Elissa V.
It turns out obesity isn't just dangerous to your health, but it's also contributing to global warming. A research team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine says overweight and obese people are consuming more resources because of the amount of food they eat and the excess fuel that is needed to transport them – a lifestyle that is taking its toll on the planet. Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts, the London School's researchers, say that the growing levels of obesity are causing more food shortages and higher energy prices. It's estimated that at least 400 million adults worldwide are currently obese, and the World Health Organization projects 2.3 billion adults will be overweight and more than 700 million will be obese by 2015. If people subscribed to a "global warming diet" – more exercise, smaller portions – their health and the planet's would improve greatly.
The payoffs are huge, although unlikely to happen. One numbers-crunching scientist calculates that if all Americans between 10 and 74 walked just half an hour a day instead of driving, they would cut the annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by 64 million tons. – CNN
Other than exercise, another effective method of curbing obesity and global warming is by altering one's diet. Limiting red meat intake can have a substantial effect considering Americans eat 1.6 times more meat than health experts recommend. Meat production also sucks up more energy and resources – and causes more pollution – than fruit, grain and vegetable farming.
Recent studies support that argument. Last year the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that the meat sector of the global economy is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Much of that is indirect, including the fertilizer needed to grow massive amounts of feed for livestock, energy use in the whole growing process, methane released from fertilizer and animal manure, and transportation of the cattle and meat products. – CNN
Unfortunately, motivating the masses to alter their exercise and eating habits is an extremely challenging task. And in many cases, it just comes down to cold, hard cash. Overly processed foods high in calories and low in nutritional value are consistently cheaper than the healthier alternatives, and the US government's misdirected farm bill seems to make an already bad situation worse. 
The latest five-year plan for agricultural subsidies and food stamps recently expired, and the revised version was recently vetoed by President Bush. Wealthy farmers seem to be the only ones who have and would continue to benefit from the bill while the poor struggle with malnutrition and hunger as food prices rise. Then there was the monumental error by lawmakers – Congress accidentally left out a 34-page section of the bill when it was sent to the White House for approval – but Bush still intends to veto the edited bill despite the unsurprising override of his original veto by the House of Representatives.
As negotiators work to reconcile the bills and close the $10-billion gap, they're fighting ferociously over one of the more obscene line items in the Senate's version: a new $5-billion disaster-assistance program intended to help growers whose crops are destroyed by drought or flood. In practice, this would simply encourage farmers to plant in drought-prone areas, knowing the government will bail them out if their crops fail. It also would encourage them to farm on environmentally sensitive land now being held in the Conservation Reserve Program – mostly poor farmland that otherwise would be considered too risky for planting. The way the negotiations are proceeding, it's looking as if the nutrition budget will be cut in order to pay for this environmentally destructive handout. – The Los Angeles Times
Despite the 300 billion dollar bill's good intentions – public nutrition, land stewardship, biofuel development – it has failed to properly address the national food crisis in an effective way (not to mention its imperfect biofuels plan). For the first time since Bush has come into office, he is actually saying something that makes sense: "At a time of high food prices and record farm income, this bill lacks program reform and fiscal discipline," he said. "When commodity prices are at record highs, it is irresponsible to increase government subsidy rates." If a proper farm bill could be constructed that actually helped the farmers that need to be helped while also improving nutrition for Americans, perhaps the obesity epidemic would no longer be such a contributor to global warming. It appears unlikely that our government leaders will revise the farm bill – at least not enough to make a significant difference – and corn will once again remain king in the US. Eat up. Further Reading:
