|
Throwing More Calories at the Obesity Crisis
By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.
As they advise parents and school administrators how to fight our nation's childhood obesity epidemic, perhaps the self-appointed nutrition advocates at the Center for Science in the Public Interest ought to ponder a query posed by Lewis Carroll in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When Alice asks the Cheshire Cat "which way (should) I go from here?" the Cat responds, "that depends a great deal on where you want to get to."
When it comes to downsizing our kids, in what direction do we want to go? A Reuters story this morning quotes a representative of CSPI as saying "there are definitely healthier products in schools [compared to] three years ago...But there is still a long way to go." Noting that 12 million American children between ages two and nineteen are overweight, CSPI expresses pleasure that more nutritious foods are being distributed in schools, including a flavored milk sold through vending machines and soon-to-be launched fruit/vegetable crisps that can replace traditional potato chips as a snack.
But where are we going? The eigtht-ounce flavored milk drink has 150 calories (compared to zero in diet soda) and the fruit-veggie crisps have 130 calories in a one-ounce serving (as compared with 120 calories in a comparable amount of cheddar and sour cream Lay's potato chips). Surely s ubstituting politically-correct calories for politically-incorrect ones is not going to make our kids slimmer.
But, you say, the newly introduced products are healthier.
First of all, there is little evidence that most children need more nutrient-dense food. (Kids may need more calcium, but there are less caloric ways of attaining it than chugging down 500-plus calories in the form of a few servings of a flavored milk drink). Second, a close look confirms that in the case of substitute fruit/veggie chips, the nutrient bonus is quite negligible.
If we are trying to reduce excess calories consumed by school-aged children, why are we promoting high-calorie foods at all -- even ones that claim to be bursting with nutrients? We are not going to succeed in our war against obesity if we do not know where we are going. But maybe CSPI is enamored of legislation, regulations, and new nutrition policies even if they do not work -- because doing something is assumed to be better than doing nothing. Or as Alice explained to the Cat:
"I don't much care where [I am going] -- "
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"-- so long as I get _somewhere_," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
For another (non-calorie-related) food controversy of note, read ACSH's report on Trans Fatty Acids and Heart Disease. 
|
