There’s more to life than money, but societies can struggle to express it. When we talk about the state of nations and their citizens, we tend ultimately to boil it down to a few economic indicators. These can tell us a great deal, but they don’t quite tell us everything. The untouched stretch of ancient woodland, the arts in education, the close-knit community, the healthy childhood: there are plenty of valuable things that cannot always be weighed on this scale. And this is a problem, particularly for people who want to hang on to those valuable things. Here’s a rule of thumb: if you can’t measure how much something is worth, it becomes tricky to protect it. Those who do not want to see a bluebell wood destroyed or another humanities subject ditched can find it hard to argue their case against the cold logic of pounds and pence. What yardstick can they use that will be taken seriously? It’s not just activists for whom this is an issue. Governments have long flirted with the idea of an alternative to GDP, a way to capture what really matters to citizens. A “[happiness index](https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/the-unhappy-quest-for-a-happiness-index/)” was at one point a fashionable idea, but has proved too narrow and ambiguous. People often misunderstood what surveys were asking them – happiness can be hard to pin down. How do you weigh pleasure against contentment? What about meaning? But I wonder whether over the past few years a solution has presented itself, almost without us noticing. Little by little, a sturdier, better evidenced and more widely applicable unit of value has emerged in public life: that of mental health. We all use it already. Is it good for your mental health? This is the question by which increasingly large parts of our lives are evaluated. The language of psychology has spread so that it covers almost all human activity, from the quality of our workplaces, to the state of teenagers, to the way we spend our free time, to the manner in which we engage with our friends. If politicians are looking for a new way to measure what is important to us, they only have to open their ears. Take, for example, the simple hobby. People no longer merely go for a walk, take up birdwatching, adopt a pet or learn to bake cakes. Instead, they discover a form of self-care that conquers their anxiety, changes their life or saves their marriage. This is what we aspire to, now, in our free time – a radical overhaul of our mental health. Just look at the books [hobbyists are writing](https://www.nypl.org/blog/2023/01/04/memoir-hobbies-transformative) these days. Sample: _Hooked: How Crafting Saved My Life_; _Thirty-Thousand Steps: A Memoir of Sprinting Toward_ _Life After Loss_; _Dinner_ _for One: How Cooking in Paris Saved Me_. The arts, too, are increasingly framed as aides to wellbeing. Why invest in a [gallery pass](https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/national-art-pass-mental-wellbeing)? It’s good for your mental health. Why take up an instrument or [learn to paint](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/well/mind/art-mental-health.html)? It’s good for your mental health. Where once art was dedicated to the glory of God, now it is laid on the altar of mental wellbeing, which might well be the religion of our secular age. (The archbishop of Canterbury once complained that Christ the saviour had become [Christ the counsellor](https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2000/08/address-by-the-archbishop-of-canterbury-preaching-christ-in-a-broken-world.aspx).) > Many are turned off by the spread of this newfangled language and what they see as the co-option of common sense Even fictional characters are these days evaluated in terms of their mental health. The writer Parul Sehgal has noted the rise of the [trauma plot](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/03/the-case-against-the-trauma-plot), which does not “direct our curiosity toward the future (will they or won’t they?) but back into the past (what happened to her?).” And we do this to real-life characters too. Channel 4’s recent [_The Rise and Fall of Boris Johnson_](https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/mar/06/the-rise-and-fall-of-boris-johnson-review-can-we-even-be-sure-hell-stay-fallen) is one in a long series of probes into the former prime minister that attempts to locate his future actions somewhere in his childhood. Tabloids used to fill their pages with claims about what gives you cancer (intermittent fasting, red wine, hot tea) or helps stave it off (intermittent fasting, red wine, hot tea). Now the story is wellbeing. What helps? What hinders? Now, it is easy to scoff at all this, and plenty do. Many are turned off by the spread of this newfangled language and what they see as the co-option of common sense. (What happened to just going for a swim or seeing your mates? Isn’t this “mental health” stuff all rather obvious?) Indeed, this scepticism was probably the basis for a nascent culture war launched last week by Rishi Sunak, who announced a plan [to withdraw disability benefits from some people with mental health