The problem with a political blog, as opposed to other excellent blogs out there, is that an intelligent topical rant a day is tough to pull off. Even the best op-edists out there only write two columns a week - and it's their forty-hour-a-week job. Of course, their columns are far better researched than this little ramble. And then there are some days that are just slow news days.
Anyway, I've been receiving curiosity regarding my recent hostility towards corn syrup. Turns out corn syrup is off-limits for Passover - which eliminates about 95% of all food items out there from gastronomic intake for eight days. Passover is famous for its hijinks - I've asked people at burger joints to hold the bun on more than one occasion. This year, I had to ask someone behind the counter at Whole Foods if their barbecue sauce had corn syrup in it before buying a barbecue dish. (It did.) We also had to quiz them on what "canola oil" was. But we get macaroons, so it all evens out.
But it's hard to go eight days without mass-produced junk food - I doubt I'd be able to do it voluntarily. This is a segue, however strained, into a topical discussion. Turns out that here in North Carolina, legislators are debating a new school food policy that would limit junk food in NC's schools. I wrote about a similar proposed Texas policy some time ago. To rehash briefly: the upside is that eliminating vending machines will go a long way towards fighting the important problem of youth obesity (fueled by all that damn corn syrup). The downside is that vending machines are cash cattle for schools, and removing them would likely mean a loss in revenue that would have to be covered by a tax increase or spending cut. (And here in NC, it'll most likely be a regressive tax increase.)
This policy coincides with the release of the new "food pyramid," which will go roundly ignored by most Americans - especially those under 20 who aren't thinking of the long-term ramifications of that little package of donuts. Watch how much good it'll do. The FDA can put out pyramids all it wants to, but they'll continue to do nothing. The more the government advises against eating junk food, the more people will do it.
Junk food is marketed exceptionally well, especially to kids. There's no advice the government can give to prevent kids from wanting that candy bar. And kids who eat candy bars turn into adults who eat even more candy bars. In years past, the only thing keeping me from the junk food was Passover - but Passover has taught me how easy it is to go without junk food. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this - without some sort of legislation separating kids and junk food, obesity will continue. And, I dare say, kids will get used to spending eight hours a day without junk food. It may even spill over into the rest of their lives.
(I might also add that such policies, if effective, will probably save us money in terms of long-term health care.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The N&O's article is here.
I admit that I skipped over a major issue - whether it's really the state's responsibility to keep kids healthy. Shouldn't parents be doing that? I would argue, though, that the state will be paying for parents' neglect down the line, when Medicaid and Medicare will have to correct for childhood gastronomic indiscretions. So the state has a vested interest in preventive medicine (which is what this bill is).
I think it's fair to put some responsibility on the state for keeping kids healthy, when it already accepts (nay, requires) the responsibility for babysitting them five days a week in order to educate them.
Super Size Me was pretty blatant propaganda with some spurious arguments, but one of the good ones was that kids can barely get healthy food in a lot of public schools, even if they want to eat healthy. If the state is deciding what food to make available in an institution that they require kids to go to, then they are accountable for the health of those kids to some significant extent.
- pierce
Yes, legislation will work to help keep kids away from junk food. Like it has with cigarettes, drugs, gambling, prostitution, pornography ............ oh wait.
- miguel
Miguel describes, and Jeff hints at, the "Bernard Effect", which refers to the fact that card-playing did not become popular in medieval Europe until Saint Bernard toured the continent decrying it as gambling.
There is definitely a problem with the availability of healthy food at public schools. As everyone on this comments list so far is a TJ grad, I'm sure we all remember the crap they served in the lunch lines - and that's a well-off school district. The country needs to decide just how much we want to devote ourselves to the welfare of our children, and commit to doing so.
However, I would emphasize the observation that healthy diet habits begin at the home. I know it's trendy and easy to blame parents for everything, but if they don't start taking some responsibility in nourishing their children, they're dooming them. Not having a solution to propose, I say this ignoring the fact that many parents are struggling so much to make ends meet that they simply don't have time.
Child obesity is a problem, but it needs to be attacked from all angles at once. In this case, it's certainly not the government's job to tell people what they should eat, but they can limit the availability of unhealthy foods by, say, removing vending machines. Or, if they need a cash cow, sell something healthy in those vending machines. When kids get hungry, they'll eat anything.
Completely anecdotally, I almost always brought my lunch at TJ, and I never had a lot of junk food or beverages at home (and indeed, "moderation" was just about every other word out of my Mom's mouth). But what did get me was the availability of caffeinated drinks, especially the Surge machine. I've been drinking copious amounts of soda ever since.
I accept responsiblity for my decisions, I was the one hitting the buttons on the vending machine, but I'm at least one example of someone with every reasonable good-parenting stimulus, who nevertheless took the unhealthy response.
- pierce
Another thing to keep in mind is this obesity "epidemic" has been widely exagerated
- miguel
Exaggerated, sure. I don't think it's an epidemic at all. However, I couldn't help but notice when I was in Europe how easy it was to pick out many of the Americans, not by the stereotypical tourist tell-tale signs, but by their stomachs. Jeff, having also been recently, would probably concur.
Pierce, you make a good point. I bought tons of sodas and snacks from those vending machines. I was also known to get lunches in middle school that consisted of only french fries. That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. Of course it starts at home, but in the end, kids are out of their parents' hands for half of the day.
As a clarification, I'm not saying the state should accept responsibility for that. Obviously, as you said, I was the one pushing the buttons. But I wouldn't have pushed the buttons if there were no buttons to push. I still say simply reducing availability would be step 1.
Post a Comment