We eat from the lab.We haven't changed,the food has.

WRONG.

It's permissive parents who have listened to pop psychology junk start in the last 20 years "don't tel your kids NO", "don't spank your kids", "don't make them finish their food if they don't want to", (and conversely, let them eat as much as their little heart desires) and such nonsense.

parents are irresponsible and wrong. Eat fruits, vegetables, whole wheat bread and make the little buggers get their Arse out and job, and they wno't be fat.

Don't blame the "food supply", i mean really.........euro's have the same food supply, their much skinnier.

people in CA and AZ and Seattle are much skinnier than people in Iowa and Michigan. do they have different food supplies or something?

no, different cultures and decisions.

There's nothing wrong with the "food supply". That's the dumbest thing I've seen here in hours.

The only thing wrong with the "food supply" in these cases is that we are "supplying" our children with too damn much food, and too few opportunities to burn off the energy it provides- forcing the body to convert or store it in fat cells.

This does bring about the question of the whole "big brother" govenrment idea versus individuals/parents haivng their freedoms infringed on. At what point must the state step in to protect the child? I think (and this is just my opinion) that when it comes to nutrition, unless the parent(s) starve or force-feed the child to the point of injury (not an easy definition, I know) the state has no right to interfere with the parents.

Like so many issues, this one has a lot of really icky and hard to define issues. What is "harm"? I know a woman who's raising 2 kids in a cabin with no running water and an outhouse who wants to make sure they never attend a public school. Is this in any way "harming" her children? To some, maybe. To others, maybe not. For that matter, even the term "obese" is a rather amorphous one; there are many definitions of obeisety, and many of them contradict one another. BMI, for instance has long been a guideline, but according to that guideline, Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson and Larry Bird in their primes were all defined as obese. Without definitions, there can be no clear policy; just a random bunch of rules that arbitrarily get enforced or not.

All that aside though... Parents, get your kids off the TV/internet/Wii/PS3/XBox360's (yes I know they're excersizing their little chubby butts off doing the Wii fit), and make them go outside. Hell, go outside with them. There's a wonderful world out there waiting for them, and you. All you have to do is explore it.

Was that survival of the fittest or smartest?

There is nothing wrong with the food supply. If you don't like food from the lab, buy organics or grow your own. The issue is lazy parents who buy their kids Big McCrapper Sandwiches with super sized fries and a chocofat milkshake because they have no spine to tell their fat whiny brats "NO". These parents say that it's too dangerous to let their precious piggies out to play, but are too concerned with their own Facebook page to go outside and supervise.

I say let em get as fat as you can, that way they will die quicker and solve this whole social security going bankrupt thing I keep hearing about.

You know what motivates me to watch what I eat and go to the gym? It's watching all the fat people wobble around breathing heavy as they drink their 8th Mountain Dew of the day while trying to light their cigarette. I actually feel sorry for their kids because they stand no chance of living a healthy life.

Now I will admit to sitting here on a 24 hour shift with a pile of junk food/snacks to munch on, but at least I'm sucking down Diet Cokes and Absolutely Zero Monster Energy drinks. Mmmmm, time for another Twizzler!

chickenmann:

In case you haven't heard, the kids are not even safe playing outside of their own backyard at home anymore due to pedophiles, kidnappings, etc. They need constant watching because of the number of sick adults wandering around loose. Also, the public schools (run by the Government (State and local) no longer allow any free recess or gym time for the younger children. When growing up, I had a 20 to 30 minute break in the morning and a 20 to 30 minute recess break in the afternoon to play jump rope, play Red Rover, kick ball, volleyball, basketball, etc. Now they are kept sitting at the desks all day long. So start there with the criticism, since preparing for the State Academic Tests are far more important than allowing free time for exercising, or organized sport games. Take a look at all the fat junk food that the schools provide for lunch. It seems that the schools to provide junk food is far more important than allowing for a few minutes of creative free play time with outdoor exercising. Sodas, doughnuts, and french fries were never available back when I went to school. The students were actually able to concentrate better after the recess beaks. When the children had the free recesses under the adult supervision, the kids seemed less stressed out and less likely to fall asleep from the boredom of sitting all day long with the academics. Even adults get breaks at work along with at least 30 minutes for lunch (whereas students get 20 minutes for lunch to go through the lunch line and then to gulp down their food). So for the Government wanting to take the obese kids away from the home is like the "pot calling the kettle black" when the "big brother act" is so full of holes itself.

No, it's too much fun to judge and feel superior, and as long as this country belongs to corporations that pump out non-foods with billion dollar ad campaigns, there's no relief in sight.

Personally I think bad parents that abuse their children by making them obese should be charged just like any parent that knowingly threatens the health of their kids to the point it can kill or maim them permanently. Obesity kills so this political correctness about fat being beautiful has to be challenged. I'm sorry if you are obese and don't like to admit it is a choice but it most certainly is for a huge majority of people. Yes a few people have rare clinical illnesses and they can't help it but the rest of you pretending this to be true have to start taking personal responsibility for a change.

Drinkers, smokers, gamblers, addicts and obese people all claim they have no control and yet many people decide to stop being all of these things everyday.

The problems affecting our children in America today, are mostly due to Americans thinking they are so all-wise. You can't localize the troubles with an overweight child with trying to define it as an all encompassing scenario.

You CAN localize the problems with our children alongside the general egotistical attitudes their parents have, ruling their little kingdoms with their own hellbent rule though.

Yet, generalizing obesity problems in children the way many do here, is like any other form of prejudice found in America today.

