I usually don’t comment on Gawker (or even Jezebel), as I don’t like getting drawn into fights. Instead, one of my favorite past times is watching OTHER people getting drawn into fights. There are some epic threads that make for good reading.

But yesterday, on a post about a man who opened up a plus-size hair salon (really), someone begged the annoying question: why is it ok to harass smokers about their health, but not fat people.

I had to comment, God help my soul. This was my response:

Smoking and obesity are NOT COMPARABLE. You don’t need nicotine to live. We have to eat. (obesity and food addiction, at least insomuch as treatment is concerned, are also not comparable with alcoholism and drug addiction, IMO, even if there are some commonalities when it comes to brain chemistry…)

People may lambast smokers, primarily because, I don’t know, their smoking can have a profound adverse health effect on bystanders. (I speak as someone who grew up with a smoking parent, too) You can’t “catch” obesity, and standing next to an obese person can’t give YOU cancer. Moreover, it’s generally accepted that a huge part of the problem with smoking is insidious advertising and marketing from the smoking industry… which is now heavily restricted. Yet people refuse to take the same stance when it comes to food advertising (and truth in “food” advertising — a lot of processed junk is NOT food). Food, and junk food, is ALSO highly addictive, but we don’t talk about that (we really need to start talking about that!). We talk about willpower and choices. It’s a MYTH that by SHEER WILLPOWER obese people can overcome food, fitness, health, nutrition and behavior problems. Willpower and choices are a part of it. But not all. (and, honestly, the few people I know who succeeded on the sheer willpower diet are now thin but hate themselves, and hate fat people — so much internalized self-hate!)

Also, being a smoker is not an “obvious” physical characteristic, so you won’t see a smoker discriminated against or publicly humiliated and tormented as you would an obese person. Not saying smokers don’t take a lot of flack — they do! And a lot of it is unwarranted, because others health-policing strangers is douchey (fat or smoking! Or both!). There’s just SO MUCH unspoken (and spoken) fat stigma already. That’s why it’s really not necessary to make it “OK” to health police fat people.

 

I got one OMG BUTTHURT response from someone who, naturally, DID employ SHEER WILLPOWER to lose weight and they OMG DON’T HATE THEMSELVES. Quote:

I got thin on sheer willpower, and I don’t hate myself. I don’t hate fat people, either, but I do hate it when a fat person claims he or she can’t get thin no matter what they do. Especially if they say it as they’re scarfing down a Big Mac, which I have actually seen somebody do.

We all pay for obesity-related health problems (whether a person has insurance or not), so it really is everybody’s business.

Thanks for illustrating my point there, sparky! The one where I said that formerly fat people are the hardest on still-fat people (aka: fat hate, fat shaming). Because, in my experience (which I noted! I said PERSONALLY!), those who succeeded & live on an *extremely* restrictive “willpower” diet are patently miserable and super duper into body snarking and body/food policing. Everything in moderation, my friends.

And, for the record, the SHEER WILLPOWER diet of which I speak is the imaginary one that Not Fat People tell us about: “Oh, don’t you know that all you have to do is eat less and exercise more? Put down the Big Mac!” Oh, jeeze, I didn’t know it was that simple! I just have to subsist off lettuce and lentils for the rest of my life and everything will be PERFECT! As I said *in my comment* (people don’t read), willpower and choices are part of making a lifestyle change. But the idea that all you need is SHEER WILLPOWER to overcome obesity is silly.

But the comment that TAKES THE CAKE is this one:

Actually there have been studies showing that you can essentially catch obesity by normalization. Good friends and family members being the highest risk.

That’s right, folks. This guy thinks you can CATCH obesity. Like a communicable disease! Bear in mind that what he *means* is studies that show that if your friends and family are obese, you are statistically more likely to be obese yourself. DUH. But FFS, we just can’t win. People think you can catch obesity. The Internet fails at life.

Maybe I’m a coward, but I didn’t respond to any of the responses to me, as I found them silly, reductive and knew that to “argue” would be pointless. Once someone has succeeded on the SHEER WILLPOWER diet, there’s no telling them that it’s just not that easy for other people, and that to suggest so is patronizing. Don’t get me started on “catching” obesity guy.

And, frankly, my comment was in response to someone who compared health policing smokers with health policing obese people. I made my point, and the original commenter agreed with me. (the point: we shouldn’t police anyone… but smoking and obesity are certainly two very different things) I’m proud of my comment, and because I’m a narcissist, I’m posting it.

