oh god no, school food tastes horrible as is. The government is not supposed to act as your parent, and decide what you get to eat.

Generally speaking, how is regulation of sugar in local schools a federal function? I understand how it would work as far as limiting receipt of federal funding but does anyone else think that Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate? Further, any Congressperson voting for such a measure is basically admitting that his/her home state is incapable of passing its own laws.

@ChewySquirrel: It already does, at lest as far as schools are concerned. If you go to school, you eat what the schools serves (or you could brown-bag your lunches.) Given that, it's better to serve healthy food than unhealthy.

*least, not lest.

Lol, here goes the government trying to baby sit us again.

Ron paul pls

Better eliminate cookies and other dessert items from the menu, too. Bread and pasta can have a lot of carbohydrates, which turn to sugar. Oh no! Now what are we gonna do? I think those kids had better stick to the salad bar (but NO dressings!) and plain water (but not out of the drinking fountain because kids put their mouths on that all the time). Oh hell, forget it. It's just too dangerous to eat.

@Bloberry: So you don't believe in... uh... nutrition?

Am I the only one who remembers school before Coca-Cola and Hershey were paying to get their vending machines into schools?

I would be glad to see these companies foiled in their attempt to create and enforce brand loyalty in our schools.

As for the "government babysitting us" nonsense... these are kids. Maybe we should make attending class optional, too? We wouldnt want the government forcing kids to go to class?

Come on. Why is access to junk food for minors viewed as a right? If you want your kids to have a Snickers so bad, pack it in their f**king lunch yourself, but allow us parents who dont want their kids to spend their lunch money on a Coke and a bag of chips a chance.

It doesn't seem wise to think of nutrition JUST in terms of calories, which seems to be the direction people are headed. I still have trouble with the idea that whole milk is less nutritious than artificially sweetened sodas...and plus, when I waitressed, I consistently saw that the fattest people I served drank diet cola and sweet n low with their coffee, so it doesn't seem to do much good.

I think it's a good idea. The coke & candy companies know damn well that if you can shove the junk down their maws early, they'll get hooked. Which lead to the people supercheap sees - when they're older, they're trying desperatly to shed the weight.

This is just one more example of the federal government slowly but surely restricting the freedoms of choice of the citizens of this great country. From forced seatbelt use and mandatory daytime headlights to the farce that was 9-11, they are slowly but surely squeezing our freedom away. Oh, and how much are you paying for a gallon of gas these days? Or diesel, even worse?

The first step in controlling a population is to get that population to give up its freedoms willingly. Check... 9-11 "attack". The next step is to restrict the population's movement. Check... $3.20 for a gallon of gas. The next step is to restrict what we can and cannot choose to eat and drink. Check... get those schoolkids drinking diet soda as early as possible. More aspartame, more cancer, more government control.

Wake up, America!

I'd like to know exactly what evidence they used in determining these cut-offs for kcals, etc. (And I'm not saying they didn't use any good evidence...I'd just like to know what it is. DRIs? Something?)

Either we have the freedom to poison the next generation of kids (hooray!) or somebody has the guts to put an end to the corporate sponsored adulteration of our food and drink products.

What is wrong with telling schools to stop letting junk food vendors into their buildings and having them make sure all school sold food is of good quality and nutrition? If you believe in public schools, surely you believe in public standards for them?

@randotheking: That's right. Where the hell were free-thinking people like you when they took the ridiculous step of banning alcohol and tabacco from use by children?

Dammit, these are kids. You realize that, right? Adults and society have a responsibility to guide and limit their choices. Since most parents can't attend school with their children to control what they eat, schools have to stop offering unhealthy foods.
.
@supercheap: I agree with the first part of your statement at least. But, it looks like they're already looking at more than just caloric content. They're limiting sodium, simple sugar, saturated fat, and trans fats. I'd honestly prefer they put a limit on processed foods and used more whole foods, but you've got to start somewhere.

@supercheap: Yep. Too many people here are obsessed with not having a government, be it local, state, or federal, coming in and saying that these types of products are unfit for consumption. If nobody steps in and does something about it, we will inherit a generation of very unhealthy people.

Yes you have freedom, including the freedom to poison you and your kids. Isn't that grand? I'm so glad people here are principled enough to stand for such a thing.

This is a no-brain-er. Raise your kids to eat right. As long as their is some healthy food available they could have all the crap in the world but the kids raised correctly will eat healthy with occasional splurges.

@DallasDMD: Exactly.

@FishingCrue: No kidding. But you know, corn syrup travels across state lines, so they can do it. Or something like that. The fact that they are even discussing this at the federal level is so disappointing in relation to the complete irrelevancy of the Constitution.

There's no reason to offer the kind of crap in schools. As long as schools are offering meals, it should be healthy foods.

If it has to come down to the government babysitting our kids, to me that's just fine. I don't trust the morality of large corporation to put health/safety over profits, I don't have the time and energy to investigate the practices of every single company out there and I don't expect kids to choose carrots over Twinkies by their fat little selves. If it takes the government to step in and enforce what happens at school for the better part of a kid's day to keep them healthy and/or safe, I say babysit away. I'll do the rest at home. I don't think it can be argued against that it's being done for the right reasons.

I'm tired of that old "big government sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong" song and dance.

Of/By/For the people. Remember?

@FISHINGCRUE:

You have it right. They can not ban certain food from schools, that is the right of the States. Its all via federal funding. Or through the federal hot lunch type programs, which are just more federal funding.

We need to describe these properly so that people understand the difference between contractual obligations and laws.

Sounds like the 7/11 across the street from the High School i work at has some pretty solid lobbyists. And i thought that place a had a license to print money now.

Hey libertarians: if you want your kids to have unhealthy diets, you can certainly manage that on your own. The school isn't going to be undermining your efforts by taking out the deep fryer.

Hey cumaeansibyl: If we want our kids to have healthy diets, we can certainly manage that on our own. The school has no business doing the parenting for the parents, it is not a babysitting/childcare service it is an educational institution (and in many areas not a good one at that! But that is another discussion for another day..)

Off topic slightly, the direction of this country truly scares me. I also believe Congress should stick to their constitutional mandate - after all, that is what the mandate was created for.

The school I used to work at gets its entire technology budget from the vending machine contract.

Is it safe to predict that kids simply won't buy or eat the newly mandated healthy food?

Why on earth would we expect teenagers to start eating healthy food? Its not like it ever happened in the past.

And good for senate republicans for making even a small effort to derail the disastrous farm bill.

Finally.

I'm sick of seeing schools that only sell crap. Granted, the crap sells, but it's grossly unhealthy. Stuff like high-mayo chicken sandwiches, pizza, cup-of-noodles, and brownies twice the size of my fist should not be on the school menu... As far as drinks go, I believe that we should remove all sodas and "energy drinks" that are really just sugar and caffeine in a can. Let's try and fix the obesity epedemic, not make it worse.

@Bloberry: Wow, you do realize there's a vast difference between the sugars you'd find in a candy bar and the sugars which come from the breaking down of carbohydrates... right?
This is exactly why people need, more than anything, to be educated about what they eat. That's just sad.

@Namilia: As long as schools are provifing meals (and that is another debate on its own) shouldn't the meals be healthy?

@FishingCrue: Amen.

I should amend what I said - while parents are perfectly capable of taking care of their children's nutritional needs, I understand that a lot of parents depend on the free lunches or reduced lunches for their children at school, I remember I was once on this system. To that end, I would like to see healthier options in the cafeteria itself as part of the main menu instead of having to pay extra ($2.75 I think it was at the time) to buy something healthier or 75 cents for a bottle of water.

My earlier comments were in direct reference to this post removing the soda machines and snack machines.

That's great, but what about the food the cafeteria makes? It's vile and packed with fat and calories.

@Namilia: That would be really, really awesome, except SO expensive compared to what exists currently...and it's terrible that kids eat (and grow accustomed to) sugary, deep-fried, processed crap, but school budgets are squeezed down to the penny as it is. I don't have a child, but if I did, I think I'd make an effort to at least supplement their school food with good things at home...at least they'd have something decent for the other two meals of the day.

So are they going to make it taste good, too? People eat what tastes good to them. Instead of banning what people like the taste of the most, why don't we make the good stuff an appealing alternative? We could start by removing HFCS from sodas and going back to cane sugar, as a starting step, for example -- it doesn't change the taste much (it does change it) but even though it's not as good for you as fruit juice is, it would start the movement toward making what people do choose to eat not so bad for you. Then continue from there.

But instead, the government doesn't think why people do things, it just thinks the ban hammer is the answer to everything.

@supercheap: That stuff is cheaper than the healthy stuff. Sad but true. It's also a factor in addition to the "tastes better" factor.

We need to make the best choices taste appealing, or make the "bad for you" stuff not so bad for you, AND bring the cost down.

Parents still have the opportunity to decide what their kids eat at school. It's called sack lunches, or home-schooling.

this is really complicated. Children don't have the same rights as adults, and rely on adults to make choices for them because they aren't educated enough. But... "Think of the children!" is a poor excuse to do something that harms *everyone* across the board.

What would be so horrible about everyone being forced to eat healthily? Free will would suffer, but why should we let people hit themselves in the head with a hammer? So they can remove themselves from the gene pool?

People can't control themselves, and they can't control their kids. If they could control themselves, The United States of America (and other countries) wouldn't be getting so fat, litigious, etc. So what, do we sit back and let the market decide? The market will decide that people will do whatever the market says.

Meanwhile, we all sit around on the internet debating whether we should regulate our kids' lunches instead of doing stuff with our kids that helps them stay healthy....

@HawkWolf: Because we shouldn't limit peoples' right to make their own choices. It's their life. Who are we to say what they should and shouldn't do? How would you feel if I barged into your house and started telling you what color your decor had to be?

Congress hasn't thought this through. How will teachers get new amenities for their numerous lounges?

I just do not think it is Congress' business to decide what I or my kids can eat. I don't remember anyone running on this platform when they were trying to get elected. If this goes through the amount of wasted and thrown away food in school cafeterias would be able to feed a small third world country.

I think it is funny that government is trying to parent their citizens. Are children really intelligent free-thinkers? Advertising for these junk foods are advertised at youth that are impressionable. And I often remember how kids, including myself, would take our lunch money our parents gave it and buy soda and candy instead of actual cafeteria food. I think this would be a good move from the senate to promote healthier lifestyles.

@kilde:
I meant to say think it is funny that people on this board are arguing that the government is trying to parent its citizens when the citizens in questions are children that need parenting.

I keep telling everyone... first make the lunches in schools edible then we'll talk about making them healthy.

Supercheap, that is similar to what I meant. I remember at my school a typical lunch consisted of a choice of chicken fillet (fried), a cheeseburger, a nasty peanut butter and jelly (with no jelly, some mixture on it), or "carpet pizza". Sides were french fries (every day), mashed potatoes (daily), a random steamed or fried vegetable, and a fruitcup in heavy syrup. Salads were available for $2.75, Gatorade or water for 75 cents. Cookies were 30 cents and were sold right at the register (raising the temptation to get one, even if you were on the free/reduced lunch program...30 cents is not much).

It is regretful how penny-pinched their budget is, and that they don't offer anything wholesome as an entree most of the time. A lot of school cafeterias also have fast food on a few days a week (my school did not, but it is clear from the menu choices it still was not healthy at all) which is, in a way, free advertising for junk foods inside the cafeteria itself. Schools, as I said, are educational institutions so it is especially upsetting to see how dependent they have become on sponsors such as junk food companies. Every part of the "school experience" is now saturated with outside ads - from fast food in the cafeteria, to so-called PSA's that are thinly veiled advertisements for sponsors, to the bookcovers with sponsors on them (although I remember using plain paper bags to make mine, they were more fun to decorate), to the mandatory watching in many schools of Channel One (www.channelone.com).

For those unfamiliar with Channel One, it is a "news program" that is recorded daily in Los Angeles and satellite broadcast to schools across the nation. These schools, in return for having 90% of their students watch this program, receive free televisions and a satellite receiver/vcr that can only receive the Channel One frequency. So far, this doesn't sound too bad. But, almost half of channel one is advertisements. It is a way to get advertising directly to the children while bypassing the parents. Even if the kids aren't paying attention to the news, they still hear the ads. In some classes that I remember, we could get detention if we did not pay attention to this newscast. How does this make sense? Certainly it is important to know what is going on in the world and I have no grudge against the newscast itself, but getting detention for not paying attention to advertisements?

Ah, I got completely off topic. *steps down from soap box and humbly gives it back*

I am both thrilled that food and beverage companies (possibly) won't have a captive consumer group, and horrified that our government feels that it has this much control over citizens' personal choices.

@Buran:
"Because we shouldn't limit peoples' right to make their own choices. It's their life."

Because their life will ultimately shape the future of our society by their existence in it.

"Who are we to say what they should and shouldn't do? How would you feel if I barged into your house and started telling you what color your decor had to be?"

I could care less what decor you put up in your house. However, when we allow corporations to put what is essentialy poison into our foods and deteroirate the collective health of society, I think its a very relevant issue for the government to be taking up.

When parents fail to exercise the same responsibility for their children, its child abuse.

@wftm: "I am both thrilled that food and beverage companies (possibly) won't have a captive consumer group, and horrified that our government feels that it has this much control over citizens' personal choices."

Take a side. There isn't a middle ground here.

@kilde: I agree. Freedom is great if you exercise it with careful restraint. Some people need a guiding hand because they otherwise would make choices that are, collectively, bad for society.

There are too many reactionaries who think any regulation is bad because they know not of good government. Why don't we agree that we need a better government but not throw these silly arguments out that a good government could the job it needs to do to maintain a healthy society?

Ah, the eternal dispute of the individual vs "the good of society". Individualism vs Collectivism. Democracy vs Socialism.

I wonder how many of you have read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. He felt that government control of the schools was important for a reason.