First off... why shouldn't people be free to drive off of a cliff?  At what point do you deem people worthy enough to choose their own food if not being in highschool.  Or does nobody deserve that right?

Second off... the kids are suffering.

That article had nothing to do with populism.  All it did was point out kids weren't eating due to this law, and therefore the law is bad. 

Such a statement should be common sense.  Unless what, you think there should be a mandatory force feeding law maybe?

If you have a society where kids are growing up on junk food and fast food, and that is all they find tasting good, then what?  Good tasting is a preference thing.  If the food isn't full of food poisoning and other toxins, and can be eaten, and provides nutritional value, why not go with that?  Kids don't eat it?  Kids won't eat food, even if it isn't bad, and they are hungry?  There was a time and era in America where you ate because you were hungry.  And there was the battle of the dinner table, where kids didn't want to eat healthy.

All this being said, there should be a decent group of recipes available, that at least are tolerable to swallow.

You ever try to substitute teach in an inner city public high school?  I have, and the suffering you speak of, they suffer if you make any demands.  They suffer if you ask them to sit silent and do their homework.  They suffer if you put any demands on them at all.  It is not comfortable.  They suffer if you give them homework.  They suffer if ANYTHING happens.  That is kids.  They are ALWAYS suffering.  And heck, when they make stupid decisions they suffer.

As for the second point, are you serious?  You believe in the cry for freedom, no matter HOW stupid it is to justify it?   The whole argument about "I am free to do whatever, so long as my fist doesn't hit your nose" is predicated upon getting hit in the nose not being a good thing.  The thing about kids, is they are told no, to be saved of worse problems.  Kids are told no.  They aren't free to do whatever they like.  Heck, even with adults, we have limits.  No, driving a car off a cliff isn't a good thing (as in doing it would get you killed) because there is a value of life, and it is seen that no sane person would intentionally drive a car off a cliff.

And here is another survey that shows Americans are wrong about how they view their diet:
http://news.discovery.com/human/americans-diet-weight-110104.html

AMERICANS FALSELY BELIEVE THEIR DIET IS HEALTHY
Nearly 90 percent of American said they had a healthy diet, even though few count calories or even weigh themselves.

A) There are situations in which sane people would intentionallly drive off a cliff.

B) Raising a child is the duty and responsibility of the parents.   If the parents aren't telling kids no, there isn't ANYTHING school is going to be able to do about it.   You are trying to solve an issue of bad parenting through state intervention.   This can not work... and can only cause problems.

C)  No it isn't.   The "My nose hits your face" has shit all to do with being hit in the face being bad.  Bad afterall is a subjective situation.

And this translates into causing children to starve... how?

Again, your trying to tackle a problem stupidly, in a stupid way which only harms people.

Look at those reasons I listed that are some of the real reasons why people eat unhealthy.  That should give  you an idea on ACTUAL ways that help people to eat healthier.

None of them involve "force them to do it." and "ursurping parent primacy in a child's life."

Kids "always suffering" doesn't justify causing them to suffer significantly more for zero benefit on the basis that "if they were taught better by there parents they would be doing this already."    You know... because if they were taught better by there parents to be doing it already.... they would be doing it already... such laws would be pointless.

So many completely useless laws are made that do nothing but make people suffer based on such logic.  It's ironic, because these laws mirror very much the "work for welfare" laws you despise so much.

If i get more time later i'll go in depth in ways that would help, but I thought it would be self evident from the post.

Excuse me.  Where do you get the idea I am opposed to people on welfare being enabled to have jobs, so they can integrate back into the work force?  I don't oppose that.  The issues are that there is no interest politically for the government to create work when there isn't any.  And, there isn't ever a guarantee the private sector has sufficient jobs either.  That is the issue I have with it. To think I don't, is absurd, and you are confusing me with someone else.

The issue here is this: What sort of food is to be in school cafeterias, and who decides it?  If parents aren't speaking up, because they are uninvolved, do you let the children decide?  In other words, you have them vote for McDonald's every day there?

And the suffering is this: The kids won't eat healthy foods.  They complain both there isn't enough of it and they don't like it.  The food is healthy food.  So, the solution would be to serve them food that is unhealthy, but they will eat.  It involved stuff like replacing white dough with whole wheat for pizza and replacing chocolate milk with regular milk.  That is just one example.

Here is one example of the change:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-south/new-food-guidelines-mean-cafeteria-workers-must-release-their-creative-juices-654143/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/27/n-j-high-school-students-planning-cafeteria-boycott-to-protest-obama-guidelines/

http://stateimpact.npr.org/indiana/2012/08/22/how-federal-school-lunch-guidelines-are-changing-menus-at-indiana-schools/

Feel free to point to any professional in nutrition who says that people shouldn't eat whole grains, and also more fruit and vegetable.  You can also go to diets for weight loss and show how Atkins supports people consuming white flour and sugar, or low fat diet that calls for more fat laden meat.

Feel free to show where the propose changes are unreasonable and insane. 

Yeah... that was my point. There isn't enough work out there, so Work for Welfare is flawed.

Just like how these policies DON'T WORK. Therefore they shouldn't exist.

You can complain all you want about children's health, but when the solution does more damage to kids help then good... what are you arguing here?


Assuming that people shut up about this law... all that ends up happening is... kids don't eat... and they wait till they get home to gorge on junk.

Which means you haven't made kids diets any healthier.... haven't reduced their calorie intake because they binge when they get home... and hurt kids health because they don't eat lunch and don't have a more even calorie intake.  End result to your "eat healthy" initative?   Kids eat worse then they did previously.


It's not "Healthy food vs Unhealthy food" it's "Kids not eating then binging on junk food vs kids eating junk food."

Whether kids or not should eat whole grains and fruits is not the issue, because in either case they aren't.  "To hell with everything kids need to eat healthier", sorta falls flat when kids aren't doing so.

Parent's aren't choosing their schools food choices because they're uninvolved parents? Sounds like the real question should be "how do we get parents more involved in their kid's lives.

Now since i'm at heart a problem solver... how do you solve food problems?


1) Stop subsidizing junk food. Why does everything in the USA have high fructose corn syrup? Corn subsidies. That's why most other places use sugar in their soda.

http://grist.org/article/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-corn-subsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices/

If you want to go further and want to get government all up in it... how about making healthier food cheaper? Give subsidies for fresh grown foods designated for local sale. If you got rid of the corn subsidy and focused it on healthier fruits and vegetables that can't be used for things like corn syrup you would make healthier food cheaper for people to eat in a completely revenue neutral way.

2) Target the fringes. You don't go into the fattest town in America and say "Change now, you idiots who are killing your kids" like Jamie Oliver. That's only going to further entrench people. You focus in areas where people are eating healthy, or at least eating less awful, you start with them and increase healthy eating in the areas of least resistance. This will change the culture of eating, and what's in style... and "loosen" up the tougher areas, making some people eat healthier due to it being in style and most the country doing it. Eventually isolated the worst areas change.

3) Target minorities. Some grants to black and Hispanic chefs to make healthier versions of the foods they eat couldn't hurt.

4) Have a helpful website. One like the Livestrong website for example... which is a great tool. Just expand something like that to include nutrition.

Also have sample "healthy" food schedules. With cheap and easy to make recipes. Furthermore, make said schedules REALISTIC. Throw in the occasionally unhealthy thing or just make outright calories dedicated to junk food and places like McDonald's.

5) Specifically offer federal school funding for a home economics classes that teach healthy food that students might like. Then if you convert them, they can actually eat healthy.

6) Restrict food stamps to non-processed food. Then people who need foodstamps to eat actually have to change their culture at home.

This ends up being a political issue. The entire kids are starving issue is raised by individuals who are more than willing to supports funding of school lunch programs, so the kids end up with less.

More has to be done, a lot more. Not to say government does it all, but i as I have said, society is going to have to stop and think here. Adjusting subsidies would be a start. Figuring out how to get people's taste to change is another. Unhealthy food is cheaper, and apparently shifts to more vegetables and whole grains, is causing an uprising. They throw out fruits and vegetables and complain they are hungry.