I think it important to make some clear distinctions about what the new nutrition rules are and where they originate. Michelle Obama, as first lady, has lobbied for healthier school lunches. The school lunch requirements have been codified in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The bill reauthorized the national school lunch program, which has happened periodically since the program began. Obviously, congress voted for it. The following link has positive comments from Mike Huckabee (R-governor), Bill Frist (R-TN), and numerous church groups. The only time in history that I can remember this being a gigantic issue is when the Reagan administration did their reauthorization - ketchup was categorized as a vegetable (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-si...). This is completely distinct from the new voluntary advertising rules for food marketed to children. Congress, in 2009, directed four agencies (the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food & Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department) to propose national standard for food and beverages that can be marketed to children. This initiative was a joint proposal by Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The new rules do not force any food industry to change its products or menus. It prohibits them from directing advertising campaigns at children if they do not meet the new standards.
Doug Gibson's recent column about McDonalds adding sliced apples to their happy meals was filled with inaccuracies and the wording was clearly intended to convey the "ridiculousness" of government food standards and attribute their existence to liberal nut cases (July 27, "Ronald McDonald thorws Michelle Obama an apple care"). I guess the definition of "liberal nut case" is "not Tea Party". (How do you explain Huckabee? - I guess he's just not Tea Party enough?). The piece provided no accurate information and was a very, very poor attempt at humor.