Minnesota seeks ban on junk food

curious wrote:
:: Roger says,
:: "Besides - define junk food."
::
:: Becky says,
:: I think that this is part of the BIG problem. This would cause more
:: government cost, more regulations, more, more, more...someone will
:: have to define "junk" food. But certainly, we should know what is
:: "junk food"...no? --empty "carbs"..."sugar", "etc."

No -- we got in to a mini-debate on this topic not long ago...different
people have very different notions...

Of course,
:: someone "official" would have to define it. That leads to lobbying
:: by certain groups for certain things to be labelled "good", others
:: "bad" which means the group that has the most money to lobby, "wins"
:: approval.
::
:: Yikes. Problems.

Big problems.


::
:: If they are going to "oust" whole milk out of the schools...which
:: kids buy... and yet let people have for free, candy, candy bars,
:: cake, etc., it just seems inconsistent, as whole milk would not be
:: classified by anyone (that I know of) as "junk food"...
::

But some would claim that milk is for fattening up cows, not kids. I'm not
sure I disagree. But should I have the right to impose my notion of what
good wholesome food is on others? No.

:: I'm aware that one is MN and who knows where the other one is (the
:: schools)...it's all just wacky.
::
:: But I don't have a problem, in principle, with them restricting the
:: "grant" to that which is healthy...

Define healthy...define what which is unhealthy. One candy bar cannot be
said to be unhealthy.

as they restrict federal funding
:: for colleges, (the college must be accredited), WIC (the food is
:: limited to the types on the check)--I even read that one kid
:: couldn't major in religion if he was using a student grant, so
:: obviously they didn't mind restricting his choices in that area.

Fine. Food stamps should buy food. Not shoes, not paint, not cars, not
clothes. Food. It's simple.

::
:: The big point is here that noone is telling the poor what they can
:: eat--just what they can eat--for free.

Same difference -- you're removing choices and freedoms.

::
::
::
:: Becky P.
::
:: (P.S. I had someone tell me not long ago that she needed some food
:: for her children, and so, since we have a policy that we don't give
:: money, I told her I'd take her to the store and buy her the few
:: things that she needed. She picked up baby cereal, bread, potatoes,

Most stuff, which, if eaten in excess, is as bad as junk food. And since
protein cost more, in general, restricting candy will not solve any
problems -- it would just cause frustration amonst the very poor.

:: etc. and then at the end, her 12-year-old daughter tried to slip in
:: a package of candy. I told her, "Absolutely not. I'm not buying
:: that. If you want that, your mother will have to buy it." I don't
:: buy candy for my own children every time I go to the store,

Who knows when the last time that child had candy. They see other kids eat
candy..

and I'm
:: not going to buy it for someone who is claiming they don't have
:: anything to eat when that same money would buy another 2 kilos of
:: potatoes!

Oh my...odd are they don't eat the skin, so the potatoes will likely make
the fat, especially if they drink whole milk too.

JMO But for a birthday or Christmas, I do give candy to
:: those same poor kids.)

For all you know, that day could have been Christmas for them.