Michele Obama runs into obesity resistance. I knew it!

All you have to do in many cases is look at the parents and you see overweight children.
Retraining in eating habits is what would make the most difference, plus getting some exercise.

The right is attacking Michelle for it but they attack every little thing, anyway, so they are wearisome noise - and the left just wonders how she can do anything to fix such a widespread and complicated problem.

I haven't seen that, Peter.

Sorry Peter Joseph, abut this right wing nut applauded and still applauds Mrs Obama and her efforts. Something has to be done about the rampant childhood obesity and she obviouslyhas the courage to do it! Many other R W N s and I give her a 10 1/2!

Childhood obesity could have something to do with the food we make available. Perhaps if we didn't have sweet drinks instead of water or milk. Perhaps if we did not have corn syrup in so many products.

We are killing ourselves for money.

The right is just supporting their money backers who make a fortune selling junk food, in schools.

So there is no one on the left engaged in this enterprise, Larry? I'm surprised to see such a broad and silly statement from you. Who has the final say on what vending machines are in the cafeteria and what gets dished out on the trays? Do you have to be a certified right winger to own a farm, a food processing plant, a trucking company, a vending machine business, be a school board member, a principal, or a cafeteria worker? I didn't think there were enough right wingers in the entire country to populate such a huge collection of industries and positions. Makes me wonder why our benevolent central government would allow such a thing.

Rex,

I take it that you are a right winger. (I could be wrong about that but there is a subtle cast to your comments that makes me suspect it.) My perception of the right wing is that it supports business interests over health (as in the health care system proposals in Congress). In my part of the world, the left wing wants organic foods in the schools and wants the coke machines and high fat, high corn syrup foods out of the schools.

Of course, in your part of the country that might not be the case but it is here.

But the schools find that junk food is cheaper and less work than organic food and the schools get income from those vending machines. So the schools have vending machines and high fat foods for lunch. Money wins again.

The food industries do not have to produce junk food. They don't have to use corn syrup and salt in everything. They could provide far better food but that would reduce their profits. Does anyone say that soda pop is a helthy food? The people who work in these industries do not have to be right wingers. But they, too, are seduced by our money, just like our Congress.

People often go against their morality to get money.

All I can say to this is that when my son was in grade school back in the 80s, I voiced my opinion to have the junk they served to the kids of mostly all left wing parents out of the schools and replaced with nutritious lunches and breakfasts, and this didn't even apply to my child because I wouldn't allow him to eat the school food. They looked at me like I was nuts. Suddenly, they're all for it.

Sue,

Good for you. We need more parents who won't tolerate what the schools dish out just because it's easier to not make waves.

Well, the point is, Larry, it didn't do any good at the time, and the issue was every bit as much a concern then as it is now, so what is this sudden thrust from the left? Is it a real concern about children's diets, or just part of an attempt to control much more? I'm not against the change in school menus and food offerings by any means, but I do have to question the motives.

Maybe some on the left have been reading about how bad the food industry has been treating us?

We never can know motives. We can only infer them. Personally, I look at money first and then other things. Works for me.

We can't know motives for sure, of course, but from all left wing agenda at this particular time with the UN treaty of the Rights of the Child in the forefront for one example, it is something that causes me to pause and reflect.

As far as your idea that some on the left have been reading about how bad the food industry has been treating us, it seems to me that someone's own flesh and blood being fed virtually poison on a daily basis should have taken some precedence of concern over any way the food industry is deceiving people. If you are correct, that's exactly the kind of convoluted and inverted priorities that the left has whenever it suits them to make changes. There's always some kind of ulterior motive that needs to be examined that isn't quite as altruistic, unselfish, and caring as they would like you to believe.

Sue,

The left is not one any more than the right is one. The left and right are both diverse and have lots of organizations which even fight among themselves. There are lots of ideas and lots of agendas on all sides. Some we might like and some we don't care about and some we would hate.

Sue, this is very true. Most right, and moderates have been apposing the foods in schools for many years. The left has continually supported the junk food they serve. This never ended, and I would suppose that if we got down to it, many on the right are looking at these frauds ion the Oval office and wondering what is actually going on, and wisely do not support them, because they know how the left operates. They use good ideas to blanket bad operations in, as a smokescreen. So justly no one with an ounce of reasoning will support them.
Many have been saying that more activity and better deits, not the unhealthy health food crap, or the fad diets, but good meats, vegies, fruits, and so on with only a few snacks of sweets. BUt today thanks to the left, we have so much unhealthy foods being served to the kids in schools. and poor parenting, and lax of activity because someone might get hurt olaying dodge ball... Freaking wimps and dumb-asses caused this, so do you think for a moment, anyonw would trust a dumb-ass to fix it? That would be stupid.

Larry, that's crap. I don't know any conservatives who support businesses over health. That's so absurd to even think.

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite on this matter.

People on the right have been trying to get more phys ed and recesses put back in school. They've been trying to get the fast food joints kicked out of schools (which do make the schools money).

Marilyn,

Then why is there so much salt in our food? Why is there so much corn syrup and sugar? Why are there soda vending machines in schools? Why is there so much pollution? If you can't see that as businesses putting profit over the health of their customers then you can't tell crap from shinola. Those businessmen are conservatives in the main. (I know, just statistics, not all are the same.)

If it helps you construct your thoughts, Larry, you can call me a right winger or a piece of toast for that matter. I won't deny being conservative and actually will admit to holding some liberal social views. So what? The problem I have with your original comment is how you make it sound as though the "right wing" have, once again, devised a sinister plot to victimize the altruistic left and anyone who could cut into thier profits. A lot of what goes on in public schools is done at the local level and, according to your assertion, the bottled water and granola bar machines are all owned by leftists and the soda/junk food machines are owned by the right. So who controls what types of machines end up in a public school? Selective accusation seems to be how the determination was made to find the villian and identify the champion. It's devisive BS to narrow the blame when you know damned well a persons political slant has very little to do with making a profit. You said so yourself.

Being a sinister right winger, I would just as soon shut the cafeterias down, other than the tables and chairs, and force parents to send lunch to school in a lunchbox. Leave the choice of what their children eat to them. For children whose parents are poor, irresponsible, or just to damned lazy to take on the responsibility of properly rearing a child, provide them with a lunch that is certified healthy by a local, independent panel who has no profit incentive. But now that would make people have to be independent and responsible and require less government intervention into even the most local of organizations. Better to let the feds oversee the care and nutritional needs of our youth than hoist such an overwhelming burden on parents. Yep, the same federal govt that's in bed with the salt, sugar, and corn syrup producers. Let's get John Kerry-Heinz in here, he'll set us straight.

Rex,

Please don't read more into my comment than it deserves. I am well aware of the diversity of both the right and left wings. After all, look how diverse the conservatives here on Gather are. Most conservatives are have liberal views on some issues. That's one of the great strengths of America. We have lots of views and ideas.

I regret you took my statement as condemning only the right wing but you will remember that the post is concerning opposition to Michele Obama and that would be coming from the right wing unless I misread my political play book. I even did not say that the right wing politicians were opposed to good food in the schools but said they were opposing Ms Obama due to money.

I also believe the schools have those machines and the junk food for money reasons as well.

Concerning your final paragraph, I support personal responsibility. But we are all mutually interdependent. I don't support punishing kids for the failings of their parents.

All political parties are in bed with big money.

Exactly, Dan!

Larry, perhaps you have been fortunate enough not to have experienced the factual truth of "about money". A low income family tends to use more starchy, fried food stuff in cooking, things that are cheaper. They'd love to have fresh or frozen fruits/vegetables, lean cuts of meat, but those items cost more.

Any plan to give purely nutritious foods that will satisfy a "hunger pang" for multitudes will be a big expenditure. Sadly, we can't afford the food programs we have already in place.

Sometimes, bad food is better than no food.

Nora,

I grew up in a poor family. I worked in the garden which produced much of our food. I know how difficult it is, especially when one is very tired, to provide good food for one's family.

But the system I am talking about would be easily able to provide plenty of good food for everyone. We have the ability to do so now. It's just that there is more money to be made producing junk food with "empty calories."

In my system you don't need to pay for food you eat because someone else pays for you. Of course they will not pay for food you don't need. The people who produce the food don't have to care whether you are rich or poor because they will be paid anyway.

If you actually want to understand my system read at www.nopom.info. If you just want to dismiss my ideas without understanding them you can save your self the trouble.

(Did I mention that my system has no taxes at all and no government expenditure and no one even tries to tell you what to do? Of course if you don't like private property and a really free market then you wouldn't like my system.)

Nora, it's a myth that people need starchy foods to stave off hunger. Actually, if we eat the foods God designed for us, we eat less because we're getting the nutrients we need. If we eat fresh foods, we eat less, so they end up costing less.

Yes, Marilyn, it is quite a myth. (I seem to be trying to dispel myths like wildfires here today.) Actually, those are the very foods that make you not feel satisfied because your body is craving nutrition, and they make you more hungry.

Well, there is always somebody I guess. Why CNN is helping this guy sell books is beyond me I guess though. If I was going to question the First Lady on anything about this, it would be why she doesn't work this through the "Presidents Council on Physical Fitness" which was pretty much formed for this exact issue many years ago, and still exists. Why create and fund another organization when with the infrastructure already exists?
Anyway, I think she has our kids good health in mind here, and don't see a problem myself. She should carry on...

I feel sorry for overweight children. Most likely they will be overweight for life.

Ms. Obama is encouraging proper nutrition and exercise, not weight alone. I applaud her.

One third of our kiddos are overweight!

It actually is the parent's responsibility to raise their children as they see fit - NOT the government's.

You're right. But, there were never fast food joints in our schools growing up. And parents are not in the cafeterias cooking the foods.

It's also a parent's responsibility to teach a child about sex ed, but we let schools teach that.

Get off your high horse and read, Catt. I agree. Although people should be responsible for teaching their kids, the schools should also be responsible about what they're serving at school. And the comment about parents being responsible, so therefore nothing should be done at the school level is a lame one because we are letting the schools teach them about sex.

It's a shame that parents aren't taking responsibility for this. But it's also a fact that many people don't realize what "obese" is.

A few years ago, some schools decided to check the height and weight and BMI of kids and to put that on their report cards, and some parents got really upset. They said that even telling a kid that their BMI index was too high was unfair and that the kids would all discover which kids were fat that way if they showed each other their report cards. Um, they can look at their classmates and see which ones are fat, don't you think?
(When I was in school, height and weight were always put on our report cards. It didn't bother anyone, but then again, we only had a few kids who were obese and a few who were over weight. Not like today.)

Marilyn and Sue:

the position of the Republican party regarding taxation of junk food and soft drinks: NO
the position of the Dem party on the same: MAYBE

The position of the Republican party regarding corporate production of unhealthy substances: LET THE BUYER BEWARE
The position of the Dem party regarding same: THE GOVERNMENT OWES THE PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF UNSAFE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS.

Note that it was not the Republican Party that brought us public service ads explaining the dangers of smoking, or mandated seat belts and air bags in cars.

Having recounted all the above, I will admit that NEITHER political party is totally pure as the driven snow as regards promotion of public health and regulation of unsafe and unhealthy products. But I think you need to admit that the hands-off, libertarian thread in current Republican thinking is an obstacle to that party's involvement in improving the eating habits of Americans. Teddy Roosevelt might have been willing to lead on this- his "trust busting" efforts revealed him as a sponsor of competition and quality in the world of business- but current era Republicans would tend to say, not government's problem, that's entirely up to parents. Please admit it.

I don't think we need more government oversight. What we need are consumers who refuse to buy junk.

I didn't realize this was a political issue, just a health issue. How naive of me. The guy wants to sell his book. CNN found a way to sensationalize the issue.

When I think of how kids (and parents) are bombarded with advertisements on TV, in the movies, magazines, stores, etc. and how poorly they eat (and their parents, too), it's not surprising the schools also take the easy way out and give them the junk food they want. Better to eat something than nothing. Besides it's only at school. Everyone knows kids eat nutritional breakfasts and dinners at home. Right?

This is called "Freedom of Eating What you Want" Don't let the government, i.e. the school system, dictate your child's diet. For heaven's sakes. Let the kids eat only what they want. If parents don't like it, let them send a bag lunch and embarrass the kid into eating the junk food that everyone else eats after he throws the good food in the garbage.

Just like in everything else, we have become the victims of greed from the business community. Whatever sells. Doesn't matter if it's good or bad, if I can make money out of it then it's good (for me).

I agree with Elsie on the "advertsements, media etc" influencing the bad food choices. Parents are guilty of handing a crying child a cookie, that's gone on for a long time...

I taught my boys healthy eating, but out on their own, I later heard horrors stories of rammon soup if not burgers and fires, their convenience and wallet the determining factor. (might have been a bit of lazy there too!)

Any attempt to educate the children and parents gets a thumbs up from me! But often, the lesson doesn't stick, or it does and people resort to "comfort food".. ho hum

"comfort food" ... Well, I guess we're guilty of being lazy, too! In my house, we have a bottomless fruit bowl policy. There's nothing easier than grabbing a piece of fruit to eat! My kids can eat as many apples, bananas, pears, grapes, etc. as they want. They get yogurt or applesauce for "dessert." Our doctor can't believe how healthy and fit they are! The only "soda" available here is seltzer. My son took a sip once and gagged!!! The only chips I buy are organic blue corn tortilla chips. They're perfectly happy with that treat.

When they "grow up" I won't be around to guide them. You can only hope that the good things we teach them stay with them.

Food is really important, but I think that exercise is the best thing people can do to stay healthy throughout life. I don't like hearing about schools that eliminate recess and physical education. It's so important for kids ... It's extremely good for the brain also.

The schools are greedy too. They get a chunk of the money from vending machines or from fast food joints that set up shop at schools.

November Girl, good for you. My son never had any candy or junk food until he was 3 and my mother had to baby sit.

LOL! "Mothers" are funny like that! My kids never would have known what McDonald's or Burger King was if it hadn't been for my mother taking them there. It goes to show, we can't control everything. Kids leave the protection of their parents eventually. This food thing needs to be viewed with common sense NOT obsession.

I wonder how many healthy school lunches could be served to public school children with the $2.5 billion currently budgeted for 10 C-17 cargo planes that the Pentagon doesn't want or need?

Bingo!

That's a good point.

You find overweight people in every culture where food is abundant and reliable. In that sense, I'm afraid it is biology.

in a sense, yes, Aniko- because the human race did NOT evolve in conditions in which food was reliable. There were times of plenty, and there were times of hunger. You are correct in that. The times of hunger counteracted the times of plenty so that almost nobody was fat all the time. It is true that tribal hunter gatherers will gain weight the week of the big buffalo kill, for example.

Our challenge is to foster a psychology which seeks to overcome this human tendency to overeat whenever there is a constant supply of rich food. There are many americans who are NOT overweight! The ones who are NOT overweight clearly are able to overcome biology. How? My guess is that they tell themselves that McDonald's is not going to get their dollar. My guess is that they also foster a family eating dynamic of quality over quantity. yes?

Yes, you are correct about all of that, and thanks for explaining it all so clearly. That is what I meant last night, and I should have said so instead of leaving a lazy comment. It is, in fact, the hunter gatherer's instinct to overeat when food is available and store the fat for less abundant times that is holding us hostage today.

That said, there are also genetic differences between those who are overweight and those who are not--not everyone who's skinny in our society has had to make any effort to "overcome biology". (We call such people "lucky" today, but they might (have) be(en) the first ones to die in famine.

Also, I don't think the problem is so much McDonald's but the amount of food people eat--portion size, snacking in front of the TV, drinking calories in soft drinks, juices, etc--and also how little most people walk. When I compare the US with Europe, the two differences that stand out are portion size and public transportation with walkable communities. (Of course, the problem is growing in Europe, too.)

"how little most people walk. "

Yes, I think that is important. The patterns of obesity are counterintuitive. In New York City, it is hard to be obese because you often use the subway, where you must walk respectable distances. Meanwhile, in suburban or rural areas in the souther USA, obesity is exploding partly through lack of walking. In our car culture, there are many places that do not even have sidewalks- you cannot walk along the road safely because the trees and briars come up to the ditch next to the road, and the ditch may be muddy or filled with trash. Walk on the street? Good luck, you may be hit by a car.

Obesity is the new public health crisis, replacing smoking. I dont know if its a coincidence, but Philip Morris bought Kraft Foods (or the other way around, anyway they are together). I have read excerpts of that horrendous book, which is full of lies and distortions, and I think it is written purely as shock lit. Say something outrageous, which at the same time, makes fat people feel better, and it sells. As for CNN, dont forget that it was LArry King who promoted the dangerous nonsensce about vaccination and autism, with the resulting public health crisis in childhood diseases.

Aniko, this might be a historical moment, because I dont agree with you for the first time ever. There is plenty of food in Western Europe, and the level of obesity is far below that of the US. The diifference (as I am sure you know) is a very different attitude about diet and food.

Wait, I think I read your comment wrong. Maybe you are saying that you find SOME overweight people in every culture with enough food, so thats where biology comes in. Is that it? Phew, I was worried there for a minute. I should get back to bed I guess.

thanks for your comment, Sy. My guess is that the guy who wrote this goofy book is a contrarian who wanted a publishing payoff. He got what he wanted, right? Because so many of us think that "there is always another side to the story".
Not always. Sometimes there is really only one side to the story.

