Re: "Should the government mandate healthy eating"?IMO...
No. ===I wouldn't want the government mandating we
live the Word of Wisdom IF Ann Romney was in the White House! I don't want
the government mandating the dietary system the President's wife has faith
in, or her version of what we should/shouldn't eat, drink, how much we
should exercise, etc. Even if Obama's beliefs come from her trusted
dietitians (instead of from God). We should not have
President's wives mandating we live the way they would.If you
wouldn't support a President's wife mandating we live the Word of
Wisdom... Don't support Mrs Obama mandating our diet and our daily
activities. Be consistent.If you're consistent (and you
support what Michelle Obama is doing)... then you would support Ann Romney
mandating we live the Word of Wisdom IF Mitt Romney won...====We need to learn to make good decisions on our own... not follow
Government mandates (IMO)The Government should not mandate all areas
of our behavior fit THEIR beliefs (including diet, exercise, how much of our
salary we donate to the poor, etc)
Of course everyone is going to say the government shouldn't mandate what
people eat. Fact is, the government is NOT mandating what kids or anyone else
eats. This is what the government is doing: It is saying that meals that are
served with taxpayer money are going to be healthy. Kids are FREE to bring from
home any garbage that you want them to eat. They are free to eat any junk food
you insist on feeding them at your home, or anywhere else you provide it to
them. Why on earth would any rational person object to healthy food being
served BY A SCHOOL. This is the most ridiculous question I have ever seen, and
Deseret News is clearly trying to imply something that just isn't true by
the disingenuous wording of the question -- the government is not, and will not
ever, go into your home and take away all your beloved junk food or tell you
that you have to eat or not eat anything under penalty of law.
2 bits, when was the last time some jack booted thug from the government knocked
on your door and sent you out on a 5 mile run and then stood over you forcing
you to throw away all your junk food. When that happens, get back to us on how
the government is mandating that you do anything. If you don't want to
know that scientific research recommends certain nutrients, then just ignore the
food pyramid or whatever you find so offensive. Eat whatever you want and have
at it. No one is stopping you.
When it comes to everyday life I say no as well. However, the government should
make sure that our food is free of disease and contaminants (something that the
government does a very good job of actually). One only needs to look back at the
meat packing industry at the turn of the century to see how horrible our food
supply would be without government regulations on cleanliness and safety.When it comes to school lunches the government should absolutely be more
strict on what schools serve students. The government is already paying for and
supplying these meals it wouldn't be that hard to provide food that is
actually edible. As a teacher in Utah I see the food that is served first hand
and it's pretty bad, bad enough I wouldn't want my kids eating it. The
government can and should spend the money to make these meals not just healthier
but taste better and use better, fresh ingredients.
Not only should they mandate healthy eating, but that should mandate what we can
eat, when we can eat, and how much we can eat. They should also mandate
that every citizen have health insurance, they should schedule our doctor
appointments. They should tell us when we can get married and to whom. They
should tell us when we can have kids if we can have kids. They should
mandate our education, tell us what to study, what job that we will have. How
much money we will make, where we will live, the type of car we can drive. They should also mandate what type of clothes we should wear and when we
should wear them. They should tell us what time to wake up in the morning and
what time we need to go to sleep. If the government mandated our lives, we
wouldn't have unemployment, poverty, hunger, or any other problems in
society. We wouldn't have to make decisions for ourselves and we
could just become slaves to society… Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong-un,
Mao Zedong, Putin? Should we add Obama to the lists of great leaders who have
suppressed people’s choices and freedoms?
Why not?It's that simple.Why not?
IMNSHO, the government has much more important things that they are required to
do than to intrude into places where they have no business.
2 bits,That would make sense if the government was actually trying
to mandate what we eat. They're not. They're mandating what foods
will be served in public schools. Whether it's healthy food or not, the
government is already making those choices.
@2 Bits:First of all, Michelle Obama is not mandating anything, any
more than Ann Romney could or would. She is proposing regulations--i.e. a bill
which would have to be introduced by somebody in Congress to make school lunches
more healthful--that means less fat, more veggies. Do you see this as a
problem, and taking away from your God given right to feed your child chocolate
frosted sugar bombs? If so, no problem, pack your kid's lunch yourself.
Or pack him some extra fat and sugar to supplement the healthful lunch the
school will fix.
I really miss the cinnamon rolls our lunch ladies made each year - gone because
if the new requirements. The smell would waft into my classroom all morning.
