Old Content:

A National Solution for Weightloss: FoodID

May 2, 2009 by Kyle Brady
Tags: America, Fat People, Health, National ID, Overweight, Politics, REAL ID
As required by the FTC, a Full Disclosure is available - this piece adheres to the Code of Ethics

---

There's been alot of talk in the last few years about REAL ID, an attempt to make a national ID system, with the government obviously supporting it and the privacy czar's up in arms.  Personally, I wouldn't mind if the system went through, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that it does.  Or that some other method turns state Driver's Licenses into smarter ID systems used more often in the real world.

Obesity is a topic that is constantly being brought up, especially in relation to children, with questions of how to "stop" this "epidemic" - while children are enticed to eat lots of terrible crap, be sedentary, and buy into corporate propaganda.  Not to mention their adult counterparts largely being the equivalent of gluttons.  And no, we're not going to just "accept the fat people".

And I'm here to present a solution to people's obvious inability to control their own diet, and, therefore, weight.

Don't Give Them Control

I think we should have a federal mandate that requires identification to be used when purchasing food, and the products with which to make it.  And not just any ID, but a smart one too.  Prior to activation, people would be given a year to get analyzed by their doctor as being overweight, having heart disease, and a number of other health factors, all of which would go in a central, assumed to be secure, health database.

Once the database was mostly populated, foods would require a clearance for purchase.  If you go to McDonald's and ask for a triple McBurger with an extra-large Diet Coke, you get carded.  And if you're in a category that prevents you from purchasing said food items, well, sorry.

This would be the same at grocery stores, liquor vendors, and gas station snack shops.  Anywhere that accepts credit or debit cards (aka 98% of the edible world) would be required to check this ID, under penalty of law - really no different, from a sales perspective, than checking ID for alcohol.

Algorithms and Check-ups

This would not only cause people to eat healthier, but likely have a better health record as well - when you have an incentive for your doctor to downgrade your status from "morbidly obese" or "overweight", something tells me you'll be visiting the doctor every six months for a re-evaluation.  At these check-ups, the doctors would run a full spectrum from, bloodwork to a physical, potentially allowing earlier diagnosis of problems that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The data would get fed into the central system by the doctor's assistants, instead of keeping paper medical charts or closed-circuit databases, and analyzed by algorithms.  If you're 200 lbs., 6ft. tall, have 8% body fat, and are in otherwise good health (aka you're a bodybuilder) then you go on the list that allows you to eat Twinkies, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut... not that you want to.

But if you have a medical allergy to peanuts, then those are obviously on your "Not Allowed" list.  The same goes for organ-related issues (heart, liver, kidneys, etc.), maybe even as far as "no cigarettes if you're over 60 and have a persistent cough".

The Workload

Yes, this would cause an uptick in work for the doctor and his administrative assistants, but the end result would be beneficial (both to us and the doctor's pockets).  The country would generally be in better health, children wouldn't be fat (because they'd have IDs from a certain age upwards), and medical costs due to obesity would plummet.  It's obviously not a 100% original idea, especially since the concept can easily be found in places like the SciFi movie The Island, but that doesn't make it any less valuable.

Granted, some people are going to be immediately angry with a proposal such as this, if it were to ever be considered.  Ignoring the privacy advocates, and the succession-crazies, the obvious industries are fast food and snack production.  The obesity-related industries (medicine production, clothing, "assistive devices", etc.) can adjust their focus elsewhere, but McDonald's will be decimated right along with Hostess and Coca-Cola.

I think our answer should be, then, "too bad".  If they want to continue business, their caloric act needs to be cleaned up; otherwise, they go not-so-quietly into the good night.

In an issue of "future of our nation's people" vs. "corporate profit and some privacy concerns", I'd like our health and well-being to prevail... not to mention our good looks.

--- --- ---

Update (5/2/2009 4:10pm PST): It's worth noting, in case it wasn't clear enough, that this system would not effect those that already control themselves and their diet.  If you're in good health and good shape, then you have nothing to worry about.  Even if you're slightly overweight, you wouldn't see drastic changes, just small ones targeted to your weak spots.

The big changes come from those that are truly and unequivocally fat.

Old Content posts are leftovers from a less structured, less civilzed era that are kept for posterity.
Kyle can be found on Twitter and MySpace, or reached via email.