http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/severely-obese-cleveland-boy-taken-from-family-placed-in-foster-care/article2251166/

An 8-year-old elementary school student who weighs more than 200 pounds (90 kilograms) has been taken from his family and placed into foster care after county social workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

The Plain Dealer newspaper reports that the Cleveland 8-year-old is considered severely obese and at risk for such diseases as diabetes and hypertension.

The case is the first state officials can recall of a child being put in foster care strictly for a weight-related issue.

Lawyers for the mother say the county overreached when authorities took the boy last week. They say the medical problems he is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger.

A spokeswoman says the county removed the child because caseworkers saw his mother's inability to reduce his weight as medical neglect.

The link won't show the article, at least for me.

I know there will be a lot of people that think that removing the child is completely in violation of so many rights and privacies. But, good for the smack down on ridiculously naive, lazy, uncaring parents (at least in regards to the child's eating habits). Of course, this is assuming that there is nothing medically wrong with the kid.

"Lawyers for the mother say the county overreached when authorities took the boy last week. They say the medical problems he is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger."

I could not think of a more irresponsible pattern of rationale.

Edited by T.L. on 11/27/2011 20:58:19 MST.

This is a slippery slope... Last year they drew the line at kids with actual medical problems. Now it's kids who are at high risk of actual medical problems. What's next? Take kids away from smokers because those kids may get sick/develop asthma/start smoking? Take kids whose parents don't make them wear helmets when biking the neighborhood? Take kids whose parents let them participate in potentially dangerous activities (football, white-water rafting)? Take kids whose parents leave them home before some approved age (and I don't know what that is)? Take kids who are perfectly healthy and safe from parents who are not because those parents MAY not be able to take care of the kids?

As a tub whose weight HAS caused health issues, I really feel for this kid. I just hope the state exhausted all other options before resorting to taking custody. And I hope this isn't the start of a trend.

My thoughts exactly.
If the justification is that parent's behavior "might" cause feature problems that opens all kinds possiblities for selective enforcement of overly vague laws.
I'm not insensitive to the plight of kids with lousy parents. I've worked with abused kids and seen some trully horrible parents.
I personally think from what I've heard its possible these parents were being neglectful and they need to either shape up or lose their kid. On the other hand I think there should be a more concrete reason for it.

Hey, the government is always right, and more of it is better. I read that on here all the time.

I understand the caution of the slippery slope, but I don't think the slope is that slippery.

"Take kids away from smokers because those kids may get sick/develop asthma/start smoking? Take kids whose parents don't make them wear helmets when biking the neighborhood? Take kids whose parents let them participate in potentially dangerous activities (football, white-water rafting)? Take kids whose parents leave them home before some approved age (and I don't know what that is)? Take kids who are perfectly healthy and safe from parents who are not because those parents MAY not be able to take care of the kids?"

The smoking issue is tough, but everything else is pretty much a straw-man argument. There aren't any patterns of "abuse" or documented issues with playing football, or leaving kids of a *possible* unapproved age home alone, etc. There's risk in everything we do, and that's a fact of being alive. Do we continue the slope to argue that if you let your kids out of the house to go to school that they might get hit by a car, or be abducted from a mall when you've turned your back to them for a second? Don't have kids because something might happen to them.

My point is, people KNOW what unhealthy eating habits can become. People KNOW that 200 freaking pounds for an 8 year old is *already* a medical problem. People KNOW that eating patterns learned as a child will be incredibly difficult to overcome as an adult. People KNOW that a child is easily impressed upon, meaning that how they're treated as a child will most likely have some effect on their future. People KNOW that obesity is an issue that needs addressing. When more than 65% of the US population is either overweight or obese, there's a problem.

------------------------
The following was taken from an online news article some time back in regards to Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign.

"[Sarah Palin] later also criticized Michelle Obama saying that '(w)hat she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat.'

I know that what Sarah Palin says is an echoing the concerns of many parents in this country. These are your children and ultimately you make the choices, not the government. I can empathize with that view, even if I am admittedly not a big fan of Sarah Palin’s politics.

But what most gives me pause with Sarah Palin’s point of view is that for the past 30 years we have let parents make all these decisions with minimal government input and we can see how it has gone. So now that we’ve reaching a point where obesity in children truly is an epidemic in this country, is it time to try something different for our children?"
-------------------------------

I agree.

> Lawyers for the mother say ... the medical problems he is at risk for do not yet pose an imminent danger.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Me, I don't think there is a 'possible risk' here; I think there is already a severe medical problem right now.
The mother is already being grossly negligent with someone else's health. A 90 kg 8-year old? Parenthood implies a responsibility: she was not showing any.

My 2c
Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 11/28/2011 13:09:58 MST.

The problem with this is not that social services got involved but their justification for getting involved was so poorly stated. You'd think you could get a doctors note or something to the effect that "This kid is virtually guranteed to have a number of health problems in the near future unless something is done." The problem is that their justification was so fuzzy. This means they have less chance of winning a court challenge but if they do they set a horrible precedent.

In my experience the state does a horrible job helping kids who legitamitly need it, even kids who are actually being physically abused. I worked with troubled kids I know. The number of kids who "slipped through the cracks" was heart breaking.

I also know from experience that social services has been used to basically harrass parents with false claims of abuse. When I was in school parents who homeschooled their kids lived in fear of social services. School officials who didn't like the competition would try to intimidate parents and if that didn't work they'd send in social services based on annonymous tips of abuse. A lot of parents had their kid forcably removed from their home on false charges and spent a lot of time in court proving their innocence (during which time the kids would be scattered around in varies homes getting tramatized).
When the government decides whats safe you get some funny rules. In New York last summer days camps were told that freeze tag was a "dangerous" game that should not be played. Also kids had to have a lifeguard present if they stepped into a puddle of water over their ankle. I was required to put on surgical gloves to pass a pitcher of lemonade around to kids at my table. If a kid got hurt playing a game the health inspector would ban that game even if it was no worse than games kids play at home and school all the time. We were told that basically accidents didn't happen as far as the law was concerned, someone was always to blame.

Before the state gets involved in homes I suggest we start by improving the diet in schools. Kids eat a lot of their meals in schools and spend most of the day there. You'd think if we really wanted to solve the problem that would be the best place to start (bringing back recess and more PE wouldn't be a horrible idea either).

Slippery slope indeed. That should say it all, really.
In my opinion not enough people realize how they may end up slipping some day, in that same slope.
I personally know holier than thou, busy body mothers who would welcome this action as well as kids being taken from their parents for a number of other reasons. What they are not thinking about is how their own "perfect" parenting may one day be scrutinized ( not vaccinating, for example) and they then may become subject to the same actions.
Be careful out there; one day your own choices may not be popular or may be condemned by this very educated and thoughtful society, and then it'd be too late to invoke your rights.
Ok, done preaching :)

if I were their lawyer I would sue the government for making my kids fat. After all it is government subsidies that make junk food possible. Government licenses that allow businesses to advertize junk food to children. Government lunch programs that sell processed food and call pizza a vegetable. Even if the parents actively sought out what a healthy diet should be the government and media collude to confuse the public for economic reasons.

Funny you should mention the government Brian. Last I checked government subsidies were proping up inefficient farming and irriagtion practices which wastes our money and pollutes the envirnment. That may be one issue the envirnmentalist and republicans could agree on.

Back to the original kid it sounds like his mom actually tried, couple new facts I noticed
-His mom had him in a weight loss program and he was actually losing weight for a while
-His mom got him a bike and tried to get him to be more active
-Both his parents are a bit overweight so genetics could play a role
-He has a 16 year old brother who's skinny so diet may not be the only thing
-His mom tried to keep him off of sweats but felt like siblings and other kids might have given him sweets.
-He's been out of his home for a month now with a hearing scheduled.
-He's lost a "few pounds" but there are problems with his foster mom getting him to doctors appoinments. In other words the states' "solution" is not much more effective than the mom's (remember she had him losing small amounts of weight too).

So basically the kid was taken out of his mom because social services didn't think he was losing weight fast enough but they don't have an effective plan to fix the problem either. Sounds like either stupidity or an attempt to make and example out of someone.

certain asian societies are very harsh again fat people ... in japan for example they go around measuring yr waist size at companies i believe and treat it as a medical issue ... i know korean families that start calling their kids fat at the first signs of, well, fatness

i used to think it was stupid ... but the reality is that those families i know and people from those societies seem to be much thinner and generally more healthy .. even compared to the same asians who have been here for more than a generation

the pressure or lack there of can be good or bad ... the only reason i lost weight is because my friends started jokingly calling me fat ... which i simply was

Why get so permanently drastic? Why not take the kid away for a time, both to get him back to health and to give the parents' time to evaluate their actions, and then give the parents a trial period? If they pass, the kid can go back home. Breaking up families can be just as damaging as obesity.

And there better not have been any obese people among those who conducted the investigation and legal action.

Edited by butuki on 11/28/2011 15:54:37 MST.

