Department of Home Lunch Security

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by champ76

Wait, weren't you folks complaining about a crackdown on porn in another thread? So it's not okay for the government to tell us what to watch, but it is okay to tell us what to eat? Can we have a little consistency?

I am consistent. If the government is going to provide the school lunches, they can and should dictate what's in them - namely good nutrition. My money shouldn't pay for some little fatling to eat a pizza and a milky way.

Porn is different, since the government isn't paying for it. If porn was needed by humans for sustenance (no, really, it's not, I promise), then I'd be okay with them providing it to low-income kids - and I'd be totally fine with dictating the content

For the record, I don't like parent-provided lunches being searched and critiqued. They aren't subsidized by the government. I DO believe that making your kid fat by shoveling him or her chicken nuggets and chocolate to get them out of your hair is a form of child abuse, pure and simple - but that's not a job for some school inspector

And besides all of the above, the fact that a turkey sandwich was replaced by chicken nuggets in an effort to improve nutrition is beyond stupid, and displays the absolute corruption and infiltration by big food into our government agencies such as the FDA and especially USDA

[JimEverett]

Originally Posted by champ76

Do you honestly think the state would enforce nutrition guidelines on home packed lunches if there weren't an alternative available to give to the child that meets the guidelines?

The federal guidelines apply to lunches that the state wants reimbursement - correct?

The state applied these guidelines to ALL lunches. The state policy has nothing to do with the federal policy, it is different and the federal government did not in any way require it.

To put another way - there would be nothing at all inconsistent with the federal guidelines alongside a federal law that prohibited a state from inspecting a home-packed lunch for the purpose of determining if it met federal school lunch program guidelines.

[champ76]

Originally Posted by Oye

you're going to have to connect this better to the story you linked - because I'm not seeing it.

Personally, if I pack a lunch for my daughter, she should be able to eat it. But this is a state policy.

There's another part of the story, too - the lunch did comply with standards and should not have been tossed:



A North Carolina agency is using USDA standards to establish minimum nutritional guidelines and setting forth its own policies for seeing that those standards are met - to the point of tossing a kid's lunch.

That's how North Carolina has decided to handle it.

There is no federal requirement that dictates a staff member is to throw out a lunch brought from home if it doesn't meet certain guidelines.

You've cited two things so far, neither of which demonstrate that (if that was your intention). One is a state policy. The other is federal policy for subsidized meals.

If you have an objection to the complexion of school nutrition - I'm with you.

If you have a problem with the companies and contracting practices b/w them and school districts - I'm with you.

But from a federal perspective, the biggest issue in this story for me is what sarcastic pointed out above - how a fried chicken nugget is considered a healthier alternative to a turkey and cheese sandwich.

I guess the tl;dr version is this: I don't understand your point and the connection between your two posts above.

The connection is a cascading series of federal funding, guidelines and initiatives that encourages and empowers states to act in this way. Here's the money. Here are the guidelines. Nutrition is now a "national security issue." Michelle Obama: Poor nutrition 'a national security issue' - POLITICO.com

So someone gets the bright idea to pass a state law that says even lunches from home should pass nutritional muster, and the next thing you know there is an agent of the state pyrooting through kid's lunches to see if they are up to snuff. I see a connection.

[JimEverett]

Originally Posted by champ76

The connection is a cascading series of federal funding, guidelines and initiatives that encourages and empowers states to act in this way. Here's the money. Here are the guidelines. Nutrition is now a "national security issue." Michelle Obama: Poor nutrition 'a national security issue' - POLITICO.com

So someone gets the bright idea to pass a state law that says even lunches from home should pass nutritional muster, and the next thing you know there is an agent of the state pyrooting through kid's lunches to see if they are up to snuff. I see a connection.

Bottom line is a local school district created the rule and enforced it without any requirement or even incentive by the federal government to do so.

[JimEverett]

And to be fair - a conservative with a strong federalist bent can certainly support a local school district's "right" to do something like this while believing it is a stupid policy.
And I think that is why there is a certain disconnect between civil libertarians and strong federalists.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by champ76

The connection is a cascading series of federal funding, guidelines and initiatives that encourages and empowers states to act in this way. Here's the money. Here are the guidelines. Nutrition is now a "national security issue." Michelle Obama: Poor nutrition 'a national security issue' - POLITICO.com

So someone gets the bright idea to pass a state law that says even lunches from home should pass nutritional muster, and the next thing you know there is an agent of the state pyrooting through kid's lunches to see if they are up to snuff. I see a connection.

I agree with what she was getting at - people aren't just getting fat, our nation is getting fat, and if something isn't done we're going to look like the spaceship on Wall-E - just a bunch of lazy, non-functional morons

Anyway, I think instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you're spinning the whole thing into this catch-all web of hyperbole that to you demonstrates everything that's wrong with government, as usual

Stop for a second, breathe, and tell us your opinion of how THIS ISSUE can be fixed, not about what any Obama said or about what's wrong with the government

You can't fix a million problems unless you start by fixing one

[champ76]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

I agree with what she was getting at - people aren't just getting fat, our nation is getting fat, and if something isn't done we're going to look like the spaceship on Wall-E - just a bunch of lazy, non-functional morons

Anyway, I think instead of dealing with the issue at hand, you're spinning the whole thing into this catch-all web of hyperbole that to you demonstrates everything that's wrong with government, as usual

Stop for a second, breathe, and tell us your opinion of how THIS ISSUE can be fixed, not about what any Obama said or about what's wrong with the government

You can't fix a million problems unless you start by fixing one

I understand the reasoning behind the initial school lunch program. But it has become another vehicle of the government to impose its idea of how things ought to be on us, and I resent it. It has grown in size and scope, and has gotten to the point where we have food police searching the lunches of the children whose parents actually make the effort to feed them.

I think PE and art class and music class are part of education, and if we are going to spend money, spend it on that. Instead, we are cutting those programs and expanding nutrition programs. In my small community, the school board just built a muti million dollar "nutrition center" to serve the ever expanding role of usurping another parental function. It's ridiculous.

[Cosmic201]

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all of the standard." The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

Preschooler's Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria "Nuggets"

If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child," Kozlowski said.

Ultimately, the child care provider can't take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she "would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child."

This as nothing to do with any federal or even state program.
It's merely an overzealous school staff member.

The most the regulations say is that if someone brings in an unhealthy lunch, the school will provide the missing keys to a well rounded lunch. So like if she had brought a turkey sandwich and chips with nothing else, then the school would have provided some fruit or vegetable side dish to go with it.

[JimEverett]

Originally Posted by champ76

I understand the reasoning behind the initial school lunch program. But it has become another vehicle of the government to impose its idea of how things ought to be on us, and I resent it. It has grown in size and scope, and has gotten to the point where we have food police searching the lunches of the children whose parents actually make the effort to feed them.

I think PE and art class and music class are part of education, and if we are going to spend money, spend it on that. Instead, we are cutting those programs and expanding nutrition programs. In my small community, the school board just built a muti million dollar "nutrition center" to serve the ever expanding role of usurping another parental function. It's ridiculous.

To go in a different direction - do you think a local school district has the authority, or should have the authority, to act the way this local district has acted?

[Cosmic201]

What School Lunches Look Like In 20 Countries Around The World
This is also an interested little comparison.

[IntenseSaint]

Originally Posted by Cosmic201

What School Lunches Look Like In 20 Countries Around The World
This is also an interested little comparison.

I like how Sweden and Italy's lunches look

[champ76]

Originally Posted by JimEverett

To go in a different direction - do you think a local school district has the authority, or should have the authority, to act the way this local district has acted?

Assuming they are following the law, yes. The locals have to hold them in check. The more a government does for you, the more it can do to you.

[champ76]

Originally Posted by Oye

you keep linking to different articles

first, the feds are policing lunches

oh, they aren't?

second, this shows the problems with subsidized lunches

oh, it doesn't?

third, it shows how Michelle Obama controls your child's lunch

oh, it doesn't do that, either?

FOOD POLICE!

the headline is having its desired effect. People see a headline, scan the first paragraph and then feel compelled to let the world know about this injustice and federal encroachment in your kids' lunch bags and how it's indicative of feds wanting a nanny state!

Except, it's not really any of that.

It reads as if you're trying to retroactively piece together some sort of mish-mashed argument with some vague references to an insidious connection that is neither logical nor apparent because the shock of the initial headline doesn't really pack the ideological PUNCH! you thought it did.

No, I see an insidious connection between the government taking our money, deciding to give some back, attaching strings, then enforcing the mandates. More than one level of government can be in on the action. No one level has the exclusive rights to silliness.

[JimEverett]

Originally Posted by champ76

Assuming they are following the law, yes. The locals have to hold them in check. The more a government does for you, the more it can do to you.

I am just trying to understand where the anger is directed.

We have a local school district legally passing and legally enforcing a rule. So the anger is at the actual rule the local school board passed - right?

But from a strict federalist point of view a person should not really have a knee-jerk negative reaction to such a rule. I mean we know the parents do not have a right to feed their child any way they see fit, since you have said the local school district is acting within its proper/legal power.
Maybe this school district has a terribly high childhood obesity rate - and maybe this program actually ends up working, and obesity in this school district vanishes among students and recent graduates. Isn't that how strict federalism is supposed to work?

[TechDawg09]

Originally Posted by JimEverett

I thought if a state government did it it was okay.
I need to review the conservative belief system.

Most of the time, when conservatives argue about powers that should be left to the state, the belief is that government is easier for the people to control at the state level (and that problems like this can be more easily fixed). They are not arguing that everything states do is okay, as you are indicating here.