Thread: This burns my bacon! More nanny state bureaucratic nonesense.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Are you paying attention Crotalus? The law doesn't give anybody the right to dictate what anybody's kids can or can't eat. The law requires school nutritionists to provide a supplement if the packed lunch doesn't meet USDA nutritional standards. It doesn't require anybody to eat or not eat anything, nor does it authorize anybody to confiscate anything.

The lunch in question met USDA requirements, so the school nutritionist wasn't required to supplement the lunch. That she chose to do so anyway means that she is poorly trained, regardless of whether she did it because the kid was badgering her in order to get chicken nuggets (which I think is more likely), or because she really thought the packed lunch wasn't sufficient. This is a bad school nutritionist, not a bad law.

So we have a law that is allowing a poorly trained person to tell a kid that her mom isn't feeding her right, to give her unasked for food and send the mother the bill. Can't you see how absurd the whole affair is?

The government sure has a lot of money to spend if it can afford lunch police to inspect what kids are eating. You are willing to allow such nonsense because you are in favor of larger government. I am not. To me this whole affair is soft tyranny.

The government has no business at all trying to micromanage our lives like this, no matter how benevolent it might seem on the surface.