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?

(Given that we compare unfavourably to most other Europe countries on this issue, what are they doing differently that we could do better?)

Possibly taking personal responsibility.

curren
fascile how can it be changed at a population level?

The information is available and pushed at every opportunity.

Information is only part of the equation. Putting it into practice, changing longterm ingrained habits, navigating temptation, and possibly trying to do things differently to the people you spend time with, can be much more difficult. Making healthy eating and regular exercise cultural norms would make it a lot easier for individuals who want to change their (or their families) habits and lifestyle.

Things that could be done at a population level - replicating the daily mile example of the primary school in Stirling across all schools. I'm pretty sure the headteacher has said that the school doesn't have any obese children. It sounds like a fantastic way of getting children to enjoy exercise and making it habitual. Something else that could be done is to devote more of the curriculum to healthy living, practical cooking skills etc (we shouldn't be in a position where some adults don't know how to cook). There still seems to be very little in the way of this sort of thing at primary and secondary level. It's at least as important as PE which seems to happen twice a week (and possibly more important than other subjects which are taught regularly).

Many people get out of the habit of exercising once they leave school, rather than considering it a lifelong habit. I think adult health could be improved through the incentivisation of workplaces to provide exercise facilities for use during the working day. At community levels, I think there should be greater opportunity for, and access to, free exercise groups or classes.

There are all sorts of other things that could be done nationally, including taxing certain foods (not something that I'm a fan of personally, but it has made a difference in other countries). The levy on plastic bags is an interesting example of how you can affect the behaviour and habits of a nation - who would have thought that a 5p charge would result in an 80% reduction in consumption?

The daily mile? Do you know how many parents are appalled by it?

Taxing foods won't do anything. It's been proven that it's cheaper to eat healthy. But that doesn't change anything.

All your suggestions won't make one bit of different for the parents who get a takeaway every night because they can't be arsed doing anything else.

Cigarettes are ridiculously expensive. Lots of people still smoke. Alcohol isn't that cheap either. People still binge drink.

Our after school sports clubs (free) have the same few children going. The active ones.

Until people take responsibility for their own weight and their children's things will not change.

The levy on plastic bags is an interesting example of how you can affect the behaviour and habits of a nation - who would have thought that a 5p charge would result in an 80% reduction in consumption?

There's not much to be desired about the US system of medical care, but I can think of one thing: an unhealthy lifestyles translate into higher insurance premiums. Given that people are eating themselves into an early, expensive grave, at a record rate - this might be a fitting deterrent.

The daily mile? Do you know how many parents are appalled by it?

Why on earth are parents unhappy about the daily mile?

I don't know aye but I know loads of parents that think it's awful. I think it's a fab idea. They think forcing kids to run a mile is cruel.

If my sons school is anything to go by, there will be a huge kick off if they introduce it. Though I will support it.

Dds school (secondary) has a fitness test at the beginning of each half term. It's great for kids like dd. She really focuses on beating her last test, not someone else. It's making a difference to her. Again, some of the parents I know from when she was at primary were appalled they were 'forced to test their fitness' and one even said her son 'was humiliated having everyone see how unfit he was'.

Budget cuts haven't helped. Where we live, the free after school sports clubs have all been pulled apart from a couple of very over subscribed ones. We live in a very mixed area and I feel this is such a real pity.

I know the state can't take responsibility for our decisions but some of these kids live in very deprived households.

It's about breaking that cycle.

curren
The daily mile? Do you know how many parents are appalled by it?

Your response to Aye ('I know loads of parents that think it's awful'), would suggest that you've asked a question to which you do not know the answer. Anecdotally indicating that you know people who might be unhappy about it, without being able to quantify this or put it into context, is of little value. There have been many pieces in the media about the initiative, including rolling it out to other schools, with no information to back up your comment.

Taxing foods won't do anything.

Mexico achieved a 12% reduction in sales of sugar sweetened fizzy drinks in the first year of implementing a 10% tax:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/12085408/Children-aged-five-eating-own-weight-in-sugar-every-year.html

Cigarettes are ridiculously expensive. Lots of people still smoke.

Cigarettes are increasingly expensive and the number of people consuming them has reduced dramatically over the last few decades. So for GB, from nearly half of all over 16 year olds in the early 1970s to one in five over 16 year olds now. And if you don't think that price is a factor in that, then the big rise in numbers smoking roll ups is clearly an indication that it is. According to ASH:

In 1990, 18% of male smokers and 2% of female smokers said they smoked
mainly hand-rolled cigarettes but by 2011 this had risen to 40% and 26% respectively.

ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_106.pdf

All your suggestions won't make one bit of different for the parents who get a takeaway every night because they can't be arsed doing anything else.

