
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is spending $500 million to fight childhood obesity. They already have spent over $80 million over the past three years on the same thing. What confused me about this is that I recently saw some ads for childhood hunger. In fact, here are some facts I found on some obscure website:
10.5 percent of all U.S. households, representing 20 million adults and 13 million children, were "food insecure" because of lack of resources (U.S. Census Bureau survey -2000)
Over 9 million children are the recipients of food from either a pantry, kitchen or shelter. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)
22.2% of shelter clients indicated that their child/children was/were hungry at least once during the previous 12 months but couldn't afford more food. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)
Between 2000 and 2001, requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 23% in American cities, with 54% of requests coming from families with children. (U.S. Conference of Mayors)
Does anyone else see a contradiction here? How can we simultaneously fight childhood obesity and childhood hunger at the same time? Well, I have the answer. There is a reason I am called the King of Medicine. I propose we perform what I am defining as the First Historic Caloric Transplant. Here is how it is done: we take all those obese kids that no money seems to be able to fix and we move them to where the hungry kids are. Then, we take all the hungry kids and move them to where all the obese kids were. This has got to cost less than the $500 million the Robert Wood Johnson is spending and that doesn’t even count how much money is spent on the childhood hunger program. We do this for one year and then move them all back to where they came from. This would enable some type of caloric equilibration; you know, kind of like when you mix hot and cold water you get something in the middle? This should fix everything except for one thing. I predict some rich kids’ parents would apply for, and receive, “caloric credits” that enable their kids to stay home and eat as much as they want as long as some poor kid eats less in his or her place to cover the discrepancy.
10.5 percent of all U.S. households, representing 20 million adults and 13 million children, were "food insecure" because of lack of resources (U.S. Census Bureau survey -2000)
Over 9 million children are the recipients of food from either a pantry, kitchen or shelter. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)
22.2% of shelter clients indicated that their child/children was/were hungry at least once during the previous 12 months but couldn't afford more food. (America's Second Harvest - 2001)
Between 2000 and 2001, requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 23% in American cities, with 54% of requests coming from families with children. (U.S. Conference of Mayors)
Does anyone else see a contradiction here? How can we simultaneously fight childhood obesity and childhood hunger at the same time? Well, I have the answer. There is a reason I am called the King of Medicine. I propose we perform what I am defining as the First Historic Caloric Transplant. Here is how it is done: we take all those obese kids that no money seems to be able to fix and we move them to where the hungry kids are. Then, we take all the hungry kids and move them to where all the obese kids were. This has got to cost less than the $500 million the Robert Wood Johnson is spending and that doesn’t even count how much money is spent on the childhood hunger program. We do this for one year and then move them all back to where they came from. This would enable some type of caloric equilibration; you know, kind of like when you mix hot and cold water you get something in the middle? This should fix everything except for one thing. I predict some rich kids’ parents would apply for, and receive, “caloric credits” that enable their kids to stay home and eat as much as they want as long as some poor kid eats less in his or her place to cover the discrepancy.


