USDA secretary announces halt on school nutrition standards

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2017, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes they are. I believe I posed that exact question earlier when folks were upset about the guidelines being removed.

The point being they are not going to learn about proper nutrition because they have to each whole grain bread at school.

I would agree that they aren't going to learn about proper nutrition by just eating a healthier lunch. Of course, I was responding to you saying that the higher nutrition guidelines was forcing food upon them.

[fredtoast]

(05-08-2017, 02:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...oooorrrrr, IDK, maybe we could have a course called health or something like that where they learn about nutrition and then decide for themselves..........

Nah, let's force them

What is wrong with both teaching them and feeding them properly?

I hate to break this to you, but kids are forced to do all sorts of things they don't like at school.  They are forced to dress a certain way.  They are forced to follow rules and behave a certain way.

Do you feel we should do away with all rules at school just in order to get back at the Obama's for wanting America's kids to have a healthy lunch?

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2017, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually many of them are.  Some never get whole grain bread unless they are at school.

You know how I learned to like whole grain bread and skim milk?  Bt being exposed to them and trying them.


Are we really arguing about if our kids should get healthy food at school?

perhaps we're just arguing about feeding them:

"This announcement is the result of years of feedback from students, schools, and food service experts about the challenges they are facing in meeting the final regulations for school meals," Perdue said in a statement during a visit to Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Va. "If kids aren't eating the food, and it's ending up in the trash, they aren't getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the program."

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-07-2017, 07:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, but in many cases that hot lunch at school is the only meal they get.  That's another issue.


Which is why I'm surprised the GOP would back a plan that gives in to what the spoiled little brats want instead of a take it or leave it. 

Take it or leave it? This has more to do with how effective the program is and the amount of waste coming from it, and less about what kids want.

[Millhouse]

I dont have a problem with it getting rolled back unless there is overwhelming evidence it is actually reducing obesity in kids. I have a feeling it isnt while causing more waste than it should. Also not the biggest fan of the fed government being food nazis nationwide for the schools.

That said, I think schools should offer more fresh foods & fruits. Take out candy bar & soda machines as well (except for teacher's lounge). Replace them which schools have already done with healthier snacks and drinks to buy from. Keep that part of the Michelle order active.

Then maybe start something nationwide where kids are educated more than ever on eating healthier overall verses junk foods. Even have it to where it can be homework assignments throughout the year that their parents have to be in on as well, to help educate some of them too. to me that would be a more effective approach and more cost-effective in the long run.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Who lobbied for the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act? The USDA.

Why? Nutrition.

Who lobbied against the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act? The same USDA.

Why? Money.

Cafeterias are losing money.

[Benton]

(05-08-2017, 01:48 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I wasn't meaning to sound like I was complaining specifically about my old school lunches. It's more so that it's a disservice when kids associate healthy eating with cheap, bland, low quality food that is a $2 school lunch. If kids only knew the taste of pizza from school cafeteria pizza, most kids wouldn't be all that into pizza. However, most kids love pizza because they associate it with pizza you'd get from an actual pizza shop. 

The whole idea behind healthy school lunches is that it's probably the only healthy meal kids are getting that day. That's likely true. But now kids think healthy food is trash because they only know healthy eating from what they get in their school lunches. 

Ah, think I understand a bit better. And I don't disagree, most public school lunches are on the bland side. I guess I try to give them a little slack in the flavor area as they're trying to serve kids a full meal for under $2. My district it's $1.35.

I ate at a private catholic school, totally different. The ham and cheese was toasted, with butter. Prepackaged chips. Brownie. Totally different. Of course, those kids' parents were probably paying a tuition close to what I make in a few months.

[Benton]

(05-08-2017, 05:09 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I dont have a problem with it getting rolled back unless there is overwhelming evidence it is actually reducing obesity in kids. I have a feeling it isnt while causing more waste than it should. f

That's above my pay grade, but I doubt it's reducing much childhood obesity. It may teach them better eating habits and reduce it later, but that would take a lot of studying.

But I doubt it is doing the kids a lot of good now because it's one healthy meal a day, out of a bowl of Frosted Flakes, pop tarts, top ramen, etc. there's no nutrition guidelines once they get home and cheap and easy usually wins out. Sugar and sodium.

Personally, I'd rather schools take that money and put it toward a backpack program. Those, to me, make more of an impact.

[GMDino]

(05-08-2017, 07:41 PM)Benton Wrote: That's above my pay grade, but I doubt it's reducing much childhood obesity. It may teach them better eating habits and reduce it later,  but that would take a lot of studying.

But I doubt it is doing the kids a lot of good now because it's one healthy meal a day, out of a bowl of Frosted Flakes, pop tarts, top ramen, etc. there's no nutrition guidelines once they get home and cheap and easy usually wins out. Sugar and sodium.

Personally, I'd rather schools take that money and put it toward a backpack program. Those, to me, make more of an impact.

My wife is in charge of one of those programs for the county food bank where she works.  Lots of work, but such a good program.

[Benton]

(05-08-2017, 10:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: My wife is in charge of one of those programs for the county food bank where she works.  Lots of work, but such a good program.

Kudos to your wife. Backpack programs do more (in my experience) to make sure kids and their siblings get healthy meals than most things schools do. Give a kid some Nutella and fruit and some nutritional stuff to eat outside school. Even if it's just Campbell's vegetable soup in a can and some manadarin orange cups, it's better than top ramen and pizza rolls.

[fredtoast]

(05-08-2017, 03:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: perhaps we're just arguing about feeding them:

"This announcement is the result of years of feedback from students, schools, and food service experts about the challenges they are facing in meeting the final regulations for school meals," Perdue said in a statement during a visit to Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Va. "If kids aren't eating the food, and it's ending up in the trash, they aren't getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the program."

The answer is not to give up and return to feeding the kids crap.

The answer is finding healthy food the kids will eat.

But we have to make cuts somewhere to give corporations tax breaks at a time when the stock market is in a record growth spurt.

[BmorePat87]

The lunches taste like shit now. They also weren't that unhealthy before.

I don't know if this really achieved anything other than kids throwing away more food. The majority of kids who eat school lunch at my school are lower income and have some sort of assistance (free or reduced price). They're more likely to be fed crappy food at home, and that's likely the bigger culprit.

Or it's the fact that they eat hot cheetohs and drink soda for half of their meals. I don't have anything against only having healthy food options in the vending machines and snack lines or just only doing fries 1 day a week, but the meals themselves are inedible.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2017, 09:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The answer is not to give up and return to feeding the kids crap.

The answer is finding healthy food the kids will eat.

But we have to make cuts somewhere to give corporations tax breaks at a time when the stock market is in a record growth spurt.

Oh no doubt: I blame rich folks

[CageTheBengal]

(05-07-2017, 07:11 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Kids aren't obese/unhealthy because of what schools decide to put on a school menu. Parents are a major reason why their kids end up fat. Giving kids whatever they want so that they'll shut up has become an increasingly normal behavior when it comes to parenting. This is just as true for food as it is for technology. 

Yes son, you can have a double quarter pounder with 10pc nuggets and play with your $700 iPad if you'll just shut the hell up.

You have an extremely narrow view. What low income kids are getting Ipads just to shut the hell up?

What about the kids who eat one meal a day that basically gives them no nutrition? I guarantee they don't have Ipads and McNuggets raining down on them.

I spent the majority of my public school career at well of school and had plenty of options to eat. Your cheapest was the basic food option which is garbage but you could spend a little more to get healthy food and a lot of people did.

Spent the last 3 years of High School at small rural school in a small town and they only had the basic food option and the choice to buy snack food which was all provided by Coke and companies they had inter workings with because Coke helped fund the baseball field the school had. No other options except junk and you could spend a little more and buy more junk. A lot of these kids were on the free meal plan and had no choice regardless.

The world is a big place there isn't one solution to a problem most of the time. I guess you would have to acknowledge there was a problem though first.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-09-2017, 11:15 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: You have an extremely narrow view. What low income kids are getting Ipads just to shut the hell up?

What about the kids who eat one meal a day that basically gives them no nutrition? I guarantee they don't have Ipads and McNuggets raining down on them.

I spent the majority of my public school career at well of school and had plenty of options to eat. Your cheapest was the basic food option which is garbage but you could spend a little more to get healthy food and a lot of people did.

Spent the last 3 years of High School at small rural school in a small town and they only had the basic food option and the choice to buy snack food which was all provided by Coke and companies they had inter workings with because Coke helped fund the baseball field the school had. No other options except junk and you could spend a little more and buy more junk. A lot of these kids were on the free meal plan and had no choice regardless.

The world is a big place there isn't one solution to a problem most of the time. I guess you would have to acknowledge there was a problem though first.

Huh?

I feel like you missed the point of my post. I was not saying that every kid in every household gets a $700 iPad or that they all get McNuggets. My response was about parents not taking accountability for their kids eating habits (or just their kids habits in general) by offering them "unhealthy" things to keep them happy. 

But that's not to say it's all the parents fault or that this is always the scenario, just that parents are a problem in the equation. But I also think you're mistaken if you don't think low income families don't buy fast food or ipads.

Your post also makes the assumption that kids will actually eat the "nutricious" things that they're given under the program rather than throw it in the garbage. But I guess that point is kind of irrelevant to the issue overall which is childhood obesity and the effectiveness of fighting it through school lunch menus.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2017, 03:04 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Your post also makes the assumption that kids will actually eat the "nutricious" things that they're given under the program rather than throw it in the garbage. But I guess that point is kind of irrelevant to the issue overall which is childhood obesity and the effectiveness of fighting it through school lunch menus.

Here is the difference between you and I.

If there is a problem with the kids eating the healthy food then I say lets work on ways to make the healthy food more appealing.

You say "Just give up and let the kids eat whatever they want."

I honestly never thought I would be arguing with people about if it is a good thing to serve healthy food in school lunches.  But as soon as Michelle Obama got involve dthere was a cvertain crowd who opposed it.

[Millhouse]

(05-09-2017, 10:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The lunches taste like shit now. They also weren't that unhealthy before.

I don't know if this really achieved anything other than kids throwing away more food. The majority of kids who eat school lunch at my school are lower income and have some sort of assistance (free or reduced price). They're more likely to be fed crappy food at home, and that's likely the bigger culprit.

Or it's the fact that they eat hot cheetohs and drink soda for half of their meals. I don't have anything against only having healthy food options in the vending machines and snack lines or just only doing fries 1 day a week, but the meals themselves are inedible.

Thats the consensus around my school district here, and where the one where my brother teaches at. He said it isnt all that bad but he wouldnt eat it, but isnt as good as before tastewise. Their cafeterians try to make the best of it. And it wasnt exactly no Texas Roadhouse back then either lol. 

Now back when I was in HS back in the 90's, we actually had good food as I rarely packed. We had a salad bar that would do taco salads on T & TH, and then on Wed. was pasta day. Had a choice of two kinds of pasta, and a red or cinci chili sauce. And pretty good garlic bread. It was great, for school food. I pretty much ate that for those 3 days, and on M & F I would either get some Papa Johns, a big salad, or something from the regular line. Just glad I went to school before Obama lol.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-09-2017, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the difference between you and I.

If there is a problem with the kids eating the healthy food then I say lets work on ways to make the healthy food more appealing.

You say "Just give up and let the kids eat whatever they want."

I honestly never thought I would be arguing with people about if it is a good thing to serve healthy food in school lunches.  But as soon as Michelle Obama got involve dthere was a cvertain crowd who opposed it.

No, the difference between you and I Fred, is that I don't drink and post at the same time.

I didn't say, "give up and just let the kids eat whatever they want", I was actually arguing the very opposite of that.

[Rotobeast]

(05-09-2017, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But as soon as Michelle Obama got involve dthere was a cvertain crowd who opposed it.

I'm not a typo-Nazi, but I couldn't help but giggle thinking that the Russians had infiltrated Fred.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-09-2017, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the difference between you and I.

If there is a problem with the kids eating the healthy food then I say lets work on ways to make the healthy food more appealing.

You say "Just give up and let the kids eat whatever they want."

I honestly never thought I would be arguing with people about if it is a good thing to serve healthy food in school lunches.  But as soon as Michelle Obama got involve dthere was a cvertain crowd who opposed it.

Bingo.

Before the Obamas it was these darn kids wont eat there veggies. 

Now it is those darn liberals jamming healthy food down our kids throat. MAGA get my kid some cheetohs because it pisses off michelle obama