Sun 7 Mar 2004

The overweight pay a heavy price for confusing size with quality

GERARD DE GROOT

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.co...fm?id=266952004

WOODY Allen used to tell a joke about two elderly Jewish women lunching in a New York restaurant. "This food is disgusting," the first one says, halfway through her meal. "Yes, it’s the worst food I’ve ever eaten," the other replies. "And such small portions."

I was reminded of that joke when I heard that McDonald’s was phasing out its ‘supersize’ portions, in response to pressure from the health lobby. Of all the complaints levelled against McDonald’s, no one has ever moaned that the portions are too small - rather the opposite. Personally, I’ve never been able to understand the fuss about ‘supersize’: why do people want big servings of such disgusting food?

Huge portions are a reflection of our tendency to confuse size and quality. It’s not just big burgers. Over the last few years we’ve also demanded automobiles of a size previously appropriate only to the military. Books are also expanding. Ever notice how each Harry Potter novel is bigger than the previous one? JK Rowling’s next instalment might have to carry a health warning: ‘This book should not be read by small children as it could crush them.’

The thing about size is that it makes the advertiser’s job easy. While real quality is subjective, size is indisputable. As a result, the worth of a product tends nowadays to be measured by its weight or girth. (Which explains why plastic surgeons are doing so well and spammers bombard me with advertisements for miracle potions designed to make the woman in my life happy).

Like so many ills of today’s society, the cult of bigness has American origin. Nowhere is this more evident than with food, which is why McDonald’s currently finds itself in a pickle. Travel the American West, and you inevitably come across restaurants peddling 78oz steaks. Eat the whole thing (along with baked potato, salad, and desert) and you don’t have to pay for it. You also get your name on an honour roll - gluttony venerated in perpetuity.

Recently, big food has crossed the Atlantic. While we’re still a long way from the 78oz steak, there’s no doubting that British portions have expanded. Muffins, which used to be smaller than a lemon, are now the size of a grapefruit. (Those concerned about the size can, however, buy a big tub of mini-muffins.) Order a large latte and you get a cup with two handles that could easily double as a Jacuzzi. Ever notice how no one sells ‘small’ drinks? At Costa Coffee, cups come in primo, medio and massimo. What ever happened to piccolo?

Big food leads inexorably to big people. A Big Mac with a medium order of fries and a medium Coke contains 1,260 calories, 55 grams of fat and 165 grams of carbohydrate. Upgrade to ‘supersize’ and throw in an apple turnover and the calorie count for that meal alone approaches the recommended amount for an entire day.

In Britain, one in four women and one in five men are officially fat. This places enormous pressure on the NHS, which spends huge amounts treating illnesses which are entirely avoidable if only people would eat sensibly. Faced with an obesity time bomb, the government has reacted like a headless chicken, wildly running around the barnyard trying to find someone to blame. Advertisers and food producers have both been lambasted, but only occasionally have ministers criticised the overeaters. That’s understandable, given that no one wants to insult a potential voter. There’s been a lot of hand-wringing, but nothing resembling a coherent long-term plan.

According to a study released last week, Hull is the fat capital of Britain. Of the top ten obese cities, most were in the north of England, which is grist to the mill for those who connect obesity with poverty. The journalist Will Hutton argued last month that ‘obesity is driven by inequality ... the rise in inequality over the last two decades has more to do with the rise in obesity than any of the litany of causes cited in our media’. To prove his point, he provided statistics showing that an unskilled woman over 16 is twice as likely to be obese than her professional counterpart.

The leanest city in Britain is Kingston upon Thames, where the cucumber sandwich is king. While there’s no disputing that poor people are more likely to be overweight than rich people, the explanation remains elusive. There’s certainly no evidence that a low calorie diet need be any more expensive than a high calorie one. In fact, the things which make us fat - crisps, sweets and highly processed convenience meals - are a lot more expensive than nutritious, low calorie foods. An apple is still cheaper than a Mars bar.

The really strange thing about the current connection between obesity and poverty is that it reverses what has been the case throughout history. Until very recently, only the wealthy could afford to be fat. Take any photo of working people in the early part of the last century and you struggle to find anyone remotely overweight. In the Great War, around 40% of men had to be rejected for military service because they were malnourished. Among those who enlisted, a large proportion grew a couple of inches and added a stone in weight as a result of an Army diet.

In other words, the obesity epidemic is in part the result of rising living standards. Even at the lowest rungs of society, there’s more money available and therefore more to spend on food. No one would ever advocate a return to conditions prevalent in 1914, when low income meant low weight. But, while it is good that food budgets have risen, it is unfortunate that eating standards have not kept pace. Ever-increasing amounts of money are spent on food which does us harm. Too many of us confuse size with quality.

For some reason, a poor person is less likely to resist a McDonald’s supersize meal than a rich person. At the heart of this problem is self-esteem, which explains why it’s quite difficult to find a fat person in Kingston upon Thames. For the poor, food provides comfort. But the solution does not lie in restricting access to fattening food. If obesity is indeed related to low self-esteem, it does no good to treat the overweight like children and restrict their access to big portions. Eating must remain a matter of choice. The public can be encouraged to eat well, but it can never be prevented from eating badly. The idea that McDonald’s is to blame for the fact that we are fat implies that we need not take responsibility for our own lives.

A few years ago, Radio Four ran a delightful series called something like Advice My Mother Gave Me. I remember two bits of wisdom about food. A woman recalled how her mother said that if she found herself in an unhygienic restaurant she should order a bottle of beer and a hard-boiled egg, since no one could get their fingers in that food. The other piece of advice has relevance to those who crave big burgers and colossal cakes: never eat anything bigger than your head.