Sylvia Smith had an interesting column in Sunday's JG about how many kids are unfit for military service, and I found myself agreeing with much of it. Taking on news accounts that obesity is becoming a national security issue because 27 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds are too fat to serve, she points out that the school lunch program was formalized in 1946 by President Truman and Congress in 1946 as a direct response to the fact that so many Depression-era kids were rejected by the military in World War II for malnoursishment -- 40 percent of them. There's irony for you.
She also points out, correctly, that obesity is not just the fault of the school lunch program, as some are claining:
It is not unfair to say that over the years the emphasis has been far less on nutrition than on agriculture policy. For instance, subsidies of sugar and corn (made into high fructose corn syrup) have made sugary foods much cheaper. But nobody would argue that the proliferation of Cap'n Crunch and Ding Dongs contributed positively to the nutrition of youngsters.
School boards looking for additional sources of income aside from the tax base turned to vending machines and their sugary, high-fat drinks and snacks.
And, of course, we're a much more sedentary society. Kids play video games more often than pickup neighborhood ballgames, TV ads on children's programs take their toll, families eat out (often at fast-food places) in increasing numbers, and on and on.
But there is a problem with school lunches, and that is that the program is run by the Agriculture Department, so decisions are made based as much on farmers' wishes as they are on kids' nutrition needs. Subsidies for sugar and corn, used to make high fructose corn syrup, for example, made sugary foods much cheaper. Sure, the students could use more fruits and vegetables, but their political action committees haven't been as active as they could be.
She ends the column with the suggestion of remvoing the lunch program from Agriculture and giving some other agency the responsibility for overseeing nutrition programs. I might go so far as to suggest the federal government getting out of the school lunch business, but, hey, baby steps first, right?
Comments
Example # 1,967,236 of why government intervention and/or control NEVER has a good outcome. Just wait until you see how efficient and smooth healthcare is going to be.
Leo:
I am definitely IMPRESSED...
Gettin the FEDS out of the school lunch program...brilliant.
(no sarcasm here)
NOW...if we could ONLY "teach" those lazy parents what this whole "bread/lunchmeat/cheese or PB&J" thing is all about.
Ditto for the "cereal/milk/bowl/spoon" gig...no free BREAKFAST either.
;)
My wife subs. The crap they serve kids in Fort Wayne schools in incredible. Everything's breaded and deep-fried. They literally serve Pop-Tarts. I can't know why so many kids can't get a decent meal at home, but the stuff they're getting at school is just diabetes in a can.
My guess is this stuff is the result of economics. It's the cheapest stuff the government can afford.
But Tim and Bob's suggestion they simply be starved instead is right out of Dickens. (He wrote books. You can see one in a library. That's a big building with ... oh, forget it.)
A school (ANY school) is NOT in the business of "individual catering", just in case you haven't been privy to such "secret" information...
LUNCH was provided (for a PRICE, mind you) as an AMENITY...NOT a requirement.
But that was back in those "bad old days" when we had schools that produced a LOT more graduates, had HIGHER test scores, and were places one went to LEARN...NOT to get free food (unless Jimmy brought an extra brownie).
Got it?
It's the PARENTS who let these kids "starve", when all THEY need to do is figure out the breakfast and packing a lunch thing.
Cripes, how simple does it have to be?
Maybe some people ARE (indeed) surplus...
Sure is looking that way.
The excluded-middle argument (that's a logic fault; you can look it up) that anybody who questions the federal government's overreaching ways is in favor of kicking the downtrodden with their Dickensian jackboots was tiresome 100 years ago, it is tiresome now, and it will be tiresome long after you've had your way and the government just takes it all and redistributes it as it sees fit. Or is that a hysterical reaction to your actual position?
Damn Leo, I wish I'd said that.
LittleJohn, what seriously baffles me is, you honestly don't see (or at least won't admit) that the government created this mess (among a multitude of others) and yet you blindly trust and follow them to make everything alright.