No wonder Bruce left North Carolina:
A mother in Hoke County complains her daughter was forced to eat a school lunch because a government inspector determined her home-made lunch did not meet nutrition requirements. In fact, all of the students in the NC Pre-K program classroom at West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford had to accept a school lunch in addition to their lunches brought from home.
NC Pre-K (before this year known as More at Four) is a state-funded education program designed to “enhance school readiness” for four year-olds.
The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.
Read the whole thing. Sounds like a pretty responsible Mom, packing a nutritious banana along with fruit juice for her daughter, yet a government inspector has determined that he knows better than the girl’s own mother what’s good for her.
Bruce, I fear that the Tar Heel State is not the only American jurisdiction where state busybodies inspectors believe themselves better equipped than a child’s parent to look out for his welfare. And all too many laws give them the power to act on that belief.
It’s about time we start repealing the laws that empower such “inspectors.” And not just at the state level.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Louise B looked at an image of what the state mandate the little girl eat and found that, well, the Nanny State does not know best:
If you look at the picture of the food the state deemed appropriate, you’ll see there isn’t a vegetable on that tray either. They show corn which has the same calorie level as a slice of bread. Corn and bread are both considered carbohydrate–and thus neither of them are a vegetable.
Something really scary about this situation is that something like this would seem absurd even in Canada. Schools here are not allowed to sell any drinks or snacks that are deemed unhealthy (in vending machines or elsewhere) and cafeterias are only allowed to sell nutritious food. I’m not sure if this is a federal law or just a British Columbia one, but I’m sure if its a provincial law other provinces have similar ones. Anyway, I’ve never heard of home made lunches being banned or even required to contain certain things. And I’m sure there would be a huge uproar if something like that was considered here. So, North Carolina seems to have passed Canada in looniness, at least in one respect. That should be alarming.
School lunches are “balanced” in terms of what is on the tray. What school lunches do not do is cram the “balanced” meal down the child’s throat. What is telling here is that the tyke ate the chicken nuggets, apparently not the other stuff.
The way the school lunch program is structured the kid can ask for tray after tray and only eat the nuggets.
So the nutrition piety dance by the state stops at the trough. You can lay out a “balanced” array, but you can’t compel the recipient of the focus of the nutrition police to eat a balanced meal.
They need to man up and have force feeding rooms. Something for the TSA to manage.
If you look at the picture of the food the state deemed appropriate, you’ll see there isn’t a vegetable on that tray either. They show corn which has the same calorie level as a slice of bread. Corn and bread are both considered carbohydrate–and thus neither of them are a vegetable.
Just out of curiosity, where is serenity to tell us that this sort of Nanny State overreach is really a GOOD THING, and we should sit down, shut up and obey our overlords? Just asking.
A North Carolina Non-Troversy?
May want to read the rest for some alternative context.
Additional Insult: the Mother was sent a bill for $1.25 for the State-provided meal.
So, the left is defending this action on the basis that the person that took the girl’s lunch was a bureaucrat with the title of “researcher” instead of a bureaucrat with the title “state sgent?”
Classic leftist diversionary tactic; focus on a minor detail that can be disputed and proclaim that it negates the broader story.
Dear America, congrats on having the fattest children in the world.
From the article linked in #5, I think that it’s important to note that this particular lunch program is an OPT-IN program for low-income children. Additionally, the kid wasn’t being forced to eat a school lunch or being deprived of their boxed lunch, they were just being provided with additional food if they wanted it. Kind of hard to complain about a nanny state when the parent had to opt-in to the program.
I wholeheartedly agree that there are situations when the state can go overboard with things (be it nanny state or over-regulation), but this entire situation seems to be trumped up a bit.