School Lunches

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Democrats (Michelle Obama) decided to make socialized federal nutritional mandates ("Smarter Lunchrooms") as her cause, used debunked junk science to do it, and removed nutrition and flavor to the point where (a) kids ate fewer school lunches: lower utilization (b) threw more of it away: higher waste (c) and ate out of vending machines instead: ate worse. When Trump tried to fix it by allowing smarter states to opt-out, #resist States decided to sue to protest us from allowing anyone else to offer better choices for their students than they were.


Democrats are under the delusion that what we eat is any of their business. And with their fingers already in education, the Obama's (Michelle) decided to make socialized federal nutritional mandates ("Smarter Lunchrooms") as part of her cause -- and like most socialist programs, it had the expected unintended consequences. They did one-size-fits-all idiotry like requiring nonfat flavored milk instead of more nutritious 2% or full fat, because SOME kids are obese. Of course other kids aren't and need the fat or nutrients. The same with sodium levels, they decided to reduce them.... and taste, because some kids have high salt intake. But most others don't, and won't eat that flavorless low-sodium swill. Which shows the problem: nutrition is individual and federal guidelines aren't. The requirements drove up costs for schools, and resulted in fewer kids getting the lunches (costing schools), and more kids buying worse food from vending machines, and many more kids throwing away the crap things they didn't like (increasing waste and pollution, and not getting the nutrition that was mandated by Uncle Sam).

After many districts complained about all this waste, the Trump administration came in, and decided to give them a temporary reprieve from another failed Obama solution -- and move it back to the states/districts to decide what their kids needed. So the far-left States (California, D.C., Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont) sued to keep their handcuffs on, not because it impacted them in any way: they could still follow the guidelines, if they wanted. They just didn't want other states to be free. Their excuse was that the Agriculture Department officials didn't provide scientific justification for why they should change the standards from the changes that the Obama administration didn't provide valid scientific justification for either. Well, technically, they did provide it initially, but it was junk science and those studies were retracted. So the excuse to pass the Obama regulations wasn't scientifically valid.


So what did we learn?

  1. Democrats waste money on Fake Science, that doesn't help kids
  2. more kids are eating worse because of the guidelines than they were before
  3. more waste is happening because of the Obamas
  4. we are wasting money on fighting about it, because Democrats can't stand the idea that someone, somewhere is making a different choice than they would
  5. the left are all hypocrites, passing things by cheating the standards -- and then are outraged that those mandates are being repealed unilaterally AFTER they were disproven as being valid in the first place

This isn't about the kids, nutrition, waste, of freedom: this is about teaching people to comply with federal force, no matter how stupid everyone knows those rules are.

Unintended Consequences
Every action causes a reaction. Some reactions are pleasant surprises, many are negatives, some are counter productive (perverse) and make the problem worse. Since consequences matter more than intentions, we have a social obligation to plan for them (and avoid them). The phrase "unintended consequences" is used as either a wry warning against the hubristic belief that humans can control the world around them, or more often against a really bad implementation of not-so-smart ideas or implementations. Those that deny unintended consequences are denying science (reality).



📚 References