The Federal Food Police are no more about insuring good nutrition than ObamaCare is about providing quality health care. Both the Food Police and ObamaCare exist for the purpose of controlling the people with the heavy hand of government tyranny.
On 30 January a food inspector [it is still unclear if this was a federal or state agent or a self-appointed busy body] apparently searched the lunch of a 4-year-old preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford, North Carolina. The food inspector apparently told the little girl that her mother had packed a poor quality lunch for her and also told her she could not eat the food because it was nutritionally inadequate.
Apparently the little girl went home clutching the uneaten lunch her mother had packed for her and asked her mother why she had not prepared a healthy lunch for her. My first and greatest concern is the little girl was told her parent was not taking proper care of her. Doubt was placed in the mind of this child, and that doubt will be repeatedly enforced and expanded upon in future years. Socialist brainwashing is now beginning with lunch inspections.
My second concern is did the food inspector have a search warrant that permitted him or her to seize and inspect the lunch of the little girl? Was her lunch not the private property of her family? What power did the food inspector have and from where was that power granted? Was this not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the little girl against “unreasonable searches and seizures”?
My third concern is that the Tenth Amendment of The Constitution of the United States has historically “reserved” the right of “the people” to pack lunches for their children and to decide what it is they will provide for their children.
The lunch packed by the mother apparently consisted of a “turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, apple juice, and potato chips.” The food inspector apparently claimed the lunch was nutritionally inadequate because it lacked milk and a vegetable. The inspector apparently later decided the cheese in the sandwich was an acceptable milk equivalent. Sara Burrows wrote in the Carolina Journal,
The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs - including in-home day care centers - to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
The inspector also apparently failed to understand that apple juice and a banana constitute two servings of fruit, which appears to fulfill the requirements of the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition, potatoes are still considered to be vegetables by rational folk. The Far Left has a very strong aversion to taking potatoes and cutting them into fries or chips and briefly cooking them in oil. They claim this somehow renders the potato unhealthy and somehow makes the potato no longer a vegetable. These same Far Left persons will say it is perfectly acceptable to put the same oil that one uses to cook fries and chips on a salad. They claim the salad is healthy and the fries and chips are junk food.
Why should we trust our government to mandate what we can and cannot eat? The politicized science of our nanny state has made many of the mandates and suggestions of our government subject to logical questions.
Our government has told us for decades that only low salt diets were healthy. However, a clinical medical study reported in the May 4, 2001 Issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association shows that low salt diets, as recommended and soon to be mandated by our Federal government, can significantly increase the risk of death. About 10% of the general population can be benefited by a low salt diet, but that same diet can be dangerous to the majority. Thus, the mandates of the nanny state should concern all of us.
We would be wise to hearken to the words of Thomas Jefferson, who anticipated corrupt politicians would erect a nanny state for the purpose of taking money and power from the people.
“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”