• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schools may ban chocolate milk over added sugar

Why is it Liberals have to make a personal out of everything?

There are a couple "people" who say this is not good for you and the schools are right or have the right.

You all make my point. I never said it was good you. I said people can decide what they want their children do and eat etc. and by saying you think this product is bad show that some folks can think and decide for themselves.

And this doesn't change that whatsoever.
 
Why is it Liberals have to make a personal out of everything? Telling the truth is not an over reaction.

There are a couple "people" who say this is not good for you and the schools are right or have the right.

You all make my point. I never said it was good you. I said people can decide what they want their children do and eat etc. and by saying you think this product is bad show that some folks can think and decide for themselves.

If government agents were coming into your home and telling you what to feed your kids and snatching the chocolate milk off the kitchen table... You'd have a point.

But you don't.

Someone has to set a trend, and if it has to be schools because parents can't make the right choices, then so be it, kids don't get their chocolate milk at school, and they can go home and drink it from their own personal chocolate cow udder for all i care.
 
You may think it's stupid, but it's not a symptom of the nanny state, as you would like to paint it as.

And I think schools should provide the healthiest lunches possible, instead of milk it should be water, have milk at home.


50 years ago, schools didn't worry about the "healthiest meals", obesity, not a problem. Today, Schools keep trying to find better "food" obesity a problem.

Your answer? More Government
 
50 years ago, schools didn't worry about the "healthiest meals", obesity, not a problem. Today, Schools keep trying to find better "food" obesity a problem.

Your answer? More Government

Wow, what logic here :lol:

Seriously, obesity is a problem not because of government regulation, the lack of physical activity, and overeating of fatty, salty foods are major reasons why we have an obesity problem in this country. Now the government obviously has a problem with this, and to help set good habits in the younger generation, want to provide the healthiest meals in GOVERNMENT schools, I repeat GOVERNMENT schools. I can't stress that enough, it is their schools, and fully their right to regulate what they eat. Personally I don't think they are doing enough, they should only offer healthy meals, the only drinks should be water, don't like it bring our own lunch.
 
I don't know, I'm not hugely upset at the schools banning chocolate milk. It's a bit excessive and we probably should be doing more to make sure kids are getting physical activity. But we have a bunch of fatties now and it's a concern now and this isn't the worst of all things.
 
I chose to drink regular milk because chocolate milk was difficult on satisfying thirst. Especially the thicker brands.
 
Schools may ban chocolate milk over added sugar - Yahoo! News


Let's see, recesses are being shortened, high activity games are either banned or heavily structured for fear of "lawsuits" cause kids might "get hurt".

It's not what you eat, it's what you do. The more parents abdicate their responsibilities of raising their kids to the Gov't, the more problems we keep having.

Amazingly the answer seems to be "more control"! It's like the world has entered a dark time of stupid.

Wow! This is so stupid. People should be allowed to eat what they want, but they need to be ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.
 
Wow! This is so stupid. People should be allowed to eat what they want, but they need to be ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Yes, they should. And they are. However, a school has absolutely no obligation to provide it.
 
Someone has to set a trend, and if it has to be schools because parents can't make the right choices, then so be it, kids don't get their chocolate milk at school, and they can go home and drink it from their own personal chocolate cow udder for all i care.

Yeah... get government out of the lunch business. That'd be a great trend to start with.

.
 
Yeah... get government out of the lunch business. That'd be a great trend to start with.

.

So you want the government to not provide any lunches at all?
 
I chose to drink regular milk because chocolate milk was difficult on satisfying thirst. Especially the thicker brands.

The best chocolate milk is in The Netherlands... Chocomel... it's awesome, awesome.Chocomel, de enige èchte.
I suppose they'd have a fit with what many Dutch eat at breakfast... chocolate.

.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a huge issue with this. I DO have an issue with hypocritical activists who demand stuff like this gets done for "children's health" but are likely the same people that cause more high cardio activities like dodge ball and such that kids would do in gym to get banned and push for gym to be shortened in general.

