• 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

Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with Michelle or any other first lady getting involved in a cause. I was fine with Laura Bush's literacy cause and Nancy Reagan's "Just say no to drugs" cause. My concern comes when first ladies move from causes to actual government policy. A previous example was Hillary Clinton attempting to singlehandedly nationalize America's healthcare system. I do not have a problem with Michelle Obama attempting to inspire exercise and nutrition, however when it ends up as federal government policy, I draw the line. Michelle should butt out. I would say the same if Laura Bush was influencing government policy on school lunches. This is not personal or partisan. I just do not like nanny state government.
 
nota bene said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with first ladies getting into causes either. I just think they should be inspirational and not directed at government policy.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I do not have a problem with Michelle or any other first lady getting involved in a cause. I was fine with Laura Bush's literacy cause and Nancy Reagan's "Just say no to drugs" cause. My concern comes when first ladies move from causes to actual government policy. A previous example was Hillary Clinton attempting to singlehandedly nationalize America's healthcare system. I do not have a problem with Michelle Obama attempting to inspire exercise and nutrition, however when it ends up as federal government policy, I draw the line. Michelle should butt out. I would say the same if Laura Bush was influencing government policy on school lunches. This is not personal or partisan. I just do not like nanny state government.
Click to expand...

ObamacareFail said:
I do not have a problem with first ladies getting into causes either. I just think they should be inspirational and not directed at government policy.
Click to expand...



But it's OK when the Koch brothers do it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I do not have a problem with Michelle or any other first lady getting involved in a cause. I was fine with Laura Bush's literacy cause and Nancy Reagan's "Just say no to drugs" cause. My concern comes when first ladies move from causes to actual government policy. A previous example was Hillary Clinton attempting to singlehandedly nationalize America's healthcare system. I do not have a problem with Michelle Obama attempting to inspire exercise and nutrition, however when it ends up as federal government policy, I draw the line. Michelle should butt out. I would say the same if Laura Bush was influencing government policy on school lunches. This is not personal or partisan. I just do not like nanny state government.
Click to expand...

I'd say that Just Say No, though well intentioned, certainly influenced national policy.

Anyway, the main problem that I have is that the country is so full of partisan rage over everything, even minute little piddly stuff. Not to mention that the globe is trying to go to war, and exactly one hundred years after the first world war. I wish we could chill the **** out a little. There is a lot we can do and fix. A school lunch program for salad stuff? That seems like a pretty small issue on the list of things to be concerned about.

If it makes you feel any better, I really, really doubt that the kids are digging the lunches. Kids bitch endlessly about that stuff, and I doubt that this has changed much.
 
Helix said:
I'd say that Just Say No, though well intentioned, certainly influenced national policy.
Click to expand...

Actually as I recall, it had absolutely no influence on national policy...nor was it intended to. What it did inspire was kids getting involved in anti-drug movements.

Anyway, the main problem that I have is that the country is so full of partisan rage over everything, even minute little piddly stuff.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with you on that. However I hope you are not suggesting that it started with Obama popping onto the scene. It has been going on at least since the 1980s and the left is just as bad, if not worse. The hyperpartisanship comes from entrencbed power in congress. If we had a higher turnover rate in congress, the rage would die down.


Not to mention that the globe is trying to go to war, and exactly one hundred years after the first world war. I wish we could chill the **** out a little. There is a lot we can do and fix. A school lunch program for salad stuff? That seems like a pretty small issue on the list of things to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

But then the healthcare bill Hillary Clinton tried to pass was a very big issue. And she was not an elected official. Michelles issue is smaller, however that does not mean we cannot talk about it or criticize her. Someone started a thread on the issue and everyone is giving their views. That does not mean that we do not sweat the big stuff.

If it makes you feel any better, I really, really doubt that the kids are digging the lunches. Kids bitch endlessly about that stuff, and I doubt that this has changed much.
Click to expand...

True...however the problem is that so much food is going to waste as much more of it is going into the trash. The lunches were generally healthy to begin with....and forcing someones idea of healthy lunches on the kids is not going to prevent the kids from going to get fast food. And food is not the main issue anyway. The real issue is that todays kids are spending so much time on video games, television, etc that they used to spend getting off their butts and getting exercise.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No...just have the feds butt out.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the school lunch program is a federal program, and has been at least since I was in elementary school...

...back in the 1940's (Yep, that's right, the '40s)

Don't you?
 
jamesrage said:
Apparently not all kids are spoiled brats whose parents let them eat what ever they want and many other kids do like healthier food.

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches - WSJ
When the federal government implemented new school-meal regulations in 2012, a majority of elementary-school students complained about the healthier lunches, but by the end of the school year most found the food agreeable, according to survey results released Monday.
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.
Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago surveyed administrators at more than 500 primary schools about student reaction to the new meals in the 2012-2013 school year. They found that 70% agreed or strongly agreed that students, by the end of the school year, generally liked the new lunches, which feature more whole grains, vegetables and fruits, and lower fat levels.
Click to expand...

The study has validity issues.
1. "Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago surveyed administrators". They didn't survey the students.
The "administrators" could have a political agenda.
Let me see, unions, contracts, Democrats backing a President from Chicago, say it ain't so.

2. "The research was supported by a national group called Bridging the Gap that studies policies that improve health"
They have a bias and point to prove and a dog in the fight and money to raise.

3. "and was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which backs public-health initiatives"
Same point as above. Follow the money.

4. ""Our big concern is that participation continues to slide," said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association, which represents 55,000 school-nutritional professionals. The group seeks a relaxation of the rules, and says it believes they play a role in the decline in students participating." (emphasis mine)
I say again, poll the students.

5. Nationwide, participation in the school-lunch program fell by 1.2 million students, or 3.7%, from the 2010-2011 school year through the 2012-2013 year after having steadily increased for many years, according to a Feb. 27 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. State and local officials reported the drop was due in part to the new standards."
I guess the kids in Chicago are different from all other children in the rest of the country and the state of Illinois.

6. Democrats say the schools simply need more time and that many have made a successful transition. "It takes students a little bit to adjust," said Jessica Donze Black, a child nutrition expert for the Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit that promotes healthy school meals. "A majority of schools are doing well, and we should be able to learn from those schools and move forward with the schools that are still struggling."
Justification that is NOT needed if this article was actually about a valid and true study.



An actual article with actual data (imagine that) quoting Dianne Pratt-Haevner (mentioned in the article above) that lobbied for Michelle Obama's nutrition program at one time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/u...-school-meals-it-sought-citing-cost.html?_r=0

Verdict:
More hack propaganda passed off as a news article.
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Actually as I recall, it had absolutely no influence on national policy...nor was it intended to. What it did inspire was kids getting involved in anti-drug movements.
Click to expand...

it was part of the Reagan expansion of the failed drug war.

A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance

her campaign kept the issue so front and center that it helped to propel this expansion.

now we can go back and forth all day about the minute differences between Nancy Reagan's campaign somehow doesn't offend small government sensibilities in the way that Michelle Obama's does, but it would be an utterly ridiculous discussion. it doesn't get much more big nanny government than the drug war.

Hillary Clinton's push for health care was kind of unprecedented for a first lady, though. i'm not criticizing the desire to finally give up on our stupid employer based health care system, but i could at least understand those who support small government being alarmed by it. however, this thread only exists for partisan reasons, and you know it. somebody posts it to say, "wow look, what my team did worked," and then the other team spends 40 pages fighting the enemy. it's just tiresome. we're all arguing about serving a kid a ****ing salad at school.



ObamacareFail said:
I cannot disagree with you on that. However I hope you are not suggesting that it started with Obama popping onto the scene. It has been going on at least since the 1980s and the left is just as bad, if not worse. The hyperpartisanship comes from entrencbed power in congress. If we had a higher turnover rate in congress, the rage would die down.
Click to expand...

i am absolutely not suggesting that. there has been absolute foaming partisan rage for decades now. ****, i was even a rabid right winger under Clinton. and the idiots even made a snuff film about Bush. utter lunacy.

i will say that the temper tantrum thrown by the right under Obama, though, has annoyed me to the point where i am just completely and utterly disgusted. we have to change our political system. i've never seen this much gridlock and nearly complete obstruction. it's caused by gerrymandering, and a two party system. we need to fix both.

ObamacareFail said:
But then the healthcare bill Hillary Clinton tried to pass was a very big issue. And she was not an elected official. Michelles issue is smaller, however that does not mean we cannot talk about it or criticize her. Someone started a thread on the issue and everyone is giving their views. That does not mean that we do not sweat the big stuff.
Click to expand...

agree about Hillary's unprecedented role being big. but this is a school lunch program. it's not even in the same sport.

ObamacareFail said:
True...however the problem is that so much food is going to waste as much more of it is going into the trash. The lunches were generally healthy to begin with....and forcing someones idea of healthy lunches on the kids is not going to prevent the kids from going to get fast food. And food is not the main issue anyway. The real issue is that todays kids are spending so much time on video games, television, etc that they used to spend getting off their butts and getting exercise.
Click to expand...

as someone who lost a lot of weight and works daily to keep it off, i agree that it won't fix the problem. however, even a discussion about school lunches turns into a damned partisan fistfight. it's just one more indicator that the way our system is set up is not working, and needs serious tweaking.
 
Helix said:
as someone who lost a lot of weight and works daily to keep it off, i agree that it won't fix the problem. however, even a discussion about school lunches turns into a damned partisan fistfight. it's just one more indicator that the way our system is set up is not working, and needs serious tweaking.
Click to expand...


Serious tweaking, starting with redistricting, ending with voting a bunch of hyper partisan scoundrels out of office and starting over. Congress is dysfunctional and has been for quite some time now.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Serious tweaking, starting with redistricting, ending with voting a bunch of hyper partisan scoundrels out of office and starting over. Congress is dysfunctional and has been for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

would like this twice if i could.
 
Buck Ewer said:
Which would you rather your children ate for lunch?
Before:

Bean and cheese burrito (5.3 oz) with mozzarella cheese (1 oz)
Applesauce (1/4 cup)
Orange juice (4 oz)
2 percent milk (8 oz)

After:

Turkey (1 oz) and low-fat cheese (0.5 oz) sandwich on whole wheat bread
Refried beans (1/2 cup)
Jicama (1/4 cup)
Green pepper strips (1/4 cup)
Cantaloupe wedges (1/2 cup)
Skim milk (8 oz)
Mustard (9 grams)
Reduced fat mayonnaise (1 oz)
Low-fat ranch drip (1 oz)
Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that the foods listed above are actually the foods listed, instead of. . .

"Turkey" - processed, reconstituted turkey meat (turkey meat, sodium nitrite, malic acid, sodium stearol lactate, TBHQ), partially hydrogenated soybean oil and/or cottonseed oil and/or corn oil and/or motor oil, Green 50, . . .
 
ObamacareFail said:
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.
Click to expand...

Taxpayer money that the feds are in charge of deciding where it goes. Don't like it? Then elect people who will make the changes you want (probably is going to take more than just you though). Until then, they get to decide where/who it goes to and under what conditions as long as they are constitutional. And there is nothing unconstitutional about putting stipulations on money offered to state public schools to aid with feeding school children. Regulations on testing and other education issues could easily be considered more the "fed interfering with state issues" (which I don't agree with but can see the argument) than this is.
 
Helix said:
it was part of the Reagan expansion of the failed drug war.

A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance

her campaign kept the issue so front and center that it helped to propel this expansion.

now we can go back and forth all day about the minute differences between Nancy Reagan's campaign somehow doesn't offend small government sensibilities in the way that Michelle Obama's does, but it would be an utterly ridiculous discussion. it doesn't get much more big nanny government than the drug war.

Hillary Clinton's push for health care was kind of unprecedented for a first lady, though. i'm not criticizing the desire to finally give up on our stupid employer based health care system, but i could at least understand those who support small government being alarmed by it. however, this thread only exists for partisan reasons, and you know it. somebody posts it to say, "wow look, what my team did worked," and then the other team spends 40 pages fighting the enemy. it's just tiresome. we're all arguing about serving a kid a ****ing salad at school.





i am absolutely not suggesting that. there has been absolute foaming partisan rage for decades now. ****, i was even a rabid right winger under Clinton. and the idiots even made a snuff film about Bush. utter lunacy.

i will say that the temper tantrum thrown by the right under Obama, though, has annoyed me to the point where i am just completely and utterly disgusted. we have to change our political system. i've never seen this much gridlock and nearly complete obstruction. it's caused by gerrymandering, and a two party system. we need to fix both.



agree about Hillary's unprecedented role being big. but this is a school lunch program. it's not even in the same sport.



as someone who lost a lot of weight and works daily to keep it off, i agree that it won't fix the problem. however, even a discussion about school lunches turns into a damned partisan fistfight. it's just one more indicator that the way our system is set up is not working, and needs serious tweaking.
Click to expand...


I think we will just have to agree to disagree on most. I'll just address the following: "i will say that the temper tantrum thrown by the right under Obama, though, has annoyed me to the point where i am just completely and utterly disgusted. we have to change our political system. i've never seen this much gridlock and nearly complete obstruction. it's caused by gerrymandering, and a two party system. we need to fix both."

I am as annoyed as you are at the hyperpartisanship of the last couple of decades. However I cannot blame it on gerrymandering or a so-called two party system. Gerrymandering has been around pretty much from the beginning. The hyperpartisanship has only been around a couple of decades. And to be honest, I don't think we will ever get rid of it. And realistically we do not have a two party system. There are many more then two parties. What we do have is a two ideology system.......liberal versus conservative. The political parties that most successfully advocate for those two ideologies are going to be the dominant political parties. Historically at one point it was the democrats and the whigs. And the only alternative system is the parliamentary system such as is followed in Europe. However have you ever listened to CSPAN when they were covering a parliamentary meeting? It is hyperpartisanship on steroids. It comes much closer to fist fights then what we normally see in congress.
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

What schools were able to keep their old menus and which schools only had to make small changes?
 
ObamacareFail said:
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on most. I'll just address the following: "i will say that the temper tantrum thrown by the right under Obama, though, has annoyed me to the point where i am just completely and utterly disgusted. we have to change our political system. i've never seen this much gridlock and nearly complete obstruction. it's caused by gerrymandering, and a two party system. we need to fix both."

I am as annoyed as you are at the hyperpartisanship of the last couple of decades. However I cannot blame it on gerrymandering or a so-called two party system. Gerrymandering has been around pretty much from the beginning. The hyperpartisanship has only been around a couple of decades. And to be honest, I don't think we will ever get rid of it. And realistically we do not have a two party system. There are many more then two parties. What we do have is a two ideology system.......liberal versus conservative. The political parties that most successfully advocate for those two ideologies are going to be the dominant political parties. Historically at one point it was the democrats and the whigs. And the only alternative system is the parliamentary system such as is followed in Europe. However have you ever listened to CSPAN when they were covering a parliamentary meeting? It is hyperpartisanship on steroids. It comes much closer to fist fights then what we normally see in congress.
Click to expand...

i'd say that the gerrymandering has been getting worse over time, or just enough to guarantee very polarized districts. also, the rise of very partisan media on both sides has really stirred the pot, and now groups of stirred up people can instantly meet others just like tham and get even more stirred up and pissed off. it used to be a lot more difficult to organize groups polarized partisans, and impossible to have them all interact constantly in real time. throw in the fact that there are only two viable choices in any given race, and there you have it. at least that's my opinion.

i'm not saying that the internet is something negative at all (quite the contrary,) or that hyperpartisan idiots shouldn't be able to broadcast whatever they want, but this probably has a lot to do with why the 1990s, 2000s, and now the teens have been really going over the partisan cliff.
 
Tucker Case said:
What does that have to do with whether or not the kids are indoctrinated?
Click to expand...
And again.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
 
Helix said:
i'd say that the gerrymandering has been getting worse over time, or just enough to guarantee very polarized districts. also, the rise of very partisan media on both sides has really stirred the pot, and now groups of stirred up people can instantly meet others just like tham and get even more stirred up and pissed off. it used to be a lot more difficult to organize groups polarized partisans, and impossible to have them all interact constantly in real time. throw in the fact that there are only two viable choices in any given race, and there you have it. at least that's my opinion.

i'm not saying that the internet is something negative at all (quite the contrary,) or that hyperpartisan idiots shouldn't be able to broadcast whatever they want, but this probably has a lot to do with why the 1990s, 2000s, and now the teens have been really going over the partisan cliff.
Click to expand...

In any case, wiping out gerrymandering would not eliminate hyperpartisanship. Congressional term limits are the closest thing there is to a solution. With less entrenched power, gerrymandering would not be such an issue.
 
Excon said:
And again.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed the administrators were indoctrinated. Somebody did claim the kids were. :shrug:
 
Tucker Case said:
Nobody claimed the administrators were indoctrinated. Somebody did claim the kids were. :shrug:
Click to expand...
So... right back to the question.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
 
Excon said:
So... right back to the question.
Do you think the administrators actually polled their students, or are reflecting their own personal beliefs?
Click to expand...

What would that have to do with whether or not the kids were actually indoctrinated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom