Via Junkfood Science and Feministe, a few Mississippi legislators have proposed the following law:
Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies.
The bill’s lead author, Representative W.T. Mayhall, Jr., told Sandy at Junkfood Science that he is sincere about this bill, although he realizes that it has little chance of passage. ((In case you’re wondering, Mayhall is a Republican. One of the bill’s co-authors is a Democrat, however.))
This is madness.
UPDATE: I want to add a couple of quotes from the discussion taking place at Big Fat Blog.
First, GinLiz writes:
Extremely obvious hate legislation like this makes it easier to pass less extreme legislation. When next year folks propose some anti-fat school cafeteria legislation or something, the fat people and others in the state won’t react strongly to it, because they will think to themselves “well this is far more reasonable than that crazy bill last year. This one makes sense and could work!” Providing an extreme example distracts people from the “milder” hatred. In fact, I’ll bet that this bill will be rejected, and people will say “well good, now we can focus on smarter ways to eliminate obesity. Let’s form a new task force to work on some passable legislation.”
She (he?) is right. Extremist proposals like this move the entire discourse of acceptable anti-fat discrimination further towards the discriminatory end. How much more reasonable will this make a proposal to have schools put fat kids on a separate eating plan? Or the next case of the state taking a fat child away from her parents?
Wallflower writes:
I’m not going to make comparisons between racial discrimination and fat discrimination, I’m going to point out that this is de-facto racial discrimination. Several non-white ethnic groups have genetic tendencies towards more adipose tissue, higher BMIs, and the appearance of carrying more body fat. African Americans, some Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are the major groups that generally run to large. African Americans are statistically taller than the average population, which even in non-fat individuals can give the appearance of carrying more adipose tissue. This is carte blanch permission for restaurants to racially discriminate based on subjective measures. Trust me, the whiter a restaurant wants it’s particular clientèle, the fatter the non-white clientèle is going to look to them.
UPDATE THE SECOND:
More discussion of this can be found at Kate Harding’s place, and at the following links I swiped from Kate: JoGeek, The Rotund, the already-linked Big Fat Blog, Lindsay, Rachel, and Thoughtracer.
Who knew that junk food is only bad for fat people?
You are the only person who has really put this in proper perspective. This is madness. There’s no other way to describe it.
Really? *that* picture with that story?
That’s a fucked up bill, alright, but that picture is incendiary in a way that just isn’t right. Anti-fat discrimination is bad. Anti-fat discrimination is not Jim Crow.
Fat hatred strikes again. I find it disturbing that someone else would sign on as a co-sponsor given what a truly stupid idea this is.
Why on earth should a restaurant host or a counter-person or a waiter, trained for hospitality rather than medical science or nutrition, be telling people where they can and can’t eat ? How is that not the very definition of nucking futs ?
Plus, I’m sure those written criteria will take into account the possible medical conditions, disabilities, environment, and individual economic portraits of those individuals. And I’m sure the restaurant could read their mind and determine that the food they might possibly order would be bad for them, anyway.
THE STUPID, IT BURNS.
Also, sly: Anti-fat discrimination is bad. Anti-fat discrimination is not Jim Crow.
Uh, well, not literally, no. I suggest another name, such as “Jim Size.” That’ll clear it up.
Because what this is, at heart, is vile discrimination based on a purely physical attribute that the person doesn’t necessarily have any control over. Not that control over it even matters- this kind of legislation, like Jim Crow, attaches a incorrectly moral aesthetic to a physical condition. Not white- then you’re not “good enough” to use this water fountain. Not thin- then you’re not “good enough” to eat here.
I see your point, that it’s not the same, and I would not compare the history, and the suffering, of slavery and Jim Crow to size-ism in this country… at least not until anti-fat laws are passed. At that point, I might reconsider. Depending on how far it goes, we might reach a point where it’d be fair to compare institutionalized fat-hatred to institutionalized race-hatred.
People shouldn’t be forced to live in a society that hates them for their bodies, ignoring the brains and the beings inside. That goes for whatever trait the haters have picked this time around.
“That’s a fucked up bill, alright, but that picture is incendiary in a way that just isn’t right. Anti-fat discrimination is bad. Anti-fat discrimination is not Jim Crow.”
No, but it IS discrimination based on appearance, and it’s majorly fucked up. This is a civil rights issue, period.
I went to the source of the quoted article on Junkfood Science and saw that the original post has the word “white” where “thin” is in the post here on Alas.
I think the original photo posted on Junkfood Science does a better job of illustrating the *potential* civil rights abuse, while the re-touched photo here is heavy handed.
Meanwhile, I have to wonder how the restaurants would manage. Scales at the door pinging in weights and measures and lock-outs if you “over” qualify???
Pingback: I’ll be on the back of the bus. « Roberta’s Voice
Sly, the proposed law is a segregation law, plain and simple. The illustration would be wrong if it illustrated “anti-fat discrimination” in general, but it seems to me appropriate for this specific bill.
Uuuuh…so because they are fat they are not supposed to EAT? That’s almost like making a law that refuses the sale of any beverage to an alcoholic. Or refusing the sale of asperin or cough drops to a drug addict.
I don’t even get what the goal of the law here is. Every dietitian/nutritionist would advise that no matter what you weigh that you should eat every day. What about vacationers who can’t just go home and eat at home? Why not have a law that requires restaurants to offer only healthy, well-portioned and balanced meals?
I know I’m overthinking a proposal too stupid to be overthunk. But really, it BEYOND makes no sense.
I don’t even get what the goal of the law here is.
Making fat people feel ashamed.
It was brought up over at Big Fat Blog that the likely point of this bill isn’t actually to succeed but to pave the way for other “milder” (but equally civil rights eroding) anti-fat legislation, probably starting with schoolkids.
IN MISSISSIPPI?
What, these legislators trolling for the votes of the 12% of the Mississippi population with BMIs 19-22?
It would make more electoral sense for the legislators to propose state-supported gay marriage ceremonies.
The above was meant as satire. I too think the bill is A Bad Thing, but even more than that, I think that the bill is A Silly Thing Worth Being Mocked Out Of The State House.
Because even people of medium weight will surely enjoy being measured before being allowed into a restaurant. That will surely be dignified.
As a political “cartoon” or other piece of artwork (fumetti?), I think Barry’s image is appropriate. No, fat hatred does not rise to the level of racism, historically speaking. There are no lynch mobs against fat people. But one doesn’t have to take the analogy that far to recognize that barring people from restaurants due to weight is as discriminatory as based on skin color, gender or any other morphological or cultural marker. Moreover, this legislator is attempting to make this form of discrimination a matter of law. That’s no good for anybody.
Deborah, I am underweight and I have NO desire to be measured either. This is such unbelievable bullshit that, for the first time, I actually wondered Amp was telling the truth. Gah!! This is the last shit I need to be hearing about when my body is living proof that what you weigh does NOT determine how healthy you are or what your eating habits must be.
Everyone, I want to point out that I’ve added some more points (quoted from BigFatBlog) to the bottom of the post.
Bint, even Sandy — a blogger who blogs continuously about fat hatred and diet nonsense — had to call the politician’s office to make sure that this wasn’t a joke of some sort. It really beggars belief.
I doubt that’s the goal. The goal is certainly to improve the nation’s health. Of course it wouldn’t have that effect.
It’ll never pass anyway. Legislators aren’t a noticeably thin demographic, and turkeys don’t vote for Chistmas.
Ah. Thanks for the extra posts from Big Fat Blog, especially the quote about de facto racism.
Sorry Ampersand, my crit on the graphic was too hasty.
Free Republic is jumping all over this as well. “Welcome to the nanny state” and “Just one more proof that Republican does not equal conservative” are the general themes.
Okay, who wants to take a road trip to Jackson? We’ll stake out all the restaurants near the legislature with our scales and calipers, and block any Congresscritters from entering the restaurant who won’t let us weigh and measure them.
