Food Policy

USDA's Rollback of School Lunch Reforms Won't Accomplish Anything

This is just the latest petty development in what is an ugly, mostly partisan dance.

|

Last week the USDA announced plans to further loosen school-lunch reforms implemented under the Obama administration. The Trump administration announced the proposed changes to rules adopted under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which were championed by then-First Lady Michelle Obama, on the former First Lady's birthday.

This is just the latest petty development in what is an ugly, mostly partisan dance. (Though Snopes claims the HHFKA "receiv[ed] bipartisan support in [C]ongress," the yeas included all but eight out of 255 Democrats but only 17 of 179 GOP lawmakers.)

"The Obama administration's changes to the National School Lunch Program, championed by then-First Lady Michelle Obama and adopted in 2012, modified requirements for sodium, whole grain, milk, and fruits and vegetables served as part of the school lunch program," I wrote last year. "In 2018, the Trump administration rolled back many of those changes."

(A multi-state lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's actions, which I discussed after it was filed last year, hasn't been resolved.)

The newly proposed rule changes, which appeared in the Federal Register this week, show the USDA wants to loosen existing rules for including vegetables in school lunches and permit more a la carte items such as hamburgers to appear more frequently on menus. Among other changes, the proposal would "allow schools to reduce the amount of vegetables and fruits required at lunch and breakfast."

The USDA couched the changes as "optional flexibilities" intended to streamline foodservice, eliminate some administration burdens, and reduce food waste. A new USDA fact sheet argues the proposed rules, which you can comment on right here if so inclined, would "better enable schools to serve nutritious foods children will be eager to eat while also increasing program efficiency and integrity."

Is that so bad? A study commissioned by the USDA last year found kids throw away around one-quarter of the fruits, fruit juices, milk, and bread schools serve them, and bin nearly one-third of vegetables. The study also found that kids are least likely to discard meats or meat substitutes (14 percent). More of the latter and less of the former, the thinking goes, would both improve student nutrition and reduce food waste.

But many critics aren't buying what the USDA is selling.

A commentator with the Center for Science in the Public Interest claims the Trump administration is "sabotaging" and "basically aiming a flamethrower at" one of the Obama administration's signature laws.

The San Antonio Express-News editorial board called the proposal "as unpalatable as a soggy French fry."

(That French fry quip is a nod to the fact many see the powerful potato lobby's fingerprints all over some of the Trump administration's reforms. Notably, the same lobby also attempted to strangle some Obama administration school-lunch rules.)

"This is all about pizza sales and other ways of boosting districts' a la carte revenue," wrote Bettina Elias Siegel, a leading advocate for the Obama administration's school-lunch policies.

Some critics mocked a change that would count pasta made from vegetables as a vegetable, while others kept their comments to a tweet's length.

Critics of the USDA proposal are as plentiful as food waste in a school lunchroom. Vocal supporters are tough to locate.

In a statement this week, the School Nutrition Association, which represents the interests of tens of thousands of the nation's school lunchroom workers—lunch men and ladies—withheld judgment on the changes while noting what it sees as several benefits the changes would provide, including the option to serve students more lean protein (such as eggs) and less grain at breakfast time.

In touting those benefits, the group's stance is consistent with previous statements on the benefits of rolling back the Obama administration's regulations. Indeed, the SNA's statement reiterates the group's belief in "the need to streamline overly complex child nutrition programs and cites how current school meal flexibilities have helped ease school menu planning challenges while maintaining strong nutrition standards to benefit students."

Supporters toe the Trump line. Critics toe the Obama line. All that toeing stinks.

Ultimately, politics should have nothing to do with the foods kids eat at school. Critics of the Obama administration's school-lunch reforms, me included, argued the changes meant both soaring costs and mountains of food waste. Critics of the Trump administration's school-lunch reforms, me included, argue the changes mean school lunches stink like they used to and offer students lower-quality food. On school lunches, both administrations created new problems instead of offering a solution.

So what can be done? As I've argued here and detail more fully in my 2016 book Biting the Hands that Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable, getting the USDA and the federal government out of the school-lunch business entirely would let states, cities, local communities, and families work together to improve nutrition and cut food waste and costs. That's a workable plan—something the USDA's National School Lunch Program wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be.

NEXT: More on Copyright Lawyer Richard Liebowitz

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So reason has now started arguing for extra regulations for political reasons… huh.

    1. “getting the USDA and the federal government out of the school-lunch business entirely”

      Idiot.

      1. It’s not that Jesse can’t read, it’s just that he’s fundamentally dishonest. He reads (or “reads into it”) whatever he wants, and disregards the rest.

        1. Yes. I. read into a headline that blatant states reducing a regulation wont do anything. Now where did I get that.

          Hmm..

          USDA’s Rollback of School Lunch Reforms Won’t Accomplish Anything

          Oh! Look what reason wrote.

          They do the same ignorant dumbshit you and you other sophomoric hacks do in claiming one reduction in regulation has no benefit. Hints prior to this roll back there were more regulations. Are we better off now yes or no?

          How stupid are some of you in your derangement? You’re the two types of assholes who think Amash is a worthwhile person despite him accomplishing nothing. You put down the people who actually progress to a goal because they didnt achieve the entire goal on one step. You dumbfucks like to complain and nothing else.

          1. Saying that the regulation rollback is weak is exactly the opposite of your claim that Reason wants more regulation.

            Dishonest doesn’t come close to describing you.

            1. Why do you talk to yourself like we don’t know you’re SQRLSY, SQRLSY?

          2. JesseAz, as you know here at unreason, when you rip on the unreason staff for printing the garbage they print, the sock trolls attack you.

            It’s a badge of honor, really. The more trolls, the more you have upset unreason staff.

      2. Did you read the headline and first 2 paragraphs dumbfuck? They basically argued this has no benefit and is purely political.

        Once again you are too fucking dumb to understand even one step is a step. It doesnt all have to be at once. But no, you’re too fucking TDS driven to understand that even one regulation gone is a good thing.

        1. That is not the same as your claim that Reason wants more regulation.

          1. Hi SQRLSY

        2. No, it basically asserts that there won’t be any benefit. I didn’t see any actual arguing.

          The Trump administration position is, “A third of the vegetables put on the plates go straight to the garbage can. Maybe we should just give the students a choice about whether they get vegetables on their plates, instead of spending good money on expensive garbage?”

          This seems a pretty reasonable stance.

          1. Quote: “A third of the vegetables put on the plates go straight to the garbage can.
            Anyone that has ever eaten school lunch anywhere, at anytime knows that, why don’t politicians?
            Of course they could make a regulation all school kids have to eat all their vegetables to graduate, though that would have the unintended consequence of a lot of dropouts!

            1. Because they don’t give a damn about the stated intent.
              The point of it is exercising power and funding cronies.
              The welfare industrial complex is worse than the MIC at this point

              1. “funding cronies”… like those fatcat fruit and vegetable growers we’re always hearing about! Oh, wait, maybe the cronies who stand the most to gain are massive fast food corporations that can churn out low quality, comparatively high profit fast food for school luncheon halls.

      3. By the way, it amuses me you ignored 99% of the article to try and get a win, ignoring most of the article that was trying to yell this reduction was political. Such a child. Lol.

        1. All regulation by a political entity (“government”) is political.

          1. And all posts by you are by SQRLSY.

      4. Literally the lede to the second paragraph.

        “This is just the latest petty development in what is an ugly, mostly partisan dance. ”

        If reason had kept the stupid pettiness out of the article youd have a point. But you have TDS as well so cant applaud an actual good reduction in regulation.

        You’re fucking sad.

        1. After ALL of your song and dance, you STILL haven’t demonstrated that Reason (or this article) has been “…arguing for extra regulations…” as you have said.

          I actually agree with you, that the Trump admin here ***HAS*** been moving in a positive direction (reducing the stupid, and the food waste, enabling feeding the kiddos food THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY EAT, and that Baylen hasn’t given that angle (better is better than worse) the proper credit. I do agree with that.

          To say, though, that Reason/Bayen are arguing for MORE regulations, is either an outright lie… Show us where they argued for that… Or an exaggeration to the point of a blatant lie. At worse, Reason/Baylen is guilty of too much fence-straddling between Obama and Trump, and not acknowledging that better is better than worse.

          Lie less, and you will be more credible!

          1. Trump is reducing regulation, and Reason is arguing against the reduction. That’s arguing in favor of more regulation than Trump proposes.

            I don’t know, maybe in their secret heart of hearts, Reason wants less regulation, just somewhere between what Trump is proposing and what we have now. It doesn’t seem like a very libertarian stance, but it could be.

            If that’s the case, maybe they should say so, instead of just attacking the deregulation?

            1. TDS has so warped the brains of most Lefties and Anarchists, all they do is lash out.

              No wonder they needed gatekeepers. Most Lefties are unhinged psychopaths who couldn’t form two arguments together to save their lives.

            2. This article does not argue against the reduction. Can you not read either? Show where it says the reduction was wrong. All he says is that the reduction is not nearly enough.

              1. Sure SQRLSY.

              2. The problem is that “attacking the deregulation” with the end goal of stating, “reduction is not nearly enough” — Is about as imbalanced as lobbying to throw away all cars (i.e. ATTACKING) because they can’t do 1200mph instead of acknowledging that speeds are increasing everyday.

          2. Oh fuck off, SQRLSY.

            The lead and intro were perfectly clear, and the To Be Sure and Both Sides waffling afterwards don’t negate that.

            1. I agree with y’all, Reason/Baylen didn’t give credit where credit is due. Less-stupid regulation is better than more-stupid regulation.

              I did NOT see ANY place where Baylen said he’d prefer going from the new Trumpian regs backwards towards the older Obamaniac regs… What did I miss? Or are y’all hallucinating?

              1. Hi Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, why do you talk to yourself like we don’t know you’re Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf?

          3. Well, let’s see, Linnekin said:

            Critics of the Trump administration’s school-lunch reforms, me included, argue the changes mean school lunches stink like they used to and offer students lower-quality food.

            So, he’s objecting to a rollback of regulations in the exact same words as the people who support more regulation. And he certainly doesn’t suggest any alternate reforms that Trump could impose without the consent of the House. So he’s not offering a real deregulatory alternative to Trump’s actions, he’s just denouncing deregulation.

            Now, then he throws in a bit supporting total abolition to buff up his libertarian bona fides at the end. But you me, and everyone else with an above-room-temperature IQ knows that the Democrat-controlled House wouldn’t even consider passing a bill that would make it possible. When it comes to politics, denouncing an actual deregulatory action in the name of an impossible one is, in sober fact, advocating for regulations.

            1. He says the deregulation is so little as to be almost worthless,and that the feds should stop regulating school lunches altogether.

              You Trumpistas take anything less than full-throated praise as lies. Your despair when he leaves office will be fine entertainment.

              1. Well, let’s see.

                Number of times Linnekin qualified his calling the change worthless with a qualifier like “almost”: 0.

                Number of times I’ve voted for Trump, which would be the minimum standard for being a “Trumpista”: 0.

                So, you managed to get reality wrong twice in the space of two sentences.

              2. He says the deregulation is so little as to be almost worthless

                No, that’s not what he was saying. He was accusing the Trump administration of making a change to the program for political reasons and out of animosity towards Obama, and then claimed that Trump’s rollback (and I quote) “created new problems instead of offering a solution.” He never said what those supposed “new problems” were.

                1. Well, it’s basically trading one federal regulation for another federal regulation, instead of putting school lunch content in control of states or local school districts (who would do a better job).

      5. Well, the punchline was pretty much held back until the last paragraph.

        This may be a good practice so proponents of a big, powerful, and intrusive national government (except, oddly, when their party doesn’t control Congress and the Executive branch) actually continue reading and considering the arguments instead of immediately dismissing the entire article as “right wing talking points” or some other stereotyped classification they assign to avoid listening to alternative views and considering them.

        It may not be a good practice when the audience is more libertarian leaning.

        1. Not a bad point.
          Of course, follow up would be required.
          And it’s a strategy that points to seeing D control as inevitable, even preferable, or looking to people who are the ideological antithesis of libertarianism as potential allies (while throwing much more natural potential allies under the bus).

      6. Yeah, because that is what outfits like the CSPI are all about – getting government out of it.

        Yeah, sure.

        Idiot.

    2. It’s fcvkin amazing how bad the TDS is here

  2. Damn, the transformation from a libertarian magazine to a progressive one has been a relatively quick one, but at least we’ve been able to document it real time.

    Hey Linnekin, fuck off, slaver!

    1. getting the USDA and the federal government out of the school-lunch business entirely would let states, cities, local communities, and families work together to improve nutrition and cut food waste and costs.

      That’s taken directly from the article you are commenting on.

      1. Again… ignoring the rest of the article for what reason. Is one reduction of a regulation good or not? The headline says why bother. You seem to think the only policy is all or nothing and prefer our current state to a halfway state. You’re an ignorant idealist.

        1. Show ONE single example of where this article asks for more regulation.

          You can’t. You are a liar.

          1. Attacking a reduction IS asking for more than the reduction.

            1. Attacking a reduction for not being enough, and saying the regulation needs to disappear entirely, is NOT asking for more regulation.

              1. OK SQRLSY

        2. I don’t see how that is progressive bullshit though. You may take issue with the all or nothing approach to maximizing liberty but that doesn’t make it progressive.

          1. For the record, I think the Trump administration is probably right here (haven’t read enough to see if there are requirements I disagree with like you must serve so many potatoes). Until Congress fixes this then there is little he can do other then work within the framework of the law to reduce the federal presence in the lunchroom.

