Animals and 6-Month-Old Infants Are Getting Fatter … Which Mean that It’s Something In the Environment

George Washington's picture

We’ve extensively documented that toxic chemicals in our food, water and air our causing an epidemic of obesity … even in 6 month old infants.

No matter how lazy and gluttonous adults may have become recently, 6-month-olds can’t be lazy … they can’t even walk, let alone go to the gym.

And 6-month-olds can’t “binge” … Gerber doesn’t make corn dogs or milk chocolate truffles with rum.

The same thing is being observed in animals … hardly your stereotypical couch potatoes.

Specifically, the Proceeding of the Royal Society published a scientific paper in 2010 showing that animals – as well as humans – are getting hit with more obesity:

‘Like humans, domestic animals and fish and other wildlife are exposed to contaminants in air, soil, water, and food, and they can suffer acute and chronic health effects from such exposures. Animal sentinel systems—systems in which data on animals exposed to contaminants in the environment are regularly and systematically collected and analyzed—can be used to identify potential health hazards to other animals or humans.’
National Academy of Sciences (1991, p. 1).




From 24 distinct populations (12 subdivided into separate male and female populations), representing eight species (see §2 for inclusion criteria), over 20 000 animals were studied. Time trends for mean per cent weight change and the odds of obesity (see the electronic supplementary material for definition) were tested for the samples from each population at an age period that corresponded roughly to early-middle adulthood (35 years) in human development (see the electronic supplementary material for calculation) because on a per cent basis, in United States adults, 30–39 years is the decade of human life in which obesity has increased at least as much as any age interval during the last several decades (

The animals came from a variety of different settings and environments, which reduces the possibility that all of the animals were lazy or more gluttonous than normal:

Macaques—Wisconsin. Our sample consisted of 65 (23 males, 42 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta—Indian origin) from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC) measured between 1971 and 2006.


Macaques—Oregon. Our sample consisted of 46 (14 males, 32 females) rhesus macaques (Macaca Mulatta—Indian strain) from the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONRPC), measured between 1981 and 1993.

Macaques—California. Our sample consisted of 77 (30 males, 47 females) rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), primarily of Indian origin from the CNPRC (California National Primate Research Center), measured between 1979 and 1992.
Chimpanzees. Our sample consisted of 46 (16 males, 30 females) chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) that had been born and lived their entire lives at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center (YNPRC). These animals were measured between the years 1985–2005.
Vervets. Our sample included a total of 117 (36 males, 81 females) vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops sabaeus) living in 18 captive social groups at the UCLA-VA Vervet Research Colony, measured between the years 1990 and 2006.
Marmosets. Our sample included a total of 143 (65 males, 78 females) common marmosets (Callitrichix jacchus jacchus) from the WNPRC, measured between the years 1991 and 2006.
Mice and rats (laboratory). Our sample consisted of animals from 106 rat and 93 mouse studies. There was some variation in sample size between studies. For both rats and mice, the majority of studies had sample sizes of 60 males and 60 females. However, some studies had fewer (i.e. 50, 49, etc.) or more (i.e. 70) animals. In calculating our sample size, we decided to use a conservative estimate of 50 animals per study. Body weights for only untreated control mice and rats used in National Toxicology Programme (NTP) studies between the years of 1982 and 2005 were analysed.
Domestic dogs and cats. Our sample of dogs included a total of 2806 (1366 males, 1440 females) animals measured between the years of 1990 and 2002. Our sample of cats included a total of 574 (265 males, 309 females) animals, measured between the years of 1989 to 2001.
Feral rats. Our sample consisted of 6115 (2886 males, 3229 females) wild Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) that were captured in the central alleys of high-density residential neighbourhoods using single-capture live traps, while rural rat populations were sampled from parklands and agricultural areas in areas surrounding the city [12,13], between the years 1948 and 2006.

The results showed across-the-board increases in obesity:

For per cent weight change, 24 out of 24 time trends were positive (i.e. increasing). The probability of all out of 24 independent trend estimates being in the same direction by chance is 1.2 × 10−7. For the odds of obesity, 23 out of 24 cases were positive (p = 3.0 × 10−6; table 1 and figure 1). When we combine males and females of each species into a single analysis, we find that in all 12 populations, per cent weight change and odds of obesity time trends were positive (p = 4.9 × 10−5, for 12 out of 12 in the same direction). Given these overwhelmingly significant results at the ensemble or meta-analytical level, we describe the results below for samples from each individual population focusing on the magnitude of the coefficients. Standard errors, confidence intervals and p-values are shown in table 1 and figure 1.

The study concluded that animals are gaining weight, even though they are not subject to the same factors normally blamed for the human obesity epidemic:

Our findings reveal that large and sustained population increases in body weights can occur in mammalian populations, just as they have occurred among human populations, even in the absence of those factors that are typically conceived of as the primary determinants of the human obesity epidemic via their influence on diet (e.g. access to vending machines) and physical activity (e.g. less physical education classes in schools). Though results were not statistically significant in every population (11 out of 24 are statistically significant for per cent increase in weight per decade, and 7 out of 24 are statistically significant for odds of obesity), viewed as an ensemble, the fact that nearly all independent time-trend coefficients were in the positive direction for both weight gain and for the odds of obesity, is overwhelmingly statistically significant.


That large population level changes in body weight distributions of mammalian populations can occur even when those populations are neither under obvious selection by predation nor are living with or among humans has been documented [15]. The particular upward trend we have observed towards obesity in multiple datasets of non-human animals has been suggested by anecdotal evidence for some time. A 2008 news report indicated that ‘trends in pet insurance are mirroring human healthcare. Obesity… is a growing problem for dogs and cats… (and 2007) saw a 19 per cent increase in claims related to obesity’ ( According to a recent review by German [16], ‘Most investigators agree that, as in humans, the incidence of obesity in the pet population is increasing’. Despite this strong sentiment that obesity rates are increasing in pets (note that the United States Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first drug to treat obesity in dogs; Food and Drug Administration, 2007), we were unable to find previously published data actually showing this increase.

Others reported that 19 per cent of horses in a large cohort were obese, even among largely pasture-fed animals. Although a direct comparison with a similarly sampled earlier cohort was not available, the investigators remarked that the levels were higher than a 5 per cent rate observed in an earlier study [17]. Similarly, an increase in body weights was observed among rats used in carcinogenicity studies in France between 1979 and 1991, despite similar husbandry conditions [18]. The authors attributed the increase to the introduction of animals of the same substrain but raised under specific pathogen-free conditions, reinforcing the perspective that the presence of viral or other microbial pathogens [19,20] may affect body weight in populations either positively or negatively, depending on the pathogen. It is also noteworthy that the obesity epidemic has also occurred among children of six months of age and under [21], an age group for which explanations involving food marketing, less physical education is schools, and more labour-saving devices seem questionable.

The authors raise numerous possible explanations, including hormone-disrupting chemicals:

One set of putative contributors to the human obesity epidemic is the collection of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (endocrine-disruptors), widely present in the environment [24].



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
phage's picture

why can't I up vote shargash comment, 10 comments below. the arrows in all the other comments are clickable?

The comment is bang on the money. Look up fructose metabolism. 95% of fructose goes to the liver. If you have no need of the energy, ie you haven't just run 5miles, this gets turned into fat as the mitochondria get overloaded with citrate. The fat produced in small dense LDL, this is what is clogging the shit out of your arteries.

The comment was

"That's because the conventional wisdom about obesity is nonsense. People and animals get fat because of excessive consumption of sugars and simple carbohydrates. 6-month olds are fat because formula is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup. Animals in human care (or living off human refuse) are fat because they're eating chow full of carbohydrate fillers. My (formerly) 103-pound german shepherd dog is down to 90 pounds in less than 6 months after taking her off kibble and switching her to a diet of 100% raw meat. If you eat what you evolved to eat you won't get fat. Excersize and gluttony have nothing to do with it.

Cathartes Aura's picture

agree, that was a comment worthy of an upvote, as is yours.

comments that begin with a blockquote often block the voting mechanism - it can be avoided by entering a character and hit the spacebar down, then type comment, or just prefacing a comment with text as many do - hope that helps!

connda's picture

The mammalian biomass is being fattened up.  Soylent Green Bitchz!

Bartanist's picture

I wonder if there is a connection with fluoride consumption. 98% of Europe does not fluoridate their water... Japan has less than 1% of its water fluoridated?

Maybe the vitamin D deficiency from lower levels of sun reaching people could have merit as well.

Sorry to all of you "better than thou" peeps who are so proud of how little you eat and how much you exercise. Still looking for reasons unrelated to consumption of exercise... because we all have been led to believe those are the main impacts, and just taking that as the "standard answer" adds nothing to the knowledge base.

Toolshed's picture

Gosh, the level of sheer stupidity in the comments on this article is simply breathtaking. Maybe some of you self proclaimed geniuses should do a little research on endocrine disrupting agents, their prevalence in the human environment, and their effects on our, and apparently animals, metabolism BEFORE you start spewing nonsense. The very reason for studying domestic and captive animals is the fact they share our environment. Studying animals in the wild where their exposure to these endocrine-disruptors is drastically less would be less productive to the study. I fully agree that diet and exercise are extremely important to human health, but there are things going on with modern human physiology that exceed the expected results of a poor fat and sugar rich diet and insufficient exercise. Humans are literally awash in a soup of chemistry. Virtually everything we touch, taste, and smell is loaded with chemicals. The vast majority of these chemicals have undergone little to zero research on their effects on humans. This is a relatively new condition in our environment and we should encourage research in this direction. On the other hand we could cheer as our tax dollars are used instead to fund the killing of this weeks chosen "bad guys".

Bartanist's picture

Well said ... the only thing that I might change is a qualifier:

The vast majority of these chemicals have undergone little to zero research on their effects on humans that we know of.

Take fluoride for example, there was a lot of work done on the effects of fluoride on people that has NOT been published for mainstream consumption, simply because people would then never touch anything with fluoride again... and then where would the government be?

DaveyJones's picture

Well said. Little to no research because the industries now control the money going to "independent" universities...and universities and desperate for money. Our own corrupt government for a long time now has agreed that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" thus testing is nearly voluntary... which is nonsense. Ironcically , the same entities that are claiming this genetic experiment is "substantially equivalent" are also racing off to patent these things as "unique" to control the without labels you won't know if your eating it and given their control, there's a very good chance you are.  

Toolshed's picture

More good points. Future historians (assuming humans have a future) will call this period the "Profit at ANY Cost Era".

forrestdweller's picture

they're not getting fatter,

their bones are getting bigger.

screw you!


The Beam's picture

Like the man-made global warming debate, I highly doubt this will get much more reporting. We are to thnik it's the people getting lazier. Thus we need to tax the "unhealthy food" for our own good. Can we tax the animals too? Those lazy bastards getting all obese. No lie though, I hope I find an obese 12-point buck this coming fall.

See, you just have to see the silver lining :-)

stiler's picture

a bit off topic, but interesting...


scroll down to the radio interview. LOL.

AcidRainIsCool's picture

The article should be renamed "Dumbasses getting must be the government's they deserve it". A sampling of monkeys in captivity, chidren born of sheeple and domesticated animals fed exclusively on bags of chemicals produced by crony capitalist corporations is hardly a represenative sampling.

The real world is what exists outside the protected enclave of human engineered false environs. Animals (and organisms) in the wild are different. In the forests and mountains, you will not find overly corpulent muscrats, deer with bellys dragging across the ground or snakes lying flacidly in front of the television gorging on Lay's potato chips.

The environmental problem is not a physical one; it IS one of a slovenly mental state in the present human condition. The "environment" of (1) governmental largesse, (2) incipidly banal media content and (3) public schools breeding plantation-like reliance on "society" (read slave-master) bailing people out for their own bad choices comprise the only real toxins in the air we breath, food we consume and water we drink.

Extra special message for any individuals buying into this George Soros funded fetid garbage - if you don't want to be fat, you have 2 choices it seems (A) get off your jiggling asscheeks now embedded on the folds of your rented couch and do something about it - or, (B) lay around in your own feces bitching and complaining that it's someone or something else's fault. If you choose the later, I don't give a fukc - just get out of our faces.


Cathartes Aura's picture

I see you've just created your account, and this is your virgin post.

angry bitter is a flavour, and no doubt you'll find your niche here, though you'll have much competition from some other newbs.

but yeah, blame the individual is certainly a popular troll. . .

shargash's picture

The study concluded that animals are gaining weight, even though they are not subject to the same factors normally blamed for the human obesity epidemic:

That's because the conventional wisdom about obesity is nonsense. People and animals get fat because of excessive consumption of sugars and simple carbohydrates. 6-month olds are fat because formula is loaded with high-fructose corn syrup. Animals in human care (or living off human refuse) are fat because they're eating chow full of carbohydrate fillers. My (formerly) 103-pound german shepherd dog is down to 90 pounds in less than 6 months after taking her off kibble and switching her to a diet of 100% raw meat. If you eat what you evolved to eat you won't get fat. Excersize and gluttony have nothing to do with it.

ONO47's picture

Make sure your dog gets raw meaty bones (cooked bones are bad because cooking changes the structure of the bones and makes the bones brittle). Read "Raw Meaty Bones" by Tom Lonsdale.

gcjblack's picture

I assume that all the animals in captivity are fed `Monkey Chow`or `Rat Chow`or `Cat Chow`etc. which is based primarily on corn, a sprinkling of vitamins & minerals to make it `healthy & complete`, then sprayed with an odorous oil to entice the animal to eat it.  Sounds like factory food for humans.   For the feral rats, they eat what they find in cities, and what entices humans is left to entice the rats, so that`s what they eat.

The common cause has been discovered.  It is the diet.  The documentary `King Corn`showed us by carbon isotopes that the typical human is over 90% corn, derived from corn fed to animals and directly in the diet (corn meal, corn flakes, corn chips, etc.)

Factory food is designed to maximize Big Food`s profit & market share, not to maximize health.

Excess carbohydrates in our diet is what causes obesity, diabetes, cancer, metabolic disease, heart disease, Alzheimers, stroke, high blood pressure.  Too much Omega 6 oils (canola, sunflower, corn, etc.) contributes to rhumatoid arthritis and other auto-immune diseases.

Sugar in our diets is now 5 times what it was in the 1900`s

For more information, see video on .YouTube by Dr. Lustig

Also check out Gary Taubes `Good Calorie Bad Calorie`

Grassfed's picture

With "scientific studies" like this, we all belong back in the stone age.  This is not science, it's the basis for mythology.

As for obesity, as grain has dominated our food system so has obesity levels (and all other chronic diseases) increased.  The animal kingdom and the greenleaf are tied together.  When man invented grain farming and started using it as a primary food, he changed the nutrient stream and consequently his health.

Even wild critters exposed to fields of grain or the tidbits they pick up laying around in the street all have an impact.  People who eat
The Real Diet of Man is Very Simple:
have their appropriate weight.  The same goes for all other animals not fed a grain-based diet.  Come on folks, this blaming the environment on health problems is the same as the Fed blaming depressions on not enough debt.  Get real.

Did the Caveman Have it Easy?:

Hulk's picture

A full half of all Americans, yes half, are either diabetic or pre-diabetic. Its time to wake up about our diet...

cooperbry's picture

The sad thing is that I have probably funded this study with my tax dollars...

Sathington Willougby's picture


No you funded it with your political incompetence to police your government.

User 3461's picture

That's "some pig", and I'm not sure if I like or fear your avitar.

User 3461's picture

I'm skeptical of the HL and conclusions. Babies can suffer from Mom's diet and feeding. Other primates sited...what are they being fed? Pets are easy for [me] to brush off, the dog food / treats are often corn-based. The non-lab rodents, feed on our scraps. So, what about the lab animals? I don't know.

zanza's picture

excess polyunsaturated fats may be a correlated reason, based on grain cenetered diets

dolly madison's picture

It's all your fault. 

You have a cavity.  It's your fault.  It doesn't matter that there is a vaccine for dental cavities that is not getting approved on humans forever.  It doesn't matter that the dentists don't tell you that chewing on gum with Xylitol in it drastically reduces cavities.  You didn't brush and floss well enough.  It is your fault.

You're fat.   It's your fault. It doesn't matter that obviously estrogenic things are happening like making the girls develop early, and estrogen pushes toward plump.  It doesn't matter that they put tons of glutamate in the processed food that is proven to increase appetited and BMI.  It doesn't matter that they put arsenic in the food which disrupts the bodies food processing making the body have less energy to run on and more to store.  All that doesn't matter.  It's just your fault.  You did not control yourself.

Your country's a mess.  It's your fault.  You voted for the representatives you got.  It doesn't matter that no matter who you voted for, they do the same thing.  It's just your fault for picking wrong.

It's all your fault, but don't feel guilty.  If you go shopping, you will feel better.


Reposted from another article because it works for this one too.

forrestdweller's picture

fat persons, really fat persons, are disgusting.

they have no selfrespect.

they move too little, and eat too much.

off course bad chemicals will contribute to the problem,

but they don't cause the problem of all those fat people.

they move too little and eat too much,

and then they blame the chemicals, saying they can't help being fat.



I am Jobe's picture

Ah the Great American Responsibility- Blame others for their own demise and stupidity.

Accountability, Responsibility- None in the USSA and so is shameless being in the USSA anymore.

I am Jobe's picture

Off Topic- Why do Americans adopt Chinese kids? So one one hand they bash Chinese stealing their jobs etc and then turn around and adopt kids from China. Do Americans not like their own kind or think the Kids in the USA are just stupid?

dolly madison's picture

There is not enough infants to be adopted in the US to meet the demand of infertile people.  That in itself is a big sign of how much we are poisoning ourselves.

non_anon's picture

beast eat beast, get used to it

plata pura's picture

Good pamphleteering GW. A one thomas hartmann also has a say on the subject thee might find interesting as you read like one of those science folks. In my 4.2 minutes of study on what i call the arbuckle syndrome has to do with earth precession and motorized caddies.

honestann's picture

The animals are eating MSG too?  :-o

sdavis's picture

76% increase in obese babies?

So what is that really? 1 in a million to 1.7 per million?

Diabetic (FAT) mothers have fat babies. If diabetes goes up by a certain percentage in woman I'd expect fat babies to increase as well. Plus women are having babies when they are older, presumably because they are working. Ergo, they feed the babies more formula and the babies get fatter.Plus, older women are generally fatter.

Fat animals? I'd expect a similar dynamic. Probably the animals are fed more, live longer, and have more health problems.

However, the same people who sell you the food that is addictive, sell you the insulin when you get sick from the garbage you eat. The more trash they can get the government to promote, the more drugs they can sell. The side effects for a lot of drugs is weight gain.



ClassicalLib17's picture

One only needs to observe the "groceries" that comprise your average shopping basket today to answer that question.   I got news for you people:  we are a lot more fucked than even you believe.  I coexist with "the people..."  It's all right in front of your face...  if you choose to look at life objectively.

Eireann go Brach's picture

Or just change the heading to " All Americans including 6 month old infants are fucking fat, and getting much fatter, yet their bellies will never be as big as the nauseating self absorbed egos that all yanks possess"

dontgoforit's picture

...and a happy belated St. Patrick's Day to you as well, cousin...c'mon, man.  Do we generalize on all things like this?  Just because some prick happens to be from Spain, doesn't make me say all Spainards are pricks - think about it.  A ton of us have Irish blood, English blood, German blood and every other kind.  America's a great country - just screwed up politics, just like most other countries. 

I am Jobe's picture

There are kids in my neighborhood that I must say 17 but look like they are in their 40's overweight, and chomp down on Taco Bell and MCD and play vidoe games and do less walking or riding their bicycle. No kid ever ride their bicycles. All drive cars those in HS at least.

I am Jobe's picture

There are kids in my neighborhood that I must say 17 but look like they are in their 40's overweight, and chomp down on Taco Bell and MCD and play vidoe games and do less walking or riding their bicycle. No kid ever ride their bicycles. All drive cars those in HS at least.

Bartanist's picture

A couple of possibilities not considered (and probably for good reason) by the "we eat too much of the wrong stuff and get too little exercise crowd".

1. Les oxygen is getting into our bloodstream so that we are metabolizing less. How? Possibly more oxygen substitutes in the air, such as CO ... can't see how the BaSO4 daily showers would do it though.

2. Just like bears and other mammels put on weight before winter, subconsciously nature is preparing us for a food shortage (although will most likely be unsuccessful)

3. Radiation or some other factor in the environment has had an effect on thyroxin levels, decreasing the normal human amount slightly and causing lower metabolism overall.

4. The aliens or demons are fattening us up, just like we fatten up cattle in the feed lots before they are slaughtered. Nice "marbling" of the meat.

5. We are not getting enough of the right kind of sleep due to the pervasive EMF radiation that, years ago, we did not swim through every minute of every day. Lack of proper sleep has been tied to both EMF radiation and weight gain. (gee ... maybe this is tied to number 4)

juangrande's picture

Throughout most of human history, life expectancy was 35-40 yrs. It's just a mean reversion process, right.

bunnyswanson's picture

Deficiencies also should be added.  Vitamin D - which the skin absorbs typically and which is blocked by sunscreens.  Iodine - Processed food manufacturers do not use iodinized salt.  

Also, there are antibiotics and a hormone given to the live stock in cattle industry.  My husband was a rancher (RIP) and he had his own vet for a calf ranch (bull) along with his dairy operation.  Faster to slaughter, the better.  That manure is used in the fields to grow the wheat, corn, etc and the water from the run off of the corrals was used to irrigate the fields.  After 30-40 years, it adds up. 

then, there is feast before famine to consider.

smb12321's picture

It has nothing to do with radiation or oxygen substitutes. Rich countries allow folks - for the first time in history - to consume more food than they need and the cheapest food is the worst (fast food, bread, dairy, especially sugar).

Perhaps the best indicator that the cause is not chemical is Japan with an infintesimal obesity problem (a major factor in controlling health costs).  In fact, Japanese are thinner now than they were ten years ago due to a massive program combining good diet, routine exercise and social shame.   Yet when they come to the US they balloon like all foreigners. I doubt it involves "toxic" chemicals - a phrase that makes no sense in the light of ever-increasing average age.

Occa's Law stands - folks who eat too much rich food and move too little will gain wait.  Those that do so over a long period of time will become obese.

Sanksion's picture

I'm french, I went in Georgetown university for a short seminar, and every single meal, beverage, in the USA, is improper to daily consumption. Too much sugar. Especially corns for kids, I tried a couple of time, you have to get used to that shit, because otherwise I was not able to eat my portion, I would have puked long before.

And not talking about the size of portions, in every restaurant. Even for a french, I eat less than average. But I never succeed to finish my meal. Too much food for one modern city douchebag day.

I can't help to think, not matter how hard some will blame chemical, in the end of the day, when you eat that amount of food for such little energy expenses, you'll end up fat. Even with the best high quality product (that you won't find in a wallmart neither in a european supermarket).

RKDS's picture

That is really true.  It has become damned near impossible to get a small soda at many fast-food restaurants.  The current "small" used to be the medium!  I suspect it won't be long until ordering a "small" gets you what used to be a large.  But what do you do, throw away food or dump out your drinks?  Lots of kids growing up were shamed into clearing the plate because Ethiopians were starving...

the tower's picture

I have seen mothers feeding 6 month old babies pieces of big mac and fries.... there you have it.

Fast-food culture has deprived people of actual knowledge about proper nutrition how to raise children.

It's called stupidity, something that is celebrated these days...

dolly madison's picture

It's probably many things making us fatter.  I did want to comment on the Japanese though.  I found a document online before where Japanese scientists credited their good health and lack of obesity on their diet high in taurine.  Seafood is very high in taurine. 

Taurine works on opposite receptors as glutamate in the body.  Glutamate is proven to make BMI go up.  Taurine is proven to make BMI go down. 

Additionally the Japanese tend to eat rice as their staple grain.  Rice is much lower in glutamate than wheat.  Other environmental things may have an impact, in Japan and here, but I believe that glutamate and taurine are key players and can override other things going on.

I tend toward obesity, and cutting down on glutamate and increasing taurine has helped me control my weight easier.

SubjectivObject's picture

And for interested parties who's vision is recently, I sed recently, going near sighted, research the principle protien component of (your growing less flexible) eye lens material. 

Muted reference here because interested parties need to convince themselves; and, in general, lets try to keep the eN esS Ehh and eF Dee Aa in the dark about what works, becuause the corporate information miners will act like they figured it and and then use their capital power and regulatory connections to monopolize it. 

bankruptcylawyer's picture

isn't it obvious , there's too much c02. it's poisoning everything and soon the obese people and animals will get drowned by the rising sea level because the sea is also becoming obese because of the extra layer of insulative fat that is the c02 blanket. 

it's clear as day, global warming climate anthropomorphistan demands that we respond by taxing the shit out of everything and screaming like a bunch of pansies about the poor third world while we passively allow ourselves to become a third world while bitching and crying about obesity. 


deal with it! if you wanna be socialist about something worthwhile other than obesity, than how about getting on the "let's make sure our government doesn't start world war III just because 'things are falling apart'. " i'd say that's one of the best socialist causes there is. 

tmosley's picture

Weight GAIN has never been a sign of chemical toxicity.  Fatter animals means animals that are more resistant to food shocks.

So to say that these chemicals are toxic is just plain WRONG.  But that doesn not mean that they are not DRUGS (chemicals that affect normal bodily function).  

This sort of thing isn't going to kill you if you will just get off your butt and do a little exercise to mediate the heart problems (you don't need to lose weight, just be a little active).