School Lunch Headed for Repeal

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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.

[Crown@club]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IB7NDUSBOo

[dellinger63]

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.

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

[Clip-Clop]

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

[GenuineRisk]

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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The only kids getting "deprived" of corn dogs and chicken nuggets are the ones too poor to buy their own lunch.

Or the ones too lazy to pack their own lunch.

'Sup me.