Summary:
Greg Crister, the author of the op-ed essay that was featured in the Los Angeles Times, "Too Much of a Good Thing," argues that in order to stop obesity, we should stigmatize overeating. It is no more than a simple solution for a very complex problem that plaques the world today.
Critique of Greg Crister's "Too much of a Good Thing"
Greg Crister, the author of the op-ed essay that was featured in the Los Angeles Times, "Too Much of a Good Thing," argues that in order to stop obesity, we should stigmatize overeating. Crister states that we should place shame on overeating due to the rising obesity epidemic that faces the world today. The U.N. proclaims that "obesity is a dominant unmet global health issue, with Westernized countries topping the list." Crister states that twenty five percent of all Americans under the age of nineteen are either obese or overweight. Children are becoming more obese, and more out of hand with their weight, and something needs to be done to try and solve the obesity epidemic. In our society, stigmatization of overeating may have positive results; however, by itself, it will not solve the worldwide childhood obesity epidemic.
In Crister's essay, he states that in order to solve the problem of childhood obesity, we must stigmatize the unhealthy behaviors that cause obesity. Crister says that this epidemic should be treated swiftly because of the expensive medical costs to treat people with obesity related illnesses such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, and crippling bone conditions. Crister states that these stigmatizing tactics have worked in the past, with situations such as smoking and unprotected sex, and that these tactics can also work with the obesity epidemic. Crister writes that children respond positively to dietary advice, and that we should implement dietary restraint to prevent children from overeating. He states that this would be very effective, as there are studies that indicate that children do not know when they are full.
Crister mentions that in the past, the early medical injunction was to "never put a kid on a diet." The concern was that children would become under-nourished, which would lead to stunted growth. Research has been conducted in four randomized experiments that children who were on a supervised low-saturated-fat and low-cholesterol diet showed no significant negative influence in their growth during the first three years of their life. This implies that children can be placed on a diet, without stunting growth. Crister also writes that parents are the leaders of the "much strained" American families; however, he clearly emphasizes that he does not want to blame parents for childhood obesity. He states that it is not necessarily the parents fault for the lack of dietary restriction, but that parents are convinced of the generalization that confronting children about unhealthy eating will only create tension and therefore increase the likelihood of disastrous eating behaviors.
The purpose of Crister's essay is to stigmatize the activity of overeating, but not to stigmatize the person or people. Crister, in turn, blames the media for a large part of the country's obesity problem. Crister states that "today's bounty of cheap unhealthy food gives inconvenience in healthy food decisions." Crister believes that children should be supervised by adults when eating meals, and "all portions should be moderate, with 'seconds' a rare treat." Lastly, Crister states that "eating too much food is a bad thing" and that stigmatizing overeating can only help our obese country.
Crister logically states his solution to the problem with obesity, and uses facts and accurate information such as research. He shows his audience that there are dangers from overeating, and that it has become a very serious problem not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Crister uses facts to support his idea of stigmatizing overeating and gives a solution that may only help certain people in society. In his essay, Crister tries to persuade his audience to believe that stigmatization of overeating will solve the worldwide epidemic of childhood obesity. This is definitely not the case. He presents his audience with a very simple answer to an extremely complex problem. It is very apparent that stigmatization of overeating alone will not solve the childhood obesity epidemic.
In his essay, Crister makes the generalization that stigmatization will work for every situation. This is not the case. There are many confounding variables that stigmatization cannot solve. Genes, for example, cannot be manipulated by stigmatization, as it is part of biology. Another flaw in Crister's proposal is that by stigmatizing the action of overeating, wouldn't you in turn stigmatize the people who are performing the action? This stigmatization causes the same type of situation that is present in today's society; do not confront the situation as it will only create unwanted pressure, and this will lead to unhealthy eating habits. Because of the pressure from stigmatization, a child may feel pressured to not eat so much, which in turn will only increase the probability that the child will eat secretly to avoid this certain pressure. For example, in order to avoid this pressure, a child who is forbidden to eat a certain type or quantity of food will most likely hide and eat that certain food in the absence of their parents or parental figures. By stigmatizing the action of overeating, it causes stigmatization of the person performing the action, which in turn defeats the entire process.
Also, in Crister's essay, he seems to be unclear about who should be responsible for solving the childhood obesity epidemic. He states that the "much strained American family" must "promulgate dietary restraint, something our ancestors knew simply as avoiding gluttony." Shortly after this statement, he states that "it is not to say that parents should be blamed for the nation's growing dietary permissiveness." It is imperative that parents be held responsible for their children's eating habits. This brings about another problem with Crister's proposal. How can you stigmatize overeating without causing unwanted disastrous eating habits in children? Although parents are influenced by the general idea that tension created by confronting children about their eating habits may result in disastrous eating behaviors, they are still responsible for their children's wellbeing. This responsibility can easily override any reason for a parent to not confront a child about their eating habits, or any other matter that may need confrontation. Also, parents must be the ones held accountable for their children's eating habits, as they are most likely to be the sole providers for their children. It is the parent's job to make sure that their children develop healthy eating habits. Another problem may be that parents are providing their children with dangerous amounts of food, thereby increasing the likelihood of disastrous eating behaviors. In this instance, there is no way to blame the child for overeating. The blame then resides with the parents. No matter what the case, parents must be held accountable for their children, and they must be aware of their children's health and eating habits.
Crister's essay "Too Much of a Good Thing" is a decent proposal for stigmatizing overeating; however, it is no more than a simple solution for a very complex problem that plaques the world today. For example, stigmatization may increase the likelihood that children may become more obese from the pressure exerted from stigmatization. There are also many genetic factors that may play a role in obesity in children. Altogether, Crister's proposal would help to partially solve the problem with childhood obesity, but it is not suitable for a complete solution (461-63).
Works Cited
Crister, Greg. "Too much of a Good Thing." Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard F. Rosen. New York: Longman, 2003. 461-63.
This is the complete article, containing 1,230 words
(approx. 4 pages at 300 words per page).