The concept of food deserts — areas where a significant population, usually low-income, has no access to supermarkets and/or affordable, healthy food — came up in Monday’s post about the cost of junk food vs. healthy food. It’s easy, especially for those of us who live in cities and read blogs using our high speed Internet access, to come up with seemingly simple solutions to obesity, poor health and nutrition. Go to the grocery! Buy cheap veggies! Cook!

But what if you can’t? If you have no access to a grocery store (but MacDonalds… or 7/11 are a two minute walk), or your family can’t afford a vehicle (to get to a grocery store)? I think many of us — myself included — mean well when we engage in discourse about healthy living, but take for granted that we have access to supermarkets, Trader Joes, Whole Foods, vehicles, etc. Someone like me has the luxury of paying a higher rent for an apartment within walking distance of two grocery stores — my not having a vehicle doesn’t hinder access to healthy food. For many, it does.

Here are some factoids I picked up from this report from the USDA:

• Of all households in the United States, 2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle.
• 23.5 million people live in low-income areas (areas where more than 40 percent of the population has income at or below 200 percent of Federal poverty thresholds) that are more than 1 mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. (not all of these do not have vehicles)
• Urban core areas with limited food access are characterized by higher levels of racial segregation and greater income inequality. In small-town and rural areas with limited food access, the lack of transportation infrastructure is the most defining characteristic.
• A key concern for people who live in areas with limited access is that they rely on small grocery or convenience stores that may not carry all the foods needed for a healthy diet and that may offer these foods and other food at higher prices.

This is just the tip of the iceberg – it’s a complex issue, but one that does shed some light on why so many people — especially in the low income bracket — struggle with nutrition, health and obesity. For many, the solution isn’t “go to the grocery” or “cook” because that simply isn’t possible. Look at this map of official food deserts (no car and no grocery within one mile):

What are some of the solutions? (these are just ideas I’m throwing out, none of which are “simple” — bring up your own in the comments!)

• fewer government subsides of corn & soy product, which are primarily used in processed foods and contribute to making them so cheap
• increased government subsidies of farms that produce fruits & vegetables meant to be consumed by the general public (ie: not subsidizing a corn farm when the corn is turned into high fructose corn syrup). This would (hopefully) decrease prices of fruits/vegetable, when they are available
• make organic/local fruit/veg delivery services affordable to those living in food deserts for whom transportation is an issue (what good is a grocery store if your family can’t afford to own a vehicle?)
• invest in healthy school lunch programs/distributing good foods to children at schools in food deserts.
• An incentive program to large supermarkets to set-up shop in food desert areas OR tax breaks to smaller markets so they don’t have to pass on high costs to the consumer (nothing wrong with a small market — but when they’re the only source in a food desert, they can jack up prices)

So I would love to discuss food deserts, especially from any readers who live in one or have lived in one. Have you seen a solution or program implemented that helped bring good food and nutrition to a poor area?

Last week, The New York Times published an editorial begging the question of whether junk food really is cheaper than good, healthy food. It’s conclusion was more or less no, that buying ingredients at a grocery store and cooking at home will always be more cost effective than picking up fast food. We must teach people to cook, and address the problem of those without ready access to grocery stores.

On this point, I do agree. Particularly when one is feeding a family, it will always make more sense to buy ingredients, such as chicken, pasta, rice, etc. and cook in bulk at home. If you’re a smart shopper, you can buy good ingredients and cook healthful meals — even without the aid of a Trader Joes or Whole Foods… and the pocketbook to shop at either. Generally, I recommend the article — pertaining the specifics the author argues, I cannot find fault. However, it’s the point the article DOESN’T address that I find more interesting. The article opens thusly:

THE “fact” that junk food is cheaper than real food has become a reflexive part of how we explain why so many Americans are overweight, particularly those with lower incomes. I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli …” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”

Emphasis is mine — this is the item the article doesn’t really address. Really, what that statement should be is “when a package of ramen costs less than a banana.” Because it DOES. Ditto for products such as Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. The article continues (after rightfully skewering the fast food, ie MacDonalds, is cheaper argument):

THE fact is that most people can afford real food. Even the nearly 50 million Americans who are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) receive about $5 per person per day, which is far from ideal but enough to survive. So we have to assume that money alone doesn’t guide decisions about what to eat.

