; how do we tackle obesity, and more importantly, should we?
To answer the second question first, should we? At first, it may seem slightly nonsensical to ask. After all, who would ever sacrifice the possible advantages elucidated above? Yet it must be remembered that individual choice and freedom is a core tenet of conservative values. As rightly observed by G.K. Chesterton, “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Some conservatives may therefore be opposed to measures designed to infringe upon the freedom of men to make sub-optimal life choices. This is certainly a valid critique, and one that must be properly addressed before a conservative approach to resolving the obesity crisis can be implemented.
On the other hand, resolving obesity in many ways is the ideal issue for social conservatives to target. Due to the nature of this affliction, it is injurious to both the individual and the wider community. The former suffers a myriad of health problems, mental issues, and daily impediments to a proper life. He is unable to fulfil his maximal potential due to the self-imposed limits of his body. Similarly, he is unable to appreciate the beauty and strength that exist in all human forms. Socrates was well aware of the perils of excess eating when he declared “It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.” In the same vein, obesity can be damaging to wider society as well. The need for increased assistance and medical interventions due to an overweight population is a principal contribution to the spiralling increase of healthcare costs globally. By attenuating this crisis, the social conservative can protect the two pillars upon which the movement is founded; the individual and their duty to the wider community.
The cardinal distinction in such a case is the methods by which obesity is circumscribed. By evaluating all proposals based on social conservative principles, we can formulate an approach that is wholly congruent with our values. Additionally, instead of viewing the need to accommodate individual choice as an obstacle, it can instead be metamorphosed into the very process by which obesity can be greatly reduced.
This brings us to the question of ‘how?’ We must always ensure that efforts to resolve the crisis remain true to social conservative principles. Consequently, massive government restrictions on what individuals can or can’t eat are out of the question - to paraphrase Chiang Kai-Shek, we would do well to avoid contracting a disease of the mind while curing a disease of the skin. Instead, we should focus on one of the crucial philosophical notions of social conservatism; the voluntary choice of the individual. We must aim to make obese or overweight people choose to become healthier in a voluntary, positive choice for their own well-being. Furthermore, we must facilitate and aid such individuals in their journey; instead of simply chalking it all up to personal frailty or lack of willpower, it must be recognised that structural factors also play a role. The inability for low-income households to afford unprocessed food or the existence of so-called 'food deserts' where fresh food is simply unavailable can simply force individuals to consume high calorie, low nutrient-dense foods to simply survive.
Therefore the first step in any such campaign is a relatively straightforward shopping list. Unlike our prime minister’s largely ineffective campaign that quietly avoided structural issues, funds should be invested into developing logistical networks that, while benefiting the economy as a whole, can allow lower-income areas to become commercially viable for distributors that offer healthier and fresher products. For individuals to make a healthy choice, they must first have the ability to choose. There is little sense in bombarding the public with mass media messaging about eating healthier meals if their only affordable source of food comes with a side of french fries.
Only once the structural factors have been addressed can the government act to spur voluntary choices by individuals. To maintain congruence with social conservative ideals, such initiatives must focus on providing reasons for consumers to act in the desired manner. Fortunately, we have a plethora of historical government campaigns to emulate in this regard. Taking a page from anti-smoking campaigns, the deleterious effects of fast food on health can be presented to the public by the formerly afflicted to increase relatability and emotional impact. Similarly, the use of celebrity endorsements is a highly effective tool to reach younger demographics. One only needs to think of the recent media uproar after Portugal captain Cristiano Ronaldo replaced a Coca-Cola bottle with water at a press conference to appreciate the potential for such methods. Finally, the obesity issue may also be linked with other current issues that are congruent to social conservatism. For example, linking healthy products with local farmers is one such manner of ensuring that ideologically homogeneous issues can be wedded in government campaigns.
The obesity crisis is a pressing issue. Fortunately, it has the potential to be effectively addressed through socially conservative methods, which could provide a compelling case for their adoption in future issue areas.
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.
