11 Reasons Americans Are Obese—It's Not About Personal Choice

Rather than post this in the other train wreck of a thread, I'm posting this article that another member sent me, to encourage some positive discussion. I would change the title to read ..."It's Not Only/Always About Personal Choice." This article seems to want to absolve us of any responsibility.

Could someone open the link and copy/paste the text? My phone is being stubborn. Thanks.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-he...65135&t=25&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

I would add that hormone imbalances, medications, depression and heredity also make weight loss/management difficult.

Thoughts on the points in this article?

 

11 Reasons Americans Are Obese—It's Not About Personal Choice


March 2, 2014 |

Everyone has allowed themselves to make an offhand comment about obesity, whether as a societal problem or on an individual level. It’s almost a reflex, and the idea that weight is entirely based on personal lifestyle choices (and maybe genetics) is deeply ingrained in our culture. But America, despite its growing problem with obesity and its related illnesses, is not simply a country of lazy people who only want to eat hamburgers. There are a huge amount of factors at play here, many of which seem to decide our fate before we even pick up the fork.

1. Obesity is deeply tied to class and race.

While obesity is a problem that can be found in every income bracket, it is far and away most likely to affect poor people living in wealthy countries [3]. In America, poor women are the most likely gender group to be obese, and, with the exception of Asian-Americans, ethnic minorities are heavier across the board. In fact, if you are a low-income black woman in America, you are twice [3] as likely as a wealthy white woman to be obese in your lifetime.

And while it could be argued that this is coincidental, it likely has something to do with the fact that:

2. Food deserts are an extreme problem in America.
sometimesdee

sometimesdee [4]

Food deserts refer [5] to the neighborhoods and communities — disproportionally represented in urban areas like New York City or Chicago — where access to fresh, healthy, affordable food is heavily restricted or non-existent, and where the only “grocery stores” are poorly-stocked convenience shops. The USDA has even developed an interactive map [6] to find out exactly how accessible food is in any given area. While it’s easy to point the finger at parents in these communities who feed low-nutrient, high-calorie food to their children, it’s also important to understand how difficult in can be to find alternatives within reasonable distance to their homes.

3. Obesity makes it physically much harder to maintain weight loss than for a person with a normal BMI.

The actual number of fat cells in your body do not decrease as weight is lost, the cells only shrink in size and become “lean,” with obese individuals often having up to twice [7] as many cells as a thinner person. This will make maintaining their weight more difficult for the rest of their lives.

4. Two people of the same size can burn calories differently.

There are many factors that contribute to someone’s overall metabolism, but the difference can mean that two people eating the same number of calories will store different amounts of weight as a result. And though you can work on changing [8] your own metabolism, much of this is decided by genetics.

5. School lunches are less nutritious now than ever.
fahzoom

fahzoom [9]

We all know that school lunches aren’t great, but we often underestimate how bad they actually are, and how damaging they can be to a child’s health and future relationship to food. One study showed [10] that children who ate lunch at school vs. at home were significantly more likely to be obese, to have higher levels of “bad” cholesterol, and less likely to participate in moderate exercise.

These lunches set children up on an unfair path, particularly when combined with the fact that:

6. Most schools only require 30 minutes of health education per week.

We know that this isn’t even close [11] to enough, and yet physical education programs are always amongst the first things to be cut when budgets are reduced.

7. Just this past week, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack referred to ‘inner-city children’ who couldn’t recognize a tomato.

And while his comments [11] may seem fairly extreme, when you combine food deserts, poor health education, abysmal school lunch programs, and financial limitations, it’s not an extreme scenario. In fact, several independent programs [12] have been formed specifically to teach children about fruits and vegetables in the classroom. (The documentary on American hunger A Place At The Table even contains a scene [13] in which a teacher explains to her class full of second-graders what a melon is and where to find one, most of whom had never seen one.)

8. We become literally addicted to the bad foods we eat.
jrs4

jrs4 [14]

A recent study has actually compared [15] the addictive properties of food to that of heroin, caffeine, and nicotine. If we are going through cycles of cravings and fatigue and irritation when it comes to eating, that isn’t a coincidence. Our bodies are actually becoming dependent on the food, and this only increases as we consume more of it.

9. …And companies are doing this intentionally.

Junk and fast food companies are not stupid. They spend millions [16] of dollars and millions of hours of research engineering the perfect food that’s going to keep you reaching back into the bag over and over again, nearly against your will.

10. Labels will openly trick us about health benefits.

In order to combat negative press, get on the increasingly lucrative “healthy food” train, and convince people that eating their products is good for them, many companies deceptively [17] label their foods with supposed health benefits. Breakfast cereals are a great example of a staple food that promises vitamins and nutrients, but doesn’t mention the excessive [17] amounts you would need to eat to achieve them, or the refined sugar, fat, and calories that cancel out the positives. It’s as close as you can get to lying to the consumer without actually doing it.

