New York City Meatless Monday

The ongoing politics of the diet offered at schools causes a major debate. There are differing opinions on the government's intervention in the feeding programmes of public schools. The debate results from the question of responsibility of obesity in children. Some feel that the government is to blame and should take the necessary actions to minimize obesity while others feel that it is the responsibility of parents to keep their children healthy. The government should formulate other ways of managing obesity in children in place of regulating intake of meat in school.
The government should leave the decision of diet to citizens. The government of New York recently created a program for all the public schools that ban the inclusion of meat, both red and white, on Mondays. Students will have to consume alternative meals. Politics of food in New York arise in the debate on the reasons for the government to state so. The government and its supporters on the matter feel that the move is necessary with the reasons that it is a way of promoting healthy and environmental-friendly alternatives (Ihnat 2019). The move is an extension of the ongoing advocacy for meatless meals in other public entities such as hospitals. However, some feel that there is a political game that the New York City Mayor is playing. Some of them cite the reason that in a free country, everyone has the right to choose what they want to have for food. The decision, therefore, should be left in the discretion of parents and not imposed on them since it is a way of limiting them to what the government deems fit. People should be opposed to the idea because it is a way of practicing undue power over its subjects.
Regulating school feeding programmes may be not effective enough. Obesity in children occurs due to a multiplicity of factors. Meat is to some extent unhealthy but is a very small fraction of the factors that contribute to obesity. Although the government is moving in to help in making a better diet for children, the effort of minimizing the amount of meat taken is a slow method of doing so. There are several other factors that contribute to increasing obesity among school children. The US Department of Agriculture has been making policies to make healthier meals for students. The New York City Mayor is excited to introduce the program (Ihnat 2019). He may be basing his arguments on dieticians’ advice which supports that even the shortest time of having no meat in meals can make a great difference. However, the politics of food that the mayor is playing may be wrong because there are greater deeds that should first be catered for long before narrowing down to the small efforts of reducing meat intake. The government should first take care of such major issues as the playing time for children. Reducing meat intake for the children is hyped and not as effective as it may seem.
Schools should have flexibility instead of rigid guidelines that the government may impose. Although the government of New York has the mandate to exercise power and authority over schools, it should not go to the extent of dictating every program (“Federal Register”, 2017). The same case applies to the rest of the country. The government is a custodian of the law but should not use its authority to create discomfort for people. Considering reducing meat portions may cause negative effects on children from disadvantaged families. Reducing meat intake means reducing the amount of protein that the child gets from the meat. Worse still, it means depriving children the joy that they derive from consuming the meat, yet they may not get the same at home since the families may not afford such a meal. The politics of food in New York is, therefore, oppressive to some children. One way to eliminate such an effect of oppression is to allow schools to be flexible. That way, those in public schools will not feel inferior to those in private schools.
It is the duty of parents to safeguard the health of their children. Although the government should protect everyone including children from such harmful conditions and diseases like obesity, the main person who should be looking after the health of the child is the parent. The government has the mandate to offer an enabling environment for the children to thrive. However, the government is a stakeholder in the well-being of the children but not the main contributor. A child is the responsibility of a parent or guardian. He/she is, therefore, the main player in the affairs of the child (Chera 2017). One of his/her primary duties is to ensure the safety, health, and general well-being of the child. The government should let the parent handle the responsibilities without interfering with their role. Enacting the school food program that is under the manipulation of the authorities alters the feeding program of the child. Parent may be forced to adopt new feeding programmes for the child. The alteration of the programme will affect many households. The government should, therefore, not get involved in the feeding plan of the schools.
If the government enables lower prices of foodstuffs, there would be less obesity. Most of the obese children are those from poor backgrounds. Also, children from families who can afford breakfast are by far less likely to be obese. Children from well-up families can afford decent food which is well-balanced and eaten in the right ratios. On the other hand, children from disadvantaged families are likely to eat any available food without being mindful of the nutritional benefits of the components (Howard 2018). Creating a more affordable market price of food is one of the viable ways to enable the low-income earning families to afford a decent meal. It is only then that their children will also eat healthy diets and reduce the chances of being obese. The government needs to solve the problem of obesity through deep knowledge of its details and causes first. Having affordable food provides a better solution than dealing with the problem superficially by reducing the amounts of meat ingested. With affordable food, even financially poor people can follow proper eating behaviour to avoid obesity in their children.
The government can offer specialized education instead of formulating strict food patterns. The problem of obesity originates from the inability to control eating behaviour and the lack of enough knowledge of the dietary needs of children. There is an information gap in New York society and the whole country at large. Usually, the campaigns that are most audible ask people to do rather obvious things such as staying hydrated and eating vegetables (Chera 2017). However, people do not get the finer details of such things as how they are supposed to plan their weekly eating diets, the amounts of calories that they should have in every meal, and measuring the various mineral components to avoid over-consumption. The government can take advantage of having children who are ready to learn about the effects of a good and bad eatery and how exactly they can ensure it is always good. A lesson on the exact eating patterns would be much more productive than withdrawing a kind of food and providing little information in the reason for action. The education may also be extended to parents as a guide on how to they should take care of their young ones and the potential consequences of failure to stick to the eating programmes and patterns (Chera 2017). They can also be taught how to correct eating disorders in case their children need correction of such behaviour. Educating both the children and their parents is a better method of minimizing obesity than withdrawing some foodstuffs since it covers the source of the problem itself.
The government should take care of all the contributing factors that are beyond the parents’ reach. The government has a much wider scope of coverage than the parents of any child. Parents have more specific roles to play than the government in the children’s well-being. One of the areas that are beyond the reach of parents is advertisement and branding of goods (Jacobs 2019). Although the parent is responsible for what the child consumes, it is hard for them to completely stick to a healthy diet. The government should, therefore, be involved in helpful politics of ensuring that the advertisements for children do not go beyond what they can handle and learn at their age (Jacobs 2019). Also, it should ensure that the content of what is in the children’s products is safe to the health of children. It can also warn parents of the products that may harm children other than leaving them and their children to battle with obesity.
The policy of the New York Mayor requiring public primary schools to exclude meat from the Monday meals is a viable but poor strategy of handling obesity among children. The government is justified to work towards the alleviation of obesity in the city’s children. However, there are better ways in which it can achieve its objectives other than providing an alternative to meat. Such methods as the education of parents and students on matters of health, increasing the affordability of food, and others can work faster and more efficient to produce much better results in the short and long terms.


Works Cited
“Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” Federal Register, 1 Mar. 2017, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatory-reform-agenda.
Adamson, Allan. “Working Moms Could Be to Blame for Child Obesity Epidemic, Study Suggests.” Tech Times, 11 Mar. 2019, www.techtimes.com/articles/239447/20190311/working-moms-could-be-to-blame-for-child-obesity-epidemic-study-suggests.htm.
Ap. “NYC Will Have 'Meatless Mondays' in All Public Schools - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, 11 Mar. 2019, www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2019/03/11/nyc-will-have-meatless-mondays-all-public-schools/mhSlJFhceCvqJI4q0ew06K/story.html.
Chera, Satinder, and Satinder Chera. “When It Comes to Ads and Obesity, Our Kids Are Our Responsibility.” HuffPost Canada, HuffPost Canada, 3 Aug. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.ca/satinder-chera/when-it-comes-to-ads-and-obesity-our-kids-are-our-responsibilit_a_23056534/.
Ducharme, Jamie. “Obesity in America: More Than Half of Kids May Be Obese by 35.” Time, Time, 29 Nov. 2017, time.com/5040902/childhood-obesity-in-America/.
Howard, Jacqueline. “The States Where Childhood Obesity Is Highest.” CNN, 24 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/health/childhood-obesity-state-rates-study/index.html.
Ihnat, Gwen. “New York Mayor Announces ‘Meatless Monday’ Public-School Lunches.” The Takeout, 13 Mar. 2019, thetakeout.com/new-york-mayor-meatless-monday-school-lunches-1833267671.
Jacobs, Andrew. “How Big Tobacco Hooked Children on Sugary Drinks.” The New York Times, 14 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/health/big-tobacco-kool-aid-sugar-obesity.html.
Soechtig, Stephanie, directors. Fed Up. Amazon, 9 Sept. 2014, https://www.amazon.com/Fed-Up-Katie-Couric/dp/B00L5R5GE2/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=fed+up+video&qid=1552610736&s=gateway&sr=8-2
Western Sydney University. “New Link between Childhood Obesity and Early Infant Feeding.” Medical Xpress, 8 Mar. 2019, medicalxpress.com/news/2019-03-link-childhood-obesity-early-infant.html.