Michelle Obama's School Lunch Rules in GOP Cross Hairs.....

[MMC]

Oh no's.....say it isn't so. Now those ebil GOPers are going after MO.

Cmons now, not MO's lunch program.....Although the heading is a bit Misleading about who now is coming out against MO's idea on Schools and the food they will serve.

Do they think they can say the School Nutrition Association created in 46 is Republican? :lol:

New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady

No Obama program is safe from House Republicans—even when the Obama in question is Michelle. A GOP agriculture and food spending released yesterday contains a provision that would take a bite out of the first lady's stricter school lunch health standards, the AP reports. With many schools complaining about the program, Republicans want to allow them to opt out if they lose money on the healthier lunches over a six-month period.

The idea is getting a big push from the School Nutrition Association, the Washington Post reports, which gets substantial funding from food industry sources. Michelle Obama held a conference call with health activists yesterday urging them to fight back against such pressure, while Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a statement calling the waivers a "major step backward." .....snip~

Michelle Obama's School Lunch Rules in GOP Cross Hairs - New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady


Also its quite interesting to note. Not only is the House coming out with a Bill to fix MO's little dab will do ya. But so to the Senate. What say ye?

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not a fan at all of the school lunch regulations (for many reasons), but one reason I'm NOT against them is because I have a problem with spending money to make children healthier. I'm just not sure I understand that argument. If the school is reporting a financial loss from the food program, then send them more money to pay for it. If the health of our children is not worthy of our tax dollars, what is?

Like I said, I don't like the regulations for many reasons, but trying to save some money at the expense of a child's health is just not one of them.

 

[humbolt]

Oh no's.....say it isn't so. Now those ebil GOPers are going after MO.

Cmons now, not MO's lunch program.....Although the heading is a bit Misleading about who now is coming out against MO's idea on Schools and the food they will serve.

Do they think they can say the School Nutrition Association created in 46 is Republican? :lol:

New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady

No Obama program is safe from House Republicans—even when the Obama in question is Michelle. A GOP agriculture and food spending released yesterday contains a provision that would take a bite out of the first lady's stricter school lunch health standards, the AP reports. With many schools complaining about the program, Republicans want to allow them to opt out if they lose money on the healthier lunches over a six-month period.

The idea is getting a big push from the School Nutrition Association, the Washington Post reports, which gets substantial funding from food industry sources. Michelle Obama held a conference call with health activists yesterday urging them to fight back against such pressure, while Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a statement calling the waivers a "major step backward." .....snip~

Michelle Obama's School Lunch Rules in GOP Cross Hairs - New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady


Also its quite interesting to note. Not only is the House coming out with a Bill to fix MO's little dab will do ya. But so to the Senate. What say ye?

According to the School Nutrition Association, this is a financial sustainability issue. The reality is that MO's program is not popular in schools, and declining participation and increasing costs doom it as it stands. Revision is necessary. The portrayal of this as a GOP attack on MO is completely false. In reading the SNA position paper on this issue, it is clear that the program should be revised to maintain sustainability of a viable school lunch program. It is possible to laud the objectives while changing the methods employed to reach them.

 

[rocket88]

Oh no's.....say it isn't so. Now those ebil GOPers are going after MO.

Cmons now, not MO's lunch program.....Although the heading is a bit Misleading about who now is coming out against MO's idea on Schools and the food they will serve.

Do they think they can say the School Nutrition Association created in 46 is Republican? :lol:

New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady

No Obama program is safe from House Republicans—even when the Obama in question is Michelle. A GOP agriculture and food spending released yesterday contains a provision that would take a bite out of the first lady's stricter school lunch health standards, the AP reports. With many schools complaining about the program, Republicans want to allow them to opt out if they lose money on the healthier lunches over a six-month period.

The idea is getting a big push from the School Nutrition Association, the Washington Post reports, which gets substantial funding from food industry sources. Michelle Obama held a conference call with health activists yesterday urging them to fight back against such pressure, while Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a statement calling the waivers a "major step backward." .....snip~

Michelle Obama's School Lunch Rules in GOP Cross Hairs - New bill would let schools opt out of program championed by first lady


Also its quite interesting to note. Not only is the House coming out with a Bill to fix MO's little dab will do ya. But so to the Senate. What say ye?

I personally don't understand what the GOP has against eating healthier foods. Are fatties more likely to vote Republican or something? I think this has more to do with election year posturing than anything.

 

[MMC]

According to the School Nutrition Association, this is a financial sustainability issue. The reality is that MO's program is not popular in schools, and declining participation and increasing costs doom it as it stands. Revision is necessary. The portrayal of this as a GOP attack on MO is completely false. In reading the SNA position paper on this issue, it is clear that the program should be revised to maintain sustainability of a viable school lunch program. It is possible to laud the objectives while changing the methods employed to reach them.

Mornin' HB. :2wave: Yeah I know.....and despite that report. Take a look at what another has up. Squarely blaming the GOP for filing the bill. Yet schools and kids all across the internet are revolting.



GOP Wants Schools to Be Able to Opt Out of Michelle Obama-Backed Healthy Lunches.....


A GOP agriculture and spending bill released on Monday will allow some schools to opt out of the Michelle Obama-backed healthy lunch program that has proven quite controversial in some states. As the Associated Press' Mary Clare Jalonick writes the new bill will allow schools that have lost money on their school food programs for six consecutive months to apply for waivers, a move prompted by requests from schools, according to the House Appropriations Committee. The bill was rolled out today and will be considered by a House subcommittee on Tuesday.

Not everyone is happy with the changes the government made to school lunches two years ago — they were despited to cut down on fat, sugar, calories, and sodium. Many teens have taken to the Internet to air their disgust over their “nasty” tater tot-free lunches — and post sad photos of limp chicken burgers and tortillas — and place the blame squarely with the First Lady. Schools have also complained about the new rules, saying that asking kids to eat a fruit or vegetable with every meal is “unrealistic.”

The School Nutrition Association, a nonprofit professional membership organization representing 55,000 school nutrition professionals who work in school cafeterias nationwide, supports the GOP’s effort, and told the AP that schools need “more room to make their own decisions.” The group also said that 90 percent of schools have reported an increase in food costs.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-wants-schools-able-opt-michelle-obama-backed-194200338.html?.tsrc=metrosnw

 

[GottaGo]

I'm not a fan at all of the school lunch regulations (for many reasons), but one reason I'm NOT against them is because I have a problem with spending money to make children healthier. I'm just not sure I understand that argument. If the school is reporting a financial loss from the food program, then send them more money to pay for it. If the health of our children is not worthy of our tax dollars, what is?

Like I said, I don't like the regulations for many reasons, but trying to save some money at the expense of a child's health is just not one of them.

I don't believe it's all about saving money... if the program doesn't offer things that kids will eat (and I know I skipped the school lunches when they were offering up things I didn't like) then the program isn't successful.

 

[MMC]

I'm not a fan at all of the school lunch regulations (for many reasons), but one reason I'm NOT against them is because I have a problem with spending money to make children healthier. I'm just not sure I understand that argument. If the school is reporting a financial loss from the food program, then send them more money to pay for it. If the health of our children is not worthy of our tax dollars, what is?

Like I said, I don't like the regulations for many reasons, but trying to save some money at the expense of a child's health is just not one of them.

Mornin Slyfox. :2wave: What do you think about what BO's own Agricultural Secretary had to say about this? Do you think MO should be trying to make a push against this like the Washington Post reports?

 

[MMC]

I personally don't understand what the GOP has against eating healthier foods. Are fatties more likely to vote Republican or something? I think this has more to do with election year posturing than anything.

Morning 88. :2wave: It didn't start with the GOP. This started with schools and Right here in Chicago in MO and BO's own backyard. Then spread quickly. They even talk about the mounds of food that is going to waste.

 

[humbolt]

I don't believe it's all about saving money... if the program doesn't offer things that kids will eat (and I know I skipped the school lunches when they were offering up things I didn't like) then the program isn't successful.

Agreed. It is possible to serve nutritious food children will like. This should not be an all or nothing program.

 

[MMC]

I don't believe it's all about saving money... if the program doesn't offer things that kids will eat (and I know I skipped the school lunches when they were offering up things I didn't like) then the program isn't successful.

Mornin' GG.

I haven't seen what the Senate Bill looks like or whats in there. Moreover.....the House bill would only allows schools and or districts to opt out if they choose to. Plus they have a condition to meet to top it off. So its not like the GOP is out to take down MO's Plan.

 

[sangha]

Republicans

Complain that the law allows food stamps to pay for junk food
Complain that the law does not allow schools to serve junk food for lunch

 

[MMC]

Agreed. It is possible to serve nutritious food children will like. This should not be an all or nothing program.

Here is what Conservatives are saying about this.....now its going to be an ALL out push to protect MO. When the issue should be about the kids and schools.


Michelle Obama's Control-Freak Lunch Program.....


Look out, everyone: The nation's school lunch lady, Michelle Obama, is mad. With her federal nutrition program under fire across the country and now on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Obama put out a "forceful" call to arms this week to "health activists," according to The Washington Post. Progressives blame kid-hating Republicans and greedy businesses for the revolt against Mrs. Obama's failed policies. But the truth is right around the corner in your students' cafeterias. Districts are losing money. Discarded food is piling high. Kids are going off-campus to fill their tummies or just going hungry.

According to the School Nutrition Association, almost half of school meal programs reported declines in revenue in the 2012-13 school year, and 90 percent said food costs were up. Local nutrition directors are demanding more flexibility and freedom. Look no further than school districts in Los Angeles and Chicago.

As I noted in 2011, the L.A. Unified School District pronounced the first lady's federally subsidized initiative a "flop" and a "disaster." Principals reported "massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away." The problem has only worsened. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the city's students throw out "at least $100,000 worth of food a day -- and probably far more," which "amounts to $18 million a year."

Or you can do what Arlington Heights District 214 in Michelle Obama's home state of Illinois just did: Vote yourselves out of the unsavory one-size-fits-all mandate. Last week, the state's second largest school district decided to quit the national school lunch program altogether. Officials pointed out that absurd federal guidelines prevented them from offering hard-boiled eggs, hummus, pretzels, some brands of yogurt, and nonfat milk in containers larger than 12 ounces. The district will deliberately forgo $900,000 in federal aid and instead rely on its own nutritionist to devise healthy choices that students actually want. One local parent summed it up well: "(T)he government can't control everything."

Mrs. Obama's advocates have already taken to social media to complain about Big Business special interests. But let's remember: Mrs. Obama has been working the food circuit since 2005, when the wife of newly elected Sen. Barack Obama was named to the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart processed foods supplier TreeHouse Foods Inc. -- collecting $45,000 in 2005, $51,200 in 2006, and 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

Fact: The first lady has been the most insatiable crony at the center of the Fed Foods racket. Her nonprofit Partnership for a Healthier America has reported assets of $4.5 million from secret donors. It's not just mean conservatives pointing out her Big Business ties. The left-wing documentary "Fed Up" made the same point before being edited under pressure. Hello, Chicago Way.

Mrs. Obama's allies also have accused opponents of wanting to repeal "science-based" standards. But the first lady herself was caught spreading false claims that her program was responsible for reducing childhood obesity, when the decline began a decade ago.

If federal food policy were really about the children, the East Wing would be embracing change. But this is not about protecting the kids. It's about protecting Michelle Obama.....snip~

Michelle Obama's Control-Freak Lunch Program - Michelle Malkin - Page 2

 

[humbolt]

Here is what Conservatives are saying about this.....now its going to be an ALL out push to protect MO. When the issue should be about the kids and schools.


Michelle Obama's Control-Freak Lunch Program.....


Look out, everyone: The nation's school lunch lady, Michelle Obama, is mad. With her federal nutrition program under fire across the country and now on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Obama put out a "forceful" call to arms this week to "health activists," according to The Washington Post. Progressives blame kid-hating Republicans and greedy businesses for the revolt against Mrs. Obama's failed policies. But the truth is right around the corner in your students' cafeterias. Districts are losing money. Discarded food is piling high. Kids are going off-campus to fill their tummies or just going hungry.

According to the School Nutrition Association, almost half of school meal programs reported declines in revenue in the 2012-13 school year, and 90 percent said food costs were up. Local nutrition directors are demanding more flexibility and freedom. Look no further than school districts in Los Angeles and Chicago.

As I noted in 2011, the L.A. Unified School District pronounced the first lady's federally subsidized initiative a "flop" and a "disaster." Principals reported "massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away." The problem has only worsened. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the city's students throw out "at least $100,000 worth of food a day -- and probably far more," which "amounts to $18 million a year."

Or you can do what Arlington Heights District 214 in Michelle Obama's home state of Illinois just did: Vote yourselves out of the unsavory one-size-fits-all mandate. Last week, the state's second largest school district decided to quit the national school lunch program altogether. Officials pointed out that absurd federal guidelines prevented them from offering hard-boiled eggs, hummus, pretzels, some brands of yogurt, and nonfat milk in containers larger than 12 ounces. The district will deliberately forgo $900,000 in federal aid and instead rely on its own nutritionist to devise healthy choices that students actually want. One local parent summed it up well: "(T)he government can't control everything."

Mrs. Obama's advocates have already taken to social media to complain about Big Business special interests. But let's remember: Mrs. Obama has been working the food circuit since 2005, when the wife of newly elected Sen. Barack Obama was named to the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart processed foods supplier TreeHouse Foods Inc. -- collecting $45,000 in 2005, $51,200 in 2006, and 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

Fact: The first lady has been the most insatiable crony at the center of the Fed Foods racket. Her nonprofit Partnership for a Healthier America has reported assets of $4.5 million from secret donors. It's not just mean conservatives pointing out her Big Business ties. The left-wing documentary "Fed Up" made the same point before being edited under pressure. Hello, Chicago Way.

Mrs. Obama's allies also have accused opponents of wanting to repeal "science-based" standards. But the first lady herself was caught spreading false claims that her program was responsible for reducing childhood obesity, when the decline began a decade ago.

If federal food policy were really about the children, the East Wing would be embracing change. But this is not about protecting the kids. It's about protecting Michelle Obama.....snip~

Michelle Obama's Control-Freak Lunch Program - Michelle Malkin - Page 2

Never, ever suggest that a liberal-inspired program could be improved. They don't like that at all. If anybody's gonna change it, it damn well better be a liberal. So suggesting a change makes the right "kid haters"? Man, these people have lost their minds.

 

[sangha]

Never, ever suggest that a liberal-inspired program could be improved.

Is that why the republicans are not suggesting any improvements?

Or is it because the republicans have no ideas on how to improve it?

 

[MMC]

Never, ever suggest that a liberal-inspired program could be improved. They don't like that at all. If anybody's gonna change it, it damn well better be a liberal. So suggesting a change makes the right "kid haters"? Man, these people have lost their minds.

Even Chicago Public Schools are complaining about MO's Lunch Program.....How do they think they get away with Blaming the Republicans over doing this. When it is Chicago and Los Angeles who all started it.

Los Angeles.....said it was flop and a failure first.

The Blue Brothers themselves would call that.....Flip, Flop, and Fry! :lol:

 

[humbolt]

Is that why the republicans are not suggesting any improvements?

Or is it because the republicans have no ideas on how to improve it?

No, we're all for putting stuff out on the trays that is completely healthy. That no child will eat it is completely secondary. I'm thinking bean curd on a whole wheat waffle with a piece of organic apple on it. It'll be a huge hit with the PC crowd. The kids won't eat it, but so ****ing what? It's the intention, and not the result that counts.

 

[rocket88]

Morning 88. :2wave: It didn't start with the GOP. This started with schools and Right here in Chicago in MO and BO's own backyard. Then spread quickly. They even talk about the mounds of food that is going to waste.

It still seems to me that what they really want is to keep it the way it was. Which directly contributed to obesity and diabetes rates because of the pre-processed foods.

While I don't necessarily think you want government telling people what to eat in their own home, school lunches are already "the government."

 

[humbolt]

Even Chicago Public Schools are complaining about MO's Lunch Program.....How do they think they get away with Blaming the Republicans over doing this. When it is Chicago and Los Angeles who all started it.

Los Angeles.....said it was flop and a failure first.

The Blue Brothers themselves would call that.....Flip, Flop, and Fry! :lol:

Yeah, LA and Chicago - those right wing bastions of conservative thought.

 

[Renae]

Republicans

Complain that the law allows food stamps to pay for junk food
Complain that the law does not allow schools to serve junk food for lunch

We get it, you don't understand the issue and tried to be witty. /roll eyes

The schools aren't serving healthy food if the food is so bad no one eats it. What is it about progressives that makes them blind to the failings of their ideas?

PS The problem with EBT and buying junk food is that it's tax payer money for luxury items, you want a candy bar, you pay for it.

 

[rocket88]

No, we're all for putting stuff out on the trays that is completely healthy. That no child will eat it is completely secondary. I'm thinking bean curd on a whole wheat waffle with a piece of organic apple on it. It'll be a huge hit with the PC crowd. The kids won't eat it, but so ****ing what? It's the intention, and not the result that counts.

They could, of course, bring their own lunch if they don't like what the school is serving. Personal responsibility for your own family and such.

 

[Renae]

It still seems to me that what they really want is to keep it the way it was. Which directly contributed to obesity and diabetes rates because of the pre-processed foods.

While I don't necessarily think you want government telling people what to eat in their own home, school lunches are already "the government."

WRONG

The loss of Recess, PE programs that worked kids out, and our culture of Computers, TV's and video games. Not school lunches are to blame.

 

[Ockham]

How about we go back to the good old days and have the lunch ladies serve salisbury steak monday, penne pasta tuesday, meatloaf wednesday, oven baked chicken thursday and pizza friday with a apple brown betty, ice cream, milk and juice and a variety of fruit available. If your kid doesn't want to eat what's provided, bring something from home. While well intentioned, MO's plan is throwing tons of food into the trash every day across the nation. Simplify is the message and stop trying to force kids to eat something they don't like --- got news for ya, forcing doesn't work well.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't believe it's all about saving money

It's the rationale they seem to be using though.

... if the program doesn't offer things that kids will eat (and I know I skipped the school lunches when they were offering up things I didn't like) then the program isn't successful.

I can somewhat agree with this, and like I said, I have my own reasons for not liking the program.

But complaining about money when it comes to a child's health isn't a reason to dislike the program for me.

Do you think MO should be trying to make a push against this like the Washington Post reports?

I think Michelle Obama should be making a push to do two things.

1. Increase the awareness and "marketing" (for lack of a better term) of childhood obesity and the important of healthy eating, while working to provide schools more funding to provide healthier meals.

2. Let the child and their parent decide for themselves what their child eats. A 650 calorie lunch when I was in school would have left me starving throughout the day by the time I was in 6th grade.

 

[rocket88]

We get it, you don't understand the issue and tried to be witty. /roll eyes

The schools aren't serving healthy food if the food is so bad no one eats it. What is it about progressives that makes them blind to the failings of their ideas?

PS The problem with EBT and buying junk food is that it's tax payer money for luxury items, you want a candy bar, you pay for it.

News flash: school lunch programs are tax payer funded.

 

[rocket88]

WRONG

The loss of Recess, PE programs that worked kids out, and our culture of Computers, TV's and video games. Not school lunches are to blame.

Surely lack of exercise has to do with it. I seem to recall that it was sooooo popular among Conservatives when Mrs. Obama said people should do that.

If you don't exercise, and you eat ****ty food, you get fat. The loss of the recesses and so on are because of the standardized tests that Conservatives wanted to see how schools were doing. Roll back on the tests, put recess and gym back in the curriculum and serve healthier foods. If you want to keep your child out of recess and pack their own lunch, go for it.