dinner roll

quote:

---

Like most court decisions, yall are commenting on the policy and not the law. This was a statutory construction ruling - and probably the correct one. This is independent of the wisdom of the statute itself.

---

This is correct. The desired outcome doesn’t override the legal analysis. Like it or not, sugary drinks and junk foods fall under the definition of “food” laid out by the statutes and regulations. There’s a mechanism to fix this- have congress redefine “food” to exclude these items, just like hot prepared meals. The ruling isn’t policy based. It’s pure statutory interpretation. It’s up to congress and the USDA to follow the procedure to make the change.

For context:

7 U.S.C. § 2012(k) defines food as:

“(1) any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption (other than those authorized under specific exceptions for certain populations, such as meals for the elderly, disabled, etc.), and any deposit fee in excess of the amount of the State fee reimbursement (if any) required to purchase any food or food product contained in a returnable bottle or can, regardless of whether the fee is included in the shelf price.”

It goes on to exclude seed and other things, but it doesn’t expressly carve out junk food and sugary drinks as part of the exclusions.

In 7 CFR § 271.2 tracks the statute’s definition of “food.” The USDA defines it as:

“(1) Any food or food product intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods and hot food products prepared for immediate consumption, and any excess deposit fee on returnable containers as described above”

These definitions are the basis for the ruling. That’s all. They don’t expressly prohibit junk food and sugar drinks. The prohibitions are effectively attempts at revising the legal definitions without going through the legal processes. Want a different result, get congress to revise the definition and then have the USDA go through the required rule making process to revise it in the regs. to match the statutory definition.

And, I say this as someone who agrees with the policy.

This is what drives me nuts with the folks who say they want to “abolish” the 2A, but want to use congress, regs., and courts to do it. There’s a simple solution for them- follow the process and call a constitutional convention to get an amendment. But, that’s not going to happen.

I heard that they’re already out of beer for the 2034 cup in Saudi Arabia.

quote:

---

who can't do things like park.

---

And they always make you wait 30 minutes so they can back into a compact only spot.

quote:

---

you could fit 3 USAs into 1 Africa

---

Have we discussed this fine Carencro man yet?


Carencro Man Accused Of Secretly Giving Pregnant Woman Abortion Medication, Infant Remains Hospitalized

That IS my old lady.

quote:

---

The Folse Special from Roma Deli on Sherwood

---

Anything from Roma Deli. I loved that place.

Chicken cordon bleu pasta.

quote:

---

You’ve accomplished nothing yet.

---

For some of them, this will be the biggest accomplishment of their entire life.