The trouble with the Food Police | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Hood Richardson recently wrote a column here about a presentation that was made at a recent County Commissioner's meeting. Essentially what the article reported was the approval which was sought and obtained by a representative of the Beaufort County Health Department to accept a grant to provide nutrition education to elementary school children at selected schools in Beaufort County. The Health Department will buy copyrighted materials and use those materials to teach students better nutrition.

    The article Hood wrote questioned whether this grant was yet another case of the camel getting his nose under the tent in a well-intentioned activity but, as is so often the case, that will eventually lead to negative unintended consequences. One example he used was the recent Hoke County case where a "nutritionist" was reported to have inspected a child's "brought-from-home-lunch bag" and when the "inspector" determined the meal to be deficient, required the child to eat a "Type A" meal issued by the school cafeteria. The mother of the student went ballistic. The case mushroomed such that members of the Legislature introduced bills to put a stop to what one called the "Food Police" and another characterized it as a "Nutrition Gestapo."

    Hood's concern was not with the idea of teaching young children good nutrition--he and his wife are the custodians of an 8-year old--nor with the grant/program per se. His expressed concern was government intrusion into what he, and I, deem to be a parental responsibility. Of course, how that turns out remains to be seen.

    I believe he has a good point.

    But to his concern about governmental encroachment on parental rights, we would suggest that from the information given about the grant in the presentation, it is yet another wasteful boondoggle. Here's why we say that.

    I would bet that this grant will not make an ounce of difference over the long haul (3-5 years). In other words it lack efficacy. The only possible utility we can imagine this project would have, other than enriching some publishers' pocketbooks and sustaining another useless bureaucrat position, would be as a field test of either materials or methods for improving elementary students' nutrition.

    First, the very limited scope of this project will be like using a coffee cup to try to drain a swimming pool. Or, to put it another way, it is like trying to paint a ten-story building with one can of spray paint. All you're likely to see after its done is graffiti. We were dismayed listening to the description of the project that there were no measurable goals identified. There was no research design sufficient to allow the relative effectiveness of this project to be assessed. They did not mention what the weight gain goals will be, or how they are going to measure the result of the kids' nutrition. No mention of how to control for natural maturation weight gain versus malnutrition weight gain. For the money involved we doubt they use the BMI index to compare the kids who get the "treatment" to those who do not. There was even no mention of any solid "needs assessment" that identified what is already being done in nutrition education or even how the school/students were to be identified. We understand the school system already has a nutrition education program. How is this project going to replace or improve upon what is being done? If this program is better than what is being done, why continue with the current program?

    Now in fairness, they may have a solid research design but just did not disclose it in the presentation to the Commissioners. But that would be equally troubling if they believe there is no need to be sure the governing body knows what results are expected.

    I would even suggest that these nutrition experts might rather consider using this money to give prizes--video games might do--to the kids who had the best BMI change after a year or so. No, scratch that, most kids we know are still going to eat more ice cream, chips and cookies than broccoli and tofu. And that holds true even when they know better.

    In short, the project--as explain to the Commissioners--is a very shoddy design. But what the heck. This board is very experienced at throwing money at numerous "needs" without having any research to back up either the need or the results the money is expected to achieve. No doubt the Gang of Five would have given them even more money if they had argued that the project will "save or create jobs."

    No, I suspect we know exactly what's going on here. Somebody (probably traceable back to one Michelle Obama) got some bureaucrats or politicians to agree that "we need to do something about obese children..." and they threw some money at it. By the time it trickled down to Beaufort County there was not enough to do much more than a can of paint would do on that building. But none of these bureaucrats would dare turn down a grant. So they'll blow this piddling amount of money and learn that children's nutrition did not improve any more than that building got painted. So you know the gig. They'll ask for more money. And that kabuki dance will be repeated as long as the money flows. Then when the money runs out the program will disappear leaving even less than that paint on that building and nothing of any significance will have come from it all. That is, if we are lucky. All the harm will be a few thousand dollars of taxpayer money.

    At the heart of this issue is the simple fact that this project and the program it will spawn is nothing more than another failed liberal experiment in social engineering. It is based on an arrogant, condescending attitude of Elitism. What is repulsive about it to me is the assumption these people make that they are better to tell parents what their children should or should not eat, and indeed probably raise their children. "But too many children are obese!" they contend. To which, I would simply reply: "so what?" Where do you get off thinking you should pass judgment on them? To illustrate, imagine someone walking up to you in Wal-Mart and saying: "you need to lose weight!" What would you say to them or think about them? Maybe it is true, but who are they to pass judgment on you and your weight? Who are they to try to tell you how to raise your children? They are liberals of the worst short. This program is rooted in liberal elitism. The next thing you know they'll be trying to tell your children they really need to be sure to use condoms and accept homosexuality as normal.

    This program strikes me as just another example of those "great ideas" that once generated someone decides the schools need to adapt their curriculum to promote the idea. North Carolina has traditionally used a state-prescribed curriculum and spends tons of money deciding what should be included, when it will be taught, how it will be taught and tested and then trains teachers to implement the "Common Core" or previously the Standard Course of Study. Then, for a few thousand dollars they junk all that and insert something different and expect teachers to pull it off and still teach all the other stuff that was originally mandated. Teachers should vigorously resist such tampering with the curriculum. And certainly the school administrators and school boards should insist on validity and reliability standards before inserting such "great ideas" into an already overburdened program of studies. As we speak they are doing the exact same prostitution of the scope and sequence of the curriculum with this garbage of teaching "tolerance and acceptance" to prevent bullying. Hogwash!

    Which is worse: bullying or obesity? Safe sex maybe.

    Hood's got a point. What is likely is that before the money runs out these self-serving grant chasers will conclude that what is really needed is not teaching kids to make wiser food choices but that we need some policies, regulations or laws to insure that those choices are made correctly. And at that point some board will usurp parental rights and responsibilities in the name of "protecting the chillrin" and adopt some more rules and regulations.

    Follow us here, please. The issue here is not whether children should be educated to eat nutritiously. I grant that. And the issue is not whether there is a problem, however serious it may be, of too many malnourished children in this nation and county. I'll grant that. Rather, the two issues Hood identified are what this is all about. The first issue is how effective the use of this money will ultimately be in the whole scheme of things and the second issue is how Americans have become so conditioned to the idea that the GOVERNMENT is so much better at making our decisions for us that we can't be allowed to make our own decisions or the decisions about what is best for our children.

    To put it more succinctly, the real issue here is: "Who makes the best decisions?" And we would respectfully suggest that the people employed to administer this grant are, if typical, not any better at making parental decisions than most parents are. Better than some parents, to be sure, but not as good as many others.

    Some liberals will whine..."some parents don't' make good decisions for their children..." To which we will agree. But I, as did Hood, will suggest that government bureaucrats don't have any better track record a solving real problems than even the weakest of parents.

    If this program goes as most go, a few months from now there will be a report given that exhibits a whole host of activities that were carried out by the consumers of these grant funds and they will tell us how great it was. But toward the end of the report they will allow as to how "much more needs to be done" and to do that they need the County to pick up a greater share of the cost of this program as the grant funds are reduced and if we really want healthier children we need to spend even more money.

    But if this goes as most such grants go, what we will learn is the problem was not solved, but indeed it is now worse than ever.

    So when all is said and done, much more will be said than done. Except, as Hood fears, we are left with another layer of bureaucrats and regulations for them to administer in order to justify the additional load they put on the beleaguered taxpayers.

    And around and around we will go, again.

    Who will remember to tell Hood that "you were right back in the summer of 2012."

    But fair warning. If they come back asking the taxpayers to pony-up more money to buy uniforms and badges, or even weapons, for the Food Police then we are going to go ballistic ourselves like the mother in Hoke County did when they searched her daughter's lunch bag.

    Bless us and save us...for we know not what we do unto ourselves.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Veteran outside-the-beltline GOP leader expresses concern over NCGOP's election tactics Teacher's Desk, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Republicans Outraising Democrats in North Carolina Races

HbAD0

 
Back to Top