Every so often I get an email from the contact/tip form about some new weight loss product or service that "really works" and that I should "tell [my] readers about". Usually I just roll my eyes and delete. You can imagine my surprise then, when I received a tip email from the proprietors of the Oakledge Wellness Retreat and it turned out to not be (as I assumed) another weight loss business. It looks really cool, actually. The program is based on the principles of Health at Every Size and stresses actual healthy behaviors rather than focusing on weight as a measure of health. It's not cheap, as you can imagine, but for a week in Massachusetts surrounded by HAES folks working out and eating great food, I bet it's well worth it. Cool!

My brother tipped me off to this article in the NY Times about doctors having trouble talking to their fat patients about losing weight. It cites a report presented by the STOP Obesity Alliance (which makes me question the veracity of the report, but anyway...) that says that doctors actually aren't talking to patients about weight loss. The reason? Gee, they just don't know how! Poor doctors. See again, this article gets really close to the actual truth but doesn't quite make the connection. Doctors don't know how to get patients to lose weight and keep it off because nobody does! I do like that the point is made that doctors have a misconception that fat people are weak-willed and self-indulgent, but in the end all this article does is shift some of the blame for fatness from fat people to their doctors. Meh.

I can't stop thinking about this damn clip (below) about Gabby from the Joy Behar Show...and every other show which seems to be covering her story. What annoys me most, perhaps, is the poor framing. They ask "Is Gabby too fat for Hollywood?" The question centers judgment on Gabby and not on Hollywood. But everyone already knows the answer to the question, "Is Hollywood too closed minded and bigoted for Gabourney Sidibe?" The answer is, generally, yes. Hollywood is a place where fat dark-skinned Black women are invisible. First of all, more men are cast in movies than women. More white women are cast than Black women, by far (in my estimation), and when Black women are cast they tend to be light-skinned. And certainly more thin women are cast than fat women.

The question when turned on Hollywood may seem pointless, but the question turned on Gabby is unproductive. I don't see anyone thinking critically about WHY it is that there are no roles for fat women, Black women, dark-skinned women and/or someone who exists in all three of those categories.

When I think of why, I think of Norbert. Fat women are jokes in movies. This is even truer when they're not played by fat women, and often they're not--particularly if they are especially fat*. The women cast in movies (and on TV) are so narrowly chosen that anyone outside of those parameters is rendered unintelligible as anything other than fodder for jokes, scum of the earth, sob stories, and weight-related storylines. We don't make sense any other way. The idea of casting Gabby in a serious role where her confidence might shine through is probably unimaginable to most people in Hollywood. Instead, elite Hollywood women are "made ugly" in movies where a feel-good transformation is needed. And since Gabby is, according to Joy Behar, more than "full-figured" she cannot be transformed from ugly duckling to swan...without losing weight, that is.

By focusing on Gabby the media are subtly (or not-so-subtly) invoking a weight loss narrative because it's the only narrative they know for a fat woman, the only way they see her having a possibility, they only way they see her existing. It's why they are confounded by Gabby herself.

And that is not only indicative of Hollywood's closed-mindedness and bigotry, but of the rampant lack of creativity that befalls them. Why aren't people taking up the challenge? Brainstorming possibilities? Debates about whether Gabby "fits" in Hollywood are unproductive. But in a profit-driven industry people would rather have the same-unproductive debates over and over again.

So, gimme a pitch. What kind of role would you like to see Gabby in? How do we make Gabby intelligible in a movie without resorting to cliche?

*I have become very fond of calling myself "especially fat" after hearing the phrase used by Paul Campos in his UCLA talk. He said it plainly, but to me it reeks of pridefulness. Especially Fat is Deathfat's sassy sister.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Howard Stern had some nasty things to say about Gabourey Sidibe on Monday's show. I mean really, how dare she be fat AND black AND a woman and think that she could get away with being successful? The nerve of some people...
Laura Beck wrote a nice deconstruction over at Huffington Post about Gabby and the media's general obsession with female bodies that fall outside the narrowly defined 'normal' range. Check it out!

There are actually some good points being made in this clip from the Today show on how thin people with low BMIs may have some of the same risks that fat people are purported to have. Unfortunately nobody quite pulls it together enough to realize that it's the habits people exhibit instead of just what they look like that make them healthy or unhealthy.

The good: it's true, thin people are still at risk for health problems if they don't take care of themselves

The bad: nobody comes anywhere near mentioning that maybe fat in and of itself isn't a death sentence

Oh well. Baby steps.

Just in case you hadn't heard, the other two UCLA talks are up on YouTube.

First, we have Katherine Flegal. Haven't watched this one yet.



Then we have the infamous Marilyn Wann. Not any arguments unfamiliar to most of us, but totally fun. And I want her boots.

Check out this article on Japanese attitudes towards weight. I feel almost like the author is saying "Gee, if Japanese women can lose weight and keep it off, what's wrong with Americans?"
They say the rates of anorexia and bulimia aren't any higher over there than they are here, but I have to wonder if that's because the idea of an average-sized woman not eating because she wants to be thinner is so widely accepted as normal. Certainly the act of specifically not eating or eating only vegetables when you are hungry for more is something of a disorder, whether it's officially anorexia or not.
Anyone have any other ideas about what might cause the disparity between our attitudes toward weight and that of Japanese women?

I love this article by Laura Beck over at Huffington Post about Kirstie Alley and how she needs to wake up and just come to fat Jesus. Because yes, I can understand how being in the acting biz could be super stressful and make you turn any criticism inward, but at the end of the day Kirstie is just fine the way she is. She has, as Beck notes, a fantastic opportunity to be an inspiration to many fat women out there and show them how to live life as a fat, gorgeous badass, but she's squandering it with all of this self-loathing. Don't be a hater Kirstie!

This article in The Vancouver Sun just floored me, and goes back to my comment on the Is it okay to be fat? thread. Exactly how much pain and suffering is society at large expecting us to have to endure to fit their narrow body ideals? If we're not being asked to run four miles and eat a scant 1300 calories per day a la Meme Roth, then someone is coming up with a procedure where a polyethylene patch is sewn onto a fat person's tongue to make it excruciating for him or her to eat solid food. Really? Is this something we need to do to people? Isn't the fact that any fat person is willing to undergo this type of procedure enough to prove that as a society we have kind of gone off the rails when it comes to body size?

Regarding my post How fat people are like John Locke

One of the rules of fatblogging I thought I already knew by heart was "don't try to compare your suffering to that of another group" because you just can't know, unless you're a member of that group, what their experience might be. My post failed to heed that rule. I used my own experiences relating to PWD (which I have admitted are far too few to make a generalization) and drew incorrect conclusions based on my own opinions. This understandably upset some folks and for that I am very sorry. Thank you for your honest and helpful feedback.

And since I can't just let it go: That body you're living in belongs to you and only you. Nobody else has the right to tell you what to do with it, no matter what your size, shape, or ability. That is what I should have said.

love you guys,
Carrie

This is the question posed in the Nightline debate linked to in withoutscene's posting below. The way I see it, when we ask "is it okay to be fat?", we're really asking a bunch of other questions:

• Is a person allowed to have and maintain a body that is larger than average?
• Is being fat a health problem?
• Is a person with a health problem allowed to choose to not treat that problem?
• Is fat caused by lifestyle choices?
• Is a person in a group health plan allowed to make choices that might cause them to need more health care in the future?

When you break it down to what we're really talking about, I don't see how any rational person could conclude that it is not okay to be fat. What are your thoughts?

There is absolutely NO question whatsoever that we face significant discrimination in terms of education, employment and healthcare. More and more and more and more and more and fucking MORE people are publishing articles on this. Now, we also KNOW that stigmatization and discrimination have NEGATIVE health affects. In terms of fat people accessing healthcare and receiving good healthcare, but also in terms of stress and anxiety. Yet people who are making comments about the correlation between "obesity" and "health" almost NEVER acknowledge the effects of SYSTEMIC discrimination on our health.

