Global Obesity Weighs On Resource Requirements

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=obesity&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1#id=75861067&src=3e3b1e2355038519b513c46d470f414e-1-4">Luis Louro</a>/Shutterstock.com

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Getting fatter is just as bad for the environment as reproducing, according to new research published Monday by the scientific journal BMC Public Health. The journal’s “The Weight of the Nations” study determined the ecological implications of increasing “population fatness,” are similar to those of population growth.

According to the study, obesity in the global population could have the same implications for food energy demands as an extra 500 million people living on the planet. Simply looking at population growth to estimate resource consumption is no longer sufficient, the researchers argue. They determined that the human race is collectively 17 million tons (15 million metric tons) overweight. As Live Science noted, that tonnage is equivalent to about 170 military aircraft carriers. The extra stress on resources stems from the greater energy that is required to move a heavier body—i.e., it’s because fat people need more food.

Currently, more than one billion adults are overweight, and North America is responsible for a large portion of the problem. “Population increases in the USA will carry more weight than would be implied by numbers alone,” the researchers wrote. Asia, for example, has 61 percent of the world population and only 13 percent of the extra weight. But North America has 34 percent of the excess weight but only 6 percent of the world population. That’s a problem.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate