I guess no more Monster and creatine for my kids lunches…
WTF? Is this “1984”? Don’t tell me how to feed my child. If I want to give my kid a can of Pepsi and a Twinkie for lunch, I will, dammit. WTF?
Must have been one of those job stimulus deals Obama did. Created Jobs (sarcasm implied)
I guess no more Monster and creatine for my kids lunches…[/quote]
Well they can force abortion on you now, why not food?
All bow to El Douche Obama.
Also heard this girl was not the only one to have their lunch taken away. Even worse, they charged the parent for the school lunch. Thats like charging someone for the bullets in a firing squad.
[quote]limburg wrote:
Also heard this girl was not the only one to have their lunch taken away. Even worse, they charged the parent for the school lunch. Thats like charging someone for the bullets in a firing squad.[/quote]
Should have sent the bill to the school for the lunch they wasted from home that mom packed with a big F-U note attached.
This is true bullshit, and if this happened to my kid I would be marching on the district and then take them out of the system.
[quote]limburg wrote:
Also heard this girl was not the only one to have their lunch taken away. [/quote]
Where does it say the lunch was taken away? It doesn’t state this anywhere in the article?
They have to make sure the kids get their soma…
Apparently 3 chicken nuggets is the better option. This is beyond ridiculous.
Not related to this case (and regardless of your views on the subject of milk) this gives you an idea of the FDA’s idea of freedom of choice:
http://farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm
[quote]FDA’s Views on Freedom of Choice
Here are some of FDA’s views expressed in its response on ‘freedom of food choice’ in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p. 4]
"It is within HHS's authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well." [p. 6]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a new 'fundamental right' under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law." [p.17]
"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food." [p. 25]
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish." [p. 26]
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health." [p. 27]
"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract." [p. 27][/quote]
Wait, what do they mean I don’t have a right to eat what I want?
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Apparently 3 chicken nuggets is the better option. This is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]
The mom said she was a picky eater so packed what she would eat. It would make sense that the chicken nuggets were the only part of the meal she liked, so that’s all she ate.
It was also my understanding that the lunches weren’t taken away, they were pronounced not good enough and the school would provide whatever was lacking. Obviously no one explained this to the girl, they just said it wasn’t good, so she didn’t eat it.
Regardless, they have no right to charge the parents. They have spent money to make a sack lunch if the the government deems it necessary to suppliment that due to THEIR rules then the parents have already paid for it out of their taxes. If there is not enough money, then Food Nazi Michelle Obama can pay for it out of her Target purchased pocket!
[quote]limburg wrote:
Regardless, they have no right to charge the parents. They have spent money to make a sack lunch if the the government deems it necessary to suppliment that due to THEIR rules then the parents have already paid for it out of their taxes. If there is not enough money, then Food Nazi Michelle Obama can pay for it out of her Target purchased pocket![/quote]
Oh, I agree with not charging the parents! What does the USDA guidelines have to do with what I feed my child? Why do I, a personal citizen, have to follow the laws for institutions providing food?
Its all part of the nanny state!
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Wait, what do they mean I don’t have a right to eat what I want? [/quote]
Hey, if it can be tied to health…
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
Apparently 3 chicken nuggets is the better option. This is beyond ridiculous.[/quote]
The mom said she was a picky eater so packed what she would eat. It would make sense that the chicken nuggets were the only part of the meal she liked, so that’s all she ate.
It was also my understanding that the lunches weren’t taken away, they were pronounced not good enough and the school would provide whatever was lacking. Obviously no one explained this to the girl, they just said it wasn’t good, so she didn’t eat it.[/quote]
Valid point. But I think many kids at that age would do something similar.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Wait, what do they mean I don’t have a right to eat what I want? [/quote]
Yup. In a public statement the FDA declared that:
“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.”
Edit: Just jump to page 25 if interested in skimming.