It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Michelle Obama on Child Nutrition: ‘We Can’t Just Leave It Up To The Parents'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:22 PM
so there are numerous people who all go to work, pay their taxes, and what is left is needed to survive. all most all people have a shopping budget with what is left of their earnings, and a large amount of people find it is not enough to be able to buy what ever they feel like buying.

they have to make sure they buy enough untill the next pay day, and have a small budget to accomplish it, factor in the rise in food prices all the time to.

and a government is going to tell people what they should buy! what they should spend their shopping budget on!
well i hope they are paying, it is the only way i think people would accept it.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:31 PM
The RDA recommendations for school lunches is 1/3 to 1/2 of a child's RDA need to be met at school lunch and 1/4 to 1/3 need to be met at breakfast. I know that the USDA is trying to raise the RDA for both breakfast and lunch and even are thinking about serving dinner at the end of the school day to assure kids are eating healthy. They are hoping to curb childhood obesity and diabetes, from what my nutrition teacher has stated. Too many kids are NOT eating right. Parents need to be more responsible, and I include myself in that statement. I didn't see the consequences of things I let my kids eat or not eat, like not enough veggies or a variety of foods, over prolonged periods (they all have slight anemia....I know better now how to get them what they need in their diet, foods they won't turn away). I just feel that Ms. Obama is trying to speak out about a disturbing trend of childhood diseases that lead to early death in adults.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:33 PM
I think people are over-reacting a bit, and didn't understand, or don't want to understand, the message:

a) Government Imposing certain food on you, and your kids » Bad, tyrannical, should be fought. But I didn't see any such suggestions from anyone, so what's the problem?

b) Government, Doctors, Nutritionists, educating you, and your kids, on proper eating habits, and an healthy life-stile » This was the message, and to star this process at school!
What's wrong with that? It's not an imposition, you can still fatten yourselves, and your kids, like pigs being prepped for the slaughter. It's called Advice, and Education. If you want to fallow it, fine, if you don't, nobody is forcing you.

P.S. » If you have an 8/10/12 year-old child that weighs more then 200 pounds, like I see so many, you are a bad parent, a child-abuser, and your kids should be taken from you. Anybody in this situation is clearly unfit to be the custodian of a child.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 10:51 PM

The funniest thing about this is that the government created this unhealthy crisis passing legislation to empower big food corporations to so cheaply sell there "food" while enforcing codes that cause it to be nearly impossible for healthy food sources to sell there products at a competitive price.

oh yeah, and if they actually stopped letting big corporations move our jobs to china, maybe we could afford healthier food.

They caused this, now they want to fix it? LOL what's the real agenda here?

Control of our Children

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by CerBeRus666

that's awesome in theory, the reality is, the not so well off, which if you look at the world population is the vast majority, or even look in any country, there is a higher proportion of low income earner's than higher income earner's
are going to buy what ever they can afford rather than what ever is healthiest.

the thought process behind it is simple, it is better to make sure your kids have a meal than starve them to death.
they will always go for 2 for 1 offers, or the cheapest version, not the healthiest, they cannot always afford it.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:08 PM
I think parents with fat kids are just fine the way they are its their right as well as there kids to be fat.. I find it wrong and think that people who want any kids taken away unless for a real reason need their kids taken away and sterilized so they cannot have kids. no one wants stupid ideals like yours..

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by lifeform11

Agreed, no doubt you are right. But, a little education never heart anybody. And, if you see the world health statistics, you will notice that the USA has far more problems with nutrition, then many of the so-called "third-world", or "developing" Nations.

Besides, the people I see in these situations, are far from even being mistaken for poor (at least in their wallets, for they truly are paupers in their brains).

It just saddens me to see people confusing education, or advice, with tyranny.
Just as I am sadden when people refer to "my kids", or "my children". Children are nobody's property. At most, a parent is a custodian, and as such, has the duty to arm the Human being, that he is supposed to be raising, educating, and caring for, with as much knowledge as possible.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by CerBeRus666

i agree about the education, and it may change some peoples lives, i just do not think it will solve the problem.

i believe the reason america has a problem is not so much the food they eat, but the portion sizes, lack of exercise and the fact in many parts of america, eating vast amounts of food has been turned into a sport, competition, who can eat the most.

we have the same junk in england, yet there is not as much of a problem here, but there is one, governments solution?

jamie oliver lol.... and exercise.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:37 PM
First of all, calling this woman names like ugly and wench is nothing shy of immature and ignorant, simple and plain. I think your OP says more about you than anyone else.

Second, she is not talking about telling you what you can eat, she is talking about putting more emphasis on healthy eating practices in our education system than is currently there. That I agree with.

One thing I am sure is that the Obama's are strong advocates of repairing our education systems, which is needed, and that is probably the only policy of this admin. that I am in full support of. We should be more worried about the corporatization of the food industry and the genetic modification of crops than education policies. Just my .02.

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by jaynkeel

Whether you like it or not these kids are being poisoned when they eat a small breakfast, sometimes none, and head to school. They don't eat until 11:30 am, by then they head to the vending machine and get m&m's, after that they won't eat until they head home.

Of course removing the vending machines selling the M&Ms etc would be just too easy...

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:58 PM
To put on my devil's advocate hat for a minute, I have to address this from a different side.
In WW2 the British - short on food and deep into rationing - fortified bread to help nourish children. In Mexico, the government added vitamins and minerals to the corn flour used to make tortillas (the staple diet of all, and the only form of food for many).
In modern day USA there are 35.9 Million people below the poverty line who go to be hungry. What has America done for them? Not very much. They watch politicians spend tens of millions of dollars on TV adverts that say, "He's not a very nice guy!"

Now I know the 'Don't tread on me crowd" are saying - "Well, if they are poor, they just need to work harder!"
That solves everything, doesn't it? Good thinking, Bucko.

As for nutrition for the country's children, how many children sit down at a nutritionally balanced meal that was bought fresh, and prepared properly by their parents tonight? Probably very few. Their parents were all out working long, long hours trying to pay for all those silly little things that the lobbyists worked so hard to make completely "necessary." Health insurance, home insurance, car insurance etc., working 12 hours a day for a week off to go camping - maybe.... The parents are run ragged, and have little time and energy left make a sandwich. So much easier to swing by KFC on the way home from a tough day at the office. In the meantime the kids are glued to the TV or Playstation eating potato chips. Maybe the parents will have some time to spend with them in the fresh air at the weekend. Maybe not.

If you fall into the category of being able to afford the time to invest in a properly balanced mealtime with your kids, to sit down with the family to a home cooked meal by the parent lucky enough to stay home and prepare the meal, you are in the minority and should think yourself very fortunate.
There's no difference in the 'work ethic' in other countries where this happens every day, they are just not paying through the nose to live. Higher taxes? Perhaps, but they work less hours for the same pay, and enjoy more free time, plus medical coverage, and spend a higher percentage of their check on good food.

The USA is number 1, in childhood obesity. Why? Because nobody has the time or money to do anything about it. You should applaud those who do.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 12:09 AM
Obama care said it would cover children with pre existing conditions then it turns out that it doesn't
so any one who thinks these people have a childs' best interests at heart...

ps merck ( vioxx guardesil) just bought up the muppets
think about it.
edit on 14-12-2010 by Danbones because: PS

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 01:30 AM
They may be saying less junk food...but first they will say we shouldnt eat fast food or junk food, then they will tell us we cant eat organic or natural food. They will herd us towards only eating GMO foods. I could see where this might be the beginning of that,

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by bozzchem
So are you going to let this butt ugly wench determine what you can and can't feed your children?

Ahem! Name calling not nice.

One, it takes a town to raise one brat, meaning friends, relatives, etc. should get involved.
Two, parental bio-units do need help, since "women" are now "forced" to work among "men".
Three, it take two to tango - government and "citizens".

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:31 AM
She doesn't care about anyone's kids. She cares about national security.

What that means is that she wants our kids fit to go fight their unjust wars.
She wants them fit enough to fight and fit enough to die.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by bozzchem

So are you going to let this butt ugly wench determine what you can and can't feed your children?

Where exactly does she even mention this? You are totaly overreacting, take a deep breath.

Children spend lots of time in school, so they should have healthy food in school, otherwise all efforts to make their eating habits better are pointless. Thats what she said, and I fully agree with her.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:40 AM
Lol, shes kinda right, people dont know how to feed themselves, so how should they know what to feed there kids. I think that by educating people alot better than what people learn, whats real food , and whats pre fab. But the sad fact is that poor people dont have the tools, education, or money to know better

just my 2 cents

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:50 AM
I find it pretty ironic that everyone speak of freedom when it comes to what they eat yet they are completely blinded by the fact by the foods which they are forced fed.

I was appalled after watching Jamie Oliver's travel to the US schools. Do kids really have a choice in this case? No. Schools are way more worried about cutting costs and prep time than the kid's health. The problem now is that fried foods are addictive but give the kids some time to adapt to a new diet and they'll love it and won't go back to fries, nuggets, hot dogs and chocolate milk.

Then when they walk out of school it's the same thing, they're surrounded by fast food. Again their choices are limited to what is offered to them and are limited to their knowledge about food. Seeing as how kids didn't even know that fries came from potatoes it's pretty obvious to me that they'll make bad choices and will choose what-ever the media sells them unless their parents are wiser but of course that is not the case in most homes.

Parents don't pack up healthy lunches, if they did, the US would have such high obesity rates amongst children. If the parents were taking better decisions we wouldn't have this problem and when it comes to kids, it's up to us to take decisions for them.

Do you think stores should sell kids and teens booze or smokes? No... and why not? Because it's not healthy for them, because they're not old enough to take such decisions and you let the state decide for them by allowing them to pass laws to protect them. How is that different from the food they eat? It's unhealthy, leads to heart disease and obesity and it's addictive. It leads to depression, lower grades and low self-esteem yet you have a problem letting the state control what your children eat?

This really makes me wonder if you actually care for the children. Stop whining and let the government control the food, at least in the education system. If anything you should be grateful that they'll have the help and guidance that you never had.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 03:58 AM
I have to agree in a small way, while the though of the govt telling me what my kids can eat or not eat would not fly at all, there are many that need guidance and need to be told what to do... sheeple... you know them.

for us, we had pizza tonight , which for the kids was a big deal because before tonight the last time they had fast food of any kind was probably over 2 months ago. I cook , not that microwaved crap but old fashion home cooked meals, meat , taters , corn, the stuff most of us were brought up on.
But sadly i know of several parents that say they dont have time and just buy the kids something to eat on the way home, its not the fact that they don't have time, its the fact that they wont take time, or make the time.
Call me old fashioned but meal time is what makes a family, you are sitting at a table or in front of the tv watching the new episode of simpsions. Home cooked meals with everyone eating and interacting.

They dont get soda that often, or other sugary drinks, i'd challenge the govt to make a better meal than i do for them. Because i'm sure there is no way they could.
as far as variety, we stick to the basics but every so often i throw something unusual in there for them, home made fried rice, Frog legs (still to come should be interesting, and for those that cringe at that though, you should try them) Elk, Deer when its in the freezer. I'm of the type that i will try anything once..

I'm kind of on the line, because i know i do right by the kids and make sure they have a balanced nutritional meal, but i see many that do nothing but eat fast food all the time, which we all know is not healthy.
The problem is once you open the door where dose it stop.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:39 AM
reply to post by Planet teleX

You missed the point.


Schools should be controlled by the local people that PAY for them and use them. The federal board of (mis)education is one of many that should be abolished.

Wanna help the economy? Strip about 80% of the power from the fed.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in