|
|
Register | Netphoria's Amazon.com Link | Members List | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-12-2002, 03:04 AM | #1 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
VERY interesting editorial on america's growing weight problem and federal programs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2002Dec6.html
We're Feeding The Poor as If They're Starving By Douglas J. Besharov Sunday, December 8, 2002; Page B01 In the summer of 1967, as a civil rights worker in the Mississippi Delta, I saw American starvation and malnutrition up close. Children there were sick and emaciated because their families lacked money to buy food. Since then, we have seen massive expansions of federal food aid for the poor. We now spend $18 billion annually on food stamps, $8 billion on school breakfasts and lunches, and $5 billion on WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Today, the central nutritional problem facing the poor -- indeed, all Americans -- is not too little food, but too much of the wrong food. But despite a striking increase in obesity among the needy, federal feeding programs still operate under their nearly half-century-old objective of increasing food consumption. Few experts are willing to say that federal feeding programs are helping to make the poor fat, although the evidence points in that direction. But I know of no one who thinks those programs are doing much to help fight this growing public health problem. Being overweight is not simply a matter of aesthetics. The growing girth of Americans is a major health catastrophe. Overweight people are three times more likely to have coronary artery disease, two to six times more likely to develop high blood pressure, more than three times as likely to develop Type 2 diabetes, and twice as likely to develop gallstones as people of normal weight. Obesity, of course, is more serious, causing an estimated 50 to 100 percent increase in the risk of premature death. About 65 percent of all Americans are overweight, and nearly half of those are obese. The best estimates place the rates for the poor at 5 to 10 percentage points higher. Adolescents from needy families are twice as likely to be overweight. Yet today, low-income families have access to more free or low-cost food than ever before, and many can be enrolled in all three federal feeding programs at the same time, plus Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a welfare program that pays out $12 billion a year. Consider food stamps, the largest of the programs. In 2002, it is serving about 20 million people a month, providing up to $465 per month for a household of four. On the theory that the poor would be tempted to use food money for other things, the government designed food stamps as coupons (now largely using a credit card-like system) that can be used in grocery stores. Food stamps work as intended, raising calorie consumption by as much as 10 percent more than if recipients were given cash, according to Department of Agriculture studies. It's like buying tickets for a set number of rides before entering an amusement park. The tendency is to buy more tickets than one needs and, rather than throw away the unused ones, take those extra rides before leaving. Like the tickets, unused food stamps can't be turned in for cash. So they are used for food that recipients wouldn't otherwise buy. If we want people to consume food more wisely, the remedy seems simple enough: Give them cash instead of food stamps, and let them make their own decisions about how much to buy. The same Agriculture Department studies have demonstrated that "cashing out" food stamps is more convenient for the poor and does not result in unhealthful diets or mismanagement of family finances. Recipients continue to get well above the recommended levels for most nutrients.The school lunch and breakfast programs, serving almost 28 million lunches and more than 8 million breakfasts on an average day, also lead to overconsumption. Federal rules dating back to 1946 require a disproportionate number of calories in those meals, assuming that needy children will not get much dinner. Schools are required to provide 25 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of calories for breakfast and 33 percent for lunch, so by the time participants get home from school, they've already eaten 58 percent of their appropriate calorie level. That leaves for dinner and snacks only 42 percent, or about 950 calories for the average student -- the equivalent of a roasted chicken breast, mashed potatoes, green beans, low-fat milk and a half-cup of ice cream for the rest of the day and evening. Try telling that to a child who would also like to have an after-school or bedtime snack. What's more, the levels of fat and saturated fat in school lunches exceed the lunch program's own standards by about 10 percent. Successive administrations have tried to reduce the fat content of the meals, but with only modest success. Much of the problem stems from portion size, the kinds of foods served and poor cooking practices. In keeping with federal rules, most schools provide lunches that have one meat, two fruits or vegetables, one bread or grain product, and milk. Preparing tasty and healthful meals in school-sized quantities requires a level of proficiency beyond that of the frequently low-paid staff found in many cafeterias. Large, fattening school meals might have made sense decades ago, but the federal government now gives low-income families other sources of food as well. The time is long overdue for allowing schools to provide smaller and simpler meals. WIC, too, is designed as if other federal feeding programs did not exist. It provides food vouchers and counseling to more than 7 million children and mothers each month. The free monthly food packages are worth about $120 for infants and postpartum mothers, and about $35 for each child from ages 1 through 4. WIC's popularity among service providers is based largely on its generous package of formula, enriched juice and fortified cereal for infants, guaranteeing that they get sufficient nutrients. The other WIC food packages are heavily tilted toward high-calorie, high-cholesterol foodstuffs. The monthly package for 1- to 4-year-olds, for example, is 9 quarts of fruit juice, 36 ounces of cereal (hot or cold), 24 quarts of whole or reduced-fat milk, 2 to 2.5 dozen eggs, and about a pound of peanut butter, dried beans or dried peas. A food package like that makes sense only if it is the family's major source of food, which almost certainly is not the case. It would be better to use the package to introduce low-income families to more healthful foods, such as fruits and vegetables. But it is WIC's nutritional counseling program that is the biggest disappointment. In addition to food packages, the program is supposed to provide nutritional advice. In practice, counselors spend an average of about 15 minutes with mothers every three months, hardly enough to make any real difference, particularly because many other topics must be covered during those sessions, including -- pursuant to congressional mandate -- voter registration. WIC programs cannot increase the time spent with young mothers because federal rules establish a strict percentage of funding for the food packages and the counseling sessions. Advocates are still pushing to get more families on WIC. But nearly 50 percent of all newborns are already enrolled in the program, whose eligibility guidelines are quite lenient. Instead of increasing the number of families in the program, WIC should pay more attention to the problems of overweight and obesity. More funds should go toward providing intensive counseling about preparing more healthful food and for actual cooking instruction. Some WIC programs already do that, but almost always with non-WIC funds. Because they can't afford to use WIC money for those purposes, local WIC programs must raise money some other way -- through grants from local foundations, for example -- in order to provide meaningful help. Although there is still some real hunger in America, it is found predominantly among people with behavioral or emotional problems, such as drug addicts and the dysfunctional homeless. That is no secret to senior policymakers and food advocacy groups. In 1998, for example, then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that "The simple fact is that more people die in the United States of too much food than of too little, and the habits that lead to this epidemic become ingrained at an early age." What, then, is preventing the modernization of federal feeding programs? Of course, various industry groups have a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of feeding programs, and they are adept at lobbying Congress. For farm and dairy interests, for example, the programs are a way to get the government to purchase surplus commodities. And for unions, localities and individual grantees, the programs represent jobs and financial aid. But those vested interests alone are not powerful enough to stymie reform. Ironically, it is liberal advocacy groups that have thwarted reform of the programs, for, to make the case for change, one must first accept that hunger has largely disappeared from America. I want to be careful here, because I have friends in such organizations and I know them to be completely dedicated to what they see as the best interests of the poor. But they seem to believe that admitting any weaknesses in federal feeding programs would make those programs vulnerable to budget cuts. How else to explain their periodic press releases about growing hunger, and their silence about overeating? Perhaps the advocates are correct to fear financial repercussions, but it makes them the main protectors of the status quo. America's growing weight problem has many causes, primarily less exercise and more eating. Federal feeding programs may be only one part of the problem, but they urgently need to be part of the cure. Douglas Besharov is the Joseph J. and Violet Jacobs scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. Peter Germanis helped prepare this article. © 2002 The Washington Post Company |
|
12-12-2002, 03:10 AM | #2 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
ps not sure i buy it
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:05 AM | #3 |
Immortal
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,752
|
*jiggles belly*
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:03 PM | #4 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
the thing is...i mean people aren't stupid. or something. like just because school meals OFFER way too much calories does that mean kids necessarily have to eat it all? and like food stamps..i mean maybe that makes more sense and i'm sure actual money would help people to like be more efficient with their finances, but they could always just buy healthy food or something. right? i mean is anyone asking them to buy oreos with their extra food stamps? or i don't know. it would be interesting to say a rebuttal editorial. maybe there is a letter to the editor somewhere.
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:14 PM | #5 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:30 PM | #6 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
and isn't cheap food just fattening in general? like fucking macdonalds. i always assumed most poor people were obese because they eat at macdonalds or something.
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:36 PM | #7 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
suze, you're showing your absolute ignorance in this thread
if we're talking about people who may be on food stamps here, mcdonalds is NOT cheap...use your head.. |
|
12-12-2002, 03:39 PM | #8 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
in fact, you should just stop talking about the 'poor people' altogether....you obviously have no comprehension of what it's like to be poor.
every comment you've made in this thread has reeked of an ignorant, uppidity, middle-class lil girl. and no, that's not a flame...it's the truth |
|
12-12-2002, 03:44 PM | #9 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:45 PM | #10 | |
Immortal
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,752
|
Quote:
the kids on the high calorie shake ate less of hteir meal they did the same w/ adults and there was no difference....essentially we're taught to lose our sense of fullness |
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:49 PM | #11 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:51 PM | #12 | |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
Quote:
and oh while i'm looking for it Current research on obesity now seems to focus on socioeconomic factors as a primary cause of this dangerous disease and empirical evidence suggests that poor people are the highest risk of becoming obese. This is largely because those living below or close to the poverty line usually have poor standards of living. Arguably their state of poverty deprives them from having a stable diet. The growing numbers of working mothers find it increasingly difficult to allocate time for preparing family meals, leading to increasing dependence on fattening fast foods. The correlation between poverty and obesity is not new. And the notion that obesity is only attributable to biological or cultural factors can no longer be accepted in this post modern era, given its strong links to socioeconomic status. Therefore, the eradication of poverty especially in poor countries is a major goal in the prevention and control of obesity. The book “Obesity and Poverty: A New Public Health Challenge” offers a rather powerful analysis of poverty in the Americas and the prevalence of obesity and how the two are intertwined. It provides us with phenomenal insights into the harmful consequences of the increase in obesity and overweight observed in Latin American and Caribbean countries and explores the challenges to public policy planning in these countries as it relates to health care. The publication is a step in the right direction and should be used as the foundation for further work in this area, for the Caribbean in particular. It provides us with an opportunity to take poverty and obesity seriously and to identity appropriate strategies to deal with these problems. Strategies, which must perforce entail the building of partnerships with governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, individuals and communities – for the eradication of poverty and thereby obesity. I thank you. oh here it is :X http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?...node_id=840995 |
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:53 PM | #13 |
Immortal
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,752
|
damnit....will you stop bickering and notice that i posted something of value for once?? *cries*
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:55 PM | #14 | |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
Quote:
like something i still will never understand. because foods with a lot of calories make you full quicker. like this seems to be obvious to me. but i guess some people just stop noticing when they're full. and i guess there's also the saturated fat issue which doesn't play into appetite. or does it :erm |
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:58 PM | #15 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
Quote:
a family of 2 adults and 3 kids going to mcdonalds is probably gonna spend over $20 on a meal. ONE meal. most people have 3 meals a day - times 7 days a week. hence eating at mcdonalds might be a treat for 'poor' people, but it CAN'T be a staple as suze was suggesting what are you? another rich kid? |
|
|
12-12-2002, 03:59 PM | #16 | |
Immortal
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,752
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:00 PM | #17 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:03 PM | #18 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:05 PM | #19 | |
Immortal
Location: I like me so much better when you're naked
Posts: 21,752
|
Quote:
i agree with you about the uneducated most likely making poor decisions on what to eat.... but i do agree with dave in the sense that truly poor people aren't going to be sending their children to mcdonals.... you could make a meal for a family of 5 w/ about $6 if you try.... pasta, cheap meat, etc..... i don't think that most people would waste those precious dollars even if they're too busy to eat. their children probably end up eating mad and cheese instead |
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:06 PM | #20 | |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:06 PM | #21 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:08 PM | #22 | |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
Quote:
and the issue isn't just money it's time. if you're working two full-time jobs you're not going to have enough time to make a healthy meal or whatever. time = money. |
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:15 PM | #23 |
Banned
Location: A theater near you
Posts: 7,929
|
did that washington post article and the second harvest pdf file completely contradict each other? or are they both just leaving shit out? or are they referring to different segments of the population???
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:21 PM | #24 | ||
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
Quote:
Quote:
In addition, my mum works in a postoffice (which in england, doubles as a welfare office) in one of the worst areas in the country again (do some research...kirkby, merseyside). i've worked there too during holidays and whatever. i see the parents who can't afford to run their kids a $40 cent bar of chocolate but instead choose to buy expensive designer labels, smoke 60 cigs a day and take out HP agreements with shady loan companies charging over 200% per annum. i see the drug addicts that steal friends' payments books and try to forge their name cos they need their next fix. i see the police and social services ignoring this behaviour (even when presented with damning evidence) cos it's so rife it's not even worth prosecuting. i'm educated enough of this topic to voice my opinion...suze, unfortunately, is not. you don't see me in a fine arts thread telling someone why such a picture is reminiscent of spanish artists of the georgian period or whatever - cos i don't have a fuckin clue about art. i know my place. suze should know hers and shut up. |
||
|
12-12-2002, 04:27 PM | #25 |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Shannon, can you make Dave shutup? Thanks.
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:28 PM | #26 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
suze can you make julio shut up, thanks
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:33 PM | #27 |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Still though, what did Suze say that justified that she doesn't have a right to an opinion? Actually she didn't even MAKE an opinionated statement. As I recall the only thing she said in response to the editorial is that it's wrong to say that all poor people would spend cash on drugs and booze and making queries about where they would spend that cash. It wouldn't be her place to talk if she made a direct criticism on the poor, but she didn't. The only reason I could think of that you'd say such thing is your grudge against Suze or just to assail middle class America again, you know, the Great Satan.
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:35 PM | #28 |
Minion of Satan
Location: Manchester
Posts: 5,089
|
oh, sorry...i thought we'd finished...
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:37 PM | #29 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
And yes, you've seen poverty for yourself, fine. But it's not an entirely strong argument since U.S. is different than England both culturally and how their respective destitutes take advantage of social services. |
|
|
12-12-2002, 04:37 PM | #30 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|