The alternative to soda is water, and the alternative to junk food is not grass-fed beef and greens from a trendy farmers’ market, but anything other than junk food: rice, grains, pasta, beans, fresh vegetables, canned vegetables, frozen vegetables, meat, fish, poultry, dairy products, bread, peanut butter, a thousand other things cooked at home — in almost every case a far superior alternative.

Kudos for not trotting out the yuppie argument about grass fed beef and whole foods, but what is “real” food?  Pasta… hello Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and ramen noodles. Both are packed full of artificial flavors, chemicals and salt… but they’re CHEAP and one can buy them at the grocery store and “cook” them at home! (add to this list also: flavored pasta/rice packs, Hamburger Helper and any other number of “quick” meals that primarily contain additives, chemicals and contain negligible nutrition). Rice & grains — cheap. But so is the gravy, the sauces, etc. that people will pair with them (and they will likely buy the cheap white variety, not the actually-good-for-you brown rice alternative). And this does not even take into account all the fatty, terrible ways one can prepare “real food” — what good is a piece of chicken if it’s been in the deep-fryer, or a bunch of green beans coated in butter, bread crumbs and gravy? Grocery store shelves are packed full of terrible, cheap food… and even when Americans do cook, so many have no clue how to cook “real food” in a healthy way. (and, yes, the BEST foods to eat ARE the most expensive)

Also a favorite: the author exalts the cooking of a chicken at home, and all the healthy calories one will get… from cooking it with olive oil. But, if you’re living in a food desert, living on food stamps — $5 a person, per day — are you going to buy the $28 bottle of olive oil (even the $10 is steep for someone pinching pennies) or buy actual food? Tell me how many people who are poor and trying to get “bang for their buck” are really going to invest in olive oil? No, they will pick up the cheapest oil cooking substance you can buy — vegetable oil and other not-very-healthy varieties… or just cook with butter.

The cheapest items at the grocery store win, and nine times out of ten, those items are the shittiest.  How many of us lived off ramen noodles, mac & cheese and pb&j in college?  They are the over-produced stuff of the corporate food giants and, yes, Virginia, junk food IS cheaper. So are many, many products that are stuffed full of high fructose corn syrup and other corn-derived (and fat-making) products — thank you government subsidies of the corn industry. So while cooking > fast food is a wholly sound argument, you can just point people towards grocery stores and cooking and expect the problem to go away.

Ultimately, we agree on some of the other issues, even if our author ignores that not all cooking is created equal:

Furthermore, the engineering behind hyperprocessed food makes it virtually addictive. A 2009 study by the Scripps Research Institute indicates that overconsumption of fast food “triggers addiction-like neuroaddictive responses” in the brain, making it harder to trigger the release of dopamine. In other words the more fast food we eat, the more we need to give us pleasure; thus the report suggests that the same mechanisms underlie drug addiction and obesity.

This addiction to processed food is the result of decades of vision and hard work by the industry. For 50 years, says David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and author of “The End of Overeating,” companies strove to create food that was “energy-dense, highly stimulating, and went down easy. They put it on every street corner and made it mobile, and they made it socially acceptable to eat anytime and anyplace. They created a food carnival, and that’s where we live. And if you’re used to self-stimulation every 15 minutes, well, you can’t run into the kitchen to satisfy that urge.”

And this, plus pervasive food advertising, contributes to the problem of cheap, non-nutritious, readily available food… in grocery stores, that one can “cook.” There IS a disparity in nutrition and health between those with ready access to funds and those without, and not just because poorer demographics allegedly eat at MacDonalds every day. The answer isn’t simple — ie: go to the grocery store and cook — but complicated and multi-faceted. The piece scratches the surface (very well), but we have to challenge food subsidies and food advertising (and truth in advertising!) if we want to see any real change. We live in a world where salt-laden, reconstituted pasta  costs less than fresh pasta + fresh tomatoes, basil & olive oil. Where soft drinks cost less than water.  Where people choose potato chips for snacks, not carrot sticks. There’s a lot to work on.

I want to hear your thoughts! 

(and for the record, I really, really liked the NYT article… just felt it suffered from upper middle classism just a smidge — the sweet assumption that the average person can simply walk into a grocery store and make affordable, healthy choices for cooking. Come on. Nine times of ten I would choose ramen & mac & cheese… and I know better!)

A 290 lbs man is suing fast food chain White Castle for refusing to enlarge their booths, according to the New York Post.

From the article:

“They’re stationary booths,” he told The Post. “I’m not humongous, [but] I’m a big guy. I could not wedge myself in.”

“As I looked around the restaurant, I saw that there were no tables and chairs that could accommodate a person that merely wanted to sit down and eat his meal,” Kessman wrote.

Kessman claims he has no problem finding a place to take a load off at other fast-food places, and fits easily into airline seats.

<snip>
The Rockland County man says the chain’s uncomfortable booths violate the civil rights of fat people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is “applicable, not only to me, but to pregnant women and to handicapped people,” he said.

“I just want to sit down like a normal person,” said Kessman, who is suing for bigger chairs and unspecified damages.

I am of two minds about this. My knee-jerk reaction is two fold: a) JFC, enough with litigious America and b) disability? Really?

Here’s the thing: I do not think of myself as disabled. I don’t think of my fellow fat & obese friends as disabled. As victims. To be pitied. (I also generally don’t compare obesity to pregnancy or being handicapped, but oh well) Yes, there are obese individuals who are handicapped by their weight. They can be and are discriminated against and should be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. But the average overweight/obese person? Not really disabled, IMO…

Does it really violate my civil rights that I don’t fit into a plastic booth manufactured decades ago?

I don’t think of a 290 lbs guy with a big beer gut not being able to sidle into a booth at White Castle as disabled, or discriminated against. If you click on the article and look at the picture, you can tell what kind of booths they are — some of the old school booth installations in an old fast food restaurant. I’ve been in those booths before. Yes, they are uncomfortable — I’ve banged my knee before, too! It’s not because I’m fat, though. It’s because I’m TALL and these booths were manufactured when people were a lot shorter (and, yes, less rotund, on average).

And I’m sorry, but he describes being humiliated because he hit his knee and couldn’t fit, so he refused to go back? Really? That’s just being overly dramatic and sensitive, if you ask me.

Would it be nice if White Castle reinstalled their booths? Yes. Should they have to? No. Could this man have asked for a bloody chair? Yes. Is this lawsuit over the top and a bit ridiculous. Yes.

What do you think?

Personally, I’m uncomfortable with being told that, as a fat person, I have a disability. I think that further stigmatizes fat as bad, fat people as victims and being fat as something to be pitied. This man wasn’t involved in an incident where someone demonized him for being fat — the company didn’t do anything to him. I don’t think a piece of hard plastic can violate your civil rights, IMO. But I recognize that this is my personal opinion, as a no-longer-that-fat person. So.

(also, I really hate the NY Post headline)

Every so often, you get a comment that incenses. I am… concisely challenged, so no surprise when a passionate response balloons into monster of a comment.

Yes, this is about Maggie Goes On A Diet… again. Dead horse, I AM BEATING YOU. It’s no longer truly about Maggie Goes on a Diet, but about the various reactions to it — especially those in favor — and what that says about the United States, our young girls and how we view fat people.  This individual took exception to this particular point from my original Maggie post:

“You know what would be nice? A children’s book about a fat girl who LIKES HERSELF and people are NICE TO HER. And she can EAT HEALTHY and, hell!, still be STAR OF THE SOCCER TEAM, but doesn’t lose any weight. Because she’s healthy and happy wherever her body decides to sit, weight and size-wise. THAT WOULD BE NICE.”

Now, I think that is my salient point! A happy fat kid who can be Healthy At Every Size — as a soccer star! How can anyone disagree with that?

Oh, I forgot: THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC, BOOGITY BOOGITY BOO.

This is the comment that I received this morning (emphasis mine):

How about we appreciate the book as it is written as it has a lot of important points that young girls (and boys)can undoubtedly relate to. And for you, why don’t you start working on your own book so you can choose your own message. Everybody needs to stop acting so outraged for someone addressing a very real and very large (no pun intended) problem in our country-obesity! Focus your energy on ways to help not hinder. Our young need motivation to get into healthier lifestyles and this book sounds like a great example of how they can improve their lives and their health!

