Official food snottiness will end up doing more harm than good

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    re: procuradorfiscal 10/3 @ 5:57p

    "Why should Utah cafeterias be forced by a liberal federal education bureaucrat to serve bland, saltless, sugarless, odorless, colorless, ultimately tasteless foods from a federally-mandated recipe, when Utah cafeteria workers know how to make much better food?"

    Isn't the native diet Green jello w/ carrots and funeral potatoes?

    Of course, it would have to be washed down w/ 64 oz of Diet Mtn Dew in your refillable mug.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 5:57 p.m.

    Re: "Get real. The only people who forced you to eat what you didn't want was your parents."

    Well, actually, I spent 30+ years in the military. I WAS forced to eat a lot of stuff I didn't want.

    Not that I'm complaining, understand. I chose a career in the Army.

    But, our school kids didn't.

    Why should Utah cafeterias be forced by a liberal federal education bureaucrat to serve bland, saltless, sugarless, odorless, colorless, ultimately tasteless foods from a federally-mandated recipe, when Utah cafeteria workers know how to make much better food?

    Like we used to eat, when we were kids.

  • boxerdog915 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 5:05 p.m.

    The point I think everyone needs to ask themselves this question, "Is this legal?" The answer is no. The federal government, both Republicans and Democrats alike have shown they don't care about law and are sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Who does Michelle Obama think she is in getting her husband to pass something which determines what people eat?

    Either we believe in freedom or we don't. As far as I am concerned, this is just proof we are no longer a republic or democracy but it's turning into a dictatorship very fast and the Obama's are just eating it up!!!

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    This Kansas City Star op-ed piece is right on the money. It is not government's business to tell us how to live our lives, what we should eat or drink, how much we should weigh, or how we should raise our kids. The slippery slope comment is correct. We slide ever so slowly into government telling us how to live. In 1773, the King of England decided he was to delve into the personal lives of Boston. He raised the taxes on tea. The reaction of the residents of Boston was to have a tea party who dumped the tea into Boston Harbor. And that was just because of a tax. Think of what they would do if they were told no tea. It is simply not government's role to dictate the way we live.

    For those that worry about obesity or overweight, how do you measure that? Surely you do not believe BMI is a good measurement. The Mayo Clinic published a study in 2006 that said the 1850 BMI is not a valid indicator of heart or other diseases. So how do you determine who is and isn't healthy? Not by BMI!

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    kathyn Salt Lake City, UT

    The last I checked, no one is forcing you to eat anything you didn't like. If you want to eat fast food, food rich in sugar and fats, large quantities of red meat, and abuse your body, you can do it.

    And don't use the New York City ban on large-volume cups of soft drinks. That was a stupid move, but you were still able to buy the same soft drinks in smaller volumes as often as you wanted. And of course, you can still go to your favorite fast food restaurant and buy the 16-oz cup and re-fill it as many times as you like.

    Government tried to restrict alchohol and failed miserably. The LDS church tried to keep the faithful from drinking caffinated drinks and was not very successful.

    procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT

    " . . . forcing people to eat what liberals want us to eat?"

    Get real. The only people who forced you to eat what you didn't want was your parents. I hope you learned to like vegetables. You can still eat all the junk food you want.

    JP71 Ogden, UT

    Communism? Really?

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 10:35 a.m.

    Where is the snottiness in providing information and education regarding good health? Sure, there are those who love their fast food and glory in their fat diets, but that is a choice. It only comes later that these people say that they didn't intend to develop a get fat, develop a heart condition, get diabetes, or die prematurely. If only someone had encouraged them to do better.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    We are slipping into communism and we don't even see it. If the government can ban soda what can't they ban?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Oct. 3, 2012 4:38 a.m.

    Re: "There is nothing wrong with education, good examples or encouragement."

    Well, there's plenty wrong with education -- at least as an American institution.

    Good examples and encouragement? OK.

    But forcing people to eat what liberals want us to eat?

    That's about as Big-Brother authoritarian as you can get.

    At least in North Korea, they're starving kids because they don't have the food to feed them. Here, liberals insist on starving kids in the midst of plenty -- though they're working hard to make sure there's precious little of that, as well.

    Liberals need to get a life and stop trying to live others' for them.

  • kathyn Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:53 p.m.

    Is it really the government's job to force everyone to be healthy? Provide good alternatives, but don't be a food nazi. The government doesn't own us (yet).

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 3:07 p.m.

    Fat people tend to eat more than skinny people. People who eat more, buy more food. Food sellers like to sell more food because doing so makes more profit. Therefore food sellers like people to be fat.

    Some people think that the giant corporations that make our food care more for their profits than the health of their customers. Some people might even believe that the additives given to livestock and plants to enhance their growth will also enhance the growth of the people who eat them.

    But I don’t have any proof that the above is so.

    However, I do see the proof that food sellers over advertise their food and obscure the best interests of their customers. In view of the war against our waists by the giants corporations, is it not part of our governments duty to try to protect us from harm?

    Some people might see obesity as an enemy.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    Most school districts already have registered dieticians on staff. It wasn't like all the food the kids got BEFORE Michelle Obama's regulations was junk food.

    My daughter in high school tells me that each kid is required to take 2 pieces of fruit, but most all of it gets thrown away.

    What good is that?

  • zabivka Orem, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    Why should the default food for school lunches be junk food? I mean, isn't it a good thing that the lunches offered to students are nutritious? Why can't students bring extra snacks to satisfy additional caloric needs? It seems simple to me.

    Also, parents can always choose a non-public schooling option if this concerns them. I just don't get the big deal.

    Finally, a note to the write of the article: Anytime I see a writer user a phrase like, "slippery slope, anyone?", I immediately discredit their argument. The whole slippery slope concept is something of a logical fallacy and inappropriate to use when discussing an issue, unless you are prepared to truly show proof that a middle ground cannot exist, given the current conditions.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:57 a.m.

    "The world is full of people who Know How You Should Live, and they're always looking for excuses to advise you on your errors." Amen, brother. Now, let's see if we can get a state lottery in Utah, and maybe some decent beer and a corner pub or two. Oh yeah, we can't do that because we love the same nanny government you disparage in the article. At least when it suits our purpose.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    I understand the garbage cans are well-fed.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 2, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    We're reaching the point where conservatives would stick their heads underwater if the Obamas advised people to breathe oxygen (And I'm surprised the DN would run this. Isn't the Word of Wisdom the epitome of "food snottiness"?)

  • Kaydell Layton, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    When I was in high school, I was very tall and needed more food. "One size fits all" was definitely not for me. I was never obese even though I paid for two school lunches and ate everything!

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Oct. 2, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    Convenient that you ignore that actual new food requirements. Kids have no reason to go hungry...the calorie limit hasn't actually dropped that significantly, and kids are allowed to go back for more fresh fruits and vegetables with no limit. In other words, if you're hungry, eat your dang lunch! And please don't speak for all parents. My children are in school now, and we're thrilled with the new lunches. Last year was a microwaved bag of "pizza" and a pack of applesauce. Now they're getting broccoli, apples, celery and carrots. If you're really that dead-set on letting your kids eat unhealthy foods, pack them a lunch. There are no rules that prohibit children bringing in food. When I was in school, I ran cross-country, wrestled, and ran track. School lunch wasn't enough calories for those activities even then. Athletes have almost always brought supplements. I can't believe there's this much sniveling about kids having to eat their vegetables.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Oct. 2, 2012 5:19 a.m.

    This piece is such drivel. There is nothing wrong with education, good examples or encouragement. It is absolutely no different than the "Just Say No" campaign. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I would bet the writer would be on board if these were GOP initiatives. Good grief.