Nutrition bill

Obama says the nutrition bill is vital to children.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is signing into law legislation to provide more lunches and dinners to school children and make those meals healthier.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_child_nutrition

Get out of our refrigerators.

JoJo wrote:Obama says the nutrition bill is vital to children.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is signing into law legislation to provide more lunches and dinners to school children and make those meals healthier.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_child_nutrition

Get out of our refrigerators.

This one actually doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Brianman wrote:

This one actually doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Agreed. Government scientists, with no commercial vested interest in making food "flavorful" (with nitrites and MSG and corn syrup) or "fun" (by packaging sugary treats into "fun size" or inventing happy characters like Tony the Tiger and Little Debbie to engender early-onset diabetes, or including cheap lead-based toys with cholesterol laden "fast foods") actually know better how to feed the nation's children than their own willfully ignorant parents do. Unfortunately, only the force of law (short of actually taking custody of the kids, which would set off the gun nuts and militia types) will get parents to feed their kids properly, or permit the State to do it with expanded school meal programs.

I sometimes wonder whether the Capitalists behind the "food" industry are actively trying to reduce the population to two or three million serfs by causing infertility and early death.

JFK Dem wrote:

Brianman wrote:

This one actually doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Agreed. Government scientists, with no commercial vested interest in making food "flavorful" (with nitrites and MSG and corn syrup) or "fun" (by packaging sugary treats into "fun size" or inventing happy characters like Tony the Tiger and Little Debbie to engender early-onset diabetes, or including cheap lead-based toys with cholesterol laden "fast foods") actually know better how to feed the nation's children than their own willfully ignorant parents do. Unfortunately, only the force of law (short of actually taking custody of the kids, which would set off the gun nuts and militia types) will get parents to feed their kids properly, or permit the State to do it with expanded school meal programs.

I sometimes wonder whether the Capitalists behind the "food" industry are actively trying to reduce the population to two or three million serfs by causing infertility and early death.

Hang on jfk. I thought it was just for school lunches? Are they trying to force parents into feeding kids healthier too?

JFK Dem wrote:From the yahoo.com article:

"President Barack Obama is signing into law legislation to provide more lunches and dinners to school children and make those meals healthier.

"The $4.5 billion measure would expand free school meals for the needy and give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods may be sold in schools."

Emphases added. In-school breakfasts are pretty common as well, though I think that doesn't get reported much because the Conservatives would get all grumpy about feeding children who otherwise would go hungry, which makes no sense to me.

(I wonder too about providing occasional sleepovers to certain children, whether because they are homeless or live in substandard housing-- trailer trash in embryo, if you will. But don't worry...I haven't seen that proposed legislatively.)

So, they're just wanting to provide more healthier food to children at schools? Well, that sounds like a good idea to me. For a second I thought you were saying they were trying to force parents to feed children healthy food. That would be unconstitutional. But, feeding children healthier food in public schools is a great idea. I won't disagree with that.

Brianman wrote:For a second I thought you were saying they were trying to force parents to feed children healthy food.

I don't think the public is ready for that, yet. Some people on your side of the debate regard free or reduced-cost school meals to be an unwelcome infringement, abrogation, or usurpation of parental rights and responsibilities, particularly if it's not "means-tested". I guess some parents, fully capable of providing government-approved nutritious meals, prefer to send the younguns off with no breakfast and a bologna or PB&J sandwich and a Twinkie for "lunch". The parental rights of such people should be taken away, but the public isn't ready for that yet, either.

JFK Dem wrote:

Brianman wrote:For a second I thought you were saying they were trying to force parents to feed children healthy food.

I don't think the public is ready for that, yet. Some people on your side of the debate regard free or reduced-cost school meals to be an unwelcome infringement, abrogation, or usurpation of parental rights and responsibilities, particularly if it's not "means-tested". I guess some parents, fully capable of providing government-approved nutritious meals, prefer to send the younguns off with no breakfast and a bologna or PB&J sandwich and a Twinkie for "lunch". The parental rights of such people should be taken away, but the public isn't ready for that yet, either.

I don't see any problem with providing children healthy school meals. However, telling parents what they can and can't provide their children to eat is over the line. 1. It's unconstitutional and 2. It's a bit communist

I agree with you that parents should not feed their kids unhealthy food. I just don't think the federal government should have the power to say that. That should probably be something each state should decide