Here come Michelle Obama’s food marketing police
Big Mommy Michelle Obama launched her childhood obesity campaign in February by dragging her daughters’ BMIs into the public spotlight and carrying water for the SEIU’s legislative agenda. What’s next? Aggressive government pressure on, and policing of, food advertisers. Here they come:
The review by the Task Force on Childhood Obesity says one out of every three children is overweight or obese. The task force is a key part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to solve the problem of obesity within a generation. President Obama ordered the comprehensive review of the issue.
The report includes familiar themes, emphasizing the importance of improved nutrition and physical activity. It also calls for some new and dramatic controls on the marketing of unhealthy foods.
The task force wants junk food makers and marketers to go on what amounts to an advertising diet. It says media characters that are often popular with kids should only be used to promote healthy products. If voluntary efforts fail to limit marketing of less healthy products to young viewers, the task force suggests the FCC should consider new rules on commercials in children’s programming. It also challenges food retailers to stop using in-store displays to sell unhealthy food items to children.
The advisory panel proposes better food content labeling on products and vending machines. Restaurants and vending machine companies are urged to display calorie counts. The experts say the FDA and USDA should cooperate with the food and beverage industries to develop a standard system of nutrition labeling on the front of packages. The study also suggests that restaurants should re-evaluate portion sizes, improve kids’ menus and list more healthy food choices.
The White House study says school systems should consider efforts to promote healthier food in cafeterias. One idea: “swap deep fryers for salad bars.”
In a proposal that’s sure to be popular with children, the panel says schools should promote recess for younger students and “physical activity breaks” for upper level grades.
Because, you know, parents, teachers and administrators in their local school districts are too stupid and too uncaring to have figured this out already.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Mr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants
January 27, 2012 10:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
138 CommentsWarren Buffett’s Secretary to Sit with First Lady at State of the Union Speech
January 24, 2012 12:35 PM by Doug Powers
93 CommentsMichelle Obama’s Unsavory School Lunch Flop
December 21, 2011 11:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
206 CommentsMichelle’s “Women for Obama” versus Obama’s women
November 14, 2011 11:38 PM by Michelle Malkin
54 Comments
A fun fact about Michelle Obama’s chummy fries police
September 15, 2011 05:50 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
The Unhappy Meal makeover; Photoshop contest call!; Updated
July 26, 2011 09:36 PM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Lunch Tip: Order the ‘Michelle Obama Special’ at Shake Shack — They’ll Know What it Means
July 20, 2011 01:32 PM by Doug Powers
91 Comments
Categories: Michelle Obama
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksRiehl World View
» Romney's Blood Is Blue, Not ConservativePundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New Light
Of course, they suggest higher taxes on those items they think contributes to “obesity”. Sneaky way of taking money from people, while looking like they are “solving” a problem. Soon, everything we buy will be somehow “bad for us” requiring higher taxes. Then they throw in VAT and the nation’s financial problems are solved with everyone working for the State.
“You must spank her well, and after you are done with her, you may deal with her as you like… and then… spank me.“
Naughty Zoot! You must spank all of us!
“Yes! Yes! Spank all of us!”
Doesn’t that Obama woman know it’s bad manners to notice what people eat? I know, because I was raised by a lifetime member of the Southern Women’s Good Manners Club.
The Golden Rule of Good Manners is: Thou shalt not mind anyone’s business but thine own.
tongue-in-cheek off//
Note to all Marxists: My daddy taught me to shoot.
Wonder when the Obamas are going to get around to harping on this public health crisis:
Congenital Syphilis
In 2007, the rate of congenital syphilis (based on the mothers race/ethnicity) was 32.3 cases per 100,000 live births among blacks and 15.3 cases per 100,000 live births among Hispanics. These rates are 14 and 6.6 times higher, respectively, than the 2007 rate among whites (2.3 cases per 100,000 live births)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/minorities.htm
NEVERMIND.
My wife works in school food service here in ca.. They are required to put out salads and other “healthy” foods for all the meals they serve and after the meals they get to throw it all away because the kids won’t eat it.
Anyone want to caption that picture?
I remember back in intermediate school that each day a couple of teachers would be assigned to the lunch rooms.
They would stand over you and make sure you ate EVERYTHING on the plate, especially the peas and carrots. Yuck!
They would make me drink every drop of my milk (instant). Double Yuck!
Of course, the teachers weren’t union back then, and my parents wouldn’t sue them for making me eat my veggies. How different it is today.
