Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit

Thank you, Philophile, for the opportunity to debate this issue. Individual Responsibility I’d like to start by identifying a key point in Philophile’s argument, mainly that individuals must bear the responsibility for being obese, and that a weight-based pricing policy would “encourage [them] to lose weight.” The idea that obesity results from poor lifestyles choices, a common public consensus, is quite simply wrong. As Dr. Richard Atkinson, editor of the International Journal of Obesity phrased it, “The previous belief of many…health professionals that obesity is simply the result of a lack of willpower and an inability to discipline eating habits is no longer defensible.” [1] For example, there are numerous studies to show that environmental factors are a significant cause for the increase in average body weight. Consider a meta-analysis conducted by David Allison, a biostatistician at the University of Alabama, that shows that many animal species living in close proximity to humans, as well as humans, have been experiencing dramatic increases in weight [2]. These aren't just pampered pets being affected; the trend also applied to primates and lab animals, whose diets are carefully controlled. For example, Allison reports that the average body weight for chimps kept in human proximity has been increasing, on average, by about 35% per decade [5]. Presumably, these other species aren’t suffering from a lack of discipline in food habits, nor does it make sense that so many species are spontaneously lacking exercise. This clearly shows that environmental factors beyond simple lifestyle choices are primarily affecting weight gain in multiple species – not just in humans. More than likely, there are a number of factors beyond an individual’s control responsible for this trend, including genetics and chemical influences. For example, an organic compound called bisphenol-A (BPA) has been shown to affect an animal's ability to regulate fat; and its exposure in our environment is almost unavoidable [5]. A study conducted by the NYU Medical Center supports its effects on weight - it found that American children with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were five times more likely to be obese [10]. Whatever the reason, the conclusion is the same; our weight gain as a society is beyond the control of any one individual’s choices. How then can we encourage a system that penalizes individuals for something that isn’t their fault? Implementing such a pricing policy as Philophile suggests would just unfairly disadvantage the obese – it certainly wouldn’t lead to their becoming “healthier”, nor help in lowering “healthcare costs for all people” – it simply isn’t in their control. Demographics Let's also look at the demographics affected most by this pricing policy. In the U.S., obesity disproportionately affects the poor [3, 4]. While the causes of this aren't fully understood, the consequences remain; this incentive structure would disproportionately affect the economic mobility of the poor – those who could least afford to be impacted by such a policy since they often rely on public transportation to get to work. Instead of supporting those who lack financial security, we'd effectively be punishing this already-disadvantaged group as a society. Passenger Comfort Philophile mentions how obese people “unduly” make the experience of their fellow travellers worse, despite their obesity not being fully in their control. Yet let's look at how airlines, for example, have responded to this general trend of the increase of our 'stature'. In the same profit-motivated thought process that has led numerous domestic carriers to charge for checked-in baggage, snacks, etc. on flights, airlines have also been reducing the average seat size to the point where the seats are now 8 inches too narrow, according to Kathleen Robinette, an anthropometrics expert who has done studies on this topic for the U.S. Air Force [6]. Surely, this isn't the fault of any one out-sized individual – the lack of comfort or the inability to find space that Philophile describes is a direct result of airlines intentionally trying to cram more people into the same space. And there's no reason to assume airlines won't continue this trend if given the opportunity. Holding obese individuals responsible is certainly the socially-easier choice. They’re physically more obvious targets for discrimination, through policies such as the one Philophile suggests. However, such thinking fails to hold the right entities accountable – if comfort is our primary concern, we should be directing our attention to the airlines that are forcing us into this situation in the first place. Economic Impact Philophile also cites statements made by Tony Webber, a former economist for Qantas Airlines, that imply that Qantas Airlines’ profit margins are being significantly impacted as a result of the airline carrying more obese passengers. However, the “extra $472” of fuel per flight is insignificant when compared to the total fuel costs of a Sydney-to-London flight. Assuming the Sydney-to-London route is a 20-hour flight for an Airbus A380, the plane would have to carry about $9 million worth of fuel [7], of which $472 is less than 0.01% of the total fuel cost. It’s hard to imagine, then, that this could cause a significant impact to its profit margin. To further put the economic argument in perspective, let’s consider Southwest Airline’s ‘customer of size’ policy. Southwest Airlines encourages obese passengers to buy a second seat, yet in over 90% of cases often refunds the second seat purchased [9]. If there were any economic reasons for the policy (i.e. to offset the additional fuel costs needed to transport obese passengers) it wouldn’t make sense for Southwest Airlines to issue any refunds at all. It’s clear then, that economically speaking obese passengers have a negligible impact on fuel costs. This is also supported by the fact that, as an industry, airlines have yet to implement weight-based fares for passengers (outside of a few airline monopolies who can afford to implement policies that aren’t economically justified). The same concepts apply for other forms of mass transportation - economically speaking, obese passengers have an insignificant effect on their margins, as well. Philophile is correct when he says we do penalize smokers for what is clearly their lifestyle choice. However, we implement policies that encourage good decisions in the correct situations; for example, we make cigarettes more expensive to discourage smokers from buying them, and not during an unrelated process in an effort to shame them. Furthermore, any such pricing policy simply misses the point – obesity is not under an individual's control, and such policy wouldn’t make a difference for either the comfort of other passengers (in the long-run), or for the economic viability of transportation companies. As best, such a policy would unfairly disadvantage already-disenfranchised socioeconomic groups; therefore, we should not enforce price-based discrimination against the obese in public transportation systems. References [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com...; [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org... [4] http://ajcn.nutrition.org... [5] http://www.aeonmagazine.com... [6] http://news.msn.com... [7] http://answers.yahoo.com... , http://blogs.crikey.com.au... [9] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [10] http://communications.med.nyu.edu...