The South is known for good, down-home cooking. If it involves grease, those of us who live here are all over it. If it involves a more healthy cooking method, then we have to have a little more coaxing to give it a try. You probably wouldn’t be surprised that there are Southern states that rank at the top in obesity.

In Mississippi, a lawmaker wants to do something about that and his plan is causing lots of eyebrow raising.

Rep. W.T. Mayhall, Jr. (R) has proposed House Bill 282:

“An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes.”

It’s one thing for government to attempt bans on smoking in public places (which I favor) or on using dangerous trans-fats (which I have mixed feelings about). It’s quite another for government to attempt to ban the serving of food to people based on whether they are obese. In fact, there are many problems with this plan:

• All people who are obese are not necessarily so solely because of food. Some people who are borderline obese can be pushed over the scale by medication, for example. Also, a lack of exercise is also sometimes at least as much to blame as inadequate portion size.
• The solution to being obese isn’t to stop eating. Your body still needs fuel. You should certainly eat less, but if you stop eating completely, your body begins burning lean muscle tissue and fat. It’s the lean muscle tissue that you do have that helps burn the fat that you shouldn’t have.
• It has the potential to be a psychological nightmare for people who are obese and already have to fight low self-esteem. The last thing they need is to be pulled aside during an evening out with friends and be shown the door and embarrassed.
• It’s distinctly punitive. The policy wouldn’t take into account anyone who is actually making progress towards losing weight: for example, a patron who is on a weight loss and exercise plan, and who has already lost 100 pounds, but still falls just inside of the “obese” range, would be treated just the same as someone who refuses to exercise or eat responsibly. Doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?
• How do you actually measure this? One’s Body Mass Index (BMI) is a comparison of height to weight. So this means that you’d literally have to measure every person who walks in the door: you’d have to weight them and determine their height, then calculate the index. Can you imagine waiting in a line for that?
• The BMI isn’t absolute. One year ago, when I weighed 290, my blood sugar level was in the “Pre-Diabetic” range and my cholesterol was at 239, thirty-nine points into the “red zone.” But after losing 50 pounds, my blood sugar level was well into the normal range as was my cholesterol. The lipid markers all showed good readings, even though I was still technically “obese.” BMI also doesn’t take into account whether a person is carrying a lot of muscle weight or is “big-boned.” It is only a flat ratio of height to weight, and no fitness expert I’ve ever spoken with considers it the defining method of figuring one’s healthy weight.

Most BMI indexes suggest that I should weigh less than 180. Sure. Nothing would thrill me more. But I think I have an equal chance of sprouting horns. On the other hand, I have an uncle who just turned 75, who has been significantly overweight for decades. At his most recent doctor’s visit, his doc marveled at his cardiac condition, and said he has the heart of a thirty-year-old. While that may certainly be the exception and not the rule, it does happen.

There are lots of ways to encourage people to do the right thing when it comes to food. Unfortunately, this isn’t one of them. Not by a long shot.