Elementary and high school students across the nation recently took to Twitter to express their disgust with the school lunches prepared for them each day. Hundreds posted photos of their grotesque-looking school lunches with the hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama, since the first lady has been consistently vocal about adding more nutritious choices in the cafeteria. While I can appreciate the loaded sarcasm and the fact that the food does look less than appetizing in most cases, I believe the campaign for healthier school lunches means nothing without prioritizing nutrition courses firsthand in schools across the country.
Giving kids limited options for food for one meal a day will not prevent obesity in children and, subsequently, adults. The same goes for U students: Even if you took Panda Express out of the Union, I guarantee people would find orange chicken elsewhere. The only way to truly address the issue of obesity is to figure out the root of the problem: a lack of education on the subject.
If schools implemented a mandatory nutrition course and involved parents as integral parts of the curriculum, there would be no need for a nation-wide evaluation of lunches, and kids may actually thank Michelle Obama one day, sans derisive hashtag. The U and its student body would also benefit from making nutrition one of the various general education requirements. It is not until we have a full understanding of how our body processes food that overall well-being and nutrition can be improved and healthy habits implemented.
This is not to say that the first lady’s attempts are completely in vain. Her “Let’s Move!” campaign is devoted to providing healthier school lunches by eliminating sodium and fats and implementing more fruits and vegetables, ensuring that healthy food is more affordable for families and encouraging kids to be more physically active. But this initiative fails to recognize the most important facet of the problem — that nutrition is not a school-wide mandatory course for an elementary, high school or university education.
The harsh truth is that obesity has quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years, and in 2012, one-third of children and adolescents were obese and at risk for health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure and cholesterol. The only way to combat obesity is to administer intensive courses or seminars for children and young adults that not only equip them with the skills needed to live a healthy lifestyle, but also prepare them for the dire consequences that will undoubtedly be seen if no action is taken. If it is a shock factor missing from proposed nutrition curriculum, then maybe administrators should let students know that for the first time in nearly two centuries, their life spans are predicted to be shorter than that of their parents by up to five years.
A simple restriction on what kids can eat for lunch at school is a complete waste of time if there is no curriculum to back it up. A forced healthy choice will not encourage healthy choices at home or out of school, and obesity statistics will continue to double and triple if no further action is taken.