Starving the poor, shunning the fat.

I read a very disturbing article in the Hill about using food stamp money (which has already been cut) to fund Mrs. Obama's fat to thin project Let's Move, which probably won't work anyway. 

So according to Mrs. Obama and congress, it's better for children to starve than be fat. Even though starvation already kills 17,000 CHILDREN A DAY, it's better that they be thin and dead then fat and probably healthy.  Also a county in England wants to know what's in their kids' lunch boxes. Because it might be bad (such as an universe eating Cthulu-type monster). I wonder if they will send home a note if your teenage daughter has packed only carrots sticks for lunch.  

I'm sorry but in my mind starvation and food insecurity are much worse problems than obesity. Depending on whose research you believe up to 49 million people in the US are food insecure. I much rather people have too much to eat than not enough.  Because there really isn't a way to make a fat person thin. And gastric bypass the current "cure-all" for obesity works because it is merely forced anorexia.

But at least in Michigan you can sue Hooters if they fire you for being fat.

So let's sum up:

• It's better to be thin and dead than fat and alive.
• Fat people shouldn't get their nails done.
• Don't even dare put a piece of candy in your child's lunchbox unless you want a call from the food police.
• South Carolina thinks obesity kills more than tobacco. So they are offering the first lucky 100 workers WLS. (I think living in South Carolina kills more people than tobacco).
• But you might be able to keep your job in a Michigan Hooters.

Am I the only one seeing something wrong here?

Comments

[DivaJean]

I really wonder what will happen to the 100 people that DO sign up for the weight loss surgery in South Carolina. They get sold a bill of goods about health and weight loss- plus a free chance to do it. Are the powers that be involved in this prepared to handle the 1 in 5 that will have serious health repercussions from the surgery (ie- death, long term complications, etc)? Somehow I doubt it- they will blame the person for consenting to the surgery and not adhering to post operative care (despite it being proven that even with adherance, complications will develop).

[Elizebeth Turnquist]

I am TOTALLY of the opinion that it's better to have fat kids than malnourished kids. I think the same for adults. Is it better to starve now or around when I'm fifty or sixty possibly have a greater risk for certain diseases? I'd rather die when I'm old than loose the quality of life that is supposed to come with youth.

But, then again, I already believe that if you are genetically predisposed to the diseases "associated" with weight, at best your just pushing off the inevitable.

Also, if the tipping point of weight is in infancy, can you really stop a kid from becoming fat? Are they, once again, doing a kind of inductive logic in suggesting that putting kids on a diet will stop them from getting fat and therefore stop them from getting the diseases they associate with weight?

One of the things that bugs me when "obesity" statistics are thrown around, is that as that arbitrary range of "overweight/obese" doubled, the other arbitrary range of "underweight" was cut in half. Another way to look at the "obesity" statistics is that we've finally gotten to the point where old age diseases are something we have the privilege to worry about AND half as many people are malnourished in our society.

The NHANES (the survey that the CDC pulls it's obesity statistics from) was originally meant to track malnourishment, focusing strongly on the kids and the poor. If people would just look at it right, we have proof that our society did something good. We are successful at NOT STARVING.

[Rachel]

Not to mention... recent study showed that a great majority of poor fat kids were actually malnourished. Even though they are fat, they're not getting the proper nutrients and vitamins they need, a consequence, presumably, of cheaper, less healthy processed foods. If the First Lady wanted poor fat kids to lose weight, she'd work to INCREASE the food stamp budget and benefits.

[wriggles]

Wow, this goes from bad to worse, she isn't an elected person, who's to be held accountable for the results of this campaign?

I thought it was probably a cheap shot when someone invoked Marie Antoinette with regards to the Obama's holiday destination, this if it happens, could make it quite apt.

[NinjaEema]

I belong to a pregnancy message board, and recently someone posted a question to everyone. Given the option of chicken nuggets and fries for lunch every day, or no lunch, which would they choose for their child. An overwhelming majority chose no lunch. This is how messed up we've become as a society.

[HellfireLover]

Interesting article. In my local authority area, which is in Southern Scotland, they've been issuing 'notices' on kids' lunchboxes, and brought in a new standardized 'healthy menu'. The result is a drop in uptake of school lunches and high wastage on certain foods, like couscous and salad. Now to combat this, they're considering confining kids to the school grounds (up to sixth year, or age 18, which is legally an adult here - in fact, 16 is the 'legal adult' age). So they won't be able to walk home for lunch, or down the high street - or anywhere, in fact... great way to encourage healthy lifestyle choices, huh?

[Layla]

And people wonder where those with eating disorders get the idea that it's better to die thin, than to live fat.

If it's better to starve...

[inge]

Starvation, malnourishment and food insecurity are actually the best way to train a person's body and eating habits to get that extra 40 lbs for bad times. Because your body really wants you alive.

We had a joke as teens about the girls who took up smoking to stay thin, that they'd be pretty cadavers one day. Maybe South Carolina could consider to just give out free tobacco instead of WLS?

This is so messed up.

[Theresa]

I'm glad you think gastric bypass is forced anorexia! I always thought that and after three friends had it done (one had it done while on welfare/medicaid, the other two had insurance, guess who had more side effects?) and would throw up at the drop of a hat I thought (this shit makes you lose weight by making you bulimic, how's that healthy? Now all three are chronically malnourished. No matter what they eat, they can't get enough nutrients from their food. Yes, one had her bad lymphedma go away and one stopped spraining her ankles every month but... I think light exercise would've done the same thing and had less side effects.

Oh Well.