Is it still the “nanny state” if actual nannies couldn’t get away with it?

New school lunch regulations, passed by Congress in 2010 and championed by Michelle Obama, require schools to restrict the calories in school lunches.

A sedentary girl, age 14, needs about 1,800 calories per day.  Her classmate, an 18-year-old varsity swimmer, may need about 3,200 calories per day.  In order to “combat obesity” amongst the sedentary, you end up starving the active.

It should be obvious that Washington, D.C. cannot figure out which of the 31 million students who eat school lunches need 3,200 calories per day, and which students need about half that. It should be obvious, but the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 has created hungry kids who are making YouTube videos of their growling stomachs.

So what we have is a law meant to combat obesity and hunger that instead creates hungry kids and makes life as a student athlete harder. After all, who wants to try to go to school for six hours, then run five miles, on a maximum of 850 calories? I’m a vegetarian, but two ounces of meat at lunch? Do you want your gridiron to swoon on the field?

Supporters of the law say that not everyone is a hard-core athlete, but that’s an absolutely mental defence of a one-size-fits all regulation that harms athletes and active young people.  As per this posts’ title, if a nanny or a babysitter did this, the parents would fire her.  Why, then, does the federal government get to do it?


1 Comment

Filed under Miscellanea

One response to “Is it still the “nanny state” if actual nannies couldn’t get away with it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s