# Food police catch scofflaw preschooler in NC



## HereticFA (Feb 15, 2012)

In an attempt to control childhood obesity, school authorities in North Carolina rummaged through the lunch a four year old brought from home and decided it didn't meet USDA nutritional guidelines so they required her to buy a school provided lunch (of which she only ate three of the fried chicken nuggets), then sent mom a bill for the food. 

Upon later review, a spokesperson for the Division of Child Development said the meal from home should have met all nutritional requirements.

The child, described as a petite four year old, already has a bit of disordered eating as she is described as being a picky eater.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/homemade-lunch-replaced-with-cafeteria-nuggets.html

I think we're already seeing the law of unintended consequences in North Carolina.


----------



## imfree (Feb 15, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> In an attempt to control childhood obesity, school authorities in North Carolina rummaged through the lunch a four year old brought from home...snipped for revolting content....



Reason for snipping and content of this post are my opinion.

With our government's lack of common sense, we can only look for situations like this to get worse and become more frequent.

Obesity Epidemic, another diversionary tactic of governments, in which freedom is taken away in the name of safety.


----------



## truebebeblue (Feb 15, 2012)

I feel sorry for anyone who tries to correct my child's lunch or supplement it 
with most of the CRAP that is served in schools. Their lunches are many times provided by the same company that provides the local prison it's food.
DO YOUR JOB and I WILL DO MINE. MY TRACK RECORD IS MUCH BETTER.


----------



## HottiMegan (Feb 15, 2012)

I think that's pretty wrong. Sounds like someone was overstepping their bounds. If the parent, the ultimate authority over their kid, packs a lunch that they see fit for their kid, then no one should step in on that.


----------



## Captain Save (Feb 15, 2012)

So, to combat obesity, the school _inspected_ the _small _child's lunch, found it nutritionally deficient, and replaced it with _processed fried chicken parts_? I'm sure there is some type of logic to this, but apparently too complex for me to grasp. Maybe it was done by an administrator who opposes this bureaucratic totalitarian micromanaging, and the intent was to bring bad publicity to the equation, as well as the involvement of various civil rights and civil liberties organizations?

Now that I've postulated a theory, I'm going to actually read the article.

Based on what I read, I think it's safe to assume a little recklessness was the primary cause of this situation. If the lunch was a pound of bacon, a box of Twinkies and a Coke, I could see school involvement dictated by the regulations; that wasn't the case here, and the fact they won't identify the aide who did this is bolstering my confidence with this presumption. I still agree with the posters above; inspecting and criticizing what the parent provides will only lead to unpleasant confrontations between parents and the school.


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 15, 2012)

The state inspector looked in every lunch brought in that day. The lunch in question was said to not have enough protein so the nuggets were added to bring the total lunch into compliance. This is what happens when we let government control so much of our lives and its only going to get worse.


----------



## Surlysomething (Feb 15, 2012)

Unbelievable.

The country is in shambles but a 4 yo's lunch wasn't good enough. 
(a banana, a juice box, a healthy sandwich?) Wow. I wonder what the kids in the Sudan would think if they got a lunch like that. :doh:


----------



## EMH1701 (Feb 15, 2012)

WTF? How is a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice nutritionally deficient? It's as balanced a meal as most parents can get a preschooler to eat. Most preschoolers are not going to be eating kale, or even broccoli at that age, because leafy greens taste too bitter for them. Hence you have to give them fruits and veggies they will eat, such as bananas and apples.

How are processed chicken nuggets healthier than a turkey sandwich? 

Turkey is considered a super food, for crying out loud.

http://www.superfoodsrx.com/superfoods/turkey/

What if the kid had food allergies to what was being served on the menu? Peanuts aren't the only food allergy in existence. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to dictate what we eat, period.

This, folks, is why I'm Libertarian.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Feb 15, 2012)

EMH1701 said:


> WTF? How is a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice nutritionally deficient? It's as balanced a meal as most parents can get a preschooler to eat.
> How are processed chicken nuggets healthier than a turkey sandwich?



Nutrition is viewed somewhat differently here in the red states. In Oklahoma, for instance, we recognize the danger that children may suffer from a _grease deficiency_ which can only be dispelled by the consumption of fried meat at every meal. Clearly the inspector from North Carolina shares this concern. Remember, for optimum health: "if it ain't _fried_, it ain't _food_." :eat2:


----------



## Zoom (Feb 15, 2012)

If this sort of crap happened when I was going to school in the 1980s, I would refuse to eat.

I would also have told the inspector that he was NOT allowed to inspect my personal lunch. I would even use terminology like "Eat shit and die" if necessary.

Now, a four-year-old doesn't know any better, so at least SHE has an excuse. What's the excuse for the overreachment of the inspector (who, I might add, has not yet been identified by anyone)?


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 15, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> The state inspector looked in every lunch brought in that day. The lunch in question was said to not have enough protein so the nuggets were added to bring the total lunch into compliance. This is what happens when we let government control so much of our lives and its only going to get worse.


Rather blown out of proportion. 
Here's a bit of an explanation



> the agent apparently ordered full school lunches for every single child in this program and was evaluating the school’s compliance with standards, not individual parents’ compliance. Even if he was doing such an inspection, there’s a pretty obvious context-specific reason for it: this is an opt-in program for parents who largely can’t afford to provide fully balanced meals.





> she is worried about being charged for the additional food being placed in front of her daughter based on a letter from the school purportedly saying that kids who did not bring a healthy lunch would be offered supplements and that parents “may” be charged for the supplemented portions. However, as the second-linked story makes clear, no such charges have been issued nor apparently was there any actual chance that such charges would be issued.



-Rusty


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 15, 2012)

CleverBomb said:


> Rather blown out of proportion.



Not particularly, I never though I would hear the phrase "government compliant lunch" in a serious news story.


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 15, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> Not particularly, I never though I would hear the phrase "government compliant lunch" in a serious news story.


Well, since it's about a government-subsidized preschool daycare program, it's not all that surprising. The state's picking up the tab, they have an obligation to ensure that they're getting what they paid for. 

-Rusty


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 15, 2012)

CleverBomb said:


> Well, since it's about a government-subsidized preschool daycare program, it's not all that surprising. The state's picking up the tab, they have an obligation to ensure that they're getting what they paid for.
> 
> -Rusty



But the state didn't pay for the lunches brought from home, at least not with money from the preschool program. If the school wants to ensure the school provided lunch is adequate fine, but if a parent goes to the trouble to pack their kids lunch it is most likely sufficient for the intended child and none of the schools business.


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 15, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> But the state didn't pay for the lunches brought from home, at least not with money from the preschool program. If the school wants to ensure the school provided lunch is adequate fine, but if a parent goes to the trouble to pack their kids lunch it is most likely sufficient for the intended child and none of the schools business.


The daycare center's rating included whether or not the children received adequate nutrition, and this rating affects how much they're paid by the state. Keep in mind that this is a program for "at-risk" children, some of whose parents may not be able to afford (or lack the knowledge) to provide nutritionally adequate meals. 

This child's parents got it right, pretty much. That doesn't change the fact that the daycare is still accountable for compliance regardless of the parents' resources, dietary knowledge, or lack thereof.

Further, and to the point of your last sentence: Parent tosses two Twinkies and a can of Mountain Dew into a paper bag, hands it to their kid, and sends them to school with it. They tried! None of the daycare's business?

-Rusty


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 15, 2012)

CleverBomb said:


> Further, and to the point of your last sentence: Parent tosses two Twinkies and a can of Mountain Dew into a paper bag, hands it to their kid, and sends them to school with it. They tried! None of the daycare's business?



It shouldn't count towards the centers rating. If there are obvious issues like you mention then a phone call or conference might not be out of order but how many slices of turkey are on a sandwich is way too far.


