USDA targets candy, cola in new school nutrition regulations

Raise your hand if you can identify the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Fed Govt to regulate what foods are served in schools.

:confused:
 
So you weren't mad that Junk Food was only offered but youre hopping mad that Healthy Foods will replace junk food?.?

I'd love to hear why? I fear you don't have any idea really

No I'm mad at federal tax money being wasted on this crap, both in the design of it, the implementation of it, and the forcing of localities to perform it at the risk of losing thier lunch money funding.

Its up to the local school board or state education department to figure this crap out, not the feds.

So your mad that tax money is going to give kids healthy food alternatives?

It already was, via the lunches and the regs related to them. Its up to the school itself and parents to figure out if they a) want them in the school or b) give the kids money to use them.

If the program is expanded to say "we will pay for the new healthy machines" then while my usual objections to federal programs like this stands, I dont see the issue otherwise.

Its IF the program says YOU can only provide healthy vending machines or we pull your funding" then THATS when i have a problem.
 
And so the Obama's USDA Gestapo deprives kids of the sugar intake they need to remain conscious during school time.

President Bush Signs Legislation to Renew School Lunch & Child Nutrition Programs

Newly Signed Law Will Help States Fight Growing Child Obesity Epidemic and Prevent Hunger Among Vulnerable Children and Families

My legislation includes important steps to promote comprehensive solutions to child health and nutrition, including provisions to promote nutrition education and physical activity at the state and local level. It also encourages school districts to establish local wellness policies, including goals for nutrition education and physical activity, and include nutrition guidelines for foods sold in schools,”


Here we are, nine years later, and you are just now complaining?

"Because Obama!"
 
IF you morons do not understand we have an obesity problem,
then Sugar is NOT your problem.

lack of grey matter, is your problem.

ONE "pop" has 40 gr of sugar.

that's your daily intake in ONE beverage.

how much over weight are you fools?

have fun when you are OLD AND FAT!

THEN you want the Tax Payer to pick up the tab for YOUR irresponsible behavior.

DIM cons.

WE are the second FATTEST nation. YOU should be proud.

Obese and proud!

Fattest countries in the world revealed: Extraordinary graphic charts the average body mass index of men and women in every country (with some surprising results) | Mail Online

TRANSLATION: No, I have no explanation for why this is a FEDERAL issue.

You appear to be completely ignorant of the federal money that has been funding school lunches since...like...the 1930s.

These posts are amusing.

You seem to ignore the fact that the federal money is taken from the same citizens who have their children in those schools by threat of force and then returned to them if they comply what whatever edicts the feds care to impose on the citizenry.
 
USDA targets candy, cola in new school nutrition regulations

By Ben Goad - 06/27/13 11:29 AM ET

...

Can some progressive explain to me why the hell this is a federal issue????

(My bold)

Read Salt sugar fat - how the food giants hooked us - Michael Moss, Random House, NY. c2013, chapter notes, bibliography, index, 347pp. How the for-profit processed food industry trumps US public health, public policy, good sense. A riveting read. What it comes down to, is that in the name of profit, the "processed food" industry is perfectly willing to kill us all - slowly, so that we can spend our last available discretionary penny with them. It's especially interesting that none of them eat their own Scheiss, & that several scientists & admins have gone over to the public health side.

The for-profits will never act on their own, there's too much money involved, & if one lets up, the others close in on the empty market segment. So - the only way we'll resolve the issue is by fed gov action - which this is the beginning of - & about time. We may be able to save Medicare/Medicaid, if Congress doesn't cave for the nth time ...
 
And so the Obama's USDA Gestapo deprives kids of the sugar intake they need to remain conscious during school time.

President Bush Signs Legislation to Renew School Lunch & Child Nutrition Programs

Newly Signed Law Will Help States Fight Growing Child Obesity Epidemic and Prevent Hunger Among Vulnerable Children and Families

My legislation includes important steps to promote comprehensive solutions to child health and nutrition, including provisions to promote nutrition education and physical activity at the state and local level. It also encourages school districts to establish local wellness policies, including goals for nutrition education and physical activity, and include nutrition guidelines for foods sold in schools,”


Here we are, nine years later, and you are just now complaining?

"Because Obama!"

Just like last year, they blamed Oblama for the Bush era corn ethanol program.
 
TRANSLATION: No, I have no explanation for why this is a FEDERAL issue.

You appear to be completely ignorant of the federal money that has been funding school lunches since...like...the 1930s.

These posts are amusing.

You seem to ignore the fact that the federal money is taken from the same citizens who have their children in those schools by threat of force and then returned to them if they comply what whatever edicts the feds care to impose on the citizenry.

It's a damn shame you simple minded dweebs waited until Obama to bitch about it, hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
USDA targets candy, cola in new school nutrition regulations

By Ben Goad - 06/27/13 11:29 AM ET


...

Can some progressive explain to me why the hell this is a federal issue????

(My bold)

Read Salt sugar fat - how the food giants hooked us - Michael Moss, Random House, NY. c2013, chapter notes, bibliography, index, 347pp. How the for-profit processed food industry trumps US public health, public policy, good sense. A riveting read. What it comes down to, is that in the name of profit, the "processed food" industry is perfectly willing to kill us all - slowly, so that we can spend our last available discretionary penny with them. It's especially interesting that none of them eat their own Scheiss, & that several scientists & admins have gone over to the public health side.

The for-profits will never act on their own, there's too much money involved, & if one lets up, the others close in on the empty market segment. So - the only way we'll resolve the issue is by fed gov action - which this is the beginning of - & about time. We may be able to save Medicare/Medicaid, if Congress doesn't cave for the nth time ...

The only way we will resolve the issue is for people to make the choices they want. Anything else is authoritarian bullshit.
 
Can some progressive explain to me why the hell this is a federal issue????

I'm not a progressive, but I am glad to help.

See my previous two posts.


You're welcome.

Still not an explaniation as to why its a federal issue.

Yes you want to be a busybody and get into people's personal health issues, I get THAT.

Do it your damnself, dont get the feds involved.
 
And so the Obama's USDA Gestapo deprives kids of the sugar intake they need to remain conscious during school time.

Natural and healthy foods like fruits have plenty of sugar.

Natural sugar and refined sugar are two different things.

How can so many people defend letting kids have candy and sugary drinks in school?

how is glucose different than glucose? or fructose different from fructose? Or Sucrose different from sucrose?
 
Raise your hand if you can identify the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Fed Govt to regulate what foods are served in schools.

:confused:

Clock is ticking, and still no answers to this question.

A corollary question: Are we a country that goes by the "rule of law", or not?
 
Last edited:
Natural and healthy foods like fruits have plenty of sugar.

Natural sugar and refined sugar are two different things.

How can so many people defend letting kids have candy and sugary drinks in school?

how is glucose different than glucose? or fructose different from fructose? Or Sucrose different from sucrose?

Are you saying that there is no difference between fructose and refined sugar? You should do a little research.
 
Can some progressive explain to me why the hell this is a federal issue????
...

This is for vending machines that the students pay for themselves, using money provided to them by thier parents. The feds have nothing to do with them, they are via arrangements with the local schools themselves.

Provided meals are a seperate issue.

(My bold)

Most children pick the saltiest, sweetest, fattiest food they can find. The whole point to schools is to teach - & good nutrition is teachable. Vending machine food/drink is - left to its own devices - profitable & bad for you. Yah, the parents pay for the stuff, & then pay for the dental, obesity, weak bones, poor posture & on & on. If they don't pay directly through their own health insurance, we all pay through Medicare/Medicaid. & in fact we can't keep up - as fat/salt/sugar took off in processed food in the '60s, the rate of high BP, cardiac problems, obesity & etc. ballooned right along with our children & adolescents. That trend isn't sustainable.

Vending machines are a money-maker for local schools. I sympathize with the schools, but killing our children in slow motion so that the band can have new uniforms is not an acceptable tradeoff. Bad food & drink simply shouldn't be available in the schools.

Furthermore, the earlier that children take to salty/fatty/oversweetened food/drink, the more salt/fat/sweet they demand, making the problems worse & accelerating. It's possible to "reset" children's tastebuds, but it's best done ASAP, when they're still young. Then their appetite for salt/fat/sweet drops back to more natural levels.

Separate meals - free or reduced breakfast/lunch prices - are meant to improve educational outcomes. It's not a question of coddling our children with tacos & pizza & whatnot - it's providing protein & carbs in reasonable proportion & portions, so that our students aren't distracted from learning by hunger.
 
Raise your hand if you can identify the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Fed Govt to regulate what foods are served in schools.

:confused:

Clock is ticking, and still no answers to this question.

A corollary question: Are we a country that goes by the "rule of law", or not?

Did they have a problem with what was in the school vending machines when the Constitution was written?
 

Forum List

Back
Top