How much muscle mass does a second grader have? Parents need to wake up to sugarry cereals, Chitos for lunch, and prepackaged foods for dinner.

I believe you state government forces the schools to send the 'fat letters'. More Democrats; more tyranny.

I hate those tyrants who want to create a healthier society and help lower health care costs. Damn those democrats, unions, and the boogy man

"tyranny"?? How wonderfully dramatic! Obviously a man to be taken seriously! ;)

Yeah gene - the very people who ~say~ they want to create a healthier society and ~say~ they want to help lower health care costs - ARE ACHIEVING THE OPPOSITE. Health insurance is going UP! (no surprise to me - I told you it would, it's collusion between government and big insurance companies). And there are going to be fewer doctors so health care itself will be going down too - already is.

Donna Brazile https://twitter.com/donnabrazile
"What's on your menu? Just got off the phone with my health care provider asking them to explain why my premium jumped up. No good answer!"

https://www.aamc.org/download/100598/data/recentworkforcestudies.pdf
"A quarter of Florida’s practicing physicians are over 65 and only 10% are under 35. Florida’s population is projected to increase 60% by 2030 and the aged population is projected to grow by 124% in the same span which will dramatically increase demand for physician services."

Is the program doing any good? What are the stats showing that measuring the children's BMI in school is helping to improve their actual health? The state is not legally allowed to DO anything with the information, so how does it lower health care costs??? Maybe everyone should actually read the BMI state policy. The reality is that most of the schools are not following the state mandated procedures in measuring a student's BMI. This includes MHD! First, all parents are supposed to be notified that they have the right to "opt out" for their child by sending a letter to their school nurse. Most parents have no idea they have this option and most schools are not informing parents. Second, children are supposed to be weighed privately, but most are weighed right in front of other students. Third, the results are supposed to be protected, yet many parents are "accidentally" receiving another child's results. Our school nurses are already over burdened. Why pay a co-pay to a doctor when you can send your child to the school nurse for free? This program is a disaster. All it does give the state "statistics." That's it. They have no legal right to do anything but weigh students. How does this lower health care costs? Also, my children have "private"health care that we get through a "private" company. If health care costs are the issue, then why not test ALL state and federal employees (including teachers) BMI's too? Taxpayer dollars pay for their healthcare? We would never allow it!

Nancy, The rationale is: the government pays (exorbitant) health care costs for protected classes. Since the government has seized more of the healthcare system (with the goal of complete control) the cost exposure to the government is huge. Government can use the ‘real world’ statistics from the schools to ‘prove’ that ’obesity’ is so wide-spread that it can be considered a crisis. (It is usually referred now as an ‘epidemic’.) During a crisis situation the government can claim to be forced to act (even if concerns like freedom must unfortunately be curtailed.) The government solution will (always be) to expand government control. When they control your access to health care, they control you. (And when the government-controlled health care system proves to be a fiasco, government will move to ban all private health care (i.e. expand government control)). Government health care is now 33% of the Massachusetts State budget.

I don't care if the schools want to offer healthcare. I simply want to be informed of any offer and maintain the right to decline without having to answer to anyone else. I think it's called liberty.

One 7-year-old is reportedly has to wedge herself into her chair each morning, with a portion of her stomach bulging over the top of her desk and she becomes winded just banging wooden blocks together during music class. Eight of the students in her class are on cholesterol medication.

The state must establish that the parents are abusing their children by allowing them to become and remain 'overweight'. The government can then dictate an 'intervention plan' that requires the parents to correct the problem or sanctions will be imposed. All 'in the best interest of the children'. Wait this doesn't happen now? Drip, drip, drip... Soon you'll be asking 'how did this happen' when your rights and freedom are determined by government 'fiat'.

Jennifer, didn't you mean "Thank goodness the "big fat" school nurse told me.

Like it or not, we are slowly becoming a Dictatorship, communist State. We are forced to pay high taxes on the home we own. " If we refuse to pay " the Government takes your "so called" private property! When Government tells you what, how and when you should feed your kids? That is having to live by a Dictators rules! People come in all shapes and sizes, Kids go through many changes in their youth, Government is over stepping their bounds! How much more will it take for people to wake up and stand up for there "rights" to property, liberty , freedom, and "Privacy!"

Apparently being 'well-rounded' gets you a fat letter.

So indoctrinating parents to get their male children to go on Ritalin because their imagination takes them to more exciting places than behind a boring school desk is not child abuse? Yeah sure..

