Friedeberg 1

David Friedeberg

Professor Joseph O'Neal

A-CAPS 4360.04 Moral Issues in Society

18 March 2013

Should the government reformulate and provide stricter

guidelines for the nutritional content of school lunches?

Obesity has become an important issue that is threatening the United States in more

ways than one. Not only are people getting fatter every day, and therefore hurting their own

health, but they have also become a disastrous economic drain for the country and its

citizens. Our children have become accustomed to this, and they are already heading down

this same path; eating junk and being overweight is now becoming the standard. The

question is whether we can help steer clear the next generation by compelling children to

eat healthy at school by providing government funded nutritious lunches. While this seems

like an easy fix for the problem, it is not as there are many obstacles and issues with doing

so. The question to be answered is whether the government should reformulate and provide

stricter guidelines for the nutritional content of school lunches?

The scope of this research paper goes as far as to deal specifically with action on the

part of the United States federal government with the public schools in its jurisdiction.

Obesity is the key term in this dilemma, and whether it can actually be effectively reduced

by providing healthy school lunches paid the taxpayers. Diane Schanzenbach, professor at

the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, defines child obesity as a “body

Friedeberg 2

mass index (BMI, the ration of the weight in kg to height in meters squared) that surpasses

the 95th percentile of a fixed distribution for a child’s age and gender.” Schanzenbach

mentions that the cutoff for elementary school age students is a BMI of 20, although

according to freelance writer Barbara Mantel, BMI scores are interpreted differently in

children because the amount of fat changes with age and is different between boys and

girls. At the time this paper was written the Journal of the American Medical Association

estimates that 16.9% of children are obese, and according to the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, “in 2010 more than one third of the children and adolescents were

overweight”. This paper will deal strictly with the issues of the federal government funding

and reformulating stricter guidelines in regards to school lunches, it will not deal with

preventing obesity in general or deal with obesity in private schools or caused from other

factors such as genetics. By limiting the scope to include only the benefits or harms caused

by regulating foods in schools, we will be able to conceive a much more precise decision

on whether it should be done.

The government is already starting to make changes to legislation in order to

provide these stricter guidelines. Recently a school breakfast might have consisted of an

“Apple Jacks cereal topped with strawberry flavored milk, a Pop-Tart, a pack of Goldfish,

and a carton of orange juice”, in which according to former Washington Post Reporter Ed

Bruske, children were consuming the equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar before the start of

classes (Mantel). Following the passage of the Healthy Schools Act in 2010, children may

now instead have choices including organic yogurt, cottage cheese and low-sugar cereal

(Mantel). This can make a big difference, since according to The Official Journal of the

British Dietetic Association, school lunches contribute approximately one third of a child’s

Friedeberg 3

daily nutrient intake (McCarthy, et al.). But while these products may be available at some

schools in the country, it is still not available in most, and will probably not be available

unless the government decides that controlling school lunch nutrition is actually the correct

step to take.

The history of obesity begins hundreds of years ago and its causes have changed,

but it was not until the 1960s-1990s that real concern started to form. In 1966 the Child

Nutrition Act required the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop nutrition

regulations for school meals. The global obesity epidemic was declared when in 1974 it

was discovered that 5% of U.S children were obese, and in 1980 that 15% of U.S. adults

were obese (Mantel). Shortly after in 1986 the International Association for the Study of

Obesity was founded, and by 1990 all packaged food labels in the U.S. were required to list

nutrition information (Mantel). In the mid-1980s, one of the first health food movements

and a major party to the current controversy was founded by young Italian leftists who

appreciated their country’s regional cooking and were opposing the placement of the first

McDonald’s in Rome (Glazer). This group, now called the Slow Food Movement, evolved

into an international movement with followers in more than 140 countries (Glazer). Even

though scientific breakthroughs emerge such as the discovery of leptin, the hormone made

by fat tissue that helps regulate weight by American molecular geneticist Jeffery Friedman,

by 1994, 10% of U.S. children were obese (Mantel). As anti-obesity drugs such as Fen-

Phen are released, and then quickly banned due to side effects such as death, in 1998 the

World Health Organization identifies the obesity epidemic, and in 2000 the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 19.8% of adults were obese (Mantel).

This same year, the U.S. Government set a goal to reduce childhood obesity to 5% by 2010,

Friedeberg 4

and Slow Food USA is founded in New York, at which time Americans spend half their

food dollars on restaurants (Mantel, Glazer). Just a few years after that, childhood obesity

reached 17.1% as the American Cancer Society linked excess bodyweight to increased risk

of death from cancer (Mantel). In 2006, the Slow Food international conference in Turin,

Italy draws 8,000 delegates and 100,000 visitors to tasting halls (Glazer). By 2010 the CDC

declared childhood obesity rates stable, while 26.7% of American adults were declared

obese; at this time the White House Task Force set goal of eliminating childhood obesity in

a generation (Mantel).

The parties to the controversy are composed of a very broad spectrum of people and

organizations. In favor the stricter guidelines are the clear intentions of the U.S.

government, the White House Task Force, and now in particular the Office of the First

Lady Michelle Obama who in 2010 launched Let’s Move!, a campaign to tackle childhood

obesity (The White House). There are also numerous foundations and advocacy groups in

favor, such as the Slow food Movement, Whole Kids Foundation, Let’s Move Salad Bars to

Schools, Healthy Schools Campaign, Food Alliance, The Lunch Box Project, Farm to

School, and Yum-O, Rachel Ray’s foundation who has featured other childhood nutrition

supporters such as Bill Clinton (Rachael Ray's Non-profit Organization Yum-o!). On the

individual level interested parties include millions of children who could benefit from

receiving healthy food at school which would improve their nutrition, and help live a

healthier life. Also to benefit are all of the U.S. taxpayers who are burdened will increasing

healthcare costs, and higher taxes to pay for obesity related healthcare. In addition to these,

the affected parties may even include the public and the environment who is affected by the

different farming practices. On the other side of the issue, children themselves may be

Friedeberg 5

affected as their liberties are taken away as they are forced to consume food they do not

like while their delicious snicker doodles and pizzas vanish. On this side of the issue we

also find U.S. taxpayers who have to pay for the tens of millions of meals served every day

in schools, of which costs will only dramatically rise if healthier foods or even organic

foods replace the current food offerings. Parents may also be affected as their kids may

become accustomed to eating only fresh and organic foods, and therefore start demanding

them at home where parents would have to start buying the much more costly organic

foods; this can be a big problem as some parents can already barely afford non-organic food

as it is. Lastly, pharmaceutical companies and certain doctors would also be affected in the

long run if obesity related healthcare, which is currently in the hundreds of billions of

annual dollars starts decreasing. Many companies who concentrate on obesity related

healthcare products could greatly lose sales; this would personally hurt me as one of my

family’s business in Mexico is Laboratorios Silanes, a pharmaceutical company that

concentrates on producing diabetes related medications I will not mention food

manufacturers and suppliers as an interested party as they are experts at adapting their

products to what the public wants, and the change of health requirements would simply be

another regular change cycle for them. This can be seen in companies such as Lays who is

now offering healthier baked chips, Domino’s pizza who now offers whole wheat crust and

semi- natural ingredients or at least healthier options, and HEB who is now expanding their

organic and health foods section.

The primary issue with improving nutrition at schools is cost. Mantel mentions that

the National School Lunch Program serves low-cost or free meals to more than 30 million

children, and the School Breakfast Program to more than 10 million children per school

Friedeberg 6

day. At an average of 180 school days per year, this comes out to 7.2 billion meals per year.

Mary Clare Jalonick, a writer for the Huffington Post, mentions that New York Senator

Kirsten Gilibrand stated that the government needs to increase funding by $0.70 per child

in order to fund a healthier national school lunch program. Gilibrand is mentions that this

would cost $4 billion per year, not to mention the costs associated with installing new

kitchen equipment and training cafeteria workers in every school (Mantel, Jalonick). The

amount of funding required for these programs is very high, and some people believe the

money would be better spent in many other sectors or programs. The other issue against it

deals with children’s spaces and their freedom of choice. By stocking the schools full of

organic foods, children will be forced to change their eating habits as they will no longer be

allowed to make the choice to eat pizza or not. This infringement of freedom of choice is a

very serious one as many children take much pleasure in spending school lunches eating the

foods they enjoy while having quality time with their friends. If children start being limited

to eat certain things, what else will come in the future in terms of limiting?

On the other hand, the costs of obesity must also be assessed and taken into

consideration. The Harvard School of Public Health mentions that there are both direct

costs, such as those resulting from outpatient and inpatient health services, tests and drug

therapy, along with indirect costs such as the value of lost work due to days missed from

work, higher insurance premiums, and even wages as studies have shown that obesity is

associated with a lower household income (Colditz). While the indirect costs are impossible

to accurately measure, the direct costs of obesity can be easily pinpointed. The CDC states

that in 2008 the costs of obesity totaled about $147 billion for that year; a number over 36

times larger than the cost of implementing a healthy school lunch program that may begin

Friedeberg 7

to reduce these numbers.

After mentioning all of the bad things increasing nutrition in schools would prevent,

it is also important to list the benefits kids receive by eating these nutritious foods. There

are many reasons kids should eat healthy and organic foods, and one of the primary reasons

are the nutritional benefits. A review of more than 400 scientific papers found evidence that

organic foods have higher levels of vitamin C, minerals and important trace elements which

are key to a child’s health (Glazer). A three year study also found a link between the whole

organic farming system and higher levels of omega 3 fatty acids in organic milk, which are

necessary for human health as our bodies can’t make them (University of Maryland

Medical Center). The University of Maryland Medical Center states that Omega-3 fatty

acids play a crucial role in brain function, as well as growth and development along with

memory, brain performance and behavioral functions; something that is obviously critically

important with kids. In fact, it is known that when infants do not get enough Omega-3 fatty

acids from their mother during pregnancy are at risk for developing brain function, nerve

and vision problems (University of Maryland Medical Center). Research also shows that

Omega-3 fatty acids can help reduce chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer, and

may also lower high cholesterol, high blood pressure, lower triglycerides and appoproteins

(both markers of diabetes), help prevent arthritis, reduce symptoms of lupus, increase levels

of calcium which will improve bone strength, and even help treat depression, bipolar

disorder, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma and even cancer

(University of Maryland Medical Center). Convinced switching children to organic milk is

worth the pennies?

Friedeberg 8

The other parties who are affected and I have not mentioned are the public, and the

environment. Natural and organic farms that grow or create the healthy foods advocated are

usually full of wildlife and different species which are attracted to the farms. These animals

can live and flourish in these areas because everything is pollutant free, and so they can

continue keeping a balance in the ecosystems of the world. I even know of a natural foie

gras farm in Spain where there is so much natural food and diversity, that ducks simply

land in the farm and stay there to live a great quality of live. Foie gras is usually

stigmatized because usually it involved force feeding ducks, and it is a very painful and

inhumane process, but in this case the ducks simply eat as they wish in their new home and

some of the world’s best foie gras is created, all in a humane and natural manner. In cases

where the animals do not simply flock to the grounds, they are still kept to the highest

animal welfare standards, and these animals can actually live their lives as they are meant

to before they are consumed; this includes cramped living, feeding them foods they are not

meant to consume which may cause disease or even force feeding as I mentioned above.

These farms also use minimal if any pesticides and pollutants, so the environment is

unaffected and no new pollution is created. A traditional factory that makes sugary cereals

or sodas will probably be very polluting and will most likely not care as much as natural

farms do about the environment and their employees.

The other side of the argument relating to how nutritious some of these foods are, in

particular organic foods is based on other work that suggests that the higher level of

vitamins, minerals and other trace elements is not conclusive because some findings are

contradictory (Glazer). Rob Lyons, assistant editor and health writer says this is because

“crop varietal, local growing conditions, cooking method, and freshness are all likely to

Friedeberg 9

have a much greater effect on our food than whether manmade fertilizers or pesticides were

applied to it” (Glazer). It also seems that very often many diseases or maladies are said to

be linked to a bad diet, but often these cannot be properly grounded. Blaming stress on

being overweight is one example even though “it is not always clear whether stress leads to

overweight or whether being overweight leads to stress” (Gundersen). Another issue is that

sometimes alternative lunches such as brown-bag lunches, something people think is

healthier, what lunches should become and be based on, and what kids should be eating

instead of school lunches, end up being unhealthier than school lunches. A comparison

study found that brown bag lunches can contain an average of more than twice the fat, 30%

more sodium, and 20% more saturated fat over regular school lunches (Rees, Richards, and

Gregory).

The values on the side which would like to see this reform include health, life,

generosity and charity, wisdom and education, and money. There is absolutely no question

that eating unhealthy and being obese leads to many serious health issues including

diabetes, hypertension, and many heart related problems which greatly increase the chance

of death; over 300,000 Americans die each year from obesity related diseases (Greenblatt).

After health and life, most people are concerned with money and wealth. These values can

be violated either if you are someone who is or will be obese, or even if you are healthy

yourself. Average annualized costs of being obese including value of lost life are $8,365 for

obese women and $6,518 for obese men (Dor, Ferguson, Langwith and Tan). Also, as

previously mentioned, obesity is directly associated with lower wages and ultimately a

lower household income which is the most direct way to directly affect a person’s personal

wealth and violate this value of money. If you are healthy and do not fit into that category

Friedeberg 10

your monetary values will still be violated by forcing you to pay higher taxes in order to

help pay for obesity related healthcare costs. Accordingly Michael F. Jacobson, founder and

executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest comments that “To do

nothing — while sugary drinks [or other unhealthy foods] fuel an epidemic of obesity and

other expensive diseases — would be reckless from a public health and a fiscal standpoint”

(Clemmitt). Other important values that must be considered are charity and generosity.

Even though some people might argue that it’s a lot of work or its too expensive to increase

the nutrition in schools, for those who value charity and generosity it will be a lot more

important to try to make a difference. People who value this do not mind paying more or

doing some work in order to help other people, plus let’s not forget these other people are

your and my kids who will be the leaders of tomorrow. We must give them at least the same

chance we were given even if it will be more expensive; and do not forget, who’s going to

take care of you if your kids are disables or die at the age of 30 from diabetes or heart

disease? Moving forward we can focus on the values of wisdom and education. One of the

major problems with obesity in children is also that they are simply not educated, and do

not know what is healthy for them and why they should be eating those things and not junk

food. People who value education and wisdom are proud to know what is healthy, and will

also want other people, especially their kids, to receive this education and have this

knowledge. Education and wisdom are values that can often be hard to acquire, and

especially so if a person is ignorant or unaware about the topic and its importance. We see

this with kids and nutrition very clearly. I am a rather fit person of decent size [I say this in

a good way], and people can notice I eat healthy and go to the gym without asking, so I

often get questions about how to get fit, and a lot of these questions refer to nutrition. From

these personal experiences I have noticed that a huge amount of grown adults do not even

Friedeberg 11

know where to start or what they should eat in order to be healthy. These are smart [mostly]

and educated adults who you think would know and value health education, but they simply

do not know and are clueless about what to do. Now considering this, think about how

much a child 1/3 or 1/4 the age of one of these adults will know about nutrition and being

healthy. They will know bananas.

On the other side, by reforming the school lunch programs the values of freedom of

choice, individual sovereignty, money, comfort, tolerance, and individuality are being

conflicted. Children should be allowed freedom of choice on what they can eat, and their

individual sovereignty should be respected. These values are as important as the freedom of

speech, we value the freedom to say whatever we want, speak our mind and do whatever

we want within legal reason, and this should extend to what our children are allowed to eat.

If a child chooses to eat healthy, he could very well bring a brown bag lunch form home

with what he pleases, but he should not be infringed upon. The value of tolerance can be

summed up by what Katherine Mangu-Ward, Managing Editor of Reason Magazine states;

the “main reason government shouldn't fiddle with our drink orders [government limitation

of sugar consumption] is one that those guys who once dumped tea in the Boston Harbor

would understand: People should be free to make their own choices and their own mistakes.

People engage in all kinds of ‘unhealthy’ behaviors like eating jellybeans and ‘forgetting’ to

floss. Some of those behaviors cost taxpayers money and some do not, but just because

something is a terrible idea doesn't mean it is the business of the state to advise against,

restrict, tax or otherwise limit it” (Clemmitt). The value of individuality is also linked to

those of freedom of choice and individual sovereignty. People value their right to choose

who they want to be, and this includes what they want to eat, what lifestyle they want to

Friedeberg 12

pursue, and how they want to physically look; all which can be traced back to how people

eat, and how these choices were made from the time they were children in school. On the

conflicting value of money and wealth, we see the extra $4 billion dollars required to pay

for these healthy lunches. This money has to come from the taxes we as citizens pay, and

people might not believe that they should be paying for kids to be eating organic while they

do not care about this issue, or they cannot even afford to feed themselves properly, let

alone with organic foods. Money is and had always been one of the most important values

to people, and many will place this in top of many of the values listed on the opposing side,

including health and the possibility of loss of life down the road. Cash in king and many

people prefer to be happy eating food which they think tastes better, and which they are

used to, over spending more valuable money on what they might think is useless healthy

food. This leads me to the value of comfort. Many people are already used to eating certain

foods, and this includes children. They are used to eating pizza and ice cream and are

comfortable doing so. When they are forced to eat foods foreign to them, they may simply

be very uncomfortable; especially in a school environment where they feel like they are

being watched by other kids, and might actually be made fun of for eating certain things.

By eating the same foods they grew up with, kids will stay in their comfort zone which

should be respected. People do call it comfort food for a reasons after all.

On the pro-reform side, the obligations are primarily to the kids who would be the

most influenced by the reform. There also exist an obligation to the rest of the United

States, and all of the taxpayers who are contributing to pay for obesity related expenses,

and are being affected by rising healthcare costs. On the opposing side, the conflicting

obligations are to the children whose lunch, and freedom of choice would be affected, along

Friedeberg 13

with the United States taxpayers who would have to pay for the premium price of the

healthier foods.

As we can see, the obligations in this dilemma are conflicting. Both sides of the

issue have obligations to children, and to tax payers. The obligations to the children on side

is to their health and life, and on the opposing side to their freedom of choice. Personally I

value health and life way above freedom of choice, so I believe the more important

obligation is to keep children healthy and alive. There is no value in freedom of choice if

you’re dead, and there is not much of a value in it both if you have lost limbs due to

diabetes and are chained to an insulin needle and a glucometer. In some cases the person

would lose all of the values; health by becoming obese and getting diabetes, freedom of

choice by not being able to eat everything they want because of the diabetes, and eventually

death because of the diabetes or further complications leading to heart disease. The second

obligation also conflicts with the United States taxpayer’s interests. Both sides seem to

inquire costs and potentially save money, but the potential savings from reducing obesity

related healthcare costs is many times higher than what it would cost to improve school

lunches. Not to mention that once we add on the value of life, no amount of money should

be worth the amount of lives that obesity claims every day.

After much thought, my proposed solutions will be in favor of reformulating the

guidelines by following the advice of Senator Gilibrand and increasing the federal school

lunch budget by the needed $0.70. Although the costs associated with this are estimated at

$4 billion per year, I believe both the health of future generations along with the immense

potential in savings from reducing obesity related healthcare would be very well worth it.

Friedeberg 14

This means that the value of money and wealth is won over by these savings, and

personally for me the values of health and life are more important than personal

sovereignty. If you analyze this dilemma with a normative ethical theory such as

Utilitarianism, you will arrive at the same conclusion. Using utilitarianism we can analyze

the pro-reform side by comparing the utility gained from having healthy children, gaining

education about nutrition, and reducing the costs of obesity related healthcare with the loss

of utility from the loss of freedom of choice. On the other side of the issue a utility would

be gained by saving the money that would have otherwise been used to fund the lunch

program, and there would be a loss of utility from the loss of health and life which would

have otherwise been prevented by following the lunch reform program. Since it is

impossible to fully analyze all of this utility, we can generalize in which case I believe there

would be more utility gained on the pro-reform side both from the saving of money, and

from the increase in health.

After all of this research, I have been so compelled by the evidence supporting this

reform that I have decided to do my part. My action plan for this capstone paper has been to

start a charitable foundation which will help bring healthy foods to schools in order to aid

and push the slow government reform. The charity called The Friedeberg Foundation is

now approved by the Internal Revenue Service as public charity with 501c3 status. The

project to help bring healthy foods to schools is called the Purple Potato Project, named as

such because we aim to teach children about healthy foods [such as purple potatoes] which

are nutritious, but which they may not be aware about.

The foundation will start with several projects that will help bring healthy foods to

Friedeberg 15

schools, as well as educate children about the benefits of healthy eating. These include a

school bus project with the goal of travelling to schools in order to offer education, the

purchasing and implementation of salad bars in schools, and a dinner party series devised to

raise the funds for the former programs. I believe that by both making healthy foods

available in the lunch rooms along with teaching kids about nutrition in a fun and

interactive way, we will really be able to start to make a difference; or at least so in the

Austin area.

The school bus project will entail purchasing an old school bus, and then

transforming it into a mobile garden. The seats will be removed, and in their place planters

will be installed on both sides near the windows. The planters will grow all natural and

organic plants and vegetables such as kale, carrots, beets, purple potatoes, and many others.

The bus will be parked by a local farm who has agreed to take care of the crops, and will

then be driven over to schools when requested in order to give a sort of school-delivery

field trip. Kids will be able to board the bus and receive short, but interesting lectures about

healthy foods, and healthy eating given by nutrition students from Texas State University

who have pledged to help. Kids will then be allowed to pick vegetables they want in a dish

such as a salad, juice or a pasta which will then be made fresh for them to enjoy on the spot

while they learn about its benefits. This mobile field trip will make it easier for schools to

participate over having to go to a farm because it is free for them, requires a lot less travel

time, and eliminates the need to field trip permission slips. The salad bar project will be an

alliance with the Whole Foods Foundation’s project, Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools. In

this project, schools request that salad bars be placed in their lunch rooms through Whole

Foods’ project, and then we will be able to purchase these for the schools. In addition to the

Friedeberg 16

salad bars, the foundation will try to subsidize the extra cost acquired by offering the salad

bar in order to make it viable for schools who have a very limited budget.

The dinner party series named Eat to Feed will be our primary way to source funds

for the programs through selling tickets, and by growing our donor database and spreading

the word to possible donors. Dinner parties will be held once a month in different

restaurants around Austin; so far there are two restaurants who have already agreed to lend

us their facilities on a days they are regularly closed. Local chefs such as Mark Holmes

from Justine’s, David Bull form Congress and Plinio Sandalio from The Carrillon who have

already agreed to work with us, will then cook delicious meals with locally sourced

ingredients worthy of the best restaurants. The tickets sold will buy a seat at one of these

dinners, and all funds from ticket sales will then be used for either of our charitable

projects. At these dinners we will also be able to source additional funds by giving a brief

presentation about the issue at hand, and why they should care.

