School Lunch Headed for Repeal
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1893936.html

Nick Blohm, is a 6-foot-3, 210-pound linebacker on the school football team. He lifts weights in the morning and practices football for three hours after school, burning up some 3,000 calories before he heads home for dinner.

His school lunches are now limited to 850 calories.

Last year, lunch favorites at the school included chicken nuggets and mini corn dogs. Now the super nacho plate offers just eight tortilla chips.

Forgoing school lunches, Blohm has been packing his own lunch from home, according to the Journal Sentinel. One day this week he had a bag of raw carrots, two ham sandwiches on wheat bread, two granola bars, an apple, and three applesauce cups. Estimated total: 1,347 calories.

"I've already told my mom we might be packing my lunch for the rest of the year," he said.

Pam Harris, the district food service supervisor and a registered dietitian, also isn't happy with the new guidelines.

"Limiting calories in school lunch is not going to help the overweight kid," she said. "What happens at home is a major piece of that puzzle."

Touting the new school lunch policy, Michelle Obama said in January: "When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won't be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home."

Wasn't too long ago you sent a kid to school to learn, not to be fed.

BTW Wonder how many kids lift weights in the morning and exercise 3 hrs after school compared to those who don't?

Of course not too long ago parents raised and were responsible for their own children before the village took over.

Makes me think of the famous quote from the smartest woman on earth, 'I'm not a stand by your man kind of woman' :tro:

All Bullshiat!

Can't wait till Monica let's us know what Bill really thought of his wife. :wf

That's not true, and hasn't been for decades. There are millions of American schoolkids who are sent to school to also be fed, because they live in poverty and their school lunches are the only good meal they get during the day. They even have special weekend events to feed these kids.

You are so unawares of the United States you live in. You must wear blinders.

We are a country of fat, overweight children with rampant juvenile diabetes and early cholesterol and heart disease, and much of it is caused by the American diet.

Why do you think the USA is one of the unhealthiest nations in the world, with out -of -control heart disease, strokes, diabetes not found elsewhere? It's our crappy diets!

And school nutrition is notoriously terrible. Chicken nuggets and corn dogs? That's not "food", that's processed crap!

What do you want your kid to be offered at school? Chicken paste and filler sausage covered with fried crust and a soda, or a grilled chicken breast with a vegetable and salad and milk?

Attacking the First Lady for encouraging healthy eating in American children, with exercise, is beyond petty and stupid. That schools have to provide nutritionally better meals is awesome. What parent with a brain could possibly be against better food and nutrition for their kid?

Believe me - plenty of parents in this country - and others - have long railed against crappy cheap fried filler being touted as 'school lunches' and embrace healthier eating for the same dollar.

Pizza counting as a 'vegetable' because of tomato paste? Yeah, we don't need to keep doing that.

If football players need more food, that's an easy fix, you give sports kids more calories. Let the kids have two meals. That the calories provided are nutritionally better is a bonus and a good thing - not a flaw.

The hate directed against this First Lady over her work to encourage health in this country, in our children, is outrageous, petty and stupid.

now, that's funny.


here's another issue. used to be that schools did their best to provide a decent meal at lunch, because for too many kids, they don't eat meals away from school.
so, take a kid who gets breakfast and lunch at school, and no dinner, and tell me what the lowered calories at his two meals will mean?

^^^^Ignoring the fact Mackwonago WI is not a poor community.

It would be nice if parents who are not poor would pack lunches for their own kids instead of piggybacking on their neighbors in the form of property taxes. In other words pay for your own shiat! If you can't afford children for God's sake don't have them. Grow up!

And to think this was a republican idea to serve unlimited calories probably in some misguided attack on Mrs. Socialist's ideas is sickening.

Ever consider for a second that they had GREAT jobs when they had the kids but those jobs are gone?

^^^ ignoring the fact that long before they lost those great jobs they were given and in many cases expected free lunches.

^^^ As usual replying to voices in his head and not addressing the post that I made which was calling him out for the below.

Eliminating 500 extra calories in fried breading isn't exactly a bad thing - it's a good thing.

The caloric counts of the lunches are based upon the caloric needs of children that age. Obviously a 200lb senor football player has different caloric needs than a 100-lb freshman girl.

But they both need good nutrition, not crappy "food like substances".

If a kid isn't getting dinner at home at all due to poverty, and that fried breading was providing "dinner" calories, the solution isn't going back to adding fried breading back into his nutrition plan (giving him obesity, cholesterol problems, etc).

It's getting the kid a nutritious dinner.

Something the GOP has turned against for those "47% moocher class who will never take responsibility for their own lives", which is why I'm currently voting Democratic.

And today we find we have the lowest test scores for HS grads in 40 years.

57% of HS grads not fit to enter college.:wf

More food, music, social studies, foreign languages, P.E. bad teachers and art should boost those math and english scores right up. :tro:

As athletes in my school district growing up (borderline poverty for most in my school BTW), we were fed very differently than the other students meal plans. There was science behind it and it was good.
No one is being critical of the First Lady's initiative to prevent fat kids, it is making broad, general sweeping regulations that do not take any individuality into account. Better food, sure that's a great idea, no one will argue it. Mandating the total amount of calories anyone can eat, that is too simple.

if schools wanted to help, they'd have recess. we used to have that. then, it would also help if people didn't feed their kids junk, and let them sit and play xbox all night.

This article is a piece of sh*t (oh, it's HuffPo. How surprising). The football player's lunch isn't limited to 850 calories; the lunch the school provides is. He can eat as much as he wants, and he can eat as much crap as he wants; he just has to pack it himself. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick; no one is forcing him to buy the school lunch. The only kids getting "deprived" of corn dogs and chicken nuggets are the ones too poor to buy their own lunch. And if the government is providing the food, free of charge, to the kids, I would hope the government would try to regulate WHAT IT IS PROVIDING FOR FREE to make sure the food is marginally healthy.

No one is forcing these kids to eat, or not eat, anything. The ones getting something for free are the only ones affected, as they don't have a choice about what to eat for lunch. And, unfortunately, when you are poor, you don't get to have many choices. But at least the kids are getting fed.

What if he is a poor football player?

while watching the daily show (dvr'd from a few days ago) i was reminded of this thread. as they showed, many are for the usda being able to dictate what foods can be bought with food stamps.
and then the same people arguing for that are generally the ones arguing against the usda being able to set nutritional limits on school lunch. a dichotomy for sure.
it also showed that a school with a lunch program like the one referenced here allows kids to get seconds on fruits and veggies. the daily show also showed that kids throw away part or all of their lunches-so whose fault is it if a child 'goes hungry'?

Thought I was the only daily show viewer...:)

LOL - good point. Oh, reality! That dang Jon Stewart! :D

Actually, you get a pretty fair assessment of what's politically hot and not by watching TDS. And he does have the best authors.

Someone mentioned that the football player can get multiple meals and eat all the junk he wants.

Shut up, you fat homebody moron. You know nothing about athletics and nutrition.

Just f.uck off. You're a sh.it poster and always have been.