They would leave the extras in the faculty room after school. Now we have pizza
with whole wheat crust and cookies made with whole wheat. They're not bad,
and from my observations the school lunch kids are eating more healthy which is
a good thing. I think it's fine for the government to regulate
what is served in public schools, but I also think the schools should be allowed
some flexibility. An occasional treat made with white flour and slathered in
cream cheese frosting isn't going to sink any ships but it sure will spread
some joy around. : )
Re: "2 bits, when was the last time some jack booted thug from the
government knocked on your door and sent you out on a 5 mile run and then stood
over you forcing you to throw away all your junk food"...It
happens every day... in our public schools.===I
didn't say we need more fat or less veggies... so don't put words in
my mouth. I said we need to make our own decisions. And it's not the
proper role of government to mandate what we eat (not even what our kids
eat).Parents should be teaching their kids what to eat. Not the
Government.As parents... We need to be teaching our kids WHY they
should make better decisions (not have the Government mandate it).If
you think we need government mandates... you have no faith in parents. And you
may be right in some cases... but not in all cases.Kids are throwing
away the government mandated food... how does that benefit anybody?===Re: "pack your kid's lunch yourself"...Parents have... and had perfectly good lunches confiscated by the lunch-police
and thrown away, because they didn't meet government mandates...
2 bits -- No, the government is not forcing your kid to eat anything. And who
is stopping you from teaching your kid to eat healthy? I don't get the
faux outrage that conservatives have about everything. Just because the
government publishes nutrient guidelines does not mean that you are forced to
eat accordingly. I've heard of one case where a home provided lunch was
thrown out by a school cafeteria. It happened somewhere in the US (not locally)
and I've never heard of it anywhere else. One case does not a mandate
make. By the way, I have faith in parents, but parents are not the ones working
in the cafeteria making the school lunches. Those are the lunches that I am
perfectly fine mandating as healthy. Bring your own junk food from home if you
insist on having your kid eat it.
@2Bits - I agree with you that there have been instances where the school
officials threw away perfectly balanced, nutritional lunches on the grounds that
it didn't meet the guidelines - only because it also included a cookie or a
bag of chips. They forced the child to eat the school lunch and made the parent
pay for it.We raised a son with ADHD, and I was challenged in
figuring out nutritionally what he needed to focus in school better. Removing
processed sugars had much to do with it, as well as adding in the right
supplements, calcium, etc. However, the school wanted to mandate powerful
medications, which the pediatrician recommended against.Fortunately,
I resisted and retained through the years the power to control my son's
diet and treatment. He is now a very productive adult. If schools can dictate
everything in our children's lives, then this "one size fits all"
approach is going to wreak havoc.
Mandate no. Strongly encourage? Yes.We have a problem and it
affects our productivity and our health care costs. Believing otherwise is
putting our heads in the sand.
We are active and eat healthy but what has happened to us as a result of these
changes, is a good portion of these "healthy" food lunches is not
appetizing. (I know I'm not alone in this.) The calories have also been cut
back so much that they can't sustain my teen who plays sports, unless I pay
for 2 lunches for him, so he can make it through after school practice. My very
active, healthy elementary school child actually likes a lot of the new foods,
but is now constantly hungry at school in the afternoons because the lunches are
not filling. It's hard to learn when you're hungry. Bringing lunch
from home everyday is not an always an option.
healthy eating? What about healthy DRINKING? Should the government MANDATE
healthy drinking and if not why (using the same logic Michelle is using for
eating)? I think we tried that miserable experiment during prohibition and it
didn't work out so well. The Obama's are all about "THEY KNOW
BEST".......they know best how to restrict your diet...they know best how to raise your kids (education etc..) ...they know
best how to manage your health care needsStrike ONE - STRIKE TWO and
STRIKE THREE !!!America USED to be about FREEDOM. But no more. That
freedom has been replaced by the Federal Government and its mandates. This is a
very slippery slope people - we all know where and how it ends - COMMUNISM. No
freedom...which is the goal of the left from the moment Barack took office. Little steps lead to BIG CONTROL!!! Leave US ALONE!!!! Let
US manage ourselves !!!! You can keep your mandates and we will keep our
freedoms!! "We teach them correct principles and LET THEM govern
themselves" Joseph Smith Jr.
"“But learning basic physical fitness is, too, and it can burn up a
lot of the junk kids inevitably eat at home, if not at school. It also has the
added advantage of being a lot less controversial.”1)
evidently eating health food is "controversial"2) evidently
exercise will help replace the empty calories of junk food..... high sugar, low
nutrition foods are conveyed to high protein low carb diets by means of
exercise. Who knew.3) this is a mutually exclusive proposition -
either its good food "or" excursive.Listen, when my kids go
out and spend money I earned, I have a say on what it is spent on. Likewise, if
the federal government is footing the bill, they get to decide how it is spent.
If school district want to spend money on junk food via mandate from their local
school boards - those schools can pay for that food.If my son wants
to buy video games.....he pays for it himself. If he needs help with
tuition.... I am more than glad to help pay.
from Patriot we have "America USED to be about FREEDOM. But no more."
Patriot... if you want to feed your kids jellied pork fat for every
meal, you can still do that. That is your choice - it just that the tax payers
aren't going to pay for it. Your freedom does not mean you get to spend
other peoples money any way you want. It means you can spend your own money
however you want.Michelle Obama isn't making your kids
exercise.Michelle Obama isn't forcing your kids to eat healthy
foodMichelle Obama isn't managing your kids health.When
you look in the mirror, you are looking at the only person responsible for
those. If you want your kids to have health lunches - they are available at
your school now. If you want to send them with a meat lovers pizza - that is
your choice. No freedom lost..... were just not paying for our poor choices.
@Wonder,Again... I didn't say they should be eating junk food.
Don't put words in my mouth. It's not that black-or-white (you either
like government mandates... or you want your kids eating junk food). I said they should have choices.... and practice making good choices when they
are young... so they will continue making good choices when they get older
(rather than because it was mandated by somebody in the Government).If kids are throwing the food away... what are they learning... what good is
it?Have you read any of the stories about how much of these meals
are going straight into the garbage? That's a WASTE of money and
nutrition.=====Back to the original question... is it
the Government's job? I say no. IMO It's the
parent's job, and the child's job, to make good decisions that fit
their individual needs. Not being compelled by a nationwide one-size-fits-all
mandate of what they can eat.
And the Utah State Legislature trying to back door and impose the Word of Wisdom
is not an example of Government mandating a healthy lifestyle, how?BTW -- as someone who "voluntarily" follows the WoW, I
can't help but ask -- How can not eating "meat sparingly" and
obviously being extremely obese still count as living the Word of Wisdom?Perhpas Michelle Obama is right, and my morbidly obese
anti-Government anti-anything suggested by a Democrat fellow Mormons are wrong?
Advocate... yes. Mandate... no.
To "Wonder" the problem is that what the kids are getting at school is
not good. In all reality it probably doesn't meet the nutrition standards
that Michelle Obama has given us.Last week the DN had an article
about school lunches, and had a picture of what was being served. Nearly
everything in it was pre-packaged. They had a picture of a grilled cheese
sandwich in a package that said "Fresh Grilled". Now, just using your
common sense, what will be healthier to eat. A grilled cheese sandwich made in
a factory, packaged, frozen, shipped, microwaved then served, or a sandwich that
was made with fresh bread from a local bakery, and grilled while the kids were
in line for lunch?We tell the kids we want them to eat healthy foods
at the same time they see they can rip open a package and microwave it for 30
seconds and have something to eat.
I've never understood why schools are in the business of food provision at
all. I brown bagged or bucketed it all my scholastic career.
@Redshirt1701, the answer is "they are the same". First of all, that
the cellophane wrapped sandwich was probably made less than 500 miles away--more
likely less than 100 miles away, and not frozen--there would be no need to
freeze, and freezing, with the ice forming inside the package, would have made
for one soggy sandwich. Whether the bread came from a "local" bakery or
a more distant one has no bearing on its nutrition. I would have
bagged (forgive the pun) the cheese sandwich in favor of a chunk of cheese, a
whole grain roll, and fruit. Or chicken soup or cottage cheese. And please, not
process cheese, which represents the triumph of technology over conscience.
Is the government the parent or is it the servant? We, the people, are the
government. We set the rules. We assign the duties. No one assigned Mrs.
Obama the duty to tell us or our children what we or they should eat. That was
a self-assigned duty that falls far outside the Constitution. She has no
authority to do anything more than to suggest that we should change our diet.Who told Mrs. Obama that she has the authority to dictate diet? I
didn't. Congress didn't. The voters didn't. The Supreme Court
didn't. If she decided that we should spend $100 a week on the
Opera, would that require us to buy tickets? I don't think so, yet, many
people simply sit back and let the wife of an elected official dictate what our
children should eat. That's not what America stands for. No person
outside of Congress has the right to legislate. Mrs. Obama is not a member of
Congress. She has no authority.
"Should the government mandate healthy eating in schools?"Yes.Schools are for learning, and the value of good nutrition is
worth learning.Schools have always mandated appropriate behavior,
haven't they?If not . . . they certainly should.
2 bits,Nobody is taking your freedom or your choices, pack a lunch
for your kid. If the government is sponsoring the school lunch program, someone
in the government has to make a choice as to what is served to those who choose
to eat. Why not choose healthy? To argue otherwise makes no sense. Lets get to the reality though. If this was First Lady Ann Romney pushing
this concept instead of First Lady Michelle Obama most of you who are opposing
healthy school lunches would be favoring them.
@Fred44Salt Lake City, UtahLets get to the reality though. If
this was First Lady Ann Romney pushing this concept instead of First Lady
Michelle Obama most of you who are opposing healthy school lunches would be
favoring them.9:37 p.m. June 2, 2014======== Agreed!Ann Romney supporting nutrious school lunches = GOODMichelle Obama supporting nutrious school lunches = BADWhat I see
is blahtant -- Double Standard, Hypocrasy, lacking of
integrity, blind hatred.
To "LDS Liberal" the double standard is coming out of Michelle Obama.
She says that we must do something about obesity, and only works to fix 1 meal
per day for the poor. If requiring that kids eat foods that are healthy is so
important, what about their parents?Why should people receiving
government assistance be able to buy chips, soda, 7-11 hotdogs, pizza, and all
sorts of other junk food using taxpayer money? If we are to be eating more
fresh foods, why not change the food stamps to prevent the poor from buying the
high calorie nutritionally poor foods that are so readily available?If it is so good for the kids, why isn't it good for the parents?
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTSo -- You are advocating Michele
Obama tell parents what they can or can't feed their children?And you call me a big Government control freak?FYI -- Food Stamps
already has limits of what you can or can not buy with them.Perhaps what
you meant to say - had you known the truth - is that Government should be even
MORE restrictive and controlling.Your hypocrasy knows no bound...
"No one assigned Mrs. Obama the duty to tell us or our children what we or
they should eat. That was a self-assigned duty that falls far outside the
Constitution. She has no authority to do anything more than to suggest that we
should change our diet."Man Mike... did you get an excess dose
of the "I hate the Obamas' today? No one said she can legislate
anything. She has introduced no bills. She has passed no laws or rules. She
has done nothing counter to the constitution... she applied no power. She is
simply expressing and advocating for a cause, just as every First Lady before he
has done. On what basis you think she is acting outside the constitution is I
do not know. The only authority she has exercised is her constitutionally given
right to free speech and advocating for a cause she believes in.Mike
- I am not sure what radio show or web site you follow... but what you are
claiming isn't happening. As such much of your rant again on
extra-constitional actions.... is moot.
Where was Mike when Nancy Reagan "Just Say No to Drugs"?Laura
Bush's "Ready to Read, Ready to Learn"?ordoes Mike just
have an accute case of hating all things Obama?Seriously Mike, First Lady's have taken up "causes" since the days of Dolly
It's not the government's job. For starters, government doesn't
even know what constitutes good nutrition. It changes every so many years. (And
no, the federal government shouldn't be paying for our local schools,
either.)For another thing, as has already been mentioned, one size
doesn't fit all. If a growing kid isn't getting enough calories, they
won't thrive. If another kid is getting too many calories, they won't
thrive. I know that when I was school age I ate anything and everything I could
get my hands on and I was still seriously underweight. If they had taken away my
snacks and junk food I probably would have starved to death.
To "LDS Liberal" the only limits I have seen with food stamps is for
alcohol and tobacco. Other than that, there are few if any limits. Papa
Murphy's, 7-11, and other fast food places accept the food stamps. That is
what the signs that say "We accept EBT" mean.I am not saying
that the government needs to control food stamps more. I am saying that if
their concern is the overweight children why are they going after the children
instead of the parents?If the government is supplying food to the
poor, they should do so in an economical manner, not the waste that goes into
their current programs. It would be cheaper to have a refrigerated truck go
around and deliver boxes of food to the poor than it is right now. I know of
people that have been on welfare that eat better than I do.