Published: 5 August, 2008, 19:22
Edited: 5 August, 2008, 19:22
Overweight children in Britain should not be labelled ‘obese’ because it's offensive – that’s one of the guidelines in the government’s plan to fight the growing obesity problem. The issue is a worldwide problem: ‘healthy’ children’s meals at p
No more obese kids in UK
The UK's Department of Health says the word 'obese' should not be used when describing how much children weigh. Parents of primary school pupils will start getting letters next month telling them how much their children weigh in the latest effort to control ever-expanding waistlines among Britain's youth.
Instead of ‘obese’, children will be classified as 'underweight', a 'healthy weight', ' overweight' or 'very overweight'. Health bosses say the word 'obese' is a 'turn-off' for parents.
But critics say it’s important to be honest with parents and to shock them, arguing that it's the only way to force them to take measures to improve their children’s lifestyle and nutrition.
The measurements will be calculated using the child's body mass index (BMI), the scoring system used for classifying adults as overweight or obese. However, the actual BMI figure will not be provided because it is thought it would confuse parents.
Government statistics show that one in five children aged five and six is overweight or obese. That number rises to one in three among 11-year-olds.
The word “exercise” is also becoming taboo because it conveys “an unhelpful image to parents” and has no impact on parental behaviour. The term “being physically active” is now preferred.
Kids’ menus too high in calories
By contrast, the United States has no problem calling its kids ‘obese’.
Health chiefs there are targeting major restaurant chains to show how the items suggested for younger visitors are too high in calories.
Nearly every possible combination of the children’s meals at Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Sonic, Jack in the Box, and Chick-fil-A are too high in calories, writes the Associated Press, quoting a report by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest.
The study looked at kids’ menus at 13 large restaurant chains in the U.S., and found that 93% of 1,474 possible combinations of meals exceed the recommended number of calories a day for a child. The National Institute of Medicine says children aged between 4 and 8 should consume under 430 calories a day.
Is organic food the answer?
But are organically-grown crops nutritionally better that conventional ones? ‘No’, answers Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Food Science at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).
Rosen claimed he analysed a pro-organic report by Charles Benbrook and colleagues at the Organic Trade Association's Organic Centre and came to the conclusion that it only gave facts selected to support the authors’ point and ignored other data.
For instance, Benbrook and colleagues claimed that organic produce is 25% “more nutritious” than that which is produced by conventional agricultural practices. But Rosen says he recalculated some of the original data, because he says he noticed several inaccuracies. Rosen argues that his results show conventional products were actually 2% more nutritious than the organic varieties.
Rosen questions the validity of the data used by the organic researchers. He says, for example, that they analysed kiwi fruit including the peel, something which is removed before eating.
While scientists still argue about which food is better and whether restaurants are failing to provide adequate meals, parents face an uphill battle in their fight to grow their kids healthily – and to stay in good shape themselves.