Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes, a healthy lunch should ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE at school. And it should be the ONLY option for free or reduced price lunches... as is currently the case> Are you SURE that's the case, RT? Have a link? Because this link about the controversy yesterday includes the following: "Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in federally subsidized meals that are served for free or at reduced price to children of low-income households. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can’t serve. The school lunch proposal was based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. When the guidelines were proposed in January, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the effort was necessary to stem the tide of childhood obesity and reduce future health care costs. Nutrition advocate Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said the changes proposed by Congress will prevent schools from serving a wider array of vegetables. Children already get enough pizza and potatoes, she says. It would also slow efforts to make pizzas — a longtime standby on school lunch lines — healthier, with whole-grain crusts and lower levels of sodium. “They are making sure that two of the biggest problems in the school lunch program, pizza and french fries, are untouched,” she said." That sure sounds to me like the pizza (a.k.a. "vegetable") and french fries ARE in the free/reduced price school lunches, no? <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/15/for-congress-school-lunch-rules-are-no-small-potat/" target="_blank">http://www.washingtontimes.com...l-potat/</a>
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "The point is that HEALTHY lunches are available now and would continue to be available because the government requires it for lunches that are offered at reduced price or free. You are talking about extra cost options made available to students who pay for it themselves. I agree that kids SHOULD eat healthier foods (as should adults). But where do you draw the line on what the government allows people to purchase? Are we going to ban kids under 18 from eating at McDonald's? " Actually, that is not the case in most places. There are states and individual districts (and, as I said before, I am lucky that my kids are in such districts) who offer nutritious food. In most places the norm is junk, mainly because it is cheap. And ala carte options are usually only available to high school students. The government does not mandate that the food available be healthy. They just proved it. They just voted on a bill that counts the tomato paste in pizza sauce as a vegetable. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45306416/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-yes/#.TsVCI2DR3o0" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45...CI2DR3o0</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Eating healthy is obviously beneficial for everyone. But we need to find ways to get kids active. It doesn't cost money to run around and there are plenty of churches and community centers that have open gymnasiums. So it can be done.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Are the schools balking at adhering to government guidelines concerning subsidized lunches, or are they balking at new regulations that would apply to ALL lunches offered by schools? The article didn't seem to be clear on that. My understanding based on present practice is that it was the latter. My thought is that as with everything else, you accept the Fed's money you follow their rules. If you are offering it outside of federal subsidies, you can do what you want.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Well, what I got from the article is that it is just a few individual districts that are against the government outlining what exactly they can't serve. Other than that, it sounds like the main concern school districts have is the costs of having to serve healthier foods...Unfortunately, schools are already seriously underfunded and nutritious food is a lot more expensive than junk.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <My thought is that as with everything else, you accept the Fed's money you follow their rules. If you are offering it outside of federal subsidies, you can do what you want.> I agree with that. But what the article was saying is that the Feds wanted to - ever so slightly, actually - upgrade the healthiness level of the lunches that are already purchased with our federal dollars. And the balkers were the potato, salt, and frozen food industries who didn't want healthier foods displacing theirs and cutting into their profits. One of the proposals, for instance, at least according to the report I watched last night, was that it was okay to have french fries, but you couldn't serve them 5 days a week; four was the max. Not good enough, said the potato/salt/frozen food lobbyists (and their minions in Congress). Fries every day, please! Of course, no school district HAS to serve them 5 days a week. But this proposal said that those that do are doing the kids a disservice, and would have said that no district could serve them 5 days a week. That may seem like "nanny state" to some, I guess. It seems reasonable to me that if you're accepting federal dollars, they do get to set some guidelines - which they already do, of course. This latest bill was just a modest tweaking of those guidelines, including the "no french fried every damn day" proposal. The real story, as several people have pointed out, is Congress's cravenness on kowtowing to the food lobbyists to defeat even these moderate and reasonable (IMO) tweaks.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>At the elementary school level the parent can clearly control it. No school I know of takes cash for school lunches... it has to be money deposited on a lunch card that the student uses. How tough would it be for the school to issue a lunch card that can ONLY be used to purchase the "official" school lunch eligible for government subsidy? That way the parent can prevent their child from choosing any of the unhealthy options available. They have the choice of what their child eats without any attempt to dictate what some other child may eat. We don't need a law for EVERYTHING!<<< I think the point that you're missing is that this isn't about kids who get free or reduced lunch, although that's the course the thread has taken. This is about ALL school lunches offered to children and the fact that Congress doesn't give a crap about kids being healthy, as long as they keep the lobbiests happy. Even though they don't have fries at my daughter's school, the food is still crap. Most of the kids think it's disgusting but a lot still buy. My kids never buy because the cafeteria serves gross, sometimes expired food. You know why? Because they can. Now if Congress had passed the law instead of kowtowing to the lobbies, the school would be forced to serve healthier options. Of course, serving expired foods is another issue. :/
