Obama Girls Enjoy 'Best School Lunch in America'...

a reply to: Gryphon66

but averages and assumptions mean nothing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess there's no proof then.

Assuming you were actually interested, (and that seems doubtful), why don't you do a smidgen of actual research on the issue and report back to us?

Have you read the law? Do you know what the standards are? Do you know how the USDA has worked with State and local governments to implement the standards? Are kids getting enough calories? If not why not?

I'm willing to bet that won't happen, because your post's intention is merely to make it seem like there's some doubt that there's a problem in the first place.

/shrug

www.washingtontimes.com...

New school lunch standards implemented as a result of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign have led to more than 1 million children leaving the lunch line, according to a new report.

They either aren't eating or they are brining it from home where they can or they are eating from vending machines as it explains in the articles.

The new standards led to kids throwing out their fruits and vegetables, student boycotts, higher lunch costs, and odd food pairings such as “cheese stick with shrimp” in order for schools to comply with the complicated rules.

...

The report found that 321 districts left the National School Lunch Program altogether, many of which cited the new standards as a factor.

Kids don't like it and school districts have trouble complying, so it doesn't appear there is much flexibility from the Feds. You know it's bad when districts conclude that it's better to forego the money altogether than to continue on with the rules.

The GAO conducted a nationwide survey of nutrition directors and visited 17 schools in eight school districts for the audit. In each district, “students expressed dislike for certain foods that were served to comply with the new requirements, such as whole grain-rich products and vegetables in the beans and peas (legumes) and red-orange sub-groups, and this may have affected participation.”

The standards brought “negative student reactions.” In one case, middle school and high school students organized a three-week boycott after their school changed their sandwiches to comply with the rules.

All eight School Food Authorities (SFAs) the GAO visited “modified or eliminated” popular food items. One district had to cut cheeseburgers because “adding cheese to the district’s burger patties would have made it difficult to stay within the weekly meat maximums.”

They didn't find any positives.

The new standards are exhaustive, including calorie ranges for each age group, sodium limits, zero tolerance for trans fats, and specific ounce amounts for meats and grains. White bread will be mostly phased out beginning in 2014 because only “whole grain rich” items will be allowed.

Portion requirements and calorie limits are also in conflict, leading some SFAs to add unhealthy food such as pudding or potato chips to the menu, and serve odd food combinations in order to meet the rules.

The rules are byzantine and conflict so that instead of always getting healthy food, they have to add junk to meet requirements in some cases. Like a salad served with both saltine crackers and croutons to meet a grain requirement.

“Students may take the food components they are required to as part of the school lunch but then choose not to eat them,” the GAO said. As a result, 48 out of 50 states cited waste as a challenge.

And even better, you require kids to take certain foods to meet the requirements whether they want them or not, so they just throw it all away. So basically, we're paying for a bunch of stuff that promptly gets chucked in the garbage.

I hope Seattle's public schools aren't part of the school lunch program.

Not only that, but the cafeteria workers now hate it because it's much harder to prepare fruits and veggies and they then get to watch the kids hate on all their hard work and dump it out.


And all this was BEFORE the sodium regs went into effect this year. I can imagine how good it all tastes now.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

but averages and assumptions mean nothing.

Neither does not looking for any information at all.

I have it on good authority that even for true believers, nothing=nothing

I gave you a start above. Go read a little bit and get back to us.

M. Obama forces a crap lunch system on public school kids who can't afford private school. Kind of like how B. Obama forces crap insurance programs on those who can't afford to keep their good coverage. But it's okay! The Obama family doesn't have crap lunch or crap insurance!

I mean, surely if M. Obama didn't have money to send her kids to private school, she wouldn't have let her kids eat moldy food at the public school... right?

Simple fact is that it's another example of tax payer funded narcissistic behavior. But who cares... it's not me or my kid. I'll just pack a brown bag from home... if I can afford it.

a reply to: ketsuko

Are you tag-teaming with Xuenchen now? LOL

Okay. Let's see here.

Did you look at any source of information aside from the Washington Times of the great Reverend Sun Myung Moon, sometimes called "the Moonie Times"? Did you read the actual USDA standards? Or what the law actually says?

Did you type in "Kids Unhappy With School Lunches" ... who would have ever thought they'd be upset about losing greasy pizza and cookies?

The Moonie Times is as far right wing biased source as as any. But let's go with it.

Blatant inaccuracy in the first line. The new standards were passed by the US Congress not M. Obama.

Let's look at the GAO Report that the Moonie Times is rewording and paraphrasing.

This decrease was driven primarily by a decline of 1.6 million students eating schoollunch who pay full price for meals, despite increases in students eating school lunch who receive free meals. State and local officials reported that the changes
to lunch content and nutrition requirements, as well as other factors, influenced student participation.

So, in point of fact, in terms of the kids who actually NEED the school lunch program, participation increased.

Hmm. Let's keep reading the ACTUAL REPORT

School food authorities (SFA) faced several challenges implementing the new lunch content and nutrition requirements in school year 2012-2013. For example, most states reported that SFAs faced challenges with addressing plate waste— or foods thrown away rather than consumed by students—and managing food costs, as well as planning menus and obtaining foods that complied with portion size and calorie requirements.
...

However, evidence suggests ... some SFAs that were not fully meeting requirements being certified as in compliance. Without documentation of noncompliance and requirements for corrective actions, SFAs may not have the information needed to take actions to address these issues, and USDA may lack information on areas that are problematic across SFAs

So, the GAO's report suggests that the problems being experienced are at the local level, not in the Federal requirements.

Link to the Actual GAO Report

In short, kids don't like vegetables as much as they like pizza. Who knew?

In your summation, you skip over the facts that the kids have plenty of food but they're just throwing it away. I realize you covered the "throwing it away" part but missed the "they have plenty of food" part. A minute ago, they were on starvation diets.

Look at the GAO report if you didn't. USDA has bent and is bending over backwards to help the locals implement the system.

You're generalizing an awful lot from one biased article.

Are you against the changes, in general? Do you think kids should be served pizza and cookies and be damned the known health costs they will pay if they develop obesity?

What's a solution that would work? Is it better to do nothing let the kids keep getting fatter? Fatter kids, fatter adults?

a reply to: ketsuko

Then how about you tell the FLOTUS to stop tampering with what our kids could eat in a public school?

Hate to break this to you but the eat well program started before Obama even took office. So where was your whining about the President who started it?

Do you think any tax payer likes seeing the crap that our kids are given for lunch in a public school?

This is the problem of the school not the program itself.

Why is it an acceptable excuse to simply say, "If you don't like, then pay for something else?"

Why do you think schools should go out of their way to create special meals for athletes? You think it's ok for them to spend extra out of a limited budget for this?

I take my daughter lunch every day. But Friday at school they had a "green mushy lump" for lunch (I saw a picture - OMG YUCK). It was cooked spinach with eggs and rice all mixed together. The picture alone made wanna puke, I can only imagine the taste... poor kids went hungry that day.

a reply to: buster2010

Hate to break this to you but the eat well program started before Obama even took office. So where was your whining about the President who started it?

Hmmm.

In signing a new law today to improve the quality of school lunches, President Obama paid joking tribute to its most prominent supporter: first lady Michelle Obama.

Not only am I very proud of the bill," the president said, "but had I not been able to get this passed, I would be sleeping on the couch."

Obama signs school lunch law -- and maintains marital bliss

The King, and Queen own the court jester that school lunches have become.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My sisters' kids LOVE their vegetables. She has three boys. There isn't a fruit or vegetable they won't eat, and they are not fed enough at school. They aren't throwing away their fresh stuff.

Look, I get it. You like that everyone is told what they have to eat and you think that's great. You probably think that we should all have a weekly approved grocery list too with shocks applied if we put too much of the wrong kind of items into our cart.

But between your derision for the concern of parents whose kids do attend schools that feed kids like and your derision for parents who have been able to find way to get their kids out of this mess, I am simply forced to conclude that you are mainly just carrying water for the Obamas. Otherwise, you ought to have some sympathy for someone somewhere aside from a set of federal rules that made no sense.

Btw, I googled your standards.

1 oz of meat? Yum, that's filling!

a reply to: buster2010

Why should the calorie limit be so restricted that some kids are made unhealthy because they are actually very physically fit and active?

This is the problem with a Federally enforced one-size-fits-all approach. These rules are making the assumption that EVERY child needs to go on a caloric restricted diet when not every child does and for some it's actually harmful.

a reply to: buster2010

Hate to break this to you but the eat well program started before Obama even took office. So where was your whining about the President who started it?

And it has gone so far downhill under Obama.

from swank to swill.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds like the parents would need to get involved then if the kid needs a special diet for whatever reason.

The average kid would gain from being on a calorie count.

If your kid does not fall into that average and needs more, why does the school need to give out more to everyone?

What do these kids eat during the off school time in the Summer?

Or on Holidays and weekends?

a reply to: ketsuko

And we were kinda doing well ...

Look, you don't get anything. Your summation of what I think is pure scarecrow.

Actually quote me and get back to me on any of that that you find proof for, and when you don't, consider apologizing.

You ran out of biased articles to quote, trying to suggest that this whole thing is the fault of Michelle Obama? Did you find out that the real problems with the system, as most problems, originate at the local level, with folks who can't put together simple meals with healthy appetizing components?

So you jump to: 1) Anecdotal evidence? Your three nephews eat all their veggies ... so what??? Your article stated that kids are throwing most of their food away!

2) Straw Man garbage: you ran out of rhetoric to spew and so now you have to jump to me and tell me what I think, what I believe, at least in as far as it fits your template of what "liberal conservatives are." You're just blathering.

3) Utter Dishonestly (or Ignorance, I can't figure which): I CONGRATULATED you on getting your kid out of a system you despise!!!! How could any reasonable person construe that as derision?

You're not forced to conclude anything. Quote my support in this thread for Mr. or Mrs. Obama. I've been trying to get you and others to stop blantantly lying, yes, but you won't find a single word of support from them for me.

But you're not interested in the truth are you? What "standards" did you google? Post a link.

Get off of me and back on the topic.

Michelle Obama is a disgraced lawyer and former public servant with questionable ethics under professional BS artist Valerie Jarrett in Chicago.

Why should anybody trust her now?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ketsuko

Sounds like the parents would need to get involved then if the kid needs a special diet for whatever reason.

The average kid would gain from being on a calorie count.

If your kid does not fall into that average and needs more, why does the school need to give out more to everyone?

The average athlete needs roughly double the size of the servings they are allowing. The HHKA stipulates a max of 850 calories. The active high school athlete needs about 2,700 calories per day.

The pre-game meal plan here calls for 2 oz servings of protein and 1/2c servings of fruits and vegetables instead of just 1/4c along with pasta or baked potato and *gasp* some fat.

This meal would never be allowed.

It's important to realize that the HHKA standards are a diet imposed on an inactive kid's requirement of 1500 calories per day. And to force these kids to eat less at both lunch and breakfast can seriously and negatively impact their health.

The rapid growth that occurs during the high school years makes proper nutrition essential for high school athletes. Inadequate nutrition may lead to negative effects on their growth and development. High school athletes need a substantial number of calories for optimal growth and development and also because participation in sports places additional stress on the respiratory, cardiovascular, muscular and skeletal systems. Inadequate calorie consumption and low-quality nutrition dramatically reduces athletic performance.

Let's just negatively impact the health of the kids who are handling their health correctly without government intervention because other kids can't do what they should. How is that fair to penalize the kids who are keeping themselves healthy? And why should we just pick the easy answer of "their parents should do it." When the real answer is that the school their parents pay for should have enough food available.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Michelle Obama is a disgraced lawyer and former public servant with questionable ethics under professional BS artist Valerie Jarrett in Chicago.

Why should anybody trust her now?

Nothing in the OP or anything that anyone has said here is suggesting that anyone "trust" Michelle Obama.

This isn't ABOUT Michelle Obama; that is the point.

originally posted by: ketsuko

The average athlete needs roughly double the size of the servings they are allowing. The HHKA stipulates a max of 850 calories. The active high school athlete needs about 2,700 calories per day.

850 is for average lunches over a week.

Additional food is available for kids who need it.

This material has already been posted and cited here.

a reply to: ketsuko

Awesome!

Again, sounds like the parents need to get involved and not rely on the school to get their kids the calorie intake they need.
Or did you miss that I said that in the post that you quoted?

Not every kid is an athlete and is going to burn of the calorie intake you are talking about, so how does it negatively affect those kids?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope. 850 calories is the limit with a second helping of either the fruit, veggie or milk. Still nowhere near enough.

If you need to be an active athlete, you need to simply learn how to make better caloric choices to get the most density available out of your options.

Since the implementation this fall of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, an increasing number of high school athletes--as well as their coaches and parents--have been calling foul. Many athletes argue that the new nutritional standards, which limit high school lunches to 850 total calories, do not provide enough energy to sustain them throughout the school day, let alone meet their elevated needs for practice or competition.

Now this dietitian tries to put lipstick on the pig, but look at the numbers.

I advocate using the new regulations as an opportunity for high school athletes to learn how to fuel themselves as active individuals. Even for an athlete with a daily energy requirement of 4,000 to 5,000 calories, an 850-calorie lunch would be adequate as long as they follow a consistent fueling pattern throughout the rest of the day.

As a sports dietitian who works with athletes of all ages, I help elite high school athletes develop individualized performance nutrition programs. Our plans always incorporate at least three full meals paired with two to three snacks, pre- and post-workout foods, and hydration. This fueling strategy optimizes muscle glycogen stores and hydration status and provides adequate carbohydrates, protein, fat, vitamins, and minerals throughout the day to meet growth and recovery needs.

In other words, the lunch is only enough IF the kid is also getting two other full meals AND two or three snacks AND pre- and post-workout food. In other words, your parents better be feeding you the rest of the amount you need because you aren't getting nearly enough at lunch for even a significant portion of what you need, kiddo.