Demi
Sat, Sep-07-13, 02:46
From The Guardian
London, UK
6 September, 2013
How did obesity become such catnip for news?
Obesity is now a cipher for a statement of political philosophy
Zoe Williams
The gut microbes of the slim will, if transferred to the obese, have a slimming effect – or at least, they will in mice, a twin study has found (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/05/bacteria-slim-treat-obesity-study) (twin women, whose microbes were transferred to mice. Not twin mice.) Because mice are habitually copraphagic (they eat each other's shit), this amounts to slimness being biologically contagious. Now, all we have to do is start eating one another's faeces, ensuring first that we've chosen from slim individuals, and all our problems are over.
"Let's hope the bio-contagion is more robust than the social contagion (https://twitter.com/confoundingfact/status/375873648458215424)," said social statistician Vicki Bolton, in reference to a phalanx of sociology in-jokes: about the number of things held to "cause" obesity, that are in fact unprovable, or at the very least not proven yet; and also about the overarching problem, summarised in this beautifully dry title by mathematician Russell Lyons, The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis. Nowhere is that spread more visible than in the discussion of obesity, partly because any root cause floated by any scientist is of immediate interest to the media, where, by a combination of misunderstanding and amplification, speculation becomes statement of fact, and suggestion becomes proof. Well, that's the theory anyway. It's possible that I'm amplifying it. I'm pretty sure I haven't misunderstood it.
Anyway, the biological contagion does seem to be more robust than the social contagion suggested in an extremely controversial paper by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler. So let's park the mice for the moment.
What interests me is how obesity became such catnip for news, such a … I'm trying to avoid words like "hot button issue" and "controversy" because they really don't do justice to the rage it provokes. Other people's weight became all our problem when we started a) calling it an "epidemic" and b) totting up how much it costs the NHS. This is illogical. Malnutrition costs the NHS significantly more (http://www.safefood.eu/Professional/Nutrition/Nutrition-News/December-2012/Cost-of-Obesity-and-Malnutrition-in-the-UK.aspx) and yet no moral judgment accrues around people who are too thin or, for reasons of incapacity, aren't being fed properly by the people who should be caring for them (even though, in the second instance, disapprobation would be both more appropriate and more helpful than it is in tutting at other people's muffin tops).
Obesity has become a cipher for a statement of political philosophy, by people who don't want to make a bald statement of political philosophy. When Jamie Oliver asks why people who have giant TVs can't afford parsley, the underlying point is, why should society feel sorry for/support people who make bad decisions? When people like this feminist blogger (https://twitter.com/rhymeswithjen) point out what food insecurity actually means, what the reality of poverty is in terms of more than money, also time and energy, her underlying point is that there is no "individual decision" that is separate from the collective decisions we all make about how society is ordered, and what our responsibilities are to one another. This is the essential argument of our time, possibly of all time. Which makes me think, imagine if the mice and the microbes and the faeces really do solve the obesity problem; what will be our battleground then?http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/obesity-catnip-news
London, UK
6 September, 2013
How did obesity become such catnip for news?
Obesity is now a cipher for a statement of political philosophy
Zoe Williams
The gut microbes of the slim will, if transferred to the obese, have a slimming effect – or at least, they will in mice, a twin study has found (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/05/bacteria-slim-treat-obesity-study) (twin women, whose microbes were transferred to mice. Not twin mice.) Because mice are habitually copraphagic (they eat each other's shit), this amounts to slimness being biologically contagious. Now, all we have to do is start eating one another's faeces, ensuring first that we've chosen from slim individuals, and all our problems are over.
"Let's hope the bio-contagion is more robust than the social contagion (https://twitter.com/confoundingfact/status/375873648458215424)," said social statistician Vicki Bolton, in reference to a phalanx of sociology in-jokes: about the number of things held to "cause" obesity, that are in fact unprovable, or at the very least not proven yet; and also about the overarching problem, summarised in this beautifully dry title by mathematician Russell Lyons, The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis. Nowhere is that spread more visible than in the discussion of obesity, partly because any root cause floated by any scientist is of immediate interest to the media, where, by a combination of misunderstanding and amplification, speculation becomes statement of fact, and suggestion becomes proof. Well, that's the theory anyway. It's possible that I'm amplifying it. I'm pretty sure I haven't misunderstood it.
Anyway, the biological contagion does seem to be more robust than the social contagion suggested in an extremely controversial paper by Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler. So let's park the mice for the moment.
What interests me is how obesity became such catnip for news, such a … I'm trying to avoid words like "hot button issue" and "controversy" because they really don't do justice to the rage it provokes. Other people's weight became all our problem when we started a) calling it an "epidemic" and b) totting up how much it costs the NHS. This is illogical. Malnutrition costs the NHS significantly more (http://www.safefood.eu/Professional/Nutrition/Nutrition-News/December-2012/Cost-of-Obesity-and-Malnutrition-in-the-UK.aspx) and yet no moral judgment accrues around people who are too thin or, for reasons of incapacity, aren't being fed properly by the people who should be caring for them (even though, in the second instance, disapprobation would be both more appropriate and more helpful than it is in tutting at other people's muffin tops).
Obesity has become a cipher for a statement of political philosophy, by people who don't want to make a bald statement of political philosophy. When Jamie Oliver asks why people who have giant TVs can't afford parsley, the underlying point is, why should society feel sorry for/support people who make bad decisions? When people like this feminist blogger (https://twitter.com/rhymeswithjen) point out what food insecurity actually means, what the reality of poverty is in terms of more than money, also time and energy, her underlying point is that there is no "individual decision" that is separate from the collective decisions we all make about how society is ordered, and what our responsibilities are to one another. This is the essential argument of our time, possibly of all time. Which makes me think, imagine if the mice and the microbes and the faeces really do solve the obesity problem; what will be our battleground then?http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/06/obesity-catnip-news