For bonus points, we’ll require cholesterol tests and inform the waitresses of any who have a LDL>100 that they are to be permitted only salads and vegetables.
Since when is addressing the health problems of children a bad thing?
If parents display a willful disregard for their children’s health, then it should be cause for concern and possibly intervention.
Troll.
Wow… if this passed in my state, I couldn’t even go out for dinner with my own parents. This is going nowhere… the people wouldn’t want it, the restaurant industry wouldn’t want it, who would?
Daran: “Legislators aren’t a noticeably thin demographic, and turkeys don’t vote for Chistmas.”
I have to get my thoughts copyrighted.
This is so idiotic….nevermind the fact that the people who actually own or manage restaurants will never go for it–why the hell would they want their potential clientele to shrink?
“That’s a fucked up bill, alright, but that picture is incendiary in a way that just isn’t right. Anti-fat discrimination is bad. Anti-fat discrimination is not Jim Crow.” – sly civilian
So you want everyone to wait until it is?
Desipis, so you’re for the abduction of children from their home, based on the presumption of an assumed weight problem. Cause you know, most people didn’t eat themselves fat, I know it’s so hard to belive.
So you’re saying taking a terrifying screaming child from the only home they’ve known, is good for them, cause they might loose weight. Or even better, adopt a wasting ED, like Anorexia or Bulemia, cause you know, they’ll always fear they’ll be taken again unless they’re the right weight.
Perhaps you hate children. Why else would you suggest scarring them over something they cannot control. Do you really think it’s so simple as children eating themselves fat? Not giving to the numerous number of things that can cause someone to appear fat, such as genetics, PCOS, ect.
I think you should warn your community not to let children near your house. If they APPEAR to have too high of a BMI, you might kidnapp them and feed them only vegetables until they’re of a good proper weight.
Jackie–Agreed. While childhood obesity isn’t good, I’d rather see chubby kids than anorexic children. They’ve still got some growing to do, their bodies are going to change as they grow older. Anyone who would call child protective services on a parent who seemed to be ‘overnourishing’ their child is a crazy dipshit.
Mandolin:
Desipis is not a troll, though they is certainly wrong-headed on this subject.
Jackie:
Perhaps Desipis hadn’t considered those consequences, or doesn’t believe that those would be the consequences.
Genevieve:
The immediate resort to abusive ad homs speaks volumes about your (plural) unwillingness to engage in good faith discussion.
Daran,
I believe there’s a provision in our mod policy against rules lawyering. For the record, the use of abusive ad homs was intended to speak volumes about my unwillingness to engage in good faith discussion — as I don’t believe that D’s assertion is one worth addressing. That doesn’t stop you from addressing it.
If you want to argue against D, do so. If you want to chide other posters, do it on your own blog.
Yes Daran, seeing as you’re a master of reason, I’d love to hear your ‘right- headed’ take on the obesity war.
I’ve tried really hard to think of a defence for the stigmatisation of fat people treating us as slow-wits that just can’t get it -as opposed to people that might have discovered something(s) about how NOT to try and regulate body weight.
Is it possible to ‘improve health’ as so many seem to want without degrading fat people? I would have imagined, yes. From what I can gather, it seems not, it seems as if our capacity to recognise when we are being patronised is somehow oversensitive, fine, set out a positive framework of ‘obesity’ reduction. And I’ll see if I can get on board.
I think the point is that they’re viewing morbid obesity as a disease, like alcoholism or compulsive gambling. In those cases, there are many locales where the establishment are made responsible for the self-destructive actions of the patrons.
This is completely different from Jim Crow, where it was an act of hatred. In this case, it’s a patronizing nanny-state attitude of “we know what’s best for you” – you’re sick and it’s our responsibility to fix you.
No, the point is that these legislators are proposing a segregation law to exclude fat people from certain public establishments.
What their motives are for the law is imo a secondary concern. That said, however, I will try and address their motives in this comment.
