Poetry Forum

Full Version: No to Healthier School Lunches
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://news.yahoo.com/congress-pushes-ba...25z;_ylv=3

Congress pushed back against restrictions on school lunch standards that the US Department of Agriculture proposed, releasing a new spending bill that would effectively block or delay the proposed changes.

Aside from promoting healthy eating by lessening starchy foods, restricting sodium, and boosting wholegrains in the diet, the guidelines had hoped to specifically restrict the overuse of pizza and french fries, which many schools tended to serve to kids everyday. By current law, federally subsidized school meals MUST include a certain amount of vegetables... a rule that's bypassed by manipulating the definition of "vegetable". The bill would continue to assert that two tablespoons of tomato paste counts as a vegetable... making pizza automatically count as a "balanced' meal.

I admit thought some of the USDA's proposed regulations were a little harsh, such as restricting starchy vegetables like corn, potatoes, and peas to only two servings a week (though granted I understand if they find the measures necessary since childhood obesity has become such a problem). But really? Saying that pizza counts as a vegetable? Yet that's what schools will effectively be doing if congress and food lobbyists have their way yet again.



it's sickening playing around with health of children like that,sign of the timesAngry
For god's sake, give the little fatties an apple.

Make sure you roll it in sugar first, of course, so they know it's edible.
Or grease. Don't forget the grease.

It's one thing to argue for the nutritional benefits of a hearty potato. But that doesn't mean eating potato strips deep fried in fat every day is healthy eating. The hypocrisy is particularly grating... they don't give a damn what they serve to kids (particularly poor kids, who are most dependent on the subsidized school lunch program), but they twist facts and pretend the crap they want to serve is "healthy" so they don't look like negligent douchebags on paper.

Lobbyists, it's all about lobbyists. It's not gonna cost the government much more to switch to other suppliers of healthier options, they just need to be smarter about it (get stock from local state farmers, etc). It's the junk food companies who are afraid of losing their big fat contracts.
absolutely,I'm crying at 8 in the morning,do these people have no hearts?
I don't think it's the schools' responibility to feed its students. If parents are worried about their children's diets then they should feed them themselves, and take the time to make them a healthy packed lunch. Why should a school spend money which could be spent on books and computers doing what parents are too lazy to? They're there to teach kids, not raise them. Should educators also be responsible for cleaning the students' uniforms and kissing them goodnight?
As for poor kids who depend on school lunches, I'm going to sound really callous here but I think if you can't afford to feed your children you shouldn't be having them. Of course what you should and shouldn't do doesn't stop people, and it isn't the child's fault that its parents were too lazy or stupid to even use contraceptives.
Aren't the lunches paid for, in a cafeteria? I don't think it's a case of "these people are too poor so they shouldn't have kids", Jack. Here in Australia there's been quite a heavy emphasis on replacing things like chips (crisps) and sweets in the school canteen with healthier alternatives, though we don't have a cafeteria system, we have lunch orders that are delivered to the classrooms for primary school kids or collected at the canteen in high school. I give my kids a lunch order once every couple of weeks as a treat and the unhealthiest thing on the menu is probably a hot dog. Of course, that's what my son wants Smile. My daughter usually asks for the sushi. For morning tea, there's plenty of fruit, yoghurt and other tasty things that don't cause instant diabetes. A typical lunch order will cost me about $15 total for both kids, morning tea and lunch, which is way more expensive than the packed lunches I send them with every other day. Parents who send their kids with no lunch are first asked to pay for something from the canteen, then asked if they have genuine financial hardship (also asked to prove it, with bank statements) and if there's no actual reason other than laziness, they're reported to child services.

Incidentally, teachers in primary school are quite vigilant and will also send a note home if a child is constantly provided with unhealthy or insufficient packed lunch.

Oh, and Jack: if everyone waited until they could "afford" to have kids, we'd have a whole generation of over-indulged, perfecty turned out little automatons with yuppie parents who are retired before the kids leave high school. Unless you're suggesting means testing before people are allowed to fall pregnant -- which smacks of Brave New World just a little bit to me. The gentrification of the womb, how lovely! Nobody is ever prepared for kids, you just "make do".
In hindsight my argument could be construed as a call for mandatory sterilisation, which I promise it isn'tBig Grin (Though if the armband fits...) That said I don't think it's unreasonable to ask (not force) parents to make sure they're at least financially secure enough to feed their child three square meals a day before pro-creating. I find it kind of shocking that some kids rely on the free school dinners program for their most substantial daily meal. It also annoys me that people seem to be more in uproar about school dinners than they are the lack of books and equipment. I can't help but think that if my school focused less on appeasing health Nazis we'd have been able to work with textbooks which didn't have knobs drawn all over them.
financial secure?How I'm supposed to interpret that?Working your ass off for 30 years and then getting ripped off by some wallstreet punk?[sorry my early morning rant and off topic]
let's measure their sculls and sterilise'm
I haven't read the whole of this thread - it is 6.30 in the morning and I've spent a lot of the time awake - but, I felt I wanted to contribute.

I had four kids and my husband had a job (not a good one, but a job) we managed, and the only debt we had was our mortgage. Then the bottom fell out of carpet weaving, he was made redundant..and we were well below the breadline. So......life does sometimes kick you in the teeth. However, by using my intelligence and working hard (I became a cleaner and child-minder) - we still never owed anyone a penny and our kids were well fed, clothed and cared for (no free school meals for us).
My four children aren't in well-paid jobs but have always worked (my son once was manager of a camera shop, and when his redundancy came he laboured on a building site!)
I think my point is - some people take responsibility for themselves and some expect others (Gov.) to step in and take over. Perhaps we should have lessons in schools which teach pupils that the world doesn't owe them a living.
(11-18-2011, 12:21 PM)MyNemesis Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2011, 07:02 AM)Heslopian Wrote: [ -> ]In hindsight my argument could be construed as a call for mandatory sterilisation, which I promise it isn'tBig Grin (Though if the armband fits...) That said I don't think it's unreasonable to ask (not force) parents to make sure they're at least financially secure enough to feed their child three square meals a day before pro-creating. I find it kind of shocking that some kids rely on the free school dinners program for their most substantial daily meal. It also annoys me that people seem to be more in uproar about school dinners than they are the lack of books and equipment. I can't help but think that if my school focused less on appeasing health Nazis we'd have been able to work with textbooks which didn't have knobs drawn all over them.

That would work as long as you knew you had a job until you retired. Most of us don't have that luxury. When my daughter was born I was making $35,000 a year, my ex husband $75,000. Due to financial downturns several times since then, I am now, 21 years later, making less than $35,000 a year, and my ex husband has not had a job in close to 4 years.....so what should I have done at the first sign of financial hardship - return my daughter?

Again, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything. During times of financial hardship there should be systems in place to help parents get the money they need to raise their children, which I imagine in most developed countries there are. I just think when planning a family you should make sure you have enough cash to feed your child. Why is such a simple request regarded as fascism? If your circumstances change through no fault of your own then fine, of course you deserve help feeding and clothing the child(ren) you have, but such support shouldn't be the responsibility of the schools. That's what welfare is for. The government gives you money to pay your bills and feed your kids. If a parent is too lazy to spend the money they're given on cooking nutritious meals then that's their problem and they have no place raising kids.
I'm on welfare myself at the moment so I have some idea. I see your point. I think the problem is with the government rather than the schools though. Struggling families should be given enough money to pay their bills and cover a substantial, nutritious diet. It isn't the schools' responsibility to feed its students.