Here is what I wrote, then felt like a Crazy Person to post in response – I like to rebut idiocy, but don’t want an individual to feel attacked. I am turning it into a post, because what this commenter said is reflective of views I’ve seen on Tumblr, Huffington Post, Gawker and dozens of other places. And my response is for MORE than just this one commenter:

Here’s the thing. You seem to be as brainwashed as everyone else about the “obesity epidemic” and the common steps that people take to “solve it.” Namely: fat shaming, and telling girls that the only thing that matters about them is how they look. The book “as it is written” tells young girls that no one will like them if they’re fat, that you can’t be healthy fat (a lie, especially at age 14!) and that the only way to be active and have people like you is to conform and get skinny.

I was actually a fat kid, so let me tell you what fat boys and girls can relate to. Yes, we can relate to bullying. But you know what I could have related to when I was a fat little 8-year-old? A character in the media who was fat and HAPPY. Instead, I saw happy thin people and miserable, lazy, unattractive fat people — I got the message that I was Not OK and I should Do Something About It. Enter a compulsive eating disorder, and a lifetime of yo-yo dieting. I am 27, and only just learned to unconditionally love myself this year! Books like this promote eating disorders, as well as girls seeing themselves as objects, because the most important thing about us is our body. I went in the opposite direction, rebelling against thin standards (subconsciously). So many girls will see a book like this and develop orthorexia, anorexia, bulimia, compulsive exercising disorder — you name it.

This book is NOT about a “healthy lifestyle.” You can have a healthy lifestyle and be overweight. This book is about a sad fat girl who gets thin and happy. Obesity is a problem in this country, but not because girls aren’t “trying hard enough.” Look at the advertising industry. Images on TV, film, magazines. The way that we talk about fat people — like lazy, slovenly lepers. How the cheapest, most readily available food to 90% of society is absolute crap. These are problems that contribute to obesity. NOT little girls not trying hard enough. If little girls (and boys) learned to love themselves and knew that you can be healthy — yes, totally healthy! — and not have to be a size two, then maybe they wouldn’t enter the destructive cycle of dieting, which actually contributes to obesity.

I am not a children’s book author — it is actually one of the most competitive fields of publishing, which is why this author self-published. I am working on other creative material and you know what I write? Happy fat characters. I am trying to do something about it, including but not limited to this blog. And that includes calling out ridiculous examples of middle-aged fat men writing books for 6-year-olds that tell them how to diet.

And it’s true, lovely blog readers – my not-quite-formed novel features — gasp! — and Not Thin main character. She’s not a Big Girl, as it is not a Big Girl Does Stuff kind of book, but she is, incidentally, Not Thin and is — shockingly! — happy and loved and interesting and Does Stuff that has nothing to do with her body.

This commenter is right — we have to Do Something! But not because there is an “obesity epidemic.” Yes, we have a problem with obesity, but one of the problems is that we only accept a narrow, incredibly thin standard as beautiful, likeable and acceptable.  I’ve lived in countries that don’t worship the alter of size zero, and you know what? Their average size is smaller than ours. They don’t have as much shit food being shoved down people’s throats by the media. They don’t have as many morbidly obese people as we do. The “solution” to the “problem” is to reframe our thinking about bodies and food. NOT teach girls how to diet.

An editorial in the New York Times proposes that an excess tax be applied to sugary drinks (sodas) and other unhealthy, processed foods. On the flip side, it also proposes the money earned from the tax be applied to subsidize fruits, veggies, etc. and make them more affordable.

The editorial says:

Other countries are considering or have already started programs to tax foods with negative effects on health. Denmark’s saturated-fat tax is going into effect Oct. 1, and Romania passed (and then un-passed) something similar; earlier this month, a French minister raised the idea of tripling the value added tax on soda. Meanwhile, Hungary is proposing a new tax on foods with “too much” sugar, salt or fat, while increasing taxes on liquor and soft drinks, all to pay for state-financed health care; and Brazil’s Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program features subsidized produce markets and state-sponsored low-cost restaurants.

Putting all of those elements together could create a national program that would make progress on a half-dozen problems at once — disease, budget, health care, environment, food access and more — while paying for itself. The benefits are staggering, and though it would take a level of political will that’s rarely seen, it’s hardly a moonshot.

At the root, I am with this writer. Heavily taxing these horrible foods could act as a deterrent to people buying them. Mostly, I like the idea of subsidies for healthy food. But, instead why not:

• remove subsidies currently given to the industries  that produce high fructose corn syrup & junk food? (instead of taxing it on the backend, make it more expensive for corporations to create)
• regulate junk food advertising (specifically and especially to kids), much as has been done with tobacco products in the past. A HUGE part of the problem is bogus claims in advertising & brainwashing campaigns. (for example: Kraft American cheese is actually not cheese. It’s a “cheese product” — yet they are allowed to advertise to kids & parents that it’s cheese!)

