Can you believe it’s been one year?

A full 365 days!

Fifty-two weeks!

Two seasons of G’s to Gents!

Yes, believe it or not, an entire year has passed since the great chocolate milk debacle of 2008.

Thomas Curry | Daily Trojan

Last year in Barrington, Ill., the school district voted to eliminate all flavored milk products from the lunch menu of elementary and middle school lunches.

The decision, however unpopular, was a calculated move to help curb ever-worsening childhood obesity by forcing the young minds of Barrington to select plain white milk as their beverage of choice

Kids — they grow out so fast these days.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, as a committee of three 10-year-olds worked feverishly to reverse the decision. With the backing of a heavily supported petition, the trio convinced the benevolent school board to temporarily bring back flavored milks to the cafeteria menu — for one day a week.

As ridiculous as the compromise may seem, the issue from which it stems is perhaps even more ludicrous.

Though the plan intends to cut the caloric intake of additive sweeteners, it ignores the fact that the same nutrients found in white milk are found in chocolate milk — they just taste better.

Already a fickle group of eaters, children who were forced to drink only white milk might have avoided the drink altogether.

But as questionable as the decision-making process was in the case of moo juice in Barrington, why cry over chocolate milk?

Trying to declare war on obesity has put our priorities out of order.

There’s no question that the overall fitness level of the American public is below par, especially among youths. In fact, it would be reckless to apply the same “kids will be kids” mentality that brushes aside the casual consumption of paste and occasional public tantrum to the eating practices of kids.

Many 5-year-olds plow through entire boxes of Honeycomb cereal; few would call this a good life habit.

Though the act of micromanaging the eating behaviors of the nation’s youth seems to be nitpicky, it helps to address the problem of obesity at an early stage.

But while a high precedent has been set on correcting the behaviors of the overindulgent, there’s been a dramatic dropoff on the opposite side of the spectrum — helping out those struggling to put food on the table.

There is a big coalition trying to curb obesity; the nation’s hungry don’t have such an avid group of followers.

According to a study released Monday by the Department of Agriculture, 17 million American households (14.6 percent) “had difficulty putting enough food on the table at times during the year,” with hunger in the United States reaching a 14-year high.

The report goes on to state that the number of households in which both adults and children experienced “very low food security” rose by more than half, from 323,000 in 2007 to 506,000 in 2008.

It is curious, then, that the stories we hear most revolve around proposed food taxes and the advent of new diet-conscious products, and that any talk of hunger problems only evokes images of Bono and third-world countries.

For some reason, hunger seems to be a distant issue; we’re not used to hearing that people in our own country are starving every day.

If there was anywhere near the amount of scrutiny that occurred in the so-called “war on obesity,” such numbers would not be nearly as high, with the public taking a vested interest in reducing hunger.

Everyone feels bad for the empty-stomached, especially when they go hungry without reason. Even those convicted of heinous crimes are provided with food on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, it seems that the philanthropic efforts to help out this group are only present during major holiday-themed food drives, whereas hunger is a very real day-to-day issue for those affected.

With an increased level of scrutiny on the trend of hunger in the country, perhaps we could change the mindset that charities only really need volunteers for a fraction of the year.

For all the effort and energy spent trying to help out those that have had one cookie too many, it would be much more prudent to find ways to help out those seeking a crumb.

The morbidly obese are often so because of their free will to limit self control. But does anyone choose to be habitually starving?

We should re-organize our priorities to help restore the balance of help in the realm of eating habits.

Ultimately, working to help those in need of a basic necessity seems to be a much more appetizing prospect than to meddle in petty calorie counting wars to assist those responsible for their own gluttony.

Soojin Yoon is a junior majoring in public relations. His column, “Boy Meets Word,” runs Thursdays.