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.
I don't see why a food mandate is even necessary if there is an agenda that runs as deep as keeping the corn farmers pockets lined...
I mean, if they are fleecing the taxpayer to pump these corn loaded products into the school system....what do they care if the end user digests it or not??
The public is never seeing anything tangible from their deductions....they can throw the nuggets in the garbage and nobody would know the difference.
BINGO..give the man a cigar. I'm in the schools. For all the debate we adults have on this you'd cry when you saw how much uneaten food gets thrown out 3 times a day. You would literally cry.
They don't track what is actually EATEN by the kids. The kids have to take the lunch whether they want it or not and they have to take everything on the tray. After that..they just don't care. They gave them the tray of "healthy food" and that's all that matters to meet the requirements.
the child was confronted and her lunch checked and deemed unhealthy and given a processed food called nuggets not exactly a pure ham and cheese on wheat bread with a banana and apple juice. get a clue what happened here and stop defending the local food police before you yourself are forced to live on processed nuggets
The rule (law, actually) is that the "from home" lunch is supposed to be eaten and supplemented with whatever elements the school deemed to be missing. Not that it's to be confiscated and replaced. It's supposed to be eaten and supplemented appropriately.
So why wasn't the lunch eaten? That's something I'd like to know.
I'd like to know what was considered deficient in this lunch, and why the story has so many odd inconsistencies and contradictions. This doesn't make me want to make up the rest, it makes me want to know what actually happened.
Again. Who is this mysterious (And seemingly more fictional every minute) "Inspector"?
The rule (law, actually) is that the "from home" lunch is supposed to be eaten and supplemented with whatever elements the school deemed to be missing. Not that it's to be confiscated and replaced. It's supposed to be eaten and supplemented appropriately.
So why wasn't the lunch eaten? That's something I'd like to know.
I'd like to know what was considered deficient in this lunch, and why the story has so many odd inconsistencies and contradictions. This doesn't make me want to make up the rest, it makes me want to know what actually happened.
Again. Who is this mysterious (And seemingly more fictional every minute) "Inspector"?
screw the rule the kid was given processed nugets and ate them. how much food can a kid that small eat? we are talking about a small child here not a teenager. carry on defending the gov and making the parent the evil enemy by using turkey and cheese on whole wheat instead of running out and getting Mcnuggets fot the kid.
screw the rule the kid was given processed nugets and ate them. how much food can a kid that small eat? we are talking about a small child here not a teenager. carry on defending the gov and making the parent the evil enemy by using turkey and cheese on whole wheat instead of running out and getting Mcnuggets fot the kid.
I'm not defending anyone until I know what actually happened. What is with you conservatives being unable to make simple distinctions?
Why are you more comfortable making stuff up than finding out what really happened?
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.