It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The White House has proposed additional resources for a robust child nutrition reauthorization package that would reduce child obesity and improve the diets of children. Current proposals in the House and Senate include provisions that will raise the quality of all foods and beverages served in schools by requiring the secretary of agriculture to establish new nutrition standards that are consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
"Mission: Readiness" strongly supports these provisions and urges Congress to enact reauthorization legislation immediately.
By applying increased nutritional standards to all foods sold on school grounds, expanding access to healthier meals, and supporting schools in implementing proven programs that educate children and their families about healthy eating and exercise, we can get junk food and high-calorie beverages out of schools and out of our children's daily diets.
Parents who fail to help an obese child eat and exercise properly, ignoring all advice and guidance, could be guilty of neglect, British child health experts say.
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," stated the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued.
Originally posted by crankyoldman
By the very definition of "I want my food to be safe and I am glad action is being taken" then it stands to reason that the ballparks that sold disgusting food that may poison someone should be raided with guns. The big pharma mfgs that sell drugs they KNOW will kill or maim, should be raided with guns. In fact, anyone that sells something that might hurt someone else should be raided with guns.
No one was killed because of raw milk last year. Vending machines, selling food related products, kills about 40 people a year. Don't be confused, not the food, the machine that sells it - falling over on folks. by definition, they should be raided with guns too.
You people seem to be ignoring the gun part. The theft part in favor of "well if is for our own good.
Originally posted by Jenna
I take it back, I'm not out of the thread yet.
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
This is you're slant? Protect the children at the cost of a little liberty?
Where exactly did I say that? You said if someone gets ill, that's their choice. I was pointing out that when a parent buys raw milk, their child isn't choosing to get sick if they drink it since they lack the ability to decide whether or not that milk is purchased. As for losing liberty over it, I've never drank raw milk a day in my life and oddly enough I have just as much liberty as the rest of you. Go figure.
You ready to back that up and support gestapo kicking in the doors of those who let their kids lick the raw batter out of the baking pan?
Because that's obviously the next logical step, right? Wrong.
You may like a 1984 style life, but I won't have it and neither will other people who care about complete freedom.
Yes, because requiring bottlers of raw milk to pass checks on bacteria levels means that we're living in 1984. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
You know, a simple warning label would do the trick, you know, instead of armed regulation.
So you'd rather have a warning label and no regulations at all? Yeah, that sounds really healthy.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Small children don't decide to do anything on their own.
Thus, your argument is ridiculous times ten.
Good job, you missed my point.
You remind me of my brother. Good at talking, not so much at listening.
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
So, to sum up you're position and to make it clear for everyone reading...
You pretty much expound giving up some unused, useless freedom for "healthier" choices, one reason being that kids can't decide...or would you say that in a nicer, more obfuscated way?
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
So, to sum up you're position and to make it clear for everyone reading...
You pretty much expound giving up some unused, useless freedom for "healthier" choices, one reason being that kids can't decide...or would you say that in a nicer, more obfuscated way?
You seem to have missed most of the thread, including the many many posts where it's been proven that you can indeed buy raw milk in California. Nice attempt at twisting what I actually said into something else though.
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Well, if arguing about raw milk was the whole point of the thread, then I must be slow.
Originally posted by Jenna
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Well, if arguing about raw milk was the whole point of the thread, then I must be slow.
Long story short, the OP's argument fell apart when I pointed out on the first page that the store was shut down for not having a health permit not because of raw milk. Then they and others claimed you can't buy raw milk in California which was again proven false. And I honestly have no clue what exactly it is you're arguing.
You can buy raw milk in California. The people of California haven't lost any liberty and neither have I. And no, children don't decide whether they buy raw milk or not. What is so hard about that to understand?
Originally posted by Worldbehindyoureyes
I think that the point of this forum is not to argue if raw milk is bad for you, it is wether the goverment has the right to tell us we can't buy or sell it, and weather they should have that say in what is avalible for our consumtion.
wbye