Are these food guidelines too much to ask?
Stephanie Klein-Davis/The Roanoke Times
Today’s Roanoke Times offered two food-related stories on the front page. The first was a nice article by Duncan Adams about a program at Washington and Lee University, The Campus Kitchen, that helps to feed hungry people in the community by taking leftover food and using volunteers to distribute meals. Walmart is a sponsor. Hit the link above if you haven’t had a chance to read about The Campus Kitchen.
The other story on today’s A1 is about the proposed guidelines for companies that market food to children. The guidelines have been proposed by the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture at the direction of Congress. Read the full report by clicking the link in this paragraph.
The guidelines, which apply to kids ages 2 through 17, were summed up nicely by The Atlantic in an April blog entry. Here’s their summary:
Principle A: Foods marketed to children must make a meaningful contribution to healthful diets, and contain at least one of these food groups:
* fruit
* vegetable
* whole grain
* fat-free or low-fat (1-percent) milk products
* fish
* extra lean meat or poultry
* eggs
* nuts and seeds
* beans
Principle B is that the foods should minimize intake of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health or weight. The key standards are:
* Saturated Fat: 1 g or less per serving and 15 percent or less of calories
* Trans Fat: 0 g per serving
* Added Sugars: No more than 13 g of added sugars per serving
* Sodium: No more than 210 mg per serving [End The Atlantic excerpt]
These standards are intended to “encourage” the makers of food products targeted to children to reduce the amount of salt, sugars and fats in the products. The way I understand it, producers of foods that don’t meet those guidelines would be discouraged from marketing them to American kids, who are more and more becoming overweight or obese.
This is an interesting sentence from the story: “Foodmakers said the voluntary guidelines are too severe and would prevent them from marketing even relatively healthy foods to children.” One representative, Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri, said “I’m always worried when voluntary guidelines get pushed, because I fear that it will become prescribed.”
So… these are *voluntary*. But the food makers (along with Viacom and Time Warner, who are also upset about the proposal because they’re afraid they’re going to lose advertising dollars) seem to be treating them as mandates. Is this the slippery slope fear we hear about in other debates? The concern that if you “give them an inch, they’re going to take a mile”?
Perhaps they ARE going to take a mile and eventually make these standards the law. I haven’t had a chance yet to read the entire report. I understand there’s some concern they could cause job losses. Nobody wants to see job losses.
But I’d sure like to see healthier kids. I’d also like to see kids out playing in their yards more often, riding bikes, climbing trees and joining sports teams, because we all know that eating healthier doesn’t do nearly as much good if you’re still sitting on the couch.
What do you think about these proposed guidelines and the coalition’s reaction to them?
July 11, 2011 - 10:33 AM
RSS feed 
Yes, we’ve all seen how effective self-regulation by industry is. I’m sure these guidelines will be incredibly effective.
Will they also limit marketing of junk/crap/carb-laden “food” to school boards so that kids eat healthy foods at school? I didn’t think so.
Fat doesn’t cause people to be fat. Carbohydrates cause people to be fat. I think the rules are too simplistic. We need to be focusing on teaching parents how to feed their kids. They are the ultimate decision-makers.
Healthy kids are the parents’ responsibility, not the government’s.
One problem, of course, is that not everyone agrees on what’s “healthy”. For instance, some people consider carbs more dangerous than fats, whereas the guidelines above seem to be much harder on fat levels than on sugar (and don’t even mention other carbs).
And there’s disagreement on the level of harm caused by sodium intake, as well. That’s a big one for the industry, since almost all processed foods (the kind most often marketed to kids) seem to be high in salt.
Mark makes a very valid point – “healthy” as a term is very subjective. Under the recommendations, foods like Lucky Charms cereal would be considered healthy. They are made with whole grains and contain 8g of sugar per serving. How many of you consider Lucky Charms to be healthy?
I find it interesting that calories aren’t even mentioned in the guidelines. This seems like kind of a critical component in controlling one’s weight.
And I read that bottled water and oatmeal don’t meet the guidelines. I’m not dietitian, but that seems a bit ridiculous.
Get your kids off their duffs if you want healthy kids.Without exercise they can eat any “good for you” food in the book and still be out of shape and overweight.Less PC,videos,games and television.More sports and outdoor activities.Its that simple.
What is next? Everyone is to meet in the city square each morning to exercise under the watchful portrait of the chairman? The government needs to stick to the basics of governing. No wonder we have such a large deficit.
I think David and Jack hit the nail on the head. The primary issue is a lack of activity in kids these days. Plus it wouldn’t hurt if healthy food was more affordable. Its not as bad in the summer when fresh food is abundant but feeding a family on a fixed income in those off-months with healthy food can be a challenge. Nutrition information in school would probably be helpful too. Teach the kids from a young age how to make healthy choices and maybe they can influence their parents to make better choices as well.
It is shameful that marketers urge us to feed our companion animals MUCH better than we feed our kids – watch the pet food commercials carefully – whole grains, fruit & vegies, oh, PLEASE. Meanwhile our kids are packing away the potato chips & sodas in front of the TV. When I was a kid we ate out of the garden, sodas were not allowed in the house, and if we were bored we were instructed to go outside and run around the house. If corporations can feed animals well then surely they & parents can feed healthful food to our children.
Talk about outside intervention! Now some experts are questioning whether parents of obese kids should lose custody of their children: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/2/206.short