On Aug. 3, advertisements went up at a Washington, DC, Metro Station showing an 8-year-old girl saying "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?" Within 24 hours, they sparked a media debate focusing on the substantive question about the healthfulness of school meals and, even more so, on a question of propriety: Is it fair to mention the First Family in an advertisement?
The substantive issue was clear: Children's diets are terrible. Fast food and junk food are everywhere. School lunch programs can, in theory, provide healthful meals that help make up for unhealthful foods served elsewhere. Unfortunately, most schools are not up to the task. According to a 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, meals served at 80 percent of schools are too high in fat, especially saturated fat -- the kind that leads to heart disease. America's children have been sucked into an undertow of unhealthy foods, and, not surprisingly, one in six is overweight.
The results are disastrous. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention forecast that one in three children born since the year 2000 will develop diabetes at some point in life. Many children have the first changes of atherosclerosis while they are still in high school.
Part of the problem is that school menus are not based entirely on health considerations. They are part of a vast marketing program for agricultural commodities. When beef prices fall, the USDA buys up millions of pounds of beef. When cheese prices slide, the government buys up cheese. Soon, roast beef, cheeseburgers, and cheese pizza show up on school menus, not because these foods are good for kids--far from it. Rather, children can be easily induced to eat these high-cholesterol foods, eliminating unwanted surpluses and allowing farm prices to rise again.
When Congress takes up the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act later this year, it can decide to give children healthier choices. A school offering a greasy cheeseburger (5 grams of saturated fat, 268 calories) should also provide a veggie burger (0 grams of saturated fat, 230 calories). When chicken nuggets (5 grams of saturated fat, 240 calories) are offered, there should be a cholesterol-free veggie chili option (0 grams saturated fat, 144 calories).
But many of the 31 million children who participate in the National School Lunch Program have trouble finding healthful meals at school. Despite a 2007 American Medical Association resolution calling for vegetarian meals in schools, most schools continue to focus their menus on meat and cheese. The President's family, to its credit, chose Sidwell Friends, a private school that offers not only a top education, but also a healthy vegetarian option for every student every day.
So when is it fair to mention the President's children? The issue first came up during the Inauguration, when J. Crew cashed in heavily on First Family's wardrobe choices, rapidly followed by Beanie Babies named after the girls. Soon the White House had to set rules for its own behavior and that of everyone else. Clearly, the Metro ads play by the rules. They do not use of the children's names or images, and in no way intrude on their privacy. And their message is important: Every child, no matter how disadvantaged, deserves a healthy meal.
It is Congress, not the President, that needs to act. But the President can lead the way for children. So far, he has not taken up the issue. The President's choice of Tom Vilsack to head the USDA has meant a continuation of the policy of dumping meat and cheese into schools. On July 31, Vilsack announced another $243 million in purchases, saying in a press release, "The Obama Administration is committed to pursuing all options to help dairy farmers."
The President and Vice President have kept up an appearance of being "regular guys," rather than healthy examples, most notably during their inexplicable but well-publicized motorcade to Ray's Hell Burger, a Virginia restaurant known for high-cholesterol food.
That said, the President deserves a measure of patience. After all, the administration had barely arrived in the White House when it had to deal with a tanking economy, a failing health care system, and changing battlegrounds in the Middle East. It is hard to imagine it could also have given attention to children's health in this short time frame. Even so, if we are going to tackle health care, we need to understand why so many children and adults are in such poor shape. Every child in every school deserves a healthful lunch every day, and Congress needs to make that happen.
To join the call for better foods for children, visit HealthySchoolLunches.org.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners
The Food Lobby Goes to School
"The government gets a ton of pressure from a food and beverage industry frantic to keep kids hooked on a diet of sodas, snacks and hot dogs. The competition, for a piece of this $10 billion market, is particularly fierce right now because this year, the School Lunch Program is being reviewed and revised."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVfAWbitBTs
In conjunction with many partners including the Healthy Schools Campaign, 350.org, the Center for Ecoliteracy, Roots of Change, Edible Communities and more, the campaign is called "Time for Lunch" and the kick-off event is a series of Eat-Ins all across the country (242 planned so far in 49 states - step up, Mississippi!). Eat-Ins are modeled on the Sit-ins of the 1960s but with plenty of wholesome, local, sustainable food. Details on the event and the platform we are convincing congress to adopt are all at
http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php/campaign/time_for_lunch/
I don't mind paying taxes to feed kids healthy food--junk food that is full of preservatives, hydrogenated oils, msg, and other additives should be cut from the school budget as it is wasteful spending and it hurts our children's health.
I like the ad.
All children deserve equal education/nutrition.
My kids pack and don't have extra money in their pockets like most of the free lunchers do.
I am liberal, but a sandwich and a white milk could be supplied if the child isn't sent to school with a lunch.
How will we work that out?
You can try eliminating fried-foods and non-organic meats, but I assure you it's not gonna fly in certain places, like the south and the inner city. Are you going to be culturally insensitive enough to serve vegetarian or vegan meals, with no alternatives, to inner-city kids who do not eat that way at home and are disgusted by the food? Or should they just be allowed to go hungry until they relent and eat the new fare, because it's ultimately what's best for them?
And in the meantime, what do we do about those agri-buy-ups?
Simply allow those farmers to go out of business because we've decided/determined that their products are no longer healthy enough? Push them to go organic?
These complications are what make me question having government play such a strong role in every day life. Yes, it's a wonderful idea that every child should a healthy lunch, everyone agrees to that--that doesn't necessarily make it a possibility.
The problem with the American diet is sugar, starch, grains, and processed, refined food.
If you obsess about making school lunches low-fat, low-cholesterol and ignore the true cause of the health and obesity crisis in this country, you will just contribute to the problem.
The schools can help, they can offer the parents some classes on nutrition and how to cook.
Assume these classes are free, less than 10% would go because they just do not care.
Schools are there to teach our children and that is all, it's the parents that need to do their job.
BTW: I have a child in a public school, that is in great physical shape and will be staying that way forever, due to us; eating well, getting plenty of exercise, and the proper amount of sleep.
That's good, but they can also lead by example... otherwise it's do as I say not as I do. I think good school nutrition would be a great 1st lady project.
The substantive issue has to do with the fact that some lousy parents allowed their child to be USED in a politcal hack job, aka this advertisement full of falsehood. Whatever happened to truth in advertising? Especially on a provocative issue like this? For example, it has been revelaed that the child in the advt. goes to a school where good quality lunches is exactly what is offered to the children.
All that has happened is that a couple of lousy parents has set their child up to public ridicule.
Those things would go a long ways to helping America as a whole.
It's a silly idea, though. Private schools (that provide healthy lunches, say), are only for the sons and daughters of high-ranking government officials, who don't put their kids in the public school system, because...
Because....