Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

Kobie said:

Well, no, I don't; that said, I think it would be prudent to exclude certain items from food stamp/EBT eligibility in favor of more nutritious staples.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

You're ignoring the fact that the government is already choosing the food that the public school children get anyway. So why not make those options healthier than they previously were? If they don't like it they can bring their own lunch.

Your Star said:

You're ignoring the fact that the government is already choosing the food that the public school children get anyway. So why not make those options healthier than they previously were? If they don't like it they can bring their own lunch.

Click to expand...

No...in many cases they cannot bring their lunch. The dissent regarding food caliber and quality seems to be the issue. But...I would agree that the since we are talking about those on government assistance, the government should choose what form of assistance ALL recipients receive. These healthy and nutritional meals should be the standard for all food stamp/food assistance programs.

VanceMack said:

No...in many cases they cannot bring their lunch. The dissent regarding food caliber and quality seems to be the issue. But...I would agree that the since we are talking about those on government assistance, the government should choose what form of assistance ALL recipients receive. These healthy and nutritional meals should be the standard for all food stamp/food assistance programs.

Click to expand...

It's not government assistance, these kids pay for the school lunches. However, since the government is in charge of the menu, then there is no reason why the options should not be healthy. Especially since we have an obesity epidemic in this country.

VanceMack said:

No...in many cases they cannot bring their lunch. The dissent regarding food caliber and quality seems to be the issue. But...I would agree that the since we are talking about those on government assistance, the government should choose what form of assistance ALL recipients receive. These healthy and nutritional meals should be the standard for all food stamp/food assistance programs.

Click to expand...

Not a single school is prevented by the federal government from allowing children to bring in their own lunch. There is some confusion among many states about whether preschoolers in head start programs can bring their lunches in without a medical reason, but this has to do with the safety (mainly) of the food rather than the actual nutritional quality of the food, and appears to depend much more on the individual states than the actual federal government. The one school that people have been hearing about that does not allow students to bring their lunches in, Little <something> Academy in Chicago (I think), has had this policy (it is their policy) for over 6 years now and it has nothing to do with the federal government at all.

:lamo
And yet another one who doesn't realize what is being spoken about.
Or do you really not understand the word "like".
Which has nothing to do with whether or not the lunches are actually healthier.




No matter how you want to view this, it is indoctrination.

---

jamesrage said:

Again alleged photos from school don't mean mean anything.Any schmuck can stick alleged school food on a tray,take a picture of it and claim this is all the school is serving.Styrofoam trays are actually pretty common and so are hard plastic trays.For around 30 bucks plus money for shiping you can get a case of 500 hundred of those exact trays on amazon and I am sure any walmart or other store carry those or similar trays.

Click to expand...

:doh
Wow. While what you say can be true, you trying to suggest such with out evidence is ridiculous.

jamesrage said:

According the OP article 70 percent of the kids like the healthy food.So the idea they are not even taking it is absurd.

Click to expand...

:doh
The claim flies in the face of what is already known. The food is ending up in the trash because it isn't being eaten, which of course has nothing to do with taking it.

jamesrage said:

Are they supposed point kids towards the direction of the strip malls for lunch and provide food coupons for poor kids or say to the kids your mommy doesn't love you enough to feed you so no school lunch for you?

Click to expand...

You fail out the gate with your emotive babble.

roguenuke said:

Excon said:

And?



We do not need more Gov control.
We need less Gov control.

Click to expand...

School lunches have always been government controlled in what was served by the school. The only difference now is in which government entity has how much say in what is served.

No school that I know of (K-12) bans school lunches (with the exception of that Little Academy (I think they are elementary school), which has had that policy for at least 6 years, making it a local policy of the principle there and enacted before the current federal guidelines were thought of).

Click to expand...

Nothing you said counters what you quoted.
We do not need more Gov control.
We need less Gov control.

Your Star said:

Here's the problem with your argument, the government was choosing the lunches beforehand. This is not the government stepping in where it doesn't belong, this is just the government making a better choice where they already had control.

Click to expand...

YOU MISS THE POINT.

Good night it's like you people have your eyes wide shut.

Have you seen the shopping carts they want?

Have you seen the way they want the grocery stores to operate?


Oh, let me guess, you either have not, OR "well it'll make you HEALTHIER!" right?

You guys just don't get it.

Excon said:

Nothing you said counters what you quoted.
We do not need more Gov control.
We need less Gov control.

Click to expand...

This isn't more government control though, as your post suggested, only a different kind of government control. Parents are still free to send lunches with their children to school. There is simply a different, healthier menu being served in schools to help children. If parents don't want that food for their children, they can provide an alternative.

roguenuke said:

Not a single school is prevented by the federal government from allowing children to bring in their own lunch. There is some confusion among many states about whether preschoolers in head start programs can bring their lunches in without a medical reason, but this has to do with the safety (mainly) of the food rather than the actual nutritional quality of the food, and appears to depend much more on the individual states than the actual federal government. The one school that people have been hearing about that does not allow students to bring their lunches in, Little <something> Academy in Chicago (I think), has had this policy (it is their policy) for over 6 years now and it has nothing to do with the federal government at all.

Click to expand...

SOrry...its simply not true that it is only happening in one isolated little school. There are accounts from Hawaii to Virginia and many states in between, all citing federal Head Start funding and guidelines as part of their justification. Regardless of whether or not it is mandated or if it is local policy using federal guidelines as their hammer, it is still happening.
School Bans Homemade Lunches, Angering Parents Critical Of Federal Nutritional Standards

Still...OK...fine. I agree...healthy living is really what it is all about and for that reason, we should ENSURE that people on government assistance ONLY be given prepackaged foods that meet these nutritional standards. Just like those eeeeevil parents that might pack a twinkie in their sack lunch, many have demonstrated they obviously make bad decisions and need, no...DESERVE the privilege of having someone else make their health and nutritional decisions for them.

VanceMack said:

SOrry...its simply not true that it is only happening in one isolated little school. There are accounts from Hawaii to Virginia and many states in between, all citing federal Head Start funding and guidelines as part of their justification. Regardless of whether or not it is mandated or if it is local policy using federal guidelines as their hammer, it is still happening.
School Bans Homemade Lunches, Angering Parents Critical Of Federal Nutritional Standards

Still...OK...fine. I agree...healthy living is really what it is all about and for that reason, we should ENSURE that people on government assistance ONLY be given prepackaged foods that meet these nutritional standards. Just like those eeeeevil parents that might pack a twinkie in their sack lunch, many have demonstrated they obviously make bad decisions and need, no...DESERVE the privilege of having someone else make their health and nutritional decisions for them.

Click to expand...

The other ones having issues are preschools/head start programs, as I said, and as I've said, that is a problem that the states are having with interpreting the rules that have been in place for awhile. It is concerning head start programs, where they don't always have the same available resources (including even actual cafeterias to eat in) for children in these programs.

From your article:

"Carmona said she initiated the policy in 2005 after observing students bringing “bottles of soda and bags of flaming hot chips” for lunches on field trips. "

The elementary school many have cited is Little Village Academy, the one I mentioned.

And this regarding the preschool thing:

"However, the administrator’s apparent decision does not necessarily reflect federal or state policy, given the power of individual administrators to make such decisions."

I don't agree with any ban on parents being allowed to send any reasonable lunches to school with their children, including for allergy reasons (I like better the idea of having separate tables that are allergen free tables). But the reality is that the federal guidelines on nutrition are not what is responsible for any of these bans, the individual schools and school systems are.

roguenuke said:

The other ones having issues are preschools/head start programs, as I said, and as I've said, that is a problem that the states are having with interpreting the rules that have been in place for awhile. It is concerning head start programs, where they don't always have the same available resources (including even actual cafeterias to eat in) for children in these programs.

From your article:

"Carmona said she initiated the policy in 2005 after observing students bringing “bottles of soda and bags of flaming hot chips” for lunches on field trips. "

The elementary school many have cited is Little Village Academy, the one I mentioned.

And this regarding the preschool thing:

"However, the administrator’s apparent decision does not necessarily reflect federal or state policy, given the power of individual administrators to make such decisions."

I don't agree with any ban on parents being allowed to send any reasonable lunches to school with their children, including for allergy reasons (I like better the idea of having separate tables that are allergen free tables). But the reality is that the federal guidelines on nutrition are not what is responsible for any of these bans, the individual schools and school systems are.

Click to expand...

Hawaii...bans on home lunches, bans on peanut butter, bans on teachers eating home lunches. Washington State. California. There are example after example after example and thats NOT including all the anecdotal evidence in the comments of all of the accompanying stories. And I thought it telling your only response to the actual pictures with actual meals serving actual food at the actual schools was "well...thats just schools that dont care". As if thats better.

But again...Im all for doing things for the children and SINCE these school guidelines are what you consider healthy and nutritious and THAT is the ultimate goal, then surely you agree that THAT is all that should be allowed in the food subsidy programs for home use as well, right? I mean...we cant have people buying non-healthy food. That would be irresponsible.

sangha said:

I will as soon as you quote the post where I claimed that a majority of children like those new meal guidelines

Click to expand...

What good are the new diet guidelines if the children won't eat the meals?

sangha said:

So less fruit, less veggies, and less carbs.

That leaves meat. Do you really think kids todays are lacking meat in their diets?

Click to expand...

Yeah, of course that's what I meant, give them nothing but slabs of beef. :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of trying to win a debate with tedious little technicalities, without making a good point?

VanceMack said:

Hawaii...bans on home lunches, bans on peanut butter, bans on teachers eating home lunches. Washington State. California. There are example after example after example and thats NOT including all the anecdotal evidence in the comments of all of the accompanying stories. And I thought it telling your only response to the actual pictures with actual meals serving actual food at the actual schools was "well...thats just schools that dont care". As if thats better.

But again...Im all for doing things for the children and SINCE these school guidelines are what you consider healthy and nutritious and THAT is the ultimate goal, then surely you agree that THAT is all that should be allowed in the food subsidy programs for home use as well, right? I mean...we cant have people buying non-healthy food. That would be irresponsible.

Click to expand...

State bans, which have absolutely nothing to do with the new federal nutritional guidelines and everything to do with states or school districts making up their own rules for various reasons. I had my children in California schools just this past school year (for at least a little while). I sent lunches with my Kinder on occasion. My preschool age child was never in class long enough to require a lunch. In fact, there, the preschool classes only lasted about half as long as the elementary school days, so they only got snacks anyways, not lunch.

The bans on peanut butter (which I've said I don't personally agree with anyway) are due to allergies, particularly severe allergies to peanuts where even just contact with a little bit of the oil can cause serious reactions. The bans on teachers eating in the rooms is probably dependent on what they are eating, possibly on whether it is acceptable for anyone to eat in the room (concern over insects and/or cleanliness), or when they are eating in the room.

My argument has always been that the federal guidelines are not causing these problems, but rather the individual schools, school systems, and in some cases the states. That is what this discussion is about, the new healthy lunch federal guidelines, which have pretty much nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Now, as far as food stamps are concerned, I'm all for making them so that people cannot buy certain products, such as soda (most drinks in fact, with the exceptions of milk and juice) or candy/snack cake sweets or chips with them. But I would not limit it too much after that. They are not the same thing here. One is guidelines for what schools can fix for all students, not just those on assistance, while the other is monetary aid to buy food.

Buck Ewer said:

The choice is easy.
Healthier food for my kids.
Would you rather that the dictates are un-healthy food?
There was no choice before.

Click to expand...

sure there was. almost all schools had salad bars etc... very few kids ate at them and very few still do. schools are seeing about 2-3x the amount of food waste as before.

Public School Kids Rebel Against Michelle Obama's Healthy School Lunches As First Daughters Get Meatball Subs, Ice Cream - Leah Barkoukis

Let them eat cake. now they really don't have a choice. they are limited on meat cheese and everything else.
i think i saw a picture of a lunch it had a burrito shell with 1 slice of ham and 1 slice of cheese and that was it.

to a teen that on average consumes 1000+ calories in a day a 750 lunch is not going to work more so if they play sports and are burning 2000+ calories in a day.

mean while obama's kids get BBQ, meatball subs and icecream all of which she has outlawed for other kids. being elite must be nice.

grip said:

What good are the new diet guidelines if the children won't eat the meals?

Click to expand...

I see you can't quote me saying what you claimed I said, so now you're trying to divert

Yeah, of course that's what I meant, give them nothing but slabs of beef. :roll:

Don't you ever get tired of trying to win a debate with tedious little technicalities, without making a good point?

Click to expand...

So now, after saying that there wasn't enough meat in the lunches, you're going to deny saying that the lunches need more meat?

This is about the 5th time you've contradicted yourself in this thread

ludin said:

sure there was. almost all schools had salad bars etc... very few kids ate at them and very few still do. schools are seeing about 2-3x the amount of food waste as before.

Public School Kids Rebel Against Michelle Obama's Healthy School Lunches As First Daughters Get Meatball Subs, Ice Cream - Leah Barkoukis

Let them eat cake. now they really don't have a choice. they are limited on meat cheese and everything else.
i think i saw a picture of a lunch it had a burrito shell with 1 slice of ham and 1 slice of cheese and that was it.

to a teen that on average consumes 1000+ calories in a day a 750 lunch is not going to work more so if they play sports and are burning 2000+ calories in a day.

mean while obama's kids get BBQ, meatball subs and icecream all of which she has outlawed for other kids. being elite must be nice.

Click to expand...

You can send your kids to a private school too if you wish. Or you can send your children to school with a meatball sub (unless you go to a school where the administration of that school has chosen to ban lunches from home, which has absolutely nothing to do with either Obama, their children, nor even the new school guidelines).

The limit is not 750, it is 850 for high school students, teenagers, which they found is pretty close to the average amount of calories that they were being served prior to the guidelines changing. Plus,

No one "outlawed" meatball subs or ice cream for school children. In fact, my child last year had several days where they had junk food during class. Plus, some schools even have ice cream as an "a la carte" item, as it has always been. Students have always had to pay extra (at least every school I've ever known) for things like ice cream. I can prove this.

Huntingdon Primary School: Lunch Program

Oh and some get meatball subs for lunch as well.

http://www.plainville.k12.ma.us/cms/lib3/MA01000200/Centricity/Domain/18/JLunchSep12.pdf

Maybe you should actually look at what is allowed rather than simply reacting to some things being said on the internet. Meatball subs nor ice cream are banned from schools. Ice cream in public schools has almost never been available as included in the regular meal price, and has pretty much always been for most schools an a la carte option, as it still is in many schools.

What I learned from reading this thread.

1) A student's full allotment of calories comes from school lunch. Nowhere else.
2) A parent cannot send their child to school with a packed lunch.
3) An eight year old child is a better judge of their nutritional needs than an adult.
4) Students never threw their lunches away before 2014.
5) The average child in the 1950's burned upwards of 16,000 calories per day.
6) Communism!
7) Moochelle.

sangha said:

I see you can't quote me saying what you claimed I said, so now you're trying to divert



So now, after saying that there wasn't enough meat in the lunches, you're going to deny saying that the lunches need more meat?

This is about the 5th time you've contradicted yourself in this thread

Click to expand...

Ok,, if you say so, I'm sure you're always right?

ludin said:

mean while obama's kids get BBQ, meatball subs and icecream all of which she has outlawed for other kids. being elite must be nice.

Click to expand...

Not only that but did you know that Obama's demonic off-spring feast on stem-cells, the blood of virgins, and human souls?

The souls and stem cells are quite healthy, but the human blood goes straight to the hips.

I haven't read one supporter of the new lunch meal guidelines that'll admit it might be slightly overboard?

There's nothing wrong with improving the diets of a bunch of over weight, sedentary kids but there's a common sense, middle ground, without torturing them with bunny rabbit food. But god forbid anyone critize precious Michelle and her looney initiative extremes.






^^ You wouldn't give this to your dog more less a kid.

grip said:

I haven't read one supporter of the new lunch meal guidelines that'll admit it might be slightly overboard?

Click to expand...

What is overboard about the new guidelines?

^^ You wouldn't give this to your dog more less a kid.

Click to expand...

What is wrong with that lunch?

sangha said:

What is overboard about the new guidelines?



What is wrong with that lunch?

Click to expand...

You just can't stand to be so wrong, it's like a bad song. :2funny:

grip said:

You just can't stand to be so wrong, it's like a bad song. :2funny:

Click to expand...

You can't answer the question

I'm shocked!!

Hatuey said:

The Founding Fathers would have been disgusted if they saw the word freedom being used to turn our population into a bunch of fat ****s who couldn't defend the country if it needed them....

Click to expand...

We are free. Free to choose between Coke and Pepsi. What a great country!

In many neighborhoods it is easier to find and buy illegal drugs than fresh fruit and vegetables.