So far this everything sounds pretty good huh? However this program takes away $2.2 billion from the food stamps program which was part of the 2009 economic stimulus plan. This summer, money was already taken from the food stamps program and channeled to education in order to prevent more teacher layoffs.
This February, the number of citizens relying on food stamps has reached an all time high of 39.68 million people. People must also have near poverty incomes to qualify for food stamps.
As for healthier lunches, I can only vouch for the 6 schools that I have attended, most schools do offer fruits, vegetables, and milk and most also have a free or reduced fee program. Yet it seems the issue is not that healthy options aren't giving, it's that kids aren't choosing the healthier choice. Even if healthy school lunches are free, a child will most likely pay $1 for the chocolate chip cookies right next to it, or the bag or Ruffles.
I'm not trying to say that obesity isn't a huge issue, it certainly is, but I'm questioning whether this plan will actually be effective. And is it worth extracting funds from the food stamps program?
19 comments:
I agree with Angie. Just because free, healthy food is available doesn't mean kids will necessarily choose it. For example, only occasionally do people take the free fruits that our lunch line currently offers. This bill is good idea but it's effectiveness is also dependent on a child's ability to make healthy decisions. Personally, I don't think this bill is worth taking from the funding of more pressing issues.
Extra money won't do anything for these kids, they need information in order to make good decisions. Kids will always choose the "fatty, less healthy" choice over the healthy choice because their bodies are programed to eat as much as they can. It's a flaw in human programming that dates back to the stone ages. Also I don't have a problem that the government took money for the food stamp program, most families use these on fatty foods for their kids anyways. Maybe a lack of food stamps will make people stop being "bums" and look for a job.
i agree with Chris, they need information in order to make good decisions. This society has a tendency to only learn from its mistakes, and when it comes to food and eating healthy kids wont understand how bad junk food is for them until they're in their 40's and obese. At that point it's too late. simply giving them the opportunity to choose whats right isn't enough. We need to inform kids ahead of time so we can make sure they make the right decisions.
I'm not sure about how effective this bill will be. Although it will give more students free lunches, like Angie mentioned in this post, the children may not choose the healthier route because junk food seems so much more appealing.
I personally think that it would be better to keep this money for food stamps so that families as a whole can eat and not just the children. However, this recently passed bill has a positive side to it because it can help teachers keep their jobs. It's a conflicting situation because either way, children can become obese from lunches at school and food stamps. Free lunches and food stamps are good for those that can't afford it, but I feel that these methods that are meant to do good actually cause people to eat more and become obese due to their fear of never having enough to eat.
Right idea, but highly idealistic. I'd rather have lower income kids eating fatty foods rather than low income families not eating at all. Oh well. If it was the First Lady's pet project, chances are Obama will sign it. furthermore, I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the government to tell people what to eat. At school, I want to drink soda and eat chips. It angers me that the government thinks it knows better than I what to and not to eat.
I'm steering this discussion in a slightly different direction, but I saw this article about the bill in the paper today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_bake_sales
The main topic of this article is the limiting effect of this bill on fundraisers at schools, such as bake sales, where "unhealthy" foods are sold. "Public health groups [a.k.a. interest groups] pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent." Parents who hold bake sale fundraisers oppose this bill.
Although I support the general ideals of the bill to combat obesity in America, the bill seems to leave a lot up in the air for the Agriculture Department and the USDA to decide, and doesn't seem clear enough to be effectively implemented. Even with this controversial aspect of the bill included, the bill will probably pass and be signed by Obama because its roots are in the First Lady's program, like Jason said.
I am not sure about the effectivity of this bill. Most kids would rather choose something that tastes better that is full of sugar rather than something healthy like an apple. An alternative I'm thinking of is that the government should try passing a law that gets rid of most of the cheap junk foods schools are selling and use the money to buy healthier alternatives that are still very tasty. There are healthy foods that kids will choose over something such as cookie.
Totally agree with Shorhon and Chad, it all boils down to the willingness of children and teenagers nation wide. Taking funding away from Food stamps just doesn't sound right as those are who are truly in need depend on foods stamps to put healthy food on their own tables. As I recall I think that food stamps are only applicable towards say fresh fruits and grocerys not junk food. I think food stamps have a bigger impact on teaching our citizens to eat healthier, it is much more effective than supplying high schools with healthier foods when are most often rejected or turned down.
I completely agree with you! Although obesity is a big issue, it seems a little insignificant when compared to starving families. Obesity is a problem, but it is something that is caused by an individual's choice. Struggling to feed a family is a much more significant problem. Therefore, it is rediculus to take money from the food stamps program. If children learn more about eating healthy, then hopefully they will be able to make better decisions, but ultimately, it is their decisions. Now, I understand that when kids are faced with the option, they will probably eat the more unhealthy food, but shouldn't we first worry about those not getting enough food? I think that before we try to refine peoples' eating habits, we need to make sure that everyone is eating enough.
If it comes down to "curing" obesity or "curing" poverty, most people would definitely choose "curing" poverty. This bill seems to take money away from the food stamps program (which would decrease the amount of food that poor families get) and put that money into offering free, healthy meals in schools. Essentially, this takes food away from families and gives it to schools. This seems more of a redistribution of food. Although it's a little known fact that distribution is the cause of world hunger (as opposed to shortages), this redistribution proposed by the bill is not good.
Personally, I don't eat lunch at school, and I get along fine. AS LONG AS, the poor students receive adequate food at home (via food stamps), I don't think this "free school lunches" business is important enough to draw money away from food stamps. Ideally, if the nation didn't have as many pressing problems, I would definitely advocate for cheaper, healthy lunches. But as for right now, this bill is throwaway legislation.
I agree with Eric. This bill sounds a lot like a redistribution of food towards teens, rather then adults. Taking money away from the food stamps program causes more issues for the poverty stricken people.
Another issue is that teens would rather choose unhealthier foods. Even with the schools offering healthy foods, how many teens would even eat the healthy food? I doubt many at all considering there are many other food variety options at school.
I, personally, feel that we shouldn't worry about obesity in America because i believe it is a personal choice to be obese or not. All you need to do to not be obese is to do a 40 minute cardio workout a day and eat healthy. That doesn't sound like much work to me.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to disagree with all of you and say that you're missing the point. This bill would make lunch programs healthier in areas that cannot afford to do so. While we could sit around all day and ask ourselves why these kids aren't eating a banana, an orange and an apple for lunch, I think the answer is obvious. Because that's not a lunch! While fruit and veggies are cheap, an actual healthy meal is not and we should be working off the assumption that these kids are not wealthy enough to stray from the lunch program. As far as food stamps go, this is one part of the bill that is truly tragic. Hey wait a second, I have an idea! Maybe we could decide against buying a couple more missiles and tanks for our arsenal......
Nah, that would never work.
I don't think providing funding for schools to choose healthier foods is necessarily a bad idea. Many schools in poorer regions accept donations from large makers of unhealthy foods to carry their products and can become dependent on these donations. This funding could help wean schools from these corporate handouts. However, this is a case the minority of the time and the loss of food stamp funding is truly tragic for the nation's poor. As Jason said, it's better to give the poor fatty foods than to give them none at all. Millions of Americans depend on programs such as food stamps to be able to get by in such hard times and taking that funding away now will only slam them even harder into the ground. This might be a good plan for the future, but now may not be the most prudent time to work on this initiative.
As a fellow high school student, we collectively qualify as an interest group.
Taking an opinion based on our interests: if the government is budgeting for more money for school lunches, that means that we get cheaper food to buy!
i remember freshman year, a meal was like $3.25... they went up like a quarter or two for the same small portions that we all line up for. whether we go for the healthy food or not, i feel like were overpaying for the food that we do buy.
tying it back to the blog, even if they make the healthier food cheaper than the other foods in school, a lot of kids i know (i used to do this too)could just save our lunch money and buy a $1 mcchicken over at mickeyD's. like what a few people have already said. the correlation between poverty and obesity is caused by the value we put on unhealthier foods.. less nutrition=cheaper food.
if you really want to have these kids eat healthy, my suggestion would be to mark up the junk food at an artificially higher price than healthy food, but then of course, we can't always afford the good food.
-raymond lim
I agree with Chad on this one, kids will more likely choose the unhealthy choice of pizza and chips over a salad. Childhood obesity is a huge problem and I am glad it is getting recognized because it seems like the bush administration did almost nothing to stop it. As for the food stamp issue, if people continue to each unhealthy food it will be more costly for them in the long run. The government should keep providing enough food stamps no matter what the cost esp. since poverty has risen and more people need the stamps, and maybe they should take money away from another aspect of government spending, or raise taxes like the current Econ, class is talking about so the rich provide more money to the government which they can use fund these programs.
I agree too that i dont think obesity is as important. yes, kids are fat and the should lay off those fries, but its there choise to eat it. While obese kids are gubbing on fatty foods, there are people who dont have enough to eat.
Instead of putting more money into getting kids to eat healthier, i think more money should be put into getting more kids fed.
INFORMATION is what these kids need. I know if Im in their position and I have a small amount of money, im going to choose whatever tastes best, not necessarily the smarter and healthier choice. Some of this money that was appropriated needs to pay more motivated PE teachers, and have health classes at a younger age.
Post a Comment