Why blame the government for fat kids?
Posted
August 28, 2007 at
12:38 pm by
Jessica
Our kids are getting fatter and alarmists are calling it a health epidemic. According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention:
The report says that there are probably 25 million overweight or obese children in the U.S. The percentage of obese children in the different states varied from a low of 8.5 percent in Utah to a high of 22.8 percent in Washington, D.C. It was noted that eight of the 10 states with the highest percentages of obese children were in the South. The states in the south with the heaviest children are West Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, and New Mexico.
So, who’s to blame? Mom? Dad? Self? The government? Yeah, let’s blame the government because our thoughts and desires ought to be controlled by the stellar capabilities of the folks in Washington.
The reports co-author, Jeffrey Levi thinks it’s most definitely the government’s fault that kids eat too many french fries:
Levi believes that individuals need help of the government to sort the problem out.
In the case of children, Levi called for moves such as restoring physical education and recess in schools, escalating the screenings of children’s weight and height and reporting results to parents among others.
For the general public, Levi reasoned, “People can’t exercise personal responsibility in a vacuum. If you’re telling people to eat healthier food and there are no grocery stores in the neighborhood; if you’re telling them to be more physically active, and they live in poor, unsafe neighborhoods or in suburban neighborhoods with no sidewalks, then you’ve created an environment that doesn’t make it possible for people to exercise that personal responsibility. That’s where government plays a role.”
While I agree that schools need to reinstate mandatory physical education classes, isn’t this more of an issue of the public who fails to support schools? Without the budgets, schools are not going to be able to provide these services and with a growing elderly population, it’s the grandparents who often set themselves up as a roadblock to helping children.
I hardly think it is the government’s responsibility to make sure every town has a grocery store with fresh produce. Part of the problem in living in such a wealthy nation, is that we eat and eat and eat and eat. Parents need to be educated on the ramifications of a free-for-all diet, but it is ultimately their responsibility and then the responsibility of the individual. I really don’t want the government in our pantry. I mean, look how well they’re doing in all the other areas, like infrastructure, the war, education, social security. C’mon people, think.
Tags: center-for-disease-control-and-prevent, fat-kids, government-intervention, jeffrey-levi, obesity |
13 Responses to “Why blame the government for fat kids?”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Petulant Pixie said:
August 28, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
JFK instituted a 5 day-a-week mandatory PE program nation-wide during his time. The ONLY state that still enforeces it now is Illinois. There does need to be a mandatory nation-wide PE program.
And, there is a trend in public schools (at least around here) to get healthier cafeteria food. That needs to happen nation-wide, too.
It seems part of it might be a class issue, too. That people from a certain socio-econonomic grouping are not eating as healthy or getting as much exercise as others, because of lack of safety or availability or cost. Healthy food is expensive. It’s much cheaper to fill up on tater-tot casserole and generic soda than to have fresh fruits and vegetables, whole wheat crackers and cheese to snack on. I don’t see the article as blaming the government, but rather suggesting that some government intervention would help. Is it the government’s fault if there’s a flu epidemic? No. But, the government offers free or low cost vaccines to poor people if they’re high risk. The government can help, but it’s up to the people themsevles to take advantage of that assistance, so it does end up being individual responsibility anyway.
2. Cara said:
August 28, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
I agree that the state & local government has a lot of responsibility as far as healthy food and exercise in public schools, but I don’t see that they have much responsibility beyond that. That’s what parents are for.
We live in Texas where in high school you are only required to complete 4 semesters of PE over 4 years. My stepson is a sophmore at a fairly affluent public high school in Austin and we just got an email from the principal yesterday in regards to changes in the school cafeteria. She says, “There will be a fajita bar with different tortillas (cayenne, spinach, wheat, dried tomato and regular tortillas, chicken or fajita meat, rice, beans, tomatoes, etc.); an Italian line with three types of pasta, meatballs, two types of sauces, and salad; a sub sandwich line with turkey and ham and all of the veggies and dressings; a baked potato and soup of the day; as well as the hot lunch special.” Sounds good, but I’ll guarantee that the schools on the east side of town do not have this stuff…even though they’re in the same school district.
When I was in high school, we had the regular hot lunch line and a hamburger & fries line. Which line do you think most kids went to every day? Of course they went to the hamburger and fries line because that’s what kids like to eat. As parents and educators we have to take responsibility for what our kids put in their mouths. They are not mature enough to make good choices on their own.
We also have to take responsibility for making sure they get enough physical exercise. Whether that’s playing in the back yard, playing basketball at a court down the street or doing jumping jacks in their living room. I refuse to believe that even if you are in a dangerous or impoverished neighborhood that you can’t manage to exercise in some form or fashion.
3. Jessica said:
August 28, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
I agree with this. I also agree that parents have the onus to get their kids moving and provide nutritious options. Parents don’t kick their kids outside enough and if it’s not possible to kick them outside, they could certainly find a park or do jumping jacks inside. There is always an alternative to sitting on the couch, even cleaning is a form of exercise.
