Although the food intake : exercise ratio is an important consideration in weight, you can't blame super-sizing for obesity because it doesn't explain why some of us aren't tempted by quantity over quality. And you can't always blame the so-called "fat genes" either because generally if a whole family is obese, the pet dog is too - a strong indication of poor nutrition and too much macca-d's.

Healthy eating has to start in the home. Obesity in children is a form of child abuse. If parents are too lazy or too ignorant to feed their families properly, then education about nutrition will have to fall back onto the education system: it's as important as maths and english, yet I doubt it's given as much weight.

To compare foods and eating habits between France and the USA is really without great merit. Each country has there own culturally accepted foods. In the USA foods are highly processed, very sweet compared to other westernised foods, with high amounts of fructose, corn syrup and other sweeteners. Many of the additives in foods today are also a major contributor to obesity, (In the USA)for example pre-scraped carrots which last for more than a month in the fridge without discolouring or deteriorating would have had some human interference in the growth. Australia, alas is lagging not far behind. Many foods commonly used in Australia by the masses, now use artificial sweetening agents, and other agents rarely used before. The after-taste alone is enough to know there is aspartame, sorbitol or other sweeteners used.
I agree with the comments re the obestity situation with our children, but fear that even parents who feel they are feeding their children foods that they 'know' or are familiar with, and thought were ok in a normal diet, are now feeding them chemically enriched goodies. The parents who do not take an active role in selection of foods for their children are, unfortunately gaining in numbers.

Our kids are also not as active as they were 20 years ago

The author has a point about serving sizes though. And I suspect it may have something to do with the style of crockery that has been fashionable for a while now (although which way the relationship goes I do not know- is the crockery bigger because of the food or vice versa?)

For example, your standard "dinner setting" no longer has a small bowl for cereal/dessert, the bowl is now a large pasta bowl. Which is fine, but the eye does not "see" this as "extra large bowl" it sees it as "half empty bowl", so we fill it more.

Same with all those large, plain white plates. When everyone had lots of patterns around the edges, the plate seemed more "full"... now it seems we need more condiments to make the plate right.

Just my thoughts!

Thank you Barbara for the article

I think that an emphasis needs to be placed on exercise and this should be combated in schools - where kids spend a lot of time. The availability of the bad foods to the kids needs to be monitered by parents, teachers, and governments. It is an important issue that needs more attention.

Barbara

Thank you for your article. I am very doubtful however, that downsizing alone is the answer.

I changed our purchasing, cooking and eating habits some years ago.

First, I tackled the pantry and got rid of all packaged foods and most tinned foods. I was rigorous in checking for sugar content, fat content, colouring, favouring, preservatives and additives. There was not much left in the pantry when I had finished.

Second, I educated myself. I read most of Rosemary Stanton's books and took on board a new way of thinking about purchasing of food, and cooking of food. Out went most of the margarine and oil. I learned to have meat etc as the small portion and salads and vegetables as the larger portion. As a result, my husband and I have "gone off" meat to a large extent. Most of our meals are chicken - with all fat removed, and of course seafood.

We have never eaten take-away because neither of us can stand it.

I grow my own herbs and several vegetables and I only buy Australiian from our local market. I make chutneys, jams, salsa, low fat cakes.

Our diet is very healthy. I have developed a love for creative cooking, and I do not serve large portions - never have.

We don't eat sweets - except for homemade fruit salad.

I cook something different every night. My husband always says: "What country are we going to tonight?" Eating is just a minor part - it's all of the thinking and ritual that surrounds food which is important. It is a joyous occasion in our home.

Thanks to the other posters thus far - all of you have raised really good points.

Barbara - what is the value of comparing the US with France? Surely a comparison between Aussie and the US would be more useful - since so many Aussies are stupid enough to follow American trends.

Cheers
Kay

What does serving size have to do with anything? You buy food, you eat the food and then you arent hungry anymore. So you stop eating. If you're still hungry you eat some more food. What does serving size have to do with anything? It's wether you are full or not, not whether you perceive you're not hungry anymore because you ate a standard 'serving'. This is a clear case of over rationalisation. People are fat, therefore it must be the government's fault, so lets mandate for reduced serving sizes. Whatever. Stop providing free healthcare for people who are morbidly obese, there's an idea from left field for you. Tell parents to take some responsibility for their and their kids eating habits, another idea from left field.

I can understand the reasoning behind downsizing food products. Retailers wouldn't drop prices, customers would buy two instead of one. More profits, still leaves fat people.

There are many reasons behind the increase of obesity in the world, the most important is false advertising. It is apparent that there is no control on what one can say about a product even if it is detrimental to health.

When you look at the science, you realise that most obesity comes from the increased consumption of dairies, which can be found in 99% of processed foods in most western orientated societies. That naturally increases the amount of clogging and fattening substances entering the body. The propaganda associated with food, needs to be severely regulated and 99% of processed foods removed from the market and substituted with real food.

If you have every had an allergic reaction to food additives, medications or preservatives, you will note that one of the symptoms is swelling and fluid retention and takes a long time to get rid of. If science really looked at obesity, rather than just produce propaganda for the companies that support them,they would find that most of it is caused by the consumption of these dairies, additives and chemicals.

If you live on a diet that comes straight from the food source, you will find that obesity is no longer a problem, unless you are a pig with your food and don't exercise.

If you remove dairies, chemicals, preservatives and additives from your diet, you relieve yourself of having to put up with the vast majority of ailments and viral infections that afflict humans.

It is interesting to note, that people that suffer bone degeneration, are also high consumers of dairy products, contrary to advertising propaganda that states, dairies strengthen bones.

How about blaming fat people for being fat, rather than government, business, why not the owner of the chubby fingers filling their faces with food?

The government can't solve people's eating habits, other than to tax us so much that we can't afford to eat ourselves into an early grave. How about food rationing to solve the obesity plague? How exactly is the government going to stop people eating? That is what we're talking about here, isn't it? Making people eat less? Does the government have the right to change our behaviour? Where do we draw the line on what the state can and can't do?

The only reason we advocate state intervention in the obesity debate is because the state has an interest in picking up the bill in medical treatment through medicare. Why not remove their involvement altogether? Make people pay for their own medical treatment. Then they'll have an incentive to lose a few kilos.

There are some great lines in the Lazyboy song "Underwear Goes Inside The Pants"

Americans, let's face it: We've been a spoiled country for a long time.
Do you know what the number one health risk in America is?
Obesity. They say we're in the middle of an obesity epidemic.
An epidemic like it is polio. Like we'll be telling our grand kids about it one day.
The Great Obesity Epidemic of 2004.
"How'd you get through it grandpa?"
"Oh, it was horrible Johnny, there was cheesecake and pork chops everywhere."

Keep the government out of it, if people want to eat until they're obese and drop dead from a heart attack, that's their perogitive, it is none of our business.

Yep - smaller portions and not using the car on short trips would do a world of good.
For fatties and for the environment too....oh - and the hip pocket with the price of fuel these days.

I don't know if it's fact or fiction but I tend to find that actively eating less makes your capacity for gorging yourself less as well - in other words, your stomach shrinks.
This is good news for those who have problems with will power (fat people) as you only have to be disciplined for a very short period of time, maybe two weeks, to make a lifetime of difference.

Well pointed out, Barbara.

Good on you Brendan Halfweeg
I'm a teacher and I often wonder what other parents think they should be doing to bring up their kids - it seems they want teachers to do the whole job for them. Many parents I know give their kids white bread because they can't stand making their kids eat brown: they don't want the arguments. (So I'm supposed to do what they can't?)
I also think the curriculum should include more PE - a minimum of 3 times per week, to combat the very real problem that kids can't play around the neighbourhood and parks anymore, it's usually too dangerous these days. Perhaps we need a few more cops too. The new weigh-in idea sounds like a bandaid.