sites.stedwards.edusites.stedwards.edu/.../files/2013/04/caps-paper-2-28af… · web viewdaily...
Post on 07-Feb-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Friedeberg 1
David Friedeberg
Professor Joseph O'Neal
A-CAPS 4360.04 Moral Issues in Society
18 March 2013
Should the government reformulate and provide stricter
guidelines for the nutritional content of school lunches?
Obesity has become an important issue that is threatening the United States in more
ways than one. Not only are people getting fatter every day, and therefore hurting their own
health, but they have also become a disastrous economic drain for the country and its
citizens. Our children have become accustomed to this, and they are already heading down
this same path; eating junk and being overweight is now becoming the standard. The
question is whether we can help steer clear the next generation by compelling children to
eat healthy at school by providing government funded nutritious lunches. While this seems
like an easy fix for the problem, it is not as there are many obstacles and issues with doing
so. The question to be answered is whether the government should reformulate and provide
stricter guidelines for the nutritional content of school lunches?
The scope of this research paper goes as far as to deal specifically with action on the
part of the United States federal government with the public schools in its jurisdiction.
Obesity is the key term in this dilemma, and whether it can actually be effectively reduced
by providing healthy school lunches paid the taxpayers. Diane Schanzenbach, professor at
the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, defines child obesity as a “body
Friedeberg 2
mass index (BMI, the ration of the weight in kg to height in meters squared) that surpasses
the 95th percentile of a fixed distribution for a child’s age and gender.” Schanzenbach
mentions that the cutoff for elementary school age students is a BMI of 20, although
according to freelance writer Barbara Mantel, BMI scores are interpreted differently in
children because the amount of fat changes with age and is different between boys and
girls. At the time this paper was written the Journal of the American Medical Association
estimates that 16.9% of children are obese, and according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, “in 2010 more than one third of the children and adolescents were
overweight”. This paper will deal strictly with the issues of the federal government funding
and reformulating stricter guidelines in regards to school lunches, it will not deal with
preventing obesity in general or deal with obesity in private schools or caused from other
factors such as genetics. By limiting the scope to include only the benefits or harms caused
by regulating foods in schools, we will be able to conceive a much more precise decision
on whether it should be done.
The government is already starting to make changes to legislation in order to
provide these stricter guidelines. Recently a school breakfast might have consisted of an
“Apple Jacks cereal topped with strawberry flavored milk, a Pop-Tart, a pack of Goldfish,
and a carton of orange juice”, in which according to former Washington Post Reporter Ed
Bruske, children were consuming the equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar before the start of
classes (Mantel). Following the passage of the Healthy Schools Act in 2010, children may
now instead have choices including organic yogurt, cottage cheese and low-sugar cereal
(Mantel). This can make a big difference, since according to The Official Journal of the
British Dietetic Association, school lunches contribute approximately one third of a child’s
Friedeberg 3
daily nutrient intake (McCarthy, et al.). But while these products may be available at some
schools in the country, it is still not available in most, and will probably not be available
unless the government decides that controlling school lunch nutrition is actually the correct
step to take.
The history of obesity begins hundreds of years ago and its causes have changed,
but it was not until the 1960s-1990s that real concern started to form. In 1966 the Child
Nutrition Act required the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop nutrition
regulations for school meals. The global obesity epidemic was declared when in 1974 it
was discovered that 5% of U.S children were obese, and in 1980 that 15% of U.S. adults
were obese (Mantel). Shortly after in 1986 the International Association for the Study of
Obesity was founded, and by 1990 all packaged food labels in the U.S. were required to list
nutrition information (Mantel). In the mid-1980s, one of the first health food movements
and a major party to the current controversy was founded by young Italian leftists who
appreciated their country’s regional cooking and were opposing the placement of the first
McDonald’s in Rome (Glazer). This group, now called the Slow Food Movement, evolved
into an international movement with followers in more than 140 countries (Glazer). Even
though scientific breakthroughs emerge such as the discovery of leptin, the hormone made
by fat tissue that helps regulate weight by American molecular geneticist Jeffery Friedman,
by 1994, 10% of U.S. children were obese (Mantel). As anti-obesity drugs such as Fen-
Phen are released, and then quickly banned due to side effects such as death, in 1998 the
World Health Organization identifies the obesity epidemic, and in 2000 the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 19.8% of adults were obese (Mantel).
This same year, the U.S. Government set a goal to reduce childhood obesity to 5% by 2010,
Friedeberg 4
and Slow Food USA is founded in New York, at which time Americans spend half their
food dollars on restaurants (Mantel, Glazer). Just a few years after that, childhood obesity
reached 17.1% as the American Cancer Society linked excess bodyweight to increased risk
of death from cancer (Mantel). In 2006, the Slow Food international conference in Turin,
Italy draws 8,000 delegates and 100,000 visitors to tasting halls (Glazer). By 2010 the CDC
declared childhood obesity rates stable, while 26.7% of American adults were declared
obese; at this time the White House Task Force set goal of eliminating childhood obesity in
a generation (Mantel).
The parties to the controversy are composed of a very broad spectrum of people and
organizations. In favor the stricter guidelines are the clear intentions of the U.S.
government, the White House Task Force, and now in particular the Office of the First
Lady Michelle Obama who in 2010 launched Let’s Move!, a campaign to tackle childhood
obesity (The White House). There are also numerous foundations and advocacy groups in
favor, such as the Slow food Movement, Whole Kids Foundation, Let’s Move Salad Bars to
Schools, Healthy Schools Campaign, Food Alliance, The Lunch Box Project, Farm to
School, and Yum-O, Rachel Ray’s foundation who has featured other childhood nutrition
supporters such as Bill Clinton (Rachael Ray's Non-profit Organization Yum-o!). On the
individual level interested parties include millions of children who could benefit from
receiving healthy food at school which would improve their nutrition, and help live a
healthier life. Also to benefit are all of the U.S. taxpayers who are burdened will increasing
healthcare costs, and higher taxes to pay for obesity related healthcare. In addition to these,
the affected parties may even include the public and the environment who is affected by the
different farming practices. On the other side of the issue, children themselves may be
Friedeberg 5
affected as their liberties are taken away as they are forced to consume food they do not
like while their delicious snicker doodles and pizzas vanish. On this side of the issue we
also find U.S. taxpayers who have to pay for the tens of millions of meals served every day
in schools, of which costs will only dramatically rise if healthier foods or even organic
foods replace the current food offerings. Parents may also be affected as their kids may
become accustomed to eating only fresh and organic foods, and therefore start demanding
them at home where parents would have to start buying the much more costly organic
foods; this can be a big problem as some parents can already barely afford non-organic food
as it is. Lastly, pharmaceutical companies and certain doctors would also be affected in the
long run if obesity related healthcare, which is currently in the hundreds of billions of
annual dollars starts decreasing. Many companies who concentrate on obesity related
healthcare products could greatly lose sales; this would personally hurt me as one of my
family’s business in Mexico is Laboratorios Silanes, a pharmaceutical company that
concentrates on producing diabetes related medications I will not mention food
manufacturers and suppliers as an interested party as they are experts at adapting their
products to what the public wants, and the change of health requirements would simply be
another regular change cycle for them. This can be seen in companies such as Lays who is
now offering healthier baked chips, Domino’s pizza who now offers whole wheat crust and
semi- natural ingredients or at least healthier options, and HEB who is now expanding their
organic and health foods section.
The primary issue with improving nutrition at schools is cost. Mantel mentions that
the National School Lunch Program serves low-cost or free meals to more than 30 million
children, and the School Breakfast Program to more than 10 million children per school
Friedeberg 6
day. At an average of 180 school days per year, this comes out to 7.2 billion meals per year.
Mary Clare Jalonick, a writer for the Huffington Post, mentions that New York Senator
Kirsten Gilibrand stated that the government needs to increase funding by $0.70 per child
in order to fund a healthier national school lunch program. Gilibrand is mentions that this
would cost $4 billion per year, not to mention the costs associated with installing new
kitchen equipment and training cafeteria workers in every school (Mantel, Jalonick). The
amount of funding required for these programs is very high, and some people believe the
money would be better spent in many other sectors or programs. The other issue against it
deals with children’s spaces and their freedom of choice. By stocking the schools full of
organic foods, children will be forced to change their eating habits as they will no longer be
allowed to make the choice to eat pizza or not. This infringement of freedom of choice is a
very serious one as many children take much pleasure in spending school lunches eating the
foods they enjoy while having quality time with their friends. If children start being limited
to eat certain things, what else will come in the future in terms of limiting?
On the other hand, the costs of obesity must also be assessed and taken into
consideration. The Harvard School of Public Health mentions that there are both direct
costs, such as those resulting from outpatient and inpatient health services, tests and drug
therapy, along with indirect costs such as the value of lost work due to days missed from
work, higher insurance premiums, and even wages as studies have shown that obesity is
associated with a lower household income (Colditz). While the indirect costs are impossible
to accurately measure, the direct costs of obesity can be easily pinpointed. The CDC states
that in 2008 the costs of obesity totaled about $147 billion for that year; a number over 36
times larger than the cost of implementing a healthy school lunch program that may begin
Friedeberg 7
to reduce these numbers.
After mentioning all of the bad things increasing nutrition in schools would prevent,
it is also important to list the benefits kids receive by eating these nutritious foods. There
are many reasons kids should eat healthy and organic foods, and one of the primary reasons
are the nutritional benefits. A review of more than 400 scientific papers found evidence that
organic foods have higher levels of vitamin C, minerals and important trace elements which
are key to a child’s health (Glazer). A three year study also found a link between the whole
organic farming system and higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids in organic milk, which are
necessary for human health as our bodies can’t make them (University of Maryland
Medical Center). The University of Maryland Medical Center states that Omega-3 fatty
acids play a crucial role in brain function, as well as growth and development along with
memory, brain performance and behavioral functions; something that is obviously critically
important with kids. In fact, it is known that when infants do not get enough Omega-3 fatty
acids from their mother during pregnancy are at risk for developing brain function, nerve
and vision problems (University of Maryland Medical Center). Research also shows that
Omega-3 fatty acids can help reduce chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer, and
may also lower high cholesterol, high blood pressure, lower triglycerides and appoproteins
(both markers of diabetes), help prevent arthritis, reduce symptoms of lupus, increase levels
of calcium which will improve bone strength, and even help treat depression, bipolar
disorder, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma and even cancer
(University of Maryland Medical Center). Convinced switching children to organic milk is
worth the pennies?
Friedeberg 8
The other parties who are affected and I have not mentioned are the public, and the
environment. Natural and organic farms that grow or create the healthy foods advocated are
usually full of wildlife and different species which are attracted to the farms. These animals
can live and flourish in these areas because everything is pollutant free, and so they can
continue keeping a balance in the ecosystems of the world. I even know of a natural foie
gras farm in Spain where there is so much natural food and diversity, that ducks simply
land in the farm and stay there to live a great quality of live. Foie gras is usually
stigmatized because usually it involved force feeding ducks, and it is a very painful and
inhumane process, but in this case the ducks simply eat as they wish in their new home and
some of the world’s best foie gras is created, all in a humane and natural manner. In cases
where the animals do not simply flock to the grounds, they are still kept to the highest
animal welfare standards, and these animals can actually live their lives as they are meant
to before they are consumed; this includes cramped living, feeding them foods they are not
meant to consume which may cause disease or even force feeding as I mentioned above.
These farms also use minimal if any pesticides and pollutants, so the environment is
unaffected and no new pollution is created. A traditional factory that makes sugary cereals
or sodas will probably be very polluting and will most likely not care as much as natural
farms do about the environment and their employees.
The other side of the argument relating to how nutritious some of these foods are, in
particular organic foods is based on other work that suggests that the higher level of
vitamins, minerals and other trace elements is not conclusive because some findings are
contradictory (Glazer). Rob Lyons, assistant editor and health writer says this is because
“crop varietal, local growing conditions, cooking method, and freshness are all likely to
Friedeberg 9
have a much greater effect on our food than whether manmade fertilizers or pesticides were
applied to it” (Glazer). It also seems that very often many diseases or maladies are said to
be linked to a bad diet, but often these cannot be properly grounded. Blaming stress on
being overweight is one example even though “it is not always clear whether stress leads to
overweight or whether being overweight leads to stress” (Gundersen). Another issue is that
sometimes alternative lunches such as brown-bag lunches, something people think is
healthier, what lunches should become and be based on, and what kids should be eating
instead of school lunches, end up being unhealthier than school lunches. A comparison
study found that brown bag lunches can contain an average of more than twice the fat, 30%
more sodium, and 20% more saturated fat over regular school lunches (Rees, Richards, and
Gregory).
The values on the side which would like to see this reform include health, life,
generosity and charity, wisdom and education, and money. There is absolutely no question
that eating unhealthy and being obese leads to many serious health issues including
diabetes, hypertension, and many heart related problems which greatly increase the chance
of death; over 300,000 Americans die each year from obesity related diseases (Greenblatt).
After health and life, most people are concerned with money and wealth. These values can
be violated either if you are someone who is or will be obese, or even if you are healthy
yourself. Average annualized costs of being obese including value of lost life are $8,365 for
obese women and $6,518 for obese men (Dor, Ferguson, Langwith and Tan). Also, as
previously mentioned, obesity is directly associated with lower wages and ultimately a
lower household income which is the most direct way to directly affect a person’s personal
wealth and violate this value of money. If you are healthy and do not fit into that category
Friedeberg 10
your monetary values will still be violated by forcing you to pay higher taxes in order to
help pay for obesity related healthcare costs. Accordingly Michael F. Jacobson, founder and
executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest comments that “To do
nothing — while sugary drinks [or other unhealthy foods] fuel an epidemic of obesity and
other expensive diseases — would be reckless from a public health and a fiscal standpoint”
(Clemmitt). Other important values that must be considered are charity and generosity.
Even though some people might argue that it’s a lot of work or its too expensive to increase
the nutrition in schools, for those who value charity and generosity it will be a lot more
important to try to make a difference. People who value this do not mind paying more or
doing some work in order to help other people, plus let’s not forget these other people are
your and my kids who will be the leaders of tomorrow. We must give them at least the same
chance we were given even if it will be more expensive; and do not forget, who’s going to
take care of you if your kids are disables or die at the age of 30 from diabetes or heart
disease? Moving forward we can focus on the values of wisdom and education. One of the
major problems with obesity in children is also that they are simply not educated, and do
not know what is healthy for them and why they should be eating those things and not junk
food. People who value education and wisdom are proud to know what is healthy, and will
also want other people, especially their kids, to receive this education and have this
knowledge. Education and wisdom are values that can often be hard to acquire, and
especially so if a person is ignorant or unaware about the topic and its importance. We see
this with kids and nutrition very clearly. I am a rather fit person of decent size [I say this in
a good way], and people can notice I eat healthy and go to the gym without asking, so I
often get questions about how to get fit, and a lot of these questions refer to nutrition. From
these personal experiences I have noticed that a huge amount of grown adults do not even
Friedeberg 11
know where to start or what they should eat in order to be healthy. These are smart [mostly]
and educated adults who you think would know and value health education, but they simply
do not know and are clueless about what to do. Now considering this, think about how
much a child 1/3 or 1/4 the age of one of these adults will know about nutrition and being
healthy. They will know bananas.
On the other side, by reforming the school lunch programs the values of freedom of
choice, individual sovereignty, money, comfort, tolerance, and individuality are being
conflicted. Children should be allowed freedom of choice on what they can eat, and their
individual sovereignty should be respected. These values are as important as the freedom of
speech, we value the freedom to say whatever we want, speak our mind and do whatever
we want within legal reason, and this should extend to what our children are allowed to eat.
If a child chooses to eat healthy, he could very well bring a brown bag lunch form home
with what he pleases, but he should not be infringed upon. The value of tolerance can be
summed up by what Katherine Mangu-Ward, Managing Editor of Reason Magazine states;
the “main reason government shouldn't fiddle with our drink orders [government limitation
of sugar consumption] is one that those guys who once dumped tea in the Boston Harbor
would understand: People should be free to make their own choices and their own mistakes.
People engage in all kinds of ‘unhealthy’ behaviors like eating jellybeans and ‘forgetting’ to
floss. Some of those behaviors cost taxpayers money and some do not, but just because
something is a terrible idea doesn't mean it is the business of the state to advise against,
restrict, tax or otherwise limit it” (Clemmitt). The value of individuality is also linked to
those of freedom of choice and individual sovereignty. People value their right to choose
who they want to be, and this includes what they want to eat, what lifestyle they want to
Friedeberg 12
pursue, and how they want to physically look; all which can be traced back to how people
eat, and how these choices were made from the time they were children in school. On the
conflicting value of money and wealth, we see the extra $4 billion dollars required to pay
for these healthy lunches. This money has to come from the taxes we as citizens pay, and
people might not believe that they should be paying for kids to be eating organic while they
do not care about this issue, or they cannot even afford to feed themselves properly, let
alone with organic foods. Money is and had always been one of the most important values
to people, and many will place this in top of many of the values listed on the opposing side,
including health and the possibility of loss of life down the road. Cash in king and many
people prefer to be happy eating food which they think tastes better, and which they are
used to, over spending more valuable money on what they might think is useless healthy
food. This leads me to the value of comfort. Many people are already used to eating certain
foods, and this includes children. They are used to eating pizza and ice cream and are
comfortable doing so. When they are forced to eat foods foreign to them, they may simply
be very uncomfortable; especially in a school environment where they feel like they are
being watched by other kids, and might actually be made fun of for eating certain things.
By eating the same foods they grew up with, kids will stay in their comfort zone which
should be respected. People do call it comfort food for a reasons after all.
On the pro-reform side, the obligations are primarily to the kids who would be the
most influenced by the reform. There also exist an obligation to the rest of the United
States, and all of the taxpayers who are contributing to pay for obesity related expenses,
and are being affected by rising healthcare costs. On the opposing side, the conflicting
obligations are to the children whose lunch, and freedom of choice would be affected, along
Friedeberg 13
with the United States taxpayers who would have to pay for the premium price of the
healthier foods.
As we can see, the obligations in this dilemma are conflicting. Both sides of the
issue have obligations to children, and to tax payers. The obligations to the children on side
is to their health and life, and on the opposing side to their freedom of choice. Personally I
value health and life way above freedom of choice, so I believe the more important
obligation is to keep children healthy and alive. There is no value in freedom of choice if
you’re dead, and there is not much of a value in it both if you have lost limbs due to
diabetes and are chained to an insulin needle and a glucometer. In some cases the person
would lose all of the values; health by becoming obese and getting diabetes, freedom of
choice by not being able to eat everything they want because of the diabetes, and eventually
death because of the diabetes or further complications leading to heart disease. The second
obligation also conflicts with the United States taxpayer’s interests. Both sides seem to
inquire costs and potentially save money, but the potential savings from reducing obesity
related healthcare costs is many times higher than what it would cost to improve school
lunches. Not to mention that once we add on the value of life, no amount of money should
be worth the amount of lives that obesity claims every day.
After much thought, my proposed solutions will be in favor of reformulating the
guidelines by following the advice of Senator Gilibrand and increasing the federal school
lunch budget by the needed $0.70. Although the costs associated with this are estimated at
$4 billion per year, I believe both the health of future generations along with the immense
potential in savings from reducing obesity related healthcare would be very well worth it.
Friedeberg 14
This means that the value of money and wealth is won over by these savings, and
personally for me the values of health and life are more important than personal
sovereignty. If you analyze this dilemma with a normative ethical theory such as
Utilitarianism, you will arrive at the same conclusion. Using utilitarianism we can analyze
the pro-reform side by comparing the utility gained from having healthy children, gaining
education about nutrition, and reducing the costs of obesity related healthcare with the loss
of utility from the loss of freedom of choice. On the other side of the issue a utility would
be gained by saving the money that would have otherwise been used to fund the lunch
program, and there would be a loss of utility from the loss of health and life which would
have otherwise been prevented by following the lunch reform program. Since it is
impossible to fully analyze all of this utility, we can generalize in which case I believe there
would be more utility gained on the pro-reform side both from the saving of money, and
from the increase in health.
After all of this research, I have been so compelled by the evidence supporting this
reform that I have decided to do my part. My action plan for this capstone paper has been to
start a charitable foundation which will help bring healthy foods to schools in order to aid
and push the slow government reform. The charity called The Friedeberg Foundation is
now approved by the Internal Revenue Service as public charity with 501c3 status. The
project to help bring healthy foods to schools is called the Purple Potato Project, named as
such because we aim to teach children about healthy foods [such as purple potatoes] which
are nutritious, but which they may not be aware about.
The foundation will start with several projects that will help bring healthy foods to
Friedeberg 15
schools, as well as educate children about the benefits of healthy eating. These include a
school bus project with the goal of travelling to schools in order to offer education, the
purchasing and implementation of salad bars in schools, and a dinner party series devised to
raise the funds for the former programs. I believe that by both making healthy foods
available in the lunch rooms along with teaching kids about nutrition in a fun and
interactive way, we will really be able to start to make a difference; or at least so in the
Austin area.
The school bus project will entail purchasing an old school bus, and then
transforming it into a mobile garden. The seats will be removed, and in their place planters
will be installed on both sides near the windows. The planters will grow all natural and
organic plants and vegetables such as kale, carrots, beets, purple potatoes, and many others.
The bus will be parked by a local farm who has agreed to take care of the crops, and will
then be driven over to schools when requested in order to give a sort of school-delivery
field trip. Kids will be able to board the bus and receive short, but interesting lectures about
healthy foods, and healthy eating given by nutrition students from Texas State University
who have pledged to help. Kids will then be allowed to pick vegetables they want in a dish
such as a salad, juice or a pasta which will then be made fresh for them to enjoy on the spot
while they learn about its benefits. This mobile field trip will make it easier for schools to
participate over having to go to a farm because it is free for them, requires a lot less travel
time, and eliminates the need to field trip permission slips. The salad bar project will be an
alliance with the Whole Foods Foundation’s project, Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools. In
this project, schools request that salad bars be placed in their lunch rooms through Whole
Foods’ project, and then we will be able to purchase these for the schools. In addition to the
Friedeberg 16
salad bars, the foundation will try to subsidize the extra cost acquired by offering the salad
bar in order to make it viable for schools who have a very limited budget.
The dinner party series named Eat to Feed will be our primary way to source funds
for the programs through selling tickets, and by growing our donor database and spreading
the word to possible donors. Dinner parties will be held once a month in different
restaurants around Austin; so far there are two restaurants who have already agreed to lend
us their facilities on a days they are regularly closed. Local chefs such as Mark Holmes
from Justine’s, David Bull form Congress and Plinio Sandalio from The Carrillon who have
already agreed to work with us, will then cook delicious meals with locally sourced
ingredients worthy of the best restaurants. The tickets sold will buy a seat at one of these
dinners, and all funds from ticket sales will then be used for either of our charitable
projects. At these dinners we will also be able to source additional funds by giving a brief
presentation about the issue at hand, and why they should care.
The foundation is headed by me, David Friedeberg along with two supporting
directors Jennifer Crossland and Evelyn Bell who will be handling operations. Other
partners so far include head chef Mark Holmes, coordinator of the Texas State nutrition
student team Hannah Marshall, and Bread & Butter Public Relations. We are a small team
so far, but the group is a very dedicated and enthusiastic one.
To conclude, my proposed solution indicates that the government should indeed
provide stricter guidelines in regard to school lunches because the benefits and values
associated with them far outweigh the potential losses. If opponents against this reform
Friedeberg 17
complain about the costs, they will have to be shown that this is an investment in the future
of the country that will pay for itself many times over; not only in a monetary sense, but
also by prolonging and improving the lives of its citizens. I personally also pledge to help
solve the problem by starting a foundation which will help improve the lunchroom
situation.
Friedeberg 18
Work Cited
"Childhood Obesity Facts." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Sugar Controversies." CQ Researcher 30 Nov. 2012: 1013-36.
Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
Colditz GW, Wang, YC. Economic costs of obesity. In: Hu F, Obesity Epidemiology.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
Daniel, Paul, and Ulla Gustafsson. "School Lunches: Children's Services Or
Children's Spaces?." Children's Geographies 8.3 (2010): 265-274. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
Dor, Avi, PhD, Ferguson, Christine, JD, Langwith, Casey, BA, Tan, Ellen, MSc (A
Heavy Burden: The Individual Costs of Being Overweight and Obese in the United States”
The George Washington University School of Public health and Health Services
Department of Health Policy. 21 Sep. 2010. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
"Economic Costs." The Obesity Prevention Source. Harvard School of Public
Health, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
"First Lady Michelle Obama." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 11
Feb. 2013.
Glazer, Sarah. “Slow Food Movement.” CQ Researcher. 26 Jan. 2007: 73-96. Web.
14 Mar. 2013.
Greenblatt, Alan. "Obesity Epidemic." CQ Researcher 31 Jan. 2003: 73-104. Web.
17 Mar. 2013.
Gundersen, C., Schanzenbach, D., & Just, D. “Insights into Obesity from a
Friedeberg 19
Behavioral Economics Perspective: Discussion”. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics.94.2 (2012): 344-346. Business Source Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
Jalonick, Mary Clare. "Senate Advances School Lunch Reform: Is A 6 Cent Increase
Enough?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Feb. 2013.
H. McCarthy, et al. "Comparison Of A Sample Of Primary School Dinners To
Current Nutritional Standards." Journal Of Human Nutrition & Dietetics 24.3 (2011): 293.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.
"Let's Move! Salad Bars 2 Schools" Let's Move! Salad Bars 2 Schools. N.p., n.d.
Web. 9 Feb. 2013.
Mantel, Barbara. "Preventing Obesity." CQ Researcher 1 Oct. 2010: 797-820. Web.
5 Feb. 2013.
Ogden, Cynthia L., PhD, MRP; Carroll, Margaret D. MSPH; Kit, Brian K. MD,
MPH; Flegal, Katherine M., PhD, MPH “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in Body Mass
Index Among US Children and Adolescents, 1999-2010.” The Journal of the American
Medical Association 307.5 (2012): 483-490. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.40. Web. 10 Feb. 2013
“Omega-3 Fatty Acids.” University of Maryland Medical Center. M.p., n.d. Web. 15
Mar. 2013.
"Rachael Ray's Non-profit Organization Yum-o!" Rachael Ray's Non Profit
Organization, Yum-o! N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.
Rees, G. A., C. J. Richards, and J. Gregory. "Food And Nutrient Intakes Of Primary
School Children: A Comparison Of School Meals And Packed Lunches." Journal Of
Human Nutrition & Dietetics 21.5 (2008): 420-427. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18
Mar. 2013.
Friedeberg 20
Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. "Do School Lunches Contribute To Childhood
Obesity?." Journal Of Human Resources 44.3 (2009): 684-709. ERIC. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
top related