4. Petulant Pixie said:
August 28, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Well, the problem with the kids in the impoverished areas is that a lot of them are working poor. Where both parents hold low paying jobs with irregular hours, so the kids’ meals and exercise aren’t really supervised. Getting homework done, keeping out of trouble, and just getting through the day are the big priorites of folks living like that. So, to ensure that the kids are getting adequate exercise and nutritious meals while in the care of the public school would go a long way towards improving those areas of their lives.
5. Prescott said:
August 28, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
If 5 day a week PE is being enforced in IL, it must be for upper grades only — it’s only once a week at our elementary school. They do have recess daily, however.
6. Jessica said:
August 28, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
I agree. I think it’s horrible that kids don’t have PE everyday anymore. And it’s not going to change anytime soon either.
I just saw on CNN (I think) that schools, realizing the need for more PE, have bought Wiis with those dancing games, because it’s economical and they don’t have to pay a PE teacher.
Does anybody know specifically, why schools can’t afford PE anymore? I mean, I know they’re underfunded and I know that referrendums are constantly being defeated, but what makes today so different than when we were kids? Anyone?
7. Petulant Pixie said:
August 28, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
I don’t know, here in MN even in our wealthy school district, they only have it twice a week. In Alex’s school, they have so many semesters of PE required in the 6 year time frame. I don’t even know what they are. But, in 6th grade the kids not in band had a semester of PE and they had it every day. The alternate semester, they had their study skills/computer keyboarding class. The kids in band (like Alex) had to make up the PE requirements by taking two PE classes (90 minutes each) every day for the month of May Term. So, if it weren’t for his karate, then for the entire school year except for the last month, he’d have no PE, and then he had three hours of PE a day for a month. If it weren’t for the conditioning he had in karate, he probably would have had a heart attack the first week of May Term.
8. julymom said:
August 28, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
[quote comment="106202"]If 5 day a week PE is being enforced in IL, it must be for upper grades only — it’s only once a week at our elementary school. They do have recess daily, however.[/quote]
I was going to say this same thing! We’re in southern IL and ds has PE one day a week. He does have 3 recesses a day (all grades K-8 do at his school), but only 1 day of organized PE.
I went to HS in IL, and we had PE 2 times a week (which I got out of at every available opportunity), but that was a million years ago.
I do think parents are mostly to blame for overweight children. Parents have to set the example. My family eats fast food maybe 2-3 times a month (maybe), but I know some kids who eat fast food 3-5 times a week. It’s so easy to cook something healthy and it’s really not that expensive. We eat a lot of fish (expensive fish too, like tuna steak and coho salmon), but you don’t need a lot of it if you cook a lot of veggies with it. People don’t give kids veggies, because they think they won’t like them, but I think it’s more the lack of exposure at an early age.
Yes, PE should be reinstated in schools, because kids NEED to get exercise and run off that excess energy (which makes it so much easier to get them in bed at night), and schools need to offer healthy meals, but health needs to start at home.
9. Petulant Pixie said:
August 28, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Hmmmm….. when I was in HS in IL, we had PE every day. It was required every day for all four years. I was in HS from ‘83-87 (yeah, 20 years ago!). I wonder when that changed.
10. julymom said:
August 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
[quote comment="106218"]Hmmmm….. when I was in HS in IL, we had PE every day. It was required every day for all four years. I was in HS from ‘83-87 (yeah, 20 years ago!). I wonder when that changed.[/quote]
I went to HS in IL from 88-91 (87 was in SC and we had PE once a week unless you were in band or ROTC, and then you were exempt) and we were only required to go twice a week. Must have changed right after you graduated, or it could be done by district, I suppose.
11. Cara said:
August 28, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Here in Texas I think that PE is being cut because they’re trying to cram as much study time for standardized tests into the day, not so much a because of a lack of money for PE teachers. Some of the elementary schools don’t even have recess every day. Can you imagine a first grader not being able to go outside and run around at least once during a 7 hour period?
Anything that isn’t directly related to something that’s on a state exam is cut including PE, music and art. It’s so very sad.
12. DrBookgrrl said:
August 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
On the PE requirements, you are required by law in Illinois (in H.S.) to have 7 semesters of PE. The 8th semester is health.
Something that’s being left out of this equasion - and it’s a BIG something - is the fact that the government is in bed with the farmers and the farm lobbies, and basically hand schools crappy food thanks to the farm subsidies programs. And also due to farm policy, we have a plethora of food infused with cheap sweetners like high-fructose corn syrup, which why twinkies cost less than an apple.
13. Michelle said:
November 10, 2007 @ 3:03 am
I find it hard to believe that ANYONE fails to understand the challenges to getting kids to exercise and eat healthy when they are in poor and impoverished neighborhoods. For one thing, many kids in truly dangerous areas literally can not go outside for fear of something happening to them. This I know from talking with kids in those areas. Also, as someone correctly pointed out if they are children of the working poor there may be other extenuating circumstances. If the government wants to create a war on obesity and they want families to take more responsibility for their health, then why shouldn’t they have to aid in the process? It is not all or nothing… I do not think the article was trying to say that the government has to assume full responsibility for this. Rather, they need to help to create an environment where healthy living is more of a possibility.