:whistle:




Michelle Obama: Gov‘t Won’t Tell You What to Do Regarding Food, But… (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/michelle-obama-govt-wont-tell-you-what-to-do-regarding-food-but/)




Amid a flurry of media appearances, Michelle is being asked whether there is any justification to Republican criticism of her childhood obesity campaign, that perhaps it is not government’s place to tell Americans what to feed their children. On Tuesday, she joined ABC’s Robin Roberts.

Roberts asked Obama about the criticism from some saying she‘s trying to insert government into people’s food choices. Nodding as though she understands the concern, the First Lady responded:

…This isn’t about government telling people what to do. What we know we need to do is give parents, communities, families the tools and information they need to make choices that are right for them and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. … “Let’s Move!” is a way of giving people the tools and information and it really requires everybody to step up.


But perhaps a little disjointedly, she immediately switched to citing the way government can help by saying mayors should start “stepping up”:

We need our mayors stepping up, restructuring cities so that kids have safer places to play. We need our food manufacturers stepping up and really thinking about how to reformulate food products so that they are a little more healthy [and] affordable. We need big supermarkets to locate grocery stores in under-served communities. So, it’s a little bit of everything.

I don't understand the outrage over Michelle Obama wanting healthier children. If you don't like the healthy food the schools serve, pack your kids' own damn lunch. It's not like they're telling you that you are prohibited from eating fatty foods.

I don't understand the outrage over Michelle Obama wanting healthier children. If you don't like the healthy food the schools serve, pack your kids' own damn lunch. It's not like they're telling you that you are prohibited from eating fatty foods.

Don't be a DipStick...

State Inspectors Searching Children (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/)

Don't be a DipStick...

State Inspectors Searching Children (http://www.nccivitas.org/2012/state-inspectors-searching-childrens-lunch-boxes-this-isnt-china-is-it/)

Can't blame that on Obama. That's the State of North Carolina -- the same state where the voters just took away rights of unmarried couples in an effort to ban what was already banned.

Can't blame that on Obama. That's the State of North Carolina -- the same state where the voters just took away rights of unmarried couples in an effort to ban what was already banned.

Poor stupid Andi. Didn't bother to read the link.

The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative.

The nutrition standards are from the Department of Agriculture (By the way, that's the Federal Department of Agriculture)

EDIT: Just in case Andi tries the old "You can't prove it." response. USDA Unveils Critical Upgrades to Nutritional Standards for School Meals | USDA Newsroom (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0010.xml)

I got a letter from the principal and it says students who do not bring a healthy lunch will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.

The extra food expense from the cafeteria was for a child who did bring a homemade lunch to school.

Poor stupid Andi. Didn't bother to read the link.



The nutrition standards are from the Department of Agriculture (By the way, that's the Federal Department of Agriculture)

EDIT: Just in case Andi tries the old "You can't prove it." response. USDA Unveils Critical Upgrades to Nutritional Standards for School Meals | USDA Newsroom (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011/01/0010.xml)



The extra food expense from the cafeteria was for a child who did bring a homemade lunch to school.

So, let me get this straight, Michelle Obama's evil because she wants healthier kids. The USDA changed their standards (that nobody is forced to comply with in their own home) therfore it's Michelle Obama's fault because some North Carolina state inspectors, employed by the state of North Carolina (not the Federal Government), overstepped their legal authority and wouldn't allow school kids to eat their own lunches? Am I right so far? :crazy:

You guys are really grasping at the straws on this one.

So, let me get this straight, Michelle Obama's evil because she wants healthier kids. The USDA changed their standards (that nobody is forced to comply with in their own home) therfore it's Michelle Obama's fault because some North Carolina state inspectors, employed by the state of North Carolina (not the Federal Government), overstepped their legal authority and wouldn't allow school kids to eat their own lunches? Am I right so far? :crazy:

You guys are really grasping at the straws on this one.

You've not been paying attention.

...... employed by the state of North Carolina (not the Federal Government), overstepped their legal authority and wouldn't allow school kids to eat their own lunches? Am I right so far? :crazy:





Yes Michelle wants Healthy Children

Bloomberg wants to mandate what food you purchase in restaurants ......... Private Businesses selling Items that the PUBLIC Wants .............


more NANNY State Crap ......... can you not see the Creeping Do as Your Told, Ignore Barack eating Hot Dogs over here mentality

Can't blame that on Obama. That's the State of North Carolina -- the same state where the voters just took away rights of unmarried couples in an effort to ban what was already banned.

And you call yourself a reporter. You can't even read with comprehension!

"The mother, who lives in Fayetteville, sent a statement to state Rep. G.L. Pridgen (R-Robeson) detailing her complaint. Pridgen says he was shocked to hear it. Pridgen has since learned this is a nationwide practice based on federal guidelines."

Here, do some research for a change: School Meals Regulations (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/regulations.htm)

Child Nutrition Program - National School Lunch Program - Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/nprograms/nslp.html)

Yes Michelle wants Healthy Children

Bloomberg wants to mandate what food you purchase in restaurants ......... Private Businesses selling Items that the PUBLIC Wants .............


more NANNY State Crap ......... can you not see the Creeping Do as Your Told, Ignore Barack eating Hot Dogs over here mentality

Michelle Obama wanting children to be healthier is hardly Nanny State crap. I really do not see what the problem with wanting healthier children is.

I'm sorry, but blaming the Obamas for the states and NYC overstepping their authority is really grasping.

My car broke down... Obama's fault. :yay:

Michelle Obama wanting children to be healthier is hardly Nanny State crap. I really do not see what the problem with wanting healthier children is.

I'm sorry, but blaming the Obamas for the states and NYC overstepping their authority is really grasping.

My car broke down... Obama's fault. :yay:

It's not the intent, it's the implementation. Start reading up on this stuff instead of spouting off in the infinite wisdom of your youth. You'll find out us elders have reason to be deeply concerned with what this administration is doing, and the way they're doing what they're doing.

Here, let me show you something. This is the summary from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-27/pdf/2012-10229.pdf

"SUMMARY: This interim rule amends National School Lunch Program regulations to conform to requirements contained in the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 regarding performance based cash assistance for school food authorities certified compliant with meal pattern and nutrition standards.

This rule requires State agencies to certify participating school food
authorities (SFAs) that are in compliance with meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements as eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional six cents per lunch available beginning October 1, 2012 and adjusted annually thereafter).

This rule also requires State agencies to disburse performance-based cash
assistance to certified SFAs, and withhold the performance-based cash
assistance if the SFA is determined to be out of compliance with meal pattern or nutrition standards during a subsequent administrative review. The intended effect of this rule is to provide additional funding for SFAs to implement new meal pattern requirements, thus increasing the
healthfulness of meals served to school children."

That there is incentive for states and schools to dip into the business that ought to be the sole province of parents and guardians. And they're doing it with taxpayer dollars.

Government never fixes anything. They're only lucky if they don't make it worse.

It's not the intent, it's the implementation. Start reading up on this stuff instead of spouting off in the infinite wisdom of your youth. You'll find out us elders have reason to be deeply concerned with what this administration is doing, and the way they're doing what they're doing.

Here, let me show you something. This is the summary from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-27/pdf/2012-10229.pdf

"SUMMARY: This interim rule amends National School Lunch Program regulations to conform to requirements contained in the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 regarding performance based cash assistance for school food authorities certified compliant with meal pattern and nutrition standards.

This rule requires State agencies to certify participating school food
authorities (SFAs) that are in compliance with meal pattern and nutrition standard requirements as eligible to receive performance-based cash assistance for each reimbursable lunch served (an additional six cents per lunch available beginning October 1, 2012 and adjusted annually thereafter).

This rule also requires State agencies to disburse performance-based cash
assistance to certified SFAs, and withhold the performance-based cash
assistance if the SFA is determined to be out of compliance with meal pattern or nutrition standards during a subsequent administrative review. The intended effect of this rule is to provide additional funding for SFAs to implement new meal pattern requirements, thus increasing the
healthfulness of meals served to school children."

That there is incentive for states and schools to dip into the business that ought to be the sole province of parents and guardians. And they're doing it with taxpayer dollars.

Government never fixes anything. They're only lucky if they don't make it worse.

Once again, you see one thing and think it's another. We are talking about school lunches. The incentive is for them to make sure the SCHOOLS ARE PROVIDING A "HEALTHY" MEAL. There is nothing more to it. There is nothing about kids' lunchboxes being subject to search. North Carolina acted outside their authority and outside what the USDA intends. You can keep on trying to blame Obama, but this isn't something you can blame him for.

North Carolina state agents taking kids' lunchboxes is not Obama's fault. That's North Carolina's fault.

My iPhone doesn't get service in Cobb Island.... Obama's fault.

Believe it or not (and from the looks of it, you don't), you can still go to McDonalds and get your kid a McFatty, a large thing of McSalty Fries and a McSugar soft drink. :yay:

The credit card machine was down at the liquor store: Obama's fault.

The incentive is for them to make sure the SCHOOLS ARE PROVIDING A "HEALTHY" MEAL.Or to put it another way: we're from the government and we're here to help. Sure, reconfiguring school lunches is done with the best of intentions... just like every other overreaching, nonsensical law they create.

Perhaps you'll recall this gem of an idea:Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

If you cannot see how all these evidence a larger trend you are incredibly daft.

You've not been paying attention.

His government check isn't enough to pay attention.

Michelle Obama wanting children to be healthier is hardly Nanny State crap. I really do not see what the problem with wanting healthier children is.

I'm sorry, but blaming the Obamas for the states and NYC overstepping their authority is really grasping.

My car broke down... Obama's fault. :yay:

I never thought I’d see the day where the government becomes an insurance company, but worse; they MANDATE that everyone must buy health insurance or face penalties or prison. I know, it’s for our own good that wise and superior people like Obama pass laws that take control away from us because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. This could NEVER happen with food now could it? I mean MO already believes we need HER to tell us what’s good for us – of course while she and BO routinely chomp down on greasy burgers or Taco Bell.

It starts with mere suggestions; and when they don’t think we are getting the message they feel they have to pass a law telling us what we musts do. It happened with smoking. It wasn’t enough to just put labels on packs of cigarettes, they had to levy exorbitant taxes to get people to quit. When that wasn’t enough they had to ban smoking in nearly every public place. And now some districts in this country actually forbid smoking in their own homes or even backyards.

Seatbelts, helmets, etc… Little chips away at our liberties; all in the name of ‘it’s for your own good’.

You want to pretend there isn’t an agenda to eventually have the government mandate what we can and can’t eat? You want to ignore history? No problem. Don’t say folks didn’t try to warn you.

I don't understand the outrage over Michelle Obama wanting healthier children. If you don't like the healthy food the schools serve, pack your kids' own damn lunch. It's not like they're telling you that you are prohibited from eating fatty foods.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo. Allow me;

Anything the left proposes or supports or, heaven forbid, does, any expansion of government power, scope and cost and intrusion into our lives is BAD.

Any expansion of government, cost, scope and intrusion into our lives that the right wants or does is GOOD.

Glad to be of help.

I never thought I’d see the day where the government becomes an insurance company,

Been that way and growing since WWII.

Before Obamacare, something like 50%, and growing, of health care spending was at the direction of or otherwise involved the government. It's not exactly the same as a mandate to buy insurance but, it's not far from it and it is, to be for sure, of a kind.

When government advocates, promotes and supports through various policies be it taxes, regulation or what have you, that is a defacto mandate. In fact, we on the right complain of, or, at least we used to, complain of unfunded mandates imposed by the gummint.

Medicare. Medicaid. Med Part D. On and on and on. Dr. Sam.

Believe it or not (and from the looks of it, you don't), you can still go to McDonalds and get your kid a McFatty, a large thing of McSalty Fries and a McSugar soft drink. :yay:





did you miss the part where McDonalds caved to Gov. Pressure to make Happy Meals' healthier ?

Any expansion of government, cost, scope and intrusion into our lives that the right wants or does is GOOD.

Glad to be of help.


TROLL ....

..... I was not a supporter of the Prescription Drug Expansion ...... and if Laura Bush was trying to push this 'healthy eating' nonsense I would be :cds: about that as well ..............

Government to food industry: More nutrients and less junk in kids' food and advertising for kids' food (please) (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/28/news/la-heb-kids-food-advertising-20110428)


Manufacturers of foods pitched most heavily to kids -- breakfast cereals, snacks, carbonated beverages and restaurant fare -- should develop and reformulate their offerings to cut salt, added sugars and saturated fat and ensure they contribute meaningfully to a child's healthy diet, a federal working group recommended on Thursday.

The food manufacturers should make those changes soon, with a target date just five years away, in 2016; they should revamp their advertising pitches and marketing messages to stress the nutritional values of their fare and shift their ad campaigns away from less healthy options; and they should do all this voluntarily (please), said the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children.

this was 2 yrs ago


Pr. George's leader wants to curb county's fast-food eateries (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503078.html)


Travel along a two-block stretch of Central Avenue in Prince George's County, and you'll find a staggering 11 fast-food restaurants.

For community activist Arthur Turner and state Sen. David C. Harrington (D-Prince George's), the strip is evidence of the proliferation of burger joints and Chinese takeouts in the county, especially in poorer, inner Capital Beltway communities.

Pointing to studies that rank Prince George's residents among the least healthy in Maryland, Turner and Harrington want to limit new fast-food restaurants in the county, a far stricter approach than what has been enacted in such places as New York City and Montgomery County, which banned the use of trans fats in those establishments.

[clip]

Opponents of such efforts say that what people eat is a matter of personal choice and that it should be up to the free market to determine which restaurant goes where.




The bill that Harrington introduced this month would prohibit Prince George's from issuing new licenses to fast-food restaurants in areas with a "high index of health disparities," which show how frequently a disease affects a group. The Maryland Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities would be required to create a process to map the indexes in the county, but the legislation does not define what a fast-food restaurant is.



if healthy sold, business would change .........




A matter of choice

There are plenty of critics -- including hamburger lovers and government lobbyists -- who say that this is not an area where lawmakers should be inserting themselves.

"People aren't going to stop going to McDonald's," said Dominique Cox of Oxon Hill, sitting with an order of Chicken McNuggets at a McDonald's on Central Avenue in Landover. "It's quick and easy."

Across the street at a Wendy's, Bill Edwards of Baltimore chomped down on a Baconator Double with cheese and an order of fries during his lunch break. He said the fast-food efforts interfere with free enterprise and personal responsibility.

"It's a free country," said Edwards, who works in Prince George's. "Everybody has a choice to go into any restaurant that they want to go into, and everybody should be able to have a choice to open a restaurant anywhere they want to, unless it's zoned residential or something."

Melvin R. Thompson, senior vice president of government affairs and public policy for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, said that although the organization does not have specifics about Harrington's bill, it disagrees with the concept.

"We have serious concerns and are strongly opposed to any legislation that attempts to address health issues by banning certain kinds of businesses as opposed to focusing on efforts to educate and encourage consumers to eat responsibly, engage in exercise and live a balanced and healthy lifestyle," Thompson said.

Perhaps you didn't get the memo. Allow me;

Anything the left proposes or supports or, heaven forbid, does, any expansion of government power, scope and cost and intrusion into our lives is BAD.

Any expansion of government, cost, scope and intrusion into our lives that the right wants or does is GOOD.

Glad to be of help.

Thanks for elaborating.

:popcorn:



Michelle Obama's 'civilian' act is hard to swallow (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51817)



The first lady of the United States is on a whirlwind publicity tour for her hefty new food and gardening book ($30), which the White House hopes will bolster Team Obama's favorability ratings. I'd say it's a classic recipe for rank campaign hypocrisy and media double standards.

While journalists savor chummy chitchats with Mrs. Obama about beets and Beyonce, FLOTUS is once again escaping hard questions about her cronyism, junk science and generous junkets at taxpayer expense.

Mrs. Obama's 2012 campaign media blitz has already brought her to daytime airwaves ("The Ellen DeGeneres Show"), prime-time reality TV ("The Biggest Loser") and children's programming ("iCarly"). This week, she's hitting up "Good Morning America," "The View," Rachael Ray's cooking show, "LIVE! with Kelly (Ripa)" and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Out: Let's Move! In: Let's Move ... in front of the TV cameras!

[clip]


Obama's outspoken bitter half conscientiously and deliberately inserted herself into the public square long before the family moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- whether it was organizing a Woods Fund panel with her husband and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, taking a publicly subsidized government job with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, or parlaying her relationship with political mentor Valerie Jarrett into a cushy public job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, where she oversaw a patient-dumping scheme that benefited her political cronies.

As I reported earlier this month, Mrs. Obama's signature program (now run by Obama's best golfing buddy Dr. Eric Whitaker) just received a $6 million grant from an Obamacare agency with zero independent oversight. Taste the boodle.

