Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Critics Rely on Bad and Dated Nutritional Science to Lambaste Trump’s School Meals Reform

Self-anointed nutritionists and “children’s health advocates” have lambasted the Trump administration for giving local schools greater latitude and flexibility in the choice of food that they offer students.

In a separate post, I explain why these critics have it wrong. They adhere to bad and dated nutritional science that says fat and sodium are bad, but fruit and whole-grains are an unalloyed good.

In this post, I report in greater detail what the best and most recent science actually says about fat, carbohydrates, sodium, fruits, and vegetables. In truth, much of what we think we know about nutrition simply ain’t so.

Fat. Take, for instance, the longstanding proscription on fatty foods. Fat, we are told, is bad. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this proscription. To the contrary: fat is highly beneficial and a much-needed macronutrient.

Fat is “a major source of energy,” notes the Harvard Medical School:

It helps you absorb some vitamins and minerals. Fat is needed to build cell membranes, the vital exterior of each cell, and the sheaths surrounding nerves. It is essential for blood clotting, muscle movement, and inflammation.

It is true that not all fats are created equal. Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats are found naturally in nuts, cheese, olive oil, eggs, and fish. These are the healthiest types of fats.

Artificial fats, otherwise known as industrial-made trans fats, are found in sugar-laden snacks and processed foods and are unhealthy. Saturated fats, meanwhile, are found in meat and cheese and “fall somewhere in the middle” of the health continuum, notes Harvard.

Fat consumed, moreover, does not ipso facto become fat on our body. That is not at all how human biochemistry works. Excess calories consumed become fat. And, for most people, excess calories come not from consuming too much fat, but from consuming too many carbohydrates.

“The reality is that fat doesn’t make you fat or diabetic. Scientific investigations going back to the 1950s suggest that actually, carbs do,” writes Nina Teicholz, author of The Big Fast Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.

Carbohydrates. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to consume too many carbohydrates. They dominate our food choices and need to be strictly limited. Yet, critics complain that Trump’s regulatory rollback will allow schools to offer more pizza, burgers and other fatty foods.

But pizza and burgers are high in protein and fat, which are not the cause of poor healthy and obesity. Just about all of us, in fact—our children included—would benefit from more protein, more fat and fewer carbs.

These same critics also complain that, because schools have greater flexibility in choosing food, students will consume less whole-grain bread and cereal, and starchy foods like potatoes [will] replace green vegetables.” But as Teicholz points out,

according to the best science to date, people put themselves at higher risk for these conditions [Type 2 diabetes and heart disease] no matter what kind of carbohydrates they eat.

Yes, even unrefined carbs. Too much whole-grain oatmeal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and bacon, followed by fish.

Sodium. Likewise with sodium: The critics complain that greater flexibility will result in more more high-sodium foods, even as the Trump administration rolls back regulatory limits on the amount of sodium allowed in school meals.

But it is far from clear that sodium is a real problem, especially for our youth. (High blood becomes more prevalent as people age and is less common in children.) “Dietary guidelines often change, but ‘restrict your salt intake’ has resisted the advances of science,” write Drs. Michael H. Alderman and David A. McCarron. “Adequate sodium,” they note,

is crucial for biological processes including nerve conduction, muscle contraction, and sustaining the fluid balance necessary to assure blood flow and deliver nutrients and oxygen to every cell in the body.

As recently reviewed in the New England Journal of Medicine, human physiology has evolved a complex process, mediated by the brain, to maintain sodium balance precisely.

If we consume too little sodium, our kidneys will go to extremes to conserve it. If we consume too much, it is eliminated through our skin, intestines, and kidneys.

You’re far likelier to die from failure to maintain this precise control than from the modest impact salt may have on your blood pressure.

Fruits and Vegetables. What about fruits and vegetables? The critics say that, because of the Trump regulatory rollback, students will consume fewer fruits and vegetables, which are a great source of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. Again: untrue.

While the benefits of fruits and vegetables are undeniable, they are not an unalloyed good, and too much of anything can be a bad thing.

The problem with fruit is that has lots of sugar (fructose), “which causes the liver to generate triglycerides and other lipids in the blood that are altogether bad news,” Teicholz writes.

Vegetables don’t have any such complicating factor. They absolutely are nutritious and should be an integral part of every person’s diet. Still, they are incapable of satiating a person’s appetite and cannot fulfill our natural, innate need for fat, protein, and basic food variety.

In truth, by giving local schools greater latitude and flexibility in the choice of food that they offer students, the Trump administration is acting upon the basis of the best and most recent science.

The administration’s critics, by contrast, are relying on antiquated and discredited ideas that serious nutritionists and health experts increasingly reject, and for good reason.

Trump Administration’s School Meals Reform Will Help Reduce Childhood Obesity

The Trump administration announced Friday that it is rolling back Obama-era regulations that govern nutritional requirements for school meals and giving local schools greater latitude and flexibility in the choice of food that they offer students.

The media have depicted these changes as a sop to the food industry and a disservice to children nationwide—especially disadvantaged children from lower-income families, since they depend more on school meals. These youngsters supposedly now will be consuming less nutritious and unhealthy food as a result.

I hate to be the bearer of good news, but this is simply untrue. And the reason it is untrue is that much of what we think we know about nutrition simply ain’t so.

The longstanding proscription on fatty food is the most commonly held misconception. In a separate post, I report why this misperception and other conventional ideas about health and nutrition are wrong.

For the purpose of this post, suffice it to say that bad and dated nutritional science helps to explain why school administrators and cafeteria workers welcome the Trump administration’s move to make the school meals program less rigid and more accommodating of ground truth, so to speak.

It is not, obviously, that they are indifferent to children’s health, nor that they are shills for the food industry. Instead, their concerns are very practical. Students, they observe, are too often rejecting the food that is being offered to them.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a “School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study” that found “children are throwing 25 percent of nutrients straight into the trash can. This is not serving children well,” says the USDA.

Science Says. Why are students rejecting the food that is being served them? Because school meal plans too often are based on bad and dated nutritional science that says fat and sodium are bad, but fruit and whole-grains are an unalloyed good.

“Completely eliminating or limiting fat from your diet can actually make you gain weight, often because it leaves you feeling so deprived,” reports CNN. “Conversely, some studies have found that fatty foods can aid in weight loss.”

“The problem with most diets,” writes Mark Hyman, MD, author of the Eat Fat, Get Thin Cookbook, “is that they lack the key ingredient, [fat], that makes food taste good and cuts your hunger.”

It is not hard, then, to discern why students have rejected the ostensibly healthy meals foisted upon them by Michelle Obama and her coterie of self-anointed “children’s health advocates”:

First, these meals are not as healthy as advertised—mainly because they seek to radically reduce fat and sodium in a student’s diet; and second, because of their inflated reliance on carb-laden whole-grains, fruits and vegetables, these meals leave students hungry and longing for greater sustenance.

Local schools and school cafeteria workers know this, which is why they have pushed for greater latitude and flexibility in the choice of food that they offer students.

The Trump administration has wisely responded to their request, with regulations that retain legitimate nutritional standards (i.e., vegetables are still part of every student’s meal), while simultaneously ensuring that these standards are not so rigid and inflexible as to be counterproductive and self-defeating (because students discard the food given to them and procure unhealthy snacks elsewhere.)

Childhood Obesity. To be sure, Michelle Obama identified a real problem. Childhood obesity in America has become an epidemic—so much so that “roughly 31% of American youths [are] disqualified [from military service] because they are overweight.”

This is a national disgrace and a bona fide public health problem, which we ought to address and remedy as a nation. And, to the extent, that we are eliminating empty calories and excess carbohydrates from school meals, this is an indisputably good thing.

Indeed, soda and sugar water have no discernible health benefits whatsoever; they are genuinely harmful. Soda and sugar water induce obesity by replacing, crowding out, or superseding calories with real and requisite health benefits.

But trying to reduce or eliminate fat in a student’s diet is a big and health-debilitating mistake. Ditto the attempt to reduce or eliminate high-sodium food. And fruits and whole-grains are no panacea either because they are laden with sugar and carbohydrates, which are the real culprit in the obesity epidemic.

Even were it otherwise, students, like the rest of us, crave variety in their diet and food that is satisfying, satiating, and savory.

While well-intended, Michelle Obama’s school meal regs lost sight of this reality and were based on bad and dated nutritional science. Consequently, they were rejected by the very students they were designed to help.

The Trump administration, to its credit, recognizes that we can and must do better. Its reform of the school meals program is a promising start.

The Suleimani Strike Comports with Both International and Constitutional Law

There have been a flurry of published articles declaring, ex cathedra, that the U.S. military strike against Iranian General Qassem Suleimani violates both international and Constitutional law. As we briefly explained in a previous post, this is not true.

The strike against Suleimani was defensive in nature; it occurred in a country, Iraq, where U.S. military personnel have been fighting and dying for 17 years; and it commenced only after a long-running series of Iranian military actions in Iraq, dating back over nearly two decades, that have resulted in the death of more than 600 Americans.

Iran, moreover, has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

For ordinary people, enough said. Neither international law nor Constitutional law are suicide pacts. However, because media and academic partisans are out in force arguing that the strike was illegal, it is worth revisiting the issue.

International Law. First, international law is real and important because it promulgates rules and norms that govern international conflict and provide some predictability of action, thereby helping to minimize war crimes and atrocities. However, international law is much more malleable and subject to dispute and interpretation than domestic law, and it evolves organically over time to a far greater extent than domestic law.

That is because there is no international legislature and executive branch responsible for passing and implementing international law. Instead, international law develops over time based on treaties, customs and conventions, judicial decisions, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

True, we have a United Nations, but the U.N. is not a unitary world government that rules the planet and whose decrees ipso facto have the force of law. Instead, the U.N. is a deliberative body, where countries argue, negotiate, and try to address problems and difficulties as best they can short of war.

U.N. resolutions sometimes have the force of law, but not always. The United Nations Charter adopted in 1945 is considered binding international law. However, other U.N. resolutions, such as ES-10/L.22, which denies that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, are more controversial and in dispute.

My point is this: anyone who insists that international law, or the application of international law, is clearcut, obvious, fixed, and unchanging is either lying or trying to use international law to pursue a political agenda.

And in fact, using international law for political purposes, as a tool of statecraft, is commonplace. This often is how international law evolves and develops. Countries try to promulgate rules and norms to justify their actions on the world stage. It’s called lawfare: “the strategy of using—or misusing—law as a substitute for, [or a complement to], traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”

Thus for the United States—and certainly, for Trump administration officials determined to put “America First”—international law is not a problem to overcome, but rather a justification that must be embraced.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, after all, specifically gives countries the right to self-defense. Everything else is legalistic background noise. And if some legal scholars don’t yet recognize the legitimacy of the Suleimani strike, they soon will, as international law adapts and evolves to reflect changes in weapons and war, as well as the geopolitical landscape.

Constitutional Law. As you would expect, because of the more fixed and settled nature of domestic law, U.S. Constitutional law is more discernible and straightforward: As we’ve previously observed, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in defense of U.S. military personnel under attack. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty.

This is not “initiating a war” against Iran as some critics falsely and hyperbolically assert. Instead, it is wisely prosecuting a long-simmering war in Iraq. The Armed Forces of the United States, remember, have been deployed to Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government and in accordance with a 2002 Congressional authorization for the use of military force there.

“The power to declare war is different from the power to make war, which belongs to the president in his role as ‘commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,'” explain Constitutional scholars David David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey in The Wall Street Journal. “There are few constraints on that power when the president is defending Americans, civilian or military, against armed attack,” they note.

“Suleimani,” adds David French, a wartime attorney in the Army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, “was killed lawfully [and] in a properly constitutionally-authorized conflict… Trump’s action was constitutionally legitimate, and that matters. A lot.”

“It is a basic aspect of the law of armed conflict,” French adds, that opposing commanders are a legitimate target.

Soleimani had entered a theater of armed conflict not as a diplomatic guest of the Iraqi government, but rather as a co-belligerent with Shiite militias—the very militias that had attacked an American base and killed an American contractor and had days before attacked and burned part of the American embassy.

The bottom line: Americans need not feel guilty about our strike against Suleimani. It was morally and legally justified. He had it coming, and America’s enemies have been put on notice. With a nod to Liam Neeson, if you kill an American (or orchestrate the death of many Americans), we will look for you; we will find you; and we will kill you. Enough said.

Vladimir Putin Is More Focused on Economic Growth Than the Dem Presidential Candidates

If you want to get a sense of how backward and upside down our politics has become, juxtapose these two events: yesterday’s Democratic Presidential debate and today’s speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the state of the Russian Federation.

The Democratic Presidential candidates talked about their myriad plans to grow the size and scope of government; yet, the words economic growth never once left their lips. But in the absence of robust economic growth, it is impossible to see how these Dem presidential wanna-bees could finance their costly schemes to create new and vast federal entitlements such as “Medicare for All.”

“‘We are literally talking about increases in government spending that would double the size of government as a share of gross domestic product,” Maya MacGuineas told CNN reporter Ron Brownstein. Brownstein and MacGuineas calculate that Sanders is proposing an astronomical $30 trillion to $60 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years.

MacGuinease is “President of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit group that advocates [for] reducing federal deficits.”

Admittedly, Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) may be in a league of their own when it comes to making government huge again. But the rest of the Democratic field isn’t far behind, truth be told. They all want to make the government much bigger and more dominant vis-a-vis the private sector. Economic growth to them is just assumed and taken as a given

Not so for Putin, who, according to CNBC, told the Russian people:

“High economic growth rates are essential. This is the only way to overcome poverty and ensure steady and perceptible increases in income. This is the key to success.

“[By] 2021, Russia’s economic growth rate must exceed 3% and stay above the global average afterwards. This objective should not be discarded,” he said.

Putin said that areas to focus on were labor productivity, improving Russia’s business climate, removing ‘infrastructural constraints for economic development’ and lastly, “training modern personnel.”

Clearly, Putin is more focused on economic growth than the Democratic presidential candidates! The Russian dictator realizes that, unless his country’s economy grows much more rapidly than it is now, all of his dreams and aspirations for a greater, imperial Russia are for naught.

Would that Bernie, Elizabeth, Pete, and Joe all had similar situational awareness and understanding.

Congress Emboldens Terrorists and Rogue Regimes with ‘War Powers Resolution’

Is it asking too much of Congress to support American troops under fire in the Middle East? This, sadly, is not a rhetorical question. The House of Representatives has conspicuously failed to support our troops and the Senate is poised to follow suit.

How so? By passing a “war powers resolution” designed to restrict President Trump’s Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to authorize military action in defense of our troops. The House approved a war powers resolution last week and the Senate is expected soon to do the same.

Why now? Because of the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. Congressional advocates of a war powers resolution say it is needed to stop Trump from taking America to war. Never mind that the President has been extraordinarily restrained and tempered in the wake of repeated Iranian provocations.

In fact, it was the only after an American serving in Iraq was killed by Iranian-backed militia that Trump finally decided to strike back by taking out Suleimani. The President has since made clear, in both word and deed, that he has no plans or desire for a larger-scale war with Iran. Yet, says Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), “Congress cannot be sidelined on these important decisions.”

Of course, no one would deny Congress its rightful say in the use and disposition of American military power. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress authorizes and appropriates funding while conducting necessary oversight of the executive branch and U.S. military. But once U.S. forces are deployed—as they have been in the Middle East for decades now—then the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in their defense.

That’s exactly what Trump did when he ordered the strike against Suleimani, a terrorist ringleader who had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explains, we simply cannot have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is completely illogical and utterly impractical.

If the war powers resolution ever makes its way to Trump’s desk, it will be summarily vetoed. The President will not allow his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to be usurped by Congress. Nonetheless, serious damage will have been done to America’s standing in the world, and our troops will be imperiled.

Terrorists and rogue regimes throughout the Middle East will interpret the war powers resolution as an impediment to Trump’s ability to respond to their provocations and defend our troops. They will see the resolution as an opportunity for them to terrorize U.S. and allied forces with minimal fear of reprisal: because, after all, Trump has been constrained; his hands tied by Congress.

Weakness invites aggression, and make no mistake: the war powers resolution signals weakness to America’s enemies.

What should Congress have done and what might it still do? Simple: pass a resolution that: a) condemns the Iranian regime for sponsoring terrorism; and b) supports the U.S. military strike against Suleimani. That would strengthen deterrence vis-a-vis the regime and limit the possibility of a larger-scale war in the Middle East.

President Reagan called this “peace through strength,” and it is still the right and strategically wise approach.