Heal the World? Nah, Let's just Blame the Parents.

Discussions on childhood obesity tend to run in predictable ways. One of the things I hate most about them is how they ignore the societal issues behind eating fast food.

A recent example is an article found in the Pundit, written by Deborah Coddington and titled "Fight Obesity - Nationalise the Dairies!" Apparently the title is a cynical one, and her main concern here is that nationalizing anything is terrible and everything is up to the individual's own choices. Obviously, she feels she is the voice of reason in suggesting something as novel as - parents being responsible for their children's food choices. Wow. This sounds common sense and even smart, if you look at it on the surface level. Which is why I feel like writing about it and breaking down why it's NOT smart at all.

The Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand (Spanz) – no less – wants restrictions on what dairies near schools can sell during certain hours.
We're talking about food here, folks – possibly fizzy drinks, chippies, pies, lollies, ice creams. Stuff that, if eaten sensibly, in moderation, will not do you any harm at all.

"Sensibly", "in moderation", being the operative words here. Because we all have the same idea of what they mean, and because we all know fatties do not eat moderately. Mind you, I give her credit for saying that it's OK to eat these foods. Or I would, if she didn't undo her own point later by suggesting that parents not give their children money for this type of food.

Then comes the big slap in the face at poor people:

Not so poor, though, that they can't afford to buy the odd pie or ten.

Poor people! They're not really poor, they just waste all their money on junk food. That's why they're so fat. This is where the class stuff comes in and Coddington gleefully and almost proudly glosses all over it. In most countries, junk food really is cheaper than "healthy" food. Many poor people actually have to work long hours at their low-paid jobs, sometimes work two or three jobs to support their families. The fact that they don't have the time or money to prepare nutritious meals is actually completely natural. It's an inevitable fact enforced by their lives and their poverty. In other words, it's not a choice in all cases. If you had to feed a family of five with 20 bucks a day, what would you buy? Five veggies a day or Hamburger Helper? Rich people do have the choice, because they can choose to stop at the most expensive supermarkets, buy the best produce available, and even hire someone to cook for them. It's easy for them to make snide remarks about the poor eating habits of poor people (pun intended), but it would be harder to actually discuss or, god forbid, attempt to change the economic reality of their society.

Now follows the predictable parents-are-at-fault speech.

How about this idea? Parents take some responsibility for their offsprings' health. They don't give them any money and instead, put two pieces of bread together with some vegemite in between? That's novel. Add an apple, a bottle of water, and make them walk to school.

Most articles on childhood obesity contain this idea in some form. What Coddington is essentially doing is releasing dairies and fast food outlets of all responsibility. If they market fast food for children, there's nothing we can - or should - do about that. Companies should be allowed to be free! What is this, Soviet Russia?

Blaming the parents is actually the easy way out. It sounds smart enough and appeals to what people already think, but the real messages is that society cannot, will not, change for you. It is always the individuals who must change. Instead of raising wages and benefits, or making fresh produce more available near schools and poor areas, or even introducing free school meals - let's make the parents feel guilty and put vegemite sandwiches in their kids' lunch boxes. Problem solved! (I feel like I should mention that white bread and vegemite isn't actually the most nutritious meal either. In fact, I might argue that children get more nutrition out a burger meal. But I don't want to start a big nutritional flamewar.)

I'd like to point out that I don't think any of these things would necessarily decrease childhood obesity. In fact, I should be putting "obesity" into quotation marks, because it's impossible to really measure how fat children are without seeing them. And even if you do see a fat child, it might do them no good to interfere. Children are growing, their bodies change constantly, and most kids I've known have been chubby, skinny, and everything in between before they're 13. I question how this is going to be harm their healths (except in the more extreme cases). I'd be more worried about their minds and what they learn from the constant humiliation of diets at a young age.

But Coddington is just coming to that:

Then when they're at school, Spanz could force them to do some PhysEd, just like the bad old days. Oh, sorry, I forgot, we can't hurt or humiliate them anymore can we, if they're not good at running, or jumping, and come last, or fall over. In these post-modern days of child-centred learning, it's the self-esteem which is paramount.

Wow, so self-esteem is valued over competitive sports? That's terrible. Mind you, I wouldn't be against PhysEd if it were exercising in a way that feels fun - something most children already do on their own. But if you teach children that exercise is all about competition and being picked first for the team, will they want to exercise later in life? I recall learning one thing from PhysEd at school: exercise is not for me. I haven't exercised much in my adult life. I'm not saying it's all the school's fault - I'm just not a very athletic person - but I do blame the school for some of my aversion to exercise and fitness. I liked first grade PhysEd, because it was playing and dancing to music on our own. I actually question the value of teaching all children to play baseball or soccer.

We're only allowed to humiliate smokers, because they're a drain on the health system. Hang on, aren't obese people a drain on the health system too....?

How about we don't dehumanize anyone by calling them "a drain on the system", and we don't humiliate anyone? I'm not even sure what Coddington is saying here. Is she actually in favor of humiliation, as long as it makes people live healthier? Wouldn't that amount to government interference and go against individual choices? Her article doesn't go deeper into this, so I can't tell. But I dare say this passage reveals Coddington's true colors: she's all about individual choice, as long as she doesn't have to pay for others' choices with her tax money. So a nanny state that makes people eat healthy might be A-OK, as long as you don't limit capitalism and the freedom of companies.

Next stop on the gravy train to Whingeville: ever-widening gap between so-called rich and poor.

"So-called rich"? Interesting. Coddington seems to be suggesting that if any social reforms are made, it would only make things worse. Let's keep everything the way it is now, because it's (going well for her) a risk to change anything. Of course, she straw-mans the idea of fast food restrictions by talking about nationalising the dairies etc. I'm not sure how awful that would really be, but it sounds suspiciously like "any restrictions amount to socialism!!!!!1". 

Humiliating children for their own good is a ridiculous idea. Making lower-class parents feel guilty for their children's "obesity" is simply a cop-out. I'm not against children eating fast food, but I wouldn't mind some restrictions on fast food companies. They should have accountability when they're marketing to children. Companies should have accountability, period. Parents already feel guilty enough, and they do take responsibility for their children. Let's demand more of those those who just want to make money.