Obesity Warning on Clothes Labels?

That is offensive and dumb.
What and people who are size zero and starving themselvs are fine? Should we put you really should eat more on their tags?

Where are all these people who are starving themselves? Do they only come out at night, like vampires? Val, some homework for you: get two counters, and walk down the street clicking the one in your left hand when you see someone who looks unhealthily skinny, and the one in your right hand when you see a fat person. At the end of the day, compare the results.

Obesity is a serious problem; anorexia is an obscure, rare disease, serious to those who have it, but not common enough to be a public health concern. Obesity is a significant entry in actual-cause-of-death statistics; Anorexia doesn't even show up, except in the Other category.

Val said:
Should we put you really should eat more on their tags? [...]

That might be politically incorrect, but might do the trick.

Most people with rude comments like in the label will eat more. Overeating has to do with self esteem and you lower a person’s steams even further and they get fatter.

Mark
I never said the word anorexia that’s a mental disorder. I was talking about severe dieting which is very popular among teenage girls.
Severe dieting which many teenage girls do leads to binge eating and than being grossly overweight in adulthood which leads to obese children. So many of the obese woaman you see got there beacuse they took comments like in those clothes to heart.
The fact is some size zeros are perfectly healthy but some starved to get down. So why do we single out one group and not another when both are unhealthy. Not all super thin people are unhealthy and not all people size 16 are unhealthy.
Also size is a Joke.
When I was a size sixteen I weighed a lot less than people who were size 8 due to my body structure.
Even when I was 112 when I got sick I never went smaller than a size 6.
Most people discarnate against fat people for ascetic reasons and not for health reasons

Bulimics are for the most part are obese and morbidly so due to the pinge purge part of their disorder. just telling them not to eat less isn't going to help them.

Val said:
So why do we single out one group and not another when both are unhealthy. [...]

It is unfair, but I think the reason is simple. There are more people with a weight problem than those who starve themselves into size zero, so it gets more attention.

The headlines are "screaming" about ‘obesity epidemic’, not about people who need to gain some weight.

Actually the headlines scream starving girls passing out on the train were the number delay trains in NY
And another headline scream that woman with a BMI that's bellow 18.5 have a stronger chance of miscarriage bellow 18 is considered unhealthy to a BMI
There been articles about models dying and too thin actresses.
Actually both problems are in the press but people choose to ignore one because it’s considered more esthetically pleasing.

I think this idea is a little rediculous, and offensive. If someone is obese, they need to take the steps to live healthily, yes. But it's a personal decision, and it's not anyone's place to tell them what to do. And I think the public is well aware of the health risks caused by obesity. There's no need to put warning labels on their clothes as well.

I agree with Val - just look at the new trend with hollywood actors and singers! Emaciation is the new "cool" thing! Nicole Ritchie, Olsen twins, Ashlee Simpson, Hilary Duff - shall I go on? These girls are what the youth of America idolize and want to be like. You watch, give it some more time and see exactly what America's teenage girls turn into!
As far as the warnings on clothing labels - you're right. All size 16's aren't fat! Look at bodybuilders. I'm sure they aren't a size 2! ;P

"Discarnia" will be the 'new' anorexia!

Oh my goodness I would break down and cry if I read that on my clothes! The idea is to get people help not give them a breakdown!

Educate not Humiliate!

While I think the label thing is a very bad idea, I kinda like: "Taxing processed foods that are high in sugar or saturated fat".

We already tax alcohol and cigarettes. Why not go ahead and tax another vice?

I know many people in NYC who quit after the cost of a pack of smokes went up to 7 bucks. If that package of Oreos cost ten times as much as a pound of apples, maybe it will deter some people.

Right now, it's much cheaper to order off of Mickey D's value menu than it is to go to the grocery and buy wholesome, nutritious food. And, statistics show that the lower income you have the more at-risk you are of becoming overweight. So, make highly processed food a luxury item and wholesome food more affordable!

I echo Nic's comment! When I was wearing plus sized clothing I knew I was fat. I knew I was unhealthy. I knew that if I ate less junk and exercised I would less fat and unhealthy. I didn't need labels on my clothes to tell me that! It was humiliating enough to walk around the mall with the bag from the "fat girl" store, if there had been warning labels on the clothes, that would have only been more disheartening and embarassing. And guess what a lot of people wtih food issues do when they're embarrassed? Ding ding ding-you've got it! They eat! I just think this is an absurd suggestion for a real problem.

Insulting! As a former obese person, I know that obese people do not need to be reminded that they are obese every time they put their clothes on. As if the size on the tag isn't enough. As if they're going to buy a new shirt, see the healthline number and say, "Oh my goodness, I'm obese? I had no idea!" Furthermore, when I first started trying to lose weight, I did a lot of unhealthy things, diet pills, fad diets, and the like. I had to learn to accept my body as it was at the time before I was able to accept a (much) slower weight loss that comes with healthier methods. And my guess is that having a "You're fat!" sign on their clothes is not going to help anyone with the whole body image issue.

In response to Mark's comment--anorexia is not as "obscure" as you make it sound. Severe dieting (which can lead to anorexia) is becoming very popular and although you may see more overweight people on the street, it doesn't mean that there isn't an epidemic of "over-skinny" girls.

I totally disagree with putting hotline numbers on plus sized clothes. When I was in high school and had to shop the plus section along with all the old, fat grandmas while all my friends were wearing stylish jeans from the Junior's section, you think I wasn't embarrassed enough? Not to mention the intrinsic punishment in actually having to WEAR those ugly clothes. What teen wants to wear muumuu dresses with big prints on them or stretchy-waistband "mom jeans"?

I do like the idea of getting rid of candy in the checkout lines though. That would help on so many levels...no more tantrums in the checkout line because you told your kid "no candy". I also like the junk food tax idea, but I think they should go one step further and allow for a tax break to people that purchase over a certain amount of organic or healthy foods (say, if you spend $1000 or more a year). I guess you'd have to save all your grocery receipts to do that, but maybe the stores with those savings club cards could have a function that tells you each visit how much you have spent in total on healthy foods and then at the end of the year, you could get a printout and use it for the tax break. I can only hope, though. It may be too good to be true.

I'm against the "sugar tax" for several reasons. First, not all people who buy high-sugar foods are fat or have a problem. Sometimes a cookie is just a cookie. Second, even people (like me) who have a weight problem do not buy them ALL the time, and therefore, the high sugar content is not the problem. Third, the LAST thing we need in this country is MORE taxes.

And the third reason is the one that really irks me. We are teetering on the precipice of a full-blown "Nanny State" in this country. Slowly and surely, our government is wedging itself into every aspect of our lives - regulating what we eat (no trans-fats in NY, no fois gras in Chicago), what vices we can and cannot have (no smoking in public places), and how we look (schools sending home "BMI Report Cards"). Yes, obesity is a problem, and so is anorexia. Yes, smoking is a health hazard. But it's not the government's place to stop me from these behaviors that hurt me, it's MY place to regulate myself.

Perhaps I would feel differently if the taxes we pay really went to what the government said they would go for (tobacco taxes pay for things other than the healthcare of those smokers who get sick). When those who hold public office show that they can handle their positions responsibly, and truly answer to the people they represent, perhaps I'll change my mind. But until then, I will not be supporting any further taxes on the food I eat.

I think what Mark may have been referring to is the fact that eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia take up about 1 percent of the population - obesity and overweight take up more than two-thirds.

Fat tax? Sugar tax? Ridiculous!

Thomas Jefferson 'said'...the less responsible a society is, the more laws it needs! Unfortunately, poor health habits cost every member of society whether they are individually responsible for the behavior or not. I think laws that reward behaviors, or remove temptations are the way to go, not, as others have also said, higher taxes! (Sometimes a cookie is just a cookie..Good one!)

I'm all for making healthy foods affordable and establishing bike lanes, but taxes, finger-pointing labels in clothes, and a "central agency" to deal with the issue? Too Big Brother for me.

Education is the key. I teach and the things that are offered to the kids are either disgusting or fattening. which would you choose? More government is NEVER the right answer to any of our problems. I think part of the problem is that all we see are the extremes. Some people (in my very own family)are considered "obese". I would say that it is not the case. I have a few size 16 aunts who look better than many so called thin people. As long as a person is healthy who are we to say they are "fat" or "skinny". Public tastes have changed over the years. Why bow to the "ideal"? Live and let live!

I find putting numbers for the helplines in the labels offensive too, and since they are a reminder that you are "less than normal", it would probably just lead to more emotional eating.

On a lighter note, when I read that, the first thing I thought of was "Wow, all the young boys who buy huge trousers 4 sizes too big are going to get warning labels too. Tee hee."

Jilly said:
[...]As far as the warnings on clothing labels - you're right. All size 16's aren't fat! Look at bodybuilders. I'm sure they aren't a size 2! ;P

I second "all size 16s aren't fat" especially cause these are *UK* size 16s. Size 12s in America. A woman that is 5'10" and a size 12 isn't even chubby, much less obese. I'm 5'1" and at a size 12 my BMI was 26, so even for really short people, it is barely overweight at all.

People will just cut the tags off. Some people do it anyway. Usually a normal size person who wishes they were petite but in any case it won't work. Do cigarette labels work? No. The only ones that have had any impact have been the ones with people missing their teeth and other revolting pictures.

The solution is education and it's way too late when people are at the point of buying their clothes. People feel better about themselves in clothes that fit them well. When you feel better about yourself you are more likely to take care to eat well.

This idea will have a negative backlash. That and big people squeezing into clothes that are too small for them with unattractive muffins and fat rolls poking out under and over the waist.

When I was a kid, my Mom used to buy me pants that were size___ HUSKY! I didn't know I was FAT! I just thought I was, well...HUSKY! HaHaHa!!

There's no way to regulate who's buying cookies here- so a size 6 woman has her period and is dying for some chocolate, she has to pay ten bucks for a package of Milanos? But on the other hand, how can we tell that the size 6 woman didn't used to be a size 26 and live off of Milanos until she got her butt in shape? I'm not down with that. Though the idea of fat labels in plus-size clothing may be, for a moment, mildly entertaining, it's on the tragic side and I think that may drive the unhappy plus-size woman over the edge and solve absolutely nothing.

it would work even better if the warning labels were on the outside of the clothing! i am sure the additional ridicule will make an overweight person try to loose weight. if that doesnt work maybe a federal law for everyone 30 lbs or more too heavy be required to wear sandwich boards while out in public and a glowing neon fat sign displayed on the front lawn for their home. they can register for a fat identification card and if the become even fatter they will be loaded onto trains and sent to special fat camps. sneaking snacks will mean a one way trip to the "showers".

I'm amazed no one has suggested NO clothes for "fat" people! That should do the trick!

Well first of all they are suggesting a hot-line number for help not putting in a tag saying "your fat, get off you ass and lose weight". So I personally think it's a good idea. I think it should be in all clothing sizes though, not just for the full-figured ladies and heftier men. Although we deem the number 14 as sort of the cross over, thanks to plus size stores, a women can be overweight and were a size 8. The helpline should be in all clothes.

Removing temptations from the checkout line is also a good idea as it's usually where people give in. And taxing the junk food (high sugar, processed food) industry could be used to subsidize health foods. Then no one would have a reason to say they can't afford to eat healthy.

I also think schools should be accountable for the food that is served to children. When "Biggest Loser" went into local schools and look in the cafeteria, it was disgusting. Everything was greasy and over processed.

I however, don't think the government should create a central agency unless it's called Global fitness or ParticiACTION like the program in Canada in the 90's.

I found this hilarious!

Two words: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

There is a lack of individual respnsibility in this country. I work in the video game industry, and recently we have come under fire due to grafic video games that children under the age of 18 are getting their hands on. Now- the government wants to eliminate these games. Since we don't sell to underage kids without a parent or legal gaurdian present, how do you think these kids are getting these games?

It is the same with overweight children; especially under the age of 10. Feed them healthily and correctly, don't give into their demands for sugar, don't give them money to spend at school on candy and greasy lunches (brown bag it) and for goodness sake, monitor their behavior when it comes to food, tv, and social outings. This leads to a happier and healthier child (duh!)

Maybe we need the government wiping our butts for us. Think of how lazy we could be if every descision was made for us. It would be like being a child again! Fantastic.

That's funny.

We all know that sensible eating and moderate exercise is the key to maintaining a healthy weight. Not everyone is unhealthy that is a size 16 and not everyone is healthy that is a size 4. Although there may be more overweight than underweight people in the world, I don't think humilating people will help anyone. If you have never been overweight, you can't understand how it feels. Your self-esteem is so low. People who are overweight, know it. I think better education on how to eat properly (at least portion control which is the biggest problem in the US I feel, not fat and sugar in general) and how to work in even moderate exercise into your daily routine would be the best solution.

Val, not all people who are a size 0 are starving ourselves. Some of us are also very short with a healthy BMI but living in a world of increasing size inflation.

Ali, great post.

Lynn's post really demonstrates the size nazism we've been living under. If they are going to put obesity hotline numbers in sizes too large, then I want them to put Sexaholics Anonymous numbers, or AIDS hotlines, on all the Daisy Dukes and sheer lace shirts sold. If you are going to assume anyone buying a larger size is an overeater, then they should assume anyone buying those skanky clothes is sexually promiscuous. And AIDS is a much bigger public health problem than obesity is.

I am overweight myself and struggling to lose the excess weight. I think even more needs to be done. Maybe even discrimination of some kind when overweight people won't be able to purchase junk food and other fatty foods. They are much more obese people than anorexic and something needs to be done. There are so many diseases associated with being overweight that it might just make us die out from heartattack, diabetes, asthma & etc. I know most people won't disagree with me. All I'm saying is that I need help and by having fast food as the only choice to eat at work I can't help it but eat it.

I struggle with my weight too. But, there are options. You don't have to eat the fast food - bring your own.

You honestly can't blame the fast food industry, nor anyone else but yourself for your dilemma. No one is forcing it down your throat.

Learn to eat well, work out and de-stress. Work on the inside as well as the outside.....get psychological help if needed. But, put the blame where blame belongs.

I think the bike lane idea is a good one. The rest...not so much.
I don't need anyone else minding my business for me, period.

I agree with Jude. We are all responsible for what we put into our bodies, no one is forcing fast food as the one and only affordable option for a meal. People don't like to admit that they are the ones making poor diet choices, but when it comes down to it, you can only blame yourself when you order french fries instead of the walnut salad. And also, you can sue the heck out of a fast food chain, but it wouldn't make you any thinner even if you won the lawsuit. It's no secret that fast food is not good for you, but in actuality, it's straight up BAD for you, even the most ignorant of people know that a fast food hamburger has little nutritional value other than fillers and empty calories. Please eat an apple instead of french fries, it's not a difficult concept, it's about smart choices. It's science.

Dr.J said:
Thomas Jefferson 'said'...the less responsible a society is, the more laws it needs! Unfortunately, poor health habits cost every member of society whether they are individually responsible for the behavior or not.[...]

I've tried to get that point across a few times in other topics (a little less politely maybe). Everyone goes on about how it's up to the individual to be responsible for themselves, and that's great, don't get me wrong, I'm an anarchist at heart, BUT, I am sooo sick of my hard-earned tax dollars propping up those who can't (or choose not to) take responsibility for themselves. Even those who don't live in a welfare state are affected through inflated health insurance prices, loss of production time at work etc.

Personal responsibility is fantastic in theory, unfortunately it just isn't working, and if it meant that I would be paying 4 times as much as I do now for occasional "junk food" I really wouldn't care, I don't buy it often enough to make it an issue. Call me selfish, but my interest in other peoples' health is firstly because their bad eating habits cost ME so much money, secondly because everyone deserves to be happy and healthy.

BTW, the warning labels on clothes thing is just sad, I think 'they'(those supposedly in charge) are clutching at straws for an answer to obesity that doesn't involve p***ing off the big food manufacturers.

On the road and Jude said it right. And since many times people overeat for emotional reasons, restricting their access to junk won't keep them from gaining weight. They can eat 5 grilled chicken breasts and 5 boiled potatoes at a time. Are you going to restric their access to chicken and potatoes too?