See update at bottom:
My article as originally published in American Thinker:
On Wednesday Michelle Obama unveiled the new Federal school-lunch regulations, as part of her anti-obesity campaign. I don’t remember seeing a culinary section in the US Constitution. Under current leadership, the Federal government appears to have an enormous appetite for our freedoms?
The First Lady said during her speech:
Because, as parents, we all know that if left to their own devices, many of our kids would eat candy for breakfast, they’d follow it up with a few French fries for lunch and cookies and chips for snacks, and then they’d come home for a big chocolate sundae for dinner, right? (Laughter.) And we know that it is our responsibility, as adults, to make sure they don’t do that. So it’s our responsibility to make sure that they get basic nutrition that they need to stay healthy.
That’s right — kids need and have their parents to watch over them — but of course that’s just not good enough for the nanny-state.
Mrs. Obama goes on:
And that’s why so many of us try so very hard to prepare decent meals at home, and to limit how much junk food they get at home, and to ensure that they have a reasonably balanced diet. And when we’re putting forth this kind of effort at home — and many of us are, and it’s difficult to do every single day — it’s always a challenge, particularly with tough economic times and not enough time in the day — but when we’re putting forth these efforts, when we’re doing what we’re supposed to do at home, the last thing we want is to have all these hard efforts, all this hard work undone in the school cafeteria.
Suddenly the Left is all worried about parental efforts being undone at school? Not quite. It’s the parents’ responsibility, not the federal government’s, to make sure their kids eat well at their homes, their friend’s houses, their grandparent’s houses and at their schools. If enough parents aren’t happy with what’s on the menu (which they can read) they’ll either complain to the school (a local issue) in order to force changes, or hit the school in the pocketbook by packing their kids lunches on their own. That is unless their kids go to one Chicago school where even that is no longer allowed because parents aren’t to be trusted with making their own kids lunches. Forget about metal detectors, this school is more worried about having ‘food detectors’ to make sure no one is packin’-lunch.
Mrs. Obama says the kids don’t mind the “change” that she believes in:
And again and again, schools are finding that when they actually offer these healthier options, kids aren’t just willing to try them, they actually like them. That’s the thing, that’s the surprising thing.
But as Michelle Malkin points out, Los Angeles schools have found that the only thing getting healthier is the amount of garbage from tossed food, and the union payrolls.
President Obama has been working hard and doing his part to curtail the problem of childhood obesity in the United States as well. It happens to be one of the side effects of his destruction of the economy.
(UPDATE) Told ya!
A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.
NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.
The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.
And this from Human Events:
While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.
“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.
There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.
“If a parent sends their child with a Coke and a Twinkie, the child care provider is going to need to provide a balanced lunch for the child,” Kozlowski said.
Ultimately, the child care provider can’t take the Coke and Twinkie away from the child, but Kozlowski said she “would think the Pre-K provider would talk with the parent about that not being a healthy choice for their child.”
Now a 2nd incident. From The Blaze:
The policing of children’s food at West Hoke has been portrayed as an isolated incident, but a curious memo Jazlyn brought home to her mother seems to point to something more.
The memo Jazlyn brought from the school outlines the necessary nutritional requirements students’ homemade lunches must contain: two servings of fruit or vegetables, one serving of dairy, one serving of grain and one serving of meat or meat substitute. Included with the memo was a separate sheet, this one a bill for the cafeteria food Jazlyn was served.
The memo, dated Jan. 27 with the subject line “RE: Healthy Lunches,” was signed by school principal Jackie Samuels and said, while “we welcome students to bring lunches from home … it must be a nutritious, balanced meal with the above requirements. Students, who do not bring a healthy lunch, will be offered the missing portions which may result in a fee from the cafeteria.”