JstAnotherSub
Posts: 6174
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
As I read the article in the OP, I'm left wondering why the most important questions are not being discussed here?
1 ) Little children understanding what a calorie is, to demand eating as they choose?
"Across the country, students are revolting against federal restrictions on calories, sodium, fat, sugar, whole grain, and other nutritional elements of school lunches by bringing their own food from home."
K-7th level kids fully understand what a calorie is defined? Those kids are pretty smart, but understanding nutrition is something taught in the later years of high school. "Fat" is not something these little kids associate with food, but 'Big David' who gets picked on by the other kids. Your going to tell me, these kids seriously understand all these concepts, enough to make independent, reasonable, educated, decisions on what to eat? That they understand good nutrition standards as they apply to the young human body?
If that was true, they would be eating from the school lunch program each day. Since they are not, what are the sources of this problem? Poor education on food? Parents that dont give a crap what their kid eats? Lack of money? Combination of these?
These are the sort of questions we should be asking ourselves. Rather than making cheap political attacks between Democrats and Republicans.
Parents with kids who qualify for free or reduced lunch will send in a bag of hot cheetos and a juice box for their kids "lunch" if the kid complains about the school food. Most who qualify for free lunch are also eligible for food stamps.
2 ) "After a 6 percent decline in lunch sales last year..."
This school department is going ballistic after a drop of 6% in the previous year? Get real....
There are numerous and honest reasons for the drop that has....NOTHING...to do remotely with politicals at the nation level. One would have to show evidence that the sole reason for the 6% drop in lunch sales, is solely the reason of Mrs. Obama's lunch program. Got any of that evidence conservatives/libertarians? No? Why is that? Because there are plenty of other rational reasons. Kids/parents made the lunches, they weren't hungry, lost their lunch on [the bus, way to school, in their locker, etc], didnt have money to buy lunch, got their money robbed by the school yard bully. As can be seen, there are plenty of reasons that could account for that decline.
Maybe the food wasn't tasty? That which looks yummy, usually gets eaten up quickly. So those 'hockey puck' cookies that are semi-stale are not likely to sell as well as freshly baked brownies. Do they eat the imitation cheese and cardboard pizza? Or the one that actually looks like the cook would have a few slices themselves?
The article, and those pushing the political agenda here, are not even remotely considering the reasonable possibilities.
The decline is the largest one that has been seen since I have been in school food services, which is 17 years. No one has been able to show any reason other than the taste of the whole grain foods as a reason that kids would stop wanting to eat pasta, pizza and other grain choices.
3 ) "Recent reports show more than 1 million students no longer buy food from the cafeteria, and requirements that they take a fruit or vegetable, whether they want it or not, has created more than $1 billion in food waste since the regulations went into effect in 2012.
Which reports are these? I like the name of the report, author(s), and where it was published. Because that brings up credibility that the information being given does come from a legitimate perspective; rather than from somebody asshole! How much over a million? 1,000,013 and 1,000,130, are both over one million; yet neither would really matter against a number like a million, right? Shouldn't we talk about the exact number here? An perhaps find out why this number is, from the sources?
$1 billion in food waste? MY GOD! How much do grocery stores waste because they placed the price of fruits and vegetables a bit two high? We dont have a problem when they do it, right? Since our grocery bill we just rise up a bit more the following week! Back to public schools and food; where does this number come from? Again, without credible and documented research, how can we take this number seriously? How did this number get generated exactly? Maybe the actual number is $250 million, or $1.5 billion?
While I am not allowed to flag a students account indicating that they cannot eat pork because of their families religion, I am forced to make them pick up a fruit or vegetable with every meal. Many do eat it after picking it up, but having spent time doing plate waste studies (standing by the trash can and making notes of what is thrown away), there are just as many who throw the entire serving in the trash. The whole reason we started "Offer vs. Serve" years ago was to cut down on waste, allowing students to choose foods that they would actually eat. This has been a set back in that area also.
4) "The school lunch overhaul, which was implemented through the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act and forced on schools participating in the National School Lunch Program, has resulted in record lunch revenue losses in some schools, prompting hundreds to drop out of the program and forfeit their federal subsidies to serve students food they’ll actually eat."
Where is the citation here? Where does this information come from? Did the author of this document fail out of the 1st grade? Because when making a claim like this, one would have a citation of where this information originates from!
Many districts saw such a fall in participation that it made more sense for them to drop out of the federally funded program so they could offer foods that students would actually eat. In those districts, the cost for meals rose significantly, and the ability to qualify for free or reduced lunch was gone, leaving the students who need nutrition the most left out in the cold.
How about the origins of the 'Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act'? Yes, signed into law by President Obama. But this bill was a re-authorization of the "Child Nutrition Act" of 1966 signed into law by President Johnson, which was put into law after years with the "National School Lunch Act" of 1945, signed by President Truman. Now how many of you have read all of these laws? Show of hands? That's right, none. Particularly of those attacking this issue and the first lady! Since if anyone read the HHFK act, they would know its not the first lady that sets the nutrition standards, bu the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). How about sitting down and reading the law; you might find its pretty decent law. Its not perfect, but better than the Republican version (which is nothing).
The "Yes We Can" initiative that was Mrs. Obama's project is directly responsible for most of the changes. Yes, the USDA sets the standards, but she pushed heavily for the things she wanted implemented, and she got most of them.
5 ) Parents have problems with this?
Really? Parents have problems that the school is trying to educated their children to eat and exercise better, than when they were in school? Isn't the whole point of going to school, to learn things? I'm being serious here guys/gals. Back when all of us were in K-5 grades, we had some of this information. But not all the information known today. In addition, our educators didnt have the knowledge on how to communicate it effectively to children so young. That they absorb much more in the way of knowledge and access to even more levels of knowledge, than any of us back 20-50 years ago. How many of us had hand held computers that could access information in a blink of an eye?
We start teaching kids about nutrition in pre-k, using the My Plate materials. They replaced the pyramid and are much easier to understand. I do believe that some parents protest things because they do feel it is the right thing to do, but many do it just because they don't want "Big Brother" telling them what their kids are allowed to eat. Sadly, at least in my experience, the latter are the ones who would send the Cheetos and a juice box if their child complained about school lunch.
The legal issues of school lunches aside, isnt it the role of parents and educators to work together, to instill good eating habits in children? That if the parents decide to pack a lunch, it hopefully is healty and good to eat. Can of soda, day old fries from McDonalds, and a soon-to-be-bad turkey sandwhich....is not healthy.....by any reasonable standards. I would think the parents would want their kids eating properly. If that is true, should we really be petty on this issue further?
It is obvious from that last paragraph that you have not had to deal with parents lately. More and more, it is "Us against them" in almost every area, whether it be discipline, food, behavior or anything else. It saddens me, but I do still love my job, and I hope I do actually make a difference in the lives of a few.
Joe, you seem to have a good heart about this subject, but with these new "guidelines" common sense has been thrown out the window. It is almost impossible to meet the guidelines, when every pack of ketchup has to be included in the nutritional analysis that is sent to the state and the feds for reimbursement. We have 12 registered dieticians working for food services in the district I work in, and they struggle to make it work. Smaller districts that cannot afford RD's struggle more.
I have seriously considered moving to a different profession, because it wears me out some days trying to explain to an angry parent why their kid cannot have 2 packs of ketchup with his fries, I do tell them to write a letter to Mrs. Obama to complain, because she is the one who pushed to get these new regs in place. While I think her intentions were good, the reality is a bit more insane.
Kids do not get recess every day because it takes away from teaching time, and the needs to have students meet standards so they can pass tests. Students do not go home and play outside until dark nowadays because of video games and because it is too dangerous in many neighborhoods.
School lunch is being blamed for so many things, and I have yet to see any of the other issues acted upon. I wish she would fight for recess every day, even if it meant allowing teachers to not be so paranoid about test scores. I would like for her to fight for free after school programs where students could play and be supervised while their parents work at jobs which barely pay the rent.
Lawdy I have just previewed this and I think I may have ranted a bit, but Ima leaving it like it is. Maybe part of the message I am trying to convey will get through to someone.
_____________________________
yep
|
RE: Gambling on Michelle O's horrid lunches - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread