There are two diametrically opposed forces fighting for control over children's diets: "Should it be the government or should it be the parents?" Sarah Palin said in a recent speech. "It should be the parents!"
Of course parents bear the primary responsibility for guiding their children's food choices, and for educating them about nutrition. No one -- least of all any government official I have ever encountered in 40 years of food policy advocacy -- disputes that. Sarah Palin is probably aware of the overweight elephant in the middle of the family dining room: the role of the food industry in shaping kids' dietary preferences.
The same intellect that brought us "death panels" during the health care debate now brings the frightening specter of government food police, presumably in the form of camouflaged, jack-booted lunch ladies, forcing children to eat their vegetables. It seems like the former mayor of Wasilla wants the government to get its hands off your school lunch program.
Besides feeding their children, parents are responsible for a lot. Parents bear the primary responsibility for making sure their homes don't catch on fire. But it sure is helpful to have government programs that make it easier for parents to exercise that responsibility -- residential electric codes, or safety standards for space heaters, say. Shall we have the government get its hands off the fire department, too?
Palin's not alone. When the Senate passed a sensible food safety bill, which requires peanut butter factories and egg farms to develop food safety plans and undergo the occasional inspection, among other things, television host Glen Beck warned that the government is trying to control our food and therefore control Americans. On his radio show this food safety bill became a government plot to make food more expensive.
Our recent lawsuit against McDonald's for using toys to market junk food to children is unsurprisingly drawing similar hyperbole from the far right. (I note that those concerned with "frivolous" litigation were silent when McDonald's famously tried to bully its European critics with litigation!)
McDonald's spends more money trying to influence children's food choices than the government ever could. But while the federal government spends its paltry nutrition education funds supporting parents' efforts to feed their children healthy diets, McDonald's spends its money undermining those efforts. While most parents are trying hard to exercise their personal responsibility to teach kids' the benefits of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean meats, McDonald's pushes something quite different. Even though its ads might display brief glimpses of apples and milk, McDonald's marketing is designed to get kids into the restaurants where they generally end up with fatty meat, fatty cheese, white bread, sugary soda and salty everything -- a narrow combination of foods designed to get those kids coming back for years and almost guaranteed to promote weight gain and diet-related disease.
At least tobacco companies had the courtesy to target older teenagers and twenty-somethings. Even Coke and Pepsi don't advertise to little kids. McDonald's is targeting toddlers -- with the prospect of (seemingly) free toys.
Who wouldn't be concerned about a global corporation spending millions on "neuromarketing consultants" and appropriating the innocent toys of childhood -- in a high-tech scheme to change kids' food preferences? Why fetishize parental responsibility at the expense of corporate responsibility?
Follow Michael F. Jacobson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CSPI
David Katz, M.D.: The Pursuit of HAPPYness: San Fran Bans the Happy Meal
Damien Hoffman: Should McDonald's Happy Meals be Banned?
Healthy Eating for Kids Recipes and Menus | Eating Well
Healthy eating habits for your children
MyPyramid.gov - United States Department of Agriculture - For Kids
Nutrition for Children and Teens: Developing Healthy Eating Habits
BUT, when it comes to food, there is enough info out there for people to "self-educate" and I sure as hell don't want my government telling me what I can eat and what I can't eat. They can enforce laws on food labeling, that tell me WHAT I am eating, but that's it!
ME, that's who. A father of two. I have no problem telling my kids "No."
The issue isn't "McDonald's" the issue is the type of parent who is going to allow their kids to get a significant amount of weekly food from a fast food joint. Those parents are going to approach all aspects of child raising with a similar amount of disinterest and ignorance.
On a side note, it's not McDonald's that causes obesity, an individual does. I paraphrase Chris Rock... McDonald's doesn't sell food - we buy food from McDonald's. It's our responsibility, not theirs.
However, this McDonald's issue is going too far. Parents do not have to take 100% responsibility for their kids, but they have to take SOME. If the kids want a happy meal because they want the toy, you can give them toys with their salad or alternatively you can exhibit self-control and not give into the whims of your children for convenience sake and hope the government sorts them out later.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a responsible parent.
They are related issues, but they are not the same issue. Lots of kids participate on many sports, only to have the parents and coaches feed them junk at practice and games.
Exercise is undeniably important, but it's not a one or the other type deal.
So if you ate donuts for every meal, but exercised daily (if that's even possible on the sugar/trans-fat diet) would you still get strong, fast and healthy?
For More: http://jeffreydach.com/2010/01/27/selling-sickness-in-the-lobby--fast-food-in-hospitals-by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx
jeffrey dach md
We already agree that parents shouldn't be able to neglect their kids when it comes to their medical and educational needs. We have laws to protect children from these types of neglect. Why are their nutritional needs any less important?
I agree with Jacobson that we as a country need to work as a collective force to make sure young Americans are receiving the proper nutrition education to understand that McDonald's and other fast foods are a treat, not a necessity. In addition to parental guidance, public school education needs have to a role. Schools must prioritize determining the most effective ways to spread pertinent information to kids on what it means to eat healthily, how to cook foods in a healthy manner, and why it's important that they understand how to do so. In my opinion, this should be done through local, collaborative programs with nonprofit organizations who are capable of providing the nutritional expertise and resources to effectively reach young children and adolescents. From there these kids have the right to decide on their own what they chose to do with this information, but at least they will have been provided with another alternative voice to the loud, clear and convincing tones coming from the corporate food industry.
That they should make your parental and personal decisions for you? Are you really incapable of determining what is best for you? Oh I see, your too busy mocking things that Ms Palin didn't actually say, but hey, it is easier to demean with lies. Of course when your news sources are comedians, you gwt what you pay for.
Almost all schools offer "healthy" alternatives.
No word on that from the hierarchy yet - but even if we could put a few menus in the boxes and bags of food, that would help, right? We need more education made simple for many who have not had any education at all on food values, menus and recipes.
Maybe the government should limit the size of meals at restaurants and only let people order one at a time to reduce on obesity. Maybe people should get government cards that they have to get punched every time they get a meal so that they can't over eat. Maybe we should have regulations that ban bad stuff altogether because we are too stupid to choose and government bureaucrats know better (wait they are doing that in New York!).
Don't stop with food, people need to be safe and healthy!! While you are at it, you should force shoe companies only to make sensible shoes that are good for the poor little kids feet. Kids should have to wear helmets, not just when biking, because they may fall down at any time on the unsafe stairs (maybe we can get government to ban stairs) or ice in the winter.
Just think what a utopia we could have if the government bureaucrats could just decide all the good stuff we could eat and wear and then there would be no problems. We couldn't buy bad stuff for ourselves and children because we all know we are too stupid to buy what we want.