Historical, social, economic, and
political instigators for this policy
According to GAO’s research findings, there
school canteens had been serving the school children with unhealthy foods. The research established that 99% high
schools, 97% middle schools and 83% elementary schools were equipped with
vending machines that helped in the distribution of junk food. The vending
machines mainly supplied soft and sport drinks, salty snacks, high fat baked
goods and salty snacks. It was further
observed that the presence of these vending machines and other food outlets
undermined the government inanities. The federal government has an annual
budget of up to 8.5 billion dollars dedicated for the school feeding program.
The program only bore some notable results in the period of 1992-1998 (Dobson
& Knightly, 2010).
Obesity
is a top killer disease in America. In itself, it may not be fatal but it comes
with so many other related conditions that are very fatal. This would include
hypertension, diabetes, some forms of cancer and even heart attacks (Oliver,
2006). The
junk that was being served in the schools was one of the main causes of
obesity. Government was concerned and so were parents and this was what fueled
the need for reforming of policy. Prior to the establishment of the act, it was
realized that the restrictions that were present on the schools as far as selling
of Junk was concerned were very minimal and the legislation guiding it had not
been amended for over thirty years although the situations had significantly
changed by then . One of the main loopholes is that while the law prohibited
the sale of certain foods on campus, it did not prohibit selling of the same
food stuffs just outside the gate of the school.
Who supported the policy?
The policy enjoyed support from a wide range
of organizations. Many of the people were attached personally to the bill since
many citizens were parents who were concerned for the health of their
kids. The U.S congress not only
initiated the bill but helped a great deal in the adoption and implementation
of the bill. One of the organizations that were very instrumental in the
adoption of the bill was govtrack.
Which
party democrats or republican supported this policy?
The
child
Nutrition promotion and school Lunch protection enjoyed support across the
political divide although the democrats were the most vocal about the adoption
and the speedy implementation of the bill. The democrats went as far as arguing
that the bill will in fact result in economic growth if adopted.
Choice
Analysis
The federal
government has an annual budget of up to 8.5 billion dollars dedicated for the
school feeding program. The policy is desirable as it is a reflection of the
best feeding habits for the school going children. It will help in fostering
good health not only in the short term but also in the long term. The
availability of healthy foods and drinks at the schools is important as it will
instill some lifelong lessons about good eating habits in the children (Martin
& Oakley, 2007).
This goal will be
realize with the partnership of the school food professionals with the parents,
the teachers and the community as a whole. In the light of the state-nation
conflict, it is imperative that the federal government preempts the estate
government in case of future arising conflict. National nutrient standards will
reflect what is best for children's present and future health (Michelle, & Fried, 2009).
Logic analysis
The US institute
of Medicine (2007) observed that the child Nutrition Promotion and school Lunch
protection act was geared at improving not only the nutrition but also the long
term health of the students. The policy
was also implemented with the goal of providing enough food for the children.
This was especially necessary due to the different home backgrounds of the
children. From a psychological point of view, the feeding program would help
the children to eat together which would go along way in helping them develop
life skills as they socialize.
Although this
and many other advantages have bee realized by the bill, it has also led to
some undesirable results. Some people now warn that the program is having a
negative toll on the learning process. A lot of resource in monetary as well as
time value is being spent on the program. This would otherwise be diverted to
the education of the children. The program’s success is also dependant on the
family habits of the individual children. The feeding program may serve food
that is healthy while a certain child gets exposed to unhealthy food in his/her
home.
Recommendations
The
success of the program is not dependant on the school administration or on the
e federal government. The society is the wheels that will drive the needed
reform. It would be retrogressive if the society remains permissible to the
unhealthy foodstuffs while the government tries to serve the children healthy
food. Parents are encouraged to model to their children the importance of
healthy foods by serving healthy food at their dining tables.
There
also needs to be a clear-cut clarification of the preemption of the
legislation. In the event that the state makes a legislation that contravenes the
federal policy, then the state law should be preempted by the federal law. This
will help in dealing with any future conflicts in legislation that could arise.
Finally, the program is to be commended as it gives many of the school children
an equal chance to learn comfortably irrespective of their background. It
creates a sense of being similar to the other kids which goes a long way in
boosting the self esteem of the different children. The policy should remain
that way as it also ensures the health of the children.
References
Institute
of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools
(2007).
Nutrition
standards for foods in schools: leading the way toward healthier youth.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Dobson, A. & Knightly, M.
(2010). Child Nutrition Promotion and
School Lunch Protection Act. Retrieved
15th November, 2010 from http://harkin.senate.gov/documents/pdf/schoolfood.pdf
Oliver, E. (2006). Fat Politics:
the real story behind America's obesity
epidemic. London: Oxford
university press
Martin,
J. & Oakley, C. (2007). Managing
child nutrition programs: leadership for excellence
(2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones
& Bartlett Learning.
Michelle, S. & Fried, E. (2009) State Laws on School Vending: The
Need for a Public Health Approach
No comments:
Post a Comment