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.
That's on your school board. Michelle Obama did not specifically say put bad food in the schools. The fact that school boards didn't know how to put healthy food in and make it good is not on the federal government. And you're missing the point again. Tribal politics. When the government tried to change how kids eat at school people screamed about it. And no it wasn't because the food tastes about it was because nobody was going to tell them what to eat
It was her new healthy food program.
Really...unless Michelle personally handled the food you hold no blame over her.
We made s sack lunch for my kid for almost his entire school career because the food served in the cafeteria was so bad.
If the little kids got 1/2 a banana that was tossed that's on the local school lunch room. Was it the menu or the preparation?
IMO, parents are remiss in what they teach their kids about food. Not a lot of lean protein, fresh veggies and fruits. McDonald's it is.
My school dietician said many kids had never seen a pear. They thought it was a misshapen apple.
Caloric density also matters in relation to cost-effectiveness. A medium french fries from McDonald's contains 350 calories and costs $1. A cup of mixed fruit contains less than 1/3 of the calories of the french fries and costs 3 times more than the french fries. The french fries are of course less healthy, but it's unsurprising that (lower-income & single, in particular) parents preference fuller bellies. But yes, you're correct in general that what people have learned (and thus teach kids) about food is appalling. Government has some responsibility there too, as the inception of the food pyramid was a dietary catastrophe in its directing people to subsist primarily on bad carbs.
Caloric density also matters in relation to cost-effectiveness. A medium french fries from McDonald's contains 350 calories and costs $1. A cup of mixed fruit contains less than 1/3 of the calories of the french fries and costs 3 times more than the french fries. The french fries are of course less healthy, but it's unsurprising that (lower-income & single, in particular) parents preference fuller bellies. But yes, you're correct in general that what people have learned (and thus teach kids) about food is appalling. Government has some responsibility there too, as the inception of the food pyramid was a dietary catastrophe in its directing people to subsist primarily on bad carbs.
Of you can go to the grocery store, buy fruit in bulk, and then could eat 300 calories of fruit for roughly $1-2. Bananas for sure.
But anyways, poverty has nothing to do with it. No one would get fat from eating 1 fries from McDonalds, even if they ate it every meal, every day. It's when they add a milk shake, large soda, and double-whooper. Those people are not in poverty. They have enough money to throw away on junk but palatable foods.
Newborns (neonatal) who consume more food become obese earlier, and are more likely to become obese as adults. I can go through line by line if you want, but all that study basically said is adding msg to food caused mice to eat more food, and more likely to become obese, and develop metabolic disorders. Stripped of its fancy language, it's basically a duh study.
The thing is, MSG is even tastier than salt. So give a human plain white rice, they may eat 500 calories in 1 sitting (my guess). Add salt, they could eat 1,000 calories. Add MSG, and now 1,300 calories.
I am conspiratorial about the re-addition of MSG into our food currently, when it was considered something we avoided like the plague 40 years ago. Everyone in my social circle knew to avoid MSG and it was not commonly found in food. The poster child for MSG 40 years ago was just Chinese restaurant food, not much of anything else.
Today, our food is filled with MSG, soybean oil, and high-fructose corn syrup. All very harmful as well as promoting weight gain.
It is intentionally being done on purpose to keep us chronically ill, and a "two-fer" is that it reduces cost for food producers. GW Bush's FDA completely sold us out. Before Baby Bush, these things were not commonly found in most of our food, by which I mean 95% of food sold did not have these things, not even processed food. Toxins approved for use in our food supply really accerated under GW Bush, selling us out to his corporate robber-baron friends.
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.
Before Baby Bush, these things were not commonly found in most of our food, by which I mean 95% of food sold did not have these things, not even processed food. Toxins approved for use in our food supply really accerated under GW Bush, selling us out to his corporate robber-baron friends.
