Culinary no-no #714


Remember her?

The queen of the Nanny State.

Michelle Obama decided since you were too stupid to figure out what constituted healthy foods for your children that she would dictate what you and your children should eat.

In 2010, when the governing party of the Nanny State controlled the White House, the US Senate and the US House, they rammed through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 into law. Championed by Mrs. Obama the law mandated more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and less sodium in school lunches in exchange for more federal funding on meals.

When the legislation read, in part, “Congress finds that—‘‘(I) eating habits and other wellness-related behavior habits are established early in life; and ‘‘(II) good nutrition and wellness are important contributors to the overall health of young children and essential to cognitive development,” the party that creates policy with a crying towel couldn’t possibly have voted no.

School lunches were about to change, starting with the 2012 school year.

The US Department of Agriculture wrote:

“This rule requires most schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat free and low-fat fluid milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat and trans fat in meals; and meet the nutrition needs of school children within their calorie requirements. These improvements to the school meal programs, largely based on recommendations made by the Institute of the National Academies of Medicine, are expected to enhance the diet and health of school children, and help mitigate the childhood obesity trend.”

Can we say, “Feel good?”

Specifics, please. Again, from the USDA:

In summary, the January 2011 proposed rule sought to improve lunches and breakfasts by requiring schools to: 

• Offer fruits and vegetables as two separate meal components;

• Offer fruit daily at breakfast and lunch;

• Offer vegetables daily at lunch, including specific vegetable subgroups weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) and a limited quantity of starchy vegetables throughout the week;

• Offer whole grains: half of the grains would be whole grain-rich upon implementation of the rule and all grains would be whole-grain rich two years post implementation;

• Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast;

• Offer fluid milk that is fat-free (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat (unflavored only);

• Offer meals that meet specific calorie ranges for each age/grade group;

• Reduce the sodium content of meals gradually over a 10-year period through two intermediate sodium targets at two and four years post implementation;

• Prepare meals using food products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per serving;

• Require students to select a fruit or a vegetable as part of the reimbursable meal…

The Nanny State provided a comparison of what was on the school menu before and what would be on the school menu in the future.

Here’s what would be served on a typical weekday:

Hot dog on bun (3 oz) with ketchup (4 T)

Canned Pears (1/4 cup)

Raw Celery and Carrots (1/8 cup each) with ranch dressing (1.75 T)

Low-fat (1%) Chocolate Milk (8 oz)

That was before the Nanny State ran amok.  The hot dog menu was now kaput. In its place:

Whole Wheat Spaghetti with Meat Sauce (1/2 cup) and Whole Wheat Roll 

Green Beans, cooked (1/2 cup)

Broccoli (1/2 cup)

Cauliflower (1/2 cup)

Kiwi Halves, raw (1/2 cup)

Low-fat (1%) Milk (8 oz)

Low Fat Ranch Dip (1 oz)

Soft Margarine (5 g)

Whole wheat spaghetti instead of a hot dog?  Sounds Communistic, not to mention totally unappetizing.

By the way, if schools didn’t comply with all these new good for you government rules and regulations, they faced losing government funding or be fined. Yes, you could call it blackmail.

For a time school districts were in acceptance, compliance, or simply acquiesced. Eventually, there came a rebellion, a food fight.

The New York Times reported students around the country were going on strike against the First Lady’s eating guidelines and significantly reduced portions. A GAO report indicated that there was a 1 million student decline in enrollment in school lunch programs directly related to Michelle Obama’s nutritional guidelines that government mandated schools follow.  And two Wisconsin school districts chose to get out from under the thumb of government control when it comes to what kids can eat at lunch.

Waterford Graded and Waterford High School districts both opted out from the federal lunch program. The reasons were outlined in a report by The Journal Times. 

Would Michelle and the rest of her nannies back down? Are you crazy?

Ben Velderman at reported it got goofier.

First, Michelle Obama seized control of your child’s school lunch and made it “healthy.” Now, the First Lady wants to change the way you buy groceries.

A new 80-page report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture explains that federal bureaucrats hope to use a variety of tools to modify the way Americans select food items at the supermarket.

Tools? What new tools? Please take a seat.

…the federal busybodies want to provide food-stamp shoppers with “incentives” for making healthy food choices – such as discounts or free movie tickets – and even talking shopping carts that will notify them when they’ve selected enough healthy items.

Say what?

…talking shopping carts that will notify them when they’ve selected enough healthy items. Again, the assumption was that you couldn’t possibly be as smart as Michelle Obama or some bureaucrat who are going to inform you what you should be choosing to dine.

In 2011, S.E. Cupp wrote a great column: Michelle Obama, are you calling me fat? First Lady’s war on junk food has gone too far:

“…when a First Lady or a government agency wants to dictate how much dinner I deserve to have, and how it should be prepared, I am once again under the harsh gaze of my ballet instructors, and my ability to control myself like the mature adult I am is replaced by an omniscient regulator’s guidelines. I understand what you’re trying to do, and I agree that we should raise healthier kids. Fewer video games and more soccer is a great start. But ultimately, responsibility has to be taught, instilled and enforced – not mandated by law. It has to come from parents and guardians, not from Capitol Hill.”


Here we go again.

Our disastrous POTUS has proposed an eye-popping $3.5 trillion federal budget. $3.5 trillion.

One of the provisions in the 2,645-page budget bill spends $643 million for, among other things, “procuring…culturally appropriate foods” for school lunches.

HEALTHY FOOD INCENTIVES DEMONSTRATION. 16 (a) In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $634,000,000, to remain available until expended, to provide competitive grants to States in accordance with this section. (b) A State that receives a grant under this section shall use such grant funds to make subgrants to local educational agencies and schools for activities that support:

(1) serving healthy school meals and afterschool snacks that meet discretionary goals established by the Secretary;

(2) increasing scratch cooking;

(3) conducting experiential nutrition education activities, including school garden programs;

(4) procuring local, regional, and culturally appropriate foods and foods produced by underserved or limited resource farmers, as defined by the Secretary, to serve as part of the child nutrition programs under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition Act of 1966;  

(5) reducing the availability of less healthy foods, as defined by the Secretary, during the school day; or

(6) carrying out additional activities to encourage the development of healthy nutrition and physical activity habits among children.

(c) A State that receives a grant under this section may use such grant funds to fund a statewide nutrition education coordinator to—  (1) support individual school food authority nutrition education efforts; and (2) facilitate collaboration with other nutrition education efforts in the State.

(d) A State that receives a grant under this section may not use more than 5 percent of such grant funds to carry out administrative activities.

What it all means, who the hell knows? I envision a complete repeat of Michelle Obama’s array of inedibles.

Maybe kids will want to keep their masks on after all.


Fall Creek Schools Mask Lawsuit: Parent Calls Minocqua Brewing Company Owner “Bully”

Farmers Warn Of No Turkey Ahead Of Holidays…

Pumpkins scarce…

ICYMI…Culinary no-no #713

One thought on “Culinary no-no #714

  1. Pingback: Culinary no-no #715 | This Just In… From Franklin, WI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s