Well Miguel I think its way to drastic to but I think you misread one thing. Apparently the mom will get a second chance which is the one positive fact about the whole sorry storry.
Here's my understanding of how the system works in the US. If social services has grounds to think a home situation is unsafe (normally this means evidence of drugs or abuse) they take the kid out and them him in a foster home or group home temporarily. After that there is a court hearing to investigate the matter. Often the kid ends up going back to the home. This happened to a young boy in my neighborhood even though there was plenty or reason to believe he was being both abused and neglected. Thats apparently where this situation is. Once they get around to a hearing the mom will have a chance to prove that she can take care of her kid and get him back.

Personally I think someone's on a crusade to scare parents into keeping their kids skinny but I've already stated my opinions.

"A couple convicted last year of starving their then-infant daughter because they feared the baby would become too fat have lost permanent custody of their three young children after a nine-day dependency court trial."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016882590_labberton29m.html

my question would be about neglect, not direct starvation

what about a case where the parents could not or would not stop a kid from not eating, ie starving themselves, for whatever reason

i suspect that this has happened somewhere before ...

You mean anorexie? Thats a tough one to deal with and I doubt it shows up on the social service radar as often. A girl may be anorexic for years before anyone realized theres a problem and by that time you may be racing the clock to sovle it before she's 18. Its easy for an outsider to look at a family and say they should have done things differently but the reality is its incredibly hard to help someone like that because it really is like an addiction.

Edited by Cameron on 11/29/2011 15:45:50 MST.

To me this is terrible. An huge over reach by the government. The problems with this are numerous.

I think my biggest issue is that even if you agree that fat kids should be removed from parents homes why would you remove the kid prior to the hearing to see if she was a fit mother. There is no immenent danger to the child. If the child spends another 3 months in this situation he would gain another 5lbs. This would only be marginally worse than the case now. Compare this to the loss of liberty that the state is taking away from the parent by taking the kid plus the emotional damage by removing the kid and placing him in a strange home. Which does more harm? To me ripping the kid out of his home is far more damaging. Now if you had the hearing first you could at least have a fairly arbitrated ruling and not someones opinion at child services making the decision.

Beyond that taking fat kids out of homes is really another attack on being poor. One of the most correlating statistics to Childhood Obisity is poverty. If you look at food in terms of Calories per dollar the cheapest food is the worst for you. All comes back to the corn subsidies.

I also think that even if the parent fed the get terrible food all the time and the kid gained a lot of weight the state still shouldn't step in under any circumstance. To me it doesn't meet the standard of abuse. It is bad parenting but all kinds of bad parenting isn't abuse.

Essentailly what the state is saying is that parents are responsible for the future outcomes of their children and if the probabilities of good outcomes becomes to low the state will take the child. So should the state take kids if they are failing in school, If the child can't pass a certain standardized test the child is removed from the home. Are you a bad parent if your kid fails, YES, but should you lose your kid, Absolutely not.

For me the state needs to meet a very high burden in order to intervene and being fat and getting diabetes does not meet that burden.

"Beyond that taking fat kids out of homes is really another attack on being poor. One of the most correlating statistics to Childhood Obisity is poverty. If you look at food in terms of Calories per dollar the cheapest food is the worst for you. All comes back to the corn subsidies."

+1
This is a fact. When people try to tell everyone obesity is caused by wealth and easy access to food, you only need to look at the numbers. The wealthy in this country are by far more lean and healthy on average because they eat a better quality of food.

How about a little personal accountability. If your kid is fat and there is no medical reason for being overweight, then it is your fault. If your kid gets lunch from school and it is garbage, pack their lunch at home. If the school doesn't have enough physical activity for your kid, don't let them sit on the couch when they get home. Quit shifting the blame and making excuses.

I grew up very much less than wealthy, and we ate well. I now have four kids of my own and I am on a budget as well. We eat healthy, it just takes a little effort to combine economy and healthy. It can be done and is really not that difficult.

I am so tired of people expecting someone else to dictate to them what is acceptable for their kids. Why do my kids have to be subject to these imposed values. I cannot even send my kids to school with cupcakes on their birthday anymore. No candy on Halloween. Sorry can't even call it Halloween anymore.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need government assistance in raising my kids. I can manage.

>There is no immenent danger to the child. If the child spends another 3 months in this situation he would gain another 5lbs.


Um, 200 lbs at 8 years of age is beyond "imminent" danger and has become a clear and present danger. And yeah, letting the kid gain a few more lbs is ok. He's already huge so what's 5 more pounds, right? Nice logic.

Okay... I didn't read the replies, however I will after I write this.

Obesity is a serious medical problem and puts the person (in this case a child) at risk. Morbid obesity is just that and this child could end up having heart disease, diabetes, higher risk of certain cancers, etc. I feel a parent that allows their child to become so obese is neglectful and it does border on abuse. That said... I have a totally different perspective than many of you who were not obese as children.

While not quite as big as this child I was seriously obese as a child. It wasn't until I got into backpacking (at a whopping 370+ pounds) that I learned how to balance food (fuel) and exercise and go under the 200 pound mark for the first time since the age of 12. My parents were partially to blame, after all, they were my source of meals... however, in their defense, there were extenuating circumstances. Mom turned to making all kinds of sweet and fatty things, like donuts on Saturday morning, after my brother died when I was 8. In hindsight, I think it was her way of keeping busy and feeding the rest of us... seeing us enjoy it made her happy. Mom and Dad were good parents, loving and kind, and being placed in foster care wouldn't have been the answer but some supervision could certainly have helped. They were horrible role models on what proper eating was. Sauces, gravies, deep-fried, full of sugar, was the criteria for food in our house. Roast beef, mashed taters, gravy, Yorkshire pudding, dessert was the norm for a meal. There is a part of me that feels that some intervention from authorities is necessary to ensure that families of morbidly obese children receive nutritional counselling and medical intervention as well as supervision.

Obesity is epidemic in both our countries. Because of this Type 2 diabetes rates have risen significantly. It is a serious disease. Heart disease rates are on the rise as well as many other issues related to being morbidly obese. The cost of obesity related illness is also crippling health-care systems.

In many ways, I feel that the authorities have done the right thing here. This child was 8 and 200 pounds if I remember correctly? My son is 10 and is only 80-some pounds and he's pretty average among most of his peers. We watch what he eats and keep a balance. Sure, he gets the odd bit of junk, but he's active and busy. I also model proper eating habits and the importance of exercise. I'm not a perfect parent - no one is but I do my best to ensure that he won't have some of the same battles I had. Maybe it is controlling but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the thought of my son having to inject himself with insulin 4 times a day as I had to... or being like my nephew who had a heart bypass when he was 39.

Obesity is a serious issue.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 11/30/2011 08:16:15 MST.

Laurie--I can imagine that the poor eating habits you had growing up were difficult to change?



Many people are not able to break the habits they learn as children.

Hard is an understatement... the biggest challenge of my life. Backpacking and the passion to do it was monumental in my transformation (which is still underway). I had to change the mindset and the activity and the eating and self-esteem. When I read about this child I wanted to throw my arms around him and tell him it will be okay. The emotional part was by far the worst side of it and continued even when I was doing something about my weight. I had people tell me I had no business on the trail - and maybe I didn't because of the risk but it was the most motivational way for me to change things. I owe a lot to backpacking.

My heart breaks for this child and for his family. I'm sure that they didn't do this to be cruel - but I feel they don't have the tools/knowledge to do what he needs. Now in Canada, this would generally be a temporary removal and they'd work with the parents to help them. Family and Children's Services do not want to make kids Crown Wards (which means foster care moving toward adoption) and will do everything they can to help the family. I am hoping it is the same where this child is. It's going to be a tough road for the little guy both physically and emotionally.

Um, 200 lbs at 8 years of age is beyond "imminent" danger and has become a clear and present danger. And yeah, letting the kid gain a few more lbs is ok. He's already huge so what's 5 more pounds, right? Nice logic.

We know that pulling him out of his home and taking him away from his parents will due emotional harm. Does leaving him in the home 3 months longer while it is evaluated by an impartial judge rather than a child services employee due more harm than the emotional damage of removing him (possibly without cause)?

Well he could safely lose about a 1lb a week so in 12 weeks while you go though an official hearing we could do some good. Now if we find out as in this case that the foster family has done no better then the orignal mother at getting the kid to lose weight have we really done any good. The answer is no. To take a child away without hearing needs to meet a significant burden. In this case the incremental risk of leaving him in the home for an addtional 3 months does not outweigh the damage of removing him from the home if that is deemed to be without cause.

---->How about a little personal accountability. If your kid is fat and there is no medical reason for being overweight, then it is your fault.

I agree with you in terms of personal accountability, that is the whole point. Which is why the state should get out of the way in this case. At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition.

Beyond that the state undermines personal accountability with subsidies. Just getting rid of the corn subsidy would make high fructose corn syrup more expensive and help make junk food more expensive. If the government is in the food subsidizing buisness it should at least be in the healthy food subsidizing buisness.

Food also shouldn't be allowed to make any health claims on its packaging. No 'low in fat', no sugar, heart healthy. It is blatently false advertising.

The government does an amazing number of things to make it more difficult for people to be personally accountable.

>I agree with you in terms of personal accountability, that is the whole point. Which is why the state should get out of the way in this case.

Greg, in this case, things have already gotten bad enough. At least at this point in time, the parent has not shown accountability, which is why the state got involved. There are simply people in this world that are not responsible enough to have children. I'm not saying that this parent in particular is automatically lumped in this category at this point, but letting your 8 year old get that heavy looks pretty bad.

>The government does an amazing number of things to make it more difficult for people to be personally accountable.

This I agree with. We must be more accountable, and the government must be more consistent in holding people accountable. However, staying out of the way completely and letting people harm their own lives, or the lives of others by gross negligence does not make the public more accountable. It just makes them more prone to screwing up. To be more accountable, we, as a society, must raise our standards and honor those standards. Along with accountability comes consequences.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

Why should the State (taxpayers) provide this?

From a cost benefit view, it could save taxpayers money on healthcare expenses. I pay a lot extra in taxes, insurance and medical care right now to cover the 1 out of 4 people who don't pay their med bills. Someone severely overweight will have a lot of extra med bills in the future. Statistically I could be paying toward 1/4 of this child's med expenses.

From a moral perspective, justice for the "least of these". Children are not capable of
competing in a laissez faire system.

"I pay a lot extra in taxes, insurance and medical care right now to cover the 1 out of 4 people who don't pay their med bills."

:(

I don't care what the government subsidizes. I don't buy into the idea that people cannot find healthy alternatives. Use some brain cells and find items that are healthy. It boils down to laziness to me. I don't want the governmental involvement either, but 200 lbs. at 8, give me a break. That has been an obvious problem for awhile. Someone needs to give that kid a fighting chance and his parents sure aren't. To me it is like saying that if the government subsidized methamphetamines would be making excuses for parents who now have drug addict kids because it is a cheap treat for their kids and they struggle with finding other alternatives. I know that is overly dramatic, but you get my point.

It's a growing problem in the western world, and about the only common sense solution is to charge overweight people more on their medical insurance (I saw an article on a US business news website where US businesses are doing that). Other western societies probably need to do that through their VAT systems. Speaking of the kid, 200 lbs is too much but has anyone here ever tried to pry an American teen off a cinnamon bun, energy drink, or "sugar-fat-coffee-cino"? That's like trying to pull a grizzly bear off a honey coated fresh kill. What's the state going to do? Load him up with cafeteria-style sausage pizza which now counts as a vegetable (the U.S. House of Representatives just passed that on behalf of our food companies for all the non-U.S. citizens out there)?

Other than charge a tax on 'unhealthy' foods (which the food and restaurant industries will fight tooth and nail - and win), I do not see anyway around this besides what more U.S businesses are doing (see above).

One of those things where we know it's a problem but the only solution is really individual gumption and "trial-n-error" on the part of individuals. Just the basic science (who is right - the late Dr. Atkins or Dr. Ornish remedial diet approach?), muddied by the food industry and their hired guns makes any gov't sponsored food pyramid suspect. What's a healthy weight? One can use the 1957 Met Life tables but didn't most people smoke in the 50's? Perplexing problem.

Edited by hknewman on 11/30/2011 11:11:12 MST.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

Why should the State (taxpayers) provide this?


Because there is a positive return on investment. Reduction in health care costs. Improvement in productivity and happiness. Fulfilling the constitutional purpose of government.


It's not that obvious what's healthy. The food companies put in cheap, subsidized high fructose corn syrup, which makes the food more addictive, so people eat too much coupled with sophisticated advertising with cartoon characters or whatever.

I think the government should regulate, like with tobacco.

What is my return on investment? We can never reduce health care costs if everyone does not pay into it. And at my age, why do I pay more for insurance than a young family who all are obese? How does this make those who pay more happier?

No it is not obvious what is healthy, but most poor people have televisions and there are plenty of programs they can watch, it is up to them to do so. They can go to free libraries and borrow books on nutrition. They should be able to read, we provide free education. We do need to STOP all subsidies to people and businesses, period.

More regulation is going to cost everyone more and it will not necessarily force people with bad habits or poor nutrition to change. Why should I have to pay a regulated inflated price on an occasional ice cream cone or candy bar?

"No it is not obvious what is healthy, but most poor people have televisions and there are plenty of programs they can watch, it is up to them to do so. They can go to free libraries and borrow books on nutrition. They should be able to read, we provide free education. We do need to STOP all subsidies to people and businesses, period.
"

I don't know about where you live, but in my (red)neck of the woods, the information parents are getting on their own keeps them from vaccinating their kids. We had a whooping cough outbreak! Polio was supposed to be eradicated, but now is spreading out of Pakistan
to China. We will have it here again, what with over 25% of kids not being inoculated
against it.

Just finding out about health stuff randomly? Meh.

Edited by oware on 11/30/2011 14:15:37 MST.

"...Why should I have to pay a regulated inflated price on an occasional ice cream cone or candy bar?"

Once again, Nick, you're missing the big picture

It's not about you, a healthy person having to pay more for a cone, it's that government taxes, and then policies, can make the entire country better off economically and happier

David,

Yes this is very complicated. In California, the following vaccines are required to enter into public and private elementary and secondary schools:
- Polio
- Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis
- Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR)
- Hepatitis B
- Varicella
- Tdap Booster

Parents can get an exemption based on personal beliefs or special medical exemptions. Schools need to maintain a list of exempted students, so they can be removed them from school if an outbreak occurs. So this would fall under the "general welfare" clause of the constitution, I suppose -- as long as tax payers do not foot the bill for vaccines; and this way parents are aware of what they need to do to protect their children. Much better than Rick Perry's universal mandatory vaccinations of all 12 year old girls for cervical cancer, which would have been funded by tax dollars.

IMHO, poverty=ignorance=abuse=neglect. The cycle continues. We aren't talking about a kid being a little chubby--- this kid is over three times his normal weight. Averages are misleading, but an average 8 year old would be 55-60 pounds. Take the same ratio and use a 5'10' male "norm" at 180 pounds, he would be 600 pounds if he was as overweight as the child. If you took any other disease that threatened the child's life as much as being 300% overweight and the parent didn't address it, I doubt there would be much debate.


As far as helping others, IMHO, the kingdom is no better than its meanest subject. Some biblical scholars have pointed out that Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of perversion, but because they didn't care for the poor and sick.

Seeing that the season is approaching, remember Mr. Scrooge's attitude towards helping the poor:

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

"At most the state should provide eduication to the parent on proper nutrition."

They already are doing this in the schools but apparently but no one is listening.

Dale,

No doubt the child is dangerously overweight. The question is where (or at all) does the government intervene. And it always seems that government gains more control whenever they are allowed to intervene. Could we extrapolate it out in a couple centuries that parents are not allowed to raise their kids at all... they would just be turned over to the government at birth? I know that is ridiculous. How about discipline? Many opinions here. How about what games they can play? Should we outlaw "cowboys and Indians?" Don't even know if those toys can be purchased or if kids play it anymore. But more than likely we can find 99% of the parents who do not raise their kids properly, based on someone else's belief. Gets scary.

I know of a case where Social Services removed two teen-aged girls because they told SS their mother was abusing them. Actually they were mad because their mother would not let them go to a dance, where supervision was in question. The mother told SS to keep the kids and refused to take them back for a while. When SS asked the mom to bring down some clothes, she said, "You want the kids, you go buy their clothes I am going to throw them away." Great ending... the kids learned their lesson and gained considerable respect for their mother. SS was was reorganized and some people were fired. But most moms would not be tough like that.

Aside from Nick's concern's there's a very real chance the court will send the kid back to his mom at the hearing. So all that would have been accomplished is that the kid was severely tramatized and lost a few pounds which he could easily gain back in a weekend. All because they felt the need to DO SOMETHING. If the situation is so obviously horrible that the state does need to step in a month one way or the other won't help, they need to be think long term.
Do we really want the state deciding whats healthy and safe for our kids? Its a doubled edged sword no matter who you are. Some parents took their kids to Occupy Walstreet protests where there was violence, pepper spraying and general craziness. Could they lose their kid over that? Could a conservative social worker's bias impact their decision? What about a combat veteran coming back? Could they be a danger to their child because of PTSD? Could an anti-military social worker's bias impact that? What about Balls taking Sunshine on the PCT? What about that 13 year old who climbed Everest? What about my little friends who do crazy mountain bikes with their parents?

Nick - thats a hilarious story about the girls.

I don't even think this or most other obesity issues have much to do with education and nutrition. If we eat just to feed our body, we stop when we are full, be it with hamburgers or steamed veggies and brown rice. Sure, some foods are addictive and the salty, greasy, sugary foods do create a cycle of sorts, that is hard to break for many. I have never been very big, but I know the difference between when I eat to just feed my body, and when I am feeding something else, which thankfully isn't very often.
I am not offering a study here, but my thoughts and observations. Particularly in this country, a lot of people are eating to soothe themselves; to quite their pain, loneliness and fears. Parents that do this to themselves will also soothe their children the same way and that is the bigger problem to me.
I know I am getting into a subject that is way above my knowledge here, but compared to where and how I was raised, so many people here are lonely. Extended families are rarely part of the picture. Childhood friends often live in a different state.
There are so many friendly and nice people around us that we actually have this "illusion" that we can constantly let go of people around us if it gets difficult, because there are plenty of new friends to replace them. New friends often only stick around for the good times. Seems like a lot of people lack real connections and replace those with media, stimuli of all sorts and food.

As far as the 8 year old, as painful as it is to think of a child who will never experience what it's like to jump and skip and climb like smaller child, as far as we know he wasn't raised in a way to pose a threat to others. What causes more harm, an obese child or one raised to be hateful or a bigot or racist or???? Where does it end? Who do we want to make that call, ultimately, if it isn't a case of physical, sexual or emotional abuse, or gross neglect? A CPS worker that perhaps has his/her own problems and maybe raises his/her own kids in ways that we find objectionable?

Im a little tired of the view that government employees and public servants are always above the law, and don't have any accountability- but then individual citizens are supposed be responsible and pay severe consequences when they are not.
You can not get educated at school about nutrition because the info they teach is blatantly wrong! Its based on USDA info and the USDA pushes a diet based on what is economically sound not scientifically sound. So yes, I blame the government.
I may have personally been able to largely separate the BS from the real science- but Im college educated, and have been lucky enough to have learned critical thinking skills very early on. I don't respect appeals to authority so I don't find it difficult to ignore what the majority of the medical establishment say and the media advertize.
We know that businesses spend billions on advertizing every year- and were supposed to believe they do that but ads are not effective? The USDA lies to the poor, the schools repeat those lies, the medical establishment repeats those lies, they make highly advanced processed foods cheaper than a carrot that you pull out of the ground. Then if some poor people are influenced by any of this we jump on them and want to see them pay the price.
20- 30% of US children are obese - get the paddy wagons social services have a long night ahead.
Obesity is a disease ( or disorder what ever you prefer )not a moral short coming no matter how much the processed food industry tells you that. Obesity is a disease that CAUSES over eating- It CAUSES low energy. And its CAUSED by cheap processed foods full of sugar and flour damaging the brains (hormones) ability to regulate fat accumulation, hunger, and energy balance.
I bet big money that a lot of the people who think they know what a healthy diet is are plain wrong and if this kid eat as they did he would lose only a fraction of the weight and still be obese.

"Nick - thats a hilarious story about the girls."

Yes, it is in a way. I know them personally and it was very, very difficult for the mom to do what she did. But it was a matter of principle and she had to stand for what was right, because anything other action would have had a poor outcome for her kids... even though the SS people "knew" better than she. And for a mother to just leave her children in foster care is traumatic. But it is what can and does happen when the "do-gooders" impose their will on us.

I am sure that SS would not have been happy about Sunshine. Talk about poor nutrition (at least from those who have no concept about distance hiking)! I read their journal everyday, and Eric's primary concern was the safety of his daughter. She actually gained weight over the course of the trip. At times he went cold and hungry to take care of her. I think what they did was wonderful. But the social worker in Ohio, would probably not approve of the trip at all. What? making a 11 year old girl walk over 30 miles in a day... that is cruel. Only problem is that Sunshine thought it was fun.

Numbers can be looked at so many ways. And any answer can come out of it. Consider this - I genetically have very tall children (big at birth) but then lean out as they grown up. My oldest son is 120th percentile for height (I kid not, he is off the charts) but is under 50% percentile for weight. I cannot put weight on him - he looks just like his Dad did when I met him at 18. Freakishly tall and so skinny his knees are bigger than his thighs. But hey, come in another 15 or so years he will take after his Dad and finally look "average" when his rabbit metabo slows down!

When I had my second son his height gained rapidly in the first year but not his weight. You know what I had to do? I had to nearly force feed him mashed avocados and whipped cream to get his weight up so the Doctor would get off my case!! Until one visit my oldest was with me and the Pediatrician saw the connection. I let the kids eat when they want and how much they want - but neither quit moving either! They burn what the eat and more so they don't eat much junk food. I finally got the toddler up to the 60% percentile but his height is 96% for his age.

Yet....do you all know a lady out here lost custody of her baby due to the baby loosing only 10% of its body weight? The hospital that gave her baby pedi care reported her to CPS for low weight. 10%. In a 10 lb baby that is only 1 lb!!!!

My point is.....someone will always be unhappy with how a parent raises their children. And not every culture sees chubby or overweight children as a liability.

Then again, I believe in parents before gov't. I believe if someone wants to home school, home birth, no vacc, whatever....it is up to them. If anything you have to work with the parents, get them to see what they can do to help - and not let them fall through the cracks. You can't just say "Do this or we will take your child away". That rarely goes well.

There are clear issues in our system when it comes to nutrition. The dietary program in the hospital (I stayed for a few days after Kaia was born) was deplorable. As a diabetic who is pretty tight on controlling my disease... I had to get the floor manager in to modify what they were giving me. I would have ended up with severely high blood glucose readings if I hadn't. The nutritionist that saw me throughout my pregnancy was terrific but sadly that doesn't translate into what the kitchen at the hospital is providing the patients. To my surprise, the floor manager told me that the food is now made off site by a "catering" service and the kitchen merely delivers it. Health Canada has some great resources and they teach our children based on the Canada's Food Guide but that is lacking and sometimes I feel it is the parents/individuals that need educated.

There is definitely an economic gap here when it comes to what people can afford. Our family is able to easily afford vegetables, fruits, organic lean meats, grains like quinoa and such. Many families can't afford the high cost of whole foods and the pre-packaged convenience crap is much cheaper - considerably. That's a huge part of the problem. The other problem is that people don't know how to cook (or don't have time) and turn to convenience and take-out foods.

For a family of four... it can actually be cheaper to eat whole foods but it takes skill, effort, and planning. Take a chicken for example. Sunday night one could have roast chicken for supper with lots of veggies. Monday night the leftovers can be combined with a salad and put in a pita pocket. Freeze the leftover meat and carcass. The following week Monday night - Chicken and Quinoa Soup or even chicken noodle soup with loads of veggies. Leftover soup and a salad on Tuesday night. Four meals - one $18 capon.

The other big problem in Canada and the US is portion sizes. One only has to compare the portion size at a restaurant in 1955 to the size of a meal now. French fries and fried foods are now Super-Sized.

Then there is physical activity or lack thereof. Video games, computers, electronics, and the like make for very sedentary children. Some parents use these as electronic babysitters. It's a sad world.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 12/01/2011 08:44:51 MST.

>For a family of four... it can actually be cheaper to eat whole foods but it takes skill, effort, and planning. Take a chicken for example. Sunday night one could have roast chicken for supper with lots of veggies. Monday night the leftovers can be combined with a salad and put in a pita pocket. Freeze the leftover meat and carcass. The following week Monday night - Chicken and Quinoa Soup or even chicken noodle soup with loads of veggies. Leftover soup and a salad on Tuesday night. Four meals - one $18 capon.

+1

It might not always be easy, but eating relatively nutritiously doesn't have to break the bank. Yes, you can get a $1 double cheeseburger from McDonalds which is densely packed with calories, but there are good items in the store that go a long way. Many veggies aren't that expensive. Rice, dried grains and beans, and chicken or hamburger are often cheap and last several meals. Every time I go to the grocery store I look at what's in peoples' carts and often they are packed with frozen meals, pre-packaged foods, snack foods, pizzas, sugar cereal, soda, etc. Many people are too lazy to actually plan and prepare meals, like Laurie mentioned above.

Even when I cook at home, I often eat more than I need to. I could easily cut my portion size by 1/3, and I would bet most other people could as well. Food would go further if we cut portion size. I also have a habit of pounding down snack food in the house rather quickly, so I counter that by simply not buying it in the first place. I allow myself snacks here or there, but by no means are snack foods regularly stocked at my place. I can't eat what's not there.

Knowledge, discipline, and little effort help me to eat healthy in a world full of crap food.

"Knowledge, discipline, and little effort help me to eat healthy in a world full of crap food."

Knowledge, discipline, and little effort help anyone get by on any concern. There is a big difference between voluntarily living on limited resources (aka "poor") and being there by factors that aren't your choice. The poverty/ignorance/abuse cycle goes on for generations, subjecting people to stress, disease, violence, abuse, drug addiction, crime, and so on. The idea that someone living in those conditions is going to whip up balanced meals on a survival budget simply doesn't make sense. The idea that someone will get enough information to make a difference in a classroom setting is laughable: they have to make it to class and have reading and math skills to get the basics. From there they need all the artifacts to pull it off: refrigeration and other storage, utensils, pots and appliances, a local store that carries a good selection and transportation to get the goods home, and then the time and energy to act on it. Many of the poor stumble from one domestic crisis to another in a hopeless cycle. Nutrition is one small facet in a hard life.

Dale, I mostly agree with your post. However, I'm not sure we're talking about complete destitution. As I understood the thread, it was at most, about those who are poor and might have a more difficult time with nutritional needs.

Regarding the original topic, it is this mother's responsibility to provide for her child the best she can. I just don't agree that letting him grow to that size in such a short amount of time is responsible in any way. I'm all for giving the family a chance to turn things around, but there's VERY little excuse for a 200 lb 8 year old. According to one article, the state agency had been working with the family for a while on the issue.

""We have worked very hard with this family for 20 months before it got to this point," the agency's administrator, Patricia Rideout, said Monday, the Associated Press reported, adding that a judge approved the decision to put the boy into foster care."

Edited by T.L. on 12/01/2011 14:53:29 MST.

Travis... that quote by the agency admin is pretty telling of the situation and extremely heart-wrenching.

60 Minutes did a piece on artificial flavors

Much of our food is "super charged" with flavors which makes us want to eat more

Maybe this is part of the explanation for high obesity

Maybe we should regulate artifical flavors, or at least study to see if this causes obesity and educating people about it, requiring labels that say if the food is "flavor enhanced which can cause obesity" - sort of like cigarrette labels

Why is regulation always the answer? We just need people make their own decisions; good or bad. Knowledge is up to them and easy to obtain.

Aside from the question of whether the government should be regulating such things one way or the other I don't buy the arguement that food is all that addictive. I think thats stretching the definition. I have eaten processed junk food and it does taste good but I've also pigged out on organic foods and I don't think I could say I crave one more than the other when I'm hungry.
Speaking of which I'm starving so I'm gonna run and burn up a Subway coupon.

"I don't buy the arguement that food is all that addictive. I think thats stretching the definition."

Well, I sorta agree in principle. Not physically addictive, but it can be mentally addictive like many other things. IMO, with mentally addictive habits, people can just say, "No" if they really want to change. That is the hard part for some people and we cannot chastise them them if they cannot change. To me they don't want to change "bad enough" and others would say that is a close-minded outlook. Sometimes it takes 3rd party intervention to change, but that is up to the individual to seek assistance.

Now for the really hard part... children. They are often not knowledgeable, do not have the authority, or the capacity to make good decisions for themselves. That is the role of the parent. If the parent cannot do it, then should someone else intervene against the parent's will? Now it becomes a philosophical problem.

"I don't buy the arguement that food is all that addictive."

We should do the research to see what is causing the obesity epedemic

If it's flavorings, or simple carbohydrates, and especially if the food manufactures know this and don't care, then we should have regulation

Just like cigarettes - the manufactures put in ammonia and other chemicals to make it more addicitive knowing full well it was unhealthy. Then ran commercials with doctors and actors (e.g. Reagan) saying how safe it was.

What was effective in reducing cigarette consumption? taxes, public education about unhealthiness, social unacceptance - we should do the same with flavorings and simple carbohydrates

Maybe we should regulate backpacking too? People die backpacking every year.

People do not have to backpack, smoke, or eat a large bag of Frito's everyday. Those who do, choose to do so.

"Maybe we should regulate backpacking too? People die backpacking every year.

People do not have to backpack, smoke, or eat a large bag of Frito's everyday. Those who do, choose to do so."

Relatively few people are damaged from backpacking, and the benefits undoubtedly exceed the costs. The backpacking manufacturers aren't making sophistiticated marketing campaigns to get people to do backpacking that secretly injured huge numbers of people.

It's easy to trivialize the problem by making jokes about people eating Fritos, but it isn't that obvious what's causing the obesity epedemic.

"Relatively few people are damaged from backpacking, and the benefits undoubtedly exceed the costs."

We obvously agree on that but the same logic used to regulate other things could be used to regulate backpacking. Who's to say someday they couldn't argue that in order to backpack in a National Park or take a minor backpacking you won't have to meet certain requirments? Its not always the rule that makes me nervious but the can of worms it opens.

"The backpacking manufacturers aren't making sophistiticated marketing campaigns to get people to do backpacking that secretly injured huge numbers of people."

As far as the tobacco companies they could probably be fairly accussed of false advertizing. They knowingly deceived people into buying a product that was harmful.
On the other hand eating a cheeseburger is only harmful if you do it in excess of what is recommended. Information on healthy eating is available to anyone who cares to go online or visit a library and its no secret that overeating will hurt you.

I think the government should regulate stupidity. If people wait for someone else to do their thinking for them, regardless of their excuse, and they do stupid things because of their stupidity, then they get fined. Maybe even jailed.

Yup, we certainly need more government regulation. Of stupid people. And lazy people, while we're at it. And, well, if you're stupid and lazy, then you're sent to the Soylent Green slaughterhouse where you might finally do some good.

"As far as the tobacco companies they could probably be fairly accussed of false advertizing. They knowingly deceived people into buying a product that was harmful.
On the other hand eating a cheeseburger is only harmful if you do it in excess of what is recommended. Information on healthy eating is available to anyone who cares to go online or visit a library and its no secret that overeating will hurt you."

What if they discovered emails between food company people discussing how adding high fructose corn syrup or super-charged flavorings caused people to buy their product more but also become obese, but they decided "who cares, as long as we're making more money?"

Information on healthy eating isn't that obvious, especially to one of Douglas Ide's "stupid people". Like the potato manufacturers payed off the politicians to make the USFDA declare that potatoes are vegetables. Potatoes look healthful. Some authorities say they're just as bad as sugar.

The techniques used to reduce bad health from tobacco could be used for food and exercise. That would be a good use of tax dollars. The government would be fullfilling their constitutional obligations.

Dougles
Yep how about an IQ/morality test and paralell governments for different people based on how smart and resposible they are. If you score as the smartest, most upstanding citizen you are governed by a sort of libertarian government taken to its most crazy extreme where you can have guns, drive 130 mph in school zones, use drugs in moderation and in general do whatever you think is a good idea based on your own good judgment. If you're not so smart or upstanding you fall under a more restrictive system and so on and so until on the other extreme you have a "nanny state" government that tells you have to do everything and ensures that you never take any kind of risk and basically treats you as if you're a complete idiot.
Of course this could be socially awkward at times.
Citizen 1 - Hey lets go play with that new batch of handgrenades I ordered of Ebay"
Citizen 2- Sorry pal I can't I scored a 450.
Citizen 1 - Oh my goodness you scored a 450, dude I didn't mean to embarrass you. Hey want me to cut that stake for you? I think you have to score a 550 to hold sharp objects. Of course the really fun part would be being the president who had to make sense of such a crazy system.
Hum maybe our current system of government ain't so bad after all.

Jerry
Does that email exist?

Edited by Cameron on 12/02/2011 15:16:21 MST.

"Potatoes look healthful. Some authorities say they're just as bad as sugar. "

Sigh. potatoes are a great food, all around. Just don't stuff yourself with them too often. Too much of anything is bad; even spinach can harm you if you eat too much of it.

"Yep how about an IQ/morality test and paralell governments for different people based on how smart and resposible they are. If you score as the smartest, most upstanding citizen you are governed by a sort of libertarian government taken to its most crazy extreme where you can have guns, drive 130 mph in school zones, use drugs in moderation and in general do whatever you think is a good idea based on your own good judgment. If you're not so smart or upstanding you fall under a more restrictive system and so on and so until on the other extreme you have a "nanny state" government that tells you have to do everything and ensures that you never take any kind of risk and basically treats you as if you're a complete idiot.
Of course this could be socially awkward at times.
Citizen 1 - Hey lets go play with that new batch of handgrenades I ordered of Ebay"
Citizen 2- Sorry pal I can't I scored a 450.
Citizen 1 - Oh my goodness you scored a 450, dude I didn't mean to embarrass you. Hey want me to cut that stake for you? I think you have to score a 550 to hold sharp objects. Of course the really fun part would be being the president who had to make sense of such a crazy system.
Hum maybe our current system of government ain't so bad after all."


Great post Luke. I kinda like that idea, though ;)

Edited by Kat_P on 12/02/2011 18:45:38 MST.

"The government would be fullfilling their constitutional obligations."

I must have missed that one in the constitution, unless you are referring to the "common defense and general welfare" clause.

One only needs to read the comments and writings of the primary author of the constitution to understand the intention.

"Hum maybe our current system of government ain't so bad after all."

I kinda like the one you proposed.....

Haha Dougles I had you in mind when I wrote that up, any improvements? Of course I plan on being one of the smart ones who gets to play with hand grenades.

"Jerry
Does that email exist?"

I don't know

There is research that says simple carbohydrates and flavorings make the food addictive but it's not conclusive. You can be sure the food manufacturers have studied the hell out of it. When asked on the 60 Minutes piece they denied it. It feels a lot like what the tobacco companies used to say

But I don't totally blame food manufacturers - if you're Burger King you have to add sugar and flavorings or else MacDonalds will put you out of business.

First we need to get the corruption out of politics - pass constitutional ammendment that companies don't have political free speech rights and individuals can't spend infinite money on political speech.

Then study and figure out the best way to reduce obesity unhealthiness.

"Dougles
Yep how about an IQ/morality test and paralell governments for different people based on how smart and resposible they are. If you score as the smartest, most upstanding citizen you are governed by a sort of libertarian government taken to its most crazy extreme where you can have guns, drive 130 mph in school zones, use drugs in moderation and in general do whatever you think is a good idea based on your own good judgment."


Black Friday - "Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective buyers last Friday, smashing the single-day, all-time high by 32%"

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/51554972

It just isn't chaff without a good gun thread going.

"Black Friday - "Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective buyers last Friday, smashing the single-day, all-time high by 32%""

I'll bet none of those shoppers used pepper spray to keep others at bay.....