Until people take responsibility for their own weight and their children's things will not change

The obesity epidemic is not primarily caused, as your comment would suggest, by laziness ('they can't be arsed...'), but by numerous changes in environmental and lifestyle factors that make it far, far easier for individuals to make choices that are not in the best interest of health. A few decades ago, it was much easier to be a healthier weight with very little thought, simply because the circumstances around us meant we had to move around more; cooked more food for ourselves; had less access to increasingly cheap junk food. It is therefore entirely logical that making changes to environmental factors and facilitating better lifestyle choices will make it easier for people to make changes at an individual level. Reducing negative influences and increasing positive ones is broadly speaking a reversal of the conditions that have made the obesity epidemic possible.

I run a section of our local large food bank. We are about to start running cooking and budgetting courses for those referred to use in an attempt to prevent the cycle of poverty/unhealthiness that we often see.

fascile price has brought smoking down. Not stopped it. Mexico priced most people out of those foods. There was no choice on the people side. They were forced to not be able to afford certain things. I don't think that's good or teaching people to make good choices.

Of course I don't exact numbers of how many parents are against the daily mile. But plenty are.

The obesity epidemic is not primarily caused, as your comment would suggest, by laziness ('they can't be arsed...'),

at no point have I said or even hinted that the obesity epidemic is primarily caused by laziness. At all.

I have said several times....but I'll say it again. Not everyone who has overweight children are neglectful. Some are. Some...not all...not most.

curren
fascile price has brought smoking down. Not stopped it. Mexico priced most people out of those foods.

You asked about effecting changes at population level. I made the point that taxation is a possible measure. You mentioned that people still smoke in spite of it being increasingly expensive. I made the point that the number of smokers has decreased significantly over time and that cost is a factor. In summary, it is not true to claim, as you did, that taxation won't do a thing. It's also highly unrealistic to expect a detrimental but addictive habit like smoking to disappear altogether. What is relevant is that you can significantly affect trends, and increase aspects of health, over time with population measures.

If food prices in the UK were manipulated so that fruit and vegetables became substantially cheaper, whilst junk food items became significantly more expensive, there is no doubt that this would affect consumer habits and diets.

Of course I don't exact numbers of how many parents are against the daily mile.

Then it's pointless to ask: do you know how many parents are appalled by it? And even if there are some people who might grumble at the outset, that does not mean that ultimately they reject the initiative. Resistance to change is a common human response (and one reason why people might get stuck in a rut with negative lifestyle choices).

at no point have I said or even hinted that the obesity epidemic is primarily caused by laziness. At all.

curren you made this statement:

All your suggestions won't make one bit of different for the parents who get a takeaway every night because they can't be arsed doing anything else.

By saying this, you effectively reject the possible impact of any positive external influences and suggest instead that people will continue to eat daily takeaways because they can't be arsed. If that's not a euphemism for laziness, what is it? Why would it override all other considerations and positive influences?

I have said several times....but I'll say it again. Not everyone who has overweight children are neglectful. Some are. Some...not all...not most.

There is no value in passing judgment and labelling as abuse or neglect cases which are essentially part of an epidemic (or pandemic). It doesn't help and it doesn't change the solutions. Of course change has to be implemented by individuals, but there are many things that can be done at a wider level to make that process easier.

witsender
Good for you. It sounds like a great scheme.

Another population (or company level) intervention that would help is to change the composition of food. A lot of food that we consider reasonably healthy, such as protein like chicken or ham bears no resemblance to the chicken and ham of the past. There was a programme on years ago that showed that nowadays chicken is three times fattier than it used to be, with far less protein.

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-343593/The-chickens-fat-protein.html

Most meats are infused with watery and sometimes sugary white stuff that pours out when you cook it. Transfats are in so many types of food. Bread is simply inedible pap- even 'brown' is just dyed brown full of preservatives.

Even if you know a lot about healthy eating, trying to eat a healthy nutritious Mediterranean diet at a reasonable cost in the UK is nigh on impossible. Fish is often very expensive and manky/smells off/covered in plastic. There is less nutrition in fruit and vegetables- a carrot today is bland and sweet and not like carrots from my grandfather's garden 40 years ago in the slightest, or as filling.

This is not the fault of individuals, but of companies who make billions off feeding the population 'hyperpalatable' foods (high in fat, sugar, salt) and if they think you are concerned with your health, are quite happy to hide these bad guys by labeling in obscure ways or putting salt and sugar in where people won't think to look at it.

Blaming individuals for their poor choices is madness in this obesogenic environment, in which over half the adult population is overweight. It isn't just because they are all more sedentary (this is debatable) it's because the opportunities to eat crap are all around us all the time (and programmed as we are to be greedy and eat lots in case of famine, most people haven't rewired to the new environment) and the opportunities to eat plain good healthy nutritious-rich food are incredibly limited, not just by what you personally choose in the supermarket, but what is available in the supermarket most of which is not similar to the food of the past!

Even if you chose a wholemeal bread (dyed a lovely brown colour), a nice chicken (more fat than protein) and a salad (covered in bleach) you wouldn't be eating good food any more. That's what we in the West have achieved: access to plentiful (so not starving), cheap, shit food (unless you are rich and can by organic/non-pesticide/higher quality meat).

The good news being, I should say, that you can change at these levels, so banning transfats as has been done in Canada, Denmark, taxing sugary drinks, having organized exercise (there was a country that spent money and time getting the whole population to take up Nordic skiing?- where you walk with poles in the snow and they reversed their soaring obesity rates).

Perhaps it suits the government and these billion dollar industries if we all blame each other for being fatties instead of looking around wider to see where the responsibility for our very poor diet lies.

We are bombarded with healthy eating messages, on a daily basis.
(People didn't get that in the 70's and 80's. If anything, they used to try and push things like cream and butter!)
Now, every week there are programmes on tv promoting healthy eating and healthy lifestyles: This girl Can, Get Moving, Live well and look younger, my 500lb life etc etc etc.
There are articles in every magazine telling people what's good for them and what isn't. All the newspapers carry health articles.
So what's our excuse?
We can't blame it on lack of education.
There has never been so much education as there is now.

So, why is it, despite all the info and education, we STILL continue to get bigger and BIGGER?

I think it's down to basic greed and instant gratification.
People are greedier now.

I think the daily mile is a wonderful idea. I'm so sad to hear that some parents at your DC's school will be annoyed about it.

If your DC is overweight and unfit, this will be hard at first but then they will benefit hugely within a few weeks. It will improve their quality of life immeasurably.

These are the type of parents who, IMO, are guilty of neglect abuse. Here's something free, that will benefit your DC, that the school will do with them so you don't have to, that the DC will enjoy (if not at first, eventually), so why would you stop them doing this?

Fascile you seem hell bent on making this debate something it's not.

Even if you raise tax etc, some people will still feed their kids crap.

I was smoker. I would go without other things to afford cigarettes. I once lived on cuppa soups for a week before pay day, to buy cigarettes.

For the small amount of parents who let their kids get overweight through neglect won't wake up because tax goes up.

I don't get why you are trying to imply anyone has said there is one answer or that all overweight kids have parents who neglect them.

Do you really think that children's weight is never a neglect issue?

Neglect is abuse. It's that simple.

Sugar tax won't make those parents any better parents.

HP I agree with you. It's far easier to blame individuals than look at the real causes of obesity. I don't believe for one second that healthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food. You only need to look at the price of good quality fruit and veg to see that this is not the case. I agree that education can play a part, but it is not the key. We have to make it easy for everybody to eat healthily, and that will require major policy change.

I must admit that my jury is out on the 'run a mile' move. I'm not sure whether it will be effective or not. It's a start, but I fear that compulsory running may be best for the already sporty but may put others off sport for life. I think that schools need to look at increasing activity generally through the day (as do us parents) and offer a wider range of sports so children can find something they like.

I run a section of our local large food bank. We are about to start running cooking and budgetting courses for those referred to use in an attempt to prevent the cycle of poverty/unhealthiness that we often see.

I think that's a great idea and it's a good start in the right direction.
But, isn't most of the food handed out at foodbanks either processed, or in tins (or both)
How are you going to encourage them to cook wholesome, nutritious meals if the ingredients aren't fresh to start with?

I must admit that my jury is out on the 'run a mile' move.

Walk a mile would be better than run a mile.

Walking is good for you physically and mentally and would improve concentration in children.
Also, most children would be able to walk a mile, whereas a lot of children would find running a mile difficult.

Is I agree. Walking is a great form of exercise. Walking a mile would be much more accessible and and less excluding.

Walking is NOT a great form of exercise.

I wish people wouldn't try and claim that it is. If you are overweight, purely walking a mile a day won't help you to become slim and fit.

Running a mile gets your heart rate up much more than walking, even if they have to run/walk/run at first, the DC (or adults) will get fitter and fitter, can improve their times, they can try and beat their own times each day, it would be fun.

People these days are just scared of the hard work that exercise is, walking is not enough, that is why so many people are overweight.

I disagree aye walking is a great form of exercise that most able bodies people can achieve. it can progress to brisk walking and possibly into a jog. You will alienate a whole load of people for whom a run is such a big ask.

I think education does come into it for some people. I was in a group last autumn with women that have been long term unemployed, mostly undereducated and we had a session on healthy eating - one woman, very overweight, had no idea that it was unhealthy to drink a 1.5 litre carton of juice and at least 6 chocolate bars every day. She was amazed to find that out and asked lots of questions about what is heathly and what isn't and the others did too.

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/getting-started-guides/Pages/getting-started-walking.aspx