How Anti-Smoking Campaigns can Inform Anti-Obesity Efforts
There are numerous causes for obesity, ranging from a lack of exercise to an excess of calories, not to mention numerous correlated environmental determinants. Yet, a share of the blame for the obesity epidemic is duly directed at the food industry that produces the food products, markets them and is, quite frankly, getting rich off of making Americans fat. In some ways, the challenge that public health nutrition officials are battling today with obesity is not unlike the campaigns waged in the anti-smoking efforts over the past three decades. At this juncture, it is useful to consider what has worked for decreasing the prevalence of smoking (and ultimately, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases), but also what are the differences between the two issues. In the battle against the cigarettes, public health advocates took advantage of vilifying the tobacco industry, but in today’s debate surrounding food, there may not be this opportunity. Yet, in creating tactics for managing the obesity epidemic, it is important that officials look at implementing an integrated multi-pronged approach that affects the public and private sectors at many levels with the culminating goal of improved nutritional habits and ultimately, decreased prevalence of diet related diseases.
Both issues take root similarly at the forefront of the country’s health debate whereas the issue is observed across the entire population, though with higher incidence observed among individuals with lower socio-economic status. Secondly, the industries that are manufacturing the products are comprised of large, powerful companies with deep pockets, who can wield a great deal of influence over lawmakers. And finally, in the products they produce, as is the case with cigarettes and unhealthy foods, the health effects are not immediately observed and are correlated to their long-term use. It is almost damning of the food industry that in the context of these comparisons that that they have attempted to expunge their role in the current obesity epidemic behind the same gauze used by the tobacco industry of championing more ‘personal responsibility’ on the part of the consumer.
Yet, significant differences exist between the two issues. Unlike cigarettes, officials are trying to control a product that people must consume in order to live. This variance has made it difficult to exact bans of certain food products. Furthermore, cigarettes had been previously regulated, while it is hard to imagine regulating sugar or fat. And finally, while some consumers have made habits out of certain unhealthy eating behaviors, these foods are not chemically addictive as was the case with the nicotine in cigarettes. And in terms of public opinion, while it took a lot of work to stigmatize smoking in the eyes of the public, obesity has long been undesirable.
The tactics used to combat need to confront multiple channels. In the 1970s, anti-smoking campaigns believed that education alone would be sufficient to change the tide of cigarette usage. Evidence now shows that educating the public concerning the dangers associated with cigarettes and unhealthful eating habits are important, but are not sufficient for changing behavior. As explained by Beth Kilgore, a five-point plan for tobacco control in New York City included: taxation, legal action, cessation, education and evaluation. At the same time, the City initiated a series of advertisements and promotions that linked changes they were making in the physical environment to actionable steps that an individual could make to help him or her quit smoking. For instance, after viewing a commercial that graphically illustrated the dangers of smoking, a person could dial 311 to be enrolled in a program that would support them through the process.
In conclusion, it is easy to spot parallels between the anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns are being waged. For example legislative efforts to levy taxes on sodas and to ban candy from schools are already in effect. Yet, the best lesson that can be learned is that in conjunction of these programs which are changing the environment, public health nutrition officials also lay the groundwork for enabling individuals to make their change. As final note, I would also point out, in terms of what public health officials have learned from the battle of smoking, it is based on these same striking similarities, the food industry has undoubtedly learned how to shift their techniques in combating these efforts in order to keep their profits.
