Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Citing school nutrition regulations, Palin claims PA is a "nanny state run amok."
Fighting the good fight as always-- With the growing obesity epidemic-- and the known links between good nutrition and positive behavior and achievement in school-- it seems like Palin is just stirring up controversy to keep her name in the news. She does it well, and the mass media is complicit in the idiocy.
Just to respond to some of the ridiculous responses this will get-- No, I am not afraid of her. No, limiting in sweets in school, does not prevent parents being able to parent...
If you think you need to be nannied...good for you. Go hire one. But this nonsense has to stop somewhere.
Why is this a government's problem. Why do you believe we need the government to go in and tell what they can give to the students. That's a parent's job. If the food is really bad, the parents can go to PTA, call the principle, call the superintendent, etc. Why do you feel the need to government to tell you what you can put into your mouth?
What do you mean, in another decade or two, you will have to get permission from the government just to eat. Call government certified food.
Well for that matter, why should anyone care what the school is teaching? They can teach Hopscotch and Pick-Up-Sticks instead od math and science and if the parents don't like it the can just complain.
Allow me to let you in on a little secret...Schools have an obligation to meet and set standards. When I was in elementary school, we had a cooking/home economics class once a week. There was food chart on the wall with graphics displaying the food groups with nutritous examples of what to eat. There were not junk food choices on that chart. Was the school and school board indocrtinating the kids? Were they doing wrong? They were not!
This total distaste for anything being mandated by government is a load of total manure form the right wing crazies. It's going more than a bit overboard to renounce the idea that schools should set and maintain good examples for kids.
Let's switch it around..if a parent wants their kids to eat garbage, they can serve it to them at home or in fast food joints...some parents appreciate their kids eating right and being taught the right way to eat.
Since Frau Palin is the subject at hand...
She's an attention mongering nitwit!
Last edited by sickofnyc; 11-10-2010 at 12:12 PM..
What is the big deal about health warnings on food?
Let me ask you a question.Cigarettess have had a Surgeon General Warning for years. Do you think it stopped people from Smoking?
The warning was there, people smoked anyway, then they sue the tobacco companies even though they were warned.
When was the last time you bought a new car? the Owner's Manual section on safety is bigger than the car info.
Have you seen some of the ridiculous "warnings" on products? My lawn mower has a warning, "Do not put hands under the mower when it is running". Really
The nanny state has got to be stoopedd and soon. what ever happenedd to personal responsibility?
You still haven't explained how it's a big deal. What is a health warning going to do to alter your life?
Childhood obesity IS a big problem and it's important to educate our kids on such subjects. If you have a problem with teaching kids proper nutrition then sign them up for a private school. I mean beggar's have nothing to complain about. Just be happy your kids are getting a free education and that someone is encouraging them to be healthy. Especially if you're too lazy to do so yourself.
I'm am all for food info (content, calorie count, etc) but against most warning (cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) When you start to legislate with an eye toward the intelligence of the average person you start down a path with no end in sight.
I think the government has a vested interest into what foods they subsidize and allow to be sold to children during school hours. Kids are a captive audience during school hours and should not be allowed to make unhealthy food choices simply because the option is there. To all my comrades who want government out of our schools, well so do I. But, there is no harm in ensuring healthy, nutritious food offerings and eliminating high caloric/sugar/fat junk food. Is it the government's place to dictate what can be offered to kids at school? As long as the government subsidizes the menu for low-cost/free breakfasts/lunches/dinners in the schools under the Child Nutrition Act, then I say yes. I would prefer my tax dollars go to purchasing fruits, veggies, whole grains, and dairy products than Ruffles and Ho-ho's.
Oh, another fact that she's failed to mention is that parents can send a sack lunch with their children (I do). If they want to end their child's life early by sending fried chicken, french fries and snacks packed with sugar, they have the freedom to do so. Don't like government run schools, pay for a private one or homeschool, another freedom that we have here. Like I said, talking head and her cronies are at attention everyone someone says "nanny state." Don't like the nanny, educate and feed your own children.
Well, the obvious response to that is what happens when schools start inspecting bag lunches, and confiscating the 'junk food'? Because that's an all too realistic scenario for those of us who do see an increasingly intrusive nanny state. It's already happened in the UK.
The same people that think it's necessary to put nutrition labels on vending machines could be the same ones who think it's necessary to ensure proper food choices among ALL of those in the school..bagged lunch or bought.
You going to be OK with your kids' lunches inspected..the chocolate milk or bag of chips confiscated until the end of the day? I sure wouldn't.
Well, the obvious response to that is what happens when schools start inspecting bag lunches, and confiscating the 'junk food'? Because that's an all too realistic scenario for those of us who do see an increasingly intrusive nanny state. It's already happened in the UK.
The same people that think it's necessary to put nutrition labels on vending machines could be the same ones who think it's necessary to ensure proper food choices among ALL of those in the school..bagged lunch or bought.
You going to be OK with your kids' lunches inspected..the chocolate milk or bag of chips confiscated until the end of the day? I sure wouldn't.
It hasn't happened and regulations on school lunch didn't just start yesterday. Some of this is just paranoia. Why base your reaction to something on something you think it will lead to? You are asking me to base my opinion of this on a hypothetical situation. Every new regulation is not put in place to get to a point where you have no freedom. There are laws on cigarettes, laws on alcohol, laws on child abuse and neglect. They were not all put there to take away all your freedom and place you in a concentration camp. This hysteria needs to stop. Having healthy food in school lunches is not a bad thing.
I saw a little girl on television from that was two years old and 100 lbs. Her mother gave her two gallons of whole milk a day and six eggs for breakfast in the morning. That is child abuse but there are no laws against it in that form. If there were one, I guess you'd call it a nanny state.
I think the government has a vested interest into what foods they subsidize and allow to be sold to children during school hours. Kids are a captive audience during school hours and should not be allowed to make unhealthy food choices simply because the option is there. To all my comrades who want government out of our schools, well so do I. But, there is no harm in ensuring healthy, nutritious food offerings and eliminating high caloric/sugar/fat junk food. Is it the government's place to dictate what can be offered to kids at school? As long as the government subsidizes the menu for low-cost/free breakfasts/lunches/dinners in the schools under the Child Nutrition Act, then I say yes. I would prefer my tax dollars go to purchasing fruits, veggies, whole grains, and dairy products than Ruffles and Ho-ho's.
For me, this falls under a public health issue.
I agree 100%. Now I'm gonna sound like a bleeding heart and (it makes me sick) but in alot of the poorer public schools around the country, lunch is sometimes the only meal these kids get. Yes its true and a damn shame that young kids have parents that don't feed them. Its alot more common than you would think. In the schools where free lunch is over 60%-70% I believe good nutritional food should only be served.
What is the big deal about health warnings on food?
Should we remove health warnings on cigarettes and alcohol? It's not like anyone's forcing you to lose weight and look presentable. If you choose to be disgustingly fat and hideous you still have that right. But at least they warned you.
God I wish some people would have respect for themselves and their bodies. We used to have some of the most beautiful people in the world. But America is getting so fat and disgusting. So obese and ornery that they snap about health warnings on junk food.
The free market will fix it. Eventually when enough people are obese, the public will start demanding healthy food options, which in turn will force fast food restaurants to go green, lowering the price of fruits and vegetables and reversing the damage of generations of fatty foods.
Actually, this is not about school lunch, it's about limiting the amount of sweets that are served at holiday parties. It's still not that serious. Palin brought the kids sugar cookies just to spite those who think that all this sugar is bad. SMH...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
