This morning in Austin, our state’s newly elected Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller is holding a press conference to announce his first official act in office. But Miller won’t use the occasion to address Texas’s troubling water shortage, which he had promised to make his “top priority” if elected, nor will he discuss any other issue of pressing concern to the state’s farmers or economy.
Rather, Miller will kick off his four-year term as Agriculture Commissioner by “declaring amnesty for cupcakes across the state of Texas.” According to Miller’s press release, “We want families, teachers and school districts in Texas to know the Texas Department of Agriculture has abolished all rules and guidelines that would stop a parent from bringing cupcakes to school. This act is about providing local control to our communities.”
Whatever you think of Miller’s administrative priorities, there’s actually no legal need to “declare amnesty” for school cupcakes here in Texas. A parent or grandparent already has the right to bring cupcakes (or any other food) to a school birthday party or classroom celebration, a right guaranteed by our state legislature with the 2005 passage of “Lauren’s Law,” better known as the “Safe Cupcake Amendment.”
So no cupcake-related “rules or guidelines” were in fact “abolished” by the Texas Department of Agriculture, which oversees our state’s child nutrition programs, but Miller likely cares little about the specifics. His cupcake stunt is more likely a response to the new federal Smart Snacks rules, which set forth stringent nutritional standards for foods and beverages sold to children during the school day, apart from the school meal. Nothing in the Smart Snacks rules affects classroom or birthday treats (since they’re not offered for sale) but the rules did effectively put an end to junk food fundraising during school hours, a development which hasn’t been popular with some Texans.
Given that Miller was once named the “second most conservative” member of the Texas legislature – not an easy status to achieve in these parts — it’s not surprising that he wants to be the standard-bearer for local control against a meddling federal government’s anti-childhood obesity measures. And Miller isn’t even the first conservative to raise aloft a classroom birthday treat to rail against governmental interference. Sarah Palin made headlines back in 2010 when she brought 200 sugar cookies to a Pennsylvania fundraiser to protest that state’s proposed guidelines for classroom parties, which would encourage parents to send in healthy snacks like fruits or vegetables. Palin tweeted that day: “2 PA school speech; I’ll intro kids 2 beauty of laissez-faire via serving them cookies amidst school cookie ban debate;Nanny state run amok!”
The irony, of course, is that the states most adversely affected by the obesity crisis (i.e., conservative Southern states) are often the least amenable to policies which might ameliorate that crisis. This phenomenon is consistent with a 2011 Pew Research Center poll which found that 80% of liberal Democrats felt the government should play a “significant role” in fighting childhood obesity while only 37% of conservative Republicans and 33% of those aligned with the Tea Party agreed with that statement. (Interestingly, the ethnic groups most affected by obesity – Hispanics and African Americans – were far more likely than whites (89% and 74% versus 49%, respectively) to support governmental intervention.)
These differing political philosophies will matter greatly in the year ahead, when the Republican-controlled Congress will square off against the Obama White House over a likely effort to permanently weaken school food nutritional standards. In leading a similar campaign during the 2015 appropriations process last year, Rep. Robert Adherholt (R-AL) predictably couched the rolling back of the standards as a matter of creating “flexibility” in onerous federal regulations and returning local control to school districts. But let’s be blunt: many of the states most ardently in support of “local control” seem to be doing the least effective job in combatting childhood obesity, if statistics are any guide.
For example, the conservative National Review gleefully declared Miller’s cupcake amnesty announcement to be “further proof that Texas is the greatest state in the union.” No good Texan would never argue with his or her state’s greatness, but we do also hold the distinction of ranking fifth in the union for obesity among high school students, and thirteenth in the union for our climbing diabetes rate, which is predicted to reach almost three million cases by 2030. Over 36% of our kids aged 10-17 are overweight or obese, and that number is likely to grow as they age: in 2009, almost 67% of Texas adults were either overweight or obese, a figure which could reach an astonishing 75% by the year 2040, if present rates persist.
Against that backdrop, let’s examine those unnecessarily “pardoned” birthday cupcakes a little more closely. In my children’s crowded Texas public elementary school classrooms (some of which had up to 27 kids), students’ birthdays could be celebrated well over 20 times a year. Putting aside all the other sugary treats kids receive at school from teacher rewards or classroom parties, not to mention illegal junk food fundraising, that’s 6,000 extra calories per child per year (20 x 300 calories). Multiply that figure by six years of elementary school and, assuming a pound of fat equals 3,500 calories, a child in Texas public school could gain over 10 extra pounds from birthday cupcakes alone.
The debate over the proper role of government will rage eternally, of course. But when it relates to child nutrition, the argument is not just theoretical. Sid Miller can polish his conservative bona fides by granting “amnesty” to cupcakes, but wrongheaded policies relating to school meal standards and classroom junk food adversely affect the health of real children every day. When, down the road, those policies manifest themselves in the form of obesity-related diseases and shorter lifespans for those children, I won’t be as generous as Mr. Miller in handing out pardons.
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join over 9,200 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page, join over 5,200 TLT followers on Twitter, or get your “Lunch” delivered right to your email inbox by subscribing here. And be sure to check out my free video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!”
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Bettina Elias Siegel
Karen says
Which journalist will be asking him the tough questions at today’s press briefing?
Thanks for the informative post. It’s going to be a long 4 years.
Casey says
One store bought cupcake has 20 grams of added sugar which far exceeds to recommended daily limit for most elementary students of 12 grams per day. Time to stop the school sugar overload.
lora says
Do the Smart Snacks guidelines apply to school stores and to reward-based “purchases”? I ask because at my children’s school, they receive good behavior tickets which can be traded in for candy at the school store. I hate it!
Bettina Elias Siegel says
lora: If by “school store” you mean a place where kids pay cash for treats, then yes, the Smart Snacks rules do apply during the school day and for an additional 30 minutes after the last bell rings. But unfortunately the redeeming of tickets earned for good behavior doesn’t count as a “sale” and so the rules don’t apply there. I’m about to share a ton of resources with TLT readers re: junk food in classrooms – I’ll come back here and share the info in a few days! Thanks for reading and commenting.
lora says
Thank you. I’ve noticed the change in foods available for purchase, but at my children’s low-income school, most kids don’t have much money for this anyway. But lots of candy is still being handed out through the store (and in class) without money changing hands. My son is a well-behaved kid and comes home with candy 2 or 3 days a week.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Ack, that is so frustrating. There are so many alternatives to candy rewards but candy seems to be the default in some classrooms and schools. Again, though, I’ll be sharing some useful resources in the coming days.
Sally at Real Mom Nutrition says
Oh good grief! It’s sad and ironic, as you point out in the post, that those states fighting any kind of oversight or changes where food is concerned are sometimes the ones who need it the most. Maybe Commissioner Miller needs to meet The Lunch Tray. 🙂
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Ha! I can’t begin to imagine how that meeting would go…. 🙂
BethG says
Thanks for bringing this news some national attention. It’s interesting but not surprising that a newly elected official would think that declaring amnesty for cupcakes is a slam dunk political move to advance his popularity.
The reality is it shows his disconnect with what classrooms look like today. Food allergies are a huge issue…to the point where many moms are scared to death of any food shared in the class due to concerns that reach to the level of were peanuts used in the same facility.
As you say the obesity issue is so huge, it’s like he’s saying we’re fat, getting fatter and I’m proud of that damnit! A chicken in every pot…it’s not…but a cupcake in every kids hand! 27 times a school year plus all the parties which is every month so what he’s really saying is:
“May each child eat 39 cupcakes with an inch of bright green frosting (the norm) every school year from hereonafter.”
That’s what I hear.
Please…focus on important issues that don’t involve the further fattening of a generation of Americans!!
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I totally agree, BethG, and thanks for also bringing up the very important issue of food allergies. As allergy rates rise, we ought to be moving toward less food in classrooms, not more! Thanks so much for reading and commenting here.
Stacy @School-Bites.com says
Great post! But incredibly sad to hear about such small mindedness from Texas’s new agriculture commissioner. A parent’s right to distribute junk food at school should never trump public health. Commissioner Miller, time to get your priorities straight!
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Amen!
bw1 says
“the snacks and drinks sold to kids during the school day, not the treats given to them in
classrooms”
Why should Mr. Miller recognize a difference which you steadfastly refused to acknowledge when
seeking to ban birthday treats?
“I can’t tell whether Mr. Miller and his advisors are being intentionally deceptive or are just
plain ignorant.”
It seems that his best response to that remark would be “Kettle to pot – color check – over.”
YOU and your fellow handwringing nannystate advocates created the climate where his pandering would resonate. This is not intended to by hyperbolic – it’s a very serious point. When you talk about candy as a reward in the classroom, I’m ready to back you 110% – that’s about parental empowerment, and appropriately limiting the role of the teacher, but then you take it the next step to having teachers impose draconian limits on student to student interactions. If a teacher shouldn’t be usurping parental authority by giving your kids candy, then neither should he/she be usurping parental authority by telling your kid what he may or may not give to/accept from his peer friends.
If you don’t want your kid having birthday cupcakes from his friends, then lay down the law. I have a friend whose Rottweiler will not accept even a raw steak from anyone but her, unless she first says it’s OK. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when you effectively say you can’t teach your school-aged kid something a dog can learn.
I’ve asked this before, and you’ve repeatedly dodged answering it. How is your no birthday treats regime going to handle the kid who informs all his friends that he’ll be distributing birthday cupcakes in the hallway/parking lot/just off school property/at his front door 500 feet from the school driveway after class? It’s a valid question, because I guarantee, especially in a state as viruently pro-autonomy as TX, you’re going to have a parent who tries this, and after one does it, it will catch on.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
bw1, since you left the exact same comment on another post, I’ll simply copy and paste my reply here:
First, for the benefit of newer TLT readers, commenter bw1 and I have had this exact debate many times over the years in various contexts. Frankly, I’m just fatigued by it and so, by way of short hand, allow me to share this post, “In-Class Birthday Treats: A Reader Says My Kids Just Need ‘Backbone’ to Resist,” which responds to similar comments by bw1 and lays out all of my responses to them. None of my views have changed since it was written in 2012.
But now, bw1, let me just respond to a few specifics of your comment here:
1. ““the snacks and drinks sold to kids during the school day, not the treats given to them in classrooms” Why should Mr. Miller recognize a difference which you steadfastly refused to acknowledge when seeking to ban birthday treats?”
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I’ve literally read this five times over and don’t understand your point.
2. “I can’t tell whether Mr. Miller and his advisors are being intentionally deceptive or are just plain ignorant.” It seems that his best response to that remark would be “Kettle to pot – color check – over.”
Thats a cute thing to say but let’s unpack it: I am neither ignorant of Texas state law (indeed, I seem to be far more knowledgable of it than Mr. Miller or his advisors) nor (and in this regard I am quite unlike Mr. Miller) have I made a single misstatement of fact in this post or in any of my posts on this topic. Color check: passed.
3. ” If a teacher shouldn’t be usurping parental authority by giving your kids candy, then neither should he/she be usurping parental authority by telling your kid what he may or may not give to/accept from his peer friends. If you don’t want your kid having birthday cupcakes from his friends, then lay down the law.
This gets to the crux of our (seemingly endless) debate on kids needing “backbone” to resist in-class treats. I’ll let my 2012 post speak for itself.
4. I’ve asked this before, and you’ve repeatedly dodged answering it. How is your no birthday treats regime going to handle the kid who informs all his friends that he’ll be distributing birthday cupcakes in the hallway/parking lot/just off school property/at his front door 500 feet from the school driveway after class?
Um, actually, I already answered that question quite explicitly in my 2012 post. I’ll quote it here:
“I wholeheartedly agree that it’s my job as a parent to instill in my child whatever values he’ll need to resist the many temptations life will throw in his path. You mention several of these as examples: junk food, cigarettes, drugs/alcohol and unprotected sex.
However, it’s quite notable that with respect to every one of the public health concerns you hold up as examples, schools are already serving as active partners to assist parents in their efforts. Almost every public school district in America, through its health/hygiene curriculum, tries to inculcate students with anti-smoking and anti-drug/alcohol messages, offers a modicum of nutrition education, provides mandatory physical education and promotes either abstinence alone or provides sex education with an underlying abstinence message.
That this health education is taking place at all points up the rather obvious fact that the school environment is not the equivalent of the world at large. Outside the school walls, the world is very much a free-for-all and children will certainly need plenty of “backbone” to navigate it safely. But inside the schoolhouse, society quite deliberately picks and chooses which messages it wishes to convey to its children and the values it hopes to instill.
Were that not the case, following your manner of thinking to its (admittedly absurd but perfectly logical) extreme, what would be wrong with teachers handing out cigarettes, drugs, pornography, weapons etc. in the classroom and trusting that each parent had done a good enough job at home to teach children to resist? What would be wrong with a teacher indoctrinating children to commit acts of terror, if parents had instilled sufficient “backbone” in their children to reject those messages?
We are concerned about what happens in the classroom because our children are quite literally captive to all that takes place there for the majority of their waking hours during the most formative years of their lives. We care very much about what is taught, and about who is teaching it, and, yes, even what food is made available there, because we know that young children, despite all the best efforts expended at home, are inherently impressionable and do not always have the “backbone” to act as we hope in the face of powerful teacher influence, peer pressure and primitive bodily urges (like the desire to eat a cupcake).”
But in case that wasn’t clear enough for you, bw1, and apparently it wasn’t, let me try again rather than have you think I’m “dodging” some devastating point you’ve advanced:
If any Texas parents would like to set-up a birthday cupcake stand 500 feet from the school driveway after school, my answer is: have at it.
bw1 says
Regarding #1 and #2, the point is this: You speculate that Mr. Miller has conflated the Smart Snack rules which restrict teacher/school supplied junk food with restrictions on student supplied birthday treats, implying that the difference has meaning. However, all your rhetoric on the birthday treat ban you advocate, including your prior comments you re-quote here, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that same difference. Furthermore, while your re-quoted comments very effectively address the issue of teacher/school supplied junk food (in fact, I would use them myself in support of restricting that) they do not address restrictions on student-to-student interactions.
While it’s true that ” with respect to every one of the public health concerns you hold up as examples, schools are already serving as active partners to assist parents in their efforts.” these efforts are all in the realm of teacher-to-student messages (and by the way many public schools have no underlying abstinence message.)
Regarding this “because we know that young children, despite all the best efforts expended at home, are inherently impressionable and do not always have the “backbone” to act as we hope in the face of powerful teacher influence, peer pressure and primitive bodily urges”
First of all, I NEVER said anything about countering “powerful teacher influence” and to include that in your response is either an attempt to twist my words, or the conflation confusion mentioned above for which you are so willing to skewer Mr. Miller.
Second, do you mean to say that your school age kid can’t manage the control that my friend’s Rottweiler can, and further, that you, with a JD, can’t manage to parent as effectively as my brother, who has never finished his Associate degree? We can go back and forth all day about parenting philosophies, but at the end of the day, that whole “proper role of government” question boils down to this – if you want the government imposing upon the free interactions of others to serve your preferences, at the very least, it’s incumbent upon you to prove that the government action (in this case the classroom environment) is the independent variable that deterministically thwarts your goals for your child. The fact that someone else out there is able to effectively achieve the same goals for their children, in a school system that not only allows birthday treats, but engages in all those things we both oppose, falsifies that prerequisite assertion.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Bw1: Whether my children are as “obedient” as your brother’s Rottweiler, and my level of education as compared to your brother’s, are both so beyond the point that I’m now ready to end this 3-year-and -counting debate with you once and for all.
My view, simply put, is that schools, when they allow an infux of junk food into classrooms (whether school- or parent-supplied) cease to be allies of parents and instead foster an environment injurious to children’s health. In my view (and not in yours – I know! I know!) , forcing children to exert willpower to decline these foods is a less desirable solution than simply removing the junk food from classrooms.
And with that, I’m going to bow out. You may continue to leave comments here railing against my views, and so long as they comply with my posted comments policy I will publish them. But at this point I feel neither we nor my readers can possibly get anything more out of our continued, circular debate.
Kind regards,
Bettina
Stacy @School-Bites.com says
THANK YOU, Bettina!!!
Sharon Badian says
I’m still trying to figure out when filling kids up with cupcakes and other questionable food became a smart adult thing and a political act. This is something a politician is proud of? I think treats are great, but we have crossed the line in society from treats to everyday diet.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I know, Sharon. Junk food has become weirdly politicized, something I touched on in this 2011 post. It’s quite depressing. Thanks for reading and commenting!
bw1 says
” Junk food has become weirdly politicized, something I touched on in this 2011 post. It’s quite depressing.”
And why is that? Could it be because so many parents have abdicated responsibility for feeding their kids to the government? Could it be because more parents still have abdicated responsibility for teaching their kids good life habits to the government? Hand something over to the government and OF COURSE it’s going to become politicized.
Could it be because people like you are demanding the government impose restrictions on other people to ameliorate your own failute to instill sound habits in your own children?
I have 2 nephews and a niece, one of whom just got his drivers’ license, who have consistently turned their noses up at soda and candy in favor of water/milk, and fruits/vegetables since they
were able to talk. Maybe, instead of politicizing your problems, you should be asking what my brother has that you don’t.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Longtime TLT readers will know that commenter bw1 and I have had this debate many times over the years in various contexts. Frankly, I’m just fatigued by it and am not going to engage in it again here. Please see my post, “In-Class Birthday Treats: A Reader Says My Kids Just Need ‘Backbone’ to Resist,” which responds to similar comments by bw1 and lays out all of my responses to them. None of my views have changed since it was written in 2012.
Gretchen says
Still having trouble believing that this story isn’t one from “The Onion”…
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Ah, Gretchen: That could be said of so many headlines coming out of TX…. 🙂
Bethany says
Your calorie math assumes that the child will eat the cupcake in addition to his/her normal food intake. I find that my kids eat the cupcake and then skip or reduce the next meal naturally because they are intuitive eaters.
Cupcakes instead of lunch, definitely not great, but also not inherently weight increasing.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
That’s a fair point, Bethany, but it also sounds like we’re in agreement that even if a kid instinctively reduces his later consumption, he’s still replacing nutritive food with non-nutritive food –and all without his parent’s oversight or approval. Whether or not the child gains weight is subsidiary, I agree.
Liz - Meal Makeover Mom says
I’m still baffled why everyone on all sides of the aisle won’t come together to help our children grow into healthy, active adults who contribute great and positive things to society. It sounds like the children in TX are being used as pawns in the new commissioner’s political game. How ironic that the man in charge of the state’s nutrition programs seems to care more about politics than nurturing a healthy and happy community of citizens. It’s 2015 and I’m saddened by this. Here in MA and more specifically in my community of Lexington, MA, we eliminated classroom food parties 10 years ago by creating an allergy policy that required food-free parties as a means of protecting kids. Thanks for your though-provoking post. I’m left speechless (though my fingers seem to be doing a lot of typing right now).
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Thanks for this comment, Liz. I feel the same way – like this is just one huge step backward in a state that was actually, in some ways, surprisingly ahead of the curve on child nutrition. In order to score political points, Mr. Miller is undoing decades of hard work by advocates and parents.
Kelly says
If the whole point of Miller’s stunt is to show support for the so-called “right” to bring cupcakes to school, what about the rights of other parents not to have their kids be exposed to food that is damaging to their health whatever the reason? It seems to me that Miller is throwing the latter under the proverbial bus. To me, that is the most frustrating part of this kind of political grandstanding.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Kelly, you’ve put your finger on why the “freedom” argument drives me nuts. Someone on Twitter just said to me, “@thelunchtray Look just take care of your own kids and keep your nose out of other people’s lunches! #saveusfromdogooders” My response: “.@genemiller66 Actually you and I are alike: we BOTH believe in parents unfettered right 2 feed kids as they see fit! #keepyourcupakesathome” Thanks for commenting here!
Kelly says
I would add that no one is telling the Twitter commenter that he can’t send a cupcake in for his own child — but that’s only one cupcake in the lunchbox of one kid — his own. By sending in enough cupcakes for everyone in the class, he’s doing the very thing he’s telling the Lunch Tray NOT to do — putting his nose in the lunches of every other kid in the room.
bw1 says
Is he handing his kid a gun and telling him to force the cupcakes on the other kids? I’m pretty sure the schools have ALWAYS frowned on that.
Through 7 years of elementary school, I had several of the birthday treats I brought in declined by classmates. No big deal.
Jessica says
One cupcake is not going to make you fat. I am more sick of seeing recess and phsyical activity taken away from children for being disruptive. Kids need to get out and run around. Obesity is not just caused by over eating, its also caused by a lack of phsyical activity.
Kelly says
But it’s never just one cupcake. In a single day, there may be a cookie for dessert at lunch, candy given by the teacher as a reward for solving a math problem, a cupcake to celebrate one person’s birthday party, and a donut at dance class, candy at the dry cleaners, and a lollipop at the doctor’s office after school. And that’s just one day. Hit “repeat” for many other days. And while I agree that kids need more exercise, at some point they could be exercising every minute of ever waking hour and still not be able to burn off all the extra calories they get from these treats. It’s a myth that exercise can compensate for all of the extra calories that kids are consuming in the form of sugary treats.
bw1 says
“It’s a myth that exercise can compensate for all of the extra calories that kids are consuming in the form of sugary treats.”
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Defy the laws of physics. Yeah.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
It’s possible, of course, to burn off common birthday treats using exercise, but the amount and level required far exceeds the amount of exercise most school children get in a day, particularly given how much recess has been reduced or even eliminated in some schools. Using donuts (another common classroom birthday treat) as an example, “Doughnuts contain anywhere from 175 to 550 calories per serving. This could mean hours in the gym depending on the intensity of your workout session.” Similarly, a red velvet cupcake requires a one hour jog.
Also, using a needling or unpleasant tone in the comments section is barred by my comments policy. Please keep this in mind for future comments or they will not appear here.
bw1 says
Yesterday I burned 507 calories in 40 minutes. If the amount of exercise children get is less than they need, that’s a parenting problem. As the bumper sticker says, kill your television (or Xbox, etc.) When I was a kid, the chores my father assigned were good for burning at least 250 calories a day.
One birthday cupcake a week is 180 extra calories per week. That’s fewer than 30 extra calories to burn per week. Make your kids walk to school instead of driving them and it’s more than covered. Or tell them not to accept the cupcake.
Casey says
Shorter version of bw1’s argument: “Control your kids.” When I hear this, I mentally add “into disordered eating.” http://ushealthykids.org/2014/04/30/fed-up-fu-and-f-you/
Anna Grant says
Uh huh. And just watch how much of that stuff gets thrown in the trash. My hyper-picky youngest child would have refused everything on the menu and then come home crying with hunger. At home, she would settle for bread and butter, but it was yet another fight at dinnertime. She refused almost everything.
Now, as an adult, she eats what she wants – and what she wants is not good for her. She is at least 60 pounds overweight and has already had to have her gall bladder removed because of over-consumption of greasy food. Her older sibs would eat pretty much what was put in front of them – but not this one. And to be honest, you get tired of the fighting, night after night after night.
I tried hard to put balanced, nutritious food on the table for my family. The youngest would ALWAYS asked me what I was making for dinner. This was problematic. If I gave her the real name of the dish, she would say, “Oh. We’ve had that before, and I didn’t like it.” And the refusals to eat (“I’m not hungry, I need to do homework,”) would start before dinner was even on the table. I started making up names for dinners, just to throw her off: “Over-the-Rainbow Chicken,” “Presto Magic Beef,” etc., so she wouldn’t know if she had had it before. Nonetheless, she would always ask, “Have we had it before? Did I like it?”
It has become a family joke now, but her health isn’t, and the memories are not happy ones. Some people have told me I should have FORCED her to eat, but I vowed as a child myself not to do that to my own kids. My mother forced me to eat some truly gaggy stuff (and I wasn’t that picky) which ended up with violent screaming matches, being dismissed from the table, even vomiting up whatever vile substance I had been forced to eat. SO not worth it.
bw1 says
” but I vowed as a child myself not to do that to my own kids. ”
Many of society’s problems are due to a prior generation resolving that their kids would never face the adversity they had faced, without ever contemplating the formative role it may have had on their own character.
Kelly says
My apologies for leaving so many comments on this post, but I really had to share today’s incident. This morning my older daughter had her braces taken off. Yeah for her! Boo for the orthodontists. She walked into the waiting area braces free but with a giant bag of marshmallow treats, Skittles, Snickers and other sticky candies. She said it was because she hadn’t gotten to eat those things for the last 2 years. I guess orthodontists figure at this point any problems with her teeth are the responsibility of her dentist. Unbelievable.
bw1 says
So one small bag of sweets in 2 years is a problem how?
Kelly says
Because when you look at the big picture, it’s more gratuitous sugar given to kids who already consume, ON A DAILY BASIS, many, many times the recommended daily amount of 12-16 grams of sugar (which translates to 3-4 teaspoons). Added sugar is in practically every food purchased in the middle of the grocery store and in restaurants. It’s easy to check this — just look at labels and nutrition info and do the math.
Let’s say a child has the following food in a day: for breakfast, 1 cup of Kellogg’s frosted flakes and 1 cup of Nesquick chocolate milk; for lunch, a PB&J sandwich with 2 slices of Arnold’s whole grain bread and 2 tablespoons each of Jif peanut butter and Welches grape jelly, along with three Oreo cookies; for dinner, Panera kids mac & cheese, Greek salad, and a chocolate chip cookie. All of that food has 129 grams/32.25 teaspoons of sugar, nearly all of it added sugar. That’s nearly eight times the recommended amount of sugar in a single day.
If we add in one pouch of Capri sun and a Gogurt for snacks (26 grams/6.5 teaspoons of sugar), we’ve now increased the amount of sugar in that one day to a whopping 155 grams/38.75 teaspoons. (Even if a child eats half of everything mentioned above, the total sugar is still nearly five times the recommended amount.) And that’s not including extras that have been debated here like cupcakes and bags of candy.
All of this sugar day in and day out creates all kinds of dietary and health risks for our children. So, to answer your question, it’s a problem because we should be helping parents reduce the amount of sugar consumed by their kids on a daily basis, not adding to it.
Stacy @School-Bites.com says
I’m with you, Kelly. In the past week, my kids have been given candy three times when I wasn’t around. The fact that the orthodontist office gave your daughter a whole BAG full is truly unbelievable. Some people clearly don’t seem to understand that sugar is harmful.