Mr. William Saletan,

Thank you for the clarification. I vaguely understood your point from last week's article, but it is now crystal clear and well taken. The broader point notwithstanding, your intimation that people "cursed with bad metabolism" do not bear the same level of personal responsibility as others, presumably those with a "normal" or "good" metabolism, when it comes to their obesity seems odd to me. What is a "normal" metabolism? Aren't we all responsible for being aware, to the extent possible, of the genetic hand we've been dealt? Wouldn't the very nature of personal responsibility require such people to realize that if they eat what is socially considered "normal" and still continue to gain weight at an unhealthy rate, they need to change their behavior? Are we more permissive of alcoholics and drug addicts who have a family history or some other predisposition toward substance abuse?

Your article of September 2, 2006 was fascinating in its juxtaposition of how humans evolved to survive periods of scarcity and the resultant irony of the current food surplus. It further points out the relatively recent link between poverty and obesity, primarily due to the creativity of the commercial "food" industry. In my opinion, in the United States at least, the only reasonable "excuses" for obesity are related to lack of education and/or economic well-being. I'm perfectly fine with whatever choices people make for themselves (I may be at my ideal weight but I'm also a fan of cigarettes, caffeine, and cocktails) but our education system should start treating junk food and fast food a little more like it treats cigarettes and alcohol, so that children grow up knowing it's not really "food" in the sense of necessary sustenance, but rather a treat that is enjoyable in moderation but potentially harmful.

Stigma is the wrong word, but education and responsibility are critical.