Children seen engaging in unregulated homefeeding

In the upcoming election one of the ‘hot topics’ is government sponsored health care. I was recently digging through my archives and discovered this old chestnut which I think is still relevant in regards to that topic.

Homefeeding Children: Threat or Menace?
By Lydia McGrew
June 12, 2002

(Editor’s Note: The following editorial originally appeared in the June 6 edition of the Midwestburg Courier-Gazette.)

The recent tragic death from malnutrition of seven-year-old Johnny Marfan of Bensonville draws our attention to the growing trend toward so-called “homefeeding.”

While the majority of the local children still receive their nutrition from state cafeterias or approved, registered private cafeterias, a growing minority of parents - hundreds by some estimates - are engaged in homefeeding, a practice in which children receive at least breakfast and dinner in their own homes as provided by their parents.

In accordance with law, the Marfans informed the state health department that they were homefeeding Johnny. But in this state, homefeeding is relatively unregulated, giving carte blanch to parents to feed their children virtually any food under the sun; meat, milk, cookies, butter, pie - anything goes.

Some states require parents to have a certified degree in nutrition or at least be monitored by an accredited nutritionist. But here, parents do not even have to fill out periodic reports detailing what they are feeding their children.

Opponents of homefeeding argue that parents like the Marfans used homefeeding as a cover for abuse and neglect, with terrible results. While this remains in question, we’ve seen nothing to disprove this.

Calista Nicole-Carson of the state Department of Cafeterias and Caloric Monitoring says, “I realize that there are conscientious parents who genuinely try to feed their children what they need. But they should have no objection to filling out the forms we are introducing, describing each of the meals they give.”

That seems a reasonable step in safeguarding our most precious resource - our children. “Pro-active steps are necessary to insure we are protecting all children,” says Nicole-Carson. “It is ridiculous not to monitor what all children are fed because of a misguided concern for ‘privacy’ or ‘freedom,’ and such lack of regulation allows children to slip fatally through the cracks.”

Other critics are concerned about parents’ lack of necessary qualifications. “Every year we make new nutritional discoveries,” says Dr. Sue d’Panzoff of the University of Omasota. “Parents cannot possibly keep up with each breakthrough in nutritional science and give their children these benefits.”

It’s preposterous for us to leave such vital functions to amateurs who claim authority based on something as flimsy as parenthood, particularly in the realm of keeping pace with nutritional advances.

“Who knows what changes we may need to make next year to improve children’s nutrition,” asks d’Panzoff. “At a minimum, homefeeding programs must be carefully monitored in the domicile to make sure all the latest advances are represented.”

Still others point out the social skills homefed children are missing. Ms. Nicole-Carson tells us, “During meals at the public cafeterias, these children watch educational videos about crucial subjects like the environment, sex, and the evils of capitalism. The food itself is culturally diversified, and each day the children are taught a different set of table manners from another culture around the world.”

Homefeeders rely in large part on outmoded history in defending their decision to place their own children out of the mainstream.

“As recently as 1992, the majority of children in the United States were homefed,” says Philip Flicka, of the right-wing Home Food Legal Defense Association. “Even when kids went to school, they were allowed to bring lunches packed by their moms.”

Whether Mr. Flicka is right or not, it seems that homefeeding is here to stay, consequences be damned. But we cannot be too vigilant. Homefeeders of good will should, as Ms. Nicole-Carson says, be entirely open to having their homes and programs monitored by qualified nutritionists for the good of our children.

Any small amount of time and privacy this costs parents will be more than repaid in lives saved. If the Marfans had been properly monitored, Johnny would still be alive.

There is nothing more valuable than the life and safety of a child, and for that reason, strictures on homefeeding must be tightened in this state.

Copyright 2002, the Midwestburg Courier-Gazette.