The Advancement of the Toxic Totalitarian Nanny State
So it has come to this. A pre-schooler’s school lunch, lovingly prepared by a grandparent, was replaced with a cafeteria meal because it didn’t meet the exacting bureaucratic standards laid out by the bought-and-paid-for-by-industry Food and Drug Administration:
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother -- who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
This is appalling in several ways.
First, for years now, Jonah Goldberg (and others) have been pointing out the totalitarian nature of the “progressive” movement, which seeks to expand the government sphere into every aspect of our lives (with the apparent singular exception of whether or not we can kill unborn children). It was on full display during confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan when, in a response to a question from Senator (and medical doctor) Tom Coburn, she revealed her own totalitarian mindset:
On Tuesday evening, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) posed a hypothetical question to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: If Congress passed a law that said Americans “have to eat three vegetables and three fruits, every day … does that violate the Commerce Clause?”
“Sounds like a dumb law,” Kagan replied.
…I think that the question about whether it is a dumb law is different from the question of whether it’s constitutional. And I think the courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are senseless just because they’re senseless.
COBURN: Well, I guess the question I’m asking you is: Do we have the power to tell people what they have to eat every day?
KAGAN: Senator Coburn, um…
If you missed it at the time, watch the video. In saying that such a law was dumb, but constitutional, she got it exactly backwards (one of the many reasons that she should not have been confirmed). Such a law would actually be a smart law, in that it would make for a healthier populace. But it would be tyrannical. And as tyranny goes, the school-lunch incident is relatively petty, but it is tyranny nonetheless.
But in this case, unlike Senator Coburn’s hypothetical, it was both tyrannical and dumb. It was dumb for two reasons. First, whoever assessed the lunch to be inadequate was an apparent idiot, because it did in fact conform with the guidelines -- bread constitutes a grain, turkey is meat, and she had a banana and apple juice, which looks like at least two portions of fruit (the guideline says fruit or vegetable, not fruit and vegetable). All it lacked was the milk (though arguably, the cheese could have substituted, depending on what you think the purpose of the milk is), which could have been supplied without giving her a whole cafeteria meal, as a result of which she ate nothing but chicken nuggets, because she doesn’t like vegetables, or apparently anything else on the tray.