Can big government make us thin?

By Brigette Russell 7/28/09 8:29 AM

In May, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced the Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2009 to help address what Bingaman at his Web site refers to as the obesity epidemic. It appears that the bill is now dead in committee, but because obesity will still be a problem next year, and Bingaman or someone else is likely to introduce legislation to address it, it is worth talking about.

Bingaman’s bill would have created a United States Council on Overweight and Obesity Prevention (USCO-OP), provided grants to schools, state and local governments to provide nutritional counseling, expanded Medicare to provide nutritional counseling, increased funding to the Department of Agriculture’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program aimed at providing low-income children with access to healthier food at school, and reformed federal oversight of and beverage labeling with the aim of “improving the transparency of” (i.e., making even more complicated than they already are) those labels.

Call me cynical, but do we really need more “transparent” labels to tell us that Fruit Loops are going to make us fat but broccoli isn’t?

By now, don’t we all know that a salad with grilled chicken is a better lunch option than a Whopper and fries? Nutritional counseling will teach people the incredibly important and difficult to comprehend concept that blueberries are good, while blueberry flavored Hostess pies are bad, but it can’t make them go into the grocery store, buy the berries, wash them and eat them when they really just want to run into the mini-mart while their gas is pumping and grab that pie.

The truth is, being thin in America today takes self-discipline. Throughout most of human history, most people had to try pretty hard to get enough calories to allow them to do the demanding physical labor that mere survival required. Today, most of us do not work jobs that burn a lot of calories a day, and the struggle isn’t to eat enough to survive, but rather to pass up eating the abundant and delicious things we want but shouldn’t have, and to engage in pointless activity to burn up all those useless calories.

Being poor in 21-st century America doesn’t mean not having enough to eat, but often it means being part of a culture where fattening, processed foods are not only relatively cheap and convenient, but socially acceptable. It also means having the kind of job that often isn’t all that rewarding, and you really just need to unwind after work instead of stopping at Whole Foods and whipping yourself up a nice tofu stir-fry.

This, perhaps, is what Bingaman really wants the USCO-OP to change. Because let’s be honest: poor people know that green chile cheeseburgers will make them fatter than steamed salmon will, and they know that doing an hour of exercise will make them fitter than watching an hour of television. They know these things, but often they’ve had a long, hard day at work and they’re tired and hungry and just want to be left alone with their remote control and their burger and their Dr. Pepper.

The one part of Bingaman’s plan that I think might be worth the expenditure is the provision to ensure low-income children access to healthier food at schools. In fact, I don’t think schools should make unhealthy food available to students at all. If it costs more to put milk and apples instead of Coke and potato chips in public school vending machines, I would say that’s money well spent. If parents want to feed their kids unhealthy, fattening food at home, that’s their business, but I don’t think it should be readily available to all of our children at school.

I’d be thrilled if the government — federal, state or local, take your pick — could take action that really would make obese people thin and healthy. I’m fiscally conservative, but much of the reason I am is that so many government programs don’t actually deliver on what they promise.

If governmental “wars on poverty” really did bring an end to poverty, I’d be all for them. I don’t want people to be poor any more than I want them to be fat. I’d like all of us to be as rich and thin as we wanted, but I just don’t have a lot of faith that a fatter government is going to make thinner citizens.

Leave a comment

Become a fan on Facebook

tracynorth

I don't think that the government should pay for electric scooters for fat people. When people get to over 50 lbs overweight, they should pay higher taxes because they do cost more with all their ailments. This would also encourage them to stay under 50lbs overweight.

On the other hand, I don't like how the last 2 public schools my kids attended provided free donuts before testing. Disgusting. I would never let my children buy lunch at the public schools. The food is not fit for human consumption AND it is loaded with sugar, which makes the children addicted to more sugar. Go figure!

srsjones825

I might faint... I actually agree with you today.

benito_a

Unfortunately, this is a complex issue that isn't furthered by partisan meandering.

What's being left out of the discussion is that people in our society are conditioned to eat unhealthy diets only to be conveyor belted into the travesty of the American health care system, where Doctors, who receive gifts and perks from large pharmaceutical companies, can then prescribe you drugs that have been approved by the FDA with absolutely no stringent testing because of the strength of Big Pharma's lobby apparatus which has Congress firmly in their pockets.

