Today I happened to stumble on two similar stories from two very different sources. The first was a CNN video on how Whole Foods is encouraging its employees to be healthy and lose excess weight by offering those with lower Body Mass Indexes (BMIs) a higher percentage employee discount. Employees with the most favorable BMIs can get up to a 30% discount, which is nearly 10% higher than those who are overweight.
Is this right? Does it strike nerve?
Is it discrimination to allow some people higher discounts for BMI alone, or is it simply segmenting the consumer marketplace? Whole Foods is incentivizing people to take charge of their lives, not mandating certain habits rather providing rewards for specific behaviors. I look at it as Whole Foods no longer idly condoning unhealthy behavior.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=living/2010/02/02/taylor.weigh.less.maybe.pay.less.cnn
The second story came from John Stossel on his show: The Stossel Report.
Stossel’s story is about the “Food Police” and how there are government regulators prohibiting trans fats and forcing companies to display health information.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zv5hsiO2cA]
So where do we draw the line with government intervention?
Is the government right when it says “obviously American’s cannot be trusted to choose the right foods?”
While obesity is rising, so are trends in healthly eating and fitness in a potion of the population. Examples are the growing popularity of program like P90X
New York is the latest state to get into the food policing business. Governor Patterson’s newest budget includes a “Fat Tax” on regular sodas and other sugar drinks claiming that this will both raise money for the nearly bankrupt state as well as encourage healthier drinking habits and potentially reduce the level of obesity in New Yorkers.
We are constantly barraged with unhealthy choices…
Everything from McDonald’s on the street corner, to “healthy” cereals filled with fake sugars and fats but “fortified” with vitamins. Unhealthiness even permeates our lifestyle – how many of us spend hours upon hours sitting at a computer, then go home and watch TV or sit in front of another computer?
There are many factors that combine to create our healh problem, but again it comes down to this question:
Is it your responsibility, or the responsibility of someone else, to regulate YOUR life and YOUR lifestyle?
I don’t like this trend towards an ever increasing Nanny State, but on the flip side could you look at these taxes and bans in the same way as you look at the Whole Foods discount tiers; using incentives to influence behavior, in the government’s case the incentve being the lack of a punishment.
This is a tricky issue and I admit that I am still sorting out exactly how I feel about the whole thing. What’s your view?
No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I don't mind because it's apparently a small minority of knowledgeable groups that have wielded some influence on this legislation. Corporations have been feeding Americans crap for years without consequence. If the government wants to step in to make them responsible and at the very least bring awareness to the problem that the majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant to then so be it. I wouldn't eat that crap anyway because I know better. But, most people don't. Government has to look out for the majority or go for the lowest common denominator. It's not ideal but it's better than nothing. If it leads to fewer people dying from heart disease then hooray! But, even government intervention isn't insurance that people won't eat crap.
The Whole Foods employee discount “incentive” program is, quite simply, discrimination. I would be very surprised if Whole Foods did not get sued over this! No matter what someone’s views are about “obesity”, this is discrimination.