Congressional Righties really care about kids nutrition!

zappasguitar

Well-known member
House Republicans say pizza is a vegetable


Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are fighting an effort by the Obama administration to make federally-subsidized school lunches more healthy.

A January proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aimed to limit — but not eliminate — fries and pizza on the lunch menu.

tarchy vegetables (e.g., white potatoes, corn, lima beans, and green peas) would be limited to 1 cup per week to encourage students to try new vegetables in place of the familiar starchy ones,” the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service recommended.



Additionally, the rule would change the way tomato paste is credited, making it more difficult for pizza to be considered a serving of vegetables.

Under pressure from lobbyists and some food companies that sell frozen pizza, salt and potatoes, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee rejected the new rules, painting them as “burdensome and costly regulations.”

In the process, they ignored the advice of retired military leaders who said that status quo school lunches could hurt military readiness.

“We urge you to reject any language … that would weaken the proposed guidelines for school meals or derail the implementation process,” former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton (Ret.) and more than 100 other retired generals and admirals wrote to Congress.

Mission: Readiness director Amy Dawson, who advocates for healthier school lunches, called the decision a “national disgrace.”

“We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program,” she said.


Margo G. Wootan, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), explained that Congress seemed more concerned about the protecting corporate profits than children’s health.

“At a time when child nutrition and childhood obesity are national health concerns, Congress should be supporting USDA and school efforts to serve healthier school meals, not undermining them,” she observed. “If finalized, this legislation may go down in nutritional history as a bigger blunder than when the Reagan Administration tried (but failed) to credit ketchup as a vegetable in the school lunch program. Pizza should be served with a vegetable, not count as one.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/16/house-republicans-say-pizza-is-a-vegetable/
 
I would say that the aim is to keep the federal government out of the minutiae of our lives. It is likely something better controlled by local government.

I never thought I'd see the day when somebody from the United States was cheering when the government tried to regulate our children's meals.
 
I would say that the aim is to keep the federal government out of the minutiae of our lives. It is likely something better controlled by local government.

I never thought I'd see the day when somebody from the United States was cheering when the government tried to regulate our children's meals.


But it isn't a question of regulation versus no regulation. It's a question of good regulation versus bad regulation. The Republicans, in accordance with the wishes of industry lobbyists, chose bad regulation.
 
Actually its exactly like that. You liberals want to control every aspect of our lives. Now you want to tell our kids what to eat.


Actually, no, it isn't. The USDA and federal government still regulate school lunch programs. The Republicans didn't vote to end those regulations. And the federal government has regulated the school lunch program for decades so I'm not certain that the claim that "now you want to tell our kids what to eat" is historically accurate. Moreover, kids can eat whatever the fuck they want. The only issue is what the schools can serve for those kids and parents that elect to purchase food from the school.
 
But it isn't a question of regulation versus no regulation. It's a question of good regulation versus bad regulation. The Republicans, in accordance with the wishes of industry lobbyists, chose bad regulation.

no regulation is preferable to bad regulation. bad regulation continues to grow and fester like bacteria.
 
But it isn't a question of regulation versus no regulation. It's a question of good regulation versus bad regulation. The Republicans, in accordance with the wishes of industry lobbyists, chose bad regulation.

When the choice is to "let it happen" or pass something liberals will call "bad regulation" I would prefer the bad legislation to more entry at this level of minutiae into mine and my children's lives. It is grossly overstepping sane boundaries to regulate actual menus for my children's meals. This just isn't the federal government's place in my life.
 
When the choice is to "let it happen" or pass something liberals will call "bad regulation" I would prefer the bad legislation to more entry at this level of minutiae into mine and my children's lives. It is grossly overstepping sane boundaries to regulate actual menus for my children's meals.


Under either regulation, the level of minutiae is still there, and has been there for decades. The legislation passed doesn't end or eliminate any federal government "meddling" whatsoever. It just makes it so that food lobbyists can be sure that schools serve more of their products over other products that are healthier. Among competing regulations with the same degree of intrusiveness, the Republicans chose the one that benefited lobbyists.

And it's very easy for you to avoid the government meddling in what your kids eat, don't have your kids buy lunch at school. Pretty simple.
 
When the choice is to "let it happen" or pass something liberals will call "bad regulation" I would prefer the bad legislation to more entry at this level of minutiae into mine and my children's lives. It is grossly overstepping sane boundaries to regulate actual menus for my children's meals. This just isn't the federal government's place in my life.

I think the school that required the kids to eat the school lunch was overstepping boundaries.

But this is a matter of whether or not the school serves balanced meals that they claim they do. If they say they will provide a balanced meal plan, then they should do so. This regulation is just a detail in whether or not the school is lying to the parents.
 
I would say that the aim is to keep the federal government out of the minutiae of our lives. It is likely something better controlled by local government.

I never thought I'd see the day when somebody from the United States was cheering when the government tried to regulate our children's meals.

Just as I never thought I'd see the day a partisan Rightie would side with idiots trying to claim something as unhealthy as PIZZA could be considered a VEGETABLE.

You do realize WHY they are doing this, don't you?

If LOBBYISTS and INSIDERS can get pizza reclassified as a veggie, school lunches will cost less to make, our kids will "supposedly" be getting "vegetables" with their meals...and most importantly... greedy Righties can pocket all the money saved!
 
Just as I never thought I'd see the day a partisan Rightie would side with idiots trying to claim something as unhealthy as PIZZA could be considered a VEGETABLE.

You do realize WHY they are doing this, don't you?

If LOBBYISTS and INSIDERS can get pizza reclassified as a veggie, school lunches will cost less to make, our kids will "supposedly" be getting "vegetables" with their meals...and most importantly... greedy Righties can pocket all the money saved!

you do realize that lobbyists and insiders have been redefining things in our lifetime to suit their own agenda, right? why is it an issue NOW? because it's a right sided goal?
 
Back
Top