Dear Readers:

Let's stipulate at the outset that French fries are high in no-nos. A large order at a fast-food restaurant weighs in at around 500 calories, 30 grams of fat, 70 carbs and 300-plus milligrams of sodium. Not without reason do nutritionists urge Americans to cut back on them.

Let's stipulate, too, that despite, or maybe because, of French fries' no-nos, Americans adore them. For at least three decades now they've been, along with hamburgers and carbonated beverages, among the three most-ordered restaurant dishes. Though demand is down in today's hard times, fries remain the most-ordered side dish.

And a final, personal, stipulation: I'm among the Americans who dote on them. One of the joys of living in Belgium for three years was the "friteries" -- restaurants (sometimes just shacks) specializing in French fries served in a cardboard cone with a choice of mayonnaise, curries and other sauces. The Belgians pride themselves on making the world's best frites, as they're called there. I think they're right.

With those stipulations, we're ready to look at the government's attempt to limit the serving of fries in subsidized school breakfasts and lunches. USDA's proposed new rules, aimed at fighting obesity, would limit "starchy vegetables" (including, peas, lima beans and corn, as well as potatoes) to one cup a week.

The rules have drawn beaucoup criticism from potato growers, the legislators representing them and foes of the "nanny state." According to the critics:

-- French fries account for only a small fraction of the calories kids consume.

-- The no-nos are negligible if you bake fries, as many schools do.

-- Potatoes have lots of vitamin C and more potassium than bananas.

-- Costs will soar -- an extra $6.8 billion over five years -- if the new rule is adopted.

-- It makes no sense to impose such a severe limit on all starchy vegetables, however nutritious and however prepared, just to curtail French fries.

Some of these points have merit. If USDA is smart it will take the criticism onboard and adjust the guidelines before making them final. But cut USDA some slack: If ever there was a justification for the nanny state, it's when the government is paying for food for children.

The real issue is whether the guidelines will do for children what they need. To my mind, that's not cutting their calorie intake or getting them to renounce French fries. It's teaching them the value of moderation in all things and the virtue of self-control.

Face it, humans are hard-wired to like fatty foods. Even the most fanatical devotees of healthy eating know this deep down. A professional chef in Brooklyn, Allison Robicelli, blogged about her efforts as a new mother to teach her children to appreciate the very best, most nutritious cuisine. (http:nonabrooklyn.com…) But baby Atticus just poked at his food until, at age 14 months, he encountered, in defiance of his mother's desires, French fries.

"And there I was," she writes, "watching my son eating something with pure joy and exuberance for the first time in his life." She said she cried for three hours that night. But over time she accepted reality. In addition to the more nutritious dishes her kids have come to like, she admits that "I feed them chicken nuggets, and fish sticks, and pizza and crackers and French fries. I'm OK with that."

One of the things to like about first lady Michelle Obama's better-food-for-kids campaign is that she doesn't attempt to ban not-so-good food. She merely urges it be treated as splurges. She admits French fries are among her favorite things. The paparazzi recently observed her ordering a burger, French fries and a chocolate shake at a Washington fast-food joint. Even as she endorses spinach and broccoli she says it's OK to have fries now and then.

I'm with her on that. And I don't have a problem with trying to prevent taxpayer dollars from promoting obesity in children.

I wish the government good luck, though. Food habits, research shows, are among the hardest things to change. And food habits are formed at home. It's the responsibility of parents, first and foremost, to introduce moderation and self-control.

The government might also note that nobody likes a nutrition scold. In a 1959 poem, "Which Came First, Obeisance or Obesity?" Ogden Nash captured that sentiment when he wrote: "The plate watcher, I need hardly stateWatches everybody else's plate."

Even as I chuckle I'm hungry for French fries.

***

As always I welcome your feedback on this letter and your suggestions for how DTN might serve you better.

Sincerely,

Urban

Urban C. Lehner

Vice President, Editorial

DTNThe Progressive Farmer

office: 402 399 6440; cell 402 301 6143

Follow me on Twitter: www.Twitter.comurbanize

(SKCZ)

© Copyright 2011 DTNThe Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved.