Reading, writing and eating well: teaching nutrition in school is a healthy lesson plan for future generations

American Fitness, March-April, 1994 by David J. Buechel

Pick up a magazine or newspaper on any given day and chances are you will find something related to nutrition. People are hungry for nutrition news. But the statistics show magazine articles are not enough to teach nutrition to young people, who grow into adults thirsty for information. In the United States today there are reportedly 8 million people who have suffered or are suffering from eating disorders, 34 million people overweight, and an estimated 80 million cases of food poisoning annually. We live in a country with state-of-the-art knowledge in nutrition and medicine, yet we rank 11th out of the 15 industrialized nations for average life expectancy.

If you are in your late 20s or older, your nutritional knowledge probably came from one chapter in a ninth grade health book. Even in college, nutrition isn't required. Unless you choose it as an elective, or are pursuing a health-related degree, you will receive a college degree without a single class on nutrition.

According to a 1992 study by the Association of American Medical Colleges, only one-fourth of the 172 medical schools in the United States require a course in nutrition and two-thirds offer nutrition classes solely through electives. Doctors, whom we trust for diet and health advice, are guiding us in an area they might not be qualified in.

Lack of nutritional education all boils down to the almighty dollar. Ever heard the saying, "Health is your greatest wealth?" Consider the following:

* At the federal level lies a conflict of interest. If President Clinton signed a bill today initiating a nutritional education program, the Dairy Council and Meat lobbyists, among others, would be up in arms. Money and jobs might be lost if students learned the importance of a low-fat diet. They would consume less red meat and dairy products.

* Medical schools know doctors won't generate income by keeping everyone healthy. Doctors profit by treating the sick, so why bother teaching them nutrition?

* The public schools not only lack money to fund a nutrition program, but nutrition is not mandated by the State. Some school districts don't even receive enough money to properly maintain their existing programs.

Recognizing the importance of nutrition, many elementary schools solicit outside help in teaching its fundamentals. For example, the Dairy Council of California established itself in the school nutrition spectrum, offering free information packets and training for teachers. However, the information they provide may be slanted. The food pyramid provided by the Dairy Council shows the milk group at three full servings daily whereas the USDA, who designed the pyramid, shows two to three servings.

That may not be such a big deal, but the Dairy Council also combines the fruit and vegetable groups, recommending only five servings from both categories while the USDA pyramid suggests separate servings of three to five for vegetables and two to four for fruits. The Dairy Council emphasizes the milk group and de-emphasizes fruits and vegetables.

At the middle school level, nutritional knowledge is critical. Busy parents depend on kids to feed themselves. The Los Angeles Unified School District's health curriculum requires a six-week health module for sixth grade students and an 18-week health class for seventh graders. Out of the 122 hours allocated for both of these classes, the curriculum only suggests 22 hours of nutritional study. Although it's better than nothing, is this the best the second largest school district in the United States can do?

At the secondary level, where most of the need for improvement lies, not all high schools are created equal. Several Southern California high schools still only teach basic nutrition fundamentals, according to a regional survey. Giving credit where credit is due, a major factor in nutrition education are the teachers themselves. If they have a strong background in nutrition, it most likely shows up in their classes. Many go above and beyond curriculum guidelines by providing key supplemental information. In most cases, however, teachers run short on time for addressing any special topics.

With budgets at the core of the nutrition education problem, the powerless Departments of Education play a limited, supporting role. For example, the new Health Framework curriculum in California merely serves as a guideline. The department is not empowered to mandate a health curriculum unless it is approved through legislative action, like the AIDS awareness program was. Individual school districts have the power to enact their own health curriculum in area schools. This means schools decide if our children learn decent nutrition lessons, or just the bare minimum. Considering it was 1986 when the California Education Code required nutrition classes for credentialed teachers, chances are the people making these decisions will have no nutritional background and fail to recognize its importance.

The nutrition education spectrum is like two bakers with one recipe. Somehow, from the same ingredients, they produce different tasting breads. The problem is schools are workingwithout a recipe. California, among other states, needs to mandate a nutritional recipe for all schools to follow. What could be more important than maintaining optimum health?