Will a tax on junk food solve America's health epidemics?

Every couple years it seems someone proposes a tax on "junk food." The premise is that such a tax would motivate more people to make healthier food choices based on the dollar value.

Value is the keyword, in my opinion.

As in, what is the perceived value of healthy food? The junk food tax proposal supposes that the value of food is predominately financially based, and food choices are therefore, mostly financially motivated.

So, let's say that a week's worth of apples is almost the same price as a week's worth of potato chips (which, in my neck of the woods, they are). Who would choose the apples over the potato chips? Now what if the potato chips were less expensive - would the purchasing distribution change dramatically? And vice versa? What would the price differential between the two foods have to be in order for significantly more people to start eating an apple with their lunch instead of chips?

It would be an interesting social experiment to watch purchasing behavior if the government did start taxing or subsidizing (is a penalty more motivating than a reward?) certain foods. Based on the people I know, regardless of income level, short of something drastic like a 300% potato chip tax, I suspect purchasing habits would vary very little.

In my opinion, the slight difference in price doesn't matter. Afterall, bananas are almost always cheaper than chips per serving, and a bag of baby carrots (5 servings) is around $1.29 at my local grocery stores. The logic that folks purchase chips and crackers over produce based on price is faulty.

By in large, we are talking about adults who, plain and simply, have already decided that they want the chips or they want the apples. You probably have identified yourself with one of those two groups as you're reading this. The bottom line: I bet chips are rarely placed in a cart because they are a cheap way to fill up. Keep in mind, we're not talking about taxing pasta.

So now the challenge is obvious: How do we motivate people to buy an apple instead of chips? How do we educate people on the value of healthy foods?

C'mon. Who doesn't know that an apple is healthier than a serving of chips? The apple has fiber, vitamins and minerals. It is low-calorie and low-fat. Chips are the opposite. Who doesn't know that diet high in calories and fat, and low in nutrients will contribute to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and more?

So ultimately, the real money question is: How do we get people to value their own health? And that, my friends, is something that the government may not ever have any control over.

How Green Are you?

If you're looking for some fun Saturday quizes and practical ways to go green, I found this cute little site called Practically Green. The quizes test your current green-ness, and therefore, by default, you get a list of items that would increase your green rating. There are also great badges that you can rack up once you register: these are specific for babies, the kitchen, and more. You can also see the badges and results of others who live near you to see if you're keeping up with the green Jones' (personally, Stephanie kicked my butt). And, while I'm happy to be "solidly green," armed with their marching orders and a competitive nature, I expect to have a better score soon. Watch-out Stephanie!

Federal guidelines for youth wellness are unsatisfying, and unsatisfied

While the debate about the causes and effects of childhood obesity rages on, even the smallest efforts to improve the physical and nutritional education of our children are falling short. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently reviewed the status of local wellness policies in 6 school districts. None of the districts had entirely implemented their local wellness policies during the past 5 school years of the policies' mandated existence.

"schools in their district provided few nutrition education or physical activity opportunities even though the premise... was that nutrition education and greater physical activity can help combat childhood obesity."

In 2004, the Child Nutrition and Women Infants and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act included a mandate for the creation of "local wellness policies" (LWP) in each school district by the 2006-2007 school year. In short, these well-intentioned policies are designed to address the increasing childhood obesity epidemic by creating nutrition education and physical activity guidelines. Here are the basic requirements of the LWP:

• Establish goals for nutrition education and physical activity at the discretion of the local educational agency.



• Modify in-school food choices with the intention of promoting health and reducing childhood obesity.
  



• Be consistent with the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 1779; subsections (a) and (b) of section 10) and the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1766(a); section 9(f)(1) and 17(a)).



• Establish a plan for monitoring the implementation of the LWP and designate persons responsible for operations associated with meeting the policy guildelines.
  



• Include staff, school board members. parents, and community members in the development of the LWP.

For starters, this mandate does little more than establish an anti-childhood obesity think tank in each school district; and the results of a CDC study to be published in the August 2011 issue of the Journal of School Health confirm just that.

Let's start at the beginning: The federal mandate is inherently weak beacuse it does not require that the LWP be created with the inclusion of nutrition or physical activity experts. The policies rely on the best judgement of the education agency. This is an example of the unhealthy and obese leading the unhealthy and obese. If the average person knew how to effectively prevent and/or correct obesity, how would we explain the steady increase in obesity in the United States? If nutrition education and physical activity guidelines are only now being implemented in our schools, how can we expect the older generations to know that information and develop an educational plan without expert input? The CDC does offer sample LWP's developed by select states, and resources on their website. It is unclear whether expert input was contributed to those.

Now let's fast forward 5 years: In the published study, of the 6 school districts with complete and satisfactory LWP's (a condition of their inclusion in the study) that were reviewed, none had fully implemented their LWP's during the 5 school years of the LWP existence. In fact, the report states that "schools in their district provided few nutrition education or physcial activity opportunities for students even though the premise... was that nutrition education and greater physical activity can help combat childhood obesity."

The study does not say how many school districts were inelligible for review because their LWP was incomplete, insufficient, or non-existent.

Multiple studies have shown the importance of nutrition in a child's ability to focus, learn and have regular attendance. So here's what each of us can do:

• Contact your local school district to review your child's LWP. Demand expert input and immediate implementation.
  



• Stop relying on the government to know what's best for your child. Educate yourself on good nutrition. Take it upon yourself to educate your children (see some links below).
  



• Consider packing lunches until the school-provided food choices are nutritionally sound.
  



• Encourage physcial activity at home - even as a family.
  
  

Other links:

"Schools Face New Mandate on 'Wellness' "

Super Kids Nutrition

Family Education: Learning Good Nutrition

Fuel Up to Play 60