• 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!

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

That 70% claim comes from a credible news source.
This deserved it's own reply as the statement quoted is so absurd.

The credibility of the news source is not in question. Duh!
The news source's credibility has no bearing on the 70% claim. Duh!

And this is what you said earlier.
According the OP article 70 percent of the kids like the healthy food. So the idea they are not even taking it is absurd.
Two things are wrong about the above quoted statements.

1.) The first claim is absolutely false.
According to the article in the OP, school administrator's opinion, is that 70% generally like it. D'oh! :doh
The administrators opinion of what they believed the students opinion were. Duh! That is some crazy stuff there.
But it is not the students opinion.
Which should put an end to the nonsense in this thread.


NA-CC028A_TASTY_G_20140721183604.jpg

And kids generally stop complaining when they realize things aren't going to change.
So failing to continue complain is not an indicator that they "generally" like it. "Generally"! iLOL :lamo



2.) Another absurd statement, as the article itself acknowledges what is already known and reported upon.
The peer-reviewed study comes amid concerns that the regulations led schools to throw away more uneaten food and prompted some students to drop out of meal programs.
 
By the FACT that you wholeheartedly support the school lunch program but, even given the KNOWN abuses of the EBT/Food stamp programs you DONT support ensuring people in homes receive those same wonderful and nutritional benefits. In other words from your direct stated comments.

I posted that there should be restrictions on what can be purchases with food stamps. You are freaking out over nothing.
 
I posted that there should be restrictions on what can be purchases with food stamps. You are freaking out over nothing.
MASSIVE restrictions...like...only what is authorized under the school lunch proposals. Right? Cuz...otherwise...they WILL be buying twinkies and chips...and thats just not healthy. Do it for the children.

"freaking out"... :lamo You people and your silly 'debate' tactics....
 
MASSIVE restrictions...like...only what is authorized under the school lunch proposals. Right? Cuz...otherwise...they WILL be buying twinkies and chips...and thats just not healthy. Do it for the children.

"freaking out"... :lamo You people and your silly 'debate' tactics....

You are aware that the school lunch program is much more similar to WIC than food stamps, right? Most people can qualify for WIC, while only the poorest people qualify for food stamps. School lunches are for all those students in public school, not just those that are poor.

If parents want their children to have junk food for lunch, they can send it (in the vast majority of schools), but the school has always had a say in what was served for lunch, and in fact, even the federal government has had at least a little say in it for quite some time.
 
that isn't what the term negative calorie means but way to distort the topic. neutral and negative calorie means that there is not enough calories in a food item
to over come the thermic energy that it takes to digest it.

IE a piece of celery has 4 calories but it takes your body 6 calories to consume and digest it then that is a loss of 2 calories at worst you take 1 calorie from digestion.
it is why dieters eat a lot of fruit, vegtables, and protiens. because it forces their body to consume more energy. it helps in the dieting process.

The lunches are are serving are 750 max calories but when their body is using 20-30+% of that to consume the food there isn't much left over.
this leaves people hungery later on.


"Foods that are claimed to be negative in calories are mostly low-calorie fruits and vegetables such as celery, grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, broccoli, and cabbage.[2] There is no scientific evidence to show that any of these foods have a negative calorific impact.[3][4] Celery has a thermic effect of around 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A stalk of celery provides 6 kcal to the body, but the body expends only half of a single calorie digesting it.[2][5] Even proteins, which require the most energy to digest, have a thermic energy of only 20%–30%.[2]

Diets based on negative-calorie food do not work as advertised, but can lead to weight loss because they satisfy hunger by filling the stomach with food that has a lower calorie count per volume.[2]"
Wikipedia
 
You are aware that the school lunch program is much more similar to WIC than food stamps, right? Most people can qualify for WIC, while only the poorest people qualify for food stamps. School lunches are for all those students in public school, not just those that are poor.

If parents want their children to have junk food for lunch, they can send it (in the vast majority of schools), but the school has always had a say in what was served for lunch, and in fact, even the federal government has had at least a little say in it for quite some time.

The federal government has influenced school lunch menus for a long time by providing "surplus" food to schools for free or a discounted price. When I was a kid we were given a lot of raisins due to that program and the 1970s government cheese surplus also had an impact in schools.
 
The federal government has influenced school lunch menus for a long time by providing "surplus" food to schools for free or a discounted price. When I was a kid we were given a lot of raisins due to that program and the 1970s government cheese surplus also had an impact in schools.

I remember government cheese.
 
You are aware that the school lunch program is much more similar to WIC than food stamps, right? Most people can qualify for WIC, while only the poorest people qualify for food stamps. School lunches are for all those students in public school, not just those that are poor.

If parents want their children to have junk food for lunch, they can send it (in the vast majority of schools), but the school has always had a say in what was served for lunch, and in fact, even the federal government has had at least a little say in it for quite some time.
Not the point. Our concern should be for their health and well being and frankly, too many people on government food assistance prove themselves to be lacking in the judgement department. Better to provide for them prepackaged meals that meet those school nutritional guidelines. And look at all the time and money it will save them not having to go shopping. Or for that matter cooking. AND...we can create some jobs for those doing the food packaging. This line of thought is win, win, win, win, WIN.
 
The federal government has influenced school lunch menus for a long time by providing "surplus" food to schools for free or a discounted price. When I was a kid we were given a lot of raisins due to that program and the 1970s government cheese surplus also had an impact in schools.

Influence is not quite the same as having a say in it. In fact, in general the only real way for a parent to have full control over what their children are being fed for lunch is for them to feed their children the food at home or at least in front of the parent. Otherwise, the school has at least some control over what your child is given to eat.

Either way you go though, the government has say over what is served in school lunches. Some more local governments were already deciding to implement healthier foods only in their lunches (hence the school that banned lunches from home) before the federal government got involved.

I don't agree with everything the federal government has ever done. Some of it is just plain stupid and it is almost certain that more in the future will be stupid. However, this particular case is not one of those. This is a case where the federal government is not wrong in setting guidelines for what schools should be feeding children for lunch (at least as far as what the schools are offering) or offering students to purchase at school because healthy kids learn better. Even if the kids aren't eating all the healthier foods every single time, they at least will eat them part of the time which will help them get through more days better fed, which means they are more likely to learn. If parents choose to send food instead, no one is really hurt by this.
 
Not the point. Our concern should be for their health and well being and frankly, too many people on government food assistance prove themselves to be lacking in the judgement department. Better to provide for them prepackaged meals that meet those school nutritional guidelines. And look at all the time and money it will save them not having to go shopping. Or for that matter cooking. AND...we can create some jobs for those doing the food packaging. This line of thought is win, win, win, win, WIN.

Food stamps has nothing to do with school lunches though. You are wrongfully trying to connect the two things together to distract from the actual debate. Some people would absolutely agree that food stamps should be limited to only certain, very healthy foods, but it simply is not going to be as easily achievable to enact these restrictions on food stamps (politically speaking) as it is to enact healthy choice restrictions on students in public schools because public schools are run by the government whereas individual households are not. Every student has the same basic options to at least a degree that is enrolled in public schools, the healthy foods, no matter the income level of the parents, especially if even the snacks available for purchase at the school are only healthy options.

Your food stamps argument is no less valid if the schools went back to less healthy food guidelines. There are still going to be just as many people in support of limiting food stamps to be used on only healthy food as before, and the same will be true for those who believe there should be no restrictions. Food stamps are not seen as something to keep a person healthy, but to actually keep them fed. You want such restrictions in place, find some hard data that shows that people who eat healthier are more likely to find work that will get them off of government assistance, with data that shows that it is the healthy eating (not other factors) that result in this. We have such data for students eating healthy and learning in school.
 
Food stamps has nothing to do with school lunches though. You are wrongfully trying to connect the two things together to distract from the actual debate. Some people would absolutely agree that food stamps should be limited to only certain, very healthy foods, but it simply is not going to be as easily achievable to enact these restrictions on food stamps (politically speaking) as it is to enact healthy choice restrictions on students in public schools because public schools are run by the government whereas individual households are not. Every student has the same basic options to at least a degree that is enrolled in public schools, the healthy foods, no matter the income level of the parents, especially if even the snacks available for purchase at the school are only healthy options.

Your food stamps argument is no less valid if the schools went back to less healthy food guidelines. There are still going to be just as many people in support of limiting food stamps to be used on only healthy food as before, and the same will be true for those who believe there should be no restrictions. Food stamps are not seen as something to keep a person healthy, but to actually keep them fed. You want such restrictions in place, find some hard data that shows that people who eat healthier are more likely to find work that will get them off of government assistance, with data that shows that it is the healthy eating (not other factors) that result in this. We have such data for students eating healthy and learning in school.
I am absolutely trying to connect the two and really...they ARE the same thing...merely different programs.they serve the same purpose. One love. Do it for the children. I cant believe you would fight this.
 
This deserved it's own reply as the statement quoted is so absurd.

The credibility of the news source is not in question. Duh!
The news source's credibility has no bearing on the 70% claim. Duh!

And this is what you said earlier.
Two things are wrong about the above quoted statements.

1.) The first claim is absolutely false.
According to the article in the OP, school administrator's opinion, is that 70% generally like it. D'oh! :doh
The administrators opinion of what they believed the students opinion were. Duh! That is some crazy stuff there.
But it is not the students opinion.
Which should put an end to the nonsense in this thread.


NA-CC028A_TASTY_G_20140721183604.jpg

And kids generally stop complaining when they realize things aren't going to change.
So failing to continue complain is not an indicator that they "generally" like it. "Generally"! iLOL :lamo



2.) Another absurd statement, as the article itself acknowledges what is already known and reported upon.
The peer-reviewed study comes amid concerns that the regulations led schools to throw away more uneaten food and prompted some students to drop out of meal programs.


What credible news source do you have that these school administrators are lying?
 
What credible news source do you have that these school administrators are lying?
Dishonest argument, no one said they were lying.
Your claim was false, obviously because you didn't even understand what you were citing.
It wasn't the kids opinion. Just the administrators opinion of what they thought the kids opinions were. Duh!

D'oh! :doh
 
BS!
In this case, yeah it pretty much does, and is only one of the many possible explanations for the third party finding.

Especially as we already know what the coverage of this has been.
The students do not like it and the food is going in the trash.
And this is about the Administrators opinion. Not the actual students opinion. Duh!
So that 70% means diddly squat.


:lamo
You keep arguing in circles but get nowhere. That is because you are not paying attention.
Those are not just some images from the internet. But for the last one (which tells you where it is from), they are tied directly to twitter accounts of real people.
Now pay attention, because for some reason what has already been said needs to be repeated because you haven't countered it.
1.) "You suggesting that they may be fake is unsupportable, and w/o evidence to even suggest such, is an idiotic argument."


:doh
A great example of you not paying attention.

As I already stated.
And yet here you are trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say, and still trying to absurdly suggest something happened without any evidence to support it. D'oh!

1.You keep claiming that by teaching these kids about healthy food and that by serving healthy food that these kids are being brainwashed but while at the same time claiming these school administrators do not know what they are talking about.

2.You keep claiming these twitter or facebook posts are somehow true but yet no credible news source has done a story about those so called measly lunches. There are no school names or locations,or school lunch menus, there are no stories of parents angry over the claims their kids are starving at school.Don't you think if there really was some angry school kids pissed about their lunches campaign that there would be more than several photos?Don't you think they would be tweeting the school name and location? After all there is almost a hundred thousand public schools in the US.
 
1.You keep claiming that by teaching these kids about healthy food and that by serving healthy food that these kids are being brainwashed but while at the same time claiming these school administrators do not know what they are talking about.

2.You keep claiming these twitter or facebook posts are somehow true but yet no credible news source has done a story about those so called measly lunches. There are no school names or locations,or school lunch menus, there are no stories of parents angry over the claims their kids are starving at school.Don't you think if there really was some angry school kids pissed about their lunches campaign that there would be more than several photos?Don't you think they would be tweeting the school name and location? After all there is almost a hundred thousand public schools in the US.
No james, you are confused as to everything that has been said.
 
No james, you are confused as to everything that has been said.

How am I confused when that is what you are basically saying?
 
Was she eating a ton of short ribs?
Does she eat short ribs on a regular basis?
Is she supposed to walk around with a carrot in her hand and bean sprouts coming out of her ass 24/7 in order preach that kids should eat healthy food?
Is there a McDonalds on the back of a white house or on Airforce one?
Is Michelle one of those fat ****s on a scooter at wal-mart?
Is Michelle shopping at the big and tall stores?
Is Michelle walking around with a 44oz cup of soda from a gas station all the time?
Is Michelle eating at CiCi's pizza every day?
Is she always walking around with a candy store in her suit case?

Eating short ribs occasionally doesn't make you a hypocrite.Eating unhealthy food occasionally doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Getting caught in a photo-op eating unhealthy food does not help her lame cause,
 
It can make a big difference. A lot of kids only opportunity to eat healthy foods is at school

If they are not healthy eaters at home, what's served in school lunches is not going to make one iota of difference in whether or not they become obese. And if the kids just toss it in the trash, they are actually going to double up on junk food after school....as they will be hungry.

and I believe the schools have a responsibility to provide those meals to them.

If the kids do not like and eat those meals, the school is just wasting taxpayer money. Obviously some healthy choices should make their way into the menu, however school lunches have never been the issue. The real issue is too many of todays kids just spend too much time playing video games, watching tv, etc, and do not burn off the calories.

Also, the FLOTUS has every right to make this an issue she takes on. First ladies have always used their platform to take on non-controversial issues in order to try and better our nation.

It's not the first lady's place to shove her idea of healthy school lunches down the throats of the nation's school children.


It was not 'till the right wing media decided to attack her just because her husband happens to be a democrat that anyone thought this would be a bad idea.

Her husband being a democrat does not give her a pass on any controversial issue. If it were Laura Bush stepping into the school lunch program, I would be just as critical. I just do not like the concept of a nanny state. A child's nutrition is the parent's responsibility, not the school's.
 
And yet another one who doesn't realize what is being spoken about.
Or do you really not understand the word "like".
"Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches"
Which has nothing to do with whether or not the lunches are actually healthier.


Allow me to refresh your memory:


After being indoctrinated throughout the school year that the lunches are so much better, of course those results would be expected.

These lunches are "so much better". This is what those of us who actually understand reality call a "fact".

Now, I don't really expect you to understand this because you're a ****ing retard.
 
Getting caught in a photo-op eating unhealthy food does not help her lame cause,

Because you think that parents aren't free to take their children out every single day after school and load them up with junk food due to school lunch guidelines? No one has ever said that everyone has to eat completely healthy all the time, but that doesn't mean schools shouldn't serve healthy food. Parents can serve the unhealthy food, as they should be the ones making that decision. It is much better to serve the healthy food to all and have kids and parents upset about how it taste than to serve the unhealthy food, have unhealthy children and students less likely to be prepared to learn (healthier food leads to better learning), and parents that are complaining that the food is all junk food. Let the parents give the kids the junk food.
 
Back
Top Bottom