Over the past few weeks, I've been caught up in a new reality show, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. The premise of the show is that Jamie Oliver, a British chef, goes to Huntington, West Virginia, on a mission to improve the health of the people in that city. In 2008 Huntington was named the unhealthiest city in America—45 percent of the adults were obese, 21 percent had heart disease, and 12 percent had diabetes. Oliver's mission is to changes people's attitudes toward the food they eat and to help them realize the physical consequences of an unhealthy diet. First Lady Michelle Obama has a similar mission with her campaign to battle childhood obesity. What is shocking is that anyone could have a negative response to these types of campaigns.
Michelle Obama is trying to change the lives of children (and parents) by encouraging them to eat healthy, fresh food and to move and exercise more. The idea seems simple and obvious. If you eat a healthy diet and stay active, you'll live a healthier life. The campaign seems so harmless; it seems altruistic, even. However, in this political climate you can't rule out the fact that people will be outraged by such a campaign. People complain that no one, not a person let alone the government, should be involved with or have a say in how they live their lives or how they raise their children. I call it the don't tread on me or the get off my lawn response. It's too obvious to state that Michelle Obama is not the first first lady to have a campaign to improve the lives of the children in America. Barbara Bush had a literacy campaign. Nancy Reagan had her Just Say No to Drugs campaign. (However, I think the Republican party of today misunderstood that to mean Just Say No to every sensible policy to come out of the Obama administration.) So you wonder if the people who complain about Michelle Obama's campaign would also complain about Bush's or Reagan's campaigns. Or do they simply have a problem with this particular first lady? Let's be perfectly honest. Much of the reason why we have such a hostile political climate right now is because a black man and a black woman are in the White House. There goes the neighborhood, there goes the country, so many people seem to think. But that is an entirely different blog post all together. Back to the food revolutions...
What I find so shocking is that people can be so opposed to teaching children healthy habits. And how can people possibly argue against improving school lunch standards? People complain that it is too expensive and that the federal and state governments should be spending the money on more important things. Really? Spending money on the health of children is not important? It's not worth it to improve the heath of children who weight over 200 pounds at 10 or 12 years old? This is a country that spends billions of dollars to invade, destroy, and "rebuild" foreign countries, yet people are morally opposed to spending money on health and education. That is downright sad and pathetic.
People complain about heath care reform and that it is not necessary. But if you look at the people around you, you'll soon realize that so many people in this country are in such poor health. Yes, we need more jobs in this country, but if you want people to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week, you need to keep them fit and healthy. A healthier workforce is a stronger, more efficient workforce. When children eat healthy diets and stay active, generally that means they will be healthier and able to spend more time in school and to take advantage of the education they'll need to compete in the world. When people like Jamie Oliver and Michelle Obama are trying to educate parents and children, who are they harming?
No comments:
Post a Comment