Last updated on 2012.11.22
Congresswoman Kristi Noem has tried to make new federal school lunch guidelines a political issue. Noem considers the issue important enough for photo ops, though not important enough to warrant her attendance at committee meetings on the topic.
Noem has complained that kids aren't getting enough to eat, even though many kids are throwing away fruits and vegetables. But South Dakota kids are apparently getting more than enough to eat: new Department of Health data show South Dakota's child obesity rate climbing from 15.2% to 15.9% during the last school year.
And what do our state officials say we should do to counter that unhealthy trend? Pretty much the same science-based things that the USDA and Michelle Obama are saying:
[State nutritionist Kristin] Biskeborn said the state Department of Health has two new resources to help with that effort. The Munch Code (www.munchcode.org/) offers healthy concessions information for schools and youth activities. Harvest of the Month (www.sdharvestofthemonth.org/) combines lessons and produce sampling to get kids eating more vegetables and fruit, one of six science-based strategies shown to prevent obesity. The others include increased physical activity, decreased television viewing, decreased sweetened beverage intake, decreased portion sizes, and increased breastfeeding ["South Dakota's Child Obesity Rate Rises," State of South Dakota press release, October 30, 2012].
Decreased portion sizes. Science-based strategy. Noem opposes science. She apparently prefers our kids both fat and stupid.
Congresswoman Noem has also pretended to be a brave child advocate by railing against child labor rules that she says could have stopped kids from doing farm chores. The New York Times says, as does most other press not owned by Rupert Murdoch, that that claim is based on a "distorted reading" of the proposed child labor rules. NYT also cites public health experts who say the Obama Administration overreacted in withdrawing those rules:
Public health and farmworker advocates were shocked. One called it a sucker punch to the Labor Department and to groups that had spent more than a decade trying to modernize farm safety rules for working children.
"I'm very frustrated and disgusted with the White House," said Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law and an expert on federal health and safety regulation.
"Normally an agency proposes a regulation and, if there are problems, the agency revises it," Ms. Steinzor continued. "But we live in an age of greed and insanity, and people on the Hill went crazy. Rather than defend it, the Obama administration just caved" [John M. Broder, "Silos Loom as Death Traps on American Farms," New York Times, October 28, 2012].
People who pay attention to data are "frustrated and disgusted" because good child labor rules would have addressed the heightened risk of death kids face doing tasks like cleaning grain bins:
Silos teeming with corn, wheat or soybeans become death traps when grain cascades out of control, asphyxiating or crushing their victims. Since 2007, 80 farmworkers have died in silo accidents; 14 of them were teenage boys.
The deaths are horrific and virtually all preventable....
That the deaths persist reveals continuing flaws in the enforcement of worker safety laws and weaknesses in rules meant to protect the youngest farmworkers. Nearly 20 percent of all serious grain bin accidents involve workers under the age of 20 [Broder, 2012.10.28].
But far be it from our Congresswoman to pay attention to data. She'd rather have cute ads and dead kids than sensible regulations that protect children from proven workplace risks.
Congresswoman Noem's anti-science, anti-fact attitude makes kids fat and dead. Let's elect someone rational for the job.
The rules as proposed and I as understand them would still allow teenagers to work on their parents farm. The restrictions would be place on underage, non-related young people coming to work on a farm. An accident involving your own child especially your own is so very tragic. That it would happen to someone else's child is even more so.
Cory, I think you may have found what is wrong in Washington, Pierre, and maybe even a few county seats.
I think you will agree that you and I do not see eye to eye on a great number of issues. However, I am willing to listen to your arguments, and concede where you are correct. At the same time, you have shown the same respect toward me. It is called compromise or negotiation. This idea has been lost in our Capitols. You are either extreme left whack job or a right wing nut job. There is no in between, there is no compromise, no listening.
I am not sure, (I'm checking my facts now) however I don't believe Kristi Noem ever invited the Department of Labor to her farm to 'observe' her kids work the farm. The 'new' rules were just tossed as being unfriendly to family farms. There was no discussion, no compromise, no negotiation. As you mentioned 'the people on the hill went crazy' Farm rules need to be updated, agreed. But should they be updated by people who have only flown over a farm, or the closest they come to a cow is a hamburger or steak?
We don't need more people to talk more. We need people to listen more, and when they do speak, say something meaningful, and not political double speak.
When I was a kid on the farm, all the farm kids were working in the fields when they were 7-8 years old, give or take a year. The farmers couldn't afford to hire extra help, so kids were taught to drive tractors, plow the fields, cut hay, haul harvested grain to town, etc. when we were really young. You didn't hear about severe injuries, deaths, etc., back then, either.
I just confirmed that Kristi did not invite the Department of Labor to her farm to 'observe' her kids working.
When she sent some letters to the department of labor, she was responding to the concerns of some of the farmers of South Dakota concerned thier kids would be able to work on the farm.
This is like her job, and she did it, what are you belly aching about now?
He's "belly-aching" about the fact that everything Noem has to say on the topic is a lie. That you unsatisfactorily answered an unasked question is irrelevant.
When you were a kid, kids probably worked in coal mines too. That doesn't happen anymore: do you know why?
Coming from a farm community, there are lots of families that had kids die back in the "old days", especially on sileage piles.
Kids belong in school. Farming is a a big business and there are more responsible business models than relying on underage children.
Not only does Ms. NOem not give a care about "family farms", she does not give a care about Medicare and Social Security for ag families. The only thing she cares about regarding the "family farms" are that as long as they are corporate farms (larger ones) then you can have the neighbor kids or any other juvenile work in some dangerous situations on them. This is all about putting moolah into her jeans, not about anything else. She needs to go.
You know what, you are 100 % right. Family farms in fact any farm is dangerous, to protect the kids, let's remove them from the farm. Because farms are dangerous for adults,let's remove them too. The only people allowed on a farm any farm, would be (goverment) trained farmers, They would not be allowed to own the farm just work it, They can not live there, they would tranported to the farm to work thier shift, then transported away from the dangerous farm.
Because we care so much for the childern they should be placed in goverment boarding schools where they will recieve the proper diet, education and exercise. They will want for nothing, for all their needs wil be met by the goverment. All this can be yours for the low low price of your freedom.
I am not perfect, I am not the perfect parent, I make mistakes, My child gets hurt from time to time. Sometimes I let her do things that are unhealthy (like trick or treating) As my child's parent I know what she is capable of and what she isn't. As her parent, and primary care giver, I should deciede what she can and can't do. Not you, not the goverment. and some one stuck in an office who has never met us.
There are a ton of accidents that occur on farms, both family and corporate and if you don't believe that you are blind, deaf, and just plain stupid. I just read of one this past week that occurred just across the border in Iowa, where a kid died when a skid-loader flipped. Heard about another one where a kid was in a skid-loader and his dad was in the bucket welding and a spark went in the tank and it blew up causing him to get severely burned. They happen and many times they happen to young people. Now does that mean some Washington D.C. guys who know nothing about farms should be making all the rules? no but to propose them and have other farm people work with them is what use to happen. Now its just complain and do nothing.
All what I hear when I'm in South Dakota is that congress doesn't work, well it doesn't help when we send people like Kristi Noem who doesn't do anything but complain about Democrats. If she had done anything maybe that would be in one of her ads rather then just complaining about Varilek being a democrat. Because that is the only argument she makes. Heck the last ad she had didn't even cite a single attack she made against Varilek
You know we could really save money on the farms if only we could hire undocumented child labor!
Kristi might have a reading comprehension problem since she obviously misread something that didn't even exist with her signature dust bill and now the child labor on farms discussion.
So we can add that to not showing up for work, being a pretty puppet for Boehner, friend zoning the Tea Party and not being exactly strong on national policy comprehension. Other than that, she was named one of the hottest members of Congress...so she's got that going for her.
Not to change the subject, but does anyone else remember when Sarah Palin was relevant?
Hang on, MC, don't slide down the slippery slope. We're talking about crafting reasonable regulations to keep kids out of inordinately dangerous working conditions, not to shield them from every risk under the sun. Your earlier comment hearkened better toward the spirit of what ought to be happening: instead of posturing, Noem ought to be sitting down with our leaders to analyze the data, discuss alternatives, and choose the course of action that will do the most good.
SD's diabetes rate increase coincides with beginning of spike in inbound retirees:
http://www.argusleader.com/viewart/20121115/UPDATES/121115017/SD-diabetes-rate-more-than-doubles-since-1995-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|
Diabetes and corn sugar linked:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science/Correlation-vs-causation-Is-there-a-link-between-HFCS-and-diabetes
Obesity is leading cause of military dismissals:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2012/12/08/13d2e444-40b8-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story_1.html
So should we order people to eat less? I agree that the diets of most Americans are hardly healthy. And improving the nutritional quality of school lunches is a good idea. But telling people how much they can eat is a step too far.
Chemicals in packaging linked to obesity are grounds for lawsuits:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/09/20/higher-bpa-levels-are-linked-to-obesity-in-kids-and-teens/
I eat close to primal myself Larry, so I understand where you are coming from. I'm a little relaxed about packaged foods but its true that the liver can only process so many toxins. But that's no reason to tell people how much they can eat.
Bree, there is a difference between enacting a food law to impose limits on all citizens and making choices about the content of school lunch sold to children. It is perfectly reasonable to and non-tyrannical for schools and/or the USDA to define how much food and what type of food it will dish out for a certain price. Teachers do the same thing in the classroom when they serve treats—each child gets one cookie, or one apple, or one bar, and that's it. What's the problem here with letting the school impose the same sensible limits we expect parents to enact?
I could accept this as reasonable if they had another price option for a larger portion or a "buffet" price. Some kids just eat more than others and should be allowed to.
I'm pretty sure buffet pricing is out, since that's exactly the pig-out mentality the USDA health guidelines are sensibly challenging. As for letting kids eat more, why should the schools operate any differently than any other food service provider? You want to eat more, you pay more. Are any kids being denied that option... or denied the option to bring more of their own food?