By Rebecca French
Smith
When my boys were little, we used
to tell them not to eat their broccoli, peas or sweet potatoes, or whatever
disgusting thing lurked on their dinner plate. Tell kids not to do something and
they want to do it. It was a neat trick when my kids were little, before they
figured out my game. Now, local and federal governments are playing games when
it comes to food choices.
There is a long
list of topics on which the government sets rules, mandates and guidelines, and
most are likely done with good intentions. Some simply go too far. Take some of
the recent guidelines and mandates for what we eat, for example. Perhaps there
are those in society who cannot make proper food choices. Maybe they cannot add
calories, maybe they do not understand nutritional labels (I sometimes struggle
on this one) or maybe they just don’t have the willpower to say no (guilty
again, love candy corn). But for the government to mandate what citizens should
eat in a one-size-fits-all program seems ridiculous.
The new USDA
school lunch guidelines, championed by First Lady Michelle Obama to fight
childhood obesity, mandate nutrition that does not meet the needs of significant
sections of students it affects. Not all kids are the same. (I’m hearing a big
“duh” out there, but clearly the government thinks they are.) On the surface,
it’s a good idea: revise school lunch standards to “align with the latest
nutrition science and the real world circumstances of America’s schools.” But
the guidelines base food servings on your age or grade in school, not how active
you are or what your risk for obesity might be. The spectrum of nutritional
needs that exists among students at any given school is too broad to mandate
such specific guidelines.
In a more
general move, New York City has taken aim at soda sizes. The “soda ban” in New
York proposes to ban the sale of “full sugar” sodas larger than 16 oz. at
city-regulated establishments. Apparently you could still get a 32 oz. soda, you
just have to order it in two cups, or get refills. But the goal of the proposal
isn’t to take away choices, according to Mayor Michael Bloomberg; it is “forcing
you to understand” what you’re drinking. So, if it’s about education, then why
not list the calorie count of each and let the consumer choose?
As I went
through the drive through at McDonald’s recently—fully intent on ordering a
large soda, albeit the diet variety—I noticed a change on their menu. They had
listed the calorie counts of each menu item, and while I was not planning on
ordering one of the new pumpkin shakes, the calorie count on it would have made
me change my mind. And that’s the point, isn’t it? Equip consumers with the
knowledge they need to make good choices. Some in agriculture don’t always agree
with McDonald’s policies, but the company has chosen to implement this change
ahead of the federal requirement in the new health care law for restaurants to
do so.
It was a good
marketing move for McDonald’s, but
this federal requirement about food makes sense to me. I like
being credited with the ability to think for myself, to make choices for me and
my family. My kids are able, too, and more often than not make the right choice
when they know what they’re eating.
Don’t issue
unrealistic mandates, or guidelines; give me tools to motivate me to do better
with my
choices.
(Rebecca French Smith, of
Columbia, Mo. is a multi-media specialist for the Missouri Farm Bureau, the
state’s largest farm organization.)
No comments:
Post a Comment