Though it has been kept pretty quiet, the flatulent puffery of 'costs of obesity' has always been dwarfed by the UK healthcare costs of malnutrition. Estimated in a bapen report as being around 14.4 billion, 2011-12.
In the developed world, malnutrition is mainly a province of the old. Appetite and hunger often decline in function with age, bad health and infirmity. Older people can struggle to feed themselves due to these and other issues from lack of funds, to loneliness-if they're used to eating as a communal practise. Far too often, it occurs from neglect of feeding during stays in hospital. Either patients are admitted for malnutrition itself or illness separate and related to it.
In less developed countries, its among the majority poverty stricken populace, hitting children especially hard. Undermining their physical development, in terms of stature and intellect. Even killing them before they've had a chance to live.
A lesser stated fact of malnutrition is that it can increase the mental health burden by reducing the energy available to a growing brain and nervous system, leading it to be more fragile, less able to recover from emotional knock backs, of which there are far more of in society with puny infrastructure and systemic corruption.
Malnutrition refers to too few calories for the maintenance of basic health. A hangover from the time when it was recognised without phony argument that energy is a basic requirement of human existence. It is the primary nutrient, one which cannot be done without. Hence, malnutrition the absence of sufficient nutrition or energy. Badly nourished.
It should be obvious that this is too important a concept, responsible for a yearly death toll of 300,000 children under-five, to be cluttered with a self-involved Western theatre of contrivance that is the ob crusade.
Enter public health jockeys, oblivious to the grotesque comparison with their self-indulgent play-acting,
Professor Corinna Hawkes, who co-chaired the research, said the study was "redefining what the world thinks of as being malnourished".Is that so? I mean why restrict yourself to meaningful use of terms? Common meanings enable folk to communicate with each other. The report is portentously called "from promise to impact, ending malnutrition by 2030." Jamie Oliver, amongst other bigwigs, turns up briefly-listed as "chef and campaigner".....[not going there].
I hope this includes agitating for trade rather than exploitation then "aid" out of the profit of that.
"You have outcomes like you are too thin, you're not growing fast enough… or it could mean that you're overweight or you have high blood sugar, which leads to diabetes," she said.Too thin?!? Malnutrition is capable of leading to actual illness like Kwashiorkor, its not "body image" trivia. Disease and illness itself can lead to malnutrition.
Weight is not really an issue of diet anyway. It's mainly an issue of metabolic function. It is turned into an issue of diet at the behest of those invested in peddling that as their career. The "obesity crisis" is a contrivance of science-blocking.
It has delayed by misframing, misdirection, distraction, hype, hysteria and obfuscation a truer grasp of how our bodies regulate weight. It is intrinsically regressive, denying people real power and more tangible dominion over their own bodies.
Seeking only to put it in the hands of drug manufacturers and dubious professionals. No wonder the likes of Hawkes finds this rather exciting, as in ££££xciting. I find it a sickening waste of human resources. Nor is weight about the injustices of food economics and systemic corruption of power elites. On the contrary, corporate reach has been aided by the crusade's insistence that weight is an issue of individual dietary restriction. Using that as an excuse to give industrial food carte blanche to shape our environment.
Weight is still cast as an individual fault, only the casting of phony individualism, has changed to phony liberal leftism of, a problem with food systems, plays both ends like a fiddle, until they're inclined to take a closer look.
"Weight management" has replaced weight loss dieting with a far more invasive and intimate management of people. Insisting on control of diet, appetite, activity, habits and interests as well as minds, emotions, thought processes.
Along with directing people to become drug dumpsters for useless and yet toxic meds Big pharma struggles to flog anywhere else. Does that sound like an enterprise that has an answer?
This spectacle has also put the developing world on a countdown to add this expensive mess to old unsolved problems like malnutrition, so they overlap in a nice double whammy effect that so often plagues the world's poorest citizens.
Well done Western 'obesity' wallahs and its white coat mafia, you must be so proud.
The other co-chair of this report, Lawrence Hadda did amuse me though,
"We now live in a world where being malnourished is the new normal.Does he sound in any real anguish to you? They never do. They still can't find a way to fake sincerity, the old Hollywood axiom of the key to success in showbiz. Public health, showbiz for people who would otherwise have been sociologists, priests, successfully eating disordered. Ob always was a kind of rogue sociology.
"It is a world that we must all claim as totally unacceptable."
One can only hope this doesn't further obscure an issue of genuine significance. It was a little disconcerting to read Tulip Mazumdar's byline, frequently seen reporting various traumas and events in Africa.
Note how 'obesity' comes first.