Should Government regulate what our children eat?

Should government tell us what to eat and how big of a portion we should have? Should government  limit the right our children to eat what they want? Should government forbid the freedom of parents, of school children to have bake sales, or sell candy bars for fundraisers? We have the right to choose however we see fit. Thus if we find pleasure in eating, then it is our right  to eat as we please. It is not the role of government to tell us what we can and cannot eat. The main role for government when it comes to the food chain is to ensure that food quality and food safety standards have been met. It is our right to find pleasure however we might please, so that we can eat as big of a portion as want or that our wallet says that we can afford to eat. Government has no right  to say what portion size that we may have when we eat out. When it comes to school lunches for the children, government's attitude is that if it's paying for the school lunch program then it has a “right” to tell schools and parents what the children can and cannot eat at lunch. It is with this same attitude that the government pays for our children’s  education, thus government claims it has a “right” to regulate what types  of food are sold on school premises. Thus if a food item is deemed unhealthy for everyone then that item needs to be banned from school premises, which has the same effect as outlawing that item to school children, thus barring its sale on public property. But this argument is flawed in a couple of ways. The first way that the government’s argument is flawed is the government assumption that since government pays for the program that it can  demand terms and conditions that the people must follow in order to participate. This line of  thinking is wrong since it is through revenue generated by the collection of taxes paid by the taxpayer, which gives government the funds to hand out for the school lunch program. Thus any and all authority resides with the taxpayer the source of government revenues. The second reason as to why government thought is wrong, is that such mandates and regulations infringe on a person’s right to freedom. Such an infringement by the government of a person's right to freedom whether its choice or its freedom of movement is so immoral as to make the government regulations illegal since they either limit or take away freedom. But one might say that this talk of freedom and rights is all and good in the real world but it cannot nor should it be applied to the school system and or its properties. Again this line of thought ignores the rights of the taxpayer parents in the education of their children. A parent has every right to say either that I don’t care what my kid eats at school for lunch so that they can buy whatever they want. Thus a child is learning about the importance of choice and the freedom of choice. Or a parent might say “I want my child to eat only healthy things, thus they will take the time and spend the money for healthy snacks and lunches. In this respect  the child is learning what to eat to be healthy. Thus two students are learning two different  lessons. One is learning about the empowerment of choice and the other is learning about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. A person might ask but what about students selling candy bars and or having bake sales  at their schools to help pay for after school programs? I am of the belief following my earlier line of thought that parents being taxpayers are in effect stakeholders in government. What this means is that through the payment of taxes taxpayers own a part of government. A person might believe that such a status might include certain rights or a privilege not accorded to those who pay no taxes. In theory it should, in reality it does not. In theory parents being taxpayers, and thus stakholders in government would have the right to organize through  the PTO’s bake sales, cookie sales and or candy sales to help fund  after school programs such as trips for the school band, equipment for sport programs etc. In reality the government does not recognize the status of the taxpaying parents as being stake holders in government and thus does not  recognize their right to pay for  such activities by any means they might deem fit and proper. By not recogizing the rights of parents as being stake holders, the the government is acting  ileagally and unconstitutionally by denying the parents the right to choose how after school activities ought to be paid for. Furthermore by the government saying any and all sales cannot take place anywhere on school grounds it is again acting in an unconstitutional manner since it fails to either recognize or acknowledge that school grounds are like parks in that they too are public property. If the school grounds are public like the parks then the government cannot deny their use by the taxpaying public since it is the taxpayer who pays for their matience and up keep in the first place. Thus we have a government assuming rights never accorded  to it while denying the people their rights. So in effect government squashes the rights of the people so that it might assume those rights never accorded to it, nor meant to have. To summerize then the government has no right, to tell us what to eat. The government has no right what size portions we should eat. The government has no right to tell our children what they can and cannot eat. Lastly government has no right to forbid parent fund raisers on public school grounds since parents are taxpayers and thus stake holders in government.


Eric..................