Down with healthy school lunches, says House GOP

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Having already moved to gut USDA programs promoting agricultural conservation and renewable energy and strip the USDA of its authority to enact the first meaningful reform of the irredeemably monopolistic livestock industry, House Republicans have now turned their attention to that other great threat to American freedom: USDA nutrition guidelines. According to the Associated Press, Republican appropriators in the House of Representatives (the lawmakers who control the government's purse) are on the verge of defunding significant parts of school-lunch reform and elements of Michelle Obama's Let's Move! program, as well as the recently announced voluntary Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines that would restrict junk-food advertising aimed at young children.

As a spokesperson for House Appropriations Committee Chair Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) put it, the new FTC rule in particular is "classic nanny-state overreach":

"Our concern is those voluntary guidelines are back-door regulation," he said, deploring the fact that kids can watch shows that depict sex and drugs on MTV, but "you cannot see an advertisement for Tony the Tiger during the commercial break."

Ah, the House GOP -- making the world safe for Tony the Tiger. But the fury of the Cuddly Corporate Marketing Character Lobby pales in comparison to that of the Potato Lobby. Big Spud is furious -- furious, I tell you -- that the new USDA guidelines for school lunches would restrict starchy vegetables such as the potato to a one-cup-a-week appearance on the plates of schoolchildren nationwide. In place of the mighty potato would come additional servings of whole grains, orange and green veggies, and low-fat milk. It's enough to drive you around the bend!

Never mind that the potato is by far the most-consumed vegetable in America and that restricting it at school would still allow parents to stuff their children with French-fried, mashed, and chipped potatoes outside of school hours. Attention must be paid! So the Potato Lobby and representatives from potato-growing regions are fighting back hard.

And how about the new calorie-labeling requirement that was included in health-reform legislation? The House GOP is going after that, too.

While snark seems the only reasonable response to such utter fecklessness from our elected representatives, the fact is that the situation is deadly serious:

The overall spending bill would cut billions from USDA and FDA budgets, including for domestic feeding programs and international food aid. Even after some of the money was restored Tuesday, the bill would still cut about $650 million -- or 10 percent -- from the Women, Infants and Children program that feeds and educates mothers and their children. It would cut almost 12 percent of the Food and Drug Administration's $2.5 billion budget, straining the agency's efforts to implement a new food safety law signed by the president early this year.

Indeed, this is no laughing matter. On the one hand, this is just the House, which, in the iron grip of the Tea Party, is spitting out one destructive piece of legislation after another. The Democrat-controlled Senate will have no interest in much of what the House disgorges. But the two houses of Congress must ultimately agree on spending legislation. The question is how the houses can meaningfully meet when one side has gone so far afield.

http://www.grist.org/school-lunches/2011-06-01-down-with-healthy-school-lunches-says-house-gop

[SuperDuper! 230]

Itz the parents' responsibility to ensure their children have a healthy lunch, steven. NOT the nanny state's job.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you ever post things that are not from HACK sites?

School lunches are fine.

Nutrition labels are fine.

Making McDonalds post "500 calories" that big on their menu is ridiculous and a pipe dream that it will change anything.

The problem is and always has been parenting. The problem is lack of exercise. The problem is TV, video games, computers, etc. and a lack of getting these fat arses up of their butts.

It really is that simple.

We grew up with fried chicken fingers, fries, candy, sodas, chocolate milk, ice cream, etc.. in schools but we were ACTIVE.

Stop blaming the food when it's just plain laziness that's the problem!!!

Once again, grist is a pathetic site on an issue.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Paul and Vanessa

[Darnell 8,479]

Go Partisan ! Viva la CheeseWiz !

[SuperDuper! 230]

Weird.

[Zero Sum 305]

Just looking at the current obesity epidemic in the country I can tell parents are doing a swell job so far at keeping their kids healthy. Chalk one up for 'Freedom.'

[Fandango 1,440]

Just looking at the current obesity epidemic in the country I can tell parents are doing a swell job so far at keeping their kids healthy. Chalk one up for 'Freedom.'

I'd rather have 1000 fat kids running around than the gov't telling me what to feed my child.

[^_^ 5,021]

I'd rather have 1000 fat kids running around than the gov't telling me what to feed my child.

How are nutritional guidelines the equivalent of government telling you what to feed your child?

