The July 13 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association includes an opinion piece titled “State intervention in Life-Threatening Childhood Obesity,” by Dr. David Ludwig and Lindsey Murtagh. Dr. Ludwig, Harvard Associate Professor of Pediatrics, is a director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital, Boston. Lindsey Murtagh is a research associate for Harvard’s Department of Health Policy and Management.

The article makes the case that the government should intervene when children are very obese, and that some of these children should be placed in foster care. Mild to moderate childhood obesity, referred to as poor parenting, is compared to secondhand smoke in the household, where damage can often be lessened when a child reaches adulthood. Since secondhand smoke can lead to cancer and heart failure, as well as to life-threatening respiratory problems even before adulthood, I think they should have at least thrown morbid obesity into that category as well. We don’t remove children from their homes if their parents smoke. Instead, we educate the public on the dangers of smoking, including the dangers of secondhand smoke to children and the unborn. We require warning labels on cigarettes. We put anti-smoking public service ads on TV, radio and billboards. And to a great extent, it’s working. It has taken time, but not the separation of children from their parents.

Removing a child from a home, as the article recommends, when the only solutions to severe obesity-related health problems are bariatric surgery or foster care seems like a sound idea at first glance. But if a child’s health has deteriorated to the point that bariatric surgery must be performed immediately, the potential over-time effectiveness of foster care wouldn’t compare. Removing the child from the home would not fix the immediate, urgent health problem(s). In fact, it could make them worse by placing emotional stress on the child.

Then there is the obvious, that being torn from their families and thrown into a cold, generic system and into foster care won’t set obese children up emotionally to go along with lifestyle changes.

In addressing possible genetic causes of obesity and false accusations against parents, the authors make the comparison to a particular genetic cause of bone fractures. They claim that though the discovery of osteogenesis imperfecta opens the door to new ways to cope, discoveries of genetic causes of obesity do not do the same. This seems like an arbitrary claim, unless they have a crystal ball at Harvard. If a parent is given the knowledge that his child has a medical condition or a genetic deficiency, it may give him more defined or effective steps to take. Parents’ minds aren’t created with cookie cutters, and when children also aren’t, it shouldn’t be a reason for the government to break up families.

Our tax dollars are already spread too thin. We can’t afford for the government to invite themselves to our dinner tables and cart our children off to foster care. If we had money to burn, it would be better spent on eliminating causes, outside the home, of our obesity epidemic. Even without a fresh round of taxes there are things we could do.

The school lunch room is a huge contributor to childhood obesity. At least one of our local schools claims to serve healthy, fresh foods, yet what hits students’ trays is preformed meat substance patties or hot dogs, frozen pizza, syruppy canned vegetables, processed cheese, and the much bragged-on sweet potato fries that are cooked in a vat of grease and even fattier than regular fries. Juice costs a dollar or two extra, and isn’t real juice. Any fresh fruit is limited to about three bites worth per student. The school allows soda machines to be placed in the lunch room, though they shouldn’t be allowed on the grounds. And the government will do a better job feeding children than their parents?! Schools should stop relying on “food” services that provide slop. It may be financially comparable for them to use their own in-house staff and real, healthful food.

Eating habits are generally proportionate to income. Healthier foods can be more expensive than Cheese Puffs and Fun Dogs, especially if purchased blindly. We already offer food stamps to those who qualify. Why don’t we ban their use for Fun Dogs and soda, and enable and promote their use at more farmer’s markets? Many who rely on food stamps could also benefit from learning how to read labels and to better plan so that single ingredients can be bought in greater amounts and used for several meals.

When dealing with childhood obesity, foster care would be to family what soda is to water. A child’s ability to navigate food choices and daily activities is shaped at home, as it should continue to be. But parents nowadays are letting their kids down. A string of tragedies with the same cause tends to wake society up and bring about change. What a deep sleep we are in this time!