It is not controversial to say that an unhealthy diet causes bad health. Nor are the basic elements of healthy eating disputed. Obesity raises susceptibility to cancer, and Britain is the sixth most obese country on Earth. That is a public health emergency. But naming the problem is the easy part. No one disputes the costs in quality of life and depleted health budgets of an obese population, but the quest for solutions gets diverted by ideological arguments around responsibility and choice. And the water is muddied by lobbying from the industries that profit from consumption of obesity-inducing products.

    Historical precedent suggests that science and politics can overcome resistance from businesses that pollute and poison, but it takes time, and success often starts small. So it is heartening to note that a programme in Leeds has achieved a reduction in childhood obesity, becoming the first UK city to reverse a fattening trend. The best results were among younger children and in more deprived areas. When 28% of English children aged two to 15 are obese, a national shift on the scale achieved by Leeds would lengthen hundreds of thousands of lives. A significant factor in the Leeds experience appears to be a scheme called HENRY, which helps parents reward behaviours that prevent obesity in children.

    Many members of parliament are uncomfortable even with their own government’s anti-obesity strategy, since it involves a “sugar tax” and a ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s. Bans and taxes can be blunt instruments, but their harshest critics can rarely suggest better methods. These critics just oppose regulation itself.

    The relationship between poor health and inequality is too pronounced for governments to be passive about large-scale intervention. People living in the most deprived areas are four times more prone to die from avoidable causes than counterparts in more affluent places. As the structural nature of public health problems becomes harder to ignore, the complaint about overprotective government loses potency.

    In fact, the polarised debate over public health interventions should have been abandoned long ago. Government action works when individuals are motivated to respond. Individuals need governments that expand access to good choices. The HENRY programme was delivered in part through children’s centres. Closing such centres and cutting council budgets doesn’t magically increase reserves of individual self-reliance. The function of a well-designed state intervention is not to deprive people of liberty but to build social capacity and infrastructure that helps people take responsibility for their wellbeing. The obesity crisis will not have a solution devised by left or right ideology—but experience indicates that the private sector needs the incentive of regulation before it starts taking public health emergencies seriously.

解析：B。根据题干中的obesity problem in Britain可定位到原文第一段。首先在第一段第三句中点明了英国的肥胖问题：英国是世界上第六大肥胖国家。随后在第五句中指出，没人对肥胖导致的生活质量成本问题和卫生预算的消耗有异议，但意识形态上的争论只是围绕着责任和选择，这转移了人们寻求解决方法的注意力。也就是说，人们热衷于在负责任和做选择上争论不休，以至于没有专注于解决肥胖造成的种种问题，人们不知道谁应该负起责任、负起什么样的责任，B项表述与原文一致，且B项中的disagree对应原文中的arguments，who should do what对应原文中的responsibility，故B项正确。

错项排除：原文中虽提到了depleted health budgets，但说的是人们对此无异议，真正使问题难以解决的是but之后的内容，故排除A项。C项干扰性较强，原文中也提及了responsibility，但只是说人们热衷于在责任和选择上争论，这里指的是人们在责任划分上存在争议，并没有说个人是否已经准备好承担责任，故C项应排除。原文中提到了lobbying（游说），但原文是说一些产业的游说让本已令人困惑的争论更加混乱，并没有提及游说使健康食品难以获取，故D项排除。