Some people become dependent on or addicted to alcohol, cocaine, tobacco, marijuana and other consciousness-altering substances. Attempts to criminalize these substances, however, have done little to curb their use. One reason is that those attempts have always been selective both as to the substances targeted and sectors of the population harshly sanctioned. Selective targeting may in turn relate to the possibility that to be human is periodically to crave transcendence of mundane consciousness. Food, which for human beings is also more than immediate nutrition, also may be caught up in a new and potentially harmful prohibition.

Health authorities warn that we are becoming a nation of what schoolchildren derisively label “fatsos.” Obesity is viewed as the cause of 400,000 premature deaths a year. The liberal Center for Science in the Public Interest has suggested a tax on soda and junk food. Some businesses fire employees deemed overweight. These steps are far from an irreversible trend, but they should give us pause.

What does it mean to be obese? In an era that loves quantification, the standard is the body mass index (BMI) based on body weight and height. Yet, as Paul Campos, author of The Obesity Myth, points out, by BMI standards most of the running backs in the National Football League are obese. There is also substantial evidence that some “obese” people are not less healthy simply because they’re fat. Rather, other factors are causing them to be both fat and unhealthy. Chief among these are sedentary lifestyle and diet-driven weight fluctuation. When researchers factor in activity levels, body mass itself has far less relevance to health. Many “obese” people regularly engaged in even moderate levels of physical activity have lower rates of premature death than sedentary people with ideal weights.

The assumption underlying many public health approaches is that body size reflects personal choice. Uninformed choices need to be sanctioned or prevented via taxation or other regulatory policy. But even apart from the problematic scientific underpinning of that perspective, one needs to be concerned about a forbidden fruit phenomenon that might make junk attractive.

Nutrition does makes a difference. Major food processors and restaurant chains should be required to provide full nutritional information so that we may be informed consumers. Big food’s efforts to rewrite federal nutritional guidelines are deplorable. Any advertising to captive, underage consumers should be prohibited. Students – and adults – should be given the information they need for informed choice, but food choices should not be compelled.

Why do so many make inappropriate choices? Paradoxically, we may eat so much because we are in a hurry. The French, whose diet includes many rich foods, also suffer lower rates of heart disease and obesity. The author of a popular book on French cuisine, Mireille Guiliano, points out: “They eat slowly, savor every bite and make dining a ritual – using all five senses and enjoying multicourse meals on separate plates. People have to realize how great it is to be for hours around the table.”

Guiliano’s critics point out that obesity, though still far less prevalent than in the United States, is on the rise in France. She could respond that time itself is becoming increasingly scarce in France as business elites seek to roll back free time. The role that free time plays in eating habits needs far more investigation before we impose new restrictions on dietary choice.

Physical activity, a better predictor of heart disease, is also in part a function of time, facilities and culture. The Guardian reports that in Finland, where remarkable gains in the last decade have been made against heart disease, authorities began by asking citizens what physical activities they enjoy: “Over the past 10 years or so, hundreds of local schemes have been set up across Finland, drawing previously inactive people into cycling, Nordic walking, cross-country skiing and ball games, all of which were either free or substantially subsidized to ensure no one was excluded.”

People have always come in all shapes and sizes. Within the world of modeling, thin is in. Thin has also often been seen as evidence of aristocratic breeding. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee suggests that the hidden subtext in obesity discussions is class. Rates of obesity and inactivity have grown in many western nations, but Britain, the United States and Australia top that dubious list. All share a near religious faith in the market and suffer from growing economic disparity between social classes.

The poor enjoy the least access to recreational resources, too little time and diminished hopes for the future. Our society gives the affluent and the educated more time and resources to enjoy their preferred high, exercise and savored meals. It condemns the poor – especially the obese among them – and offers little more than expensive or compulsory diet agendas. Marie Antoinette would today offer different recommendations for the poor: “let them eat no cake.”

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.net