Michelle Obama's New School Lunches Are A Flop

page: 11
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I bet its all GMO garbage.

I have strong feeling that 'wheat' breads/buns, are the enriched wheat kind, which is gentically modified #, which has none of the nutrients real wheat has.

Oh yea and the kids are #ing hungry? GM food is pretty much 'empty' food, it doesnt 'fill you' and doesnt give you real nutrients, and the kids throwing food in the garbage wont help them either, thats making me smh




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


I agree that government regulation is not the cure for obesity, but making the daily meal more worthy of being daily and a part of the three meal a day program doesn't seem terrible.

Complaints aren't going away if the previous type of meals make a return. The complaints will just be about how disgusting and lackluster the nutritional quality of the food.

Kids so full that they don't complain about their stomachs are probably doing little in ways of learning how to build in ways that make food possible.

I'd rather have grown up on this type of food at school than chicken/soy patties, pizza, and brownies. I would probably have had a better school day regularly with the extra energy that would come from a lighter feeling stomach.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WSandAbnormal
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Who gets it free? I do go home and cook me 3 bowls of roman noodles(YUM) and 2 corn dogs when i get home.. sometimes I can't wait to eat so i eat at lunch and im still hungry!The school i go to serves oil free, fat-free hamburgers... they don't serve regular fries anymore because it's too Fatty so now they serve sweet potatos.(which is nasty!) I wish they served right off the grill hamburgers and cook some scrambled eggs that has been messed with and with some cheese that doesn't have mold on them!!


Who gets what free? I'm sorry, Im not sure what you are referencing.

As to the rest of your post, this is, again, an example of being upset because they arent giving you exactly what you want.

Why cant people grasp that you are free to bring your own food, if you want? That there is nothing saying you MUST eat school lunches?

And frankly, if you are eating 3 bowls of ramen and 2 corndogs every day when you get home, you could probably stand to eat some healthy school lunches for a bit. Sounds like you are a heart-attack waiting to happen.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
When are parents as a collective going to realize that they are raising another generation of pigs, not children? Those meals look fine; their kids are suffering from consumerism-related diseases, like the gimme syndrome and iwanna disorder, and the mom,mom,mom disease. Spoiled brown-bag kids, victimizing their parents.

If the government had no limits to how smart they could raise their child citizens, and were not tied up with consumerist connections, I'm sure the best school lunches would be even better than this four-square plate happy thinking.

Ban kids under 7 years from going into any place with a cash register unless it's an emergency, before they become a bunch of walmartians.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


I have not seen a menu so lean since hearing about prison inmate stories.

When I was a kid, milk or cookies were a quarter, and lunch was a dollar, and you did not get to choose what to eat. This was the 1980s when ketchup was being considered a vegetable. Of course we took our lunch money and doubled it on the playground by buying candy or cinnamon toothpicks from the corner liquor store across the street. Sugar is a controlled substance for kids. Those who had money made more money. Kids dependent on the free lunch program had twice as much nothing, and were dependent on stealing and bartering to get their childhood status symbols.

The poorest meals I have ever seen were at soup kitchens, and it seems like they are more nutritious than that lean menu of 1 this or that. Beans and rice, or beans and noodles, or beans on bread. It was filling for hungry people. These are the days when a soup kitchen outside the school might have a better effect on needy families, if the food assistance cards are not enough.

Poverty is global, not just for a south. Other cultures have this hospitality act, where visitors get fed no matter the cost. What if it was an open kitchen for all kids, no cost? Why is cost an issue for children? Ah, bureaucracy.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wow, this is shades of bette days -- when we could argue about menus and not police states!

Sounds like a "budget and dietician pleasing menu" that isn't too great.

"Whole wheat" is about as good for you as white bread or just a lump of sugar. At least sugar doesn't have wheat in it. The entire field of nutrition is far behind the curve these days as food is more and more processed. It doesn't actually matter WHAT color your wheat is if it's been ground up. If it's not "whole grain" it's useless. So why bother with the wheat bread.

But I'm sure that many PTA ladies wouldn't be making such a fuss if it weren't for Michelle Obama. Did they not notice school lunches have been disgusting for years because of the lack of funding?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wow, this is shades of bette days -- when we could argue about menus and not police states!

Sounds like a "budget and dietician pleasing menu" that isn't too great.

"Whole wheat" is about as good for you as white bread or just a lump of sugar. At least sugar doesn't have wheat in it. The entire field of nutrition is far behind the curve these days as food is more and more processed. It doesn't actually matter WHAT color your wheat is if it's been ground up. If it's not "whole grain" it's useless. So why bother with the wheat bread.

But I'm sure that many PTA ladies wouldn't be making such a fuss if it weren't for Michelle Obama. Did they not notice school lunches have been disgusting for years because of the lack of funding?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


Ok.. Maybe some people don't understand the gravity of this situation when you think of the entire food system as a whole.. or the way that food is produced and processed in this country. Yes it more government meddling even though its just from the First Lady. But our Food system in this country quite possibly could be the worse in the world.. People in South America and Africa (yes Africa) eat better than us b/c they grow and produce all their own foods to eat. Yes, Americans are full and fat and aren't starving but we have entered ourselves into an epidemic of overweight and unhealthy diets. For peets sake, atleast Michelle Obama tried to make a difference. whether or not it worked is besides the point.. its a step in the right direction! I'm not for government interference, but sometimes its necessary to get people to change for the better.. especially in this instance where corporations have taken over.. Gees people are upset about government interference, well what about corporate interference? Corporations run this country more than our very own government.. its just car'blanche doing whatever they please and advertising their foods to the general public.. we can't go 5 minutes during a commercial break on Television without seeing some food commercial!!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
You eat to live, not to be "full". Many american kids are becoming fat slobs, and probably learned such from their parents.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I don't know why the OP says the lunches are a flop. They sound great to me. Of course, if the kids have been eating crap-for-lunch, their taste buds may not be used to good food... I wonder what they were eating before... I wonder what kind of food the OP feeds them.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Personally, I think Michelle Obama has a $$$ reasons for all this. You know about her connection to TreeHouse Foods, Inc., right?

She claims to have cut her ties, but at some point, Barack will no longer be president, and Michelle is an intelligent motivated woman. I'm sure she is going to want to stick her fingers back into the pie (no pun intended).



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I think obama supporters should encourage their children to eat healthy. I think those against Obama need to take a stand and give their children nothing but fried foods, sugary snacks, and soda's for their entire youth!

Make a stand.


(at least we will be able to easily spot the right wingers down the line..they are the ones requiring double seats and double cots in the hospitals after their heart attacks)


Children learn habits. Someone wants to change the grease and sludge served to kids and get them a bit more attuned with healthy eating...and there is resistance to this?
Your not supposed to eat until your literally bursting..thats our overindulgent culture that is teaching that, and its no wonder that the US is the -fattest nation on earth- a bunch of pigs in the mud.
So...now some want to what? complain that someone wants to change that? that many parents are horrible parents and need help.
Ya, the loudest complainers are typically the ones at fault in the first place...stop complaining, stick a donut in your facehole and shut up, you shouldn't have bred to begin with you unfit parent, now the state needs to help your dumpy butt raise your kid so he wont be a sponge off the healthcare system because of your failure..

Of course they don't want help and suggestions..they are too stupid and guilty to admit being a poor parent, so would rather shake their powdered sugar covered hand at the government and tell em to get out (in between bites of cheesy doodles and bacon).

Well don't worry...the gub-ment isn't going to force the food down your porky kids mouths..you can brown bag them as many sausage sandwiches covered in honey and chocolate as you want..I encourage you to frankly..

Darwin agrees.

-rant over-



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sandalphon
 

Well, beans and rice or beans and noodles falls far short of nutritional needs. In fact, there're several immune disorders and vitamin/mineral deficiency diseases that I can think of that would result if these meal choices became the main portion of your diet. Basically, eating well is expensive and there's no cheap meal. This can be said for other "staple" foods too. There's no such thing as "staple" in the human diet. The human body requires many vitamins and minerals and fats and proteins and other things from many different foods. This is why eating well is not cheap. We're omnivores, after all. Rice and noodles and potatoes and oats and beans are better fed to animals than humans, in my view. They're just as bad as cigarettes or the overuse of sugars in carb-packed foods. It's addiction.

I know the urge to find a silver bullet or a free ticket is tempting, but there's no better heaven than making the right choice. Making the right choice seems to be in short supply these days.
edit on 26-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


The French spend less than $2/day per child for food and each meal is a complete four course hot meal presided over by a local chef and uses all fresh ingredients, lots of herbs and seasonal vegetables. Each meal includes a little local cheese and fresh bread and closes with a light desert, with a rich desert once a week.


Yep.

Everybody is always too lazy to focus on the real problems, aren't they? "Conservatives" and "Liberals" alike are ALWAYS too lazy to do anything but look at the funding and budget numbers in aggregate.

It's not that it's "too expensive" to provide good food for our kids...It's that by the time we get done paying for corruption and grift at in the school district, municipality, county, state, and federal levels the $2 lunch becomes $14.95.

Same thing with healthcare. We can provide 100% coverage w/ a zero deductible for FREE in this country WITHOUT raising taxes. We just can't do it when the Pentagon pays $500 for a hammer and a box of Kleenex costs in the "free market" hospital inexplicably costs $28.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elton
The new requirements are not really much different from the old ones they slightly changed a few things, but I don't see anything to get angry about... (and the lunch/breakfast program is voluntary where I live)
source: www.fns.usda.gov...


That may be....but you're post lacks knee-jerk reactionism, panic, and delusional fear of "communists".



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by herbii
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 

Yes, Americans are full and fat and aren't starving but we have entered ourselves into an epidemic of overweight and unhealthy diets.


To the contrary...Americans ARE starving...even the fat and bloated ones.

There is a peculiar paradox going around which is well documented now in scientific and medical journals. Namely, that even as Americans keep getting fatter...they ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY are showing ever more indications of being malnourished.

How is that, you ask?

Easy. Because all of this processed garbage that we eat is composed of basically empty calories. It might be heavy in carbs, fats, starches, etc...but there are little to no NUTRIENTS in it. For example...even people who are "eating healthy" are not getting the nutrients they should be. The average nutrients per gram of fresh broccoli at they grocery store has decreased by 40% since the '70's because when farmers "fertilize" their fields they only worry about a handful of compounds such as nitrates, phosphorus, carbon, etc.

There isn't a large scale farming operation in this COUNTRY that ALSO makes sure to spread calcium, magnnesium, selenium, copper, iodine, iron, zinc, and chloride into the soil as well...not to mention the myriad of naturally occurring amino acids that soil is supposed to have in it by nature.

Instead this drive to "produce" is just focused on cranking out the most tonnage of a given crop. The result is stripped soil which is only producing approximations of the nutrition that given piece of produce should have.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by bjax9er
go figure

another flop, courtesy of the obamas.

this is what happens, when people who think they are smarter than everyone else, gain power.





...so the previous program wasn't a flop? Or maybe the one when I was in school in the 80's-90's wasn't a flop - you know, microwaved pizza with the lowest-possible quality ingredients, french fries, amd canned fruit in corn syrup for 3x the cost of bringing lunch from home.

The gov't isn't forcing anyone to choose their offerings, and the idea of children-haters ranting and raving to bring back their unhealthy choices is ludicrous. You want to raise your child on cheetos and hot-dogs, go for it - nobody is stopping you.


The programs biggest change is the removal of Sugary drinks, and candy machines. Along side recommendations to restrict or pull back access to student stores filled with candy. The school lunches was almost secondary. Kids are there to learn anyways, them being amped up on sugar only leads to distraction, and potential misbehavior.

Id like to also add, that it can be considered infringing on the rights of the parent, to sell products such as coke and skittles in school, if these parents wouldnt allow them in their own home, or for the child to consume. Many parents (like my dad) do not allow junk food in the home whatsoever, along with anything cooked ready to be microwaved (hot pockets, lean cuisine, style meals). So for all the Obama haters out there, trying to make this out to be the government coming in and messing it up for you, consider the people who dont live the normal life eating crap, but instead make a huge effort to feed their kids organic food, or gluten free whatever they want. This can go both ways.
edit on 26-8-2012 by SamLuv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamLuv



Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by bjax9er
go figure

another flop, courtesy of the obamas.

this is what happens, when people who think they are smarter than everyone else, gain power.





...so the previous program wasn't a flop? Or maybe the one when I was in school in the 80's-90's wasn't a flop - you know, microwaved pizza with the lowest-possible quality ingredients, french fries, amd canned fruit in corn syrup for 3x the cost of bringing lunch from home.

The gov't isn't forcing anyone to choose their offerings, and the idea of children-haters ranting and raving to bring back their unhealthy choices is ludicrous. You want to raise your child on cheetos and hot-dogs, go for it - nobody is stopping you.


The programs biggest change is the removal of Sugary drinks, and candy machines. Along side recommendations to restrict or pull back access to student stores filled with candy. The school lunches was almost secondary. Kids are there to learn anyways, them being amped up on sugar only leads to distraction, and potential misbehavior.

Id like to also add, that it can be considered infringing on the rights of the parent, to sell products such as coke and skittles in school, if these parents wouldnt allow them in their own home, or for the child to consume. Many parents (like my dad) do not allow junk food in the home whatsoever, along with anything cooked ready to be microwaved (hot pockets, lean cuisine, style meals). So for all the Obama haters out there, trying to make this out to be the government coming in and messing it up for you, consider the people who dont live the normal life eating crap, but instead make a huge effort to feed their kids organic food, or gluten free whatever they want. This can go both ways.
edit on 26-8-2012 by SamLuv because: (no reason given)



Okay if you say so, but the so-called healthier food is the same QUALITY food served in many prisons (aka the giant company, Sodexho), who also have contracts with many educational institutions. So I guess the "huge effort" by parents to insure their kids eat healthier food is a wasted effort at school, unless you also think our government is concerned with prisoners' health also! I've been told some pet foods are of better quality ingredients than prison fare!



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by elrem48
 


There are legal requirements for nutrition in prisons. So yes, they do care about prisoners nutrition.

Sseriously, do people bother to research at all before they speak?



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stonebutterfly
 
I agree, those lunches don't sound too bad. My daughter is starting kindergarten tomorrow and my biggest concern was the crap that the schools had been serving students in the last 15 years. Now it looks like they have a decent shot at proper portions and nutrition, just what is needed for good weight management and healthy living. The idea that we should be allowed to stuff our pieholes with whatever we want regardless of the risks has got to stop. If people can't take responsibility for what they do on their own then they definitely need someone to do it for them.





new topics
top topics
 
40
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join