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 16, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> It shouldn't count towards the centers rating. If there are obvious issues like you mention then a phone call or conference might not be out of order but how many slices of turkey are on a sandwich is way too far.


But one objective of this program is ensuring adequate nutrition for children who might otherwise not get it -- which is why they're rated on it. 

This is a program affecting thousands of children -- the rules have to be standardized, because any flexibility will be exploited for profit. 

-Rusty


----------



## bigmac (Feb 16, 2012)

For all the folks who espouse how great things would be if the federal government got out of education I'd like to point out that it was a _State_ inspector who over stepped all logical bounds.


----------



## imaginarydiva21 (Feb 16, 2012)

that sounds crazy swapping a balanced meal for 3 chicken nuggets what the hell was they thinking


----------



## bigmac (Feb 16, 2012)

imaginarydiva21 said:


> that sounds crazy swapping a balanced meal for 3 chicken nuggets what the hell was they thinking



You were expecting rational thought and action in America?


----------



## imaginarydiva21 (Feb 16, 2012)

im really not sure lol think every countrys 'big wigs' have lost the plot latley


----------



## imfree (Feb 16, 2012)

imaginarydiva21 said:


> im really not sure lol think every countrys 'big wigs' have lost the plot latley



Hehehe! Looks like most of the big wigs are just wigged-out, these days.:doh:


----------



## moore2me (Feb 16, 2012)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Nutrition is viewed somewhat differently here in the red states. In Oklahoma, for instance, we recognize the danger that children may suffer from a _grease deficiency_ which can only be dispelled by the consumption of fried meat at every meal. Clearly the inspector from North Carolina shares this concern. Remember, for optimum health: "if it ain't _fried_, it ain't _food_." :eat2:



Dr. Feelgood, I heartily agree with your theory that a deficiency in the "fried food group" is dangerous to kids and adults. However, if that was the reason for culling *the kid's lunch, there was another glaring error in that I saw nothing from the "Cheeto" group either.*


*Kidding aside tho, more serious questions are:

*1. How many plants are there in N Carolina that make chicken nuggets?

2. How many chicken plants are there in N Carolina?

3. How much do chicken processors donate to political parties every election?

4. *How many mothers are going to try and pack chicken nuggets in lunches to keep from getting in trouble? Aren't chicken nuggets supposed to be refrigerated after being cooked to prevented food poisoning? * Will the kids eat cold chicken nuggets or will the schools heat them up for the lunch box kids?


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Feb 16, 2012)

Zoom said:


> If this sort of crap happened when I was going to school in the 1980s, I would refuse to eat.
> 
> I would also have told the inspector that he was NOT allowed to inspect my personal lunch. I would even use terminology like "Eat shit and die" if necessary.
> 
> Now, a four-year-old doesn't know any better, so at least SHE has an excuse. What's the excuse for the overreachment of the inspector (who, I might add, has not yet been identified by anyone)?



If that were my four-year-old, I would teach them to say "get fucked" next time some uppity inspector does an inspection of their lunchbox.


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 16, 2012)

bigmac said:


> For all the folks who espouse how great things would be if the federal government got out of education I'd like to point out that it was a _State_ inspector who over stepped all logical bounds.


However I suspect the State inspector was following _Federal_ guidelines to make sure they continued to get _Federal_ funds.

I'm still trying to recreate my records from a PC crash but I had copies of various House and Senate bills from several years ago that required just this type of action of monitoring kids lunches. This legislation was finally passed and matching laws were eventually passed in the targeted states in the last couple of years and it's now being put into practice in a few of the testbed states. Once they get the bugs rolled out, it will be implemented in the rest of the states.

For a little peek into the future, check out S.174 of the current 112th Congress. Get ready to have your mental health assessed as it pertains to your obesity. Once a problem is identified per the peer reviewed "best practices", I'm sure they will want to treat it, with your ... eventual permission of course.


----------



## imfree (Feb 16, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> However I suspect the State inspector was following _Federal_ guidelines to make sure they continued to get _Federal_ funds.
> 
> I'm still trying to recreate my records from a PC crash but I had copies of various House and Senate bills from several years ago that required just this type of action of monitoring kids lunches. This legislation was finally passed and matching laws were eventually passed in the targeted states in the last couple of years and it's now being put into practice in a few of the testbed states. Once they get the bugs rolled out, it will be implemented in the rest of the states.
> 
> For a little peek into the future, check out S.174 of the current 112th Congress. Get ready to have your mental health assessed as it pertains to your obesity. Once a problem is identified per the peer reviewed "best practices", I'm sure they will want to treat it, with your ... eventual permission of course.



(SNARKFONT) Nice!!!(SNARKFONT) We've gone from a government that serves the people to a government that controls the people. My opinion only, your results may vary.


----------



## imfree (Feb 16, 2012)

imfree said:


> (SNARKFONT) Nice!!!(SNARKFONT) We've gone from a government that serves the people to a government that controls the people. My opinion only, your results may vary.



With government, I can't help wondering if funding is used to gain control in a situation without giving people an opportunity to vote on the issues.


----------



## bigmac (Feb 16, 2012)

moore2me said:


> ...
> 
> 
> *Kidding aside tho, more serious questions are:
> ...



*Great now we have to worry about the chicken nugget lobby!*

_"Come here chicken -- show me your nuggets"_ my daughter's friend Nikki during a country excursion.


----------



## imfree (Feb 16, 2012)

bigmac said:


> *Great now we have to worry about the chicken nugget lobby!*
> 
> _"Come here chicken -- show me your nuggets"_ my daughter's friend Nikki during a country excursion.



I'm worried 'bout them chicken nugget lobby people greasing the palms of those politicians.


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 16, 2012)

imfree said:


> I'm worried 'bout them chicken nugget lobby people greasing the palms of those politicians.


Ya mean like Bo Pilgrim ("we don't sell no fat, yellow chickens") used to do in Texas when he handed out $10,000 checks ON THE FLOOR OF THE TEXAS SENATE with the payee left blank?
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/09/us/texas-businessman-hands-out-10000-checks-in-state-senate.html

You have to admit, it took some big "nuggets" to pull that stunt. I'm sure other states have similar chicken ranchers and processors, albeit a little lower profile.


----------



## imfree (Feb 16, 2012)

imfree said:


> I'm worried 'bout them chicken nugget lobby people greasing the palms of those politicians.



That statement's a real double-whanny, 'cuz we all know how greasy chicken nuggets can get. Chicken Nugget: Mixed chicken pieces-parts, held together with a paste of bread crumbs and grease!!!


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 16, 2012)

moore2me said:


> *Kidding aside tho, more serious questions are:
> 
> *1. How many plants are there in N Carolina that make chicken nuggets?
> 
> ...


While not direct answers to your questions, I did find this with a quick Google search:
&#8226; The Poultry Industry's Economic Impact for NC is $12.8 Billion

&#8226; The Poultry Industry creates over 110,000 Jobs for North Carolinians

&#8226; Poultry is the #1 Agricultural Industry in North Carolina

&#8226; North Carolina is ranked #2 Nationally in Total Turkey Production

&#8226; North Carolina is ranked #3 Nationally in Total Poultry Production

&#8226; NC Poultry makes up 40% of North Carolina's Total Farm Income

&#8226; Over 5,700 Farm Families produce Poultry & Eggs in NC

_ (From: http://www.ncpoultry.org/facts/facts.cfm )_

I think I can see why they're pushing nuggets, the new vegetable in NC schools. (They've got to find a use for everything but the "cluck".)


----------



## moore2me (Feb 17, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> While not direct answers to your questions, I did find this with a quick Google search:
>  The Poultry Industry's Economic Impact for NC is $12.8 Billion
> 
>  The Poultry Industry creates over 110,000 Jobs for North Carolinians
> ...



Now you probably understand what the character Deep Throat from the movie _All the President's Men _meant when he told investigative reporters Woodward and Bernstein to "Just follow the money."


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 17, 2012)

imaginarydiva21 said:


> that sounds crazy swapping a balanced meal for 3 chicken nuggets what the hell was they thinking


Not swapping -- providing, in addition to the home-prepared meal.

-Rusty


----------



## Delightfully Peculiar (Feb 19, 2012)

The meal from home in this case seemed perfectly reasonable. I don't see the problem with a turkey sandwich and the other items. At the school where I work, we once had a first grader bring an entire rotisserie chicken to school for lunch. It was one of those you can buy in the deli of the grocery store, and he brought it to school in a plastic sack.


----------



## Mindee (Feb 19, 2012)

bigmac said:


> For all the folks who espouse how great things would be if the federal government got out of education I'd like to point out that it was a _State_ inspector who over stepped all logical bounds.


The state inspector was enforcing a FEDERAL mandate pushed by none other than Michelle Obama, the UNELECTED queen of all that America eats. This is the kind of crap all you Obama lovers have brought down on the rest of us.


----------



## MisterGuy (Feb 20, 2012)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us--schoolluncherror,0,6464454.story

Just a teacher that messed up. Typical rightwing insane overreaction while having the facts wrong.


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 20, 2012)

MisterGuy said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us--schoolluncherror,0,6464454.story
> 
> Just a teacher that messed up. Typical rightwing insane overreaction while having the facts wrong.



Wrong. In typical government fashion the school is blaming the problem on a state worker while the state is blaming the school. This circular blame game is all too common when people react to intrusive government regulations. The cited Chicago Tribune piece is completely wrong and clearly biased, here is updated story from the Carolina Journal with some additional explanation of the original incident.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=8780


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 20, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> Wrong. In typical government fashion the school is blaming the problem on a state worker while the state is blaming the school. This circular blame game is all too common when people react to intrusive government regulations. The cited Chicago Tribune piece is completely wrong and clearly biased, here is updated story from the Carolina Journal with some additional explanation of the original incident.
> http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=8780



Actually, most of this stems from Federal legislation from 2003 and the 108th legislature session. Strangely, I couldn't find it with a quick search of the Thomas system at the Library of Congress. (Maybe it wasn't enacted, but there should still be a copy there.) I still had a copy from an activism workshop I prepared in 2003 and I'm attaching it here for your perusal. It illustrates very well how Federal funds are dangled in front of states who must pass their own laws to qualify for those funds. I guarantee you both the Feds and the State are equally implicit in this situation. Lucky for them, most voters can't handle that level of complexity and just keep looking for one scapegoat when it's an organized system of institutional oppression and body bigotry that's being developed against fat people. If we keep buying in to this fake left vs right dichotomy, we've lost and will be picked off one by one.


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 20, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> I still had a copy from an activism workshop I prepared in 2003 and I'm attaching it here for your perusal.



Let me try and attach that again...


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 20, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> Let me try and attach that again...



I wonder if the Dims system doesn't allow uploading of pdf files?

Here is a copy and paste from the pdf file. Sorry for the loss of formatting.

I
108TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 716
To establish grants to provide health services for improved nutrition, increased
physical activity, obesity prevention, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 12, 2003


AARGHHH! Now I hit the "too long" problem. ("The text that you have entered is too long (52391 characters). Please shorten it to 30000 characters long.")

Let me find it in Thomas. 

Sorry folks.


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 20, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> Let me find it in Thomas.



It's at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hr716ih/pdf/BILLS-108hr716ih.pdf

While this piece of legislation didn't pass and become law, I suspect elements of it are incorporated in other "obesity" related legislation of the 108th Legislative session, or subsequent sessions.


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 20, 2012)

imfree said:


> We've gone from a government that serves the people ...



Hmm, wasn't "To Serve Man" the name of a cookbook?


----------



## imfree (Feb 20, 2012)

HereticFA said:


> Hmm, wasn't "To Serve Man" the name of a cookbook?



(Twilight Zone music) Yep, that's exactly how government's gonna' serve us, our collective goose, cooked to their liking!!! The preceding snark was my own opinion, your results may vary with attitude. Damn, I shudda' fired this one off in Hyde Park!


----------



## bigmac (Feb 20, 2012)

Mindee said:


> The state inspector was enforcing a FEDERAL mandate pushed by none other than Michelle Obama, the UNELECTED queen of all that America eats. This is the kind of crap all you Obama lovers have brought down on the rest of us.




Any reference for this rather hard to take seriously accusation?

FYI: The article linked by Mr.Guy explains how this was a state run program with no federal involvement.


----------



## moore2me (Feb 25, 2012)

bigmac said:


> Any reference for this rather hard to take seriously accusation?
> 
> FYI: The article linked by Mr.Guy explains how this was a state run program with no federal involvement.



Federal funding is so intricately interwoven in school funding that it would be almost impossible to say something happening in a public school had no federal involvement.

Examples of federal involvement in schools include
1. Funding based on number of kids that show up each day.
2. Funding based on number of teachers and their certifications.
3. Funding to build & maintain portion of cafeteria, keep it running, supply foodstuffs.
4. Funding to supply children from low income families all or part of lunch and sometimes a breakfast.
4. Cafeteria has to meet FDA (federal guidelines) and ADA guidelines.
5. Curriculum at school has to meet federal requirements & kids pass tests. Nutrition and health are part of this curriculum. Plus most schools have basic health classes kids must attend.
6. Boys and girls programs must be equally funded.
7. Library, books, and librarians have federal requirements as to books and other teaching aids purchased with federal money.
8. Federally funded classes for teachers onsite and offsite. Plus, requirements for teachers to attend and maintain certifications.


----------



## Big Beautiful Dreamer (Feb 29, 2012)

A lot of possibly well-intended folks are missing the boat on this one.

Mom says her daughter doesn't like to eat vegetables, and she makes it happen at supper, one way or another, where she has some direct supervision over what the daughter eats. Daughter will, however, eat fruit.

Mom put two separate fruit servings in lunch box, together with a healthy sandwich and a treat.

State employeebot could only repeat the part of the instructions that stuck: _Every lunch must have a fruit, a vegetable, and a milk._ Employeebot fetches a whole, complete school lunch. 

Four-year-old, by now hungry AND confused, eyes the lunch, eats the nuggets, which are easier and tastier than a sandwich, ignores the vegetables and milk, and is "done."

Mom, meanwhile, is quick to downplay any possible good intentions on the part of the pre-K faculty and staff: "We've already gone round and round with them because they will go and put a milk in front of her and tell her she's got to drink a milk. I keep telling them not to give her a milk."

So: Daughter's FOUR YEARS OLD, Mom is juggling healthy lunch needs with knowing full well that without Mom around, daughter ain't gonna eat those expensive baby carrots, or drink the milk, Mom would rather not be charged for the school lunch, employees are unclear about what happens when a four-year-old does not bring a lunch provided by Chez Panisse, and no one gets it quite right in this instance.

Does not mean that The Government Is Engaging In Wholesale Conspiracy Theft And Monitoring Of All Yummy Foods And Culinary Independence. The Locke Foundation and the Pope Foundation are both North-Carolina based organizations that find government interference behind every tree.


----------



## CleverBomb (Feb 29, 2012)

How do you know there ISN'T government interference behind every tree? Huh?
That's EXACTLY where those sneaky socialists would hide it!
Why do you think liberals hug trees? 
It's because they love the government interference they've hidden behind them!

It all makes sense now... 

-Rusty
(Joining teh Alcoa Beanie Brigade)


----------



## Big Beautiful Dreamer (Mar 1, 2012)

It's not a beanie, dummy, you're supposed to make it look like a little upside down sailing ship, so when they come for you, you can turn it over and escape down the river in it. Sheesh. And remember to double-layer the sides.


----------

