Sacramento Union, November 2, 2007

In the last decade, California governors have signed a number of bills designed to keep California's kids lean and healthy. Jay Leno dubbed such measures the "No Child Left With a Big Behind Act," but their failure is no laughing matter.

SB-12, signed in July, regulates food content and quantity in California schools imposing some of the strictest food standards in the nation. According to Stacy Finz of the San Francisco Chronicle, the law is failing. Even though schools have stepped up to make meals healthier, many kids still want cookies.

SB-12 followed SB-19, from 2004, which was supposed to "significantly improve the nutrition and eating habits of California's school children." The 2004 bill banished certain beverages from California schools, and set nutritional standards for foods sold from vending machines and student stores.

California also has SB-28 1, the California Fresh Start Program, which encourages public schools to provide fruits and vegetables to students, supplementing the "School Breakfast Program," a federally funded program to provide nutritious breakfasts to schoolchildren. Finally, we have SB-677, the California Childhood Obesity Prevention Act, and SB-985, which limit the kind of beverages that kids can consume at school. Clearly, our unhealthy obsession with an obesity "epidemic" has reached new levels. This makes practical reform very difficult.

Last June, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jan Perry proposed a two-year moratorium on fast food restaurants based on psychoanalytic declarations that such establishments "condition [people] to believe that fast food is the only way to eat." (Emphasis added.) That typifies just how helpless government thinks we are when left to our own dining devices. Moreover, it demonstrates that some government officials believe they "have a right," as Perry also said, to limit our food choices smacks of "Brave New World."

Of course, the "root cause" of junk food in schools is the districts, which claim that they need to make deals with fast food and soft drink manufacturers to beef up their budgets. Public schools have no shortage of taxpayers' dollars. At last count, they received an average of nearly $12,000 per student in total local, state, and federal funding. But the best response is not to waste more tax dollars and impose bureaucratic rules on children's food choices.

Sure, if your kid only eats carrots and yogurt, she won't be fat. The flip side: she's nine, and she won't consider the calories in an occasional treat that she and all other nine-year-olds crave. Since when has this been unusual?

Several major food and beverage companies are competing to comply with California school standards, but smaller portions of salt and sugar don't always mean more nutritional content.

Besides, how will the government penalize the kids who "cheat?" Stacy Finz reports that some school campuses are ignoring California food regulations altogether, and it is already evident that children are defying SB-12 at local convenience stores for sugary snacks during school hours.

Will government propose a moratorium on convenience stores, too? Ultimately, SB-12 and other fat laws just won't change anybody's weakness for a doughnut, and kids will find them, no matter what California politicians say.

Parents have a lot more invested in their children than government officials have, and they should have a bigger influence on their children's eating habits. Parents can teach their children to eat in moderation and send the kids to school with a bagged lunch or healthy snacks.

Parents can also ensure that children get enough exercise instead of playing too many video games or watching too much television. Changes in nutrition and exercise regimes should come from families, communities and school districts.

Government should realize it has little influence on "calories in and calories out," with children or adults. Rather than pass ineffective fat laws, or tell people what to eat, state legislators would do better to slim down government itself.