5 thoughts on “New Food Nanny Concept: ‘Libertarian Paternalism’”

  1. I’m a Libertarian this is just more nanny state coercion. Leave the choice of what children have to eat up to Mom and Dad.

  2. Howdy Bob
    I kinda thought the “wholesome” thing would come back to bite me. “Wholesome” is a term that lacks rigor and it can give the nannies way too much room.
    Let me offer this idea: if a kiosk wants to be vegan, they just have to prove their food is clean. If a kiosk wants to offer hamburgers and fries, same thing. If a kiosk wants to offer road kill on oleander kabobs, no.

  3. How about just hygienic? These guys are touting “wholesome” by their definitions and the problem is unless very hungry, kids tend not to eat their definition of “wholesome.” The improvements in the 20% range they found didn’t mention the total “acceptance.” It’s like MRE’s, C-rations and T-rats: if you get hungry enough, you will eat more of them.
    When will we all be marching down to the government run cafeteria so we can get the government approved nutrition as our only source of sustenance?

  4. “Yet, as a principle of the behavioral sciences, this phrase actually implies gentle guidance, without force…” That is nannyism. Libertarianism would say that was the parents’ business for children and the adults’ business for college students.
    A responsible school would offer only hygienic and wholesome food, of course, but that would be wher the “guidance” quit.

  5. “actual consumption increased by 18% for fruits and by 25% for vegetables.”

    Isn’t that just wonderful?

    The objective of lunch at school is so that the kids won’t be hungry in their afternoon classes. What percentage of fruits and vegetables are consumed is irrelevent to the students, the teachers, and the parents. Only the Food Police care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.