There was a story I heard about south america when it was first settled, a priest in a settled mission told the locals they had to stop drinking chocolate during mass…the priest was murdered by poison shortly there after. ms barry hussien needs to take note here.
I think I’ll see if I can get my kids kicked out of school for wearing a “I’d rather be a fat conservative than a skinny commie” t-shirt.
Well, if little Debby is already bad, no sense wasting the weed and condoms, I always say.
here you go
Big difference when I was in public school, you could bring and eat whether you wanted from home, be it sodas or little pies or beefy burgers or whatever. Now my 3rd-grader niece reports not only are soda and snack machines kept a whole block away from their school, but teachers “pick” who’s the “healthiest eater” of the day as though to intimidate those who eat beef and even fish (yea, unreal but there IS a “sea kitten” philosophy out here), and mega kudos to the child who brings in soy chocolate milk or veggie burgers. Bloomberg and the NYC Council already want to ban all meat products from our ed system (CUNY included — like collegians aren’t adult enough to eat how YOU want!) in place of “soy meat”. It’s very disheartening to see this food police crap at work killing us with “kindness” because no one has the right to be fat or lazy or a carnivore or unGreen whatever, and it’s all sure it’s festering in the right place like the Hitler Youth. I just wish I knew of a place to join the fight against this diet tyranny.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
When I was in HS (04) the gym teacher I had was a actual coach. Almost every time we played some sort of physical activity weather it be soccer, volleyball, softball, and yes even dodge ball. At the time their were no rules against dodge ball, not sure about now.
The other teacher spent more time concentration on “health” spending most of the week teaching how to eat right, etc. Even then physical activity was along the lines of indoor volleyball, they considered soccer to be too dangerous.
In middle school they took recess away and replace it wit essentially social time outside, at most you could use the swings, but running, tag, etc got you yelled at, even on grass.
Personally, I think that college student may be healthier and exercise more than HS students. Despite the constant supply of essentially free food, if it was nice out, students wold be playing sports on the grass from catch, Frisbee of flag football. In the winter open gym usually meant basketball, show up and play. No permission required. We just hand fun playing sports and no one cared.
In public schools they are more concerned about no one getting hit and telling them how to be healthy, not actually doing anything about it.
Way too much information HAHA!!!!
Stalin did a pretty effective job of combating obesity in the USSR: 60 million dead, largely from starvation.
FIFY. I get rather irritated at this creeping socialism. Teachers and Administrators should have ZERO say in the nutrition of my children, and I resent the hell out of anyone who suggests they should.
This was a parental responsibility for years, until the left decided they needed more social welfare programs (and control) in the schools by providing all kinds of extras beyond the traditional free lunch. Free breakfast has now become the norm because lib administrators can administer it while kicking the contract for the food to their friends.
Recess has been reduced or eliminated because union teachers are too busy to provide supervision, which opens up other liberal groups to demand action on the resulting obesity epidemic.
Yeah, it’s better to home-school.
Oh please. Not everything is a conspiracy. Schools got more involved because many parents have obviously failed. If parents hadn’t, the obesity rate wouldn’t be what it is. You can still think that schools have no place in providing these programs or education, but enough with the thought that this is all part of some grand master plan. It is because self absorbed parents dropped the freaking ball (and then didn’t have Timmy go outside and throw it).
How many kids do you have Chap?
This is the one of the biggest lies perpetrated by the left. This infuriates me! Chap until you are on the phone with your child’s school (or even have one) and showing up at the school doorstep arguing with them regarding their education and the things going on at their school I suggest you keep quiet about it! Personally, I was consistantly involved with my kids and their education thoughout their school years and I’m here to tell you the public school system didn’t appreciate my interference.
That’s a bit circular.
One could easily render this into a chicken v. egg thing:
Which came first, widespread parental apathy or government-enabled widespread parental apathy?
Master Plan, or opportunity to broaden the Master Plan?
BTW, Misscheryl, don’t denigrate your point by joining it to an ad hominem about whether chapoutier has or had kids in school.
My only point dcbprime – he’s talking out his azz again.
Well, that’s what he does.
BTW, do you remember when they redefined obesity? Kids as well as adults went from “healthy” to “overweight” back in June of 1998.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9806/17/weight.guidelines/
I am not talking about anyone “personally.” I am talking systemic. And the proof is is the pudding, no? If parents, as a class, haven’t failed why are kids so fat?
Again, I am not saying that this means the role of the parent in this regard should be appropriated by the school. But to make what is a sincere, if misguided, effort by schools to try to instill some nutrition and knowledge into kids into a Manchurian Candidate like plot is beyond silly.
The fact of the matter regarding the public school system is that it deems itself much smarter than any parent and it will parent your children. Recently a public school assisted a girl in getting an abortion, unbeknown to her parents. I’m sure you remember the story. The involved parent (trusting her daughter’s school) signed a consent waiver she was mislead to believe only applied to emergency situations. Certainly did not give her consent to allow the school to assist her daughter in getting an abortion. Which, I might add, the parents opposed. This is the kind of stuff parents deal with on a daily basis. Though not as extreme as this situation. This school took it to a whole ‘nuther level. But schools treading on parents’ rights happens all.the.time. Not only are they fighting tooth and nail almost everything a child comes in contact with today to instill in their children their religious beliefs, their moral code, they have to fight the school system as well. These are the facts. It is what it is. Many more parents are involved that the left would like you to believe. This lie they perpetuate gives their wicked agenda of raising your children according to their ideology an excuse. It happens, it has happened, it is continuing to happen.
I am starting to doubt the mantra that “The kids are fat”.
The designation of “obese” is defined by the CDC as the kids with a BMI in the 95th percentile. That means, strictly interpreted, that only 5% of the kids are obese.
Let’s see some of the proof of the fat kids pudding, please.
So by that definition no one is fat if everyone is fat? Ooooookayyyyy…..
Okay. But how do you think school lunch and nutrition programs accomplish that? Should we cut out free and reduced price lunches or breakfasts, even at the expense of having malnourished children?
Should schools be forced to stock whatever junk food kids want because it is not the school’s call to deny these kids what they want, even on their own property?
I guess I am failing to see what the real rub is here.
I never said that school lunch and nutrition programs accomplished that. I commented only on your statement:
which is just about as dumb for the same reasons you complained about lunch programs creating a Manchurian Candidate. That’s my only rub. But for the record the BMI index is a stupid creation. We know if someone is fat. If you need to calculate some mathematical figure to see if you’re fat, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
That’s the CDC’s definition; I am assuming that they’re already factoring out the syndromic, medically obese kids.
Five percent.
About 3.1 million kids aged 0 to 14, according to an estimate for 2009.
But that’s also not strictly the issue… at issue is whether the “failed parents” of these 3.1 million obese kids is proper justification to use the broad brush fallacy (if you’ll excuse the pun) against the parents of the remaining 58.8 million non-obese kids.
Malnutrition is more than just obesity. And what is the “broad brush” being used here? What, exactly, are the schools doing that you think is objectionable? Specifics, not some general statement like “taking over the role of parents.”
The broad brush is:
Why are you bringing up malnutrition, when the subject is obesity?
Specifically? We could start with detention over a Jolly Rancher… but really, the general complaint of “taking over the role of parents” seems to fit nicely. But I suspect you are offering another red herring there.
Anyway, the Task Force on Childhood Obesity says one out of every three children is overweight or obese, but the CDC defines childhood obesity as the kids with a BMI in the 95th percentile and overweight as from the 85th percentile.
At best(worst?) the overweight & obese rate combined is 15%, not 33%.
Then there are the underlying assumptions that go along with the Task Force’s report, and with your broad brush, such as that every parent of an overweight or obese kid has failed and that the government can succeed where the parents did not.
The definition of malnutrition is not limited to eating too little. It can also mean eating too much.
Come on….use a little common sense and look around you. And besides, just because you are not obese doesn’t mean you have a healthy weight.
Also, the CDC, evidently using their definition, say the obesity rate is higher than that, so clearly there is some misinterpretation on your part.
The issue being it is none of the Federal Governments business or responsiblity who’s obese and what should be done about it. It all comes down to money – obese people cost money. It has nothing to do with health issues except for ill health costs money. It’s not out of some florence nightengale desire to help people. The CDC’s invention of the BMI just gave reason for the Feds to get into the lives of more people because everyone is obese or am I missing something.
Chapoutier, please drop the red herring.
Malnutrition?
I will admit to having not read the entire 126 or whatever page report from the Task Force on Childhood Obesity, but I honestly doubt malnutrition is a huge part of it.
And when I look around, I think I see the 85% non-overweight kids, 10% overweight kids, and 5% obese kids.
By the way, I don’t know why you think the CDC is saying differently. Their number is 15% overweight, just as I said. OK, 15.8%, as if that .8% makes a difference.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#070
So, what could possibly be the point of making an issue over 5% obese, or 15% overweight? I mean, if not to further the obvious government encroachment into our lives? Do we really need government oversight on the kids’ lunch boxes simply because a MINORITY of parents have “failed” to keep their kids weight in that 85%?
Seriously, what in the powers granted by the Constitution to the government allows such a personal invasion? Even at 15% “failure”, how is that the responsibility of the federal government?
I think that is also what is on Misscheryl’s mind.
Speaking of, Misscheryl: as far as I can tell, the CDC did not invent the BMI, they only adopted it.
Sorry, but you are way off.
That is just the obesity figure. Not the combined overweight and obese.
Do you really see government oversight of lunchboxes? No. At least be honest. We are talking about school lunch programs and nutrition education. Can you point to one single federal mandate regarding school lunches?
Because the stats sound more alarming when you separate them out like that. The CDC pdf that I linked had similarly larger numbers when the groups were separated out.
The rates have actually been stable for the last 10 years.
“The prevalence of high weight for length or high body mass index (BMI) among children and teens in the U.S. (i.e., at or above the 95th percentile), ranges from approximately 10 percent for infants and toddlers, to approximately 18 percent for adolescents and teenagers, although these rates appear to have remained relatively stable over the past 10 years, except for an increase for 6- to 19-year-old boys who are at the very heaviest weight levels, according to a CDC study appearing in the January 20 issue of JAMA.”
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/trends.html
And the point is to avoid such a federal mandate. Things are apparently bad enough at the state level. What’s the point of a Presidential Memorandum if not to lead to a federal mandate of some kind?
So…if I am hearing you right, you CANT name a single federal mandate with respect to school lunches and/or nutrition programs.
With regard to lunches for ALL school children and not just lunches for kids from qualified low-income families? No, I’m not that well-versed in such federal programs.
Again, I point out that this seems to be setting the path to have such a federal mandate.
Do I think there is a mandate to regulate all children’s lunches? Not as such, of course not. But is there an agenda to raise American children according to Humanist dogma and a one world ideology – absolutely! I think this desire to “help” all “obese” children is just part and parcel of a larger agenda. It is a reality and if you have children it becomes ever so obvious because a constant tug of war is taking place for who has the right to raise your children. It is going on in this country everywhere and in every school.
PS – for what it’s worth, you are both right.
Here’s more from the CDC that indicates that there really isn’t an “obesity epidemic”:
Maybe this information is too late for this thread, but here it is anyway:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65781
Thanks for the heads-up, Misscheryl.
Nanny state writing is not just on the wall anymore, is it.
yep, nothing nanny about this administration. How ludicrous to think they would want to monitor every child’s school lunch.
I’m still trying to find the exact wording of this in Rep. Kind’s House Bill (HR 5209, btw) but that is way off of the point and purpose of federal government. Heck, I’m pretty sure the intent of the State governments was never to monitor the BMI of all children, either.
Of course in the “progressive” view, all citizens are property of the state, but how can such a mindset exist in a free country?
/shakes head
OK, here’s the scoop on HR 5209…
This Bill will require doctors to record and report the age, gender, height, and weight of each person who receives a vaccine. Right now the doctors are required to report 1)any “event” as listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, 2)any contraindicating reaction to a vaccine, and 3) “such other matters as the Secretary may by regulation require”, whatever that includes. I haven’t found anything connected to that third item yet, but it really has my curiosity piqued.
Anyhow, HR 5209 basically adds that each health provider shall also report to the relevant department of the State in which such health care provider practices the data collected, specifically the age, gender, height, and weight so that the BMI of the vaccinated person may be calculated.
So, is this required for ALL children?
Well, mostly. Some states, like Ohio, are currently “opt out” with regard to vaccinations. I think.
The BMI is simply a tool.
I was poking around the Thomas records and did a search for the word “obesity”.
Here’s one little gem. It shows that Rep. Kind wasn’t the first one to want to include BMI info with vaccinations reporting.
It’s HR 3955, the “Surveillance, Tracking, Observation, and Prevention of Obesity Act of 2009″. Apparently Rep. Carney just wanted to test the waters, so it would have applied to only 10 states.
Several things I’ve seen on the CDC website, and in a couple of the bills on the Thomas site reference a RWJF publication called “F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America”
Naturally they see the continued failure of the obesity policies through the eyes of the “progressives”, rather than to see the failure as the result of the government intruding where it ought not.