the writer is bang on ... how does society deal with economic interests that create negative outcomes for society but positive outcomes for the organization?

coca cola generates huge profits, taxes and jobs ... positive outcomes to be sure ... by taking water, adding sugar, flavour & co2 and then packaging, distributing and marketing the stuff ... the result is tooth decay, obesity & diabetes ... never mind lousy advertisements

i don't have the numbers but i would guess that the benefit to society is overall negative ... this is analogous to tobacco and alcohol which are often taxed at higher rates to discourage consumption & compensate for increased costs to the rest of society... carbon taxes are being similarly bandied about to influence our use of fossil fuels

the primary purpose of a commercial enterprise is to make money ... other goals are secondary ... this is fine ... unless the product it produces generates negative outcomes ... then society ie. government and ngo's, has the right and duty to deal with it ... taxes seem to be a popular route but not without huge difficulties including the opposition of the affected and powerful commercial interests

identifying, costing and then taxing these negative outcomes is only one avenue ... education and investment in alternatives such as fitness facilities in this case, hopefully funded by the taxes from the bad guys are also needed

This argument has been heard before, that capitalist interests exist the products of which create stimulus for weight gain. As often happens, however, it does not mention other capitalist interests which directly or indirectly utilize or actively promote anti-fat sentiment to sell their products, from weight loss products themselves to cigarettes, clothing, exercise equipment and so on.

All it takes is a sufficiently capital-friendly government, and the tax revenue from commercial activity will fall short of any need to speak of.

As for what is obesogenic, one could argue, and I'm sure some do, that democracy is itself. In an authoritarian system, the ideal is that a citizen is conscripted into military service, is told what to do, and simply does it. In democracy, the ideal is that a citizen maintains information about political matters and becomes involved in crafting of policy. This involves study and debate, which are necessarily sedentary activities. In more base words, you have to sit on your big ass and read texts of initiatives and candidate statements, and talk them over with other people.

If more people become fat, then either there will be an overwhelming demand to make health care a higher priority and to back it up with money, or the population will be shamed by market and government leaders into accepting the idea that they deserve not to be cared for, as far too many "overweight" and "obese" individuals already are by some quite vicious capitalist and government interests.

Gil Scott Heron said it himself, "The revolution will not make you look five pounds thinner."

Over the past decade there have been numerous attempts to explain the nature of obesity. Some say its a genetic disposition. Some say its a social phenomenon. This article seems to suggest that capitalism is to blame, or at least is partly to blame. This is a tiresome subject, of which the author himself gives a straight-forward answer: we eat more food than we burn in exercise. Why not just blitz America with this insight and be done with it (just as cigarettes have their government health warning). In this way the question of whether obesity is genetic or not is sideskipped.