Would you like some hypocrisy with that?
By Staci Schoff
| print |
"obsession" is too strong of a word? A
quick Google search on "childhood obesity" turns up roughly
588,000 links, and a search for the same on Amazon will reveal over
17,000 books. Many of them make overly simplistic (and alarmist)
statements such as, "Sodas Keep Child Obesity Soaring."
Obesity is a very serious health concern and it is on the
rise in America, including among our children, but with roughly
6-15 percent of children and teenagers considered obese is it really
"soaring?" And if we suddenly outlawed soda would that
fix the problem? The answers, of course, are not really and an emphatic no, respectively. Soda isn't helping the
issue and I'm not defending its place in anyone's diet, but the
answer to the problem can only be found by looking beyond each of
the popular scapegoats.
It's easy for Americans to focus on childhood obesity. When we
see obese adults we have a hard time sympathizing, because we know
that no one is force-feeding people Big Macs. But with kids, we
can blame the TV, bad parenting, bad school lunches, McDonalds,
advertising, and the list goes on. We can feel sorry for kids, because
it can't be their fault so it must be someone else's. And there's
no end to the people we're willing to blame. Whether it's explicitly
stated or not, overweight parents of obese children are usually
being criticized the most because kids learn to eat by example.
Only my kids (and I know I'm not alone) seem to not have gotten
the memo, as I can think of at least twenty things (both healthy
and not) that I eat regularly that they won't touch.
When I started writing this article I began to look around to see
just how many obese kids I could find. Of all the children in my
neighborhood there's only one. At my kids' swimming lessons (where
there are several kids of all ages taking lessons) I only saw one
kid who was visibly overweight in a bathing suit. There are no overweight
kids in my son's preschool class. Perhaps we live in a particularly
skinny area, but young kids usually look normal to me. But it must
just be me, because in addition to all of the alarmist news stories
I read, everyone I mentioned this topic to said something along
the lines of, Oh yeah, kids today are so fat! It could
also be because I live in a largely white, middle class area. Minority
and low-income children are far more likely to suffer from obesity
according to a Mayo
obesity rate has increased dramatically for all U.S. children,
certain ethnic minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians
-- have been experiencing the highest rates of increase. Nearly
25 percent of children in these ethnic groups are obese by medical
standards. Poverty is another risk factor. Between 1986 and 1998,
the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables increased substantially
more than did the cost of carbonated drinks, meat, sweets and
snacks. So it's literally cheaper to eat unhealthy foods.
It's ironic that while obesity used to be a disease of the wealthy,
in one of the wealthiest nations in the world it has become increasingly
a disease of the poor. But it's not really surprising. When's the
last time you heard of the government admonishing ConAgra and Archer
Daniels Midland to stop putting so much effort into convenience
food made from cheap flour, sugar, corn and soy and to start putting
more effort into helping farmers grow more fresh meat, vegetables,
fruits and grains (including especially the outrageously
expensive convenience food variations such as bagged salad and cut
fresh fruit) at a better price for the consumer?
You certainly never
have and odds are you never will.You will hear of some well-meaning, but likely ineffective
programs. For instance, in my town there was a movement to allow
farmers' markets in the area to accept food stamps. Theoretically,
this would give low-income families access to healthy, local and
often organic food. Clearly their hearts are in the right place.
However, let's consider the logistics for a minute. What percentage
of the people who are eligible for food stamps have the transportation
and/or the time to travel five or ten miles out of town to buy about
a third of the groceries they'll need for the week on a regular
basis? Probably not many.
Additionally, the places where vending machine junk is being removed
from schools are mostly in areas in which parents have the time,
the education, the means and the inclination to make the demand.
There are some schools with little tax revenue and minimal parental
involvement where these issues have been addressed, but for the
most part, the kids benefiting from this are not as likely to suffer
from obesity in the first place.
Few people are more fond of blaming parents (and particularly working
mothers) for the rise in childhood obesity than Mary
Eberstadt, author of Home
Alone America. According to her, one of the ways working
mothers contribute to their children's corpulence is due to the
difficulty in combining paid work and breastfeeding. Apparently
she's forgotten that back in the good ol' 1950s when middle class
white women were home, they were also bottle feeding their infants.
Not to mention that in the same time period most of the black and/or
poor mothers (whose children would be at high risk for obesity today) were working. Yet in spite of all the things those mothers
were doing "wrong," childhood obesity wasn't even a blip
on the radar screen of social concerns.
Eberstadt wants us to believe that working mothers are the reason that kids eat too much and don't exercise enough. However,
she concedes that maternal obesity is the greatest predictor of
child obesity, which (someone should let her know) is actually true
whether Mom is home in the afternoon to overeat with her kids or
not. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the most significant
way that working mothers contribute to childhood obesity is by insuring
that they have enough money to keep food in the house for their
kids to eat. Those rotten feminists.
Insurance companies are also very concerned about childhood obesity
and have instituted programs to teach kids how to eat better, since
obese kids tend to become obese adults. My four-year-old recently
announced that we won't get cancer and die like his great grandfather
did because, "We eat healthy food and drink water." So
obviously I'm not opposed to teaching children that it's important
to eat healthily, but am I the only one who thinks telling five-year-olds
to read nutrition labels is a bigger than necessary burden? And
while I'm a fan of nutrition labeling, didn't people know what "junk"
food was prior to the mandatory labels? When I was a kid I remember
knowing that potato chips were "not good for me," without
having any idea how many "net carbs" were in each ounce.
Girls are also at higher risk than boys, because girls tend to tie
activity into looking good rather than being healthy (or just
being a normal kid). With the sexualization of girls' bodies and
impossible media standards, it's not surprising that many young
girls suffer from a poor body image. And as a result, they're more
likely to contract various kinds of eating disorders, including
compulsive eating which often leads to obesity. Fifteen-year-old
American girls are twice
as likely to be overweight as are girls the same age from Denmark.
Obviously activity (or lack thereof) is playing a role here. But
so are perfectly airbrushed, nearly anorexic models, who are portrayed
in magazines and on television as being normal, healthy girls.
Often the "quality" of school
physical education programs is emphasized as part of the cure
for childhood obesity. Now Phys Ed is good, but how qualified should
someone have to be? It's fine to have a class where kids learn about
health and rules to sports games, but is this really the answer
to curing obesity? Isn't plain old activity good enough? How about
reducing the number of hours kids have to sit at a desk at school
and let them go home? How about longer recesses in the earlier grades?
Does anyone have to tell a first grader to get out there and move? But you won't hear anyone lobbying for a shorter and more efficient
school day. It's easier to simply suggest that, like all the other
problems we face in education, inactive children are the result
of teachers' general lack of "good enough" credentials.
In the older grades, why not end school an hour earlier, and instead
of "trying out" for various athletic sports, require that everyone participate in a fitness activity or sport they
like in the afternoon? No PhD's in Sports Medicine required
article on WebMD that tells you how to pack "healthy"
lunches for your kids (never mind that the kids at highest risk
for obesity are those whose parents are least likely to be reading
WebMD looking for information on how to pack the healthiest lunch
for their child). And practically every choice includes "low-fat"
something or other. When is someone going to notice that prior to
the invention of "low fat" food, fewer people were fat?
Well, Dr. Atkins noticed, but he failed to notice that the same
is true for the invention of "low carb" foods. Not to
mention how disturbing it is that "experts" are routinely
advocating keeping an essential nutrient out of kids' bodies. But,
whatever it takes to sell more books and more prepackaged junk food
in the name of "fitness."
Austin is in on the action too. But at least her food ideas
include real milk and yogurt (some of the time) and even other fat-containing
foods like coconut and pumpkin seeds which are actually filling
and full of nutrients. And she focuses on fruits and vegetables,
naturally. There's seemingly no end to the advice out there around
how to keep kids slim.
Even the Cookie Monster diets now. Cookies are now a "sometimes"
food (pause for collective eye roll). But McDonalds advertises before
and after Sesame Street (in spite of the numerous parents, myself
included, who asked PBS not to allow this), though they're demonized
as being one of the primary contributors to childhood obesity, along
with television and bad parents. Apparently the viewers' "valuable"
contributions to public television aren't as valuable as McDonalds'
contributions. Watching TV contributes to sedentary kids, which
is one of the real factors in childhood obesity, yet Cookie Monster
isn't encouraging anyone to turn off the TV. Just more politically
correct nonsense, when money is still the bottom line, with lip
service to "keeping kids healthy."
kids really get obese from eating too many steaks and apples?