Jerry
"There is research that says simple carbohydrates and flavorings make the food addictive but it's not conclusive. You can be sure the food manufacturers have studied the hell out of it. When asked on the 60 Minutes piece they denied it. It feels a lot like what the tobacco companies used to say"

I actually doubt the food manufactors know one way or the other. If we buy it and its not killing us why should they care? Here's what I think they know all about. I'll bet they have a lot of research and a very detailed knowledge of how to prevent food spoilage and Salminilla. Why? Theres money in it, or rather it is a way to not LOSE big bucks in lawsuits and food recalls. Companies invest in what makes money or saves money. We are now much more conscience of fuel efficiency than we were in the 1950s. So the car companies churn out fuel efficient cars because its a way to make a buck. If we get all interested in the health of our food they will have a "Calorie War" or whatever you want to call it to see who can make the "healthiest" burger. As long as people buy horrible food they'll make it.

"But I don't totally blame food manufacturers - if you're Burger King you have to add sugar and flavorings or else MacDonalds will put you out of business"

Lots of places sell fresh foods. It tastes better and people with the money for it go there. I think the fast food type places as well the packaged snack industry make money off people in a hurry not because of taste. When people have time and money they go to Applebees or wherever. That may not be super healthy but its at least more natural.

"First we need to get the corruption out of politics - pass constitutional ammendment that companies don't have political free speech rights and individuals can't spend infinite money on political speech"

+1 on getting corruption out of politics (but good luck). Want to end corruption? Get rid of any program where the government creates winners and losers in the food industry. I mean ALL of them. No promoting lots of wheat in the food pyramid, no subsidies for farmers, no tax funded irrigation projects NOTHING. If there's no money and no power involved its hard to have corruption. Anything else the government does, no matter how well intended is liable to corruption by people who stand to make or lose money when certain industries are promoted or regulated.

"Then study and figure out the best way to reduce obesity unhealthiness."

Heres whats depressing. We know how to end obesity. We may not know the "best" way but just look at all the people who do lose weight and all the people who stay healthy enough they never need to. Whats depressing is some people just don't want it bad enough.

I think it is due to obesity and as a result the metabolism process has been slowed down. Unfortunately most of us don't even answer the question what is metabolism. people should be aware of this.

You eat food to gain nutrients and energy known as calories. What metabolism does is to burn those calories in order to prevent it from becoming unwanted fats thus helping your body to stay fit. This is a systematic process that depends from one person to another. Some people are having fast metabolism and some are slow.

http://www.weightlosingportal.com/what-is-metabolism/

The other thing that people don't consider is that often being obese will set hormonal balances out of whack. I'm not talking about a hormonal or thyroid condition that causes weight gain but rather the type of weight gain that causes a hormonal imbalance. When the hormone levels are messed up it effects sleep, energy levels, metabolic rate and it can hinder weight loss success unless the person has enough fortitude to push through the struggles. As weight drops the hormones become more balanced.

"I actually doubt the food manufactors know one way or the other. If we buy it and its not killing us why should they care?"

I think it's naive to think that food manufacturers don't study how to make their food "taste better" so people come to eat more often. If they do, they will sell more food and make more money.


"Want to end corruption? Get rid of any program where the government creates winners and losers in the food industry."

That's subjective. For example, one person will think USFDA shouldn't do food inspections but another person will think they should - because it creates winners and losers.

You have to make some change in the law, like term limits (bad idea) or eliminate corporate or unlimited individual politcal contributions.


"We know how to end obesity"

I don't think we know what has caused the obesity epedemic. Maybe it's food additives or marketing.

Maybe it's just that people are lazier because they're given everything by the socialist government, but I think that's inconsistent with data - welfare has decreased in the last 30 years but obesity has increased, there are more socialist countries that have less obesity.

Jerry I guess I wasn't clear but I actually agree on that first point. I'm sure food companies do study the heck out of how to make their food taste better. What I meant was that the long term side effects of our food probably aren't of interest to a food company so they probably don't know anything the rest of us don't. We know Coca Cola isn't super healthy but do we know all the details of how its unhealthy? Maybe over time the chemicals of Coca Cola do things to your cells that cause cancer or ADHD or whatever. Its highly unlikely Coca Cola would be sued for something like that at this point because the cause and effect would be so hard to prove. If its not a liablity or something that will make money they probably won't study the issue.
Back to taste I still can't think of a single processed food that taste's better than the alternative. I think the reason we buy the junk is that the healthier foods either cost a bit more, or they're more expensive, or less convienant or people just don't know how much better fresh food taste's than something cooked in a microwave. For example my mom makes bread out of home-ground wheat. Whatever you think about grain as part of a diet, I'm sure her bread is a lot better for you than what you get a Wal Mart. The problem is a major food distributer couldn't sell my mom's bread, at least not as cheap, because it has a shorter shelf life.

Edited by Cameron on 12/03/2011 14:12:36 MST.

Long term affects of food are of concern, because if people become aware of a study that says MacDonalds is unhealthy, it will hurt sales, so they have to anticipate and defend against.

At least that's what happened with tobacco - and in that case the secret internal memos became public.

Or global warming - carbon producers spend a lot of money producing information that denies global warming, pay people to post on the web denial information (like Rog? - probably not : ). We won't really know about this for a period of time, at least that's my prediction.

I agree with you, natural food tastes better. But I kind of like potato chips or soda, especially if I drink a few soda per day then I'll start liking them even more. But lots of/most people prefer junk food.

"I agree with you, natural food tastes better."


Nothing tastes better than a banana split with all the trimmings. And if I had my way I would eat a McDonalds #3 every night, with large fries... my favorite. But my wife makes me eat natural foods at home instead :(

For those of you who have not read it, Fast Food Nation does a great job at outlining the current (well, now 11 years old) american food landscape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Food_Nation

>> Long term affects of food are of concern, because if people become aware of a study that says MacDonalds is unhealthy, it will hurt sales, so they have to anticipate and defend against.

>> At least that's what happened with tobacco - and in that case the secret internal memos became public.

Yeah... because that's the problem. People just don't know 2400 calorie meals super-sized meals and burning stuff entering the lungs is unhealthy.

Newsflash. People know. They just don't care. As a fatty (and ex-smoker), I know this for a fact.

I just saw the other day that in New York that got some of the restuarants to post the calories of the food. Than they compared the rate of fatty food eaten by inner city kids with the rate of fatty food eaten in other areas where this was not done. It made absulutely no difference.

"It made absulutely no difference."

That's good, we shouldn't do things that don't make any difference, just to make us feel good.

With both driving while intoxicated and smoking, there were epedemics, we did large/long campaigns to reduce the problem, we should do the same with obesity.

You need public awareness of the problem and solutions. Maybe putting calories on the doors of restaraunts is just a tiny piece, need to do a lot more.

Analytical tools like lists of calories probably don't work so good, better to have emotional stories of the problems obese people have, and how difficult it is to lose weight.

There's this ad running showing the fat in the artery of someone that died from smoking. I find that particularly disgusting. Maybe something like that should be part of the obesity campaign.

We keep coming back to smoking, and now drunk driving. I think smoking has been reduced, is drunk driving down from where it used to be? Has anyone done a study to figure out what actually worked?

Freedom isn't free. There is a tradeoff weather its terrorism, obese kids, drug abuse, crime ect.....big brother only weakens our society by taking away personal accountability.

Do we want a free society with all the pitfalls that associate with it? Or do we want big brother in our lives protecting us from ourselves? I'm reminded of I, Robot.

I want the freedom, and am prepared to face the consequences.

Someone made a comment earlier about not knowing what the cause for obesity is. This was made in relation to comments about food additives and such.

So... bear with me as I shoot off my mouth here because I can tell you what causes obesity. Too many North Americans live life on their keesters!

Look back about 4 decades. Television was limited. Video games and home computers were unheard of and kids went outside and used their imaginations. Parents didn't use electronics as a babysitter. Families went for walks and did things outside together.

Portion sizes were smaller and there were about 40, 000 less convenience products on the market. Going to Dairy Queen or McDonalds was a treat and you actually had to get your rear end out of the car to get your food at most joints. Then there is the whole all you can eat buffet thing. Foods weren't being genetically modified to the extent (if at all) that they are now.

We've become a society of excess. Food "manufacturers" feed the stock hormones and such to make for bigger animals and therefore bigger profit margins. Consumers bought into that. Plates got bigger... not just the amount of food we pile on them, but the actually diameter of a standard dinner plate. I realized this when I was going through some old boxes and found a set of standard dinner plates my Mom had bought in the forties.

Bottom line... society has made it acceptable to be fat and big business has made a multi-billion dollar industry keeping people in the Dante's Hell of yo-yo dieting.

Laurie, my mom was going through some of her parent's old dinnerware and remarked at the size difference of plates as well. There is often quite a significant increase in size!

I can't believe the length of this thread. I couldn't be bothered reading through it.
Eat more than you burn and you will end up fat.
Simple.
Any other opinions are only excuses.

Yeah mike!

Over the past 4 months I lost 30- 35 lbs (2 stone :) ) just my not eating so Damn much.

No exercise, no 'diet'



---Man I told myself I wasn't gonna post on this one...oh well

Edited by WoodenWizard on 12/10/2011 11:07:44 MST.

