USDA mandates healthier school lunches. Fascism! (employment, Rockefeller, independent, solutions)
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.
This isn't a menu problem. So if mom and dad serve breakfast taco's and taco's for supper aren't they getting more of certain requirements than they need, yet lacking in others? You are failing once again to look at the total daily regular meals of the area...
In my home area.. I can guarantee that the kids are probably getting more than enough vegetables and fruits... we grow them pretty much year round.. but in order for the kids to get their daily requirements, we'd need to push protein and more protein.. You can't just say that lunch is the only meal of the day... you have to take into consideration the area as well if you gonna push the daily requirement argument.
Re: the bold-No. I believe I said this earlier; you seem not to be familiar with the food exchange lists. I medium taco shell is one carbohydrate serving. It is the equivalent of everything from 6 animal crackers to 1-4" frozen waffle. The protein (meat or beans) and the veggies in tacos qualifiy whether they are eaten at breakfast, lunch or dinner or all three. They just need to be rounded out with some fruit. Fats and sweets are optional.
(from the Mayo Clinic diet).
Lunch is one of three meals for the day. It should supply 1/3 of daily needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
I agree... Serve one basic well-balanced meal. Nobody was arguing that the basic requirements for a physical body is different. (Which by the way.. in the case of my nephew who had to have a special diet... his parents were told... tough luck.. they have to provide lunch for him everyday). What I am trying to say is there is no way for our government, Katiana, you, or I to know truly what that need is. What requirements thus are "needed" to fill that requirement because we have no way of knowing exactly what that child has eaten or will eat that day. And to say that certain areas of the country don't have different "needs" is ridiculous. Because certain areas of the country are different. Maybe to those who live in cocoons but not to those who've been out there. Certain areas of the country are grain heavy.. certain fruit heavy.. I can't tell you how many times we've been in different parts of the country where finding a fresh piece of American grown fruit has been next to impossible!
The best we can do, is serve a well-balanced meal from the appropriate food groups. No need to regulate it. Get good qualified cooks back in our schools, get the prepackaged crap out, and let the parents have their say. Wonder how much this new legislation cost us the taxpayers (between what I'm sure was studies, implementation, and now policing) what should have been common sense.
It might surprise some people that not all of us need the government into every spec of our life. We work, we live, we laugh, and we survive just fine without their opinions or our governments intrusions of what they think we should do.
There are nutritional standards that were developed by people who have actually studied nutrition, not by people who post on CD with an axe to grind with the federal govt.
I said above, a lunch needs to provide 1/3 of these daily needs.
This is not exactly new legisltion. It's not like there were no standards before. The standards have been revised, to reflect NEW knowledge. What a concept!
Re: the bold-No. I believe I said this earlier; you seem not to be familiar with the food exchange lists. I medium taco shell is one carbohydrate serving. It is the equivalent of everything from 6 animal crackers to 1-4" frozen waffle. The protein (meat or beans) and the veggies in tacos qualifiy whether they are eaten at breakfast, lunch or dinner or all three. They just need to be rounded out with some fruit. Fats and sweets are optional.
(from the Mayo Clinic diet).
Lunch is one of three meals for the day. It should supply 1/3 of daily needs.
There are nutritional standards that were developed by people who have actually studied nutrition, not by people who post on CD with an axe to grind with the federal govt.
I said above, a lunch needs to provide 1/3 of these daily needs.
This is not exactly new legisltion. It's not like there were no standards before. The standards have been revised, to reflect NEW knowledge. What a concept!
Actually new "consensus agreement" is what one article said.
Now if this doesn't work then it's back to the drawing board for them.
Your lunch was subsidized. You know, like a copay?
It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many people who do not understand this. ALL school lunches from schools that participate in the Federal School Lunch Program are subsidized. Each and every one of them. For rich kids and poor kids alike. Some kids get their lunches subsidized even further, with free and reduced price lunches.
And it never ceases to amaze me how some people can't delve deeper into subjects in order to discover that there are layers far more complex than will be found on the surface.
The school lunch subsidy programs actually began in the 1930's (a time frame that marks the initial incursions of socialism into the United States). But even as of the 1960's, the programs DID NOT COVER EVERYONE. Not even close.
I don't know how old you are, but I would guess you're in your 20's or 30's .... and if that's true, how inanely arrogant of you to tell me the facts of life during the time that I actually lived it, before you were even born? What a ^%!
I'll have you know that many kids I grew up with carried their homemade lunches to school, as did I many times rather than spend the $.35 the school lunch cost. So, it's unlikely that these many parents packed their children's lunches for the shear pleasure of performing the task, as opposed to SAVING MONEY. The obvious conclusion is, if the parents could save money by providing their own child's lunch, the school didn't need a subsidy to that .35 price to provide it. It's important to note that back then, a McDonald's hamburger cost .18, and they certainly were not federally subsidized, and made a profit on that sale.
So don't tell me how I don't understand. I understand that you think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually do.
Thanks for the info--now it's making sense--neat that your state offers those reimbursements. I couldn't understand how you got your lunch prices so low with what you were offering, but it sounds like we're probably not that far off on price, but we're serving the equivalent of one of your lunches and a couple of ala carte items. Next year we're doing exactly what you've done--going ala carte and charging the kids accounts in the jr. high/high school, and serving a simple meal in elementary. Our food waste went down when we went to the fresher menu, and the school hopes we cut it even more this way so we can lower prices again. I'm really active in our sports boosters program and in charge of concessions during games and tournaments--we work closely with the kitchen (and use their space) so I'm really interested. We've been trying to offer healthier options there as well, (fruit slushies, fresh fruit, orange juice, baked potato bar for tournaments etc.) although we still sell candy, nachos etc. Some parents were skeptical about the baked potato bar at first, but it's been a huge hit. The athletes really like the fruit before games too.
Glad you get lots of love at school--you guys deserve it . The women in our cafeteria give hugs with lunch, and the kids adore them (so do the parents). Like I said--it's like having grandma or mom at school, and it's great to know that people who care are working to make sure our kids eat a healthy, delicious meal. Thanks for what you do.
Baked potato bar! Awesome idea! We already have a pasta bar. I'm going to pass that idea along. The district supervisor was asking us for ideas. It's healthy, economical, and very do-able. Thanks for the idea, and for the nice compliments! Can't rep you again, I have to spread it around.
And it never ceases to amaze me how some people can't delve deeper into subjects in order to discover that there are layers far more complex than will be found on the surface.
The school lunch subsidy programs actually began in the 1930's (a time frame that marks the initial incursions of socialism into the United States). But even as of the 1960's, the programs DID NOT COVER EVERYONE. Not even close.
I don't know how old you are, but I would guess you're in your 20's or 30's .... and if that's true, how inanely arrogant of you to tell me the facts of life during the time that I actually lived it, before you were even born? What a ^%!
I'll have you know that many kids I grew up with carried their homemade lunches to school, as did I many times rather than spend the $.35 the school lunch cost. So, it's unlikely that these many parents packed their children's lunches for the shear pleasure of performing the task, as opposed to SAVING MONEY. The obvious conclusion is, if the parents could save money by providing their own child's lunch, the school didn't need a subsidy to that .35 price to provide it. It's important to note that back then, a McDonald's hamburger cost .18, and they certainly were not federally subsidized, and made a profit on that sale.
So don't tell me how I don't understand. I understand that you think you know a hell of a lot more than you actually do.
Every school that participated in the federal school lunch program in the 60s received a subsidy from the feds. In the early days, that subsidy was in the form of food itself. My junior high and high school were participants.
Thanks for the compliment, but I am 62 years old. I ate school lunches in jr. high and high school. They were subsidized.
Not every school have cooks or even full kitchens.
Those schools have to get pre-processed, pre-cooked and just heat up and slap a piece of fruit and container of milk on that throwaway microwave tray.
And we wonder why there is as problem with childhood obesity and why 1 out of 3 people are diabetic? And we wonder why children graduate from school unable to read and write?
I'll bet you that these schools have very active athletic programs. Too bad the money is wasted on that crap instead of feeding the students properly.
You know what's really funny? The same crowd who has a fit about people on food stamps buying cheetos and birthday cakes are the first to freak out when those items aren't offered as part of tax payer funded school lunches. Go figure. I'm a R--fighting against responsible spending of my tax dollars makes zero sense to me. If you want "liberty" you're completely free to spend your own money and send your kids to school with junk--just don't make me pay for it.
Goes to show...the crowd that says that they support "liberty" are really just a bunch of self-serving, hypocritical jokers.
This is not a question of "liberty", it's a question of PROFIT for the junk food industry.
Goes to show...the crowd that says that they support "liberty" are really just a bunch of self-serving, hypocritical jokers.
This is not a question of "liberty", it's a question of PROFIT for the junk food industry.
Too many read the headlines and not the articles.
The food lobby got the ear of Congress over the USDA and won.
Congress sided with big business over it's own agency.
Every school that participated in the federal school lunch program in the 60s received a subsidy from the feds. In the early days, that subsidy was in the form of food itself. My junior high and high school were participants.
Thanks for the compliment, but I am 62 years old. I ate school lunches in jr. high and high school. They were subsidized.
Then you are old enough to know better than to make such broadly applied general claims that EVERY school lunch was subsidized.
But you do bring up a point that is worth highlighting, which perfectly illustrates the unintended (or intended, if you ask me) consequences of federal meddling, and how that so often produces the exact opposite effect of it's advertised purpose.
The school food subsidy programs did indeed begin as food provided to schools, rather than direct grants of money. It was the Federal government's "plan" to buy up "excess inventory" on the open market and then redistribute that to the schools. And to the unsophisticated surface thinkers, that sounded fine and dandy ... who could argue against that, right? It was excess food going to help feed hungry children. Such a morally high minded plan cannot be bad, right? WRONG!
Regardless of the product, "excess inventory" drives costs down in a free market system. Supply and demand dictates prices. By having the federal government use taxpayer money to buy up that excess food inventory, that artificially drove food prices higher than they would have been with the excess inventory being allowed to do what excess inventory does .... cause prices to fall. So, the schools get the food that the taxpayers paid for with their tax money ... and they are still charged for the lunches (which the purveyors claim is at a reduced cost due to the subsidy) but at the same time ... EVERYONE has to pay more for their food at home due to the higher prices caused by the government buying up the excess inventory.
The result is ... the taxpayers paid to have the government artificially increase food prices across the board ... with the only benefit being a supposed savings in the form of a reduced price school lunch ... but there was no benefit ... they paid for the subsidy in taxes ... PLUS the higher prices for their food they purchase for meals at home.
Save a nickle on the school lunch ... and pay a quarter for the other meals the entire family requires ... you loose 20 cents. But liberals aren't very good at math or logic .... but they sure do seem overly susceptible to any flagrant con job wrapped in pretty paper and a colorful bow.
FDR did the exact same thing during the depression, paying farmers to not produce certain crops in order to defeat "deflation" by means of artificially increasing the value of agricultural products ... of course, this was not good news for people suffering unemployment and hunger ... higher prices for food was not a benefit to the real sufferers during the great depression. Actually, it was quite evil.
So, I'd urge you to look deeper into these subjects, else you risk leaving this life no smarter than you started out 62 years ago. One rule of thumb that you can count on is that for every stated agenda there seems to be an unstated one that is the real driving force, with the goals too often the exact opposite of the stated one. That might not be the case in every situation, but has been historically true frequently enough to be the first point of investigation, and not the last.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 01-29-2012 at 01:24 PM..
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.
. The women in our cafeteria give hugs with lunch, and the kids adore them (so do the parents). Like I said--it's like having grandma or mom at school, and it's great to know that people who care are working to make sure our kids eat a healthy, delicious meal. Thanks for what you do.
