Parents who allow their offspring to become obese should be prosecuted

Mothers and fathers who put their children's health at risk by allowing them to become malnourished can expect a knock on the door from a paediatric social worker accompanied by a police officer who will remove the child from the family home and charge the parents with child neglect.

So are the parents who put their children's health at risk by allowing them to become obese held to account for their crimes? No, although in some countries these insidious child abusers do have their children taken off them (1,2), but this is too little too late.

Just today, CNN published an article entitled "Fast food marketing up, food still unhealthy" which reads:

"A report released by Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, looked at 12 popular restaurant chains, and out of more than 3,000 kids meal combinations, found only 12 that met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids.

‘The worst meal was at Dairy Queen,' said Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiatives at the Yale center, and the lead study author. ‘It was a cheeseburger, french fries, a sugar sweetened soft drink and a chocolate Dilly Bar, which totaled 973 calories.'

The No. 2 culprit: KFC's popcorn chicken kids meal, served with a biscuit, soda and a side of string cheese – totaling 840 calories."

It's no secret that giving children too much fatty food is bad for their health, yet some parents ignore the warnings and carry on overfeeding their offspring regardless.

Children cannot defend themselves from child abuse, that's why the law is there to protect them, and I believe that it is time that it was properly enforced and the parents of grossly overweight children were brought to justice and be made to account for their vile crimes.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

(2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

(3) http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com...

My opponent makes an interesting and somewhat valid argument. However, I believe that if we take the blinders off and look at the whole picture, we can see that the parents are not the sole cause for children over-eating, but merely part of the larger puzzle, and placing a punishment entirely on them is both reckless and impotent. I will address many points on why taking children away from parents because of their weight is not going to solve anything.

My first point is just repeating something that my opponent already stated himself. "...out of more than 3,000 kids meal combinations, found only 12 that met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids." When literally 99.6% of quick meals are unhealthy, how can we punish the parents when they have virtually no options to begin with.

My second point is that schools have control over children's lunches, 5 meals a week (out of 21), and many schools are beginning to include a breakfast break in the morning (raising their control to 10 out of 21). Do parents have any control over what their children eat at school? No, not at all. Sure, parents can send their kids with a bag lunch, but that doesn't stop them from trading that apple for a donut, or from grabbing that soda from a vending machine. Parents are not their at the lunch table to ensure proper eating habits, and neither is the school, with (just pulling the prices from my old high school) a 20 oz soda at $1.25 and a 15.2 oz apple juice running at $1.75, costing 84% more per fl oz. Even bottled water costs the same as a soda.

My third point is that the way we define and measure obesity is not a sufficient guide for our children. It has many, rather vague definitions which make it difficult to see where the line is[1]. The few definitions that do have a clearly drawn line say it is a BMI of 20% (for men) and 30% (for women)[2]. If we take the same calculator that doctors use to calculate BMI off of your weight and height, we find the the formula is (W/(H)^2)*703 [3], where W = weight in pounds and H = height in inches. Please note, that this takes absolutely no consideration for how much weight is actually fat, and how much is muscle. Let us look at some people that would be count as "fat" simply based on height/weight.

LaMichael James [4] - Running back for the #1 Oregon Ducks, he is 5'10" and 195 pounds. This puts his BMI at 28%, in order for him to get to the BMI of 20%, he would have to fall to 139 pounds.
Jacquizz Rodgers [5] - Running back for the falling-short-of-expectations Oregon State Beavers, he is 5'7" and 193 pounds. His BMI is 30.2% and in order for him to get to 20%, he'd have to drop to 127.7 pounds. Good luck.

My fourth point is that there are benefits to having extra weight, even in the form of fat. Your body stores unused energy in the form of fat (any carbs, protein, or fat that isn't used right after eating) for later use. So when you do not have food readily available, your body burns the fat in your body for energy, much like a savings account for body energy. Excess fat and muscle also protect the organs of your body in the case of trauma, like a car crash, animal attack or getting shot.

My fifth and final point is that we need fat people around for our own safety. This is probably the biggest point. If you are in a plane crash up in the mountains, and have to eat other people to survive, it is far better to eat a few fat people, then have to kill a bunch of skinny people. And if a crazed gunman storms into the mall, fat people make much better cover then skinny people. And finally, when the zombie apocalypse begins, the fat slow people will be targeted fist, giving the rest of us time to get away and regroup.

If we punish parents for making their children fat and obese now, then we loose our safety net for tomorrow.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.google.com...=
[2] http://www.healthandfitness.com...
[3] http://www.whathealth.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...