Are Americans really obese?

We have all heard it: America is obese. We are an obese nation; this notion can be attributed to Surgeon General David Satcher. Satcher identified the problem of America having the largest international body mass index (BMI) in 2001. In 2001, many medical professionals believed that a person’s obesity can be calculated through their BMI, a system that calculates the ratio of a person’s height and weight (Surgeon General). However, this is no longer the case. The acceptance of the BMI system is faltering because it is heavily flawed. It is gender and age specific in children under 15, it uses the same criteria across the board for all men and women, and the system cannot differentiate between fat and muscle. For over a decade, medical professionals passed these flaws off as minor because there was no better alternative system. But, realizing that a flawed system cannot keep being incorporated into American medical history, scientists are striving to find other methods that will accurately measure obesity. Since the BMI system is clearly not effective, many people are beginning to wonder whether or not Americans are in fact as overweight as the BMI system said they were in 2001.

The Surgeon General and his team defined America’s obesity by the BMI system which measures the amount of fat, the flabby tissue that gives a person their out of shape appearance, a person has in comparison to their height and weight; “BMI is calculated as weight in pounds divided by the square of the height in inches, multiplied by 703. Alternatively, BMI can be calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of the hight in meters (The Lancet).” Although the system is faulty in some areas, medical professionals deem it an accurate method of measurement primarily based upon the fact that there is no other system of obesity measurement that has been universally accepted. A BMI over 25 is considered to be overweight, signaling that a person has more fat than he or she is supposed to have. When the Surgeon General made his announcement in 2001, Americans were considered to be overweight with a cumulative BMI of approximately 41.5.

But, the BMI system has various limitations that were not taken into account during the Surgeon General’s announcement. These limitations prevent doctors from accurately providing an exact obesity rating. In adolescents, obesity is defined as age and gender specific or, as anyone ranking above the 95th percentile range in the CDC BMI-for-age-growth charts. These charts easily identifies a child’s BMI by comparing their height and weight growth yearly. A child’s percentile ranking is relative to the ranking of other growing adolescents in the same age and gender grouping. These charts not only help assess growing children who are overweight, but also underweight. Each child is measured with these charts by their doctors during their yearly physical.

Research has proven that although the BMI measurements claim to measure body fat, it does not do so as directly as people think. For example, the system can overestimate the amount of fat in a person(s) who is muscular and underestimate the amount of a person(s) who have lost muscle mass, such as the elderly. It does not make any difference to the BMI system whether you are a 21 year-old olympic athlete or a 75 year-old, immobile man (BMI Not Accurate). Prime examples of the BMI system mistakenly classifying people are basketball star Kobe Bryant and actor Brad Pitt, none of whom appear to be overweight. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a body builder, was categorized into the highest level of obesity due to the amount of muscle mass he retains (Devlin). With clearly faulty classifications such as these, how can we trust the system?

The blatantly defective evidence that disproves the BMI system leads to the question of whether or not America really was the most obese nation in 2001 as previously stated by the Surgeon General and if it is still on the track towards chronic obesity. According to a 2004 study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, calculating a persons’ waist circumference (WC) as opposed to their BMI is a better predictor of obesity risk and illnesses that come with being overweight than the BMI system. LiveStrong.com article Alternatives to BMI confirms this theory by stating that measuring the natural waist can give an almost accurate indication of the amount of abdominal fat a person contains. Women with WC of 35 inches or more and men with a WC of 40 inches or more are considered to be risk factors (Holley, Casey). People who are in the “risky range” are more likely to develop side effects of obesity such as diabetes and heart failure. The WC is as simple as measuring a person’s belt size; to make it more accurate, doctors factor in other elements of a patient’s medical history. This enables them to find out what diseases each individual person is capable of developing. WC is more effective than the BMI because it calculates a person on an individual scale, not the wide ranged scale that is used for the BMI. Although these studies are not yet widely approved by national medical professionals, they are quickly on their way to being approved and providing a better method of calculating how obese a person is.

Regardless of the actuality of the Surgeon General’s announcement in 2001, Americans have begun to work towards becoming less obese. Government programs have tried to make sure the US does not remain the world’s fattest nation. The government has involved itself by helping maintain and lower obesity levels in Americans. There has been an increase in the amount of private intervention being put out by privately owned companies and non-profit organizations. This is commonly known as government intervention, or actions taken by the government in order to affect the decisions made by individuals on either economic or social matters.

However, due to the fact that people highly value their privacy and ability to make their own decisions, government intervention into the personal lives of the public is constantly being questioned. Many people do not like government officials telling them what is good for them, how to enforce good eating habits to their children, and even telling school systems what can or cannot be served for lunch. The government has already involved itself into the lives of Americans; they have done this so much and so well that people hardly notice it anymore. For example the federal government constantly intervenes in the lives of Americans by installing traffic lights, setting curfew laws, and creating school curriculums. But, when the Surgeon General made his announcement about obesity, many people rejected early attempts of regulating the nations obesity levels. Weight, is a personal issue and for a while, a great deal of people felt that it was too personal for government intervention they do not want to be told that they are too fat by someone who is not a doctor. However, over time, people have become more aware and accustomed to the obesity epidemic, primarily to both government and private intervention.

One major issue with the government trying to reduce and maintain the current levels of obesity in America is the fact that their intervention would have to surpass the economic states of some areas of the countries. People residing in low-income areas tend to maintain higher obesity levels due to the simple fact that eating healthy is expensive. In most low-income places, a 12 pack of Cosmic Brownies is equivalent to the price of about two packages of grapes. So, naturally, to save money, people tend to eat more fattening foods.  In places such as this, there is also less money being given to school districts where there are less healthy alternatives for students to eat during lunch and snack time. The government, along with many private companies and non-profit organizations have been pushing for more natural grown foods in schools, such as fruits and vegetables, and healthier options to be provided for students, pretzels as opposed to cookies. Many companies have been donating money to get healthier options for students to eat and providing money for these options to become more accessible and affordable. Leading Medical Journal, The Lancet, states the government should be responsible for making healthy foods cheaper and affordable stating that they should be easily accessible at both private and public schools along with public universities. So, a possibility to increase health the over all health in the general public would be to produce cheaper produce and for the government to fund more home-grown produce, such as establishing new farms and giving money to already existing ones. If fresh produce is more affordable, there is a possibility that they will become more desirable and regularly consumed. An issue with this would be that this idea would be opposing foreign trade and would be slightly more costly.

