CNS News reported today on the Presidential signing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Just for the record, I fully approve of healthy, hunger-free kids--it's the law part I don't like.
The article reports:
"First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: "We can't just leave it up to the parents.""
I must be incredibly old-fashioned, but I think you can leave it up to the parents. If there is a problem with that, you might consider better educating the parents about nutrition.
The article explains:
"The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines."
I understand that the generation growing up is overweight, but are we addressing the actual problem or is this just another federal power grab? Would it make more sense for American consumers to begin reading the labels on the food they buy? Would it make more sense to tell mothers to buy whole grain bread for their children? Would it make more sense for the elementary schools who have eliminated recess to reinstate it? Would it make more sense for the schools that are currently charging fees for students to participate in athletic programs to drop those fees so that more children can participate? What is the gym class requirement in our high schools? Does it involve sweat? Can high schools put in an hour of exercise two or three times a week?
As you can see, there are many other ways to address the problem of obesity in our children. I don't think a power grab is the right answer.
Leave a comment