Just a humble private mom raising her two daughters while Dad does all that hardball politics stuff? Pshaw. Let's not forget that Mrs. Obama leveraged her hubby's Senate victory to snag a lucrative seat on the corporate board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. despite having zero experience in the industry.

When her garden gloves are off, her political boxing gloves are on. Mrs. O famously has castigated other Americans' choices in how they earn their money. She used her East Wing power to push Obamacare. She has exploited the bully pulpit to restrict food advertisers' speech. She has served the SEIU's legislative agenda of increasing the welfare state and padding membership rolls with more government school workers under the guise of fighting child obesity.

And she has relied on questionable science to declare war on so-called "food deserts" in poor neighborhoods where she claims only fast food is available. But according to two major peer-reviewed and published studies: 1) poor neighborhoods had nearly twice the number of supermarkets and large-scale grocers per square mile as wealthier neighborhoods, and 2) there is no correlation between what students in a large-scale California survey ate, what they weighed and what kinds of foot they ate within the immediate radius of their homes.

While she denies a Nanny State agenda, Mrs. Obama successfully has strong-armed several major restaurant chains into redesigning their menus to her exacting healthful standards. One of those targets is Darden Restaurants, which operates Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants across the country. At a time when most food service providers are struggling under the weight of increased taxes, health care mandates and regulations, Darden Restaurants just happens to be one of the few and fortunate businesses to obtain one of those coveted Obamacare waivers.

The feds spend $15 billion a year on nutrition in schools; the White House wants at least a $1 billion increase this coming fiscal year.

The well-intended program to feed poor kids has morphed into an untouchable universal entitlement with a powerful school lunch lobbying coalition of Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, food-service industry executives, and union bosses. Enter the SEIU. Headed up by the White House’s most frequent visitor, Andy Stern, the powerful labor organization representing government and private service employees has an insatiable appetite for power and growth. Working alongside the First Lady, the SEIU unveiled a major ad campaign this week demanding reauthorizing and funding increases in the Child Nutrition Act.

What’s in it for Big Labor? SEIU Executive Vice President Mitch Ackerman explains: “A more robust expansion of school lunch, breakfast, summer feeding, child care and WIC [the federal Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program] is critical to reducing hunger, ending childhood obesity, and providing fair wages and healthcare for front line food service workers (emphasis added).” There are 400,000 workers who prepare and serve lunch to American schoolchildren. SEIU represents tens of thousands of those workers and is trying to unionize many more. “More robust expansion” of the federal school lunch law means a mandate for higher wages, increased benefits, and government-guaranteed health insurance coverage (the more luxurious the better now that SEIU has negotiated its Cadillac Tax exemption from the Democrats’ health care takeover bill).

The SEIU’s front group, “Campaign for Quality Services,” is clamoring for “the right to sick days and training” for school food-services workers. Never ones to let a crisis go unexploited, SEIU sent its members to lobby in front of Chicago public schools last year and scare parents into supporting their labor agenda. They accused the school system of “putting our kids at risk” during flu season by resisting the SEIU’s sick day coverage demands. “Without sick days, I can’t take a day off, so I have to bring germs to school,” an SEIU janitor lamented.

Along the same lines, they are casting food-services workers as indispensable saviors. The union has rallied behind p.r. efforts casting them as superheroes “serving justice, and serving lunch.” Opposing the union means opposing children’s health. SEIU propaganda features New Jersey school cafeteria workers like Leslie Williams of Orange, N.J. lamenting: “I love my work, but it’s getting harder to prepare nutritious meals on the low budget we’re working with…It breaks my heart to see a child who’s hungry. As I see it, part of my job is to make sure the kids are well-fed.”

Actually, that’s the primary job of parents. Mom? Dad? Remember them? But the more responsibility we demand of parents, the less power and influence SEIU bosses are able to grab. Unionized school dietician and nutrition jobs are booming. And in addition to school breakfast and lunch, the SEIU is now pushing subsidized dinner plans and summer food service to create a “stronger nutrition safety net.” Translation: Perpetual employment for big government and its public employee union au pairs.

Cede the children, feed the state. :coffee:


Michelle Malkin » SEIU fatcats behind First Lady (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/03/seiu-fatcats-behind-first-lady%E2%80%99s-anti-obesity-campaign/)

Thanks for elaborating.

Anh. It's just the way it is. The GOP just rescued another big government/big money entity; the import/export bank so, all of this is about whose ox is given more to eat.

:shrug: