Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


View Poll Results: Is legislation needed to tackle child obesity?
Yes 20 26.67%
No 55 73.33%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Fri, Jun-04-04, 13:16
GrlyGrl's Avatar
GrlyGrl GrlyGrl is offline
SanePsychoSuprGodess
Posts: 496
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 205/191/115 Female 5' 1"
BF:46%/41%/20%
Progress: 16%
Location: Chicago suburbs, IL
Default

PotatoFree - I do see your point: people do need to make educated choices. And I certainly believe that personal responsibility is key.

But, I do think that government sponsored support of corn/wheat products impacts people's choices. One of the reasons people, especially low-income people, buy junk food/fast food/corn/wheat products is that subsidies make it MUCH less expensive than other foods. Food companies would not use so much HFCS if it wasn't so inexpensive due to price subsidies.

There was an article (I believe that it was in the new issue of US News -- in a series of articles about obesity) that talked about how low income and inner city populations do not have access to fresh fruits and vegetables and they can get more "bang for their buck" calorie wise buying cheap fast foods. Even if they know what they should be eating, if it is not available or affordable, people will choose what is available and affordable.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Sat, Jun-05-04, 19:17
CindySue48's Avatar
CindySue48 CindySue48 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,816
 
Plan: Atkins/Protein Power
Stats: 256/179/160 Female 68 inches
BF:38.9/27.2/24.3
Progress: 80%
Location: Triangle NC
Default

"There was an article (I believe that it was in the new issue of US News -- in a series of articles about obesity) that talked about how low income and inner city populations do not have access to fresh fruits and vegetables and they can get more "bang for their buck" calorie wise buying cheap fast foods. Even if they know what they should be eating, if it is not available or affordable, people will choose what is available and affordable."

I agree. I saw a show on Dateline, 20/20 or some show recently and they followed a few people around, talked to nutritionists, etc.

People in the really poor areas don't have access to many fruits and veggies, and the ones they can get are very expensive. They mainly have just "corner market" type places to shop at, or they ahve to travel long distances to get to "real" food stores. The stores in the neighborhoods offer high carb items like Ramen noodles very very inexpensively. There are usually plenty of fast food places around tho! One man they followed around walked part way home from work every day and went past several fast food places, but not a single food store.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Sat, Jun-05-04, 20:40
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrlyGrl
But, I do think that government sponsored support of corn/wheat products impacts people's choices. One of the reasons people, especially low-income people, buy junk food/fast food/corn/wheat products is that subsidies make it MUCH less expensive than other foods. Food companies would not use so much HFCS if it wasn't so inexpensive due to price subsidies.



I don't understand. Why can't they subsidize vegetables and beef. They are farmers too. If the governement was really willing to put their money where their mouth is, instead of bleating about the obesity epidemic, they would make fresh whole food easier to get. But that would problably upset the big food lobbies.
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Sat, Jun-05-04, 21:08
potatofree's Avatar
potatofree potatofree is offline
Fully Caffeinated
Posts: 17,245
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 298/228/160 Female 5ft9in
BF:?/35/?
Progress: 51%
Default

I agree that the government has a big role in the fattening of America. I also think other countries are ahead of us in banning advertising aimed at small children and other positive steps.

I wonder how many factors conspred to kill that little girl? I'm sure there's enough blame to go around. Without knowing her medical history or her family's financial background, it's impossible to tell.

I won't get started on what I see as our own governments shortcomings as far as providing nutrition and education for low-income families, school lunch programs, or farm subsidies (which are a double-edged sword, to say the least)

All I know for sure is the system is full of cracks, only as good as the people running it, and ultimately,making the best choice you can from the options you have is up to the individual.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Sat, Jun-05-04, 22:25
Maire Maire is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 26
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 138/114/110 Female 5'1
BF:
Progress: 86%
Default

Now, people, please consider what you are saying when you imply that your governments should impose penalties on manufacturers and advertisers of unhealthful foods.