One of the toughest forms of intervention is trying to influence the private sphere of people. The private sphere is a space known only to the person who possesses it; it contains their thoughts, desires and knowledge. Republicans feel that there should be little to no government involvement into this realm while Democrats feel that there should be a great deal of intervention. But with an issue such as obesity, something needs to be done. Bureaucrats cannot sit down with every family during every meal to make sure good eating habits are being enforced and proper exercise routines are being followed.  One possible way of doing this, according Kersh and Monroe, is to create an even stronger sense of social disapproval. The idea is to alter the current social atmosphere and have fast food chains, and other fattening foods, be thought of as highly unacceptable and even detrimental to the overall health of a person. Supersize Me, a documentary study about McDonald’s and other fast corporations, has already given out a simple form of social disapproval: fast food makes you fat. Since the documentary was released, there has been a dramatic chance in the way the fast food industry was run.

Almost immediately after the documentary was released, it became a common belief that eating at restaurants such as McDonald’s and Taco Bell were one of the key factors that played a role in American obesity. Contrary to this popular and often substantive belief, not all fast food restaurants are as detrimental to a person’s weight as previously believed. McDonald’s is a prime example of this. Ever since the movie Super Size Me was released in 2004, exposing the dangers of a “super sized (Super Size Me),” or extra-large, meal, McDonald’s has moved away from its long, publicly given title of the most unhealthy fast food establishment. While the movie helped change a great deal about McDonald’s and numerous other fast food establishments, they did not do all the work that has ranked McDonald’s 8th out of the top ten healthiest fast food establishments, according to a consensus produced by Health Magazine (Health Mag.). Other fast food chains such as Wendy’s or Taco Bell do not even make the cut. The magazine sent out a team of researchers to survey 100 fast food places, and scored them on factors such as the use of healthy fats and sodium counts, the availability of nutritional facts (which was previously hard to find in fast food chains), and the use of organic and natural produce. The article states that the once thought of as unhealthy restaurant is paving the way for other fast food industries in the currently “heart- and waist-friendly (Health Mag.)” society. One of the establishment’s most popular new techniques that has been incorporated into other establishments is the option to have a side of fruit with every happy meal instead of french fries. And, if you must have the fries, their french fries are baked in CDA approved heart-healthy canola oil. Also, the chain offers low-calorie options such as snack wraps which consist of a mere 260 calories (Health Mag.).

So, they suggest that another positive form of influence to public behavior can be achieved through medical-science which means allowing people to know facts about being overweight and what it means to be physically fit. According to the two, the facts do not have to be entirely accurate; the idea is to convey the true message that being overweight is not good and will soon be socially unacceptable. Also, people should be able to get help outside of the gym, according to the authors, who want there to be group meetings similar to meetings set up for drug addicts. The demon user/ industry effect is to influence Americans to feel like people who eat poorly and industries that promote poor health habits are “demons,” or inherently bad. Surprisingly, it is easier than it seems to put a demonic spin on negative foods. In 2009, leading expert in childhood obesity Robert Lusting’s lecture, “Sugar: the Bitter Truth,” got over 800 thousand views on YouTube with a viewer growth rate of approximately 50 thousand views a month. The hour and a half long speech persuasively lists sugar as a toxin and a poison and often refers to it as evil. Toxic sugar is not only the common white household substance, scientifically known as sucrose, but also high-fructose corn syrup, which Lusting calls the “most demonizing addictive known to man (Taubes, Gary).” Not only does sugar provide consumers with empty calories, calories that provide no nutritional value, but can cause numerous health issues such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes. However, this is not to say that people should not be eating positive sugars: the sugars that come from fruits, vegetables and whole grains that provide antioxidants, energy and often enzymes that encourage a natural boost in metabolism, leading to weight loss. Foods that contain toxic sugars, such as anything processed, from a fast food restaurant, and many desserts should be avoided. Since Americans have acknowledged their growing obesity problem, there has been a rapid increase in the over all health of the American Public and a decline in the nations average BMI.

However, most of the sugars that were attacked by Lusting in his lecture are incorporated into fast foods and other processed goods. Yet, it is not useful to place all the blame of weight gain onto one food. While Lusting suggests and enforces the idea of cutting out sugar entirely, the Dietitians Association of Australia does not recommend this at all. In their medical journal entry Sugar: not so toxic,  they state that when it comes to sugar, men and women should try to eat it in moderation and limit their intake of foods high in added sugar and low in nutritional value such as soda and candy (DAA). If you have not seen the commercials proclaiming the goodness of high fructose corn syrup, then you should. Aside from their comical attributes, they are not wrong. What was conventionally known to be bad for your body, and toxic, according to Lusting, is far from it. Promoted by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the attempts to get high fructose corn syrup out of the toxic range are surprisingly being supported by the American Medical Association which recently announced that corn syrup does not contribute to obesity (McLaughlin, Lisa).

According to a study conducted by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet, as a follow-up to the study produced by the Surgeon General in 2001, when modern international BMIs are compared, America is not even in the top 10 fattest nations. America has lost its perviously held number one spot to the small nation of Nauru. Over the last decade or so, the push for government intervention and personal motivation to get fit, and healthy has paid off. While American men are rated 10th on the international BMI scale, American women are ranked 36th with a BMI of 28.7. This is proof that, obesity can be sustained and maintained at its current levels and even prevented for the future. The truth is, it is very hard to influence the public and personal sphere of America. But, if it is reached, it is possible that obesity can be maintained at its current levels and even possibly decreased and one day stopped.

Although many aspects of American society are getting healthier: McDonald’s has become a considerably healthy establishment, the last fifteen years or so has seen a spike in the organic and natural foods industry and, in part due to First Lady Michelle Obama’s “get fit” programs, it has become increasingly more important for Americans to exercise and consume healthier foods and yet, in 2011, obesity rates increased in 16 states and the rates did not decline in any state (F as in Fat). According to F as in Fat: How obesity threatens America’s future 2011, a report from Trusts for Americans Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), 12 states  now have obesity rates above 30 percent; merely four years ago, only one state had a percent ranking that high. Shocked by these statistics the report examined exactly how obesity has grown over the  past two decades (F as in Fat). Twenty years ago, no state had an obesity rating of above 15 percent. This year, in contrast, 38 out of the 50 US states produced obesity ratings of over 25 percent. For the 7th year in a row, Mississippi has maintained its leading spot as the number one state with the highest level of adult obesity (F as in Fat). The report noted that the fastest growing obesity levels reside in the south: Alabama and Tennessee have experienced intensified rates; this year, the slowest growing levels occurred in Washington DC, Colorado and Connecticut. The highest obesity rates remain in racial and ethnic minority adults, along with low-income families (F as in Fat).

While it might seem like Americans are becoming more obese, many public health experts disagree. Since the Surgeon General’s first analysis of American obesity, not enough time has passed to correctly analyze recent data (Rochman).  Although obesity rates are not declining, these numbers have nothing to do with the efforts made to prevent future obesity. This does not mean that an individual’s personal goals and efforts to obtain their dream weight are not working. Dr. William Dietz, director of the division of nutrition for the CDC, claims that efforts to ward off obesity are in fact working fine. Comparing the anti obesity efforts to the 1950 anti-smoking efforts when medical professionals released the conclusive evidence about the link between smoking and cancer, the doctor asserts that for approximately 15 years, smoking rates remained at a plateau and even increased for sometime (Rochman). It is the same concept with tackling the issue of obesity in America: it needs time and further developed tactics to achieve reduced levels. Ironically, these medical professionals are basing their evidence off of a faulty scale for evaluating a person’s body fat percentage.

If the BMI system is clearly flawed and there are other better and more efficient methods of measuring the percentage of a person’s body fat, why are doctors still using it? If a person cannot accurately measure their actual fat percentage, how can we assume that America was at one time the world’s fattest nation? While it is clear that alternative methods to the BMI system are not yet medically accepted, it is also clear that to keep using the BMI system would not be beneficial towards the medical community in any means. The only absolute proof that has come from the realization that the BMI system is heavily flawed is the notion that America may in fact not be as obese as though of by the world’s populations. It is important that medical professionals continue to test alternative theories so that the public can be provided with a more reliable method of calculating a person’s body fat percentage. Based on the fact that the nation’s current obesity levels were raked based on a system that is not accurate, it is impossible to accurately identify whether or not Americans are actually getting fatter or fitter.

Bibliography

1. 1. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60815-5/fulltext

This is a segment of a four part study that was produced by The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal. It examines what was known about obesity, at the time the study was conducted, the economic and health burdens of obesity, the psychology behind it and the actions that need to be taken to prevent and end it. Although there are already some preventive methods such as “get fit plans,” the efforts have not even begun. Researchers have calculated the effects of behavior and different levels of policy intervention to come up with a preventative method to global obesity. Such include factors that will “..improve the food and built environments, cross-cutting actions (such as leadership, healthy public policies, and monitoring), and much greater funding for prevention programmes. Increased investment in population obesity monitoring would improve the accuracy of forecasts and evaluations. The integration of actions within existing systems into both health and non-health sectors (trade, agriculture, transport, urban planning, and development) can greatly increase the influence and sustainability of policies.”

1. 1. http://www.livescience.com/11825-global-obesitiy-united-states-ranking.html

This article discusses a study produced byThe Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, that proves that America is not the world’s fattest nation.For years, Americans have been believing that they have been living in the world’s most obese country but, according to a study conducted by one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, America was never even in the top ten of the world’s fattest nations. America is just the worlds most industrialized nation, home to many fast food chains and large portion sizes; there are a significant number of fatter nations that have become this way due to the sudden introduction of American based products such as fast food chains and other processed food items. Obesity is measured through the body-mass-index (BMI), a system that calculates the amount of fat a person should have compared to their weight and height. The BMI states that anyone with a BMI over 25 is considered overweight. The Average BMI for the USA as a whole is 28.4, ranked 20th internationally. A noticeable decrease in the amount of overweight American women was acknowledged throughout the study. (Could this be due to media spins? Are they in fact having a positive impact on society, as opposed to the negative image “being thin” currently has?:: a section of my counterintuitive note)But, unfortunately, while the BMI for the American population has dropped substantially, it is not enough to say that America is slimming down. Sadly, the rest of the world is merely getting fatter.

1. 1. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=105&sid=d05aa923-e130-47e9-baab-f4e2278bcdf2%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=62664380

This source was found through a quick search on Academic Search Premier. The article discusses BMC Public Health’s main goal: the discussion of how childhood obesity is a prominent issue. Childhood obesity effects not only a child throughout his or her childhood, but follows them for years to come. Thats why, according to the article, preventing obesity early on is very important. The research team established a prevention method, STOPP which was based on a similar Swedish program, CHH, combats creating a balanced diet, encouraging physical activity, and evenly distributed sleeping patterns.

1. 1. http://www.scarsdalediet.com/

The Scarsdale Diet was created by cardiologist Dr. Herman Tarnower and is one of the most effective international diet plans that allows users to loose up to 20 lbs in two weeks. It is a healthier alternative to other popular plans such as Atkins because it includes what they consider to be “complex carbohydrates” such as bread and fruit. The basis is healthy eating: limiting your intake of most carbs and eliminating others. The diet works by using a strict two week diet plan, and considerable exercise, followed by a week span of not dieting.

1. 1. http://www.letsmove.gov/

First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move Program” focuses on getting kids to get out and get active. She targets healthy eating, as well. Her program is centered through TV networks favored by children across America such as the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. The idea is to influence American children at a young age of healthy alternatives.

1. 1. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/6/142.full

The article, written by Rogan Kersh and James Monroe, describes the politics of obesity and the seven steps that the government should take to prevent it. Despite previous thoughts, the American government has always been highly involved with the regulation of obesity. It is not just a recent phenomena. In 2001, Surgeon General David Satcher’s called for the American government and public to help fight obesity by saying that the obesity rate has reached epidemic proportions. The problem with fighting obesity is that, unlike other health problems, it comes from private behavior. So, the government was faced with an issue: how can they influence the public sphere? (counterintuitive note). According to the article, you can control private, personal environments through social disapproval, medical-science, self help, media spins, and the demon user and industry concepts. Another way the government can help prevent and maintain obesity is through mass movements in the political sphere, such as the introduction of more interest group action.

F as in Fat. “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2011.” – Trust for America’s Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Etc. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://www.healthyamericans.org/report/88/>.

This source discusses a study that provides information about how obesity in America has been altered over the past couple of years. Over all, it has been discovered that Americans are not as obese as they were in 2001 when the Surgeon General made his announcement that America had an obesity epidemic. It has become clear that the nations population has actually become more obese than a decade ago, according to data provided by the study.

Rochman, Bonnie, Maia Szalavitz, and Alice Park. “CDC: U.S. Obesity Rates Plateau Overall, But Men and Boys Are Getting Fatter | Healthland | TIME.com.” Time. Time. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/17/u-s-obesity-rates-remain-stubbornly-high

The authors aim to discuss how obesity rates may appear to have gotten larger in American. The reality of this evidence, however, is that the statistics have hit a plateau due to the fact that Americans have not had enough time to generate enough statistical evidence that can prove obesity rates are declining in America. This can be compared to the non-smoking movement that occurred several decades ago; it takes time to take effect.

