Icable diseases in general and obesity more specifically (e.g. Wright

EntinostatMedChemExpress Entinostat Icable diseases in general and obesity more specifically (e.g. Wright and Harwood, 2009; Lupton, 2013). The participants in this debate not only contest the science of obesity (e.g. Gard and Wright, 2005; Guthman, 2011) but, more importantly here, they critique the pathologisation of fatness and an associated governmental impulse that prioritises the production of bodies that conform to cultural norms regarding size and shape as well as to contemporary public health imperatives relating to individual and population health (e.g. Evans, 2006; Evans and Colls, 2009; Fullagar, 2009; Herrick, 2011). As Bethan Evans and Rachel Colls argue, such an impulse is biopolitical in that individuals are the subjects of `surveillance, punishment and training’ and relates to Foucault’s broader understanding of biopower because the discoursesurrounding obesity is directed at `man-as-species’ and is concerned more generally with the health of populations (Foucault cited in Evans and Colls, 2009, p. 1055). Evans (2010) extends this reading of the biopolitics of obesity in a subsequent essay discussing notions of threat and pre-emptive politics as they relate to the body, the population and the nation. As she argues, the `war’ on obesity that has developed in the high-income countries of the global North, which is a war on specific types of bodies as much as it is a war on the environments that help to produce them (Guthman, 2011), is concerned primarily with the threat that the `Anlotinib site matter of bodies’ pose in the future (Evans, 2010, p. 22). Evans distinguishes here between the public health logics of prevention and pre-emption and focuses on interventions directed at the `bodies of the future’: children (Evans, 2010, 30). Her argument is that where the western tradition of public health has in the past concerned itself with the prevention of known and calculable risks to health, it is now more focused with taking pre-emptive action in the face of futures that are less certain, less knowable. As she argues, obesity policy is `reliant on the temporal gap between onset of risk factor and onset (or not) of ill-health. This gap provides an opportunity for pre-emptive action…’ (Evans, 2010, p. 30). There are two key points to take from the above discussion. Firstly, if we only treat culture normatively in our analyses of NCDs in the global South, as there has been a tendency to do, we risk obscuring the political contestation that arises around specific bodies and the (western) practices that have rendered them problematic. Yach et al. (2006) suggest there is a threat inherent in the importation of western medical responses; for them, it relates to the pharmaceuticalisation of public health as well as to the reliance on procedures such as bariatric surgery (cf. Whitmarsh, 2013). Arguing from a health economics perspective and for more emphasis on evidence-based prevention strategies, they suggest such interventions risk the vitality of entire health systems as money is diverted to expensive and unaffordable treatments. We would argue this is not the only `threat’ that needs critical attention. To it we would add the threat posed by neoliberal ideologies that have underpinned the response to NCDs in the global North and which see care for certain bodies not only as an `excessive cost’ in the present but as an unacceptable burden on the future (Guthman, 2011, 54). Secondly, and more briefly, the above discussion challenges us to consider more seriously and much more.Icable diseases in general and obesity more specifically (e.g. Wright and Harwood, 2009; Lupton, 2013). The participants in this debate not only contest the science of obesity (e.g. Gard and Wright, 2005; Guthman, 2011) but, more importantly here, they critique the pathologisation of fatness and an associated governmental impulse that prioritises the production of bodies that conform to cultural norms regarding size and shape as well as to contemporary public health imperatives relating to individual and population health (e.g. Evans, 2006; Evans and Colls, 2009; Fullagar, 2009; Herrick, 2011). As Bethan Evans and Rachel Colls argue, such an impulse is biopolitical in that individuals are the subjects of `surveillance, punishment and training’ and relates to Foucault’s broader understanding of biopower because the discoursesurrounding obesity is directed at `man-as-species’ and is concerned more generally with the health of populations (Foucault cited in Evans and Colls, 2009, p. 1055). Evans (2010) extends this reading of the biopolitics of obesity in a subsequent essay discussing notions of threat and pre-emptive politics as they relate to the body, the population and the nation. As she argues, the `war’ on obesity that has developed in the high-income countries of the global North, which is a war on specific types of bodies as much as it is a war on the environments that help to produce them (Guthman, 2011), is concerned primarily with the threat that the `matter of bodies’ pose in the future (Evans, 2010, p. 22). Evans distinguishes here between the public health logics of prevention and pre-emption and focuses on interventions directed at the `bodies of the future’: children (Evans, 2010, 30). Her argument is that where the western tradition of public health has in the past concerned itself with the prevention of known and calculable risks to health, it is now more focused with taking pre-emptive action in the face of futures that are less certain, less knowable. As she argues, obesity policy is `reliant on the temporal gap between onset of risk factor and onset (or not) of ill-health. This gap provides an opportunity for pre-emptive action…’ (Evans, 2010, p. 30). There are two key points to take from the above discussion. Firstly, if we only treat culture normatively in our analyses of NCDs in the global South, as there has been a tendency to do, we risk obscuring the political contestation that arises around specific bodies and the (western) practices that have rendered them problematic. Yach et al. (2006) suggest there is a threat inherent in the importation of western medical responses; for them, it relates to the pharmaceuticalisation of public health as well as to the reliance on procedures such as bariatric surgery (cf. Whitmarsh, 2013). Arguing from a health economics perspective and for more emphasis on evidence-based prevention strategies, they suggest such interventions risk the vitality of entire health systems as money is diverted to expensive and unaffordable treatments. We would argue this is not the only `threat’ that needs critical attention. To it we would add the threat posed by neoliberal ideologies that have underpinned the response to NCDs in the global North and which see care for certain bodies not only as an `excessive cost’ in the present but as an unacceptable burden on the future (Guthman, 2011, 54). Secondly, and more briefly, the above discussion challenges us to consider more seriously and much more.