UNICEF Warns Childhood Obesity Has Surpassed Underweight Worldwide

Obesity has now overtaken underweight as the more common form of malnutrition among children, according to a new UNICEF report. The study, “Feeding Profit: How Food Environments are Failing Children,” reveals that 1 in 10 school-aged children and adolescents — about 188 million — are living with obesity, putting them at risk of serious, life-threatening diseases.

Pratik Pawar wrote for Yahoo:

Obesity in children isn’t just about size; it raises risks for Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and even certain cancers later in life. Starting so young makes the costs even higher. By 2035, being overweight and obesity are expected to drain more than $4 trillion a year globally — about 3 percent of the world’s GDP.

The report draws on data from more than 190 countries. Since 2000, underweight prevalence among children ages 5-19 has dropped from nearly 13% to 9.2%. At the same time, obesity has more than tripled, from 3% to 9.4%, and now exceeds underweight in every region except sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Alarming trends across regions

The findings highlight especially high rates of childhood obesity in several Pacific Island nations. In Niue, 38% of 5-19-year-olds live with obesity; in the Cook Islands, 37%; and in Nauru, 33%. These figures have more than doubled since 2000, largely due to a shift away from traditional diets toward cheap, energy-dense imported foods.

Wealthier nations are not immune. For instance, 27% of children and adolescents in Chile are obese, along with 21% in the United States and 21% in the United Arab Emirates.

UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell commented:

When we talk about malnutrition, we are no longer just talking about underweight children… Obesity is a growing concern that can impact the health and development of children. Ultra-processed food is increasingly replacing fruits, vegetables and protein at a time when nutrition plays a critical role in children’s growth, cognitive development and mental health.

The health and economic costs

While undernutrition such as wasting and stunting remains a problem for children under five in many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of obesity among older children is rising quickly. Globally, 391 million children and adolescents, which is 1 in 5, are now overweight, with a significant proportion classified as obese.

The report stresses that this crisis is not about individual choices but about environments saturated with unhealthy foods. Ultra-processed products (high in sugar, salt, refined starches, and unhealthy fats) are dominating children’s diets. Schools and shops are filled with them, while digital marketing gives food companies unparalleled access to young audiences.

A UNICEF U-Report poll of 64,000 young people aged 13-24 across 170 countries showed just how pervasive this influence is. Seventy-five percent of respondents recalled seeing ads for sugary drinks, snacks, or fast foods in the previous week, and 60% said the ads made them want the products more. Even in conflict zones, 68% of young people reported exposure to such marketing.

The long-term costs are staggering. In Peru alone, obesity-related health impacts could cost more than US$210 billion. By 2035, the global economic toll of overweight and obesity is projected to exceed US$4 trillion annually.

Policies that make a difference

Despite the bleak outlook, there are success stories. Mexico, where ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks make up 40% of children’s daily calories, has banned the sale and distribution of these items in public schools. This policy shift has improved food environments for more than 34 million children.

UNICEF is urging governments, civil society, and global partners to act quickly by:

• Enforcing strong policies such as food labeling, marketing restrictions, and taxes or subsidies to shift demand toward healthier foods.
• Supporting social and behavior change programs that empower families to demand better food options.
• Banning junk food sales and sponsorship in schools.
• Safeguarding policy-making processes from food industry interference.
• Strengthening social protection measures so vulnerable families can afford nutritious diets.

Russell emphasized:

In many countries we are seeing the double burden of malnutrition — the existence of stunting and obesity. This requires targeted interventions… Nutritious and affordable food must be available to every child to support their growth and development. We urgently need policies that support parents and caretakers to access nutritious and healthy foods for their children.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity exceeds underweight for the first time among school-age children and adolescents globally — UNICEF,” UNICEF, 9/9/25
Source: “Child obesity level surpasses underweight cases worldwide for the first time, UNICEF warns,” UN.org, 9/9/25
Source: “For the first time, more kids are obese than underweight,” Yahoo.com, 9/15/25
Image by Porapak Apichodilok/Pexels

More About Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Obesity

The authors of a 2008 meta-study described the obesity-related costs (that take such a toll on society as a whole) as “astounding.” “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity” found that “the annual presenteeism cost for moderately or extremely obese workers was $1783.81, which is $506 higher than the cost for other workers.”

The study’s subject groups categorized as moderately and extremely obese experienced the highest absenteeism, averaging 91.08 absentee hours “for personal health reasons.” Financially, presenteeism is dreaded because…

[…] absences do not necessarily cost the employer the full value of the worker’s time to the extent that these are unpaid absences and that other workers are able to cover the missing shifts. Meanwhile, presenteeism is always a cost to employers because the worker is receiving a full paycheck despite reductions in productivity.

All in all, this accounts for a sizable chunk of the annual $900 billion that American employers pay for medical expenditures.

As numerous other studies have confirmed, the price paid by businesses for employee obesity is up there in the mega-bucks range. Unfortunately, much more work is needed on the minutiae of “Why?” When the cost derives from absenteeism and/or medical services rendered, this is easily understood.

What seems elusive is the exact process by which, when obese employees are involved, presenteeism (showing up for work but underperforming) is so wasteful. Is it just that they move more slowly when picking up a phone or straightening a stack of papers? Do they take longer lunch breaks, or spend more on-duty time moving back and forth to the snack machines? Do they fall asleep at their desks? What, exactly, is the issue?

Employees are on the job, but not functioning effectively because of medical or psychological conditions. But how does this manifest? We are told that the moderately and extremely obese workers experience the most limitations, as measured by the time needed to complete some tasks, and sheer inability to perform others.

In a broad sense, that tracks. If employed as a ballet dancer, a person with a BMI of over 35 would obviously fail. But how does the extra poundage inhibit or prohibit, for instance, a journalist? Presumably, the fingers on the keyboard would still be just as fast and accurate.

The particular questionnaire utilized in this study comprised 25 items falling into four categories:

The time scale addresses difficulties with meeting job expectations and scheduling demands. The physical scale focuses on workers’ ability to perform their normal job tasks as influenced by bodily strength, movement, endurance, coordination, and flexibility. The mental-interpersonal scale examines cognitive tasks, sensory input, and interactions with others. The output scale focuses on the quantity, quality, and timeliness of meeting job demands.

But the details involved in particular office tasks are not described. We know what the workers in a warehouse do. They move heavy physical objects from one location to another, which presumably requires an energy expenditure that helps prevent them from putting on weight. (Although, don’t count on it.) Still, a job in a plant or warehouse environment usually implies the ability to bend, stretch, squat, push, and walk.

But in an office setting, how heavy is a pencil or a file folder? Someone in the Information Technology department might need to lift a computer once in a while, but in general, what physical task is so daunting that a worker in the top obesity classification would be slowed down, stopped, or injured by its performance?

Okay, the IT person probably has to get under a desk now and then, to check on or reorganize some wiring. For a morbidly obese employee, this would be a struggle, costing time and possibly medical expenses.

It is easy to see why fitting beneath a desk, in the category of physical demands, could be problematic. However, seemingly, it would also qualify as a time issue, because the other employee who should be using that machine to complete work is unable to. Adding insult to injury, hashing out these procedural details adds to the time it takes to finish such studies.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and Presenteeism: The Impact of Body Mass Index on Workplace Productivity,” Academia.edu, 2008
Image by Pexels/Pixabay

Presenteeism and Obesity

A prominent and ever-growing cause of financial loss to businesses is obesity, as described in the previous post. That post included as a subheading “The big but…” which is indicative of the problem in general: Obesity is such an easy target for mockery.

One difficulty with this topic is the temptation to succumb to flippancy and make jokes about the ruinous cost to widen the doorways in workplaces, and replace collapsed chairs… which would be wrong. The humor temptation might be why obesity, as a contributing factor to presenteeism, does not cause as much concern as it should.

But for some very dedicated scholars and business experts, the problem is (to reference another corny old joke) “serious as a heart attack.” They and their colleagues have discovered that in the world of work, presenteeism (reporting for duty but performing less than optimally) is actually more expensive than absenteeism, or not showing up at all. Now, why, in the business realm, is obesity seen as exceptionally harmful to the bottom line?

A worker with a broken wrist will eventually have the cast removed and, after a period of readjustment, will probably return to their original state of productivity. A pregnant worker may need some extra leeway, but will eventually become, instead, the parent of a child who is elsewhere during working hours. That situation offers its own challenges to an employed woman, but most are able to return to their pre-motherhood level of usefulness on the job.

Another big but…

However, in most cases, obesity does not go away. Usually, it increases. Over time, whatever negative effect an employee’s obesity has on the situation will probably not change for the better, and will probably change for the worse.

But how, exactly, does obesity contribute to presenteeism, and how does it do that in an especially impactful and intractable way? Exactly how do our collective tons of excess body fat add to the price of doing business, and thus increase the amount that consumers pay for every product, service, and commodity?

Not surprisingly, it is possible to find a raft of academic papers exploring the relationship between excess weight and presenteeism. The connections may not be immediately obvious to the casual eye, but they certainly exist. There are many reasons why a person’s Body Mass Index might affect their ability to do top-notch work. Also, there is said to be a “threshold effect,” meaning that the workers with a BMI of 35 or higher are significantly less productive than their slimmer counterparts.

Moderately or extremely obese workers… experienced the greatest health-related work limitations, specifically regarding time needed to complete tasks and ability to perform physical job demands. These workers experienced a 4.2% health-related loss in productivity, 1.18% more than all other employees, which equates to an additional $506 annually in lost productivity per worker.

In 2010, journalist Alyssa Zamora described the work done by Eric Finkelstein and many others at Duke-National University of Singapore. Researchers took into consideration “three factors: employee medical expenditures, lost productivity on the job due to health problems (presenteeism), and absence from work (absenteeism).” Furthermore, health problems cost more than medical expenditures.

Zamora wrote,

Collectively, the per capita costs of obesity are as high as $16,900 for obese women with a body mass index (BMI) over 40 (roughly 100 pounds overweight) and $15,500 for obese men in the same BMI class. Presenteeism makes up the largest share of those costs.

Bottom line: “The cost of obesity among U.S. full-time employees is estimated to be $73.1 billion.”

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity and presenteeism: the impact of body mass index on workplace productivity,” NIH.gov, January 2008
Source: “Obese Workers Cost More Than Healthcare, Absenteeism,” Duke.edu, 2010
Image by louisehoffman83/Pixabay

Is Obesity Everyone’s Business?

Here is one final look at an archived piece of health journalism from Dr. Bruce Y. Lee, which featured seven myths about obesity under the punning title, “Obesity is Everyone’s Business.” The general topic of this sequence of posts is the overall cost to society of treating and/or preventing obesity, and especially the way in which it has increasingly affected the cost of doing business.

In a very pragmatic demonstration of cause and effect, the author enumerated some of the
“immediate and long term physical, psychological, and social ailments” caused by obesity, which in turn affect a person’s effectiveness on the job. It should be mentioned that upper-level executives are just as prone to debilitating illness as the most humble new hire in the shipping department. The difference is that the folks in the higher ranks are more advantageously positioned to hide the deficiencies in their work output.

The check makes a difference

Also, executives can much more easily afford health-producing commodities like high-quality food, vacation time to recover from stress, membership in fitness establishments, and so on. However, in recent years, there has been some improvement in the equality with which corporations try to affect the basic health of their people.

Many physical ailments may be detrimental to an employee’s productivity. Depending on what field of commerce they are in, the damage from workplace machines, noise, and substances in the air can be quite serious. Even psychological issues (depression, anxiety, etc.) are perfectly capable of minimizing the usefulness of a worker at any level. A conscientious manager never wants to see conditions deteriorate to where workers experience sickness, pain, lack of energy, and the consequent lowering of morale.

Hopefully, that consideration results at least partly from generous human considerations. It is possible, after all, to operate simultaneously on two different planes of consciousness. Management can care and, at the same time, remain conscious that any and all physical and mental dysfunction in the workplace leads directly to lowered productivity, increased healthcare expenses, and shrinking profits.

This quoted paragraph illustrates some of the trends that motivated the business world to take a hard look at the consequences of obesity in the workplace. As previously mentioned,

A study by researchers at Duke University tabulated that obesity-related absenteeism and presenteeism cost U.S. employers $73 billion annually. [W]hile normal-weight employees cost on average $3,838 per year in healthcare costs, overweight to morbidly obese employees cost between $4,252 and $8,067.

Once researchers have wrapped their heads around some numbers, they enjoy expressing the significance of those figures in various ways. In this case, the authors also calculated the dollar amount of Body Mass Index points above the normal range. Once the border of obesity territory has been broached, statically speaking, each BMI point was said to represent an additional amount of around $200 per year that the company would pay out in healthcare costs for that employee.

The broad overview matters

Getting back to Dr. Lee, he formatted his Forbes.com article as a series of propositions which turn out not to be true; or myths. As Myth #5, he specified: “Obesity has little to do with overall business strategy, management, operations and finance.”

On the contrary, this author emphasized the big picture and maintained that “Employee weight and health can be a bellwether or ‘canary in a coal mine’ of how the overall business is functioning overall.” Why? Because a person’s normal weight can say a lot about their dedication, discipline, and work ethic, as well as function as an indicator of “the social, cultural, and financial situation and environment.”

In various industries, many members of the workforce have learned (the hard way) to keep the majority of their job-related opinions to themselves. Surveys and requests for feedback about company policy are often thinly-disguised traps designed to identify underlings who might be inclined to cause trouble. If “management” really cared about the average worker (the thinking goes), that collective noun would have caught on a long time ago, and realized that the whole outfit, from top to bottom, needed refurbishment.

Instead of initiating feedback requests that could be viewed with suspicion, the wise executive might be well advised to consult a psychologist familiar with the health manifestations of discontent — because obesity can definitely be interpreted as one of them.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Obesity Is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Image by daha3131053/Pixabay

More About Offices, Desks, and Obesity

Note: This post will definitely make more sense if considered in context with its predecessor.

Journalist Rodney Wagner poses other pertinent questions and makes several points about desk dining. It can certainly get a person fed “without sacrificing productivity,” because the diner is still able to concentrate on the work being accomplished at the desk, while chewing and swallowing.

On the other hand, we might add, many authorities believe that a person’s full attention and conscious participation ought to be directed toward eating. Otherwise, they have not fully experienced the intake of nutrition, and are apt to overeat in compensation for that lack, and become obese.

At any rate, according to this authority, snacking at work can allegedly help to maintain mental energy and improve alertness (though it seems the same might be said of periodic exercise breaks, or inhaling a hit of oxygen). However, admittedly, there are also “numerous downsides to eating at your desk.”

The person’s attention may be distracted from the work at hand (especially, we presume, if eating involves consulting a menu and placing an order.) Worse yet, the average worker’s meal often tends to involve items purchased from snack vending machines, the contents of which are universally acknowledged to be unhealthful and fat-promoting.

At any rate, the availability of food and water to those who need them is a factor that a manager can affect. While many people do not care for the nanny-state implications, it is probably on the whole a good thing, when those in charge bear some degree of responsibility for the well-being of the workers.

Strength in motion

For the well-being of employees who like to burn calories by walking between the floors of a building, the security of stairwells should be assured. Overall, the important thing is to cultivate an awareness of how extensively employee health affects productivity, morale, and healthcare costs. Basic amenities like breathable air count for a lot. So really, the biggest error an executive can make is to assume that she or he might not be able to affect the situation positively.

Understandably, one of the myths that Dr. Lee identified is the fallacy of ineffectualness. An employer should never buy into the idea that little can be done to shrink obesity in the workplace. There is a cliche that fits the case very neatly: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

The boss can make a difference

Often, there is a belief that not even the most well-intentioned business can do much to prevent obesity, which by extension implies there is nothing they can do to stem the rising costs of obesity that adversely affect the company’s bottom line. Dr. Lee resists this defeatist notion because the reach of the job may in fact be extensive:

Your workplace can affect your commuting, sleep patterns, relationships with family and friends, available food at home, energy to exercise, overall stress levels and many other aspects of your life… No matter how you prioritize work-life balance, your workplace does have an impact on the rest of your life […] and in turn obesity.

Of course, obviously, the job affects the weight class of the worker’s entire family, because if the pay is not sufficient to feed them well, the consequences will show up. Which brings the topic back to the cost of a health plan, if indeed such an amenity exists at all. A company with common sense ought to recognize that it is cheaper to pay for obesity prevention than for bariatric surgery.

At the same time, corporate leadership must have the sensitivity to prevent its caring approach from coming across as criticism or worse yet, as a threat. In some times and places, rules are in effect to shield workers from various types of discrimination — even from what might appear as fat-shaming.

Dr. Lee’s last word to the bosses is,

In the end, the heart of a business is its employees. Having employees who are overweight and unhealthy is akin to a football team trying to compete with chronically injured players. If you view obesity as a completely separate issue from your business, you do so at your peril. To make a real difference, you need to have real substantial change in the culture and operations of a workplace.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Source: “Is It Good to Eat While Working? Uncovering the Truth,” MeatChefTools.com, 02/03/25
Source: “Obesity Is Everyone’s Business,” Forbes.com, 09/01/15
Image by Pexels/Pixabay