School Lunch Reform - Personal Statement Example

School Lunch Reform: Success through Collaboration Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to be part of a debate that is close to the hearts of the majority of not only to the American people, but to the entire world population. My colleague and I are in opposition of the motion, ‘schools should enforce reforms to offer only healthy foods at their cafeteria’. So, as the opposition team, we say ‘schools should not enforce reforms to offer only healthy foods at their cafeteria’. As the opposing side, we have two broad points to justify our stand on the motion. I will handle one and let my able opposition colleague handle the other later on. Mr. /Madam Speaker, I have the following introductory statement to make about the matter at the centre of this debate. Ignorance is bliss, or so I have been told. However, how can ignorance or lack of interest be bliss when it causes so much pain? For several decades, Americans have ignored an alarming upward trend in obesity, more specifically, childhood obesity. Time has demonstrated that ignoring childhood obesity does not result in bliss, as the time-honored adage goes; however, ignoring childhood obesity has resulted in an alarming number of sickness and co morbid conditions relating to the rise in obesity. Basically, I am in agreement with the proposition side on the definitive terms of today’s debate motion. I will, however, digress a little bit and look at it from a wider perspective. As the opposition, we will demonstrate to you why these lunch reforms are not likely to be a panacea to the American obesity problem, especially owing to the lopsided approach. First Negative Mr. /Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you the first opposition point. I am going to make it as comprehensive as possible. Like I said before, there is no denying that America has a very big obesity problem to deal with. The moment people start narrowing it down to the inorganic foods in our learning institutions, and advocating their total ban, we begin to disagree very sharply. Our stand as the opposition in this debate is that we cannot attribute the obesity problem to the inorganic foods sold in our learning institutions. Honorable members, there is absolutely no scientifically proven relationship between the obesity and the inorganic foods like cheeseburgers, soda, chips, chocolates, ice-cream etc that these reforms seek to phase out. Over the years, we have had several study inquests into this matter, and they all seem to prove our point that having lunch reforms is one thing, the manner they will be implemented and whether they will be effective is another. Dear members, none of these studies suggests that inorganic foods are the problem. A study published in 2011, by Melissa Mortazavi, titled, “Are Food Subsidies Making Our Children Fat? Tensions Between the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act and Farm Bill,” shows that the current amount spent on obesity related issues in adults is 147 billion with a marked increase in childhood obesity now that is expected to more than double within the next few decades. This data alludes to the fact that American children are becoming unhealthier while advances in medicine are maintaining an inverse relationship with obesity. Can we suggest Americans are providing an abundant unhealthy population to the medical profession to aide in these advances, or are Americans simply ignoring what they have already learned and accepted as truth regarding health and dietary habits? As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, this is a multifaceted debate, and there are many angles we can look at it from. If viewed from a wider perspective, then we see that there are quite some questions that need to be answered if we are to be sure to solve the problem for posterity. As Americans are now forced to deal with the effects of rising childhood obesity, many scholars are starting to look towards the school system, as this is where children go learn about health and wellness and receive meals on a regular basis that aid in the development of eating habits. In addition, the questionable nutritional value provided within school lunches has begun take center stage, becoming the focus of the controversial debate of school lunch reform. There have been curious group of researchers to trying to analyze the effects of eliminating unhealthy food in school lunches, including the infamous a la carte items and vending machines in schools. This study published in 2013 by Patricia A. Cluss, LuAnn Fee, Rebecca J. Culyba, Kiran B. Bhat, and Kay Owen, titled, “Effect of Food Service Nutrition Improvements on Elementary School Cafeteria Lunch Purchase Patterns,” found that students purchased more healthy items when they were presented to them and also did not show a decrease in the number of lunches purchased from school lunchrooms as a result of the changes (Cluss et al., 2013, p. 360). This positive evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of implementing healthy foods while eliminating the unhealthy foods such as vending machines and a la carte items and answers the question of whether school lunch reform will work. Although, an argument raised by both sides is the possibility of the student population rebelling against such reforms by means of bringing items from home. However, this study on school lunch reform presented compelling evidence that demonstrated an overall acceptance of the change to a more strict, food accessible by means of cafeteria production only type system. What’s more Ladies and Gentlemen, a study published in 2011 by Kristen Hinman, titled, “School Lunch Wars,” found other positive effects by the implantation of healthful and flavorful foods such as teachers started eating with students, higher student attendance rates, and fewer students fell asleep in class or committed vandalism and violence at school (Hinman, 2011, p. 5).These positive aspects are important to note, as other potential ideas for school lunch reform have suggested limiting nutritional intake while not addressing the specific content of the food delivered. In contrast to vague nutritional suggestions, strict guidelines were imposed on nutrition in the study by Hinman relating to items obtained from farm-fresh sources and the elimination of a la carte items and vending machines. If the opposing viewpoints in the debate for school lunch reform can agree on anything, it should be empirical evidence such as the study by Hinman or others that independently research outcomes relating to differing attempts at school lunch reform. Second Negative Thank you Mr. /Madam Speaker for giving me an opportunity to present to the house our second opposition point. I also must thank my opposition colleague for articulately putting across our first opposition point. Let us look at the implementation/enforcement of the reforms to begin with. The major influential stakeholders involved in the issue of school lunch reforms, i.e. the federal government, big agricultural business, schools, and most of the general population, already have reached a consensus on the need for reform. It would seem as though the next logical step would be to simply implement reforms, but this begs the questions of what are reforms and how do we know they will work? As the time honored , often self-serving and tumultuous relationship between policy makers and big agricultural business continues to exist, it was recently escalated by the efforts of Mrs. Obama to enact her good intentioned, yet controversial reforms which placed the majority of the blame relating to childhood obesity square on the shoulders of big agricultural companies. As one can imagine, this did not bode well with the tremendously wealthy and influential groups associated with the debate for school lunch reform. After Mrs. Obama became more vocal to express her desire to enact her reforms, the large agricultural groups began an advertising and lobbying campaign to achieve their goal of discrediting the claim by Mrs. Obama and to promote their interests (Huber, 2012, p. 14). Not only does this complicate the argument by flooding the conversation with needless advocacy and essentially causing policy makers to choose sides in an ideological debate, it also stifles the progress that could be made in the endeavor of school lunch reform, i.e. bettering the health of American children. One has to consider the tic for tat nature that is occurring in this debate and find a way to address concerns that are relevant to both sides while not being offensive. As the past has shown, one-sided policy making results in more public campaigns carried out through the media that defeat the purpose of debate, as all groups want to the same outcome, healthier children. As a result of competing interests and conflict, the influence of the media has been an often nefarious and decisive tool used by both sides in this debate to garner more support from the population at large to promote their own agenda. Through the use of the media, it seems as though the public is aware that there are clear sides in this argument, and they must choose where they stand. As alluded to earlier, the public typically falls back on partisan lines, devoid of any reason rather than this is where their loyalty lies. To be able to confront this issue, the American population needs to ignore partisan loyalty and avoid allowing media outlets to subjectively report on issues that simply require objective reporting. The next equally important point we want to look at as a house is the funding bit of the reform push. It is evident that the current nutritional choices in schools are established based on large, mutually benefiting contracts. However, as a result of bureaucracy, most school districts spend about 35 cents over the federal school meal reimbursement rate and upward of 70 cents more in large, urban school districts (Krisberg, 2010, p. 12), which simply means American schools are overspending to achieve the opposite of their goal to decrease childhood obesity through school lunch reform. However, within American society healthy organic foods are often more expensive than cheaper foods, potentially because they are void of common preservatives (Krisberg, 2012, p. 12) that decreases their potential shelf life. Being that the current lunch room items are insufficiently meeting the expected nutrition standards yet going over budget, all parties considered in the debate should be prepared to endure the higher cost of providing healthy food in schools. Mr. /Madam Speaker, considering all facts, the assumed higher cost of providing healthier alternatives to the current lunchroom choices and essentially healthier lives will later payback by means of less government assistance from overly burdened insurance claims from preventable diseases in the future. Dear Honorable Members, let us go on to look at the administrative issues involved in the reform process. This will give a revelation about the systemic concerns involved as well, and why any systemic failures may automatically lead to difficulties in implementing the reforms, however well-intended. With the focus concerning collaboration in effective school lunch reform, the question then becomes who must collaborate? Certainly, the general population should have their individual voices heard in the discussion (typically through their elected officials), as well as individual schools, agricultural businesses, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA is tasked with enforcing the nutritional standards of schools around the country; however, research has shown that the USDA has ineffectively enforced American nutrition standards in schools, resulting in a lack of adherence to these standards in 99% of schools (Hinman, 2011, p. 4). The troublesome situation of the USDA not effectively enforcing American nutrition standards has created two very different philosophies, one stating the USDA should have more authority to regulate standards, and another that focuses on negating the need for the USDA to regulate lunchroom nutrition standards. Choosing to grant the USDA more authority seems to be the path most popularized in American politics, as Mrs. Obama has proposed and promoted granting the authority to the USDA to have more control in creating and enforcing nutritional standards in the lunchroom, which includes the ability to regulate foods sold in a la carte lines, vending machines, and school stores (Huber, 2012, p. 12). The study referenced earlier by Cluss et al, concerning the complete elimination of unhealthy food options in schools, proves the potential for this strategy to work, although its implementation would not be without question of a potential constitutional overreach in terms violating the First Amendment, specifically in abridging the right to petition (in this case, the petition for school lunch reform). As history demonstrates, a one sided rule cannot appease those who have differing ideologies. To conceptualize this on a larger scale, imagine Israel simply eliminating Palestine to resolve their conflict of interests; yes, they have the ability to do this and it would end the resistance from Gaza, however, the global sentiment and response that occur in return would negate any successes that they would ever have in this regard. This is similar to the case presented with the unilateral school lunch reform suggestion; yes, it would be effective to simply enforce a one sided decision, however, regardless of effectiveness, the other half who do not agree with simply fight to change it. The common sense theme of success through collaboration must be maintained to make a successful reform to the school lunch debate, which is limiting the potential of Mrs. Obama’s efforts to successfully implement her own reforms. However, the opposing side, as previously alluded to, suggests not increasing the authority of the USDA and simply negating the need for the USDA to regulate school lunches by several means. One such means is the emphasis on parents to teach children the correct healthy eating habits and the ability of the individual schools to solve the issue, as they believe will know what is best for their specific area and population. However, this theory of negating the USDA seems simple but it is in large part disorganized and far too simplistic. Let us not forget, regardless of what an individual or group of individuals think about the federal government, its sole purpose is to aid the American citizens. Allowing the federal government to aid the populous while having the local municipalities ultimately decide final policy would be the most beneficial decision to help these differing ideologies come to a solution and be mutually inclusive. As with all large multifaceted endeavors, collaboration is vital to success. However, most Americans will admit that in current times, political ideology has run amuck, and Americans are simply choosing to determine their positions and arguments based on partisan loyalty. While this unsavory truth cannot be mediated through majority vote leading to resolution, as evidenced in the election/reelection of President Obama, it must be addressed directly through bipartisan collaboration and mutual respect. This idea of a slight majority establishing regulations by which the rest of the population, which is largely feeling disenchanted and even besieged by regulations (whether true or not), cannot prove fruitful and effective as it lacks the pooling of ideas from the people involved and affected by such regulations. While the topic of school lunch reform is a more narrow discussion, it still emulates this broader issue of partisan theory and one sided decision making. Regardless of which side of the debate one may belong to, it can be safely assumed that individuals would not like to have the individuals from the opposing side or ideology regulate to them if and when they become empowered, continuing the cycle of tit for tat ideological policy making. Rather, it would be beneficial to have all parties come to the table to develop a mutually inclusive agreement on school lunch reform that works towards establishing a goal all parties’ desire, healthier American children. This common sense approach, rooted in the principle of American democracy, seems to be the clear path to effective school lunch reform. However, little collaboration, if any, was noted in the policy process of the school lunch reform push of 1994, as interest groups and the government essentially ended the discussion due to ultimate conflicts of interest and an inability to collaborate (Hobbs et. al, 2004, p. 90).If the past is any indication of the future, the American process of policymaking has a long way to go to prove democracy is anything more than a front to achieving power and influence to control the national agenda and unilaterally determine what is right and wrong. While the negative impact of the continual “pick a side” nature of this debate has established political lines, there was a moment in the debate when there was mutual respect and agreement (Huber, 2012, p. 17). This moment concerns the time Mrs. Obama established the “Let’s Move!” campaign that focused more on personal responsibility in regards to participating in daily exercise rather than simply placing the onus on nutrition and who is to blame for it. However, supporters of Mrs. Obama saw this as placating to the influence of the big agricultural business and this effort was met with a large amount of cynicism from her supporters (Huber, 2012, p. 17). This example by Mrs. Obama to place a stronger onus on the personal responsibility of daily exercise can be thought of as a good example of bridging the gap between the two very different sides in the debate and should be welcomed by those who wish to find a way to work with one another rather than looked upon as weakening in a stance against childhood obesity. Nevertheless, if the debate on school lunch reform wants to effectively collaborate, all sides must find common ground in their efforts. Mr. /Madam Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, in the following opposition closing remarks, I am going to tell you the only feasible way of implementing any reforms that would offer a permanent solution to the obesity problem. This debate of school lunch reform is multifaceted and has a large number of business and interest groups vying for influence to garner outcomes that are favorable to their own interests or financial benefits. Due to the capitalistic nature and strong emphasis on freedom in American society, I believe the best outcome for sensible school lunch reform would be to work with large agricultural businesses in order to create mutually acceptable regulations rather than the idea of one-sidedly establishing regulations that are not mutually inclusive as proposed by Michelle Obama. Regardless of self-interests and personal beliefs, it is evident that American society functions in collaboration with varying ideas and is not a dictatorship. The collaborative nature of American society cannot be excluded from the debate of school lunch reform. Most people, including Mrs. Obama, care a great deal about the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity. This majority wants to enact measures to combat this issue head on; however, this cannot be done unilaterally as it does not only go against the American principle of collaboration, it also will be met with resistance. All parties involved in this debate cannot deny the upward trend in childhood obesity and mostly agree on the need for reform, as it is can be universally accepted as a sad truth that even adult onset diabetes cannot be referred to as such due to the increased incidence of children becoming afflicted by type two diabetes. Regardless of whether the focus is on childhood obesity or adulthood obesity, Americans, similar to citizens of other modern countries, understand how to avoid, treat, and eliminate this ailment and are not doing so. The future of American health and wellness seems bleak at this point. However, if Americans want to correct the path they are traveling down and avoid the consequences of ignoring the issue of obesity, they must learn to work with each other in order to fulfill the obligation they have to democracy and each other to find an applicable and effective solution. That marks the end our second ad last opposition point. I thank you all for paying attention all through and not interrupting unnecessarily. Mr. /Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Read More