My issue with Michelle Obama targeting childhood obesity

[noamnety]

Several points to acknowledge up front:

1. Parents often make irresponsible nutrition choices for their children
2. Schools often make equally irresponsible decisions to market bad nutritional choices to children, even though administrators know it harms their students.

However, I have a major problem with anyone connected with the administration portraying the issue as if the sole responsible parties for the obesity crisis are private citizens, families, and school administrators.

I want to see the government acknowledge its role as a major underlying cause of the problem, take responsibility for its own actions, and stop being a major contributor to a problem it's blaming on us.

Stop paying farmers to produce high fructose corn syrup. Stop artificially lowering the price of junk food, and divert that money - ALL of it - to subsidize whole foods without additives so they become the cheap option.

Don't use tax payer dollars to finance drug operations, and then send us a spokeswoman to lecture us on how we shouldn't do drugs.

[Robb]

1. So stop subsidizing corn and start subsidizing, what, carrots?

...Beets, maybe?

[noamnety]

8. I'd stay away from beets because they are part of the sugar industry

or subsidize them in a way that the farmers only get the subsidies if they are sold as whole vegetables.

I notice you focused on vegetables which are high in starches, which isn't what Americans are lacking in their diets. Are there broccoli subsidies? Spinach ones?

Maybe the subsidies need to be more on the consumer end, where we can control whether we're subsidizing whole foods and driving the market for that, vs. subsidizing production directly, where the farmers benefit from selling their goods to companies like ADM that process the nutrition right out of them.

What I know is that the current system is destructive to both the environment and to children. That's a sign we shouldn't be funding it.

[cbdo2007]

19. Don't tell that to Shrute Farms!!

[RoadRage]

76. Ya get a heart from me for that comment. ;)

GO OFFICE!!!!!

[TwilightGardener]

80. LOL! Bears...beets...Battlestar Galactica!

[Robb]

62. I was sort of pulling your leg on the beets.

...Because of the sugar connection. :D

I agree, the current system is broken. I don't know if we can merely shift subsidies and solve it, however, without the law of unintended consequences coming into play. Hence my crack on the beets thing.

[hfojvt]

10. carrots are fattening

and almost nobody will eat beets voluntarily

but farmers planting corn on corn on corn came before the subsidy. Mainly for animal feed because it gives you the most bang per acre. The main alternative is soybeans, which is better for the soil anyway.

[mopinko]

18. except that corn is not good animal feed.

that's why they need all the damn antibiotics- cows get sick when they eat nothing but corn. pigs do better, but still. all corn does not make meat that is good for you.

[madokie]

47. The best beef comes from grass fed cows

The most healthy cows are grass fed cows because thats what they've evolved eating. I have yet to see a cow plant a crop of corn

[Walk away]

12. How about broad and balanced crops of legumes, vegetables and fruit.

It's cheaper to serve your family processed crap filled with sugars that a salad.

[noamnety]

26. A diversified diet of whole foods - yes to subsidizing that.

Monocultures shouldn't be subsidized, and I'd also put a stop to any subsidy to crops grown with patented seeds.

I don't know what the current subsidies work out to, per person ... but I'd rather see them given out maybe in the form of debit cards to every citizen to only be used for unprocessed foods. Every person in the country gets X number of actual fruits or veggies or legumes per month. Keep the demand for farmers up that way, give it to everyone so there is no stigma attached to it for poor people. Maybe load their cards with higher amounts, though - but the amount would be invisible to others in the cashier lines.

[KittyWampus]

2. How is Michelle Obama going to stop subsidizing corn farmers?

[noamnety]

3. For starters

Instead of educating parents about parenting skills, how about educating the public about the effects of sugar subsidies and encouraging the public to pressure congress to put a halt to that?

How about using her platform to attack the real cause of the problem, instead of addressing the issue in a way that renders the administration's role in it invisible?

[KittyWampus]

5. You want the First Lady to educate Americans about corn subsidies as her signature campaign?

that is absurd.

[noamnety]

9. Why is it absurd to push for real change?

Why does Michelle's role have to be relegated to national mom? I don't think it's absurd for her to take up an actual political cause that would have a real and lasting effect on our diets.

[KittyWampus]

11. Because Michelle Obama is the First Lady and NOT a politician. And pushing to get food stores

in poor neighborhoods IS real change.

[Mari333]

13. I agree I hate that idea..national mom..maybe next she can teach us to crochet

:)

[Walk away]

15. My national Mom told me to order lobster when out on a date and....

to eat the expensive proteins like shrimp and steak at holiday parties. An inadvertently slimming eating policy.

[emsimon33]

4. Right on!

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emsimon33]

32. Answering you would be "upping" my post count.

Having a bad day? How about a bad life?

If I had wanted to "up my count," a simple K&R would have done.

[CTyankee]

55. It seems to me that you could think harder and do better than that.

Really, that response was lame. If you are having a bad life, I am sorry. But if you don't like what the First Lady is doing, how about your own idea of what you would propose?

Why tear down what is a good initiative? Doesn't make sense. I hope you do not purport to be a helper of the downtrodden, because that is remarkably missing from your post...

[emsimon33]

85. You missed the point by a mile

I am very glad tat Michelle Obama is addressing this issue; however, as long as junk food is subsidized and HFC syrup is added to just about everything, the First Lady taking this on as an issue won't solve the problem.

Your snarky reply was uncalled for.

[Quantess]

88. I'm puzzled why that other DUer was giving you a hard time.

I'm guessing the main reason is that you have less than 500 posts...? Shame on you for having a low post count! :hi:

[CTyankee]

89. Thank you for clarifying. I must say I really didn't see that coming thru.

While I agree with you that the addition of HFCS to our foods is a very bad thing, there is a way that Michelle Obama can tackle it head on and that is with education. I had to learn about HFCS, didn't you? You weren't born with total knowledge; none of us is. We, as a nation, got educated about tobacco, didn't we? And you may be surprised to know that we, as a young nation, did the same thing with alcohol in the beginning of the 19th century (a big temperance movement).

What I am objecting to here is this attitude that the forces of evil have become so powerful against us we just have to keep on buying their evil products and can't do a thing about it. And when Michelle Obama outlines an intelligent, coherent approach to the problem, we say she's an elitist that doesn't understand how powerless we, poor and middle class alike, are. If I interpreted your message too broadly in that direction I apologize. I'm just really tired of hearing all these messages of how weak we are against food products we don't have to buy (read labels!).

[arthritisR_US]

7. ditto! n/t

[goclark]

16. I was an educator for a number of years ~ I fully support

the efforts of the first lady.

Any one that doesn't want to agree can let their kids eat potato chips all day long ~ I want to EDUCATE children to live a better life.

[noamnety]

23. That was acknowledged in the first line of my post.

Some parents make irresponsible decisions, absolutely.

If you thought I was encouraging that, you were mistaken. But a critical part of a REAL education about the causes of childhood obesity includes educating the general public about the government's role in subsidizing the industry.

You can teach little kids not to lick toys in case they have lead in them ... but unless you address the fact that they have lead and work to regulate/prohibit lead in our toys, you aren't addressing the problem itself. Pushing the analogy into the hypothetical - if you are deliberately quiet about the fact that the government is paying people to put lead in toys, you'd lose some credibility while lecturing parents about their responsibilities.

[Johonny]

17. Is this the most thankless task ever given a first lady?

It's suppose to be a feel good task like fighting gangs or say no to drugs. Obesity maybe a more toxic a topic than even health care. In modern society it clearly ranks with global warming and evolution in peoples love of denying and/or excusing the problem. People do not agree that it is a problem, people do not agree on the cause of the problem, people do not agree on the fix of the problem or that it can be fix even if it exists. No I'd say from the banter in DU threads on the subject, Michelle is not going to enjoy working on Obesity. It's a most toxic subject.

[earth mom]

20. It's hypocritical of the Obama's to shame kids & their parents while the food supply is fucked up

with corn syrup, GMO foods and nutritionally deficient foods which are all responsible for this countries health issues.

I'd rather see the Obama's get some laws passed outlawing corn syrup and other frankenfoods rather then just shaking their fingers at obese people while they & Congress are the ones who aren't addressing the root of the problem. :thumbsdown:

[Mari333]

22. [phone]

[Raskolnik]

41. You think educating parents & kids about healthy diet & exercise is "shaming?"

Really?

[Number23]

48. Apparently, unless the woman is prepared to storm the halls of Congress and burn the food industry

to the ground, she cannot even ADDRESS an issue.

And I just love how people are wagging their fingers at Michelle Obama and accusing her of wagging her fingers at others when she is simply performing a public service in trying to draw attention to the health pitfalls of childhood obesity. These same folks are also accusing her of ignoring other issues while they conveniently ignore the fact that Michelle has traveled the world talking about the importance of education for girls and trying to improve the quality of life for military families.

Apparently, unless she's willing to take down the entire agricultural industry in the process she should not be allowed to even talk about an issue that she has repeatedly said is personally important to her.

[CTyankee]

54. I don't see the Obama's shaking a finger at obese people or shaming anyone.

Where do you get that? No one is really force fed on HFCS foods. There ARE alternatives.

Why do you and others wish to deter efforts by the First Lady to help prevent the cause of suffering in this country? Wouldn't you scream bloody murder if people were left in a burning house without a fire dept. to save them? How can you stand by and just point fingers and not support ANYTHING that can be done to prevent obesity, while still pushing for your own worthwhile reforms of outlawing HFCS. Both are necessary. It is not "either/or".

We need to work on this problem. Finger pointing gets us nowhere. Meanwhile, people are suffering and dying. You know that, don't you?

[earth mom]

65. First get the shit out of our food before trying to solve the obesity epidemic.

Cart before the horse as they say.

If you can't see that Michele Obama is going about the problem all wrong, I don't know what to tell you.

Ever wondered why countries like France and Italy do not have the obesity problems and health issues this country has?

It's because their food has NOT been fucked with.

There would be hell to pay if it was.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S. greed trumps all and I'd like to see both Obama's work on fixing the problem FOR REAL instead of putting a band aid on it.

[Raskolnik]

67. Jeebus, people will complain about anything.

I'm not certain there is a single thing that Michelle Obama could do in this situation that wouldn't result in people sitting in front of their computers complaining that she isn't saying exactly what they wanted her to say in exactly the way they wanted it said.

[CTyankee]

75. I agree with you about food in this country. I travel to Europe every year

and you can see it in the difference between the airport in Madrid and JFK. Or Rome and JFK. Last year I was in Lisbon. Same thing. I've never had bad food in Italy or Spain (Portugal's food, while fresh, was extremely salty). They don't eat bagged lettuce and serving sizes are much smaller. A pasta course at the Italian table is a relatively small amount of pasta with what we would consider a puny serving of sauce on it. The meat or fish course is much less food than what we expect, yet they are bursting with flavor.

That said, I don't think it helps to throw up our hands and just give up. It's not against the law to eat less food and we CAN invest our food dollars more wisely than we do now. Nobody "needs" a big bag of Doritos washed down with an oversized bottle of Coke. And anybody can get out and walk a bit more than they do now.

We should not sit back and consign our next generation to health problems such as diabetes and high blood pressure by saying the food industry just defeats us. We don't have to eat their crap. I don't know about you, but I don't want my 4 grandchildren to become diseased at an early age and I WON'T give up...

[Whisp]

69. there was nothing shameful or finger shaking in what Michelle was saying

maybe we watched a different show. It was on Larry King, what I heard on the subject.

[mopinko]

21. i acknowledge your point.

but perhaps as she focuses on these issues, people will look up the chain. ya gotta start somewhere. and i do think that her garden is sort of a sneaky way of making the points that you are making in a way that is hard to just shoot down.

[varelse]

56. While I fully agree with the point made in the OP

it's good to acknowledge the organic, pesticide-free garden she planted as well.

I wonder how it will do this spring and summer? I haven't seen much about it in the news lately.

[jtrockville]

24. I fully agree, but I don't hold MOBAMMA responsible.

[ChicagoSuz219]

25. She's encouraging healthy eating habits! OMG!

What a terrible woman!

I'm really surprised by several postings I've read from DUers all up in arms about this. WTF??

[noamnety]

27. Is that really what you got from this post?

I acknowledged in the first two lines that we have problems in this country with parents and schools encouraging poor dietary habits in children. I don't have a problem with anyone pointing that out.

I have a problem with a representative - any representative - from the government taking it upon themselves to lecture the general public about that WITHOUT acknowledging the role the government itself plays in promoting and financing childhood obesity. It's hypocritical and deliberately disguises the real problem. It plays into a corporate/libertarian mindset.

[prolesunited]

28. Yes, she should have stood up there and said

Your kids are fat and it's all our fault.

[noamnety]

29. Instead of responding with sarcasm

why not acknowledge that she could have said there are responsible decisions parents should be making AND a large part of the problem is government policy?

I don't understand the need several posters have to resort to false dilemmas, as if I've said either she has to put ALL the blame on parents, or ALL the blame on the government.

[ChicagoSuz219]

30. That's not her job...

She's just shining a lot on the problem. I don't have a problem with that. You're targeting the wrong person...

[noamnety]

31. What exactly is her "job"?

Where's her list of job duties?

If she wants to use her position to promote social change, that's great. But as someone who has a staff of government employees working for her at tax payer expense, she's a government representative - not just a "wife," and as such she ought to be acknowledging the government's role in creating the problem she claims she wants to address.

It's great that she has an organic garden. Really, I mean that.

But I am saying that the MOST effective way to change the national diet (short and long term) is to stop using taxes to subsidize a shit diet. The most effective way is not to lecture parents about personal responsibility. Would you agree with that statement?

So if she wants to sincerely change the national diet, I would like to see her confront the problem head on.

[ChicagoSuz219]

36. She doesn't have a job description...

...she doesn't get paid. Having said that, she's a helluva volunteer.

I don't know what you want with her. Take your concerns to where they will do the most good.

I wish someone would've 'lectured' (I prefer 'educated') my parents about healthy eating, so that I could've passed that on to my own daughter.

She's not the villain in this opera...

[noamnety]

45. Exactly - her job is self-defined.

So "it's not in her job description" is not a valid excuse. If she's decided that educating people about the government's role in promoting unhealthy food is "not her job" - that's solely because she has decided she doesn't want it to be part of her job.

It's a very easy and noncontroversial figurehead role to stand there and say "gosh, people should eat healthier." Who's going to argue with that? It takes more fortitude and integrity to confront the underlying causes, when the government that's paying your keep (and staff) is complicit in causing the problem.

Like I said, it's great for a toy manufacturer to lecture parents about not letting kids lick their toys, but if they are the ones funding using lead as a key ingredient in the manufacturing process and they neglect to mention that inconvenient fact ... I'm not going to be very impressed with the courageous stance they are taking to voluntarily educate us on the issue.

[ChicagoSuz219]

60. My point was...

...there are actual people with actual jobs whose descriptions would fit this. If you're soooooo concerned about these issues, take it to them.

Venting on the DU board might make you feel better, but it won't change the outcome. Going after Michelle, or convincing me, won't either.

That's all I've been saying...

[CTyankee]

77. We don't know if Michelle isn't working behind the scenes to effect the change you

want to see. Our Democratic President is in charge of the executive agencies and our food policy is in the policies of the Agriculture Dept. There are super powerful interests there to be sure but we don't know if there are other policies than can or will be taken to get us to better food in this country.

Personal nutrition is everybody's business. But we are not born knowing everything about nutrition; we have to learn. The government can be of some help there, starting in the schools with the kids and their parents. Why is that a bad thing? If we think it is OK to instruct kids on drivers ed, why do we blink at nutrition ed?

Why is this an either/or issue with you? :shrug:

[county worker]

33. The food you put in your mouth is not forced there by the government.

The government can pay who ever it wants and you could still be thin. What passes through your lips to your gut is your choice not the government's.

[noamnety]

35. Why is the government immune to criticism when they are financing the junk food?

If they financed paid people to grow tobacco and then lectured us on why we shouldn't smoke, would they be above criticism? Would you see it as hypocritical?

They use OUR money to make pay people to make food with no nutritional value, and then blame us for consuming it. You can check my posts in other threads - I consistently say you can find other healthier ways to eat, and other consistently jump on me for that, too - and point to how if you are living in poverty, the government funded crap food is the only affordable and accessible option. So change that. Change it by not funding it, educating consumers on the fact that it IS funded by the government, and push to get that changed.

We're idiots to think farmers are going to stop growing corn and dumping masses of it into our food supply in the form of HFCS as long as the government pays them to do that.

[county worker]

38. I don't eat unhealthy foods and I live in the same country as you.

If you know something isn't healthy do eat it! You do have a choice. I don't care if you want to criticize the government. It most likely deserves it but you can't say they force feed you bad food.

[noamnety]

43. Was there anything in my post that led you to believe

I think the government is forcing me to eat bad food?

That's not anything I've written or implied in my posts, so I'm confused about why you are choosing to "debate" that point.

If you'd like to comment about whether someone living in the white house criticizing the american diet should also discuss the government's role in promoting and financing bad dietary choices, that would be relevant to this thread.

[county worker]

49. What did you mean here?

"I want to see the government acknowledge its role as a major underlying cause of the problem, "

[noamnety]

52. The government is using our tax dollars to pay farmers to grow corn

to add to our food supply in the form of HFCS. It's nearly ubiquitous in our foods, including the foods that more tax dollars buy to feed to kids in free lunch programs.

I would like to see anyone using government resources and staff who is lecturing us about eating healthy acknowledge the government's role in paying for the unhealthy food additives that they claim they don't want us eating. I would like to see anyone from the government who is lecturing children about the need to avoid those food choices acknowledge that the government is a key provider of that crap to children living in poverty.

I would like to see them speak out against government funding of programs that are clearly damaging our health on a national scale.

I am sorry if you can't understand that. I don't know how to say it any more directly.

[county worker]

79. I understand what you are saying. I am saying that you can avoid that crap if you choose to.

[Lyric]

37. Are you serious?

I really hope that "county worker" doesn't mean that you're a social worker. I'd like to think that a social worker would know better than to make the statement you just did.

Tell me--when the only grocery store in your neighborhood sells nothing but junk food, and when the best (and sometimes only) meals that you get every day are the ones you get at school, how is your food consumption a "choice?" I mean, I suppose these people could "choose" to starve, but that's stupid. If I lock you into a Detroit low-income ghetto with no money, no car, no adequate public transit, and the only walkable store sells nothing but Hostess cakes and pop, do I then have the right to lecture you about your crappy food "choices?"

Walk a mile in someone else's worn-out shoes. The "personal responsibility" meme doesn't apply when people's choices are so sadly limited.

[county worker]

39. You know as well as I do that your statement does not tell the situation for all of us.

Sure you can find something to fault what I said and that is because I did not include every exception to the rule that you could come up with. You are taking a fraction of the population and using it to represent all of us.

Yes I work in the Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services Dept and most of our clients would not make the statement you did.

We have programs such as Sober Women Healthy Families which is directed toward people like you describe. The difference between them and you and me and you is that we think we can do something about it. If you defeat yourself by blaming someone else for your problems I think you will never find the will to do something about it.


On edit: you know why we as Dems can't seem to govern? It's because we blame the world for our problems and think we can elect someone to fix them for us. "We have met the enemy and they are us!"


You think the government is the cause of the problem and also the solution. You are the government!

Do you think social workers become social workers because the problems are unsolvable on a individual basis?

[suzie]

50. Kudos to you and your women who think they can do something about their ovn lives.

And to Michelle Obama for taking on a serious health problem.

[county worker]

53. Thanks, you don't know how good I feel that someone can understand

[sandnsea]

71. That's part of what the campaign addresses

You can read all about it at the white house web site.

[CTyankee]

78. Oh, there you go again, confusing us with the facts!

Dudes have to read what Michelle Obama is actually doing, not what they "think" she is doing...

[tonysam]

34. Michelle Obama needs to talk to Paul Campos, who has pretty

much exposed the nonsense that is the "obesity epidemic" and quit listening to the health food quacks. The last things kids need is more self-hate for their bodies, especially girls.

There is NO "obesity epidemic," just an epidemic of the lack of common sense.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. Yes, Type II diabetes and heart disease are pure quackery.

:rofl:

[Codeine]

44. People are fat as fuck everywhere I look.

The obesity epidemic surrounds you, and no amount of denial is changing that.

Look at school kids getting off a bus and compare them to the kids in your childhood school photos. Most grade school classes I was in had a fat kid, now half the children in any given classroom are fat.

Look around the supermarket on your weekly shopping trip -- fat and fatter everywhere you turn. People are friggin' huge, badly out of shape, tremendously unhealthy, and mind-bogglingly lazy.

[Reterr]

70. Paul Campos is a lawyer, not a doctor or healthcare professional

That guy only has any legitimacy among that movement that calls itself "Fat acceptance" because the fat activists will take any help they can get I guess....

[Raskolnik]

42. Nothing like making the perfect the enemy of the quite good. n/t

[noamnety]

46. "The perfect" = what?

Acknowledging a key underlying cause of the problem you claim you want to solve?

I'm not asking for perfection, just honest disclosure.

[Raskolnik]

63. No, you don't want honest disclosure. You want to sit back and complain about

someone actually doing something positive.

Not every coat drive for the homeless should require a harangue about the top marginal tax rate, and not every immunization clinic should require a lecture about pharmaceutical patents in the developing world. A push by the First Lady to increase education about nutrition and exercise does not prevent anyone from raising the points you would like to see addressed, but it does have the potential to disseminate valuable information, and perhaps change the way some schools structure their nutrition programs.

[noamnety]

64. I don't want honest disclosure?

Wow. That's quite a conclusion you've drawn.

I want MORE disclosure: an honest discussion from the top down about the government subsidizing unhealthy food to make it cheaper.

I am surprised DUers have a problem with that. I don't understand why we wouldn't, as a group, support it.

[Raskolnik]

66. You are complaining about Michelle Obama raising awareness of childhood obesity

and spearheading an education push about nutrition and exercise. Reread that last sentence a few times and let that sink in.

I believe it is pretty clear that you're more interested in complaining than about recognizing a positive contribution to the issue you profess to care about.



edit subject line

[noamnety]

68. Nope, try again.

"You are complaining about Michelle Obama raising awareness of childhood obesity and spearheading an education push about nutrition and exercise."

Wrong. I am complaining about her lecturing on childhood obesity and spearheading an education push about nutrition WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING the role the government plays in financing bad nutrition as a national industry.

You can pretend I'm saying something else if you like. You can pretend to ignore the major point I'm making, to try to make it about something else, like others have. (Oh, I must be in favor of parents feeding their children potato chips and nothing else.)

But that doesn't make it true.
-------------

If a manufacturer of lead-infused toys sends out a spokesperson - even a volunteer one - to tell parents not to let their children lick their toys and doesn't take responsibility for their role in putting lead in the toys, that's irresponsible behavior and offensive. Me pointing that out doesn't mean I'm opposed to telling kids not to lick their toys. It means I'm opposed to them not acknowledging their corporation's role in causing a health problem, and not cleaning up their own act before'while educating people about their personal responsibilities. If you claim that criticism implies I have a problem with telling kids not to lick lead based toys, you are relying on a logical fallacy.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Well Said

Purism is a bad thing no matter from which side of the fence it emanates.
GAC

[groundloop]

51. Michele Obama is right on target - I've got first hand experience with overweight grandkids

My step-son's little girl is quite overweight, BECAUSE SHE GETS FED UNHEALTHY FOOD AND GETS LITTLE EXCERCISE. We've said as much as we feel comfortable to them about it. Mrs. Obama is spot-on, kids need to get more excercise and eat healthier, and it starts at home. I don't see why her advocacy is such a big deal. Agreed, there are more issues, but Mrs. Obama is not an office holder that can have any effect on policy. I just don't see the point in getting all worked up over the first lady taking up this cause.

[noamnety]

61. I'm not "worked up" about her taking up this cause.

I'm ticked off that she's doing it in a way the render's the government's subsidies of HFCS invisible.

I tend to get ticked off when government reps of any sort use government resources to campaign on a platform of "personal responsibility" when they are going beyond enabling and well into funding the bad behavior they claim they oppose.

By staying silent on that issue, she is in fact enabling government to continue to subsidize harmful industries without shedding a light on their role.

It's great to say she isn't in a position to have any effect on policy ... but elsewhere I can see DUers claiming she's working to eradicate food deserts, I see statements that Obama is working to eliminate soda machines in schools. Those are policies - clearly the Obamas feel they can influence government policies. If they can't ... why are they there?

If she spoke out it would bring attention to the issue, which is a key method of effecting change.

[varelse]

58. You make a good point about our Federal government's farm subsidy policies

they do need to be overhauled. However, I think that is very much out of the scope of the First Lady's role. That issue needs to be tackled by the legislative branch with the political leadership of the President.

Still, I liked your OP and I have recommended the thread :)

[CBR]

59. Good God. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

72. I see consumers as the real power behind those marketing HFCS, etc...

For example, I know how much it effects those marketing processed food if I refuse to cut out their useless coupons and purchase their highly process, low nutritional value food. If I multiplied my choices by talking to others, the effect becomes significant to consumerism.

I think MO is trying to set a good example. Just look at the way she takes care of herself, has introduced real food, has engaged children in the process, as well as demonstrates how choice is an option.

I say what I buy at the store, I choose what I do with my body, I get to enjoy activities of daily living longer and with more quality because I am in control of that process. It's a good message and probably the most important one I've seen from a first lady.

[MadHound]

73. I agree with almost everything you say, however

It still comes down to people, individual persons, making their own decisions as to what they're going to eat. I'm assuming that since you know the risks of HFCS that you don't consume the stuff. Why not? Because you educated yourself. That is what every single person needs to do, become an educated consumer.

Yes, the food industry is going to put good tasting crap that's bad for you on the store shelves. If you and the next person and the next person, etc. skip the crap and buy food that is tastes good and is good for you, the food industry will get the message and start putting more tasty, healthy food out there. Hell, up until about twenty, twenty five years ago the only place you could get organic food was in a specialty store. Now it has gone mainstream and can be found in almost every major grocery store.

Educate yourself, educate your kids, take responsibility for your diet and your health.

[EFerrari]

74. I agree that the effort would ideally be at the level of individuals, families

communities, and national. The more spheres of influence engage, the better chance of success the project has.

[dashrif]

81. First

spouses all have some kind of gimmick targeting something as long as they don't plant ho-ho's across the street in the park and call it an epidermic I could care less they have to do something to pass the time

[noamnety]

82. That's probably a realistic view of the whole thing.

Hillary was bored and "redid" health care.

Laura solved teenage gang violence, when she was done solving literacy problems.

MO will solve childhood obesity and make good food accessible in all neighborhoods.

:)

[Mike 03]

83. Very thoughtful points. As the son of obese parents I have massive compassion

for people who are overweight, either due to heredity or an eating disorder. We all have issues, and some people eat too much, but others have other reasons why they are overweight.

But by the same token, I think we all know what foods are good for us and what foods are bad for us. I do. If I am fat, I am angry at myself for allowing myself to get fat, because I ate high fat or high sodium foods.

I am sorry, maybe I am being dense, but in this day and age, how can anyone not perceive the difference between positive and negative behaviors when it comes to weight gain and weight loss?

That is not a rhetorical question but a real question.

[lukasahero]

84. This is a nice, thoughtful response

To answer your question, I think there really are people out there who don't think about things as much as those of us on DU do. By our very nature, most people who come to political and current events type boards are curious people with some time on their hands to pursue information about the things that interest them.

There are a lot of people out there though who are not like us, either they don't have the interest or the time or the money to pursue this information. They're not exposed to it in school. Maybe they see some of it on TV but more often than not, they're watching Survivor or American Idol. So where would they get this information?

I think there is a great deal of validity to noamnety's post here - neither the government nor agri-business WANT people to know what's in the food they're eating so unless one takes an interest and makes an effort, they're not exposed to the information. Some of it may be common sense but a lot of it is deliberately hidden and I don't know how we expect people to get the information they need to make healthy choices without someone (kudos Ms. Obama!) trying to get at least some of the information out there for them.

Where I disagree with the OP is that I really don't think Michelle has the clout to take it "all" on. She can take steps and maybe someday we can truly expose the harm of GM crops and agri-business but I think she does deserve credit for starting the discussion.

Here's hoping the conversation continues.

[smalll]

86. At the least, Michelle shouldn't have thrown her own daughters under the bus

publicly to advance what is nevertheless a good cause.

[defendandprotect]

87. MERCURY also found in that high fructose corn syrup????