The fallacies of blaming Walmart for obesity
A recent study by Charles Courtemonche and Art Carden purports to show that there is a correlation between the presence of Walmart Supercenters and an increase in obesity. Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System matched with Walmart Supercenter entry dates and locations, they found that an additional Supercenter per 100,000 residents is correlated with an average body mass index (BMI) increase of 0.24 points and a 2.3 percent increase in the obesity rate. Based on this result, they claim that Walmart Supercenters are responsible for 10.5 percent of the rise in obesity in the past 25 years.
There are several problems with the methodology and conclusions drawn. Let us examine these.
First, there is the troubling use of BMI as a measure of obesity. While it is the standard in the health profession, it does not account for a large number of important variables, such as age, muscle mass, bone mass, the location of excess body fat, and waist size. There is also the matter that it puts people into starkly delineated categories; e.g. a BMI of 24.9 is healthy, while a BMI of 25.0 is overweight.
Questionable methodology aside, the conclusion that Walmart Supercenters are responsible for increasing obesity rates is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because there is a correlation between the two does not mean that there is a causal relationship in one specific direction. It is possible that this is just a coincidence. It is also possible that there is a causal relationship in the other direction; namely, that increasing obesity drives the creation of new Walmart Supercenters. This would make sense in terms of a demand for unhealthy foods leading the market to provide a means of creating and distributing a supply to meet that demand. Finally, it is possible that some other factor is responsible for both developments. Government subsidies that make unhealthy foods (such as corn syrup and soybean oil) widely available for an artificially low price could help to grow both the number of Walmart Supercenters and the BMIs of the people who shop at them.
Finally, there are the implicit assumption behind calling out Walmart Supercenters specifically. The authors implicitly assume that if Walmart did not exist, then its market niche would go unfilled. Not only is this an unprovable claim, as alternate realities are unknown and unknowable, but it defies logic. If there is a demand that is possible to meet while making a profit, then someone is going to figure out how to do it. If not Walmart, then Target, Costco, or some other company would be fulfilling the desires of customers currently served by Walmart. The authors also implicitly assume that the customers whose BMIs are increasing are somehow not responsible for making their own decisions. They reason that it is Walmart’s fault for providing the possibility of making unhealthy choices, when as mentioned above, government subsidies create the conditions for an obesity epidemic.
If we wish to be serious about solving the drastic rise in obesity over the past few decades, then we must stop making such illogical attacks upon the market and place blame where blame is due. Those who make unhealthy choices must be personally responsible for their actions, and governments should stop incentivizing people to make unhealthy choices.
<<How The USDA Ruined Burns Supper+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++But Who Will Build The Death Camps?>>