Sunday, October 07, 2012

Sunday "Service" in Waukegan, IL

Kind of a beautiful fall day in Waukegan, wasn't it? But there are a lot of people in need in this particular area of Chicagoland. Although this is a photo I took of Academy of Our Lady, my family and I were at Christ Episcopal Church across the street, invited by a friend, to help staff a soup kitchen for about 80 residents of the surrounding town.

Academy of Our Lady Catholic Church in Waukegan, IL

These kinds of social service activities can run every day of the week because there are that many people in need. I saw mostly men, but a few women and children as well. I yearned to know their individual stories, but in my role as Gravy Man behind the serving table, I only had time to ask each person if they wanted the gravy on the mashed potatoes, the meatloaf, or both.

Many expressed gratitude for the carb-heavy meal, but their bodies betrayed the kind of diet they typically consume -- high in fat and low in fruits and vegetables. One woman in particular caught my attention: she insisted that she was going to walk to Canada after the meal was over. "I've had it with America and I'm leaving today!" Perhaps she was an example of the high percentage of homeless who are mentally ill. Perhaps.

Beyond the momentary help we can offer these fellow citizens, I wonder: what can we do as a society to address these larger issues of physical and mental health?
[note: a version of this was cross-posted at the New Trier Social Service Board website]

38 comments:

Weisguy318 said...

I have had some of the same experiences. I think that we can address the physical health portion is by extending the reaches of low-cost grocery stores. One of the major issue that I've seen, especially when traveling around the South Side of Chicago around U.S. Cellular Field, is that there is no grocery store in sight. Simply, if people just have ACCESS to better foods, the obesity issue will improve in our country. This may mean, and I believe that the city is trying this, having food trucks from places like the Greater Chicago Food Depository coming around and handing out free fruit and vegetables to people. This may not hit everybody, but it is a start. The other thing that I believe the upper portions of society can do is donate an organic garden. I've heard that this works, it just requires quite a bit of capital to create and maintain. However, in our area, we have the capital. It is our duty to help out the less fortunate, because it will help them to a better life. Studies have shown that people who eat better foods are more willing to exercise, and in this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/how-exercise-could-lead-to-a-better-brain.html?pagewanted=all), exercise leads to better brainpower. Ultimately access to better food solves both physical and mental problems in the society.

Ellen Lyman said...

I definitely agree with Matt on the fact that the reason why the obesity rates are so high among those who have less money is because of the high cost of food with good nutritional value. These days it seems as if families who are struggling to put food on the table are turning to fast food in order to satisfy their hunger. The reason for this is simple, fast food is definitely the cheapest. The cost of one piece of fruit at a grocery store is roughly the same price as a hamburger, and the hamburger is a lot more filling. Therefore, I think in order to solve the issue of physical/mental health our country needs to make healthy food more affordable so struggling families will have somewhere else to turn to fill their stomachs besides McDonalds.

Lily Schroeder said...

I agree with the comment of having access to more fresh food and grocery stores. I also think that education of physical health and obesity would help the problem so people know what they are consuming and the effects it has on their bodies. As Weisguy318 said previously, organic gardens with fresh produce can easily enhance ones diet and enable them to get fresh ingredients in their meals that they usually may not. Coincidentally, my mom, with two others, started the Glencoe Community Garden which donates all of their vegetables to local pantries and kitchens. In this their first season, they have donated nearly 2000 pounds of fresh, organic vegetables to five food pantries and kitchens. The Garden serves New Trier township among others - so you don't even need to go to Waukegan to help people in need of good food. I think the idea of "localized" produce is also important, because we can support our own agriculture in our community. This too is significant to teach because fast food has become a large part of American society. Education of mental health to those who are unable to acquire it is also important so more can understand and help. Educate, educate, educate!

Sarah Henzlik said...

I agree with Matt, I had have similar experiences as well where I have come into contact with people who are less fortunate than those of us on the North Shore in our bubble, and sometimes it is hard to know what to think as a result. Volunteering at a soup kitchen in your free time is a very commendable thing to do, but in addition, I think we as Americans need to think about how the issues of homelessness and starvation (especially of those who are mentally/physically ill) still exist in 21st century America. Although the Chicagoland area (including surrounding communities like Waukegan) is considered to be located in a modern and able location, problems to this magnitude still occur. I wonder if these people who are recipients of food pantries cannot afford to buy food or if they simply do not have access to grocery stores, or even both. I read an article about food deserts, where people who live in areas where they do not have access to grocery stores dwell (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/15/do-we-need-more-advice-about-eating-well/bringing-healthy-options-to-food-deserts) The New York Times reports that the more education and availability of affordable, healthy foods helps control obesity and to help the community prosper. I wonder if this can be translated to assist those with mental or physical ailments. But, to start, we need to increase acceptance for them into general society.

alex wolkoff said...

Many people resort to a hamburger and fries from a fast food restaurant for dinner because it is cheaper and easier get to. I mean why would one want to travel 3 miles to buy a $3.00 apple, when they could merely walk down the block and get a whole meal for the same price? As such, as wiseguy318 perviously mentioned, creating more low-priced grocery stores and sending more food trucks around less fortunate areas would definitely make a HUGE difference. Now, I know it is easier said than done, but the impact these grocery stores and food trucks would make would be unimaginable. Spreading knowledge about nutrition and obesity would also make a huge difference. Simply just being informed about what is good for your body will allow people to make better choices about their diets, and ultimately lead to a healthier life styles.

Becky said...

I also agree with Matt. Last year, my advisery took a service field trip to a food depository in Chicago, which addressed the problem of "food deserts." A food desert is an urban area that does not have a grocery store, so residents do not have a convenient way to shop for healthy food. That day, we helped by packaging hundreds of packages of food that would be delivered monthly to people's homes.
In addition, last year I volunteered weekly at a soup kitchen in Uptown, Chicago. The food there was very well balanced, with items from every major food group. The majority of the food was donated by grocery stores. Most of it was food that was near its expiration date or just ripe enough that people would not want to buy it. I think both of these examples show good ways to help people obtain more nutritious food, but there should be something more permanent. The best way to solve this problem would be to add more grocery stores to the food deserts.

Heidi Blumenthal said...

One of the things that is most striking about Mr. Blolos's blog is that these hunger issues exist in our own community, in our state, and throughout the United States. It is hard to believe that while the United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we still have so many homeless and hungry people. Something is wrong with this picture. It is great the Mr. Bolos volunteered at the soup kitchen. I too have worked at them periodically over the past few years. But it is time that America addressed this problem in a more systemic and permanent way. While the woman who talked about going to Canada was perceived as having mental challenges, as Mr. Bolos suggests, maybe she's not so crazy.

tally ford said...

As Mr. Bolos states in his post, there is a high percentage of the homeless people that suffer from mental illness, from 20-25% according to a study by the National Coalition for the Homeless. The National Coalition for the Homeless also states the third largest cause of homelessness for singles adults is mental illness. To connect this with the soup kitchen that Mr. Bolos attended, many research studies, including Paul Zane Pilzer’s book The Wellness Revolution are now concluding that eating processed and manufactured foods have been linked to depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and schizophrenia. As Matt said earlier, I believe that making healthy, affordable foods more readily available to lower class and the homeless would not only address the physical health problems of homeless people but it also could address the mental health issues as well.

Colin M said...

I've done something very similar to this, I have worked at a soup kitchen in Chicago multiple times. It's challenging to see a situation like this and visualize an all-encompassing solution because there seem to be so many exceptions to each answer. In Freshman Debate class we discussed a welfare vs. workfare argument, and since then it has been my go to solution for problems like this. Under the current government systems in place, unemployed people can receive welfare in the form of vouchers or unemployment checks. Politicians avoid this term because as we discussed in class, it is often synonymous with laziness and slacking. I think that as a society, if we switch from welfare to workfare - a system that provides basic training or conditioning for jobs and minimal pay for traditionally unpaid jobs like painting park benches - then the nation's infrastructure can be strengthened while creating a program that can benefit a great number of those who are physically or mentally handicapped by finding a job and training to meet an individual's needs.

Nicole Popowski said...

I find Sarah and Becky's comments about "food deserts" very interesting. I also noticed that there are very few groceries in some of the poorer areas of the city, but plenty of fast- food restaurants. Like others have mentioned, the cost of healthy foods, like fruits or vegetables, is almost the same as the price of a hamburger. It'd be great if the prices of fruits and vegetables could be lowered, but there need to be grocery stores in places where people can get access to them. Unfortunately, many people who either work several jobs and don't have the time to eat more healthy or just can't afford the food have to resort to eating fast-food. The documentary Food, Inc., has a segment where the film crew follows lower-class family and their daily struggles with eating healthier. Since the father has diabetes, which was partially caused by eating a large amount of fast-food in the first place, the family has very high medical bills. Because of their low income and medical bills, they can't afford to go to the grocery store. There are millions of families in America who are in the same situation, and if there was a way to get them the right foods, they would live much happier and healthier lives.

Derek Hawley said...

I find interesting the number of people who say "Let's just build another grocery store!" The thing about grocery stores is that they are stores - businesses. They exist to make money. At first glance, it seems like they'd be thrilled to fill in the "food deserts" - who doesn't love new markets? - but in fact, if they don't already have locations there, and aren't considering them, it likely means that a store there would not be profitable. This is not to say there are no solutions to this dilemma. One would simply have to get the government involved. Say, by taxing fast food industries, and spending those funds to support healthier options, but one must take into account the influence big businesses can have on the government. Again, not saying there's no solution, just pointing out it's not that simple.

S. Bolos said...

Thanks to all who commented so far!

Derek brings up an provocative point, one that has been advocated by Mark Bittman, a food writer. Will the American public tolerate taxes of this nature?

I am also amazed by how many of you are educated about such concepts as "food deserts" and the correlation between obesity and lower class status. When and where did this kind of edu. happen, I wonder? Thanks to Tally for the addition of stats on mental illness, btw.

It's clear that many in our class have worked at soup kitchens -- maybe it's a majority. Isn't it curious that so many of you have had this particular experience? How "normative" is that activity on the North Shore?

Finally, I appreciate the challenge Sarah stated at the end of her comment, amplified by Heidi. How do we deal with the underclass of America? What are we as a country willing to spend in terms of money and time beyond the feel-good moment of the soup kitchen?

Hannah Waldman said...

I think it's a little strange that most of us, myself included, have worked in soup kitchens, or to feed the homeless. I know I have been with various groups, and all for similar reasons. Living in the community we do, I think many adults are afraid of us being way too "sheltered". Therefore, at every opportunity they have, they try to show us "the real world". Now, why their "real world" only consists of homeless people beats me, I think the "real world" contains many other types of people as well. Either way, the fact that most everybody has been to a soup kitchen reflects on the ideals of our community, not only is it important to help others, but to remember that there are others out there with bigger problems than not receiving a car for your 16th birthday.

Jeremy Noskin said...

Derek brings up a very good point. Despite the fact that many people have been to soup kitchens evidenced by Hannah, businesses aren't willing to risk money to build a new store if it is not going to be profitable. Unless one of us wants to open a store and sell low-cost groceries, to be blunt about it, it's not going to happen. If the government and US citizens make a collaborative effort to create more soup kitchens, then maybe the physical health aspect will improve. This means having people work soup kitchens as their job and getting paid by the government. There are people that volunteer, but they cannot volunteer full-time. In addition, there needs to be more people that work at the soup kitchens in general. I also think soup kitchens would be more affective than a grocery store. Soup kitchens try to offer food that is relatively nutritious. A store on the other hand, has an assortment of foods, many of which are unhealthy. It's up to the poor person to make the right decisions on what to buy. However, they may not make the right decision if they have mental health issues. Although opening a store could be beneficial, businesses aren't willing and it may act like fast food restaurant by selling unhealthy foods. This is a major issue surrounding our country and there is no easy fix.

Zach Peltz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexis B said...

The thing that I find most remarkable when I work in a soup kitchen is the fact that when people leave leftovers, it is often the salad or fruit provided to them. Why don't they eat those fresh, healthy foods? If they don't want to eat it right then, why not take it with them and eat it later? I think this is because less fortunate people have no where to store fresh food. This could also be a reason why grocery stores would not be profitable in the food deserts discussed in previous comments. Why would a poor person buy food they know could go bad before they had a chance to eat it? When you are poor, you have to make the most of every cent you have, and buying food that could potentially go bad before you eat it is a waste of money. Buying a single portion of prepared food from a fast food restaurant is much more worthwhile because it is cheap, filling, and doesn't require storage or preparation. Mr. Bolos asks, what could the society do to address these issues? I think getting fast food restaurants to serve healthier, affordable options would make a world of difference.

S. Bolos said...

Alexis gives us one explanation related to a commonly-observed occurrence: even when healthy options are provided, those foods are the last to be consumed or are left on the plate.

Maybe it's a lack of storage options, or maybe it's something else at work here. At least at the soup kitchen I attended, there was a strict rule in effect: no food was to be taken from the premises.

Rachel Hoying said...

It is interesting that generally the last food to be consumed at soup kitchens is the healthier food. I think that people who possibly haven't eaten all day are looking for short term satisfaction, so they just want to fill up on what tastes good to them. Because at many soup kitchens there are rules that you can't take food from the premises, people often try to eat as much as they can to hold them over until their next meal. Because of this they probably just eat a lot of what tastes good to them. This is why providing healthier cheaper options isn't enough. Because ultimately, people get to decide what they actually consume. We have to focus more on educating people on healthy foods so that people know how to make the right choices that will benefit them long term.

Lily Stein said...

The point that Sarah and Heidi bring up is very interesting. Many of us go downtown or help out at local soup kitchens which is helpful for a few hours here and there, but the truth is that it just isn't enough. The only way that any large scale difference can be made is if the government steps in. Obviously building more grocery stores is not that simple, but one potential way it could work is if the government gives tax breaks to big, chain grocery stores so they could open stores with cheaper fresh produce in food deserts. This would not only provide healthy options, but also employment for the underclass citizens. Regarding what Alexis was saying about leftover fruits and vegetables, I really think the only solution is education. Otherwise, people will just continue going for the food that tastes good, instead of what is actually good for them.

Noah Quinn said...

Zach's comment and article was very interesting, and I believe our country could benefit from a tax on fast/unhealthy foods. However, I'm not sure this is ideal especially in a time of a recession. Millions of people rely on these cheap meals to keep their families afloat and increasing the prices may increase public health but would intensify the hardships for low income families to feed the mouth's of their children. Also, Mayor Bloomberg recently passed a ban on large high-sugary beverages in New York city in attempt to curb our nation's runaway obesity rates. The ban will take effect on March 12, and will restrict the sale of many sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 oz. Is this the right course of action even if 60% of the city thinks the ban is a bad idea? How does this infringe on the rights to the American consumer?

Derek Hawley said...

I like how you you bring up the word "rights", Noah. Frankly, unhealthy foods are harmful to the person that consumes them. Do you have a right to cause yourself harm? Anti-drug laws across the globe say no. If we have entire organizations dedicated to stamping out tobacco, what gives you the right to abuse your internal organs with a different molecule?
That said, that NYC ban strikes me as inefficient - prohibit 20 oz drinks and people will go buy two 10 oz containers instead. Or is New York addressing that too?

Noah Quinn said...

Because choosing what to eat, is a right oddly enough. Even if it is unhealthy, why should the government be able to tell me what I can and cannot eat. In response to your point many illegal drugs are not solely banned due to the bodily harm they cause but also the potential to harm others, as some side effects cause the user to act dangerously and irrationally, especially while operating a vehicle. The food i'm eating has no effect on the well being and safety of others. Second, I completely agree that the NYC ban is inefficient with the loophole you pointed out. People who want to drink 20 oz of sugary beverages are going to do so, whether they have to buy one or two bottles. I find it hard to believe that Mayor Bloomberg's ban on bottled beverages (alliteration intended :D) will have any affects on the obesity rate.

Derek Hawley said...

Currently, yes, you have the right to choose what you eat. The question is, should you, given that it contradicts the motivations behind anti-drug legislation? There is no clause that says you may drug yourself to the gills provided it will not harm anyone else; a major driver behind anti-drug laws is the harm they do to the imbiber. The government telling you what to eat seems perfectly in line with government's basic goal: to protect its citizens, even from themselves.

Anna Rowe said...

When we talk about having more grocery stores instead of fast food, we have to keep in mind that it might be the case that there are grocery stores but people choose the simpler and more convenient option—fast food. It comes down to the fact that in order to change the way people choose their food source, people need to want to eat the healthier option when given the choice. Its not that fast food is always the more inexpensive option either, it has gotten more expensive in the past 10 years. According to the New York Times, a meal made at home is cheaper to make than a meal from a McDonalds. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/24/opinion/sunday/20110925_BITTMAN_MARSHgph.html?ref=sunday) In our society of desiring quick satisfaction, fast food is the option chosen more frequently. My question is, how do you get people to choose the healthier option? Michelle Obama is working on getting healthier meals in schools to try to get kids to eat smarter from an earlier age.

S. Bolos said...

@Anna - great tie-in to Michelle Obama's initiative and the "quick satisfaction" society theme. Have you heard of the Slow Food Movement?

@Noah - is eating unhealthily truly a kind of "victimless crime" if it has long-term health effects? Who pays for that?

Carrie Kaiser said...

Adding to Noah and Derek's points, though it may be beneficial to the country as a whole to regulate the food that people eat, is it fair to hold the whole population under account for only a percentage? Though there are most definitely people who abuse the "right" to eat freely and coincidentally harm themselves, there are also the people who really pay attention to what they're eating and choose to take care of themselves. When I was in eighth grade there were two students who chose to abuse the right that every student had to leave the cafeteria during lunchtime. Because of their bad choices; no one, no matter how good the intention was, was allowed to leave the cafeteria. This lead to many innocent students getting into trouble which snowballed into parents getting involved. Now to get back to my point, is it fair to punish all when not all deserves to be punished? I agree with Noah when he says that the decision is a right. And I agree with Lily's original point that education on the subject would be a great idea. If people were educated about their health and what is necessary in their diets, then they would be prepared to make better eating decisions and if they still chose to eat poorly, that would be their own choice.

Jenny B. said...

Adding to Anna's point, we are a society that wants instant gratification and many people would choose the faster option of fast food, and once people start getting in that habit it's very hard to break because our bodies start to crave that type of food. To break that cycle people would have to be educated on better eating habits and become aware of whats happening with their bodies. And adding to Noah and Derek, I think what they are doing in New YOrk is good in theory, but then I also think that people should be allowed to eat and drink what they please, like Carrie said the bad actions of the few shouldn't affect the whole. I think the key to the whole issue, regarding health, physical or mental is education, when the populace is educated then i think we can better prevent and recognize when something is wrong.

Levine-DrizG said...

One way we can address the physical health problems in America is by running more charity-based restaurants like what Panera has done in Lakeview. There, if you have sufficient funds, you can pay for your meal and even leave more cash than the total price. If somebody with zero money were to walk into Panera, they could get whatever they want if there is a constant flow of cash from people who have enough money to buy their own food. Why does Panera have to be one of the only companies, if not the only, to enable low-income families to have food? According to this article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-20/business/chi-panera-adds-paywhatyoucan-cafe-in-chicago-20120620_1_ron-shaich-lakeview-open-first), many places have actually made a profit.
I completely agree with Heidi in saying that it is hard to believe that America, a country that is seemingly so powerful and wealthy, has problems allowing for its citizens to maintain a healthy lifestyle, regardless of wealth.
I also feel that one of the reasons we have so many problems with eating and living healthily can be seen even in our own communities. Regardless of wealth, many of us find it hard to go to places Whole Foods (nicknamed Whole Paycheck) because of the ridiculous price for eating healthy. It is just not easy to decide to eat a pound of carrots for 4$ instead of eating two cheeseburgers for 2$.
I really believe that the ban in New York is a very good one in that if any progress is made, more states could possibly follow suit.

Christine Ryan said...

I agree that a big part of the health issue in America is that it is more expensive to eat healthy, and buy fruits and veggies. My mom told me about an article she read, that was about a family with very little money. The parents talked about the choices they have to make, in order to feed themselves and their children. A very cheap meal would be a can of beans, some rice, and maybe a few frozen peas. The parents said they counldn't even afford apples- they were too expensive. It makes sense that fresh produce is more expensive, because more effort goes into delivering it to the grocery store, but if there were a way to bring down the price of fresh produce, that would help low-income families eat healthier.

Noah Quinn said...

I still stand strong behind my point that the government should not be able to write legislation about what food I choose to eat, regardless of nutrient value. As Mr. Bolos asked whether it is a victimless crime or not, considering the long term negative health effects. Both tobacco products, and alcohol are substances that are said to harm your health. They are still legal to buy (if you are of age), but the government does impose taxes in an attempt to reduce the buyers and bring in revenue. It would be interesting to see if any legislation is proposed at the state level to tax unhealthy foods. I think the focus to cut our nation's obesity, should not only be about food, but exercise. In Illinois, it is a state law for students K-12 to participate in some physical education daily. As Illinois is one of the most obese states, I think everyday K.W is a great step to combating obesity. Other states are not so inclined to be active, as only five states actually require physical education in every grade K-12 according to the Nation Association for Sport and Physical Education. Should there be national legislation requiring more physical education?

http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/publications/shapeofthenation.cfm

Aj Watkins said...

Just like the many others who have commented here, I too have been to a soup kitchen quite often. I used to go about five or six times a year with my Temple. For my Bar Mitzvah project, I made bagged lunches for a homeless shelter in the city called the Inspiration Cafe. It was eye-opening how quickly my 125 lunches get consumed, yet how there were so many people still in need at the Cafe.

As with Noah's argument, I agree with him. His example of tobacco products was something that came to my mind when I thought about the subject. I think that anything that the government tries to do in order to stop obesity via food legislation will either be ineffective or will not be enforced tightly enough.

Lauren C said...

I agree with Rachel and many of my classmates that educating people on healthy food choices is completely necessary if Americans want to solve the obesity crisis. Noah brought up a very interesting point about how much control the government should have over what people eat. I agree that the government should implement a higher tax on unhealthy foods. How much control should the government have over what its population eats? Each person has the right to choose what they put in their own bodies and what right does the government have to limit this. One quite extreme example I can think of is if a person without insurance is hospitalized for a condition that is a direct result of their unhealthy diet and/or lack of exercise, the burden now falls on the government to provide care for this person. So in this case, if the government in some way could have prevented this via food legislation, would it make sense? Personally, I do not believe that this example would support the idea that the government should have the right to control what food is being sold but I do believe that it is in some part the government's responsibility. As you can see from this example, government regulation of food is a very complicated issue that does not have one simple answer.

Alana said...

Lauren your example is very powerful and shows a common trend of poverty struck people. In my opinion there is nothing good that comes out of junk food, although it taste good there is no nutritional benefit and there is nothing that one is being deprived of if they are without. I would not say that the government should have complete control over what everybody can eat. But I do believe that if everyone was educated on the importance of a nutritious balanced diet that there would be less desire to eat junk food and therefore healthier people. But then the cost of food comes in to the equation, a lot of people eat junk food because its cheap. An easy fix would be if the government put a higher tax on junk food and a lower tax on healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. This may be a hard transition but it would definitely be worth it.

Kim Cole said...

At the very least, I think the North Shore's attitude towards mental health is very good. We have sever students at New Trier with mental health issues and they have many resources to give them the best high school education possible. As a community, I don't think we are overly offensive towards any mental health condition. I don't recall any severe hate crimes against people with mental health issues in America recently, either. I don't know enough about the rest of America to review it's attitude on mental health in general. But organizations like Erica's Lighthouse and anti-depressant ads seem to mean that there is open support in America. This is insensitive, but I want to contrast this attention in America to China. In 2010-2011, there were a series of horrific attacks on schools. At least 21 people, including children, were killed and about 90 were injured. These attacks were done by men aged 26-41, with weapons such as knives, cleavers, and axes. There was a similar attack done by a 17 year old this August. Several of these attacks have been officially linked to mental disorders (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jI-ZlYoOyH6_3LiU7Pgy5o48eM7g?docId=CNG.9a3b132f11893ca20b522fb446b69f9b.2b1) or mistreatment by the government (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html). As stated here: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7700978/China-suffers-new-knife-attack.html) "At least two of the attacks have been linked to mental disorders. A 2009 study estimated 173 million adults in China have some type of mental problems but less than 10 per cent of sufferers were found to have received professional help," probably due to a lack of resources. At least our country's attitude towards mental health is not like China's, where those attacks might've been stopped with support for their mental illnesses.

Lily Schroeder said...

In response to Noah's question about physical education, I do think that this is a big step in reducing the amount of obese children who may not even be aware of what they eat, and foods’ nutritional value. Living in a district where sports are valued and many students are involved in high-prioritized physical activity, we may take for granted the fitness we can get in gym class. On the other hand, families living in areas that may not be able to or may not have access to sports kids want to play do not have an opportunity for extra physical activity people get.
I also wrote one of my blogs on McDonald’s posting the amount of calories in their products. It is really still just the start for McDonald’s doing this, and it will be interesting to see if posting the calories next to the menu items will influence the consumer. Will they still go with the same choice or have a change of mind when seeing the number of calories in that menu item?

Kim Cole said...

In response to Lily's question about listing calories on menus, it's a very good idea. If people actually see how much calories each item has, they can make healthier choices. They could choose the fewest calories or decide which dessert would be the healthiest based on calories. Other restaurants such as Panera Bread have this feature. It's very interesting to see how many calories the different sandwiches and salads have. Having the amount of calories right next to the item forces you to really consider if you are making the right choice.

Lotus D said...

Online grocery delivery is that the looking expertise of the longer term. With many clicks of a button, one can receive their desired groceries at their door within the matter of one day or maybe hours; no additional having to create unnecessary , long visits to a market.

grocery convenience

Lotus D said...

Online grocery delivery is that the looking expertise of the longer term. With many clicks of a button, one can receive their desired groceries at their door within the matter of one day or maybe hours; no additional having to create unnecessary , long visits to a market.

grocery convenience