Supersize Me? In for a Penny, In for a Pound (of Your Weight & Your Wallet)

A December 2 New York Times Business article reported that being overweight or obese - as classified by your body-mass index - can lead to lower financial net worth, as well as increased long-term health costs.

As shown in the chart, the median net worthy of younger Baby Boomers is correlated (but not proven to be causated) with body-mass-index weight classification. You can calculate yours by taking your weight in pounds and dividing it by the square of your height in inches, and then multiplying by 703. A score of over 40 is morbidly obese, over 30 is obese, over 25 is overweight, and 25 and under is normal.

Most alarmingly in the article is the true cost of "supersizing" a meal, resulting in long-term health costs of 5-x to 10-x the cost of extra fries and a larger drink:

This year, two nutritional scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rachel N. Close and Dale A. Schoeller, took a unique twist on the calculations to determine what “supersizing” a fast-food meal costs society. Paying 67 cents to supersize an order — 73 percent more calories for 17 percent more money — adds an average of 36 grams of adipose tissue. The future medical costs for that bargain would be $6.64 for an obese man and $3.46 for an obese woman. “The hidden financial costs associated with weight gain from upsizing a value meal may help convince people it is not a bargain,” Mr. Schoeller said.

Also included are whether and how much hiring biases and weight discrimination play a factor in incomes and asset growth, as there are few social boundaries that restrict the blame and exclusion of overweight people. Only Wisconsin explicitly bans weight discrimination.

In sum, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), every one point increase in body-mass-index (BMI) relates to a $1000 decrease in net worth.

IS THIS HIP?

Public companies in the food business are at increasing risk of lawsuits and damages of producing and marketing high-fat foods, especially to children and teens. What measures could be used for food companies?

* HEALTH: Each food product package carries a nutrition label; however, most prepared foods do not (especially in restaurant menus). Measuring calories per portion size provided standard comparisons, but many prepared meals are already supersized - especially in most parts of the USA with big appetites (California entrees tend to be smaller portions). IDEA: Nutrition Labels could take the USDA food pyramid and showcase green/yellow/red ratings for each food group's contribution to the overall meal.

* WEALTH: Income distribution of food purchasers by class, ethnicity and gender can highlight particular at-risk groups, providing information for more proactive solutions. Any company that increases the wealth of its customers can generate tremendous loyalty and renewals, not to mention satisfaction. Who will be first?

* EARTH: Potential measures: Proportion of chemicals used in food production, and remainder of food consumption that cannot be composted or recycled. Portion of packaging that is recylable (made from corn starch or potato starch).

* EQUALITY: Do all classes of society have access to nutritious food? Will Frito-Lay's (PEP)test of healthy potato chips (baked instead of fried) succeed? How can food companies partner with exercise regimes to both decrease consumption and increase calorie burning?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Does weight discrimination exist? Shoud it impact Wealth (income and assets)? Should Health be rewarded or incented by busineses, or governments? Which companies are delivering nutritional Health and its associated Wealth?