New York school drops Michelle Obama lunch standards: Kids too hungry

I can't wait for the Obamas to come out and say "WE ARE GOING TO FORCE ALL REPUBLICANS AND TEA-PARTIERS TO BREATHE OXYGEN!!!!...I wonder how many republicans we could get to change over to another gas?

reply to post by muse7


Them deep fried butter sticks sound mighty tasty right now..... No, you don't have to have fried Twinkies and pizza Popsicles ready to go in the lunch line, just offer a variety. Most kids, then and now, like a choice. It doesn't have to be a large variety. Hell, it could be the same caloric intake with similar nutrients, just options. They would've been happy just given the "illusion" of choice. Being married to the president, Michelle Obama should be familiar with that concept by now...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I think the main point for my own thinking is simply this. When did every school down to the small town level come under the dictates and mandates of what Washington politicians and do gooders decide is a "good menu" for all 50 states?

This is for federally funded school lunch programs. Taxpayer dollars. What happened is that schools which once took that money and found local foods and built thier own menu's etc now simply use one of a few Mega-Corporations that provide industrial "food", that can be considerd food only in the loosest definition of the word. It contributes to a genuine obesity crisis amongst our kids.

Taxpayer dollars paying large corps supplying the cheapest materials they can engineer and get away with it.

Jamie Oliver summed it

Oliver declared that "the food companies of America own you," adding that "These moron frozen food companies -- pizza industry, french-fry industry -- have basically bought, bribed, bullied Congress, who have completely let everyone down, into basically making it okay to feed [students] french fries every day."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You know what really grinds my gears, the double standard with some of the people here, the whole "you can't tell me what i can do to my body but i will tell you how to raise your child." Just sickens me.


sorry for the rant just had to get it off my chest

reply to post by jimmyx


I'm sorry Jimmy, but the suggested Food Pyramid and Dietary concepts that have been supported by dietitians and doctors for years have not been forced down the throats of the nation's children under penalty of law to the schools if they fail to hold fast to the decree that came from, in part, Michelle Obama personally.

WASHINGTON — Hoping to combat the growing problem of childhood obesity, the Obama administration on Wednesday announced its long-awaited changes to government-subsidized school meals, a final round of rules that adds more fruits and green vegetables to breakfasts and lunches and reduces the amount of salt and fat.

That first part is kinda neutral. It could just be a member of his Administration, not him or his wife personally....then we get to the next part.

The rules were announced by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Michelle Obama at Parklawn Elementary School in Alexandria, Va.

Well, that sure clarifies the juice behind the lunch, doesn't it? Oh, there is more to support this crazy notion of thinking it was the President and First Lady to come up with the METHOD of FORCING an old idea on an unwilling public (Notice the words I emphasized....since you seem to be under the impression I honestly wasn't aware of previous dietary suggestion in this nation)

The rules are the first changes in 15 years to the $11 billion school lunch program. They will double the amount of fruits and vegetables children are served in school and will require that all grains served are whole grains.

All milk served must be low fat, and for the first time the rules set limits on levels of salt and trans fats. They also set a minimum and maximum calorie intake per day based on student age.

The government estimates that the rules will add about $3.2 billion in costs to the program, about half the cost of the proposed rules that were blocked last year.

Source

Dietitian's suggestions don't run billions of dollars. It takes a White House initiative to do that, as we clearly see it was done here.

So lets hear 3 cheers for the 3 billion we didn't have, to spend on food the kids won't eat, for goals that can't be met. It's Government in action, and just a little more warped and ignorant than usual....but not by that much, to be fair.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

This really sickens me. We have a nation of little fat future diabetes cases and we come out with a menu to make them not so fat and diabetic. They complain. "Waah... these aren't Twinkies and pizza! Waaaah this is enough to only feed one normal child!"

So what do we do? We give them back their pizza and soda. Freakin' disgusting. Any parent who can't get their kid to eat a carrot over a hot dog is not trying hard enough. It's their lives we are talking about.

I agree that obesity is a problem and that children should be taught an encouraged to eat healthier. However, I disagree with some of your other comments (and quite a lot of the comments from some members in this thread.)

Growing, active teenagers can actually require as many or more calories per day than an adult, first of all. Second of all, it is healthiest for a person to get more of their calories earlier in the day (breakfast, especially, and lunch) than dinner or late night snacks. Furthermore, diets like this should be formulated by nutritionists, not politicians.

And anyone who has dieted can tell you that how you provide the calories (which foods you choose, and actually, for that matter, even having a choice, or feeling like you do can go a long way toward feeling satisfied by a diet. Keep in mind that we're not just talking about small children here. Teenagers are a bit rebellious by nature-- and food can be a sensitive subject. Tell a teenager they can't do something, and that often makes them want it more. I do not think that "forcing" kids is the right way, at all.


