Junk food could be out at public schools

Asked by Congress to develop nutritional standards for all food in schools, the Institute of Medicine rolled out its two-tier nutrition recommendations today. Tier 1 applies elementary and middle-school children for the entire day, and to high school kids during school hours. Tier 2 standards are somewhat looser and apply only to high school kids after school hours.

The major items?

1. School lunch - with all its dietary guidelines - should be the primary source of nutrition for school children. (This GAO report on school lunch reveals its shortcomings).
2. Competing foods to school lunch should be limited
3. When available, competing foods should *gasp* meet the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Here's what the guidelines are for Tier 1 (you won't find Twinkies in here):

Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and related combination products* and nonfat and low-fat dairy that are limited to 200 calories or less per portion as packaged.

Beverages include:

• Water without flavoring, additives, or carbonation.
• Low-fat (1%) and nonfat milk:
• Lactose-free and soy beverages are included
• flavored milk with no more than 22g of total sugars per 8-oz. serving
• 100-percent fruit juice in 4-oz. portion as packaged for elementary/middle school and 8 oz. (two portions) for high school.
• Caffeine-free, with the exception of trace amounts of naturally occurring caffeine substances.

These restrictions would apply anywhere on the school campus including vending machines and the "a la carte" lines. Remember when you could still get a burger and fries at school? That's over, because all items sold will have to meet the National School Lunch standards for fat, sodium, and sugar.

Tier 2 foods don't have to be quite so healthy - no mention of fruits or veggies - but you won't likely find a Twinkie here either. Diet soda pop clears the 5-calorie hurdle, but only if it lacks caffeine:

Tier 2 snack foods are those that do not exceed 200 calories per portion as packaged and:

• No more than 35 percent of total calories from fat
• Less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fats
• Zero Trans fat (≤ 0.5 g per portion)
• 35 percent or less of calories from total sugars
• Sodium content of 200 mg or less per portion as packaged.

Tier 2 beverages are:

• Non-caffeinated, non-fortified beverages with less than 5 calories per portion as packaged (with or without nonnutritive sweeteners, carbonation, or flavoring).

Despite the fact that these items are recommendations to Congress (not even close to actual standards for schools), the food and beverage lobby is already coming out swinging:

The Center for Consumer Freedom worried that the report could lead to a government "no child with a fat behind" program.

The growing rate of obesity is caused by lack of physical activity rather than overeating, according to the group, which describes itself as representing restaurants, food companies and individuals.

Folks, we could only hope for an America that has "no child with a fat behind."

For all the gritty details of the Institute's recommendations, check out their fact sheet. For more on efforts to improve nutrition in schools, check out former President Clinton's success with a voluntary restriction on soda pop in school vending machines.

Do corporations have more right to a patent than universities?

Slashdot asks if universities should be able to hold patents and intellectual property if they get grants and donations (and taxpayer funds) as an educational institution.

I have another perspective? Why not?

If taxpayers funded the studies through an educational institution, shouldn't it be able to reap some of the benefits? In some cases, corporations can sponsor university research and obtain the intellectual property rights. Shouldn't a taxpayer-funded institution have the same rights?

If the concern is letting universities profit from research funded by third parties, then call me confused. Most universities have a wide range of funding sources for their research, from public money (state and federal), alumni donations, and corporate sponsorships. Is the variety of funding sources somehow more repugnant than a corporation who receives money from consumers?

If the concern is freedom of information, then it seems that patent law generally would be the source for concern. Are patents too broad in scope? Too long? Should certain things not be patented? The constitutional source of patents (Article I, Section 8) is a good start:

The Congress shall have power to...promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Making hay out of pork

A news story broke recently about Muslim cashiers at local Target stores refusing to ring up pork products. Many in the Islamic faith believe that pigs are unclean (true in the Jewish faith as well) and like the cab drivers before them, have asserted their religious right to ask another cashier or the customer themselves to ring up the item.

My gut reaction probably reflects some religious prejudice. As a "lapsed Catholic," I don't ask for or receive any accommodations for my religious beliefs in my workplace. As a Christian it's easy - you already get your holidays as vacation (note: in my workplace, you can exchange these holidays for the holidays of other faiths). I also am not interfacing with others in a public setting, so there are fewer opportunities for differences of faith to create friction. In other words, when I read about this at first, I had these reactions:
1) Get a job where you don't have to handle pork
2) You aren't handling pork, you are handling plastic-wrap (Target stores don't sell unpackaged meat).

I'm glad I waited to blog, because I saw this story in today's Minneapolis paper that sums up the reader reaction on their message boards. There were a few good points, such as the legal issue that employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for religious beliefs or face lawsuits. Some Muslim cashiers were fine with wearing plastic gloves, others were fine with handling the meat if it was packaged. In other words, it's certainly not every Muslim cashier that even requests accommodation.

But what about the customer side of things? If I was Target, serving a public that is increasingly impatient, I might want to consider trying to put folks with religious objections to ringing certain purchases somewhere other than the cash register. It's not just Muslims and pork. Conservative Christian cashiers might object to ringing up condoms. It's not conducive to sales to have clerks who intentionally or unintentionally stigmatize shoppers by refusing to ring certain items.

This issue mirrors the one of the pharmacists who expressed religious objections to dispensing the morning-after birth control pill, although buying bacon is a bit different than trying to obtain the morning after pill from the town's only pharmacist.

I guess my conclusion is this. There's a moral difference between refusing to ring up bacon and dispense drugs or serve people with guide dogs. Having to wait for another cashier or scanning your own bacon is an inconvenience, and might give you some healthy second thoughts about buying bacon in the first place. Being refused a cab ride because you use a guide dog (or carry alcohol) is unjust and perhaps illegal - cab drivers obtain a public license and have a charge to serve the public. Being refused birth control by a medical professional is unconscionable, because obtaining adequate medical care is a right and medical professionals take an oath to do no harm.