I carry around 10 pounds on my belly. I love beer.
When i was a younger, i trained so hard that i never carried any excess weight.
Now i'm older, i'm content to carry that 10 pounds of fat. That's what it is. Fat. :)

"Eat more than you burn and you will end up fat.
Simple.
Any other opinions are only excuses."

Same could be said about tobacco, only it's even simpler.

2/3 of U.S. smoked
Government and private efforts happened
now, only 1/3 of U.S. smokes

we should do the same with obesity

"Now i'm older, i'm content to carry that 10 pounds of fat. That's what it is. Fat. :)"

With age come certain perks, Mike, so why not cut yourself a little slack and call it 10 pounds of fuel? ;=)

"2/3 of U.S. smoked
Government and private efforts happened
now, only 1/3 of U.S. smokes

we should do the same with obesity"

We should certainly encourage healthy eating and lifestyle but I think getting the message acroos will be more complicated than the smoking issue. We can say to kids they should NEVER ever smoke, ban smoking under 18 etc. and in various ways discourage smoking and make it inconvenient, we can also make a very clear connection between smoking and lung cancer. The problem with food is, we can't honestly say NEVER eat certain foods or you'll get fat, we can't ban cheeseburgers for minors and we can't make a clear connection between a certain food and obesity. We can't say "Never eat french fries or you'll look like that 200 pound 3rd grader." The problem is we are comparing a campaign of "Just say No" to a campaign that would say "be reasonable (whatever that is)."

Luke...

....that is where self moderation comes in along with a reasonable upbringing in regards to eating habits. The responsibility is on us to eat for sustenance rather than gorging into the extreme, and be active enough to support a healthy body. Even if we eat well, being sedentary all our lives creates its own set of problems. It's up to parents to be that role model for their children. Sure, its hard in the face of advertising and the prevalence of cheap crappy food, but its still the responsibility of the parent and/or individual to instill a healthy lifestyle.

Society also needs to reverse the trend of individuals blaming anything and everything but themselves.

"Society also needs to reverse the trend of individuals blaming anything and everything but themselves."

+1 on that. Now if we could just develop an Iphone app for that...

"It's up to parents to be that role model for their children. Sure, its hard in the face of advertising and the prevalence of cheap crappy food, but its still the responsibility of the parent and/or individual to instill a healthy lifestyle."

A huge +1!!!

"I can't believe the length of this thread. I couldn't be bothered reading through it.
Eat more than you burn and you will end up fat.
Simple.
Any other opinions are only excuses."

Yep, pretty much.

I love that I am in such impeccable, iron-willed, always-on company! Kind of incredible, actually. Advertising and marketing firms spend billions to take advantage of people's foibles. The average person is not at all immune to propaganda. And those na'er do wrong ancestors of ours? If they were living in our environment today, they'd be doing the same things, with the same problems. It's not individuals having to be more resistant to the enormous onslaught, but a fundamental change in how business is done and what society as a whole feels is the right way to live.why should that be the responsibility, and stress, of the individual? Everyone should be involved.

Edited by butuki on 12/11/2011 00:53:39 MST.

> It's not individuals having to be more resistant to the enormous onslaught, but a fundamental change in how business is done and what society as a whole feels is the right way to live.

And, though in my last post I put a lot of the blame/burden on individuals, your statement is hitting at the core of the issue: the current state of morality of society, which I slightly hinted at as well. Whether it be the cause of corruption, crime, improper finances, shady business deals, heavy-handed advertising, lobbying, political buyouts, and the list could go on...

...It really has to start with each and every one of us. Although I heartily support many of the protests happing now, people can't protest a company and expect to change the world. Congress can't pass a bill and expect to change the world. The president can't dictate a law and expect to change much at all. It HAS to start right here at home, with each and every one of us.

Crappy politicians exist because people vote them in. Crappy companies exist because people buy their products. Crappy companies keep crappy politicians in office because in some way or another we support their cause whether we know it or not (myself included). For this reason I fear that conditions will not change soon. The cards are against the average citizen; it's not easy. But we have to start at home. We have to be cognizant of reality.


I believe it was Gandhi that said: "We must become the change we want to see."



Until that happens with the whole of human society, that change will be but a distant hope.

Very much +1, Travis.

I do have to say though that it is very much harder for us today. To be healthy in a world that tempts us every single day, and focuses on tempting us is a hell of a lot of work. People in the past didn't have to work to be healthy... the world around them was healthy and forced healthy living. No one had to consciously choose to be healthy; there simply was no other choice. But a huge part of the reason all the conveniences came about today is because those people in the past wanted to lighten the burden of a lifestyle as hard as it was then. It has been called "progress" all this time for nothing.

How many of you don't have a TV and don't read magazines, newspapers, and look at the Internet everyday? How many of you would be completely willing to give up all access to the convenient, comfortable choices we have? Very few, I have no doubt. Walk 10 miles to get food. Wait two months to hear from your family. Kill, slaughter, and prepare you own meat. Build your own house. Find, sort out, and take the time to sort out and learn about some of the more difficult subjects so taken for granted in schools. Figure out the basis of robust health nutrition...

It's a lot of work, very healthy, but very time consuming, too. How do you make that proper amount of time for your health when places like your company frown upon your taking any time away from work?

Miguel wrote "How many of you don't have a TV and don't read magazines, newspapers, and look at the Internet everyday? How many of you would be completely willing to give up all access to the convenient, comfortable choices we have? Very few, I have no doubt. Walk 10 miles to get food. Wait two months to hear from your family. Kill, slaughter, and prepare you own meat. Build your own house."

You are right... very few. I'd do it in a millisecond but I am not your average person. Frankly, most of my friend thing my wilderness camping bit is a little off the wall. I would so love to get off the grid, without electronics, and live in the middle of the woods consuming what can be had locally. Living off the land, preserving foods for winter use. The only sugar would be that had from maple and it would be a treat. There would be nothing refined or exotic. Sort of like full time backpacking without the hike or the ethnically inspired home-dried foods. A couple I once met briefly did a year as pioneers for a show called Pioneer Quest. Everything had to be appropriate to the time in which the pioneers came to Manitoba (and I mean everything). I was always a little jealous of Alana and Frank for having such a wicked opportunity.

Miguel wrote "It's a lot of work, very healthy, but very time consuming, too. How do you make that proper amount of time for your health when places like your company frown upon your taking any time away from work?"

Healthy eating doesn't take a lot of time or effort. Raw fruits and veggies are totally easy choices and many don't require preparation. If people chose an apple or banana with a glass of water over a coffee and a donut... that one small change could make a big difference.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 12/12/2011 08:43:36 MST.

Miguel, yes, convenience is a difficult thing to ignore!

When mulling over these types of ideas I often wonder if we are a product of of our environment (and "progress") or if our environment is a product of us.

I think it really is both, but at its core, our modern environment is what we've made it.

And, to go along with Laurie's sentiments, I've often believed that my previous life was lived pre-industrial revolution.

Miguel wrote:

"How many of you don't have a TV and don't read magazines, newspapers, and look at the Internet everyday? How many of you would be completely willing to give up all access to the convenient, comfortable choices we have? Very few, I have no doubt. Walk 10 miles to get food. Wait two months to hear from your family. Kill, slaughter, and prepare you own meat. Build your own house. Find, sort out, and take the time to sort out and learn about some of the more difficult subjects so taken for granted in schools. Figure out the basis of robust health nutrition..."

With the exceptions that I own and watch TV, read, and look at the internet every day I do / have done all of those things. Also despite being an architect I don't own a cell phone and realistically can't see the need for one.

Doing all of these things are not that time consuming. Oh and guess what, I'm a wee bit overweight.

It's not always about lifestyle and convenience. Sometimes other medical factors play a role in someones weight.

I've always wondered what would happen if all internet diet and exercise advice had to be qualified with the author posting pictures of themselves flexing in a swimsuit.

There are NOT medical conditions that allow an adult to eat 1800-2300 calories a day and weigh 350 pounds. An 8-year-old CAN'T get to be 200 pounds on a diet (balanced or not) of 1200 calories a day.

You just can't create energy or mass out of nothing.

Yes, there are medical issues, in the sense that mental health and pyschology are part of one's medical health and condition. But no one has a physical condition that makes 4000 calories out of 2000.

Losing weight it HARD. Keeping it off can be harder. I know.

But eat less and you weigh less.

Eat more and you weigh more.

On school field trips, I'll look at the lunchs kids bring from home.

Calories in the lunch correlates amazingly well with BMI.

Healthful food (turkey sandwich, carrots, an apple) versus crap (Dorritos, Twinkee, Lunchables pizza, Snickers bar - yes!, exactly that selection) perfectly predicts behavior in just the ways you'd expect - attention, manners, focus, rule-following, academics. The food isn't the only cause. But it sure does track all the other causes (parenting, parenting, parenting).

I'm on the far right.

Skinny doesn't always equate healthy too. I know several people who look fabulous in a swimsuit that have crappy diets, cholesterol problems and who are smokers.

Diet = die with a t. Healthy lifestyle is more important and makes everything fall in place. Long term successful weight loss takes a load of small changes to make it a permanent way of living.