Taxes are driving daily living costs through the roof making it almost impossible for middle class families to have one parent stay home to make sure the kids get good nutrition and stay out of trouble. Certainly our current level of production automation ~ought to be~ even MORE conducive to only needing one bread winner per family like in the 50's & 60's but nooooo - thanks to tax and spend liberals we have day care centers, school breakfast and dinner programs on top of a mountain of other social engineering costs thus requiring both parents to work to pay more taxes.

Liberals want government to take over the role of parenting, (because they all know ‘better’) and then act so surprised that their ‘idea’ is failing with rampant obesity, sons of single mothers joining drug gangs, teenage daughters getting pregnant, no discipline, poor grades, etc.

So what's their response? – of course, blame the parents! Thanks comrade Dan. Let's throw em' all in jail, take their kids away and just raise taxes even more to pay for it.

But wait... you threw them in jail and the rest are on welfare so there are no slaves left to pay your taxes. Stinking socialism doesn't work, it's time to go back to conservative principles that DID work. We'll all be a LOT happier too.

Mike Mitchell - It seems increasingly obvious that today's generation (most of whom are products of a liberal, secularized education system) have no understanding of self reliance or self determination. The individual has gone to the wayside in favor of the state.

We live among 30 somethings who being denied any semblance of a classical education, have lost the ability to reason and rely on a tax payer generated government study to tell them what to eat, when and how to exercise. When to go to bed, how to have sex and most importantly how to raise their children.

It is no wonder we live in a society where everyone suffers from anxiety and depression; that obesity and drug abuse are rampant and young men go on shooting rampages.

So what do we do about it? Ignore the obvious because that would put to much responsibility on the individual to change and look for another government intervention to remedy the problems it created.

Government is good. The proper amount of government that is.

Maybe the child should not be allowed in government schools if they are 'obese'.

I'm confused by your statement. Why would any child not be permitted to attend school? My point is that it is not for a school to intervene in these matters. Their role is to educate, not monitor individual health. That is the role of the child's physician and parents. Do you not agree with that?

@louise,
i think (hope) m. quinlan's tongue was laterally positioned

Ahhh, you might be right there - the pitfalls of this medium.

Michael, they'll be allowed in, but the parents will have to pay a Fat tax.

Mr Swamp, if the parents are in a special PC category, will you pay the Fat tax for them (after you finish paying for the kids' school meals, busing, housing, medical, etc.?)

CoachRaf2 - Or, for that matter, taking kids out of class to weigh and measure them (a basic component of the annual physical exam they must have in order to attend school) It is simply government encroachment on individual rights.

Teach good nutrition yes. Stop weighing in our children. They are not your children.

Excellent point! Should the same institution that is happy to offer the very worst kinds of junk food to your children also be the ones to inform you that your child is "unhealthy"?

Exactly Michelle.. Let's focus on better lunch choices. Also, what message is the letter sending? For young females, this affects how they look at themselves and thus some of the problems with eating disorders. We opted out of this with the school nurse. State government should just stay out of it and let parents work with their doctors. Also, how about more gym time as we only have it one time a week. Doesn't add up...

What school in Reading does that? That's crazy. At birchie they still use the everyday math workbooks. I also agree with Louise that its a pediatrician and parents job. I also agree with you m if they notice a hearing or vision issue then by all means inform.

Joshua Eaton. Very interesting to hear that Birch Meadow still uses Everyday Math books. I was not a fan of everyday math, but it was at least a start. I managed to find a new everyday math 1st grade workbook @ Got Books last week, so I'm saving that for my Kindergartener, though I hope Joshua Eaton gets its act together by next year.

That's it John! They are compelled to micromanage everyone's life because they think we are all just like them - unable to manage our own.

Banning soda is not a bad idea. It's one of the leading reasons many people are obese today.

"How is this any different?"

Head lice have to be monitored and eradicated to stop them from spreading to kids who don't have them. Adequate hearing and vision are indisputable prerequisites for learning.

Obesity has nothing to do with education. Michelle Bailey, above, hit it on the nose: "The BMI letter is an unfunded mandate of the Massachusetts state government."

I wouldn't have been so nice, "The BMI letter is an unwanted and unfunded mandate of the Massachusetts nanny state government."

Liberals proudly extol the virtues of "diversity" but then impose their limits on what kinds of diversity are "acceptable". They routinely ridicule and disparage directions of 'diversity' that they do not happen to like ranging from BMI to political will. When you corner them on it they ultimately start to sound like the famous Animal Farm quote - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

i.e. - "We absolutely are the ones to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness... unless you're X, Y, Z or fat in which case you are defective and need 'repaired'."

I would add that hearing and vision problems can occur gradually and aren't always obvious. So a test might be worthwhile. Parents can also "perform" their own tests - like "tell me when you can read that road sign".

If you're overweight, its not hard for you or your parents to figure it out. A fat test isn't necessary.

Mike Mitchell: I wasn't aware that this was a political debate. That being said, call it a "nanny-state government" all you want, but the reality is that over 20% of the state's adult population is considered obese. Couple that with a rising trend of childhood obesity, and it becomes an epidemic. Some might complain about the price of health screenings and letters to parents of over or underweight children, but take a moment and think about the long-term costs. Some of these obese children may remain that way into adulthood, up until they are in their late 60s or early 70s, and are able to apply for government health benefits, such as medicare, to pay for health costs associated with or directly caused by being overweight. With those costs in mind, it might not be so expensive in the long run if parents, with a little nudge from the state, can nip the problem in the bud, and save money long-term.

Sorry to break it to you Dan - all debates are 'political'.

Dan said: "20% of the state's adult population is considered obese."

Explain WHY that has to be of concern to ANYONE but them???? It simply should NOT have to be my problem or yours or any taxpayer's. Government was never intended to 'take care of us'; we are supposed to do that for ourselves and FREELY choose whether or not to care for others.

Government does NOT 'care' about you or me and was never intended to be a charity. They do not collectively have 'feelings' and they can tax us into the ground on the ruse of 'taking care of us'. Why do want that Dan?

hate to break it to you, mike, but 2.9% of your paycheck goes to taking care of people, whether you actually care about them or not. The biggest, most-selfish A-hole in the country will still eventually end up on state-funded health care, so yes, it is my concern if parents are too irresponsible to maintain the healthy weight of their child.

Mike Mitchell: Please consider the fact that not all debates NEED to be political and to reduce it to such is extremely counter-productive. I can assure you that there are plenty of "Liberals" (I am one of them) who completely agree with you that these kinds of laws and regulations are a gross over-reach of our government and an outright invasion of privacy. By reducing the conversation to name-calling and mud-slinging you distract from the real issue and automatically erect a wall between you and people who would otherwise agree with you, regardless of political persuasion.

Dan,

Right on! 2.9% of my paycheck goes to taking care of people. Let's educate these kids with healthy eating habits, and exercise. Let's stem this obesity epidemic so we can actually take care of the people who really need it, and not the people who eat it.

louise: "Please consider the fact that not all debates NEED to be political".
But this IS a political issue! It is the result of a Massachusetts law.

louise: "By reducing the conversation to name-calling and mud-slinging you distract...."

Where did I resort to anything resembling "name calling" or "mud-slinging"??? Put up or shut up.

"put up or shut up"? Not really sure what you mean by that. While "name-calling" was inappropriate (my apologies), certainly "mud-slinging" was not. I refer you back to all of your comments in response to this article and other posters. I'm not sure why you're so angry over my comment (are you angry?)... it really was meant with good intentions. Hopefully you can come to see that issues like these don't have to be as contentious as you're making them, that there is a middle ground, that some folks from "the other side of the fence" agree with you (it never helps anyone to generalize & stereotype), and maybe that you can disagree with someone and still be relatively respectful.

Dan: "...2.9% of your paycheck goes to taking care of people, whether you actually care about them or not...."

That doesn't answer my question Dan. I want to know IN PRINCIPLE why I or any free individual ought to be held accountable by government to pay for someone else's bad choices/behavior/luck/whatever? It's a policy that encourages THEFT, (if you don't think so read about the amount of fraud in medicare or SSI, etc. http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardfinger/2013/01/14/fraud-and-disability-equal-a-multibillion-dollar-balck-hole-for-taxpayers/ ).

I hear the ads on the radio all the time for children to move their senior parent's assets in time to 'protect' them from those expensive nursing homes thus forcing the government to pay for their care. It's nothing but back-door welfare being given to people who have the money to pay for themselves, (many even qualifying as 'rich') but elect to steal it from us so their children can have the money. How fair is that Dan?

And, a significant portion of the reason nursing homes are so expensive is because the government is their biggest customer. Government doesn't actually care how much it cost's because no one in government has to pay for it - WE DO!

When people are forced to pull their own weight most will but when the ones who can are given the option to have someone else to pull it, too many will take it - more than we can afford. Such an option should not even exist.

@louise : "... it really was meant with good intentions. Hopefully you can come to see that issues like these don't have to be as contentious as you're making them, that there is a middle ground"

No, only in fairy tales is there ever "middle ground" when it comes to the difference between right and wrong or good and evil or the truth and a lie. This is such an issue, either they should send these letters or they should not - no middle ground in sight from my perspective.

@louise : "certainly "mud-slinging" was not. I refer you back to all of your comments in response to this article and other posters."

All of them huh? So you apologize for saying that I was a "name caller" but are sticking to your more nebulous "mud-slinging" claim? Help me here louise, maybe you don't like it when I get abrasive but you are the one making the personal attack on me here so it's up to you to give me an example of this 'mud' I've slung. Really - go back, find it and present it, (= 'put up'). As of now, you haven't provided an example so how can anyone be expected to defend themself against such an accusation?

As for where your 'good intentions' are leading - let's not go there.

It's unfortunate that your extremist views prevent any polite discourse. Here is where we part ways. Best of luck to you, Mike.

louise 10:56 pm on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 :"It's unfortunate that your extremist views prevent any polite discourse. Here is where we part ways. Best of luck to you, Mike."

So now, again without a hint of substantiation, you additionally infer that I have not been polite and add 'extremist' to the other names you have already attempted to hang around my neck.

It's one thing to not like someone's particular political view and engage in heated debate - it's quite another to attack someone personally as you have done to me making false claims of my character. Yes, it does end here louise and DLTDHYOTWO

They could roll the child into the court as proof that they did not notice he/she was overweight.

I'm sure the nurse did not relish sending out the letters. The school was forced to send out the letters by the state. If you don't like it, don't vote for Democrats. Otherwise, just expect it to get worse.

Well Mike it's true that the nurses are just following orders but so was everyone in the Wehrmacht.

Interesting point. If another student told the "overweight" student that they were fat, there would be consequences for "bullying", but the school / system can do it?

Well maybe play ground injuries too. They do still go outside for recess don't they (or is that also part of the misty past?)

But the government has no intention of being placed 'at bay'. The intention is seemingly to be in a position to shout, 'Stroke, Stroke...', like in those movies where the Muslim corsairs whipped the Christian (and other) rowing slaves.

But what about pet pigs? (or Obama's dog?)

Mike M - 'ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.' (Animal Farm, 1945)

The first thing you do is make all school athletes exempt from PE and that will free up a large spaces for non-athletes. Secondly,educate the kids and stop bringing other issues into school like if they are over weight.

Like I said my child is not overweight now or then Ron Poweel, guess you weren't paying attention and highly doubt you are a parent. If you were you would be less likely to call people bad parents, or very bad parents when you dont know them at all.

My comments weren't intended for you personally, SuzannM. Having read your comment, I would agree that your son is probably not at an elevated health risk.

I didn't call you a bad parent; I wrote that people who do not have the good sense not to share the information with their children are bad parents. Common sense stuff, really.

If the schools really cared about kid obesity they should be handing out hiking boots instead of Ipads.

Weren't there studies done way back that proved kids who are physically fit do better in school?

I have no idea if schools care about kid obesity or not, but I imagine that they believe that parents do. It seems reasonable to inform and educate parents.

In Reading the kids take the letters home and they are not sealed letters.

That is actually against the law, Readingite.

Mike M - 'If the schools really cared about kid obesity...' they'd force the kids to pedal a stationary bike connected to a generator so as to power their after-school TV, computer and Xbox.

The meals tax was simply a way to allow municipalities to raise additional revenue to offset cuts in state aid during the 2010 state budget crisis. The idea behind the meals tax is that out-of-town visitors eating at restaurants would be the source of additional revenue for cities and towns.

The key is 'choices'. What if a business offers 'healthy choices' and 'less healthy choices' but makes money on the 'less healthy choices' and loses money on the 'healthy choices'. What should the business do? In a free state, the business would drop the 'healthy choice' and keep the 'less healthy choice' that makes money (the pursuit of profit being the REASON the business exists. ) In a non-free state, the business would be forced by the state to keep the 'healthy choice' offerings as a conditional of staying licensed. In a really non-free state, only 'healthy choices' could be offered. The last is the location of the public school menus where politics is the most important factor while satisfying the consumers' choices is not considered (those 'choices' will be restricted to only politically-correct ones.)

Carl the only explanation I come up with is that the majority of Mass voters are simply gluttons .. for punishment.

I really want to see fat teachers and fat nurses getting letters to! They will all file suit claiming that, having to step on the scale is an invasion of their rights to privacy. They will claim that A "fat letter" will stop them from getting future jobs and is discrimination! "They should all be held to the same standards!" The letters are ridiculous! It's an attack on a child's self esteem. It's also telling parents How to raise their children because giving letters, indicating their kids are "fat" is also indicating they are not feeding them the right, so "they are to blame!" What are they thinking? OH' ya' "they are not!"

Well, that is a different argument, and, in my opinion, a much better one. The flip side to that is, with universal healthcare, you are probably paying for the health consequences of an obese generation. And you are probably paying a lot more than it costs to measure BMI.

Dude, I'm not arguing with you. I am telling you why the state legislature passed the local meals tax and why your Town Meeting and voters approved it at the ballot box. I personally think that the tax hurts food service workers because patrons pay the tax out of the money they would otherwise give as tips to the food service workers, but it does not change the theory behind the meals tax. As they say, take it up with City Hall.

In Reading they send them home for everyone so underweight, normal, and over weight range

Readingite, Send them to everyone so no one will be stigmatized (or pay attention)? Good way to maximize the cost to the towns' taxpayers. Well done.

The law requires that the results of the BMI measurement be mailed to the parents or guardians, irrespective of the result.

Education means to impart knowledge. It actually is only tangentially related to ability to perform academically. Providing parents with this information is education. I guess I don't get why people are getting so mad about getting educated, being informed, and being more knowledgeable. And in case anyone missed this, PARENTS CAN OPT OUT OF HAVING THEIR CHILDREN MEASURED FOR BMI. Don't want to know about your child's health? Sign the form to opt out.

Maybe the residents of the poorer towns choose to eat 'less healthy' foods. Should their Pro-Choice freedoms be restricted?

Ron - We're not given the choice of opting out of paying for this foolishness - only eliminating the program will do that - which is what we want - when do we want it? - now.

Ron Powell, "people are getting so mad about getting educated?" Sorry Ron, but someones weight concerns, should be between themselves and their doctor and a mirror! Take a good look around and you will see quite a few over weight cops but their weight does not stop them from performing physically or performing academically. I think that sending out letters to parents and copying them on a "public copy machine" from a school "nurse" borderlines on the rights to privacy under the HIPAA act! People should not have to "OPT" out on something that should not be done in the first place!

It's not about appearance, Carol. It is about health. People with a higher BMI tend to have more health problems throughout life and tend to die younger. There is a pretty strong correlation between a BMI greater than 29, health problems, and shorter life expectancy. Again, if you don't want to know or learn, just opt out.

Ron, If its all about "health?" Then a persons "health" Issue should be between them and their doctor and not the school system. You seem to be implying that someone over-weight is not healthy? I know quite a few people that are over-weight that get a clean bill of health from their doctors. "So that's completely wrong that it has to do with health!" kids go through heavy stages that is completely normal and parents should not get letters indicating that "they" are are fault. It's absurd!

Carolyn, just opt out then. This is much ado about nothing. If you believe that, for whatever reason, it is an intrusion, opt out. If you do not believe so, don't opt out.

Ron, I don't need to "OPT" out of anything since my children are adults, "my youngest being a Navy Veteran." but like a lion that protects her cubs" I would really be mad in the future seeing my grandchildren getting these letters some day.

'Opt out' is just the government's way of getting general apathy work to their benefit. If you had to 'opt in' they have less than 10% compliance.

M, you are so right about a general letter informing the public. Getting letters telling you, your child is over-weight "not only can hurt a child's self esteem if they see it but also hurts the parents that strives so hard to raise their kids the right way and makes sure their kids don't go hungry. "It's like a slap in the face to even a perfect parent."

Schools have been measuring the height and weight of students since the 1940s. Schools have run the Presidential fitness program since the 1960s. Agree or disagree, but schools have been performing this service and gathering this information since you and I were in grade school (in fact, they might still have my records for all I know). All this directive does is require the schools to take the height and weight measurement, perform simple math to calculate BMI, and then share this information with parents. To be honest, parents have had a right to this information under FOIA since the 70s; this just makes a whole, whole lot of sense to me. I don't think the information should be shared with kids, and I think that parents should have a right not to have their children weighed and measured, but that right has always existed.

I can't fault the language on the website. Clearly, it explains that BMI is just one way to assess health risk, and that a BMI may be high even though a child is not overweight. My BMI is about 25 even though I have a 31" waist, have 8 percent body fat, and am well within my ideal weight range. I do think that the school should provide clear instructions on how to opt out.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/childhood-obesity-trends-state-rates.aspx

Massachusetts Child Obesity rate in 2003: 13.6%
Massachusetts Child Obesity rate in 2005: 28.9%
Massachusetts Child Obesity rate in 2007: 30.0%
State initiates BMI school screening in 2009
Massachusetts Child Obesity rate in 2012: 24.6%

You decide if the program is helping.

This is funny. You are suggesting that the program is the only factor, nay THE factor that has reduced the child obesity rate. Surely it has nothing to do with the changes in school nutrition programs. It can't have anything to do with the removal of soda and sugary snacks from school premises. And of course all 5.4% is because of the schools efforts right? I'm sure the fact that McDonald's serves apples with happy meals and oatmeal for breakfast has nothing to do with it. Or what about the fact that since the economy tanked in 2008/9 families can't afford to stuff their faces as much as they could in 2007? My guess? BMI screening had NOTHING to do with it.

Actually, if you read carefully, Sean, I never made such a claim. The screening is only one part of a larger comprehensive program. It's necessary to measure the success of that program. You, however, made some very specific claims, so let's take a look at them.

1) Soda consumption. It is down since 2008. However, soda consumption among children had actually declined from 2003 to 2008 (source: Roberts Jr. WA. Beverages in flux. Prep Foods. 2009;178(6):13–20.). So if soda consumption alone were to explain the decline in obesity, you would have expected to see a decline in child obesity rates from 2003 to 2008. In fact, the rate rose from 13.6 to 30 percent.

2) You attributed the decline, possibly, to the recession, though the child obesity rate is nearly twice the rate now as it was in 2003 (which for the purposes of this discussion, we're going to say was not a recession year). Moreover, child obesity is negatively correlated with household income (source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-4886560-503983.html).

One last point: the Massachusetts soda ban went into effect for the 2012-2013 school year. The data provide are from the prior year. Game, set, and match I think.

Ron, concerning the absurd concluding remarks in that CBS story link you posted, True or false - if people actually needed food stamps / ebt - wouldn't they be UNDER-nourished, (i.e very thin), instead of obese and malnourished with junk food?

If people are truly hungry they'll eat whatever you offer to them so tell me WHY do we have food stamps and EBT cards instead of government food banks offering only nutritious stuff that WOULD cut the obesity problem in 'poor' children? That would make sense but noooo ... liberals always make things worse.

Child obesity is not my problem nor should it be anyone's problem but the parents of those children. I wouldn't have wanted you or the government or anyone else telling me how to raise my children or what to feed them or what to teach them, etc. because that's what they did in places like the USSR where every child is a ward of the state from birth. U.S. parents a generation ago, (like mine), used to sincerely care very much about their own kids' nutrition and a whole lot more but nowadays, for some parents, especially the poorer ones, not so much. Why is that? And isn't that the REAL problem in all this?

Tell me which you want Ron - a nation of people increasingly becoming more dependent on government for their every need - or one of independent people proudly determined to be self sufficient?

The CBS article cites published, peer-reviewed scientific research -- not hypothetical scenarios that you dream up in your mind. The scientific paper requires a paid account, so I couldn't publish it. Science trumps anecdotal evidence.

And once we agree that this discussion will be driven by science and the scientific method, the conclusions are irrefutable. The question is why is the frequency of obesity higher when household incomes are lower? I will speculate that it is because fattening, processed, sugary foods are cheaper to buy than healthy foods.

Ron Powell - I would agree that high calorie, low nutrition foods are cheap and readily available. I agree that individuals should be educated. I more strongly believe that individuals have the right to abstain from overbearing governmental instrusions. Your idea that these programs are harmless is naive.

These programs are expensive. They take children out of the classroom. , then are potentially embarassing to the child. (do you want to be weighed in at work?)They are duplicating services provided by an actual MD at the childs annual physical which is a requirement to attend school and they are an intrusion into areas of life not confined to education. It is insulting to state that parents who disagree with this practice don't care about their children's health.

You could argue that holistically speaking any and all areas pertaining to the well being of humans is "education". Applying that doctrine you would need children seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

This article is more about liberty than obesity.

Not sure that that is happening, but OK.

I'm sure it's happening, it's an unwarranted healthcare evaluation by the know-it-all bullies at the MA DOE determined to poke its nose into places it doesn't belong. I have no problem with a general letter of information going out to ALL parents in the way of a parental 'guideline' for healthy eating habits but until they can prove that a kid's weight has a major adverse affect on his ability to learn this letter is yet another pox mark chipping away at our free society.

Ron, Providing unwelcome healthcare is when the Department of Education requires you to submit to the measuring/weighing and scoliosis checks or you MUST submit ANNUALLY the results of your child's Physician exam giving the same information to the state. That is the letter I received. I would say that is forced healthcare, but that is just me.

Again, Janine, this has been happening since the 1940s. So why are you so outraged now? Not saying that your outrage is misplaced, just illogical.

Ron - First, I am not outraged. Simply responding with my opinion. Secondly, I could not have responded in 1940 because I was not born then. I certainly did not have children in public school then. I have children in pubic school now.

Ron, The problem of obesity is relatively new. I would say the problem began in the 1970's and started to become a real issue is the 1980's and 1990's. These dates coincide with social phenomena such as the women's movement, sexual revolution and no fault divorce among others. Despite many of the positive effects that came from these movements, they had a severely detrimental effect on the family. When governmental interventions unarguably promoted this assault on the family; I take little confidence that the government can solve it. While I support education, I draw the line at interventions that usurp the parental role as the primary educator of their children. Children are individuals. Not national resources.

Janine- you are getting to right timeline with when obesity started & increased, but I vehemently disagree that the women's movement, sexual revolution & no fault divorce are responsible for OBESITY - children of stay at home married moms (and the married moms themselves!) can be obese, too. There are some other sociological changes that also began in the late 70's, got stronger in 80's/90's, that IMHO contribute more towards childhood/adult obesity: increase of cable TV/tv watching, increased use & availability of video games replacing physical activity, & (most importantly) increased use of computers at home, school,office --all of this significantly decreases activity level - some of us, myself included, literally sit all day in our jobs, then come home & sometimes sit in front of pc or TV much of night. Combine this with increased high fructose corn syrup/sugar in all our foods (even bread), many more opportunities to eat, more drive thru's, etc., and no wonder it is becoming too easy to get heavy. I grew up in 70's/80's and don't remember adults driving around eating/drinking in cars (no cupholders), with just network TV there was not much on TV for us during day so we had to play instead (whether outside or inside). Even kids sitting up & playing a board game, moving pieces, etc, burns more calories then sitting with a phone where only movement is swipe of a finger flinging something at an Angry Bird. These xtra cals not burned all add up.

(re-posted where it belongs as a reply)
Ron, I'm relying upon the accuracy of the article that states "....schools sending home letters to students who score overweight or obese on the Body Mass Index." If that is not true then why are there some legislators in opposition to it? And no, I have no objection to all children being weighed and measured.

In regard to your assertion that this has been going on for a long time, let's not lose sight of the reason of economic convenience for parents back then, almost no one could afford a scale in their own home back in the 40's; to get your weight you went to the nearest retail area and put nickel in a scale to discover your weight - and those were not regulated for accuracy either. (WW2 led to the introduction of stamping small metal parts which then brought forth things like cheap mass produced bath room scales.)

M - I do not blame my previously mentioned social phenomena as the only cause of obesity. I stand by my assertion, however that they were the primary cause. The technology boom really occurred in the 1990's, so how do you account for the fact that obesity has been on the rise since the 1970's? Fast foods and processed foods and eating on the run and eating in your car as you mentioned are results of the social issues I previously mentioned.

You state that children from traditional two parent families with stay at home mothers also have obese children yet you offer no statistics to prove your claim. I suspect if you studied traditional two parent families with stay at home moms you would find significantly fewer incidences of childhood obesity. I agree though that obesity overall is on the rise even in those homes. Some of the issues I mentioned in a previous post such as hysteria surrounding child abductions, fear of mosquito borne illnesses and the damaging and dehydrating rays of the sun have driven children indoors so much so that we have another epidemic: that of vitamin D deficiency.

Realistically, today's average child spends more waking hours in institutional care than in the direct care of their parents. The state has been managing the care of our children since Horace Mann initiated public education and they continue to reach their tentacles deeper and deeper into our homes. I have a problem with that.

Janine - here's your studies. First, regarding kids, a National Institute of Health (NIH) government study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922726/

The study says that children of single parent households are more likely to be overweight....but does NOT conclude that these single parent households necessarily result from divorce; rather, the parent may have had a child out of wedlock. The study notes that lack of a family eating together could increase obesity, but this "lack" can be caused by MANY things, not just a parent working - increased after-school kids activities like sports, etc. A quote from the study:
"Specifically, modifiable risk factors for children include lack of regular exercise, high frequency of television viewing or computer usage, low family income, non-working parents, over-consumption of high-calorie foods, snacking while watching television or doing homework, and over-exposure to advertisement of high calorie foods. The common non-modifiable cause of obesity is genetics, with greater risk of obesity found in children of obese and overweight parents "
NOTE that the study says that "non working parents" is a risk factor for child obesity!
Article discssing study that says working moms are physically healthier than non-working moms:
http://www.mnn.com/money/green-workplace/blogs/study-working-moms-are-healthier
Surely there must be a combination of many factors working at once re:child obesity. Don't know if it's just "one".

Janine, I have a problem with it too. Reinforcing your observations, here we have government on one hand fawning concern about student obesity while the other hand is giving all of them 'free' I-Pads.

My challenge to all school children is simple - go one day a week without any social media, TV, computer or cell phone. Turn em' all OFF and find something else to do, like .... GO OUTSIDE!

M - First of all, I never stated that there is only one cause of obesity. Of course it is a combination of factors. My thesis simply was that the social phenomena of the women's movement, sexual revolution, no fault divorce and other damages to the traditional two parent family with a mother at home is a large contributor to the behaviors that lead to obesity.

Secondly, I believe your study actually validates my point. I would agree that it does not matter whether the household became single parent through divorce or unwed motherhood. In fact, I would include the acceptance of unwed motherhood as one of the "other" traditional family destroyers I mentioned.

Additionally, those "non working" families you state are more likely to be obese are traditionally single parent households.

There are many modifiable factors to the obesity epidemic. I would argue maintaining traditional families is one of them. Regardless this article was not about the causes of obesity, but about whether the department of education is intruding on individual liberty.

'That child' headlining this story just won the State Championship in Wrestling for his age/weight class. Does not compute, overload, does not compute...

Way to go, Cameron!

Mike - I agree wholeheartedly. It seems that each government intervention creates a cascade of other issues which require more government to fix it. I have real concerns for the future of this country. Liberty requires responsibility as Benjamin Franklin said: "the constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness; you'll have to catch it yourself".

Ron, I don't think you could even fix a broken promise. I do not need or expect your help for my health and you should have no reason to expect mine for yours.

Politicians, trial lawyers and insurance companies do absolutely NOTHING to cure anyone (except the 'disease' of having a little more of their own money in their wallet). But they are collectively receiving AT LEAST HALF of every dollar we spend on health care as doctors are now retiring early and the best and brightest entering college are having second thoughts about entering into medicine. Great going libs! You're destroying the foundation of what built US medicine - the free market - what built everything else as well.

I see that Ron Powell has deleted the reply he made to me that went something like "I fixed your comment" by adding that his insurance and tax payments paid for the BP and statin meds. His deleted post is what I had replied to in the comment above.

Ok Ron, if you are going to delete your posts I'll just have to remember to start including quotes of your comments along with my response to them which just clutters the board with duplication.

I deleted it because I was actually agreeing with you, and for some reason you didn't get that. So I figured, my bad.

The point of my comment is that if you are paying for health insurance, you are the one that is paying for their health care. 5 percent of all people account for 50 percent of the health care spending in this country. It's their choice to be unhealthy, and your choice to pay for it. That was my point.

One final thought. The issue here is freedom and individual liberty. Parents should have the right to have their children not be weighed and measured. And parents should also have the right to the information that the school is collecting -- just like consumers have a right to know what data is being collected about them.

If I company is collecting data about you, and then they tell you what data they have collected, it is quasi-moronic to be outraged, outraged, outraged that they told you the information they collected. This is a completely analogous situation. Parents have a right not to have their children weighed and measured. And they have a right to know what data the school is collecting and how it is being used. You are essentially saying that you have a right to not know. Well, good for you. I would like to know.

The problem is that the libertaribots are just as preprogrammed with their canned responses as the progressibots. We should try to think issues through on a deeper level.

Let's see, a whopping 15% of the stay home moms were fatter. You don't suppose that maybe ~some~ of that percentage are mothers who were denied employment on the basis of their weight do you?

And what a vile insinuation made by ABC "full-time homemakers who had never held a job" that being a good mother isn't a job?

Did this study measure each group as to how happy they were doing what they do? ... probably not.

Janine, I think the problem could actually be in part the result of the radical left (i.e communists) vilifying mothers who CHOOSE to stay at home and raise their young children.

Their attack on motherhood, (the most important and most rewarding job on earth) is making some stay at home mothers feel guilty for being stay at home mothers. Such guilt, though completely unfounded, is causing them anxiety which is eased by eating more comfort food.

Foisting "unfounded guilt" and "self doubt" upon people are, not by coincidence, the typical tools of communists - and Satan.

Motherhood used to be glorified in this country until commies started their brainwashing agenda to destroy the traditional US family. They are all liars; expose, rebuke and reject them at every opportunity.

eh? (Maybe you have the wrong Janine?)

For me, this was always an issue about parental rights. I actually do have children in the public school system. Thanks for keeping things not personal. Whelp, I feel like a dog chasing its tail by continually arguing with people who I actually agree with. I'm bored, and I suspect everyone is thoroughly tired of seeing this silly story in his or her news feed.

Socialism means never having to say you're sorry...

Not sure why I'm the target of your personal abuse tonight, Janine, but, um, OK. Was there anything else you wanted to tell me that I'm doing wrong?

Thanks, Mike. This is Chris Helms at Patch. When it works properly, your comment should be saved, even if you start drafting it before you sign in. It has always worked for me.

I have heard of this happening to others, though. You can contact our tech support staff at support@patch.com.

It's happening to me, too.