Republicans question healthier eating proposals

The Land Orca Party has spoken

Money trumps the health of our children. Balance the budget but the populace dies early of diet-related diseases. Let's elect these lobbyists!

What - is ketchup no longer a vegetable?

The GOP - working as hard as possible to wreck Americans lives and futures.

They did it when the economy tanked under their wach. They continue to ignore the threats of climate change even when twisters wipe entire towns off the map.

And now this.

If it's good for America, you can bet your bottom dollar the GOP will be against it.

The GOP might as well register themselves as a terrorist group, for all it's worth.

"limit kids to only one cup of starchy vegetables a week"

So now potatoes are under attack by the Democrats! Good grief!

Whatever happened to bringing a bag lunch from home?

What's wrong with kids having transgenic potato chips sandwich and a coke for lunch if they have a hormone beef steak and fries for dinner?

The Republican spending bill also encourages the FDA to limit new guidelines that require calories to be posted on menus to restaurants, asking that grocery stores, convenience stores and other places whose primary purpose is not to sell food be excluded from the rules.

If it is food, I'd like too to know even if the joint is selling nails.

SushiSake3: If it's good for America, you can bet your bottom dollar the GOP will be against it.

Define what's good for America. GOP doesn't want the state to dictate what the people should eat, wear, listen and let the market speak. OK, right, what the market dictates is mainly crap but the people should know better. A better informed decision, yes.

Potatoes are healthy food(granted not so much in French Fry form). Substitute the Fries with Mash, Baked Potato, boiled Potato, etc.

Stupid Proposal.

Eating healthy is very expensive. The parents should be deciding what their children should be eating, not the government. This is about profits for vendors who supplies the lunch food regardless of healthy food or not.

Don't care to eat healthy food because they are disgusting to begin with. It taste like cardboard. For those who wants to eat healthy, great for you.

Food that may be consider healthy today may not be tomorrow. All this is hogwash.

Your children will eat what Obama tells you they will eat. Now shut up and do what the government tells you to do!

In the meantime, if Liberals would like to pool their own "private" money together to promote healthy eating then I am all for it. I am sure a lot of Conservatives would join their efforts. Otherwise, you can tell big brother that this is an obama-nation of a policy idea. The government needs to keep its nose out of the lunch boxes of private citizens.

@sushi-psst dont tell anybody your one of them christian doomsday folk willya otherwise the climate change bill will never pass! Did America used to have lunchbags-their cafeterias are huge and most people seem to buy lunch-certainly someone there making monies eh-the cafeteria? Or the govt behind them public school lunches? Or the company that provides the public school lunches??? Anyone else we can point fingers at? So whats for lunch today-noodles? thats a feel good.

In principle I'm against regulation of food service. However, as long as these proposals only effected public schools that’s another matter entirely. If you’re sending your kids to inferior state schools they can eat over-priced 'healthy' state lunches. The school lunches were to expensive for my family anyway, I ate carrots and potted meat until I could buy my own bag lunches. Some of these regs are pointless and stupid but hay, that’s state run education in a nutshell anyway.

You can be sure that if it is good for you, they are against it in America because they fear the state! They don't seem to realize they elect the people, so the state are themselves. It's a special case of weird.

Otherwise children could eat like this: wimp dot com slash schoollunches . But you knew that was France.

Republicans question healthier eating proposals

Love this headline, don't you?

Biased, right from the start.

Republicans question = Hateful, stingy and uncaring tightwads

Democrats inquire = Thoughtful citizens, who want to buy the world a coke, and insist it be Coke ZERO.

@pamelot

Republicans question = Hateful, stingy and uncaring tightwads

Dead right. You forgot "ignorant" and "arrogant" though.

@lucabrasi:

You are being lead by the headline, and the story. The USA has reached its debt ceiling.

Paying out to govt. agencies for manditory information on school lunches is ridicuous, and costs, BIG.

Parents can instruct their children on what to eat, or bring it from home.

Gov has no bi-ness in the lunchbox, as another poster already said.

The issue is not about healthy eating, but about government control/spending.

also forgot egregious windbaggism

how are they going to fight all their wars if Johnny is a tub of lard? I heard the military was interested in healthy food lunches to stop obesity. Now dear Republicans, you wouldn't want to go against your military, would you? haha

international food aid.

Want to save money and feed our own first? Get rid of all international aid of every form.

I heard the military was interested in healthy food lunches to stop obesity.

Joining the military is a conscious choice.

Inflicting govt. regulation, with its costs and control, on kids' school lunches is not- yet.

what a sad statement considering Americans eat many times a healthy amount of food. (Canadians as well for that matter). The issue is not quantity but variety, quality, and locally grown food, not mass production of cheese doodles. To what end? What happens once all the int'l aid is gone and Americans are even fatter? Then what?

@pamelot

Fact: Most US parents are fat. This suggests that they either don't know or don't care about the rules for healthy eating. They are therefore very unlikely to educate their children problem in this respect. So their children (and their children's children) are going to get sick and die early unless someone steps in.

If you're suggesting government-initiated dietary education is a waste of money then I suggest you consider the future health-care bills America is going to face in the form of diabetes, heart disease and mobility problems.

If you think government intervention is immoral ("interference" in citizens' private lives) then I would ask you, who else is going to take the fight to the gargantuan fast/junk food industry which makes billions pumping Americans full of sugar and fat every year?

I'm not even American so it doesn't affect me in the least. Just sorry for the kids and angered at this typical Republican knee-jerk reaction to a worthwhile initiative.

Eating healthy is very expensive

Not as expensive as eating junk and later paying medical bills.

Agree with Cleo. Processed Food, TV-Dinners, etc are expensive.

You can cook some pretty cheap and most of all tasty healthy meals fairly easy. In some cases all it takes is to substitute one or two ingredients or a slight adjustment in the preparation process from your standard recipe.

Not as expensive as eating junk and later paying medical bills.

Eats junk food or fast food once in a blue moon. Whole Food and Outpost Natural Foods are not cheap. Maybe it's cheap to eat healthy in Japan, but certainly not in the States. If it was cheap to buy healthy food, this wouldn't be a topic because everyone would be in top shape or not.

As people get older, their body can no longer process food due to aging, a change in diet should be taken into account.

Agree with Cleo. Processed Food, TV-Dinners, etc are expensive.

Process food and TV-dinners are cheaper. Food prices have increase significantly, people are on a budget.

The problem with obesity is people over eats and don't work out.

Most US parents are fat.

I can't speak for other posters but... Obesity stands at somewhere in the mid 20s percentage wise so I wouldn't go so far as to say most. I'm about 6'7 and weigh about 300 lbs, so I'm not exactly the most delicate flower in the patch but 'fat' is just hurtful.

If you're suggesting government-initiated dietary education is a waste of money then I suggest you consider the future health-care bills America is going to face in the form of diabetes, heart disease and mobility problems.

So we cut federal expenditures on healthcare. People will get the idea pretty quickly or they don't, either way we have less obese people. Especially considering that the most ample of the U.S population are often the poorest and on government aid. Give them foodstamps, healthcare, and transport passes and they get lazy. I still remember my food service days in high school and people trying to give me foodstamps for elephant ears and funnel cakes, I think that's when I started hating saftey nets come to think of it.

If you think government intervention is immoral ("interference" in citizens' private lives) then I would ask you, who else is going to take the fight to the gargantuan fast/junk food industry which makes billions pumping Americans full of sugar and fat every year?

I would argue that nobody needs to step in. Those companies make something the consumer wants, cheap food, and the consumer eats it. No gun to the head, no threats of fines or violence if they don't comply. I love snowballs and I fondly remember eating 20 cent frozen pot pies when we couldn't afford better. Now I'm better off and don't need to eat budget food but I choose to indulge in some less than healthy things from time to time.

Providing information on food choices does nothing to reduce those choices; it simply allows a consumer to deliberate more consciously when choosing. Students purchasing a school lunch generally have no choice: they purchase what is available - and, at any rate, either a policy exists for school lunch content or there is a policy not to have a policy.

Democrats tend to be more highly educated than Republicans; the more highly educated tend to be healthier and less obese. Thus, it would be fair to say that Democrats are, on average, thinner than Republicans. Freedom of choice is paramount, but choice implies information. Average Republicans may fear their fried food may be confiscated; Republican politicians fear their agribusiness contributions may take a hit. Let 'em cry.

@TheQuestion

I chose the word "fat" carefully in order to include both "overweight" and "obese". If you add the two together, I'm pretty sure "most parents" is correct. If I offended you, I apologise. My wife tells me I'm "fat" two or three times a week, so I've become pretty inured to it.

It depends on what kind of society you want: one where people (and government) look out for each other and somehow feel responsible, or at least concerned, when things go wrong even though they're not directly affected, or a more rugged, competitive "you are what you make of yourself and if you screw up it's your own fault" kind of arrangement. The former seems more European to me and the latter more American.

Seems to me people are pretty much brought up to prefer one or the other and no amount of persuasion is going to convince anyone that the other type of society is superior. So we'll have to agree to disagree :)

The problem with obesity is people over eats

Could it be that the addictive additives (eg corn syrup), high GI factor and lack of nutrition in processed food leaves people full of calories but still hungry? I don't see how a processed-to-death TV dinner can be cheaper than a home-prepared healthy meal, especially if the processed stuff leaves you craving more.

Maybe Obama needs our Jamie to go and give him a hand sorting school dinners.

@Cleo

Maybe Obama needs our Jamie to go and give him a hand sorting school dinners.

Jamie tried. Didn't you hear about it? He failed miserably thanks to the suspicion and hostility he faced from the school boards and the parents. He left one place in tears. Sad for the kids....

Democrats tend to be more highly educated than Republicans

Really? I tend to believe that both are rather hopeless. Different sides of the same coin.

If I offended you, I apologise.

Ha, don't worry about it. Takes a little more than comments on a news website to get under my skin.

I don't see how a processed-to-death TV dinner can be cheaper than a home-prepared healthy meal, especially if the processed stuff leaves you craving more.

I take it you've never seen the stuff made? Most of it starts off as a gel or powder, mass production does a lot to streamline the costing system. If I had standards I may have stopped eating the suff. Whole vegetables and fruits on the other hand require inspection and testing to make sure the product isn't tainted by mold, insects, or bacteria (thus the e-coli outbreaks and other related poisonings). Packaged foods aren't what anybody would call healthy but they come disinfected and sealed for long shelf lives.

lucabrasi - I thought things went better after getting off to a bad start? Didn't he get the worst of the junk food, like Turkey Twizzlers, banned from school dinners? Didn't the DES set up the School Food Trust to improve standards? Didn't he get Tony Blair to promise more money for better school meals, kitchens for schools without them and a code of conduct (albeit voluntary) for advertising junk food to children?

@Cleo

No, no, he did fine in the UK. I'm talking about his trip to America to try and do the same over there. You seriously didn't hear about it? A disaster it was.

No, I didn't know about that. America's loss.

Amazing. 1 billion dollars a week to invade a country that isn't a threat, bombing brown kids? Disagree with that and you're siding with the terrorists.

But we can't afford to make sure all American kids get to eat right.

Yet another triumph for caring conservatism.

Could it be that the addictive additives (eg corn syrup), high GI factor and lack of nutrition in processed food leaves people full of calories but still hungry?

More that people tend to like high-calorie food, and it's cheap in the U.S. because of subsidies and other incentives.

Democrats tend to be more highly educated than Republicans; the more highly educated tend to be healthier and less obese.

There you have it. A bright shade of elitism, to go with that humdrum Big Brother gray.

Laguna,

"Democrats tend to be more highly educated than Republicans; the more highly educated tend to be healthier and less obese. Thus, it would be fair to say that Democrats are, on average, thinner than Republicans". Now this statement without doubt is one of the most asinine, condacending, elitist, ridiculous statements l have ever had the misfortune of being exposed too. You are effectively saying fat people are dumb and skinny people are more highly educated therefore smarter. Well guess what, whatever warped little rock you crawled out from you are wrong. I know plenty of skinny people who are dumb as dog **** and l know plenty of fat people who have more intellegence in their fat little finger than you seem to have in your entire body.

And moderator before you remove this post for being offensive to another poster. You make sure that you remove the rude inflamatory post im responding to as well!

I bet AdamB is on the bigboned side of the equation...

IvanCoughalot,

"bet AdamB is on the bigboned side of the equation..." Sure am..... And the problem is?

I have a tough time believing my fellow Democrats are really that committed to this. I think it is more of a high profile project for the First Lady (herself not exactly a svelte woman),another arrangement that allows Obama to be on your TV almost daily.There are other trends that indicate Obama's botched handling of the economy is in fact contributing to worsening health and eating habits. McDonald's recently announced they would step up hiring, since business in this wretched command and control economy is for the fast food giant booming.They got over one million applications.The WH is making noises about the minimum wage again, so McDs is thinking about eliminating tellers altogther and installing touchpads.Millions of entry level jobs wiped out. Will the control freak Central Planners ever learn???

Leading by example would be a start. Our Surgeon General is obese. Think about that. Dr. Regina Benjamin, the person appointed by the White House to counsel the nation on health matters, is clinically obese. And of course the president is a smoker...

I think most folks believe it's just the elites telling us how they want plan our lives as they take more of our money and saddle your kids with the debt.

Adam - no problem whatsoever. I like a pie myself.

This article, coming directly under the far less commented-upon

Severity of Europe E. coli outbreak stuns experts

has me chuckling at all the solicitous European and Birtish posters here trying to tell us Americans about food and health.

Lieberman2012.

Be glad we don't mention the e-coli, etc recalls in the states and there been many and some truly major ones. Maybe you missed those on the international news.

Back on topic.

Many posters seem to think healthy cooking needs to be expensive.

Not so healthy eating is about balance, portion size, etc and not about about buying over-hyped and over-priced so called "organic" and "Macro-biotic foods".

There are many places that will sort good and nice looking veggies and fruits for supers and the less desirable stuff gets labelled as organic "health food". Same token "organic" food don't mean that it come from a healthier soil/environment.

If you want to eat healthier as a simple example replace a beef-burger with a Chicken, Tofu, , Sardine, etc burger(granted most of those don't come pre-packaged in many countries). But they are just as tasty if not more so.

I am fully with Cleo that you can eat cheap and healthy at the same time, just needs some cooking skills, understanding and careful shopping.

Healthy eating don't need to mean you need to forsake your favourite dishes but maybe some adjustments in volume, etc are needed

Of course a healthy cooked meal takes more time and effort than popping a TV-Dinner, etc into the Micro.

Hows the goose stepping practice going? Ya damn food nazis.

Why is it that people seem to think they have the right to regulate what people can eat? Seriously? Why do they think they can regulate what people can wear, or think. This attitude is vile. If I want to eat healthy or unhealthy foods, its no one elses business. If parents want to feed their children unhealthy food, thats their business. Their kids will learn what is and isn't healthy in school. But forcing them to eat healthy because its 'better' for them is simply wrong. I mean hell, lets say eating Fish is 'better'. Lets ban that. Particularly in Japan! The Food Nazis here on the boards will love that, I mean as long as its Dems doing it, you'll go along right?

Their kids will learn what is and isn't healthy in school.

When the school canteens are serving junk food rubbish? How do you reckon that one works, then?

But forcing them to eat healthy because its 'better' for them is simply wrong.

Maybe forcing them to learn their times tables and basic grammar is also wrong? Schools do that, too.

Agree with Cleo to a certain degree.

My son often asks me about food ingredients, etc as he learns about them in school. Due to his experiences he is also interested in sicknesses and how to avoid them and good plays a big role there.

When he lived with his mother he didn't like many foods and refused to eat them and she happily obliged. BTW, he put on weight and hit the normal mark since he came to live here.

Now he loves Mixed veggies, Onion, Mushrooms, Green peas, Liver and many more foods and gets upset when I don't provide them. He still bulks on Melon and Cucumber but that will be sorted too.

I always say it is the preparation of certain foods that people hate not the food itself. Another thing that helped a lot with his understanding is that I ask him to assist or even cook meals we eat that he knows how to prepare.

Said that like Cleo not from a culture where we had canteens, etc at schools, yeah the small tuck-shop but that's it.

But good and healthy eating needs to start at home and not at the school cafeteria.

good plays = good/healthy food plays

I was surprised when I watched Jamie's School Dinners, at how much things had changed since I was at school in the UK. At junior school the lunches were delivered from a central kitchen and at secondary school they had kitchens in the school, and in either case we always had a proper meat-and-two veg hot main course, with a dessert. No bread, no chips, no soft drinks. Also no choice, which in hindsight was not a bad thing. (In the 6th form we were allowed out at lunch time, and most of us headed to the local bread shop to buy pasties, pies and bread for lunch, washed down with coke. Supposedly the academic creme de la creme every one of us, but thick as bricks....) Granted that system (the no-choice menus, not teenagers on the loose, that one has never worked) wouldn't work today, now that there is more diversity in the population and people have different needs. Jamie's menus were great, with choice and a veggie option. Yet still dumb mothers were passing chips and burgers to their kids through the school railings.

I agree with Zenny, that getting kids involved in the cooking is a great idea. The only day we 6th-formers didn't head off to the pasty shop was on Thursdays when the boys had Home Economics aka Cooking in the morning and we got to sample their efforts at lunchtime.

But it seems to defeat the whole object if you teach kids in class 'This is what you should be eating' and then in the canteen or dining-room give them a choice of junk or more junk.

