Overweight 'top world's hungry'

[Dreamer128]

There are now more overweight people across the world than hungry ones, according to experts.

US professor Barry Popkin said all countries - both rich and poor - had failed to address the obesity boom.

He told the International Association of Agricultural Economists the number of overweight people had topped 1bn, compared with 800m undernourished.

Speaking at an Australian conference, he said changing diets and people doing less physical exercise was the cause.

Professor Popkin, from the University of North Carolina, said that the change had happened quickly as obesity was rapidly spreading, while hunger was slowly declining among the world's 6.5bn population.

He told the conference at the Gold Coast convention centre near Brisbane: "Obesity is the norm globally and under nutrition, while still important in a few countries and in targeted populations in many others, is no longer the dominant disease."

He said the "burden of obesity", with its related illnesses, was also shifting from the rich to the poor, not only in urban but in rural areas around the world.

China typified the changes, with a major shift in diet from cereals to animal products and vegetable oils accompanied by a decline in physical work, more motorised transport and more television viewing, he added.

And he urged governments to begin to develop better strategies to combat the problem.

He said food prices could be used to manipulate people's diets and tilt them towards healthier options.

"For instance, if we charge money for every calorie of soft drink and fruit drink that was consumed, people would consume less of it. "If we subsidise fruit and vegetable production, people would consume more of it and we would have a healthier diet."

And University of Minnesota's Professor Benjamin Senauer, who has compared lifestyles in the US, which has high obesity rates with Japan, which has low rates, agreed.

"The average Japanese household spends almost a quarter of its income on food compared to under 14% in the US."

'Cheap food'

While a direct tax on food in the US to reduce obesity would not be politically acceptable, agricultural subsidies which resulted in cheap food could be reduced, he added.

But he said other factors, such as exercise, also played an important role.

"Japanese cities are based on efficient public transport and walking. The average American commutes to work, drives to the supermarket and does as little walking as possible."

Professor Tony Barnett, head of the diabetes and obesity group at Birmingham University, said: "It is becoming increasingly clear that the number of overweight outnumbers the malnourished.

"What is also clear is that this is not just happening in developed countries, the developing world also has serious problems.

"The biggest increases are being seen in parts of Asia with certain populations more susceptible than others. If we do not get to grips with this, problems associated with obesity, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, are going to increase rapidly."

(Source: BBC.co.uk)

[ 08-15-2006, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[johnny]

I'm not so sure about the outcome of this research, there happen to be a lot of overweight people who are constantly hungry, on an ungoing quest for food so to speak. How does that put them in a different category than those searching for food because they don't have any ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Morgeruat]

It's interesting when I look at a grocery store and see a 2 liter bottle of soda for $.50 and a 2 quart bottle of juice for $2.50, it's quite clear what choice a struggling family would be forced to choose (barring things like food stamps or WIC subsidies for low income families)

Raising the price of junk is one answer, lowering the cost of healthy food, fruit, vege's etc is a better option, or best of all, do both.

[Bungleau]

Unfortunately, government intervention in something like this is a losing cause. The professor's argument assumes that there is a central "they" who decide how much to charge for things. There isn't one. Each company sets their own prices, and because of competition, they end up being comparable to each other. I mean, if I charge $2.50 for a container of juice and you charge $2, you're going to sell more juice. My price will have to drop to meet yours, or else yours will raise up. Or perhaps both.

Putting in price floors and ceilings works only until someone figures out how to take advantage of them... and it doesn't take long. Subsidizing... pfaagh! That leads to farmers being paid to grow *nothing*... and that's not a knock on those able to take advantage of said subsidies, but on the programs that establish them.

There's no magic bullet answer. You can't decide to subsidize, or tax, or anything else like that, without having to deal with unexpected consequences. And there will be many, as we've seen in the past.

Want some interesting reading? Try to understand how the government has stepped in to regulate milk prices... bet you didn't know there are four different kinds of milk, with prices that vary depending on the region of the country you're in. And all to ensure that you pay a low price for milk...

Yep... I'm against subsidizing businesses. If they can't make it, they go out of business. Survival of the fittest. It happened to the blacksmith, the wagonmaker, and the barrelmaker. It's happening to IT people today. Find a way to generate more value, and you'll still be around.

[Stratos]

Well, considering what they put in soda, compared to juices, it's no wonder they're cheaper.

Juices often contains actual fruits in one form or another. Soda is just carbonated water, sugar and additives.

Edit: Cool! New avatar.

[ 08-16-2006, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Timber Loftis]

Kill two birds with one stone.

Feed the overweight people to the malnourished.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Kill two birds with one stone. Feed the overweight people to the malnourished.

Excuse me, but you can't feed Americans to muslims, they are not halal.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Kill two birds with one stone. Feed the overweight people to the malnourished.

Excuse me, but you can't feed Americans to muslims, they are not halal. [/QUOTE][img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

Really interesting link, I'm astonished that the underfed figure is that low.

[Melchior]

I find that all hard to believe. I wouldn't mind knowing what defines "obesity" in the researchers minds. Slightly overwieght Chinese are hardly "obese".

I also think the tax on food idea is laughable. That's always the answer with some people. Make things financially hard, instead of providing positive incentives.

I agree with making good food cheaper. Just as if you want people to drive less, improve public transport, don't raise gasoline taxes.

[Bungleau]

The typical measurement for obesity is based on height and weight. I believe that's because it's simple and easy to calculate. However, if you've got a lot of muscle, you'll be categorized as obese because muscle weighs more, and skews the ratio.

A more accurate measurement is by percentage of body fat... but that's much harder to measure.