Sarah Palin gets it wrong on childhood obesity campaign

In this country, nutrition issues often become political ones. Although most people seem to agree that eating healthy foods is generally a good idea, there is a lot of disagreement about what role the government should play in promoting healthier food choices. I discussed one example of this kind of controversy a while back, in a post about regulating Happy Meal toys. Another example can be found in Sarah Palin's remarks about Michelle Obama's anti-childhood obesity campaign, "Let's Move."

Back in November, Palin made the following comments on Laura Ingraham's radio show, attacking Michelle Obama's efforts to reduce childhood obesity:

"Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."

The first time I heard this, it really ruffled my feathers, but I tried to ignore it because I knew that if I tried to express my disagreement in a counter-argument, I would end up stressing myself out trying to figure out where to even start to address the many flaws in Palin's logic. But, as time went on, I kept hearing about Sarah Palin's opinion about childhood obesity, and finally decided that I couldn't keep quiet anymore. So here I am, frustrated and seething, blogging about it in hopes that someone reads and understands my point of view so I can feel some sense of relief.

There are 2 major problems with Palin's argument. First, and most important, the assertion that the government shouldn't try to improve children's diets because parents should decide what kids eat is utterly ridiculous and makes no sense. Here's why: the government already does make some decisions about what American children eat. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) provides cash reimbursement and commodity foods to participating public and private schools, with the requirement that those schools offer free and reduced-price lunches to eligible students. The NSLP also develops certain guidelines about what foods can be served to constitute a "reimbursable" lunch. Sarah Palin doesn't seem to be suggesting that we do away with the NSLP (I'd love to see her try), which implies that she accepts this level of interference from the government in children's diets. However, what she does have a problem with is any effort to improve the standards by which the NSLP and other nutrition programs function. In other words, the government can decide what kids eat at school, as long as it doesn't make them eat anything healthy. If Sarah Palin wants to take a stand against government involvement in childhood nutrition, then she should call for the abolishment of the NSLP altogether, not oppose changes in the program that will ultimately benefit the health of American children.

The fact that the government has an established role in influencing what kids eat renders Palin's points moot. But for argument's sake, let's pretend that the NSLP did not exist and all kids had to bring lunch to school and eat only what their parents gave them. This sounds like exactly the kind of scenario that would restore individual freedoms and get the country "back on the right track," in Palin's view. Responsibility for children's food choices would be placed squarely on parents, where it belongs. This brings me to the second problem.

That Sarah Palin thinks that parents should be the only entities entrusted with ensuring that children grow up nourished and healthy is strong evidence of her detachment from large groups of Americans and the problems they face. For one thing, many, many parents simply do not have the means to provide their children with the quantity and quality of food they need to thrive. They may care a lot about their kids and know how to make good choices for them, but they may be unable to because they can't afford healthy food or can't access it because of where they live; or more likely, both. Then there are parents who can afford to fill their kitchen cabinets with healthy foods but are truly not educated enough to do so. Either they don't know how important nutrition is for their children's immediate and long-term well-being, or they don't know what constitutes good nutrition.

Finally, there are parents who, regardless of whether or not they have the means and know-how to feed their kids nutritious food, just don't care enough to do it. Let's be honest, anyone can be a parent. You don't need any special characteristics or qualifications, and the sad truth is that not all parents are good parents. Just think about how many parents abuse or neglect their children. They're in the news all the time. And these are the people that Sarah Palin thinks should be given sole responsibility for ensuring that the next generation of Americans grows up to become healthy, contributing members of society. Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign states on its website: "We believe every kid has the right to a healthy childhood." Apparently, Sarah Palin believes that a healthy childhood is not a right, but a privilege reserved for those who have loving parents with ample education and financial resources.