As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Both Obamas Can Claim Credit for Fewer Fat Kids

The number of fat kids – okay, the rate of childhood obesity . . . gosh, though, that takes so long to type – has declined ever so slightly among low income children, and First Lady Michelle Obama might be able to claim some credit, according to the New York Times.

But why leave out the other Obama? Both deserve credit.

You see, as I’m sure you’re aware, Michelle has been running a campaign to trim kids waistlines called “Let’s Move.” The Times likes this.

Children now consume fewer calories from sugary beverages than they did in 1999, Dr. Blanck said. More women are breast-feeding, which can lead to healthier weight gain for young children. Federal researchers have also chronicled a drop in overall calories for children in the past decade, down by 7 percent for boys and 4 percent for girls, but health experts said those declines were too small to make much difference.

Another explanation is that some combination of state, local and federal policies aimed at reducing obesity is starting to have an effect. Michelle Obama has led a push to change young children’s eating and exercise habits and 10,000 child care centers across the country have signed on.

But even the Times admits there’s absolutely no evidence what Michelle is doing has had any effect at all!

“We can’t prove what are the changes in environment and policy that led to” the declining rates, Dr. Frieden said. But he added that it was hard to believe that the government policies now in place “aren’t having a big role here.”

Look, I would support Michelle if she was just trying to change the Cult of Overeating and not also creating her own government mandates. If she was just trying to change attitudes, it couldn’t hurt.

Meanwhile, her husband Barack has embarked on a parallel program which is demonstrably having an effect on the amount of food children are eating:

HE’S RUINING THE ECONOMY!

By failing to boost economic growth and substantially decrease joblessness, President Obama IS ENSURING THAT PEOPLE HAVE LESS MONEY TO SPEND ON FOOD.

It’s a stroke of genius, I must say.

We know his policies are working to keep food off the table because the number of people on Food Stamps has just about doubled during his presidency, to nearly 50 million! And it shows no sign of declining.

Meanwhile, the Obama poverty rate is at 15 percent, right back where it was when we started the Big Government War on Poverty in the mid-1960s.

What’s more, Obama is a big supporter of the corn-based fuel ethanol, the demand for which raises the price of corn and – you guessed it – the endless assortment of appetizing processed snacks and meals made from corn products. It’s fattening farmers but slimming poor people.

So congratulations are in order to BOTH Obamas.

Of course, the New York Times doesn’t mention the possibility that The Lousy Economy is reducing the amount of food parents can buy for their kids. Such a shame – I thought the Times supported the president!

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

16 Responses to Both Obamas Can Claim Credit for Fewer Fat Kids

  1. “What’s more, Obama is a big supporter of the corn-based fuel ethanol, the demand for which raises the price of corn and – you guessed it – the endless assortment of appetizing processes snacks and meals made from corn products.”

    It also increases the cost to feed livestock, thereby driving up the cost of meat and poultry for consumers.

  2. Keith — Note the “eat” part:

    “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.” he added. (Roseburg, Oregon, 5/17/2008)

    • Anne, I think you are close on the SUV part too.

      High oil prices leads to people not wanting to use their cars anymore and leads to people walking/biking more.

      Of course liberals love high gas prices and wish they could go higher. More taxes per gallon on those darn rich people, and less pollution in the air from those poor folks.

  3. it was hard to believe that the government policies now in place “aren’t having a big role here.”

    Hard to believe? Wow–how scientific can you get? Maybe they threw out their arugula lunch salad and saved on fat from the dressing? Kind of hard to believe that, I admit. But talk about supposition and predisposition as fact! Also, Oregon I think had kids inching up–and they run up and down mts there and live on bottled water (sarc). Maybe these “scientists” need to drill a little deeper if the numbers are even significant.

  4. What a bunch of hooey.
    Has there been some massive study done on pre-school children’s weight fluctuation, or is there a data-base of how many women are breast-feeding their babies? Of course not.
    This is just a poofy fluff piece that was probably “suggested” by the WhiteHouse flunkies to make MrsO feel good and important. Her ridiculous program that encouraged childen to go outside and run around the block, then go home and have a cabbage sandwich made with wheatgerm bread is a flop.

    The push the WhiteHouse made to change the school lunch programs is another fiasco; the kids aren’t eating the fruits and veggies that are mandated, so schools are quietly returning tater-tots to the menus.

    We can change the way we eat or what we feed our children, but we can’t do it with a government mandate or in one generation.

    • “The push the WhiteHouse made to change the school lunch programs is another fiasco; the kids aren’t eating the fruits and veggies that are mandated, so schools are quietly returning tater-tots to the menus.”

      So true. At the high school my two children attend they are charged extra if they don’t take the fruits and veggies. Of course, they get dumped as they are tasteless anyway. The portions are smaller and filled more and more with soy and tofu. That just might have an impact on our children, but I’m pretty sure it’s not a healthy one. There aren’t enough calories for these high-school kids to sustain them for the rest of the day. No wonder they devour everything in the cupboard when they get home. To make matters worse, they are changing what is “allowed” in the vending machines as well. Ah well……they know what is best for us.

      • Soy is unhealthy for everyone, adolescents especially, and particularly teenage boys. It mimics estrogen and can affect proper development and functioning of the hormonal system.
        I’ve read articles where experts blame the ubiquitous soy for premature sexual development in girls and the feminization of young men.

  5. I’d be interested to see what studies they are using to tout these results. My inclination is to believe this is nothing but an effort to pump the first lady, etc. What will she run for in 2016?

    • This was from Twitchy:

      “The period of time analyzed by the CDC researchers was 2008 to 2011. Let’s Move! wasn’t announced until February 2010. By the time the program was implemented, much of the observed decline in childhood obesity presumably had already occurred.

      But that’s not the worst of it. Scientific American, in an article published last December, said that the decline in childhood obesity among low-income kids began in 2003.

      That would be six years before the Obamas arrived at the White House:

      A subtle but important shift in early childhood obesity rates in this low-income population seems to have begun in 2003. Obesity rates increased from 13.05 percent in 1998 to 15.21 percent in 2003. Soon, however, obesity rates began decreasing, reaching 14.94 percent by 2010. Extreme obesity followed a similar pattern, increasing from 1.75 percent to 2.22 percent from 1998 to 2003, but declining to 2.07 percent by 2010.”

  6. As I recall, Michelle LaVaughn played a heavy hand in forcing her ‘healthy food’ scam on McDonald’s – namely the fruit and walnut salad. Last month it was announced that McD is removing the salad and other ‘nutritious’ food items from their menu – citing poor sales and a 3% drop in their share prices.

    This woman is the kiss of death for the food industry! A couple of years ago she went on a rampage against the restaurant industry for making their servings too large. McDonald’s must have listened to her. Their Big Mac’s are nearly half the size (all lettuce, no beef) they were before MO stuck her nose in everyone’s business. I will never go back.

    If there are fewer ‘fat kids’, it’s only due to the fact that their rabbit food school lunches are ending up in trash cans across the country, Undaunted, the lobstah-loving FLINO is planning to release a hip-hop rap video to promote her Let’s Move agenda for Black and Latino kids in the public school system. The heck with the ‘3 R’s’ – they’re going to be watching this exhibitionist doing her ‘moves’. Cruel and unusual punishment!

    • “Last month it was announced that McD is removing the salad and other ‘nutritious’ food items from their menu”

      I hope they leave the McWrap!

  7. Keith, I am so fed up with the new York Times I no longer read it. But my understanding is that the report covered the period 2008 through 2011. Given that the Let’s Move program did not really ramp up until 2011, it’s difficult to see how Mrs. O can take credit. Am I correct in assuming the NYT ignored that point?

  8. Well I’m a bitter old bitty these days and I’m not giving either of them
    credit for anything. They’re depriving the military of a warm meal while
    she wastes time on that phony Whole Foods garden. All the while the kids were going hungry under Frau Obama’s plan she’s not a nutritionist
    and the kids were hungry. Also when the Royal family all start leading by
    example and drop the expensive food and wine and liquor maybe they
    could get a mention.