Nannies: They're Good at Taking Care of Kids

I'm going to have to agree with Ezra that I find Andrew's opposition to congressional efforts to get healthier foods in public school snack machines a bit puzzling.

Andrew headlines his item "Nanny-State Watch," and is citing a post from Cato's Daniel Mitchell called "More Nanny-State Foolishness."

Think about that language for a minute. Nobody likes a nanny state because nannies are people appointed to take care of children while their parents are busy. Andrew and Daniel Mitchell and Ezra and I, however, are grownups so to have the state step in and act like our nanny is offensive and annoying: we're being treated like children.

But guess who should be treated like children? Children! Parents, nannies, and -- yes! -- school officials are supposed to place paternalistic rules on children's behavior to prevent them from doing things (like eating too much junk food) that seems appealing in the short run but that they'll come to regret.

Comments

I agree and would have said so on Andrew's site--except his site does not accept comments. It is one of the reasons I go there less and less.

The owner of the site may or may not read the comments, but it makes me feel good that they MIGHT read them.

Posted by rob | December 4, 2007 12:48 PM

Oh come on -- everybody knows conservatives believe children only deserve adult protection when they're in the womb. After that they should be left on their own. [/snark, sort of]

Posted by Ryan | December 4, 2007 12:56 PM

Yep. The proper title for the post should be "Federalism Watch" or some such. The point obviously is that some government ought to be deciding what school kids eat, but it ought not be the federal government. That's not a "nanny-state" issue; it's a federalism issue.

Posted by Al | December 4, 2007 12:59 PM

Why doesn't Sullivan want comments--he might spend most of his time deleting well thought out dissent to his rather dishonest opinions. He would much rather print email from people who write in and agree with his "Hillary is evil" posts. Just lazy.

He used to have an interesting blog.

Posted by jenn | December 4, 2007 1:04 PM

Andrew's opposition to universal health care, senseless as anyone's, might appear better if he actually cared about preventative health care. A good place to start is healthy food in public schools.

I have to admit, I enjoyed pizza, cake, and soda every day in high school, but thirty pounds later it didn't leave me with a lot of room to be irresponsible in college.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | December 4, 2007 1:09 PM

When you look at the people advocating a person should eat whatever the hell he damn well pleases they're usually a very good example of someone that's eaten whatever the hell he damn well pleases.

Posted by steve duncan | December 4, 2007 1:09 PM

All this would do is create a lucrative black market for candy in high schools, giving kids the necessary skills to be drug dealers (or to buy from them).

Posted by neil | December 4, 2007 1:15 PM

This is a pretty good comment

Posted by tg | December 4, 2007 1:24 PM

Re: Sully and comments. Eh. I think it's probably safe to assume Sullivan gets more and nastier hatemail than anyone else in the business. The internet is probably a better place without his comment section.

Posted by Boring Commenter | December 4, 2007 1:26 PM

Am I wrong, or aren't states free to forego federal aid for their schools and stuff the vending machines with all the fatty, sugar-boosted crap they wish?

So what is Sully whinging about, exactly?

Posted by Anderson | December 4, 2007 1:33 PM

What Al said, about federalism, and what jenn said, about Sullivan's terminal dishonesty and bluster.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 4, 2007 1:34 PM

Matt, I enjoyed your pointing out the simple logical fallacy of Sullivan's argument. I think it's funny that these guys want to avoid the "nanny state" at all costs, but want so strongly for the soft paternalism of Bush's "protector/decider" daddy state. Just weird.

Posted by Decavent | December 4, 2007 1:35 PM

Al is right, that the argument against this is federalism, not the creeping nanny-state. And if you read the original Cato piece, Daniel Mitchell is sounding exactly this point, that regulating food in schools is decidedly not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. However, puzzlingly, the piece is titled "More Nanny-State Foolishness." It would have made more sense had it been titled "More Federal Government Overreach" or some such.

Posted by dbeach | December 4, 2007 1:36 PM

I agree with Boring Commenter. I believe Sullivan employs someone to read his mail for him (so does Eric Alterman, and many other big bloggers, I'm sure), probably to save him from having to read so much nastiness.

But then, I've also stopped reading his blog. His latest swing back to conservatism --which seems to be little more than insane Hillary hatred and swipes at the dirty hippies in his head, to borrow a phrase -- is not at all interesting to me.

Posted by Frank | December 4, 2007 1:37 PM

The state is supposed to be a nanny state in schools. Kids don't, after all, have the freedom to pick up and walk out of school any time they want. In particular, kids don't have the freedom to leave school grounds to get lunch or snacks (off-campus lunch for high schoolers is mostly a thing of the past). So in-school vending machines are a near-monopoly food supply, apart from the cafeteria. It makes perfect sense to regulate them. Sullivan's knee is jerking.

Posted by Ben | December 4, 2007 1:44 PM

Agreed Frank. I was a multiple times a day reader of Sully's for years. I didn't always agree but I enjoyed his perspective. His Hillary obsession has made him unreadable though. It's been 2+ months since I visited his blog. Too bad really...

Posted by Steve Balboni | December 4, 2007 1:46 PM

The American Fat Man is the enemy of the Nanny State. The American Fat Man deserves recognition - politically, diplomatically, and militarily!

Posted by Comment | December 4, 2007 1:54 PM

Sullivan is a fool.

The thing about fools is that, like broken clocks, they can appear to be correct depending on when you look at them. This ability to be occasionally correct is what keeps Sullivan in the good graces of people like Yglesias and Josh Marshall, who really ought not to allow their decency and compassion towards fools and small children to outweigh the fact that linking to fools like Sullivan is a disservice to their readers.

Posted by Kelly | December 4, 2007 2:19 PM

So long as the Commodity Credit Corporation is buying a rather unhealthy array of foods (primarily dairy, such as the infamous Government Cheese of yore) and distributing them to school lunch programs as a subsidy to farmers, I'm not sure it makes sense to argue that school foods ought to be a local school board issue. Of course, if you asked Sully whether he thought CCC purchases were a good idea, then he'd probably say no, and saying that we should neither distribute big wads of cheese to school lunch program nor forbid schools from serving junk food at the federal level is a coherent view. Nonetheless, the fact remain that, as of now, we have a federal school foods policy, and one that encourages the consumption of frequently unhealthy foods. In light of this, should we change that policy toward more healthy foods? The only reason I see to say no is some sort of Leninist-localist view that so long as the Federal government has a policy with regard to school foods, it had damn well better be a bad one, so that it will be easier to oppose with the real good policy of local administration of schools. However, even this argument is suspect given how entrenched programs like the CCC are.

Posted by Julian Elson | December 4, 2007 2:24 PM

Umm, why is this a federalism issue? Is junk food somehow good for kids in Alabama but bad for kids in California? Sure, one can mindlessly state that "regulating food in schools is decidedly not among the enumerated powers of the federal government." But the Supreme Court long ago ruled that the commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate goods within the flow of interstate commerce for decades. Junk food is well within the extraordinarily broad range of goods and services that fall witin the Congress's regulatory commerce power.

The notion that the federal government would somehow exceed its constitutional authority by regulating kids' food in school is laughable. If that is what Mitchell is actually arguing in his original article (as opposed to being sarcastic), he is a fool or a zeolet. It certainly wouldn't be an accurate statement of constitutional law since the late 1930's.

With that cleared up, I want someone to explain to me, why, in principle, "leaving it to the states" is a good idea in this case? Childhood nutrition is exactly the type of uniform health and safety issuethat begs for federal regulation.

Posted by owenz | December 4, 2007 2:32 PM

Did you guys actually read the article? The idea isn't, as Matthew says, just to "get healthier foods" into school vending machines and cafeterias, it is the outright banning of foods and drinks that Congress deems to be too sugary or fatty. Look at the article linked to by Cato:

"The nutrition standards would allow only plain bottled water and eight-ounce servings of fruit juice or plain or flavored low-fat milk with up to 170 calories to be sold in elementary and middle schools. High school students could also buy diet soda or, in places like school gyms, sports drinks. Other drinks with as many as 66 calories per eight ounces could be sold in high schools, but that threshold would drop to 25 calories per eight-ounce serving in five years.

Food for sale would have to be limited in saturated and trans fat and have less than 35 percent sugar. Sodium would be limited, and snacks must have no more than 180 calories per serving for middle and elementary schools and 200 calories for high schools."

There's a big difference between trying to make sure that that kids who want to eat healthy foods have the opportunity to do so in our schools and simply banning any substance over an arbitrarily determined calories-per-serving threshold.

The former is reasonable, the latter is, as Sullivan and Cato assessed it, government micro-management, and made worse so by the fact that Congress really has no authority to regulate school vending in the first place.

Posted by Jeff | December 4, 2007 2:50 PM

Jeff,

I'm too lazy, er, busy at work to read the article ... but where in the article does it talk about banning anything per se (rather than the selling of said thing)? Certainly it doesn't mention any bans of particular foods and drinks in what you quote.

There is a big difference between "the government won't allow you to sell X, Y and Z on campuses (campi?)" and "the government won't allow you (a kid) to possess X, Y or Z". Kids are still free to bring in such junk food from home according to these rules, are they not?

Posted by DAS | December 4, 2007 3:02 PM

"Umm, why is this a federalism issue?"

Because we already have school boards, district superintendants, and various administrators at the state level who have responsibility for making these types of decisions. The principles of federalism dictate leaving such decisions to the local government officials already charged with making them, the theory being that those officials are likely to be more attuned to local wants, needs, and preferences than a Congressman in Washington who probably knows as much about adolescent nutrition as I do about molecular biology.

If such decisions are going to be made by Congress, anyway, why even have superintendants, school boards, stated education departments, etc? I'm not necessarily opposed to Congress making these decisions (lord knows half of these local types are probably asleep at the wheel, anyway, and wouldn't know if Pepsi was selling crack through its vending machines), but when laws and regulations are developed, instituted, and enforced at the local level, it makes for pretty shabby government to have them arbitrarily overriden by the federal government.

Posted by Jeff | December 4, 2007 3:02 PM

Well, in olden times, when I was a student -- late '60s thru '70s -- the public schools in my neck of the Midwestern woods allowed no on-campus sales of soda pop, chips, candy bars, or other junk food during the school day. You could get that stuff from the concession stand at night during a basketball game, but it was off limits during the school day. You could bring it if you packed a lunch, but you couldn't buy it there.

Sometime in the '80s schools started allowing vending machine sales to students and some systems started outsourcing cafeteria service to fast-food chains or vending-catering companies. That's where the nutritional value of food available in schools went down -- the vending machines, especially, became a profit center for school districts, and some districts are loath to give it up now.

That said, I'd rather see localities deal with the issues rather than get a federal mandate, but something should be done to end an unhealthy practice that never should have been started.

Posted by Bat of Moon | December 4, 2007 3:06 PM

"I'm too lazy, er, busy at work to read the article ... but where in the article does it talk about banning anything per se (rather than the selling of said thing)? Certainly it doesn't mention any bans of particular foods and drinks in what you quote. "

You're right, it doesn't. I guess my language was a bit strong in that previous post.

Sorry, I get a little excited about these things.

Posted by Jeff | December 4, 2007 3:10 PM

One might state Sullivan's point better that a nanny is necessary and desirable and the right person to designate 'nanny' in this regard is whoever runs the school cafeteria. One might kick the problem up a few stairs to the principal and still be within the realm of the sane. One might kick it up a few further steps and get to the school superintendant of local school board, though that might be a little much but still be within the realm of the sane if luches are subcontracted out at that level. Kicking it all the way up to the 435+100+9+1 independent officials of the Fed'l govt, making a Federal case of a school's lunch menu, though one can of course go there if one wants, is definitely leaving the realm of the sane.

Per Sullivan, does he still post all those emails about how brave and courageous he is? He always seems to conveniently have one whenever he seems to need a bit of emotional affirmation. One might theorize that his alter ego with a hotmail account sends them to his work email account though, an untraceable form of 'sock puppetry', much better done than the others who have done so. That Sullivan sure seems smarter than the other guys!

Posted by j mct | December 4, 2007 3:14 PM

If such decisions are going to be made by Congress, anyway, why even have superintendants, school boards, stated education departments, etc?

But this is a health and safey issue, not an educational issue. While it may be true that "a Congressman in Washington ... probably knows as much about adolescent nutrition as I do about molecular biology," Congress is never the less far better positioned to determine basic, minimum standards for adolescent dietary needs than a local school board, which lacks resources and expertise when it comes to non-educational issues.

Now, reading your exerpt about how heavy-handed the proposed regulations seem to be makes me think that the proposed regulations need work - but I don't think federalism bars this type of regulation in principle. At least not persuasively.

Posted by owenz | December 4, 2007 3:21 PM

Because we already have school boards, district superintendants, and various administrators at the state level who have responsibility for making these types of decisions. The principles of federalism dictate leaving such decisions to the local government officials already charged with making them

Not really. The so-called "principles of federalism" say state governments should make certain decisions instead of the federal government. It says nothing about whether or not local (eg city,county,etc) governments should make decisions instead of the state or federal governments.

the theory being that those officials are likely to be more attuned to local wants, needs, and preferences than a Congressman in Washington who probably knows as much about adolescent nutrition as I do about molecular biology.

Offhand, I would guess an elected offical would be more attuned to the citizens than a non-elected official. Members of Congress are elected by voters. In my state, the state board of education is not elected but appointed. So it's more likely my elected members of Congress would be more attuned to the citizens than the non-elected state board of education.

Posted by Dan the Man | December 4, 2007 3:22 PM

That's not a "nanny-state" issue; it's a federalism issue.

For people who hate the idea of a "nanny-state," the "State" (i.e. federal government) is the key concern. If Wabash county passes some sort of nanny-state ordinance, people can always move one county over with minimal permanent changes to their lives. The federal goverment, who's area of influence includes all lands and territories offers no such option. In this sense, the only "nanny-state" issues that matter are those that are problems with federalism.

To the larger question of why Sullivan or Reason or anyone with even the slightest libertarian leanings hates federal involvement in schoolchildren's food--the federal government is a horrible mechanism for making schoolchildren more healthy.

The federal government still uses both the food pyramid and BMI, both of which are junk science. The proposed guidelines prohibit diet soda for middle-schoolers, but allow sports drinks, which are far, far worse (excluding unique situations like marathon-running in which gatorade is effective). The guidelines prohibit trans-fats, but are silent on HFCS, which is much more closely tied to obesity and exists in everything. The guidelines restrict meat, which may not be bad for people after all.

In short, there's no concensus on what specific diet can make everyone healthy, or whether there is a one-size fits-all solution. But the federal government will force one. Even worse, because of entrenched interests, the slow moving nature of government and the existence of lobbyists, the federal government will always be twenty years behind the curve on health issues. Better to let the school districts decide for themselves. Parent complaints about the offered diet will be heard far louder by the Schoolboards than by Congress.

Posted by Shinyk | December 4, 2007 3:26 PM

Why shouldn't it be a local issue? Well, perhaps it's because local funding pegged to local property taxes places schools in poorer districts at a financial disadvantage, encouraging devil's bargains like vending machine contracts and bought-in food, rather than employing on-site cooks with greater freedom to create more nutritious meals from cheaper ingredients.

Of course, the more encompassing solution would be to address elements of the property tax peg.

Better to let the school districts decide for themselves. Parent complaints about the offered diet will be heard far louder by the Schoolboards than by Congress.

Will it hell. Parents are more likely to pass on complaints from kids who don't get burger-and-fries-with-coke as a daily option, and school boards are more likely to respond to that kind of pressure. Oh, and school boards are more likely to give the nod to children knocking on doors, selling chocolate to raise money for books.

(On that subject, think of all of the insidious little schemes that tie junk food consumption to school supplies.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 4, 2007 3:53 PM

But guess who should be treated like children? Children! Parents, nannies, and -- yes! -- school officials are supposed to place paternalistic rules on children's behavior ...

That's all fine to say, but for many cultural conservatives and libertarians state intervention to protect the well-being of children is just as problematic--if not worse than--state "nannying" of adults--because they view any state role in regulating children's behavior as a threat to parents' fundamental right to pretty much total control over their children and how they are raised. Because of the primacy of parental rights, for some groups of conservatives anything that could even be remotely perceived as the state assuming any kind of parental responsibility (such as regulating what foods kids can buy at lunch), is seen as a much greater threat to fundamental liberties than regulating the behavior of adults.

Posted by flippantangel | December 4, 2007 3:59 PM

Legislating food in the schools seems to be popular. The state of NJ is doing it. last year my local school board had to institute restrictive guidelines about snacks, celebrations etc, due to a state mandate. Now the federal government is getting into the act.

The thing that bugs me about this is that nutrition science is particularly bogus. The federally-touted "food pyramid" of the 1970s is, by current thinking, bad nutrition. Not neutral, but bad. The nutrition establishment has been made to look silly. Instead of a bit of humility, admitting past errors, etc, they want to increase their pc admonitions. Some of the recent legislation, such as transfats and cholesterol, may be nutritionally off-base. but rather than slowing down, they're speeding up.

Posted by jk | December 4, 2007 4:15 PM

Isn't this, to some extent, and "underfunded schools" issue insofar as schools turned to pop machines and candy sales to make up for flagging public funding?

Posted by Musa | December 4, 2007 5:16 PM

The thing that bugs me about this is that nutrition science is particularly bogus. The federally-touted "food pyramid" of the 1970s is, by current thinking, bad nutrition. Not neutral, but bad. The nutrition establishment has been made to look silly. Instead of a bit of humility, admitting past errors, etc, they want to increase their pc admonitions. Some of the recent legislation, such as transfats and cholesterol, may be nutritionally off-base. but rather than slowing down, they're speeding up.

Schools have to serve something for lunch (or not, I guess, but work with me here). They might as well serve food that, as far as they can figure out, is nutritious. We might learn down the road that some of what we think is healthy actually isn't, but I don't think we're going to learn that having Coke and french fries for lunch is healthier than having water and a turkey sandwich on wheat bread.

I'm generally in favor of more local control, not less, but to the extent that the costs of obesity are spread across the whole country, not just in individual school districts, I'm not going to cry all over my pocket-sized Cato-issued US Constitution if Congress makes middle schoolers eat celery instead of fried mozzarella sticks.

Posted by JB | December 4, 2007 5:21 PM

But this is a health and safey issue, not an educational issue.

Um, so?

You may question whether "junk food somehow good for kids in Alabama but bad for kids in California". But how is that different than education? Is math different in Alabama than in California? History? Literature?

Posted by Al | December 4, 2007 5:33 PM

All this talk about nannies and school lunches means I'll forever hear Fran Drescher's "nyah-hah-HAHHH" whenever I bite into a Tater Tot.

Posted by Jamey | December 4, 2007 5:36 PM

As I've argued in comments over at Ezra's site, while it's certainly true that kids shouldn't eat too much candy and soda, it is difficult to see how the unholy danger of vending machines merits (i) imposing a new set of federal regulations on local school boards, which irritates people, and (ii) randomly trampling on people's legitimate libertarian leanings (a 14-year-old can't have a root beer because the U.S. Congress says no, no, no?). Picking these kinds of fights is just bad politics.

Posted by alkali | December 4, 2007 5:39 PM

"You may question whether "junk food somehow good for kids in Alabama but bad for kids in California". But how is that different than education? Is math different in Alabama than in California? History? Literature?"

That's a pretty solid argument in favor of federal involvement in education, Al. Thanks.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 4, 2007 5:45 PM

"The so-called "principles of federalism" say state governments should make certain decisions instead of the federal government. It says nothing about whether or not local (eg city,county,etc) governments should make decisions instead of the state or federal governments."

They say both, actually.

Posted by Jeff | December 4, 2007 5:46 PM

Good title. I can't believe I didn't realize that about nannies when I saw the opposing arguments.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 4, 2007 5:49 PM

Kids are still free to bring in such junk food from home according to these rules, are they not?
Posted by DAS

Not in some school districts where bringing certain "prohibited foods" in was to be treated as the same as porn, certain weapons. This was about the Safety Nazi hysteria about peanuts, other hard nuts, bananas, and deadly candy bars that "could kill an unwitting hyperallergenic person if they unwittingly ate another persons food. Told they were nuts, the nannies then made it a crime for students to share food brough from home, came up with the homemade cupcake and baked foods bans, and set up "Nut-free school nanny-monitored eating areas."

The thing that bugs me about this is that nutrition science is particularly bogus. The federally-touted "food pyramid" of the 1970s is, by current thinking, bad nutrition. Not neutral, but bad. The nutrition establishment has been made to look silly. Instead of a bit of humility, admitting past errors, etc, they want to increase their pc admonitions. Some of the recent legislation, such as transfats and cholesterol, may be nutritionally off-base. but rather than slowing down, they're speeding up.