Just suppose governments had controlled the production and promotion of eggs, butter, and beef when the anti-cholesterol forces started condemning them. Instead, consumption of these products decreased because of market forces, as people became convinced through "education" that these products were harmful.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Sun, Jun-06-04, 09:30
potatofree's Avatar
potatofree potatofree is offline
Fully Caffeinated
Posts: 17,245
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 298/228/160 Female 5ft9in
BF:?/35/?
Progress: 51%
Default

I see your point, but do you really think sugar-coated-sugar passing as "cereal" and a jug of HFCS, artificial colors and caffeine will ever be proven nutritious? I don't.

Beside the fact that the government DOES control many aspects of the production and promotion of eggs, beef and dairy. Ask any farmer/rancher how many ways...

They're doing such a fine job already... ask the tobacco farmers about that.
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Sun, Jun-06-04, 10:11
tholian8's Avatar
tholian8 tholian8 is offline
Ex-Patriot
Posts: 3,364
 
Plan: CAD-ish
Stats: 232.5/199/168 Female 5'2"
BF:no/earthly/clue
Progress: 52%
Location: London, UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
I don't understand. Why can't they subsidize vegetables and beef.

They do subsidize beef, albeit indirectly. Most grains grown in the US are used for animal feed, and grain growers are very heavily subsidized.
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Tue, Jun-08-04, 02:56
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 27,302
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/152/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 110%
Location: UK
Default

Returning to the original premise of this thread, have just read the following article, which I think will be of interest to all those who have contributed here:


Take obese children into care, say experts

THE number of children treated in hospitals for obesity has almost doubled in the past four years. The disclosure has prompted child protection agencies to recommend that dangerously overweight youngsters should be taken into care.
Government figures obtained by The Sunday Times reveal that last year 134 children in Scotland were treated in hospital for obesity, compared with 71 in 2000.



Childhood obesity can lead to life-threatening conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma.

Children in Scotland (CIS), an umbrella group representing 350 children’s agencies, said social workers should intervene where obesity was putting children’s lives at risk.

“Where a child is obese to the point that their health is suffering and a parent is wilfully ignoring medical advice, then the relevant agencies have to decide whether the case should be referred to a children’s hearing. ” said Eddie Follan, policy manager for CIS.

“A parent not taking the advice of a doctor or social worker to the detriment of a child’s health is a child protection issue, whether that is obesity, withholding medication or anything else.”

Scottish children are among the fattest in the world, with one in five 12-year-olds classed as clinically obese. One in 10 Scots children is severely obese and one in three is overweight.

Last month it was revealed that London girl, aged three, weighing 6 stone had died from heart failure. The child should have weighed about 2st 4lb.

The case was highlighted by the Commons health select committee, which condemned the government, food industry and advertisers for failing to tackle soaring obesity rates and cited cases of children “choking on their own fat”.

In America authorities have taken legal action against parents of dangerously obese children.

Marlene Corrigan, from San Francisco, was convicted of child abuse following the death of her 13-year-old daughter Christina, who weighed 48 stone when she died of heart failure. Fast-food containers were found strewn around the teenager’s dead body.

David Haslam, chairman of the National Obesity Forum in Britain, said he supported the intervention by social services in extreme cases.

He said doctors should give parents of dangerously obese children advice and support to help the youngsters to lose weight. If the advice was ignored, the children should be placed on a social services “at-risk” register and could ultimately be taken into care.

“It’s not an unreasonable thing to suggest in the most extreme cases, if the support went hand in hand with the stick-waving. It would work. It could save lives,” said Haslam.

“ Even if an obese child loses weight and doesn’t become an obese adult they will have a shadow cast upon their adult health by their earlier obesity.”

While Haslam said most parents heed the advice of doctors, he added: “There are people who just don’t listen. I’m a full-time GP so I’m dealing with squillions of obese kids.”

Public health advisers have warned that the move could stigmatise low-income families.

Philip Hanlon, a government adviser and professor of public health at Glasgow University, said: “I would be concerned by this proposal. It would involve punitive sanctions against the very parents who are least able to withstand the advertising and peer pressure on their children because they have many other social problems to deal with.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1137386,00.html


plus, an article which contains some interesting comments from the doctor who actually treated the 3 year-old who died:


More children will choke on their own fat, says doctor

THE doctor responsible for treating a three-year-old girl who was so fat that she died from heart failure says that many more children are likely to die from their severe obesity.
Sheila McKenzie, a paediatrician and obesity specialist, said she believed that dozens of children were dying from being “choked by their own fat” but had yet to receive essential treatment for their conditions. She said that severe childhood obesity, once established, was virtually untreatable.

In her written evidence to the Commons Health Select Committee, which was published yesterday, Dr McKenzie detailed the problems she had encountered running one of the country’s only specialist childhood obesity centres.



She said that although the service, based at the Royal London Hospital, had been open only three years, it already had an 11-month waiting list. Among her patients had been a Bengali girl, aged 3 and believed to be from East London, who weighed more than 6 stone, almost three times the 2st 4lb recommended for a child of her age.

Dr McKenzie also described four children who required breathing assistance at home for severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), where sheer volumes of fat around the throat restricts breathing at night.

“In other words they are being choked by their own fat. Were we able to study all severely obese children, I’m confident that we would identify many more children with OSA,” her letter of evidence concluded.

Severe illnesses related to obesity, such as heart disease, diabetes and hypertension, were likely to increase, she said.

There are five childhood obesity specialists working alongside Dr McKenzie at the Royal London, including clinicians, children’s dieticians and respiratory paediatricians.

The team estimates that the current cost of the management of OSA alone to be at least £1,000 per patient annually.

MPs yesterday spoke of their shock at learning of the tragic cases after the publication of the committee’s damning report on the fat epidemic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1126363,00.html
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Tue, Jun-08-04, 12:49
bcbeauty's Avatar
bcbeauty bcbeauty is offline
Memere to 4
Posts: 3,055
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 227/199/150 Female 5ft 3in
BF:Too much
Progress: 36%
Location: Kelowna BC. Canada
Default

I believe in the 4 food groups with my kids. All food in moderation...McDonalds on the odd night out? Sure. Not feeding your kids any of the sweet starchy crap foods out there.,, I think...will only cause them to rebel and binge when they can. I know teenagers who do this at my house! I believe more in moderating TV and getting outside to play sports..get exercise and work those foods off. My kids eat crap at times...but they also get all the nutrients and good food in a day their bodies need.
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Tue, Jun-08-04, 14:46
RosaAlta's Avatar
RosaAlta RosaAlta is offline
100% pork rind free
Posts: 457
 
Plan: Atkins-ish
Stats: 215/182.5/180 Female 5 ' 10 1/2"
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: USA
Default

Thanks for the new article, Demi, although now I'm even more depressed.
Quote:
She said that severe childhood obesity, once established, was virtually untreatable.

God, I hope that's not really true. What a horrible thought. I'd like to think that childhood is the time to catch and treat such things, because then the child can develop positive habits before becoming an adult.

Certainly parents should be held responsible for what they feed their children, but once the kids are old enough to spend their own money on fast food, the parents have less and less control/knowledge of what they eat. The 13-year-old mentioned in the article was probably still getting most of her food at home, but I think that from 15 or 16 on, all parents can do is pray. (Teaching kids correct nutrition from the start is key, obviously.)

Off-topic: I love to read stuff from the UK press! They are refreshingly direct (sometimes even harsh). It's a nice change from my usual (US) sources of information.
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Tue, Jun-08-04, 17:45
potatofree's Avatar
potatofree potatofree is offline
Fully Caffeinated
Posts: 17,245
 
Plan: Back to Atkins
Stats: 298/228/160 Female 5ft9in
BF:?/35/?
Progress: 51%
Default

I respectfully disagree that a parent loses the ability and obligation to tend to a child's diet and health at 13 or so... just because they have more independence in where they go and what they eat (after all, you can't FORCE a child of any age to eat what you want them to) they have to get the money somewhere to BUY the junk. If a child is sneaking/hoarding/hiding food etc., the parent should still notice the ballooning size of the child and seek appropriate reinforcements if it's beyond the scope of what they are willing and able to do themselves.

If your child had a terminal illness like cancer, would you shrug and say "I can't seem to make him do what's best for himself, he doesn't want to take his treatments. If he's out of my sight, he's beyond my control." or would you make SURE he complied through any means necessary and take responsibility for getting him the help he needs?
( Not directed at you personally, but parents in general)
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Wed, Jun-09-04, 01:04
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 27,302
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/152/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 110%
Location: UK
Default

Have just been listening to a news report on the BBC, where it is now claimed that the little who died actually had a genetic abnormality which caused her obesity.

Obesity death claim is disputed
BBC News - 9 June, 2004

A three-year-old girl whose death was used to highlight the problems of obesity died because she had a genetic defect, it has been claimed.
Last month a report by MPs on obesity prompted headline news when it included an account of the girl who weighed six stone when she died.

It sparked a debate about junk food, parental responsibility and exercise.

But scientists have told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme genetic abnormalities caused the girl's death.

Addenbrooke's Hospital at Cambridge University, which handled the case, said this meant she felt hungry all the time and her body was telling her she was starving.

'Choking on fat'


The condition could have been treated but doctors only found out after she died.

Her parents, who were blamed in some of the newspapers, are said to be extremely upset.

The Commons Health Committee used the evidence of Dr Sheila McKenzie, a consultant paediatrician at the Royal London, in its report.

She claimed a three-year-old died of heart failure, brought on by obesity.

And she warned children were choking because fat was blocking their airwaves.

Ms McKenzie was unable to comment when contacted by Today.

The report said obese children could become the first generation to die before their parents.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3789357.stm
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Wed, Jun-09-04, 05:21
nikkil's Avatar
nikkil nikkil is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,989
 
Plan: vegan low-carb
Stats: 252/252/199 Female 64.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: Vancouver Area
Default

I think there's a very delicate balance when it comes to how food/nutrition/weight is handled with children. If it becomes a huge issue or battle, there will be problems. Isn't this how bulimia, anorexia and obesity can get started? A fixation on food and weight, hoarding, 'good food' and 'bad food', "food is love", etc. I try to be pretty casual and matter-of-fact with my kids re: food. There's food that is healthy for you and food that is not so healthy. It's okay to have not-so-healthy food occasionally, but also to eat when you're hungry and stop when you're full.

Also, sometimes the money teens are spending on junk food is from jobs (ie paper route, babysitting) or friends' parents are giving them 'treats' at their house. Also, if you're child takes lunch money to school (I'm talking high school), how do you monitor what they buy?? I think, as with so many things as a parent, you need to trust that you've taught them well and let them have some room. There's no use trying to police them constantly (on food and many other things), or you'll drive yourself (and them) crazy. Trust the job that you've done
Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Wed, Jun-09-04, 09:45
RosaAlta's Avatar
RosaAlta RosaAlta is offline
100% pork rind free
Posts: 457
 
Plan: Atkins-ish
Stats: 215/182.5/180 Female 5 ' 10 1/2"
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: USA
Default

My experience as a parent is limited to this past year, so I don't have any idea what it's like to be the parent of a teenager. My comments above were coming from my memories of being a teenager. For example, I used my $1.00 of lunch money a day to buy a can of Dr. Pepper and a small bag of Cheetos for my entire 8th grade year. My parents had no idea and would not have been pleased to learn that I never had the "hot, nutritious school lunch" they had intended. However, I did not have weight problems at that time, so they had no reason to suspect anything.

I think you both (potatofree and nikkil) have good points. Yes, parents should take action if they suspect there is a problem, regardless of the child's age. That argument is particularly strong when you compare it to needing medical care (good example!) and you're absolutely right.

But it is also true that after a certain point you have to trust that your kids are following your guidance when they're not with you. I remember my parents telling me when I was an older teen that I knew what they expected (regarding boys, drinking, etc.) and now I needed to be a responsible person and make my own choices. I would imagine that's true of anything, including food choices.
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Wed, Jun-09-04, 10:34
simplydawn's Avatar
simplydawn simplydawn is offline
Flutterby
Posts: 2,270
 
Plan: All that make sense
Stats: 220/212/160 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 13%
Location: Atlanta, GA
Default

Excellent thread, great discussion... I am glad I found it today...

I am always leary of more legislation that can take away the choices of parenting and families..because legislation in the hands of zealots or those that have to enforce them, certainly gets out of hand and the common sense factor never seems to be part of the new controls....

I agree with educating, but it is hard to educate when there are so many diverse ways of approaching good nutrition and exercise and thats not even factoring in emotional health.

So if legislation were to be implimented, how would you go about that?

I do believe that, as a parent, you have to DO everything in your power to protect your child and help them become healthy adults, and if your child has an issue, like Tina's in the link that potato shared...and you do nothing about it, the parent should be held accountable...that is child neglect, and under social services, that is a legal stance for CPS to intervene. How they intervene has always troubled me... REMOVE first, figure it out after... I do believe that CPS could intervene w/counseling and medical attention, etc.. then if the parent still doesnt cooperate.. or do what is in the best interest of the child, then removal would have to be a logical step, as in the case of another that I read off of one of the links here, where the parents said it was impossible for the child to lose weight, and once out of the home, the child did in fact, lose weight.

I am curious to find out how joshua, the 4 y/o is doing, there is a link on Dr Phil's site, but its probably too soon.. and my heart so goes out to the gal Amanda..who's rights have been terminated to one child AND all SUBSEQUENT children... therefore telling her and society..that, thru legislation, you are screwed if you make a mistake, or are uneducated, or have issues yourself, so what if you try to change, try to grow, try to be a better person and parent.. you can never have a second chance.


Quote:
Amanda's Story
Twenty-year-old Amanda was eight months pregnant when she first appeared on Dr. Phil. Her 3-year-old son Jared had been placed in foster care because she had allowed him to become obese. He weighed 120 pounds when he was taken away and lost 70 pounds in foster care. Amanda desperately wanted her son back and feared her unborn child might be taken from her as well.

"Since I went on the Dr. Phil show, we had a court date," explains Amanda. "My parental rights [with Jared] were terminated. I had my last visit with him. It was for an hour, and that's the last time I can see him until he turns 18."

"I gave birth to my daughter on February 4. A case worker came into the hospital...He showed me the paper. The judge had signed it to be able to take the baby away from me. The foster mom came in and took her. Any babies I have in the future will be taken."Amanda's Story
Twenty-year-old Amanda was eight months pregnant when she first appeared on Dr. Phil. Her 3-year-old son Jared had been placed in foster care because she had allowed him to become obese. He weighed 120 pounds when he was taken away and lost 70 pounds in foster care. Amanda desperately wanted her son back and feared her unborn child might be taken from her as well.

"Since I went on the Dr. Phil show, we had a court date," explains Amanda. "My parental rights [with Jared] were terminated. I had my last visit with him. It was for an hour, and that's the last time I can see him until he turns 18."

"I gave birth to my daughter on February 4. A case worker came into the hospital...He showed me the paper. The judge had signed it to be able to take the baby away from me. The foster mom came in and took her. Any babies I have in the future will be taken."

Amanda's attorney, Richard Hitt, explains that they are in the process of appealing the court's decision to terminate Amanda's parental rights to Jared. "They didn't give her a chance to show that she had picked up the parenting and nutrition skills," explains Richard. "In Michigan, there is a presumption that once you lose one child, this is carried over to all subsequent children. They've never given her 24 hours unsupervised [with her children] to see what she's learned from the program they designed for her."


THAT is what worries me about legislation!


Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Chewing the fat" gotbeer LC Research/Media 2 Thu, Jun-05-03 16:52
Obesity Costing America Nearly $100 Billion acohn LC Research/Media 0 Sat, May-31-03 16:56
DNA Banks: Detect Susceptibility to Obesity tamarian LC Research/Media 1 Fri, Jun-15-01 11:17


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:39.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.