At first glance, it seems laughable to put obesity on par with Osama bin Ladin. However, a full 27% of potential recruits aged 17-24 can’t serve due to excess weight, greatly restricting the pool of eligible soldiers. While obesity is generally thought to be a personal health issue, the characterization of obesity as a threat to national security seems to imply that our bodies don’t entirely belong to ourselves. In characterizing being unhealthily overweight as a “national security threat” the military implies that not only are obese people harming themselves but also the community as a whole.

The body is a personal domain, with which one theoretically has near-total control (apart from restrictions on ingesting controlled substances and assisted suicide). This is the reason slavery is so evil and the reason we have a bill of rights- the individual is presumed to have a sacred right to control their own lives in so far as they don’t interfere with anyone else’s pursuit of happiness. Certain duties are also expected of us, such as serving on juries and paying taxes. Voting, like joining the armed forces, is voluntary. However, both serve an important function in our society. The first shapes our government and the second serves a protective function. If there’s an extremely small base from which to draw military recruits, there is some validity to pointing to obesity as a threat to national security. This presumed “threat” is incidental rather than a pernicious plot to bring down the nation with cheeseburgers.

I don’t believe that we should implement stringent controls on people’s food intake or force obese people to lose weight, particularly in the context of a voluntary military system. Nor are only obese people to blame- there are drug addicts, alcoholics and otherwise incapacitated people who can’t serve. I’m not a fan of the military-industrial complex, though I do grudgingly accept the inevitable need for a standing, defensive army. I am also not an ardent fan of Sparta, a society that heavily emphasized the fitness of its citizens and their subjection to the state in order to create a stronger nation. In contrast, American tradition places emphasis on individual rights and prosperity. Despite heavy nationalist rhetoric, one of the most touted aspects of American government and society is the American dream by which people can enrich their own lives. We don’t have national service, nor do we have a draft; both are indicative of a higher expectation of “giving back” to one’s country by contributing to its preservation. National service implies that we owe something to our country for the services and environment provided, a debt that can be paid physically as well as monetarily. The physical debt however, is more difficult to pay if you happen to be obese. So do we owe something to our nation- a bare minimum of keeping ourselves reasonably fit so we can fight if need be? I’m not sure. It seems absurdly invasive to implement weight limits on people or outlaw smoking or ban behaviors that might be detrimental to the preservation of a nation. Individual freedoms- particularly over the state of one’s health or body- are extremely important. There is an inevitable tension between one’s personal freedom and the (supposed) good of society that should be recognized.

The changes being proposed are fairly non-invasive: limiting junk food in schools and implementing education programs to aid in healthy eating. As uncontroversial as these measures are, they are still a form of government direction. Now that the military is involved, such measures could be seen as having a less benign purpose- that’s another discussion altogether. Such measures are clearly beneficial to the individuals who are encouraged to eat more healthily. At the same time, the characterization of obesity as a “national security threat” links personal choices about health and the subsequent effects of such choices on the community.

National researchers in cell biology have identified proteins that turn normal skin cells into brown fat cells, which use energy to generate heat.

“Energy only gets burned when your heart beats or your muscles walk up a flight of stairs or when you breathe,” said Clay Semenkovich, chief of the division of endocrinology, metabolism and lipid research at the Washington University School of Medicine.

Brown fat cells do not store energy. They burn it without carrying out a function, such as beating the heart or walking, Semenkovich said.

Until recently, scientists believed that only animals and human babies had brown fat cells. But researchers discovered brown fat cells in adults when PET scans showed higher rates of glucose metabolism in patients who had been waiting in cold waiting rooms at their doctors’ offices.

Brown fat evolved to help people and animals in cold environments stay warm, Semenkovich said.

“People were freezing in the waiting rooms, and they were actually turning on brown fat,” he said.

The presence of brown fat cells in human adults carries implications for obesity research.

“People who are overweight have much less active brown fat,” Semenkovich said.

Researchers at Harvard engineered skin cells from mice and humans to become brown fat. This technology requires further research, though, before scientists can test it on humans.

“There’s always a disadvantage to tricking the body into doing things that it probably should not do,” Semenkovich said.

With brown fat, that disadvantage stems from the heat that the cells release. The excess heat could lead to dangerous and possibly deadly fevers in humans.

In the early 20th century, a chemist identified 2,4-dinitrophenol, a chemical that produced the same effects as brown fat cells.

“At one point somebody estimated that there were perhaps 500,000 people who had taken doses of this industrial chemical,” Semenkovich said. “It really did make them lose weight, but it also made them show up in emergency rooms with such dangerously high fevers that they died.”

Brown fat cell technology will require extensive research into controlling heat release.

“I want a therapy for people who are morbidly obese…but we’re going to have to be very careful about the way this is done or we’re going to cause a whole new set of problems,” Semenkovich said.

Weight loss research has implications for nutrition as well. Connie Diekman, director of University nutrition and former president of the American Dietetic Association, sees students on campus attempting to lose weight by changing their food intake and exercising.

“What many students get caught up in, though, is it doesn’t happen as quickly as they want, so they wonder about the fast loss, whether it’s the pills, whether it’s the diet, whatever it might be,” Diekman said.

Diekman said that while obesity research is essential to provide an understanding of metabolism, the public should approach weight loss techniques cautiously.

“You want to follow guidelines that are based upon what we know,” Diekman said. “Don’t change every time a new research study comes out.”

Currently, the scientific evidence shows that food changes are the proven method of losing weight.

“Physical activity alone will not do it,” Diekman said.

Diekman works with chefs on campus to create healthy food options for students. She also works to educate the University community on healthy food choices by writing informational brochures placed on the tables at dining locations such as Wohl Dining.

Sophomore Stephanie Trimboli finds that eating healthily on campus is “easy if you want to,” but she does not see much evidence of the administration’s attempts to educate students on healthful eating choices.

Despite nutritional guidelines, the implications of new weight loss research remain appealing to the public.

“It’s so seductive to people to be able to take something that will solve their problems without having to exercise [or eat less] that someone will always wind up doing it,” Semenkovich said.