Children's Health, Diet & Nutrition | Natural Health Blog

Date: 09/29/2011    Written by: Hiyaguha Cohen

Can FoodCorps Reduce Obesity?

We live in an era of overweight kids being raised by overweight adults, and to judge by all the media reports, everyone seems concerned about it -- but no one seems to know what to do. And so, the emergence of a new group called FoodCorps, dedicated to encouraging kids to eat healthy and lose weight, merits some attention.

FoodCorps represents a spanking new effort by the Obama administration to help kids trim down.1 Just launched earlier this month, FoodCorps is an offshoot of Americorps -- the evolution of the old VISTA program2 -- with funding from the Kellogg Foundation (uh oh), and Whole Foods. The program will train a team of idealistic young adults to go into low-income communities to make a difference in how and what people eat.3

The website for FoodCorps waxes poetic about the changes the organization hopes to bring about.4 Team members will teach nutrition classes, help kids grow their own gardens, and run farm-to-school programs to bring local produce to school lunchrooms, the website reports.  "Service Members [will] solicit professional athletes [yes, it would seem that football training tables now represent the epitome of healthy eating] and chefs for classroom visits, conduct hands-on cooking demonstrations, and model positive lifestyle choices that motivate kids to exercise and eat well." And then, "Kids who know the farmer who grew their broccoli are far more likely to eat it. Studies show that children participating in Farm to School programs consume an increase of one serving of fruits and vegetables per day." The site also mentions that the program will benefit not just the school-aged participants, but local farmers as well.

It all sounds wonderful, like a big leap in the right direction, except for the fact that while 1,230 applicants vied to be part of the effort, the program only funded 50. Those 50 workers have been placed at 41 sites in 10 states across the US. Unfortunately, this is in a context where 25 million kids across the country are overweight and where a quarter of all applicants to the military get rejected because they're too fat. Sending out an army of 50 to deal with a problem of such magnitude is like the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the dike to prevent flooding. In fact, given that the government says it wants to reduce childhood obesity to five percent by the year 2030, it's downright lame.5

Certainly, the idea has merit -- lots of merit. It makes plenty of sense that kids would want to eat food they've grown themselves. It also makes sense to teach them where food actually comes from and to educate them about nutrition. But the presence of Kellogg's on the short list of underwriters raises concerns. After all, Kellogg's is one of the biggest supporters of agribusiness in the US, not to mention the maker of Frosted Flakes, Sugar Pops, and Keebler Cookies, just off the top of my head -- so one might suspect that promoting truly healthy food isn't necessarily at the top of the priority list for at least some members of the Board of Directors.6

The Food Corps website notes, "Sourcing local foods for school cafeterias opens up a $13 billion per year market for local farmers, fishers, ranchers, food processors and manufacturers, putting significant dollars into the local economy." Again, at the risk of being cynical, do you really think that Kellogg's executives have any interest in transferring any of that $13 billion from their coffers into the pockets of Joe Farmer in small town USA? While the produce the program brings into the schools might well be local, there's certainly no guarantee that it will be grown on small, sustainable family farms that are free from agribusiness ownership. But then again, I could be wrong. The program is only a week old, so it's too early to tell how it will unfold.

Still, lovely though the concept is, it's probably not enough to reverse the obesity problem among youth, even if those 50 representatives multiply to 5000; even if locally owned organic farms participate. Kids may enjoy broccoli with dinner more often after being educated about where their food comes from, but once they finish the main meal, they most likely still will crave treats. After all, as soon as they turn on the television or the computer, they'll see multiple ads for foods that hardly qualify as nutritious. If they go to the store, they'll encounter aisle after aisle of foods that will make them fat. On the way home from school, if they live in a low-income neighborhood, they'll pass at least one fast food restaurant. And the fact is: these things -- treats and fast foods -- taste good to kids. They're addictive.

I once worked in an elite, private school that served only organic, nutritious foods for lunch. The school actually prohibited students from bringing in food from home. The idea was that if kids only had healthy food offered to them, they'd develop healthy tastes.  The students at the school got plenty of education about healthy eating. And boy, did they complain! They wanted pizza for lunch, they wanted peanut butter and jelly, they wanted cookies, and they didn't want the healthier kind of cookies, either. A significant number of students skipped lunch entirely day after day, and a few actually dropped out the year I was there because they couldn't stand the food.

That experience showed me that education alone isn't enough. As long as the media continues to fill the airwaves with the message that goodness comes from junk food, as long as kids see junk food everywhere they turn, as long as they are turned into junk food addicts, they're going to want it. They may also want the vegetables and fruits they've grown themselves, and that's a step in the right direction, but it's only a partial solution. According to a release just sent from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), food companies "spend billions on advertising targeting children - $1.6 billion in 2006 alone - and now they're objecting to voluntary government guidelines for marketing food to children."7 In other words, the Food Corps initiative isn't supported in the places where kids go outside the classroom; quite the contrary, and that's a deal breaker.

Finally, if families don't get the same education the kids do, the children will go home from their farming adventures and have instant mashed potatoes and KFC fried chicken for dinner. And the parents will still stock sodas and sugary treats in the cupboards. They won't serve fresh vegetables or fruits with meals. Forget about organic -- even the basics of balanced eating are a stretch in the typical low income home -- and to complicate the equation even more, junk food works typically better for the purse and the schedule. Junk food not only is addictive, it's often more affordable than nutritious food and it's easier to prepare than a meal using fresh ingredients. Parents typically have little time to prepare healthy meals, particularly with the bad economy  that has stretched so many to the limit.

In short, the Food Corps program offers a very cool idea that maybe will help in a very small way, but it's literally a drop in a very big bucket. The government needs to do a lot more than send out a handful of nutrition soldiers in order to help families eat healthy. For one thing, they can stop subsidizing the production of junk food so it's no longer artificially cheaper than healthy food. In the meantime, you can sign an EWG petition here asking food giants to market healthier foods to kids, if you're so inclined.


1 Walsh, Bryan. "Can FoodCorps Get America to Eat Healthfully?" 23 August 2011. Time. 15 September 2011.

2 By the way, Jon Barron was a VISTA volunteer in the late 1960's.

3 Bittman, Mark. "Food's New Foot Soldier." 23 August 2011. New York Times. 15 September 2011. <>

4FoodCorps. 15 September 2011. <>

5 White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President. "Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a Generation." Let's Move. Accessed 20 Sept 2011. <>

6 "What is Agribusiness?" Meet Your Food. 15 September 2011. <>

7 "Kids Need Healthy Food, Not Hyped Junk."  2011. Environmental Working Group.  15 September 2011.  <>

Click for Related Articles


    Submitted by Rebecca Noricks on
    September 30, 2011 - 7:20am

    Dear Ms. Cohen,

    We read with interest your article about FoodCorps. The W.K. Kellogg Foundation has been an enthusiastic supporter of FoodCorps from its earliest planning stages. We believe that communities are only as strong as their most vulnerable, and as such, improving access to healthy food must be a priority in our nation. FoodCorps’ efforts to build school gardens, establish farm to school programs and provide nutrition education are vital.

    We would like to note for your readers that FoodCorps has been supported not by the Kellogg Company, but rather by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

    The W.K. Kellogg Foundation is a grantmaking organization distinct from the Kellogg Company, much as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is distinct from Microsoft. All W.K. Kellogg Foundation grantmaking decisions are made wholly and independently by foundation staff and trustees. The Kellogg Company operates its own corporate giving program. While the foundation does hold Kellogg Company stock as part of its investment portfolio, each organization has its own governing board and management.

    Rebecca Noricks
    Communications Manager
    W.K. Kellogg Foundation

    Submitted by BaselineFoundation on
    September 30, 2011 - 6:48pm


    You are absolutely correct. The statement in the blog that FoodCorps is underwritten by the Kellogg Company is not correct, and we apologize for that inaccuracy. It is indeed underwritten by the Kellogg Foundation, an entirely separate entity. And the work of the Foundation over the years in regard to educating children in disadvantaged communities both nationally and internationally is not only commendable but highly significant. That said, according to the Foundation’s 2010 annual report, Kellogg Company stock accounts for 63% of its total assets. That is considerable and presents, regardless of the reality, at least the appearance of conflict of interest when it comes to dietary issues as will be addressed by FoodCorps. Full disclosure is probably the easiest way around this issue.

    Congratulations to you and everyone else at the Kellogg Foundation for all the work you do. And we encourage everyone of our readers to check out your website at to learn more about all the worthy projects the Foundation is involved in.

    Editorial Department
    The Baseline of Health Foundation

    Submitted by Guest on
    October 21, 2011 - 7:01am

    This obesity is due in part to the HFCS, oils and GMOs now contained in most processed foods. It is not just a matter of overeating. While there is some of this too, I am sure, one cannot fill themselves up on empty calories and foods that contain oils that do not break down in the body. Take a McD hamburger -- it looks the same after 10 years in storage because the fats and materials are not breaking down. I am sure it must be the same within our bodies -- so we are packin on the pounds and becoming insulin resistant and diabetic. Remember when Twinkies were nice and lite -- and also became stale?? Now Twinkies do the same as the hamburger -- and as do our bodies from eating them. Getting rid of the GMO oils and replacing them with the tropical oils would go a long way in assisting people reduce health and weight problems. A change needs to be made in processed food, and to eat more fresh foods -- and re-educating people to eat balanced, portion controlled meals.

Add New Comment