So what you all think about pizza being a vegetable?Follow

I'm fairly sure (positive in fact) that that act means they can actually change what is and what isn't acceptable. Good miss though!

Health and well being meant "not going hungry" Joph. And nutritious, meant "provide sufficient grain, protein, milk, and vegetables to ensure they are getting the minimum amounts of those things so that they aren't starving". The movement to make those meals more "healthy" is completely different. The last thing the folks who wrote that Act were worried about was kids being too fat from eating the school lunches.



Nutritious is not the same as the "healthier" standard they're trying to move to today.


This is about the old adage that when all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. We have a problem with obesity among our youth, and the only solution the left can think of is to use government programs to manipulate what children eat. And if they have to use the school lunch program as their hammer, that's what they'll use.

This is you saying that kids are being violated by not being able to choose pizza over broccoli.

Only gbaji would argue against people eating better instead of just eating to stay alive. GG.

At least I guess that's what he's arguing. As usual, he's run so many circles, I'm not sure what his argument is anymore. I'm guessing it's because he might have to contribute another penny or two in taxes.

Edited, Nov 18th 2011 8:59pm by Nadenu

Yup.



I'm not arguing against people eating better versus eating to stay alive. I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be the one to decide what "better" is and force people to eat "better". I believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. When the government controls your choices, even when it's forcing good choices, you lose both.

It still never ceases to amaze me how many people just utterly and completely do not understand the basic principles of liberty.



The only circles I've had to run is with people who keep shifting their arguments around because they don't understand why I'm taking this position. They leap about projecting their own guesses about my motivations onto me while failing to actually read what I'm writing. If all you're getting from this is "gbaji doesn't want kids to eat healthy foods", you have failed to read my posts. Try again.


It's about the government (especially the federal government) not being empowered to tell people what to eat. It's about freedom of choice. What I'd like kids to eat isn't the point. What you want them to eat isn't the point. And what some bean counters in Washington want kids to eat isn't the point. It's about the belief that the kids and parents should make that choice. Not me, not you, and certainly not the folks in Washington.

The proposed USDA criteria would have changed what foods would qualify under the existing program. Specifically, those changes specify that the tomato paste used on pizza can't be counted towards the vegetable requirements. Did you not bother to read the article in the OP?



The program set minimum requirements and very very broad standards in terms of which foods could be served and would qualify for the funding. Again, did you read the article:




This was a change pushed into the program by Obama, almost certainly as part of his wifes whole "get kids eating healthy" thing. To argue that this isn't anything new is dishonest.




No, it's not. This is government changing the criteria for a long existing program in order to manipulate what kids eat at school. It is exactly "Big Bad Government". Doubly so when you realize how little school lunches affect the problem they're trying to solve.



Are you kidding me? The parents then. Or the schools. Or the local community. WTF?



You didn't read the article, did you? Hell, this is the section I quoted which started this particular argument:



Dude. Do you even try to inform yourself before posting? Um... And the "future health care costs" are those associated with too many fat kids driving up health care costs when they become adult diabetics (among other things). Just in case you're still confused as to how this all relates to child obesity.



They certainly were not designed to prevent kids from becoming too fat. Seriously? This is the "final straw" for you? The meals have to meet minimum requirements, but those requirements were based on making sure they got enough of the various types of food groups to be healthy. Not that they avoided eating too much of anything. And certainly not "we want kids to eat fresh vegetables instead of pizza, so lets say that tomtato paste doesn't count!". Or "we think that potatoes are too fattening, so lets disqualify them as well".


Those recommendations were not made based out of a concern that kids weren't getting sufficient amounts of the needed food types, which is what the program is designed to do. This is about taking an existing program and twisting it around to do something different.

Edited, Nov 18th 2011 6:40pm by gbaji

Well, by that argument, why not allow the government to control what restaurants can serve as well? After all, you still have the liberty to cook your own food at home, right? And what about the school? The point is that there's a whole hierarchy of participants here which we can rank in terms of order of how much control they should have over what a child eats while at school. The child and parents of the child are first. Then the school itself. Then the school district. Then the city/municipality that district is in. Then the state. Then, finally, at the very very tail end of the line is the federal government.


But, as usual, the liberals have it backwards.

You mean besides it not having anything to do with this discussion; That the 70 year old act is for schools only; That the government doesn't fund restaurants; The government already controls what restaurants can and cannot serve to a degree (have to get a separate license for alcohol, after all!); That said restaurants aren't there to take care of children for a majority of the day, and therefor liable for their well being? Besides all that?

The misguided thought that children have liberties is a pretty liberal mindset there, hippy.

Yeah, I said something like this before.

To be honest, AS A DAMN PARENT, I'm ok with what the government, be it state or federal, wants to serve my son. If they want to make everything healthier, more power to them. I honestly can't see why gbaji is arguing against this, except for the fact that a Conservative didn't come up with the idea first.

Because the government isn't paying for the restaurant's food? God you make the worst comparisons.

Hey Gbaji, where were you out crying "LIBERTY" when the PATRIOT act went in? Oh, must be making school lunches more healthy must be much more important to liberty than unwarranted wire taps, and things like that.

This guy?

Spoiler

So what?

When I was in elementary school(1991-2001), there was no cafeteria, parents were to send their students with a lunch, that was eaten in the classroom during the lunch break(30 mins inside, 30 minutes outside). If students lived within 10 minutes walking distance, the often went home to eat, and there was a daily program where kids from families who couldn't afford to send them with any lunch whatsoever, could have lunch.

In grade 7, if the child's parents signed a permission slip at the beginning of the year, kids could go off school grounds at lunch to nearby restaurants or stores. Every Thursday, if a child brought $5 and a signed permission slip, they would get 2 slices of pizza at lunch Friday from whichever pizza place was participating in that program that year, when I was in grade 8, the added choices of KFC(2 piece chicken+very small fries or popcorn chicken) and Taco Bell(never picked this one, no one ever did, don't know what the choices were) were offered because Pizza hut was doing it that year). On wednesdays, hot dogs were sold for a dollar, with a maximum amount of 2(I think) per student.

When I was in High School, there was a cafeteria, and everything in it cost money.

So now I ask, why are there cafeterias serving free food in schools? Especially elementary schools? If people are mad that their kids are being fed pizza and french fries, then why not push for a less completely ******* stupid, system?

No. I think the system I grew up with is much better.