This week’s New York Times magazine included a piece from the idea lab about research that is being done ways to prevent obesity in newborns. The piece explains that the study of obesity (a disease that affects almost a third of the US population) focuses on lifestyle and genetic causes, but researchers are beginning to look into a third area as well, what they call “developmental programming.� This idea proposes that “like many aspects of our physiology, [obesity] can be traced to the months just before and after birth, when the brain and other organs are still fine-tuning themselves.�
Statements like these frighten me, for a variety of reasons. Mainly, I get scared because the implications seem to further burden the pregnant woman—not only is she already freaked out by all the things that could go “wrong� during her pregnancy (there are a million and one books telling her exactly what to eat, how to live, what to avoid), but now we can scare her with another proposition, that if her child later develops obesity, it’s her fault. The article references a few conditions in utero that might have negative effects: the “thermal environment� or stress hormones in the mother. Of course appetite and metabolism are two things they also think are developed during this phase of development.
The main scientists researching these possibilities are trying to develop an infant formula that would “program babies’ metabolisms to provide permanent resistance to excess pounds.� The author takes this one step further—that this formula could turn these children into one of those people (you know, that we all hate) who can eat whatever they want and not gain an ounce. Forget breast milk ladies—now we’ve got trimspa for the three month olds.
Beyond the scary implications of this kind of manipulation at such an early age—is this really what we want for our children? This kind of intervention assumes that excess weight is the only marker for an unhealthy body, which we know is not true. What about skinny fat? Even someone with what is considered a “normal� weight can have other health problems related to diet and exercise--high blood pressure, blocked arteries and high cholesterol. If weight gain is no longer a motivator for healthy eating, will we give in altogether? Also, we need fat, in certain amounts, it lines our organs and plays an important role in our body function.
The real scary sentiment is at the end of this piece where the author implies that the unhealthy eating habits “oceans of soda, mountains of baked goods and sparkling glaciers of ice cream� are an inevitable part of our society—so maybe it’s easier to change our babies than to change our habits.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is that newborn on a diet?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5760
i am not sure why we cant just focus on being healthy without weight coming into it. however, the fact of the matter is that obesity is a serious problem in this country, whether people want to admit it or not. i also have to say that while i know healthy can come in all shapes and sizes, the whole "skinny fat" phenomenon is far less common then the fat fat phenomenon. which is to say, i think it should be pretty clear that most people who are considered obese truly are unhealthy. that being said it would be nice for people to realize that health comes in a range of shapes and sizes. however by no means should we deny this obesity problem in our country in the name of feminism. it saddens me that i see that as pretty common in the feminist community. i do think we need to go about it a different way in terms of solving it though.
As one of those "skinny fat people" (plz don't hate, i really didn't get to choose! I just have a gorgeous mother!) I wonder what the consequences are of a formula that limits ability to gain weight. I know people even worse than me who eat eat eat and WANT to gain weight but can't. Could this cause them to unhealthily skinny? You can't know if a child will have an obesity problem or a "skinny" problem (can't gain weight). Wonder if they even thought about that flip side.
As one of those "skinny fat people" (plz don't hate, i really didn't get to choose! I just have a gorgeous mother!) I wonder what the consequences are of a formula that limits ability to gain weight. I know people even worse than me who eat eat eat and WANT to gain weight but can't. Could this cause them to be unhealthily skinny? You can't know if a child will have an obesity problem or an under-weight problem - both i know aren't good. Wonder if they even thought about that flip side.
thats a good point chell belle, although i think it may be a case of the fact that there are more overweight people who are unhealthy then people who look healthy but arent. i think if we just fvocvused on what is healthy for you then that would eliminate the problem altogether. bc people make it about weight when it shouldnt necessarily be.
Who wouldn't want to be one of those people who can eat anything they want and not gain an ounce? Is it too late for me to have some of that formula?
I work at a retail store and every day families come through my check out line. Pretty much every time a child comes through with their parents they beg and plead and sometimes scream at their parents to buy them the candy or sugary drinks that are in the line. And most of the time the parents give in and let their kid have whatever nonhealthy food item they choose. I think parents need to really start focusing on healthy eating and stop just feeding their kid sweets every time it squeals. It's really annoying how easily these parents just give in. But I don't have kids yet and haven't had to deal with a screaming 3 year old that wants sweets. So maybe I'm a little biased.
But yeah, it's ridiculous how they're blaming this on women. When I'm pregnant I won't drink or smoke, but damnit I will eat or drink or whatever else I want and no one better fuck with me.
Damn! Another magic bullet revealed to be a pipe dream!
Confound you feministing! You guys have got to stop dashing my dreams of getting something for nothing!
Additionally, my mom hates sweets. She never eats pastries or candy or ice cream, but when she was pregnant with me she ate them all the time.
And strangely, I have an insatiable sweet tooth, despite not having many sweets after I was born.
I think it is important to dissociate science from politics. Regardless of the social/political aspects of the above research, and regardless of the fact that "fat shaming" is terrible, obesity is indeed a serious health concern in America - which is to say that yes, we need to work on changing societal attitudes towards overconsumption, but at the same time, if there is a safe, tested, proven way to nip the tendency for obesity during infancy, why is it scary?
I don't see this as "blaming the woman". Unhealthy foods are just as dangerous to human bodies as cigarette smoke and alcohol.
Fundies often try to suppress science/ scientific research when it doesn't fit their world view. Let us not fall into the same trap. The statements made by Michael Cawthorne, in the article, are the statements of a scientist who is discussing results of his research and his ideas. Those are not socio-political comments and let us not treat them as such.
Beyond the scary implications of this kind of manipulation at such an early age—is this really what we want for our children?
That is a good question. In the end, the research being done might be useless if we can change our habits instead of pre-birth intervention. However, if one finds that changing our habits is too difficult, then this could still, perhaps someday with adequate testing and much more research, be a good tool.
This kind of intervention assumes that excess weight is the only marker for an unhealthy body, which we know is not true.
I think that is a false assumption on your part. This intervention is not seeking to prevent ALL sources of unhealthiness and NOWHERE does it say that excess weight is the only indicator of bad health. What it DOES say is that excess weight could be an indicator for bad health, and that this might be, someday, an effective way of preventing that.
Arglebargle.
"if there is a safe, tested, proven way to nip the tendency for obesity during infancy, why is it scary?"
Because I do not believe the formula industry, or the diet industry, when they try to tell me what is healthy; their track record is, shall we say, less than good.
If we want to address obesity, then we just have to stop with the shaming already. It is not something that is completely under an obest person's control. Or they wouldn't be so many of them.
There are so many contributing factors that should be dealt with before we fucking put infants and pregnant women on diet formulas that do God knows what to your body long term.
For example: stop allowing high fructose corn syrup in everything we eat (it's even in canned vegetables, for God's sake). Or how about banning plastics like bisphenol-A (used in most baby bottles!) that are hormone disruptors and have also been shown to have some effect in increasing obesity. Or maybe requiring more mixed-use building and sidewalks so that cars are not necessary to go to the drugstore, and people have the option to walk. Or how about giving grocery store chains and farmer's markets incentives to open in poor neighborhoods so that poor people (many of whom are obese) aren't limited to the white bread and Doritos that is all the drugstore carries?
Addressing any of these issues would help obesity levels for all people, and have the benefit of not introducing a new set of powerful chemicals into an infant's brain and body when they are most vulnerable. Or into the mother's body, come to that.
Breast milk is absolutely better for children than the best formula--formula is just a barely acceptable substitute, in that it does not give a child everything breastmilk does, and the fact that breastfeeding is becoming more popular leads me to wonder why all of a sudden slimming formula is getting all the news.
if there is a safe, tested, proven way to nip the tendency for obesity during infancy, why is it scary?
You know the phrase "Today's problems are yesterday's solutions?"
The time to prevent obesity in a child is when they are being weaned. Breast milk is (surprise!) GOOD for babies. Have these scientists never wondered that despite the years and years baby formula has been around, presumably being improved all the time, breast-fed kids are still healthier?
It IS a feminist issue because of what Miriam puts at the end.
The real scary sentiment is at the end of this piece where the author implies that the unhealthy eating habits “oceans of soda, mountains of baked goods and sparkling glaciers of ice cream� are an inevitable part of our society—so maybe it’s easier to change our babies than to change our habits.
Anti-fat people always talk about how "it's okay that I think fat people are disgusting, because it's unhealthy." But this sentiment shows that what these scientists are trying to do is NOT create a "healthy" new generation, but simply to create a "skinny" new generation.
Obesity is a disease now?
We are not talking about the formula industry here. We are talking about a rather well respected scientist making a statement about his research and the possibilities it creates. This is not a marketing message by "slimfast incorporated".
There is not one way to handle obesity. This "my way or the highway" attitude is exactly what frustrates me. We should absolutely stop shaming - but where exactly is the shaming in that article? In fact, the research being talked about here is talking about the SAME thing that you are. Being fat is not always in control of the individual - so this might be a way of enabling them to be healthier (from an obesity perspective) even in situations they cannot control. Or..are you of the opinion that just because obesity is not in control of the individual, it is not a problem for them?
And yes, I agree that there are many things we can do before we use this approach. Which is why I specifically mentioned that it would have to be tested and adequately researched before it is tried. But saying that this is outright a bad way without really seeing whether or not it can help is like saying "We shouldn't do research in trying to extract geothermal energy because there are so many better things we can do - like turning down the AC, and driving hybrid vehicles". The point is 0 it does not have to be either/or.
You are automatically assuming that this is a bad way simply because this is a "chemical". This knee-jerk "all chemicals are bad" attitude is strange to me.
Also, you are using the phrase "powerful chemical" when we don't even yet know what the final chemical/treatment will be. it might well be that this is a solution that is used only when all other options are exhausted and scientists might find out that it really isn't bad for you. Or they might find out that it is really dangerous, and thus, this entire idea will be discarded. At this point, we just don't know which of the above will happen.
Prejudging something based on inadequate information seems rather problematic to me.
I think it is important to dissociate science from politics.
I think that's a really important observation. It's a completely legitimate fear as to what might be done with the results of this research, but research is rarely condemnable in and of itself - more information tends to be good in the long run, not bad. Responsible citizens gather all of the information possible and then use to it make rational decisions. Legitimate worry about the rational decision-making process shouldn't cause us to not do research - that's just letting the morons win.
UGH!
Breast milk is the most healthy thing for a baby. These fuckers are messing with nature and putting babies at risk just to make buck. Gross.
And this, during World Breastfeeding Week:
http://worldbreastfeedingweek.org/
http://ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2007/08/breastfeeding_advocates_focus_on_legislation.php
You know the phrase "Today's problems are yesterday's solutions?"
Thankfully, that is not a truism. It is certainly true of many cases, but if one takes that thought to its logical conclusion, then the only ideal state of affairs is pre-civilization humanity. And that is why, I don't think that phrase can be used as a legitimate argument.
As a pregnant woman, I'm already getting enough crap from perfect strangers about what I should and should not be eating and drinking. I'd hate to see what my day would be like if people felt that it was a "scientific fact" that eating ice cream would make my baby obese. Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if our society trusted women instead of infantalizing them, but that day is a long time coming.
If you can't eat ice cream and nachos guilt-free while pregnant... why get pregnant?
I think the problem isn't going to come from research into the subject, but from the women's magazines who will invariably pick this up and turn it into "ARE YOU MAKING YOUR BABY FAT???!!" shocker headlines. People are so paranoid about obesity these days that it wouldn't take much to cause a huge problem in infant nutrition. An (anecdotal) example: A man I go to school with told me about his daughter, whose baby was losing weight and exhibiting just general unhealthfulness. The doctor asked her what she was feeding him. Her response was along the lines of, "Oh, we're very healthy in our house. He only eats nonfat foods." The doctor basically ordered her right there to go buy some frigging whole milk. (At least he was getting milk at all - the stories you hear about people putting babies on vegan diets terrify me). The point is that babies have certain nutrition needs, and one of those needs is fat. They're growing and developing very quickly. They have different metabolisms than adults, and things that are perfectly healthy for adults can be very unhealthy for infants. So yeah, lets do research on how to keep babies, children, and everyone else healthier. But let's also beware the fat-phobic media frenzy that is going to take this information and turn it into the latest diet food craze.
"Oh, we're very healthy in our house. He only eats nonfat foods."
How could anyone be so unaware that babies NEED fat!?
SarahMC--exactly! :)
But seriously, someone who sees me eating ice cream has no idea what my eating habits are. And more to the point, it's not really anyone's business.
Although my least favorite part of pregnancy is when I tell people I'm having a boy and they smile and say "Boys are so much easier (or better)! Girls have so much attitude, but a boy will love you."
I admit it, I didn't even read the other comments to see if this was a duplicate.
But it bears repeating:
OBESITY IS NOT A DISEASE.
Never was, never will be.
People say that? Sheesh. Girls may have attitudes for a while, but when you have a boy you're more likely to one day be the mother of a criminal!
[Not directing that at you personally!]
I am way more disturbed that the article implicates maternal stress hormones. There seems to be a lot of inquiry into maternal stress hormones lately. What better way to terrify pregnant women (or those who might become pregnant) into avoiding challenging roles, work, and social involvement?
Zuzu and lavalady, thanks for the reminder about word choice. I didn't even think about it when I used the word "disease" to talk about obesity. Either of you want to add more about the reasons it shouldn't be considered one?
-Miriam
At least half the time, that's the response I get. I always say "That's odd, my mother certainly never felt that way." What really strikes me as fucked up is that it is ALWAYS women who say that.
Peepers, the maternal stress hormones are a big issue for me right now. I certainly noticed a significant increase in fetal movement when I took a week's vacation last week after a horrifically stressful two weeks at work. There are a lot of reasons why that might be, but my gut tells me that I was overstressing and it was affecting the fetus. Although I don't think the fear of stress should ever stop a woman from fully participating in any given sphere of life, I do think pregnant women are at risk for much higher levels of stress--in addition to the considerable physical stress of pregnancy, you're often dealing with frantic worries about the health of the fetus, your health, your finances, and preparing for a maternity leave. While I'd hate to see a woman stressing about being stressed, I do think it is important that women give themselves permission to take a step back and speak up when they feel they are being asked to bite off more than they can chew.
Ank, what you don't seem to understand is that there is a reason certain research gets publicized and other does not. And as we live in a society that still makes a full-time practice of shaming women, particularly mothers, as well as having a hypocritical, hysterical attitude towards fat that has much more to do with bias than with health, my default skepticism is entirely justified.
If you looked into formulas and breast milk history at all, you would know that there is, quite frankly, still a great deal of ignorance on the subject of what is even in breast milk and why it's good for the baby. Also shameful episodes in which formula manufacturers sold substandard product (Nestle in Africa) that caused a great deal of suffering. Breast feeding is free, but you can make a profit with formula, and that is tied to the sudden decision by doctors several decades ago to tell women to stop breast feeding and buy "better" more "scientific" formula. Despite it still, even today, just being not as good for babies.
And if you'll notice, I did not recommend *one* approach to fighting obesity (which I would actually call fighting nutritional poverty; obese people are also often undernourished). I proposed several.
People want a magic bullet, and too many of them don't give a damn what it does to a developing child, and yes, I'm angry about it. An anti-obesity formula comes with a huge number of risks; improving our food supply, on the other hand, is far less likely to hurt an infant or bankrupt his mom who buys formula at 25.00 a can. Or more.
The author takes this one step further—that this formula could turn these children into one of those people (you know, that we all hate) who can eat whatever they want and not gain an ounce.
Why is it okay to hate people with that sort of a metabolism? If you want to be okay with overweight body types, it seems you need to also be okay with "average" and underweight body types.
I used to have one of those metabolism where no matter what I ate I never gained a pound. I was also incredibly underweight. I put up with my peers saying things like "god I hate you, you never get fat... it's so annoying how you can eat anything" for years, and it wasn't terribly pleasant. You know what's annoying? Having everyone focused on your body, which I'm sure people of all body types can attest to.
On the other side I'd have the concerned people who decided I had an eating disorder and thought they should "help" me. People who barely knew me, knew nothing about my eating habits, health, etc. BTW, f you tell someone that has decided you have an eating disorder that you don't have one, they will never believe you. You're just in denial. They think they know more by looking at you than your doctor or your family.
We're all different, and we all have our own issues, which are our own business. Disliking someone because they appear to have something you wish you had, or because you don't like the way they look is unbelievably petty.
"Who wouldn't want to be one of those people who can eat anything they want and not gain an ounce?"
Someone who is now dangerously underweight wouldn't want to be like that, I bet.
"'Oh, we're very healthy in our house. He only eats nonfat foods.'
"How could anyone be so unaware that babies NEED fat!?"
Lemme guess, someone who thinks all weight gain is evil...even when (or if) he or she expects his or her child to gain height?
"I'm no scientist, but it sounds like we are talking about regulating a baby's appetite. Babies--even after they wean--need a lot of fat in their diets--among other things for brain development. It sounds to me like this baby formula product will play on parents' fears and cause them to mess with their babies' appetites. This sounds profoundly wrongheaded and dangerous. Babies need to eat; a baby's appetite is a signal of what it needs nutritionally. Modifying a baby's appetite sounds to me like a recipe for disaster."
Good point.
"Obesity is a disease now?"
It depends on who you ask, but it's no fun to be obese. Can't we all agree that the vast majority of people would rather be thin than overweight?
emjaybee, no offence, but I don't think this is a question of what research gets published and what doesn't. it is more a question of whether or not it is right to immediately frame said research in an "us versus them" framework.
In the end, the article is about a piece of research that does NOT directly pertain to the baby formula industry (yet), so I am not sure why that is relevant.
At this point in time, it is only relevant in a research context. By the time this product is available to the public (which appears to be quite far in the future), if indeed it is used/marketed in the "woman shaming" way you mention, then i can agree with you.On the flip side, it is also possible that this product is sold not as baby formula, but as a medically recommended treatment for certain genetic types which are predisposed towards obesity. We just don't KNOW what shape the products will take if any.
But I cannot agree with automatically criticizing something that is, in essence, a research project at least a decade away from creating real products. Again, science is sometimes, an end in itself, and I strongly feel we should let scientific research be independent of politics and business. Yes, this is a naive and idealistic point of view, seeing as so much science is funded by corporations, but having spent a lot of time in the scientific community, at least my experience has been that a majority of scientists perform research out of the love for science, and not because of some hidden political agenda or financial interest. And thus, I find problematic the denunciation, based on an article sparse in details, of research which could prove beneficial in the end.
In any case, your assertion that publicity of certain pieces of research is driven by businesses and politics might be true. But then, your quibble should be against the media, not the research, or the actual process being described.
It depends on who you ask, but it's no fun to be obese. Can't we all agree that the vast majority of people would rather be thin than overweight?
Because obviously, if you weigh more than what is "normal", there's obviously something wrong with you and you should try your damndest to *not* be that way?
Speaking as a fat person, there are things I try to do to be healthy, but I get really tired of the automatic assumption that because I'm a size 18, I must be eating a salad for lunch in order to get to a size 6, as opposed to be cause I'm craving veggies and they're, y'know good for me. I know that's a subtle distinction, but a lot of this blog in general is about being sick of a patriarchal world project its assumptions onto women. Please don't project your assumptions onto fat people.
it is also possible that this product is sold not as baby formula, but as a medically recommended treatment for certain genetic types which are predisposed towards obesity.
So... if a fat woman starts visiting an obstetrician, she will be targeted for this "treatment", regardless of whether or not her circulatory system is healthy? What about a skinny person with high blood pressure and a weak heart? Would they be targeted?
The problem I have with this is that it will be specifically target toward people who are larger than normal, without any thought given to actual bodily *health*. And that basically goes back to the conflation of health and size and the assumptions projected by "normal-sized" people onto fat people. Which is inherently shaming.
"It depends on who you ask, but it's no fun to be obese. Can't we all agree that the vast majority of people would rather be thin than overweight?"
The main reason why a vast majority would rather be thin is the social stigma that comes with being larger. I know i wouldnt have a single problem with my size (smack in the middle of 'overweight' according to the BMI scale) If society didnt make a fuss. I kind of LIKE my size until Im reminded that Im not 'ideal' for whatever reason.
There are many, many obese people out there who are otherwise completely healthy. Its the ridicule, the lack of acceptance, the difficulty of finding decent clothes, of coping with a world designed for people much thinner than them that make being obese unbearable. That does not make it a disease.
And I think that this milk formula thing is really scary. Its not as though its a way to prevent cancer, its messing with peoples systems to 'cure' a natural diversity in humans. To alter something as delicate as the bodies response to nutritional intake when it isnt even broken is madness, not to mention dangerous.
Maggie wrote:
“Oh, we're very healthy in our house. He only eats nonfat foods." The doctor basically ordered her right there to go buy some frigging whole milk. (At least he was getting milk at all - the stories you hear about people putting babies on vegan diets terrify me).
Maggie,
Healthy babies can be raised on a vegan diet. Human breast milk is always optimal – I mean, duh, that’s why we lactate – but cow’s milk is not a healthy option for infants or children. Biologically, humans are not meant to drink the milk of another animal. Babies have sensitive digestive systems that can’t process cow’s milk. Feeding your baby cow’s milk can cause serious vitamin and mineral deficiencies and harm the digestive tract. Plus, conventionally produced cow’s milk contains pesticides, hormones, and other chemical contaminants.
Formula presents its own set of troubles. As EmJayBee mentioned, corn syrup is in everything, including infant formula. Enfamil, for example, contains corn syrup solids as its second ingredient! People wonder why obesity among children is on the rise, but few seem to be reading the labels of the food they purchase – not only for themselves, but for their children as well. This is always the first and most crucial step to understanding nutrition. You have to know what you’re eating.
'Scuse me if I rant here. It is a Healthy People 2000 (now Healthy People 2010) goal to improve breastfeeding rates in this country, which are deplorable. Why why why would they use formula to attempt to reduce obesity? Considering the OVERWHELMING advantages to the mother and baby of breastfeeding, why would they want to encourage mothers to give formula?
If this is the same research I have heard of, they neglect to mention that the additive they are seeking to add to formula already occurs in breastmilk. So, again, they are not making something better than breastmilk. They are attempting to copy it, imperfectly, and are trying to pass it off as better, and charge for it.
Crap, all of it.