Originally Posted By ecdc >>THAT'S the "big government" problem that really exists, and small government fans should be speaking up about that.<< Right. Big government is bad, unless it's Congress helping business get rich off of school children.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney davewasbaloo---I know your job is depressing and stressful and makes you angry and resentful. I have seen you express this many times over the years, and it makes me sad because I know you are a great guy and you love your family. So maybe it IS time to get out. Changing the world is a great ambition, but if the world starts changing you, it isn't worth it. I love the British band Switchfoot. They have a song that says: "This is your life, are you who you want to be This is your life, is it everything you dreamed that it would be When the world was younger and you had everything to lose." When I hear this song I think this IS my life, and if it's not what I want it to be how can I change it, because it's the only one I have. Hope I haven't overstepped my boundaries. I know it's not my business, but when you are on a message board with people for 10 years you feel like you know them a bit.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <. I'm sitting here with my jaw dropped at some of what I've read. The inability to have compassion for the plight of the less fortunate is really disturbing and shocking to me. < hoping I'm not included in that as I only argued about the fact that you cannot take hope away from those less fortunate that they can change their lot in life by hard work and education- and yes, they have to get a little lucky also. That was my issue with what was put here- I am living proof from quite a time ago, but people continue to do it-- even in face of the toughest eonomic times of my 56 years. as for the kids I would never advocate making them further victims- even if in some cases ( surely not all and likely not the majority) they have parents that are less than optimal. We waste so much damn money in this country in political hierarchies, the money spent feeding kids is spit in a rain barrell.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo DyGDisney, you are not overstepping the mark at all, the reason I am addicted to this site are the real connections. I am seeking some respite, though sadly other circumstances are making it difficult in the short term. Thank you for your kind words. I just want more altruism and less selfishness I suppose.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-mom-charged-death-28-pound-teen-girl-170407659.html" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-mom...659.html</a> This story is just sickening.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney dave --- I'm baking cut up apples with cinnamon and sugar right now because my dd is in a club that is taking a Thanksgiving meal to the homeless and she wants to make them home made apple pie ice cream. Several people told her that buying ice cream was easier and less expensive, but she said she wants to give them home made because homeless people deserve something special too! Raising our kids to think of others is the best we can do sometimes. Although, I have to say, this is very little parenting and mostly just her personality so I'm not going to take any credit on this one.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Thanks for making me smile DyGDisney, sounds like you are doing a great job!
Originally Posted By MomluvsDisney We feed my DD breakfast at home since she is in kindergarten, and she gets home in time for lunch. I had to weigh in on what is offered with free lunch and breakfast programs in my area. A couple of weeks ago, I went in and bought my daughter breakfast and then lunch, so she could eat with her friend who uses the free meal program. Keep in mind that the lunch and breakfast I bought her was the same as the kids with reduced or free meals would get. For breakfast, she had a choice of chocolate or white milk, small box of sugared cereal (non-sugared was not an option) or the same milk choices and a blueberry muffin with sugar on top, or the same milk choices and a cheese danish. For lunch the only choice that day was pizza, white or chocolate milk, a jello cup, and a roll. The school actually does not have a standard kitchen, only reheating the meals as dropped of by the central kitchen. As such, breakfast is cold food and lunch is a reheated item. The breakfast costs $1.25 and the lunch $2.00. While portions had some nutrition (like the milk), I would hardly call any of the meals as containing the proper meal nutrition, especially on a daily basis.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "No school I know of takes cash for school lunches... it has to be money deposited on a lunch card that the student uses." << That may be true in some school districts, but it certainly isn't universal. My son goes to a public elementary school (one of the higher-rated schools in an affluent area) in the Los Angeles Unified School district and the cafeteria is strictly cash only. -Jeff
Originally Posted By barboy It's high time to exhume and treat this recently buried thread before it further decays. two words for at least two of our LP teammates: proper and necessary. First, I find it highly improper and wholly unnecessary to liken KT to Sandusky just because he wishes to see state, local or private creatures finance lunches instead of the US. Second(for KT and perhaps one or two others) the central authority, via Congress, enjoys broad and undefined powers whereby it may create any law-- yes ANY-- that it deems proper and necessary........it's up to the electorate and US courts to keep a watchful eye over Article l activity. The 'proper and necessary' clause(I like to think of it as the Stretch Armstrong Clause) applies to the previously listed("foregoing") Article l powers such as providing for "general welfare". Lunch programs, according to Congress, falls under providing for the general welfare of the US. KT, you obviously have a working understanding of our charter but yet it looks like you missed parts of section 8 of Article 1 which has enormous elasticity. The United States has the power to create a lunch program, just like so many other Congressional creations, even though there is no specific language in the Const.. I just don't see a Constitutional violataion.
