Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

Bicycle · Jul 23, 2014

Hatuey said:
Child hunger isn't an all time high. Child obesity is at an all time high. I'm pretty familiar with healthy diets and have on a number of occasion beaten some posters senseless because they simply do not know what they are discussing. A simple healthy diet is no more expensive than going to McDonald's. However, people have been indoctrinated into thinking that healthy food is expensive. This has been done by corporations and to some extent the laissez faire mentality of many capitalists.

The poor are the most affected by this approach. They are continually told that going to a local farmer's market is something the rich do. They are told that prepared foods are inexpensive. The reality is that prepared foods are overtaxed (which means the government gets their share) and produced with low quality ingredients (which means corporations make a killing) high in corn fructose.

All of that ensures that they walk like sheep into the nearest big box store where they cater to the poor and make sure they get fatter. They are told that they can't afford locally produced food and then they are told that it's easier, better, faster to buy it pre-cooked when that just couldn't be further from the truth. I find it outright abhorrent how the lower class has been taught to love ****ty food with the banners of 'Murica and Freedom waving high.

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. Well, they would have been disgusted, then they would have cut the heads off the owners of Kraft, Coca-Cola, Mars & P&G.

The best part is that it's clearly and without a doubt the beloved capitalism of old that right wingers are least likely to be blamed for obesity in this country. Kids have been conditioned through generations of constant ad bombardments to believe that 24-7 television, ordering pizza and sitting all day eating and playing video games is normal behavior for kids. There isn't a single period in human history where being inside for 10 hours a day eating and staring a single spot on the houses' wall was normal child behavior. So then who do we blame? The parents. Are you kidding?

The parents were conditioned to do that too in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and now the 10s by their baby boomer grandparents or parents. So how do you criticize a parenting style that wasn't an issue for at least 60 years? You don't. You cut it at the source and restrict the way ads are presented and where they can be presented or you create initiatives for companies to improve their products.

Give tax rebates for companies who make healthier products. Reschedule advertising on children's television (for example: instead of a 24 mins show with 4 commercial breaks - have a 6 min commercial break between shows.). Lower taxes on local farmers. Create bus routes that specifically lead the poor to cheap food markets. Bring back cooking classes in schools, make them compulsory and use them as an excuse to teach healthy diets. Those are really simple options that can help the populace make better choices regarding what to eat.

The left insists that hunger among children is increasing, which is the reason we need to fund more and more foodstamps:

More Than A Fifth Of America

"Several independent advocates and policy experts on hunger said that they had been bracing for the latest report to show deepening shortages, but that they were nevertheless astonished by how much the problem has worsened. "This is unthinkable. It's like we are living in a Third World country," said Vicki Escarra, president of Feeding America, the largest organization representing food banks and other emergency food sources.

"It's frankly just deeply upsetting," said James D. Weill, president of the Washington-based Food and Action Center. As the economy eroded, Weill said, "you had more and more people getting pushed closer to the cliff's edge. Then this huge storm came along and pushed them over."

Obama, who pledged during last year's presidential campaign to eliminate hunger among children by 2015, reiterated that goal on Monday. "My Administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger," the president said in a statement. "

Hunger a growing problem in America, USDA reports

So, please explain to me...how do we battle hunger by HUGELY depleting the caloric count of government-offered meal replacements?

That are funded in teh first place under the auspices of 'CHILDHOOD HUNGER'???

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 23, 2014

jamesrage said:
Oh no Michelle ate short ribs,That must mean she is wrong that kids should eat healthy food. I guess that means we should let schools contract with McDonalds and Little Debbie to serve school lunches and breakfast.

Perhaps Moochelle should just practice what she preaches.

Bicycle · Jul 23, 2014

"Obama, who pledged during last year's presidential campaign to eliminate hunger among children by 2015, reiterated that goal on Monday. "My Administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger," the president said in a statement......he ticked off steps that Congress and the administration have taken, or are planning, including increases in food stamp benefits and $85 million Congress just freed up through an appropriations bill to experiment with feeding more children during the summer, when subsidized school breakfasts and lunches are unavailable."

So how does this ^^^^^ work with the concept that it's better to reduce the calories in the only meals (allegedly) that children may be receiving at all?

Hint...it doesn't. Polar opposite views, held by the same admin. Embraced interchangeably as suits them to secure more money and place further restrictions upon the citizenry.

Hunger a growing problem in America, USDA reports

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 23, 2014

Kobie said:
Who's "Mo'bama"?

Moochelle Obama

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 23, 2014

Your Star said:
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.

All of those energy drinks should be disallowed from purchasing with food stamps.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 23, 2014

Your Star said:
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.

However the school lunches have never been the reason for childhood obesity. Too much soda pop and too many trips for fast food are the problem. It's the parent's responsibility, not the schools. The flotus is not going to make any difference at all in regards to childhood obesity. And it is not any of her business.

jamesrage · Jul 23, 2014

ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps Moochelle should just practice what she preaches.

Was she eating a ton of short ribs?
Does she eat short ribs on a regular basis?
Is she supposed to walk around with a carrot in her hand and bean sprouts coming out of her ass 24/7 in order preach that kids should eat healthy food?
Is there a McDonalds on the back of a white house or on Airforce one?
Is Michelle one of those fat ****s on a scooter at wal-mart?
Is Michelle shopping at the big and tall stores?
Is Michelle walking around with a 44oz cup of soda from a gas station all the time?
Is Michelle eating at CiCi's pizza every day?
Is she always walking around with a candy store in her suit case?

Eating short ribs occasionally doesn't make you a hypocrite.Eating unhealthy food occasionally doesn't make you a hypocrite.

clownboy · Jul 23, 2014

It should be the local district PTAs determining the lunch menus for their school district. The feds and state should have no say whatsoever. The district has a budget for school lunches and they are familiar with working with the PTA.

roguenuke · Jul 23, 2014

Bicycle said:
"Obama, who pledged during last year's presidential campaign to eliminate hunger among children by 2015, reiterated that goal on Monday. "My Administration is committed to reversing the trend of rising hunger," the president said in a statement......he ticked off steps that Congress and the administration have taken, or are planning, including increases in food stamp benefits and $85 million Congress just freed up through an appropriations bill to experiment with feeding more children during the summer, when subsidized school breakfasts and lunches are unavailable."

So how does this ^^^^^ work with the concept that it's better to reduce the calories in the only meals (allegedly) that children may be receiving at all?

Hint...it doesn't. Polar opposite views, held by the same admin. Embraced interchangeably as suits them to secure more money and place further restrictions upon the citizenry.

Hunger a growing problem in America, USDA reports

Because a change of about 7 calories (and that is only the average of what was offered before, not actually taken by students) is so going to make that much of a difference for those children who only eat lunch at school? 7 whole calories is not going to be the difference between full and hungry, well fed and starvation.

Kids push back on new school lunch

A large national study showed that under the old standards, high school students were offered an average of 857 calories a day, and they were taking only about 787 calories on average, Wootan says. So the current maximum of 850 calories is right on track, she says.

Plus, this doesn't include breakfast, which is also added by many schools, along with after school snacks for those students who have to spend more time at the school after school (this program happened at our school in San Diego). So that would just about cover it. I doubt many parents have much trouble feeding their children another 500 calories or so for dinner. If they are having that big of a problem with it, maybe they need to get assistance or figure something out. If that doesn't work, then perhaps someone else should be raising those children to ensure they get fed.

The hungriest children are absolutely going to eat everything on their plate, if they know that is the only food they will get the whole day.

roguenuke · Jul 23, 2014

clownboy said:
It should be the local district PTAs determining the lunch menus for their school district. The feds and state should have no say whatsoever. The district has a budget for school lunches and they are familiar with working with the PTA.

That isn't how it is now. How much power do you imagine the PTA has in such a decision?

clownboy · Jul 23, 2014

roguenuke said:
That isn't how it is now. How much power do you imagine the PTA has in such a decision?

I said quite clearly I thought that's how it should be. And actually the PTAs do have quite a lot of input with the school boards and the districts.

Excon · Jul 23, 2014

jamesrage said:
It is indoctrination to educate kids on what is healthy to eat and to serve healthy food? Are you seriously suggesting that? To quote another poster oh no telling kids 2 + 2=4 that must mean its indoctrination.

:doh
You are just showing that you do not understand what you quote.
The topic is about "like".
It is indoctrination.

jamesrage said:
You are the one claiming the kids have somehow been indoctrinated by the gobberment into liking the healthier lunches

They are. But since you agree with it it is all fine and dandy with you.
Either you oppose a nanny State or you don't.

jamesrage said:
And so is teaching kids 2+2=4 using that definition.

And? I never said it wasn't. But it is the definition.

jamesrage said:
Again alleged photos don't mean dick.Find a school menu from those alleged kids school district if you want to show actual proof.Most major school districts post school menus

Wrong. The images stand as is. You suggesting that they may be fake is unsupportable and w/o evidence to even suggest such, is an idiotic argument.
Nor do I have to provide a menu for the purposes they were used for.

jamesrage said:
So says the guy claiming the gobberment is indoctrinating kids into liking healthier food.

Says the guy who provided such a nonsense post to begin with. :doh

Bicycle · Jul 23, 2014

Nobody wants to address my question.

Which is...

If we are beefing up these programs because hunger is such a huge issue...

#1, why do we need more money to feed them less food, and
#2, why do we feed fewer calories, if kids aren't eating when they go home?

Does that make sense?

nope, it doesn't. Hunger is not the same as excess caloric intake. It's one or the other, not both.

Bicycle · Jul 23, 2014

roguenuke said:
Because a change of about 7 calories (and that is only the average of what was offered before, not actually taken by students) is so going to make that much of a difference for those children who only eat lunch at school? 7 whole calories is not going to be the difference between full and hungry, well fed and starvation.

Kids push back on new school lunch

Plus, this doesn't include breakfast, which is also added by many schools, along with after school snacks for those students who have to spend more time at the school after school (this program happened at our school in San Diego). So that would just about cover it. I doubt many parents have much trouble feeding their children another 500 calories or so for dinner. If they are having that big of a problem with it, maybe they need to get assistance or figure something out. If that doesn't work, then perhaps someone else should be raising those children to ensure they get fed.

The hungriest children are absolutely going to eat everything on their plate, if they know that is the only food they will get the whole day.

These programs are funded under the umbrella of 'feeding the hungry'. If we are serving the hungriest children, then why are we REDUCING CALORIES?

Excon · Jul 23, 2014

roguenuke said:
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.

:doh
As the thread progressed from the above post, we have seen everything you said just isn't true.
:doh

clownboy · Jul 23, 2014

Bicycle said:
Nobody wants to address my question.

Which is...

If we are beefing up these programs because hunger is such a huge issue...

#1, why do we need more money to feed them less food, and
#2, why do we feed fewer calories, if kids aren't eating when they go home?

Does that make sense?

nope, it doesn't. Hunger is not the same as excess caloric intake. It's one or the other, not both.

Those are good questions, but the thrust of Michelle's program is childhood obesity, not hunger.

I suppose we could just send Plumpynut home with those children who want it. It's cheap and what the heck, when bought retail (still cheap) it'll support the real hunger initiatives around the globe.

Bicycle · Jul 23, 2014

clownboy said:
Those are good questions, but the thrust of Michelle's program is childhood obesity, not hunger.

I suppose we could just send Plumpynut home with those children who want it. It's cheap and what the heck, when bought retail (still cheap) it'll support the real hunger initiatives around the globe.

The lunch program itself is in place to feed the hungry...a huge percentage of kids who make use of it receive free/reduced lunches, and it is funded with millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars...and always the justification for more $$ is that we are battling child hunger, which is allegedly getting worse and worse and worse...so we need more and more and more $$ to beef up these programs to feed those starving kids.

Enter Michelle. Suddenly, we need more money to battle OBESITY, not hunger...yet the programs are funded with the same $$$$. How can we address childhood hunger, if we use the money meant to combat it to battle childhood obesity, and remove calories from the meals provided?

LowDown · Jul 23, 2014

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.

I see, so when kids reject meals that are forced on that them they don't like it's not that this is an inappropriate program pushed by an authoritarian federal government that wants to dictate every tiny aspect of our lives. It's that the kids are spoiled because their parents didn't raise them right.

I say f*** the government and f*** anyone who supports this oppressive nonsense. All you junior grade totalitarians and your kids can eat these meals if you like. It has gotten to be parental malpractice to send your children to public schools for a number of reasons, and this is just another reason. I urge my friends to seek alternatives before public school officials harm their children.

BTW, survey the administrators. Oh yeah, that's going to give us good data. PFFT!

Hatuey · Jul 23, 2014

Bicycle said:
The left insists that hunger among children is increasing,

I couldn't give less of a **** what the left says. I give a **** about facts, and here they are:

Are One In Five American Children Hungry? - Forbes

The one-in-five childhood hunger figure should raise red flags for three reasons.

First, studies of poor households show that almost half own their own homes, three quarters own a car, and almost all have a color television. The American poor seem to have money for things other than food for their children, if the one-in-five statistic is to be believed.

Second, advocacy groups (with Michelle Obama as a leading spokesperson) now appear to have decided that the problem is childhood obesity, not hunger. The children, especially of the poor, are not going to bed hungry. They are eating too much of the wrong foods.

Third, if the one-in-five statistic is correct, the public food stamps and school free lunch programs must be colossal failures. Despite their wide reach into poor communities, they apparently leave more than thirty percent of school children “struggling with hunger.”

The USDA classifies households as “food insecure” if they report worrying about not having enough money to buy food, if they substitute cheaper foods, skip meals, or eat less for financial reasons. If they do these things frequently, they are classified as “very low food secure.”

Slightly over 21 percent of households are “food insecure.” This is the one-in-five statistic we hear from the media and advocacy groups.

The one-in-five figure is for all households, many of which consist only of adults. If we limit the sample to households with children, ten percent of them are classified as food insecure. If any group wishes to use the broadest possible measure of children’s “struggle for food,” the ten percent figure would be it.

People aren't going hungry in the US. People are getting fatter and eating worse. Those are facts. The facts assure us that lowering the caloric intake of children and supplying them with better food is a net positive.

roguenuke · Jul 23, 2014

Bicycle said:
These programs are funded under the umbrella of 'feeding the hungry'. If we are serving the hungriest children, then why are we REDUCING CALORIES?

You don't feed the hungry with a single meal. You split it up. Not to mention, most students at school are not "the hungry". The change in the nutrition guidelines isn't aimed at feeding the hungry, but rather in feeding all school age children healthy food.

sangha · Jul 23, 2014

Bicycle said:
Nobody wants to address my question.

Which is...

If we are beefing up these programs because hunger is such a huge issue...

#1, why do we need more money to feed them less food, and
#2, why do we feed fewer calories, if kids aren't eating when they go home?

Does that make sense?

nope, it doesn't. Hunger is not the same as excess caloric intake. It's one or the other, not both.

Calories have been reduced by 7.

How long are you going to whine about 7 calories?

roguenuke · Jul 23, 2014

Excon said:
:doh
As the thread progressed from the above post, we have seen everything you said just isn't true.
:doh

Not really, at least not what most of those against these guidelines are claiming. For instance, the "no lunches from home" rule in the school was in place, put there by the principle (and apparently not that controversial if the parents of the school haven't made a big deal about it), for over 6 years at least (possibly many more).

The only difference is in what foods can be served. The parents nor students do not have any more or less power in what is served during school lunch than they ever did.

clownboy · Jul 23, 2014

roguenuke said:
Not really, at least not what most of those against these guidelines are claiming. For instance, the "no lunches from home" rule in the school was in place, put there by the principle (and apparently not that controversial if the parents of the school haven't made a big deal about it), for over 6 years at least (possibly many more).

The only difference is in what foods can be served. The parents nor students do not have any more or less power in what is served during school lunch than they ever did.

HowStuffWorks "Who decides what goes into school lunches? "

Excon · Jul 23, 2014

roguenuke said:
Not really,

:doh
Yes. Really!

roguenuke · Jul 23, 2014

clownboy said:
HowStuffWorks "Who decides what goes into school lunches? "

Didn't contradict anything I posted. The school still decides what goes into school offered lunches, only they have guidelines they must follow if they want to have additional funding for those lunches from the federal government. The parents still didn't get to decide in the past anymore than they do now what goes into school lunches. They are still free to send lunches with their children however in most schools/school districts.

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

Bicycle

LetsGoBrandon

Bicycle

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

jamesrage

clownboy

roguenuke

roguenuke

clownboy

Excon

Bicycle

Bicycle

Excon

clownboy

Bicycle

LowDown

Curmudgeon

Hatuey

Rule of Two

roguenuke

sangha

roguenuke

clownboy

Excon

roguenuke

Study Finds Elementary Students Like New Healthier Lunches

Curmudgeon

Rule of Two

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency