• 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

Yup, we had those when I was a kid as well. Still only one fat kid that I can remember.

Yes and they turned into fat adults! I don't know why anyone is trying to argue that eating fatty/processed foods will help make you fatter and lead to serious helath problems down the line.
 
Yes and they turned into fat adults! I don't know why anyone is trying to argue that eating fatty/processed foods will help make you fatter and lead to serious helath problems down the line.

None of my friends from high school are fat. :shrug:
 
I think it points to a very different issue: We're so jilted as a society that kids don't appreciate food when it's given. They assume it will always be there, and they're picky as hell. . . whereas other kids would give anything if they could have what our kids throw away.

It peeves me to no end my kids just take their food for granted (and we pay full price for ours) and I can't police them during lunch to make sure they eat it all.

We're a spoiled freaking country. . . filled with people who whine that "I don't like FRUIT" - nature's candy and they don't like it? Oh - but if they were Snicker's it would just be wrappers in the trash.

Meanwhile - cost for meals in our district has gone up .20/meal - for the same stuff that they only eat half of.

There is extreme greed in country and there is extreme negligence in this country as well with parents that don't want to hear or see their children, they just want them to get home from school, shut up and get their hot pockets, and go space out in front of the television until it's time for bed. It's not about children hating healthy food, it's about parents not caring and allowing them to tell them what to do instead of the other way around.

Glad to read that at least some schools are saying thanks but no thanks. However, there have been some incidences in schools where they have food police actually checking the lunches of packers and if they didn't find the lunch to meet their level of nutritional value, would then take the lunch from the child, make them eat in the cafeteria and then send a bill to the parent for the school lunch.

Where did that happen? I found one story about a North Carolina girl being sent home with her lunch and being offered chicken nuggets at school instead, but I did also notice that the story was only reported on far right-wing websites and I have a hard time sometimes with articles that come out only on one side of the spectrum. Regardless of the politics involved I would say that a further investigation should be done on that particular inspector and should he be found faulty on his judgments, he should lose his job.

I do think the new calorie limits are unreasonably low. Especially for older kids, and double-especially for active older kids that play sports.

There has never been a time in history when a huge change was proposed and on its first go around it was perfect and nothing needed to be changed. This country is in serious danger with how far apart and separated the Republican and Democratic parties have become over the passed 13 years. No Child Left Behind was hated by Democrats because Bush was not a good president. Obama has taken it over into his presidency and offered changes for it - or from what I've read and seen has essentially renamed the bill into something else and offered a different perspective on the matter. Is his idea perfect? Probably not. There are probably a lot of things that need to change and hopefully whoever is president next will continue to improve on children's educations. Republicans despise the school lunch reform because a Democrat offered it to the table. They hate everything about it and make up jibberish about what "Michelle Obama said" and what "Michelle Obama wants" but how offering additions to the measure? I see people here reasonably discussing this measure and offering their opinions, but when it comes to the actual bill it seems like everyone just wants to scream that Michelle Obama is a terrible person. Is Obama a great president? No, he could have done a lot better. Is sitting in your political corner and screaming that the other side is against America going to change anything? Absolutely not. I hope that the next administration to take office, Democrat or Republican, is not arrogant and stupid enough to back out of trying to make this measure successful. Changes take time and it's unreasonable to assume that ANYONE can come in and fix something immediately.
 
What kind of nation are we where we think it is a bad ideal to feed our kids healthy food instead of the process crap that we are giving them now?

We are slowly turning into that society in that movie Idiocracy

Idiocracy_Food_Pyramid.jpg
 
I don't think kids think about healthy or unhealthy.

The either like the taste or not.

If the kids are rejecting the food it is because of the taste and not because it is healthy.

The schools have to try harder to serve food that is healthy and tastes good.

I still remember pizza day. I had to go to school that day.
 
it is when you count fires as a veggie and they have burger and fries.

Well, having a bunch of deep fried cauliflower, Zucchini and mushrooms isn't much better. But I really don't understand what point you are trying to convey
 
Just reading in another thread about a recent executive order banning the importation of some specific firearms that had been legal to bring in last week. Have no fear, the obesity and school lunch choice will soon be resolved. As soon as the government locks down health care, we will all be told what we can eat, how much of it, where we have to purchase it and from whom. After all, what we choose to do will them be directly tied to government funding. And as we all know when it comes to spending money government knows best. I see a day when there are SWAT raids against those who dare to grow their own tomatoes, and since we will all be disarmed there will not be a damned thng we can do about it.
 
I don't think kids think about healthy or unhealthy.

The either like the taste or not.

If the kids are rejecting the food it is because of the taste and not because it is healthy.

The schools have to try harder to serve food that is healthy and tastes good.

I still remember pizza day. I had to go to school that day.
I pretty much completely agree with this, but I think it can be taken a bit farther. Why don't they like the taste? Some foods you just naturally like the first time you taste them, but many are an acquired taste. If a kid hasn't been exposed to certain foods early, it's less likely they're going to be open-minded later.
 
.



Where did that happen? I found one story about a North Carolina girl being sent home with her lunch and being offered chicken nuggets at school instead, but I did also notice that the story was only reported on far right-wing websites and I have a hard time sometimes with articles that come out only on one side of the spectrum. Regardless of the politics involved I would say that a further investigation should be done on that particular inspector and should he be found faulty on his judgments, he should lose his job.



.
Greetings Ec60,
Maybe you missed the stories covering Chicago schools down right denying students to bring their lunches from home.

Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight

I don't know about you, but I find that rather over the top when a parent can no longer decide what their child will eat for lunch.

So yes I am very happy to see some school districts tell Michelle Obama to take her health food crusade and stick it. The same Michelle that serves Sweet Potato Pie, fine wines at every White House function, Kobe beef for their guests, extravagant desserts that most salivate over that would never meet her hypocritical agenda of what she calls "healthy". Cheers!.
 
I pretty much completely agree with this, but I think it can be taken a bit farther. Why don't they like the taste? Some foods you just naturally like the first time you taste them, but many are an acquired taste. If a kid hasn't been exposed to certain foods early, it's less likely they're going to be open-minded later.

The fact is that you cannot control what people do in their house, so you have to provide something the kids are going to like or they won't eat it.
 
The fact is that you cannot control what people do in their house, so you have to provide something the kids are going to like or they won't eat it.

The problem is that it easy to get used to for example salt and sugar. If you for example eat little sugar, an apple can taste really sweet and good, if you consume a lot of sugar in your diet the apple will not taste sweet at all and probably taste like crap.

The big food corporation of course know this and will try anything they can to get kids used to sugar and salt. By ads and putting a lot of it in products targeted for kids.

This is of course a problem for schools. If they provide food without a lot of sugar and salt the kids used to sugar and salt will probably think it taste like crap. The other option is putting a lot of sugar and salt in the food and that's not healthy at all. Also the kids not used to alot of sugar and salt will maybee first think it almost discustingly sweet and salty. But probably soon adapt and also only want to eat food with alot of sugar and salt. That you can easily get used to eating a lot of sugar and salt, but of course also get used to not eat, but it takes a lot more time and effort escecially if it easily available.
 
In the future, we will all look like the folks from Wall-E.
 
The fact is that you cannot control what people do in their house, so you have to provide something the kids are going to like or they won't eat it.

They'll eat it if they're hungry enough.
 
If we are supposed to be fat then exactly why aren't we?

Our generation is fat. The fact that your friends aren't fat doesn't change the reality. I believe that's why Higgins86 rolled his eyes. I didn't quickly find something for just 25-35 year-olds, but: FASTSTATS - Overweight Prevalence < As of 2009-2010 ~69% of those 20+ were overweight or obese.
 
The problem is that it easy to get used to for example salt and sugar. If you for example eat little sugar, an apple can taste really sweet and good, if you consume a lot of sugar in your diet the apple will not taste sweet at all and probably taste like crap.

The big food corporation of course know this and will try anything they can to get kids used to sugar and salt. By ads and putting a lot of it in products targeted for kids.

This is of course a problem for schools. If they provide food without a lot of sugar and salt the kids used to sugar and salt will probably think it taste like crap. The other option is putting a lot of sugar and salt in the food and that's not healthy at all. Also the kids not used to alot of sugar and salt will maybee first think it almost discustingly sweet and salty. But probably soon adapt and also only want to eat food with alot of sugar and salt. That you can easily get used to eating a lot of sugar and salt, but of course also get used to not eat, but it takes a lot more time and effort escecially if it easily available.
This is a big reason why so many pre-packaged foods contain so much sugar and sodium. I'll admit that I was literally shocked when I first learned that store-bought pasta sauces (i.e.: Prego, etc.) contain high-fructose corn syrup as their first listed ingredient.

I've been making my own pasta sauce and freezing it ever since, about 5 years now.
 
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.


Now I see why the fattest states in America are all deep read.


1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. West Virginia
4. Alabama
5. Michigan
6. Oklahoma
7. Arkansas
8. Indiana
8. South Carolina
10. Kentucky
10. Texas


Most and Least Obese U.S. States - US News and World Report
 
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.

I have no doubt that if government money were purged from public school lunch rooms across the land and the space given over to trash like McDonald's, it would make right wingers positively orgasmic at the thought of profits both for corporate America and the loss of public employee jobs. The idea that kids would increase their weight and learn poor nutrition would just be acceptable collateral damage. :roll:
 
Greetings Ec60,
Maybe you missed the stories covering Chicago schools down right denying students to bring their lunches from home.

Chicago school bans homemade lunches, the latest in national food fight

I don't know about you, but I find that rather over the top when a parent can no longer decide what their child will eat for lunch.

So yes I am very happy to see some school districts tell Michelle Obama to take her health food crusade and stick it. The same Michelle that serves Sweet Potato Pie, fine wines at every White House function, Kobe beef for their guests, extravagant desserts that most salivate over that would never meet her hypocritical agenda of what she calls "healthy". Cheers!.

That is unfortunate, but I don't think it's fair to solely blame Michelle Obama for these choices. Where it may have been her steps to push schools into creating healthy menu styles, I still haven't seen, directly from her, the ruling that certain states are to completely ban brought in lunches. Maybe that particular Chicago school itself chose those drastic measures? If that is the case then maybe that was that schools first step towards correcting their current problem? Do I agree that parents shouldn't be able to send their children to school with their own lunch, no? Do I think that a lot of parents are uninformed and manipulative and are willing to put their own children's health aside to send them to school with a terribly crappy meal just to "stick it to Michelle Obama for being a selfish, 'Sweet Potato Pie, fine wines at every White House function, Kobe beef for their guests, extravagant desserts that most salivate over that would never meet her hypocritical agenda of what she calls 'healthy'"? Absolutely.

You understand she is the First Lady of the United States of America, right? You get that it would be impolite of her to serve anything less than "extravagant foods that most people would salivate over" to her guests at the White House, right? You understand that there is also at least one White House chef that is creating these meals and that she herself is not in the kitchen coming up with these dishes and laughing maniacally over the fact that there are "starving children all across this country" because she is trying to change that foods that are offered to them at schools and encourage a more active lifestyle, right? ... Because I really don't think you get that. It actually seems to me that you moreso just really hate her husband, and therefore her, and scrutinize everything they do and then hate it just for the sake of hating in, instead of really paying attention that what and who you are hating. That's a shame.
 
This is a big reason why so many pre-packaged foods contain so much sugar and sodium. I'll admit that I was literally shocked when I first learned that store-bought pasta sauces (i.e.: Prego, etc.) contain high-fructose corn syrup as their first listed ingredient.

I've been making my own pasta sauce and freezing it ever since, about 5 years now.

A huge problem with the level of obesity is the government... once again. They published food guidelines that were designed to create fatniks.

There was a study done by a researcher at UPenn, and another in Denmark. In the former the researcher believed his results from the study about Atkins diet would result in high cholesterol and poor blood values. He stated it would be the first and last study of its kind. He was shocked by the results.

In Denmark all participants bought food from a special store following an Atkins type diet (low to no carbs, lots of protein, fats and vegetables). In both studies the blood values improved and cholesterol was lower.

Our government and their food pyramid, plus the push towards "fat free" was a dream for creating fatniks. Take out fat and you have to put sugar in for taste. Carbs are sugar. Sugar, sugar, and more sugar. Fruit juice... as much sugar as soda. No wonder we have a diabetes problem in this country.

If I eat 3 eggs in the morning as an omlette, I don't need to eat until the evening. No snacking required. Fat, meat, mayo, vegetables, nuts and the like keep you full longer. Carbs don't... with them you're continually hungry.

Once again... government sticks its nose into the equation, gets it horribly wrong, and the masses who look to government as some kind of error free God... pay the price.

The Government's Food Pyramid Correlates to Obesity, Critics Say


While the government has stood by this regimen for 11 years, some critics say it's no coincidence that the number of overweight Americans has risen 61% since the pyramid was introduced

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1023915818486451160.djm,00.html

That is unfortunate, but I don't think it's fair to solely blame Michelle Obama for these choices...

You understand she is the First Lady of the United States of America, right?...
She's a first lady who stuck her nose into the issue. So yes... she is largely responsible for the latest government mess... and you don't think she would take full credit if it were successful? Thank God it wasn't, because this strips her of any future grand plans for us plebes.

I also find it funny to watch what these folks eat as they lecture us.
 
Last edited:
That is unfortunate, but I don't think it's fair to solely blame Michelle Obama for these choices. Where it may have been her steps to push schools into creating healthy menu styles, I still haven't seen, directly from her, the ruling that certain states are to completely ban brought in lunches. Maybe that particular Chicago school itself chose those drastic measures? If that is the case then maybe that was that schools first step towards correcting their current problem? Do I agree that parents shouldn't be able to send their children to school with their own lunch, no? Do I think that a lot of parents are uninformed and manipulative and are willing to put their own children's health aside to send them to school with a terribly crappy meal just to "stick it to Michelle Obama for being a selfish, 'Sweet Potato Pie, fine wines at every White House function, Kobe beef for their guests, extravagant desserts that most salivate over that would never meet her hypocritical agenda of what she calls 'healthy'"? Absolutely.

You understand she is the First Lady of the United States of America, right? You get that it would be impolite of her to serve anything less than "extravagant foods that most people would salivate over" to her guests at the White House, right? You understand that there is also at least one White House chef that is creating these meals and that she herself is not in the kitchen coming up with these dishes and laughing maniacally over the fact that there are "starving children all across this country" because she is trying to change that foods that are offered to them at schools and encourage a more active lifestyle, right? ... Because I really don't think you get that. It actually seems to me that you moreso just really hate her husband, and therefore her, and scrutinize everything they do and then hate it just for the sake of hating in, instead of really paying attention that what and who you are hating. That's a shame.

There's more than one chef involved in State dinners etc. The head chef and pastry chef along with those in charge of floral arrangements and choices of cutlery to dishes all meet to coordinate along with the First Lady's staff for such events. If your mission as First Lady is to promote healthier food choices for children in school, you would think she would be showing the children by example. The menus for such events are very much part of the news cycle and even an 8 year old can see the hypocrisy. You have accused me of hating the person, ......excuse me, hating the hypocrisy, the double standards, does not equate to hating the person.
 
Do I think that a lot of parents are uninformed and manipulative and are willing to put their own children's health aside to send them to school with a terribly crappy meal just to "stick it to Michelle Obama for being a selfish, 'Sweet Potato Pie, fine wines at every White House function, Kobe beef for their guests, extravagant desserts that most salivate over that would never meet her hypocritical agenda of what she calls 'healthy'"? Absolutely.

I'm astonished and don't believe for an instant that "lots of parents" would ignore their kids' nutrition for this reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom