“President Obama’s daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don’t I?” That’s what 8-year-old vegetarian Jasmine Messiah asks in a new ad campaign by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) that’s got some crying foul. The goal of the ad campaign is to reform the Child Nutrition Act and demand that the federal government provide healthy food to millions of public school children through the National School Lunch Program. What most kids get for lunch now is a greasy, atrocious, disease-causing mess.
Or, as PCRM more elegantly states, “Without access to healthful food, many children are at risk for obesity and other health problems. This is a question of fundamental fairness and decency. Congress has yet to act to protect the rights of these children. As it stands, children are exploited by government programs that place fatty, meaty, cheesy dishes in schools as a way of reducing agricultural commodities and boosting farm income at the expense of children’s health. We believe that every child, no matter how disadvantaged, has a right to good nutrition and good health. Their schools need and deserve solid support every step of the way.”
So who would have a problem with such a simple little ad, besides the food company giants that make billions supplying those crappy lunches?
Well, apparently White House lawyers would. It seems there’s an unwritten code that says using words like “President Obama’s daughters” to make a statement is forbidden. So forbidden, in fact, that White House attorneys asked PCRM to take the ads down.
I worked with PCRM years ago on this very same issue–advocating for change in federal nutrition policy–and I attended the same private school as “President Obama’s daughters.” In fact, I was introduced to vegetarianism at the school (but I hated it, which may or may not defeat my point).
My point being that I like the ad and I obviously have come to love the cause. I also happen to think the fallout around the ad amounts to a big fat distraction. The President and First Lady themselves talk about the privileges that their daughters receive and how all children should have access to healthier food, a good education, safe and pleasant neighborhoods, involved parents, cultural events, and all the rest. They know, like we all do, that kids in public schools and poor neighborhoods get the shaft in this society for being poor–especially when it comes to food. That may be why Michelle Obama invited public school kids from Bancroft Elementary in DC to help grow the White House organic vegetable garden–and not kids from a tony private school.
PCRM president Neal Barnard said, “No one in the first family has raised any objection at all to the advertisements or the campaign of which it is a part.” So, is he implying that White House lawyers may not be speaking for the Obama parents–just for White House protocol? Don’t know… Anyway, he refused to take the ads down and I applaud him for that.
So, tell me, what do you think of the ad? Is it fair or foul? Does it harm or help the cause? You can learn more about the campaign here.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Tracye and others
thanks for writing and raising the point. i agree with you and PCRM wholeheartedly. the circumstances around the Child Nutrition Act and the way the National School Lunch Program is administered is not well-understood by many…or transparent in any way. the ad makes an important point effectively, and in strategic locations. i would love to hear the President and/or the First Lady backup their stated and attributed views in support of the stance taken by PCRM.
so i too applaud the PCRM’s work for raising awareness for this important issue in what i see as a respectful and forthright way.
Saurabh
Lanham, MD
This ad, along with many others that include the Obama name whether written or spoken are used to bring attention to the company or person(s) point of view. If it is to sell books or cause people to watch their programs people will listen no matter if they are supporters or opposed to this administration. PCRM are no different even it is for a good cause. In my opinion, it implies the Obamas are only concerned about their children and do not care about the rest of the U.S. even though they have volunteered for many years. We are also aware that the The President and the First Lady did not attend this highly exclusive school and more than likely are aware of public school lunches.
My guess would be that many of the PCRM executives and their staff send their children to private schools that serve healthier lunches options. Why doesn’t the ad simply state, “our children get healthy lunches, why can’t everyone”. You can’t compare a highly expensive school such as the one the Obama girls attend, along with many other private schools across the nation with public education or their lunches.
Another option, the bubble could have asked for the administration’s help or the First Lady directly in serving better lunches without throwing the Obama girl’s under the bus. If you want something from someone, you don’t insult them and use their chilren in the process in hopes of getting a positive and quick response. This rings true for everyone.
We have lived in a community for 3 years now with privileged kids, although we are not. They do sell healthy lunches but I have always made my kids lunches. My oldest is now 18 years old and the youngest is 10 years old. Parent’s are responsible for their children eating properly. My son’s care about their bodies and eat well most of the time, not based on the school but what we have showed them. They have never been overweight and are very active, even though they watch tv and eat the occasional fast food snacks and icre cream goodies. Parents need to show their children proper balance.