According to Las Angeles Times, there is speculation that the National School Lunch Program may be partly to blame the childhood obesity epidemic. But why? How? Isn't the National School Lunch Program suppose to get nutritious food into the stomachs of the children who cannot afford nutritious foods, coming from a low-income family?
From the article:
"The latest report was published online this week by the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. It concludes that girls who participate in the National School Lunch Program gain weight at a faster clip than other girls from low-income families who do not get the subsidized lunches (and sometimes breakfasts) at school."
"According to background information in the study, about 36% of kids ages 6 to 11 are overweight and 20% are obese. That can lead to lifelong problems, including an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and many kinds of cancer. For girls, extra weight can also mean earlier onset of puberty, which also increases the risk of depression, eating disorders, breast cancer and other health problems."
"Studies have found that kids who are part of the school lunch program get more protein, vitamins and minerals in their diets and eat fewer foods with added sugar. However, studies have also found that these kids also consume more dietary fat and more calories overall. In addition, some studies have found that kids on the program weigh more than their peers."
According to a study done from Penn State University where 574 girls and 566 boys across the country enrolled in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study as kindergartners in 1998, girls participating in the school lunch program were shown to gain weight faster and weigh more. For the boys, there was no statistical significance of those who were on the school lunch program compared to those who were not.
The link to the above post can be assessed at http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/06/news/la-heb-school-lunch-program-obesity-20110406
