by Hail Hamilton

Charles Courtemanche, a Ph.D. researcher in health economics at Washington University in St. Louis, has some wild ideas about what contributes to obesity. In recent research posted on his Web site, he presents three different papers talking about economic changes that could change the picture of obesity in the United States.

The first says that an increase in cigarette taxes by $1 would reduce the rate of obesity 4 to 9 percent after seven years. The argument is based on the idea that once people make one healthy change (which lots of people would do if cigarettes cost more), they’ll be encouraged to make other changes, including losing weight.

Secondly, he argues that increasing work hours can account for 6 percent of the increase in adult obesity between 1961 and 2004, while moms working more outside of the home is blamed for 10 percent of the increase in childhood obesity between 1968 and 2001.

He says that increasing work hours leaves less time for exercise and healthy eating, and moms who work more have less time to influence healthy behaviors in their kids. Dads, apparently, have little influence.

High gas prices, shrinking waistlines

Both of these ideas are interesting, but the study that really got my attention was one posted earlier this month suggesting that a $1 increase in the real price of gasoline could cut obesity by 15 percent over the course of five years. He says that would save 16,000 lives and $17 billion a year in health care and other costs.

Courtemanche says that people would stop driving so much and begin to walk and bike more if gas were more expensive. Of course that’s assuming people live close enough to work, school or shopping that they can walk or bike, which is a pretty big assumption in much of the country.

Commuting times are getting longer and longer as people move to the suburbs and exurbs while still working in the cities. Courtemanche suggests that people might start using public transportation more and walking or biking to the bus or rail stop, but again that assumes living near a source of public transportation, which people in smaller towns that are still too big to bike across lack.

Also, commuting options often bring temptations of the junk food variety, with easy access to food kiosks or vending machines in the terminals, and innumerable fast food outlets within steps of most subway stops.
Cutting fast food consumption

Courtemanche also argues that people would stop eating so much fast food because the cost of it will rise as the price of fuel rises. But poor people already eat a lot of fast food, and that isn’t likely to change even if eating such foods got more expensive, since in many cities junk food is more accessible and cheaper than produce. He notes that a reduction in income would lead to weight gain.

“Research shows that reducing people’s incomes would worsen obesity, so any increase in the gasoline tax should be accompanied by mass transit subsidies, payroll tax reductions, or some other policy that replaces the lost income,” Courtemanche said. He also says he’s not suggesting a gas tax would be good for society as a whole, but it would reduce obesity levels.

As a bonus, losing that weight would make our cars more fuel efficient so we wouldn’t need to spend so much money on gas anyway.