You’re certainly correct; if we asked these legislators what their concerns are, they’d answer that they were acting for the public good, not out of hatred.
Of course, had you asked the legislators responsible for Jim Crow their motives, they would have said the same thing; contemporary defenses of Jim Crow were full of passionate denials of personal prejudice against blacks. It was sometimes even argued that Jim Crow did more good for blacks than whites. Although civil rights activists at the time correctly identified Jim Crow as rooted in hatred, it was many years before “Jim Crow = hatred” became a national (almost) consensus.
My point is not to argue that this proposal is exactly like Jim Crow in every particular; of course it is not. However, it is like Jim Crow in one specific and essential way, which is enough to justify the illustration that accompanies this post, imo.
All policies are defended as being for the public good. However, exactly which group’s oxes are proposed to be gored in defense of the public good is frequently a measure of where those groups stand in society. Even if it were a statistical fact that white Christians of all weights eat too much greasy diner food for their own health, no one would ever propose a law banning white Christians from diners, because white Christians simply have too high a standing in society for that to happen.
The proposal of this law by elected lawmakers is important because it is a signal of how low a class “obese” people have become. It is true that they are doing it for my own good; but it is also true that the reason they are proposing this particular law for my own good, rather than a different, more respectful law, is because the worth of obese people has been devalued.
Jackie:
No, I’m suggesting it a sign of a potential problem that shouldn’t be ignored.
It’s hard to believe because it’s not scientifically true. There are many complex reasons behind why people eat poorly and don’t exercise enough, but they are the mechanisms which cause the body to create fat.
I’m saying that a child’s physical health is important, especially considering it’s interrelated to their emotional health. Obviously you’d need to weigh up the options in each individual case and removing the child from the home is a last resort, but if a child is morbidly obese then it’s a serious health issue and shouldn’t be ignored.
Because life is just full of dichotomies. I’d rather see healthy children.
I agree this law is absurd, I just think saying it’s the same issue as childhood obesity is equally absurd. If a child had a drug abuse problem and the parents only encouraged it, how would you deal with the issue? It’d be a different issue if it was an independant adult engaging in the same abuse.
Pingback: Mississippi to ban Fat People from eating in Public? « (Semi) Intellectual Blathering
Do things like this happen outside of America? I have never seen anti-fat campaigning of this magnitude anywhere else, but I’m not sure if that’s just because it’s under-reported.
People say “oh anti-fat discrimination is not Jim Crow”. No, they don’t lynch fat people, but they do kill us in other ways.
They used to deny fat people health insurance just for being fat. Doing so may be good business, but I think you all know what that does to lifespan.
You all know what earning less money does to lifespan. Dead is dead, however you get there.
I wish I could find the post someone posted about her aunt. The aunt went to a series of doctors complaining of a backache. She was fat and the first 6 doctors told her to exercise and lose weight. The 7th doctor said that the pain was from cancer and it was too late to do anything about it. The cancer killed her just as dead as a lynch mob would have.
Nobody that I know of has measured how much the fact that fat people live less long is due to getting inferior medical care. I mostly mean care with respect to treatable diseases unrelated to their fat. Then again there is lack of access to lithotripsy, problems with dosages of drugs which may be impacted by weight and are not tested on fat people, technicians who don’t know how to do ultrasound on a fat person, blood pressure cuffs that do not give an accurate reading on a large arm, and doctors and technicians who don’t know this, X-ray tables not strong enough and medical staff who change what they do for a patient to accomodate this, closed medical equipment, such as ultrasound machines, where the patient cannot physically fit, and even verbal abuse from a doctor that persuades the patient not to seek medical help as early when treating sooner would have made a difference to their disease.
Nobody that I know of has measured how much the fact that fat people live less long is due to them living alone or not having as much of a social safety net as a normal weight person might. If you fall down the stairs and injure yourself badly, and nobody finds you for days, because nobody else is there, that will impact your health. If fat hatred makes you want to be alone, you are more likely to be in that situation. If internalized fat-hatred makes you feel like an unworthy person, how does that impact what you will do about your own survival? How much more likely are you to give up when it would help you not to?
Yes, of course diabetes and heart disease are also factors, but don’t kid yourself about how social attitudes can harm people too.
Mary-Anne,
This is probably not the post you were thinking of — it is about the poster’s mother, rather than her aunt; and the cause of death was DVT, not cancer — but it’s a powerful testimony of the same dynamic: the ways in which fat hatred, both external and internalized, can prevent people from seeking or receiving proper medical care:
http://kateharding.net/2007/07/12/fat-hatred-kills-part-one/
Did you really think government intrusion would stop with smokers? I’ve been saying for years that fat people are next, and so I had to laugh when I saw this story. Couldn’t help it!
First, restaurants and bars were made responsible for other folks’ drinking: you get drunk, you hit someone with your car, the last restaurant who served you a drink pays for the damage.
Then it was the smokers. Public places I can see, but business owners (restaurants, bars, beauty shops) should have been allowed to decide for themselves whether they wanted smoking allowed in their establishment…their customers should have dictated this to them through their pocketbook. Hasn’t that always been the american way?
I work in a business that serves mostly fried junk food (I eat elsewhere). Twice a day, I go outside in the cold and the rain to smoke. Invariably, some incredibly fat person will pass me and remind me smoking is bad for me. Then they wobble on into the store and buy for themselves and their fat little kids as much fried junk as they can carry out.
I’m not saying I’m for the fat people ban. I’m against government intrusion of this type. I believe that everyone has bad habits, and it isn’t the government’s place to stop that. But fair is fair. All you fat people who rallied around the smoking bans need to take your medicine just like the smokers had to.
I mean, really, if smoking around your kid can be considered child abuse, then feeding fried junk to an already fat child should also be considered child abuse (and don’t think this law won’t get to that eventually.) All the same logic applies…drain on the health system, etc.
And I must confess, when sweets and fat-filled foods start getting taxed out of sight like cigarettes, I’m not going to be all that inclined to fight for your freedom to eat, any more than you fought for my freedom to smoke. Because, well, I’m not fat, and I don’t eat that junk.
Everyone needs to wake up. If the government isn’t stopped from intruding in our businesses and lives, these types of laws will just get more and more ridiculous. And given enough time and precedent, the government will eventually get to one of your bad habits. And you won’t like it any more than the smokers or the fat people.
I was going to ignore this troll, but I’m tired of seeing this particular straw-man go unchallenged. The argument for the smoking ban in the vast majority of places it’s been enacted is that it’s a workplace safety issue, not a customer safety issue. For example, in Los Angeles, owner-operated establishments are exempt from the law.
As for the food/smoking connection, there’s a huge difference between taxing cigarettes (which are a luxury good, and always unhealthy) to make the price more closely reflect their true cost, and banning fat people from eating (which is more or less a necessity, and is usually healthy).
I suppose those without access to a kitchen could curl up in a corner with a head of lettuce or an MRE. That wouldn’t be discriminatory, right?
Oh no, yet another group fat people have done down, innocent smokers doing no harm to anyone, when will someone put an end to our evil reign of terror??!!
Did anyone think of the economic crisis that will happen after this law passes?
Think of your favorite shopping center, and all the restaurants. If 1/3 to ½ of people in this country are over 30% fat then how will all the restaurants stay open? Most will probably leave the state, close, or worse never open. 7 out of 10 restaurants don’t make it out of the first year. Now this law will take 1/3 to ½ of there business
I hope you have a good welfare system Mississippi! Oh, and make sure you do not give the fat food stamps.
I have bronchial asthma. Odds are that something related to it will probably kill me some day.
Ann, I have signed every single Smokers’ Rights petition that has come my way, because I, too, am against just this kind of governmental intrusion.
What, exactly, is “fair treatment” for me?
Stand up for other people’s rights to be treated as a human being because it’s the right thing to do, for pity’s sake.