Both of these aren’t exactly *easy* but would be less obviously consumer punishing — do you know what kind of a shit-fit the average American would throw over increased taxes on junk food?

More interesting tidbits from later in the piece:

A 20 percent increase in the price of sugary drinks nationally could result in about a 20 percent decrease in consumption, which in the next decade could prevent 1.5 million Americans from becoming obese and 400,000 cases of diabetes, saving about $30 billion.

…

Other ideas: We could convert refrigerated soda machines to vending machines that dispense grapes and carrots, as has already been done in Japan and Iowa. We could provide recipes, cooking lessons, even cookware for those who can’t afford it. Television public-service announcements could promote healthier eating. (Currently, 86 percent of food ads now seen by children are for foods high in sugar, fat or sodium.)

…

We could institute a national, comprehensive program that would make us a world leader in preventing chronic or “lifestyle” diseases, which for the first time in history kill more people than communicable ones.

If that’s true? Ok, perhaps there is some weight to this idea. (also: see that thing about advertising to kids? This is why I believe in regulation)

What do you think?

I have a confession to make: I have become enthralled with TLC’s show Extreme Couponing. The stingy saver in me is fascinated by how these (mostly) women save SO MUCH MONEY on so much food/lifestyle products. The show is over for this season (WOE), but one thought lingers with me.

After watching episode after episode, something began to niggle in the back of my mind. As the camera flashed over stockpiles and items spilling into carts, I noticed a pattern: by only purchasing food with coupons that make the food incredibly cheap or free, these shoppers are, by and large, feeding their families — and children! — ABSOLUTE CRAP.

Some of the products I saw families buy in bulk to feed their families:

• frozen pizza (and not the “good” kind)
• Mentos candies
• Butterfinger bars (in bulk?!?!)
• Gatorade
• Mountain Dew (and all manner of soft drinks)
• ramen noodles (and all possible permutations on this/brands)
• potato chips/Chex Mix (etc.)
• juice boxes
• high fat crackers (such as Cheez-Its)
• instant Mac & Cheese (ie: Kraft)
• cake mix
• high sugar cereals (all varieties)
• instant rice (and other high sodium “instant” items)
• ice cream
• salad dressing
• Pilsbury frozen crescent rolls (and similar)

And you know what I saw only TWO families buy all season? Fresh produce.

I am no saint — I eat some of the above, or grew up eating it. But I did not and do not subsist of an entire diet of these highly processed, heavily marketed “foods.” Watching these families buy 200 packages of ramen, it made me sick to my stomach knowing they were raising their KIDS on this “food.” Most of these products aren’t ones that any family *needs*. But if you have a coupon and it is cheap or “free,” they’ll buy it.

The problem is, food manufacturers tend to provide coupons for the worst of their foods — the brands they want to push onto American families, and especially to their children — high sugar drinks, snacks and the like. These foods have little to no natural ingredients, are high in sugar, sodium and “flavor enhancers.” The expense of buying in bulk and eating cheap may be these families’ health.

I am all about the non-food items these extreme couponers get – I am jealous of their deodorant & shave gel stockpiles. But you couldn’t PAY me to eat all that processed junk… but is essentially what food companies are doing via their coupon deals. Paying American families to buy their crap, and perpetuate their brands as essential.

What do you think? Did you watch? Do you extreme coupon?

Here is one of the moms who actually bought produce. There were no coupons in the paper, so she emailed the company and asked for a deal on bananas.

You can watch more videos here.

In my guest post on All The Weigh last week (The Invisible [Horrible, Lazy, Unattractive] Fat Person), I talked about how pervasive fat hate — and self hate — is, and that it starts young. In one study, 9-year-old girls ascribed patently negative words to pictures of fat people, and positive words to pictures of thin people.

Now, go younger. Good Morning America featured the story of a six-year-old girl who thinks she is fat. They also assembled a group of young girls to talk about fat, diets and then evaluate pictures of children — thin and chubby. The results? Terrible:

I had a major flashback watching that panel. Some of those girls literally look just like girls I went to elementary school with. I *am* the “chubby wubby” in the blue shirt (omgggggg puberty hitting at 8 and my “tater tots” coming in).

Children get self-hating/fat hating messages everywhere — on TV, in movies, magazines, adverts and their own parents and teachers. They internalize these messages, and turn around and bully each other — a girl in the bathroom asked this six-year-old why she had a fat tummy! What does this say about the adults in these girls’ lives? One girl observes that her mom goes to the gym because she thinks she is overweight — but the daughter doesn’t think so. Another says their teacher is on a diet and “can’t eat cake,” and they ask her when she will be done and she says “not yet.” (even six-year-olds know you can’t keep up a restriction diet, eh?) Can I just say: why the HELL did a teacher tell her students that she’s on a diet? Totally inappropriate.

Listen to these girls and what they’re saying — “my teacher told me,” “my mommy told me”… that I need to be healthy so I don’t get fat.

This is what the health-obsessive awareness campaigns & culture are getting us: not children who are properly healthy minded, but those who fear and stigmatize fat & obesity, and believe you can’t be healthy and “fat.” Problem is, their concept of “fat” is ridiculously skewed, as well.

If the children are our future… the future is bleak.

The Huffington Post has published an article that discusses the trend of schools sending students home with report cards that feature their BMI. Plus nutritional and exercise tips.

All I gotta say is: WOAH.

First of all, BMI is problematic, for a number of reasons that we’ve previously discussed. It is NOT the ideal measure of health, though I suppose in children it’s better than nothing. But what will a school’s telling parents that their child is underweight, “normal,” overweight or obese actually *do*?

Apparently, American parents don’t realize their kids are fat. Quote:

…A 2010 survey from Trust for America’s Health found that 84 percent of parents believe their children are at a healthy weight, even though almost one third of kids are actually overweight or obese.

Well, for one — you can be overweight and be healthy. I was a fat kid. Like, 125lbs at age 8 (and maybe 5 foot 4). I know this because I remember this one awful day when they weighed us at school and I was the second heaviest, after the “fat kid” in our class (the one who got picked on a lot — generally, I was spared). I will always remember how the dial stopped at 125, and my embarrassment.

But I wasn’t unhealthy. I know that sounds CRAY-ZEE since obviously I was stuffing Doritos and Oreos into my mouth (um, sometimes), but the food that I was being given by my mother was, by and large, healthy — lots of salad, grilled chicken, fish, fruits & vegetables and very limited processed snacks. (I got my processed snacks elsewhere, thanks!) I wasn’t a sporty kid, but I was moderately active (walked to and from school, games of tag, hop skotch, etc). I count myself pretty lucky, especially compared to all the poor kids I knew (and know) who weren’t getting nutritionally sound food. I was — but I was also fat. (this said: portion control wasn’t my strong suit. It’s not like I got fat by magic)

My point is, parents with little fatties might respond to a survey and say their child was a healthy weight — especially if they have a bit of kid-pudge or puberty weight — and it’s not the end of the world. But of course, we’re not talking about these parents. BMIs on report cards are meant to reach the parents who, fairly, are probably massively overweight (or obese) themselves and have no perspective on what is a healthy weight for kids. People have no proper concept of what’s a healthy weight for their DOGS & CATS… so that they don’t get it with kids is no surprise. (srsly people: fat dogs & cats = NOT FUNNY OR CUTE).

Here’s the thing: BMIs, nutritional and exercise tips going out to parents of kids in impoverished, or even just lower middle class areas isn’t going to do any good. Nutritional tips are fine and dandy, but I’d reckon a lot of the parents of these obese kids are not financially or logistically able to implement them. And exercise tips? Um, school, how about you use that government mandated P.E. time that fat kids like me hate with a passion to, I don’t know, actually exercise children. Or give them proper recess time so they can run around like mad-men & women.

So I’m healthily skeptical of this. If I got a BMI on my kid’s report card, I’d roll my eyes and tell the school to stop parenting my bloody children. But that’s just me. Maybe it’ll reach some parents…

But can you imagine being that kid? I know we played games where we’d peek at others’ report cards to see who got what — I would DIE if kids saw my BMI. Especially if it said I was obese.

A Chicago public school has banned brought-from-home packed lunches, in the interest of promoting healthier eating habits for students. The principal enacted this policy after finding students had bag lunches consisting of sugary sodas and potato chips.The school will make exceptions for students with allergies, but otherwise, students will be restricted to school-provided cafeteria meals.

Ok, where to start? First of all, get ready for a Grade A clusterf*ck. I see where the principal is coming from, I do, but really? Arguing that America’s schools have more nutritional food than what a mom/dad can pack for their child? Jamie’s Food Revolution says otherwise. So do I, a fat kid who grew up in American schools, subsisting on this dreck. You know what was a HUGE part of my losing weight in high school? I stopped eating in the cafeteria and started bringing my lunch.

Quote:

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

Has this principle MET children? You want to protect kids from unhealthful food choices by taking away their packed lunches and giving them the full spread of a cafeteria? Kids are STUPID. I include myself in this. Given the choice between a salad bar and french fries? We’re going to choose french fries. My school had french fries on offer EVERY DAY. So I ate them pretty much every day. Other go-tos — pizza (almost always available), and entrees like sloppy joes, fish sandwiches, hamburgers, hot dogs, mac & cheese, etc. etc. Does any of that sound healthy? Yeah, it’s not. But it fits the “nutritional guidelines” because technically these things were served with “vegetables”/fruit and breads. (fruit = sugary fruit cup, btw; veggies were often fried – fried okra, I miss you!).

Here’s the thing about school lunch programs in the U.S.: yes, theoretically, they serve a “balanced meal” to children. However, they serve this “balance” based on the very much NOT balanced food pyramid, which encourages giving children three times as many servings of starches/breads/carbs as they need, reconstituted/from frozen/deep fried “food” such as chicken fingers and “hamburgers” and icky, meager “vegetables” that are unappetizing, fried or generally left uneaten by actual children. Your “nutritional” school lunch is bollocks, America. Kids eating school food are eating pizza, french fries, hamburgers, hot dogs, “bread” rolls, sugary milk and juices, soft drinks, candy and chips. (the latter three, if not sold directly in the cafeteria, are available in vending machines at a lot of middle & high schools). There is no nutritional value in over-starched white bread rolls. There is no nutritional value in deep-fried vegetables. And there’s definitely no nutritional value in reconstituted/frozen/low-grade “meat.”

In all fairness to this particular school, their food is through what looks to be a half-way decent company. Here is their menu for the DC public schools for the month of April. However, the thing with kids? Just because you give them fruit/vegetables, doesn’t mean they’ll eat it. Also, just because this company provides the school’s mains doesn’t mean they don’t have a french fry/pizza station – just like mine did. ALSO, just because the pizza crust is multi-grain doesn’t mean it isn’t greasy and fattening…

Parents sending bagged lunches don’t get to be the saints in this scenario, though. The bagged lunch “industry, ” as such, markets equally processed non-food substances to kids, which their parents pack in their lunch because otherwise they “won’t eat anything.” We get Lunchables (sadly the lesser of evils, all things considered), Dungeroos (dipping cookies in icing – healthy!), Cheese snacks (dipping salty crackers in fake cheese, yay), bags of chips, juice boxes loaded with sugar, etc. For every parent packing a Gogurt, apple and turkey sandwich, you get ten who buy the Lays/Doritios multi-pack and throws it in a paperbag w/ some PixiStix, a juice box and maybe a PB&J. I can certainly imagine parents packing lunches for their children consisting mainly of snack packs, juice and sugar with little to no protein or actual food. I completely agree with this principle that many parents send their children to school with absolute crap to eat.

But taking away that option to pack your kid’s lunch ALSO takes away the choice from parents NOT to have their kids subsisting on french fries, greasy pizza and the like from the cafeteria lunches. Kids who bring packed lunches actually don’t have a choice. They have to eat what their parents give them, unless they have money to buy school lunch, or swap with friends. If you pack a decent lunch, that’s the best “choice” you could give you kid — instead of letting 15-year-olds with no impulse control run wild in the lunch line.

Plus, packing a bag lunch is CHEAPER. Can you really force parents to double their child’s lunch budget, only to have them eating crap?

What do we think? Is this school’s catering company robust enough to warrant this policy? Personally, the mere thought of taking away the OPTION for a packed lunch makes me itch. Giving up school cafeteria food was the thing that made me successful on Weight Watchers in high school. I made all sorts of bad choices with school lunch (and then at college dining halls LOL). Can’t the principal, I don’t know, hold nutritional classes for parents about packing better lunches, instead of taking their choice away?