Sandy Szwarc’s post on Baby Weight Watchers infuriated me.
First we hear that kids are being purposefully malnourished in Florida schools, and now this?
An “alarming” crisis of large babies in Scotland was reported yesterday as evidence of a worsening obesity epidemic. Fat mothers were blamed for putting their babies’ health at risk by Tam Fry, honorary chairman of the Child Growth Foundation, who said: “There are a significant number of mothers who are not only obese but alarmingly so, and they are giving birth to alarmingly large babies. Scotland’s obesity problem has obviously caused the average weight of babies to zoom up.” [note: by 2.24 oz!]
Even articles in baby magazines are telling new parents, “especially mothers,” they need to “fat-proof” their babies to save them from the health dangers that go along with a “fat-filled future.” In Baby Expert, mothers were given an eight-point plan for watching their baby’s weight to stop their baby from becoming a fat toddler. “Your child’s first 12 months are the most critical in setting him on the right path to a healthy weight,” Fry was quoted as saying.
Do you know what happens when you “fat-proof” your baby? It’s been shown that malnourishment can cause stunting and permanently lower BMI (i.e., a shifting down of the weight setpoint)—why is this desirable, besides winning a ‘skinny’ child and giving into the Obesity EpiPanic? Does a parent really think that malnourishment can be in any way, shape, or form (pun intended) good for their children? Maybe if you want them to have stunted growth, deficient renal tubular function, retarded neuromotor development, and impaired learning capacity.
Fine, you say! Expose them to undernutrition (i.e., a diet) after they’re born. Perhaps if you want permanent height stunting and Irreversible damage to the CNS , in addition to your precious acquisition of a thin child.
Suck on that 29.78 million dollars worth of child abuse, Scotland.