Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Parents are to blame for kids' obesity
By Alexander Comisar
Daily Trojan (USC)
03/06/2007

(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES — America is too fat. The health community has been conveying this message with increasing urgency for a number of years. More recently, health officials - and perhaps more importantly the media ???????- have narrowed the spotlight to a more specific demographic: American kids.

The issue of childhood obesity is grabbing huge attention in this country, and justifiably so. According to the American Heart Association, 15.2 percent of white-male children between ninth and 12th grade were overweight in 2005. The percentage was greater for blacks and Hispanics at 15.9 and 21.3, respectively.

So whom do we blame? Adults can only blame their eating habits and their genes for their obesity. No moral questions there. Children, however, are their parents' responsibility. If a kid gets fat, it is his parents' fault. In America, for the most part, the conversation ends there. But our neighbors across the pond seem to be pushing the envelope a little bit further.

England has a problem with childhood obesity as well. Published data from 2001 by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology reported that 8.5 percent of 6-year-olds and 15 percent of 15-year-olds were obese.

Last week, British officials were deliberating whether to take action against the mother of Connor McCreaddie, an 8-year-old boy weighing in at 218 lbs. The proposed plan was to consider the mother, Nicola McKeown, a perpetrator of child abuse. Although this concept might warrant some initial skepticism, it is clearly plausible. Granted, the mother claims she is not normally aware of Connor's snack breaks, but letting a child eat whatever food in unlimited quantities is a fatal form of neglect.

The issue is not whether the mother deserves to be punished. She clearly does. But at what expense? Punishing McKeown for child abuse would mean removing the boy from her custody. Typical children his age lament moving to new elementary schools and finding new friends. Connor would have to win the love of a new mom and new siblings. In addition, there is reason to say he would continue to eat poorly in his mother's absence. This change would be especially painful considering that he does not think there is anything wrong with his mom. McKeown might be negligent, but Connor obviously does not see that since he acknowledges his fault in becoming obese.

This situation brings certain emotional scarring, which could lead to psychological and medical conditions much worse than obesity. On the other hand, the potential for positive change is negligible. So what if he eats fewer Twinkies every day? His family is gone.

Decisions about child abuse should be made for the benefit of the child, not to punish the abuser. In most cases, addressing one of these issues means solving the other as well. The government has a choice. It can either punish McKeown at the expense of her boy's emotional stability or refrain from punishment and pursue other methods of addressing Connor's weight problem. Of course, neglecting to punish McKeown might create unnecessary confusion about the motives of British child-abuse law.

Protecting people is more important than protecting legislation. After all, legislation is designed to preserve quality of life. If it does not do that in a particular instance, we should be using something that does.

[ Back to Student Voices ]