Sy--I left my response above to Chris before reading your comment. :-)

In addition to the things I mentioned, food is cheaper in the US--but can we make it more expensive without adding to the number of people who go hungry?

Another cultural difference is eating out: Americans do a lot more of it, not only in terms of fast food, but also in higher-end restaurants.

Anyway, if anyone wants practical suggestions born from comparisons with Europe: I don't think I've ever seen 20-ounce sodas there (which would be about 1/2 liter). How about getting rid of that abomination and going back to the slender 8-ounce bottles?

the 8 ounce sodas would be a start, Aniko.

Yes, it is the new public health issue replacing smoking, except many people except the left have been screaming about this for longfer than the smoking issue. But as usual, there was more money to be made in the anti-smoking business, so that got a priority, and the left to justify things, claimes it is new; of course, same old tactic.
I can still remember when I was going to school there were a number of people that started making the claims of bad food in school, and that they wanted their kids to have better food, instead it has been going south. Now after years of controlling this issue, the left wants to change it... LOL new my ass... but as usual, the Democrats did not say it, so that makes it new....

Tobacco industry, multi-million dollar business, Anti-smoking industry= multi-billion dollar business.

Fast food, multi-million dollar business. Health food (unhealthy foods) multi-billion dollar business. Usual political track. And the left again falls for it blindly.

Rather than focusing on food, we need to get these kids moving. You would be suprised how little physical education/movement takes place at school. Afterschool programs and PE are cut because of budgets. Recess and Lunch recess are also bare bones due to scheduling, budgets and increasing teaching time so the kids can pass mandated testing.
Parents are not let off the hook either, a little less mcdonalds, a few more veggies/fruit, getting their kids involved in any outside activity and cutting down on gaming......would go an awful long way to solve the problem.

Doctors also need to step up to the plate and talke to parents more seriously.

6oz would be even better ,,,,,the original coke size

You're right, Teresa. Back in the dinosaur age, we started the day on the playground, had a recess mid-morning, one at lunch and one mid-afternoon. We also had no homework in elementary school so we could go home and be kids there too.

Study after study, the indications are there. The absolute most important thing for children, up to the age of six or seven, is physical activity. If the physical body isn't well developed, academics suffer later on. Putting 3 and 4 year olds in little desks and making them memorize pictures/words from flashcards is the wrong approach.

Climbing trees (i.e. problem solving) and playing with sticks and mud (i.e. creativity/imagination) are examples of two activities that are more beneficial to the pre-school age child in the long run.

November girl, your preaching to the choir. I've been in special education for over 25 years. Not only do the little ones need it for development but the older ones need it for the same reasons. I work at the middle school level and the number of sloppy fat kids is definatly on the rise.
This is off of my blog http://yourmiddleschooler.blogspot.com/2008/04/parent-to-parent_27.html

Thanks for sharing your blog ... I'll check it out. I also worked in Special Education many, many years ago. *smile*

funny stuff, Teresa. Yeah, I can remember that, growing up, cokes were indeed six ounces. You could also buy a family size 6 pack of 12 ounce cokes, but those were intened to save money, you would split the 12 ounce between a couple people.

I agree with many of the comments I see here that are loaded with common sense...

Portion sizes need to decrease. I'd rather pay less for less food on my plate at a restaurant. Culturally, it would be great if soda became an occasional choice ... 20 oz. of any beverage at once is bad for the body.

High fructose corn syrup is horrible for the metabolism ... I don't buy anything containing it. It's an artificially manufactured sugar. Natural sugars are more easily broken down by the body.

Trans fats are evil. Good old fashioned EV olive oil is a beneficial fat. Omega 3s are the best. Most food that is labeled "Low Fat" is usually filled with all sorts of other junky stuff. Just eat the good fats from nature (and go for walks).

This is the best nutritional advice I ever got -- If you don't make it from scratch, then only buy pre-packaged foods with five or less ingredients and 9 or less grams of sugar per serving. Try eating less of better quality food (i.e. whole grains). You'll feel full and start burning off the flab.

Drink 48 ounces of water a day. Start your day with a glass of water (before the cup of coffee).

Michael Pollan's definition of "food" is useful in this regard, November Girl. He defines it as "something that could be found on your grandmother's table" :)

Love it! I'll check him out!

he is the author of "In defense of food" and "The Omnivore's dilemma".

Something that doesn't get mentioned is the time crunch modern families have. Having two working parents went from only 11% of households in 1950 to something over 68% now. It's hard to do it all -- pack nutritious lunches, prepare breakfast and dinner from scratch. I know I can't do it.