… While no evidence of this has been published using UK figures, data from America confirm this trend; “Americans now spend almost half of their food dollars on food away from home – 47 percent, or $354. 4 billion in 1998” (Dalton 2004, 94). That the hurried life-style brought about by changes in is – in part – responsible for this, is underlined by figures from the fast food chains reporting that ‘drive-thru’s ales now account for more than half of their total sales (Dalton 2004, 95). That this has contributed to the obesity epidemic is underlined by the fact that “away from home” foods contain more total fat and saturated fat on a per-calorie basis than “at home food” (Dalton 2004, 94). As a further consequence of the changes in working patterns – and the less free time available – individuals are less likely to engage in sport and social leisure activities – factors which have been shown to be negatively correlated with weight gain (Dalton 2004, 95).
Again American figures illustrate the trend. In 1991, 46 percent of high school students and 57 percent of middle school students were enrolled in sport activities (Sallis 1993, 403). By 1999, those figures had dropped to 29 percent of high-school students and 35 percent of middle school students. On average there is a 3 percent decrease in the number of kids who take part in sporting activities on a daily basis (CDC 2000). Viewed in this light is perhaps not surprising that the countries in the forefront of ‘globalization’ (especially labour market deregulation) are also the countries with the highest incidence of obesity (See table One).
Conversely, countries with less globalized economies, have had lower – sometimes much lower – levels of obesity. A few examples will suffice. In Sweden – a country that has not followed the neo-liberal reform agenda – the number of overweight people is 39 per cent (the same figure as France – another country that has resisted neo-liberal reforms). The figure for Norway another affluent society in the same category is even lower; 25 percent (web). That labour market goes hand in hand with obesity, seems to be confirmed when we contrast the obesity figures from ‘globalized’ countries with similar figures from less globalized economies (as measured by the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom).
The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient between this measure of globalization (admittedly a gross proxy! ) and obesity rate is a Pearson’s R of -. 71. In other words, the less globalized the economy, the lower the number of obese people. While this correlation is not all conclusive – and only significant at 0.
37 (two-tailed), it does suggest the existence of a causal link between obesity and globalization. Table One: Index of Economic Freedom and Obesity Rates Country Index of Economic Freedom %Obese Australia 1. 88 20 France 2. 63 8 Finland 1. 95 13 Netherlands 2. 04 8 Norway 2.
25 7 United Kingdom 1. 79 17 USA 1. 85 25 Sources: The Heritage Foundation and web (accessed 14 August 2004) While governments of the most globalized economies – such as Australia, the UK and the USA – have gone to great lengths in their efforts to deregulate the economies and give ‘the market’ a stronger role, other countries – especially those with strong corporatist traditions (See Lijphart 1999) -have adopted a different approach to globalization. In the Netherlands the government, trade unions, and employers associations have negotiated responses to globalization, which have prevented the growing inequalities and levels of job-insecurity associated with globalization in Australia (Bessant and Watts 2002, 306). , Britain and the USA (Giddens 2001, 69). Consequently, the Dutch workers are not under the same pressures as their British and American counterparts in having to seek low paid / short term employment, with all the consequent negative implications on food consumption and lack of time for physical exercise (Freedman 2000).
The difference between these two ‘pure types’ of welfare capitalism is not merely of importance for the reasons identified above (food intake with little opportunity to burn calories). There is also evidence to suggest that the ‘Dutch model’ is more conducive to the formation of ‘social capital’, which in turn is negatively correlated with levels of obesity (Putnam 2000, 264). Further globalization is more than just labour market deregulation. Global liberalization of trade under the WTO and liberalization of the market for broadcasting are other factors to be taken into account. Globalisation is a mix of contingent factors which – when combined – create social developments. One of the consequences of globalization is a society, in which consumers both ‘enjoy’ the benefits of cheap food from around the globe, while at the same time, are being subjected to advertisements from multinational food and beverage producers, such as McDonalds, Pepsi, Burger King, Coca Cola, and others.
The level of this influence can hardly be exaggerated; in one year McDonald spent in excess of 1 billion US-dollars on advertising for kids (Brownell and Horgen 2003, 60). Globalisation has profoundly affected capitalist democracies, yet not all countries have responded by deregulating labour markets and unleashing market forces. In some cases, countries have (successfully) attempted to regulate the forces of globalization, e. g.
through restrictions on media advertising (especially on TV). In the Netherlands the public broadcasters are not allowed to interrupt programmes aimed at the Under-12 year olds with advertisements. Similar restrictions have been introduced in Sweden and Norway (web). That such restrictions have been introduced in small countries with relatively open economies is an indication – perhaps even a proof – that the effects of globalization are not inevitable; that political intervention has not been rendered impossible by globalisation Conclusion “There is no question that the rates of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes… follow a socioeconomic gradient, such that the burden of disease falls disproportionally on people with limited resources, racial-ethnic minorities, and the poor.” Thus wrote two dieticians recently (Drewnowski and Specter 2004, 6).
Previously, scholarly studies in the social a etiology of obesity have stopped short of developing these statistically based conclusions into a more general theoretical sociological framework. In this paper a case has been made for the view that obesity is – at least in part – a consequence of the recent political and economic developments commonly known as ‘globalization’. Globalisation has led some governments (e. g. in the USA, Britain and Australia) to enact and implement labour market reforms (flexible job-markets with less job-security). One of the consequences of this development has been pressures on families and individuals in low paid / temporary jobs.
Through this ‘globalization’ has created conditions, which are conducive to over-consumption of high-energy foods. Forced to work longer hours, individuals have less time to prepare meals opting instead for pre-prepared fast food with a high fat content. In addition to this development, the availability of cheap food from around the globe coupled with advertising from multinationals – has resulted in new pressures which have led to a growth in the consumption of energy-rich food among the poor. Thus a combination of social factors have contributed to the fast growing epidemic of obesity which is eroding our health budgets, lowering self-esteem and creating premature deaths. References: American Medical Association (1924), ‘What Causes Obesity’, Editorial, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1924, 83, 1003.
Ulrich Beck, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity, London, Sage, 1997, p. 21. Bessant, Judith and Watts, Rob (2002) Sociology Australia. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen&Unwin P. J.
Brink (1989) “The Fattening Room Among the An nang of Nigeria: Anthropological Approaches to Nursing Research”, in Medical Anthropology, Vol. 12, pp. 131-43). Brown, P. J. and Kenner, M.
(1987) “An anthropological Perspective on Obesity “, in Annals of the New York Academy of the Sciences, Vol. 499, pp. 29-49 Brownell K. D. and Horgen, K. B (2004) Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America’s Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It.
, McGrew-Hill. Bush, L. and Williams, R. “Diet and Health: New Problems/New Solutions”, in Food Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 135) Campos, Paul (2004) The Obesity Myth.
Why our Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Our Health. London: Penguin. CDC. The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, “Healthy People 2010”, 2000, web (Accessed 13 September 2004).
Childrens Programmes (n. d) web G. (2000), “Let them Eat Fat”, in Harper’s March 2000. Drewnowski, A and Specter, S. E, ‘Poverty and Obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs’, in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2004, 79, 6-16. Durkheim, Emile (1997) Le Suicide.
‘Etude de Sociologie. Paris: PUFF legal, K. M, et al. ‘Prevalence and Trends in Obesity among US Adults 1999-2000, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2000, 288, 1723-27 Freedman, Richard (2000), ‘Single Peaked versus Diversified Capitalism: The Relationship Between Economic Institutions and Outcomes’ Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 7526, Washington, NBER. Giddens, Anthony (2004) Sociology, 4 th Edition, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Institute of Medicine (1995); Weighing the Options: Criteria for Evaluating Weight Management Problems, Washington DC, American Academic Press. International Obesity Task Force, web W. P. T, Nelson, M. , Ralph, A.
and Leather A. (1999), “Socioeconomic Determinants of Health: The Contribution of Nutrition to Inequalities in Health”, in British Medical Journal, Vol. 314, No. 7093, pp. 1545-49. Lijphart, Trend (1999).
Patterns of Democracies, New Haven, Yale University Press. National Geographic, ‘Why Are We So Fat?’ , August 2004-09-16 Newsweek, (2004) “What do You Know About Fat”, in Newsweek Magazine September 20 Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Social Capital, Simon and Schuster, New York. J.
F. Sallis (1993) “Epidemiology of Physical Activity and Fitness in Adolescents”, in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, Vol. 33. no.
4-5, 403-408. So bal, Jeffery (2004), ‘Sociological Analysis of the Stigmatization of Obesity”, in John Germov and Lauren Williams (Editors), A Sociology of Food and Nutrition. The Social Appetite, Oxford, Oxford University Press Swinburne, Boyd. et al. ‘Do Polynesians Still Believe that Big is Beautiful? , in New Zealand Medical Journal, 1996, 109. 100-103 US Department of Health and Social Services, Healthy People 2010, 2 nd Ed.
, US Gov. Printing Office, 2000. Lauren Williams and John Germov (2004) “The Thin Ideal: Women, Food, and Dieting”, in Lauren Williams and John Germov (Editors) A Sociology of Food and Nutrition. The Social Appetite, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 342 Working Group on Inequalities in Health (1982) Inequalities in Health (The Black Report), London, HMSO, 1982. Matt QvortrupProfessor Matt Qvortrup, MA, D.
Phil (Oxon) holds the chair of sociology and public policy at the School of Applied Social Studies, at the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland. His research interest includes obesity, social theory and political institutions. His most recent book is The Political Philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Impossibility of Reason, Manchester University Press, 2003. Address for correspondence: Matt Qvortrup, School of Applied Social Studies, Faculty of Health and Social Care, The Robert Gordon University, Garth dee Road, Aberdeen, AB 10 7 QG.
E-Mail:.