Dirty Hands from Cleaning Plates

In 20 years you will most likely be overweight, and in 40 years you will probably die as a result. These words may seem harsh, but have become fact over the past few years of compounding scientific research. According to the CDC, 2/3 of american adults are overweight and more than 1/3 are obese. Most disturbingly, 1 in 3 of American children are overweight and are predicted to die at a younger age than their parents due to obesity-related complications. Behind smoking, obesity is America’s largest preventable killer, linked to 70% of heart disease, 80% of type 2 diabetes, and 30% of cancers. This weight epidemic costs our nation over $147 billion annually, even a minor reduction in costs could boost our struggling economy dramatically.

    The issue is clear, and yet obesity rates have continued to rise consistently since the 1970s. Trained to seek as many calories as possible, our bodies simply cannot resist the temptation of the unnaturally calorically dense food we have created through modern food processing technology. Not to mention, the government has created a cheap food model that leaves low income families most susceptible to obesity due to their inability to afford fresh food.

    While this issue does not explicitly challenge our morals, our deep cultural and emotional connections to food makes it an extremely controversial one to approach. For this reason, I found it extremely interesting to view it through Walzer’s assessment of risky political action. In his piece “The Problem with Dirty Hands,” Walzer recognizes politician’s controversial but necessary role in shaping our behavior. He states, “the successful politician becomes the visible architect of our restraint. he taxes us, licenses us, forbids and permits us. moreover, he takes chances for our greater good.” There is no doubt that tackling the weight epidemic would benefit both our individual health as well as our national economy, so why are leaders still so reluctant to do so? Walzer cites several examples in which the initial “methods [of political change] that may be condemned” because they upset the natural order of society; but still encourages their completion as if a politician is to “remain innocent... he not only fails to do the right thing... he may also fail to measure up the to duties of his office.” So, why are we even still discussing this? Does it not seem clear that a politician needs to take the risk of upsetting the balance in order to ultimately fix our nation’s weight problem and reap the reward? Machiavelli and Walzer both argue that, even when a politician does “bad” things, if they do them well- as in for the good of the state, they will ultimately be rewarded as heros. I think that is where the obesity issue strays from Walzer and Machiavelli’s conceptualization of controversial political action, and makes it an issue that may be too difficult for any president to breach.
    I believe that it will take decades before any sort of improvement is willingly made in the obesity crisis. The backlash against the recent New York City soda ban is prime evidence of this. The proposed measure will prohibit restaurants, mobile food carts, delis and concessions at movie theaters, stadiums or arenas from selling sugary drinks in cups or containers larger than 16 ounces. The ban does not affect milk based drinks like milkshakes, alcohol, fruit juices, or diet sodas. It impacts just one city, only certain vendor types not including many grocery stores and 7-11 chain stores. It limits only sodas, and only one grossly oversized drink container. Even so, polls shows a majority of people are vehemently against the ban. The comments posted beneath the online newspaper articles reporting on the ban express deep dissatisfaction with the measure. One commenter says “So what the government is saying, in effect is this: the voters and citizens of the city are too stupid to be allowed to choose what size drink to buy, so we'll limit their choices.” Another states, “Drinking soda doesn't harm anyone but the drinker, so there's no rational basis for banning them.” This exemplifies the issue at hand, we see food consumption as a matter of personal choice and freedom. What people fail to see, however, is the burden it places both on one’s own families as well as taxpayers across the country and health care costs continue to rise exponentially.

    So, do you any politician will ever be willing to make a change knowing that they will likely never be rewarded for it in their lifetime? Is it still worth it to get one’s hands dirty if they may never be recognized as a hero?