            1. Most of the article is devoted to criticism of the reduced regulations.

              “Supporters toe the Trump line. Critics toe the Obama line. All that toeing stinks.

              Ultimately, politics should have nothing to do with the foods kids eat at school. Critics of the Obama administration’s school-lunch reforms, me included, argued the changes meant both soaring costs and mountains of food waste. Critics of the Trump administration’s school-lunch reforms, me included, argue the changes mean school lunches stink like they used to and offer students lower-quality food. On school lunches, both administrations created new problems instead of offering a solution.”

              And this is ridiculous equivocation.
              The article reads like someone bitching about Trump undoing Obama initiatives, rather than someone pushing against regulation.
              The priority is “orange man bad to obama”, with “to be sure, regulation bad” tacked on at the end

              1. Maybe you can tell us about the lower quality, so we can have more information, and let these chatterers argue forever about who had the right wording.

        3. Getting rid of the USDA lunch program cold turkey (cold tofu?) is not practical as too much of the system relies on it. Doing so would probably be illegal as well (I assume that the core program is authorized by statutes and the Administration does not have the power to completely eliminate the program, just make “regulations” to implement and mange ) so would spawn lawsuits that would block such a move.

          This approach is like the proven approach that the big government proponents have used for decades to result in your bathtub being declared a “water of the United States and hence subject to environmental laws” if it’s draining a bit slow one day.

          In some political climates the only practical option is to nibble away slowly at government overreach using proven approaches.

      2. And the rollback of the Obama-era regs does exactly that, just at a smaller scale than would a full rollback.

        Again, fuck off slaver.

      3. Like many left-libertarians, Linnekin parrots the libertarian party line for ultimate objectives, knowing full well that they won’t be achieved any time soon.

        His short term arguments, however, are directly out of the left wing propaganda playbook: he is saying that Trump made these changes out of animosity towards Obama and to satisfy his political base, and that these changes are harmful.

    2. It’s not that. It’s just that Reason’s scared shitless of losing the “dissident” or “hopeless opposition” audience. And they have a good chance of holding onto much of it, because movement libertarians have been so used to losing, have so little idea of the politically possible, that they don’t recognize winning when they see it.

      All this prog posturing at HyR would disappear in a flash if the progs became solidly dominant. Fortunately that doesn’t seem to be about to happen. Rather, the progs politically are gaining an increasing share of a diminishing market.

      1. “…because movement libertarians have been so used to losing, have so little idea of the politically possible, that they don’t recognize winning when they see it.”

        Which is an explanation for the wailing and gnashing that happens with some of the puritans here when Rand Paul compromises, and actually gets something accomplished. He achieves much more in his brief time in the Senate, than his dad ever did in all his years in the House, and it’s because he actually tries to achieve a possible result. Instead of sitting behind a keyboard and demanding Libertopia Now!

      2. unreason staff still think that they can help control Independents, like Libertarians, to vote for Democrats.

        The Democrat Party will absolutely implode America and then Anarchists think they can take over. Republicans might or might not destroy America, so the choice has been made.

        Add in clickbait because unreason has been so run into the shitter and all this does seem like a crackpot plan.

  3. Why is the federal government regulating school lunches to begin with? Let the state and local authorities decide

    1. Some would make wrong decisions.

    2. Seems like an unconstitutional abuse of power to me.

      1. Definitely.

    3. LET PARENTS MAKE THE KIDS THEIR LUNCH!!!!!!!!

      That is what SNAP is supposed to be partly for.

      1. You can’t ask poor, unemployed women to make lunches for their kids, YOU MONSTER!

      2. Parents make lunch? How many wrong decisions will they make? What if you pack correctly, but your kid trades for something wrong? It’s better if we force kids to eat from a menu dictated by our betters.

  4. Of course, not having federal guidelines for school meals will generate more politically motivated cases of the vapors than merely rolling them back. Complaints that this damages the Obama’s legacy is telling, as a politician’s historical standing should be the least concern about maintaining any regulatory standard.

  5. kids throw away around one-quarter of the fruits, fruit juices, milk, and bread schools serve them, and bin nearly one-third of vegetables.

    Meh. Kids throw away more than *half* of what they’re provided in the classroom.

    1. Heh.

      Mom says she makes her kid who won’t eat the healthy food she prepares stay at the table until the plate is clean.

      OK try this experiment. Do that for a month. Now weigh the family dog before and after.

  6. Supporters toe the Trump line. Critics toe the Obama line. All that toeing stinks.

    Maybe in some abstract sense the “toeing” stinks, but what about the lines? Show us where anything’s bad about the Trump line where the other choice is the Obama line, which is what the choices are now.

    Ultimately, politics should have nothing to do with the foods kids eat at school.

    You call that ultimate?! Ultimately government (and therefore politics) should not have schools! Meanwhile given political realities, Trump and his allies are the good guys on this, as well as on most (not all) other things.

    1. Stick with your bigotry and backwardness, Robert. It suits you as you prepare for replacement.

      1. Ah, yes, that sounds familiar. Just help us figure out what kind of leftist you are: are you going to send Robert and me to the gas chambers, or simply to Siberian gulags? I mean, either have been used by people like you to replace backwards and undesirable people like us.

        1. This is predictable. Robert will continue to be crushed in the culture war, and inconsequential in American society, then be replaced — when he takes his stale, bigoted, anti-social thinking to the grave — by a better, younger American.

  7. Why am I paying to feed other people’s children?

    Are their parents in jail?

    1. All is for The Hive! The Great, Glorious Hive!

      All hail the Hive!

      (Also, yes, some of their parents ARE in jail, having unwisely tangled with the Flute Police!)

      To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

      1. Hi Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf

        1. Hi, Hihn. Fuck off, Hihn!

    2. Why are you paying to house them? Provide them food? Take care of their medical bills? All great questions.

      With the same answer: more of them voted for it, than other people voted against it.

      I agree with you Ken. Pay your own damn bills people.

    3. Hungry children have a hard time learning so feeding them is a part of education.

      Cold children have a hard time learning so buying them clothes is a part of education as well.

      Bored children have a hard time learning so buying them an Xbox should be a part of education, too.

      Depressed children are going to need a pony.

      Personally, I’d hold out for hookers and blow to get me in the right mood for education, let’s see if we can’t get that worked into the school budget somewhere, shall we?

      1. I vote for Jerryskids’s plan! In droves!

        For the “hookers” part of the “hookers and blow”, we need to sign up Stormy Daniels! And Monica Lewinski to boot, to keep it bipartisan! We’re all equal now, right? If they are good enough for the POTUS, they are good enough for the school kids!

  8. Your betters know how to feed your children. Clingers shove cheap packaged fast food into their mouths to quiet them. Let the government show you how to eat healthy and live better more productive lives. Our lifestyle education camps will allow you clingers to learn more.

    1. The goal is to enable the children of clingers to escape the desolation, bigotry, and ignorance of their hometowns at high school graduation for the opportunity, education, modernity available on strong liberal-libertarian campuses and in modern, educated, successful communities.

      Providing reality-based education, nutrition, and health care to those children until they are old enough to depart slack-jawed America — because decent people do not fault minors for having losers for parents — is a noble endeavor.

      We need all of the reasoning, educated, skilled, decent citizens we can get.

      1. Watching you cry at your replacement is fabulous.

        1. I have been on the winning side of the American culture war — which means shoving progress down your whining, inconsequential, bigoted throat — throughout my lifetime.

          Open wider, and be nicer, or your betters might start positioning that progress sideways before shoving it down your throat, clinger.

          1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
            January.25.2020 at 8:49 pm
            “I have been on the winning side of the American culture war…

            Yeah, that November ’16 win was just wonderful, right, asshole bigot? Open wide, Trump it going to get jammed down your throat once more.

      2. The goal is to enable the children of clingers to escape the desolation, bigotry, and ignorance of their hometowns at high school graduation for the opportunity, education, modernity available on strong liberal-libertarian campuses and in modern, educated, successful communities.

        That is the goal. The reality is that public schools turn out uneducated imbeciles incapable of earning a living, and full of hatred and intolerance.

        Providing reality-based education, nutrition, and health care to those children until they are old enough to depart slack-jawed America — because decent people do not fault minors for having losers for parents — is a noble endeavor.

        Yes. Too bad that government is an utter failure at accomplishing that.

        We need all of the reasoning, educated, skilled, decent citizens we can get.

        Just look at yourself to see why.

      3. How about addressing the reality that kids are throwing away most of the additional nutrition that schools are required to put on their trays

  9. When Trump’s defense team read from exculpatory sections of the transcript this morning, it sure sounded pretty fatal to the Democrats’ case to me.

    1. Wait till they get to the exculpatory testimony Schiff arranged to have classified, so nobody outside the committee was allowed to hear it. Trump has declassification authority, so there’s a good chance Schiff isn’t going to be able to keep it buried.

      1. Did Schiff cry yesterday?

      2. When are the bombshell revelations in the birther investigation coming, Mr. Bellmore?

        1. Lol you mad lololol

  10. Reason could write almost the same piece on Trump’s effort to roll back water and energy conservation regulation on fixtures, bulbs and appliances.

    “He’s just doing it to spite Obama and Bush, doing away with well-intentioned regulations to “own the libs”

    “Critics decry this move”

    BIG LIGHTBULB! BIG SPIGOT!

    “No one is cheering the move except partisan Trump-sucking hacks on the right”

    “I kinda agree with but totally condemn BOTH SIDES!”

    “Fuck relatively modest reforms that increase consumer choice”

    SLD: To be sure, the government shouldn’t regulate this stuff at all

  11. So Baylen is both for and against the regulations that the administration just rolled back. Seems par for the course for Reason these days.

    1. The Reason B Team. They are all fcvkin idiots. Including ENB

  12. It’s none of your business what other people’s children eat.

    All your complaints about school lunches are 100% irrelevant unless the solution is for the government to fuck off. Once that happens, government-provided school lunches are bad stops being a public problem. Or when just the Federal government fucks off, it stops being a Federal problem and becomes a matter for locals, solving the Federal part of the problem forever.

    Parents and locals care about their kids. They don’t need outside interference from you or anyone else.

    1. So true. However this seems like just an example of the kinds of regulation we will eventually see under a national or single payer type of healthcare system. It will be a strong, logical argument at that point to say that we need to regulate what people eat so that they don’t get so unhealthy that it bankrupts the entire healthcare system.

    2. But… but… But Government Almighty LOVES The Children more Deeply and Dearly than we their parents do!!! Or ever could!!!

      Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      1. Your rhyes are always stuoid, especially the one you made a fool of yourself getting “llama” wrong with, Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf

    3. We’re not getting rid of the school lunch program anytime soon. Until we do, giving the kids choices they prefer and not forcing them to take food they don’t want just to throw it away seems like a good move. When I used to buy school lunches I was forced to take the milk and usually no one else wanted it so I just threw it unopened in the garbage. Eventually I just stopped eating the lunch and kept the $0.55.

    4. You are welcome to advocate for your positions on child welfare, Ben, and to try to persuade educated, reasoning, successful Americans that your cause is just.

      I will plan to observe American progress being shaped against your wishes and efforts, as has been customary throughout our lifetimes.

      Inconsequential, anti-social clingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

      1. “are among my favorite faux libertarians”

        And that’s among your favorite verbal crutches.

        Remember when I shamed you into giving up “disaffected” you’re so embarrassed that I did that, that you pretend you didn’t get shamed into giving it up because you lost so badly.

        1. You are a disaffected, anti-social, inconsequential clinger.

          Disaffected describes most on-the-spectrum, gun-fondling, bigoted, right-wing dullards perfectly.

          1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
            January.25.2020 at 8:51 pm
            “You are a disaffected, anti-social, inconsequential clinger.”

            Asshole bigot makes assertions, assumes those other than asshole bigot does other than laugh.
            Fuck off.

      2. Inconsequential, anti-social clingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

        No doubt, being one yourself.

  13. Petty? Rolling back dumb wasteful Unconstitutional unFederalist counterproductive regulations is now a “Petty Move” to Reason?

    WTF happened to this place? It is unrecognizable in its current form

    1. Incrementalism only works for Lefties to gradually increase government.

      Going the other way is HERESY!

    2. Here’s your ode to increased regulation:

      getting the USDA and the federal government out of the school-lunch business entirely

      But you Trumpistas stop reading after 280 characters, so of course none of you got that far.

        1. Old Mex is mad again.

      1. Sure SQRLSY

  14. The USDA shouldn’t even exist.

    1. Do something about it or quit whining.

      I predict you will do neither. Until replacement occurs.

      1. I have, and am, doing something each election.

      2. I would — but I’m so busy working to pay my taxes that it seems 10x harder for me to vote than it does the lazy leeches sucking up those taxes, watching TV all day and wondering what idiotic garbage they can fad-drive next. I see their kind when I do get the chance to vote. They’re the ones that tra-la-la-de-da in to vote with their 3hr make-up job, new car and all the time in the world.

  15. I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone, Here is what I do. Follow details on this web page……………..> http://www.money34.com

    1. Last year, the charter school I work for brought in the school district to do the lunches. The head chef came to help get things set up and running. He is the guy who developes the recipes and menus for the district. He hates Michelle’s rules. He said that with the grade school and junior high schools, he just has to serve food that doesn’t taste good. For high schools with an open campus, he’s screwed. He said it was basically impossible for him to serve anything that tasted good enough to keep the students on campus.
      Also, I can attest that lunches brought from home get thrown out just as much as the ones bought at school, at least in grade school.

  16. Is there any better metaphor for progressive politics than a cafeteria lunch lady forcing kids to eat institutional food?

    1. Well, there’s school kids being turned into food in The Wall.

      1. Soylent Green, anyone?

        “All in all you’re just another… Brick in The Wall!”

    2. The lunch lady

      Think of the memories.

      I really miss Chris Farley

      https://tinyurl.com/Lunch-lady-land

  17. Phase 1. Provide free school lunch to poor kids.
    Phase 2. Provide free school lunch to all kids to not stigmatize poor kids.
    Phase 3. Provide free school breakfast lunch and dinner to poor kids.
    Phase 4. __________________________________________

    fill in the blank

    1. “Phase 4.” Call the warehouse full of gov’t-paid attendants a “school” and pretend there is other than indoctrination going on.

  18. The whole concept of public schools is a libertarian issue. On the one hand why should I pay for your kids education. On the other side there are consequential arguments. Communities without that are poverty stricken which has devastating effects and will harm me because they can’t pay me for my goods or services and I can’t find decent help.

    Either way. If you are going to force parents to send their children to school they at least should get fed somehow at some point. You really can’t force a 9 year old to eat something they don’t want. Just try it.

    So the nanny staters should stay out of it. The menu is a local issue.

    1. Yay for Echospinner!

      Not a perfect libertarian libertopia, but that ain’t gonna happen any time soon, anyway. Meanwhile, we have to move common sense forward in itsy-bitsy little increments… Better is better than worse!

      I have a favored analogy… My neighbor’s house is on fire? Let’s all get together and put it out! Else it might spread! Then, ***AFTER*** the fire is out, let’s argue public v/s private funding for firefighting!

      1. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make but if “we all got together and put it out” – that certainly wouldn’t be classified as a ‘public’ utility (government) putting it out. It would be more PRIVATE than anything. And I’ll tell you what; I live 20-minutes from the government fire department and 1-minute away from my neighbors water truck. Guess who gets the fire out????

    2. “I can’t find decent help” — You mean with the billions in property taxes every year; you still can’t find decent help?????

      If that doesn’t sound like complete failure of the system; I don’t know what does. I won’t even bring up how employers consider 6-months of experience in a field more ‘valuable’ than 6-years of instituted education.

      One thing seems to be sure though. For welfare FUNDING – “So the nanny staters should stay out of it. The menu is a local issue.”

  19. Baylen, rolling back the previous administration’s food programs is a positive thing.

    But from word one my thought was exactly what you write at the end: Why is the government even involved in this? If there’s one thing no one takes seriously it’s government food guidelines and advice.

    Up here in America Jr., the Canadian government changed up the food guide lines. As if the previous one wasn’t already pointless, the new one – I call it the “the wisdom of seven ancient grains’ facade – gives still more credence to the fact they should be ignored.

    The other issue I have with the government sticking its dumbass nose in how we eat has to do with cultural considerations.

    I’m Italian. And lemme tell ya, if politicians think we even thought these things mattered they’re buzzing. I’m sure many people of different backgrounds (particularly those with a developed sense of culinary heritage) feel/felt the same way. My mother would have been all ‘Put that away. What do they know? Here’s a veal cutlet sandwich with home made peppers and provolone, juice and (insert in-season fruit).’

    Michelle coming to our school to yap about food would have been nothing more than a passing curiosity.

    1. En passant, for those of you who wish to construct a cutlet sandwich may I suggest moistening one side of ciabatta or panini bread (French baaguette are fine but sometimes too thin so get a nice thick one) some olive oil and oregano. Add some romaine or Boston lettuce (not iceberg) and the aforementioned peppers and provolone. Don’t forget the power of marinated eggplant. Example:

      https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B071RHR1VL/reasonmagazinea-20/

      Another variation is to drop the pepper, cheese and lettuce altogether and put (my favourite incidentally) rapini (Broccoli rabe). Make sure you blanch it and then fry it for a couple of minutes in a pan with garlic and olive oil.

      Add a Sicilian or Spanish blood orange to conclude ‘e siamo a posto’.

      1. I’ll got for it (and have) except for the eggplant; seems to be nothing other than a sponge for whatever flavor is provided. I’ll take the flavor and pass on the texture of the sponge.

        1. I’m not the biggest fan of eggplant too. I get your point and you can use any marinated vegetable of your choice really.

    2. Oh the grain thing. On my trips to Canada did some fishing expeditions there which were awesome. So the lodge had this grain porridge for breakfast. They take their grains seriously there. Never been more regular in my life.

      Never discuss food with an Italian. Just shut up and eat. Y’all got that down to an art light years past anyone else.

  20. First! And on a Saturday night, who woulda thunk?!?

  21. Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet… Check The Details….. Read more

  22. Need to invent a vegan quinoa gruel of some sort (so gluten-free, of course) that provides 100% of recommended allowances of all the good things but low fat/carb/sugar/sodium and and make it “free” to all students but make that the only school lunch ever served. Streamlined operation, nutritious, cheap (so when the kids won’t eat it, the wasted money is low), and kids will either eat it, bring their own food, or skip and be hungry (in which case STFU).

    Is that cynical?

  23. Awwwwwwwww they ruined the wookie’s legacy and Linnekin has a sad!

    Go fuck yourself you fat stupid piece of shit.

  24. re: “Supporters toe the Trump line. Critics toe the Obama line.”

    Well, of course they do when you define “supporters” and “critics” by how closely they agree with the politician. What a stupid statement. Are you going to tell us next some stunning insight like “Dog people tend to like dogs”?

  25. USDA’s Rollback of School Lunch Reforms Won’t Accomplish Anything

    Will it accomplish lightening the heavy hand of Federal government regulation, even just a little bit? Yes? Then it will accomplish something.

    Center for Science in the Public Interest

    Dear lord Linnekin. You know these people are an activist group who only push for ever more government control and interference in private lives.

    Ultimately, politics should have nothing to do with the foods kids eat at school.

    But you characterize supporting the *roll back* of some regulations here as ‘toeing the Trump line’. *You* are framing this as a political fight by saying that neither side might have legitimate reasons to support their view and are only doing so because ‘my team’.

  26. this is the second article this week complaining that Trump’s deregulation is pointless.

    I suppose he just shouldn’t do anything?

  27. I was happy when they took the high sugar soda out of the school vending machines. If you want your kid drinking Mountain Dew pack it with his or her lunch.

    1. “I was happy when they took the high sugar soda out of the school vending machines. If you want your kid drinking Mountain Dew pack it with his or her lunch.”

      I’d be happy if ‘they’ took your posting privileges away. Do you want to read slaver whines like this?

    2. Fuck off nanny.

    3. Whats wrong Lester – Haven’t you figured out how to raise your kids yourself yet? Still think the government should raise them for you?

  28. Conclusion:

    Trump 1.
    Michelle 0.

    Trump wins. Again.

  29. Hey, I missed this on the first go around, but I have salient knowledge.

    I have 3 kids in public schools. I have eaten with those kids in their school cafeterias. I suggest everyone volunteer at their local school and do the same. You’ll have a completely different appreciation for what this argument is about.

    Lunches under the Obama mandate suck. I mean, they really, really suck.

    Not all of them, mind you. But enough.

    They have screwed up hamburgers. You go to an elementary or middle school on hamburger day, and you’ll see what I mean. Kids don’t take the burger. And if they do, they pull the meat out and eat it with ketchup. The mandated whole wheat bun sucks. I mean, really, really sucks. It tastes like some wood product created by Georgia-Pacific.

    They do have some “healthy choices” on the menu. If you are a fat, middle aged woman, that is. But the results are counter-intuitive. They have a really cool sounding salad – it has a spring greens mix with little packets of seeds and croutons and yogurt raisins to go on it, a packet of vinaigrette dressing and a package of 2 crackers.

    Given the choice of the burger and the salad, most take the salad. And they open the little package of 6-8 yogurt raisins and eat that. Then they throw the rest away.

    Because of Obama mandates, they are (were) required to take one item of each category. So even if they had no plans to eat that medley of raw carrot slices with raw broccoli, they have to take it.

    So my estimate is that fully 90% of the food served at my kid’s elementary school is thrown directly in the trash. Surprisingly, this even includes the good stuff – like chocolate milk. I don’t know what kind of kid avoids drinking chocolate milk, but they do.

    We just opened a “sharing table” at our school. Any unopened packaged items can be placed there instead of tossing them in the trash. They are taken to a local food bank. The numbers are staggering. There were thousands of items the first day. This, in a school with 700-750 kids where a majority bring their lunch from home.

    Much of this is the weirdness of school lunch in general (very little time, many of the kids have to eat too early – some as early as 10:00. But a lot of the waste is due directly to Obama policies mandating that everyone eat as if they are a fat little diabetic kid on a path to cardiovascular disease. They mandate low-fat, low sodium, low sugar, whole grain, low calorie foods…. Most kids are not fat, do not have high blood pressure and don’t need to lose weight.

    The only praise I have is outside of Obama mandates. They do have a much wider variety of foods than they did when I was a kid. Our school usually has 3 choices every day (one is usually a salad). We never had that. On pizza day, everyone got their little rectangle of cardboard and was happy to have it.

  30. Start now earning easily every month extra $15,000 or more just by doing very simple and easy home based onlin work in part time. In previous month i have received $18340 from this easy online work… Read more

Please to post comments