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's New School Lunches Are A Flop

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+16 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:27 PM
Michelle Obama has endorsed the new school lunch guidelines, and in my small town, the new menus are a large flop. Parents were filling the small grocery store where I work after the first day of school buying the fixings for brown bag lunches. Besides the purchases, complaining was in abundance. Most parents I spoke with didn't mind the concept of healthier eating, but the menus leave something to be desired and are leaving the kids hungrier than ever at the end of the day.

"What's the point, if I have to feed them a meal as soon as they get home?" was a common response. My favorite comment was, "Well, I better fill 'em up, because the school sure isn't."

Some examples of the new lunches taken from my son's lunch calendar:
Tues. Hamburger on wheat bun, with no cheese; carrots and dip; orange
Wed. Soft taco on wheat tortilla, lettuce; tomato; refried beans; pineapple
Thurs. sloppy joe on wheat bun; salad; mixed fruit
Fri. Mini Corn dogs; spinach salad; pears

The serving sizes have been reduced, and I was shocked to hear that the same servings given to Kindergarteners are also being given to high schoolers. My son reported to me that the trash can was stuffed with uneaten food and kids were complaining to the teachers about being hungry very shortly after lunch. The number of students carrying lunch from home has been increasing daily and Michelle Obama would be livid if she saw the things parents were buying, I'm sure. I sold a lot of lunch meat and cheese, chips, Lunchables, and Little Debbies to the disgruntled parents this week. They were buying Kool-aid type drinks as well, so forget that skim milk.

This whole situation got me wondering, "What do Barrack and Michelle's kids eat for lunch?" Well, obviously not what the children of commoners eat. Their lunches at prestigious Sidwell Friends School are catered by an outfit called Meriwhether-Godsey. Apparently, the good folks at Meriwhether-Godsey believe there are no bad foods if eaten in moderation. Their motto is "fresh is best" and "can the can". Too bad our children can't say the same.

The truth is government regulation is never going to end obesity for children or anyone else for that matter. People are growing tired of the endless involvement of government in their personal business. Almost every parent that complained at the store blamed Michelle Obama for this mess. Whether Mrs. Obama acted alone or not, her face IS the face of this mess. She owns it and I wonder how it will affect her husband at the voting booth?" target="_blank" class="postlink"> bama-girls-are-having-for-lunch.php

+4 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:50 PM
Those lunches don't sound too bad. Tacos, corn dogs, sloppy joes - most kids like these things.

School lunches are bad regardless of the type of food. They can even make pizza taste bad.

+10 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:51 PM
Stay home and raise your own kids Mrs Obama. Stay out of the refrigerators of the citizens and stop talking about things of which you have no knowledge.

She owns it and I wonder how it will affect her husband at the voting booth?

We can only hope that it affects hubby just lose.


edit on 24-8-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:07 PM
Ahh... How many ways it is true? The Federal Government has absolutely no business of any kind in Education at the local level. They damn sure have no business micromanaging the lives of the children of this nation to the level of dictating the menus they eat from, out of Washington or the White House.

That's the State Government's job!

I'd also say Michelle has about as much business talking about healthy eating as Betty Ford had telling the nation to stop drinking. If one is going to preach it, they need to live it....and I've lost count how many candid shots the media have had now of Michelle with one piece of fatty, fried or just plain junk food crammed between her lips or on it's way up.

Heck...At least eat in private if eating crap is the order of the day WHILE telling the nation to do otherwise. Hypocrisy defined, IMO.
edit on 24-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

+1 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:10 PM
Soooooo, is Michelle a nutritionist, does she have a degree in nutrition or anything related to it? No she doesn't! IMO the dumb bi@@@ should keep her nose out of what I feed my kids for lunch, dinner, or breakfast! She, as well as her husband are hypocrites that think they can dictate to others what to eat while she sits at our house(the white house) and gorges herself on icecream, soda, and cheeseburgers.

Just because she is Emperor Obama's wife doesn't give her any authority to tell me what my kids have to eat for lunch. Maybe Michelle should concentrate a little more on how to dress and a little less on what my kids eat for lunch.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Nucleardiver because: (no reason given)

+42 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:40 PM
These lunches don't sound bad. And portion control is essential to being healthy. We eat extra large portions as Americans, cause we think eating till you pop is right. The sad thing is our kids are so used to eating junk and sugar they cant handle a decent meal. I mean really people are complaining that schools are feeding their kids healthier? Oh dear, lets just go buy crud and fill them up till they puke with it. An unhealthy lifestyle needs time to adjust to the new healthy items. So now Ms Obama is terrible for not shoving Little Debbie cakes and grease into their unhealthy butts?
Evil Obamas and their SPINACH!

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:41 PM
Lunchables? These parents need some education .
that crap wont fill up anyone

School lunches were always terrible in the 90s when i was a kid. I always ate a lunch from home

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:47 PM
Leave the kids alone FEDS! Let the multicorps screw them! McD for all schools!

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by phroziac

I agree about Lunchables. Most kids probably are hungry after eating those. My son carried his lunch a lot anyway, but I try to pack him a sandwich or spaghettios, cheese and crackers, and a few cookies or a snack cake. He gets better meals at home, but he is kind of picky and there isn't much that carries well that he will eat.

Working at the store, I'm privy to seeing a lot of what Americans like to eat. Unfortunately, it is a lot of junk. I ring up a lot of chips, our store's fried chicken, and pizza, but also a lot of bananas and potatoes too.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:34 AM
Honest to God, my 2 sons take MRE's for lunch about 3 days a week. They love them, plus the nutritional value of them is really good. They would rather eat Meals Ready for Ethiopians than what our school serves.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:50 AM
Gonna play Devil's advocate. Is there any real difference if it's Michelle's lunch, or the school's old lunch? One's healthier but less filling/appetizing, the other's pink slime. Is packing a lunch too much of a hassle if the issue is that important to you?

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:56 AM
The fat ass of hers doesn't know when to stop.
Thanks to her, there will be a black market for junk food in schools across America.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Daughter2
Those lunches don't sound too bad. Tacos, corn dogs, sloppy joes - most kids like these things.

School lunches are bad regardless of the type of food. They can even make pizza taste bad.

sounds exactly what we ate in elementary school years and years ago, people just like to complain.

+6 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:03 AM
When I was in school about 8 years ago, we pretty much had all of the MAIN entrees, the corn dog, hamburger, etc.. Only difference was, they were served with a bag of potato chips, and a small bag of either tatter tots or french fries. And a milk, your choice of plain, chocolate, or strawberry.

The meals have never been nutritionally sound. Or large for that matter. The OP complains about the kids not being full after. And it strikes me as odd that the party who supposedly stands for personal responsibility.. would then bang on Michelle Obama for not feeding their kids enough food?

How can anyone really be mad for trying to get children to have better eating habits when our country is bursting at the seams with obesity?

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You attack Michelle Obama for eating junk food on certain occasions.. I can see how you could look at that and cast judgement. However, I believe Michelle Obamas campaign isnt about adults changing their choices, but providing our children with better choices.. The same way some parents wouldnt allow a child desert, or candy at night.. But could partake themself.

This is about helping Americans make better decisions for eating. I wish in High School we had an option for a salad, or something that wasnt covered with cheese.. Our main options were, Hamburger, Bean/Cheese Burritos, Pizza, or something from the school store, which was stocked similar to the snack section at a 7/11 where I would spend my daily 3.00 my Dad gave me on a soda, bag of pretzels, and id keep a dollar every day and get starbucks on fridays haha.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by Nucleardiver

YES! Her clothing is definitely more important than the health of our children going to school.

The kids prefer the pink slime, come on Michelle, stop being so mean making them eat fresh fruit and whole grains!

Its not like this is a typical responce from a kid to reject the healthier option in favor of the salty sweet option. I mean come on.

Are you guys serious? This is exactly what I would expect to happen to ANY person who tried to switch a kid from the # they normally consume, to a healthier alternative. I mean, even adults hate that crap. Whats with ignoring that? and only trying to see this as an evil thing?

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by SamLuv

If I agreed to even the slightest extent that the Federal Government had *ANY* business even close to Education at the local level, I may see your point about Michelle having some place to voice more than a purely personal opinion on the eating habits of our Children. Previous first ladies have also had pushes on for better eating as well. Michelle isn't working a new idea by any stretch.

What *IS* new is the idea that menu options in the individual cafeterias at thousands of schools across the nation now come by the dictate of the White House and more directly, those under their direction within the executive branch of the FEDERAL Government.

You'd have to show me where in the Constitution it says something about Education direction and control. I missed that part..... Failing specific, outlined directions, there is another section that covers it. It's the 10th amendment and says the STATES, not the Feds are to have sole control over that which isn't already listed.

Hence.....We don't disagree on the need for kids to eat better and if my State Government started a push for menu changes, well, I'd either agree or I'd move to see a change in my state Government come the next election. State Government CAN be changed far easier than Feds..hence that 10th Amendment thing for details like education.

Michelle and her Husband can get the hell out of my local affairs any time now.....they're FAR FAR deeper than they have any proper or LEGAL right to be.

+1 more 
posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:29 AM
Without the direction of the 'White House' we have seen school lunches that have exploded the waist lines of our population, along with obviously other factors as well.

I think there is a lot of confusion about the WH role in this. You write this as though Michelle herself picked out the menu options. Which is untrue, its decided by each school district and their budgetary means, locally available food, and production capabilities. You see corn dogs in some states, and Curry Chicken in others. Its is requirements for certain nutritional requirements.. The government mandates fuel efficiency standards, and standards of quality for our medicines and for our Food.. Whats wrong with them saying if we are going to spend money on feeding kids in school, we need to provide better choices. Spend our money better?

This is not also meant to be a fix all solution to child hood obesity, it again takes work from all different angles, at home, at school, etc.

You say that previous First Ladies, or whatever, have nagged about the food issue before and done nothing.. I find it sad that we live in a world where you are safe from ridicule by standing aside and doing nothing, knowing there is a problem, than if you jump in and try and change things for the better.

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:18 AM
If you dont want your kids eating healthy, pack them your own home made lunch and send fatty off to school with leftover mac donalds and a ding dong to trade with a couple of ho ho's.... (pun intended...)

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by SamLuv

What we have here is not any difference in opinion on the need for kids to eat better.

I don't know what to say beyond this with people who see the Federal Government as the solution to a problem....ANY daily life. The Government sets fuel standards, so why not food? The idea that making this point is logical from your perspective in the first place, is where we are on such totally different sides of the street for world view.

I don't mean to be at all harsh about this, I'm just not sure how else to word it. There are a small handful of things the Federal Government should be or EVER should have BEEN doing in this nation. They are, clearly and without questions, outlined in the U.S. Constitution. What is not clearly and plainly outlined there...and EVERYTHING that falls outside those clear and very narrow outlines...falls into the control of each State as they see fit.

I happen to think Paul was 100% right ...and I mean Ron Paul not Paul Ryan.

Why should the tastes and appetites of Missouri be what your kids eat where you are? Why should a health kick in L.A. be what is forced upon those here in Missouri? ....and who in Washington has the right to tell either of us what our kids ought to have?

As one final thought.....It really should not be the Government at the State or even local level being blamed for the problem or asked to fix it when ultimately it comes down to parents and properly raising the kids. Kids taught to view and approach food responsibly won't tend to eat until they are overweight in the first place. Solving that requires serious and long term work and effort to raise a child properly though and parenting seems to be another area of life folks largely trust to others to handle for them.

That IS simple enough.....and I don't say I'm a perfect parent in that respect. I won't blame Uncle Sam though and I absolutely will not invite any more meddling from Washington on any level. in any way. We have FAR too much already.

edit on 25-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in