Sounds wacky right? Unfortunately its the definition of "American consumerism."

The average American watches 151 hours of television a month... that's damn near a full-time job. Companies/advertisers would not be spending billions on tv ads if they didn't work. The most tragic part of this is that many parents watch whatever is pumped through the tube with their children, or even worse, allow their children to watch television unsupervised.

The most direct way to battle obesity and overall unhealthy eating habits would be to turn off the television. The second best way would be to require a media literacy and "health on a budget" class in middle and high school.

Educated people, regardless of financial status, generally watch less television and are healthier.

I was at a health conference recently and a young doctor stated to the crowd that he often gets asked what is the best way to get a handle on diabetes or alcoholism or obesity in some of the smaller towns across New Mexico, he stated that if you want to see those rates plummet, focus on getting the kids in the community to graduate high school. Education is the key.

writesalot

I remember when a friend of mine, Dr. Steve Komadina, back when he was a state senator, was reviewing health bills for New Mexico schools cafeteria food plans. The idea was to fight against childhood obesity by providing a healthy meal at school. However, the bill and the state very quickly ran into uncertain grounds. The problem lay in, what exactly is considered healthy food? We had several long talks on the subject:

Some people tout being a pure vegetarian as the only way to be healthy. Others tout the aging food pyramid. Some tout a balance of all kinds of food as healthy. And there were even nutritionists from UNM who said that pizza was a perfect food as it had all the food groups and would suffice for a healthy breakfast or lunch. So you see, what is healthy? Overall, we know far too little, and have far too many opinions on the subject. And to make matters worse, everyone is different. Asians tend to be lactose intolerant; Some African descent people are also lactose intolerant, others do well with milk; Europian descent do well on high protein diets; it just keeps going on and on. And then there are the blood types. The slightly different body chemistry of blood type O are more healthy with high protein diets; types A & AB do better with a more balanced or even vegetarian diets. The only solution was to provide a healthy selection to choose from, and to better educate people on the bare basics of nutrition (vitamins, minerals, etc.) and let people do as they need for their specific health. This was far too costly to be supported by the schools of New Mexico.

And I would be careful about touting Whole Foods as healthy. I did some consulting work for the man (I will not name him) who owns the business that supplies Whole Foods stores throughout the American Southwest, some 29 locations in all, if I remember correctly. Anyway, his business owns and operates numerous year-round farms in Mexico that supply fruit and vegetables to Whole Foods. They grow them, pick them with cheap Mexican labor, and ship them across the border to the various Whole Foods stores. He said that never once, in the nearly two decades that he has supplied Whole Foods and other health stores with produce have they once inquired as to the growing, processing and shipping methods that he uses for the produce. This practice is called, plausible deniability. So if it is found out that they use pesticides for these "organic" fruits and vegetables, and they do by the way, then Whole Foods can claim ignorance on the subject -- because they never asked.

So my point is, the government may think that they are providing healthy foods, but the moment they get cheap produce from across the border, or use radiation to kill bacteria and viruses, then there goes the whole healthy concept. And at some point they are going to have to realize that we humans are still genetically diverse enough that there is no "silver bullet" for perfect health. Each person has to take the responsibility to take control of their lives. Yes, it can be hard at times, but there are more mentally healthy ways to unwind than sinking one's snout into the quick-food trough. Exercise is a great way to unwind, so too are hobbies like gardening. How poor do you have to be that you can not put a few seeds into a pot of dirt? Or too poor to lift two milk gallon jugs filled with water, or do pushups?

Gwyneth Doland

Hey, man. This isn't complicated. And the word they use is "healthier" not "healthy." There's no question that when it comes to school lunches, grilled chicken is healthier than the deep-fried chicken nuggets currently served, and that having an apple on the plate is better than not having an apple on the plate, as often happens.

Second: your point about gallon jugs just reminded me that Albuquerque recently installed some very basic exercise equipment at Tiguex Park. At first I thought it was silly. Who would use these things? And yet every time I go to the park in the morning, I see people using them. And since the park was renovated I see TONS more people there, playing soccer, walking their dogs, riding bicycles. These are the kinds of things that CDC says can change the way we live, which is what's making us fat.

writesalot

I agree, I know that this is not complicated. But it becomes complicated when you try to implement it into law. There was someone else who wrote here railing against law makers saying that they have been lax on creating laws for healthy school lunches. They have not; they have gone down that road and too many special interest groups jumped on the band wagon, made it complicated, and ended up torpedoing the whole attempt to make schools healthier... Democracy at work.

I know this because I was apart of making and drafting the bill some years ago for the roundhouse to improve school lunches and get rid of chips and soda. In an instant we had vegans, Californians, new age what-have-you, all trying to lobby on the bill to get their ideas of what is healthy put into the bill. It got very ugly, very fast and it ended with the bill just dieing on the floor. Bye bye healthy school lunches.

On the other hand, I know of some rural schools in NM, far outside of the notice of Santa Fe and mainstream society, that have secretly changed their schools into very health concious schools. Their lunches are healthy; they have health drinks only in the vending machines; they have a health program; certain kids are honored to be chosen to be in the health committee for the school and that committee is responsible for teaching others and for designing the school lunch program.

Anyway, the original intent of the failed bill from a few years ago was to make small changes to school lunches. But those special interest groups watch the roundhouse like hawks, ready to swoop in and force their ideas and will over the greater good for the general public.

It is great that so many people are using the park. The gallon jugs are the simplest weights for exercise. A one gallon jug of water weighs almost precisely ten pounds. A gallon of milk weighs from 11 to 12 pounds, depending upon Skim, 2%, 4%. Let us hope that these habits continue in the winter, indoors in some fashion.

Gwyneth Doland

You're talking about two different things. Chips and soda are what are known as "competitive foods," (because they compete with school lunches) and they were largely eliminated statewide in 2006 by Gov. Richardson's "Healthy Kids Initiative."

But school lunches are regulated by USDA, and unfortunately, those guidelines are not strict enough to keep out deep-fried chicken nuggets, and they don't require enough fresh fruits and vegetables. Several other states have implemented stricter rules on their school lunches and New Mexico could do the same. USDA could also make changes to its guidelines.

writesalot

No, I am not. The chips and soda was just an example, and for your information, several school districts in NM did serve chips and soda with school lunches. The work I am talking about was done three years before Gov. Richardson repackaged the same initiative into his "Healthy Kids" deal.

USDA laws on school lunches are surprisingly loose -- meaning that there is room for interpretation by state and local laws. USDA laws are pretty much to make sure that the food meets certain levels of safety, and that schools are serving food, and to make sure that nothing outlandish is served (i.e. serving yak's milk fortified with vitamin R). Other than that, I can point out specific schools that purchase their food from local farmers, schools that have served pre-packaged food, and other examples that a person might not think would be within USDA allowance, yet surprisingly are -- as you pointed out.

That is the reason why there was the initiative to "seize the reins" of this runaway topic and make school lunches in NM healthy. That failed, and three years later Gov. Richardson just stepped in and did it -- then that embarassing photo of him not being able to fit into a state police helicopter surfaced. Two steps forward, one step back.

You are right, chips and soda and other vending machine items are considered "competitive foods", but like I said, there were schools that either out of ignorance were serving chips, twinkies, and other such items with lunches, or as in one incidence where the school was receiving funding from a company to include a certain soft drink with the lunches. It was a form of paid advertising -- you can't just drink one, and only the first one is free. There was a bit of a mess to clean up at the time, but one way or the other it got done.

The USDA drastically needs to make changes to its guidelines. While not a source of "truth", the movie "super-size me" did bring to light some of the areas for revision with school lunches and the USDA.

Gwyneth Doland

But look, there's a crucial distinction here between school lunch, which is a federally controlled program, and other foods in schools, which are locally controlled. Richardson's "Healthy Kids" initiative of 2006 did nothing to change the quality of the actual school lunches, which are, as you say, are regulated by USDA.

It is possible, on a state level, to make those lunches more nutritious, however. In fact, 19 states have set requirements for school meals (as opposed to competitive foods) that are more strict than USDA's, but New Mexico is not one of them.