It's like trying to claim that our children won't smoke cigarettes or marijuana when they grow older unless the parents do so. It's just not true.

In the same way, some children are predisposed genetically and through hereditary influence, not merely through poor parental upbringing or lack of proper parental food counseling. There are far too many instances verified and documented by far more accredited researchers and studious university attention than overly head strong newsvine commentators, that far outweigh the comments referred to here in everyone's self proclaim god-like all-knowing wisdom, that attest to those facts.

Yes, there are those households where the 500lb hussy with three hot dogs crammed into her mouth who is constantly shoving doughnuts and chips at her kids to console her own abusive food habit guilt and just keep her overweight children from whining.

Yet that doesn't paint an all covering picture of every household for having overweight or obese children, and anyone with common sense (and not many here have it) can tell you that.

Its an issue that needs to be addressed because it not only has an effect on these children's ability to have and lead a productive and healthy lifestyle, but it also has a direct affect on everyone else.

Take into consideration that these obese :to be: adults will most likely end up on some form of disability early on in there lives, sucking up Medicaid funds and welfare services along with Social Security checks, but they will also probably present recurring problems with our social services if all they can do is eat, live and procreate more children to take their own slice of the pie of social services.

So the problem is real, and all this doctor is saying is that in the MOST EXTREME CASES, that social services might consider finding alternative family environs for them where a more supervised regimen of healthy eating habits can be exercised since evidently, their present home health practices are not healthy. I doubt some doctor that runs 5 miles a day and spends 10 hours a week at the gym would be able to "sign your kid away" just because he claims your child is obese. I am equally sure that a DSS/DFS social worker would have to conduct appropriate interviews, investigating the overall condition of the home, its cleanliness and the parents ability and past record to provide a healthy home atmosphere.

Take into account also, that about 1/6th of the homes out there that social services is SUPPOSE to exercise some form of control over, undergo incompetent scrutiny or ham-fisted regulatory conditions, in low income, drug related areas that society has constantly failed to cure or treat.

We sit here on our computer thrones and swear like we know it all, and condemn and judge, but we don't know our asses from a hole in the ground when it comes to actually, and accurately prescribing remedies for society's problems. But it sure makes us feel good to shout and scream our protests and convictions doesn't it.

I wonder how many here are slangin' along with their condemnation song while sitting on their fat asses, with overweight kids running around with X-boxes in one hand and a bunch of choco-chip cookies in the other.

Children need proper motivation and counseling, and so we all do even in our adult years. Problem is finding the appropriate source for that counseling, given that a third of us are too damn stubborn to listen, a third of us think we know it all already,and the other third listen to nothing but media hype and news agencies that only care about ratings.

Each child out there needs a mentor or object of their obsession that is healthy and wise rather than detrimental to their overall mental and physical health. These obese children have a hard life ahead, as it isn't just a matter of simple willpower. Their overall health is already affected, exercise is ten times harder since they have to exert ten times more energy and will power than you or I would given their general physical condition. Their environment has to be geared to support their goals, and that is an ever present problem all across America in homes too numerous for statistics and data to calculate effectively.

This doctor has made a foolish statement in that, where's the funding coming form in a time where the nation is imposing cuts all across the board, and social services is where those cuts are already coming from. So what politician, what leader of modern medicine is going to support such a decision?

One thing where we can start to take a positive position in America for the good of the nation though, is to quit being MR and MRs Know-it-All, and listen a bit more than we talk.

There are SO MANY structural things that have to be fixed in order for the obesity epidemic to go away. This is not just a matter of lazy parents neglecting an important area of their children's health. We could do better, both individually and collectively, in a wide variety of areas that add to the problem. Here's just a short list of places where there's room for improvement:

1. On the food industry front, federal and state governments could do much much more to regulate the amount of chemistry and genetic engineering that goes into our food. YES, the American food supply is toxic. Go into any regular supermarket and try to find an ordinary loaf of bread, or box of noodles, cereal, crackers, or anything else that does not contain sugar, corn syrup, tons of salt and other preservatives. Unless you are buying nothing but raw fruits, vegetables and meats, this will prove very difficult-- and that's before we start worrying about how many ingredients in the food came from sources that used hormones, antibiotics, radiation, genetic engineering, bleach or other solvents in processing, etc. Some other governments around the world do a better job of this than the USA does to insure a clean and healthy food supply, and we would do well to take a page or two out of their books.

2. On the corporate front, employers could do much much more to provide better wages and benefits to their rank-and-file employees (not just to their executive officers.) They could also adjust work schedules for parents to allow them to have set work schedules all the time, so that they and their families could get onto a consistent "eating schedule," since being able to plan meals weeks in advance cuts down on the temptation to eat out frequently. For that matter, they could even allow parents to arrive later in the morning and leave work earlier in the evening, so they have more time to prepare better meals for their families.

3. On the educational front, (some) schools could do more to integrate recess, sports and physical education back into the curriculum, as well as eliminate junk food from campuses and lunch programs and add classes in cooking and nutrition to middle and high school curricula. (Some schools have already taken steps in this direction.)

4. On the urban planning front, cities could do more to adjust zoning laws to provide for "walkable" living spaces (areas where people can work and shop in walking distance from where their homes are located.) They could do more to encourage a better distribution of food-based businesses, like grocery stores and farmer's markets, as well as amenities like public parks, and/or to re-route lines of public transportation so that even the poor are able to access these.

