sauce-coated cardboard

Originally posted by normbenign
That is the totally absurd argument often made by no1. Comparing anything in the early 21st century to the middle of the 19th is patently absurd. It is a different place and time, and we have no way of knowing what history might have looked like if things were done differently.

Here's a (poisoned) taste of what things might look like with an ineffective FDA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7628622.stm

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Here's a (poisoned) taste of what things might look like with an ineffective FDA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7628622.stm

Yes, and I have a friend who lost his dog to tainted Chinese dogfood, despite inspections and regulations.

We don't have to imagine and ineffective FDA. It is an American reality. The question is can if be made effective? How much would it cost? How much damage does it do in it's present state?

This thread started about government regulations, absurd regulations on school lunches. How about the stupid food pyramid, that almost no nutritionists sign on to. When did it become the province of the Federal government to give dietary advice, much less legal limitations? Check the Constitution! It isn't in there.

Originally posted by normbenign
Yes, and I have a friend who lost his dog to tainted Chinese dogfood, despite inspections and regulations.

We don't have to imagine and ineffective FDA. It is an American reality. The question is can if be made effective? How much would it cost? How much damage does it do in it's present state?

This thread started about government regulations, a ...[text shortened]... give dietary advice, much less legal limitations? Check the Constitution! It isn't in there.

Since the government is in fact responsible for its schools it seems not unreasonable for the government to regulate the way those schools operate. When it does so, for whatever reason, it also seems reasonable to ask that it does not put into its regulations patent scream out loud nonsense that has been bought and paid for by a food industry with a vested interest in serving poisonous turds to children in the care of the government run schools.

Are you in fact trying to defend that total nonsense and suggest it is ok or if not, what are you going on about and why in this thread?

Originally posted by normbenign
Yes, and I have a friend who lost his dog to tainted Chinese dogfood, despite inspections and regulations.

We don't have to imagine and ineffective FDA. It is an American reality. The question is can if be made effective? How much would it cost? How much damage does it do in it's present state?

This thread started about government regulations, a ...[text shortened]... give dietary advice, much less legal limitations? Check the Constitution! It isn't in there.

Does the FDA inspect dog food too?

Originally posted by finnegan
Since the government is in fact responsible for its schools it seems not unreasonable for the government to regulate the way those schools operate. When it does so, for whatever reason, it also seems reasonable to ask that it does not put into its regulations patent scream out loud nonsense that has been bought and paid for by a food industry with a vested ...[text shortened]... tal nonsense and suggest it is ok or if not, what are you going on about and why in this thread?

First I don't think the federal government ought to be involved in education at all. When you see how bad their dietary advice is, why would we want them advising diet for kids?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Does the FDA inspect dog food too?

No, but we have plenty of examples of tainted food sickening Americans.

Originally posted by normbenign
First I don't think the federal government ought to be involved in education at all. When you see how bad their dietary advice is, why would we want them advising diet for kids?

Well in this case the dietary advice is indeed abysmally bad. From this we can agree that not everything done by government is good or even tolerable. And indeed, if government wants to retain legitimacy, it is pretty necessary that it be seen to benefit rather than harm its people, a test failed by Congress on this occasion.

If, as seems likely, Federal Government is incapable of acting objectively let alone wisely, then that again might support a case for devolved responsibility, assuming you believe that the lower and more local levels of governemnt (State level? Lower still?) will act in the interests of its people.

Even then it may fail the test of acting objectively to benefit people and perhaps at that point you would argue there is no case whatever for a government role in education.

At that point you sure have a problem. On the one side is the individual doing their best against the odds. On the other hand, immense corporate power acting directly to harm your children by producing and promoting and distributing crap under the label of food.

Maybe American standards of public life have fallen that low.

Or maybe you believe that Americans can devise alternative forms of collective effort to secure their best interests. (Or does that sound socialist? And is it bad in that case?)

Or are you saying something different?

Originally posted by finnegan
Well in this case the dietary advice is indeed abysmally bad. From this we can agree that not everything done by government is good or even tolerable. And indeed, if government wants to retain legitimacy, it is pretty necessary that it be seen to benefit rather than harm its people, a test failed by Congress on this occasion.

If, as seems likely, Federa ...[text shortened]... es that sound socialist? And is it bad in that case?)

Or are you saying something different?

"If, as seems likely, Federal Government is incapable of acting objectively let alone wisely, then that again might support a case for devolved responsibility, assuming you believe that the lower and more local levels of governemnt (State level? Lower still?) will act in the interests of its people. "

That's pretty much my stance. The US Constitution grants the Federal Government, limited and defined powers and responsibilities.

The lower and more local that power devolves to the better. Not that mistakes can't be made there as well, but the mistakes aren't as tragic, and local politicians are theoretically more sensitive to calls from voters.

Originally posted by normbenign
"If, as seems likely, Federal Government is incapable of acting objectively let alone wisely, then that again might support a case for devolved responsibility, assuming you believe that the lower and more local levels of governemnt (State level? Lower still?) will act in the interests of its people. "

That's pretty much my stance. The US Constitution ...[text shortened]... n't as tragic, and local politicians are theoretically more sensitive to calls from voters.

Except where the Constitution grants the Congress plenary and broad powers and restricts the States from exercising power in those areas.

Originally posted by normbenign
No, but we have plenty of examples of tainted food sickening Americans.

I agree - if I want to sell you tainted food that kills you then the government should stay out of it! Inspections, regulations, and standards are for people who don't have the cast-iron stomachs that living under Chinese Communism provides (or so Michelle Bachmann told me.)

Originally posted by normbenign
"If, as seems likely, Federal Government is incapable of acting objectively let alone wisely, then that again might support a case for devolved responsibility, assuming you believe that the lower and more local levels of governemnt (State level? Lower still?) will act in the interests of its people. "

That's pretty much my stance. The US Constitution ...[text shortened]... n't as tragic, and local politicians are theoretically more sensitive to calls from voters.

And in the absence of Federal dictation, prior to pronouncing that tomato sauce is a vegetable, what was the track record of more devolved educational decision making in this area? Did the federal government introduce the widespread consumption of cheap pizza in school dinners? Or is that the dreadful situation it was asked (and failed) to act on and change?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except where the Constitution grants the Congress plenary and broad powers and restricts the States from exercising power in those areas.

Such as?

Originally posted by TerrierJack
I agree - if I want to sell you tainted food that kills you then the government should stay out of it! Inspections, regulations, and standards are for people who don't have the cast-iron stomachs that living under Chinese Communism provides (or so Michelle Bachmann told me.)

That's really a load. I produce and sell food, but I intentionally poison my customers? Doesn't sound like a well thought out business plan.

Originally posted by finnegan
And in the absence of Federal dictation, prior to pronouncing that tomato sauce is a vegetable, what was the track record of more devolved educational decision making in this area? Did the federal government introduce the widespread consumption of cheap pizza in school dinners? Or is that the dreadful situation it was asked (and failed) to act on and change?

I was in Boston public schools in the 50s. Twenty five cents got you a hot lunch, consisting of meat, potato, veggies, salad and desert. The DOE didn't exist. I packed a lunch prepared by my mother. I also, walked to school, sold my MTA passes, and occasionally treated myself to a hot lunch.

In the interim, schools began serving breakfast, morning snacks, as well as lunch, and a lot of the fare is in vending machines. During the same time, HHS has produced a number of food stacks to teach the unwashed nutrition. We are rapidly becoming a nation of sheep. Are we helpless in making our own choices, and by extension choices for our kids?

Are there really parents out there who don't feed their kids breakfast? Or will not prepare a bag lunch?

Originally posted by normbenign
That's really a load. I produce and sell food, but I intentionally poison my customers? Doesn't sound like a well thought out business plan.

The world I live in and observe has plenty of businesses with operational plans that rely on cutting corners, skimping on production quality costs and deliberately sailing close (or even in) to the wind in terms of safety regulations and ethical standards. Is this not so in the world as you see it too?