Californian school district bans flavoured milk

Milk contains many important nutrients so this is likely to be destructive to health overall. Kids like sweet things

THE Los Angeles Unified School District has become the largest US school district to ban flavoured milk in a move to combat child obesity.

The school board voted today to eliminate chocolate and strawberry-flavoured milk from schools as of July 1.

Board member Tamar Galatzan was the only board member to object to the milk ban, saying the district was being short-sighted about the nutritional benefits outweighing the added sugar in flavoured milk.

Superintendent John Deasy proposed eliminating flavoured milk after television chef Jamie Oliver brought the issue to the district's attention during recent TV shows.

SOURCE




Food Fascism Lays Groundwork For Additional Control

Wonder what the food fascists advocating dietary asceticism scarfed down as children. As anyone that has sat through an evangelistic missionary testimonial knows, those griping the loudest about your errant ways are usually the ones that could make a sailor blush before they came to religion.

A Chicago school’s policy of controlling what students eat is an example of the threat posed to human liberty by public education. Sad thing is many private educators are just as eager to usurp parental authority. Compounding that, if schools are religious, they’ll then compile lengthy theological justifications why you are not a “good Christian” if you don’t have a smile plastered across your face regarding the handed-down decree.

If babykillers insist that the government should keep its laws off the body of women wanting abortions, who in the name of Hades are these civil servants to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat for lunch? Students forced to eat food they don’t want should toss it in the trash in defiance or preferably hold mass puke rallies and refuse to clean up their own regurgitation.

If educational authorities are granted control over what we eat in the name of protecting us from ourselves, where does this intervention end?

Do education flacks have the authority to tell parents what they may feed their own children in the confines of their own homes?

With each passing decade and generation, it seems the areas central planners claim jurisdiction over continue to expand and the areas over which we exercise jurisdiction and personal preference continue to contract.

A short while ago, parents would have never put up with bureaucrats telling them what they could and could not feed their children. Now the principals at schools where these kinds of policies are being implemented claim no parents have come forward to complain about them.

Thus, once today’s young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh calls them, become acclimated to such detailed micromanaging of their existence at such a young age, expect that kind of command mentality to manifest itself in an array of other issues.

Think you know what career change might make you happy? Sorry, you can’t change your job because credentialed government technocrats have determined you are in the position that optimizes their vaunted multi-year plan.

It might be that human liberty and large scale enterprise may not be as closely related as they have been perceived to be in the minds of those that would consider themselves as anti-statist or individualist conservative in their ideological orientation. Already, a number of businesses forbid employees from smoking in the name of keeping health costs in check and I have clashed before with those that think that corporate prerogatives take precedent over those of the individual to such an extent that private property should be forfeit to whatever party has the larger bank account.

So what is to prevent multinational conglomerates as interested in managerial social engineering as they are in raising a profit from forbidding employees from bringing their own food to work? Students already conditioned into this during their school years will think nothing of such a policy as it is extended into the workplace.

It has been said that an army travels on its stomach. Likewise, those seeking to enslave a once free people realize that the surest way of doing so is not so much through grandiose parades and theatrics but by rather by conditioning the individual to seek the approval of the state in the most mundane and personal of matters.

SOURCE