Smile! You’re on Candy Camera!

The headline wasn’t a typo.  An elementary school in San Antonio will be installing high-tech cameras to monitor what foods children are eating.  This program will cost $2 million and is being funded by the Department of Agriculture (read: taxpayers).

According to the Associated Press, “Here’s how it works: students are assigned lunch trays with a unique bar code. After the children load up their plates down the line — mashed potatoes or green beans? french fries or fruit? — a camera above the cashier takes a picture of each tray.

When lunch is over and the kids return their plates to the kitchen, another camera takes a snapshot of what’s left on the tray. Software then analyzes the before and after photos to calculate calories consumed and, according to Trevino, a report of nutrients in the foods.”

The pilot program is being conducted to monitor the eating habits of children.  To allay any privacy concerns parents are required to give consent for their children to be observed.  And, they say that only their food will be monitored, not the children. It sounds implausible that there won’t be any accidental viewing of children on video.

Beside the fact that taxpayers are funding an absolutely ridiculous project for $2 million and the huge privacy implications, here are four other problems that immediately come to mind:

• Since it is voluntary, the food police won’t be able to get an accurate accounting of what children are really eating.  They will know what a few kids are eating.
• Not all parents will participate and which parents will be more likely to participate?  Probably those with kids with healthier eating habits
• If there are two children sitting next to each other, one has a tagged tray and the other doesn’t, how do they account for food sharing or the kid with the untagged tray throwing away the other kid’s food.
• Cafeteria food can be nasty and the amount of food consumed does not necessarily translate into anything other than whether or not the tater tots were cooked properly or the student wasn’t hungry.

Ultimately, taxpayers and privacy advocates should be concerned about who will be viewing the footage.  Also, it is difficult to believe that any credible researcher would take these results seriously.  In fact, it is plausible to conceive that the results will be used/manipulated to call for more government involvement in food consumption whether it be through regulation or taxation.

This $2 million study is why Congress needs to do more oversight on the USDA, and all agencies, to ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and taxpayer money isn’t being used for social engineering.