Ultimately, its a public school decision and its tax payer money and thus they have to do what's best for the use of that money, and I can understand a move to healthier foods.

I will say its just yet another example though of my general point, is that the more you allow government to take over something the more they'll then use it to go "Well, its using government funds, so its not bad for us to make you do it our way. Its this kind of thing that in general I don't like government taking over things like health care, or making its way into other segments of life, because once you involved government or government money significantly suddenly your "private" situation becomes a "public" one and your say matters less.

There is cases when various government entities have tried to ban food type stuff in a general sense, but specific to schools I have no real issue with this.
 
So kids who can't bring a lunch to school should go hungry?

I guess. I don't think hundreds of millions of tax payer money should be spent in this pursuit. Let private charities dispense for the needy few... we do not need government to get involved.

Government intervention besides wasting taxpayer money sends an awful message too.

.
 
Last edited:
BATMAN_LIEK_CHOCOLATE_MILK2.png
 
I guess. I don't think hundreds of millions of tax payer money should be spent in this pursuit. Let private charities dispense for the needy few... we do not need government to get involved.

Government intervention besides wasting taxpayer money sends an awful message too.

.

So kids, who have no control over their situation, should go hungry in school?

Awesome :roll:
 
I guess. I don't think hundreds of millions of tax payer money should be spent in this pursuit. Let private charities dispense for the needy few... we do not need government to get involved.

Government intervention besides wasting taxpayer money sends an awful message too.

.

It's hardly a needy few. For many children, their school lunch is their most nutritious meal of their day. For some, it's their only.Government's in for a penny and a pound. Kids can't learn if they're thinking about their next meal - and whether or not it'll be Creamettes with ketsup.

Ever been hungry? I think not. Ever known a family whose food stamps don't stretch? Or whose mom sells the stamps for drug money? I think not. If we can't feed kids 'til they're 18 one nutritious meal a day, it's time we folded up our tents.
 
So kids, who have no control over their situation, should go hungry in school?

Awesome :roll:

It's hardly a needy few. For many children, their school lunch is their most nutritious meal of their day. For some, it's their only.Government's in for a penny and a pound. Kids can't learn if they're thinking about their next meal - and whether or not it'll be Creamettes with ketsup.

Ever been hungry? I think not. Ever known a family whose food stamps don't stretch? Or whose mom sells the stamps for drug money? I think not. If we can't feed kids 'til they're 18 one nutritious meal a day, it's time we folded up our tents.

Leave it to private institutions. Not government. I find nothing in The Constitution saying the government should be in the restaurant business.

.
 
Leave it to private institutions. Not government. I find nothing in The Constitution saying the government should be in the restaurant business.

That's your litmus test? You must be kidding. There's nothing in the Constitution about the whole public school system. But it does speak to general welfare. Weak, Zimmer. Very weak.
 
That's your litmus test? You must be kidding. There's nothing in the Constitution about the whole public school system. But it does speak to general welfare. Weak, Zimmer. Very weak.

Yes, that is my litmus test.

Federal spending on the two food programs... was $16 billion in fiscal 2009.21

The USDA’s inspector general reports that another area of abuse is local school contracting.29 The food service companies that supply school breakfasts and lunches are prone to inflate expenses and use fraudulent billing schemes in their school contracts.

The bottom line is that local governments have many incentives to maximize the number of school meal recipients and little incentive to reduce waste and abuse. These problems are common in federal subsidy programs for state and local governments, in programs ranging from Medicaid to highway grants. The solution is to end the federal role and revive federalism, as discussed below.

Food Subsidies | Downsizing the Federal Government

.
 
Last edited:
I sense a little bit of a contradiction in some of the views expressed in this thread with those expressed in others.

Why isn't a school's offering of unhealthy alternatives seen by conservative/libertarians as a waste of the taxpayer money? Shouldn't there just be one or maybe two healthy choices, and the parents can provide additional alternatives if they choose to?

Should schools limit their offerings to one or two unhealthy alternatives? Why should schools give students entitlements to unhealthy foods?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom