A multibillion-dollar burden
WE ARE fat. In Australia, the United States and many other countries it has become commonplace to see people so fat that they waddle, rather than walk.
The rise in obesity is steepest in the developed world but it is happening in middle-income and poor countries as well.
Is a person’s weight their business? Should we simply become more accepting of diverse body shapes? I don’t think so. Obesity is an ethical issue, because heavier people impose costs on others. I am writing this at an airport. A slight Asian woman has checked in with about 40 kilograms of suitcases and boxes.
She pays extra for exceeding the weight allowance.
A man who must weigh at least 40kg more than she does, but whose baggage is under the limit, pays nothing. Yet, for the plane’s fuel consumption, it is all the same whether the extra weight is baggage or body fat.
Former Qantas chief economist Tony Webber pointed out that since 2000, the average weight of adult passengers on its planes increased by 2kg. For a large, modern aircraft like the Airbus A380, that means an extra $582 of fuel for a flight from Sydney to London. Flying that route in both directions three times a day, an airline in a year it will spend about an additional $1.2 million for fuel, or, on current margins, about 13 per cent of the route’s profit. Webber suggested airlines set a standard passenger weight, say 75kg. If a passenger weighed 100kg, a surcharge would apply.
A passenger 25kg overweight, would pay $35 extra on a Sydney to London return ticket.
A passenger weighing 50kg would get a discount. Another way would be to set a standard weight for passenger and luggage, and then ask people to get on the scales with their luggage. Friends with whom I discuss this often say many obese people cannot help being overweight. But the point of a weight surcharge is not to punish a sin, whether it is levied on baggage or on bodies. It is a way of recouping the true cost of flying a person to their destination, rather than imposing it on their fellow passengers. Flying is different from, say, healthcare.
It is not a human right.
AN INCREASE in the use of jet fuel is not just a financial cost; it also has an environmental cost, as higher greenhouse gas emissions exacerbate global warming.
It is a minor example of how size affects everyone. When people get larger and heavier, fewer of them fit on to a bus or train, which increases the costs of public transport. Hospitals now must have stronger beds and operating tables, extra-large toilets, and extra-large refrigerators in their morgues – all adding to their costs.
Indeed, obesity imposes a far more significant cost in terms of healthcare. Last year, the Society of Actuaries estimated that in the US and Canada, overweight or obese people accounted for US$127 billion (NZ$156B) in additional healthcare expenditure.
That adds hundreds of dollars to annual healthcare costs for taxpayers and private health insurance. The same study indicated the costs of lost productivity, both among those still working and among those unable to work at all because of obesity, totalled US$115B (NZ$141B). These facts are enough to justify public policies that discourage weight gain. Taxing foods that are disproportionately implicated in obesity – especially foods with no nutritional value – would help. The revenue raised could then offset the extra costs of overweight people and the increased cost of these foods could discourage their consumption.
Many of us are concerned about whether our planet can support a human population that has surpassed 7 billion.
But we should think of the size of the human population not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of its mass. If we value sustainable human well-being and our environment, my weight – and yours – is everyone’s business. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at Melbourne University.