(Again, I'm not talking about small children, and making them eat vegetables here. I don't entirely agree with forcing your kids to eat exactly as you choose, but I do agree with making them try a wide variety of veggies and making them regularly eat at least some veggies. However, I think parents who take on the "this isn't a restaurant" attitude are quite honestly ego-tripping and passing on a memetic virus they probably caught from their own strict parents.)


Point being, there are better ways to do this. I'd like to learn more about this diet, so i can decide just how good or bad it is. (I did study nutrition in college-- and I did quite well, I might add.) But from the little bit I learned from the article quoted in the OP, it's not looking good:

The district lost about $100,000 trying out the federal menu, which offered such meals as “part” of a chicken patty on a minicroissant, EAGNews.org reported. “Students felt they weren’t getting good value for their money,” Ms. Boehm said in EAGNews.org. “The high schoolers especially complained the portion sizes were too small and many more students brought in lunch from home.”

So for those of you who are criticizing these kids, and calling them fat and saying they just want to eat junk food-- I'll listen to your opinion when you spend a couple weeks or months eating only "part of a chicken patty on a minicroissant" for lunch. Nutritious and filling, I'm sure....

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I think the main point for my own thinking is simply this. When did every school down to the small town level come under the dictates and mandates of what Washington politicians and do gooders decide is a "good menu" for all 50 states?

Federal funds...Taxpayer dollars...put another way...why do conservatives champion drug testing of welfare recipients under the heading of it's our money...but think that the gov. should have no say in wether federal taxpayer dollars doled out to schools is given to a mega-corp for the cheapest crap able to pose as food or actual FOOD?

For effs sake....If conservatives are going to demand that you get sick and die if you can't afford a doctor...can they at least allow the federal government to try and prevent it's funding being spent on food that gives kids diabetes, heart disease and other maladies?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
KIds who are athletes need MANY more calories than Michelle Obama's version of lunch.
The kids and the parents know what they need. Not the White House.

Aren't we discussing school lunches? I was unaware that parents and kids set the school menu previously.

Based upon my observations, Americans are getting fatter and fatter. I do commend Ms. Obama for her initiative,
But I think it could of be executed and conceived in a better fashion.

Originally posted by babybunnies
American kids have become used to portion sizes that are FAR larger than what should be considered normal.

Yes, they're complaining of being hungry, because they're used to lunches of 1,000 calories + of deep fried, high fat, high carb, high sugar meals.

When you cut 1,000 calories to 300 - 500 calories, then yes, kids are going to be hungry, especially if they don't eat the high fibre vegetable portion of that meal. I suspect these kids are eating the protein portion of their meal and throwing out the veggie and fruit portion that is designed to be slow absorption to keep them full, then complaining that they're hungry.

Yeah, except for the part where growing, active teens can require as much or more than an adult... as many as 2000 to 5000 calories per day in order to provide for healthy growth and all their energy needs. The caloric levels you're talking about are closer to an adult who's trying to watch their figure. Female adult, at that.

Originally posted by jimmyx
I can't wait for the Obamas to come out and say "WE ARE GOING TO FORCE ALL REPUBLICANS AND TEA-PARTIERS TO BREATHE OXYGEN!!!!...I wonder how many republicans we could get to change over to another gas?

Haha, it is so crazy it sounds true.

America needs to be fat, sick and mentally lethargic, any other way is anti freedom.

reply to post by Indigo5

Thanks for that...so we are the SECOND fatest nation IN THE WORLD...by point 8 of a percentage point! Obviously we no longer have an issue.

Oh?

Forgot about immigration reform

We're number 1
We're number 1.

Awe just think of the healthcare burden that puts on the rest of us.

Originally posted by Mythos13
You guys missed the most important reason for the switch back. Money. The school lost money, money is more important to them than the health of our children. So in order to get that money back they pander to the kids, and give them what they want.

The only way schools can lose money on meals is if they make too much. Schools should be teaching the kids, not feeding them. So if they're losing money on feeding them, that means there's less money for teaching.

Which battle would you rather wage?

Originally posted by thesaneone
You know what really grinds my gears, the double standard with some of the people here, the whole "you can't tell me what i can do to my body but i will tell you how to raise your child." Just sickens me.


sorry for the rant just had to get it off my chest

nobody is telling you how to raise your child, this is a federal government lunch program, that helps out community school districts by paying for lunches....make your child a lunch everyday and send it to school with them....IT'S FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR LUNCH, FOR CHRISTS' SAKE!!!....they are not there to raise your kid.

reply to post by Indigo5


Well, you're wandering clear off topic with the drug testing but for what it's worth, I think the Florida experiment on that showed it's worthless and costs far more than anything ever saved by the effort . You make a habit of lumping conservatives together as if we're all checking in with the same dispatcher for our set of talking points, promptly each morning.

I suppose you are beholden to Democratic leadership to never stray from the party line and always say precisely what the party demands you say. Right?

Silly ..isn't it? Outright stupid to say and suggest ...huh? It's just as silly to say about conservatives though, and that's the point here.

The School Lunch program isn't right or left. It's Federal vs. Local and the LOCAL kids don't care for the Federal food. I think the only ones who matter here have voted with their stomachs and it wouldn't seem to have been a close one. The kids are damn sure too young to be deciding to go hungry on party line motivation so that really is about as out of place here as it gets.

Not every topic and every beef with Obama is with the Democratic Party. In fact, these days, few of them really are. Bush went Socialist and Liberal like nobodies business when he entered his lame duck term and didn't give a damn about nationalizing half of industry if that's what it took. That wasn't partisan either. It was one President who had NO respect for limits, if he even knew where they were at all.

Now we have a second one with 3 more years left to go. Oh what fun.

reply to post by jimmyx

make your child a lunch everyday and send it to school with them....

That will work fine....if they are legally permitted to pack a lunch. Not every district even allows a home lunch to cross onto their property anymore. In some cases, these are LITERALLY captive audiences to the menu decreed in Washington with no OTHER option available.

Chicago Public School Bans Home-Packed Lunches

It's a more complex situation than you're suggesting here, to be sure.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by jimmyx

 

make your child a lunch everyday and send it to school with them....

That will work fine....if they are legally permitted to pack a lunch. Not every district even allows a home lunch to cross onto their property anymore. In some cases, these are LITERALLY captive audiences to the menu decreed in Washington with no OTHER option available.

Chicago Public School Bans Home-Packed Lunches

It's a more complex situation than you're suggesting here, to be sure.

And even if home made lunches are acceptable, they're often scrutinized as to what's inside.
Cookies? - out
Fruit roll-ups? - out.
et cetera.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
kids don't care for the Federal food. I think the only ones who matter here have voted with their stomachs and it wouldn't seem to have been a close one. The kids are damn sure too young to be deciding to go hungry on party line motivation so that really is about as out of place here as it gets.

Agreed on most of the rest of your post...or at least in sentiment.

As far as this...letting children, who by nature have low impulse control, decide what to eat...in the age of industrial...salt and sugar and fat...is not right.

Industrial food manufacturers can and most often DO create things that taste wonderful, but are horrible for you.

There was a time in our not to distant past when kids ate what was grown on the farm, not in a lab whose goal is CHEAPEST...and TASTIEST.

It's effen whole generations. That's just what I believe...and you are right, it should not be a left/right discussion, but that is sure as heck what it has been made into in the FR Media.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


ok, fine....have the republicans in congress cut all school lunch program funds, if you are so adamant about it. maybe you can have Mcdonalds, Taco Bell, and Burger King with franchise outlets in each school. in fact, all republican children should be allowed to all the crap food they want to ingest....it's all about liberty and freedom, right? .....so go for it.

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

ok, fine....have the republicans in congress cut all school lunch program funds, if you are so adamant about it. maybe you can have Mcdonalds, Taco Bell, and Burger King with franchise outlets in each school. in fact, all republican children should be allowed to all the crap food they want to ingest....it's all about liberty and freedom, right? .....so go for it.

At least the kids will eat the food! With the money we save we can purchase them all
Hover round scooters for graduation!

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

ok, fine....have the republicans in congress cut all school lunch program funds, if you are so adamant about it. maybe you can have Mcdonalds, Taco Bell, and Burger King with franchise outlets in each school. in fact, all republican children should be allowed to all the crap food they want to ingest....it's all about liberty and freedom, right? .....so go for it.

Actually, if I had my way, the federal Department of Education would be disbanded outright and never reformed in any way in the future. The feds have taken a decent education system and run it so far into the ground that we're now graduating adults who cannot functionally read or do basic math. Graduating now...that doesn't count the drop outs who never even got that far.

The hyperbole about fast food outlets is just that tho. Hyperbole and not very creative anyway. I don't know ANY parents who would choose to have their kids pigging out on Taco Bell tacos and Pizza Hut slop every day for lunch.

If the Feds would get OUT of our classrooms and lunchrooms, we actually DO elect school boards for a reason. There really ARE State boards of education for good reasons as well. These people all do jobs that Washington just figures they can do better ...and seem to prove they can't on every attempt.