BMI Not Accurate Indicator Of Body Fat.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 09 Mar. 2007. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64577.php>.

The source discusses that the BMI system is not accurately reflective of modern standards for what is actually over weight as opposed to what the faulty BMI system claims. The article details a conclusive study produced by a Michigan State University research team that proved, as previously noted, BMI does not accurately calculate body fat. The major issue that occurs is that the same criteria for BMI are used for all adults of a specific gender. According to the research team, it does not make any difference to the BMI system whether you are a 21 year-old olympic athlete or a 75 year-old, immobile man. The evidence proves that when evaluating obesity, the BMI system should be used with caution. Also talked about in the article are possible alternative methods that could be used to calculate a man or woman’s obesity; none of these studies have been proven accurate, however. But, the most promising is measuring a person’s height to waist circumference which has thus far proven successful and is gaining a high medical reputation when it comes to evaluating diseases that often come as a result of obesity.

Super Size Me. Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Perf. Morgan Spurlock. Cameo, 2005.

This source is a documentary that was produced by Morgan Spurlock who voluntary set out to discover the health risks of the fast food industry. Specifically, he studied McDonald’s. Throughout his documentary, it became clear that the fast food industry of the early 2000s was not the same as we now perceive it to be. Spurlock exposed the negative health and nutritional benefits that consumers eat when ordering a big mac, the dangers of a super sized option and the way the fast food industry gets around detailing their nutritional facts. As a result of his documentary, there has been a surprising change in the fast food industry that has made food chains such as McDonald’s strive for better and healthier options.

Health Mag. “America’s Top 10 Healthiest Fast Food Places.” Health Magazine. Web. <http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411588_5,00.html>.

This article discusses a survey produced by Health Magazine that analyzed over 100 fast food establishments, narrowing them down to the top 10 healthiest places to eat at. Their criteria consisted of: the use of healthy fats and sodium counts, the availability of nutritional facts (which was previously hard to find in fast food chains), and the use of organic and natural produce. As it turns out, McDonald’s was ranked 8th on the top ten list and is not as unhealthy as people claim it to be. One of the establishment’s most popular new techniques that has been incorporated into other establishments is the option to have a side of fruit with every happy meal instead of french fries. And, if you have to have the fries, their french fries are baked in CDA approved heart-healthy canola oil. Also, the chain offers low calorie options such as snack wraps which consist of a mere 260 calories.

DAA. “Dietitians Association of Australia.” Sugar – Not so ‘toxic’. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://daa.asn.au/for-the-media/hot-topics-in-nutrition/sugar-not-so-toxic/>

The source asserts that sugar, which is popularly known as a toxic food that highly contributes to weight gain and obesity, is not as big of a risk factor as many medical professionals are claiming. This study was concluded by the Dietitians Association. In their medical journal entry Sugar: not so toxic,  they state that when it comes to sugar, men and women should try to eat it in moderation and limit their intake of foods high in added sugar and low in nutritional value such as soda and candy.

McLaughlin, Lisa. “Is High-Fructose Corn Syrup Really Good for You?” Time. Time, 17 Sept. 2008. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1841910,00.html>.

The above source argues that while high fructose corn syrup is conventionally thought of as bad for the body and the equivalent to sucrose, or sugar, it is actually nothing similar. Promoted by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the attempts to get high fructose corn syrup out of the toxic range are surprisingly being supported by the American Medical Association which recently announced that corn syrup does not contribute to obesity.

Are Americans really obese?

We have all heard it: America is obese. We are an obese nation; this notion can be attributed to Surgeon General David Satcher. Satcher identified the problem of America having the largest international body mass index (BMI) in 2001. In 2001, many medical professionals believed that a person’s obesity can be calculated through their BMI, a system that calculates the ratio of a person’s height and weight (Surgeon General). However, this is no longer the case. The acceptance of the BMI system is faltering because it is heavily flawed. It is gender and age specific in children under 15, it uses the same criteria across the board for all men and women, and the system cannot differentiate between fat and muscle. For over a decade, medical professionals passed these flaws off as minor because there was no better alternative system. But, realizing that a flawed system cannot keep being incorporated into American medical history, scientists are striving to find other methods that will accurately measure obesity. Since the BMI system is clearly not effective, many people are beginning to wonder whether or not Americans are in fact as overweight as the BMI system said they were in 2001.

The Surgeon General and his team defined America’s obesity by the BMI system which measures the amount of fat, the flabby tissue that gives a person their out of shape appearance, a person has in comparison to their height and weight; “BMI is calculated as weight in pounds divided by the square of the height in inches, multiplied by 703. Alternatively, BMI can be calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of the hight in meters (The Lancet).” Although the system is faulty in some areas, medical professionals deem it an accurate method of measurement primarily based upon the fact that there is no other system of obesity measurement that has been universally accepted. A BMI over 25 is considered to be overweight, signaling that a person has more fat than he or she is supposed to have. When the Surgeon General made his announcement in 2001, Americans were considered to be overweight with a cumulative BMI of approximately 41.5.

But, the BMI system has various limitations that were not taken into account during the Surgeon General’s announcement. These limitations prevent doctors from accurately providing an exact obesity rating. In adolescents, obesity is defined as age and gender specific or, as anyone ranking above the 95th percentile range in the CDC BMI-for-age-growth charts. These charts easily identifies a child’s BMI by comparing their height and weight growth yearly. A child’s percentile ranking is relative to the ranking of other growing adolescents in the same age and gender grouping. These charts not only help assess growing children who are overweight, but also underweight. Each child is measured with these charts by their doctors during their yearly physical.

Research has proven that although the BMI measurements claim to measure body fat, it does not do so as directly as people think. For example, the system can overestimate the amount of fat in a person(s) who is muscular and underestimate the amount of a person(s) who have lost muscle mass, such as the elderly. It does not make any difference to the BMI system whether you are a 21 year-old olympic athlete or a 75 year-old, immobile man (BMI Not Accurate). Prime examples of the BMI system mistakenly classifying people are basketball star Kobe Bryant and actor Brad Pitt, none of whom appear to be overweight. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a body builder, was categorized into the highest level of obesity due to the amount of muscle mass he retains (Devlin). With clearly faulty classifications such as these, how can we trust the system?

The blatantly defective evidence that disproves the BMI system leads to the question of whether or not America really was the most obese nation in 2001 as previously stated by the Surgeon General and if it is still on the track towards chronic obesity. According to a 2004 study conducted by The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, calculating a persons’ waist circumference (WC) as opposed to their BMI is a better predictor of obesity risk and illnesses that come with being overweight than the BMI system. LiveStrong.com article Alternatives to BMI confirms this theory by stating that measuring the natural waist can give an almost accurate indication of the amount of abdominal fat a person contains. Women with WC of 35 inches or more and men with a WC of 40 inches or more are considered to be risk factors (Holley, Casey). People who are in the “risky range” are more likely to develop side effects of obesity such as diabetes and heart failure. The WC is as simple as measuring a person’s belt size; to make it more accurate, doctors factor in other elements of a patient’s medical history. This enables them to find out what diseases each individual person is capable of developing. WC is more effective than the BMI because it calculates a person on an individual scale, not the wide ranged scale that is used for the BMI. Although these studies are not yet widely approved by national medical professionals, they are quickly on their way to being approved and providing a better method of calculating how obese a person is.

Regardless of the actuality of the Surgeon General’s announcement in 2001, Americans have begun to work towards becoming less obese. Government programs have tried to make sure the US does not remain the world’s fattest nation. The government has involved itself by helping maintain and lower obesity levels in Americans. There has been an increase in the amount of private intervention being put out by privately owned companies and non-profit organizations. This is commonly known as government intervention, or actions taken by the government in order to affect the decisions made by individuals on either economic or social matters.

However, due to the fact that people highly value their privacy and ability to make their own decisions, government intervention into the personal lives of the public is constantly being questioned. Many people do not like government officials telling them what is good for them, how to enforce good eating habits to their children, and even telling school systems what can or cannot be served for lunch. The government has already involved itself into the lives of Americans; they have done this so much and so well that people hardly notice it anymore. For example the federal government constantly intervenes in the lives of Americans by installing traffic lights, setting curfew laws, and creating school curriculums. But, when the Surgeon General made his announcement about obesity, many people rejected early attempts of regulating the nations obesity levels. Weight, is a personal issue and for a while, a great deal of people felt that it was too personal for government intervention they do not want to be told that they are too fat by someone who is not a doctor. However, over time, people have become more aware and accustomed to the obesity epidemic, primarily to both government and private intervention.

One major issue with the government trying to reduce and maintain the current levels of obesity in America is the fact that their intervention would have to surpass the economic states of some areas of the countries. People residing in low-income areas tend to maintain higher obesity levels due to the simple fact that eating healthy is expensive. In most low-income places, a 12 pack of Cosmic Brownies is equivalent to the price of about two packages of grapes. So, naturally, to save money, people tend to eat more fattening foods.  In places such as this, there is also less money being given to school districts where there are less healthy alternatives for students to eat during lunch and snack time. The government, along with many private companies and non-profit organizations have been pushing for more natural grown foods in schools, such as fruits and vegetables, and healthier options to be provided for students, pretzels as opposed to cookies. Many companies have been donating money to get healthier options for students to eat and providing money for these options to become more accessible and affordable. Leading Medical Journal, The Lancet, states the government should be responsible for making healthy foods cheaper and affordable stating that they should be easily accessible at both private and public schools along with public universities. So, a possibility to increase health the over all health in the general public would be to produce cheaper produce and for the government to fund more home-grown produce, such as establishing new farms and giving money to already existing ones. If fresh produce is more affordable, there is a possibility that they will become more desirable and regularly consumed. An issue with this would be that this idea would be opposing foreign trade and would be slightly more costly.

One of the toughest forms of intervention is trying to influence the private sphere of people. The private sphere is a space known only to the person who possesses it; it contains their thoughts, desires and knowledge. Republicans feel that there should be little to no government involvement into this realm while Democrats feel that there should be a great deal of intervention. But with an issue such as obesity, something needs to be done. Bureaucrats cannot sit down with every family during every meal to make sure good eating habits are being enforced and proper exercise routines are being followed.  One possible way of doing this, according Kersh and Monroe, is to create an even stronger sense of social disapproval. The idea is to alter the current social atmosphere and have fast food chains, and other fattening foods, be thought of as highly unacceptable and even detrimental to the overall health of a person. Supersize Me, a documentary study about McDonald’s and other fast corporations, has already given out a simple form of social disapproval: fast food makes you fat. Since the documentary was released, there has been a dramatic chance in the way the fast food industry was run.

Almost immediately after the documentary was released, it became a common belief that eating at restaurants such as McDonald’s and Taco Bell were one of the key factors that played a role in American obesity. Contrary to this popular and often substantive belief, not all fast food restaurants are as detrimental to a person’s weight as previously believed. McDonald’s is a prime example of this. Ever since the movie Super Size Me was released in 2004, exposing the dangers of a “super sized (Super Size Me),” or extra-large, meal, McDonald’s has moved away from its long, publicly given title of the most unhealthy fast food establishment. While the movie helped change a great deal about McDonald’s and numerous other fast food establishments, they did not do all the work that has ranked McDonald’s 8th out of the top ten healthiest fast food establishments, according to a consensus produced by Health Magazine (Health Mag.). Other fast food chains such as Wendy’s or Taco Bell do not even make the cut. The magazine sent out a team of researchers to survey 100 fast food places, and scored them on factors such as the use of healthy fats and sodium counts, the availability of nutritional facts (which was previously hard to find in fast food chains), and the use of organic and natural produce. The article states that the once thought of as unhealthy restaurant is paving the way for other fast food industries in the currently “heart- and waist-friendly (Health Mag.)” society. One of the establishment’s most popular new techniques that has been incorporated into other establishments is the option to have a side of fruit with every happy meal instead of french fries. And, if you must have the fries, their french fries are baked in CDA approved heart-healthy canola oil. Also, the chain offers low-calorie options such as snack wraps which consist of a mere 260 calories (Health Mag.).

So, they suggest that another positive form of influence to public behavior can be achieved through medical-science which means allowing people to know facts about being overweight and what it means to be physically fit. According to the two, the facts do not have to be entirely accurate; the idea is to convey the true message that being overweight is not good and will soon be socially unacceptable. Also, people should be able to get help outside of the gym, according to the authors, who want there to be group meetings similar to meetings set up for drug addicts. The demon user/ industry effect is to influence Americans to feel like people who eat poorly and industries that promote poor health habits are “demons,” or inherently bad. Surprisingly, it is easier than it seems to put a demonic spin on negative foods. In 2009, leading expert in childhood obesity Robert Lusting’s lecture, “Sugar: the Bitter Truth,” got over 800 thousand views on YouTube with a viewer growth rate of approximately 50 thousand views a month. The hour and a half long speech persuasively lists sugar as a toxin and a poison and often refers to it as evil. Toxic sugar is not only the common white household substance, scientifically known as sucrose, but also high-fructose corn syrup, which Lusting calls the “most demonizing addictive known to man (Taubes, Gary).” Not only does sugar provide consumers with empty calories, calories that provide no nutritional value, but can cause numerous health issues such as obesity, hypertension and diabetes. However, this is not to say that people should not be eating positive sugars: the sugars that come from fruits, vegetables and whole grains that provide antioxidants, energy and often enzymes that encourage a natural boost in metabolism, leading to weight loss. Foods that contain toxic sugars, such as anything processed, from a fast food restaurant, and many desserts should be avoided. Since Americans have acknowledged their growing obesity problem, there has been a rapid increase in the over all health of the American Public and a decline in the nations average BMI.

However, most of the sugars that were attacked by Lusting in his lecture are incorporated into fast foods and other processed goods. Yet, it is not useful to place all the blame of weight gain onto one food. While Lusting suggests and enforces the idea of cutting out sugar entirely, the Dietitians Association of Australia does not recommend this at all. In their medical journal entry Sugar: not so toxic,  they state that when it comes to sugar, men and women should try to eat it in moderation and limit their intake of foods high in added sugar and low in nutritional value such as soda and candy (DAA). If you have not seen the commercials proclaiming the goodness of high fructose corn syrup, then you should. Aside from their comical attributes, they are not wrong. What was conventionally known to be bad for your body, and toxic, according to Lusting, is far from it. Promoted by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the attempts to get high fructose corn syrup out of the toxic range are surprisingly being supported by the American Medical Association which recently announced that corn syrup does not contribute to obesity (McLaughlin, Lisa).

According to a study conducted by one of the top medical journals, The Lancet, as a follow-up to the study produced by the Surgeon General in 2001, when modern international BMIs are compared, America is not even in the top 10 fattest nations. America has lost its perviously held number one spot to the small nation of Nauru. Over the last decade or so, the push for government intervention and personal motivation to get fit, and healthy has paid off. While American men are rated 10th on the international BMI scale, American women are ranked 36th with a BMI of 28.7. This is proof that, obesity can be sustained and maintained at its current levels and even prevented for the future. The truth is, it is very hard to influence the public and personal sphere of America. But, if it is reached, it is possible that obesity can be maintained at its current levels and even possibly decreased and one day stopped.

Although many aspects of American society are getting healthier: McDonald’s has become a considerably healthy establishment, the last fifteen years or so has seen a spike in the organic and natural foods industry and, in part due to First Lady Michelle Obama’s “get fit” programs, it has become increasingly more important for Americans to exercise and consume healthier foods and yet, in 2011, obesity rates increased in 16 states and the rates did not decline in any state (F as in Fat). According to F as in Fat: How obesity threatens America’s future 2011, a report from Trusts for Americans Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), 12 states  now have obesity rates above 30 percent; merely four years ago, only one state had a percent ranking that high. Shocked by these statistics the report examined exactly how obesity has grown over the  past two decades (F as in Fat). Twenty years ago, no state had an obesity rating of above 15 percent. This year, in contrast, 38 out of the 50 US states produced obesity ratings of over 25 percent. For the 7th year in a row, Mississippi has maintained its leading spot as the number one state with the highest level of adult obesity (F as in Fat). The report noted that the fastest growing obesity levels reside in the south: Alabama and Tennessee have experienced intensified rates; this year, the slowest growing levels occurred in Washington DC, Colorado and Connecticut. The highest obesity rates remain in racial and ethnic minority adults, along with low-income families (F as in Fat).

While it might seem like Americans are becoming more obese, many public health experts disagree. Since the Surgeon General’s first analysis of American obesity, not enough time has passed to correctly analyze recent data (Rochman).  Although obesity rates are not declining, these numbers have nothing to do with the efforts made to prevent future obesity. This does not mean that an individual’s personal goals and efforts to obtain their dream weight are not working. Dr. William Dietz, director of the division of nutrition for the CDC, claims that efforts to ward off obesity are in fact working fine. Comparing the anti obesity efforts to the 1950 anti-smoking efforts when medical professionals released the conclusive evidence about the link between smoking and cancer, the doctor asserts that for approximately 15 years, smoking rates remained at a plateau and even increased for sometime (Rochman). It is the same concept with tackling the issue of obesity in America: it needs time and further developed tactics to achieve reduced levels. Ironically, these medical professionals are basing their evidence off of a faulty scale for evaluating a person’s body fat percentage.

If the BMI system is clearly flawed and there are other better and more efficient methods of measuring the percentage of a person’s body fat, why are doctors still using it? If a person cannot accurately measure their actual fat percentage, how can we assume that America was at one time the world’s fattest nation? While it is clear that alternative methods to the BMI system are not yet medically accepted, it is also clear that to keep using the BMI system would not be beneficial towards the medical community in any means. The only absolute proof that has come from the realization that the BMI system is heavily flawed is the notion that America may in fact not be as obese as though of by the world’s populations. It is important that medical professionals continue to test alternative theories so that the public can be provided with a more reliable method of calculating a person’s body fat percentage. Based on the fact that the nation’s current obesity levels were raked based on a system that is not accurate, it is impossible to accurately identify whether or not Americans are actually getting fatter or fitter.

Bibliography

1. 1. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60815-5/fulltext

This is a segment of a four part study that was produced by The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal. It examines what was known about obesity, at the time the study was conducted, the economic and health burdens of obesity, the psychology behind it and the actions that need to be taken to prevent and end it. Although there are already some preventive methods such as “get fit plans,” the efforts have not even begun. Researchers have calculated the effects of behavior and different levels of policy intervention to come up with a preventative method to global obesity. Such include factors that will “..improve the food and built environments, cross-cutting actions (such as leadership, healthy public policies, and monitoring), and much greater funding for prevention programmes. Increased investment in population obesity monitoring would improve the accuracy of forecasts and evaluations. The integration of actions within existing systems into both health and non-health sectors (trade, agriculture, transport, urban planning, and development) can greatly increase the influence and sustainability of policies.”

1. 1. http://www.livescience.com/11825-global-obesitiy-united-states-ranking.html

This article discusses a study produced byThe Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, that proves that America is not the world’s fattest nation.For years, Americans have been believing that they have been living in the world’s most obese country but, according to a study conducted by one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, America was never even in the top ten of the world’s fattest nations. America is just the worlds most industrialized nation, home to many fast food chains and large portion sizes; there are a significant number of fatter nations that have become this way due to the sudden introduction of American based products such as fast food chains and other processed food items. Obesity is measured through the body-mass-index (BMI), a system that calculates the amount of fat a person should have compared to their weight and height. The BMI states that anyone with a BMI over 25 is considered overweight. The Average BMI for the USA as a whole is 28.4, ranked 20th internationally. A noticeable decrease in the amount of overweight American women was acknowledged throughout the study. (Could this be due to media spins? Are they in fact having a positive impact on society, as opposed to the negative image “being thin” currently has?:: a section of my counterintuitive note)But, unfortunately, while the BMI for the American population has dropped substantially, it is not enough to say that America is slimming down. Sadly, the rest of the world is merely getting fatter.

1. 1. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=105&sid=d05aa923-e130-47e9-baab-f4e2278bcdf2%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=62664380

This source was found through a quick search on Academic Search Premier. The article discusses BMC Public Health’s main goal: the discussion of how childhood obesity is a prominent issue. Childhood obesity effects not only a child throughout his or her childhood, but follows them for years to come. Thats why, according to the article, preventing obesity early on is very important. The research team established a prevention method, STOPP which was based on a similar Swedish program, CHH, combats creating a balanced diet, encouraging physical activity, and evenly distributed sleeping patterns.

1. 1. http://www.scarsdalediet.com/

The Scarsdale Diet was created by cardiologist Dr. Herman Tarnower and is one of the most effective international diet plans that allows users to loose up to 20 lbs in two weeks. It is a healthier alternative to other popular plans such as Atkins because it includes what they consider to be “complex carbohydrates” such as bread and fruit. The basis is healthy eating: limiting your intake of most carbs and eliminating others. The diet works by using a strict two week diet plan, and considerable exercise, followed by a week span of not dieting.

1. 1. http://www.letsmove.gov/

First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move Program” focuses on getting kids to get out and get active. She targets healthy eating, as well. Her program is centered through TV networks favored by children across America such as the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. The idea is to influence American children at a young age of healthy alternatives.

1. 1. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/6/142.full

The article, written by Rogan Kersh and James Monroe, describes the politics of obesity and the seven steps that the government should take to prevent it. Despite previous thoughts, the American government has always been highly involved with the regulation of obesity. It is not just a recent phenomena. In 2001, Surgeon General David Satcher’s called for the American government and public to help fight obesity by saying that the obesity rate has reached epidemic proportions. The problem with fighting obesity is that, unlike other health problems, it comes from private behavior. So, the government was faced with an issue: how can they influence the public sphere? (counterintuitive note). According to the article, you can control private, personal environments through social disapproval, medical-science, self help, media spins, and the demon user and industry concepts. Another way the government can help prevent and maintain obesity is through mass movements in the political sphere, such as the introduction of more interest group action.

F as in Fat. “F as in Fat: How Obesity Threatens America’s Future 2011.” – Trust for America’s Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Etc. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://www.healthyamericans.org/report/88/>.

This source discusses a study that provides information about how obesity in America has been altered over the past couple of years. Over all, it has been discovered that Americans are not as obese as they were in 2001 when the Surgeon General made his announcement that America had an obesity epidemic. It has become clear that the nations population has actually become more obese than a decade ago, according to data provided by the study.

Rochman, Bonnie, Maia Szalavitz, and Alice Park. “CDC: U.S. Obesity Rates Plateau Overall, But Men and Boys Are Getting Fatter | Healthland | TIME.com.” Time. Time. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/17/u-s-obesity-rates-remain-stubbornly-high

The authors aim to discuss how obesity rates may appear to have gotten larger in American. The reality of this evidence, however, is that the statistics have hit a plateau due to the fact that Americans have not had enough time to generate enough statistical evidence that can prove obesity rates are declining in America. This can be compared to the non-smoking movement that occurred several decades ago; it takes time to take effect.

BMI Not Accurate Indicator Of Body Fat.” Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 09 Mar. 2007. Web. 02 Apr. 2012.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/64577.php>.

The source discusses that the BMI system is not accurately reflective of modern standards for what is actually over weight as opposed to what the faulty BMI system claims. The article details a conclusive study produced by a Michigan State University research team that proved, as previously noted, BMI does not accurately calculate body fat. The major issue that occurs is that the same criteria for BMI are used for all adults of a specific gender. According to the research team, it does not make any difference to the BMI system whether you are a 21 year-old olympic athlete or a 75 year-old, immobile man. The evidence proves that when evaluating obesity, the BMI system should be used with caution. Also talked about in the article are possible alternative methods that could be used to calculate a man or woman’s obesity; none of these studies have been proven accurate, however. But, the most promising is measuring a person’s height to waist circumference which has thus far proven successful and is gaining a high medical reputation when it comes to evaluating diseases that often come as a result of obesity.

Super Size Me. Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Perf. Morgan Spurlock. Cameo, 2005.

This source is a documentary that was produced by Morgan Spurlock who voluntary set out to discover the health risks of the fast food industry. Specifically, he studied McDonald’s. Throughout his documentary, it became clear that the fast food industry of the early 2000s was not the same as we now perceive it to be. Spurlock exposed the negative health and nutritional benefits that consumers eat when ordering a big mac, the dangers of a super sized option and the way the fast food industry gets around detailing their nutritional facts. As a result of his documentary, there has been a surprising change in the fast food industry that has made food chains such as McDonald’s strive for better and healthier options.

Health Mag. “America’s Top 10 Healthiest Fast Food Places.” Health Magazine. Web. <http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411588_5,00.html>.

This article discusses a survey produced by Health Magazine that analyzed over 100 fast food establishments, narrowing them down to the top 10 healthiest places to eat at. Their criteria consisted of: the use of healthy fats and sodium counts, the availability of nutritional facts (which was previously hard to find in fast food chains), and the use of organic and natural produce. As it turns out, McDonald’s was ranked 8th on the top ten list and is not as unhealthy as people claim it to be. One of the establishment’s most popular new techniques that has been incorporated into other establishments is the option to have a side of fruit with every happy meal instead of french fries. And, if you have to have the fries, their french fries are baked in CDA approved heart-healthy canola oil. Also, the chain offers low calorie options such as snack wraps which consist of a mere 260 calories.

DAA. “Dietitians Association of Australia.” Sugar – Not so ‘toxic’. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://daa.asn.au/for-the-media/hot-topics-in-nutrition/sugar-not-so-toxic/>

The source asserts that sugar, which is popularly known as a toxic food that highly contributes to weight gain and obesity, is not as big of a risk factor as many medical professionals are claiming. This study was concluded by the Dietitians Association. In their medical journal entry Sugar: not so toxic,  they state that when it comes to sugar, men and women should try to eat it in moderation and limit their intake of foods high in added sugar and low in nutritional value such as soda and candy.

McLaughlin, Lisa. “Is High-Fructose Corn Syrup Really Good for You?” Time. Time, 17 Sept. 2008. Web. 09 Apr. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1841910,00.html>.

The above source argues that while high fructose corn syrup is conventionally thought of as bad for the body and the equivalent to sucrose, or sugar, it is actually nothing similar. Promoted by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the attempts to get high fructose corn syrup out of the toxic range are surprisingly being supported by the American Medical Association which recently announced that corn syrup does not contribute to obesity.

Captain America Would be Disappointed

America is the greatest nation in the world.

We as Americans are free, proud, and strong; this is the land of opportunity and prosperity.  Or, at least, that is what she was founded on.  Unfortunately, history has not been kind to America; every incident of the past has brought the nation to a cruel and cynical present.  Even the escapes from the real world like the comic book have suffered at the hands of modern America.  Our heroes were founded as means of being aspiration goals and for the enjoyment of the masses in a time of crisis; now they’re pawns of an industry driven by economics and being better than its rivals.  A noble cause to be the best, yes, but to what length is Marvel suggesting it is worth hurting not only the employees but the entire spirit of comicdom along the way?  Marvel is pushing the boundaries, using its legal capabilities to take action against artists personally profiting from the sales of unauthorized artwork, and it is here that they have crossed the line of “Cruel and Unusual.”

To clarify, Marvel is suing its own artists and character creators, whom they employ, for selling artwork such as personal commissions of copyrighted Marvel characters for a personal profit (O’Neal).  Normally this would not a drastic issue, but Marvel hiring someone like Gabriel Hardman to draw the Secret Avengers for the mass-market book and prohibiting him from drawing Hawkeye as a commission is akin to suing a plumber for fixing his mother’s sink.

The major argument posed here is not merely whining against the law.  To suggest that Marvel is right is much more than acceptable; in a very twisted, appropriate way, they are.  By law, Marvel Comics holds the rights to each character it publishes; Jack “The King” Kirby and his heirs do not own Thor; Gary Friedrich does not own Ghost Rider (O’Neal).  By United States copyright Law, the creators wanted to see their work published, so whether it was someone like Jack Kirby designing Thor, working for Marvel (ignoring that the character could be considered public domain; this is not that Thor), or Friedrich appealing, they signed the characters to Marvel.  As such, Marvel is allowed the sole usage of the character in whatever manners are outlined in the contract; anyone else is technically stretching or breaking the law (“Copyright”).

But this should not diminish the impact of the creator over the character; when Marvel sued Friedrich on the grounds of his selling Ghost Rider merchandise at a comic convention, Friedrich’s punishment includes a $17,000 payout to Marvel, and for Friedrich to stop saying he’s the creator of Ghost Rider (O’Neal).  Now it is no longer a matter of ownership and usage rights: Marvel is sending a message.  Forcing the practically poor 60-plus year-old man to not only take away the one thing he’s done with his life that makes him a profit but to prevent him from boasting that he created a nationally-recognized character is horrifyingly severe; Marvel could not have asked for a better test candidate.

The true question at hand though is whether laws are being broken by artists in the first place; it is quite possible that parody provides a written loophole to prevent further legal action.  In art of all forms there exists a category exploited far more than any other: Parody.  A parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect; in terms of the actual law, parody’s fall under the Fair Use Law and do not violate copyright laws (Deazley).

Saturday Night Live is the most open proprietor of the parody concept; the sketches conducted on the program constantly utilize copyrighted film, book, comic, and other media characters and do not pay any sort of royalties or licensing fees for each use.  The characters are not “deliberate exaggeration[s] for comic effect,” either; certainly John Belushi in Lou Ferrigno-style  Hulk make-up may look humorous, but that is more the credit of Belushi; SNL is permitted to use exact interpretations of copyrighted characters for their use, basically.

The concept is just as applicable to comics.  If an artist is at a convention and sketches a commission for a child of Captain America, but draws the classic Captain America with no scaling detail and has him hold the original heater shield instead of the circular, is it still the currently-published Captain America?  Now, obviously this is stretching the limits, but the point still stands.  There is no strict dictation of who a certain character is.  All of these characters are based on appearance, so the rule is virtually no existent; otherwise no other artist could ever draw the character.  Another key element that lends to this is artistic liberty.  No two artists draw the same, and the basic recognized element is costume; the question again, does adding an extra red stripe to Captain America’s waist-padding still make him Captain America?  The Fair Use Law can be stretched to permit all such actions, technically, and no one but the creator has the ability to say what something is or is not; that right prevents all legal action.

So, no, the law is not as clear as Marvel would prefer it to be to sue a few pencillers.  Elements such as the Fair Use Policy and the parody clause still exist and have been exploited for years, and are just as applicable in this instance as any other.  Unfortunately Marvel chooses to ignore the actual law in suits, and wins, but will halt artists from continuing their passions; with each court case, the fear of a threat does not help matters either.  Artists continue to come forward with statements agreeing with Marvel, such as Robert Liefeld, creator of Deadpool, Cable, and the first X-force, boasting that he is aware that,

“Not a single creator that has sued Marvel for creative compensation has succeeded. The list is getting longer. Know what you signed.  I do not own Deadpool, Cable, X- Force—I get a generous payout on their exploitation, but I knew from day one, they are not mine. Period.  I signed those deals when I was 21 years old. I knew that pennies on the dollar were better than no pennies at all.  I was an eager young talent looking to change the game and the playing field, I did that through my creations. No regrets” (Liefeld).

It is very disheartening that so many creators would choose to side with Marvel and cease working on their wonderful stories and drawings.  The main Copyright Law is conveniently vague, but there are other ways to gloss and side-step it and still succeed; parody and Fair Use are strong weapons to have against Marvel’s legal team.  Marvel is not wrong in knowing it has the ability to sue, but wrong for actually suing and even more so for succeeding.

Works Cited

“Copyright and Fair Use.” ASHE Higher Education Report 34.4 (2008): 31-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Deazley, Ronan. “Copyright And Parody: Taking Backward The Gowers Review?.” Modern Law Review 73.5 (2010): 785-807. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Liefeld, Robert.  Twitter.  Web.  14 Feb. 2012.

Cieply, Michael.  “Court Ruling Says Marvel Holds Rights, Not an Artist.” New York Times.  Web.  28 July 2011.

O’Neal, Sean.  “Marvel Forces Ghost Rider Creator to Stop Saying he’s Ghost Rider’s Creator.”  The A.V. Club.  10 Feb.  2012.