When the school canteens are serving junk food rubbish? How do you reckon that one works, then?

Give them choices. Allow them to make those choices. If they choose to eat junk food, that their choice, if they choose not to, then thats their choice as well. This kind of crap really rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe forcing them to learn their times tables and basic grammar is also wrong? Schools do that, too.

Huge difference here. You can teach them how things work, and teach them what is and isn't healthy. This I have no problem with. Forcing them to use this, forcing them to do things, that I have a huge issue with. Nanny state food nazis. There is very little worse in my opinion.

Give them choices.

Good choices, yes; a choice between rubbish and more rubbish - what's the point?

forcing them to do things, that I have a huge issue with

How about forcing them to come to school in the morning, forcing them to sit in classes and pay attention, forcing them to - heaven forbid - do their homework? You can take this freedumb thing too far, you know.

cleo"How about forcing them to come to school in the morning, forcing them to sit in classes and pay attention, forcing them to - heaven forbid - do their homework? You can take this freedumb thing too far, you know."

Why the rabid hatred for my country? You live in Japan. America has zero influence in your life.

Lieberman2012.

Where did Cleo say anything about the USA? I guess she is talking about japan as much as her own country, etc.

You seem to be a bit testy at times.

Why the rabid hatred for my country?

Wow, yeah. Where did that come from?

You live in Japan. America has zero influence in your life.

lol....I take it you don't live in Japan, never set foot here?

Molenir: "Give them choices. Allow them to make those choices. If they choose to eat junk food, that their choice, if they choose not to, then thats their choice as well."

But that's not really what you're saying. You're saying people who want food to be healthier in general are 'nazis', and the Republicans here are saying things should be left as they are (not offered healthier options, even) because it would be too expensive.

Options are good, but Cleo is right -- they're not good when they're not but garbage.

Anyway, the Republicans trying to save a few bucks now are going to cost the health and wealth of the nation later... as usual.

How about forcing them to come to school in the morning, forcing them to sit in classes and pay attention, forcing them to - heaven forbid - do their homework? You can take this freedumb thing too far, you know.

Totally different thing here, and people can always refuse. Then they suffer the consequences, just as they do when they eat poorly.

But that's not really what you're saying. You're saying people who want food to be healthier in general are 'nazis', and the Republicans here are saying things should be left as they are (not offered healthier options, even) because it would be too expensive.

I'm saying that people who want to remove all choices from others, yes are nazis. They are the nanny state which attempts to regulate what restaurants may serve, what parents may do, and what others may think.

Options are good, but Cleo is right -- they're not good when they're not but garbage.

In your opinion. But what if I decide your opinion is garbage and take it away? Thats really what this is all about. Trying to force your beliefs, your opinions down the throats of others. Trying to limit their options to make their own choices. Authoritarian regimes everywhere applaud this.

Oh give me a friggin break. We don't need government regulations or the forcing of better eating habits. I have two boys - if the lunches were 'whole grain' they would not eat them, plain and simple. The problem isn't the nutrition (or any lack thereof) of school lunches but the fact that our techno-geek world has made everything so easy, and entertainment so reliant upon electronic stimulus that people are lazy and ergo fat. Anyone over the age of 40 can clearly see the differences in their own upbringing compared to kids today. It sounds like the 'old man' saying 'why, I remember in my day...' - but it's fundamentally true. We ate crap as kids - no health foods at all. I was addicted to Twinkies. But I was skinny as a rail as were most of my friends. We burned off calories running about like loons, playing, building forts, hiking and swimming in local streams and rivers, walking everywhere that we wanted to go. Instead today we have Playstation, X-box, iPads - kids don't go play with friends, they text them and chat on Facebook. Don't blame the Republicans; this is a society/technology created world of the fat and un-toned.

@tigermoth

if the lunches were 'whole grain' they would not eat them, plain and simple.

If they were hungry and there were nothing else on offer they would. And they'd enjoy it.

I stated that my children would not - you don't know them so please do not presume to tell me what my children would in fact do. They would not. They would come home and eat crap. Neither are obese incidentally

Crap waiting at home kind of negates the idea of "nothing else on offer", though.

He still bulks on Melon and Cucumber but that will be sorted too.

How does one bulk on cucumber?

We all know that Amerrican food is very unhealthy,　as are American eating habits. The country has a huge obesity problem (forgive the pun) and it needs the re-education of the people. I cant understand why the Republicans would oppose healthy eating.