As for school lunches, kids are free to bring their own lunch if they don't like the offerings at the public school. I fail to see the compulsion here.

[Zero Sum 305]

I'd rather have 1000 fat kids running around than the gov't telling me what to feed my child.

So be it. Don't whine about things later.

I never understood this hysterical reaction to the big bad government telling you what to feed your kids. At the end of the day, you feed them what you want (and epidemiological data says that on the whole, we're doing such a *stellar* job at it). The government has already facilitated (call that regulate by incentive, not obligation) that your kids have better access to sh!t food anyway. In this country, where people will think first with their wallet before their brain, its obvious what freedom of food choice really means.

How are nutritional guidelines the equivalent of government telling you what to feed your child?

As for school lunches, kids are free to bring their own lunch if they don't like the offerings at the public school. I fail to see the compulsion here.

Exactly.

On the other hand, I wonder if these parents that prefer 1000 fat kids to their own being educated on food choices would also be OK with their kids being denied health insurance coverage once they get Obamacare repealed.

[Fandango 1,440]

How are nutritional guidelines the equivalent of government telling you what to feed your child?

As for school lunches, kids are free to bring their own lunch if they don't like the offerings at the public school. I fail to see the compulsion here.

It was a response to the 'chalk one up for freedom' comment moreso than the OP itself.

[Zero Sum 305]

It was a response to the 'chalk one up for freedom' comment moreso than the OP itself.

It was a fair one- it just needed to be put into perspective.

I am also uneasy with the government dictating that children MUST be fed healthy meals. The gaul of these people. Parents should be allowed the option to slowly poison their kids if they wanted to. Note the slight tinge of sarcasm, not necessarily directed at you.

[Fandango 1,440]

It was a fair one- it just needed to be put into perspective.

I am also uneasy with the government dictating that children MUST be fed healthy meals. The gaul of these people. Parents should be allowed the option to slowly poison their kids if they wanted to. Note the slight tinge of sarcasm, not necessarily directed at you.

'Healthy' eating though is a subjective matter.

I just watched 'Fathead' not too long ago, and I thought it was an interesting perspective.

[^_^ 5,021]

It was a fair one- it just needed to be put into perspective.

I am also uneasy with the government dictating that children MUST be fed healthy meals. The gaul of these people. Parents should be allowed the option to slowly poison their kids if they wanted to. Note the slight tinge of sarcasm, not necessarily directed at you.

IMO the sarcasm is unwarranted. Government has a role to play in helping consumers be better educated about the products they are buying - be they food products or financial products. Government has no role to play, however, and never should, in mandating consumers eat x servings of leafy vegetables a day. That would be an overreach and it saddens me that you do not agree.

Edited June 2, 2011 by \

[Zero Sum 305]

'Healthy' eating though is a subjective matter.

I just watched 'Fathead' not too long ago, and I thought it was an interesting perspective.

By all means- not every kid can sustain the same # of calories over the years. We're talking about something completely obvious- particularly given the very well known and worsening obesity problem in this country. Choice has everything to do with it, and the choices made thus far are not good.

Guidelines are not an obligation. And given the differences in nutritional value to different food options, healthy really does become a matter that isn't too hard to tell from unhealthy. Food volume and ingredients, over time, do what they're supposed to do.

IMO the sarcasm is unwarranted. Government has a role to play in helping consumers be better educated about the products they are buying - be they food products or financial products. Government has no role to play, however, and never should, in mandating consumers eat x servings of leafy vegetables a day. That would be an overreach and it saddens me that you do not agree.

I agree with that aspect that you believe I am disagreeing with. What I believe is that government should be mindful of what food ingredients constitute a public health problem given the choices we make and should accordingly establish a mandate that the food producing industry properly educate their consumers about the choices they make. Of course they don't want to do that in a market economy.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Exactly.

On the other hand, I wonder if these parents that prefer 1000 fat kids to their own being educated on food choices would also be OK with their kids being denied health insurance coverage once they get Obamacare repealed.

I'd rather have people denied coverage for legit reasons than the government dictating who my business must sell their product to/provide their service for. There has to be some reasonable space to deny someone coverage.

If it's guaranteed that someone is going to pay you $300 a month, yet you automatically are going to be paying out tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of them, that's absurd and not right at all. It's why the 'pre-existing conditions' mandate in Obamacare is ridiculous.... It doesn't take into account anything in regards to business and how things work.