
Fair warning: We are
about to fall into the rabbit hole. (For those of you unfamiliar with Alice
in Wonderland, you are excused for a few minutes to Google, but don’t forget to
come back.)
Two loosely related news items this weekend immediately got
my attention and sent me scurrying to the internet to read more.
The first was a report that eight Houston ISD schools have
been fined a total of $73,000 for selling food that violates Texas Department
of Agriculture regulations.
The second was an explanation of HB 751, proposed by Texas
representative Richard Pena Raymond, and HB 523, proposed by Rep. Terry
Canales. The two bills would work together to ban the purchase of sodas, junk
food, and energy drinks by recipients of the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP).
I know, I know. It’s
Texas. They are big and powerful. They could be their own country. They rival
California in the “we do our own thing and you can’t stop us” faction. However…it
IS Texas and they ARE our closest neighbor. We cross their border daily. We
shop in their stores. We trade students with them every year. We tend to copy
their actions more often than not. So I think it benefits us all to pay close
attention to these two reports.
Anyone with a child must be aware by now that major changes
have been made in school cafeterias across the country. Everything from what children are served to
how it is cooked as been changed. Menus continue to vary from state to state
and district to district, but the bottom line is supposed to be better,
healthier food. So there are regulations regarding the sale of “competitive”
foods such as soda, candy, and junk food. Many schools, especially elementary
schools, restrict when and how often these can be sold, even as fund raisers. So,
one of the coaches in Houston got into trouble for selling fried chicken
to raise money for his team. My only comment about this story is that I hope my
own district is VERY clear about what we can and cannot sell, because I sure
don’t want us to lose money in a dispute over food regulations!
The second story is a bit more disturbing and has some
insidious implications. Those of you who are still picketing and protesting
about your right to carry an assault weapon to shoot a turkey should probably
start being alarmed about your right to buy a honey bun. Just sayin’.
These two Texas legislators have great intentions. They
want to make sure that taxpayer money isn’t spent on sodas, junk food, and
energy drinks that would contribute to the unhealthy diets of people who would
then require more healthcare and cost us even more money. Canales makes the
additional point that energy drinks are dangerous: "There's nothing nutritious or healthy about
these products, and in fact they're potentially dangerous to children and we
don't believe that you should be able to be using government funds to be buying
them." Amen.
But…
Am I my brother’s keeper? This is a complicated issue. On the
one hand there is the Bible’s admonition to care for the hungry and thirsty. On
the other is Cain’s attitude and perspective, “How do I know? Am I supposed to
keep tabs on what my brother is doing?” And there is also the idea that a “kept”
person, like an animal in a zoo, is not only safely housed and feed, but is also
highly restricted, monitored, and prevented from escaping.
Think of this legislation in terms of being a parent. The
basic premise of parenthood is that if a child is in my care, in my house, then
that child has to eat what I buy, wear the clothes I purchase, play with the
toys I allow, and follow the rules I establish…or suffer the consequences. We
all know how perfectly that works!
So how would a bill banning the sale of soda, junk food, and
energy drinks actually work? I can see that it would be pretty easy to identify
sodas and energy drinks, but who decides what is labeled “junk food” and what
is not? At 500 calories, 890mg of sodium, and 28g of sugar, I think the pizza
Lunchables should surely qualify!! And what would be the consequences of
non-compliance? Fines? Removal from the program? If the issue is really monitoring the health of the individual, would they be punished for
making a deal with their neighbors and trading an apple for a bag of chips? Can
we also prevent them from buying cigarettes or alcohol? How about banning them
from eating at McDonald’s? That would definitely tip the scales in the right
direction!
My point is that this is a very limited “solution” to a very
big problem and I’m not sure it wouldn’t create even more problems. And of
course anything of this nature requires millions of dollars in implement and
enforce. Something to think about…