Excellent criticism.

Absolutely discredited on past food guidance, the Feds have effectively doubled down and sought to meddle further with misguided diktats to the local peasantry, rather than let them, as parents and local school boards, decide. And trying to get their tenacles or their trial lawyer clients set to ruin fast food industry outside schools.

A good deal of research points to FDA "Healthy Food Pyramid" crap as more a contributor to inner city obesity than a cure for it. Parents are encouraged to feed kids "heathy, nutritious HFCS fruit drinks" and 70% "wholesome starches" diet. So you have all those little fat ones, sucking down on box after box of WIC-subsidized vitamin and mineral enriched 335 calorie apple juice. And meals of 2nd and thirds on pasta, and washed down with healthy 600 calorie caesar's salad and more fruit juice boxes. None of that "bad, bad fried food, meat, or 0-calorie diet soda." And the results the FDA sought are "puffed-up" tykes.

Now they are going to have Federal Satefy Nazis in all our local schools monitoring for "bad high calorie food" excepting the usual 1,000 a plate "good pasta" and the 335 calorie a pop healthy fruit fodder & drink? Yeah, good luck with more Fed control and pompous officials "safeguarding us all" of the "New Food Safety Menace".

And it ignores that a good chunk of kids are completely outside this problem. My 3 kids in the late 80s and early 90s were athletic, active, complete garbage mouths that would hoover up anything except broccolli, okra, spinach, "un-dolphin safe" tuna (they didn't "heart" the tuna itself ) and veal.
None had any obesity problems. Active and hungry. The middle one even battled delayed puberty on low body fat despite supplemental snickers bars at school and two, not one "supersize french fry orders" when we did fast food - because she was a long distance runner and ballet student - and hyper metabolism'd.

Federal Safety Nazi standards are preposterous for the 40% or so of students that don't eat enough. Many skip lunch to lift weights, do homework so they can do activities after school longer.

Let parents decide. Maybe the Nazis can come in and help the parasite's or poor-parented kids, but the rest can do fine without yet another massive program to have Feds ensure all kids are treated as irresponsible fatties.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 4, 2007 7:10 PM

(a 14-year-old can't have a root beer because the U.S. Congress says no, no, no?

Man, read the bill already. Congress isn't trying to make it so that students can't have soda with their school lunch. They're trying to get the schools to stop serving soda to students (so if the kid wants a root beer he'll have to bring it from home).

Posted by Andrew Levine | December 4, 2007 7:21 PM

Now they are going to have Federal Safety Nazis in all our local schools...

Will the Federal Safety Nazis put the Jewish food in ovens?

Just trying to see if this analogy can get any less appropriate.

Posted by JB | December 4, 2007 8:23 PM

owenz:

The notion that the federal government would somehow exceed its constitutional authority by regulating kids' food in school is laughable. If that is what Mitchell is actually arguing in his original article (as opposed to being sarcastic), he is a fool or a zeolet. It certainly wouldn't be an accurate statement of constitutional law since the late 1930's.

Tanslation:

F**k the Constitution. FDR and his Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not apply when it interferes with what the federal government wants to do, so that is my overriding principle.

Posted by Glaivester | December 4, 2007 8:42 PM

"I'm going to have to agree with Ezra that I find Andrew's opposition to congressional efforts to get healthier foods in public school snack machines a bit puzzling."

Clearly Andrew hasn't ever eaten in an American public school cafeteria; most of that stuff is not fit for consumption by your least well-loved pets let alone human beings.

Although I have yet to dine in a French state school cafeteria my understanding is that the food is fairly exceptional.

Being a person who enjoys eating I tend to think food is probably more important than math and at least as important as history. I see no good reason kids should not be eating first rate food at taxpayer expense.

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2007 9:15 PM

F**k the Constitution. FDR and his Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not apply when it interferes with what the federal government wants to do, so that is my overriding principle.

Glaivester's sentiments can similarly be translated as:

F**k the Commerce Clause, f**k FDR, f**k the will of the American people for the past century, and f**k every Supreme Court justice since 1938 except maybe Clarence Thomas. Also, f**k all the poor and working-class people whose lives have been materially improved by some of the federal government's uses of the Commerce Clause beginning with the New Deal.

