In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

88 9 Public Fat Canadian Provincial Governments and Fat on the Web Laura Jennings Public policy approaches toward fat vary greatly from area to area. Annemarie Jutel (2001) examines major health policy documents of several nations, and her findings indicate a spectrum of approaches and attitudes toward fat and fat people. In general, the U.S. governmental approach emphasizes quantitative measures such as body mass index (BMI) and places “weight management before health management” (Jutel, 2001, p. 286). The national government of Canada falls at the other end of this spectrum, recognizing the shortcomings of BMI as a proxy for health and acknowledging the dangers of very low weights (Jutel, 2001). In the United States, where powerful national health organizations spout warnings about an “obesity epidemic,” many states view fat as an enemy. Some state leaders unquestioningly accept messages about the dangers of fat and magnify these messages as they pass them along to their constituents. In Arkansas, where Governor Huckabee recently lost a lot of weight, webpages portray fat as antithetical to health, and fat people as irresponsible and lazy. One page, describing the connections between physical activity and health, tells us that exercise helps prevent “obesity” and, therefore, heart attack and stroke. It asks: “Why don’t people get moving? Some are discouraged by the ‘no pain, no gain’ philosophy once they get started. Some consider physical activity ‘no fun.’ The most common reason is ‘not enough time.’ But studies show that regular moderate physical activity can make a big difference in heart health. African Americans have much to gain by being active. More than four of 10 African-American adults have cardiovascular diseases (CVD) such as heart attack and stroke” (State of Arkansas, “Cardiovascular,” 2006). This passage introduces race, leaving readers with the impression that being African American is tied either to a desire to be inactive or to ignorance regarding exercise and health issues. Both exacerbate existing racial stereotypes. The Arkansas websites list explicit “causes” for fat. These include poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and hefty doses of individual failings. Arkansas state webpages present fat as both an economic and health problem, with causes and solutions that target fat and fat people, rather than health and social structures. A web letter from governor Mike Huckabee ends with this: “For many years our country put money Public Fat 89 and energy into treating disease and illness rather than dealing with avoiding disease through healthier lifestyles. We have staggering rates of heart attacks, high blood pressure and strokes simply because people opt not to take care of themselves” (State of Arkansas “Letter,” 2006). This philosophy has lead to specific policies and recommendations , many stressing the individual’s responsibility for health maintenance, and others invoking a kind of paternalistic government/business partnership aimed at ridding Arkansas of adipose tissue. In 2003, Arkansas passed Act 1220, creating the Child Health Advisory Committee; mandates of this group include removing junk food vending machines in schools, “requiring schools to include as part of each student ’s health report to parents an annual body mass index (BMI) percentile,” and “requiring schools to annually provide parents an explanation of the possible health effects of body mass index, nutrition and physical activity” (State of Arkansas “Child Health,” 2006). Children aren’t the only target of the Arkansas anti-fat campaign; an “Obesity” webpage encourages employers to post BMI charts in the workplace, because it “can be a great way to initiate conversation on weight management with employees” (State of Arkansas “Obesity,” 2006). The document also suggests that employers “compile menus from local eateries and identify healthy items for employees to choose from” (State of Arkansas “Obesity,” 2006). Other states such as Illinois exercise more caution in their discussions of fat and in policies connected to fat. Even when fat is presented as a health problem, fat people are not demonized. Solutions suggested involve both personal effort (eat more fruits and veggies, increase exercise) and community or state effort (community gardens, education on nutrition, farmers market access for low-income people). Policy efforts in these states are directed at improving public health in general rather than singling out fat and fat people. Just as individual U.S. states differ in their approaches to fat, so might Canadian provinces. On the other hand, Canada’s commitment to universal health care for its citizens might result in a more comprehensive and unified approach to fat and fat-related policy. Do provinces share an understanding of whether fat constitutes...

Share