Obamatrition

Nutrition is important.  Few would argue that point.  Obesity is a foe America is battling - and for the most part, obesity is winning.  So, any weapon against this enemy is worth using, right? 

Today, President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 into law.  He joked, prior to signing it, that he would have had to sleep on the couch if he didn't sign it.  Unless you've been under a rock, you already know that childhood obesity is a major focus for the First Lady.  Childhood obesity is to Michelle Obama as recreational drug use (Just Say No) was to Nancy Regan.

Along with getting enough exercise, making healthy food selections is a main tactic for obesity avoidance - and teaching healthy eating at a young age is arguably (and I agree) critical for life-long health.

On top of that, it's also pretty easy to see that - in order to grow - kids gotta eat.  I see it daily at the table at my house - and boy do they eat...  Without access to food, it certainly does make it hard for kids to "grow up healthy and strong."  Not a tough sell.

And so, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act  of 2010 is hard to argue against.  It's got all the important ingredients for a can't fail bill - Health and Kids - and it combines them for a winning combination.

But the bill does a couple things we should probably consider - 1) increases access to school lunch programs and 2) expands the control the United States Department of Argiculture (USDA) will have over the selection of food available in school cafeterias, vending machines, and a'la carte menus.  And not just the food paid for by the federal government through the school lunch program - it means all food sold in a school.

I'm all for school lunch fundings - I don't want to see kids go hungry.  At the same time, more than half of the children at our elementary school get reduced price or free lunches.  I'm sure there are those who need access to the program, and have a hard time getting it - somewhere...  But apparently not at our local school.  Perhaps making it easier is not the best answer, but making sure those who really need it get it.  Making the application process easier or just increasing the pool of people eligible, in the name of making sure no-one who might need it gets it, seems a little bit like watering the ocean to make sure no fish are thirsty.

As for expanding the USDA authority to control food selections in schools, I'm not sure I'm really on board.  In the end, nutrition starts in the home - and a group of homes make up a community, and a community should determine the best things for their children.  I'm having a hard time with government agents determining the menu at local schools.  Maybe it's just me.

In the end, I think it's just really sad that Washington, DC has to legislate school lunch menus.  The fact that we, as parents, apparently can't shape the diets of our children is truly sad.  Or, perhaps we can (and are)...  But I'm sure a beaurocrat can do it better.