In recent decades, obesity has reached epidemic proportions in populations whose
environments offer an abundance of calorie-rich foods and few opportunities for physi-
cal activity. Although changes in the genetic makeup of populations occur too slowly to
be responsible for this rapid rise in obesity, genes do play a role in the development of
obesity. (http://www.cdc.gov/features/obesity)Usually, as quoted above, the genetic factor is seen as a result from a past
in which periods without food were much more common than periods with
abundant food. Therefore, humanities “past adaptations that are now inap-
propriate given the modern milieu” (Power & Schulkin, 2009,p. 40).
Geneticists tend to feel differently. In a “head to head” section ofBMJ,
Timothy Frayling, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of
Exeter, claims that genetic factors outweigh the environmental ones. Using
an analogy to illustrate his argument he states that “if everyone inhaled the
same amount of cigarette smoke every day, the strongest risk factor for
lung cancer would be genetic susceptibility to the adverse effects of cigar-
ette smoke” (Frayling, 2012a;see alsoRuppel Shell, 2003; Wardle, Carnell,
Haworth, & Plomin, 2008). He also points to twin and adoption studies
which show consistently that variation in BMI has a strong genetic compo-
nent, with estimated effects of up to 70%. Later, correcting an error in the
original contribution, he also provides another empirical argument:
“Inactivity in children did not precede increases in percentage body fat, but
increased body fat percentage did precede reduced physical activity”
(Frayling, 2012b). Along a similar lineTaubes (2007, 2011)has argued that
the obesity expert’s argumentpeople are fat because they eat more
could just as well be turned around: people eat more because they are fat.
The scientific discussions on the causes of obesity are highly socially and
politically relevant. Some causes can be more easily translated into policy
proposals than others. If one opts for genes as the major causal factor,
than it is hard to see what interventions are possible to cure or prevent
obesity. Therefore, in policy documents and interventions proposals invari-
ably the imbalance in energy consumption is seen as the individual cause,
which is aggravated by an obesogenic environment. At least from this
dominant public health perspective obesity can be seen as a curable and
preventable disease.
The above widely accepted explanation offers several possible interven-
tions. One author, for instance, focusing on the environment suggests that
“Policies, laws and regulations are often needed to drive the environmental
and social changes that, eventually, will have a sustainable impact on redu-
cing obesity. An ‘obesity impact assessment’ on legislation such as public
liability, urban planning, transport, food safety, agriculture, and trade may
Obesity as Disease and Deviance 127