• 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

So you don't think the kids like the food?

Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
 
Those kids are being put in an environment were they feel its better. its not better, it sucked, and it used to be better in the past. We actually got fed.

They are offered the same amount (or more) than in the past. If they are choosing not to eat the food (which is mainly happening in higher grades, by teenagers who should know better and be held accountable for making such choices), then that is on them, not the school.
 
The taxpayers and the kids parents are paying for the school lunches. They are not all free. And they were already buying mostly healthy food.

If they were already buying healthy food, then it wouldn't be an issue for them to meet the requirements.
 
Why don't you ask them?

If I put an apple, cookie and chips in front of their faces which one do you think they're going to grab first?

And this is why you don't offer the cookie and chips on a regular basis, especially not if it is being offered as a choice rather than a treat. We know what children would prefer when it comes to eating, but, we, as adults, must ensure that they are offered foods instead that are healthy for them. There is nothing wrong with having snacks, sweets and chips or junk food, once in a while. But most of their food options should be healthier choices.
 
Why??? his opinion doesn't matter the kids opinion matters.

The kid's opinion doesn't matter when it comes to whether they should have healthy food or junk food because they are kids. We are adults. We get to make the choices for them in this decision. They can make some decisions about what sort of healthy foods they would like to eat. "Do you want an apple or a banana?" "Would you like meatloaf or spaghetti?"

Take the new options that are becoming popular at fastfood places now for kid's meals. They are offering french fries or apple slices at many places. Most of the time, as a parent, you should make that decision for them based off of what you think they should eat, not what they would prefer to eat. There are several factors you can keep in mind here, including whether you yourself are getting fries or what else they have had to eat that day or how long its been since you gave them fries or how likely it is that they will eat the apple slices. But if you let the child choose, most children would almost certainly choose the fries.
 
I love how the state has dumbed parents down to the point in which they actually believe the state can raise parents children..

1984....

Its free right!

Parents are still allowed to send lunches from home that can be packed with junk food in most schools. And if they can't or they don't like that option, they are free to send their children to private school or homeschool. No one has passed any laws that say that parents must only offer their children healthy food. These guidelines are for what is offered for lunch at government run public schools.
 
What a thread. We have to put food in our schools, its been **** food for decades, someone suggests we start providing healthier lunches and that becomes a political fight too!

You forgot the pertinent fact: A Democrat suggested that we start providing healthier lunches. Therefore, anyone who is not a Democrat must, just somehow has to, find fault with the idea.

If it weren't for hyperpartisanship, Washington would have no ideology at all.
 
If they were already buying healthy food, then it wouldn't be an issue for them to meet the requirements.

The difference was that they were not militant about it. Kids were served mostly healthy food, however they did look forward to treats at some level. The feds should butt out.
 
Why are you afraid to confirm or reject my guess as to your opinion?
And again.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
And the answer yo seek should dawn on you. And if it doesn't. That is your own problem.
 
And again.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
And the answer yo seek should dawn on you. And if it doesn't. That is your own problem.

The problem is that I personally don't believe that the kids like the food, which indicates quite strongly that the kids are not indoctrinated (as indoctrinated people actually hold the beliefs that they get indoctrinated with).
 
Why don't you ask them?

If I put an apple, cookie and chips in front of their faces which one do you think they're going to grab first?

If you offer a child the choice between going to school and staying home all day watching tv, which do you think they're going to choose?

Of course they like the food if their only option is an apple, banana or an orange........... Seriously bro?

Well, good thing they were only offered "an apple banana or an orange" instead of much less healthy options, right?
 
Last edited:
The difference was that they were not militant about it. Kids were served mostly healthy food, however they did look forward to treats at some level. The feds should butt out.

Making a condition for public schools to get extra money for food to feed children lunch to meet certain specific nutritional standards is absolutely not being militant about this. They don't control what the children eat 24/7. They don't control what the parents can and do send to school as an alternative to getting lunch from the school. In fact, they don't even really control what is specifically being served to children for lunch (or breakfast). Many schools were able to either keep their old lunch menus or the vast majority of their old menus with only a few changes, such as changing out for lower fat milk options, giving smaller meat portions, or changing regular spaghetti to whole wheat spaghetti.

The feds have every right to stipulate what kinds of food the money being given to public schools by the fed for school lunches can be served. It is federal money.
 
The problem is that I personally don't believe that the kids like the food, which indicates quite strongly that the kids are not indoctrinated (as indoctrinated people actually hold the beliefs that they get indoctrinated with).
What you believe in that regards, matters not.
 
The fact is that if the kids don't like it, they haven't been indoctrinated into liking it. No beliefs involved there, just facts.

And yet, what do the polled administrators say? :doh
 
The difference was that they were not militant about it. Kids were served mostly healthy food, however they did look forward to treats at some level. The feds should butt out.

So, end the school lunch program altogether?
 
People are actually complaining that public schools are feeding children a healthy diet. Alright then.

Yep. Knew exactly what it was going to be before I even clicked on the thread.

As for Michelle Obama, she could demand that schools serve only burgers and fries, and the same people would be bitching about how she's trying to kill the kids.
 
Making a condition for public schools to get extra money for food to feed children lunch to meet certain specific nutritional standards is absolutely not being militant about this. They don't control what the children eat 24/7. They don't control what the parents can and do send to school as an alternative to getting lunch from the school. In fact, they don't even really control what is specifically being served to children for lunch (or breakfast). Many schools were able to either keep their old lunch menus or the vast majority of their old menus with only a few changes, such as changing out for lower fat milk options, giving smaller meat portions, or changing regular spaghetti to whole wheat spaghetti.

The feds have every right to stipulate what kinds of food the money being given to public schools by the fed for school lunches can be served. It is federal money.

Where do you think the feds get the money? It's taxpayer money. The feds have no business sticking their noses into state and local school lunches.
 
Yep. Knew exactly what it was going to be before I even clicked on the thread.

As for Michelle Obama, she could demand that schools serve only burgers and fries, and the same people would be bitching about how she's trying to kill the kids.

Michelle should stick to raising her own kids and butt out of the school lunch programs.
 
Michelle should stick to raising her own kids and butt out of the school lunch programs.

i don't care what she does or doesn't do. i'm just tired of the endless and pointless bitching. she could buy her kid a pet hamster and there would be five angry partisan threads about it within five minutes of fox's coverage.

there is so much to be legitimately concerned with when it comes to national and global issues right now. a public school kid eating a damned salad isn't one of them. if it pisses you off, load your kid's lunchbox with beer battered deep fried pizza with a side of ****ing Crisco dip and a two liter of Coke, for all i care. problem solved.
 
Michelle should stick to raising her own kids and butt out of the school lunch programs.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Modern First Ladies have adopted a program or cause such as literacy, and I think encouraging kids to eat healthily and to exercise is great. (Have you ever seen Michelle Obama jump rope? Wow!)

But I do wish the feds would butt out of this and just about everything else.
 
Back
Top Bottom