Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

ludin said:

Apples & Negative Calorie Foods | LIVESTRONG.COM
How Many Calories Does Digestion Use Up? | LIVESTRONG.COM

according to the second link if you eat fiberous foods you burn about 20% of the calories in digestion. this is why people on diets eat a lot of fruits and vegatables and protean, because just eating and digesting the 2 of them is about 50% burn off of the calories consumed.

that doesn't include exercise.

Click to expand...

First link: "...the term negative calorie is a misnomer because all foods contain some calories,..."

ObamacareFail said:

However the school lunches have never been the reason for childhood obesity. Too much soda pop and too many trips for fast food are the problem. It's the parent's responsibility, not the schools. The flotus is not going to make any difference at all in regards to childhood obesity. And it is not any of her business.

Click to expand...

It can make a big difference. A lot of kids only opportunity to eat healthy foods is at school and I believe the schools have a responsibility to provide those meals to them. 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 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.

Excon said:

:doh
You are just showing that you do not understand what you quote.
The topic is about "like".
It is indoctrination.



They are. But since you agree with it it is all fine and dandy with you.
Either you oppose a nanny State or you don't.


And? I never said it wasn't. But it is the definition.


Wrong. The images stand as is. You suggesting that they may be fake is unsupportable and w/o evidence to even suggest such, is an idiotic argument.
Nor do I have to provide a menu for the purposes they were used for.



Says the guy who provided such a nonsense post to begin with. :doh

Click to expand...

Again teaching kids about healthy food is not indoctrination.
Again a photo of alleged school food servings is not proof.Any schmuck can put stuff on a plate,photograph it,and upload it claiming that is from the school.
You keep claiming it's indoctrination but haven't offered any evidence of it.Saying you like or someone likes something is not indoctrination.

jamesrage said:

Again teaching kids about healthy food is not indoctrination.

Click to expand...

:dohAnd again. We are speaking about "like". Do you really not know that? You provided it, and yet you do not seem to understand that.

jamesrage said:

Again a photo of alleged school food servings is not proof.

Click to expand...

Oy Vey! It is evidence for what it was used to for.

jamesrage said:

Any schmuck can put stuff on a plate,photograph it,and upload it claiming that is from the school.

Click to expand...

:lamo And again! Your claim is baseless. You have no evidence to even suggest such.

jamesrage said:

You keep claiming it's indoctrination but haven't offered any evidence of it.Saying you like or someone likes something is not indoctrination.

Click to expand...

To the underlined - Wrong.
To the rest. The food is making it into the trash, the complaints are non-stop, and it keeps getting reported as just those things.
The 70% claim from what you provided flies in the face of what is already known. Of course a claim of "like" represents indoctrination.

ObamacareFail said:

Moochelle Obama

Click to expand...

Classy.

Hard Truth said:

Once you get hooked on facts you'll move on to science and even thinking. The next thing you know you'll start accepting scientific theories about evolution and climate change. That kind of dangerous thinking can lead to questioning religion and other traditional ideas.

Click to expand...

Well, that just won't do. I prefer to believe what the oil companies tell me.

Your Star said:

Yeah, I work in a grocery store, and it's just disgusting to have to watch people buy $50 worth of Red Bull on food stamps.

Click to expand...

I agree that such purchases should not be allowed on that program.

VanceMack said:

Huh...REEEEEAAAALLLLLLYYYYYYY. so...its OK to force a 'healthy school meal (that no one wants) on school chilluns, but not on recipients of food stamps, even though it s allegedly healthy and the right thing to do? Thats not at all shocking.

Click to expand...

Do you know how to read? How did you draw that conclusion from what I posted?

Kobie said:

Do you know how to read? How did you draw that conclusion from what I posted?

Click to expand...

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.

Hard Truth said:

First link: "...the term negative calorie is a misnomer because all foods contain some calories,..."

Click to expand...

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.

Your Star said:

It can make a big difference. A lot of kids only opportunity to eat healthy foods is at school and I believe the schools have a responsibility to provide those meals to them. 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 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.

Click to expand...

