Obesity - Is it such a necessity?
Obesity is a very common problem in developed countries around the world today. In several cultures, obesity was once commonly associated with physical attractiveness, strength and fertility. It was often regarded as a sign of wealth and power in certain traditions. However, today obesity takes on a very different stand. Obesity is no longer considered as a form of physical attractiveness and wealth in developed nations Instead, it is widely regarded as unattractive and linked to negative stereotypes such as laziness. Obese children, teenagers and adults face a heavy social stigma. Obese children are often descriminated and obesity might result in slower career advancement. In the following paragraphs, I will address the relationship between obesity and globalisation, the impact of such globalisation as well as my reflections.
References:
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1046/Weighty_problem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity
http://www.thesahara.net/starving.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalisation
http://www.health-news.org/images/full_size/us-lawyers-have-little-stomach-for-obesity-cases.jpg
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20061102-0641-health-obesity.html
Introduction to Obesity
Weighty problem
Gaetan Lafortune, OECD Health Policy Unit
Published: September 2003
Obesity is a growing problem in OECD countries, OECD Health Data 2003 shows. Its prevalence varies from country to country, from a low of 3% of the population in Korea and Japan in 2001, to a high of 31% in the United States in 1999.
The US estimate is based on actual health examinations, while data from most other countries are from self-reporting health surveys. Comparable data from health interview surveys show a lower US figure, though still at 22% in 1999. Similarly, for Australia, the obesity rate based on health examinations conducted in 1999 was 21%, but 18% based on self-reported survey data in 2001.
Still, the outcomes point to a pressing problem. In Australia, obesity has more than doubled and in the United Kingdom the rate has tripled over the last 20 years, based consistently on health examination measures in the two countries. More than 20% of the adult population in Australia and the United Kingdom are now defined as obese, the same rate as in the United States ten years ago. By contrast, the obesity rates in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, as well as France, Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland remain in the 10% area, according to self-reported data, though obesity rates in these countries have begun to rise.
Obesity is a known risk factor for several disorders, such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems (asthma) and musculoskeletal diseases (arthritis). It has several causes, too, including excessive calorie consumption, lack of physical activity, genetic predisposition and disorders of the endocrine system of glands that produces the hormones necessary for normal bodily functions, like metabolism and growth.
Culture and environment also influence obesity, like dietary customs or the working environment. A recent study by Lawrence Frank, associate professor of urban planning at the University of British Columbia, even suggests urban sprawl as being a possible factor, as in the suburbs, people tend to drive more and walk less.
The economic and non-economic consequences of obesity are vast. In the United States, a recent study by Roland Sturm looked at the consequences of obesity on medical problems such as diabetes and asthma and related costs, and compared them with other risk factors, like smoking and alcohol consumption (see references). The study found that obesity has the same association with chronic health conditions as does 20 years of ageing, greatly exceeding the association of smoking or excessive drinking for those conditions studied.
It was estimated that obesity is associated with an even higher average health cost increase per year than costs related to smoking. So much so, in fact, that in the US a group of large employers, headed by Ford Motor, Honeywell, General Mills and PepsiCo, announced a campaign this June to encourage overweight workers to slim down as a way to improve both their personal health and the corporate bottom line. Dr Vince Kerr, director of health care management at Ford, says weight-related costs are adding US$12 billion per year to costs of employers across the United States.
One worrying feature for places like Australia and the UK, where obesity has risen since 1980, is that there is a time lag between the onset of obesity and related disorders, suggesting that health problems (and costs) are being stored for the future.
Diet changes and physical exercise can help tackle obesity, although this is easier said than done, particularly as behavioural and environmental barriers are at play. Apart from promoting a healthy lifestyle, preventing obesity in childhood is perhaps a more effective approach in the long term. Effective family-based and school-based programmes can help. So might the law, with several legal battles now being waged against manufacturers and distributors of foods that are accused of contributing to obesity. Other food companies are taking initiatives themselves, with food giant Kraft announcing at the start of July its plan to cut fat and sugar content in its foods.
__________________________________________
How is Obesity Related to Globalisation?
Globalisation is the unitary process inclusive of many sub-processes (such as enhanced economic interdependence, increased cultural influence, rapid advances of information technology, and novel governance and geopolitical challenges) that are increasingly binding people and the biosphere more tightly into one global system. Globalisation and obesity are closely related as globalisation results in obesity of many and yet it is obesity which promotes further globalisation.
Firstly, globalisation leads to the emergence of worldwide food production markets and a wider access to a range of foods for consumers. To be more specific, technological globalisation has made it possible for the spreading of technology to various developed nations around the world. This technology has led to technological advancements in the food industry, making the mass production of highly processed convenience foods possible. Also, cultural globalisation has been a catalyst for the growing of the fast food industry. Cultural globalisation involves the desire of people to consume and enjoy foreign products, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". As the idea of fast food outlets reach people in various nations, their desire to consume and enjoy foreign products results in increased patronization of these outlets, thus accelerating the growth of the fast food industry.
On the other hand, obesity leads to further globalisation. As more and more people become obese, they spend more money to improve their body image, leading to the thriving of slimming agencies. Moreover, there is increased imports of slimming products from various nations due to a higher demand. This results in a boost in the beauty industry in developed nations. Therefore, there is acceleration of economic globalisation due to the increase in trade between nations. The number of slimming agencies in Singapore has increased by 40% from 1985 - 2005. Therefore we can see that the general public is becoming more and more dependent on these slimming technologies. Thus globalisation and obesity are interrelated.
What is its Impact?
For a larger image, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png
While one side of the world is worrying about obesity problems, the other side of the world is worrying about hunger. Although the impact on globalisation in nations is very huge, it does not reach every end of Earth. It only impacts heavily on developed nations. On the other hand, third world nations are facing food insecurity.
Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum: the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (that is, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies).
This boy is suffering from hunger, yet he is also suffering from the indignity of being covered in flies.
While American kids are undergoing weight control, children are dying of starvation in feeding centers in Niger, where 3.6 million people face severe food shortages. Food insecurity there is caused by poverty, population, piorities and politics. The underprivilleged are always hungry. Population growth is very high (around 20%), thus resulting in the shortage of food to feed the entire population. The rich often get their foodstuff first. Moreover, political forces influence the availability of food as food is often used as 'money' to pay off debts to first world countries. Thus we can see that globalisation does not necessarily affect every single corner of the world.
Globalisation brings us a lot of benefits, but have we stopped to think if poor nations receive the same benefits as the first world countries? The answer is no. Globalisation brings about increased economic interdependence, cultural influence, rapid advances in IT, and novel governance and geopolitical challenges that are increasingly binding people into one global system. However, this does not seem like the case for third world countries. Globalisation does not really have any effect on them, be it political, economic, cultural, technological and environmental. Therefore I think that to reduce food insecurity, first world countries have to first help third world countries by lending loans to them, so that they can produce more food. With a stronger workforce, these countries will then have the capability to participate in world trade. Third world countries can later return these loans to first world countries through yearly instalments. With the participation of third world countries in world trade, each nation is bound to benefit. In this way, globalisation will then have a fairer impact on countries. There will no longer be extremes in food security problems.
Yours,
The Environmental & Health Expert
serene!
The Day After Tomorrow - Where Will You Be?
Globalisation - how are the different aspects at work? This post will be examining how cultural and environmental globalisation has worked together to impact upon the world through various forms of media. It will be illustrating the close relationship between environmental and cultural globalisation through an example, which is the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". The Day After Tomorrow is a science-fiction movie made in 2004 which shows catastrophic consequences of global warming and boasts high-end special effects. It is a very good example to show how environmental issues can be packaged into forms of media to be broadcasted around the world, raising awareness, and at the same time, provide global entertainment.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808417410/details
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/blockbuster/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1076/is_3_47/ai_n13664920
"What if we are on the brink of a new Ice Age? This is the question that haunts climatologist Jack Hall. Hall’s research indicates that global warming could trigger an abrupt and catastrophic shift in the planet’s climate. While Jack warns the White House of the impending climate shift, his 17 year-old son Sam finds himself trapped in New York City where he and some friends have been competing in a high school academic competition. He must now cope with the severe flooding and plummeting temperatures in Manhattan. Having taken refuge inside the Manhattan Public Library, Sam manages to reach his father by phone. Jack only has time for one warning: stay inside at all costs. As full-scale, massive evacuations to the south begin, Jack heads north to New York City to save Sam. But not even Jack is prepared for what is about to happen--to him, to his son, and to his planet. "
Generally, this is a short description of "The Day After Tomorrow" by Yahoo Movie News. The movie places emphasis on several issues: refusal of USA to sign the Kyoto Protocol, effects of climate change, urging of the public to save the environment. This movie is a 'product' of cultural and environmental globalisation working hand in hand to raise awareness in the midst of global entertainment. Crucial environmental issues were embedded in the movie, before it was packaged and sold to the world cinema. "The Day After Tomorrow" serves a very useful tool in climate change communication via the media on the general public. Worldwide, "The Day After Tomorrow" received very popular response and is the 38th most grossing film of all time, with a revenue of US$542,771,772.
In my opinion, several aspects of globalisation are at work in the course of the production of this movie. Before, during and after the showing period of this movie, we can constantly see a merging of technological, cultural and environmental globalisation.
- Technological globalisation is the increase in information flows between geographically remote locations. It is said to bring about the 'shrinking' of the world and increased telecommunication without the need for transportation.
- Cultural globalisation is growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture".
- Environmental globalisation is the examination of global environmental challenges that can only be solved through international cooperation, such as climate change, pollution, as well as the spread and development of diseases and medicine.
Cultural globalisation takes place as there is the rise of a global culture. Entertainment made by a nation is not only enjoyed in the nation, but also around the world. Cultural globalisation leads to cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture". "The Day After Tomorrow" received popular response around the world and is the 38th most grossing film of all time, with a revenue of US$542,771,772. Therefore this shows that there is a desire for people to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas.
Environmental globalisation is expressed in the movie as the movie examines the seriousness of climate change and its consequences. The movie highlights the seriousness of climate change which is a form of environmental globalisation. For example, there was a scene where Jack Hall, the protagonist was giving a presentation to a conference on "global warming" in New Delhi, India. Jack told the story of the 1,300 year long Younger Dryas cold climate period of the ninth millennium BC in the Northern Hemisphere to a skeptical audience, including the Vice President of the United States, who dismissed the possibility of such an event recurring. This scene was intentively placed in the movie to direct criticism at politicians concerning the Kyoto Protocol and climate change. Climate change is a form of environmental globalisation as it is a major environmental challenge which can only be solved through international cooperation. Therefore there are actually traces of environmental globalisation at work, even in movies. Therefore from the example of "The Day After Tomorrow", we can see that movies can be used to carry messages about environmental globalisation, in this case, specifically climate change.
My Reflections
"The Day After Tomorrow" is, in my opinion, a very meaningful movie. This is because the movie is designed in such a way that it provides global entertainment and sparks public concern about the environment at the same time. People from various nations around the world can view this US production and at the same time, witness for themselves consequences of climate change. This might actually trigger their concern for the environment and inspire them to play a part to save the Earth.
The movie attacks powerfully on the refusal of several world leaders to sign the Kyoto Protocol and expresses the consequences of climate change in a very aggressive way. Throughout the movie, there is a subplot involving the refusal of the Vice President of the United States to accept the threat of global warming despite increasingly extreme weather conditions occurring around the world. He insists that preventive measures will instead do too much damage to the economy. Is a similar situation not happening in our world today? Has US President Mr George W. Bush agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol? Has he not proclaimed that signing the Kyoto Protocol would mean the loss of millions of jobs Has he not complained about how it will affect the US economy? Has the White House not doubted the existence in global warming? The answers to these questions are clear. The US is not keen to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
On the other hand, although the movie is believed to be an inaccurate description of climate change, scientists have also highlight that climatic temperatures are indeed changing. The changing temperatures of the climate will not do us good. 2007 is said to be the hottest year in recorded history. A warmer climate will encourage the thriving of microorganisms which might be lead to the rise of new diseases. Moreover, I believe that although the film is said to be inaccurate, it has brought up the idea that if we do not do something now, it might be too late for us to save the environment. In the film, Dennis Quaid, the protagonist scientist of the movie, warns the US Vice President that "if we don't act now it will be too late." However, the US Vice President has not heeded his advice and soon later Manhattan It has shown moviegoers that some politicians might have underestimated the power of Nature to bring about climatic changes. Again, this draws attention to Canada and the US, which have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore I find that the film is worth watching due to the meaning underlying the film.
Also, I've read on the Net that a survey was conducted to find out why people chose to watch this movie. 37% of the respondents mentioned that they watched this movie as they wish to witness for themselves the effects of climate change, which might possibly happening to us in a century. I find this study interesting as it shows that there are people concerned about the state of the environment, yet it also shows that there are not that many Earthlings aware of the state of the environment.
Therefore in conclusion, I would like to say that I really like this movie, as it is indeed one of its kind. There are few movies of its kind in modern age, which carry messages of saving the environment. Thus it has provided me with new insight as to how movies can convey important messages, such as criticism against certain world leaders and the importance of conserving the environment. Also, it has allowed me to understand how different 'forces' of globalisation can work together. So, if you have the time, go catch that movie. You will be able to gain valuable insight.
Yours,
The Environmental & Health Expert
serene!