Debating Healthy Hunger - Essay Example

?Running Head: English Debating Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act: Analyzing Both Sides An Argument Paper Outline Submission Introduction Children at present are weightier than ever before. Rates of obesity over the recent decades have almost tripled for 2- to 5- year olds, nearly increased five times for 6- to 11-year olds, and almost quadrupled for 12- to 19-year olds (Winterfeld, 2008, 22). Being overweight or obese threatens children’s and teenagers’ health. Obesity increases the risk for sleep apnea, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, asthma, and psychosocial difficulties like poor sense of worth (Winterfeld, 2008, 22). Aggravating the problem is the yearly healthcare costs of obesity. Taxpayers finance roughly half of the total medical costs annually through Medicaid and Medicare (Hinman, 2011, 16). In view of this growing problem of childhood obesity, the Obama administration recently signed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 to intensify its fight against childhood obesity. However, the ratification of the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act generated varied responses all over the United States. In the view of some, the additional 6-cents for each meal given are valued, but others are dissatisfied with the extra 6-cents which is argued to be insufficient. This paper presents a comprehensive a discussion of the arguments for and against the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Ultimately, the author discusses its position in the debate. Overview The Obama administration recently released a new cluster of federal policies that would regulate the quantity of calories permitted state-sponsored school meals, prohibiting majority of trans fats at the same time as boosting the quantities of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. The projects, proposed by the Agriculture Department, embody the initial large-scale overhauling of school lunch rules in the 21st century (The Washington Times, 2011a, A03). The guidelines would be valid to all partly and fully funded meals and may have an impact on a vast number of children. Supporters claim revamping the price in the country’s school lunches is fundamental in mitigating childhood obesity since large numbers of children take at least half of their everyday calories at school (Hinman, 2011, 16). However, a number of conservative detractors, headed by Sarah Palin, have denounced federal attempts to oblige nutritional intake and control school vending machines and bake sales as unwarranted government intrusion. A number of local school administrators and personnel have questioned the cost of putting into effect the new guidelines, with a large number of the suggested menu selections more costly to acquire and prepare. The U.S. is confronting an obesity outbreak, and the predicament of poor diets puts the future of the children and the nation at risk, according to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, emphasizing that the country confronts an enormous cost from poor diets in chronic health crises (The Washington Times, 2011a, A03). The rules are a reaction to the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. The $4.5 billion policy enlarges the population of students entitled to school lunch initiatives and raises the federal financial backing by 6 cents a meal (The Washington Times, 2011a, A03). Aside from mandating calorie restrictions, the recommended policies demand cutting down sodium by at least half over a decade (Hinman, 2011, 17), increasing quantities of whole grains and forbidding bad fats. The Argument for the Healthy Hunger-Free Free Kids Act Many individuals and organizations within the food industry supported the implementation of the Act with eagerness like the International Dairy Foods Association, the United Fresh Produce Association, American Bakers’ Association, and Grocery Manufacturers Association (Julian, 2010). As argued by Center for Science in the Public Interest’s director of nutrition policy, Margo Wootan, criticizing the legislation by the cost only is very crude since there are other resource-saving programs that will help guarantee healthier diets at school (Julian, 2010, 43). She has emphasized several of major conditions on the legislation which are being ignored by detractors solely putting emphasis on the additional 6-cents. A supporter of school lunch programs for several years now, Wootan further argued that although the stated amount is not sufficient to resolve subsidy issues for most schools, it is reinforced by a number of resource-saving programs or policies to enlarge the subsidies (Julian, 2010, 43) obtainable for hale and hearty school meals. A major stipulation is the conditions that schools increase meal prices for students who can pay for it or for middle- and upper-class students. A number of school systems have been criticized obliging the more economically secured families to finance the whole expenditure of their children’s meals which afterward compelled school officials to utilize government resources apportioned for poor students (Hinman, 2011, 17). Another prerequisite of the new Act is assisting school systems which indirect expenditures are permissible. It will put off government refund resources from financially backing junk foods from school canteens and vending machines. Fixed costs are regarded not permissible for government refunds. These are janitorial services, electricity, labor, etc which are normally financed by meal programs (The Washington Times, 2011a, A03). The legislation demands U.S. Department of Agriculture to carry out a comprehensive investigation on what schools are using the meal program to pay for these alleged indirect expenditures and afterward formulate guidelines to deal with the cost. With high rates of obesity in the United States, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act will contribute to the strengthening of the implementation of nutritional requirements at school. The Argument against the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act A number of Republicans, like Representative John Kline, argue that the Act is extremely costly and an illustration of government strain. Kline was against the Act, stating, “It’s not about making our children healthy and active. We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is about spending and the role of government and the size of government—a debate about whether we’re listening to our constituents or not” (Hinman, 2011, 17). Even though supporting nutritional meals for students, Barry Sackin, the proprietor of B. Sackin and Associates, a consulting company focusing on school nutrition, argued that the recommended policy struggles for excellence by compromising the excellent. He said, “Our concern is that the proposed regulation may result in having the opposite effect to that which it desires, driving up costs and driving children… out of the program” (The Washington Times, 2011b, A01). Sackin further argued that sadly to say, there is a view that if school meals are improved childhood obesity will be eliminated. However, the fact is that meals in school are already the most nutritious foods that large numbers of kids consume (The Washington Times, 2011b). The reality that large population of children begins school already obese or overweight definitely indicates that school systems are not the root. The American Association of School Administrators has referred to the program a direct unsubsidized directive enforced in schools. The National School Boards Association stated that it is seriously troubled about the economic effect the legislation could have on school systems at a period when a massive population is in dismal financial condition (The Washington Times, 2011b, A01). According to the California Republican, Rep. Duncan Hunter, two years after completion, the expense of a school meal could escalate by at least 25 cents. The overall compliance expense will amount to roughly $6.8 billion in the span of five years, expenditures that will be greatly shouldered by schools and states (The Washington Times, 2011b). Hunter acquired his data from the study of the Agriculture Department on the recommended policies. He argued (The Washington Times, 2011b, A01): Let me be clear: We all want to combat child hunger and improve the health and well-being of low-income families. However, we should reject the false choice between our support of child nutrition and the critical need to rein in the size and cost of the federal government. Discussions and Conclusions The most effective way to curb childhood hunger and obesity is to start enhancing access to current initiatives, not by making new programs. For example, a sizeable portion of the population of food stamp beneficiaries is kids. Nevertheless, the standard monthly budget is very small when converted to a daily allowance. Hence, by the end of every month, a number of food stamp beneficiaries usually should resort to a community-based, private food store for something to eat. Since current government-subsidized initiatives cannot mitigate the crisis of child hunger alone, NGOs should improve and aggressively work to help resolve the problem immediately. The primary objective of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act should be to encourage families become independent and not reliant on private assistances or public support or dole outs. Families should be enlightened about the importance of eating together at home. No one can better teach a child about health and wellness than the parents themselves. There are numerous ways for well-off people and strong families to change things for the better. Providing support and helping at a soup kitchen is one of the simplest ways to contribute. Another vital effort is to acquire membership to an advocacy group that embodies one’s perspectives and keeps him/he updated about what is taking place in Congress. Ultimately, concerned citizens can also support or elect policymakers who prioritize hunger and childhood obesity in their campaigns. References n.a. (2008). “Nutrition Should be a Big Part of Health Reform Efforts” The Register-Guard, A9. n.a. (2011a). “Feds Say: Eat your Fruits, Veggies; Proposed Cafeteria Rules Aim for Healthier Meals, Kids” The Washington Times, A03. n.a. (2011b). “’Healthier’ School Lunch at What Cost? Critics Predict Waste” The Washington Times, A01. Hinman, K. (2011). “The School Lunch Wars: Sixty-Five Years Ago, the Federal School Lunch Program Was Created to Make American Schoolchildren Healthier. Today, It Helping to Make them Fatter. Will a New Law Change the Diets of Millions of Kids Raised on French Fries and Chicken Nuggets?” The Wilson Quarterly, 35(2), 16+ Julian, L. (2010). “Why School Lunch is ‘Nasty!’” Policy Review, 163, 43+ Winterfeld, A. (2008). “Nutrition Rules: Making Healthy Food Choices Available to School Kids is a Priority for Many Lawmakers” State Legislatures, 34(5), 22+ Read More