This brief acknowledgement was my second favorite part of the Nightline Face-Off with Marianne Kirby and Crystal Renn (and Meme Roth and Kim Benson).*

It can also be said if poor people are disproportionately fat and people of color are disproportionately fat, we can count those systems of oppression (and others--ability, gender, etc.) when we think about systemic discrimination and the health of fat people. (Addendum)
.
.
*My favorite part was when Marianne said, "I have feet and hips and knees, it's very exciting," in response to MeMe Roth's claim that it's not okay to be fat if you have those body parts (and some others). I laughed so hard it was almost unbearable.

When I started grad school, I had never heard of Fat Studies and neither had anyone else I knew. I had no idea other people talked about this stuff until I found NAAFA and Marilyn Wann on the web and Marilyn invited me to be in the Fat Studies Yahoo group. Oh, how naive I still was then, but how inspired!

When I started talking about a thing called Fat Studies, it was awkward. Even just talking about my research topics and using the word fat was awkward. Let's face it, people are shocked, it makes them uncomfortable, and they (often) look at you differently. And to be honest, that awkwardness hasn't left me entirely. Saying the word fat and that you study fatness/fat people is still invigorating (I love to provoke people, when I have the energy) and frightening. But that experience is a post for another day.

When I first started putting fat studies on my vita (resume), I was told by a professor that I should say 'obesity studies' instead--fat studies was too political (did this person not know I was a feminist?). Thank goodness I was beyond my naiveté because I knew 'obesity studies' was certainly NOT what I was doing. At that time I was still extra nervous when telling new people what I studied, but I was often surprised at how interested people were. That was around the time of the Fat and the Academy conference at Smith (I had a prof who I'm pretty sure did not think such a conference was legit.)

When Big People On Campus came out, I was overjoyed. That was a HUGE deal to me. I still hang that article in my office and probably will for a long time. I remember sending it to one of my committee members and another professor, but I don't remember either one of them even commenting on it.

Fat Studies remained one of those things I always had to explain to people, sometimes justify. Just two years ago when I posted about fat studies on a sociology forum on Myspace, I was surprised at the naysayers. But when one really amazing scholar chimed in about how fat studies was legit and important, I was really relieved--and touched.

A lot has changed since I first found out about this whole fat studies jazz, for me and in general. Now everyone I work with knows what I do and have been pleased with how much support I have gotten. Fat studies papers pop up more and more and more at conferences. The Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association has it's own Fat Studies area and will have TEN different sessions at the upcoming conference. That's practically it's own conference, given that academics are lucky if they make it to ten different sessions when they go to one. Other conferences, even regional ones, have had Fat Studies panels. More and more I have seen fat studies papers, if not panels, at national conferences too. May 2008 was the first Fat Studies conference in the UK. Fat Studies is currently being revived at the National Women's Studies Association. We had an incredible turnout at the panels there last year. Now there's a Fat Studies Conference in Australia!!! And a series of Fat Studies talks at UCLA.

It has been an incredible couple of years for fat studies and related books (not to mention stuff meant for a non-academic audience). Most notably, Linda Bacon's Health at Every Size, Fat Studies in the UK and The Fat Studies Reader. Now when someone asks about fat studies, we have some definitive texts to hand them. More scholars are incorporating fat studies articles into their not-necessarily-fat-related anthologies too. This means even more awareness for us.

When  when No Fear of Fat came out last year in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, two, read it, TWO different professors offered me hard copies. Two days ago someone who does global history asked me if I'd ever read Rebecca Popenoe's work. Colleagues and friends send me links ALL THE TIME to fat-related stuff. Contrast that to my experience when "Big People on Campus" came out. I get asked to guest lecture in people's classes--to come talk about fat--every semester. Tenured professors from my university contact me wanting to know more about this bizniz. More and more people are teaching about fat issues and critical perspectives on "obesity" in their classes. It's clear to anyone who reads the blog Sociological Images that they are aware of fat studies/fat activist perspectives--hell, there is a VISIBLE fat feminist following there that will call them on it otherwise.

Recently, we had a candidate interviewing in our department. The candidate was meeting with grad students and I went to give my spiel about what I study, "I study sex, gender, sexuality, and I do sociology of the body and work in this emerging field called fat studies..." I usually say this because despite our progress, people still don't often know what the crap I'm talking about. To my surprise the candidate said, "Emerging field? That's been around for a long time." And for once, I was the shocked one in such an interaction.

I'm so tempted to take this post down and just pretend it never happened, but it did. See How I am like a giant ass

So I was watching the final season of LOST the other day. This particular episode focused on John Locke, a mild-mannered fellow who happens to be in a wheelchair. John had met a spinal surgeon in a previous episode and was offered a free consultation but in this episode John thought about it and decided not to call him. See, John had been through so many painful and stressful attempts to fix his spine and had experienced the heartbreak of failed attempts so many times that he figured it was time to stop putting himself through the wringer and just accept that he was never going to walk again. When he told this news to his fiancée, it was met by happy tears, a swell of music, and a romantic kiss.

Now imagine for a second that John Locke isn't a guy in a wheelchair. Imagine he's a big fat guy, one who has spent his life on a multitude of diets that didn't work and has finally decided to just accept and love his fat body as it is instead of trying to change it. I'm guessing the scene would play out a bit differently. But why is that, exactly? Why is a thin person in a wheelchair allowed to decline a painful, stressful intervention that likely won't work, but a fat person is somehow morally failing if he or she chooses to do so?

After all, folks in wheelchairs are often, rightly or wrongly, assumed to need more medical attention than the average person. Following that logic, one could jump to draw the conclusion that their health care costs more. On top of that, they get so-called "special treatment" like their own parking spots, ramps in public places, and comfortable and accessible seating areas in most every venue. To be sure, people in wheelchairs face discrimination in the workplace just like fat people do but that discrimination is illegal in every square inch of the US.

So why is it okay that fat people get scapegoated for rising health care costs, called 'infantile' for insisting that airlines provide accommodations that are remotely workable, and told to "shut up and get on the treadmill" when we raise concerns about discrimination? Short answer: it's not.

Like people in wheelchairs, fat people are valuable and significant members of society. We contribute just as much and are just as essential to our jobs and communities as anyone else. We are not infantile or requiring of special treatment, but we do deserve the same respect given to any other member of the human race. These bodies are our bodies. We are the only ones who get to decide what is going to happen with them. This world is our world too. We deserve to be represented and accommodated just like everyone else. Anything less is simply not acceptable.

PS: not trying to hate on wheeled folks. I'm sure there are challenges and frustrations (and triumphs) of being in a wheelchair that I have no idea about. The bottom line is that we all deserve to be treated with the same respect as everyone else. xo

So unless you're living under a rock somewhere, you've likely heard something about Kevin Smith getting thrown off of a Southwest flight from Oakland to Burbank because he was too fat. Here's a report on the issue from Shapely Prose as well as coverage from ABC's Nightline. I have some conflicting thoughts surrounding this incident (for instance, I'm thrilled that someone is finally paying attention to complaints about the way fat people are treated on airplanes, but I'm frustrated that it took a celebrity to make them pay attention and I'm not altogether convinced it will change anything anyway) but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

This video over at ABC.com just makes me crazy. Dr. Richard Besser is attempting to give advice to a parent on how to deal with her eleven-year-old child sneaking food and instead of addressing the underlying causes and mentioning the potential for eating disorders, he recommends that the parent sit down with his or her kid and draw up a contract for changing her behavior. This is horrible, terrible advice, and I know because it's what my parents did with me. Did I mention I weigh around 400 pounds now?

Here's the thing: a child is not an adult. There's a reason we don't let children sign contracts, and it's because they're busy making mistakes and dropping the ball and acting on impulse...things that aren't really conducive to setting a goal and following it through. Why would you want to put your child in a position where she is likely to fail over and over? Furthermore, Dr. Besser makes a fuss about how the parents shouldn't be the food police, but that's the exact relationship you are fostering with this contract business, because someone has to be the enforcer and make sure the terms of the contract are being followed. Even if you're not being 'the food police', per se, you're at least being the food prosecutor. Is that really better? The bottom line is that it enforces the adversarial relationship that is already developing because she clearly feels like she has to hide her eating from you.

I swear, that letter could have been written by my parents. The part about "she wants to lose weight", is especially accurate because when I was a kid all I wanted in the world was to make my parents happy,and it was abundantly clear that all they wanted was for me to be thin. I have no doubt that there were loving reasons behind it, like wanting me to fit in socially, but all their campaign did was drive a wedge between us and eff up my relationship with food and exercise.

Here's the advice I wish my parents had gotten when I was a kid sneaking food into my room: listen to your daughter. Talk to her about what's going on and try to figure out what might be bothering her. Hug her...a lot. Remind her that you love her no matter what, and that you will always be there for her. That kind of thing will go a long, long way. In the end, the most important thing to remember is that your job here is about providing unconditional love and support. Leave the contracts out of it.

If you have been waiting for your registration to be approved and you just received an email saying your account was deleted, please feel free to reapply. We had some really really old registrations in there and I'm trying to claw my way back to the top of the pile. Questions or concerns? Email me at carrie at fatrights dot org.

Thanks!
Carrie

This scares the crap out of me. Have we really gotten to the point where forced food restriction and (potentially) stomach altering surgery is the best thing we can do for our kids? Not to mention the fact that the child mentioned in the article got fat because of a tumor on her pituitary gland and she couldn't feel her fullness signals anymore. So how exactly is lapband surgery, which essentially shrinks your stomach so you feel full sooner, working for this kid? If you can't feel full at all, does sooner ever come?

You know the lectures going on at UCLA that we posted about the other day? A little birdie told us they are podcasting them on YouTube!!! The magic that is transmitting knowledge across time and space via the internet thrills me.

Below is the first lecture, by Paul Campos. I've never met Paul, so I had no idea he was so charming! He's got Ryan Reynolds' eyes/brows, amirite?

Admittedly, we've heard time and time again almost everything that Paul talks about. However, I still think it's a good listen if you have the time. While transcribing some quotes I had to listen to some bits over and over again...which made me realize that it can still be powerful to hear these words spoken, even if you've heard them a bazillion times already. My highlights after the jump.



Highlights:

-Paul got interested in this fat stuff when studying the Clinton-Lewinski case. Interesting story!

-Paul's demeanor and the audience's reaction to him teling them that overweight "is thinner than me...seriously." Hilarious.

-Paul's acknowledgement of privilege, which gives him legitimacy when speaking about such discredited things like this. As a fat woman who is often seen as "biased" or "merely justifying my behavior," I appreciate this.

-Paul says some interesting things about fatness as "relative" to different sitautions, contexts, people.

-This quote, long as it is:



-And my personal fav:



-At the end, Paul makes some interesting comparisons between cultural frames about "curing homosexuality" and "curing obesity," attempting to give the audience some perspective on "reality" and medicalizing human beings.

We at BFB want to start a regular post about grassroots and/or individual activism, which highlights local efforts to make a difference.

Let's start small. I have two questions for you.

1) What is something you or someone you know is doing to make a difference in the name of fat acceptance and fat rights? This can be anything, no matter how small or how insignificant it might seem to some.

2) What are your favorite local activism ideas?

There has been much talk about this article, concering Whole Foods' new policy of granting a steeper discount to employees with lower BMIs and other "health"-related factors. It's exactly what we have been railing against for years: employers using weight to unfairly undercompensate their fat workers. Even laypeople who don't think about this stuff all day have been saying how ridiculous the policy is. I mean, think about it. You own a store that purports to sell healthy food. Why would you want to make it more difficult for your so-called "unhealthy" employees to access the food you sell? Perhaps the opposite should be true, that your employees who have health issues have even greater discounts than the healthy ones. Or perhaps you should really get out of your employees' personal business. Just saying.

Anyone have any info on boycotts or the like? Feel free to post it in the comments.

See also this from Paul Campos

Okay, I forwarded your feedback on to my athletic wear contact and he asked for more specifics. So let's talk about exactly what features we would like to see in certain items, like sports bras, shorts and t-shirts. Obviously fit is a big deal for all of us, but what specifically needs to be different about the fit? It's entirely possible that we may be able to get this company to make us exactly what we need, so really think about what that would be and let me know.

PS: If any of you are members of other fathlete groups, please either get their feedback and post it here or have them email me at carrie at fatrights dot org so we can include their needs as well.

Thanks!

If any of you live in the L.A. area, sociologist Abigail Saguy has put together a series of lectures on Fatness and Gender. The first lecture, by Paul Campus, happens tonight at 5pm. Katherine Flegal lectures in February and Marilyn Wann lectures in March! More information below.

Wednesday, Jan. 20, 5 p.m.

Fat and Identity Politics: Lecture by Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado and author of "The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous to Your Health" (Gotham, 2004).

Wednesday, Feb. 10, 4 p.m.

Weight and Mortality: The Health Perspective: Lecture by Katherine M. Flegal, senior research scientist and distinguished consultant at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

Monday, March 1, 4 p.m.

Fighting Fat Fear During the War on 'Obesity': Lecture by Marilyn Wann, activist and author of "Fat! So? Because You Don't Have to Apologize for Your Size" (Ten Speed Press, 1998).

All lectures will take place at Royce Hall, Room 314, on the UCLA campus.

Here's another great discussion on obesity, health and environmentalism at Sociological Images. What I love about reading the commentary at SI is that the point of that site is to look beyond the surface of the messages communicated to us by the mainstream media. The commenters there seem to be more willing to question their own beliefs and the result is some very thoughtful commentary. Enjoy

Close your eyes for a moment, and imagine a world where athletes of all sizes are taken seriously and provided for. What would that look like? What kinds of athletic gear would be available for us? What would you like to see? I'm asking because a small athletic clothing company asked me, but I think it's also important for us to start visualizing and talking about what kinds of changes we would like to see in the world. So let's have it! What frustrates you about being a fat athlete today? What athletic clothing, equipment, etc do you find inadequate or lacking? What would you create or change about the current world to make it a friendlier place for fat athletes?

Marilyn Wann announced today that there will be another hearing for a height/weight anti-discrimination bill in Massachusetts! The hearing will be on January 27th. Marilyn says:

Let's flood the legislative inbox! Email Tracy.Choi@state.ma.us. Please copy me: marilyn@fatso.com. Forward this! -- What to write: That you support H.1850. Your ht./wt. discrimination story (esp. at work, school, doctor, housing, seating) and why you care about this law. THANKS!

Please take the time to send an e-mail in support of this bill. If you are interested in testifying in person, please contact Marilyn at the above e-mail. Getting this bill passed would be a huge win for everyone everywhere.

Byron Rushing of Massachusetts tried two years ago to get a similar bill into law and from what I remember--although the bill didn't go through--things went pretty well. It would be fantastic if we could make this happen this year.
.
.
.
PS--Check out Marilyn's words regarding Rep. Rushing and her experiences with this bill below in the comments.

PPS--I failed to see Rep. Rushing speak the one time I was in Boston. I now may never forgive myself.

This article from BBC News on the discussion about whether food rationing would solve the 'obesity crisis' would be laughable if it didn't feel a little too close to an actual possibility. The article is chock full of quotes from yahoos that just don't get it, including this choice gem from Dr. David Haslam, chairman of the National Obesity Forum:

"We have a situation where food is available everywhere, open round the clock - cheaper, poor quality, bigger portions - a situation where food is ubiquitous. It is the first time really in history where food is limitless.

"We haven't developed an instinct that tells us when not to eat. Our strongest instincts tell us to eat."

So, rad. I hope all of the hungry people in the UK and all over the world were relieved to find out that food is now available everywhere. Also, no, it's not that we haven't developed the instinct not to eat. It's that we've destroyed any connection to our natural instincts through this perpetual dieting bullcrap.

Oh, also:

"There is a place for the nanny state, especially when you look at kids."

But the nanny state isn't about children, dammit. It's about treating adults like kids, making decisions for them that they are perfectly able to make for themselves. There's a word for someone who is qualified to make a decision for another human being, and that word is: parent. And only if we're still talking about kids. In terms of adults, another adult isn't allowed to make any kind of decisions for me unless I sign a legal document saying so. So why are we even talking about this?

This humble article on The Adipositivity Project over at Sociological Images has spurred a hell of a good discussion on fatness. There are a few folks beating the fat=unhealthy drum, but there are so many other thoughtful comments it's totally worth it. Check it out!

{Promoted from the forums - CarrieP}

The BBC is reporting that a group of Cambridge researchers have discovered a genetic factor common to a number of children and teens labelled as 'severely obese'. They also seem to have identified further links between these 'copy number variants' and the regulation of blood sugar levels and appetite, concerns frequently discussed over the years on these very boards (far be it for me to suggest that people in the FA movement have long known what others have persistently refused even to attempt to demonstrate). Worryingly, several of the study's young participants had already been placed on local authority child protection registers 'on the assumption that their parents were deliberately overfeeding them'; the research findings are apparently sufficiently robust that those participants who were previously slated for intervention or removal by the social services have now been deleted from the database and their parents presumably exonerated.

I give this news a cautious welcome, for the 'may' of the headline is not by any means a 'will' and the enormous moral panic and incessant misinformation of the last decade have left us with a metaphorical supertanker of ignorance and prejudice to stop and turn around before the social work and child health professions begin to realise that a child's size may be as natural as their height and entirely unrelated to parental immorality, abuse or neglect. After all, last month's effective admission by a major obesity research institute that their initial apocalyptic predictions, on which much of the policy and media overreaction seen since in the UK have been based, were way off the mark has so far failed to have much by way impact on those policy makers and the government approach to the 'issue' and indeed was quickly shunted from the front pages.

However it is an important step forward which I am hoping that, given the esteem in which the University of Cambridge is held, will maybe encourage more researchers to break from the consensus and have the courage to challenge the assumptions about over-eating and lack of exercise (and perhaps even the scale of the 'epidemic' itself) without fear of censure and dismissal. Most importantly, tonight maybe Britain's fat children and their entirely blameless parents can sleep that little bit easier in their beds as a result of this good work by Dr. Farooqi and her team. I hope that David Rogers, the Local Government Association public health spokesman who called for a nationwide policy of taking obese children into care a couple of years back, sees this and eats his words, and that lawyers acting for the Dundee family, whose teenage son and daughter remain in the hands of the local authority, are paying attention.

ETA: more about the story here, from AOL via the NAAFA blog (whatever you do, don't read the comments on the AOL link!).

I'm sure by now you all have read this article about Lincoln University's controversial policy to make all fatties take an extra class to learn how to not be fat. Well, Scott sent me this article (thanks Scott!) about what other schools are doing, and I have to say that some of them have really gotten it right. A few just have classes and weight loss programs but some are actually walking the walk by offering healthier eating options in the cafeteria and creating opportunities for physical activity.

I, for one, don't have any problem with the idea of having a mandatory class on health and wellness, in fact I was under the impression that it was already a requirement for graduation in most schools. The only real issue I have with Lincoln's policy is the singling out of people based on their BMI. As Norfolk University's spokesperson says about their mandatory wellness class, "We just know that every single one of our students needs this information." Yes. Everyone needs to know how to develop healthy habits and take care of their bodies, even if they never choose to use that information. Heck, I hated taking Trigonometry when I was younger and I have never, ever needed any of that information, but it was a requirement so I did it. Wellness is no different.