The world can often be a difficult place leading people to make difficult or irrational decisions, which can have a negative effect on the life of the individual and often the lives of others. Despite the unrelenting issues with world hunger and a volatile economy, the consumption of a human child should never become the solution to one's problems. While at first, the idea of eating a baby may appear to be a good solution to hunger, population, or economic issues, upon further scrutiny and reflection, this turns out to be a poor decision which can have various negative outcomes.

The first of these takes some time to realize. If a baby is examined over a period of time, one can clearly observe that this baby will only get larger, providing more sustenance as time goes on, never less, until the point of adulthood is reached (provided the child being free of various inflictions or diseases). One may consider this an investment worthy of forgoing the immediate gratification of consuming the infant for the future prospect of a far more nourishing meal.

One may argue that a baby has already been 9 months in the making and so there has been sufficient wait and investment made to recoup the benefits. Further delay distributes the time investment already paid through the final reward giving less value to the 9 months already forgone along with future time devoted. In Keynesian economical terms, this is a facetious argument as the 9 months already invested are referred to as "sunk cost." This time has already been paid and so the investment from present time should be looked at isolated from the past and analyzed only with future return on this investment weighed against future investments themselves. While 9 months have already been paid, waiting years to devour the being is the only time outlay that should be evaluated against the recompense once the baby is finally utilized, if used for consumption at all.

Overall, the body of the child is filled with non-lean meat that will become a greater source of protein as time passes. For those particularly interested in physical fitness and the rebuilding of muscle fibers after a hard workout, a baby will not provide a sufficient source of all essential amino acids while loading the consumer with much unneeded fats, particularly fats which heighten LDL, or bad cholesterol, and provide minimal to no Omega 3 fatty acids- the kind which help to metabolize foods properly and lower cholesterol.
A baby is in its most primitive stage of life outside the mother's womb and is therefore just becoming accustomed to its various life-sustaining systems. As such, it is highly susceptible to disease and is not well adapt to healing in the event of bodily harm. Although it is not particularly massive, if not used in a large family meal such as Thanksgiving or Christmas, there will be leftovers. Non-lean meat will loose flavor when stored in a freezer for excessive periods of time. While the clear solution to this may appear to be keeping the baby alive and cutting away meat as necessary, the baby is not equipped to deal with such large intrusions into its body and will have difficulty sustaining life as compared to a more mature specimen. The average adult has shown great resilience upon disfigurement and dismemberment when various limbs could be removed, if done properly, yet leaving the subject alive for future supply of fresh meat. A baby on the other hand, is likely to contract various infections and diseases which will lead to infected meat or cause the baby to perish leaving no meat at all.

There is also a great danger in breaking the social trend of not consuming babies to the population problem already at hand. Once babies are routinely marketed as a food item, the use of prophylactics and overall controls on levels of procreation will undoubtedly decline. While in many cases this will progress as a routine supply and demand food market, statistics have shown that in over 50% of cases a relationship with the baby has a possibility of developing impeding the trades of the market and causing a backlash of supply restraint, leading to an increase of babies not used for consumption along with an unsatisfied spike in demand for food item babies. This will result in inflation in the price of consumption babies causing the market to be accessible only those with a higher socio-economic status. Thus, those who are currently afflicted by hunger problems will not be helped and the trend will lead to unequal proportions of baby providers to baby consumers throughout racial and/or socio-economic levels. Such a market will clearly only sustain the current issues with feeding the worlds poor and amplify the gap between the nations upper and lower class.

Additionally, safety can become an issue. Have you ever eaten a piece of fish quickly to find a fish bone getting stuck in your throat or at least poking against your tongue? Such can happen quite easily from eating a baby as well. A baby starts out with most of its skeletal structure made from cartilage. As the baby's development progresses, the cartilage goes through ossification and becomes actual bone tissue as minerals are slowly deposited. As you may guess these new bones, like the ones in fish, are small and relatively prickly. In addition, it is difficult to anticipate the presence of these bones as some are still cartilage and some are not. This will make it difficult to anticipate where the bones are and an unpleasant meal overall.

For the sake of argument, let us assume all of the previously stated reasons are mistaken. While they are not, we need to pose such a hypothetical scenario in order to solidify the argument with one final piece of the puzzle. If we negate all of the formerly declared facts and assume a human baby will be a nourishing, safe to eat, and satisfying meal we can predict the outcome of such a society. If the all societies of the world acquire the taste for babies and they are cheap, easy to produce, and delicious, it will become difficult to resist the temptation to eat not some, but all babies. Please keep in mind that the conditions for such world have been proven false prior to this paragraph. However, most if not all human offspring would become consumer goods as opposed to putting a stop to further generations of Homo sapiens, as unlikely as the conditions necessary to lead up to this are.

Hopefully, the points noted have debunked previous theories on the subject of baby eating and have averted endeavors to do so. The consumer goods market would clearly be hindered by such an entry as would our socio-economic disparity issues and world hunger problems. Avoiding the big picture, a baby will simply not provide the satisfaction, nourishment, or convenience worthy of making it a common consumer good.