Evan Pedneault
Mr. Balda
Period 3 English 10 L1
2/19/17
Government Cutting Down on Unhealthy Lunches
According to the researchers and professionals at the Centers for Disease and Control, “...more than a third of U.S. children ages 2-19 are overweight or obese (as of 2011)” (“Childhood”). This percent includes children from both public and private schools, and can be found regardless of sex, family income, or location. The previous First Lady of The United States, Michelle Obama, took steps beginning in 2008, with hopes of improving the health of children in America, primarily focused on the U.S. Public Schools and the lunches being served within them. Rather quickly, students experienced these dramatic changes first-hand (“School Lunches”). …show more content…
These supporters claim , “While parents are ultimately responsible for their children's health, there are some obstacles parents cannot overcome alone such as the relentless marketing of junk food to young consumers…” (“Childhood”). Even more “Let’s Move!” guideline fans continue to claim, “...a positive aspect of the new Guidelines is the promotion of eating foods that limit unhealthy ingredients” (“School Lunches”). These supporters make the point that children are inclined to buy the junk food they see advertised, and that parents have trouble when it comes to fighting these advertisements and the products it brings (“Childhood”). However, during the planning process of the “Let’s Move!” movement, the government overlooked an emerging contradiction. Professionals and critics of “Let's Move!” point out, “...while food advertising has declined over the last few years, general U.S. obesity rates have continued to rise”, therefore proving that food-related industry advertising is not directly to blame for obesity in the United States, especially among American children (“Childhood”). In fact, government intervention in advertising will result in job loss, rather than job gain (“Childhood”). Diane Katz, a researcher for the Heritage Foundation who recalled that in the IHS Global Insight (an “economic and financial forecasting system”), claims were made that within the first four years of being implemented, The IWG (Interagency Working Group) guidelines for improved marketing of healthier U.S. foods and products would, “...result in a 20% reduction in ad expenditures that would in turn cause losses of $28.3 billion in manufacturing and retail sales and 378,000 jobs lost…” (“Childhood”). With all the claims to improve health and do better for the American population, is it really worth
Mr. Balda
Period 3 English 10 L1
2/19/17
Government Cutting Down on Unhealthy Lunches
According to the researchers and professionals at the Centers for Disease and Control, “...more than a third of U.S. children ages 2-19 are overweight or obese (as of 2011)” (“Childhood”). This percent includes children from both public and private schools, and can be found regardless of sex, family income, or location. The previous First Lady of The United States, Michelle Obama, took steps beginning in 2008, with hopes of improving the health of children in America, primarily focused on the U.S. Public Schools and the lunches being served within them. Rather quickly, students experienced these dramatic changes first-hand (“School Lunches”). …show more content…
These supporters claim , “While parents are ultimately responsible for their children's health, there are some obstacles parents cannot overcome alone such as the relentless marketing of junk food to young consumers…” (“Childhood”). Even more “Let’s Move!” guideline fans continue to claim, “...a positive aspect of the new Guidelines is the promotion of eating foods that limit unhealthy ingredients” (“School Lunches”). These supporters make the point that children are inclined to buy the junk food they see advertised, and that parents have trouble when it comes to fighting these advertisements and the products it brings (“Childhood”). However, during the planning process of the “Let’s Move!” movement, the government overlooked an emerging contradiction. Professionals and critics of “Let's Move!” point out, “...while food advertising has declined over the last few years, general U.S. obesity rates have continued to rise”, therefore proving that food-related industry advertising is not directly to blame for obesity in the United States, especially among American children (“Childhood”). In fact, government intervention in advertising will result in job loss, rather than job gain (“Childhood”). Diane Katz, a researcher for the Heritage Foundation who recalled that in the IHS Global Insight (an “economic and financial forecasting system”), claims were made that within the first four years of being implemented, The IWG (Interagency Working Group) guidelines for improved marketing of healthier U.S. foods and products would, “...result in a 20% reduction in ad expenditures that would in turn cause losses of $28.3 billion in manufacturing and retail sales and 378,000 jobs lost…” (“Childhood”). With all the claims to improve health and do better for the American population, is it really worth