State nutrition regulations are out of control

Photo: Jason Antony.

Yet another article is circulating on how public schools are banning bake sales during school hours and even birthday treats because of nutrition concerns. This comes on the heels of an alarming story of a preschooler who, when confronted by state health officials about the contents of her lunch - turkey sandwich, banana, apple juice and potato chips - was offered another alternative instead: chicken nuggets.

On what planet are chicken nuggets healthy? (unless you make them yourself) I'm sure food service outlets who provide this stuff to schools aren't using all natural, vegan ingredients. Heck, they might not even be using real chicken for all we know. And the school thinks her turkey sandwich is a threat? I'm guessing they took one look at the potato chips and that was the end of it.

And now, in the same school, a second mom has come forward to say that her four-year-old was also approached by officials because of her cheese and salami sandwich - on wheat! - with apple juice. She was sent to the cafeteria and given the ubiquitous chicken nuggets again.

I'm not sure which is more alarming: that health officials think chicken nuggets are an acceptable alternative, or that they take such a stance on the matter to the point of overriding a parent's authority. It's becoming an alarming trend in schools - we've been hearing more stories about California schools introducing "age-appropriate" sex education to students regardless of the parent's objections, and vaccinating kids without parental consent. There is a growing presence in the private lives of families by school entities who say they have your child's best interests at heart - but are they taking it too far?

In cases of true neglect, I would hope someone would intervene. Moldy sandwiches (or no lunch at all), bruises and other forms of negligent parenting should raise flags with school officials. But I think this is going to extremes, and makes you wonder what kinds of guidelines the state uses to determine what's healthy and what isn't.

And now on to the birthday treats - this one is kind of sad. Right up there with "holiday" celebrations instead of "Christmas," it sounds like they're trying to take every last ounce of fun out of elementary school and turn it into some kind of boot camp.

Thankfully my son's school hasn't gone this far yet, and I would argue that for the most part parents can exercise common sense in this department. It's hard, though, when so many kids have peanut allergies - peanut products are banned in the classroom because they have snack there, but allergic kids are at their own lunchtime table, which makes things a bit easier. It's also hard, though, when one kid will eat something and the other won't, and you begin to run out of healthy ideas after awhile that comply with everyone's needs. If the state were coming in to complain I'm not sure what I'd do - tell them to do the grocery shopping, maybe...

Although I will say this: because my children's school doesn't have regular cafeteria staff, they serve a "hot lunch" to the kids once a month - with parent volunteers making and serving the food. The person that coordinates the menu does a great job, but when it comes to the dessert portion that parents bring in themselves, it's pretty disgusting. Again, it's hard to find something that is reasonable and yet something they will actually eat - my banana muffins usually go untouched, I'm sure. But cupcakes laden with frosting three inches high is not my idea of healthy. On one hand, you have to let them have their fun, and figure it's one cupcake - it won't kill them. If they eat like that all the time at home, though, that's their business - what are you going to do about it? Surely the school could make suggestions and guidelines - reasonable ones - that help everyone without making it sound like the Food Police is going to show up and arrest you.

One friend has said her daughter's school has already banned birthday treats in favor of toys - which could get ridiculously expensive depending on how many kids are in your child's class. In order to cut costs, the Dollar Store is a great option - for cheap, frustrating toys that break before the bell rings and thus are a complete waste of money. Wonderful - more crap they don't need that breaks easily. I'd rather they have the cupcake!

What next? Will they decide you're an unfit parent because of the lunch you pack, following you home and inspecting your residence? What if you refuse vaccines - will they report you to CPS? You may think home schooling is an option, which many people do in response to things like this - but what if it no longer is? In a handful of countries around the globe, homeschooling is illegal - with "rare exceptions." Can you see how we could be heading down a slippery slope? Are we simply going where they've already been?

Some parents don't know any better - some don't care, and some think that in moderation, it's perfectly acceptable. And it's hard to know what to buy when things that are labeled "healthy" and "natural" are anything but. What do you do?

Another scary trend is to ban recess - which sounds unreal to me. Trapped in a classroom all day, with no chance for exercise - even adult employees are entitled to two 15-minute breaks during the day, depending on the length of their shift. Why not kids? Do we really expect them to sit quietly all day and diligently perform with no breaks, just so we can improve test scores? Or because we're afraid of lawsuits when kids get hurt on the playground?

Running at recess was banned last year in Broward County, Fla. In October, officials at an elementary school south of Boston banned tag and touch football. Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Spokane banned tag during recess. And this past summer, Portland public schools eliminated swings from their playgrounds, along with merry-go-rounds, tube slides, track rides, arch climbers and teeter-totters.

How else are you going to work off all those chicken nuggets the school is serving?

Study: 'Start Obesity Prevention in the Cradle'

America is obsessed with weight. That's not much of a surprise. We're either too thin or too fat, but either way, we're a nation obsessed.

Recently American doctors released a new study that determined the following:

The "critical period for preventing childhood obesity" in the children observed in the study would have been in "the first two years of life and for many by three months of age," said the study, published in Clinical Pediatrics.

Wait a minute. Three months of age?

I have a problem with this study (LOL I said that about the last one!) - unless you're one of those rare moms (or dads) who is feeding your baby pureed pork rinds, at three months most babies are not even on solid foods yet. They are either completely breastfed or on formula (or a combination of the two). The study found that a quarter of the kids in the study had a weight problem 'at or before three months of age.'

I see visions of growth charts dancing in my head...growth percentiles that mean nothing, basically. Most pediatricians will tell you that the charts don't mean a whole lot (at least mine does) and that "Every baby is different!" And even more parents will tell you that their child was a huge chub at 6 months old and is skinny as a beanpole now as a grade schooler.

There are so many things this study (or at least the article) didn't even mention: the eating habits of the parents or family, exercise or activity level and genetic make up of the parents, namely. And an April 2009 study done by the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention at Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Children's Hospital Boston, found that: 

"The mounting evidence suggests that infancy may be a critical period during which to prevent childhood obesity and its related consequences." 

How, exactly, can you prevent obesity in a three-month-old? Refuse to nurse him? Withhold that extra jar of peas? Give me a freaking break.

The Harvard-based group found data from another study that had this to say:

"Take for example two infants with the same birth weight who, after six months, weigh 7.7 kg (16.9 pounds) and 8.4 kg (18.4 pounds), a 0.7 kg (1.5 pounds) difference. According to study estimates, the heavier of these two infants would have a 40% higher risk of obesity at age 3 (after adjusting for potential confounders). (My emphasis) 

Really? Wow. Read on:

While this study confirms earlier ones examining the relation between infancy and childhood weight, there were certain limitations. For example, the researchers weren't able to examine social and behavioral interactions around feeding between parents and infants. And while families in the study represented various ethnic backgrounds, they were fairly homogeneous socioeconomically, so there may be some question regarding how widely the results can be generalized.

This admission alone tells me that this research is somewhat flawed. Like, what are the eating habits of the parents? Do they emphasize good nutrition in their youngsters, or do they have a pantry full of juice boxes, kid sized vienna sausages and macaroni and cheese on standby 24/7? Do they come from cultures where more fattening foods are the norm, or are they vegetarians? Do they have the finances to eat strictly organic (which is, by and large more expensive than convenience foods) or do they have a lifestyle that often necessitates 'eating on the run,' where nutritious meals might be harder to come by? Basically their findings tell me nothing, other than babies who weigh the same at birth aren't necessarily going to weigh the same when they're three. I wonder how much money their study spent to come to that stunning conclusion?

Some mention 'missed satiety cues,' basically meaning some parents are overfeeding their babies and causing weight gain because they can't tell when their baby is full. Well, maybe, but I'm not sure I buy that, either. Infants, unlike adults, will not eat when they're not hungry (at least none of my three would). They don't have the 'clean plate club' mentality at three months old, and you can offer the breast, bottle or 20 jars of baby food and they're not going to eat it if they're not hungry. Whether they turn their heads or push it away with the wave of a chubby hand, they'll refuse it. Too much formula or breastmilk? I'll bite the nipple (or your nipple!) mom, to tell you I'm not interested. Or barf it all back up on you. How can you miss that?

The words 'breastmilk' or 'formula' don't show up anywhere in the article, either. So we aren't told what kind of diet these kids had, if you could even call it that, since most experts tell us it's better to delay introducing solids until six months or older. And studies have also shown that breastfed infants are usually thinner than their formula-fed counterparts.

The study goes on to say that things like appropriate weight gain in pregnancy are factors to consider, but they are still trying to understand some of their findings. Interestingly enough, pregnant women are generally heavier than they were say, 30 years ago, when women often dieted heavily in order to prevent having 'large' babies, which not only produced smaller babies, but did potential harm to them. Can we achieve a common middle ground here? What's too much? What isn't enough?

With the emphasis already placed on the pressure to be thin in our culture, I find these kinds of studies more harmful than helpful. The White House is 'cracking down' on obesity, especially in children, and the Obama girls have been placed under a microscope for being called 'chubby' by their parents (as if they aren't under one already just by virtue of being the First Family). I fear that studies like this will serve to scare parents who want desperately to be the best parents they can be by feeding them (no pun intended) questionable data or just plain misinformation that has no clear result or solution.

More interesting information can be found here:
http://www.kellymom.com/babyconcerns/growth/growthcharts.html Average growth patterns of breastfed babies, including comprehensive growth charts that compare boys and girls, according to both CDC and World Health Organization data

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098 Baby Denied Health Coverage Because of A Pre-existing Condition: Obesity

From the article:

"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is just something absurd about denying an infant."

Because his dad's a news anchor, you can bet that had something - everything - to do with this story being picked up the national news media. And the insurance company, when pressured, reversed their stance. Imagine that.