That report I quoted in my original story recommends that USDA hurry up and revise the school nutrition guidelines to meet the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. But in the meantime, it's up to the states to whip those lunches into shape.

writesalot

I am not arguing; in fact, I am enjoying this intellectual conversation -- if this thing had "add as friends", I probably would have clicked that by now. I am also enjoying not being called a nazi (thank you, derekbill).

I do admit that over the last few years I have lost track of where the school lunches stand in terms of being healthy here in NM -- after that debacle with the senate/house bill a few years ago I left the matter in aggravation. What I know since then has just been from conversations with various friends still in politics (although, once again I find myself pulled back in with the upcoming Governor's race). Anyhew, despite Gov. Richardson's good intentional dictatorial attempt to proclaim healthy lunches (hey, I actually like his style, don't get me wrong) we still have a childhood obesity problem, and there are still problems with school lunches, also despite the strides made by some individual schools. I agree with you on this matter -- there is still room for improvement. At the same time, it has been a long and difficult road before now, even despite the fact that this is not rocket science if you look at it from a practical view point. And, it would be possible to do it cost effectively if local agricultural producers were used as suppliers over buying food hauled over long distances. That would also boost the failing local agriculture of NM.

Gwyneth Doland

I love the idea of using more local food in schools! The cost-effective part is the hard part, though.

It's about scale. Food that's trucked in to New Mexico is often the cheapest because it's produced on a massive scale. But most New Mexico growers are small so their prices tend to be higher.

We have had some success with things like apples (and carrots?) that school districts have bought in bulk from New Mexico growers through the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program that Sen. Bingaman supports.

Which brings me back to my point about the solutions to obesity being complex and small.

The purchase of those apples was made possible by an investment in a huge walk-in cooler that allowed the schools to store the apples and mete them slowly over many months.

A small investment in infrastructure, such as coolers, can help schools buy local produce, and can help convince small rural stores to stock fresh fruits and vegetables.

writesalot

And those decisions can be made at the local level by school boards of individual school districts. I know, I have seen them do it here in NM, and I guess so too have you seen that.

You actually bring up the whole idea that was arrived at a few years ago; it will take simple baby steps over the course of years to make the changes toward having healthier schools. We just can't do this with broad strokes. Unfortunately, in that time, a lot of kids will continue to be obesse (sp) and un-healthy.

JoMa

This theme of obesity and "fitness" comes and goes with every administration. I think Teddy Roosevelt might have been the one who started it in the 1900's.

We spend billions for that "magic pill" that will make everyone thin and have perfect abs to boot. TV and the internet are filled with scams for pills, machines, routines, etc., designed to separate people from their money.

I think everyone knows that "eat less, exercise more" really works, but we've become a nation that wants to blame somebody or something else for every real or imagined "crisis" that befalls us.

Gwyneth Doland

JoMa, I think we can all agree this is a real crisis. As I wrote earlier today, obesity is costing us $147 billion per year, and it's at least 10 percent of our total spending on health care. And that is not a number that has remained constant. It's skyrocketing. The CDC says obesity rates increased by 37 percent between 1998 and 2006.

This has been a major change, just over the past generation. We're a lot fatter than we used to be, and we're twice as fat as almost every other developed nation. And it's costing us money.

I wish there were a magic pill, but I don't think anybody is suggesting there is an easy answer.

I also wrote today about another CDC report that has 26 recommendations for combatting obesity. Some of them seem simple, like getting the junk food out of schools and making sure that kids have access to affordable, healthier foods.

They recommend that schools offer more physical activities after school (not competitive team sports, but activities you don't already have to be good at in order to do) so that kids spend more time physically active and less time in front of a computer or video game.

Other things are more complicated, like finding ways to make it easier for women to breastfeed for as long as possible. Because there is evidence that some ingredients in breast milk may help prevent childhood obesity.

They also recommend that communities use city planning that encourages walking and bicycle riding.

And that makes sense, doesn't it? Think of how much walking you do now, and what kinds of changes might increase the amount of walking you do. My own neighborhood, for example, only got sidewalks and streetlights about eight years ago. And I live on a busy street. Without sidewalks, folks can't push baby strollers or pull grocery carriers. And without streetlights, a lot of people don't feel safe walking at night.

So I think there are many, many things that we can do to try to address this crisis. No magic pills.

marioburgos

What do you mean Froot Loops are going to make us fat? I learned all about the food pyramid during my elementary public school years, and you're supposed to eat a lot of froot. Brigette, I think you'd better go back and check your facts.

Moreover, not only are you negating the obvious nutritional contribution Froot Loops makes to society, but you are failing to take into account the educational value the brand brings to the table. Frootloops.com is able to provide endless hours of strategic thinking challenges for our nations' youth.

By comparison, Broccoli.com is nothing more than a redirect for some longstanding manufacturer peddling numerous packaged products. To make matters worse, one of the products in their innocently named "Consumer Corner" is the "Tailgater Pack."

It's a well-known fact that tailgate parties are nothing more than an excuse to drink to excess before entering college athletic facilities that don't sell beer. Are Broccoli Tailgates really the type of example we want to set for our children?

Gwyneth Doland

Those most at risk for obesity are "the non-rich in a rich society," Bill Clinton said yesterday in his address to "Weight of the Nation," the CDC's inaugural obesity conference.

Blueberries cost $4 per cup. Salmon costs $8 per pound. But blueberry pies cost $.75 and cheeseburgers $1.

When you're struggling to put enough food on the table, unfortunately, the best things cost the most, either in money (blueberries) or in time (cooking dried beans) or expertise (knowing how to cook kale). That's why the poor struggle with obesity more than the rich.

Brigette_Russell

Some healthy foods are expensive, but many are not. Fresh blueberries are, but fresh carrots, corn, broccoli and a lot of other vegetables aren't particularly expensive. And have you seen the prices on those disgusting cereals they market to kids? As to prep time and ability level, you're right. I cook just about everything from scratch, and it is time-consuming. That is something the government can't change, and it's difficult for me to see how they can persuade people to spend the time on it if they don't want to.

Gwyneth Doland

As a former chef and cooking school instructor, I'll tell you: Most people these days can barely boil water. It's a HUGE problem. Do you know why we didn't have this problem 50 years ago? Two reasons, one of which we can change through government, the other we don't want to. First, we offered home ec in schools. All of them. And those classes taught kids how to cook. How many schools offer this now? Very few.

Second, most families had full-time chefs (read: moms) at home showing them how to cook every night. As great as that part of it was, those days aren't coming back.

Brigette_Russell

I was thinking the same thing about the full time chefs (aka moms) and thought, boy, oh, boy, THAT's really going to upset people when I say it. Glad you said it first, Gwyneth. It's absolutely true. My daughters will know how to cook in large part because they have a mother who cooks and teaches them how. If I had a 9-to-5 job and came home tired every night, instead of being a writer who works the hours I want to work, I couldn't serve my family the kind of food I do on a regular basis.

Home ec in schools is no substitute for mom or grandma at home. At least not if it's taught the way it was when I was in school (yes, it was when they still had home ec and even typing as opposed to word processing). If that class was all I had to teach me how to cook, I wouldn't be much of a cook today. Frankly, I think a lot of the shows on Food Network do a much better job teaching culinary skills than my high school home ec class did.

Gwyneth Doland

Hey, there were some great things about the 50s. But not all of those moms stayed home changing diapers because that's all they wanted. Some women wanted to go to Harvard; they weren't allowed. They wanted to be fire fighters and fighter pilots and partners in law firms and hey, maybe executive chefs! But those jobs were simply not available to them.

Now middle-class American families face a different problem: Many can't afford to have one parent stay at home and raise the kids. They MUST work in order to pay the mortgage and pay for health insurance and save up for college tuition. And when both parents work, that leaves less time for grocery shopping and less time for cooking.

This situation is only magnified in poor families, and especially in single-parent families. Sure, lots of poor moms wish they could be at home teaching their kids how to make bread, but they've got to work.

Bring back Home Ec!

Brigette_Russell

This is something I've thought about a lot, and written about a bit in the past. Certainly the triumph of feminism opened up a world of opportunity to women, but mainly they were women like you and me -- educated women for whom "work" meant a career, something meaningful. But for every woman with a rewarding career, there are at least two or three women with JOBS that aren't particularly rewarding in any sense but the remunerative. Those women have to work two jobs -- the one their mom and grandma worked as a housewife and mother, plus the one they go to for 8 hrs a day to help pay the bills. For every woman who gets to go to Harvard or be a fighter pilot, there are a couple dozen women sitting in cubicles in office buildings, taking crap from their bosses and wishing they could be with the kids they had to drop off at daycare.

Gwyneth Doland

Oh girl! You don't have to tell me about it. In the immortal words of Donna Summer, She works hard for the money! So hard workin', honey! It is true that women who work outside the home still do most of the housework. And that drives me crazy.

But here's something to think about: There are tons of men out there who would kill to stay home and be full-time dads. But they can't. You know why? Because men still make more money than women.

If a family can afford to have one parent stay home, it's almost always the woman, and it's often because her salary is smaller, and therefore more expendable.

If we as a society decide that we want to have families with one parent who raises kids full-time then we are going to have to make some serious changes. How would families be able to afford to do this? Because most can't now.

We would to ensure pay equity for men and women, to allow dads to parent their kids if they want to, and to allow women to pursue their careers if they want to.

We would need to slash the cost of health care, seriously slash it, so that families didn't need two salaries to afford it.

And we would need guaranteed maternity/paternity leave.

Among other things.

Brigette_Russell

I doubt you'll be surprised to hear that my solutions aren't the same as yours. I won't address all of these issues here, but rather will save my points for a future column when the issue seems timely.

One point I will make now is that maternity/paternity leave does not begin to address the problem of kids being raised without a parent at home, since even liberals wouldn't ask companies to provide 18 years of paid parental leave.

It might promote nursing, but the studies linking formula feeding with obesity are deeply flawed, just like the ones linking breastfeeding to IQ. There is correlation, but not causation.

In our society today, it is overwhelmingly affluent women who are willing and able to nurse their babies, either because they can afford to be SAHMs or because they have careers that permit flexibility and privacy on the job. Poor women have to put theirs in daycare and get back to work at jobs where they don't have private offices where they can have the nanny bring the baby in for a nursing session every two hours.

Women who are affluent, educated and either SAHMs or highly paid professionals nurse their babies, and those babies grow up to be healthy, normal-weight children. It's not the breastfeeding that makes them fit and slim, but the continued good nutrition their affluent mothers provide throughout their entire childhoods.

derekbill

I can agree with you on this, mostly. But just because the government's efforts didn't entirely stop people from smoking, that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to spend money trying. Those warning labels and ad disclaimers did some good, wouldn't you agree?

Someday we may well look back on candy bars in school vending machines the way we look back on people smoking in hospitals and supermarkets.

robinmarty

"The peasants are rioting because they have run out of bread...."

"Let them steam salmon!"

benbrophy

I think the government could probably do things to make healthy food more affordable. There's a correlation between poverty and obesity, and it's because cheap food is generally really bad for you. There must be a way make good food available at low prices. Probably has to do with the way the Government provided subsidies for corn, soy and meat at the expense of healthier foods (all of those things *could* be healthy but corn and soy are used mainly unhealthy for processed foods or animal feed).

And yeah, healthier school lunches would be FANTASTIC why are we feeding junk to our public school students?

wanrey

I'm all for healthier food in schools. This should have happened years ago and I blame our lawmakers for being so lax on it, but now suddenly its a big deal. What I think this article is missing is an analysis on how many low-income families can afford to eat at Whole Foods, or is a big part of the reason they eat processed foods (both at fast food restaurants and from grocery stores) is because it's tons cheaper than anything you'll buy at Whole Food? So even though these people may be aware of the reality of healthy food vs. bad, processed food, how can they do anything about it if they just plain out can't afford it? Thankfully many families are taking a cheap and healthy alternative by beginning to grow their own food.

As for the exercise thing, many people need to learn to get off their ass and be more active, that fact I won't argue. And on that note, since government is intervening to get schools better food, how about them helping put more physical education back into the schools too.

blog comments powered by Disqus

CATEGORIES AND TAGS: Commentary, Health, Politics, Jeff Bingaman, obesity, USCO-OP

Top Stories:

Related Posts

Can big government make us thin?

Donate to The New Mexico Independent: