The Hidden Power of the Environment, Part II

by Amir Goren

“… In this environment, it was surprising that anyone was able to remain thin, and so the notion of obesity simply being a product of personal over-indulgence had to be abandoned for good.” (Dr. Susan Jebb, as quoted in a 2007 BBC news article)

In Part I (October 2008), I noted that people are often oblivious of the power that the (food) environment has on their choices and behaviors.  In Part II, I want to focus on biased attributions that people make for others’ dietary behaviors.

Let’s say that Jeff is a “health-conscious” individual.  He eats mostly healthy foods and exercises fairly regularly.  Observing his own behaviors, Jeff concludes that he has a good amount of self-discipline, that he works hard at staying in shape, and that anyone who doesn’t achieve the same end results as he does is weak-willed, misinformed, stubborn, or just plain dumb.  In the interest of maintaining self-esteem, it’s quite natural to attribute good outcomes in life to one’s ability and hard work, while attributing bad outcomes to bad luck and situational causes such as the difficulty of the task (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1974).  Ironically, at the same time as we curse bad luck for our own misfortunes, we tend to attribute others’ bad outcomes to their personality traits (e.g., laziness), rather than giving them the same benefit of the doubt we so graciously bestow upon ourselves (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Jones & Harris, 1967).  (One reason for this tendency is that it’s harder to “see” the environment when it affects another person’s behavior than when it affects our own.)

In the same biased and misguided way, people entirely or mostly blame overweight individuals for their physical appearance and state of health, thus neglecting a plethora of often hidden environmental influences.  There are the more obvious influences, such as genes (not traditionally “environmental”, but nevertheless beyond the individual’s control), absence of healthy meals at home when growing up, and presence of junk food everywhere (in fast food chains, supermarkets, and vending machines).  And then there are the more subtle influences: peer pressure (e.g., by frequently eating junk food and gaining weight, friends set the standards or norms according to which one decides what foods are acceptable to eat and what type of physical appearance is good); advertising of unhealthy products; increasing portion sizes (again, setting norms for what is “acceptable”, albeit by the food industry for these last two points); and food content (e.g., added salt, sugar, and fat) (see Cialdini regarding norm-based persuasion; the spread of obesity in networks, Christakis, 2007).

The tendency to neglect the power of the environment not only leads to discrimination against the obese and overweight, but also to misguided public health policies that focus too much on changing individual behaviors from the inside, rather than changing the environments that enable those behaviors (for a short commentary on the obesity blame game in UK politics, see Boseley, 2008).

Comments

[Mara]

Amir Goren writes: "The tendency to neglect the power of the environment not only leads to discrimination against the obese and overweight..."

The issue, as I see it, is that even if people factor in environmental reasons for obesity, they will still have judgemental attitudes toward the obese. After all, they think, *I* can resist those "cues" to eat more and *I* can show self-discipline. Why can't fat people? So, I don't know if educating people on environmental reasons for obesity really does much good to alleviate the anti-obesity stigma. Genetic reasons for obesity are helpful to factor in, however, but I think most people will still discount the genetic effect by saying or thinking something like: oh well, you, the fat person, just have to deal with the cards you are delt (i.e.: having a tendency to be fat).

I do think that environmental changes *can* lead to behavioral changes, though - or, even better - changes that occur *naturally*, with litle effort. Therefore, if fast food places can't use trans fat anymore, this improves the health of those who eat there, even if they still consume alot of food.

[anon]

One problem. Blaming bad outcomes on the environment when it involves others and not for yourself is not absolute, ie, does not apply 100% of the time. In studies you might find x percent do it, but y percent dont. I am a harsh self critic and tend to blame bad outcomes on my own behavior.

I get your point, and have a sympathetic understanding of the obesity epidemic, but personal insight and responsibility also has to be on the list of causative variables along with the others.

[Darin]

Amir, it is obvious Princeton trained you well. Rudd is lucky to have you on their team.

However, while it appears from your bio you have a social psych background, you may be missing a health and nutrition background. I say this because of your comment stating obesity is genetic. I'd recommend reading up.

Obesity is neither the cause of the sum of individual failures nor it is genetic but rather a toxic food environment, which you have alluded to.

If you look at the trends during the last three decades, you see obesity tripling. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of genetics, understand that gene pools do not change from decade to decade.

In the proper environment, not a single soul would be obese. Japan has 1% obesity rate. Put all those Japanese people into our lifestyle, and it will be 30% obesity rate just like our rate.

[Deirdre]

I agree with you for the most part, Darin. But I do think there is some interesting evidence emerging about epigenetics, and the actual effects that environmental influences have on gene expression (which does not affect the underlying DNA sequencing of a gene). Of course these are primarily animal studies so cannot be argued conclusively. A great example of epigenetic influences on gene expression is exposure to BPA.

(There was an interesting program on this on Nova a while back called "A Tale Of Two Mice" in case anyone is interested: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02-ask.html)

I just don't think we can underestimate the altering effects that our toxic food environment (as well as toxic living environment) may have on a cellular level.

[Darin]

The gene can not be expressed without the toxic food environment.

This is not new information. We have known this for decades.

This does not change the facts. Obesity has tripled in the last 30 years and is five times greater than 60 years ago.

[Mara]

The long-standing, vigorous promotion of low-fat diets is, perhaps, a key part of the obesity problem. Milk, butter, eggs and meat are healthy foods. What (too often) goes into such food when they are manufactored can be unhealthy (steroids, hormones, etc), but the demonization of these natural foods is probably *one* important reason for increased obesity, as people have turned to diet foods and other, lesser foods in lieu of these more natural, healthy foods. We've been brain-washed into thinking steak is bad, egg yolks are bad (although that's changing), butter is bad. In moderation, these are satiating and tasty, and have several health benefits. They also keep blood sugar levels steady and hunger at bay. If you eat enough of these foods, cravings for junk food decrease.

[Amir Goren]

I appreciate all the thoughtful and diverse comments, and wish to clarify one thing.

Genetic links to obesity are certainly unable to account for the dramatic increase in obesity over time, and for that and other reasons, effective solutions to the obesity epidemic should focus on improving our food environment.

That said, it is important for people to recognize the wide range of individual differences in predisposition to gain weight, whether as a result of some people having more efficient metabolisms than others (and thus gaining more weight with equivalent consumption), or greater appetites, or weaker or poorly timed biological signals for satiety.

Without recognizing such individual differences, it is convenient (and misguided) for those fortunate enough not to struggle with weight (even amidst a toxic food environment) to blame those who do, rather than attributing an appropriate level of responsibility to the environment.

[Darin]

Amir, your desire to remove all the blame from the individual has clouded your ability to look at the scientific evidence.

A report out today showed that the amount of obese people in the U.S. is greater than the amount of those who are overweight.

Look at the numbers: 34% of the population is obese and 32% of the population is overweight. That means 66% of the population is too heavy.

Amir, make no mistake about it, if nothing changes with the toxic food environment, this number will be 88% of the population. Who will make up the rest of the population? Those with eating disorders, those who are sick with disease and some (but not many) who are healthy and eat right and exercise frequently.

Basically everyone is predisposed to being overweight.

So an uninformed person may ask, "well why do some become obese and some remain just overweight?" "Isn't it due to genetics?"

The short answer is no. They are obese because they eat more calories. Who becomes more obese? Poor people. Those with less education. Those who are poor and have sedentary jobs.

Do poor African Americans have higher obesity rates because of genes? No, that is absurd.

Some people will say, "well I have a friend who can eat whatever they want and they never gain weight and they never exercise."

Yes, I am fully aware of these people. I know a few. Maybe two or three out of the hundreds of people I know. So, they exist but they are extremely rare.

[Mara]

Amir, a central problem to the issues you raise concerns people who cannot deter themselves from any other viewpoint but that the obese individual is *completely* and *totally* responsible (i.e: at fault) for his or her condition. Arguably, if fat was not so (okay, I won't say "demonized", but that term Really gets to the heart of the matter) - if fat were not so scorned, maybe the idea that one could be fat, yet fit (or at least improve fitness and health levels considerably with regular, vigorous exercise) - perhaps this idea of fat-yet-fit would not seem so absurd. If this happened, then the automatic associations people make about those who are heavy (fat = out of shape/out of shape = lazy) would not be *so* automatic. They'd start to crumble, and so would the stigma of obesity. Surely, there is much that can be done on the environmental level. However, people are not interacting through the evironment Or via genes in a way that is black and white. Yet, so many insist on seeing obesity and food in precisely those rigid terms. It's sheer ignorance, I think, as well as an entrenched unwillingness to release fat people from being everyone's habitual, go-to scape-goat. Enough. It's time to start seeing fat as something more than a disease. If we can only see fat that way, we can only see fat people that way. It's limiting, judgemental and unfair.

[Darin]

I just have to laugh and feel sorry for Mara for her comments stating, "milk, meat, eggs and meat are healthy foods."

Mara states these foods keep hunger at bay and decreases intake of junk food.

Mara, those foods are junk food. Meat, milk, butter, cheese, etc are precisely the foods people have been overeating (along with soda, candy, cakes, etc.) Mara, are you unaware what the most common foods are in the U.S.? Statistical fact: Pizza, hamburgers, french fries.

Steakhouses, hamburger joints, pizza places are the most frequented restaurants in the U.S. Its not dunkin donuts, the cookie shop and the candy shop.

To anyone new to the site or who does not understand where Mara's comments are coming from. Mara has in your own words struggled with weight loss for a long time. She has given up and accepted that she and millions of others are suppose to be overweight so now her goal is the size acceptance movement. Part of this movement's goal is to state that obesity may not actually be a disorder as long as one is physically fit. (Absurd because if one was truly fit, they would lose the weight and not be obese)

[Darin]

Despite sugar consumption, soda consumption, baked good consumption decreasing, obesity has gone up in the last few years to 34% of the total population being obese.

Meat, dairy intake increased over those years because of the Atkins Diet. It not only did not help, it actually hurt.

Unfortunately even those who are not obese, can be effected by meat, cheese, cream, butter, etc. because of the saturated fat content. Heart disease is the number one killer in the U.S. and millions of people who are not obese have heart disease in the U.S.

[Mara]

I think my experiences give *weight* to my comments, rather than serve as a drawback (pun very much intended).
Certain people would hate what I have to say, even if I were bone-thin, of course. Using my weight to attack my ideas is a pathetic, weak thing to do, but mostly it's an ineffective way to (ahem) debate someone. Par for the course, of course.

[Darin]

Mara, here is a wake up call for you. Many of the researchers who have conducted research demonstrating the detrimental effects of cheese, meat, and butter are overweight or obese themselves. Don't forget that 66% of the population is overweight. And many who are not, were once overweight.

Stop acting as if you are the only one in the world who has struggled with weight. There are almost half a billion overweight people in the world. Many of them struggle and suffer. Suffer from premature diseases and ridicule.

Most choose to embrace the science that meat and cheese are bad for them, they just can't give it up because of a strong addiction to these foods. But, overcoming denial is the first step to conquering the problem.

Who believes hamburgers are not unhealthy foods? Mcdonalds (they know its a lie, they just do it for money) and cattle ranchers (many of them had to quit eating the meat they produce because of a heart attack.)

[julie]

Please just ignore that Darin guy. He's got a one track mind, and no amount of science or logic is going to deter his being right.

My advice? Just don't encourage him. Ignore him, he'll get bored, hopefully

[Darin]

Julie, I love personal attacks because it shows my posts stand on science and no one can argue the science. Or perhaps you can?
Don't be jealous of my knowledge. Go out and learn and then come back to this forum and debate, with science.

Looking forward to it.

[Mara]

Yes, Julie, you are right. There's no point in engaging with someone like Darin. It's pointless (and boring) at best. Darin just hates to be ignored, and resorts to ever greater degrees of hostility when this happens. Predictably, I respond. I really should know better, by now.

[Deirdre]

Why is it that educated opinions are often attacked? And Julie, with all due respect, who are you? What have you contributed?

This is a forum for promoting awareness to an epidemic that now affects 66% of our population. We live among a TOXIC food environment, as well as a toxic living environment. We are NOT "supposed to be" overweight or obese. That is a fact. And as much as those who support the notion that somehow we have "evolved" as a specie to be obese, this mindset adds to the toxicity.

Tolerance for individuals who are overweight and obese is a very important crusade. It is a big part of my crusade because I was an obese child and know first hand how cruel people can be. But from a scientific and medical point of view, and now an adult who knows that being "healthy" requires a lot more work than not, do not confuse tolerance with righteousness. We need to rise above complacency if not for the 66% of today's adults, then for the 88% of tomorrow's.