Obama admin issues 160-page edict on healthy school snacks

posted at 7:01 pm on February 2, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Yes, because even more top-down control is exactly what we need to fix this problem. The Hill reports:

The Obama administration proposed regulations Friday that would prohibit U.S. schools from selling unhealthy snacks.

The 160-page regulation from the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would enact nutrition standards for “competitive” foods not included in the official school meal.

In practice, the proposed rules would replace traditional potato chips with baked versions and candy with granola. Regular soda is out, though high-schoolers may have access to diet versions.

“Although nutrition standards for foods sold at school alone may not be a determining factor in children’s overall diets, they are critical to providing children with healthy food options throughout the entire school day,” the proposed rule states.

Again, I really have no problems with the First Lady of the United States making childhood obesity her signature issue. It is a widespread and serious problem, and more advocacy and awareness is far from a bad thing. The real problem comes in when big government decides that it is going to Accomplish Something, and their proposed solution is always — surprise! — more big government. Top-down, one-size-fits-all, bureaucratic regulations are rarely efficient, innovative, or creative problem solvers, and they all too often induce a whole host of negative-impact unintended consequences in the meantime.

Just imposing regulations onto schools requiring them to put (more expensive) healthier foods into their vending machines does not mean that they can afford to do so, nor that the kids will necessarily eat them. Via the National School Lunch Program, the federal government has been pushing those disgusting, utilitarian meals on kids for decades, out of which they only eat the fries, nuggets, and pizza, and the taxpayer-assisted nature of the program meant that there was little incentive for outside competition.

School lunches are just not something the federal government needs to be spending our time and money doing. States and even just school districts are perfectly capable of finding entrepreneurial and — quelle horreur — private-sector solutions to the issue of school lunches. Case in point, via the WSJ:

Workers wearing hair nets are scattered at about 30 prep stations, mixing pasta with marinara sauce, hand-rolling sushi and creating homemade corn dogs. Tubs of fresh broccoli, baby carrots and green beans wait to be doled out into child-size portions. On this day, Kid Chow will deliver about 5,000 customized bagged lunches for about $4.25 to $6.50 each to elementary and middle schools in the Bay Area.

Kid Chow, which husband-and-wife team Rob and Jamie Feuerman, both 48 years old, launched in 2003, started by serving these lunches to one private school in San Francisco. Today, the company has 85 employees and serves 52 schools, takes in annual revenue of about $5 million and is profitable, Ms. Feuerman says. …

Outside providers that aim to serve up fresh local fare have become a “national phenomenon” in the past five years, says Ms. Feuerman. “The Bay Area is where you have the greatest concentration of these lunch providers.” …

“At Kid Chow we say it really is about the bean in the burrito,” says Ms. Feuerman, noting that kids are often labeled as picky eaters when they simply want choice.

True, some of the impetus from these new ventures is coming from the FLOTUS’s and USDA’s campaign, and like I said, there’s nothing wrong with advocacy that can raise awareness and get states and counties to start competing for students with the added metric of healthy school lunches — but government mandates are not an effective solution for problems that can easily be addressed on a much smaller scale.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Chicago is a warzone and they are woried about snacks. UNBELIEVABLE!

GhoulAid on February 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

If you outlaw Cheetos only outlaws will have them.

HotAirian on February 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Guess the Grandma’s cookies that used to be sold in our high school a la carte line probably aren’t there anymore.

Suppose Italian dunkers are out too.

gophergirl on February 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Sharpened in a pencil sharpener a carrot can be a dangerous weapon…

albill on February 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM

What??? No lobster wagu?

wolly4321 on February 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Perhaps, if they are concerned about obesity, they shouldn’t ban dodgeball and tag.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Will they arrest the law breakers?

idesign on February 2, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Erika: The FLOTUS of the US is a fat-a**’ed cow who needs to spend more timing focusing on her own issues-and get the HELL out of our lives.!
*did I mention that the wooo-key is a fat-a**?*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Just picked up Girl Scout Thin Mint cookies in front of my local supermarket. There will be a growing black market in schools as kids continue to bring in the food/snacks they want to eat instead of the “stuff” the govt is trying to force them to eat.

We used to have PSA and campaigns to educate not it’s only CG mandates and nanny state solutions to everything.

CoffeeLover on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Is dog on the list?

Electrongod on February 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

The real problem comes in when big government decides that it is going to Accomplish Something, and their proposed solution is always — surprise! — more big government.

When will the insanity stop? Seriously, it’s getting so bad in this country between the regulations and the taxes and the trampling of our privacy and infringement into our personal choices, I don’t know how many more years I can stand to live here. It’s ridiculous, and the only way to escape it, it seems, is to bail. There are plenty of other countries who don’t treat people like they own them like this one does. I love my country, but they’re taking away all the reasons that I love it.

scalleywag on February 2, 2013 at 7:15 PM

You can pry my coke classic from my cold, dead hands.

DangerHighVoltage on February 2, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Besides. The bakers union will take care of all these problems.

WryTrvllr on February 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

FLOTUS FATASS is at it again – obviously, she’s feeling emboldened by her fabulous hideous new hair wig style.

Pork-Chop on February 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

CoffeeLover on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I refuse to buy GS cookies-despite spending 5 years in scouting-until GSA ends its association w/ Murder Inc and stops letting confused little long-haired, skirt-wearing boys into their troops.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Maybe we wouldn’t have so many overweight kids if kids were allowed to be kids; run around at recess and lunch breaks (outside); play some real games instead of protecting every kid’s ego b/c he/she might fall down and scrape their foot. Maybe if kids played outside after school (and in rough neighborhoods, maybe PARENTS who were off work could be available should something happen).

Come on, start moving the kids. Will every kid be athletic? Heck, no, but moving the body helps more than weight. Then again if our president wouldn’t let a son of his play football (and I’m NOT in favor of football before high school but that’s another topic), maybe we just continue to raise a nation of weak, uncoordinated, overweight, self-centered, gadget-centered kids. If this continues, they won’t have anything when they reach middle age – all drive, desire, guts, risk-taking will have been removed. Welcome to 1984.

MN J on February 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Whether or not the federal government has the time or money to be dictating school lunches misses the bigger issue and that is, under what constitutional authority does the federal government claim the ability to dictate anything at all to public schools?

To me this is one of the biggest problems with the Dept. of Ed’s very existence. Its budget is ~$25 BILLION that would be better left in the states rather than sent to DC, cycled through the bureaucracy, and then sent back to the states with strings attached.

The federal government has essentially crowded out the ability for states to raise their taxes to take care of their own needs so that they have become dependent on federal money.

If we conservatives are ever going to break the grip of the Leftists we need to start by breaking the dependency that allows states to be bribed, bullied, and blackmailed into doing the bidding of the bureaucrats in DC.

No ones obesity should be the concern of the federal government. Not now, not ever!

Charlemagne on February 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Just picked up Girl Scout Thin Mint cookies in front of my local supermarket. There will be a growing black market in schools as kids continue to bring in the food/snacks they want to eat instead of the “stuff” the govt is trying to force them to eat.

CoffeeLover on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I’m sure some kids are already making a fortune by selling this stuff out of their backpacks at recess and between classes.

gophergirl on February 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I hear you but it was one the kids in the neighborhood who gave me those eyes.

CoffeeLover on February 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I agree100%. My brand of conservatism can be summed up quite simply as leave me the He!! alone!

Charlemagne on February 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I’m sure some kids are already making a fortune by selling this stuff out of their backpacks at recess and between classes.

gophergirl on February 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I know that’s what I’d have done!!!!

CoffeeLover on February 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on February 2, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Chewbacca hardest hit by this insult:)

MarshFox on February 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Thus begins the training for black markets… you have to train them young, after all, if you expect to have any economy once they REALLY get started on banning stuff.

ajacksonian on February 2, 2013 at 7:26 PM

…is that a picture of Mooch when she was younger?

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

The Edict of Nantes Snacks

ExpressoBold on February 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

and you just made my night!

GhoulAid on February 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Who wants to bet all the fatass bureaucrats and union thugs you see waddling around Washington like Richard Trumka aren’t subject to FLOTUS’ insane food restrictions?

BKennedy on February 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Food control. Or as I prefer to call it, trickle down healthonomics.

tommy71 on February 2, 2013 at 7:35 PM

In practice, the proposed rules would replace traditional potato chips with baked versions and candy with granola.

Of course. It’s always granola.

Granola must die.

Axe on February 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM

t government mandates are not an effective solution for problems that can easily be addressed on a much smaller scale.

Exactly! These are the same idiots who post “zero tolerance” rules then come off looking like the idiots they are when those rules are enforced.

GarandFan on February 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM

accolades, twerp

nothing much does get done on these pages
save for the outrage

however, we do what we do, today isn’t over
and tomorrow is another day

Really, if we keep our heads about us, we’ll (JS) get through this thing.
Potter’s not selling, he’s buying — Clarence

For the rest of you, wake up your neighbors (blithely, of course).
Facts are impertinent things. –Bishop

Casting a lure or whatever.

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 7:46 PM

The Regime penalties are even more severe for spilling unauthorized foods on one’s burqa.

viking01 on February 2, 2013 at 7:48 PM

bahaha i love the picture of the kid.

well anyway what is the point of all this? the kids can just go home and eat junk food all afternoon. XD but who cares about logic, the government DID SOMETHING and we should APPRECIATE THEM!!

Sachiko on February 2, 2013 at 7:52 PM

160 pages, eh? I’ll bet these guys are used to getting paid by the word.

Seriously, parents ought to ask some questions of their local school lunch program director about the costs, how much comes from the government, etc.

It just seems to me that with what we are already spending on schools, we might well be able to just cut the cord with the Feds on the entire school lunch program, and have the local director engage with local farmers, markets, etc to provide what they need and then serve meals that the kids will actually eat.

There isn’t anything wrong with giving kids a PB&J, a carton of milk and a piece of fruit for lunch, or pasta, or pizza, or any number of meals that might be made in house from local providers.

TKindred on February 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

If you outlaw Snickers, only outlaws will eat snickers.

Penalty for eating a Snickers? Sensitivity training? Suspension? Being forced to watch video of Michelle Obama modelling her different dresses over and over again?

Paul-Cincy on February 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

GhoulAid on February 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM

…same face…her hair’s just short!

KOOLAID2 on February 2, 2013 at 8:00 PM

In practice, the proposed rules would replace traditional potato chips with baked versions and candy with granola.

Something tells me that they are going to rue the day that they started teaching “community organising” and “direct action” in schools.

Strike!

Resist We Much on February 2, 2013 at 8:00 PM

FLOTUS FATASS is at it again – obviously, she’s feeling emboldened by her fabulous hideous new hair wig style.

Pork-Chop on February 2, 2013 at 7:17 PM

That’s really rude. But I still like it.

Paul-Cincy on February 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM

For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles.

There’s just one problem: Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

Link.

joekenha on February 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Send these idiotic nanny fools to Hell, starting with the Obamas and Bloomberg.

You are in charge of your kids, still. Make sure they eat healthy. In the US it ain’t difficult.

Media, you god-damned fools, get out of Obama’s azz, quit eating his sh*t, and grow a pair. Otherwise suffocate from what you consume. It ain’t Beluga caviar, morons.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Imagine if the founding fathers knew what is going on today.

If it were not so dire it w/b down right risible.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM

When will they rule what kind of toilet paper you will use?

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM

I have a better idea.

Instead of imposing these 160-page rules on school snacks, impose them as limitations on what can be purchased with food stamps.

They’ll be gone in fifteen minutes.

northdallasthirty on February 2, 2013 at 8:21 PM

In the meanwhile they stuff their ugly faces with lobsters.

Go to Hades, all of you, idiotic monsters.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Michelle, you eat that crap, on video, every day, you god-damned dummy.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM

which national conversation is this? I’m getting them all mixed up – only thing I know for sure is Jobs ain’t one of ‘em

Slade73 on February 2, 2013 at 8:23 PM

50.8% voted for free stuff and to give dictatorial power to the executive branch to regulate every action from procreation thru life into death.

Imbeciles.

tom daschle concerned on February 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I can’t help but feel this is all a direct result of us going with Hamilton instead of Jefferson. We are not meant to be stacked on top of each other, period. It gives us this. When you are out on your own with only yourself to regulate you, you tend to make better choices, when stacked on top of each other, you take for granted those type of decisions and they therefore become the ward of the necessary evil, government!

MarshFox on February 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Pack lunches for your kids, idiots. Then you’ll know what they eat.

NO one owes your kids a free lunch.

To Hades with all the whiners. It has become a land of superidiots. Every sheeple has a grievance.

In the meanwhile the entire once great land goes to Hades, on purpose.

The Obamas aim to destroy you.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Hi MF – they are all sheeple, being directed by Looters.

Only plankton choose to obey like that.

Wake up Morons!!!

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM

The amount of money that schools get from the federal government is based on how many students are on free or reduced lunch, so I am sure they feel it is their right to meddle. The funny thing is that the money the federal government is so kind to grant came from the states in the first place. The Dept. of Education needs to go away.

Cindy Munford on February 2, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Questions:

1. What is “Healthy”? Who says so, and how does he know?

2. What business does the government have here?

2a. Multiple failures within the Department of Education give it no credibility to argue that it knows what it is doing…or that it’s concept of “healthy” has anything to do with its charter.

2b. Note that it has NOT been proven that “Health” results in minimum health care cost to the government, and the government has not proven that “minimum cost to the government” trumps an individual’s right to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”…so don’t even bother with those silly arguments.

landlines on February 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Edict

Sorry, I bakinpowda?

Anyone young enough to remember the former pb&j&bacon (jam, btw)

To force the issue, I’d like to see the gorging live, with chants (go, go go)
gorge on lobster

And the aftermath, the ‘splosion’

Or is this, ‘every dog has his day?’
pfft.

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Chicago is a warzone and they are woried about snacks. UNBELIEVABLE!

GhoulAid on February 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

So true. And all that liberal nonsense about “empowering” kids or anybody else is belied by the regulations to oversee every aspect of our children’s and our lives.

Drained Brain on February 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Every state should get out of the school lunch program. Put schools back to local control.
When does the President get the power to just mandate what children are allowed to eat in school. It is beyond ridiculous.

JellyToast on February 2, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Obama admin issues 160-page edict on healthy school snacks

This is a mighty fine example of government waste.

All that was needed was a single page that said: EAT MOR CHIKIN

rukiddingme on February 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

death on the streets, everyday, and we get…

nutrition laws

get that super white and creased collar and a silk tie…

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 9:23 PM

The governor of each State should issue an Executive Order instructing each school district to ignore these rules and adopt their own as they do in the normal course of affairs.

pat on February 2, 2013 at 9:30 PM

teh 10th

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 9:36 PM

someone did say they thought of me nuts, but funny, or some such.
this degradation is happening
INC, back where I started for reasons.
No worries

And the rest of you, keep banging on their phones

My best bet is Ted Cruz, oh ‘hell yes!’

What fight is that?
Shirley, you jest.

Lure, signed Bishop, Heh!

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 9:45 PM

I’ve said too much about not enough — mickytx
‘ginite

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Every state should get out of the school lunch program. Put schools back to local control.
When does the President get the power to just mandate what children are allowed to eat in school. It is beyond ridiculous.

JellyToast on February 2, 2013 at 9:20 PM

The “Obamateurism of the Day” could be replaced with the “Petty Obama Directive of the Day”. What snacks schoolkids can eat. Banning the only effective pesticide to treat bedbugs. Obama laughing at the idea anyone would drive a 10MPG big vehicle (and what do you suppose is the MPG on HIS fleet of bulletproof SUVs?). EPA regs. ObamaCare nitpicking. Paying for birth control. Disinviting a pastor from giving an inaugural prayer. Petty stuff.

Who’s up for a Snickers.

Paul-Cincy on February 2, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Fascists.

jawkneemusic on February 2, 2013 at 10:19 PM

mickytx on February 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM

:) Good night.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM

.
.
.

Suppose Italian dunkers are out too.

not mine, ;o)

Look, this ‘portion control’ is OK by me because who is going to make these loosers buck under some authority unless its forced? As a adult the gubbamint can kiss my Twinkie. I got the right then to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for what I do TO my health. If you are a big eater or smoker say, why should I pay more in a health premium because of your lust and gluttony?

The Libs have ‘some ‘ of this stuff right. The hollering on the Right in Congress is who gets the money for the business. Right? I mean, how many 48ers do you know that have a cup cake biz like they have with the gubbamint for a net of $5million?

auspatriotman on February 2, 2013 at 10:48 PM

Of course Democrats don’t want government controlling your life.

Just what your kids can eat in between meals, and really important stuff like that that have a direct affect national security.

So stop being so paranoid.

Socratease on February 2, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Paul in Cinsy–
Yeah pResident????????

He’s a freeking control freak Dick-tator. http://bit.ly/12jvT9x

auspatriotman on February 2, 2013 at 11:05 PM

I don’t appreciate Obama’s tyranny, but good gravy do the kids sound to anyone else like a bunch of whiny brats who’ve never been made to eat healthy by anybody – including their parents???

In the poor Christian school I went to, you were not ALLOWED to throw away unopened milk cartons or untouched food because it was not come by easily! One soda machine in the entire building. Oh how we suffered…

MelonCollie on February 2, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Pack lunches for your kids, idiots. Then you’ll know what they eat.

NO one owes your kids a free lunch.

Schadenfreude on February 2, 2013 at 8:26 PM

This. Actually, I was only allowed to pack lunches a couple times a week for whatever reasons. The rest of the time I ate what everyone else ate and woe unto me if mom got a phone call that I wasn’t eating.

MelonCollie on February 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Again, I really have no problems with the First Lady of the United States making childhood obesity her signature issue. It is a widespread and serious problem, and more advocacy and awareness is far from a bad thing.

I have a problem with it when their advocacy is harmful. I think diet drinks are inherently unhealthy. In fact, many foods being pushed as healthy alternatives are not actually healthier at all. The widespread obesity we have now has a lot to do with unhealthy eating patterns being pushed by a know-it-all government.

If you’re healthy and eating well in general, but enjoy an occasional Dr. Pepper or Coke or Sprite, or a candy bar, or barbecue chips, why exactly should you be deprived of that choice because of unhealthy people around you?

The advocacy is certainly not as severe a problem as actual mandates, but it still creates an environment of pressure to conform to someone else’s misguided notions. And where the government itself may stop short of demanding conformance, there’s always an overzealous administrator to pick up the slack.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 3, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Can you imagine the Obama Presidential Library? Filled with reams of crap like this. His reign: “Where America Went to Die.”

PattyJ on February 3, 2013 at 12:27 AM

There’s just one problem: Many of the meals are being rejected en masse. Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands of students. Principals report massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. Students are ditching lunch, and some say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. At many campuses, an underground market for chips, candy, fast-food burgers and other taboo fare is thriving.

joekenha on February 2, 2013 at 8:03 PM

There is one good thing about this insanity, though – the kids are learning (at a very young age) about the insanities of nanny-state liberalism. This might help to negate the propaganda they receive in the classroom.

I know that the “objective” of this silliness is to reduce childhood obesity. Problem is, “one-size-fits-all” regulations do not work for everybody. I was on my high school cross country team. We ran 20-25 miles per week (sometimes as much as 30 miles). If I had to subsist on this “healthy” fare, I would have ended up with a severe case of malnutrition. The regulation writers have not figured out that the caloric requirements for a 6’04″ cross country runner, and a sedentary 5’02″ child are NOT the same.

SubmarineDoc on February 3, 2013 at 12:29 AM

You could always insist that the food was special to blacks, gays, or Muslims. Then it would be a civil right.

pat on February 3, 2013 at 1:50 AM

Granola is healthy? Well, not according to the label.

ProfShadow on February 3, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Chicago is a warzone and they are woried about snacks. UNBELIEVABLE!

GhoulAid on February 2, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Speaking of “Chicago is a warzone”, get a load of the latest stupidity courtesy of Rahm-a-dam-a-ding-dong!

pilamaye on February 3, 2013 at 8:28 AM

The utter STUPIDITY of this administration never ceases to amaze me. Michelle Antoinette’s “signature issue” is Childhood Obesity, right? But here she is, married to the Food Stamp President, whose latest tally is something like 47 million Americans on food stamps. And instead of creating of more stringent regulations regarding what can be bought with these public welfare dollars, while people are using EBT cards at fast food joints and strip clubs… they’re hassling schools about bake sales and vending machines. Unbelievable.

This is about top-down control, folks. This is no different than how Obamacare does nothing whatsoever to solve the actual problems, but rather simply increases the power of bureaucrats. If these people actually cared about Obesity as an issue, they’d stop subsidizing FOOD at every stage of production. At the minimum, they’d only pay out for healthy foods.

Murf76 on February 3, 2013 at 9:56 AM

So government bans lead to black markets? Ya don’t say!

Next, they will start arresting and prosecuting the black market profiteers.

PattyJ on February 3, 2013 at 11:09 AM

FLOTUS doesn’t know anything about healthy diets and nutrition. I saw her once tell a kid that Honey Nut Cheerios are a healthy breakfast food. They are not. Eating that way will make you fat.

dragonhawk on February 3, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I insist that all school children should be able to enjoy the healthy, low-calorie food that was served at the inauguration luncheon. That’s where the baseline should be set… Good enough for the Mooochelle – good enough for our kids.

On the other hand… do we really need to have snack food vending machines in schools?

Hill60 on February 3, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Diet Drinks – Mainly sweetened with aspertame
- this sweetener can inhibit weight loss and thereby prolong the issue of obesity.

Good plan Mooch

Freed0m28 on February 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I still say it’s none of Moochell’s business what my kids eat. She’s not exactly thin herself.

And I thank the good Lord that we have been able to put our children in Catholic and home school, where the government has no say in what is served to eat.

sherrimae on February 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM