Is having overweight kids child abuse?

[Mummyme1987]

A friend posted on Fb that parents with fat kids are child abusers. Except for kids with medical problems. It started with comments on how it's awful that there's a generous fit section in clothes shops. I'm shocked that people think this. I think the majority of parents don't just feed their kids crap, and some kids are bigger than others, and unless it is a very extreme case it's not child abuse. Thoughts?

What about children who have fillings or extractions despite regular visits to the dentist and best efforts from the parents to provide a reasonable diet?

those children aren't neglected because their parents are trying!

I don't see why it's that hard to understand. If you child has a weigh problem and you are trying to do something.....it's not neglect.

If you child has a weight problem, and you ignore it...pretend it's not happening and keep feeding them a crap diet. It is neglect.

Anyway, I think it's inappropriate, inaccurate, pointless and unhelpful to talk about this issue in terms of abuse.

So let's not label abuse, abuse because it's unhelpful? What other forms of abuse do we change the name of, to make it more palatable?

I think it would actually be a wake up call for some parents who aren't meeting their children's needs.

Abuse is abuse. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

It gets hard when kids reach teenage years and you just can't monitor everything they are eating. I have 2 teenage ds's who despite being well educated on a healthy diet still choose to spend money that they have earnt themselves on junk food and litre bottles of fizzy drinks. Fortunately they are both very active and do a lot of sport and are not obese. there is no excuse for young kids being obese though. I have a fb friend who constantly posts pictures of her 2 obese childrn under 8 and in virtually every picture they are stuffing their faces with chocolate or ice cream. I do think in a lot of cases where kids are seriously obese, a lot of it is down to comfort eating and there is usually a physical or psychological rason behind it.

Most obesity researchers agree that it's a mix of nature and nurture causing the rise in childhood obesity. Vilifying parents isn't helpful, education is.

My DD is 23 months, 9.7kg and 86cm tall. So she's a little underweight but healthy. She was ebf until 6 months, but really until around 10months as she showed no interest in food until then. Even now she doesn't care about food. She happily ate 3 chocolate buttons from her Easter egg at the weekend and fed her toys some more. She's full after a few spoons of food so I am one of these terrible parents trying to feed her high calorie foods and offering regular snacks. Having struggled with my own weight this has come as a major surprise to me.

Her friend at nursery is one day younger than her. She was also ebf until 6 months and her mother also did blw. Her daughter is 16kg and a few cm taller than mine. She is therefore clearly overweight. Her child constantly looks for food, takes food from other children's plates. We've found my DD giving this child food from her plate on a few occasions. The nursery staff try to limit her, her parents certainly don't stuff her but it must be hard when she cries for food before bed for example.

We've both taken our girls to see health visitors and paediatricians and dietitians for help. Neither of us are neglectful but we have very different children and do the best we can.

curren
I think it would actually be a wake up call for some parents who aren't meeting their children's needs.

Abuse is abuse. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

In practical terms, how could labelling cases of childhood obesity as abuse possibly make a positive difference?

Calling abuse, abuse often does make a real difference in terms of opening people's eyes to their 'accepted' behaviour.

Things that weren't labelled abusive not so long ago...

Hitting children with a cane.
Hitting children with a belt.
Raping your wife.
Emotional abuse.
Financial abuse.

Using the word 'abuse' on any of those subjects in the past would have got you a very strange look, because those things simply weren't recognised as abuse.

And in case anyone is about to say "I can't believe you're comparing those things to allowing a child to become overweight/obese", I'm clearly not. I'm simply pointing out that calling abuse by it's proper name, does often help to wake people up to accepted behaviour.

"Most obesity researchers agree that it's a mix of nature and nurture causing the rise in childhood obesity. "

Do they? Why do they think it's in the nature of children in countries where there is high obesity to be obese when it's much less common in countries with lower obesity rates. What is in the "nature" of children here?

"Most obesity researchers agree that it's a mix of nature and nurture causing the rise in childhood obesity. "

This has my eyebrow raised as well. I presume by 'nature' you mean genetics?

The rise in childhood obesity is fairly recent and international.

Unless we're going to say that simultaneously, globally 1/3 of parents have become abusive in a way they didn't use to be, then to blame parents instead of looking at environmental and societal factors is futile and short-sighted.

Of course there's something else going on.

Everyone who has ever tried to lose (or gain) weight can tell you that it's far more complicated than calories in/out. There is esteem, metabolism, motivation etc to take into account. It is hard enough to lose (or gain) weight as an adult, I can't imagine trying to make an unmotivated, hungry child lose weight. And the potential to do psychological damage is huge.

Treats and 'special occasions' are everywhere you turn. School dinners have a pudding everyday. Nursery has a pudding every day. School days can be long, longer if they're at a cm or after school club, then after there's sometimes homework.

I think there's a very fine line between a child who's a healthy weight and one who is overweight, and I think far more of it is down to dumb luck than a lot of posters on this thread would have you believe.

Add to this conflicting info about healthy eating; most of us will have been raised believing low fat is good. More recently, it's looking like fat actually isn't that bad, but sugar is practically poison.

None of which means parents shouldn't try, of course they should, but in most cases, where they are failing, it's not abuse.

We really need to look far more as a society, about food and its role. I'd start by banning pudding in school dinners and stopping school from using Haribo as treats/prizes/presents.

Good post Gibbous.

I went to Primary school during the 70s and we had puddings every single day with school dinners. I could literally count the amount of fat children on one hand, and two of those were the daughter of a sweetshop owner and the son of a pub landlord. Both brought sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to school every single day, which was a very rare thing back then.

Haribo were given as treats/prizes/presents and no-one became fat.

What we didn't have was...

Takeaways delivered to our doors
More than 3 TV channels to keep us indoors and glued to TV.
DVDs
Games consoles
The internet
More than one car per family (if indeed they owned a car)
Parents too paranoid to let us play out in the streets.
Parents who carried snacks everywhere in case we felt hungry.
Snacks between meals (a rarity)
Snacks to keep us 'occupied' in church/a sibling's school play/on a car journey.
Parents who met us at the school gates with snacks.

Blaming school puddings and the occasional bag of Haribo for the obesity crisis, is somewhat passing the buck imo.

It's down to parents to get their kids regularly exercising and eating sensibly.

The NHS still peddle that particular myth. I actually LOSE weight when i eat a bit of fat. Its sugar i have to avoid. Ive gone from a size 28 to a size 14.

I go to a slimming class. We have had two different women attend a few years apart who both do exactly the same job Both often dont get a lunch break until very late in the day (sometimes 5pm when they have started at 7am) sometimes they dont get one at all. They were/ are both NHS theatre nurses.

By nature I mean genetics. There are multiple recognised obesogenic genes. Simply having these genes does not mean one will become obese but in situations where high calorie food is easily available, and it is easy not to engage in physical activity these people are more likely to become overweight/obese than others.

So while it is "as simple" as calories in, calories out on one level, it's also clear that some people have very different responses to satiety/food stimuli than others. It explains why some of us can self regulate dietary intake without ever counting a calorie, while others among us find without conscious effort we gain. In the past people were more active and had less access to sugary, fatty foods so less people became obese. Yes the overweight/obese person eats more calories than they need, but the big ticket question is why? I for one don't think it's a simple question of self restraint vs greed, there's more to it- likely a complex interplay of genes, gut hormones, brain peptides all interacting. If we look at people post gastric bypass surgery their emotional responses to food change within hours of surgery- that's not due to physically shrinking the stomach but to alterations in their biochemistry that are only beginning to be unraveled. There is so much we don't understand about obesity. It's a fascinating subject.

By nature I mean genetics. There are multiple recognised obesogenic genes. Simply having these genes does not mean one will become obese but in situations where high calorie food is easily available, and it is easy not to engage in physical activity these people are more likely to become overweight/obese than others.

Unless you have a disability it's always easy to engage in physical activity.

And high calorie food is easily available to everyone. Eating too much and not taking enough exercise to burn it off, will make you fat whether you have these genes or not.

I've got 30 years experience of eating school dinners, and don't think they've changed much. Working in secondaries, there are choices, some better than others. I choose the main meal and pudding each day. The portions are moderate- I get the same as the students, and I maintain a stable weight.

The breakfast options aren't great, but that's the nature of the game to make them appetising. When the choice is the school's waffles versus chocolate bars en route or nothing, its the better out of a bad bunch. I can't see the likes of unsweetened porridge being popular. The battle is being lost by that stage of childhood. The foundations earlier in childhood are vital for setting a template for long term behaviour.

Worra, did you say your kids were teens/twenties? It's changed.

I have a DC in YR and another in nursery. Haribo are not occasional. They are constant. 3 birthday parties in one weekend (with party food and cake home in bag) is not unusual. Kids give out sweets at school on their birthday. They have 4 Easter eggs each (GPs, aunt, us). DD goes to rainbows, every week or near enough there is biscuit decorating, or a 'going off to brownies' party or some other food thing. The one small Easter egg I have given my kids is the first sugary thing I have bought them since Christmas.

If you had an overweight kid, any kind of social or extra curricular activity would be hard.

Neither of my kids are much interested in real food but they're sugar crazy. I don't know if my limiting it helps or hinders tbh. As it is, I can feel quite sanctimonious telling them no, they've had enough sugar. I can't imagine how hard it is to have to tell one who is hungry and asking for more that they've had enough dinner now.

I'd love for treats to be actual treats that I can share with them rather than currency other people use and that I actively avoid.

It's not neglect, more that the parents need educating about food and how to cook healthy meals.
However I feel sorry for children growing up now. They are receiving so many conflicting messages. On the one hand they are being told overweight is bad, but lots of programmes are now using overweight people to model clothes, which is normalizing being fat.
Every ad on tv now (especially catalogue and online shops) has a percentage of overweight people modelling the clothes. This Morning's 'style' models are gettin fatter and fatter.
It's giving out mixed .messages to people.

Eating too many sweets and biscuits due to birthdays, brownies, Easter etc will not make a slim child, who takes enough exercise to burn off the extra calories fat.

If too many sweets and biscuits is the problem and not meal portion size/having parents who constantly overfeed them with snacks/drive them everywhere etc, then of course that parent is going to have to tell them they're not always going to be allowed all those sweets and biscuits. If only to look after their teeth.

They can always take the treats home and the parents can ration them out, just like many other parents do.

WRT having too much dinner, again a parent might be best to look at protein etc and of course enough exercise to burn off the calories.

Some kids are constantly hungry because they've been overfed since they were weaned, so their stomachs take more food to fill up, but even that can be slowly rectified with extra protein/more water etc.

It's not neglect, more that the parents need educating about food and how to cook healthy meals.

That information has never been easier to find as it is nowadays. With the internet available to everyone, there are literally millions of sites/cooking tutorials to help parents who actually want to educate themselves, for the sake of their kids.

Indeed Worra, but there are people who don't have an off switch once they start eating and those that do. There are those who would prefer to eat celery than cake. We all know people who can eat what they want and not gain weight- they simply self regulate naturally. Plenty of people live on crisps and biscuits but are slim because they eat just the right amount of calories. The question is why some people can easily self regulate while others can't. Yes everyone can lose weight and be a healthy weight, but it's a hell of a lot harder for some people than others. And it's very hard to maintain a lower weight after being a higher weight a long time, except in cases of obesity surgery where patients reach a new lower set point.

I don't disagree that it's a societal problem, and a massive public health issue. But vilifying individuals isn't going to fix anything. I support the sugar tax, calorie counts on menus, park runs and community activities, and more PE in primary schools. Also more outdoor play time during the school day. I also support developing easy access to proper dietetics, medical/surgical and particularly psychology services for obesity. If a parent here comes on and says her DC has anorexia nervosa she will receive help and support. If she comes on worried that her child is overweight she will be jumped on. It's two sides of a coin.

"By nature I mean genetics. There are multiple recognised obesogenic genes. Simply having these genes does not mean one will become obese but in situations where high calorie food is easily available, and it is easy not to engage in physical activity these people are more likely to become overweight/obese than others. "

But you can't really be claiming that these genes only exist in countries with lots of overweight people? What's the difference between a country with lots of overweight people and one with fewer? It's not genetics is it, it's diet (and maybe activity levels to a certain extent). That's what makes the difference. All this talk of genetics is missing the point.

And it's very hard to maintain a lower weight after being a higher weight a long time, except in cases of obesity surgery where patients reach a new lower set point.

And this is exactly why a lot of parents need to wake up and stop minimising/excusing themselves for allowing their children to get fat.

They're often setting them up for a lifetime of misery, and possibly a much shorter and unhealthier life at that.

As a PP said earlier, they have every right to remain fat themselves, but no right to put their kids through the same misery.

Eating too many sweets and biscuits due to birthdays, brownies, Easter etc will not make a slim child, who takes enough exercise to burn off the extra calories fat.

No, but it'll make for a kid who thinks sugar in those quantities is normal, so when the time comes that they're not running around with the energy/free time of a 4yo they'll put on weight.

You cannot outrun a bad diet.

I honestly think it's the bloody snacking.

You do anything now - a play date/a trip to the park/a weekly class a piss and it has to be followed by a snack.

I'm certain that we just didn't do snacks as kids.

I do agree it's not ignorance. It is either laziness or projecting the reasons the parents are overweight on to the kids.

WorraLiberty
And in case anyone is about to say "I can't believe you're comparing those things to allowing a child to become overweight/obese", I'm clearly not.

Why devote a whole post to things that are, as you indicate, clearly not comparable?

Both brought sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to school every single day, which was a very rare thing back then.

Having also grown up in the 70s, I can tell you that your experience was not universal. At the school I went to, crisps were sold as the breaktime snack (and used as a bribe at other times). Children walked home from school every day (via the sweet shop). School lunches and packed lunches were never scrutinised. People didn't necessarily eat better, they just moved around more and burnt off more calories.

I agree with Gibbous that it's a complex problem, and it's something that society as a whole needs to address. Apportioning blame at an individual level is not the answer.