Speaking for myself, a mere law student but not entirely unacquainted with the Constitution and with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the issue is pretty simple. The Constitution contains the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since the early twentieth century, almost everything is actually related to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court decisions that uphold a broad reading of "interstate commerce" -- such as Raich -- are a bit sketchy and debatable, but they just don't amount to the Court saying "f**k the Constitution." Equating a broad Commerce Clause reading with "f**k the Constitution" is pretty much a sign of ignorance and zealotry.

Posted by Tom | December 4, 2007 9:20 PM

PS It occurs to me that someone I know talked me into cooking the curries and samosas for this event they were hired to cater. I don't do this type for a living but since it's for government employees I just wanted to note out loud that y'all are going to be paying for my expensive taste in booze for the next few weeks.

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2007 9:23 PM

I sure didn't feel free when I got to choose between grilled Kraft cheese on Wonder Bread and something resembling meat on a bulky roll as my lunch choices in Massachusetts public schools. Maybe I just need to learn that libertarian free eating is eating processed crap and be thankful for it. Then again, there was the time that one kid dropped his mashed potatos and they literally bounced away.

Posted by Reality Man | December 4, 2007 10:26 PM

PPS also less important than food: reading comprehension.

PPPS American chocolate is inedible. That's reason enough to ban it from vending machines.

Posted by Linus | December 4, 2007 10:50 PM

I agree with Matt completely on this, regarding the proper use of the term "nanny state", but I defend Sullivan against charges of grandiosity, because he does post dissents of the day, sometimes more than one, and one of them was about this very topic.

Posted by Phoebe | December 5, 2007 2:19 AM

These are people who practically worship Ronald Reagan, the President who counted ketchup as a vegetable for school-lunch purposes.

Posted by Jalmari | December 5, 2007 3:31 AM

For those whose posted who said or alluded to that they would love a completely uniform federally run education system where mandates from Washington are unflinchingly implemented:

So you're Ok with Creationism, Abstinence Education and Prayer in every school in the nation. Because that what we would have now, if your dream system was in place in Spring 2001.

Posted by Kolohe | December 5, 2007 3:32 AM

For those whose posted who said or alluded to that they would love a completely uniform federally run education system where mandates from Washington are unflinchingly implemented:

So you're Ok with Creationism, Abstinence Education and Prayer in every school in the nation. Because that what we would have now, if your dream system was in place in Spring 2001.

Posted by Kolohe | December 5, 2007 3:33 AM

sorry wifi card hiccup

Posted by Kolohe | December 5, 2007 3:34 AM

Parents are more likely to pass on complaints from kids who don't get burger-and-fries-with-coke as a daily option, and school boards are more likely to respond to that kind of pressure.

So what you're saying is that you automatically know how better to raise children you've never met than their own parents? Good grief.

Posted by Shinyk | December 5, 2007 4:09 AM

Why? Do you actually think it's important to meet a particular kid in order to know that burgers, fries, and Coke aren't very healthy?

One could do a reductio ad absurdum from this to so many other government policies, but eh... too obvious...

Posted by Tom | December 5, 2007 10:38 AM

Do you actually think it's important to meet a particular kid in order to know that burgers, fries, and Coke aren't very healthy?

That's not what you know according to this proposal.

Here's what you know, according to this proposal: Diet Coke (which is harmless, unless the kid drinks 18 12oz. servings per day) is bad, but Red Bull (which is higher in caffeine and calories) is perfectly acceptible. Transfats (which are a big "much ado about nothing") are banned, but HFCS (which shows a direct correspondance between increased usage and both obesity rates and diabetes rates) is not only ubiquitious, but actually mandated (since schooldistricts are required to push juices).

Posted by Shinyk | December 5, 2007 2:54 PM

So what you're saying is that you automatically know how better to raise children you've never met than their own parents? Good grief.

I'll point to the British example, where many schools that introduced healthier menus received complaints from parents, some of whom 'protested' by sending emergency rations of junk food to their grease-deprived children at lunchtime.

So, yeah: I have no illusions about the potential of parents to be fuckwits on this particular topic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 5, 2007 4:48 PM

For what it's worth, I don't particularly support a federal solution, save where federal regulations already apply, but the existing local structures have given us the junk-food fundraiser, rather than the capacity to empower school cooks to create nutritious food.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 5, 2007 4:53 PM

For what it's worth, I don't particularly support a federal solution, save where federal regulations already apply, but the existing local structures have given us the junk-food fundraiser, rather than the capacity to empower school cooks to create nutritious food.

Sorry if I overreacted. I think the last clause might hint at the biggest reason why school food is so bad. I'm speaking of "the capacity to empower school cooks to create nutritious food."

A lot of school districts don't do real cooking anymore. The logistics of cooking (and delivering) healthy food for 1500 children in the span of about 3 hours, every day, strikes me as very difficult to work out. So children are fed a lot of frozen foods that are all preservative so the food won't spoil. Needless to say, that food isn't going to be healthy, except in that it won't be full of mold.

How were school districts able to cook food before the preservative filled slosh was available? I don't know, but I certainly see how it's very difficult now.

In reality, I think the food being offered to school children should never be eaten by anyone, ever.

But that brings up two questions, not to you, just in general.

1. Is a federal solution desirable?

You say no, and I agree, partially because I don't believe Congress knows any more about a child's Health than a parent, and usually less. Plus, parents aren't succeptible to bribery from, say, the soft-drink companies that co-wrote this federal proposal.

2. Is this federal solution desirable?

Simply put: no.

One emphasis is on soda to the exclusion of energy drinks. Soda is not the greatest thing in the world for children or anyone, although Diet soda is without any ill effect up to the level of 18 12oz cans per day (at which point it begins causing liver damage, but who drinks 18 diet sodas a day?). Energy drinks, by contrast, contain much higher caffeine levels and much higher calorie numbers, even in smaller quantities. Yet they're encouraged by escaping the soda ban. Talk about ignoring the elephant to swat the fly.

Also: juices. The kind of juices sold in school cafeterias are synthetic (so they won't spoil) and laced with HFCS. HFCS is far more dangerous than trans-fats, another inexplicable peccadillo of this proposal. But you would never have a federal restriction on HFCS in schools because of the corn lobby. Maybe you get one locally, maybe not, but you will never see any federal law dealing with HFCS.

Lastly, the proposed plan deals with portion size, i.e. calorie restriction. There is no one-sized-fits-all proper number of calories per day. I'll say it again: There is no one-sized-fits-all proper number of calories per day. A calorie number that is perfect for one person's metabolism can make another person into an immovable object. Or leave them malnourished. This is especially problematic with children, whose metabolisms have a much larger deviation from the mean than adults.

Do I know what to do about the diet of schoolchildren? No. Is there a solution? I don't know. Can I tell when something can make it very much worse? Yes.

Posted by Shinyk | December 5, 2007 6:34 PM

Speaking for myself, a mere law student but not entirely unacquainted with the Constitution and with Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the issue is pretty simple. The Constitution contains the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since the early twentieth century, almost everything is actually related to interstate commerce. The Supreme Court decisions that uphold a broad reading of "interstate commerce" -- such as Raich -- are a bit sketchy and debatable, but they just don't amount to the Court saying "f**k the Constitution."

The Constitution says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce, not that it can regulate anything t angentially related to interstate commerce. Saying that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate absolutely everything by finding some tendentious connection to interstate commerce is indeed saying "f**k the Constitution."

Equating a broad Commerce Clause reading with "f**k the Constitution" is pretty much a sign of ignorance and zealotry.

No, it's a sign that I haven't been indoctrinated by law school professors that the law says whatever we need it to say to get our preferred policies passed.

The problem is, we have strayed so far from the Constitution that actually believing that we should follow it is now seen as extremism.

Posted by Glaivester | December 6, 2007 1:11 AM

Shinyk,

This is almost a dead thread, but I'm glad we're thinking along the same lines. The obvious problem here is that the federal regulatory approach is a crude one.

So you have to step back and look at the transformation of school meal staff into re-heaters of bought-in food, and the compression of lunch breaks so that shovelling down food becomes the norm.

It absolutely begins with local empowerment, but that also means the power to embrace parents who recognise the ability of school to provide good nutrition, and to resist those who want a fast-food menu.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 6, 2007 4:33 PM