New Dept of Agriculture regulations will prohibit soda, candy, in nationalized local schools
And people thought I was joking 9-year ago when I predicted that, if we followed the governmental and regulatory trajectory we were on, we’d soon find ourselves having to do mandatory morning exercises in order to justify our (now “free”) health care. The Hill (h/t Mark Levin):
The Obama administration proposed regulations Friday that would prohibit U.S. schools from selling unhealthy snacks.
The 160-page regulation from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would enact nutrition standards for “competitive” foods not included in the official school meal.
In practice, the proposed rules would replace traditional potato chips with baked versions and candy with granola. Regular soda is out, though high-schoolers may have access to diet versions.
“Although nutrition standards for foods sold at school alone may not be a determining factor in children’s overall diets, they are critical to providing children with healthy food options throughout the entire school day,” the proposed rule states.
“Thus, these standards will help to ensure that the school nutrition environment does all that it can to promote healthy choice, and help to prevent diet-related health problems.”
The rules are a product of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which also overhauled the nutritional make-up of regular school meals. They would apply to any school, public or private, that participates in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.
Those rules saw a backlash from conservative lawmakers who said students were going hungry as a result of calorie limits.
— Which is and was irrelevant, though useful as an objective correlative. Because what conservative lawmakers should have said is that schools are run locally, and that the federal government — and more specifically, a First Lady who routinely stuffs her own maw with red velvet cake and all manner of gourmet foods soaked in butter — has no business setting menus for the nation’s schools. In fact, the very idea is preposterous and at odds with constitutional principles, not to mention an assault on parents and parental rights and responsibilities.
Were not the teachers’ unions and the Democrats — that is, big government — so inextricably tied, one imagines we’d see local school boards telling the feds to sod off, thanks. But they, too, are risk-averse and often disarmingly doctrinal, and when run by the left, they are always more than happy to get elected in order to turn their power over to the federal government. Like puppets. Or the apostates who guarded Damien Thorn.
It seems as though, as with everything else promised by the left, the “free” public education your child gets comes with lots of strings attached — from the right of educators to nationalize curricula meant to indoctrinate their charges, to the federal bureaucracy’s determination that it is within their power to control over every aspect of children’s diets in a one-size-fits-all model of socially-engineered egalitarianism that, with some exceptions, leads to underfed, uninformed future low information voters.
Of course, my son goes to a charter school. So what business is this of mine? Guess I’ll just shut up.