conditions](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/19/sunak-disability-benefit-curbs-sicknote-culture-pip), in a bid to tackle the “overmedicalising \[of\] the everyday challenges of life”. But these critics – and that solution – badly miss the mark. Learning more about our mental health, what helps and what doesn’t, is in fact rather useful. This knowledge was once the preserve of academics and those who could afford therapy; now anyone can get hold of it. This can only be a good thing. The evidence base may not be complete, but it is weighty and increasing all the time. The solution to “overmedicalisation” is surely not to ditch people in need but to continue to improve our understanding of mental health. And we shouldn’t presume, either, that complex large-scale societies always proceed in a healthy “commonsense” direction; it is new research into mental health that is guiding us back to “commonsense” practices – seeing your mates more, going for a swim outside – that we were in danger of leaving in the past. If we want an alternative unit of value by which to assess and guide a society, we could do worse than the mental health of its citizens. In a way, we’ve already adopted it. Despite Sunak’s posturing, mental health is a potent political tool. It was only recently that he launched a crackdown on mobile phones in schools on the basis that they harm children’s mental health. Mental health impact is the reason we now [take loneliness seriously](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-government-research-identifies-clear-links-between-loneliness-and-mental-health-distress). It is the metric by which we increasingly judge workplaces; the government has previously urged employers to improve support. It is the justification for [keeping hold of green spaces](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f202e0de90e071a5a924316/Improving_access_to_greenspace_2020_review.pdf) and, increasingly, for [caring about the environment](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446935/#:~:text=Droughts%20otherwise%20can%20lead%20to,can%20lead%20to%20acculturation%20stress) in the first place. We already measure ourselves by our mental health. Time to put that to use. Martha Gill is an Observer columnist

[“Of all the things Apple could innovate… ain’t nobody thinking ‘I want a thinner iPad’”](https://x.com/theoriginalneal/status/1788027568047718748?s=61) [“Nobody wants a thinner iPad, Tim.”](https://x.com/shortformernie/status/1787857499032256840?s=61) Last week, Apple streamed an iPad [launch event](https://www.apple.com/apple-events/?useASL=true) that trumpeted its new iPad Pro as “the thinnest Apple product ever.” As the above reactions from Twitter/X indicate, it’s fair to say the achievement wasn’t met with instant adulation. Even the company’s new commercial conveying how thin the new Pro is—which depicted beloved real-world creative tools such as a piano and paints being crushed—[turned out to trigger people rather than intrigue them](https://www.fastcompany.com/video/was-apples-new-ad-tonedeaf/6voqU8aq). I was primed to be skeptical myself. After all, back in 2021, when Apple introduced [heavier, thicker MacBook Pros](https://www.theverge.com/22734645/apple-macbook-pro-2021-ports-magsafe-touch-bar-usb-c-future) that brought back the memory-card slot and HDMI port, I [cheered](https://x.com/harrymccracken/status/1450153951723094016?s=61) the tacit acknowledgment that its long-standing mania for slimming down its devices had gone too far. But for the past few days, I’ve been trying the new 13-inch iPad Pro with its updated Magic Keyboard and the new iPad Pencil Pro, as well as the new 13-inch iPad Air, in the form of review units provided by Apple before their May 15 on-sale date. The single most rewarding thing about the new gear _is_ the iPad Pro’s reduction in size and weight. It meaningfully changes the iPad experience for the better in ways the specs don’t capture. (For the record, the 13-inch Pro, at .20” thick and 1.28 pounds, is .05” thinner and 3.6 ounces lighter than its predecessor.) The iPad Pro’s sleek new reimagining does come at quite a cost. Apple has hiked the line’s starting price to $999, for an 11-inch model with 128 GB of storage; that’s up $200. A fully tricked-out 13-inch iPad Pro with 2 TB of storage, a cellular modem, the new glare-resistant nano-texture glass option, a Magic Keyboard, and an Apple Pencil Pro will set you back an eye-watering $3,077. Moreover, if you were using a Magic Keyboard and second-generation Apple Pencil with a previous iPad, you’ll need to replace them: They’re incompatible with the new Pros.  The new iPad Pro is thinner than any iPad—or iPhone, Mac, Apple Watch, or iPod—before it. \[Photo: Apple\] The iPad Pro’s unapologetic spendiness leaves a welcome spot in the iPad portfolio for the new iPad Air. The new 11-inch Air is no thinner or lighter than its earlier Air and Pro counterparts. But more than ever, it’s an [iPad Almost Pro](https://www.fastcompany.com/90731726/ipad-air-2022-review-vs-ipad-pro), delivering an impressive percentage of the Pro’s goodness for hundreds of dollars less at any given configuration. Apple has also added a 13-inch Air, reminiscent of last year’s [15-inch MacBook Air](https://www.theverge.com/23757441/apple-macbook-air-15-inch-2023-review) in its mainstreaming of the big screens the company formerly reserved for its priciest product tiers. Add in substantial upgrades to the Magic Keyboard and Pencil, and Apple just gave the iPad its best refresh since [2018](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/apple-fall-2018-event-new-york-macbook-air-ipad-announcement). (2022’s upgrades were a tad [perplexing](https://www.fastcompany.com/90799244/new-ipad-and-ipad-pro-review-just-where-is-apples-tablet-going) and 2023 saw no new iPads at all.) Still, people who care about the future of the iPad should keep their expectations in check until June’s WWDC event and news of the next version of iPadOS. Especially since Apple’s hardware and software visions for the platform have often seemed [misaligned](https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/05/the-ipad-pro-is-no-longer-the-future-so-whats-next/) in a way that’s rare for anything hailing from Cupertino. Of all the products Apple makes, the iPad may benefit most from increased svelteness—svelterness?—as a design goal. After all, a tablet isn’t like a laptop, whose thickness and weight matter mostly when you’re toting it around. _Holding_ the iPad in a variety of ways is fundamental to interacting with it: like a dead-tree book, like a pad of drawing paper, like a portable movie player, like a jumbo-size gaming handheld. Even a mundane task such as scanning a paper document requires picking the tablet up in a particular fashion. (Speaking of which, Apple tweaked the new iPad Pro’s back camera’s flash to improve scanning quality in murky lighting.) As nice as a roomy screen is, previous versions of the big iPad Pro could be unwieldy in many of these contexts—enough so that I downsized to the 11-inch version in 2021, a switch I’ve never regretted. Compared to its bulkier predecessors, the new 13-incher is just a pleasanter, less fatiguing object to have in your hands, particularly for extended periods. With apologies to everyone who’s so confident nobody wants a thinner iPad, I’m still not satisfied: If Apple can make future iPads even trimmer, it should. That the company was able to reduce the current model’s heft as much as it did is thanks to its latest processor, the M4, which—in a [shocker](https://daringfireball.net/linked/2024/04/28/m4-ipad-pros-gurman) to folks who thought it would show up only later in the year, and probably in a Mac—is debuting in the new iPad Pro. Without the M4, reducing the tablet’s thickness and weight might have come at the cost of reduced performance and battery life. With the chip, Apple says, the new Pro’s CPU performance is up to 1.5 times faster than the previous-generation model based on the M2, with the same 10-hour battery life of every iPad back to the 2010 original. (I didn’t run speed tests on the tablet, in part because even my three-year-old iPad Pro with an M1 chip never feels sluggish; over at _Six Colors_, Jason Snell [performed benchmarks](https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/05/m4_ipad_pro_review/) that show the new iPad Pro handily outperforming previous iPad Pros as well as the MacBook Air.) The M4 chip is also essential to the iPad Pro’s other new flagship feature, its new Ultra Retina XDR display. That’s Applespeak for screens based on “tandem” OLED technology, which uses two panels to meld traditional OLED virtues such as deep blacks and vivid colors with up to 1000 nits of brightness (1600 nits for HDR content), all in a thin, power-efficient form. I’m not sure if the results are meaningfully better than the [mini-LED](https://www.macrumors.com/guide/mini-led/) tech used in the previous big iPad Pro, but it’s easy to see the improvement over the LCD screens in the new iPad Air and previous 11-inch iPad Pro.  On the iPad Pro’s new “tandem” OLED display, black is definitely black. \[Photo: Apple\] One other mundane, overdue new iPad Pro feature makes me a little giddy. Apple finally relocated the tablet’s front-facing camera from the portrait edge to the landscape edge, so it’s centered above the screen in instances such as when you’re making a Zoom call with the tablet in a keyboard case. Until now, that scenario has placed the camera halfway down on the left side of the tablet, leaving me off-center and seemingly shifty-eyed. It’s such a dismal way to present myself to the world that I’ve tried to avoid making important calls from my iPad Pro. No longer. I’m also irrationally pleased by an upgrade Apple made to its new version of its Magic Keyboard case, which is compatible only with the new iPad Pro. Though largely similar to the [previous version](https://www.fastcompany.com/90500039/im-cooped-up-with-my-ipad-and-a-magic-keyboard-heres-what-ive-learned), which remains available for the iPad Air and previous-generation iPad Pros, it adds a row of function keys alone the top for common tasks such as adjusting the volume and screen brightness, launching dictation, and controlling media. That, along with the new version’s larger trackpad, aluminum palm rest, and slightly thinner and lighter specs turn the iPad Pro into by far the most laptop-like iPad ever. As they should, at $349 for the 13-inch Magic Keyboard and $299 for the 11-inch one. One thing about the new Magic Keyboard, though: During my time with it, I encountered sporadic moments when clicking the trackpad—which now uses haptic feedback rather than actually moving when you press it—didn’t register properly in Safari, the Dropbox app, and elsewhere. This issue persisted even after Apple provided a replacement Magic Keyboard. How widespread this misbehavior might be, I don’t know. But it’s a significant bug that I hope Apple will quickly diagnose and resolve. I experienced no such quirks with the new $129 Apple Pencil Pro. It adds a new squeeze gesture that performs tasks such as pulling up quick tool menus right at your pen point, a gyroscope that enables you to rotate the Pencil in your fingers for fine control over virtual art implements in apps such as Apple’s Notes, haptic feedback, and compatibility with Apple’s Find My service for misplaced gadgets. The Pencil Pro performed admirably in beta versions of Procreate, Goodnotes, SketchUp, and other apps, and I can’t wait to see what additional developers do with it. Along with adding all this new stuff, the Pencil Pro is also compatible with the revised magnetic charging system Apple devised to allow the stylus to cling to the same edge of the iPad Pro where the front-facing camera and Touch ID sensor are located. That’s why the Pencil Pro is compatible only with the new iPad Pro and iPad Air. It’s also why the only previous Pencil that works with the new iPads is the version that charges via USB-C rather than magnetically. (It lacks pressure sensitivity, so I don’t recommend it.) For people upgrading from earlier iPads, having to acquire a new Pencil Pro is a pricey complication. Having finally reengineered the camera and Pencil to play nicely, here’s hoping Apple henceforth maintains a level of ongoing Pencil compatibility it’s never achieved thus far. Then there’s the new iPad Air, which is a pretty easy product to explain. (Though apparently not so easy to name: The Air brand, which dates to a [skinny 2013 iPad](https://techland.time.com/2013/10/29/ipad-air-review/), makes no sense on these new models, which are [strikingly chunkier](https://www.fastcompany.com/91121075/apple-ipad-air-pro-m4-size-weight-pencil) than the new iPad Pros.) For [several generations now](https://www.fastcompany.com/90566452/ipad-air-fourth-generation-2020-review), the iPad Air has sat in the midrange of the iPad lineup, catering to folks who crave a step up from an entry-level iPad but are put off by the iPad Pro’s cost. With the new iPad Pro’s higher prices, that job has become only more important, and the Air fills it well. In fact, it fills it better than ever, in part because there are now two Airs: The 11-inch model (replacing the previous 10.9-incher) and the all-new 13-inch version.  Yes, the iPad Air is chunkier than the iPad Pro—but it still makes sense on its own terms. \[Photo: Apple\] From their heftier form factors to less advanced displays to more basic speaker and microphone setups, the new iPad Air does make their share of technological sacrifices compared to the costlier iPad Pro. But it doesn’t come off as compromised, just less ultra-deluxe. Crucially, it matches two of the Pro’s best new features: the landscape camera orientation and compatibility with the Pencil Pro. The one aspect of the new iPad Air that felt like an economy measure to me is its use of Touch ID rather than Face ID. As long as your fingers are already in the vicinity of the side button where the Touch ID sensor resides, it’s no big deal. But if the Air is in a Magic Keyboard, reaching up to use Touch ID is a reminder you’re using a tablet masquerading as a laptop. By contrast, the iPad Pro’s Face ID is as effortless as an authentication method gets. As the iPad lineup expands, it’s reasonable to [worry](https://sixcolors.com/post/2024/05/does-the-ipad-lineup-make-sense-now-yes-and-no/) about the profusion of options complicating buying decisions rather than simplifying them. With both the Air and Pro now available in two sizes, the lines do increasingly overlap. Ultimately, though, with the Air topping out at $1,449 and the Pro at $2,599—_sans_ Magic Keyboard and/or Pencil Pro—I don’t think most prospective buyers will have that much trouble gravitating toward the right iPad for them. There comes a moment in every iPad review when its author, after finding much to admire in the new hardware, pauses to fret about the tablet’s software. That moment is now. May I speak as someone who’s used various iPads as my primary work machines for [more than a dozen years](https://technologizer.com/2011/12/05/how-the-ipad-2-became-my-favorite-computer/index.html)? The iPhone, the Mac, and the Apple Watch all reflect Apple’s exuberant self-confidence about what each platform should be, from chip to app. Sadly, it’s been years since the iPad showed the same degree of integration, which is why I called it a [beautiful disappointment](https://www.fastcompany.com/90945363/ipad-vs-mac-2023) last year. Back in 2019, when Apple [started calling the iPad’s operating system iPadOS](https://www.fastcompany.com/90358756/with-ipados-apple-is-issuing-a-challenge-to-itself), I took it as a statement of how committed the company was to making sure the platform lived up to its endless potential. Five years later, progress has been far more languid than I would have predicted. For example, iPadOS 16’s big new feature, the off-by-default [Stage Manager windowing interface](https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/31/ipados-17-stage-manager-widgets/), has pretty much been a bust, unless you’re using your tablet with an external display. And when it came to enhancements designed with a tablet-size display in mind, last year’s iPadOS 17 offered the slimmest of pickings. The ambition of the iPad’s hardware and MacBook Pro-like pricing of its top-of-the-line models tells us that Apple sees it as catering to people doing serious work. It’s just that iPadOS has been wandering around in circles, as if the company was short on ideas for pushing it forward or too busy with [other projects](https://www.fastcompany.com/91018858/is-apple-vision-pro-the-next-iphone-no-the-next-mac-maybe).  Coming later this spring, Final Cut Pro for iPad 2 ups the ambition of Apple’s video editor with features like live multicam support. \[Photo: Apple\] I do find room for trepidatious semi-optimism in the fact that last week’s iPad unveiling included the announcement of [new versions](https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/7/24151005/apple-ipad-final-cut-pro-camera-update-logic-pro-creative-tools-refresh) of Apple’s own Final Cut Pro video editor and Logic Pro audio editor. When making the case that the iPad Pro is an industrial-strength creative tool, the company often points to third-party offerings such as Procreate, SketchUp, and DaVinci Resolve rather than any software it’s created itself. Those apps _are_ great. Yet it’s increasingly felt like they’re great despite iPadOS, not because of it. Apple should be one of its own best customers for its platform, and the new Final Cut and Logic may show it’s finally trying. I could go on. But really, the window for uncertainty here is fleeting. In less than a month, at its WWDC keynote on June 10, Apple will reveal what’s in store for iPadOS. Any upgrade it can honestly describe as one of the biggest ever will be a relief; anything less will be a particularly bruising letdown. And the excellence of these new iPads only raises the stakes. _ Recognize your brand’s excellence by applying to this year’s [Brands That Matter Awards](https://www.fastcompany.com/apply/brands-that-matter) before the final deadline, June 7. Sign up for Brands That Matter notifications [here](https://fastcompany.swoogo.com/24btmnotifications/register?ref=article). _

_Unshrinking_ joins the growing literature on anti-fat bias, including the work of sociologist [Sabrina Strings](https://nyupress.org/9781479886753/fearing-the-black-body/), whose book _Fearing the Black Body_ details its racist origins, tracing the shift from the admiration of plumpness as a sign of wealth to the vilification of fat that she argues developed alongside the transatlantic slave trade. Like recent books by [Aubrey Gordon](https://www.aubreygordon.net/books) and journalist [Virginia Sole-Smith](https://virginiasolesmith.com/books/fat-talk-parenting-in-the-age-of-diet-culture/?doing_wp_cron=1711397562.8332970142364501953125), Manne’s uses scientific research to debunk pervasive misconceptions—for example, about the extent to which people can control the size of their bodies—and even to counter the idea that obesity is a disease that requires a cure or large-scale policy response. Research from as early as [1959](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/562795) has shown that most people cannot sustain long-term weight loss. A recent piece in the journal _[Obesity](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10915908/)_ finds that weight regain “occurs in the face of the most rigorous weight-loss interventions” and that “approximately half of the lost weight is gained back within 2 years and up to 70% by 5 years.” Not even those who undergo bariatric surgery, the researchers add, are immune to weight regain. Two physician researchers from Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania recently reported in [_Nature Metabolism_](https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-023-00864-1), “Overall, only about 15% of individuals can sustain a 10% or greater non-surgical, non-pharmacological weight loss.” Likewise, while exercise is beneficial for our bodies, a research review published in _Diabetes Spectrum_ concludes it’s not firmly established that it plays a big role in [helping people lose weight](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5556592/). > **“I can tell you precisely what I weighed on my wedding day, the day I defended my PhD dissertation, the day I became a professor, and the day I gave birth to my daughter.”** And although the medical establishment has been saying for decades that obesity leads to diseases like diabetes and hypertension, Manne points out that the dynamics are complex and there is much that is still unknown. While being very heavy is correlated with increased mortality, she maintains that we cannot assume it is a direct cause. For example, researchers have found that diabetes is associated not only with obesity but with [poverty](https://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(12)00503-7/abstract), [food insecurity](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218969/), and even [past trauma](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2088152) as well. Manne’s argument is not that being fat is unassociated with health risks, but rather that the connection is oversimplified. Given that there’s no proven route to long-term weight loss for most people, she says, we should focus on treating people’s diagnosable problems (such as diabetes and heart disease) rather than stigmatizing them because of their size. But [anti-fat bias](https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/everything-you-know-about-obesity-is-wrong/) is all too common among medical professionals, who often misdiagnose fat people’s actual health problems because they ignore their reported symptoms. The prospect of dealing with this prejudice can also discourage fat people from going to the doctor at all. In 2020, a review of scientific publications led an international multidisciplinary expert panel to conclude that weight bias can lead to discrimination, undermining people’s human and social rights as well as their health. The 36 experts pledged in [_Nature Medicine_](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0803-x) to work to end the stigma attached to obesity in their fields. What is needed, Manne argues, is to dismantle diet culture, which not only does _not_ make people thinner in the long term but appears to make them fatter: “The studies that I draw on in the book make a very clear empirical case that a really excellent way to gain weight is to diet.” For example, a 2020 [review](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7260129/) in the _International Journal of Obesity_ suggests that dieting can lead to eventually regaining more weight than was lost, given how one’s metabolism reacts to food restriction. A better way to improve public health, Manne argues, is to reduce the bias against larger bodies and make public spaces more accessible for people of all sizes. While data on the potential effects is limited, one 2018 [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6034785/) suggests that a weight-­neutral approach known as Health at Every Size (HAES) is beneficial for body image and quality of life. As a philosopher, Manne offers novel insights by looking at the way fatness is framed as a moral issue. Western societies see fat people as moral failures because, it is assumed, they lack the willpower to eat healthy foods and exercise. Manne argues that we have been conditioned to feel disgust toward fat people, and that this disgust is both “socially contagious” and deeply ingrained. Furthermore, we don’t trust feelings of pleasure derived by eating, or we don’t believe we inherently deserve food that tastes good; instead, we think we have to “earn” it, usually by depriving ourselves. Indeed, most of us are subject to frequent moralizing about “good” and “bad” food—whether from friends, family members, or our own internal voices. All of this is part of what Manne calls the “fallacy of the moral obligation to be thin.” Secular moral philosophy is “clear that happiness and pleasure are good things, which we should be increasing in the world and promoting,” she says. “There’s nothing shameful about something that feels good, that some people want intensely, as long as it doesn’t hurt others or deprive others.”  In her new book Unshrinking: How to Face Fatphobia, philosopher Kate Manne offers novel insights by examining how fatness is framed as a moral issue. So if diet culture causes pain, deprivation, and eating disorders, Manne maintains, we have a moral obligation to avoid it and instead to derive pleasure from eating. She reasons, “If you do think of there being a kind of moral value in self-care, then we really ought to be satisfying our appetites by eating satisfying food, as well as nourishing our bodies for instrumental reasons.” In her book, she calls diet culture a “morally bankrupt practice.” But Manne’s experience as a fat academic has shown that most highly educated people still cling tightly to the “pseudo-obligation to try to shrink ourselves,” she says. Stereotypes of fat people as lazy and dumb are particularly harmful in spaces where intellect is highly prized. Anti-fat bias is pronounced in her field, Manne believes, “because as much as we pretend in philosophy not to all be dualists, we value the mind much more than the body, and we’re deeply suspicious of the body.” Tracing this “philosophical disapproval of indulgence” back to Plato and Aristotle, she says: “We think of the body as something feminine, wild, out of control, irrational—not a source of wisdom, but a source of really antiphilosophical distraction that will prevent us from … using our minds to think deep thoughts.”

For decades, drinking water fluoridation opponents were often portrayed as a fringe element and conspiracy theorists, but a federal [ruling](https://apnews.com/article/fluoride-ruling-drinking-water-ccdfa11138600ab0838ebf979cbaead2) in the US may put an end to the practice and marks a pivotal point in their campaign to convince the public and policymakers of the substance’s dangers for infants’ developing brains. Armed with a growing body of [scientific evidence](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/fluoride#:~:text=After%20evaluating%20studies%20published%20through,and%20lower%20IQ%20in%20children.) pointing toward fluoride’s neurotoxicity, public health advocates say the legal win shows they are overcoming “institutional inertia” and the unwillingness of federal public health agencies to admit they may have been wrong. The order last week requiring the [US Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/epa) (EPA) to begin the process of strengthening fluoride regulations represents a “landmark” legal win that has long been in the making, said Stuart Cooper, director of the Fluoridation Action Network advocacy group. “After many years of them ignoring us and defending fluoridation, we had an opportunity to get a fair and balanced adjudication in courts,” Cooper said. The Obama-appointed US judge Edward Chen found fluoridation could cause developmental damage and lower IQ in children at levels to which the public is generally exposed in drinking water. Though the ruling did not state the level at which fluoridation would damage brains, the levels in US water present an unreasonable risk, the court found. The EPA now must perform a risk assessment that is among the first steps in setting new limits under the Toxic Substances Control Act. US water has been fluoridated since 1945, though the recommended levels have [since been lowered](https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-lowers-limits-for-fluoride-in-water-idUSTRE7064CM/) over health risks. Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, [according to](https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/prevention/about-fluoride.html) the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and dentistry groups say it protects young children’s gums and developing teeth. It is added to drinking water for more than 200 million Americans, or about 75% of the population, at recommended levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. Though those opposed to fluoridation can point to credible evidence to back their case, anti-fluoridation history has included conspiracy theories that the process was a post-second world war [communist plot](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/conspiracy-watch-fluoride-pinko-plot/), or, later, a coordinated effort to sap US society of intelligence. But there has always been evidence of the risks, and the practice is rare in most other countries, including those in Europe. The last 15 years have seen an “uptick” in high-quality scientific research demonstrated the risks, said Michael Connett, a Food and [Water](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/water) Watch lead attorney on the case. The EPA had been “a good soldier” and toed the federal government’s line, but that required it to ignore evidence and abandon its statutorily required duties, Connett said. “You have agencies that have aggressively promoted fluoridation for decades in a very un-nuanced, sledgehammer way, so it’s quite a departure from that party line to say, ‘Oh, oops, looks it might actually be damaging the brain,” Connett said. “There’s an institutional credibility and inertia issue.” Still, even after the ruling, many fluoridation supporters are not backing down. Much of the medical establishment supports the process. In a statement last week, the American Dental Association, which supports fluoridation, said: “The key takeaway for the public and public health community from this ruling is that it does not conclude with any certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.’” Cooper pointed to a statement made by an American Pediatric Association official during the court case in which she [said](https://x.com/FluorideAction/status/1840047673132667043) she would not oppose fluoridation even if it reduced five IQ points for up to 10% of the population. Cooper said the fight over fluoridation over the last several decades had been with the medical establishment and regulatory agencies, while everyday residents generally agreed that the practice should end. “The vast majority of the public was always on our side, there was never a citizen who said, ‘Yes, please give us fluoridated water,’” Cooper said. The shift in part picked up momentum as scientists like Linda Birnbaum, a former head of the EPA’s toxic chemicals program, came out [in support](https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286.html) of ending fluoridation, and some government agencies over the last several years [found](https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/10-19-2020/review-of-the-revised-ntp-monograph-on-fluoride-exposure-and-neurodevelopmental-and-cognitive-health-effects-meeting-2) unreasonable risk. “When do we know enough to revise long-held beliefs? We are reminded of the discovery of neurotoxic effects of lead that led to the successful banning of lead in gasoline and paint,” Birnbaum said in a [2020 op-ed](https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286.html). In the ruling’s wake, four water systems, including that which provides water to Salt Lake City, have stopped or suspended fluoridation. Despite the win, Connett said he did not expect support for fluoridation to immediately vanish. “There’s a scientific paradigm and deep beliefs that exist that say fluoridation is safe and effective, and that doesn’t just go away overnight,” he added.