(
The CDC estimates 12 to 17 percent of children between ages two and 11 are overweight. The First Lady says statistics like this prompted her to create a plan to put some common-sense initiative in place.
Specifics will be announced next month. But representatives in our area school cafeterias say they're already stepping up efforts.
"It's just a gradual increase over the years," says Niki Sue, LISD health services coordinator, on the changes the First Lady is proposing. Area schools have already joined the fight. LISD students get a certain amount of exercise each day. They're also introduced to health choices earlier.
"It's very difficult to get a 12-year-old to eat broccoli that hasn't ever ate broccoli," says Sue. "But if you start at age three, even if they haven't had it at home, at least we're making that impact during the school day."
Over the past five years fryers and transfats disappeared from LISD cafeterias and have been replaced with better options.
"We offer fresh fruits and vegetables after every point of service, every location, every day," says Katie Gossett, LISD director of child nutrition.
Many of the measures already in place are based on laws created at the state level, says Gossett. "We actually live in a stricter state than most states in the U.S."
But dietitians say school lunch lines can only do so much. Dr. Amy Ashmore says change begins at home.
"Children, on average, spend about eight hours a day on entertainment, such as video games and TV and their cell phones," says Dr. Ashmore, a dietitian at UMC. She says a sedentary lifestyle, combined with more fast food, has led to a shift in standards.
"Because so many children are overweight, it's looking like the norm," says Dr. Ashmore.
Experts recommend avoiding the drive-thru and offering more fruits and veggies at earlier ages. They say it also doesn't hurt for parents to lead by example.
Kamis, 28 Januari 2010
Rabu, 27 Januari 2010
State of the Union's School Lunch: Nutrition as National Defense and Fiscal Health
Don't make us tighten our belts on child nutrition programs while the girth of the nation grows. The government spends $1 million per soldier in Afghanistan, yet barely spends $1 on the food in a school lunch.
When President Obama addresses the nation in his State of the Union, he will outline his priorities for 2010: jobs, the deficit, and health care reform. The President will then call for a three-year freeze on domestic programs. Will a program created to "promote the health and well-being of the nation's children" survive the freeze?
Probably not, unless we, the voting public, find our voice and let our elected officials know that child nutrition in general -- and the National School Lunch Program in particular -- is a priority.
Now is absolutely NOT the time to cut support for the next generation's health. The most vulnerable of U.S. citizens, our children, face the strange paradox of being both overfed and malnourished. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 1 in 4 children suffered hunger in the U.S. in 2008. At the same time, the CDC reports that 1 in 3 children will develop Type II Diabetes in their lifetime, make that 1 in 2 if the child is black or Hispanic. Resident Mom-in-Chief Michelle Obama recently highlighted these sickening statistics in her speech to the Council of Mayors last week as she launched her campaign against obesity.
The Child Nutrition Act is being debated in Congress right now, which means we have a rare opportunity to actually improve how food for our youngest citizens is funded, sourced, defined, and prioritized. This window for change only arises once every five years.
Off to a good start in 2009, the Obama Administration included an additional $1 billion for child nutrition programs. Put into lunch money terms, that's pocket change, but it's a welcome jingle in the ridiculously low budgets faced by school cafeterias.
Food service directors face a monumental daily battle to create school lunch menus, given an average of just $1 to spend on the food portion of lunch (once labor and other overhead costs are deducted) while being expected to incorporate minimum nutritional standards and operate in the black. The federal government provides the lunch money, on average, $2.68 for the kids that qualify for a free lunch, $2.28 for a reduced price lunch, and $0.25 cents for all. And those amounts include the overhead and facility costs associated with serving a meal such as the fluorescent lights in the cafeteria.
An oft-quoted statistic for the price tag of one soldier in Afghanistan is $1 million, for a total of $65 billion. How about we secure another line of defense that addresses both health care and national security--the lunch line? Do tater tots, pizza, and soda rise to the level of calling in Janet Napolitano or David Petraeus? Oddly, yes, because the National School Lunch Program was originally created to promote "nutrition in the national defense," as a solution to young men who were unfit for service in WWI and WWII. The lunch line was actually designed to prepare soldiers for the front lines. (And sadly, 27 percent of the population for military service today are too obese/overweight to serve).
I think that stoves for school kitchens are just as important for our nation's children as mine-resistant armor is for the vehicles of our brave servicemen and women. Here at home, on the front lines of nutrition as national defense, food service staff are being asked to fight obesity by creating healthful meals without proper equipment, such as knives, ovens, and cold storage space.
Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the National School Lunch Program, recently said, "The first item that the President discussed with me when I was first selected for this job was for USDA to provide our children with healthier, more nutritious meals." And kudos to the USDA for recently announcing 25 million for food service equipment funds to improve the quality of school meals. The Obama Administration gets it, and they must continue to make good on this commitment, even with a tight budget.
In addition to healthier children, it could pay other dividends to a struggling sector of our economy: farmers. When signing the National School Lunch Act into law in1946, Harry Truman famously said, "In the long view, no nation is healthier than its children, or more prosperous than its farmers."
Better school food brigades have fashioned themselves in several forms to protect our kids and preserve our farms, such as the One Tray campaign and the Farm to School Collaborative, which includes groups such as the National Farm to School Network, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and Community Food Security Coalition. Three Fellows of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (of which I am one) developed two videos --"Lunch Encounters," a spoof of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and "Priceless," a MasterCard parody--to increase public awareness about improving child nutrition by encouraging a more direct connection between local farms and federal nutrition.
If President Obama can heed Truman's advice, he'll support increased funding for child nutrition and win-win solutions like Farm to School, which cost-effectively brings healthy local food to school children nationwide while boosting the local economy. A reformed school lunch, with improved nutrition standards, increased reimbursement rates, and access to local healthy food, has the potential to nourish more than 31 million children daily in our education system; that is, 5 days a week, 180 days a year of our collective future.
The nation's fiscal health is dependent upon the health of the next generation. When we consider the cost of inaction in a matter of national security, lives are at stake; so it is the case with the Child Nutrition Act. Let's take this opportunity to nourish the nation, one tray at a time.
Debra Eschmeyer
Debra Eschmeyer, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Food and Society Fellow
When President Obama addresses the nation in his State of the Union, he will outline his priorities for 2010: jobs, the deficit, and health care reform. The President will then call for a three-year freeze on domestic programs. Will a program created to "promote the health and well-being of the nation's children" survive the freeze?
Probably not, unless we, the voting public, find our voice and let our elected officials know that child nutrition in general -- and the National School Lunch Program in particular -- is a priority.
Now is absolutely NOT the time to cut support for the next generation's health. The most vulnerable of U.S. citizens, our children, face the strange paradox of being both overfed and malnourished. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that 1 in 4 children suffered hunger in the U.S. in 2008. At the same time, the CDC reports that 1 in 3 children will develop Type II Diabetes in their lifetime, make that 1 in 2 if the child is black or Hispanic. Resident Mom-in-Chief Michelle Obama recently highlighted these sickening statistics in her speech to the Council of Mayors last week as she launched her campaign against obesity.
The Child Nutrition Act is being debated in Congress right now, which means we have a rare opportunity to actually improve how food for our youngest citizens is funded, sourced, defined, and prioritized. This window for change only arises once every five years.
Off to a good start in 2009, the Obama Administration included an additional $1 billion for child nutrition programs. Put into lunch money terms, that's pocket change, but it's a welcome jingle in the ridiculously low budgets faced by school cafeterias.
Food service directors face a monumental daily battle to create school lunch menus, given an average of just $1 to spend on the food portion of lunch (once labor and other overhead costs are deducted) while being expected to incorporate minimum nutritional standards and operate in the black. The federal government provides the lunch money, on average, $2.68 for the kids that qualify for a free lunch, $2.28 for a reduced price lunch, and $0.25 cents for all. And those amounts include the overhead and facility costs associated with serving a meal such as the fluorescent lights in the cafeteria.
An oft-quoted statistic for the price tag of one soldier in Afghanistan is $1 million, for a total of $65 billion. How about we secure another line of defense that addresses both health care and national security--the lunch line? Do tater tots, pizza, and soda rise to the level of calling in Janet Napolitano or David Petraeus? Oddly, yes, because the National School Lunch Program was originally created to promote "nutrition in the national defense," as a solution to young men who were unfit for service in WWI and WWII. The lunch line was actually designed to prepare soldiers for the front lines. (And sadly, 27 percent of the population for military service today are too obese/overweight to serve).
I think that stoves for school kitchens are just as important for our nation's children as mine-resistant armor is for the vehicles of our brave servicemen and women. Here at home, on the front lines of nutrition as national defense, food service staff are being asked to fight obesity by creating healthful meals without proper equipment, such as knives, ovens, and cold storage space.
Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the National School Lunch Program, recently said, "The first item that the President discussed with me when I was first selected for this job was for USDA to provide our children with healthier, more nutritious meals." And kudos to the USDA for recently announcing 25 million for food service equipment funds to improve the quality of school meals. The Obama Administration gets it, and they must continue to make good on this commitment, even with a tight budget.
In addition to healthier children, it could pay other dividends to a struggling sector of our economy: farmers. When signing the National School Lunch Act into law in1946, Harry Truman famously said, "In the long view, no nation is healthier than its children, or more prosperous than its farmers."
Better school food brigades have fashioned themselves in several forms to protect our kids and preserve our farms, such as the One Tray campaign and the Farm to School Collaborative, which includes groups such as the National Farm to School Network, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and Community Food Security Coalition. Three Fellows of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (of which I am one) developed two videos --"Lunch Encounters," a spoof of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and "Priceless," a MasterCard parody--to increase public awareness about improving child nutrition by encouraging a more direct connection between local farms and federal nutrition.
If President Obama can heed Truman's advice, he'll support increased funding for child nutrition and win-win solutions like Farm to School, which cost-effectively brings healthy local food to school children nationwide while boosting the local economy. A reformed school lunch, with improved nutrition standards, increased reimbursement rates, and access to local healthy food, has the potential to nourish more than 31 million children daily in our education system; that is, 5 days a week, 180 days a year of our collective future.
The nation's fiscal health is dependent upon the health of the next generation. When we consider the cost of inaction in a matter of national security, lives are at stake; so it is the case with the Child Nutrition Act. Let's take this opportunity to nourish the nation, one tray at a time.
Debra Eschmeyer
Debra Eschmeyer, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Food and Society Fellow
Vegetarian Kids
Parents of non-meat-eating children need to make sure the youngsters eat a balanced diet. Studies show that, properly done, such eating is fine, and can provide benefits.
Toddlers who refuse to eat furry animals; teenagers who suddenly hate everything their parents cook; children of vegetarian parents. Whether it's your choice or theirs, raising a vegetarian kid can be a challenge.
Along with the power struggles -- refusals by kids to eat what's served, refusals by Mom or Dad to prepare something else -- are parental fears, fanned by old studies, that kids aren't getting the nutrition they need to support their rapidly growing bodies.
As vegetarianism becomes more accepted and maybe even more common -- and that includes the nation's younger set -- here's the good news: Based on an exhaustive study review, the American Dietetic Assn. concluded in July in a new position statement that as long as vegetarian diets are planned well, they're safe for people at every stage of life: pregnant and nursing moms, babies, teenagers and just about everyone else.
The report was the first to emphasize the benefits of a meatless meal plan as opposed to simply stating that a vegetarian diet was OK. A meat-free meal plan, it stressed, may lower rates of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers.
This doesn't mean that raising meat-free kids is a cakewalk -- especially given children's notoriously picky eating habits. Unusual lunch box contents can make a school kid feel ostracized. Restrictive eating among adolescents can be a sign of an eating disorder and should be viewed with caution if the behavior accompanies other warning signs.
Mac-and-cheese alone is not enough to sustain a growing child's nutritional needs. Failing to plan carefully can deprive developing brains and bodies of essential nutrients -- notably protein, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium and vitamins D and B-12 -- especially if kids become vegan and shun animal products altogether.
“The benefits of a vegetarian diet are wonderful for adults and can be wonderful for kids, but parents can make the mistake of forgetting that children are not little adults,” says Meredith Renda, a pediatrician at Doctor's Pediatrics in Wilton, Conn. “Kids have small stomachs and short attention spans. You really have to pack a punch with as many nutrients as possible.”
At least for adults, there is accumulating evidence that a traditional meat-and-potatoes diet is not the healthiest way to eat. For example, a March study of more than 500,000 people ages 50 to 71 found that adults who ate the most red meat were more likely to die over a 10-year period than were those who ate the least, mostly due to extra cases of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
The biggest meat-eaters in the study consumed the equivalent of about a quarter-pound burger or small steak each day, while people who ate the least meat took in about 15% of that amount. The authors concluded that 11% of deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could have been prevented if everyone in the study ate the smallest amount of red meat.
Similar results have come from research on Seventh-day Adventists, a Christian denomination that advocates a healthy lifestyle. Most Seventh-day Adventists exercise regularly and avoid tobacco and alcohol, but those who avoid meat (about half of the population) have lower risks of heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and some cancers than the meat-eaters do.
Health benefits may come as much from what vegetarians do eat as from what they don't. Studies show that vegetarians not only consume less artery-clogging saturated fat and cholesterol but also get more of certain antioxidants and vitamins, such as potassium, magnesium and vitamin C. They eat up to twice as much heart-healthy fiber, from fruit, vegetables and whole grains. They have lower cholesterol levels and blood pressure readings. And they tend to be leaner than meat-eaters.
In a 2003 study of nearly 38,000 people in the United Kingdom, vegans weighed in at about two points lower on the Body Mass Index scale than meat-eaters did, while vegetarians and fish-eaters fell between the two extremes. Keeping extra weight off may be one way to avoid a number of chronic diseases, including Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
For young vegetarians, health consequences are less straightforward. Few researchers have focused specifically on vegetarian kids, and outcomes are hard to measure because chronic diseases just aren't common in young people.
Spotty and outdated information has left an alarming impression on many parents. Some studies in the 1980s worried people about dietary deficiencies that can result from vegetarianism, Renda says. They suggested that kids weren't getting enough of nutrients such as vitamin B12 or calcium to grow well.
But this research focused on extremely restrictive diets, such as veganism or macrobiotic diets. Doctors at the time were less informed about how to counsel their patients who chose to feed their families vegetarian meals. Meat substitutes and fortified foods were also less common.
“As doctors, we weren't great about telling people they might need to take supplements, and we saw kids with nutritional deficiencies,” Renda says. “Now there are a lot of articles focusing on kids, saying they can be pretty normal.”
Other research suggests that if pregnant vegetarians make sure to eat a well-balanced diet, babies are no more likely to be born early, small or with complications.
As they grow from babies to preschoolers, vegetarian kids rival their peers in size. A British study in the late 1980s, for example, found that vegan kids raised by well-informed parents were all within the normal range of height, weight and head circumference.
An American study around the same time found that vegetarian kids all hovered near the 50th percentile in those measurements.
When they reach adulthood, lifelong vegetarians are similar in size and body mass index to people who become vegetarian later in life.
“As long as they are receiving enough of the key nutrients and enough calories,” says Laurie Dunham, a registered dietitian at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, “they can grow perfectly well and measure up to their non-vegetarian counterparts just fine.”
Beyond doing no harm, vegetarianism may also help kids, research suggests. For one thing, cutting down on meat early in life might be one way to counter the rising rates of obesity, along with the chronic diseases associated with it.
Some evidence suggests that vegetarian kids are slimmer than their meat-eating peers and that teenagers are less likely to be overweight or obese if they don't eat meat. Studies also show that vegetarian teens eat fewer sweets and junk food and get more fruits, vegetables and fiber.
In a 2002 study of more than 4,500 teenagers, University of Minnesota researchers found that 70% of vegetarian teens were within the guidelines for total fat intake, compared with 48% of non-vegetarians. And 39% of the vegetarians ate five or more daily servings of fruits and vegetables, compared with 28% of meat-eaters.
“Just by their diet alone, vegetarian children tend to be leaner,” Renda says. “That helps them as adults because they're not getting the double whammy of being overweight as kids already.”
Food habits also form early, which means that learning to like a variety of grains and vegetables as a kid is easier than learning to like them as adults.
Despite the endorsements, there are some serious pitfalls when kids stop eating meat. That's especially true when the idea is new to parents, some of whom may have never heard of Tofurky or soy meatballs.
Just because a meal is technically vegetarian doesn't guarantee that it's good for you, says Ruth Frenchman, a registered dietitian in Burbank, and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Assn.
“I've had many vegetarian clients who didn't eat vegetables,” Frenchman says. “If they're just eating chips and soda, they're vegetarian, but they're not healthy.”
(Source: latimes.com)
Jumat, 22 Januari 2010
Stop Animal Testing!!
Did you know that there are hundreds of agencies around the world spending your money shoving dogs into metal chambers and pumping in pesticides while the animals try in vain to escape the deadly poisons?
Or that researchers still swab burning chemicals into rabbits eyes and onto their shaved skin? Animals are routinely cut open, poisoned, and forced to live in barren steel cages for years, although studies show that because of vast physiological variations between species, human reactions to illnesses and drugs are completely different from those of other animals.
Today's non-animal research methods are humane, more accurate, less expensive, and less time-consuming than animal experiments, yet change comes slowly and many researchers are unwilling to switch to superior technological advances. Animal experimentation not only is preventing us from learning more relevant information, it continues to harm and kill animals and people every year. Hundreds of thousands of these animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year in outdated product tests for shampoos, household cleaners, cosmetics, hairspray, and other personal care and household items.
Although more than 500 companies have banned all animal tests forever, some corporations still force substances into animals stomachs and drip chemicals into rabbits eyes. These tests are not required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you. Animals deserve rights, regardless of how they taste or how convenient it is to experiment on them. Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives.
These animals do not have a voice to speak out and stop this.
WE DO!!!!!!!!
Just because a label on a product says "This finished product was not tested on animals" does not mean they did not test on animals at all. The "finished" part is very sneaky...this means a lot of times that they tested on animals for every step up to the final or "finished" product. Be very careful when it comes to this!
Most of the products listed in the following list,
are physically tested on animals:
...think before you buy something that is going to fund animal testing !!
Animal Voice
Or that researchers still swab burning chemicals into rabbits eyes and onto their shaved skin? Animals are routinely cut open, poisoned, and forced to live in barren steel cages for years, although studies show that because of vast physiological variations between species, human reactions to illnesses and drugs are completely different from those of other animals.
Today's non-animal research methods are humane, more accurate, less expensive, and less time-consuming than animal experiments, yet change comes slowly and many researchers are unwilling to switch to superior technological advances. Animal experimentation not only is preventing us from learning more relevant information, it continues to harm and kill animals and people every year. Hundreds of thousands of these animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year in outdated product tests for shampoos, household cleaners, cosmetics, hairspray, and other personal care and household items.
Although more than 500 companies have banned all animal tests forever, some corporations still force substances into animals stomachs and drip chemicals into rabbits eyes. These tests are not required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you. Animals deserve rights, regardless of how they taste or how convenient it is to experiment on them. Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives.
These animals do not have a voice to speak out and stop this.
WE DO!!!!!!!!
Just because a label on a product says "This finished product was not tested on animals" does not mean they did not test on animals at all. The "finished" part is very sneaky...this means a lot of times that they tested on animals for every step up to the final or "finished" product. Be very careful when it comes to this!
Most of the products listed in the following list,
are physically tested on animals:
...think before you buy something that is going to fund animal testing !!
Animal Voice
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)