It only makes a difference if they eat it. which is the whole point. they are not eating it. they are throwing it away in the trash can.
why? the food in general stinks. they don't like it. schools have seen an increase of 2-3x the amount of food waste that they use to.

No i thought this would be a bad idea in general. schools know better what the kids will consume and not consume so it should be up to the local school system to decide what goes on the menu. not some politician thousands of miles away.

more so when she isn't forcing her own kids to eat the slop.

no they get bqq sandwiches, meatball subs ice cream, roasted chicken and a half a dozen other foods that violate her own law.
so evidently she isn't too worry about childhood obesity. she is a hypocrit nothing more. she eats more than 750 calorie lunches i garentee.

being elite must be good.

Excon said:

:dohAnd again. We are speaking about "like". Do you really not know that? You provided it, and yet you do not seem to understand that.

Click to expand...

liking something does not equate to indoctrination.

Oy Vey! It is evidence for what it was used to for.

Click to expand...

Photos of alleged school food don't mean dick.Are there some credible media sites to verify that these are actually school lunches and these are the complete meals?What about school lunch menus to back up the fact that these are real school lunches? Where are these schools that is serving these alleged school lunches?Is there any interview with the schools that are serving these alledged school lunches?

:lamo And again! Your claim is baseless. You have no evidence to even suggest such.

Click to expand...

You are saying that you are totally incapable of photographing food on a Styrofoam tray or finding pictures of Styrofoam trays with food on it? Look I found some pictures of Styrofoam trays with food on it.

To the underlined - Wrong.
To the rest. The food is making it into the trash, the complaints are non-stop, and it keeps getting reported as just those things.
The 70% claim from what you provided flies in the face of what is already known. Of course a claim of "like" represents indoctrination.

Click to expand...

That 70% claim comes from a credible news source.Where are your links?

ludin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except there is not a set amount of calories it takes to digest food. The calories it takes to digest food is a percentage of how many calories you are eating. So if you eat 4 calories, it might take .8 calories to digest that food (it depends on many factors, the main one being the person and their size and fitness level). The other 3.2 calories will have to be burned some other way. In reality though, unless you are eating nothing but these "negative/neutral calorie" foods, it won't matter because amount of calories needed for digestion is factored in to how many total calories you will need for a day or it is so insignificant of an amount overall that it simply doesn't make that much of a difference.

Negative Calorie Food Myths

roguenuke said:

Except there is not a set amount of calories it takes to digest food. The calories it takes to digest food is a percentage of how many calories you are eating. So if you eat 4 calories, it might take .8 calories to digest that food (it depends on many factors, the main one being the person and their size and fitness level). The other 3.2 calories will have to be burned some other way. In reality though, unless you are eating nothing but these "negative/neutral calorie" foods, it won't matter because amount of calories needed for digestion is factored in to how many total calories you will need for a day or it is so insignificant of an amount overall that it simply doesn't make that much of a difference.

Negative Calorie Food Myths

Click to expand...

yep and kids burn calories at a much faster rate than adults. more so at recess etc...
high school sports athletes burn it at a way faster rate. you are forgetting metabolism and a lot of other facts.

call them myths all you want to it won't change the fact that vegtables have little calorie content. same with fruit.
that the reason kids are going hungry is that they are burning through it faster.

1 hour recess or even a half our of recess where they are running and playing or gym class would burn the rest of those calories they consumed off and probably more.
that doesn't account for their regular metabolic rate.

again there are reasons that people on diets consume a lot of these low calorie food/and a lot of protien. it forces their body to consume energy to digest and metabolise all of it.
throw in a bit of exercise and they end up with negative calories.

once they get their metabolism going their consumption of these actually increases.

it makes enough of a difference that it is a staple in all dieting books and other nutrion books out there.
as stated this only works if they eat it. they are not eating it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...hool-lunch-due-michelle-obamas-stan/?page=all

321 school districts have quit the program due to the complicated and messy regulation that the program required.

this sums it up great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IB7NDUSBOo

ludin said:

It only makes a difference if they eat it. which is the whole point. they are not eating it. they are throwing it away in the trash can.
why? the food in general stinks. they don't like it. schools have seen an increase of 2-3x the amount of food waste that they use to.

No i thought this would be a bad idea in general. schools know better what the kids will consume and not consume so it should be up to the local school system to decide what goes on the menu. not some politician thousands of miles away.

more so when she isn't forcing her own kids to eat the slop.

no they get bqq sandwiches, meatball subs ice cream, roasted chicken and a half a dozen other foods that violate her own law.
so evidently she isn't too worry about childhood obesity. she is a hypocrit nothing more. she eats more than 750 calorie lunches i garentee.

being elite must be good.

Click to expand...

If a child is hungry, they are going to eat the food.

And those kids at public schools can get bbq sandwiches, roasted chicken, meatball subs, and other things from their schools (these are all things found on school lunch menus across the country, but special foods, such as expensive meats or cheeses or foods in general would never be found on lunch menus even without the rules because public schools can't afford those things). And it isn't a "law". It is a guideline. Violating it doesn't force a school to fact any sort of fine or charges. All it does is have the potential (likely dependent on severity of violation and/or how many times it has happened) to take the funding from those schools.

At the moment, this complaint looks much more like a complaint with private school privileges compared to public school. If people were more willing to give money to their schools, then they wouldn't have to get it from the federal government in these programs (some schools have opted out) and they could buy whatever they want to feed the kids in those schools.

And you have no idea what the calorie count of her lunches normally average. Plus, the maximum for high schoolers is 850, not 750. That is enough to get a meal (including a Big Mac) at almost any fast food restaurant.

School Lunch Showdown: 850-Calorie Meals Compared - ABC News

Several sit down restaurants (Applebees, Chili's) have meals under 500 calories that easily would work here.

Applebee's - See You Tomorrow

I could easily have my sweet tea with one of these and not reach 850 calories.

Chili's  Menu & Nutrition Information

ludin said:

yep and kids burn calories at a much faster rate than adults. more so at recess etc...
high school sports athletes burn it at a way faster rate. you are forgetting metabolism and a lot of other facts.

call them myths all you want to it won't change the fact that vegtables have little calorie content. same with fruit.
that the reason kids are going hungry is that they are burning through it faster.

1 hour recess or even a half our of recess where they are running and playing or gym class would burn the rest of those calories they consumed off and probably more.
that doesn't account for their regular metabolic rate.

again there are reasons that people on diets consume a lot of these low calorie food/and a lot of protien. it forces their body to consume energy to digest and metabolise all of it.
throw in a bit of exercise and they end up with negative calories.

once they get their metabolism going their consumption of these actually increases.

it makes enough of a difference that it is a staple in all dieting books and other nutrion books out there.
as stated this only works if they eat it. they are not eating it.

1M kids stop school lunch due to Michelle Obama

321 school districts have quit the program due to the complicated and messy regulation that the program required.

this sums it up great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IB7NDUSBOo

Click to expand...

And they are still getting the same amount of calories. It doesn't matter how low the calorie count is. They still have a minimum amount of calories they have to feed the kids.

The fact that kids are active is taken into account here. That is why you can base their calorie needs off of 1600 to 1700 for elementary school age children (older kids have PE, usually 2 PE credits are needed, not recess, and it isn't necessarily every day, especially with the different kinds of schedules high schools use). Yes, those facts are taken into account when they figure how many calories the average child/teen needs. All their calories should not be coming from a school meal. In fact, most of them shouldn't. Schools should be basing calorie needs of students off of the average calorie needs, not those who burn the most. The average teenager only needs about 2500 calories a day. They are offered 450-600 calories for breakfast, 750-850 for lunch by the school. At the minimums, that is 1200 calories, half of what they need. They will likely have an afternoon snack (another 300-400 calories). They will almost certainly have some beverage that is another 100 calories during the day. Dinner should be another 800-1000 calories. At the minimums, they are going to be just below their needs (and this is an average for girls and boys counted in that average). In reality, they shouldn't be only getting the minimums here, so long as they choose to eat the food offered. If they need more (play sports), they should be expected to provide their own. That is a reasonable expectation that has always existed.

Oh and do you know what tiny of a percent 321 schools is compared to how many public schools there are in the US? It is about 0.325% of the public schools.

roguenuke said:

If a child is hungry, they are going to eat the food.

Click to expand...

the link i posted says otherwise.

And those kids at public schools can get bbq sandwiches, roasted chicken, meatball subs, and other things from their schools (these are all things found on school lunch menus across the country, but special foods, such as expensive meats or cheeses or foods in general would never be found on lunch menus even without the rules because public schools can't afford those things). And it isn't a "law". It is a guideline. Violating it doesn't force a school to fact any sort of fine or charges. All it does is have the potential (likely dependent on severity of violation and/or how many times it has happened) to take the funding from those schools.

Click to expand...

no they can't because the food lunch act limits how much meat serving per week they can get. heck it limits how much meet serving they can't get in a meal. 1 meatball does not make a meat ball sandwich make. the ones that are serving that stuff are not adhereing to the school lunch program.

they either meet the requirements or they lose the funding. that is why 321 school districts including one in chicago has dropped out.

At the moment, this complaint looks much more like a complaint with private school privileges compared to public school. If people were more willing to give money to their schools, then they wouldn't have to get it from the federal government in these programs (some schools have opted out) and they could buy whatever they want to feed the kids in those schools.

Click to expand...

nope not at all i think that schools should be able to serve what they want to serve that kids will eat. a chicken nugget that is eaten has more nutrion value than apple sauce thrown in a garbage can.

it is about michelle's hypocrasy. i guess that is ok for us poor folks workin down here though. being elite must be great. do as i say not as i do.

And you have no idea what the calorie count of her lunches normally average. Plus, the maximum for high schoolers is 850, not 750. That is enough to get a meal (including a Big Mac) at almost any fast food restaurant.

Click to expand...

lol the big mac would go over better than the food they are serving in the cafeteria. you would probably hear cheers of rejoicing if they served big mac over the crap they are.

School Lunch Showdown: 850-Calorie Meals Compared - ABC News

Several sit down restaurants (Applebees, Chili's) have meals under 500 calories that easily would work here.

Applebee's - See You Tomorrow

I could easily have my sweet tea with one of these and not reach 850 calories.

Chili's* Menu & Nutrition Information

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Again you would probably have jumps for joy compared to the slop they are serving now that is being thrown away.

if you like food being thrown in the trash can then you continue supporting this bill.

you need to read the ABC. they would rather eat the stuff from mcdonalds and subway or KFC compared to that other list. i don't know any kid that is going to eat what is on the school lunch list or even most of it.

which is the whole point. THEY AREN"T EATING IT. IT IS GOING IN THE TRASH.

next year the schools have to serve all wheat items. which is even worse as some kids have glutton allergies or wheat allergies. they can't eat that sort of thing.

roguenuke said:

And they are still getting the same amount of calories. It doesn't matter how low the calorie count is. They still have a minimum amount of calories they have to feed the kids.

Click to expand...

ONLY IF IT IS EATEN. what part of that do you not understand. THEY ARE THROWING IT AWAY THEY ARE NOT EATING IT. so your point is entirely moot.

The fact that kids are active is taken into account here. That is why you can base their calorie needs off of 1600 to 1700 for elementary school age children (older kids have PE, usually 2 PE credits are needed, not recess, and it isn't necessarily every day, especially with the different kinds of schedules high schools use). Yes, those facts are taken into account when they figure how many calories the average child/teen needs. All their calories should not be coming from a school meal. In fact, most of them shouldn't. Schools should be basing calorie needs of students off of the average calorie needs, not those who burn the most. The average teenager only needs about 2500 calories a day. They are offered 450-600 calories for breakfast, 750-850 for lunch by the school. At the minimums, that is 1200 calories, half of what they need. They will likely have an afternoon snack (another 300-400 calories). They will almost certainly have some beverage that is another 100 calories during the day. Dinner should be another 800-1000 calories. At the minimums, they are going to be just below their needs (and this is an average for girls and boys counted in that average). In reality, they shouldn't be only getting the minimums here, so long as they choose to eat the food offered. If they need more (play sports), they should be expected to provide their own. That is a reasonable expectation that has always existed.

Oh and do you know what tiny of a percent 321 schools is compared to how many public schools there are in the US? It is about 0.325% of the public schools.

Click to expand...

it is small now but more and more schools are signing onto the same thing and are considering dumping the standards. why? they are seeing cost increases and revenue decline as more kids drop out of school lunch.

that is not a successful program that is a disaster. first time in 30 years there is a decline in the school lunch program even though more kids qualify. why is that? the food stinks and the kids know it and they are not going to even eat it.

ludin said:

ONLY IF IT IS EATEN. what part of that do you not understand. THEY ARE THROWING IT AWAY THEY ARE NOT EATING IT. so your point is entirely moot.

it is small now but more and more schools are signing onto the same thing and are considering dumping the standards. why? they are seeing cost increases and revenue decline as more kids drop out of school lunch.

that is not a successful program that is a disaster. first time in 30 years there is a decline in the school lunch program even though more kids qualify. why is that? the food stinks and the kids know it and they are not going to even eat it.

Click to expand...

Some of them are throwing it away, not all. And those teens that do, that is on them. If they were truly hungry, they would eat it. They are teenagers. They should be held responsible for their own decisions, including the decision to not eat what they are given for lunch.

If their problem is "cost increases", then it isn't likely that they would give up that additional money. Few can afford to do so because their states are not willing to give them more money to cover it. In reality, it isn't likely many more will drop out. They simply couldn't afford to do so for most schools.

The food only "stinks" when the individual schools are unwilling to work to make it taste good, which is more than possible. But school food in general has never been worthy of any culinary awards.

If you live of the Gov the Gov can tell you how to live. Public lunches should be nutritious. But if a child wants to bring their own lunch then the parent/child should be able to pack whatever they wish.

ludin said:

the link i posted says otherwise.



no they can't because the food lunch act limits how much meat serving per week they can get. heck it limits how much meet serving they can't get in a meal. 1 meatball does not make a meat ball sandwich make. the ones that are serving that stuff are not adhereing to the school lunch program.

they either meet the requirements or they lose the funding. that is why 321 school districts including one in chicago has dropped out.

nope not at all i think that schools should be able to serve what they want to serve that kids will eat. a chicken nugget that is eaten has more nutrion value than apple sauce thrown in a garbage can.

it is about michelle's hypocrasy. i guess that is ok for us poor folks workin down here though. being elite must be great. do as i say not as i do.

lol the big mac would go over better than the food they are serving in the cafeteria. you would probably hear cheers of rejoicing if they served big mac over the crap they are.


Again you would probably have jumps for joy compared to the slop they are serving now that is being thrown away.

if you like food being thrown in the trash can then you continue supporting this bill.

you need to read the ABC. they would rather eat the stuff from mcdonalds and subway or KFC compared to that other list. i don't know any kid that is going to eat what is on the school lunch list or even most of it.

which is the whole point. THEY AREN"T EATING IT. IT IS GOING IN THE TRASH.

next year the schools have to serve all wheat items. which is even worse as some kids have glutton allergies or wheat allergies. they can't eat that sort of thing.

Click to expand...

You can't prove that they aren't eating the food in massive numbers. So far all you have as evidence is a year or two old stories and videos from complaining teenagers who are teenagers. Complaining about things is something they do. Given a couple more years, and those teens will have graduated and the next group would have gotten used to it, having eaten these choices for about half of their time in school.

Those kids who have gluten allergies or wheat allergies can do what they likely do now (especially considering how much stuff actually contains gluten), bring lunch from home. Much more than just "whole wheat" items contain gluten and/or wheat.

Wheat is good. And it doesn't take that long to get used to it if you give it a chance.

avery45 said:

If you live of the Gov the Gov can tell you how to live. Public lunches should be nutritious. But if a child wants to bring their own lunch then the parent/child should be able to pack whatever they wish.

Click to expand...

In most schools, they can. There is only one known public school (K-12) that doesn't allow students to bring lunches from home, and that isn't due to the new guidelines, only the principle of that school. I don't agree with this policy at all (just as I don't agree with any policy that bans bringing reasonable food items from home to school, although I do believe that schools should be able to ban sodas or certain treats from being brought from home for lunch, especially if sugary foods or junk food in general is the only thing the kid has for lunch).

You can't prove that they aren't eating the food in massive numbers. So far all you have as evidence is a year or two old stories and videos from complaining teenagers who are teenagers. Complaining about things is something they do. Given a couple more years, and those teens will have graduated and the next group would have gotten used to it, having eaten these choices for about half of their time in school.

Those kids who have gluten allergies or wheat allergies can do what they likely do now (especially considering how much stuff actually contains gluten), bring lunch from home. Much more than just "whole wheat" items contain gluten and/or wheat.

Wheat is good. And it doesn't take that long to get used to it if you give it a chance.

Click to expand...

I have proved read any of the links. ol wait that would mean once again government doesn't know what it is doing imagine that.
schools are seeing 2-3x the amount of food waste compared to normal. it has increased by significant measures.

the rest is a strawman.

your do as i say not as i do works for your kids not others.
you have the same attitude as obama which is probably why you support this.

instead of letting the local schools systems decide what they know is better for the kids you think the government knows best and evidently they don't.
1m kids have dropped out of the lunch program.
after 30 years of increased participation there is a drop in that participation rate even though more kids are eligable.

no not all kids bring their lunches from home. some kids depend on the school lunch for at least one maybe two meals they get.
evidently they don't want to give it a chance.

whole wheat paste is nasty in general. i like wheat i eat whole wheat bread over white bread in general.
the results from the GAO is not good for the program in general.

more food waste increased food cost as a result. not being able to tailor the menu to students. drop in revenue and participation = failure on any level.

ludin said:

I have proved read any of the links. ol wait that would mean once again government doesn't know what it is doing imagine that.
schools are seeing 2-3x the amount of food waste compared to normal. it has increased by significant measures.

the rest is a strawman.

your do as i say not as i do works for your kids not others.
you have the same attitude as obama which is probably why you support this.

instead of letting the local schools systems decide what they know is better for the kids you think the government knows best and evidently they don't.
1m kids have dropped out of the lunch program.
after 30 years of increased participation there is a drop in that participation rate even though more kids are eligable.

no not all kids bring their lunches from home. some kids depend on the school lunch for at least one maybe two meals they get.
evidently they don't want to give it a chance.

whole wheat paste is nasty in general. i like wheat i eat whole wheat bread over white bread in general.
the results from the GAO is not good for the program in general.

more food waste increased food cost as a result. not being able to tailor the menu to students. drop in revenue and participation = failure on any level.

Click to expand...

No. You have only shown that some kids are not wanting to eat some of the food. You can't prove which foods they are refusing or why. You can't prove that this is more than they used to before. All you have, at most, is anecdotal evidence based a lot on bias against the new guidelines.

I love whole wheat pasta and my sons (school age) have no issue eating it.

Why did they drop out? You didn't survey all of them, neither did anyone else. It could have simply been that it was easier, cheaper, or more convenient to send lunches to school (that's what happened to me the end of this school year after we moved). You nor anyone else has any idea why all those students "dropped out" of getting school lunch, nor how many may have come back in since that estimate was made.

You have yet to show anything except partisan bias for these guidelines. The biggest issue with any of them is the individual schools and school districts failing to work harder to meet the standards and make the food taste good, which can be done, with just a little effort.

jamesrage said:

liking something does not equate to indoctrination.

Click to expand...

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.

jamesrage said:

Photos of alleged school food don't mean dick.Are there some credible media sites to verify that these are actually school lunches and these are the complete meals?What about school lunch menus to back up the fact that these are real school lunches? Where are these schools that is serving these alleged school lunches?Is there any interview with the schools that are serving these alledged school lunches?

Click to expand...

: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.

jamesrage said:

You are saying that you are totally incapable of photographing food on a Styrofoam tray or finding pictures of Styrofoam trays with food on it? Look I found some pictures of Styrofoam trays with food on it.

Click to expand...

: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!