Your tax dollars wasted on grandparenting tips |
Featured Commentary

Your tax dollars wasted on grandparenting tips

Consider the mandate of the U.S. Department of Agriculture: agriculture policy, helping farmers and ranchers, the national school lunch program, food stamps and, now, circumventing parents.

A USDA blog post tutors grandparents — not parents — helping their grandchildren to develop healthful eating habits. Apparently the USDA thinks grandparents didn’t get it right the first time or they’re so old they’ve forgotten what they fed their own kids. USDA nutritionist Trish Britten writes:

As a proud grandmother, I can attest that grandkids learn by example … so be a healthy role model by taking care of yourself and they will learn to value healthy habits. Use ChooseMyPlate. gov to guide your food choices and better understand the nutrition needs of young children.

If that had been all of Ms. Britten’s lesson, no real harm done, but this is a government bureaucrat, so why stop at one suggested government service ( where there are many more rules to promote?

The article continues:

Offer snack foods that help meet their daily food group needs. … Reward them with your attention. Hugs are much better than sweet treats. … Dance, run, and play hopscotch or soccer with them when they’re full of energy — it’s fun and healthy for both of you! Show your grandchild games, activity sheets and other fun ways to learn about good nutrition at MyPlate Kids’ Place. For a bedtime story, read The Two Bite Club.

“The Two Bite Club” is a USDA book about how to try all the foods from MyPlate by tasting two bites of each. The USDA helpfully explains that the book is in English and Spanish and is meant to teach young children the government guidelines for a healthful diet. Of course, that diet doesn’t include candy, so grandparents are supposed to give hugs instead. Meanwhile, the MyPlate logo cost taxpayers $2 million and the MyPlate Kids’ Place cost millions more.

The problem with all this government concern and caring is that nowhere is it explained why this is the business of the federal government in the first place, nor is it clear why parents have been removed from the equation.

It is true that the percentage of grandparents who serve as caregivers to their grandchildren has risen since the recession in 2007. But so far the peak is 4 percent of American kids. Why is the USDA spending money focused on such exceptional circumstances?

In reality, the answer is the problem. The Department of Agriculture has no business publishing books that proselytize for its version of nutritious eating, period. Not to mention that redesigning the old food pyramid was wasteful since it had already been updated in 2005.

But the USDA, like every other Cabinet department, has gotten so big and so brazen that it has taken on the role of nanny-knows-best and this is but one example of that effort. It wastes taxpayer money while failing to produce useful results. And by removing parents from the equation, the USDA is undermining the bedrock value of parents, not government, as primary caregiver.

Abby W. Schachter, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, lives in Regent Square and blogs about the intersection of government policy and parenting at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.