5. On the entertainment industry front, game-makers could do more to integrate interactive physical challenges into previously completely sedentary video games (and maybe even movies.) Think if to kill enemies in World of Warcraft, you now had to actually swing a remote like a sword, WiiFit-style. The industry as a whole could make it their business to integrate a physical activity component into every new game produced, slowly but surely stamping out the old "butt-sitting" games of the past, and redefining "games" to be something closer to what we think of as "sports."

6. On the community front, churches and charities could (and some already do) sponsor free cooking classes for adults who never learned the necessary skills, community gardens to help grow organic local foods, and exercise groups or sports leagues to encourage adults to stay active, while teaching families about the moral imperative to maintain a healthy lifestyle for oneself and one's family.

7. On the pharmaceutical/psychological front, scientists, counselors and drug makers could cease pushing the idea that people MUST be happy, and anxiety-free all the time, and those who aren't must achieve these states with medication. Lots of psychoactive drugs designed to target depression and anxiety have WEIGHT GAIN as a side effect, and it is well-known that these are over-prescribed. Additionally, convincing a population that "sad" and "worried" are unacceptable states, equivalent to "sick," encourages people who are not taking prescription drugs for these conditions to self-medicate with food, alcohol, or illegal drugs in order to achieve the "happy all the time" state-- none of which is healthy. Also, prescribing drugs with weight gain as a side effect to normal-weight or overweight children should be STRENUOUSLY discouraged, and used only as a last resort.

8. On the fad-diet industry front... Frankly, we'd be better off as far as obesity goes if this whole industry went the way of tobacco and was forced to admit the truth about its products: that is that they are fraudulent. Nobody ever lost weight and kept it off for any length of time from using a fad diet or fad diet-related products. That's because weight loss and a healthy lifestyle are something that must be done full-time, and not just for one week or one month or six months. The government could shut them down or require them to prove their weight-loss claims with long-term studies before approving their products for market, and/or the public could be educated through commercials, warning labels, etc. that fad diets are a scam. Either way, the sooner our culture lets go of the myth that there exits, somewhere out there, a "miracle cure" for weight issues, the better.

9. And finally, on the individual responsibility front, (some) parents could do more to stay in tune with their bodies, to learn to stop eating when they are full, how much exercise their individual bodies require to remain healthy, how to find exercise activities that are enjoyable and participate in them regularly, how to buy and prepare food that is both healthy and satisfying, how a REAL healthy human body actually looks (without photoshopping) and how to regard their own bodies and other people's bodies with appropriate levels of concern, compassion, and pride... And then to teach these skills to their children.

As you can see, there's more to this debate (and more that could be done about this problem) than just blaming parents. There are many fronts on which we could make progress with this problem.

Jessica,

The food supply is full of GM & irradiated foods, Hybrids, hormones, antibiotics, etc. Part of the reason for this is to make the foods stand up to pesticides, feed lot stressors, and poor processing sanitation.

We need to grow our own and stop with big agra.

This may have already been said, but I missed it if it has... There are problems with food, of course, but you seem to be missing the most obvious -- cost. It is not simply ignorance or apathy resulting in higher rates of obesity among this nation's working poor - -no matter how much people want to believe that is all it is. Just go to your local grocery and take a look at food prices. Where I am, for example, a single red pepper costs nearly $2, but you can get a 12 inch frozen pizza for $1.50. On a limited food budget, which is going to make more economic sense? A single pepper that can supplement a healthy meal, or a pizza that can feed up to 2 kids on its own? As long as wages remain low and the price of fresh produce and other healthy options continue to climb while processed foods remain affordable, there will be no solution to this problem for many people. And before you start chanting "ban the processed food" -- just remember, people need to eat. If you ban the bad stuff, you need to figure out a way to make the good stuff affordable.

Is this the only problem? Of course not. I'm just trying to point out that this is a very complicated problem for many people and those of you on your elitist, organic high horses need to get a grip and look at the whole picture if you want any hope of finding a solution.

There are far too many parents (unfortunately a couple in my family) that let their child eat whatever the child chooses -- which is usually nothing but chicken nuggets, corn-dogs, mac & cheese, chips and cookies. I don't think one of my nephews has eaten a vegetable in his entire life. He 'doesn't like' them. The only foods he does like are deep-fried, sugary or both.

It's no surprise, he's a fat kid. If it weren't for playing baseball and basketball, he'd probably be fatter.

Parents need to be parents, not their kid's BFF, and teach them to eat correctly. It's not the government's job to raise your kids for you. Quit feeding them junk food and get them off their fannies, away from the TV and computer and they won't be obese.

@ saddened. I have to agree in part to your comments about cost. You are correct that it does cost more for the healthy food than processed food which is very sad. This should be changed in order to promote a healthier America. Natural foods are the way to go and some people have limited budgets and many mouths to feed.

I do want to point out that people can still make better choices with some of this processed food. A few examples. If parents buy chicken nuggets or french fries, they should bake them instead of deep fat frying. If they are going to buy soda or juice, choose sugar free, lite, or diet varieties. If they buy hot dogs, buy the fat free ones. Buy wheat bread instead of white. Buy lean ground beef or ground turkey instead of the normal 80/20 beef. Most importantly, teach children to eat only when they are hungry and to stop when they are full instead of stuffing their faces with candy because it sounds good.

Oh, yeah. And make them go play...and I don't mean video games!!

When I was a child my parents restricted what I could eat. The most sugary cereal allowed was plain cheerios, forget about pop tarts, toaster streudel or anything like that. No cookies except on very rare occasions. No popcicles unless they were the sugar free variety which was hard to find back then. I didn't taste french fries or pizza until I was almost 10 years old. This was all a really great idea to keep me healthy and thin through the 12th grade. Then I went to college....900 miles from home....and did my own grocery shopping. I remember buying Lucky Charms, Froot Loops, Pop Tarts and Double Stuf Oreos.....plus the obligatory Ramen Noodles and Mac N Cheese. I went nuts for all the stuff I wasn't allowed to have growing up. That triggered a weight problem through college which I finally conquered several years after graduation.

My point is...banning these types of foods from children could be a blessing or a curse. Lets face it...as humans...the more you tell us we CAN'T have something...the more we want it. I don't think it's the foods that are the problem anyway. I had cousins that only ate crap but were so active they were bean poles. The problem is the lack of outdoor activity that kids get now. They can't run the neighborhood like we did 'back in the day' for fear of being snatched up by a looney and parents don't want to be bothered to carry them to a YMCA or a park or something.....probably because they work well over 40 hours a week and are too exhausted to work out themselves much less take their kids to play somewhere. I think we as a country would be much more healthy if we as a country didn't work more hours per week than any other country.

If they are going to buy soda or juice, choose sugar free, lite, or diet varieties

Okay, I wanted to add to one thing I said before. If someone is really on a budget and cannot afford healthy foods, maybe soda and juice shouldn't be purchased at all. Buy a brita filter and make the kids drink water. With the money saved, maybe you can buy a few apples.

Also, sugar free or diet foods arent any better for you (in fact, are quite often worse)

One point from way back that's a bit messed up is that really, we DO NOT have higher rates of kidnappings, etc. They are just more publicized. It's our instant connection to the news through the internet and the media's glamour of these stories that makes us believe that they have increased, when studies (I can't remember what, but my mom pointed this out numerous times) show that the incidence of these events, which ARE tragic (don't get me wrong on that!!!!) are really no higher then they were in the 1950's and 1960's.

Wow Karl, thats quite a statement. My 20 year old daughter is likely obese, in the sense that she is a big girl, 'large boned' as it were and while Im 6'1" and 200 lbs, she's 5'10'' and 230. As a child we raised her on fresh veggies, home cooked meals and limited snacks and sugars. As she grew into adolescence, she started to get 'big'...and its pretty obvious that her bigness is...hereditary. Not abuse, not poor diet, its just her genetic disposition. The best thing about her? She's a smart, funny, confident girl who accepts and loves herself for exactly who she is, and thats good enough for me.

So while hormones in our food, saturated fats and processed sugar along with a sedentary lifestyle will certainly tend to make one fat, its not the whole story, and though I wont presume to judge you as you judged overweight people, I have to say that I found your comments immediately offensive, elitist and likely self serving.

I guess you feel the same about parents who smoke and expose their children to second-hand smoke and residues? These parents pose just as much health risk to their children as parents who feed their children unhealthy diet.

I guess we're just not all perfect like Karl Marx ... er ... Stevens is.

What's worse for society in general: too much lack of self-control, or too much government control? Plenty of steaming, heaping doses of blame to be shared by both types of culprits, obviously.

And we all go marching on.

...we all subsidize obesity.

Get off your soapbox, Karl. We all also subsidize alcoholics, nicotine addicts, anorexics, etc., etc., etc. What is your chosen vice? We all have one.

Karl's point might be crude and harsh, but it is valid. It wasn't until very recently that fast food joints started offering "healthy alternatives". This was due solely to the bad publicity they started receiving.

But, bottom line, a 6 year old child does not have an income and cannot afford to purchase their own food. The parent pays, and therefor chooses what the child eats. It is far too easy to stop by the drive thru on the way home from work than it is to actually go home and cook for children. We get them addicted to the crap food and eventually they won't want good food.

Our society sucks.

A doctor tries to be helpful, but a comment about removing obese children from their environment to get them help as a last resort throws parents into a frenzy...

because in this day and age our right-wing media and right -wing politicians have falsely claimed that "government" is coming to take your guns, or your fast food, or your jobs, or your money, or your freedoms in general, or your faith, and apparently now people blow up an innocent comment because they are quick to fear the government is going to take away their children...

As if.

This society is sick, and I blame special interest politics, special interest "news" outlets that are neither fair nor balanced, politicians who repeatedly lie to the American people for political gain, and ultimately I blame ourselves for not having the sense to put an end to all this garbage.

Parents of obese children are guilty of child abuse, the same as if they provided illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco or any other harmful substance or activity to their children.

I think obesity is a symptom of larger social issues...and to hold parents responsible for these social problems under threat of removal of their children from their homes is the real abuse. Everyone is different and not everyone responds to pressure the same way, and being quick to judge and offer simple solutions to complex problems is not helpful.

Maybe we should take a look at other wealthy, industrialized countries that don't have a childhood obesity problem and have a real conversation about what we want out of life as a society, and look honestly at the factors that contribute to this problem.

Otherwise...we need to shut the hell up. Either deal with it or don't, but scapegoating and oversimplifying and otherwise sweeping the issues under the rug is probably a factor that led to having this problem in the first place. More of the same is not a solution.

Andrew547,

I wish I could vote your comments up more than once.

I come down on the side of severe obesity being a form of child abuse. I watched a friend's adult daughter become fatter and fatter, then watched while she turned her incredibly wonderful little boy into a fat pig, then marry a grossly fat lazy bum and have another child who is now on his way to becoming a toddler so fat he can barely waddle. I watched at a family gathering while the older child finished eating and the fat worthless pig of a mother kept pushing more food on him.

But God forbid you should make even the mildest suggestion of healthy crock pot meals that can be cooked while she's at work. All hell broke loose.

That kid had a lot of potential. He should have been removed from her "care" while he still had a chance.

It is very sad that a 2 liter bottle of pop costs $.80 and a 54oz bottle of juice costs $3.99 and where I live a gallon of milk costs $4.65.

If I were a parent on food stamps how do you think I would stretch my food dollar. It is not always about healthy alternatives it is often about AFFORDING healthy alternatives.

Until people can afford healthy foods they will not choose them.

Lexiwords, I think you nailed a major contributing factor to the obesity "epidemic".

We were not this fat 50 years ago, so why now?

We continue to subsidize farming long after the need for food independence and food security has been solved. We don't want to end subsidies because farmers don't want to "lose jobs", but during farming subsidies the rate of farmers in the general population shrank from 1 in 4 (25%) to 1 in 100 (1%). Talk about job losses...

So you dangle, as lexiwords said, a $.80 2-litre bottle of soda of Pepsi with 850 calories in front of a poor person who is functionally thinking in terms of dollars per calorie and what they can afford to survive, and their choice is already made.

You dangle the same soda in front of a human being, who is hard-wired to crave sugar and high calorie foods, and the scale is tipped toward unhealthy choices.

You dangle the same soda in front of a kid, in a vending machine at school, and maybe a candy bar in the next vending machine over, and the scale is tipped.

You dangle the same cheap, unhealthy food choices in front of someone who works 60 hours a week and has no time to cook, and the scale is tipped.

You dangle the same cheap garbage in front of a human being that is hard-wired to consume calories when stressed out...in a system where people work harder and harder yet still fall behind because their politicians take the side of "rich" people who want to fool everyone into thinking that cutting taxes on the rich leads to "more jobs" while the fact is that their taxes have been cut over the last 20 years to the lowest point since the early 20th century yet in this period more jobs have been cut or shipped overseas than in any point in the history of the world, and you begin to see the problem.

So yeah, some people "fail" to make good choices...but we have an obesity epidemic, and if you are blaming individuals then by implication you are really blaming human nature. While a few obese people could be attributed to character flaws, or some such thing, millions of obese people becoming obese all at once is an indication of a social problem.

If you are blaming "individuals" then you are blaming human nature, and if you blame human nature then you are missing the point, ignoring the real problems, and will never contribute to a solution. Blaming people is not helpful, and it's kind of ugly. As I said before, people are different and subject to different pressures and realities. It's pretty unseemly to assume you (or I) know what's best for every individual.

To the poster claiming horror stories @ hormones in food, only esterized or methylated compounds actually pass the liver when products containing said hormones are consumed. Were one to inject a cow with Testosterone Enanthate for example then the cow was consumed, the liver would screen out any Testosterone that the cow did not itself metabolize. Yes, some hormones are methylated or esterized, take Clenbuterol for example. It has a methyl atom in the 3rd position. This allows Clen to pass liver screening in animals. After several passes, the liver will eventually strip the methyl and break down the Clenbuterol. The issue of athletes testing positive for clen is due to the massive amounts of Clen' the animals receive and subsequent amounts that are unmetabolized. That said, Hormone use in Animals has been banned since 1979.

Furthermore, no studies have been produced even linking direct use of the banned hormones to health risks like cancer. While the media sensationalized Lyle Alzado's claims that steroids gave him cancer, no proof was ever offered. In fact, there's more substantiated evidence that cell phones cause cancer than hormones.

I'm in no way an advocate of steroid use in meat or in humans, except in cases of legitimate hormone replacement therapy, however there's too much hype, and too little substance to the claims being made in this forum, and the media at large.

I come down on the side of severe obesity being a form of child abuse. I watched a friend's adult daughter become fatter and fatter, then watched while she turned her incredibly wonderful little boy into a fat pig, then marry a grossly fat lazy bum and have another child who is now on his way to becoming a toddler so fat he can barely waddle. I watched at a family gathering while the older child finished eating and the fat worthless pig of a mother kept pushing more food on him.

Wow....if only we could all be as perfect as you apparently believe yourself to be. What I don't see mentioned here at all is....are these people happy? Shouldn't that be first an foremost? What I do see is someone who judges a person's worth by their appearance.....I can't imagine why so many in this country have eating disorders. I'd much rather be with a chubby happy person that with a thin judgemental ass. And before you or someone else decides to slam me by saying "I must be a fat person to say that blah blah blah"....I am not now.....but I was. I know what it's like to be heavy and I know what it's like to be thin. I wasn't unhappy when I was heavy...I just decided I wanted to lose weight so I could do more....I did....I have....and I'm still just has happy as I was when I was heavy.

Happy, and soon to be dead all the while being expensive to the rest of us. Great. GJ

Happy, and soon to be dead all the while being expensive to the rest of us. Great. GJ

Seriously? That is a tired argument.....not to mention ignorant and obnoxious.

Some people are HEALTHY even though they are overweight. Some people are NOT healthy even though they are thin. Explain THAT! Too many people are convinced by the hype the media puts out that a fat person is going to drop over dead or develop diabetes or some such other disease. My husband's cousin was skinny but was a diabetic.

I agree that healthy or natural foods are expensive! Unless you have a huge garden, an orchard, and chickens it costs a lot for food. The government is trying to ban "raw" milk. While I was growing up, we always had "raw" milk. It was better tasting than the stuff we have to buy now. We made our own butter, cottage cheese and buttermilk.

There is too much ado about unsafe natural foods. Just remember to wash your produce before preparing.

If we want to buy organic, natural or "raw" foods, it should not break our food budget...and our choice of food should be OUR BUSINESS!

What's ignorant about saying Obese people cost more. There's thousands of studies that support that statement. If you choose to ignore the facts then it is YOU who are ignorant.

Not all obese people cost more than skinny people. Some skinny people cost more than some obese people.

ike - perhaps you should wait until you have raised a kid or two before commenting. It isn't as easy and straightforward as you tend to believe.

So you and the good Doc are opening your homes to being foster parents? There aren't enough now to help the children in physically abusive homes so just who do you think is going to take on these children? We should be blaming all the idiot psychologists who have come up with the "don't say no to you kid it might scare them"

No big surprise obese parents around our country (and there are millions, and millions and millions of them here in America) are outraged at this doctor's suggestion. Of course this is because they don't want to face the idea that they may be guilty of abusing their own childrens' health. But they have, and going on message boards and posting about your outrage certainly doesn't qualify as restitution or in any way benefiting those kids. If you want to help your own children educate yourself about obesity and the horrendous health consequences and economic consequences and help others to not make the same mistake.

Public outrage is the typical reaction to anything anti-obesity so I hope this doctor sticks to his guns and doesn't appease the pro-obesity mobs. We as a nation need to stop abusing our kids in this way or we'll not even be able to compete economically on a global playing field.

Yes, I know this is painful for many to hear and I do empathize with this. The problem is we have collectively been pretending that morbidly obese people are not stricken with an illness that needs treatment for far too long and the problem only intensifies. Believe me, no one is so "big-boned" that they need to have over a hundred pounds of fat on them. It's not strictly hereditary so even if you have a predisposition to being obese you still can choose to be fit.

Stop the excuses and be responsible for providing healthy food to your children. That, afterall is the basic duty of a parent.

Ok fine Karen, you may have points, but you're pointing to a tiny, tiny, contributing reason to the overall problem. we all know that to avoid being fat, eat fruits and veggies and whole grains instead of fats, and excercise.

stop blaming everything else. PARENTS, STOP LETTING YOUR KIDS BE FAT! SIMPLE!

Karen, I totally agree. It would be a great start.

Poor people do not have organic farmers markets in their neighborhood.

Karen - I agree with what you say. However, people who use food stamps are pros at getting around the system. I've been in line behind many food stamp recipients at the grocery store. They purchase everything that they need that is on the allowed purchases list with the food stamps, then they pull out the cash to pay for items that are not allowed, such as cigarettes. You can prohibit sodas and candy, but they will buy those with cash.

BH that's BS! Publix, Sams, Winn Dixie, Wegmans, all have organic foods available. Someone on food stamps probably shouldn't be buying the expensive organics anyway considering conventionally grown foods are just as good. Karen, there are already rules on what somebody can purchase with food stamps (card). The problem is it's cheaper to buy the crap food, so they can get more for their money. The other problem is the fraud that goes on with food stamps. Crooked stores will buy the food stamps at 50 cents on the dollar towards cigarettes and alcohol.

I think a better solution would be the government subsidize healthy foods to make them more affordable to lower income families. I know, I don't like MORE government involvement, but it would be better than taking the kids away from parents and paying even more to raise them in foster care.

All we need is for the government to start subsidizing organic vegetables rather than corn and petroleum. Simple, use your ballot to make changes and you'll be able to afford all the good veggies you can eat...

I have been saying this for years, Karen. Although it is aimed directly at one population, and ABCzyx is right in the sense that people can still buy junk food with their own cash, at least the government won't be subsidizing it. This can also be used to limit the infamous steak-and-lobster buying on the other end of the spectrum.

Here in Texas, people cannot use food stamps at restaurants except a place like Papa Murphy's, which is a pizza place that makes pizzas you cook at home. I think it would be great if more farmer's markets accepted food stamps (some do but I've never been to one).

I also agree with Todd, but I'm not totally sure a subsidy would be motivation enough for a low-income family to switch from junk food. It would be an interesting experiment, though.

Ike (and all)

The problem is:

1. A population that is confused about what to eat. Part of the blame is a news media who are more interested in a flashy headline than substance. If I had not studied biochemistry and nutrition as an undergrad and med student and relied on the news I'd be confused too and would probably throw my hands in the air like most of America.

2. We've distilled everything from politics to food into two categories-good or bad. This is incorrect. One cannot just eat fruits and vegetables and all will be fine. Most people don't realize that under normal circumstances our brains run (almost) exclusively on glucose for fuel. Glucose is a monosaccharide (a single ring sugar) and is a carbohydrate. We require fats. We require protein. I avoid dumbing things down to good or bad, because in the long run it's more confusing to patients.

3. Poverty, poor education and obesity are linked. I've come to realize that most people have no real idea how their bodies work and function (you'd be surprised...). Anatomy and physiology, and biochemistry and metabolism are very complex subjects, so it's no wonder. Where we do a poor job is simplifying the information and reaching the public. There are so many competing interests on the internet, people become confused where to find good, solid, reliable information that is well written and easy to understand.

On another link I wrote about food density. We've evolved as opportunistic eaters. 3 meals a day wasn't guaranteed 50,000 years ago (and it's not guaranteed to many people today), so we chose foods that gave us more energy for our effort. Fat just so happens to provide 9 kcalories per gram...compared to 7 for protein and 4 for carbohydrates. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from loading up on and storing fat may be a matter of life or death if you are living in cave.

Food is abundant here in the U.S. What we throw away could sustain alot of people. Practical nutrition courses should be mandatory in school (in my opinion), and parenting classes, and refresher courses should part of public aid (if they aren't already).

But, food is only part of the equation. We are a country that does NOT MOVE. Gas is cheap here (before you protest about $4.50/gal gasoline, check the prices in the Netherlands and France for some perspective), and as one travels west walking becomes less convenient, so we drive. Go to Amsterdam where gasoline hovers around $6.50/gallon and cities are more pedestrian and bicycle friendly-cars and butts become smaller.

Ten years ago, when I was receiving food stamps (and welfare), I was attending a program called FIND Work. I was there with a lot of other women who were also receiving food stamps and welfare. It was interesting to me as someone who was not from a background of poverty and who had an education to be around people who had always lived in poverty and who, for the most part, had no or very little education. I was doing my best to buy healthy foods and use portion control. It was very difficult to purchase food on the very limited funds I was receiving, but I took into account the portions I was limited to when shopping and putting my food away. Meat and seafood were broken down into smaller portion sizes and frozen. Blocks of cheese were cut into portions so I knew exactly how much to take out when I prepared my meals. It was extremely time consuming. I had only one child who wasn't eating a lot yet. I cannot imagine how I would have done what I was doing with more children and older children who required more food. The stuff in boxes and cans were a lot less expensive than what I was eating and I could get more than what I was buying. It certainly would have been less time consuming. (and for my palate, less pleasing, but what if you don't know anything but boxed and canned food?)

The most interesting part of it was the reactions I received from the women I was participating in this program with. They felt that my food was very appetizing and they were curious about it. Many of them had never eaten mushrooms before, something I like and often had with my meals. They also wondered how I was going to gain weight and be a healthy size eating that way (I was at a healthy weight for my height, the question came from women who appeared obese to me). To them, I wasn't eating enough and I was too thin. I also usually brought bottled water with me and refilled the bottle at the water fountain during the day while they all brought soda with them.

There were obviously cultural differences as well as educational differences between us. To them, being healthy meant something radically different than what it meant to me. Many of these women couldn't read and we had a literacy program that would come in to help that (and I was forced to participate even though I had been to college). If they couldn't read, how do you think they were capable of knowing anything about how food is processed by our bodies and what a healthy weight is? And if their culture is telling them that I am too thin when I had to eat the way I was to maintain my weight at what I know to have been right at healthy and very close to being overweight, how do you inform them of their error?

BH that's BS! Publix, Sams, Winn Dixie, Wegmans, all have organic foods available.

Maybe these stores have organic stuff available, but they arent in every city. I've only heard of Winn Dixie, and never seen one.

Also, I'm fat. I eat decent food. I rarely eat sweets. I like vegetables. My parents had 1 overweight child, and that one child (me) was the one who ate the least food. I was also the one outdoors instead of playing video games. Im not severely obese, but definitely overweight. I don't believe for one second that it was because my parents fed me food loaded with sugars and fats (we had plenty of sweets in the house but I didn't eat them) , nor is it because we ate fast food 2x a year.
There is something else wrong with me. It can NOT be blamed on my parents (unless I were to blame them for genetics, but they cant help what genes I get)

Becca, your story sounds like mine! Wow! I was even a test subject in a doctor's book he was writing because I was in the hospital for 30 days on a 500 (yes 500) calorie diet. The doctor wanted me on a 900 calorie diet but I told him that since I would not be doing housework, taking long hikes into the mountains, etc. I would gain a lot of weight. At the end of 30 days, I had gained 2 pounds! Most people will say that I am lying but it is the truth. A few years ago I was a pedestrian who was hit by a large van going 45 mph. I spent several months in a hospital and several months in a convalescent home. The dietician complained that I was only eating 1/4 to 1/3 of my meals (I always ate some of everything, though.) and could not understand why I wasn't getting thin.

Oh, well! We don't all fit in the same pattern. I'm more like a square peg trying to fit into a slit.

My current doctor says I carry the genes that my ancestors carried when they didn't know where their next meal would come from. So their bodies stored every calorie that it could. I have been told that I would survive while others died of starvation. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Wow! I eat more than 500 calories but Id say around 1000-1200 on most days. The drs dont want me to go lower, because it would put me in starvation mode. People dont understand how I eat so little, (especially since Im overweight) I swear to god my 2yr old son eats more than I do in a day, and Im 6mos pregnant. Some people just cant lose the extra weight. It isn't that they eat a lot, or sit on their ass all day. There body just wont let them lose.

Definitely turn the TV off! And recess and PE should be mandatory!

Hummbird, please stop using common sense.

It's unbelievably simple. Exercise + Healthy Diet = Healthy Lifestyle.

No arguing Congress, States, and Cities should be responsible. Especially the individuals who do wrong. But how do you solve that problem when the law maker excuses his/herself from the law because they feel special?

If we aren't a nation of laws then we live in anarchy, simple as that. I would agree that laws should make sense, what if you were to make comments that helped the argument instead on aimlessly throwing labels out that clearly don't fit the story? What was the point you were trying to make?

BTW, if you support public school, roads, a retirement safety net, and disability insurance. You are a socialist. Too bad these forms of socialist government are not properly funded to provide the intended benefits.

If it takes a socialist government to protect our next generation from all-you-can-eat lard buffets then I say, "bring it on!"

Seriously it's ridiculous to claim that trying to stop the obesity epidemic is socialistic. Just plain ignorant really.

Yeah, support smaller government and don't vote for the Tea Party. If these guys had their way, they would be the only party. Their party is supportive of socialism in the form of Farm Subsidies, Oil Subsidies, yacht loopholes, mansion loopholes, private jet loopholes, right wing extremist media, .... the list goes on and on. This is big government. It is primarily costing all of us. It will lead to communism. The Tea Party is at its core a chosen few top % of the wealthiest people in this country who will rule this country like no communist dictator in any other country would dare dream of.

Their aim, destroy anything that stands in their way by cutting funding. Screwing most of America by taking away educational benefits for those who need them. For those who will pay those benefits back. Destroying small business, the Walmart mentality has not been lost on this crowd. Under-funding public schools, there is so much going on. Heck they even legislate vagina! If they can't have their way, they pile on ridiculous rules and require lots of paperwork. I agree, leave us alone and stop screwing our system up.

Parents, the school system and the child-care system. Yes, daycares are required, at least in my province to provide snacks that are 'nutrionally balanced', but in my time working there, that meant that the children could have margarine on their toast, syrup on pancakes and waffles (neither of which was whole-grain), dip on vegetables (and not an olive-oil based one, but one full of saturated fats), etc etc. I literally felt sick seeing what many of the children were eating for lunch...pudding cups, white bread-margarine sandwiches, baloney...as a matter of fact, I'm feeling sick just recalling this.

I never had any of that as a child. I didn't feel deprived, this was normal. As a 21 year old, I never eat butter, margarine or any of those spreads (they are absolutely disgusting in my opinion), I HATE white bread (tastes like pure sugar), I basically don't eat meat (and what I do eat is mostly a bit of salmon), and I cook almost all of my own foods from scratch. I know what is in my food, and I maintain an 18.5 BMI. Now, obviously, this BMI is not what many people should be weighing, but it is what I should be weighing. The theory of set-point weight is true, and in my case, this is my set-point weight. I love to go for a run, or go biking or walking. Many of my friends are this way too.

The problem is, obesity starts right after conception with some of these children...sad, but true. I am forever grateful that my mother took proper care of herself when pregnant, because it is so unfortunate that children are being born who will always have a slightly higher chance of obesity and other health problems from their exposures IN THE WOMB. It's sad that even starting an intervention the child's first day of life is 'too late' to reverse everything for some. But, that doesn't mean that a lot can't be done. As the studies have shown, even amongst those who have a higher risk of being obese due to genetics, a healthy diet and exercise keeps them in the normal or just slightly overweight category! Obesity is almost 100% preventable, but it has to be worked at.

You are stupid. Read up on your subject before you flap your mouth.

I eat very little, and am overweight. Most days I dont get 1500 calories. Ive always been overweight, and always ate very little. What I do eat is not sugar, or fats. Why am I overweight?

I've thought that way for years. Shame it won't happen.

But what if the home into which the child is moved turns out to be more dangerous? There are worse things than obesity, and while I do agree that to not properly feed your child is a form of neglect (abuse seems a little strong), I still think it not the right thing to do.

This is not an issue in our family. Our children are grown and not overweight; they grew up on vegetables and venison.

I agree with training, but where do you draw the line? I see parents smoking with kids in their cars, in their homes. I see houses with dangerous repairs. I see large dogs in homes with small children. I see parents drinking with children home. All of those are immediate dangers to children. Where do you draw the line for removing children? These are extremes i state as examples, but once you open the door for removing children for life choices you don't like, it's a slippery slope. Better would be to make healthy options more available, cheaper and educate people who just don't have a clue and want to provide better.

I cant have a large dog and a small child? Really? Large dogs are MUCH better around small kids than little dogs. Why can't 1 parent have a couple drinks when a child is in the home? Are we supposed to NEVER drink again unless we pay for a sitter just because we have a kid? Man, you really need to just enjoy life a little bit...

That is ridiculous thinking , Dale3242. What did parents do a hundred years (and more) ago? Children got more exercise (and WORK...the dirty word now) and they didn't take parenting classes and yet the majority of their kids turned out okay. Did your parents take parenting classes? Don't mean to be rude, I just want you to reconsider your statement.

And anonomommy, large dogs are much more gentle with children than small dogs. Small dogs are more nervous. A parent having a drink when a child is present is not an impeachable offense as long as the parent drinks responsibly...and the children know that it is for an adult ONLY. In some countries, children drink wine at the dinner table... Oh, my should those children all be removed???

Determined 1 -

Yes, those kids should all be removed! God forbid they get exposed to life before they turn 30!

Determined 1, children 100 years ago also DIED during childhood at a higher rate. And you can't make children work in the field, coal mines or sweatshops anymore in this country. Many children were also malnourished. What's with the "going to the past" for the answer to all problems?

There's nothing wrong with educating parents. Maybe we'd see alot fewer abused kids in the emergency department. Also "drinking" probably meant drinking to EXCESS, not have a glass of wine or a beer.

"Parents need to teach their children good food choices and make sure they get adequate exercise."

Umm, parents are the ones putting the food on the table. PARENTS are the ones who need to be educated, for the childrens' sake.

I got plenty of exercise and ate decent food. How is it there fault I was always overweight (though my siblings ate more, ate sweets, and less exercise and were not overweight)?

Current deals on the table would deprive these very children. Do you lock up a parent who can't feed their children because the current system favors the wealthy? What will these guys cut from the agricultural department? Food for hungry kids or market manipulation that pays for elected officials farming operations?