Marion Nestle, unsurprisingly, likes Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative to fight childhood obesity, announced yesterday with great fanfare and lots of media attention.

“This is big news,” Nestle wrote. “I see much to admire here.” The initiative “focuses on kids” and “is sensitive to political realities (it’s called the uncontroversial ‘Let’s Move,’ not the inflammatory ‘Let’s Eat Less’ or ‘Let’s Eat Better’).”

Sure, it’s pathetic that “let’s eat less” and “let’s eat better” could possibly be called controversial, much less “inflammatory.” But the food industry and its compliant lackeys among the commentariat have always made sure that this is the case—in recent years, by yelling “nanny state” whenever the government moves to address behavior-based public health issues. But Nestle’s right—the careful language will help the program avoid all that nonsense.

Well, not all, but most. A quick scan of the usual suspects shows very little in the way of commentary on the issue. Perhaps they were too busy trying to convince us that bad winter weather somehow disproves global warming. There’s also the fact that the food industry isn’t fighting this one; so far, so it hasn’t sent out any talking points.

Still, when your whole life is devoted to opposition for its own sake, you can always come up with something if you choose to make the effort. So Julie Gunlock over at the National Review‘s consistently nutty blog The Corner decided that, though she applauds Obama’s parent-centric message, it was wrong for the first lady to bring up her daughter’s improved weight (as both she and the president have done before) in discussing obesity. Also, she wrote, parents, not (oy gevalt) “big brother,” should be the ones to teach children to eat better and exercise.

Think about that again: Obama’s initiative is about childhood obesity, and Gunlock’s argument is that it’s great that the main message is that parents need to get more involved in solving the problem. But it’s somehow wrong for a parent to mention a child’s weight in such a context. Gotcha.

The “big brother” bit has to do with President Obama’s creation of a task force to review all of the government’s anti-obesity initiatives and create a report. We don’t yet know what the task force will recommend, but it’s already being described in Orwellian terms. (We assume the task force won’t be tapping our phones to listen to us making dinner plans. But you never know.) This even though the administration has made it clear that encouraging parental responsibility is central to its campaign. 

Nestle’s blog entry, by the way, also includes a nice set of links to various news accounts and bits of (sane) commentary about the new initiatives.  

---

Presented By:
Comcast Business Class

Look at your bill and find out how much your business can save with Comcast Business Class. Internet, Phone & TV for $99. Learn More

Ads by Pheedo

Advocates for improving school meals aren’t happy with President Obama’s budget proposal, which adds $1 billion to be split between schools and the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program for low-income pregnant women and children up to age 5.

At best, says Kim Severson of the New York Times‘ Diner’s Journal blog, that will add about 20 cents per school meal. That’s not enough for groups pushing for vast improvements in school nutrition programs, which were hoping for at least a buck and as much as $3 per meal. The federal money helps finance about 5.4 billion meals a year.

“On the other hand,” Severson notes, “the budget has $35 million in loans available to help finance groceries and pay for other programs that will get healthy food into urban and rural areas called food ‘deserts’ and $429 million for research grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.”

With Obama now moving into penny-pinching mode, it could be that starting next year, some nutrition-advocacy groups that have recently had common cause with each other will find themselves at odds, fighting for dollars.

Let me catch my breath on this one because it’s a doozy of a “Groundbreakers” report #2 by Ernst & Young, “Scaling up: why women-owned businesses can recharge the global economy,“ detailing how women entrepreneurs are critical drivers of economic growth and provides resources and insights for private sector, government and NGO leaders who are seeking to close the gender gap. I love to see that women entrepreneurs and women-owned business owners are finally getting the respect and attention they so rightfully deserve.

The Center for Women’s Business Research study shows that there are about 8 million women-owned enterprises in the US. Those businesses have an annual impact of nearly US$3 trillion dollars and create or maintain more than 23 million jobs — 16% of all US employment.

Women entrepreneurs have economic clout. Greater participation of women in the labor force correlates with higher GDP growth.

Worldwide, women own or operate 25% to 33% of all private businesses, according to the World Bank. Women-owned enterprises grow faster than those owned by men and faster than businesses overall.

And that’s not all. What has made a difference for women entrepreneurs lately?

• The US government has appointed a woman as Secretary of State, and has created a new position, Ambassador at-Large for Global Women’s Issues.
• The World Bank’s Doing Business project has launched a two-year research program to identify and recommend reforms to eliminate the legal and regulatory barriers facing women.
• The Declaration on Fostering Women’s Entrepreneurship in the Middle East and North.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The more wind and support we put behind women entrepreneurs, the faster and more powerful our global economic recovery. Read more here.

Download “Scaling up: Why women-owned businesses can recharge the global economy,” as a printable document (818KB PDF).

We’ve been on this same trend (and agree with the report findings) for some time but see for yourself by visiting our sister social enterprise, Women Entrepreneurs GROW Global (WEGG). You might also re-visit our Top 10 Global Small Business Trends in 2009 (refer to No. 8: Women entrepreneurs will rule the global marketplace).

If you run a global small business, and I am assuming many of you do, what should you be doing to swing open that door to China? The first step is to track what others are doing and determine success rates.

For example, innovative healthcare product company Novartis announced on Tuesday that it will spend U.S. $1 billion spread over five years to make China (starting in Shanghai — pictured) a third global pillar for its research and development. Why? Couple of good reasons:

1. Rapid growth is one key reason for the expansion.
2. Projected to become one of Novartis’s three biggest markets by 2014.
3. Revenue in China has been growing at annual rate of 30% in the last few years.
4. Health-care reform alone will fuel growth.

The question Novartis asks is: “Where do you need to be down the road, and clearly it is here.” It’s a question many of us should be asking and facing but what small business can afford to make the kind of investment required to do business in China?

Do you think at the very least it might be prudent to give Novartis a call or send an email to an appropriate person to see how you might partner with them on some of their initiatives? It’s a great way to attempt to crack open the market — together.

Read more here.

Social media does not play by the same rules as old school advertising and marketing, namely, big corporation talks and everybody else listens. While time and again we have seen these old rules fail in the social media space, there always seems to be someone new who doesn’t get it.

This time, it’s Honda, with its Honda Accord Crosstour Facebook page.

Honda appeared to make two missteps.

First, they did not apparently know their user. While I can not confirm it, it seems as though they skipped user research. User research is a must when building any digital experience, but especially a social media one.

Second, they broke user trust. According to numerous reports, when Honda didn’t like what people had to say, they selectively removed comments. In addition, it appears that at least one employee defended the new car, problem is, he did not reveal himself as an employee. This may have been an innocent mistake, but the damage was done none the less.

Ultimately, Honda broke the golden rule of transparency. And while it’s not easy to always listen to what people have to say, it’s vital (just look at the Chevy Tahoe Apprentice site via 2006; their sales actually went up, even though they left very negative comments on their site).

How can Honda fix this? Well at this point I would suggest they leave up everything that everyone has to say, and take good notes for next time.