Hungry and obese

Does it seem strange to you that while on one hand we hear from multiple sources that a troubling number of adults and children are going hungry, but on the other hand data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that self reports of obesity by adults in 2014 in different ethnic groups ranged from 27% to 38% and approximately 17% of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese per 2011-2012 data?

One might guess that this situation is simply that too many Americans can afford to overeat and their numbers overwhelm the data from a smaller segment of the population who are underweight because they can’t afford to feed themselves.

But this isn’t the case at all, because the obesity rates in our poorest counties are nearly 12% above the national median (“Obesity: The New Hunger” by Robert Paarlberg, Ph.D., The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2016). So the question is why do we have so many overweight adults and children if we also have a hunger problem? The answer is very complicated and even more complicated because of how we define hunger.

While obesity is relatively easy to measure with a scale and a tape measure, hunger is a perception that is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Possibly in an attempt to create clarity for people like me who are confused by the coexistence of hunger and obesity, there has been a trend toward replacing “hunger” with the more techno-sounding buzz words, “food insecurity.”

According to Dr. Paarlberg, an adjunct professor of public policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and author of “The United States of Excess: Gluttony and the Dark Side of American Exceptionalism” (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2015), the United States Department of Agriculture calculates our national food insecurity quotient by way of an annual survey of a sample of households. Family members are asked questions such as whether “they had failed to eat or worried about running out of food for lack of money at any time in the previous 12 months.”

There are many reasons why a survey respondent might be concerned that he or she wouldn’t have enough to eat on a given day. It could have been poor planning on the part of the head of the household or a consequence of family chaos. And we have to assume that in some cases, it is simply because there wasn’t enough money to buy food that day. If it were only a matter of money, the solution would be easy. We could simply provide economically challenged families with more money to buy more food, but that is already being done through programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (often referred to as food stamps or SNAP). But the coexistence of obesity and hunger suggests to me that more food isn’t the answer.

Part of the problem is that “food” is too broadly defined. Some foods are more likely to contribute to obesity than others, and some foods satiate more quickly than others. While some restrictions have been built into the SNAP program to encourage participants to eat a healthier diet, the fact that soda and candy can be bought with food stamps is a serious error that must be corrected. It may be time to take a harder look at tightening other guidelines to make the subsidized diet healthier.

Unfortunately, the last step in the process occurs in the home. A diet that discourages obesity often includes fresh fruits and vegetables that can be expensive and may not be appealing to a family accustomed to calorie-dense foods. And a healthy diet often requires preparation skills and time, both of which economically challenged families may not have.

All of this makes me wonder whether we should stop worrying so much about hunger in America and shift the focus of our nutritional support programs more toward obesity prevention. Of course, that is easy to say for someone like myself who is lean and can always find something in the refrigerator to eat. But let’s remember that while starvation and obesity can kill, hunger doesn’t.

The problem is that “hunger” and the less emotionally charged term “food insecurity” are potent motivators for legislators who control the funding of our critical nutritional support programs. It still makes sense politically to continue to talk about eliminating hunger. But we need to craft our programs so that they address the larger problem of obesity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

Does it seem strange to you that while on one hand we hear from multiple sources that a troubling number of adults and children are going hungry, but on the other hand data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that self reports of obesity by adults in 2014 in different ethnic groups ranged from 27% to 38% and approximately 17% of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese per 2011-2012 data?

One might guess that this situation is simply that too many Americans can afford to overeat and their numbers overwhelm the data from a smaller segment of the population who are underweight because they can’t afford to feed themselves.

But this isn’t the case at all, because the obesity rates in our poorest counties are nearly 12% above the national median (“Obesity: The New Hunger” by Robert Paarlberg, Ph.D., The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2016). So the question is why do we have so many overweight adults and children if we also have a hunger problem? The answer is very complicated and even more complicated because of how we define hunger.

While obesity is relatively easy to measure with a scale and a tape measure, hunger is a perception that is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Possibly in an attempt to create clarity for people like me who are confused by the coexistence of hunger and obesity, there has been a trend toward replacing “hunger” with the more techno-sounding buzz words, “food insecurity.”

According to Dr. Paarlberg, an adjunct professor of public policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and author of “The United States of Excess: Gluttony and the Dark Side of American Exceptionalism” (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2015), the United States Department of Agriculture calculates our national food insecurity quotient by way of an annual survey of a sample of households. Family members are asked questions such as whether “they had failed to eat or worried about running out of food for lack of money at any time in the previous 12 months.”

There are many reasons why a survey respondent might be concerned that he or she wouldn’t have enough to eat on a given day. It could have been poor planning on the part of the head of the household or a consequence of family chaos. And we have to assume that in some cases, it is simply because there wasn’t enough money to buy food that day. If it were only a matter of money, the solution would be easy. We could simply provide economically challenged families with more money to buy more food, but that is already being done through programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (often referred to as food stamps or SNAP). But the coexistence of obesity and hunger suggests to me that more food isn’t the answer.

Part of the problem is that “food” is too broadly defined. Some foods are more likely to contribute to obesity than others, and some foods satiate more quickly than others. While some restrictions have been built into the SNAP program to encourage participants to eat a healthier diet, the fact that soda and candy can be bought with food stamps is a serious error that must be corrected. It may be time to take a harder look at tightening other guidelines to make the subsidized diet healthier.

Unfortunately, the last step in the process occurs in the home. A diet that discourages obesity often includes fresh fruits and vegetables that can be expensive and may not be appealing to a family accustomed to calorie-dense foods. And a healthy diet often requires preparation skills and time, both of which economically challenged families may not have.

All of this makes me wonder whether we should stop worrying so much about hunger in America and shift the focus of our nutritional support programs more toward obesity prevention. Of course, that is easy to say for someone like myself who is lean and can always find something in the refrigerator to eat. But let’s remember that while starvation and obesity can kill, hunger doesn’t.

The problem is that “hunger” and the less emotionally charged term “food insecurity” are potent motivators for legislators who control the funding of our critical nutritional support programs. It still makes sense politically to continue to talk about eliminating hunger. But we need to craft our programs so that they address the larger problem of obesity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

Does it seem strange to you that while on one hand we hear from multiple sources that a troubling number of adults and children are going hungry, but on the other hand data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that self reports of obesity by adults in 2014 in different ethnic groups ranged from 27% to 38% and approximately 17% of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese per 2011-2012 data?

One might guess that this situation is simply that too many Americans can afford to overeat and their numbers overwhelm the data from a smaller segment of the population who are underweight because they can’t afford to feed themselves.

But this isn’t the case at all, because the obesity rates in our poorest counties are nearly 12% above the national median (“Obesity: The New Hunger” by Robert Paarlberg, Ph.D., The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2016). So the question is why do we have so many overweight adults and children if we also have a hunger problem? The answer is very complicated and even more complicated because of how we define hunger.

While obesity is relatively easy to measure with a scale and a tape measure, hunger is a perception that is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Possibly in an attempt to create clarity for people like me who are confused by the coexistence of hunger and obesity, there has been a trend toward replacing “hunger” with the more techno-sounding buzz words, “food insecurity.”

According to Dr. Paarlberg, an adjunct professor of public policy at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and author of “The United States of Excess: Gluttony and the Dark Side of American Exceptionalism” (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2015), the United States Department of Agriculture calculates our national food insecurity quotient by way of an annual survey of a sample of households. Family members are asked questions such as whether “they had failed to eat or worried about running out of food for lack of money at any time in the previous 12 months.”

There are many reasons why a survey respondent might be concerned that he or she wouldn’t have enough to eat on a given day. It could have been poor planning on the part of the head of the household or a consequence of family chaos. And we have to assume that in some cases, it is simply because there wasn’t enough money to buy food that day. If it were only a matter of money, the solution would be easy. We could simply provide economically challenged families with more money to buy more food, but that is already being done through programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (often referred to as food stamps or SNAP). But the coexistence of obesity and hunger suggests to me that more food isn’t the answer.

Part of the problem is that “food” is too broadly defined. Some foods are more likely to contribute to obesity than others, and some foods satiate more quickly than others. While some restrictions have been built into the SNAP program to encourage participants to eat a healthier diet, the fact that soda and candy can be bought with food stamps is a serious error that must be corrected. It may be time to take a harder look at tightening other guidelines to make the subsidized diet healthier.

Unfortunately, the last step in the process occurs in the home. A diet that discourages obesity often includes fresh fruits and vegetables that can be expensive and may not be appealing to a family accustomed to calorie-dense foods. And a healthy diet often requires preparation skills and time, both of which economically challenged families may not have.

All of this makes me wonder whether we should stop worrying so much about hunger in America and shift the focus of our nutritional support programs more toward obesity prevention. Of course, that is easy to say for someone like myself who is lean and can always find something in the refrigerator to eat. But let’s remember that while starvation and obesity can kill, hunger doesn’t.

The problem is that “hunger” and the less emotionally charged term “food insecurity” are potent motivators for legislators who control the funding of our critical nutritional support programs. It still makes sense politically to continue to talk about eliminating hunger. But we need to craft our programs so that they address the larger problem of obesity.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”