Childhood obesity in America - Research Paper Example

?Obesity is considered as an epidemic in America (Deckelbaum and Williams, 2001, p.239S). The number of obese children in the US getting doubled in the last thirty years, the country is more than alarmed by the situation at hand (Deckelbaum and Williams, 2001, p.239S). Diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure accompany obesity in children as co morbidities (Deckelbaum and Williams, 2001, p.239S). There are many psychological aspects to both the reasons and consequences of childhood obesity in the country. This paper argues that there are two kinds of stigmatization at play as far as the major cause and consequence of childhood obesity is concerned. The first kind is part of the consequences of obesity and appears in the form of isolation and mocking by peer groups and society as a whole. The second kind of stigmatization is far subtler, and arises as a reverse influence, by which a child is prevented from taking nutritious food, having proper exercise and the necessary self-esteem; and this stigmatization, as this researcher envisages and calls it, is propagated by the media and implemented by the society. It is proposed that just as the isolation and inferior treatment of obese children by the society is to be described by the term, stigmatization, the creation of an environment that leaves the child no choice than become obese, also should be included within the meaning of the term, stigmatization. This is the stigmatization carried out by the capitalist society of the poor and low-income group of people, who are deprived of their health choices so that the economy can maximize the exploitation of them. In America, about eighty percent of children who are between the age of four and five are found to be either obese or overweight (Deckelbaum and Williams, 2001, p.240S). Certain curious aspects of the problem has been that girls are more prone to obesity here than boys and also the percentage is high among Mexican American children followed by non-Hispanic white children (Deckelbaum and Williams, 2001, p.240S). Though usually the perceived culprits of obesity, according to prevailing common sense, are the child and the parents alone, this is truly not the case. The very fact that low-income and middle income children are more at risk is suggestive of an element of stigmatization working against them. There is a kind of psychological suffocation act carried out by the media that creates the environment in favor of childhood obesity. The first element of this suffocation act is the “preoccupation” of the society as a whole, and media in particular, with food (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). Owing to this preoccupation, children from the very beginning of their awakening to social messages, get suffocated by one single message, “eat food!” (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). The media always show fat toddlers as healthy toddlers in all the visual representations, whether it be news, views or advertisement and this is the realm where the suffocation act extents to the parents as well. It is a well-established fact that again, when the child reaches the age of making food choices on his/her own, that is when he/she is “over 2 years old”, the child gets exposed to advertisements on a range of attractive yet unhealthy food items (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). Figures show that “children are exposed to an estimated 10000 advertisements for food per year, 95% of which are for fast foods, candy, sugared cereal and soft drinks” (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). An important second aspect of this suffocation act is that sweets has been used as a very common reward given to a child for bringing about the “desired” behavioral change and even psychologists prescribe it (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). Apart from this, parents are also influenced by the pressure that is put on them by advertisements which say that sweets, and processed food are a way to show your child and the society “how much you love” your children (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). This is yet another psychological blackmailing act that emotionally and economically suffocate the parents. Though each and every food packet available in the market contains information on the nutritional value of it and the calories involved, these messages are displayed in as small letters as possible (O’Dea and Eriksen, 2010, p.215). The society is also part of a conspiracy, which allows “marketing of calorie-dense, low nutritional quality food to children” (O’Dea and Eriksen, 2010, p.215). While justifying this conspiracy as a matter of choice, the counter-argument that arises is that why are tobacco products and liquor not allowed to be marketed to children. If this restriction is in the name of health, then high calorie and unhealthy food items also need to be restricted from marketing to children. But when it comes to this issue, the government and the society is callously unconcerned. This is so because it is the high-income groups who decide the government policies. They have the food choices to keep their health intact, and secondly, they are mostly on the sellers’ (of high-calorie food) side because they are financially benefited from them in the form of election funds and other financial tie-ups. So these policy-makers are thinking not about protecting the health of the children of low-income groups but about increasing the financial gains of the big food processing companies. When a child shows the tendency of over eating and thereby getting obese, the parents are prevented again by the society and media from controlling the eating habits of the children as it is publicly discoursed that such controlling behavior could push the child into a state of depression (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.58). Fearing this, the parents are forced to remain diffident onlookers. As media suppresses the messages instructing about healthy food from the mainstream discourse, the parents also are kept away from becoming mentally prepared to give their children healthy food. They are also unable to understand which are healthy foods and which are unhealthy in the whole sense. Keeping away such crucial information amounts to nothing less than stigmatization. Meanwhile, the rich people in the US society are flooded with health-related social messages as the costly magazines they read, the big schools they study at, and the costly food choices they are offered, are full of the same crucial information. Teacher modeling and peer competition are two great influences on the food choices of the children once they enter schools (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.61). The peers are as much or even more influenced by the food stigmatization discussed above and when they interact, the influence gets doubled or tripled. Eating specific kinds of (of course the most well-advertised) food items become a symbol of affluence among the peers. When one parent restricts a high calorie food popularized by media, the child will constantly complain that his/her friend was eating the same food and his/her parents were not as insensitive to their child’s desires as his/her own. The deprived child might in the long run develop a strong and unhealthy desire towards the same restricted food item. Another peer influence comes out of the shared eating habits of school children. The last but not least issue is that nowadays the parents are liberally giving money to their children and the children are making use of this money mostly to buy candies, sweets and sweetened soft drinks. There are also some social indicators suggesting that children tend to overeat because the parents do not spend enough time with them and communicate with them, leaving them with a feeling of isolation and abandonment (Kiess, 2010, p.128). It is clinically proven that “some obese children eat even when they are not hungry but they feel emotionally upset, stressed or frustrated” (Kiess, 2010, p.128). The cause of this behavior can often be attributed to “parental lack of attention or neglect” (Keiss, 2010, p.128). Especially in the present society where the pace of life and work has increased like never before, the parents are finding it difficult to spend quality time with children and this has a negative impact on the same. The “peer rejection of obese children” is one among the major consequences of childhood obesity (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.64). The adults including parents also tend to reject an obese child, which will make the child depressed and with very low “self-esteem” (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.65). As a result, the child will have a constant sense of self-blame (Schwartz and Puhl, 2003, p.65). From the above discussion, it is clear that only by understanding the stigmatization that leads to obesity can the society deal with the stigmatization rising out of obesity. To tackle the issue of childhood obesity, a number of intervention strategies have been suggested. These include, presenting the children with “models of behavior change”, research and development of obesity “prevention science”, increased depiction by the media of “social models of health”, a focus given to health promotion by schools, teacher training for awareness on obesity and intervention methods, and individualized plans created by teachers to lead an obese child into healthy eating (O’Dea and Eriksen, 2010, p.60-62). But along with this, the food related stigmatization of the lower-income groups has to be understood and rectified through awareness and legal action. References Deckelbaum, R.J. and Williams, C.L. (4 November 2001), Childhood obesity: the health issue, Obesity Research, 9 (4), 239S-243S. O’Dea, J. and Eriksen, M. (2010), Childhood obesity prevention: international research, controversies, and interventions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kiess, W. (2004), Obesity in childhood and adolescence, Basel: Karger Publishers. Schwartz, M.B. and Puhl, R. (2003), Childhood obesity: a societal problem to solve, Obesity Reviews, 4, 57-71. Read More