Getting religion about health

What role should the government have in deciding what food advertisers should be able to market to children?

I'm really a First Amendment guy when it comes to telling the media what they can do, because I don't want the government telling you what you can write. I'm almost a libertarian when it comes to things like that, much to the surprise of many, even though I'm a conservative Republican, and a person of deep personal faith. I am very uncomfortable when people want to start choosing even what's on the cable channels. Because you know, where does it stop?

There are a lot of things on television that are offensive to me, but that's why I have an off button. And when enough people like me are disgusted with something and don't watch it, then they'll be a different kind of program. The reason some programs are continuing to proliferate is because whether or not I particularly like it or agree with it, there are folks out there that enjoy it. Art typically reflects the culture rather than necessarily creates it.

You write in the book that you're opposed to lawsuits against food companies by people who believe that they've made them or their children fat. Why?

Because I think that that's basically based on the outright, reckless, irresponsible greed of lawyers, and people who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and want to make excuses and blame others. I strongly believe the people who are like me -- underexercised and overfed -- have to stop making excuses.

I can't go around whining all the time, blaming everybody else for the fact that I was overweight and in poor health. I was that way because I made bad choices. No one ever put a gun to my head and forced me back to the buffet for a second time.

One issue that's been a hot-button one in your state is whether junk food should be banned in schools. As I understand it, vending machines are now banned in elementary schools in Arkansas but not in the higher grades. Why not extend it to all students?

We have banned it for the elementary kids, and I think that's appropriate. These kids are so young that I don't know that they are at a point where they can make good choices or would make good choices.

We may eventually ban junk food for high school kids too. But right now we want that decision to be made at the local level, with input from parents and the schools. In some cases, schools have contractual obligations, and we don't want to disrupt that until those contracts are over. But we would like them to maybe look at not renewing restrictive contracts.

And we don't want to be driven by assumptions and hysteria. We want a research-based approach to improving health -- because the first time we do something that's reacting to even a legitimate assumption and a study comes out and says that it's not a factor, then I think we lose credibility.

With our BMI data, we're preparing a study now; we're going into our schools and forming test groups. Group 1 has unlimited access to vending machines with any kind of product they want, Group 2 has no vending machines whatsoever, and Group 3 gets vending machines, but the machines are filled with healthier options, like bottled water and juice. At the end of a year, you can see what has happened to the groups' BMIs. Did the access to those machines make a significant difference? I think we're going to find that it makes a slight difference, but most kids who are going to eat junk out of vending machines are [also] going to eat junk whether they bring it from home, go off campus to get it or just eat it after school.

A lot of people think: Just get vending machines out of the schools and make kids take P.E., and this whole thing is fixed. I don't think so. And here's why: Good health habits are more caught than taught. It has a whole lot more to do with the overall culture that a kid grows up with in his or her family than it does with just going to school.

Too many people want there to be a simple demon for why we're in the shape we're in, and there's not. They want to blame the fast-food industry, or they want to blame the schools. I don't think it's that simple. Plus, that view totally removes parents. Parents have to understand that the school cannot be the vicarious parent.

I'm afraid that we're creating this mind-set where a lot of parents drop their kids off at school like they're dropping laundry off at the dry cleaners, expecting to pick them up with one-day service and that everything is going to be just fine. That's totally unrealistic, and it's completely unfair to teachers and to school systems to be given that kind of burden. The schools ought to be a part of it, but the school cannot be a substitute mother and father.

Don't schools undermine what they're teaching about nutrition in the classroom by serving unhealthy lunches or having vending machines full of junk food available?

The school lunches do have to get better -- I don't disagree with that. I think every school needs to look at its menu. It's not that we'd say a kid could never eat a hot dog, but how many hot dogs should a kid eat? And should we fry foods in a school cafeteria? Maybe we should never fry foods there. We ought to serve more vegetables. When the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] essentially ships in enormous amounts of subsidized food to schools, it's maybe not the healthiest thing in the world. I think that government has to begin to reevaluate that.

Some people have suggested that you're using your book tour to raise your national profile to run for president in 2008.

Well, I'm always flattered when somebody thinks that the primary reason I lost 110 pounds and got my health back is just as a political stunt.

That would be a very extreme political stunt.

Wouldn't it, though? In fact, I could even go further and say that the reason I gained 110 pounds and almost died was so that I could then have this resurrection. That would really be a great political stunt.

It's the nature of the public to assume that there's an ulterior motive to everything you do. But, quite frankly, whether I'm going to run or not, I don't know. I'm not being coy. I just simply don't know. But I'm not going to go around saying: "Oh no, I would never even consider it." If you get mentioned enough, and people keep talking to you, it's something that you might consider. But right now it's not something that's front and center on the radar screen.

The health initiative is. I really am very passionate about it. I think that it's an important thing. It may be more important than running for president.

In terms of the impact it could have?

Sure. I'm politically astute enough to know that just because I lost weight, started running and wrote a book about it, that's not singularly enough of a qualification to say: "Yeah, this guy ought to be president." Otherwise, Dr. Phil would be running; Oprah would be running. Actually, come to think of it, Oprah could get elected.

• 
• Be the first to post a letter about this story
• View blog reactions