Poor parenting is the main cause. It is the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children eat a healthy diet. Proper food labelling would help, but the manufacturers are against that and the government has been accused of "nanny statism" by the usual suspects for trying to force the issue, and ban confectionery vending machines from schools.

And it's not "elf & safety" that stops kids playing on the streets. It's traffic volumes and parental fears of child killers.

David,

It's not "a global problem".

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

The First World is literally eating up the planet's resources. Such utter selfishness and gluttony is abhorrent and inhuman.

Peter

I don't want to excuse them but it's very hard for parents who have to both work full-time in order to survive. Providing a balanced diet takes time and that is in very short supply these days.

Getting through today becomes such an ordeal that it is hard to look beyond it. I know many couples who now work a full day and in the evenings log on to their office network to "catch-up"

How could children not suffer from that kind of madness? Obesity is a symptom of a very sick society.

I feelbad for the children because they certainly have no control over it and develop such bad habits early. The type of food they eat adds much to it here in the US as the fast food syndrome takes effect. We have to modify our eating culture here.

Mahons,

One of our TV stations, Channel 4, ran a story on the fattest man in the world (a Texan, who'd have thought it).

We were treated to the sight his young stepdaughter feeding her 4-month-old a ... hamburger. If she imagined that was normal then yes, the USA has a problem with its eating culture.

Peter,

I meant global as in developed world - take your point on that. However I do think that the health and safety point has validity - kids are discouraged from healthy play and that is very wrong.

David

We take our eating cues from American culture. Fast food restaurants, coffee joints (up to 1000 calories in some Starbucks drinks) and the spin off packaged ready meals, have been and will remain poison here for the forseeable future. This is what we have to look forward to next:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article1159633.ece

Check his food preferences.

In France they limit McDonalds and KFCs, the government bans US fast food advertising, closely monitors food intake in schools and has a whole ministry dedicated to promoting homegrown healthy produce. Families find the whole concept of being overweight utterly abhorrent. As a consequence they live longer and are far healthier people.

None of this restricts peoples choices.

We used to sit down for family meals in this country at least once a week. We used to go out an play more as kids. Parents are either lazy, fearful or under too much pressure nowadays which is why we HAVE to at least look to schools to promote healthy eating and sports until our mindsets change.

I never understand why some have an issue with the basic premise of getting to grips with this in schools. He may be a twit but Jamie Oliver had his heart in the right place. Literally. The idea that this restricts peoples choices or is nanny statism is nonsense. It is pointless worrying about this issue if kids don't learn early on how to make the right food and health choices and clearly parents could use the help.

Food labelling as well - brilliant. The way that has developed here the last few years is just terrificly useful for busy people.

I love the fact that down the road from me in central London the local council estate now has a wonderful new play area for kids. What used to be derelict has been totally taken over by the parents. They keep the thugs out and dominate and look after the area. It is packed. There is no health and safety mandate on any of the amazingly curious looking complex play things they have going on in there! Great big London plain trees and wacky wonderful stuff in between. Green spaces. All well protected from the roads and gangs. The kids go totally crazy in there and it's great to see. Course then they get to be teens and Playstation is where its at.

also suburban development has no social responsibility and therefore does not provide sufficient space for kids and families.

henry is right society is sick. but then when leaders proclaim the ridiculous (there is no society) this is the result. though quite how the same people can demand social good yet decry any level of socialism i dont see how anything will change

Daytripper,

Blame Stalin, Castro and other communists for having given socialism a bad name.

communism is only one form of socialism. its been very easy for cold war zealots to create the myth that communism is the only form.

i prefer to look at the models presented by democratic socialists in scandinavia and other parts of europe.

if communism is a part of socialism then you cannot lay claim to liberalism also.

Daytripper

Socialism and capitalism are both materialist ideologies concerned primarily with the organisation of production.. On that score capitalism has won hands down. It provides material goods in greater abundence and with far more efficency that socialism could ever aspire to. It's advantages are free choice and the market as a pricing mechanism.

In fairness to socialism I think it could solve the obesity problem but I'd be worried about famine.

I don't think you can simply replace capitalism with a less efficent materialist system and call it progress.

Government programs won't solve this problem.

Most obese children have obese parents. Parents who care about maintaining a normal weight themselves usually watch what their children eat and make sure they're physically active.

From casual observation, I think the lower income class tend to be fatter - maybe it's more acceptable in their social circle. Or maybe they're just lazy, which would explain the whole ball of wax.

Daytripper,

In thorough agreement re Scandinavia. I believe I said it before here but I'll say it again: civilization radiates outward from Scandinavia.

I don't know about the Scandis but boy oh boy oh boy is France a food healthy nation.

I love food shopping there more than anywhere else on the planet.

They have it totally sorted. The girls and boys start out healthy, stay healthy and never get fat. Even into middle age they breeze through sans probleme.

They also have an addiction to Playstations etc but you rarely see a porky HLM kid.

I love the level of pride they take in it too. The proof is in the pudding there :)

Daytripper: What man doesn't like Scandinavian Models?

I don't think you can simply replace capitalism with a less efficent materialist system and call it progress.

who said anything about replacement? i dont and never have advocated total and absolute socialism. but it is possible to have capitalism that works for all instead of just the few who it really serves. where stand today has proved thouroughly that completely liberalised free markets are also a failure. the majority of people on the planet are worse off and getting poorer.

Daytripper: What man doesn't like Scandinavian Models?

very true mahons. when i lived in copenhagen they shot the danish version of the TV show "Top Model" at my hotel/apartment complex. I was living in the adjacent penthouse to the Supermodel host :) As i had little to do in the evenings i cultivated a superb "man of mystery" persona. It was fun even if it ultimately failed.

Daytripper,

"but it is possible to have capitalism that works for all instead of just the few who it really serves."

Er, you aren't advocating Christianity, are you? Careful, mate, you'll upset the C.R.E.T.I.N.S :0)

Now I know where the phrase something is rotten in the state of Denmark comes from - ATW's own Bastille stormer lived the Capitalist's wetdream.

Hot Damn.

Actually i was out there clearing up some seriously crappy work by a US company. :) [its not uncommon for us engineers to clear up the mess left by the hasty decisions of the beancounters.]

Not that i care. i got 6 months free living in a seaview penthouse. and my eyes opened as to what a nation can provide itself if everyone believes in themselves and their state. I might me in maryland next week to remind myself of the other side of the coin.

its fair enough dawkins. if most christians actually followed christ they would be socialists too :P

--I don't know about the Scandis but boy oh boy oh boy is France a food healthy nation.--

Very true. Italy's not bad either as respects diet and lifestyle.

You do notice a big difference in body size when you go from those places to the USA.

And, not trying to step on any friendly toes here, you also notice a further difference when you travel from NY to Texas or Louisiana. Some very big folks there.

The fast pace of American life means that fast food ain't going away any time soon. I've always wondered why noone made a go of a "healthy fast food" franchise. If done right, I think it would do very well.

The Phantom,

"The fast pace of American life ..."

Fast as in...? I was in a mall in Denver last week and had to "excuse me" through a veritable herd of lumbering, obese Americans.

Portion control is indeed the key. And I don't understand why some food chains here (not just fast food) will actually brag about their large portions and/or discount them heavily.

I want to hear from Mike Huckabee, the former candidate. He lost 100 pounds, and kept it off, via what he referred to as "behavior modification"

If he could promote his methods, that could be his greatest contribution to American life.

David Vance -

Steve Ryan, of Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool said it is was "almost certain" that surgeons will have to staple children's stomachs within a few years.

Why is this happening?

Because we live in an essentially fascist state. Here a doctor announces that children will undergo forced medical procedures because their physical condition isn't approved by the state.

Sorry, I'd rather give Junior a Mars Bar and shoot the doctor.

That's not even to question the 'evidence', which I have no doubt is fabricated and useless. No definitive numbers are reported, no empirical evidence, what constitutes 'obese' now? This entire announcement is a fraud.

There's a long and dark history of the state claiming ownership over us, from Sparta dictating a maximum body fat measure in its citizens to National Socialist Germany denouncing the heresy that health is a personal matter. Clearly the British state will be in good company.

Pete Moore posted:

Because we live in an essentially fascist state. Here a doctor announces that children will undergo forced medical procedures because their physical condition isn't approved by the state.

Sorry, I'd rather give Junior a Mars Bar and shoot the doctor.

Can anyone else spot the irony?

Pete,

"what constitutes 'obese' now?"

Allow me to help you out here. This is an everyday picture of America, and this is an everyday pic of Africa.

Can you spot the difference?

Most Americans are not close to being that big. But an increasing number are.

As most may know, when people from diet healthy countries ( ie Japan ) come to America to live, there is a direct correlation in weight gain.

I'm not looking for a set of draconian laws, but President McCain could do worse than to use the bully pulpit to promote healthy eating and to disparage the supersize culture.

I really don't think obesity merits hyperventilating panic. It merits some money invested in an education campaign urging people to eat less and exercise more, but as problems go, obesity is not that big.

Fat people! It's not an AIDS epidemic or a crime wave,is it? Or starvation...

Pete,

"Here a doctor announces that children will undergo forced medical procedures because their physical condition isn't approved by the state."

I don't know where you are reading that. There is no mention of force and no mention of the state. He is saying that it may be the treatment that doctors need to offer, the way I read it.

Patty

Its bad enough.

I'm not going to go in and do research on this, but it greatly aggravates cardiovascular , blood pressure, diabetes, joint problems etc.

This site shows 14,627 deaths from AIDS in the US in 2006. I would not be at all surprised if the number of deaths caused by obesity is multiples of that number.

Frank O'Dwyer -

"Steve Ryan, of Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool said it is was "almost certain" that surgeons will have to staple children's stomachs within a few years."

I read compulsion in that statement. And let's not forget we're talking about the British medical establishment, a fantastically corporatist entity which has plenty of previous when it comes to urging the government into compulsory measures. In this it has acted in cahoots for some years with the Commons Select Committee on Health.

Those looking at this as a 'health' issue have no hope of understanding what's behind this, which is yet another attempt at grabbing power, influence and status by an establishment which includes politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and lawyers as well as doctors.

The pleasant surprise is that the usual junk science hasn't been rolled out to back up the lies. In this case we have no science at all.

Since the body snatchers have made as many advances against smoking as they believe they can get away with, they are now onto fat and soon it will be alcohol (which is marked for action).

Well I'm sorry, but fat is a personal issue and absolutely not the state's business. If children are overweight, that's their and their parents' problem. Gather any random group of overweight children and you'll usually find their overweight, unemployed, welfare crack addict parent(s) behind. As usual, too much government lies at the genuine core of the problem, which is (yet again) an infantilised underclass rendered - in this case - incapable even of raising slim children because they've been conditioned into uselessness by the state.

Patty,

"Fat people! It's not an AIDS epidemic or a crime wave,is it? Or starvation..."

Americans spent $150 billion on junk food last year alone. Think about how far that would have gone towards combating AIDS, fighting crime or 3rd-world starvation.

The obese—aside from an infinitesimal number of medical cases—are selfish and gluttonous, full stop.

Pete Moore is 100% correct.

Remember a time without mandatory bicycle helmet laws? Concussions are bad, so is obesity. I do not argue that.

But I do argue against giving the government more and more power over an individual's personal life. This handing over to government decisions which were once the individual's to make infantilizes people; it makes individuals dependent on government and empowers government to intrude. The government is empowered to take more and more decisions away from the individual.

Real freedom means independence from government intrusion.

We do not need government -- aka Nanny - to tell us how to eat, or ride our bikes. Enough all ready. Freedom. Responsibility. Your ancestors did not die for freedom to have you give it away because you are afraid of responsibility or because you do not trust your fellow citizen to make the "right" decision. Grow up.

Pete,

""Steve Ryan, of Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool said it is was "almost certain" that surgeons will have to staple children's stomachs within a few years."

I read compulsion in that statement."

I think you're reading too much into an idiomatic statement. I think it is far more likely that he meant that would 'have to' do it in the same way that they 'have to' staple adult's stomachs now. The patient is not compelled and the state has nothing to do with it.

Yes and ditch those annoying seat belt and air bag laws. Screw that. Don't let the govt tell us what to wear around our laps

Many more deaths, but thats OK, let 'em all die, we'll still be happy since the guvmint didn't get away with telling us what to do.

The Phantom: Did I say "don't wear seat belts?" Did I say "smoke," or "get fat?" I'm talking about government intrusion. Not making bad choices. There is a big, big difference.

Are you telling me that without a law on the books you wouldn't wear your seat belt?

You really need Nanny to tell you when to go to bed at night?

If citizens turn over responsibility to the state they become like little children, expecting government to solve all of their problems, helpless.

You know the real tragic story behind Katrina? THe story the liberal media will never understand, much less tell? It is the story of the financially poor people emerging from the flood waters - shown by the networks, crying out for help - they were for the most part welfare recipients. And they sounded helpless. And they acted helpless. And they relegated their personal welfare over to govt. agencies - which failed them. Agencies that will always fail them.

Compare their helpless plight to neighboring states, hit just as badly by the storm - those people weren't on welfare, and theyweren't filmed complaining - who went to work immediately - who recovered very quickly.

I'm sorry but relying on govt. to solve problems is idiotic.

Alison

Just out of interest. The kids play area you mentioned. Would you be talking about the one at the Elephant & Castle , just by the swimming pool ? I went there with my Brother and little niece the other day. That's a reclaimed bit of derelict land also.

AS to the topic at hand, it's nonsense to say parents have no time or can't afford to prepare healthy meals. Good simple stews or casseroles or even a light stir fry take little time to make and are just as cheap as packs of ready meals or numerous 'snacks'. Plus in the past shopping had to be done on a virtual daily basis and often to several different stores. Now mot people can stock up one a week and get everything they need in the Supermarket, often at any time of the day or night. Willpower, planning, common sense and restraint are all that's needed by individuals and parents to stop obesity .

Patty,

"Remember a time without mandatory bicycle helmet laws?"

There aren't mandatory bicycle helmet laws here.

And mandatory seat belt laws are easy to justify on the grounds of preventing harm to others.

Patty -

Well said.

Phantom -

If you're genuinely in favour of decreasing road deaths (no, not suggesting that you're posturing like many liberals do) then arguing in favour of seat belts won't help your case.

I know, it's obvious what you say, such a 'no-brainer'. Except it isn't. When the wearing of seat belts became compulsory here 25 years ago deaths increased however the numbers are analysed.

The reason why is that drivers assumed they were safer and drove less safely and in a less attentive manner. It goes hand in hand with airbags and vehicles which are now stuffed with safety technology.

But hey, nanny had her new laws and statists could posture. More people were killed as a result but let's not be awkward and dwell on that.

No link to the figures by the way - I simply can't be bothered.

If you think this implausible then ask yourself if accidents would increase or decrease if seatbelts were removed and all steering wheels fitted with daggers pointed at the driver's chest.

--And mandatory seat belt laws are easy to justify on the grounds of preventing harm to others.--

But at the time they were being introduced in the US, there was some opposition to them. On the grounds of "freedom" and that they were "too uncomfortable"

This would be mainly preventing harm to the driver, as every driven car has a driver and there's not always a passenger.

I used to think airbags were a frill and were unnecessary, but I've been convinced otherwise.

Pete

fromthe US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
#
Safety belts saved more than 12,000 American lives in 2001. Yet, during that same year, nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes were unrestrained.12
#
Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent and the risk of moderate to critical injury by 50 percent. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60 percent and moderate-to-critical injury by 65 percent.13

---

The fact that 60 percent of auto fatalities involve those not wearing the belts and that the huge majority of people do wear belts says a great deal.

Again, we have to go back to my old question of "rate" vs whole numbers. I will think that in Britain ( as in the US ) there has been a big increase in miles driven over the past 25 years. Which makes whole numbers very unreliable...gotta dig deeper.

If they repealed the seat belt law tomorrow, I'd still use them. Wouldn't you?

Phantom,

"This would be mainly preventing harm to the driver, as every driven car has a driver and there's not always a passenger."

Yes but that's not a good enough reason to demand somebody wear a seat belt, otherwise I could insist that you wear a bullet proof vest and travel everywhere in an armored vehicle.

But there are grounds of preventing harm to other passengers (by rattling around in the car), diverting public resources to try to save you, and for that matter making a mess on the road and ruining a perfectly good windshield. Worst of all, all that glass on the road may cause my bike to get a puncture and make me late for work.

Although, Pete is correct when he points out that given any safety device people generally increase risk to compensate. Whether he is right in saying that is sufficient to erase or reverse the benefit of the seat belts I don't know.

Frank

This is 101% anecdotal, but here, while I see many bad drivers , I see a whole lot less of the truly dangerous stuff --including speeding 30mph or more above the speed limit by young idiot male drivers on city streets-- and drunk driving --than I saw thirty years ago.

No comparison between then and now. I think that most people are more responsible, not less, and its just that there are many more miles driven.

So according to Pete Moore and Patty:

1. It should not be compulsory to wear seat belts.
2. It scould not be compulsory for motor-cyclists to wear crash helmets.
4. All anti-smoking laws should be repealed.
3. The government should say and do absolutely nothing about the growing obesity epidemic, despite the enormous health-costs in terms of diabetes, heart failure, lost work-days and sheer human unhappiness that obesity causes.

Needless to say, both Pete and Patty constantly lament the loss of christain values in our societies. All I can say is I'm glad you guys aren't calling the shots. If this is christian values at work, give me atheism any time.

Phantom -

Only a statistician with all the raw data could comment adequately on the 12,000 American lives saved in 2001. However it does sound like a suspiciously definitive statement from an organisation with a vested interest.

Research has shown that lap/shoulder belts, when used properly, reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants ...

That's involving accidents that happen. My assertion is that seat belt use make accidents more likely to happen.

Again, we have to go back to my old question of "rate" vs whole numbers.

Yes, hence my poorly worded "When the wearing of seat belts became compulsory here 25 years ago deaths increased however the numbers are analysed."

IIRC, the Royal Automobile Club and Automobile Association here each agreed that compulsory seat belt use was responsible for an increase in deaths resulting from many more accidents.

Peter -

You'll have to remind me, what was it Jesus said about seat belts?

When in Hawaii, which does not require motorcyclists to wear helmets, I'd cringe when observing the nearly 100% of the riders out there with a naked and exposed head in the middle of the highway.

And on an unrelated note