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.
“You can go back to a little more home cooking and not have to analyze it all to death, and by doing that can make it a little more tasty. You can put a little more butter or margarine in the vegetables,” she said, which means students are “not throwing it in the trash like they did before.”
Imagine that, good tasting food that kids want to eat
Hmmm? Let's see....what isn't wrong with it?
First, kids are in school appx 50% of all days and they eat one meal at school on those days. Assuming they eat 4 times a day (we hit the cupboard as soon as we were through the door after school so I think it's a safe bet kids are eating at least four times a day), they are eating 12.5% of their meals at school (assuming they buy lunch and don't bring it). Does anyone really think that controlling what is available to kids 12.5% of the time is going to make a hill of beans difference in childhood obesity? What do you think happens when you deny someone access to something for part of the time? They go eat it as soon as they're not in the restricted environment and probably eat extra to make up for what they couldn't have earlier. I've got news for you. At my school kids make runs to starbucks and dunkin donunts for their friends now which is worse than anything the cafeteria used to sell.
Second, back in the 70's we ate all kinds of junk that we bought at the lunch counter and most of us were skinny. Why you ask? Because we rode our bikes where we needed to go or walked. We played outside and at the playground without our mothers getting visits from CPS for letting us out of their sight. We weren't glued to video games. Our moms kicked us out of the house and yelled "Be home when the street lights come on" as we took off down the street.
Third, her lunch program doesn't just impact lunches. It impacts school fund raisers. We can no longer sell anything during school hours that doesn't meet her criteria. So in order to control what kids eat 12.5% of the time (assuming they don't pack lunch or go out to lunch and eat what they want anyway), she's crushed fund raisers for many clubs in schools. Somehow I don't think carrot sticks and celery are going to be great sellers compared to the donuts and muffins we used to sell on final exam days in order to earn the money we needed to pay the entry fees for the science olympiad.
Fourth, it impacts what I can do as a teacher. I've already been asked "When do we get to do the S'Mores lab?" and had to tell my students "never". It doesn't meet Michelle O's criteria. The school cannot provide the ingredients nor can I. This is a real lab that teaches kids limiting reactants in a way they get. I'll have to make up some paper version or just skip it. Half lives with M &M's are gone too. AND I can't treat my class if I choose to. One way to win kids over is to feed them but any treat they'd like is off the menu.
Fifth, go to any school after lunch and look in the trash. Kids only eat what they like. They don't like what's on the menu these days. I don't blame them. I got a cheese burger at the cafeteria the other day and I won't do that again. It was dry as a bone and hard to chew and swallow without choking. I'd rather starve. I got it because the burgers were good last year. This year we're following the guide lines and the food is really bad. Even hospital food is better these days.
What is it about liberals and their need to control what others do? Yes, school entrees should be nutritious but there is nothing wrong with the occasional cookie or cupcake. In fact denying those things can make a person want them more and cause them to overeat when they are available. I remember grocery days very well. There were six of us and it was a mad scramble to get some of our favorites before they were all gone. Funny, now I can have a bag of candy or cookies in the house and it lasts beyond my next grocery trip. I know I can have it any time I want. On grocery days it was get your fill now because you're not going to have any the rest of the week.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 09-21-2014 at 05:39 PM..
The fund raiser thing is a bummer. A while back the kids in my neighborhood were selling frozen cookie dough for a school fundraiser. The stuff was absolutely amazing and I bought a ton of it because it was something I could store indefinitely and use as needed. Apparently the school put the kibosh on selling any kind of "junk food" hence no more cookie dough...
The fund raiser thing is a bummer. A while back the kids in my neighborhood were selling frozen cookie dough for a school fundraiser. The stuff was absolutely amazing and I bought a ton of it because it was something I could store indefinitely and use as needed. Apparently the school put the kibosh on selling any kind of "junk food" hence no more cookie dough...
Yeah that was one I liked too. It was nice to have in the freezer and you know what? Knowing it was there and that I could make a few cookies at a time any time I wanted resulted in my eating fewer cookies. It's easier for me to say no when I know I can have it tomorrow if I want.
I really hate that I can't bring treats for my students either. I have found that you can win over the hardest of kids with food. Just not dry hamburgers and celery sticks.
Years ago my mentor used to sell chips, water and candy from her cupboard to pay for expensive labs like the S'mores lab but that's off the menu now anyway. My students are disappointed and I don't blame them. That was the best way to teach limiting reactants. They got it when they saw that one ingredient (chocolate because it was the most expensive) limited how many S'mores they could make. And it was fun.
I just realized we can't build molecules out of candies anymore either. I guess I'll go back to using playdough though that is a mess. The candy they'd eat so they didn't leave a mess. The playdough gets squished into all kinds of places.
A lot of kids don't understand what good nutrition is. It's a school so you would think education would be the answer to that and it might even partly solve the throwing away of good food. I know, crazy idea anyone should learn anything of value about daily living.
I heard from my supervisor (I am a school cafeteria cook) that the states of Missouri and Alabama have opted out of Michelle Obama's lunch program.
We are hoping fervently that PA will be next.
Last year hubby and I were volunteer workers (a program called buddies) at an elementary school. One of our duties was eating lunch a couple days a week with our buddy kid. I was amazed at what these little kids did and did not eat. The school tried to provide balanced meals. Almost without exception the kids (1st and 2nd graders) ate their pizza or hot dogs and dessert. Rarely did they touch their veggies or fruit. Often the veggie would be bar b cued beans of baked beans. Green salads were never touched. They would lonely eat the French fries to lick off the catsup. It was an eye opener to us. The kids that did eat well and there were some, you could tell from talking to them, they came from homes where healthy eating was part of good parenting. I wish having well balanced meals would teach good eating habits, but people have to get it through their heads: good habits period start at home.
Last year hubby and I were volunteer workers (a program called buddies) at an elementary school. One of our duties was eating lunch a couple days a week with our buddy kid. I was amazed at what these little kids did and did not eat. The school tried to provide balanced meals. Almost without exception the kids (1st and 2nd graders) ate their pizza or hot dogs and dessert. Rarely did they touch their veggies or fruit. Often the veggie would be bar b cued beans of baked beans. Green salads were never touched. They would lonely eat the French fries to lick off the catsup. It was an eye opener to us. The kids that did eat well and there were some, you could tell from talking to them, they came from homes where healthy eating was part of good parenting. I wish having well balanced meals would teach good eating habits, but people have to get it through their heads: good habits period start at home.
But if the First Lady said the same they would scream that she is telling them how to raise their children, are you seeing the trend yet?
I think it's hilarious that the conservatives are basically saying kids should get to dictate the lunch menus. Is that how you guys were raised?
no, we were raised and raised our kids to want to eat healthy. The libs seem to think they can force feed kids and they will eat what is good for them. if more families paid attention to what their kids were eating those kids would learn, at an early age what is healthy and what isn't. Now as for the older kids, leave them alone. I don't know very many high school kids that don't like junk food and most of them grow out of it sooner or later. We are mainly here, discussing the younger kids, some depend on what they get for breakfast and lunch at school for their daily food and they waste the good stuff. Give them what they will eat, at least they are getting something in their stomachs. What good does it do to follow Michelle's diet suggestions if the only mouth that tastes it is the trash can mouth. Think of all that wasted money.
The government is subsidizing school lunches regardless of whether a student is on free/reduced lunch or not. Given that the meals are at a reduced cost, why shouldn't the government serve healthy food? Once again, if you want to ensure your snowflake does not ingest vegetables at school, you can pack them a lunch.
I do disagree with huge crackdowns on junk food in class - while I understand not allowing food that another parent made (because some parents don't take food allergies seriously out of ignorance), prepackaged foods with ingredient lists should be fine. That's not what this discussion is about, however.
The problem with this is that the Federal Government is once again sticking its nose somewhere it doesn't belong. A person's health, and eating choices are their responsibility, not the Federal Government. Allowing the Federal Government to dictate this will allow them to usurp rights that belong to the people even more than what they have already done. My personal opinion is that this law will not have any impact on obesity, or other health problems related to bad diet. All this mandate will set up is more unwanted federal intervention in schools, and personal habits of the people. For the people saying that kids will not be able to figure out what is healthy or not, it is a shame you think most kids today are unable to learn for themselves how to take care of themselves and need some monolithic government to take care of them. It is an argument that states the masses are stupid and that the people need elitists to make their decisions. This country is supposed to be based on freedom of choice, and being personally responsible for that choice. Not nanny-ism by a bunch of so called elites.
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.
