Fatphobes: Lose weight, save planet.

13th November 2007

Fatphobes: Lose weight, save planet.

posted in Diets, Fat Bias, Health/Nutrition, Pop Culture, Vegetarianism |

I knew when I saw the headline “Experts Promote the Global Warming Diet” that this would be yet another study co-opted by the anti-obesity establishment to further attack and discriminate against fat people.

And I was right. Not even two hours later a troll at IP address 141.76.45.34 and claiming the email of awerwea@yahoo.com left a comment to let me know how I - a vegetarian, animal-loving, environmentally-conscious, tree-hugging hippie who buys local and drives less than 12,000 miles a year in a gas-saving economy car - am somehow responsible for the inevitable destruction of planet earth simply because I happen to be fat.

According to the Associated Press story, Americans can simultaneously “save the planet and their health” by walking or biking half an hour a day instead of driving. Oh, and they add, almost as an afterthought, to stop eating so much red meat, too.

The payoffs are huge, although unlikely to happen. One numbers-crunching scientist calculates that if all Americans between 10 and 74 walked just half an hour a day instead of driving, they would cut the annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by 64 million tons.

About 6.5 billion gallons of gasoline would be saved. And Americans would also shed more than 3 billion pounds overall, according to these calculations.

“A simple intervention like walking to school is a climate change intervention, an obesity intervention, a diabetes intervention, a safety intervention,” Frumkin told The Associated Press. “That’s the sweet spot.”

There’s no doubting the benefit of exercise on overall health, although the assumption that exercise naturally leads to weight loss is dubious, at best. Regular exercise is something every health-conscious and able-bodied person ought to partake of not for weight-loss, but for good health.

What I find interesting is how the fatphobes have taken this study and completely distorted it to serve their own agendas, so that it’s reduced to just another case of fatties, by virtue of their larger girth, using up more than their fair share of natural resources, which, in turn, contributes to the destruction of the planet. Fat thus become a euphemism for all forms of overconsumption, not just food.

In fact, the only way to be even more environmentally devastating would be to be the fat owner of a Hummer.

As the AP story mentions (briefly, and at the end) the meat sector of the global economy also bears much of the brunt for global warming. But, anti-obesity doomsayers like Huffington Post blogger Bryan Young seem to focus much more on the “fat people use more gas” argument than on the problematics of meat-eating.

It should be noted that Young is among the producers of an upcoming anti-obesity documentary bashing fat folk. No bias there, nope, absolutely none.

According to researchers at the University of Chicago, the typical U.S. diet, about 28 percent of which comes from animal sources, generates the equivalent of nearly 1.5 tonnes more carbon dioxide per person each year than a vegan diet with the same number of calories.

To put it in perspective, gases from animals destined for dinner plates account for nearly a quarter of all emissions worldwide.

According to a Lancet article, 2.2 pounds of beef generates the equivalent of 80.08 pounds of carbon dioxide, more than the equivalent of driving for three hours while leaving all the lights on back home. Multiply this by a U.N. estimation of 233 million metric tons of meat consumed globally each year

And with global meat production expected to double between 2001 and 2050, the resulting increased livestock will mean even more gases like methane and nitrous oxide heating up the atmosphere. Not to mention, higher rates of heart disease and cancer, both of which are linked to eating red meat.

The math is simple: You can lose weight and still emit more carbon dioxide than you would if you gave up eating meat and other animal products and never lost a pound.

So, where are our meat-eating epidemic alarmists? We’ve declared a national war on obesity and obese people; why not wage war on meat-eating and meat-eaters? Why is the slant on these kinds of stories almost exclusively on how fat people are using more than their fair share of natural resources, when really, we are all equally to blame?

Oh, right. For much of the same reasons animal rights folk attack women in fur coats and not bikers in leather jackets. It’s much safer to attack middle-aged society women than it is to try to splash red paint on a bunch of menacing-looking bald men sporting chains and tattoos.

And it’s much easier to make fat people - an already socially, economically and politically marginalized group - the target of our attacks than it is to change ourselves.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm and is filed under Diets, Fat Bias, Health/Nutrition, Pop Culture, Vegetarianism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On November 13th, 2007, Tari

said:

I hate it when greenies co-opt fat hatred to pimp conservation. I wish I could buy that they’re only doing it because it’s such an effective marketing tool. For fuck’s sake, can’t saving the world be a noble enough reason to drive less, go local and organic, and cut back on the meat? Does it need the layer of scaring people with the specter of Teh Fat?

What’s next? Jesus wants you to conserve?!

posted on November 13th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

2 On November 13th, 2007, Pam

The logical consequence is this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

posted on November 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

3 On November 13th, 2007, deja pseu

Reminds me of Paul Campos’ argument that fat people have become the designated scapegoats for overconsumption in our McMansion-livin’, SUV-drivin’, buy-more-stuff culture.

posted on November 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

4 On November 13th, 2007, Meowser

So lemme get this straight. A fatass who doesn’t drive and doesn’t eat meat — or does those things far less than average — is a drain on the planet, and a skinnyass who never goes anywhere without either driving or being driven somewhere in a private car and drops $200 on a steak dinner without thinking about it, and gets all their exercise in their private home gym — most of which is powered by electronic geegaws — is what we need a lot more of in order to save ourselves?

The insanity makes my brain hurt. RICH people consume — and WASTE — far more of the planet’s resources than anyone else. And most rich people are thin. I’ll bet right now that Ann Coulter spends more for dinner in one night than I do for an entire month’s worth of groceries, and that people have to fly in a lot more shit from a lot farther away to feed her, and I’ll bet a lot more of what she buys winds up in the garbage, too.

I’m also not buying tons of electronic doodads I don’t use, or constantly “upgrading” the ones I do use just to keep up with my peers, or buying tons of clothing and shoes I don’t wear or wear only once, or spending months of my life per year on airplanes, or filling a 5000 square-foot mansion with furniture, most of which I will barely touch and will toss aside the minute it goes out of fashion, etc., etc. Oh yeah, I SO believe they are so very deeply concerned about wasting resources in that there paid media. That’s why on Oscar night instead of gawking at all the borrowed jewelry and $5000 outfits, they chuck it all and do a special on the plight of migrant workers instead.

Pukity puke.

posted on November 13th, 2007 at 8:08 pm

5 On November 13th, 2007, wellroundedtype2

We could use some economists in the “movement” who can crunch numbers and dispel these myths.
Argh.
I do eat some meat but less and less, and I drive a car that I’ve had for more nearly 6 years that gets 36-40 miles a gallon. I too limit my consumption as much as I can and try to buy less and less new junk (garage sales and second hand stores, watch out). But apparently none of this counts since I’m fat.

posted on November 13th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

6 On November 14th, 2007, DivaJean

Walking doesn’t count as exercise unless one is wearing specialty exercise equipment and is walking on a treadmill in a gym.

Therefore, poor people (who can’t afford cars or bus fare) who are fat and walk to work or for any other destination will remain fat.

posted on November 14th, 2007 at 9:14 am

7 On November 14th, 2007, La di Da

And don’t forget, working two jobs where you’re on your feet all day and doing all the housework and looking after your kids doesn’t count as exercise either! ‘Cause that’s what those nasty poor single parents often have to do. Seems to be mostly rich slim white guys (gee, what a surprise) who’ve never had to lift a finger who proclaim that housework and child-rearing “doesn’t count”.

posted on November 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

8 On November 15th, 2007, wriggles

Is it me or is all physicality and physical activity being replaced (yet again by one word) exercise?

Surely exercise is different from the others and is therefore optitional?
The body measures it’s needs for very precisely it takes physical activity into account. So upping your exercise can lead just as much to less energy for other things and /or more hunger.

The energy in/out brigade are so welded to this factor, they cannot seem to grasp the comprehensiveness of the body’s ability to regulate itself to maintain and defend its status quo.

posted on November 15th, 2007 at 7:23 am

9 On November 15th, 2007, Bryan Young

I’m not anti-fat. I’m a fat guy, too.

But fat people like me do use more gas. And I stopped eating meat, too.

And you should really see the film before you make judgments because we don’t bash fat people at all.

posted on November 15th, 2007 at 11:53 pm

10 On November 16th, 2007, Rachel

And you should really see the film before you make judgments because we don

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 12:41 am

11 On November 16th, 2007, Bryan Young

We have a number of calls in the film to embrace those of us who are unwilling or unable to deal with our weight.

And just because you and I can live with our weight, that doesn’t mean we can’t lead more active, healthy lives. Kids should walk to school more, our communities should make it easier to walk or bike to work. The government shouldn’t subsidize over-processed food (like corn and beef).

These are the issues the film raises. That doesn’t sound like bashing fat people to me.

And I’d be happy to hear what you had to say about the film, good or bad, once it’s been released and I’d even post it on our site.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 3:04 am

12 On November 16th, 2007, Rachel

We have a number of calls in the film to embrace those of us who are unwilling or unable to deal with our weight.

Please don’t include me in your collective assumptions. My “willingness” to deal with my weight and fit into some preconceived, thin mold led into bouts with anorexia and bulimia. In fact, I’ve never had any health problems due to weight until I lost 175 pounds down to 125 pounds, and developed a heart condition, gallstones, suffered teeth damage, and severe verging-on-the-brink-of-suicidal depression as a result of malnutrition. So, don’t you dare speak to me as if I’m unwilling or unable to deal with my weight. I’ve been to hell, and I’d rather be fat than go back there.

The very fact that you speak of fatness as something to be “dealed with” speaks volumes to your apparent biasness towards fatness and fat people. Fatness is NOT an indication of a lack of willpower, or of a character flaw, or of stereotypical eating patterns and behaviors. In fact, to echo Marilyn Wann, the only thing you can measure by looking at a fat person is the degree of your discrimination.

And if health is your overarching altruistic goal, then why focus your film solely on obese people? Good health and physical fitness is something ALL people - thin or fat - should aspire to.

What might not be fat bashing to you, by virtue of the stigmatization of fat and the exclusive focus on fat and fat people, is certainly offensive to scores of fat people who are leading healthy, productive lives. You seem like you have good intentions - I’d encourage you to reexamine your focus and the implications your film might have on the very real lives and feelings of fat people. Are you helping, or are you hurting?

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am

13 On November 16th, 2007, Tari

All I’m saying is that there’s clearly an assumption being made that fat people aren’t *already* living active, healthy lives. There’s no way you can tell that based on fatness or thinness.

Plus, er, while some fat people may use more gas than some thin people - this fat person uses much less, since I have been living car free for over six years. And how many thin people drive around huge, inefficient, gas-guzzling Hummers…while fat people are rocking zippy little hybrids? I don’t think you can tell what people’s driving habits are based on body size any more than you can know their eating or exercise or buying or recycling or sleeping habits!

This kind of oversimplification is just another brand of fear-mongering, and it’s based on empty spin and misinformation.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 11:59 am

14 On November 16th, 2007, Becky

I

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm

15 On November 16th, 2007, Becky

Not to mention, that it takes more gas to drive a muscular 220 pound man around than it takes to drive my fat 175 pound self. Are you going to start telling athletes they need to shed some of that muscle for the sake of the planet?

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

16 On November 16th, 2007, Bryan Young

I’ll be interested to hear your tunes change once you see the film.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

17 On November 16th, 2007, Paul

But Bryan, you’re not giving us convincing arguments to see the film. Stuff like this:

We have a number of calls in the film to embrace those of us who are unwilling or unable to deal with our weight.

Is really condescending, *and it’s not even in the film*. As Rachel said above, it’s about the attitude you’re putting forth. “Unwilling” and “unable” to “deal” with one’s weight - excessive quote marks necessary - makes me infer that there’s something wrong with one’s weight, and that’s definitely absolutely not the case.

And I walk to the train every day, and take the train to work so… how am I using “more” gas?

Just because you’re a fat guy too doesn’t mean you get a free pass when it comes to bashing fat folks, no matter how small or large the scale.

I don’t want to be a closed-minded fella but you’re giving me zero (maybe -2) incentive to see this film.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

18 On November 16th, 2007, Rachel

Not to mention the very name of the documentary - Killers at Large - is off-putting. I’m sure you thought you all were being clever in titling the film, but did you stop to think it through?

Bryan - you’re just not getting it. With a documentary titled as such, and based on the film synopsis, why would I want to even see the film? Frankly, getting a colonoscopy sounds a lot less painful and intrusive.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

19 On November 16th, 2007, Tari

My tune change? From what? To what? I already try my hardest to make environmentally and socially just choices every day…and I’m not willing to hate myself. So how is this film going to change that? Am I going to become *more* aware that petrol and cars are bad? Or that the meat industry is evil? Or that the government and Big Ag have conspired to put corn in everything?

I am so tired of fatties being a handy dandy straw man for the green movement. I just read this in this month’s Conscious Choice, and it’s another reminder that Teh Fat is such a convenient excuse, even for people who allegedly spend their time questioning what the government and big business tell them is true.

How can people allegedly committed to environmental and social justice not see that further marginalizing a group doesn’t actually help their goals?

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 2:12 pm

20 On November 16th, 2007, Becky

Bryan, I clicked over to your website from the link in your user name, and the opening picture (the newspaper full of fat bashing articles) tells me all I need to know about the movie, and why I have absolutely no intention of seeing it.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 2:17 pm

21 On November 16th, 2007, Sannanina

Brian - I believe that linking over consumption to being fat is not only discriminatory, it also distracts from the real issues. Yes, there needs to be societal change: The infrastructure particularly in the US but also in other industrialized countries needs to be changed so that people can actually walk or bike to school, work, and the grocery store safely (or - if this is not possible - can go by public transport). People need to made aware that badly insulated houses waste energy both in the winter and in the summer. People also have to get an idea that buying fruit and veggies that have been transported half-way around the globe (or through the whole US) is not a good idea, and that eating large amounts of meat is not good for the planet either (it would be nice if the foods we eat would have labels indicating how much energy it cost to produce and transport them in addition to nutritional labels).
But by saying that those things are primarily done by fat people or that not doing so will make people thin a) leads to even more negative stereotyping of fat people (as if we needed that) and b) makes thin people think falsely that a lot of their behavior is actually okay when it comes to the environment and that they don’t have to change anything.
I am another one of those car-less, biking/walking, vegetarian fatties who tries to buy at least mainly local products. I am far from perfect: I still waste far too many resources, and biking everywhere is much easier for me since I live in Amsterdam, probably the most bike-friendly city in the world. Still, my shortcomings in terms environmentally friendly behavior have nothing, NOTHING to do with me being fat.

posted on November 16th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

22 On November 17th, 2007, Meowser

It all comes down to this.

Everything a thin person does is fine, because they are lovely to look at.

Everything a fat person does is terrible, because they are eyesores.

Muscular people who weigh the same as fat people are automatically morally superior, even if they use just as much gas, eat as much as or more animal protein, and generate just as much trash, or even more, because they entertain us and give our children something to look up to and thus perform a public service.

Wealthy people can waste all the resources they want, because we all want to be just like them, and therefore their waste counts for something. A working-class fat person who wastes resources is just a waste, because nobody on earth would want to trade places with them, not even a homeless thin person.

Steak frites washed down by three martinis is healthy and good for the environment. A Big Mac and fries washed down by root beer is unhealthy and environmentally wasteful.

Bananas Foster = healthy for us and planet. A Banana Split Blizzard from Dairy Queen = you should be shot for even thinking about it, fatass.

Don’t worry about the 5 percent of us fatasses who are unrepentant, Bryan. The other 95 percent will be happy to bend over and get spanked, because they “know” they are the source of all the world’s problems, just like you do.

posted on November 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am

23 On November 17th, 2007, Quiwi

It’s amusing to me how people who justify fat-bashing are so “articulate”, “well-meaning”, and “logical” when they defend something that’s so glaringly wrong. Yet,they fail to comprehend or choose to conveniently ignore when people are telling them how it feels to be on the business end of their blame stick. I still can’t believe that educated adults still revert to belittling fat folks simply because it’s easier to drive home the message they want to get across. Even if that message actually has very little or nothing to do with a person’s size, but the awareness of their individual consumption. I’m sorry, but I’m sticking to my belief that the true root of accountability in societal and environment issues lies within us all.

posted on November 17th, 2007 at 5:46 am

24 On November 17th, 2007, wellroundedtype2

Consumption does not equal fatness.
In fact, it’s those who consume the most resources overall who are the “leanest.” And those who are consuming little (because of what they can afford) are significantly more likely to be heavy.
One solution is old-fashioned “consciousness raising” that identifies the causes of poverty and the gigantic gap between the rich and poor in the U.S. (and the world), so that more people can get what they need, including good health, as well as having a healthier planet.

posted on November 17th, 2007 at 8:15 pm

25 On November 18th, 2007, Monica

Mysteriously, no one talks anymore about that fact that having fewer children would help the planet. Maybe not so mysteriously, as that would lead to fewer consumers. Nevertheless, I’m going to pat myself on the fat-rolled back that I’ve saved the Earth a few hundred pounds by remaining childless.

posted on November 18th, 2007 at 3:31 am

26 On November 18th, 2007, Oi Vey

Why does having children always come into this…
This is why so many of my mommy friends are fleeing feminism…

posted on November 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pm

27 On November 19th, 2007, peggynature

I think there’s a basic logical fallacy at work underlying this (and many, many other arguments for why people should lose weight) and that is this: everyone EQUATES body size with eating and exercise behaviours. It’s an inaccurate proxy that has gotten entirely out of hand, to the point where a research study can be conducted on what happens to people with *poor diet and exercise habits* and it will be reported as a study on *obese people* — regardless of the actual participants’ weight.

This is one of those basic mistakes that I wish we could nip in the bud (or full bloom, by now) before it causes even more damage.

Yes, some fat people have poor eating and exercise habits. A lot of times, socioeconomic status is a factor, as well as discrimination and harassment. A lot of fat people also have very “healthy” eating and exercise habits. AND GUESS WHAT, some thin people have poor habits, some have good habits. It’s wrong to make assumptions about behaviours based solely on appearance, and even worse when that assumption is extrapolated into projects like these.

Maybe EVERYONE should adopt healthier, more sustainable habits — and leave weight out of it.

posted on November 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am

28 On November 19th, 2007, peggynature

And just because you and I can live with our weight, that doesn’t mean we can’t lead more active, healthy lives. Kids should walk to school more, our communities should make it easier to walk or bike to work. The government shouldn’t subsidize over-processed food (like corn and beef).

These are valid points. So why does the press release for Bryan’s film have to single out fat people…in typical “moral panic” style:

Killer at Large examines the startling details of the American obesity epidemic and why this issue has
crossed from public health crisis to a national security issue. When asked in the film what the most
pressing issue is in America today, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona responded, “Obesity.
Because obesity is a terror within.”

If everyone should live better lives, why focus on fat people? I think you know why…because it’s a lot more media-friendly that way, a lot more sensationalist. No one wants to see a movie called “Maybe Everyone Could Benefit from More Sensible Habits.”

posted on November 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am