• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some school districts quit healthier lunch program

Back in the day, when we weren't slogging to and from school in the snow uphill both ways, we ate all the crap food and weren't as obese. Then again, we still had things like recess and gym class where we went and did physical activity, too. The food quality is important, but it's more than only the food.

Pretty much this.

Focus on kids getting physically active should be a bigger priority than "healthy lunches".
 
This is a shame. Our school food was absolute crap. Greasy cheeseburgers, pizza, fries, ice cream were all available ala carte every day. The main course of the day varied but was always just as unhealthy. And we had freaking snack machines with pop and candy on every floor. It needs to be changed, but its the status quo and schools get good money from pepsi to put those vending machines in. :shrug:
 
And I absolutely disagree that physical activity is a "bigger priority." You can't feed kids 2,000 calorie lunches every day and expect there not to be a problem. Our school lunches are horrendous. Diet is the biggest factor in weight gain, without question. There needs to be physical activity, absolutely. But every school in the country has sports teams and gym classes already. These should probably be looked at too, but the biggest and most effective change here will come from overhauling the food.
 
I cannot tell you how many peas and carrots have been thrown away at my school. It's ridiculous to put things on kids' trays that they KNOW they won't eat.
 
I cannot tell you how many peas and carrots have been thrown away at my school. It's ridiculous to put things on kids' trays that they KNOW they won't eat.
It's a rough patch. I know in L.A. they actually partnered with a chef to design the new healthier menu. The kids are still throwing the food away, whereas I bet some adults wouldn't mind eating the stuff. It's a matter of the tastes that children have. The healthier stuff like Caribean meatball sauce, beef jambalaya, vegetable curry, or pad Thai are too exotic for a child's pallet.
 
I cannot tell you how many peas and carrots have been thrown away at my school. It's ridiculous to put things on kids' trays that they KNOW they won't eat.

I think they will throw away peas and carrots if there are burgers and cheesy fries to eat instead. The trick is to make everything offered there healthy. Are these the mushy, salty, grey-looking peas and carrots from a can that I remember as a kid?
 
And I absolutely disagree that physical activity is a "bigger priority." You can't feed kids 2,000 calorie lunches every day and expect there not to be a problem. Our school lunches are horrendous. Diet is the biggest factor in weight gain, without question. There needs to be physical activity, absolutely. But every school in the country has sports teams and gym classes already. These should probably be looked at too, but the biggest and most effective change here will come from overhauling the food.

out of curiosity, what was the average nutrition profile of the old school lunches?
 
out of curiosity, what was the average nutrition profile of the old school lunches?

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. The "regular" hot lunch they served each day probably met some sort of low standards. (They did all have a fruit or a vegetable side dish option.) But that really doesn't do any good when you offer ala carte cheeseburgers, pizza, chicken fingers, fries, chips, candy bars, pop, and ice cream like my school did. Those were all available every day for kids to choose from, and they could have as much as they wanted. I don't think these foods could have met any sort of standards, but it was allowed because they offered the marginally healthy daily option. We were never offered any sort of nutrition information, so I really couldn't tell you.
 
Pretty much this.

Focus on kids getting physically active should be a bigger priority than "healthy lunches".

True. Problem is, NCLB is so fixated on test results that it has deemphasized everything else. It's OK to learn more slowly and thoroughly, and accepting the fact that kids can't sit in schoolrooms for 8 hours is part of that.

But the punitive conservative NCLB has poisoned the well completely.
 
KIDS ARE GOING HUNGRY and FOOD JUST GETS TRASHED. Isn't government wonderful?

ROTFLOL... typical of government. They stick their nose in, waste taxpayer money, and Fail. In most cases they just pour in more money, but it's not so easy here... you can bring a kid to ObamaMeals but you can't force them to eat. No eat, no money, no profit.

It's not so much what people eat that causes obesity, it's how much they eat.


Doh Homer... no chit.
When I was a kid if you was hungry you ate it regardless of whether or not you liked the food. That said if you are going to get kids to eat healthy then you should make the food look appealing and taste good. I thought about this for awhile and I do not believe it is the food that is the issue.The issue is the fact kids these days or more sedimentary.PE is no longer required,even thing kids are not required to participate and kids just do not spend that much time playing outside like they used to. When I was a kid I had mandatory PE classes, I played outside, I when bike riding, played during recess, climbed trees, went into the woods once in a while and I guarantee that I ate a lot more food that the kids today eat.
 
Back
Top Bottom