Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems that students are fed up too with the government and/or First ladies input and demands on changes for food in schools.
I agree with the students to leave it up to the free market. If the students don't like it they will not eat it. Parents should teach their kids to eat healthy and not by not having choices.
Michele can choose how she wants her kids to eat and I'm all for more healthier food but kids are kids and if you take it away they will handle it differently and by not eating the food they don't like will make them hungry and not paying attention in class so the level will only be affected.
Michele should promote healthier food if that is what she wants to promote but by taking it out of the school systems is over stepping her binderies and kids don't take it any longer.
Last edited by bentlebee; 09-02-2014 at 10:44 AM..
Think about it. What politician is going to risk the backlash of fining a school system over something like this?
It's not the politicians who would be doing the fining or withholding of funds. It's the nameless, faceless civil servant. And it's foolish to believe they wouldn't go after the school. They would - in a heartbeat. Just like IRS agents go after people all the time because it's their job.
It seems that students are fed up too with the government and/or First ladies input and demands on changes for food in schools.
I agree with the students to leave it up to the free market. If the students don't like it they will not eat it. Parents should teach their kids to eat healthy and not by not having choices.
Michele can choose how she wants her kids to eat and I'm all for more healthier food but kids are kids and if you take it away they will handle it differently and by not eating the food they don't like will make them hungry and not paying attention in class so the level will only be affected.
Michele should promote healthier food if that is what she wants to promote but by taking it out of the school systems is over stepping her binderies and kids don't take it any longer.
What about the kids of the Obamaphone lady? What about all those inner city poverty children that have ignorant parents? Education is our saviour. We tell kids what to do and we are to set the examples. What is wrong with that?
It seems that students are fed up too with the government and/or First ladies input and demands on changes for food in schools.
I agree with the students to leave it up to the free market. If the students don't like it they will not eat it. Parents should teach their kids to eat healthy and not by not having choices.
Michele can choose how she wants her kids to eat and I'm all for more healthier food but kids are kids and if you take it away they will handle it differently and by not eating the food they don't like will make them hungry and not paying attention in class so the level will only be affected.
Michele should promote healthier food if that is what she wants to promote but by taking it out of the school systems is over stepping her binderies and kids don't take it any longer.
No what is funny is watch RWNJ's whine about the First Lady doing the same sort of things every other First Lady has done. My God she is evil, trying to tells us we should eat healthy, what will she want us to do next, find something to do with our pitiful lives more productive than whining about people stating the obvious.
What I've been seeing frequently in the past few days of school (I'm a "lunch lady"): the kids who are the mainline lunch customers are purchasing "double lunches" - the standard government approved mainline lunch for twice the price (a lunch is $1.60). For the $3.20, they are entitled to two of everything: two entrees, two helpings of salad/vegetables, two servings of fruit, and two milks. They are taking the second entree, maybe a second milk, but foregoing that extra fruit and salad (or pitching it altogether). In other words, they're "filling up", but it is NOT on salad and fruit.
We're expecting the feds to eventually drop the boot on double lunches and forbid us to serve them.
The kids who are on free/reduced lunch are basically stuck with the lunch as is. If they want a "double", they have to pay cash for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
