Basically, the idea is restricting the quantity of starches being served in school lunches will force a greater selection of vegetables to be offered, and ultimately consumed, as a part of school lunches. “Under the USDA proposal, school cafeterias would have to limit starchy vegetables such as potatoes, corn, peas and lima beans to a total of one cup per week for lunch.”

Truthfully, the state of the nation’s nutrition is a major problem and should be treated as a long term crisis with economic, financial, political and military implications. Since most kids and teenagers eat at least one meal a day in a school cafeteria, there is a logic to the approach of establishing rules and regulations designed to encourage better eating and nutrition in school cafeterias.
But, I am not entirely sold that restricting the quantity of starches being served in school lunches will have the intended result.
First, it is important to remember the nutritional quality the starches being restricted. According to the National Potato Council: “Potatoes deliver a good source (providing at least 10% of DV) of two of the four nutrients of concern for children – potassium and dietary fiber. In fact, according to the DGA 2010, one small baked potato is the #1 source of potassium in the diet, providing 738 mg potassium in just 128 calories, and is listed among the top sources of dietary fiber (3 gm).”
Second, I don’t understand the logic or assumption of restricting the quantity of starches being served resulting in increased consumption of other vegetables. Yes, it is true that restricting the quantity of serving starches will result in other foods being served. But, just because other things are being served does not mean they will be eaten. After all, if you were given the choice between potato foods such as french fries, hashbrowns, tater tots or other similar things and broccoli, asparagus, brussel sprouts or other vegetables, which would you choose if you were eating in a school cafeteria? Based on my memories of cafeteria food and what I know about how we all eat, I don’t think it is a far stretch to think the potato choices will win.
The truth of the matter is that the intention of this effort is good, however, the result of the effort will probably not produce the intended result. Instead of focusing on what is served, why not focus on how it is served? Maybe it might be better to focus on how it is served or consumed? So, instead of getting rid of fried or “oven baked” or “oven fried” foods that are very high in statured fats, why not draft regulations designed to encourage cafeteria foods that are prepared in healthy, low fat ways and consumed without the addition of horrendous toppings such as mounds of sour cream, bacon bits, excessive amounts of cheese, or other “toppings” that are enough to cause a coronary in school kids?

For more on this issue, the National Farm to School Network has put together a very interesting briefing on the proposal and problems with implementing the proposal.

Yes, I had head this claim before, and had always written it off as media pandering. But, a bit of recent news has changed my mind.

According Hal Arkowith and Scott Lilienfeld in the Sept/Oct 2009 Scientific American Mind:

“Two thirds of American adults and one third of school-age children are either overweight or obese (defined as extremely overweight).”

But this sounds a bit abstract, right?

They go on to state:

“From 1960 to 2002 the population of overweight and obese adults increased by roughly 50 percent, and the corresponding increase for children was 300 percent.”

So, in less than 50 years our society has gone from “thin” to “fat.”

This is our entire society, not just a handful of indulgent adults or spineless parents allowing children to overeat junk food. Also, if you want to blame genetics,while it is true genetics plays heavily into our weight, metabolism and how we process stress, sleep and other environmental factors affecting our weight, genetics are personal not societal and can not evolve quickly enough to account for these changes throughout our entire society.

Want to blame the “Industry” – Restaurants, Food Manufacturing Companies, the Government, our Schools, etc.? Well, while it is true that they must shoulder a responsibility for providing clear, easily understood and comparable information about ingredients, calories and other such things ….

“… the root of the obesity problem ‘must lie in the powerful social and cultural forces that promote energy-rich diet and a sedentary lifestyle’” (Scientific American Mind Sept/Oct 2009)

Before you go off to round up the pitchfork and torch brigade and head off to your closest MacDonalds or 7-11, consider what Gavin Fitzsimmons, Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Duke, has to say:

“There is a notion that if we all just had the full nutritional information on menu or food items, we’d choose rationally … [b]ut that isn’t so. There are too many unconscious environmental cues that prove too strong.” (Psychology Today, Sept/Oct 2009)

Additionally, we fool ourselves:

“[Brian Wansink, Dir of the Food and Brand Lab, Cornell Univeristy]… has demonstrated we consume more food when it is served on a larger plate, in a bigger bowl, or in bulk packaging. And if it’s labeled low-fat, we chow down even more – consuming, on average, 20 percent more caloriesthan we would were it not so labeled.” (Psychology Today, Sept/Oct 2009)

So, should we tax things that make us fat?

According to Yale Psychologist Kelly D. Brownell and Thomas Freiden, at the CDC, social policies such as taxes on “one of the biggest contributors to obesity: sugar-sweetened beverages.” (Scientific American Mind Sept/Oct 2009)

This cry is also supported by Dr Barry Popkin, one of the first researchers to identify a link between high frutcose corn syrup and obesity in his well known study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2004.  As quoted in Food Navigator’s recent article, Fructose in the firing line:

“The idea is very simple, that essentially in America – and the rest of the world – when you consume any caloric beverage, particularly sugar-sweetened beverage, [including corn-based sugar] you don’t reduce your food intake.”

“We know that if you increase the price of sugar-sweetened beverages, you will reduce their impact,” he said. “Much like cigarette taxes have worked grandly in the US and elsewhere to reduce smoking…These are one of the only foods and beverages with no health benefits and clearly defined health cost.”

But, much like prohibition on alcohol in the 1920′s, wouldn’t a tax on bad foods result in them possibly becoming even more attractive by being “bad”?

“A recent study published in the Journal of Consumer Research suggests that the mere presence of health offerings on a menu or on display in a restaurant or even in a vending machine can often be enough to vicariously satisfy our long term health and nutrition goals-and trick our brains into allowing su to make more indulgent food selections, ones we would not otherwise make. (Psychology Today, Sept/Oct 2009)

So, basically, even if we know something isn’t good for us, by having  a healthy alternative is available we can placate our selves with the thought or intention of having that food while actually eating the “bad” food.

To me, this all boils down to changing your lifestyle since I don’t think taxes, government labels or other top down solutions will really do all that much good.

Simply put, say what you do, do what you say and find ways to give yourself success.

Interestingly,

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Fructose-in-the-firing-line?utm_source=exclusive_interview&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Exclusive%2BInterview