\nObama’s anti-obesity initiative, Let’s Move<\/a>, has kicked into high gear. The Presidential
\nTask Force on Childhood Obesity released
\na landmark report<\/a> documenting the scale of the problem, complete with a list
\nof 70 recommendations and a set of benchmarks, including the goal of returning
\nthe childhood obesity rate to its 1972 level of 5% by 2030. And
\nthis week came the announcement that a new industry partnership called the
\nHealthy Weight Commitment Foundation, which includes most of the major food
\ncompanies, agreed to reduce the number of calories in its members’ products by 1.5 trillion calories by 2015.<\/p>\n
It But …[T]his That context “Calories in\/calories out” refers to the idea that balancing consumption with exercise And The Meanwhile, Indeed, In Now, We’re Along We Drops Cross-posted from markbittman.com.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n DC rejects soda tax but funds better school food<\/a><\/p>\n Endocrine disruptors really do suck<\/a><\/p>\n Lessons from Berkeley schools: The truth about kids and vegetables<\/a><\/p>\n
\nwould be churlish of me to downplay the significance of either the report or
\nthe industry announcement. As nutritionist Marion Nestle observed<\/a>,
\nwhatever skepticism one may rightly have regarding industry self-regulation,
\nthe fact that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation<\/a>—whose public health
\ncredentials in general and anti-obesity efforts in particular are beyond
\nreproach—will be auditing the calorie-cutting plan should keep industry shenanigans
\nto a minimum.<\/p>\n
\nwhat will a 1.5-trillion calorie cut look like? In an article that
\nhelpfully explains how companies might go about reaching their goal—lower-calorie Lunchables! Smaller Kraft Cheese slices!—former food industry
\nexecutive Hank Cardello puts
\nthe cuts into context<\/a>:<\/p>\n
\nis a drop in the bucket and represents only a 0.5 percent reduction in the 300
\ntrillion calories available for Americans to consume each year. That translates
\nto less than 1.5 pounds of added weight per person. Hardly enough to resolve an
\nobesity crisis.<\/p>\n
\nwas left of out of the comments by David Mackay, chair of the Healthy Weight Commitment
\nFoundation, at the White House announcement. But he
\ndid express his deep pleasure that the concept of “calories in\/calories
\nout” is a foundational concept of the White House childhood obesity initiative.<\/p>\n
\nis the key to maintaining a healthy weight. It also happens to be the industry
\nmantra, since it mostly leaves industry off the hook. It becomes an individual’s
\nresponsibility to count calories and get enough exercise. Industry can offer a
\nhelping hand with programs like this one, but on the whole can be left to its
\nown devices.<\/p>\n
\ncertainly, industry desperate wants to be left along. As Kelly Brownell, head
\nof the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity said
\nto the Washington Post<\/em>‘s Jane Black<\/a>: “My
\nguess is that they were going to do this anyway… The hidden motive here is to
\nconvince government to back off and not regulate the industry.”<\/p>\n
\nquestion then becomes if these impressive-sounding but small-bore industry
\ninitiatives will make up for an apparent lack of political will from the Obama
\nadministration to force government to do its part. The Task Force report is
\nfull of things the government should<\/em> do, but has only a handful of things it will<\/strong> do.<\/p>\n
\none of the core commitments the Obama administration has made to address obesity—through the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, aka the National School Lunch Program—is stuck in congressional limbo. The bill, already disappointing
\nin its minimal increases in funding<\/a>, appears stalled at least until after
\nthe 2010 midterm elections.<\/p>\n
\nI’d feel better about the administration’s supposed laser-like focus on the
\nNational School Lunch Program—already overdue for reauthorization and operating under
\nan extension of the current version, with all its flaws—if it showed a
\nlittle more engagement with the current congressional bottleneck. I suspect,
\nhowever, that with the coming of the political season surrounding the midterm
\nelections, even a public health crisis on the scale of the obesity epidemic
\nmust take a back seat to more pressing concerns.<\/p>\n
\nessence, the task force’s report—with its laundry list of recommendations and benchmarks,
\nmost of which don’t start until 2015 and don’t end until 2030—feels less like
\nthe roadmap its reputed to be and more like a poorly written recipe. The
\ningredients are excellent, and there’s a beautiful picture of what the final
\ndish will look like, but the step-by-step instructions are missing. We don’t
\nknow the order or even the precise amounts of each ingredient. We do know
\nthere’s a great dish in there somewhere, but we don’t know how to make it.<\/p>\n
\nit’s clearly unreasonable to expect the task force to have created a precise recipe to fix a social problem on this scale. But of the dozen or so recommendations that were identified as
\nthe government’s responsibilities, which will the Obama administration enact? Where
\nwas the call from the President for all federal agencies mentioned in the
\nreport to draw up a specific action plan in response to the recommendations?<\/p>\n
\njust not going to meet these benchmarks without government policy playing a
\nsignificant role. Industry needs to be a partner, of course. But we are after all talking about the
\nindustry that gave us the
\nnow infamous Smart Choices<\/em> label<\/a>,
\nwith guidelines so slack that even Froot Loops could qualify. The same industry that tried to pass
\noff sugar-sweetened
\nCocoa Krispies as immune boosting<\/a>. The same industry that had the CEO of
\none of its most powerful companies refer
\nto soda<\/a> as a “staple food.” And the same industry that targets
\nchildren with billions of dollars in advertising so that it can take advantage
\nof the “nag factor” at the supermarket. It is, in short, not to be
\ntrusted.<\/p>\n
\nthose lines, I was not encouraged by a recent interview
\nin Politico<\/a> with Melody Barnes, the administration’s director of the Domestic Policy
\nCouncil, and chief architect of Let’s Move<\/a>. When Mike Allen asked
\nwhat the government itself was going to do to address obesity in the wake of
\nthe task force’s report, Barnes gave a lengthy description of the
\nadministration’s efforts on the school lunch program and its Healthy Food Financing
\nInitiative, which would fund grocery stores in so-called “food deserts.” Both predate the task force report. When Allen pressed on the
\nsubject, Barnes offered no other initiatives.<\/p>\n
\nhave learned over the last decade and to our great chagrin that a change in
\nadministration can undo decades of good government. The more that Let’s Move relies on industry good
\nbehavior and bully pulpit exhortations from the White House as it tries to
\navoid writing policies into law that might change the underlying structural
\nfoundation of the obesity epidemic, the more likely we are to risk falling back
\nto old patterns once our enthusiasm flags or—dare I say it—a Republican
\nreturns to the White House, which could happen well before the final obesity
\nbenchmark in 2030.<\/p>\n
\nin the bucket, even dozens of them, just won’t get the job done.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"