What pisses me off is bullshit statements like: "Fresh from its triumph in forcing Catholics to pay for contraception, agents of the Division of Child Development and Early Education moved to seize an improperly packed lunch from a little girl at a North Carolina elementary school, and assess a modest fine against her mother" passed off as having something to do with reality by otherwise intelligent people.

On the other hand some people could benefit from a visitation by jack-booted dieticians, like the guy who went into cardiac arrest while eating a Triple Bypass Burger in a restaurant called the Heart Attack Grill.

Taint wrote:

Stupid? Yes. A plot by the government? No.

Taint, did you not read this quote from the story?

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

There is no need for the federal food police to storm the schools.  They simply require that child care providers don the jack boots.  I know you have no children, but those of us who do see zero role for the Dept of Health and Human Services in inspecting the lunches we pack for our kids.

Edit:  Agreed that this story comes from an angry conservative, but the facts remain.

Last edited by phreddy (2012-02-15 19:46:23)

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

Stupid? Yes. A plot by the government? No.

Taint, did you not read this quote from the story?

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

There is no need for the federal food police to storm the schools.  They simply require that child care providers don the jack boots.  I know you have no children, but those of us who do see zero role for the Dept of Health and Human Services in inspecting the lunches we pack for our kids.

Edit:  Agreed that this story comes from an angry conservative, but the facts remain.

Yes, I read that and, yes, your source - like the overzealous lunch lady - is misinterpreting what's required. If it's found that a child is not receiving adequate nutrition, then it's up to the school (or daycare facility, etc.) to make sure the kid is getting the nutrition they need. Just as a teacher or doctor is required to report suspected child abuse - or neglect (and this falls very vaguely neglect with lots of shades of gray) - then they're required to help the child in question. As your post points out, there are clearly cases of abuse, or just well-intended stupidity, by those same agencies. This falls into that latter category.

And you're right. I haven't any children. I did, however, spend several years working in child services (two runaway shelters, and group home for adolescent sex offenders) and I'm pretty familiar with both  outright neglect and abuse, and institutional retardedness.

Again, there are no federal food police (jack booted or otherwise). It's a stupid term devised by paranoid reactionaries. The Right-wing writers responsible for this are seeing monsters where there aren't any rather than dealing with the real problems at hand. In this case, a poorly informed lunch lady who lacks critical thinking skills.

I'm disappointed that the article doesn't use the phrase "Food Nazis".

I say Fuck 'Em. If the parents want to starve their kid or send them to lunch with a block of cheese and some mayo to help it go down, that's their business. You gonna start checking their undies for skid marks next?

The right way to do it

Taint wrote:

I have a feeling my kids palates might be in for a bit of culture shock when we get back to America. Maybe I should start to slowly reintroduce chicken fingers and tater tots now.

We actually had tater-tots the other day, I had forgotten how truly awful they really are.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Taint wrote:

We actually had tater-tots the other day, I had forgotten how truly awful they really are.

Don't you blaspheme! Tots are truly manna from heaven.

Count me among the blasphemers!

George Orr wrote:

If they are allowed to go cold/are undercooked/were fried in oil that wasn't hot enough, they are greasy mushy garbage not fit for a dog.

You have perfectly defined a potato.

George Orr wrote:

They have to be hot and fresh.  And salty.  Then they are manna with ketchup.

If they are allowed to go cold/are undercooked/were fried in oil that wasn't hot enough, they are greasy mushy garbage not fit for a dog.

A dog turd if fried, heavily salted and covered in ketchup would taste about the same.