How Much "Nanny" Would You Like in Your "State"? Ban on Potatos

Feds would limit potatoes for kids
SHANNON DININNY, Associated Press Writer
GLEED, Wash. (AP)
- Potato growers are fighting back against efforts to ban or limit potatoes in federal child nutrition programs, arguing the tuber is loaded with potassium and vitamin C and shouldn't be considered junk food.

One Washington man is so exasperated by the proposals that he's in the midst of a 60-day, all potato diet to demonstrate that potatoes are nutritious.


The USDA is expected to release changes to the federal school lunch program by the end of the year. The program subsidizes lunch and breakfast for nearly 32 million needy kids in most public schools and many private ones, and those schools must follow guidelines on what they serve.

Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed. Next year, the agency will roll out a final rule on the WIC program, which last year served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women considered at risk for malnutrition.

The WIC program is a supplemental food program, and the determination was made that consumption of white potatoes was already adequate, said Christine Stencel, spokeswoman for the Institute of Medicine.


At Naches Valley Primary School, which sits in the agricultural hub of central Washington, some 7-year-old students weren't so sure.

"No potatoes?" second-grader Madison Nunley asked incredulously.

"That would be bad." Chimed in schoolmate Leah Marko, "That would be so not cool. I love tater tots."

The Institute of Medicine made its school lunch recommendation late last year after determining that standards for the federal lunch program don't match up with the government's own dietary guidelines, calling for lots of fresh fruits and veggies and more whole grains.

This hardly marks the first time that potato growers have felt targeted. Low-carb diets, such as Atkins and South Beach, prompted the U.S. Potato Board to allocate $4.4 million for an 18-month public relations campaign in 2004 to stress the nutrition factor in potatoes.

Growers note that potatoes have more potassium than bananas, and that one serving provides roughly 45 percent of the daily recommended value for vitamin C. They also offer some fiber and other minerals and vitamins.

However, they also are high in carbohydrates — and calories, depending on how they are cooked — which can be a losing combination for couch potatoes.

Voight said he'll add spices and a bit of cooking oil to his 20-potatoes-per-day diet, but he won't heap on any butter, sour cream, cheese or any other tasty tidbits.

www.krqe.com...

I think one of the major problems in this Country is that the Government is stepping in and taking over the role of the parent.

So I ask you ATS, how much more Nanny do you want in your State?
When does it stop?

I understand limiting potatoes for children with diabetes. The high number of carbs can be turned in to sugars and can be an issue. However, I think this should only be allowed for kids taking part in free lunch or reduced lunch programs.

My question is, when are they going to stop letting corporations sell ice cream and soda in the lunch room? When I was in high school there were kids that ate nothing but pizza and ice cream for lunch. Then they chased it all down with sugary Country Time lemonade or sweet tea sold in the lunch line.

I understand trying to help kids eat better. However, sometimes we need to watch how far we step. If we didn't have rules like this, how many schools would serve sub standard lunches to kids for budgetary reasons?

I guess the longer I think the more conflicted I feel. I'll stop typing and end the rambling.


The simple way around this is to pack your kids lunch.

This could get dicey .... Potatoes are not nearly as bad for you as refined sugar,and WIC ok's baby formula with large amounts of corn syrup. It is not the Governments job to mandate what people can eat ! They can suggest,but to essentially outlaw potatoes,screw em,I think I want fries with that !

I can see how the schools aren't helping childhood obesity with french fries with every meal. But I see nothing wrong with, say, steamed potato slices with basil or parsley.

Also, the parents have to start taking responsibility for their fat children. Unplug the damn XBox and tell your children to go outside and play.

When I was a kid growing up, we had hotdogs and hamburgers for lunch, but we were also outside riding bikes, building forts, playing tag, football and baseball, exploring down by the creek and we generally didn't come back inside until the sun went down.

If you let your kid sit on his ass in front of Warcraft all day with a mouse in one hand, and the other hand stuffed into a bag of Doritos, what the hell do you think is going to happen?

What the government needs to do is mandate training and licensing to individuals who wish to own or use potatoes.

We dont want any of those reckless fools to load up a plate with fries or tots.

Perhaps a potato registry as well. To ensure we know where every potato is and how it is being used.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Quadrivium


there is no place to be telling people THEY CANT EAT POTATOES!

man im irish and i love my potatoes

mashed
fried
baked
raw
fries

aint nothing like a good potatoe!!!!


man they tried that in my state and all i can say is " look out for that spud in your eye"


government is trying to play god they will never stop nor yeild and its pathetic.

Honestly, I'm to the point where we may as well just go all-out with school. Build some open-bays on school grounds and load them up with two-high racks. The kids get dropped off at school (or picked up by bus) Sunday evening. Monday, 0530, they get woken up for morning PT to complete at 0700 - shower and be ready by 0745 for march-off to breakfast (0800-0845 - we want these kids to eat, not inhale). School starts at 0915. Lunch is from 1130-1330 (let them eat and take it easy for a bit - see something other than a chalk-board and four walls). Classes conclude at 1630. Evening hours are open campus and allow visitation with family - muster at 2000 for cleaning routine and personal hygiene. Mail call at 2130 and lights out at 2200. Tuesday is an easy day, revelry at 0700 with normal schedule to follow. Wednesday allows for PT, as does Friday. Friday's classes conclude at 1530 with a cleaning routine to conclude at 1630 with weekend liberty.

There won't be a damned one of those kids not healthy - no matter how many potatoes they eat or how much soda they drink.

If we want healthy kids - I guarantee that will make those little critters healthy. They'll come home on the weekends and be able to wrap you around their pinkie. I guarantee it will make family outings all that more special when you only get to see your kids during certain times of the day. Your kids will appreciate the time with you and you'll appreciate it with them.

I'm just tired of the government trying to do things it was never intended to do, and failing miserably at them. They won't even begin to accomplish the stated goal with this legislation.

reply to post by Aim64C

Lol sounds a lot like boot camp. Maybe we need to enact a "Don't fry Don't tell" policy or something eh?
You are correct though. The Government is trying to weasel its way into every part of our lives. That is how a lot of Prog. Liibs think. They know what's best for us. We should just sit back and let them do what needs to be done.

R'oh r'oh! Rice is high in carbs and calories too. So is wheat.

First they came for my taters, and I strongly disagreed. But I did not stand up. I’m ashamed to say I stood down!

And then they came next for my wheat, and once again, I’m ashamed to report to you gentlemen...I stood down!

But now, sirs, for what am I to tell my 10-year-old child when they come to me and say "'Daddy. Daddy. Why did the government take away my Rice Crispies?"

What sirs am I to tell them?

No, I will not stand down.

I asked my 10-year-old child what they thought of the government taking away their taters. They replied "What's taters precious? What's taters, eh?" I had to groan as I said to their delight "Po-tay-toes. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. Lovely big golden chips with a nice piece of fried fish."

Seriously, of all the bad things in a child's diet, taters are one of the last things I would have considered imposing restrictions on. If this had been a ban on foods made with Hydrogenated Oils, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Refined Sugar, and empty Carbohydrates and Calories I might have been more receptively empathetic. Instead, by banning something as comparatively benign as taters has me a little incensed that the government has no right sticking their nose into business that is none of their own.

Typical potato wedge issue on an election year.

I'm pro-taters for tots, I support big potato ... the hell with the guvmint!

Perhaps they should quit selling little debbie snack cakes in schools, ice cream, and pizza, for crying out loud, before they ban potatoes...
Gee whiz.
But then, they would have to quit getting the kickbacks from the corporations.

It's my opinion that those children with weight or health issues should be adapting on their own for their own good. That is the job of their parents, to teach them how to eat in the manner that they deem best for their own children. Bring your own lunch if you don't like what's on the menu.

Exactly like the 'peanut allergy' issues that cropped up in the last several years. One kid claims they are allergic so the whole school cannot bring PB&J. Well you know if you can't tolerate my food then go elsewhere. I don't need to adapt to you, you need to adapt to me. I am normal, you are not. Go away.

reply to post by Quadrivium


Children could still Eat Potato's at Home with their Families unless they are somehow given Blood Tests at Public Schools to determine if there are Any Traces of " Potato Carbs " in their System . Another Option would be to just Home School your Children thus Avoiding Goverment Sponsored Brain Washing of their Young Delicate Developing Minds .

I like that way of thinking there Zanti Misfit!

Maybe we should form an underground Potato Railroad where we smuggle home-grown potatoes that we grew in our basements, root cellars, and gardens to others who are in need.

Maybe we should all build Potato Vodka Distillation Trains in our basements to fuel our protest.

Seriously, it is merely a minor inconvenience if you can't buy a 5lb bag of potatoes with your Food Stamps anymore. Grow your own for free every 6-15 weeks (without even trying)...and give your children a double helping of mashed or baked potatoes every night and a double helping of hashbrown potatoes every morning to make up for what they are missing at school.

Fight the power!

reply to post by fraterormus

I really believe that is the main problem we have today. We sit back and let the little things slide by.
But after we let enough of the small things pass it gets harder to stand up to the big things.
Today= it's only potatoes
Tomorrow= it's only another 800 billion dollar bail out.

reply to post by Quadrivium


I think it is more like:

Today = No potatoes at school or on wic
Next Week = No extra salt in school or on wic
Next Month = No extra salt in restaurants

Potatoes are hardly food the way they are grown commercially. I've known potato farmers who wouldnt eat their product if it was the last thing available..

In general, tubers tend to absorb a lot of the chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc.

SO i can see their rationale.

reply to post by justadood


Gee... a root absorbing chemicals....

Generally speaking, you are not going to have to worry about eating poop from a potato grown in a hydroponics facility anymore than you are going to have to worry about eating pesticides from a potato grown on a farm. Chemical fertilizers are concentrations of the compounds plants use to manufacture the vitamins, sugars, and other things of nutritional value. There's no hazard to eating something grown with them. Now, eating raw chemical fertilizers would be a bad idea - your body is not meant for it. But the plant is a massive array of chemical reactions that process these nutrients into more complex forms that your body needs (or likes to have, if it isn't essential). The only danger here is heavy-metals and other weird things that have the miraculous ability to embed themselves in proteins and mess with life in general. Another problem is elements like cesium - chemically similar to potassium and readily absorbed by most plants. Cesium has several radioactive isotopes that come as a byproduct of high-yield nuclear weapons. Many plants - particularly fruiting varieties - will absorb this radioactive element in place of potassium. It works well for cleaning up the soil in an area after a nuclear event.... not so well for eating. Just a little tip for survival after the nuclear holocaust.

Pesticides are much the same way - no real risk, because plants do not generally absorb and retain chemicals they cannot use. Those that do are often toxic to the plant and cause it to not produce or to die. The biggest concern with pesticides is washing food before eating it to avoid ingesting trace amounts left on the surface of foods.

My biggest beef with pesticides is the chances of strengthening an immune population and setting the stage for another massive pest problem. You should always use the smallest response necessary to correct the problem - though I understand the difficulty in doing this on an industrial scale - I am concerned we'll see immune strains of various pests show up and start wreaking havoc.

And, really, of all the things to eat - potatoes are among the most practical - you're looking at some very high complex carb content with a lot of nutrients packed in just under/around the skin. Many breads and grains are worse, by comparison - particularly the way we process them into pastas and other forms that are an enzyme away from being sugar. Hashed browns are likely a better idea for breakfast than your cereal is - especially if you were to 'level the ground' by taking out all of the 'fortifications' added (which could easily be added to anything, not just cereal).

Most of the time, it's not what you eat, though. It is how much you eat, and what else you eat that determines nutritional value.

Really, though, I've found that if you get people active and in something resembling a workout - a few things happen rather naturally. First - they begin to crave the foods with higher nutritional content - or add salads or vegetables in with meals they usually did not. Second, they begin to adjust to a more stable sleep schedule about eight hours long. Third, over time, their eating habits begin to correlate to their level of activity, eating more when activity increases (or is anticipated), and eating less when not being as active.

Those are a huge part of any physical conditioning battle (whether losing weight, building muscle, or what-have-you).

reply to post by Aim64C


roots absorb their surroundings.

potatoes are roots.

potatoes can be sued to soak up toxic byproducts out of the soil for bioremediation.