11. The problem is not going to improve unless we work together.

As long as we continue to point the finger at the individuals around us, and not at the greater underlying problems, this issue is only going to worsen. Obesity has increased steadily [18] over the past forty years, along with its related illnesses, despite increasing spending on both personal diet programs and medical treatments. If the trajectory continues, 44 percent of Americans will be obese [19] by 2030, and the related costs will only increase in tandem.

However, it has been demonstrated [20] that many obesity-related illnesses, beyond just the weight itself, can be reversed through diet and lifestyle changes. But diet doesn’t mean “special diet products,” it means a change in the way we eat and the access we have to food and food education. So before we talk about a lazy person eating McDonald’s, maybe we should be talking about a lazy country who isn’t taking care of its people.

See more stories tagged with:
obesity [21],
obese [22],
food [23],
junk food [24],
health [25],
diet [26],
fat [27]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/11-reasons-americans-are-obese-its-not-about-personal-choice

Links:
[1] http://thoughtcatalog.com/
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/chelsea-fagan
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com/business...p-between-income-and-race-and-obesity/281434/
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/sometimesdee/3536137022/
[5] http://www.foodispower.org/food-deserts/
[6] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx#.UwzvhEKwIhI
[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ple-find-it-hard-to-lose-weight-is-found.html
[8] http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/everyones-metabolism-metabolize-calories-same-rate-9075.html
[9] http://www.flickr.com/photos/fazoom/142849686/sizes/z/
[10] http://www.cbs19.tv/story/12148609/scary-statistics-about-school-lunches
[11] https://www.healthiergeneration.org/_asset/s5stxh/13-6174_AssessHealthEd-ES.pdf
[12] http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-programs.php?action=detail&id=4&pid=176
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgxxT4xpVNI
[14] http://www.flickr.com/photos/jrs4/5387245084/
[15] http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/03/30/fast-food-is-like-heroin-studies-find/
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/m...ce-of-junk-food.html?ref=michaelmoss&_r=0
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/business/15food.html?pagewanted=all
[18] http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/PDFs/stat904z.pdf
[19] http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/03/22/the-business-of-obesity/
[20] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ntion-the-end-of-diabetes-book_n_2478790.html
[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/obesity-0
[22] http://www.alternet.org/tags/obese
[23] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0
[24] http://www.alternet.org/tags/junk-food
[25] http://www.alternet.org/tags/health-0
[26] http://www.alternet.org/tags/diet
[27] http://www.alternet.org/tags/fat
[28] http://www.alternet.org/+new_src+

 

a report was on the news say sugar is more addictive than cocaine.

also it was noted on a news commentary show that business doctor food to make u crave them. they have taste institutes (TI) to do that.

i saw TI about ben jerry documentary on bio about ice cream

 

Thanks, Gem! :freehug:

 

Another interesting article:

High fructose corn sugar versus table sugar

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories

Current Stories

All Current Stories|« Previous Current Story|Next Current Story »
A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
Posted March 22, 2010; 10:00 a.m.

by Hilary Parker
Tweet

e-mail | print
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

Hoebel lab
A Princeton University research team, including (from left) undergraduate Elyse Powell, psychology professor Bart Hoebel, visiting research associate Nicole Avena and graduate student Miriam Bocarsly, has demonstrated that rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup -- a sweetener found in many popular sodas -- gain significantly more weight than those with access to water sweetened with table sugar, even when they consume the same number of calories. The work may have important implications for understanding obesity trends in the United States. (Photo: Denise Applewhite) Photos for news media
In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.

The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes." In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity.

Hoebel lab
When male rats were given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow, the animals gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, along with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas, including the orange soft drink shown here. (Photo: Denise Applewhite)
High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.

"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said.

The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.

In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet -- the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda -- and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite.

The research was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.

 

Check this out.

 

the FDA is getting ready to enforce label changes...basically food companies are misleading with portion size...when is the last time you ate just 1/2 a bagel...or 1/2 a muffin the calories would actually be double for the full serving...i just bought these promotional pizzas at sam's club 6" diameter spinach pizza and the calories say 110 but then when you look at the fine print that is just for 1/3 of the mini pizza...if you eat the the whole thing that 330 calories...



(CNN) -- Choosing healthier foods at the grocery store may soon be a little easier.

The Food and Drug Administration is proposing several changes to the nutrition labels you see on packaged foods and beverages. If approved, the new labels would place a bigger emphasis on total calories, added sugars and certain nutrients, such as Vitamin D and potassium.

The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler.

This is the first overhaul for nutrition labels since the FDA began requiring them more than 20 years ago. There has been a shift in shoppers' priorities as nutrition is better understood and people learn what they should watch for on a label, administration officials said.

"You as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf, and be able to tell whether it's good for your family," first lady Michelle Obama said in a press release. "So this is a big deal, and it's going to make a big difference for families all across this country."


Twins' diet contest has shocking result
The proposed labels would remove the "calories from fat" line you currently see on labels, focusing instead on total calories found in each serving. Nutritionists have come to understand that the type of fat you're eating matters more than the calories from fat. As such, the breakdown of total fat vs. saturated and trans fat would remain.

Put down that doughnut: FDA takes on trans fat

The proposed labels would also note how much added sugar is in a product. Right now, it's hard to know what is naturally occurring sugar and what has been added by the manufacturer.

"Now when Americans pull a product from the supermarket shelf, they will have a clear idea of how much sugar that product really contains," American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said.

Chemically, added sugar is the same, but studies show many Americans eat more sugar than they realize. The American Heart Association recommends you limit added sugar to no more than half your daily discretionary calories. That means for American men, about 150 calories a day, or nine teaspoons. For women it's a smaller amount -- no more than 100 calories per day from added sugar, or about six teaspoons of sugar.

The FDA also plans to update the daily values for certain nutrients such as sodium, dietary fiber and Vitamin D. For instance, the daily limit for sodium was 2,400 milligrams. If the new rules take effect, the daily value will be 2,300 milligrams, administration officials said.

Food and beverage companies would also be required to declare the amount of Vitamin D and potassium in a product, as well as calcium and iron. Research shows Americans tend not to consume enough Vitamin D for good bone health. And potassium is essential in keeping your blood pressure in check.

Vegetarian diet could help lower your blood pressure

Administration officials said about 17% of current serving size requirements will be changing, and the FDA is adding 25 categories for products that weren't commonly around 20 years ago (think pot stickers, sesame oil and sun-dried tomatoes).

Most of the required serving sizes will be going up; no one eats just half a cup of ice cream, for instance. Others, like yogurt, will be going down.

"This will help people better understand how many calories they actually consume, especially if they plan to eat all the food in a container or package," Brown said.

While the American Heart Association and advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest commended the FDA's changes, they noted that there was more to do.

Both organizations said the FDA's sodium recommendation was still too high. Brown said the association will continue to recommend sodium intake be limited to 1,500 milligrams a day.

CSPI said it will also request that the FDA include a daily value of 25 grams for added sugars. "Thus, the Nutrition Facts label for a 16.9-ounce bottle of soda would indicate that its 58 grams of added sugars represents 230 percent of the DV," the group said in an e-mail.

With this announcement, the FDA has opened a 90-day comment period, during which experts and members of the public can provide input on the proposed rules. The FDA will then issue a final rule. Officials said they hope to complete the process this year.

Manufacturing companies will then have two years to implement the changes.

Nutrition labels have remained pretty much the same for decades. It wasn't until the late 1960s that most food labels listed any nutrition information.

At the time, labels with calorie or sodium counts were mainly used on products the FDA considered to have "special dietary uses," for people with high blood pressure who were watching sodium, for instance.

Most people were making meals at home then, so there wasn't a huge demand for this information. That changed as more people started eating processed foods.

Noticing the trend, the White House pulled together a conference of nutritionists and food manufacturers in 1969. Nutrition labeling was voluntary at first. It wasn't until 1990 that the FDA required nutrition labels for most prepared and packaged foods. Labels for raw produce and fish remain voluntary.

More Americans today are interested in what's on these nutrition labels, research shows.

A USDA study released last month showed 42% of working-age adults between 29 and 68 looked at these labels most or all of the time when shopping. Some 57% of Americans older than 68 did as well. That's up from 2007, when 34% of working-age adults looked at the label, and 51% of Americans older than 68 did.

The increase is good news as the United States struggles with an obesity epidemic. Some studies have shown that people who read labels eat healthier. More than a third of all Americans are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Obesity rates drop for 2- to 5-year olds

CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and Saundra Young contributed to this report.

 

Mrs. Loki is a fan of Dr. Oz, and she has me following these rules. #7 is tough for me as I tend to scarf down my food especially when I am hungry. #5 is tough as well as my work/coaching my kids teams, schedule can get crazy at times.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dr-oz-s-10-weight-loss-commandments

 

In US history, as less people farmed and more people lived in cities, more of us lost touch with nature, and what real food is. And yes, the brunt of it is the burden of those in inner cities, those furthest away from access to nature, where pop tarts count as breakfast, not from lack of discipline but lack of access.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYs4KS_djg

I saw this clip years ago and it was so disturbing to me it burned into my memory forever. Until the day I saw this clip I had no idea so many children today are this clueless about food. It is literally heartbreaking to watch.

 

Love Dr OZ! He admits himself he's learned along the way about health and is open to alternative medicines (thanks to his Vegan wife who taught him to eat healthier), which is also why employs EXPERTS in their chosen field of health to speak on his show. My mother follows his show religiously.

 

Worth a peek to see just how they manipulate

[HDYT]AV_Y_bvYmws[/HDYT]

 

Also, if your loaf of bread does not say "100% whole grain" then it is not. Just saying "whole grain" does not mean it is 100% whole.

Genetically modified foods are the furthest thing from natural. In lab conditions, animals avoid them in favor of natural food, and if forced to eat them, they develop organ failure in a fairly short period of time.

 

Wow, how sad that these 6 year olds can't recognize vegetables. I was thrilled when my daughter (4th grader) came home last week telling me stats about sodium, good fats vs bad fats, sugar content, etc. Granted we talk about healthy food/snack choices a lot in our household, we have since the kids were tiny, but it was wonderful to see that reinforced at her school. They have a Registered Dietician come into class every few weeks to discuss the importance of healthy eating and regular exercise. She used real examples of lunchables, pop tarts, chips, cookies...all very relatable to 9 year olds! It's so important to teach kids what foods fuel their body and then lead by example (possibly most important).

I read an article a while back about the dramatic long term differences between kids that were raised with healthy eating habits enforced at home vs those that were free to eat pretty much whatever (soda, sugars etc). It studied far more than just weight and it really hit home for me the importance of starting kids off right, from an early age. I'll see if I can find it. It was a good read for those like me, who have little ones at home.

 

Big kudos to whoever decided to teach your 4th grader about nutrition in that much detail. At that age the only thing they told me about was the four food groups, this was in the pre-food pyramid days.

Good nutrition is probably most important in childhood because this is when the body and the immune system is developing. Basically, the nutrition a child gets during development can determine a lot about their future health, including mental health and IQ. In addition, it sets the standard in the memory bank of what they will psychologically crave when they feel low and need to retreat to their comfort foods in the future. Do you want your future adult to take solace in the soda, chips and cookies of their childhood, or do you want to create their childhood memories around some healthier comfort foods, like pretzels, peanut butter and apple slices?

 

Outside of obviously wanting my kids to be as mentally and physically healthy as possible, the bolded part above is HUGE for me. Understanding how prominent emotional eating is, it's always been important to me to teach them proper eating habits. My kids are 5 and 9 and when they're thirsty, they reach for water, when they're hungry, they want fruits or veggies from the refrigerator. Don't get me wrong, we have some cookies and chips in the house, but they're old enough to understand that those aren't things we sit around and snack on (which has always been my ultimate goal...them seeing it on their own). My family used to laugh at me thinking I was being overly cautious but I'm trying to set them up for the brightest future possible.

I do think there's a big difference between instilling good dietary habits and prohibiting any consumption of "junk food". Just one of the many fine lines parents walk between doing the right thing, and over doing it.

I agree that the teaching being done in schools (at least her school) is much different than earlier teachings about food! Pretty cool, imo. I learned about the food pyramid, that's it!

 

Ignore the family, you are doing it right. He who laughs last, laughs best. Your children will thank you later as adults, when they see that everyone else is physically and psychologically addicted to junk, scarfing down ice cream for comfort food, while they are able to get by on real food at all times. I agree that junk food should not be forbidden, because then it becomes the forbidden fruit and too attractive. It will have the opposite than intended effect. However, it should be an occasional treat, which it seems like that's what you're doing.

 

I'm immensely disappointed that you think this bullshit made for TV garbage was real for a second. Your smarter than this...

 

I don't think most children are that good at acting. And unfortunately this clip does answer a lot of questions. It's hard to believe and accept, but when I sit down to think about it, I believe this is real. From a young age I have watched my grandmother and mother create homecooked meals from the bottom up. If I had not had that experience I really do not think I would have known how to name many foods early on. Take that logic a step further, and put it in light of the fact that cooking is a dying craft, and yes you reach the conclusion that of course, many children will not know how to identify foods in their unchopped form. So yes I really believe this clip is real.

 

I'm with north on this one. For one the clip is very anecdotal since its one class in one school in whatever city in a huge country. I don't know if its representative of the country but if it is these kids are too young to make that assessment. If they were maybe at an age where they prepare meals for themselves like 13 or so then it would make more of an impact. I think they chose kids that young because it would look good on tv, seriously how many 6 six year olds anywhere outside of a farm would know what califlower or turnip looks like?

 

Not sure how many 6 year olds you've been around, but the ones I know can certainly pick out a cauliflower, tomato and eggplant. Turnip...maybe not.

This video might not be indicative of "most" 6 year olds, but it's sad enough that the classroom in question thought tomatoes were potatoes. Kids at that age should be able to identify vegetables, even if they're not the ones preparing the meals.