New federal snack law will cost jobs, schools
June 13, 2014 12:00 AM | 1575 views | 11 11 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
As a local Chick-fil-A manager, I read with interest Haisten Willis’ June 1 MDJ article, (“‘Smart Snack Law’: Federal bill will ban all ‘unhealthy’ food in schools, goes into effect July 1”) on the impact of new federal regulations issued as a result of the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.”

Once again, we see an attempt by the heavy hand of the federal government to issue a one-size-fits-all set of regulations in order to ostensibly solve a problem. Predictably, the “Law of Unintended Consequences,” routinely ignored by progressive lawmakers, is causing the opposite of “hunger-free kids” as we hear stories of kids actually behaving like … kids … and throwing away the parts of their lunches that they don’t want to eat. Some things never change, regardless of well-intentioned first ladies and bureaucrats.

Beyond the obvious reality that human nature isn’t likely to change very much simply because out-of-touch people in the Beltway think they can make it so, there are the dilatory effects of such legislation upon both the schools and businesses affected by the new law.

To put some dollars and cents to the matter, four of our restaurants, serving parts of west Cobb and east Paulding counties, helped public schools raise nearly $200,000 this past school year. Multiply this by the fact that there are countless other partnerships achieving similar results and it is easy to see how many of the programs our students rely upon will suffer greatly as a result of this legislation.

Our store will suffer as well, of course; these weekly biscuit sales comprise a healthy part of our business. Translated into practical terms, the loss of these biscuit sales represents the loss of more than one full-time job.

Again, multiply this job loss at our store by many such restaurants — some of which have larger partnerships than do we — and the human cost of this legislation becomes clearer.

Thankfully, there remains a glimmer of hope not mentioned in Mr. Willis’ article, and that is the fact that the language of the bill permits fundraisers, such as the ones represented by our partnership, provided such fundraisers are “infrequent” and the law clearly stipulates that the definition of “infrequent” shall be determined by the Boards of Education of the various states.

It thus behooves all concerned, be they parents, teachers, school officials, students or other chikin’ eaters, to let legislators and Board of Education members alike hear their voices, asking that their attention be turned to this matter in a timely and favorable fashion.

I would urge, for the sake of so many concerned, that they agree with me in my belief that “once-a-week” really does sound “infrequent.”



Byron Harvey

Marietta

Comments
(11)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
why not
|
June 16, 2014
Food does not kill people obesity, heart attacks and diabetes kills people. When fat food is outlawed only outlaws will have coronary heart disease!
So sad
|
June 14, 2014
How is it that I cannot use my money, earned fair and square through working, and give it to my child to spend on a food item in a school that is bought with my free will and choice and may support the school in a fundraiser as well because of government interference? However, a food stamp recipient (no offense) can use MY money, which they did NOT earn and purchase all of the unhealthy food of their choice at any local food selling store. The geography may be different (school vs. store) but why are my freedoms being invaded? Limiting choice does not limit obesity. It is a health issue grounded in far more than food sold in a school. This will not solve the problem, but it does strip yet another liberty away from the citizens of what is supposed to be a free USA. So, so, so very sad.
whatsosadsaid
|
June 15, 2014
To 'so sad'...DITTO!
Red Westside
|
June 22, 2014


How is it that I cannot keep my money, earned fair and square through working, and instead have to pay property tax to put YOUR child through school?

If there were no public schools, you wouldn't have your problem. So let's get rid of the socialist school. You can pay tuition and then you can have a say in what your kid buys at school.

IOW, Why is my freedom to keep my money being invaded? I want my money back. You should pay me, you freeloading socialist.
anonymous
|
June 13, 2014
From CDC web site:

Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.

The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.

In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.

Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.

AmericanMale
|
June 16, 2014
This is good information for PARENTS, NOT GOVERNMENT, to act on, if deemed appropriate for their children!

I'd love to pin you down and force feed you kale, because I think it's good for you!!!
Not positive player
|
June 13, 2014
Healthy food is not an issue and there is an opt out so what's the big deal? Any you are not even a positive player in the community with the gay hate and all.
Ben Twomey
|
June 13, 2014
What does "gay hate" have to do with this issue?

Why do you not address the content of the letter instead of attacking the writer?
anonymous
|
June 15, 2014
@Ben,

Because that's all they can do - stick to their "hate" message and rhetoric provided by the ridiculous leader and wife of our great country. Good for chikfila, and good for this guy writing this letter.
wonderin
|
June 16, 2014
Just imagine Ben Twomey complaining about an ad hominem attack!
Ben Twomey
|
June 16, 2014
@wonderin. Not complaining. Just trying to see what one has to do with the other and suggesting the writer stick to the subject. He is attacking the other guy about something that has nothing to do

with the topic.

BTW, since when do you have a dog in the fight?
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides