New Ag secretary listens to kids & schools (not Michelle O.) on school lunches (federal government, states)

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

Yep, this is where we are as a country that a segment of the population will argue that veggies and fresh fruit are bad for children, just so they can disagree with the other side.
I say f-it why dont we let private companies handle the lunch, Checkers or Rally they can sell 2 quarterpounders for a dollar, I will pack lunch for my kids and let them order uber.

This could act as a form of natural selection if it didn't have such terrible consequences for children who may not have parents that know better. In addition, the social consequences with increased health care costs for everyone since, ultimately, we all pay the costs for obese people.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Again:

Again:

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

So the solution is to go back and give them terrible junk food?

Of course the kids would rather eat chocolate, candy, or ice cream - but that doesn't make it good for them.

Yes? You're the one mentioning terrible junk food and candy and ice cream. You're just creating a strawman.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

...a segment of the population will argue that veggies and fresh fruit are bad for children...

Yep, that is exactly what I've written in my posts, almost to the letter. Good job.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Again:Yes? You're the one mentioning terrible junk food and candy and ice cream. You're just creating a strawman.

I'm saying this is a slippery slope and implies that we should give children more foods that they "want" (basically, I was addressing that quote in the article). What do kids want to eat, if given a choice? I know what I would have loved to eat as a kid...(junk food, candy, ice cream)

This all just sends the wrong message. Something that I think is important because our childhood obesity epidemic is depressingly terrible.


Also, I don't think things were necesarilly better under Obama. School lunch nutrition has been bad for a long time. I remember eating some terrible stuff as a child in the 80's/90's. I would qualify a lot of what I given as "junk food" (and even some of it as "candy") - there was a reason my parents packed me a lunch consistently.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Yep, that is exactly what I've written in my posts, almost to the letter. Good job.

Right let me fix that, "veggies and fruit are good for kids unless they don't want to eat them, in that case go-go juice and ho-ho's for everybody"

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

...implies...

It doesn't imply anything other than whatever you want to make up.

----------------------------------

School lunches aren't great. The stuff I brought to school to eat myself in the 80s was even worse. Good thing, then, that I exercised and played outside for at least a couple hours every evening and morning to night on the weekends and when school was out when I was a kid. How'd that work out? 42 and 11% body fat.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

Right let me fix that, "veggies and fruit are good for kids unless they don't want to eat them, in that case go-go juice and ho-ho's for everybody"

Haha, I used ho-hos in my earlier post:

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

So they don't have to replace all their grains with whole-grain. They can use slightly more sodium. And they can use 1% milk.

Wow, might as well just serve them ho-hos, mountain dew, and cheetos.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

It doesn't imply anything other than whatever you want to make up.

I see no other way to interpret this quote:

“If kids aren't eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren't getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the program.”

This implies to me that we should give them food that they would rather eat...sub out healthier foods for less healthy foods that taste better to them. How do you interpret that quote?

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

School lunches aren't great. The stuff I brought to school to eat myself in the 80s was even worse. Good thing, then, that I exercised and played outside for at least a couple hours every evening and morning to night on the weekends and when school was out when I was a kid. How'd that work out? 42 and 11% body fat.

And as I said previously, this is more than about JUST school lunches. But it IS one part of the overall solution (the other part is about nutrition at home and exercising more).

I see literally nothing good about easing these regulations. If anything, they should go much further in the other direction.

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I'm saying this is a slippery slope and implies that we should give children more foods that they "want" (basically, I was addressing that quote in the article). What do kids want to eat, if given a choice? I know what I would have loved to eat as a kid...(junk food, candy, ice cream)

This all just sends the wrong message. Something that I think is important because our childhood obesity epidemic is depressingly terrible.

Exactly. Frankly, I don't care that kids want to eat buckets of candy. We shouldn't have the government encouraging people to be fat and unhealthy just because they want to eat crap.

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

This implies to me that we should give them food that they would rather eat... sub out healthier foods for less healthy foods that taste better to them. How do you interpret that quote?

I would quote 2mares who was by far the most level-headed person in this thread.

Originally Posted by 2mares

Mine eats healthy without an 'all whole grain, sodium free, soy, skim milk' diet.

Originally Posted by 2mares

Stop pushing the federal program and give the local schools more flexibility. Lunches can be healthy and edible.

Originally Posted by 2mares

Its more about flexibility. The lunches will still be healthy the schools just wont be forced to abide strictly by the whole grain, fat free, soy, no sodium, skim milk requirement.

They have found that too many student just aren't eating this stuff. What is the point of spending on something that is not consumed and not improving the health of our kids?

---------------------------------

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I see literally nothing good about easing these regulations.

If it's more cost-effective, doesn't produce as much waste, and leads to more kids actually eating rather than not eating, I do.

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

If anything, they should go much further in the other direction.

Yah, I had that idea earlier:

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Hey, I have an idea. Why not increase the controls even more, make the food even more tasteless and "healthy" so that even fewer kids will eat it? Just make the food as unpalatable as possible. The more kids we can get to turn their noses up at the government-mandated controls, the more kids just not eating. You could cure obesity AND maintain some sort of vague political-moral high ground.