Seems like the rationale comes from the School Nutrition Association.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new position paper from the School Nutrition Association – which represents about 57,000 school food service directors – is calling for changes to “overly prescriptive regulations” imposed on schools by former first lady Michelle Obama.
The SNA contends “overly prescriptive regulations have resulted in unintended consequences, including reduced student lunch participation, higher costs and food waste,” according to its recently released 2017 Position Paper.
More than 1.4 million students dropped out of the National School Lunch Program because of the changes, which have also created a roughly $1 billion in food waste from students who trash most of their government lunches.
While it’s clear the SNA opposes some of the Michelle Obama-inspired regulations, it clearly does not support a full repeal of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.
When Laura Bush was the First Lady, her initiative was literacy. I defy you to find a single liberal quoted as saying "how dare that elitist Laura Bush try to get my kid to read more." Because that would be absurd.
Before Michelle Obama took on exercise and healthy eating as her initiative, what conservative parent was saying "I think my kid needs to exercise less and eat more unhealthy food"?? Yet, that is exactly what happened. Now, no parent would try instill that motto in their kids under normal circumstances. Michelle Obama was doing nothing more than promoting the age-old idea of "be active and eat your vegetables". Which has been a universal staple of parenting for all of modern history. And one needs to ask themselves exactly WHAT it was about Michelle Obama that made something not the least bit controversial into some sort of scandal.
As far as I can recall Laura Bush didn't tell kids what books they can read...
When Laura Bush was the First Lady, her initiative was literacy. I defy you to find a single liberal quoted as saying "how dare that elitist Laura Bush try to get my kid to read more." Because that would be absurd.
Before Michelle Obama took on exercise and healthy eating as her initiative, what conservative parent was saying "I think my kid needs to exercise less and eat more unhealthy food"?? Yet, that is exactly what happened. Now, no parent would try instill that motto in their kids under normal circumstances. Michelle Obama was doing nothing more than promoting the age-old idea of "be active and eat your vegetables". Which has been a universal staple of parenting for all of modern history. And one needs to ask themselves exactly WHAT it was about Michelle Obama that made something not the least bit controversial into some sort of scandal.
As far as I can recall Laura Bush didn't tell kids what books they can read...
Neither did Michelle Obama....where is the idea that she had that power even coming from??
The bill was introduced in the US Senate by Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was later approved by the Senate by unanimous voice vote on August 5, 2010. In the U.S. House of Representatives The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passed with 247 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting for, and 4 Democrats and 153 Republicans voting against it. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on December 13, 2010. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act took effect in 2014.
All of a sudden the First Lady SUPPORTING legislation means she is responsible for it?? No, Conservative media has been TELLING you Michelle Obama was responsible for it for over half a decade, and people just assumed that was the case. She not only had nothing to do with it in any technical sense, it is IMPOSSIBLE for that to have been the case. This was actual legislation passed through both Houses of Congress and signed by a President, not some proclamation handed down by a Queen.
Hard to find this news since its not covered by the mainstream news.
DNC lawsuit over mistreatment of Bernie Sanders has surprising defense On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law. http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/
That defense does sound like it might hold on legality, But politically its pretty damaging to use.
When I was in high school, one of the schools in a neighboring town literally had a deal with Domino's Pizza to cater to students at lunch. In the main hallway of our school, we not only had a pop machine, but it was a SURGE pop machine, perhaps the most caffeine-filled soft drink ever put on the market. Whatever you think of the push for healthier foods in cafeterias, it can also be agreed that deals like the ones I am describing are nothing but blatant brainwashing of children by corporations.
School lunches, a joke and not the healthiest. Leaving politics aside and as someone with a degree in public health education, they have too many processed foods, nuggets, hot dogs, juice(no comparison to whole fruit). Type 2 diabetes on the rise from more than just food, exercise programs get put on the back burner for 'testing' requirements, computers sometimes keepin kids IN more, Type 1 diabetes (too much A1 milk(my opinion with more support in NZ), etc.
I hear first hand some of the junk served and I am not talking talking about 'junk food' as normally defined. The big companies push to sell their products, and get contracts. More corn, more sugar, and more A1 milk products. I know much of the why it is almost criminal in the way some of this stuff gets pushed The whole thing is a mess for the most part and needs an overall. I know many kids cannot afford anything else, so at least they get the calories they need but a much better job could be done.
Many kids have at least one meal from school, some two with breakfast, so alot is up to parents as well, and even many of them do not or cannot provide(due to money or lack of nutritional ed.) a good diet.
I do know many schools have tried and successfully partnered with local farmers to provide fresher options, a good thing, but the big businesses still push their greedy heads in. Frustrates and saddens me at the same time.
When I was in high school, one of the schools in a neighboring town literally had a deal with Domino's Pizza to cater to students at lunch. In the main hallway of our school, we not only had a pop machine, but it was a SURGE pop machine, perhaps the most caffeine-filled soft drink ever put on the market. Whatever you think of the push for healthier foods in cafeterias, it can also be agreed that deals like the ones I am describing are nothing but blatant brainwashing of children by corporations.
Man, how dare you complain about being supplied Surge. Surge was one of the highlights of my summer spent in Oklahoma, oh so long ago. It was too good for this sinful world.
On a more serious note (and responding more in general than to you specifically, jjstraka34), one thing I will point out is a lot of those nutritional guidelines were not supported by science in any case. To name a few:
- There is no clear scientific evidence that too much salt is bad for you. There are studies that say it is, and there are studies that say more salt is generally better for people, and everything in-between. There is no scientific consensus on the subject.
- There is no clear cause of increased childhood obesity, and while diet would seem to be the obvious culprit, this does not line up altogether with the evidence. Obesity is increasing all around the world, at varying rate and varying places, and it is not correlated entirely with "western" or increased fat/sugar diets (there is some correlation, which may or may not indicate causation). It may be there is another cause entirely (gut flora changes seem to be a plausible culprit), or a combination of causes.
- Reducing calorific/kilojoule intake is not a good way to try to lose weight. It's bad for you in general, and also weight lost through dieting tends to return quickly. Suddenly changing kid lunches from pizza to whatever much-lower-calorie meals could actually be an unhealthy move.
- Most reasons people think fat is bad (especially saturated animal fats) have been debunked, based as they were on studies funded by the sugar industry. There is no correlation between most fat intake and weight gain, cholesterol, or heart problems (and on a side note, fat people are more likely to survive heart attacks than skinny people). On the flip side, excessive sugar is definitely bad for you (and was implicated in the raw data of those same studies for many of the things people spent decades blaming on fat).
That isn't to say the best solution is getting every school catered by the local Pizza Hut, but a lot of government regulations are based on "everyone knows" rather than solid scientific evidence. See also: flossing.
- There is no clear scientific evidence that too much salt is bad for you. There are studies that say it is, and there are studies that say more salt is generally better for people, and everything in-between. There is no scientific consensus on the subject.
Careful when using this as an argument. The tobacco company used it for decades to protect their products from being regulated, and it is a tactic other harmful substance companies mimic due to it effectiveness.
When it comes to consumption products there never will be "clear scientific evidence" due to the inability to do "blind study tests"
On salt: I agree with my dad (M.D.) in that salt isn't a problem for a HEALTHY person. Even for a healthy person though, it's still a load on the kidney that the kidney has to filter. For a non-healthy person though, sure, it'll do most of the things attributed to it. It's not evil, but reducing it if possible is desirable.
On obesity and calorie intake: I attribute it to a sustained lack of exercise (I am guilty of that too, but I don't eat that much, so I am thin, almost underweight) coupled with eating too many calories. I mean, in my childhood, I played, much running around and climbing and bicycling. Then I got a Sega Genesis, and computer games, and then novels, and I didn't play or exercise all that much at all. I highly doubt children run around as free as I did, between EASY access to electronics and a more suspicious world.
Fat: It's not an evil monster, but be wary of it. It's still chockful of calories.
Sugar: It is an evil monster. It's so rough because unlike salts above, your kidneys filter it and KEEP it and have to keep filtering it and keeping it, whereas salts are in and out. 'Libera tutemet ex dulcis!'
- Reducing calorific/kilojoule intake is not a good way to try to lose weight. It's bad for you in general, and also weight lost through dieting tends to return quickly. Suddenly changing kid lunches from pizza to whatever much-lower-calorie meals could actually be an unhealthy move.
It's the ONLY way to lose weight.
Oh you don't just crash diet and starve yourself, but sustained reduced caloric intake relative to caloric expenditure (aka, working out) is the only way to lose weight.
Come on people, there's no way your average American can understand all of the intricacies of diet and weight loss. Therefore we should pass a law stating that people have to eat healthy. It's the only way!
Careful when using this as an argument. The tobacco company used it for decades to protect their products from being regulated, and it is a tactic other harmful substance companies mimic due to it effectiveness.
When it comes to consumption products there never will be "clear scientific evidence" due to the inability to do "blind study tests"
The link here is to an open letter sent to the government of Canada about Health Canada's food recommendations by a group of physicians and other doctors (and one naturopath, but I'll forgive that). It includes a (very long) list of their names and qualifications and cited studies that form the basis for their recommendations, which include:
Recognize the controversy on salt and cease the blanket "lower is better” recommendation (5 studies cited)
Clearly communicate to the public and health-care professionals that the low-fat diet is no longer supported, and can worsen heart-disease risk factors (9 studies cited)
Stop using any language suggesting that sustainable weight control can simply be managed by creating a caloric deficit (7 studies cited)
It also correctly points out that fruit juice is, health-wise, pretty much an uncarbonated soda, something very few people realise but is quickly proved just by comparing the percentage of sugar in (let's say) unsweetened orange juice to Coca-Cola (the latter has more, but not by much). Which is pretty remarkable when you consider how differently they are treated in the media in terms of healthfulness.
Of course I'm not thinking any given study can't be influenced by industry - after all, it was due to the sugar industry that fat was wrongly fingered for a lot of bad things it simply does not do. But the number of studies, plus the lack of a broad pushback against their data despite the fact they are challenging the status quo, makes it seem unlikely this can all be traced back to some company with a lot of money in salt .
(and that's not even touching on the widely reported study from last month that seemed to indicate that salt does not, contrary to intuitive belief, make you thirsty but rather makes you hungry)
These aren't the only studies I've seen, of course (I've had an on-again-off-again interest in nutritional science for a decade), but it's a good collection of both studies and expert opinion.
Come on people, there's no way your average American can understand all of the intricacies of diet and weight loss. Therefore we should pass a law stating that people have to eat healthy. It's the only way!
How about a law that adds a tax anytime a product adds more than 1 tbl spoon of sugar to a products serving? (And while you're at it, standardize serving sizes for everything).
How about subsidizing produce sales so a container of grape tomatoes don't cost more than a frozen pizza.
How about stricter labeling laws that prevent companies from labeling something as "healthy" (Lucky Charms, a healthy part to your morning breakfast!).
How about sugar labels that tell a consumer how much sugar is in a product and how much of that product's serving contains compared to the recommended daily intake.
How about just removing Sugar from the GRAS list.
Laws dont have to tell you what people have to do, but they should tell what companies have to do when it comes to public health.
On salt: I agree with my dad (M.D.) in that salt isn't a problem for a HEALTHY person. Even for a healthy person though, it's still a load on the kidney that the kidney has to filter. For a non-healthy person though, sure, it'll do most of the things attributed to it. It's not evil, but reducing it if possible is desirable.
I just posted something like a hundred MDs that disagree that the science shows this to be true. And the thing is, I don't really care whether one MD or a thousand say it, because they are not scientists and do not necessarily follow the scientific method. I side with them because they cite multiple scientific studies to show that "too much salt is bad and most people should reduce the amount in their diet" is not proven (and I've seen other scientific studies in the past).
I don't mean that to be insulting, BTW. For one, it's not like I've talked with your dad directly and he might have several studies to cite. But even if he didn't, he wouldn't be alone. It was very eye-opening, when hearing the fuss over the "there's no actual evidence flossing your teeth does anything beneficial", to hear how many dentists (and dentist's organisations like the ADA) don't really understand how scientific studies work. Anecdotal evidence ("My family and I..."), presenting studies that turned out to be scientifically invalid or absurdly small, not understanding correlation is not causation, etc, etc.
Of course, they're not working scientists (in most cases), and those problems are ones we all run into (even my own interest in this subject was from my own anecdotal and thus worthless experience that weight gain or loss didn't correlate well with what society said it should).
It's not always possible, but it's a lot easier to believe in something confidently when the preponderance of scientific evidence is behind it. And if that can't be found, well, take it with a pinch of salt.
On obesity and calorie intake: I attribute it to a sustained lack of exercise (I am guilty of that too, but I don't eat that much, so I am thin, almost underweight) coupled with eating too many calories. I mean, in my childhood, I played, much running around and climbing and bicycling. Then I got a Sega Genesis, and computer games, and then novels, and I didn't play or exercise all that much at all. I highly doubt children run around as free as I did, between EASY access to electronics and a more suspicious world.
That's the standard answer, but the standard answer doesn't actually quite fit the worldwide rise in obesity, or why children especially would get more obese. It also doesn't fit my own (worthless anecdotal) experience, where I am also underweight but eat a quite reasonable amount of calories and all but cannot exercise due to viral chronic fatigue.
Oh you don't just crash diet and starve yourself, but sustained reduced caloric intake relative to caloric expenditure (aka, working out) is the only way to lose weight.
This is wrong. It doesn't work.
I will say this again: it does not work.
For most people. Most of the time. And especially over time.
Exercising is good for people (within reason), but it will not necessarily (or even likely) make you lose weight. Reducing caloric intake is not healthy and will likely only make you lose weight if you are damaging your body.
It's appealing to worthless anecdotal evidence again, but I will wager every single person on this forum knows one or more people who, for valid reasons or otherwise, want to lose weight. Most of them will have tried various diets for various periods of time, including simple "portion control" types and other calorie/kilojoule reducers. And I will also wager that the number of them that a) successfully lost weight and b) successfully kept it off for, let us say, five years will be very, very low.
Maybe not zero! People's bodies are all individual and react individually to circumstance. And, of course, other circumstances that happen at the same time as changing diet can also affect weight gain and loss. We're not doing a scientific study here (which is why people should really go see what they say).
But, with that being said, for something you are so sure works up there, and so many millions of people are sure of, and the obscenely, terrifyingly huge and prosperous diet industry relies on... it works for very, very, very few people. Even if they don't cheat and keep it up for awhile. Even if they exercise. The only diets that actually "work" in that sense are starvation diets and fad diets that deliberately harm your body to cause a response. And even those ones don't last - the weight generally comes back, often more than you started with, if you go back to eating normally.
How about discussing something we can all (probably) agree with. Something the central government should promote and fund is working on the infrastructure. I'm speaking of the U.S. here (I sometimes forget this is an international forum). I heard an urban planner on a local radio station discussing this. He said that the $1 trillion that Trump has called for would barely scratch the surface of the problem we're facing with deteriorating infrastructure. He said it would take more like $5T to do an adequate job!
Here's something I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes for. It's tangible, puts people to work and would be an overall boon to the economy. This engineer said that that money would include work on bridges, schools, public libraries, sewer systems, the electrical grid, waterways, etc... That doesn't include roads unfortunately, since that's a whole other can of worms. I think this is something the entire country COULD get behind regardless of political leanings.
Now, something TOO argue about. I'd like that money to include modernizing our existing nuclear plants or maybe even funding some new ones. I know that's a hotter topic because of the nuclear waste battles but it's worth looking into at any rate.
Come on people, there's no way your average American can understand all of the intricacies of diet and weight loss. Therefore we should pass a law stating that people have to eat healthy. It's the only way!
---"How about a law that adds a tax anytime a product adds more than 1 tbl spoon of sugar to a products serving? (And while you're at it, standardize serving sizes for everything).
How about subsidizing produce sales so a container of grape tomatoes don't cost more than a frozen pizza.
How about stricter labeling laws that prevent companies from labeling something as "healthy" (Lucky Charms, a healthy part to your morning breakfast!).
How about sugar labels that tell a consumer how much sugar is in a product and how much of that product's serving contains compared to the recommended daily intake.
How about just removing Sugar from the GRAS list.
Laws dont have to tell you what people have to do, but they should tell what companies have to do when it comes to public health."---
Wait a minute, there's vitamins, minerals and OATS in Lucky Charms! How can that possibly be bad for you? Truthfully, I wouldn't mind some of what you're describing (other than the GRAS part, there are a lot of things much worse for you than sugar on THAT list). Take that tax money and spend it on infrastructure rather than idiotic ad campaigns that just pump money into the media giants and I'll be on board.
North Korea has conducted another missile test and people are making the usual comments. The U.S. has called for stronger sanctions (we've already imposed all the sanctions we can; only China can impose any more), Japan says the test is a threat to their security, South Korea says the tests are in violation of UN resolutions, and China says the tests must stop.
Nevertheless, the North will not stop. Hawkish and dovish administrations come and go in the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, yet none of them have yet been able to restrict North Korea's military advancement (nor has China, which has essentially never changed its policy). From sanctions to talks to more sanctions and more talks, all diplomatic strategies that have been attempted have failed to contain the growing North Korean threat.
We have avoided war so far, but North Korea is steadily becoming more capable of killing more people if war should break out. With every advancement in North Korea's military capacity, the death toll of a war increases. And it only takes one reckless warmonger, whether in the U.S., China, North Korea, South Korea, or Japan, to start a new war in the Pacific.
On all sides, people are trying to pursue a hopeless middle road between war and peace. We are afraid to wage war, but we are just as afraid to make peace. The result is that we get neither.
@Balrog99: North Korea has anticipated a surgical strike and have protected their nukes and their leaders accordingly. We can bomb them, but we can't prevent them from using weapons of mass destruction on Seoul.
@Balrog99: They already have more than 10 nuclear weapons, maybe more than 20. We just don't know how many exactly, and how advanced they are--that is, how far their nuclear reach is. It's extremely unlikely they can reach the U.S. at this point, but I'm sure they can reach South Korea.
Regardless, nukes are only part of the equation. They also have chemical and biological weapons, and we know that they have enough non-nuclear WMDs to wipe out millions of people by attacking Seoul--South Korea's densely populated capital city, which happens to be very close to the border with North Korea.
Artillery isn't WMD. Unless they already have a nuke it may be now or never if the world wants to be rid of that regime.
Incidentally, your comment excellently encapsulates why the DPRK wanted nuclear weapons in the first place - it provides a strong deterrent against their ending up like Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of "now", it has become "never".
(The fact they can vapourise Seoul in half an hour and nobody can really do anything to stop them is also a similar, non-nuclear deterrent.)
Artillery isn't WMD. Unless they already have a nuke it may be now or never if the world wants to be rid of that regime.
Incidentally, your comment excellently encapsulates why the DPRK wanted nuclear weapons in the first place - it provides a strong deterrent against their ending up like Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of "now", it has become "never".
(The fact they can vapourise Seoul in half an hour and nobody can really do anything to stop them is also a similar, non-nuclear deterrent.)
That's pretty sad for the North Korean people. I guess this means every two-bit dictator will be getting nukes before long. Pandora's Box is opening wide and the West doesn't have the will to close it...
As I posted before, in the opinion of some experts NK doesn't need nukes for defence- as the threat to Seoul has always been a sufficient deterrent- they are rather a means to accomplish the regime's long term goal of unification on NK terms. Internal NK propaganda consistently downplays the US threat, after all the most propitious time to act was about 20 years ago. A negotiated withdrawal by the US from SK territory is a necessary component of their vision, and the nukes are primarily intended as leverage towards this end. The new SK government may be more conciliatory to the NK regime as well. In the absence of a united stance on NK from SK & China there's little that the US (or Japan) can do as NK can escalate or deescalate as is convenient.
Absolutely nothing to the Russian story. Nothing at all. It's not even a situation where someone is saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." This is like if the Wizard hadn't bothered having a curtain at all.
"It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft."
Nothing-burger, ISIS is an enemy of Russia as well. Sensationalized article.
Furthermore this was already widely talked about in the media long before this event, so evidently our media is more culpable then the President.
"It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft."
Nothing-burger, ISIS is an enemy of Russia as well. Sensationalized article.
Furthermore this was already widely talked about in the media long before this event, so evidently our media is more culpable then the President.
You just going to ignore the part where he jeopardized the safety of the intelligence assets of a close ally?? And the Post article goes OUT OF IT'S WAY to be more careful about protecting them than the President of the United States. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
If a story reveals something about Trump, you say it's sensationalized or fake news. If a poll is bad for Trump, you say the poll can't be trusted. If the damning words come from Trump's own mouth, he was taken out of context or wasn't serious. That is the response you give to EVERY scenario that arises with this guy.
A classic case of identifying something is fishy is when the immediate details aren't given instead your treated with pages of hyper-sensationalization to convince you something is wrong before the details are given.
The media hasn't had a good track record with its accuracy of late, the 'Comey asked for money' was debunked, the 'Rosenstein threatened to resign' was refuted by Rosenstein himself.
Also if you remember, It was actually the Yemen raid that produced this intelligence information which the media reported a long time ago.
A classic case of identifying something is fishy is when the immediate details aren't given instead your treated with pages of hyper-sensationalization to convince you something is wrong before the details are given.
The media hasn't had a good track record with its accuracy of late, the 'Comey asked for money' was debunked, the 'Rosenstein threatened to resign' was refuted by Rosenstein himself.
Also if you remember, It was actually the Yemen raid that produced this intelligence information which the media reported a long time ago.
Wrong. Because everything you say relies on believing an Administration that lies and changes their story on an hourly basis.
McMaster is now out denying the story by denying something that ISN'T EVEN IN THE ARTICLE. Also, notice what Tillerson DIDN'T deny. That Trump gave away the location.
So the President supposedly gave out secret information to the Russians that lower level employees would be fired for.
Or wait, don't you face charges for things like disclosing highly classified secret information to foreign governments? Especially to those governments we have a rocky relationship with? I thought someone here was saying you were supposed to face charges when you did that?
It's true that the president has authority to declassify stuff but the information on the islamic laptops isn't unclassified? So he was just blabbing about how important he is and how gets the best intel. Yep sounds like Trump. Everythings the best or the worst.
A well-oiled machine. Clearly the response of people who have their shit together and aren't huddling to concoct some nonsense narrative.
Next thing they're going to come out and say Obama caused this to happen by making fun of Trump at that White House Correspondence Dinner thereby making Trump run for President. So it's Obama's fault, he should have known Trump was wildly unqualified. You have to carefully vet who you make fun of that might revenge run for President.
Comments
WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new position paper from the School Nutrition Association – which represents about 57,000 school food service directors – is calling for changes to “overly prescriptive regulations” imposed on schools by former first lady Michelle Obama.
The SNA contends “overly prescriptive regulations have resulted in unintended consequences, including reduced student lunch participation, higher costs and food waste,” according to its recently released 2017 Position Paper.
More than 1.4 million students dropped out of the National School Lunch Program because of the changes, which have also created a roughly $1 billion in food waste from students who trash most of their government lunches.
While it’s clear the SNA opposes some of the Michelle Obama-inspired regulations, it clearly does not support a full repeal of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.
“While school meals should continue to meet robust federal nutrition standards, requirements must be streamlined to ease regulatory burdens and preserve the financial sustainability of school meal programs,” the SNA wrote.
http://eagnews.org/nations-lunch-ladies-call-on-trump-to-fix-michelle-os-school-food-rules/
The bill was introduced in the US Senate by Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. It was later approved by the Senate by unanimous voice vote on August 5, 2010. In the U.S. House of Representatives The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passed with 247 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting for, and 4 Democrats and 153 Republicans voting against it. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on December 13, 2010. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act took effect in 2014.
All of a sudden the First Lady SUPPORTING legislation means she is responsible for it?? No, Conservative media has been TELLING you Michelle Obama was responsible for it for over half a decade, and people just assumed that was the case. She not only had nothing to do with it in any technical sense, it is IMPOSSIBLE for that to have been the case. This was actual legislation passed through both Houses of Congress and signed by a President, not some proclamation handed down by a Queen.
Also virtually all news sites have positioned the program as hers, Its not really a 'Conservative media' thing.
The determination was made by the Department of Agriculture too not Trump.
DNC lawsuit over mistreatment of Bernie Sanders has surprising defense
On October 14, the DNC filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and some of its defenses are real whoppers. The brief begins with the usual fare – arguments over procedural defects and jurisdiction. But nestled in the brief are two arguments that are deeply disturbing. First, there’s the contention by the DNC that the Bernie Sanders donors knew that the committee was biased. Second, and even more disturbing, is the argument that any statements about being neutral and fair to all candidates if made by the DNC were nothing but “political promises” and are unenforceable at law.
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/dnc-stoops-to-new-low-in-fraud-lawsuit-filed-by-bernie-backers/
That defense does sound like it might hold on legality, But politically its pretty damaging to use.
I hear first hand some of the junk served and I am not talking talking about 'junk food' as normally defined. The big companies push to sell their products, and get contracts. More corn, more sugar, and more A1 milk products. I know much of the why it is almost criminal in the way some of this stuff gets pushed
The whole thing is a mess for the most part and needs an overall. I know many kids cannot afford anything else, so at least they get the calories they need but a much better job could be done.
Many kids have at least one meal from school, some two with breakfast, so alot is up to parents as well, and even many of them do not or cannot provide(due to money or lack of nutritional ed.) a good diet.
I do know many schools have tried and successfully partnered with local farmers to provide fresher options, a good thing, but the big businesses still push their greedy heads in.
Frustrates and saddens me at the same time.
On a more serious note (and responding more in general than to you specifically, jjstraka34), one thing I will point out is a lot of those nutritional guidelines were not supported by science in any case. To name a few:
- There is no clear scientific evidence that too much salt is bad for you. There are studies that say it is, and there are studies that say more salt is generally better for people, and everything in-between. There is no scientific consensus on the subject.
- There is no clear cause of increased childhood obesity, and while diet would seem to be the obvious culprit, this does not line up altogether with the evidence. Obesity is increasing all around the world, at varying rate and varying places, and it is not correlated entirely with "western" or increased fat/sugar diets (there is some correlation, which may or may not indicate causation). It may be there is another cause entirely (gut flora changes seem to be a plausible culprit), or a combination of causes.
- Reducing calorific/kilojoule intake is not a good way to try to lose weight. It's bad for you in general, and also weight lost through dieting tends to return quickly. Suddenly changing kid lunches from pizza to whatever much-lower-calorie meals could actually be an unhealthy move.
- Most reasons people think fat is bad (especially saturated animal fats) have been debunked, based as they were on studies funded by the sugar industry. There is no correlation between most fat intake and weight gain, cholesterol, or heart problems (and on a side note, fat people are more likely to survive heart attacks than skinny people). On the flip side, excessive sugar is definitely bad for you (and was implicated in the raw data of those same studies for many of the things people spent decades blaming on fat).
That isn't to say the best solution is getting every school catered by the local Pizza Hut, but a lot of government regulations are based on "everyone knows" rather than solid scientific evidence. See also: flossing.
When it comes to consumption products there never will be "clear scientific evidence" due to the inability to do "blind study tests"
On obesity and calorie intake: I attribute it to a sustained lack of exercise (I am guilty of that too, but I don't eat that much, so I am thin, almost underweight) coupled with eating too many calories. I mean, in my childhood, I played, much running around and climbing and bicycling. Then I got a Sega Genesis, and computer games, and then novels, and I didn't play or exercise all that much at all. I highly doubt children run around as free as I did, between EASY access to electronics and a more suspicious world.
Fat: It's not an evil monster, but be wary of it. It's still chockful of calories.
Sugar: It is an evil monster. It's so rough because unlike salts above, your kidneys filter it and KEEP it and have to keep filtering it and keeping it, whereas salts are in and out. 'Libera tutemet ex dulcis!' It's the ONLY way to lose weight.
Oh you don't just crash diet and starve yourself, but sustained reduced caloric intake relative to caloric expenditure (aka, working out) is the only way to lose weight.
The link here is to an open letter sent to the government of Canada about Health Canada's food recommendations by a group of physicians and other doctors (and one naturopath, but I'll forgive that). It includes a (very long) list of their names and qualifications and cited studies that form the basis for their recommendations, which include:
Recognize the controversy on salt and cease the blanket "lower is better” recommendation (5 studies cited)
Clearly communicate to the public and health-care professionals that the low-fat diet is
no longer supported, and can worsen heart-disease risk factors (9 studies cited)
Stop using any language suggesting that sustainable weight control can simply be
managed by creating a caloric deficit (7 studies cited)
It also correctly points out that fruit juice is, health-wise, pretty much an uncarbonated soda, something very few people realise but is quickly proved just by comparing the percentage of sugar in (let's say) unsweetened orange juice to Coca-Cola (the latter has more, but not by much). Which is pretty remarkable when you consider how differently they are treated in the media in terms of healthfulness.
Of course I'm not thinking any given study can't be influenced by industry - after all, it was due to the sugar industry that fat was wrongly fingered for a lot of bad things it simply does not do. But the number of studies, plus the lack of a broad pushback against their data despite the fact they are challenging the status quo, makes it seem unlikely this can all be traced back to some company with a lot of money in salt .
(and that's not even touching on the widely reported study from last month that seemed to indicate that salt does not, contrary to intuitive belief, make you thirsty but rather makes you hungry)
These aren't the only studies I've seen, of course (I've had an on-again-off-again interest in nutritional science for a decade), but it's a good collection of both studies and expert opinion.
How about subsidizing produce sales so a container of grape tomatoes don't cost more than a frozen pizza.
How about stricter labeling laws that prevent companies from labeling something as "healthy" (Lucky Charms, a healthy part to your morning breakfast!).
How about sugar labels that tell a consumer how much sugar is in a product and how much of that product's serving contains compared to the recommended daily intake.
How about just removing Sugar from the GRAS list.
Laws dont have to tell you what people have to do, but they should tell what companies have to do when it comes to public health.
I don't mean that to be insulting, BTW. For one, it's not like I've talked with your dad directly and he might have several studies to cite. But even if he didn't, he wouldn't be alone. It was very eye-opening, when hearing the fuss over the "there's no actual evidence flossing your teeth does anything beneficial", to hear how many dentists (and dentist's organisations like the ADA) don't really understand how scientific studies work. Anecdotal evidence ("My family and I..."), presenting studies that turned out to be scientifically invalid or absurdly small, not understanding correlation is not causation, etc, etc.
Of course, they're not working scientists (in most cases), and those problems are ones we all run into (even my own interest in this subject was from my own anecdotal and thus worthless experience that weight gain or loss didn't correlate well with what society said it should).
It's not always possible, but it's a lot easier to believe in something confidently when the preponderance of scientific evidence is behind it. And if that can't be found, well, take it with a pinch of salt.
I will say this again: it does not work.
For most people. Most of the time. And especially over time.
Exercising is good for people (within reason), but it will not necessarily (or even likely) make you lose weight. Reducing caloric intake is not healthy and will likely only make you lose weight if you are damaging your body.
It's appealing to worthless anecdotal evidence again, but I will wager every single person on this forum knows one or more people who, for valid reasons or otherwise, want to lose weight. Most of them will have tried various diets for various periods of time, including simple "portion control" types and other calorie/kilojoule reducers. And I will also wager that the number of them that a) successfully lost weight and b) successfully kept it off for, let us say, five years will be very, very low.
Maybe not zero! People's bodies are all individual and react individually to circumstance. And, of course, other circumstances that happen at the same time as changing diet can also affect weight gain and loss. We're not doing a scientific study here (which is why people should really go see what they say).
But, with that being said, for something you are so sure works up there, and so many millions of people are sure of, and the obscenely, terrifyingly huge and prosperous diet industry relies on... it works for very, very, very few people. Even if they don't cheat and keep it up for awhile. Even if they exercise. The only diets that actually "work" in that sense are starvation diets and fad diets that deliberately harm your body to cause a response. And even those ones don't last - the weight generally comes back, often more than you started with, if you go back to eating normally.
Here's something I wouldn't mind paying extra taxes for. It's tangible, puts people to work and would be an overall boon to the economy. This engineer said that that money would include work on bridges, schools, public libraries, sewer systems, the electrical grid, waterways, etc... That doesn't include roads unfortunately, since that's a whole other can of worms. I think this is something the entire country COULD get behind regardless of political leanings.
Now, something TOO argue about. I'd like that money to include modernizing our existing nuclear plants or maybe even funding some new ones. I know that's a hotter topic because of the nuclear waste battles but it's worth looking into at any rate.
How about subsidizing produce sales so a container of grape tomatoes don't cost more than a frozen pizza.
How about stricter labeling laws that prevent companies from labeling something as "healthy" (Lucky Charms, a healthy part to your morning breakfast!).
How about sugar labels that tell a consumer how much sugar is in a product and how much of that product's serving contains compared to the recommended daily intake.
How about just removing Sugar from the GRAS list.
Laws dont have to tell you what people have to do, but they should tell what companies have to do when it comes to public health."---
Wait a minute, there's vitamins, minerals and OATS in Lucky Charms! How can that possibly be bad for you? Truthfully, I wouldn't mind some of what you're describing (other than the GRAS part, there are a lot of things much worse for you than sugar on THAT list). Take that tax money and spend it on infrastructure rather than idiotic ad campaigns that just pump money into the media giants and I'll be on board.
Nevertheless, the North will not stop. Hawkish and dovish administrations come and go in the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, yet none of them have yet been able to restrict North Korea's military advancement (nor has China, which has essentially never changed its policy). From sanctions to talks to more sanctions and more talks, all diplomatic strategies that have been attempted have failed to contain the growing North Korean threat.
We have avoided war so far, but North Korea is steadily becoming more capable of killing more people if war should break out. With every advancement in North Korea's military capacity, the death toll of a war increases. And it only takes one reckless warmonger, whether in the U.S., China, North Korea, South Korea, or Japan, to start a new war in the Pacific.
On all sides, people are trying to pursue a hopeless middle road between war and peace. We are afraid to wage war, but we are just as afraid to make peace. The result is that we get neither.
Regardless, nukes are only part of the equation. They also have chemical and biological weapons, and we know that they have enough non-nuclear WMDs to wipe out millions of people by attacking Seoul--South Korea's densely populated capital city, which happens to be very close to the border with North Korea.
(The fact they can vapourise Seoul in half an hour and nobody can really do anything to stop them is also a similar, non-nuclear deterrent.)
Absolutely nothing to the Russian story. Nothing at all. It's not even a situation where someone is saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." This is like if the Wizard hadn't bothered having a curtain at all.
Nothing-burger, ISIS is an enemy of Russia as well.
Sensationalized article.
Furthermore this was already widely talked about in the media long before this event, so evidently our media is more culpable then the President.
The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.
If a story reveals something about Trump, you say it's sensationalized or fake news. If a poll is bad for Trump, you say the poll can't be trusted. If the damning words come from Trump's own mouth, he was taken out of context or wasn't serious. That is the response you give to EVERY scenario that arises with this guy.
The media hasn't had a good track record with its accuracy of late, the 'Comey asked for money' was debunked, the 'Rosenstein threatened to resign' was refuted by Rosenstein himself.
Also if you remember, It was actually the Yemen raid that produced this intelligence information which the media reported a long time ago.
McMaster is now out denying the story by denying something that ISN'T EVEN IN THE ARTICLE. Also, notice what Tillerson DIDN'T deny. That Trump gave away the location.
A well-oiled machine. Clearly the response of people who have their shit together and aren't huddling to concoct some nonsense narrative.
Or wait, don't you face charges for things like disclosing highly classified secret information to foreign governments? Especially to those governments we have a rocky relationship with? I thought someone here was saying you were supposed to face charges when you did that?
It's true that the president has authority to declassify stuff but the information on the islamic laptops isn't unclassified? So he was just blabbing about how important he is and how gets the best intel. Yep sounds like Trump. Everythings the best or the worst.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-pol-trump-russia-secret-intelligence-20170515-story.html
Next thing they're going to come out and say Obama caused this to happen by making fun of Trump at that White House Correspondence Dinner thereby making Trump run for President. So it's Obama's fault, he should have known Trump was wildly unqualified. You have to carefully vet who you make fun of that might revenge run for President.