If Monty Python had invented a nutritional law for use in a skit, it would have been something like the one proposed by state Sen. Paula Sandoval, D-Denver, governing the types of snacks in Colorado schools.

Among other things, Senate Bill 46 says a snack may contain "no more than 230 milligrams of sodium," unless it's soup or vegetables "with sauce," in which case it may contain "380 milligrams of sodium," but only if it also contains at least "two grams of fiber," "five grams of protein," "10 percent of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A, vitamin E, folate" and so on, with detail piled upon deadening detail.

Sugar and fat content are sharply limited, too, of course - cheese, for example, must be "reduced fat, part skim or skim" and "offered in serving sizes not exceeding 11/2 ounces." Even natural products such as nuts and seeds ("no more than 35 percent of total calories from fat") and fruit (no more than 150 calories per serving in an elementary school) don't escape fine-toothed regulation.

If you can read page after page of SB 46 without rolling your eyes in disbelief, you presumably share Sandoval's view that the state exists to micromanage even the least important areas of school operations - and that elected officials on school boards are not competent to develop a responsible snacks policy on their own.

Having taken some heat for the bill's prescriptive tone, Sandoval reportedly is willing to amend it. But the decent thing to do would be to kill it. Lawmakers have much too much time on their hands if regulating children's snacks over the heads of school boards is now considered serious labor.

A rosy energy pretense

"One of the most exciting aspects to this challenge is that almost every solution has the added benefit of creating jobs. In these tough economic times, I can't think of a better win-win for us all."

- Alice Madden, Colorado's new climate change coordinator

Every clean-energy program "has the added benefit of creating jobs"?

Welcome to the green edition of that old political best-seller, A Free Lunch.

Public officials who glibly insist their policies involve a "win-win" for everyone - no trade-offs or downsides to speak of - must have a low opinion of their fellow citizens to expect them to believe it.

Colorado's "climate change coordinator" will surely be in the vanguard of activists urging the state to increase incentives, subsidies and mandates to reduce the use of fossil fuels. She will certainly lead the way in advocating policies that prod and pressure us into retooling our lifestyles, housing patterns and transportation choices. She will inevitably favor environmental regulations whose side effect is to raise the price of consumer products (like cars).

And if Colorado ever debates the wisdom of following, say, California in pressing to reduce greenhouse gases to a predetermined target by a specific date, we won't have to guess which side Madden will be on.

To claim that every one of these approaches is a "win-win for us all" is to ignore how an economy actually works.

Madden is not alone in talking about the New Energy Economy as if it were cost-free. Her boss, Gov. Bill Ritter, is pretty good at it, too. But if we're going to have an honest - as opposed to a rigged - debate about climate policy, advocates of restricting carbon emissions have got to acknowledge the downsides, too.

A few do, thankfully. The Sacramento Bee, for example, supports California's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020, but has no use for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's and the California Air Resources Board's rosy pretense that the transition will be painless.

"The California air board must be candid about the real costs of the transition it is contemplating," the Bee editorialized in December. "Energy prices will rise, and major capital investment will be needed in public transit, energy-efficient buildings and new transmission lines. Industries that are energy-intensive will move elsewhere."

The Bee seems to think that the flight of energy intensive companies is a good thing - so long as other industries "flock here." Others would disagree. But at least both sides start with the understanding that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.