Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP congressmen continue to push back against new ‘healthy’ school meal plans
The Daily Caller ^ | April 14, 2013 | Caroline May

Posted on 04/15/2013 8:13:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas continued their fight against the Agriculture Department’s recent public school meal regulation overhaul on Friday.

The congressmen have argued that the new regulations imposed by the USDA, as required by the Michelle Obama-backed Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act, are overly restrictive for growing and active children, largely due to calorie caps on meals.

“The voluminous menu that’s good enough for the federal bureaucrats’ cafeteria should be good enough for our children’s school lunchroom,” Huelskamp said in a statement Friday. “If USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack thinks the federal government should dictate what local governments put on their school lunchroom menus, why isn’t he leading by example? Secretary Vilsack should impose his ‘Nutrition Nanny’ standards on the USDA buildings’ cafeteria menus before the USDA seizes control of lunchroom menus in 100,000 school districts.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bullystate; nannystate; schoollunch; steveking; timhuelskamp

1 posted on 04/15/2013 8:13:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Eric Blair 2084; -YYZ-; 31R1O; 383rr; AFreeBird; AGreatPer; Alamo-Girl; Alia; altura; ...

Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 04/15/2013 8:13:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The idea that a linebacker like Michelle would try to tell me what my kids can eat is infuriating.

I was an underweight child. What about the kids like me?

.


3 posted on 04/15/2013 8:19:58 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The problem isn’t the limit on calories, it’s the limit on fat.

Feeding kids that many carbs is guaranteed to make most of them grow up sick and obese.


4 posted on 04/15/2013 8:38:24 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege; Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The problem isn’t the limit on calories, it’s the limit on fat.

I totally disagree. The problem is the federal government in the schools, let alone their cafeterias, to begin with.

5 posted on 04/15/2013 8:46:40 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Children should be getting most of their food at home but did you ever take a look at some of the parents, mostly the moms? Real big gals! No wonder those kids have weight problems!

Then their are the households where kids spend too much time on their own because both parents work---or there is only one parent in the home and he/she works. The kids do whatever they want.

Our country's in trouble and it's not only the obesity.

6 posted on 04/15/2013 9:01:49 PM PDT by IIntense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; All

The states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific powers to regulate either intrastate agriculure or public schools.


7 posted on 04/15/2013 9:11:21 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If you want healthy kids, get them out of government schools!


8 posted on 04/15/2013 9:11:24 PM PDT by foundedonpurpose (It's time for a fundamental restoration, of our country's principles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

My first grader son came home a few weeks ago, hungry and exasperated. He said that the school lunches weren’t good any more and asked us to pack his lunch for now on, and we have.


9 posted on 04/16/2013 3:01:28 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
The problem is the federal government in the schools, let alone their cafeterias, to begin with.

In large part, I agree with you. And if was handled locally, we could be certain that at least in some parts of the country our schools wouldn't be poisoning our kids.

But as long as the Department of Agriculture is publishing "dietary guidelines" that are primarily written by people on the payroll of the grain and edible oil industries, it doesn't much matter whether it's the federal government or a local school board mandating they they be followed.

10 posted on 04/16/2013 6:22:24 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Until they “disallow” that because “it’s not fair” that your kid gets to eat “unhealthy” food while the rest eat the provided lunches.


11 posted on 04/16/2013 6:23:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jdege
But as long as the Department of Agriculture is publishing "dietary guidelines" that are primarily written by people on the payroll of the grain and edible oil industries, it doesn't much matter whether it's the federal government or a local school board mandating they they be followed

The USDA shouldn't be issuing "dietary guidelines" for anything other than crops and livestock - not humans, and especially not school children - because the federal government has no business involved in K-12 education - period.

12 posted on 04/16/2013 7:00:28 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Feeding kids that many carbs is guaranteed to make most of them grow up sick and obese.

The Japanese consume a diet high in carbohydrates, but I don't see them, or their children, growing up sick and obese. As a matter of fact, some of those high carb consuming populations enjoy the highest life expectancy of any people on earth.

13 posted on 04/16/2013 7:25:57 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Why is this a Federal level issue anyway? Shouldn’t it be left to the states, and the school boards?


14 posted on 04/16/2013 7:27:49 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
The USDA shouldn't be issuing "dietary guidelines" for anything other than crops and livestock

Well, my first response is that dietary guidelines are a health matter, and should be issued by Health and Human Services, rather than by the Department of Agriculture.

But my second response is that there shouldn't be a Department of Health and Human Services.

And then my third response is that there shouldn't be a Department of Agriculture, either.

The way I see it, we need State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, and Interior. And maybe Commerce. The rest we'd be better off without.

15 posted on 04/16/2013 7:29:37 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jdege
The way I see it, we need State, Treasury, Defense, Justice, and Interior. And maybe Commerce. The rest we'd be better off without.

You will get n argument from me on that suggestion!

16 posted on 04/16/2013 7:42:00 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mase
The Japanese consume a diet high in carbohydrates, but I don't see them, or their children, growing up sick and obese.

There have been cultures that traditionally ate high-carb diets, without becoming obese. These traditionally ate grains and beans, rather than flour and sugar, and usually fermented them.

It's flour and sugar that are the problem, and I'll challenge you to find a single example of a culture that survives predominantly on refined carbs that isn't sick and obese - and often malnourished at the same time.

As for Japan, their obesity rates have been skyrocketing, as they've adopted western foods:

Obesity on the rise as Japanese eat more Western-style food

Of course, their kids are getting a better start, because their school lunches actually serve food, and insist that they eat it. (As opposed to ours, which consider sugar-and-chocolate flavored milk to be healthy, so long as it is low-fat.):

How Japan’s revolutionary school lunches helped slow the rise of child obesity

17 posted on 04/16/2013 9:01:14 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


18 posted on 04/16/2013 9:16:41 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdege
I see there are a lot of caveats and qualifiers to the belief that carbohydrates, and not total calories, is at the heart of obesity.

A few generations ago, we were a country with little obesity. That's because we employed a lot of people in agriculture, but mostly because people worked like hell and didn't sit on their butts. The diet consumed on the average farm was high in carbohydrates, many of them highly refined (flour, sugar, corn syrup, etc.), yet obesity was almost nonexistent, and the people could hardly be considered sick working 12+ hours a day.

Japan has always had a high carb diet, and some of those foods are most certainly considered to be high glycemic. The GI of rice is all over the board, with the average being around 65. This is higher than heavily processed high fructose corn syrup which has a GI in the 55~60 range.

People who want to sell diet books and the latest diet fad have seen the benefits of demonizing one macronutrient over another. But that's good for selling books and such, but does nothing for those who are genuinely interested in the cause(s) of obesity. Like it has been since the beginning, obesity, at least for the vast majority of people, is caused by people consuming more energy than they burn.

Lowfat milk in our schools is just plain stupid, but there it is. The fact that they include some flavoring to make it palatable shouldn't bother anyone who is truly interested in proper child nutrition. Milk casein, next to egg albumin, is probably the highest quality protein we consume. And growing children need a lot of high quality protein. Without that flavoring, the lowfat milk, along with all the nutrition, ends up in the garbage.

I spent a lot of time in Japan in the 80's and 90's, and it is pretty obvious that, like us, many of them have adopted a sedentary lifestyle and are now reaping the consequences of a slothful existence. But it wasn't always that way, and the Japanese can hardly be considered an obese or unhealthy society today. That just isn't true. This issue is, and always has been, about total calories consumed vs. calories burned. Same as it ever was.

19 posted on 04/16/2013 9:34:10 AM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Well now, that would be pro-liberty, and the Federal government simply cannot have that rot!


20 posted on 04/16/2013 12:15:15 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mase
I see there are a lot of caveats and qualifiers to the belief that carbohydrates, and not total calories, is at the heart of obesity.

What is at the heart of obesity isn't always clear. But it is clear that it isn't calories.

Increased consumption and/or decreased activity is a consequence of a metabolic process that partitions energy into fat storage, just as increased consumption and/or decreased activity is a consequence of a metabolic process that partitions energy into skeletal growth or muscle development.

People don't get fat because they overeat, they overeat because their metabolism is storing excess fat.

Raised insulin levels aren't the only factor in that, but it is the most important, in most people. And dietary carbohydrates aren't the only determinant of insulin levels, but in most people it's the most significant.

People can and do eat carbs without getting fat and sick. But at any level of carb intake, there will be some who will. And the higher the level, the larger the proportion who'll have problems. Especially if the carbs are highly processed, quickly digestible, and lacking accompanying fat, protein, and fiber.

Japanese grade school kids are doing quite well on a diet of rice, steamed vegetables, and fish. Their older siblings are doing less well, as they gain the opportunity to eat processed junk food.

Nobody but nobody will do well on a diet of white bread, skim milk, and high fructose corn syrup. And that's what the various industry lobbyists have ensured are specifically not excluded from the dietary guidelines.

21 posted on 04/16/2013 2:42:05 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jdege
What is at the heart of obesity isn't always clear. But it is clear that it isn't calories.

No, the cause of obesity is very clear. Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity. Michael Phelps, when he was in training, consumed up to 12,000 calories per day. He said his diet regularly included sugar covered French toast, chocolate chip pancakes, pizza, lots of white bread and plenty of those sugar loaded energy drinks. I don't think anyone would consider Phelps to be overweight or unhealthy.

The first law of thermodynamics says you can't get something from nothing. People who believe that there are good foods and bad foods, rather than just food, don't understand that you can feed someone nothing but white bread, chocolate flavored milk, and high fructose corn syrup, and they will not gain weight (and will actually lose weight) if they expend more energy than they consume.

People don't get fat because they overeat, they overeat because their metabolism is storing excess fat.

This is nonsense. Humans will burn burn fat, rather than store it, if the body is using more energy than it takes in. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial of the thermodynamic perspective.

If raised insulin levels were in some way responsible for obesity, then we'd be seeing all sorts of studies correlating caffeine consumption with obesity. I haven't seen any. But how is that possible when caffeine consumption causes an insulin response?

People can and do eat carbs without getting fat and sick. But at any level of carb intake, there will be some who will

So, for some people, the only way to be healthy is to avoid carbohydrates altogether? That's sure sounds like what you're saying. If so, that's just more nonsense that cannot be supported by sound science. The Japanese, and many other Asian nations, stand in stark contrast to this belief of yours as they continue to enjoy the world's highest life expectancy. All those people who worked on farms several generations ago that ate huge amounts of carbohydrates, while working 12 hours a day in the fields and never getting fat, also prove that this can't be true. I watched Michael Phelps in the Olympics and he didn't look unhealthy to me. I agree that there will always be people who rely far too much on one macronutrient in their diet rather than eating all of them in balance, and that they will probably be less healthy than those that do. No surprises there.

Japanese grade school kids, their older siblings, and their parents, all consume a diet high in high GI carbs. The Japanese are hardly an obese or physically sick society. They don't have as much protein in their diets as Americans, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they are sickly because they've relied on a high carbohydrate diet for thousands of years. Good grief, the Roman armies conquered the world marching on bread.

Science tells us that the total number of calories is what is important – while the macronutrient ratio is not terribly important – provided it does not lead to malnutrition. Demonization of one macronutrient or another is a common trait of diet fads. History shows you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem – while the (admittedly rather obvious) idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few are prepared to pay for. Yup, bad nutritional advice and a lack of understanding can be blamed on money. Unlike lobbyists, however, this nonsense is being promoted by charlatans who are solely interested in grant money and others who simply want to sell you something.

22 posted on 04/16/2013 3:55:56 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity.

Frankly, that's nonsensical. It's equivalent to saying that a nightclub is crowded because more people came in the doors than went out. It's true, because it's tautological. It says nothing about causation.

If people are gaining weight, they are taking in more calories than they consume. This is true, regardless of whether they are a teen going through a growth spurt or a middle-aged man growing a middle. The reason they are building muscle or bone or fat is that their hormones are partitioning incoming nutrients into building muscle or bone or fat.

This isn't crackpot science, it's not even controversial. It's well-established science you can find in every biochemistry textbook.

But for some reason, many assume that it isn't relevant, because if people would eat less and exercise more, their hormonal levels would automatically adapt to the reduced available nutrients by partitioning less energy into fat deposition. And the problem with that it is demonstrably not true.

It's not only possible, it's quite common, for the body to respond to a calorie deficit by decreasing energy levels, cannibalizing muscle, and maintaining or even continuing to increase fat deposits.

23 posted on 04/16/2013 7:51:10 PM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Frankly, that's nonsensical.

Hardly. I learned this as a grad student in biochemistry, focused in food science, and it is considered pretty basic knowledge to anyone with any training in human nutrition. No bio-chem book I am aware of is going to deny that fact. It wasn't controversial in any way back then, and I assure you that nothing has changed.

Growing bodies demand more energy, so teenagers can consume massive amounts of kilocalories without experiencing weight gain. Again, you are stating the obvious. There are numerous variables that will control how quickly someone will gain weight, as well as how much more difficult it may be for a particular person to shed those pounds. Again, this is very basic stuff that isn't controversial. However, I don't care who you are or what you eat, if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Hormones don't matter, metabolism doesn't matter, macronutrient type doesn't matter.....you will lose weight. If you put a rat on a treadmill for 10 hours a day, and feed it its normal caloric diet in nothing but sucrose, it isn't going to get fat.

The only way to argue against this truth is to deny thermodynamics. And I don't think you're prepared to do that, are you?

Your body's storage capacity for the three macronutrients works in this order:
1. Fats
2. Glucose
3. Proteins

Your body burns macronutrients in this order:
1. Proteins
2. Glucose
3. Fats

If your protein needs exceed the amount available to your body from what it is constantly recycling, then your body will start using the protein in muscles to get what it needs. But this doesn't occur until your body is in starvation mode. If you completely eliminate glucose from your diet, your body would have to start metabolizing muscle to get the glucose it needs to keep your brain working. Some folks think that's an acceptable and healthy approach to living. I think it's crazy, but to each their own.

Too many people are looking for an excuse for their obesity, and for someone or something to blame. Not enough people are taking personal responsibility for their appearance and well-being. It's much easier being a victim. It's a sad commentary on our society, and there are a lot of people earning a good living playing to this pathology, while bastardizing the legitimate science many of us bothered to learn. It's unfortunate and depressing.

24 posted on 04/16/2013 9:17:08 PM PDT by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mase
The only way to argue against this truth is to deny thermodynamics. And I don't think you're prepared to do that, are you?

The thermodynamics will always balance. But they will not always balance in the direction you would prefer.

You said:

Humans will burn burn fat, rather than store it, if the body is using more energy than it takes in.

And that's simply not the case. In the face of a calorie deficit, the body will either:

  1. Burn fat to make up the difference, or
  2. burn muscle to make up the difference, or
  3. reduce energy expenditure to make up the difference, or
  4. some combination of the above.

Energy input will always balance, but your claim that it will always balance by burning fat is demonstrably not true. It's not on possible, but common, for the body to respond to a calorie deficit by lowering its metabolic rate, reducing lean mass, and retaining fat.

25 posted on 04/17/2013 5:01:44 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson