Congress pushes back on healthier school lunches

<<snip>>

School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.

<<snip>>

Ok, since some of us can't or didn't read - here's the constitutional issue put to rest. The key words here are "federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children".

If I hire a band to play my Halloween party, and I want them to play my favorite Foghat song over and over for 3 hours, they kind'a have to do it. I'm paying the piper, I get to call the tune. Literally.

In this case we're talking about federally subsidized meals,,, that means lunches the gov paid for. One side of the government wants the food we buy for poor kids to be healthier, and the other side is fighting for Sysco Inc's right maximize profits by feeding them a diet of fried cheese and empty starch.

No matter what Rush and Glenn say, nobody is trying to take away your G-d given freedom to turn your kid into a beanbag chair with eyes, and Michelle Obama is not trying to dictate what's in your fridge. This is the gov practicing due diligence to make sure that what they support isn't crap.

As a poor kid who grew up on free school lunches I support this - and as a successful adult taxpayer I'm prepared to help pay for it.

I know I'm going to get poo-pooed as a crazy liberal, but there has to be something better than pizza and french fries EVERY DAY.

Darn lib!

:laugh: I kid. Yes, they should be making better quality food. It can be done, on the dime they have. My kid goes to a publicly-funded charter school, and they are using recipes from parents and making delicious, nutritionally sound meals. We still pack her lunch most of the time though.

ith so many kids that have absent and more or less unfit parents, I think it is up to government to at least TRY to get kids to eat healthier. Think about the long run...how is the health care system going to support all these obese people wtih hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease later in life? If you so desperately want to feed your kids garbage, pack them a Lunchable.

Let's not talk about the government (and taxpayers) having to foot the dime for health care, especially when it comes to illness brought on my lifestyle choices. :grumble:

I do believe that standards need to be in place for food served in schools, but that it should be handled on a local level.

Well, let the locals pay for the cost of obesity. The local governement does not give a damn about the health of the children. Many local governments are cutting funding to Education and other programs that are of benefit. Mississippi being the fattest State in the Nations does not give a damn if pizza was served every day. We want the Federal Government to stay out of local government business. However, as soon as there is a diaster we are looking for federal support. I say do whatever it takes to insure the health of those who are not in a position to control how they eat. Adults can make decisions to do better or not but, a child is dependent upon the adults to make those decisions. To be honest some people should not have children. They can't take care of themselves and are failing their children. IMHO!

<<snip>>

School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.

<<snip>>

Ok, since some of us can't or didn't read - here's the constitutional issue put to rest. The key words here are "federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children".

If I hire a band to play my Halloween party, and I want them to play my favorite Foghat song over and over for 3 hours, they kind'a have to do it. I'm paying the piper, I get to call the tune. Literally.

In this case we're talking about federally subsidized meals,,, that means lunches the gov paid for. One side of the government wants the food we buy for poor kids to be healthier, and the other side is fighting for Sysco Inc's right maximize profits by feeding them a diet of fried cheese and empty starch.

No matter what Rush and Glenn say, nobody is trying to take away your G-d given freedom to turn your kid into a beanbag chair with eyes, and Michelle Obama is not trying to dictate what's in your fridge. This is the gov practicing due diligence to make sure that what they support isn't crap.

As a poor kid who grew up on free school lunches I support this - and as a successful adult taxpayer I'm prepared to help pay for it.

This.

The government already controls too much of our lives. They shouldn't dictate what a child eats, that's what parents are for. If parents don't want them to eat the school-prepared meals then they should pack their own lunch. Simple. We all know it costs more to eat healthy and I for one don't want to pay more in taxes to support the increase in costs the schools would incur. Again, parents should bear this burden.

You would rather spend more on health cost for these kids then to do a little preventive.

Please reference where, in the Constitution, it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care for anyone.

The government doesn't control our lives! I have yet to see the government tell me that I had to attend college, I have to have a child, or I have to be heterosexual.

They may not control all aspects of our lives, but they do control things that affect our lives from taxation to ridiculous regulations. If you're interested, I could provide you with some info. Here's one link, for now, with some great info: http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-dignity/

You would rather spend more on health cost for these kids then to do a little preventive.

Please reference where, in the Constitution, it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care for anyone.

The government doesn't control our lives! I have yet to see the government tell me that I had to attend college, I have to have a child, or I have to be heterosexual.

They may not control all aspects of our lives, but they do control things that affect our lives from taxation to ridiculous regulations. If you're interested, I could provide you with some info. Here's one link, for now, with some great info: http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-dignity/

You know you do have the option to go live some where else! The Constitution gives you that right! Plus, don't talk to me about the damn Constitution. For years the Constitution allowed for slavery. The Constitution is a man-made document created years ago. Plenty in the Constitution need to be updated!

They may not control all aspects of our lives, but they do control things that affect our lives from taxation to ridiculous regulations. If you're interested, I could provide you with some info. Here's one link, for now, with some great info: http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-dignity/

There are rules that must be followed and if that is control of your life then so be it! Like I said you can always go live some where else! How about Syria?

Wow, was that really necessary?

If parents are truely concerned about what their children eat, then they will pack their lunches, and serve healthier food at home.

The government already controls too much of our lives. They shouldn't dictate what a child eats, that's what parents are for. If parents don't want them to eat the school-prepared meals then they should pack their own lunch. Simple. We all know it costs more to eat healthy and I for one don't want to pay more in taxes to support the increase in costs the schools would incur. Again, parents should bear this burden.

Agreed. I'm tired of everyone pawning off personal responsibility on everyone else. My kid is fat because of the school lunches... the schools need to feed my kid better. Really????????? Schools have been serving up crap since I attended and there was never this obesity problem.... tells me there is another cause - like maybe allowing your kid to sit in their room 24/7 with TV/net and video games and never doing anything active with them because you are "too busy". Parents are responsible for their childrens nutrition, not me, not the feds, not anybody else. Accountability is very lax these days.

If parents should bare the burden then schools should return the federal funds. However, if the schools are taking the federal dollars then the federal government has the right to have input into what is being served.

If parents should bare the burden then schools should return the federal funds. However, if the schools are taking the federal dollars then the federal government has the right to have input into what is being served.

Power over education is not enumerated as a federal government responsibility in the Constitution. It should be handled on a local level. I'm all for no federal funds or say in education. the Dept of Education should be dissolved.