Our Long National Nightmare is Over: Congressional Republicans Push to Declare Pizza a Vegetable

That said then why tax trans fats or go after sugary foods. I don't see where it is governments place to tell any of us what or how to eat, and yet we do. Their job is to make sure the foods on the shelf are safe, not what foods are healthy and to tax those that aren't.

I'm sorry, I understand what you are saying, but, with the economy the way it is and many, many needing food stamps these days, does that give government the right to tell them what foods they can or cannot buy, and what about those on Medicare or Medicaid or living in government sanctioned housing or on Social security or disability?

Where does it end in your eyes?

To me, it's not government's say in the matter. That is why you have people selling their food stamps.

 

The biggest difference is that the NSLP pays the supplier directly with taxpayer money (most likely a big agribusiness providing frozen pizza/french fries, etc . and lobbied for the contract) where SNAP (food stamps) puts the decision in the hand of the consumer (with some restrictions).

 

The trend towards childhood obesity began with the advent of fast food chains. Coincidentally, not long after this advent, school lunch programs went from fresh food preparation by our lovely, talented and well paid lunch ladies to contracts with frozen and pre-packaged food manufacturers and distributors who could provide food for our children more cheaply and requiring less skill and labor to prepare and disseminate.

Oversight on the actual nutritional value of fast food and contracted lunch menus was sorely missing for years. Generations later, we have parents, schooled in bad eating habits themselves, expected to understand what good nutrition is and how to prepare healthy meals for their own children. It's easy to say - well don't be a parent then. It's much more difficult to consider yourself part of or supportive of solutions to re-educate those who have been over-exposed to the cheap alternatives, often due to the lack of other choices. Child and adult obesity as a result has prompted a revisiting of our eating habits and some schools are at least beginning to offer healthy choices for children.

Does government have a role to play in nutritional re-education and promoting exercise and healthy lifestyles? Yes. Should government maintain some oversight of school lunch programs and food manufacturers? Absolutely - Government, on behalf of us all, has an interest in doing what it can to promote healthy citizens. Healthy citizens are more productive citizens and are therefore, less of a burden on society.

Which is why the promotion of pizza to a vegetable is so insulting, coming from an elected body who has voiced their commitment to the healthy eating cause.

Maybe you'd like to go out an re-educate the masses yourself, pan.

 

Edit: adding to the above:

If I have a student loan and am on course to take 20 years to pay it back, does the government then have the right to tell me I can not partake in what they describe and declare "risky, life events" such as one night stands, bungee jumping, drinking, smoking, learning to fly a plane? Hoping that preventing me from doing so, I will live long enough to have paid the loans back?

I think that expecting government to set limitations on your lifestyle simply because tax money is helping, is a slippery slope that truly has no ending in sight. It's truly not up to government to make those decisions that we are supposed to have in a "free" society.

 

i think the nutritional guidelines are used to shape healthier food choices for kids in public school. there's little chance that the guidelines for healthy eating will be more than guidelines in other space. so i can't quite imagine how the slippery slope would work here. i'm not saying it's impossible--i just don't see it.

besides, i would imagine risky behaviors more likely to be a concern for an insurance vendor than the government with respect to student loan repayment. but i have to say, the idea that the dept of education would enforce healthy eating parameters to keep debtors healthy to pay sounds like debt feudalism. we already aren't far from that. but itd be a digression to take this on here, methinks.

 

Straw man.

 

Seriously who argues against feeding our children healthy food? Sorry I'm completely lost as to why that would even be a debate.

 

I understand what you are saying, but using my experience in life right now, Medicaid dictates who I can and cannot see (as does MOST insurance programs), because they pay. This would not be an issue for me except I live in podunk and no doctors here covered by medicaid are willing to even let me make an appointment based on pre existing conditions. My previous PCP would be more than willing to see me but he is not a a medicaid provider. So, as for preventative medicine, I'm SOL.

As I have called the managed health care program and explained this issue numerous times and they keep telling me to keep calling the same doctors over and over, while my old PCP could be seeing me and doing tests and preventative med right now, it seems that IF I do get sick (God forbid) it would cost far more than my having been given a waiver to see the doctor who knows my case well.

I receive food stamps and while what restrictions do exist there is always the possibility that if they see me buying soda, chips and what is considered "unhealthy" foods, they could come down on me. I also know people that are on food stamps and they buy as many steaks as possible and run out fast. Because people abuse the system does that give government the right to say, "you can only spend so much on chips, soda, microwave dinners and steaks"?

Yes, I understand there have to be some sacrifices made, but on the other hand in allowing people to buy what they want allows the money to be spread around. Once you have government saying what you can or cannot eat simply because they are in essence giving you back the tax dollars you worked for, is in essence taking away freedoms.

It's just a very slippery slope when you make exceptions even as far as school lunches are concerned, the dietary people in the schools should know what will be healthy and what won't be. If they don't then they shouldn't be in that position.
--- merged: Nov 21, 2011 7:39 PM ---

Why is that a strawman, to me it is a legitimate question. I am trying to prove it is a very slippery slope by saying "tax dollars support this program sooooo" I'm simply showing that tax dollars support other programs and can be limited to how government wants to run them.

It may never happen and I seriously doubt it ever would BUT there is a small possibility that they could along the lines of "government supported".

No one 50 years ago would have dreamt that smoking in public would be outlawed in many states.

So there is always a possibility and thus it should be discussed.
--- merged: Nov 21, 2011 7:40 PM ---

I am not arguing against feeding kids healthy lunches, I am however arguing why we should allow government to make decisions as to what "is" healthy.

 

Well are we allowing them to decide what's healthy? I mean do you need a degree in nutritional studies to know that fruit canned and soaked in a sugary syrup is less healthy then a fresh apple? I don't think it's a matter of "allowing" them to decide what is and isn't healthy as much as simply saying to large food suppliers and their lobbyists were not going to use tax payer monies to buy junk food to fed our children at school for lunch.

 

That's it, for sure. Once again, all we are asking our government is for some protection against the abuses of the "market". And no one needs a degree in nutritional science to know what is and isn't healthy. But when a can of syrupy fruit cocktail costs under a dollar vs what it costs to make a fresh fruit salad, families and school budgets strapped for cash are undeniably caught between these choices.

 

You know when I was a kid I went to school in a very small school, three classrooms and library. We had very good school lunches. Mrs. Blackmore was the cook and I always looked forward to Thursdays because she made fresh cinnamon rolls. I can remember her telling the 5-6 grade teacher/principle "I'm not serving the kids _______." Often it was some desert of sugary fruit in a can. I'm not exactly sure what or how she did it but we always had fresh fruits. In the fall we had apples, in the winter bananas and oranges and the spring brought fresh berries. I assume she made deals with local farmers and stores. I know times were simpler 35-40 years ago and in my situation we're talking about feeding maybe 40-50 kids. But maybe it's time we start thinking outside the box. Every year lately I read about farmers who can't get their fields picked. Maybe a deal could be made to bring that fresh, locally grown produce and fruit to the schools? I'm not sure how that would work but what if instead of paying Sysco et el "X" dollars every year to provide canned sugar laden fruit mixes and juices as well as crappy canned veggies and frozen fries we hire people who are out of work and out of benefits to harvest the farms to supply the schools? If not the unemployed why not hire low risk inmates?

Just seems wrong to me to have farms with food rotting in the fields and schools serving over processed junk food to our children. In many communities there ought to be some way to connect the two.

 

We don't allow goverment to decide what is healthy and not in this situation, we allow them to STATE what is healthy and not here. That statement is used as a guide in fiscal allocations to agribusiness who we used to provide school lunch
I think it might be OK if you sent your kid to school with a healthy, prepared at home bag lunch.
Yes they dropped the ball with the pizza and the ketchup. Probably due to giving in to lobbyist and such
But I'm apparently missing the dilema aside from that, I no longer have school age children, but if I did and I found fault in the nutrition being offered at school, don't I sstill have options?
As for goverment guidlines on what you can buy with food stamp, why not? If they screwed up and made ketchup a vegetable ,why not redirect some of that money back to healthier fare with impositions like a limit on the stuff they let slip in school lunches. And as to the individual being imposed upon, you asked for food, you get what the giver gives, that's your lot. That's not a put down but a recognition that if I ask for something I need I will be grateful for what I get.

As for Pan's Dr situation (being told who to see), my insurance does the same thing. Why not have your Dr qualify for Medicare/Medicaid? Could it be cuz the Dr wants too be paid for the work he does when he does it and not have to wait on the government for six months for a procedure he did last week?

 

Thanks.

As for-

I think some education could resolve much of this. People, many people anyway, have no idea how to prepare anything from scratch anymore. It really doesn't take that long to throw some ingredients in a slow cooker and have soup or some other meal ready when you get home from work. Plus good, nutritional food need not be all that expensive. I mean if you shop at "Whole Foods" as opposed to the local farmer markets you're going to pay more. But buying local grown natural foods can be very low cost.

Of course in many areas the season is going to be an issue, I would assume cheap fresh salads greens in Ohio might be hard to find in mid January. But this too could be resolved by thinking outside the box for school lunch programs. I recently read an article about urban food supplies in Cuba. It stated many neighborhoods had started roof top gardens. Why not have science classes learn to grow and produce fresh foods on campus year around? Some raised beds, green houses and some hydroponics placed on the roof near heating vents could produce knowledge and supply the lunchroom.

In Vancouver BC they produce massive amounts of world class marijuana year around and their climate is not exactly prefect for such production. If they can grow killer bud all year why couldn't schools produce killer tomatoes, corn, lettuce?

​

 

According to FOX News' Megyn Kelly, pepper spray isn't that bad because it's essentially a food product

 

I love how she argued that pepper-spraying them was justified as a precursor to allow for lower the ability of the students to resist being removed from the place by the campus police.

"We will pepper-spray these sitting students, who have not behaved in any aggressive masser towards us so far and have not shown any sign of upcoming aggression, in the face and possibly cause damage to their eyes, so that when we remove them they will have trouble beating us up. This is a very reasonable amount and application of force."

Perfect logic. Infallible.

 

Having been both pepper sprayed and "tazed" in training I can assure you pepper spray isn't food and the tazer hurts so bad you want to piss your pants but seemingly lack the ability. I went through the "gas chamber" about once every six months back in the military. That's a just regular tear gas (CS?, been a while) I'd take that over pepper or the tazer any day.

Maybe Ms. Fox should see what they're like before she starts talking about how they should be used.