Ben

Should the war on obesity trump the war on terrorism?

What happens when experts take cost-benefit analysis too far? You get stories like this one: "Obesity more dangerous than terrorism."

Now, on one level, that's entirely correct. Odds are, a sedentary, overweight American is more likely to die of a heart attack than perish in a terrorist attack. Chronic disease will kill an estimated 388 million people worldwide over the next 10 years, Georgetown health law professor Lawrence Gostin told the fifth annual conference of the Oxford Health Alliance on Monday.

On the other hand, so what? Gostin might have also noted how hundreds of millions more people will die from old age, congenital birth defects, automobile accidents, drowning, falling down stairs, skateboarding, and, oh, I don't know, boredom maybe.

But the question is one of priorities. Should governments spend more on eradicating terrorism or on programs aimed at encouraging people to eat better and exercise more? Incredibly, the people at the Oxford Health Alliance conference seem to favor the latter.

"Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin said. "While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money." The point? Far better, evidently, for the state to scare people healthy rather than "scare" people about "terrorism," which, while a "threat," does not pose nearly so great a danger as overeating and smoking.

Well, that's nonsense, and insulting nonsense, too. Terrorism might kill fewer people, but it is far more disruptive of our lives and liberties than poor lifestyle choices could ever be.

Join the Debate

Start your own blog, comment on topics, and let your voice be heard. Start your free account now!

User login

login

Ads by Google