The foundation is headed by me, David Friedeberg along with two supporting

directors Jennifer Crossland and Evelyn Bell who will be handling operations. Other

partners so far include head chef Mark Holmes, coordinator of the Texas State nutrition

student team Hannah Marshall, and Bread & Butter Public Relations. We are a small team

so far, but the group is a very dedicated and enthusiastic one.

To conclude, my proposed solution indicates that the government should indeed

provide stricter guidelines in regard to school lunches because the benefits and values

associated with them far outweigh the potential losses. If opponents against this reform

Friedeberg 17

complain about the costs, they will have to be shown that this is an investment in the future

of the country that will pay for itself many times over; not only in a monetary sense, but

also by prolonging and improving the lives of its citizens. I personally also pledge to help

solve the problem by starting a foundation which will help improve the lunchroom

situation.

Friedeberg 18

Work Cited

"Childhood Obesity Facts." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, 28 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

Clemmitt, Marcia. "Sugar Controversies." CQ Researcher 30 Nov. 2012: 1013-36.

Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Colditz GW, Wang, YC. Economic costs of obesity. In: Hu F, Obesity Epidemiology.

New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2008. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

Daniel, Paul, and Ulla Gustafsson. "School Lunches: Children's Services Or

Children's Spaces?." Children's Geographies 8.3 (2010): 265-274. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.

Dor, Avi, PhD, Ferguson, Christine, JD, Langwith, Casey, BA, Tan, Ellen, MSc (A

Heavy Burden: The Individual Costs of Being Overweight and Obese in the United States”

The George Washington University School of Public health and Health Services

Department of Health Policy. 21 Sep. 2010. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

"Economic Costs." The Obesity Prevention Source. Harvard School of Public

Health, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

"First Lady Michelle Obama." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 11

Feb. 2013.

Glazer, Sarah. “Slow Food Movement.” CQ Researcher. 26 Jan. 2007: 73-96. Web.

14 Mar. 2013.

Greenblatt, Alan. "Obesity Epidemic." CQ Researcher 31 Jan. 2003: 73-104. Web.

17 Mar. 2013.

Gundersen, C., Schanzenbach, D., & Just, D. “Insights into Obesity from a

Friedeberg 19

Behavioral Economics Perspective: Discussion”. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics.94.2 (2012): 344-346. Business Source Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

Jalonick, Mary Clare. "Senate Advances School Lunch Reform: Is A 6 Cent Increase

Enough?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 26 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Feb. 2013.

H. McCarthy, et al. "Comparison Of A Sample Of Primary School Dinners To

Current Nutritional Standards." Journal Of Human Nutrition & Dietetics 24.3 (2011): 293.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

"Let's Move! Salad Bars 2 Schools" Let's Move! Salad Bars 2 Schools. N.p., n.d.

Web. 9 Feb. 2013.

Mantel, Barbara. "Preventing Obesity." CQ Researcher 1 Oct. 2010: 797-820. Web.

5 Feb. 2013.

Ogden, Cynthia L., PhD, MRP; Carroll, Margaret D. MSPH; Kit, Brian K. MD,

MPH; Flegal, Katherine M., PhD, MPH “Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in Body Mass

Index Among US Children and Adolescents, 1999-2010.” The Journal of the American

Medical Association 307.5 (2012): 483-490. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.40. Web. 10 Feb. 2013

“Omega-3 Fatty Acids.” University of Maryland Medical Center. M.p., n.d. Web. 15

Mar. 2013.

"Rachael Ray's Non-profit Organization Yum-o!" Rachael Ray's Non Profit

Organization, Yum-o! N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2013.

Rees, G. A., C. J. Richards, and J. Gregory. "Food And Nutrient Intakes Of Primary

School Children: A Comparison Of School Meals And Packed Lunches." Journal Of

Human Nutrition & Dietetics 21.5 (2008): 420-427. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18

Mar. 2013.

Friedeberg 20

Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore. "Do School Lunches Contribute To Childhood

Obesity?." Journal Of Human Resources 44.3 (2009): 684-709. ERIC. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.