Pierr Bojaxhi
TA: Stephanie Rosen
RHET 309K (M,W 12:30pm – 2:00pm)
7 December 2011
Curbing Childhood Obesity
Childhood obesity is on the rise in the United States. In children, obesity has tripled in the past decades and currently one in three children is either overweight or obese. This expansion of children’s waistlines has lead to the early onset of many conditions. In turn, childhood obesity has become a public health concern. The future generation is now at risk for health for many health problems and some say their life expectancy is on the decline. Although there is much debate in the course of action for preventing childhood obesity, programs like Michelle Obama’s Lets move have had the greatest impact on the issue. In analyzing: the causes and health risks of obesity; the conflicting methods in prevention and opposing views on Let’s Move; it becomes clear that currently the most effective and efficient method in curbing childhood obesity is through the implementation of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program.
To begin, one needs to understand the cause of childhood obesity before one can prevent it. According to the US Department of Health & Human Services, “The causes of childhood obesity are multi-factorial”. These factors include: genetics, socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, media and marketing, and the physical environments (HHS). For obvious reasons one particular nuance or lifestyle can’t be entirely attributed to the overall cause of obesity. Although it has been shown that, “Overweight in children and adolescents is generally caused by a lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns resulting in excess energy intake, or a combination of the two” (HHS). For this reason, it makes sense that a policy of intervention should address the biggest population set in order to be effective.
Also, childhood obesity has many health risks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitors many of issues of public health and childhood obesity has become a major concern. “The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008” (CDC). Within 30 years nearly a threefold increase in childhood obesity has occurred making the issue not just a health campaign but an issue of public safety. The effects of childhood obesity are grim. “Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis” (CDC). This is also supported by the U.S. Department of Health & Human services where childhood obesity “increases the risk of developing high cholesterol, hypertension, respiratory ailments, orthopedic problems, depression and type 2 diabetes as a youth”. It is clear that obesity causes health problems for those affected by it and it seems to be getting worse. “Not only have the rates of overweight increased, but the heaviest children in a recent NHANES survey were markedly heavier than those in previous surveys” (HHS). We are slowly becoming the heaviest of the heavy and it becomes profoundly apparent that something needs to be done.
First at the government level, some advocate taxing unhealthy food items, subsidizing healthier foods, and limiting the advertisement of unhealthy food to curb childhood obesity. In an article by Thomas R. Frieden, Reducing Childhood Obesity Through Policy Change: Acting Now To Prevent Obesity, many of these points are highlighted. Frieden writes, “A tax of 1 cent an ounce on sugar-sweetened beverages—about a 10 percent price increase on a twelve-ounce can—would be likely to be the single most effective measure to reverse the obesity epidemic” (358). He also goes further to say that such taxes would reduce intake of about 8,000 calories per individual annually which correlates to about 2.3 pounds each year (358). Taxing sugary drink could indeed reduce consumption as the higher prices would be deterrents to consumers and influence them to find cheaper alternatives. Also Frieden advocates “decreasing costs of healthier food, such as fruit and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and lean meat” (358). This in turn will give healthier food the advantage in pricing and may attract costumers that may have traditionally bought less healthy foods. The main mechanism in accomplishing this price reduction is through incorporation of subsidies on healthier foods. “Increasing agricultural subsidies can provide incentives to local farmers to grow fruit and vegetables” (Frieden 358). In turn, this brings the price of healthier foods down through the surplus and price control of such foods. Another important point in Frieden’s article is in reducing advertisement towards children and counteracting the appeal of unhealthy foods in commercials. Frieden writes, “Counter advertising that shows the true impact of nutritionally harmful food and beverages can also change the image of unhealthy food” (Frieden 359). Advertisement campaigns that show the negative effects of unhealthy food will counteract the appeal of unhealthy food and in turn reduce consumption of such foods by children. All these regulatory efforts by the government could be beneficial in reducing childhood obesity but, the likelihood of all these regulations being passed by Congress and for them to have a drastic change on obesity statistics is of concern.
To elaborate, government mandates can be met with much resistance from food industry and as a result little to nothing is done in curbing childhood obesity. For example, the government has already tried to pass restrictions on advertisement of unhealthy foods to children before with little success. In 1978, the Federal Trade Commotion (FTC) proposed a bill in congress to: Ban TV advertisement to children 6 and under; Ban advertisement for most cavity-promoting foods to children 12 and younger; and require TV advertisements for sugared products directed at older children to include nutritional or health disclosures (Yale Rudd Center). This bill was meet with hard opposition by the food industry and as a result, “no changes were made and under heavy pressure from the food industry, Congress later stripped the FTC of some powers and in so doing specifically prohibited the agency from regulating children’s advertising” (Yale Rudd Center). Even though the FTC was only trying to protect children from the advertisement of sugary foods, the food industry and corresponding lobbyist not only prevented the bill from passing, but prohibited the FTC from attempting to regulate children advertisement in the future. This is a clear indication that even in the good nature of protecting children, regulation on major industries are meet with much resistance and as a result little do nothing is done in protecting children against obesity.
Also, even in light of passing legislation on taxing unhealthy foods and reducing the price of healthy ones, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will transition to people buying less unhealthy foods. It’s a fallacy because not everyone buys unhealthy food because they are cheap. In an editorial by Pat Barone, the author addresses the multiple reasons why we eat unhealthy foods. Barone writes, “when the brain needs serotonin, the brain causes carbohydrate cravings. When blood sugar levels are low, we may crave sugary or sweet foods” (Barone). This shows that there is a physiological desire for these foods because of the chemical influences that have on the body. In short, “we experience cravings” and these cravings may over ride when to stop eating (Barone). In turn, addressing the cost of unhealthy foods, doesn’t address the core reasons why we eat these food. In addition some healthy foods are already cheaper than unhealthy foods. At my local HEB, banana’s cost 48 cents per pound while cookies cost $3.00 for an equivalent 16oz. Even though bananas are healthier than cookies while also being 6 times cheaper, it doesn’t prevent people from buying cookies nor influences them to buy less cookies and more bananas. People still have a choice and price doesn’t always dictate that choice. As a result, making healthier foods cheaper through mandates doesn’t directly address the issue of reducing people’s consumption of unhealthy foods. The main issue is about the choices people make about the foods they eat and the lifestyles they live.
Michelle Obama’s Lets Move provides the necessary lifestyle changes needed to curb childhood. Even though Michelle Obama’s campaign, Lets Move, is a little over a 1 years old many advancements in preventing childhood obesity have been accomplished. In Lynn Sweet’s article, Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" obesity campaign program elements, the author outlines the many benefits of Let’s Move. One of which is in the increase physical exercise for children. Let’s Move is providing funds to school districts “to improve their school environment, including efforts to get children physically active in and outside of school, and improve the quality and availability of physical education” (Sweet). In doing so, it will increase the physical activity of children in schools and local communities which is a key part in reducing childhood obesity. Also, Let’s Move has developed a reward program to give further incentives to those that commit to an active lifestyle. The “Presidential Active Lifestyle Award” will be issued to both children and adults that commit to physical activity five days a week, for six weeks (Sweet). Also, many of the other major league sports have joined Let’s Move to promote physical exercise as well. “Professional athletes from twelve leagues . . . have joined the First Lady’s Let's Move campaign and will promote "60 Minutes of Play a Day" through sports clinics, public service announcements, and more to help reach the national goal of solving the problem of childhood obesity” (Sweet). In turn, Let’s move has been able to rally the support and the influence of many major league sports and corresponding athletes to promotes active lifestyles in children. In all, Let’s Move is providing one of the keystone components in preventing childhood obesity through the promotion of active lifestyles.
Furthermore, Let’s Move focuses on improving the quality of foods in schools and communities to provide healthier foods for children. Let’s Move has gotten the commitment of the School Nutrition Association, which represents more than 75% of the nation’s schools, to insure that, “schools meet the Healthier US School Challenge standards over the next five years” (Sweet). In addition, Let’s Move, “will invest $400 million a year to help bring grocery stores to underserved areas and help places such as convenience stores and bodegas carry healthier food options” (Sweet). This will provide healthier food to children in school as well as in their communities. It has even captured the attention of private industries. In Caroline’s May’s article in the Daily Caller, Darden Restaurants, a company that owns well know restaurant chains such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster, has decided to do its part in association with Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign. "The company pledged to reduce the overall calories and sodium in its meals by 10 percent over the next five years, and by 20 percent over 10 years” (May) and “ensure that the default side dish for children is a fruit or vegetable” (May). This commitment by a major restaurant industry not only provides healthier foods to its consumers, but also helps children get their servings of fruit and vegetables. Wal-Mart has also taken part in Let’s Move program. From Darlene Superville’s article in the Huffington post, “Walmart promised to reformulate thousands of its store-brand products to reduce sodium, sugar and fat, and push its suppliers to do the same” (Superville). This is another great push by Let’s Move on the grocery providers to increase the quality of their foods. In all, Michelle Obama’s “Lets Move” program has improved the quality of foods in schools, communities, and private industries to help curb childhood obesity.
Critics of Let’s Move say that Let’s Move is exaggerating the childhood obesity crisis. In a Salon news article, Kate Harding says that the Let’s Move statement, one third of children are either overweight or obese, combines over weight and obesity categories to make the “childhood obesity epidemic sound a lot more dramatic than it is” (Harding). She goes further to quote the CDC that, “12.5 percent of preschool-aged children, 17 percent of kids 6-11, and 17.6 percent of adolescents up to 19 are obese”. Based on obesity levels alone, less than 1/5 of today’s children are obese. Harding uses this statistic to suggest that obesity isn’t as big of a problem as Let’s Move leads you to believe.
They also say that Let’s Move focuses on fatness of children rather than their fitness which is the true indicator of health. Harding writes, “It is possible to be fat and fit. It is possible to be thin and unfit”. In other words, fatness is not a good indicator of health. She also criticizes the measurement of obesity through BMI, a measurement relating height and weight to obesity. “BMI doesn’t tell you anything about body composition” and in turn will give a false pretenses to obesity (Harding). As a result, people categorized as obese using BMI in reality may not actually be obese. In all, Harding suggests that Let’s Move isn’t focusing on the health and fitness of children but rather fatness.
In regards to the childhood obesity epidemic although the statement that, “Nearly one third of children in America are overweight or obese” (Harding) does incorporate both categories, it doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Let’s Move not only makes it clear that they are refereeing to both obesity and overweight children in their statement, they do this to correlate what proportion of children is at risk for health problems. Using the same source as Harding the CDC states, “Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” (CDC) In other words, being overweight or obese both contribute to higher health risks in children. Thus, it makes sense to make this categorization for statistical reasons if one intends to monitor and improve the health of children. Regardless, even if the focus is only on obesity statistics, it is still an epidemic. The CDC states, “Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years”. In turn, there has been about a 50% increase every 10 years in childhood obesity alone. By any means of splicing the numbers the conclusions is clear: childhood obesity has increase substantially in the US and is putting the health of children at stake.
Also, Let’s Move does mainly focuses on the fitness level of children and not purely on their obesity. The Let’s Move website mainly focuses on being active and eating healthy and their mission statement expresses this fact. “[Let’s Move is] providing healthier foods in our schools. . . And, helping kids become more physically active” (Let’s Move). It is clear that the fitness and health of children is their main focus through their program. As for the controversy over BMI and what is considered healthy, it is irrelevant to the topic of treating obesity as the focus of Let’s Move is on preventing childhood obesity not categorizing what is healthy and what is not. As a result, it is clear that Let's Move focuses on the fitness and health of children.
In all, Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move program has provided many of the mechanism necessary for curbing childhood obesity. It promotes active lifestyles and healthy eating habits. Within a year of time, it has accomplished many changes to food industries, schools, and communities to improve the quality of food. It has also advocated increase physical exercise for children through the funding of schools and public spaces to provide more environments for physical exercise. Overall, Let’s Move is providing the means necessary to tackle childhood obesity in a meaningful and effective way.
In reflection, there is a growing concern for the childhood obesity in the United States. The number of children that are either overweight or obese has reach levels that raises alarm for public health. Government mandates have been attempted to curb childhood obesity with little to no effect and opposition to Let’s Move have provided no real solutions either. On the other hand, Michelle Obama’s Lets’ Move campaign, have been able to advocate change in schools, communities, food industries, and children’s lifestyles to promote healthier living. As a result, it becomes apparent that the implementations Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign is the more effective and efficient method in curbing childhood obesity in the United States.
Work Cited
Barone, Pat. "Not Just Hunger: Why We Eat Unhealthy Foods." Self Improvement from SelfGrowth.com. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Not_Just_Hunger_Why_We_Eat_Unhealthy_Foods.html>.
"CDC - Obesity Facts - Adolescent and School Health." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm>
"Childhood Obesity." Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS. Web.15 Nov. 2011. <http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/child_obesity/>
Current Regulation of Advertising." Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=25>
Harding, Kate. "What Michelle Obama's Childhood Obesity Project Gets Wrong." Salon. 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://www.salon.com/2010/02/10/michelle_obama_weight/>
Let's Move! Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <
May, Caroline. "Michelle Obama | Eating Healthy | Let’s Move!" The Daily Caller. 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. <http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/no-more-endless-breadsticks>
Friede, Thomas R. "Reducing Childhood Obesity Through Political Change: Acting Now To Prevent Obesity." Mar. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://w.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2010/reduc_child_obes_11_04_10.pdf>
Superville, Darlene. "Michelle Obama's Obesity Campaign 'Let's Move' Turns 1: Is It Working?" The Huffington Post. 8 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/michelle-obama-obesity_n_820171.html>
Sweet, Lynn. "Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" Obesity Campaign Program Elements.” Chicago Sun- Times. 9 Feb. 2010. Web. 07 Dec. 2011. <http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/michelle_obamas_lets_move_camp.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment