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?