And yes... I consider myself an expert... self-proclaimed. No swimsuit photos yet (and I know your post wasn't in reference to me and that it was a general comment)... but here's a photo that illustrates my feeling of being able to shoot my mouth off... lol. (excuse the bad hair).

David... I worked at my son's school when I was pregnant with Kaia. My duties included being a lunch/outside play monitor. It was certainly enlightening to see what many kids get in their lunches. The amount of junk was astounding and some kids where getting 3 times the RDA for sodium and the same with fat. Juice boxes were the norm as was pop. As far as I am concerned juice is just as bad as pop - eating the fruit is a better choice.

I helped head up a nutritional snack program to help but there wasn't too much that we could do about what was brought from home. Not saying Tobias' lunch is perfect but he's 10 years old and just under 80 pounds. He eats more than some of his peers but he also runs 5 km three times a week and is extremely active. A typical lunch for him is hummus and veggies to dip, a piece of fruit, a sandwich with lean chicken or cheese (or a pita with salad and chicken), and a granola bar. Any bread products are whole grain. There is a ban on seafood, nuts, kiwi, melon, and eggs in the school because there are children who go into anaphalaxis. He takes a Camelbak with him for drinks and he buys 250 ml of milk each day at school. I let him have chocolate milk. There was one girl who simple had a bag of chips and a pop, another pair of siblings whose Dad delivered McDonald's meals or pizza slices to them everyday. I remember remarking about it to the Principal.

On the playground, many of the kids sit on the benches but there is a group of boys (my boy included) that play soccer or basketball for the entire 35 minutes outside (they have two outside breaks and the first one is about 25 mins). Not surprising, every one of those boys is fairly fit. There also seemed to be a correlation with what they had lunched on.

There was a school in Toronto that has banned all balls on the playground because a parent got hit in the head with the ball. In many schools kids can't play tag because the touch can be considered aggressive contact. It's little things like this contribute to inactivity.

And... it all begins at home.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 12/12/2011 12:50:14 MST.

>And... it all begins at home.

+1

I should have also included that this is an inner city Catholic School so perhaps there is some relationship between the income levels, parental education and food choices. I do know that part of the reason we started a nutrition program was because there were also students who came without having breakfast and didn't have a lunch. There were kids that weren't properly dressed for -15°C weather in January (no socks, hat or mitts... and one or two even in spring jackets)... but that's a whole other topic of discussion.

I also wanted to address the comment someone made about being medically unable to lose weight. While it may be more difficult... it is not impossible. I'm a walking example of someone whom the doctor basically told "don't bother because your hormones will prevent it". I switched physicians and got off my keester and moved. Eat less. Eat balanced. Move more. Problem is that we are a society who expects things instantly and long term successful weight loss takes time. People don't put the kind of weight on that comes with the label "morbidly obese" or "severely obese" in a fortnight... so it isn't going to come off in a little time.

David Thomas wrote:

"There are NOT medical conditions that allow an adult to eat 1800-2300 calories a day and weigh 350 pounds. An 8-year-old CAN'T get to be 200 pounds on a diet (balanced or not) of 1200 calories a day."

I completely understand what you're trying to say but right off the top of my head I can attest to two medical conditions that promote weight gain regardless of eating a healthy diet and regular exercise.


Thyroid disorder
Type 1 Diabetes

While I am no medical professional I am someone who has had a great deal of experience with nutrition. Being a type 1 diabetic for over 20 years I've stayed up to date on nutritional science and practice what I've learned.


One other thing David; you may want to read up on the accuracy of using Body Mass Index as a calculator for determining if someone is overweight. Most medical professionals I know agree it's not a very accurate way of determining a healthy body weight.

Please don't get wrong I'm not disputing that people need to eat healthy, exercise, and consume the right amount of nutrients in their diet. I'm just saying that things can be a bit more complex in some cases and the simple 'burn more than you consume'.


Edit to add:

Craig asked for it so:

Edited by chadnsc on 12/12/2011 15:11:43 MST.

If you look at Obesity like smoking there is 1 product you could stop youth from purchasing without too much argument. Sugared Pop (and diet to). It is probably the worst thing that you can eat in terms of weight gain. It is pure calories and does not quench your appitite at all. In fact people after consuming pop are prone to eating more than if they had just drank water.

Restricting Pop purhcases to individuals over 12 and banning consumption of pop by kids under 12 without a parent or guardian present would be a good step. It is a little nanny statish for my liking but I think it would help. There is no reason kids need pop in schools.

Chad... correct me if I am wrong (as I may be here) but I thought that type 1 diabetics had issues with weight loss not gains. Most T1's I have known have been underweight as opposed to overweight... Type 2's the opposite.

Type 1 Diabetes

While thyroid disorders can make weight loss very difficult - it is not impossible and I've known some who've had great success as long as they stayed on their medications and worked at it. One of my dearest friends is in that situation and she made great strides.

Two things... even unsweetened fruit juice can be as bad as pop. We have a rule in our house... eat the fruit instead of having the juice. The average person drinks enough OJ in one sitting to equal the juice of 3 to 4 oranges and by drinking the juice one doesn't get the benefit of the fibre which helps make you feel full. Not to mention what juice and pop does to the teeth.

The diabetics you know that are super thin probably have too high of blood sugar.

For a diabetic with blood sugars in control (A1C under 7.5) things are a bit different.

Difficulty loosing weight in conjunction with type 1 diabetes is due to how the body absorbs and uses injected insulin. It's a bit complex to explain but the short version is that when using injected insulin your body wants to naturally store calories as fat.

Combine this with the other factors such as:

Not having insulin stored in the live prior to absorption and thus not having a normal link to the brain that helps tell when your full.

Having to rely on physical feeling of being full from the stomach (by this time you're over full).

Having to eat when you're not hungry.

Low blood sugar basically turns off what remaining 'full sensor' diabetics have as we've learned to eat when we're not hungry in order to survive.


. . . . and you can see it's a complex matter for a type 1 diabetic to loose weight.


As for having a thyroid disorder only making loosing weight difficult, yet that is true. Then again this is for the people who's thyroid can be under control with medication. Some people's thyroids are so messed up that they have to be removed and this get's you into a hole other situation where finding the right dose and types of medication can be a continually challenging process.

As I said before weight loss can be a complex task, especially when medical conditions arise.


Edit to add:

The link you provided list the symptoms of UNTREATED type 1 diabetes. This is where a persons body is producing basically no insulin and their bodies cannot us the foot we eat to run our organs. Once a type 1 diabetic begins a life long treatment of insulin injections then those symptoms are gone. There is no other effective treatment for type on diabetes other than insulin injection. Even pancreas transplants perform very, very poorly compared to insulin injections (it has to do with the anti rejection drugs you must take raising blood sugar and the new transplant can't handle it) .

On a side note not taking injections of insulin would result in comma and death due to massive organ failure in about 5-8 days.

Edited by chadnsc on 12/12/2011 18:07:31 MST.

Chad: Yes I'm aware of shortcomings of BMI, especially for the very fit and the musclebound. Arnold never could have gotten out of Austria, been Conan, Terminator, Governator, married a Kennedy, pawed so many women, had so many adulterous affairs, or procreated so many kids in those affairs with a BMI of 21. I used it as shorthand for having an appropriate lean body mass and % body fat and that's not what it reports. I should have been more careful in my wording.

I totally accept that there are medical conditions that make it harder to lose weight. Potentially VERY hard. But are there are adults who, if locked in a cell and fed 1000 calories a day, wouldn't lose weight? That's what I reject. It just takes a certain amount of energy for one's basal metabolism and to keep a human-sized mammal warm.

Dave Thomas wrote:

There are NOT medical conditions that allow an adult to eat 1800-2300 calories a day and weigh 350 pounds. An 8-year-old CAN'T get to be 200 pounds on a diet (balanced or not) of 1200 calories a day.

Well, it's much harder for an 8-year old, but the 1800-2300 calories a day range covers 500 calories a day, or (multiply by 7, get 1 lb of fat, multiply by weeks in a year) about 50 lbs a year. Assuming the person "uses" less than 1800 calories a day, in only a few years they'd balloon in size. (Here is where one should see start to see problems with a pure calorie-count model.)

Consider the fa/fa Zucker rat with a dysfunctional leptin receptor. However, and this is the fun part, restrict the fa/fa rat to the same caloric intake as a non-obese Zucker rat, and you'll see that it still gets fatter. You have to really starve them to balance out the weight, and even then the percentage of body fat is much higher.

Now, I have no idea if this is the case with the Cleveland kid; similar genetic problems in humans are pretty rare, but are linked to early onset obesity. Compounding the problem, leptin deficiency is also going to encourage overeating.

Sigh . . .

David it appears you're making some rather sweeping generalizations simply in order to antagonize other posters here. All you're accomplishing by doing this is damaging your credibility.


Oh and for the record it would be possible for a sedentary adult who weighs in the 150 pound range with a metabolism on the lower end of normal, housed in a prison cell in a temperature range of say 80 F to subsist on 1,000 calories a day and not loose weight.


Clearly you have an over simplistic understanding of nutrition, human metabolism, and the medical conditions that can affect them. There is nothing wrong with not understanding a subject but please don't try and act as an expert in such a subject.