Yesterday I told you that Texas’s newly elected Agriculture Commissioner chose, as his first act in office, to grant “amnesty” to classroom birthday cupcakes in our state.
As I explained in yesterday’s post, not only was this a head-scratcher given the many more pressing problems facing Texas’s farmers (starting with a serious water shortage and including a rampant feral hog population that’s destroying our ecosystems and crops), Commissioner Sid Miller’s publicity stunt didn’t even make sense legally: since 2005, the right of a parent or grandparent to bring any type of food, including cupcakes, to classroom parties and celebrations has actually been guaranteed by law under the so-called “Safe Cupcake Amendment.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Miller did everything he could at yesterday’s press conference to convey the impression that there had been some “repeal” of restrictive regulations barring such treats, again making the world safe for cupcakes.
But the “repeal” of which Mr. Miller speaks had nothing to do with birthday cupcakes. Rather, in response to the new federal Smart Snacks rules governing competitive foods and beverages (the snacks and drinks sold to kids during the school day, not the treats given to them in classrooms), our state repealed its own (and far less nutritionally stringent) rules which had been in place since 2004.
In other words, the “repeal” characterized by Mr. Miller as somehow courageously bucking restrictive regulations was actually a show of appropriate deference by our state to the federal government. In this regard, I can’t tell whether Mr. Miller and his advisors are being intentionally deceptive or are just plain ignorant. Either proposition ought to seriously trouble the citizens of Texas.
One aspect of our old nutrition policy which was not repealed was the prohibition on using deep fat fryers in our school cafeterias for preparing foods served in the reimbursable school breakfast or lunch, or sold in cafeteria snack bars. But at yesterdays’ press conference, Mr. Miller reportedly told those in attendance that he also plans to reinstate the use of deep fat fryers in Texas schools, as well as allowing schools to once again sell soda to students. Both of those practices have been banned in Texas since 2004, and the sale of deep fried food or soda to kids would directly run afoul of the federal regulations for school meals and competitive foods and beverages. But, of course, those federal rules are administered and enforced here in Texas by, yes, our Department of Agriculture.
Put simply, the state agency which, according to its own website, “striv[es] to put Texans on the path to wellness” is now being led by an individual who seems bizarrely determined to fatten up Texan children as quickly and efficiently as possible. Or, to use Mr. Miller’s own words from yesterday’s press conference: “ “We’ve been raising big, strapping, healthy young kids here in Texas for nearly 200 years. We don’t need Washington, D.C., telling us how to do it.”
People, it’s going to be a very long four years. . . .
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join over 9,200 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page, join over 5,200 TLT followers on Twitter, or get your “Lunch” delivered right to your email inbox by subscribing here. And be sure to check out my free video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!”
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Bettina Elias Siegel
stephanie says
left speechless…
Bettina Elias Siegel says
That’s the only appropriate response.
Karen says
When he said “let them eat cake” he was more appropriate than he thinks. In a state where we struggle to get the right education for our kids, not to mention healthy food and a recess for their mental health into the school day, this quote has exactly the right cynical touch.
I doubt he even knows what he did when he said that.
Casey says
He’s the gift that keeps on giving…heart disease, Type2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, etc.
Cynthia says
I’m all the way in Georgia and even I’m grimacing on your behalf. Nothing… I have nothing constructive to say. Except I’m really sorry.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
I appreciate the empathy coming all the way from Georgia, Cynthia! I’m sure you often confront these same issues there. Today I have my head in my hands, but we’ll regroup and forge on . . .
Gretchen says
Two nights ago I saw Kathleen Turner in “American Patriot,” a one-woman show about Molly Ivans. I used to love reading her columns and can’t help thinking what fun she’d have with this!
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Absolutely! We need some tart Molly Ivans zingers to put this guy in his place.
Daddio Flores says
Sodas are the devils elixir; glad when banned.?it sociably responsible. Behavioral issues also
Linked to soda consumption, over past decade public vending slowly moving towards offering water and other options.
Amy b says
Would inundating his office with letters opposing his views help?
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Amy b. Letters certainly can’t hurt but it might make sense to see how serious he is about all of this. Is it just empty grandstanding to get press during his first few days in office, or is he seriously going to let schools sell soda and junk food? Once we know how big the problem is, then yes, let’s talk about how best to mobilize!
bw1 says
“the snacks and drinks sold to kids during the school day, not the treats given to them in classrooms”
Why should Mr. Miller recognize a difference which you steadfastly refused to acknowledge when seeking to ban birthday treats?
“I can’t tell whether Mr. Miller and his advisors are being intentionally deceptive or are just plain ignorant.”
It seems that his best response to that remark would be “Kettle to pot – color check – over.”
YOU and your fellow handwringing paternalist nannystate advocates created the climate where his
pandering would resonate. This is not intended to by hyperbolic – it’s a very serious point. When you talk about candy as a reward in the classroom, I’m ready to back you 110% – that’s about parental empowerment, and appropriately limiting the role of the teacher, but then you take it the next step to having teachers impose draconian limits on student to student interactions. If a teacher shouldn’t be usurping parental authority by giving your kids candy, then neither should he/she be usurping parental authority by telling your kid what he may or may not give to/accept from his peer friends.
If you don’t want your kid having birthday cupcakes from his friends, then lay down the law. I have a friend whose Rottweiler will not accept even a raw steak from anyone but her, unless she first says it’s OK. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when you effectively say you can’t teach your school-aged kid something a dog can learn.
I’ve asked this before, and you’ve repeatedly dodged answering it. How is your no birthday treats regime going to handle the kid who informs all his friends that he’ll be distributing birthday cupcakes in the hallway/parking lot/just off school property/at his front door 500 feet from the school driveway after class? It’s a valid question, because I guarantee, especially in a state as viruently pro-autonomy as TX, you’re going to have a parent who tries this, and after one does it, it will catch on.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
First, for the benefit of newer TLT readers, commenter bw1 and I have had this exact debate many times over the years in various contexts. Frankly, I’m just fatigued by it and so, by way of short hand, allow me to share this post, “In-Class Birthday Treats: A Reader Says My Kids Just Need ‘Backbone’ to Resist,” which responds to similar comments by bw1 and lays out all of my responses to them. None of my views have changed since it was written in 2012.
But now, bw1, let me just respond to a few specifics of your comment here:
1. ““the snacks and drinks sold to kids during the school day, not the treats given to them in classrooms” Why should Mr. Miller recognize a difference which you steadfastly refused to acknowledge when seeking to ban birthday treats?”
Sorry if I’m being obtuse, but I’ve literally read this five times over and don’t understand your point.
2. “I can’t tell whether Mr. Miller and his advisors are being intentionally deceptive or are just plain ignorant.” It seems that his best response to that remark would be “Kettle to pot – color check – over.”
Thats a cute thing to say but let’s unpack it: I am neither ignorant of Texas state law (indeed, I seem to be far more knowledgable of it than Mr. Miller or his advisors) nor (and in this regard I am quite unlike Mr. Miller) have I made a single misstatement of fact in this post or in any of my posts on this topic. Color check: passed.
3. ” If a teacher shouldn’t be usurping parental authority by giving your kids candy, then neither should he/she be usurping parental authority by telling your kid what he may or may not give to/accept from his peer friends. If you don’t want your kid having birthday cupcakes from his friends, then lay down the law.
This gets to the crux of our (seemingly endless) debate on kids needing “backbone” to resist in-class treats. I’ll let my 2012 post speak for itself.
4. I’ve asked this before, and you’ve repeatedly dodged answering it. How is your no birthday treats regime going to handle the kid who informs all his friends that he’ll be distributing birthday cupcakes in the hallway/parking lot/just off school property/at his front door 500 feet from the school driveway after class?
Um, actually, I already answered that question quite explicitly in my 2012 post. I’ll quote it here:
“I wholeheartedly agree that it’s my job as a parent to instill in my child whatever values he’ll need to resist the many temptations life will throw in his path. You mention several of these as examples: junk food, cigarettes, drugs/alcohol and unprotected sex.
However, it’s quite notable that with respect to every one of the public health concerns you hold up as examples, schools are already serving as active partners to assist parents in their efforts. Almost every public school district in America, through its health/hygiene curriculum, tries to inculcate students with anti-smoking and anti-drug/alcohol messages, offers a modicum of nutrition education, provides mandatory physical education and promotes either abstinence alone or provides sex education with an underlying abstinence message.
That this health education is taking place at all points up the rather obvious fact that the school environment is not the equivalent of the world at large. Outside the school walls, the world is very much a free-for-all and children will certainly need plenty of “backbone” to navigate it safely. But inside the schoolhouse, society quite deliberately picks and chooses which messages it wishes to convey to its children and the values it hopes to instill.
Were that not the case, following your manner of thinking to its (admittedly absurd but perfectly logical) extreme, what would be wrong with teachers handing out cigarettes, drugs, pornography, weapons etc. in the classroom and trusting that each parent had done a good enough job at home to teach children to resist? What would be wrong with a teacher indoctrinating children to commit acts of terror, if parents had instilled sufficient “backbone” in their children to reject those messages?
We are concerned about what happens in the classroom because our children are quite literally captive to all that takes place there for the majority of their waking hours during the most formative years of their lives. We care very much about what is taught, and about who is teaching it, and, yes, even what food is made available there, because we know that young children, despite all the best efforts expended at home, are inherently impressionable and do not always have the “backbone” to act as we hope in the face of powerful teacher influence, peer pressure and primitive bodily urges (like the desire to eat a cupcake).”
But in case that wasn’t clear enough for you, bw1, and apparently it wasn’t, let me try again rather than have you think I’m “dodging” some devastating point you’ve advanced:
If any Texas parents would like to set-up a birthday cupcake stand 500 feet from the school driveway after school, my answer is: have at it.