lkirc Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Wait...so we all agree that a major contributor to obesity in children is unhealthy, processed, fatty foods being served to children. Therefore, of course, schools should continue to serve unhealthy, processed, fatty foods. I shall retire to Bedlam. I think the main contributor to obesity in children is parents who can't say no to their children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Wait...so we all agree that a major contributor to obesity in children is unhealthy, processed, fatty foods being served to children. Therefore, of course, schools should continue to serve unhealthy, processed, fatty foods. I shall retire to Bedlam. Interesting logic, but I think this thread is jsut riddled with biases over people's personal views of what kids should and should not be eating at school. As I remember from my high school days, much of the reason why that food was so crappy was because they were asked to make meals affordable for students of all incomes. Not that it mattered for us, we just used the extra money to buy beer and Josh Gordon we saved on the $1.35 lunch option, but you see the point... There was pressure to offer affordable alternatives, and thus it's reflected in the quality (or lack thereof) in the food. Yes, I do think there should be healthy alternatives and it should also be up to the parents to decide what their kids can eat, no arguments there, but that alternative is going to make for more expensive meal options, unless you all prefer that we subsidize tax money to pay for healthy lunches when many schools are already underfunded.... Otherwise it doesn't change that you still have to have crappy options that offer the bare minimum in nutrition, because frankly there's just as much pressure on them to provide affordable options as there is for healthy ones. It makes little difference if those ideas are right or wrong. It is what it is at this point. Edited November 18, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) I think the main contributor to obesity in children is parents who can't say no to their children are obese. fixed. It is astounding how fat America has become. ETA: I went to the US Heart, Lung and Blood Assn. and I'm not obese, just overweight Holy crap though, to be middle of the 'normal weight' at 6' 2 " I would have to weigh 170 lbs. I would be skin and bones. Edited November 18, 2011 by jetsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 This is just another example of how congress is bought and paid for. CA is probably a little ahead of the curve as far as what's in school lunch health-wise. The problem is, it's expensive (30% more than UT) and nasty - none of my 4 kids eat it. They all prefer to brown bag it. Even things like pizza are so bad my son known as the human garbage disposal won't touch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I think this thread has gotten away from what the OP intended. Going back and looking at the original link, I have had a change of heart. If it helps the majority of kids be healthier, I am all for it. I can feed my kids crap on my own time. Our children's lunches at school should not be determined by lobbyists or kickbacks. There really is no downside to getting rid of highly unhealthy food in schools. I just wish it wasn't necessary, but looking at the stats, we need to help kids whose parents are unable or unwilling to do it themsleves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 ETA: I went to the US Heart, Lung and Blood Assn. and I'm not obese, just overweight Holy crap though, to be middle of the 'normal weight' at 6' 2 " I would have to weigh 170 lbs. I would be skin and bones. Yea, the BMI schedule seems a little tough but maybe we've just gotten used to how fat we Americans are. Although the numbers do seem f-ed. Not sure if they just don't take muscle into account or what. At 6'4" I'd have to be 203 pounds to be at the highest possible section of what is considered "normal". To be in the middle of the "normal" weight at 6'4" I'd have to weigh 178 pounds. Now, I played TE in HS with 6% body fat and was around 185 - 190. 178 would make me look like a cancer patient. I'm probably 225 right now and I completely agree that I should drop about 10 pounds and I plan on hitting the gym again once the baby starts sleeping through the night but if I'm 178 at 6'4" I'd be far from normal. doh, sorry to threadjack. Just kind of wondering out loud after hitting that link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Yea, the BMI schedule seems a little tough but maybe we've just gotten used to how fat we Americans are. Although the numbers do seem f-ed. Not sure if they just don't take muscle into account or what. At 6'4" I'd have to be 203 pounds to be at the highest possible section of what is considered "normal". To be in the middle of the "normal" weight at 6'4" I'd have to weigh 178 pounds. Now, I played TE in HS with 6% body fat and was around 185 - 190. 178 would make me look like a cancer patient. I'm probably 225 right now and I completely agree that I should drop about 10 pounds and I plan on hitting the gym again once the baby starts sleeping through the night but if I'm 178 at 6'4" I'd be far from normal. doh, sorry to threadjack. Just kind of wondering out loud after hitting that link. I am at the perfect weight if I was 7'4" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 BMI is a guideline, but widely considered to be a bit offbase. Body fat percentage, at least in my opinion, is a much better indicator of relative health than BMI. As to the issue at discussion, part of the problem (drawing from memory of a show I saw a couple years ago, so bear with me, a 60 Minutes or 20/20 type thing) that the schools were facing was that even when they do offer kids a choice, they make the unhealthy choice because they can. Choice of a salad or fries to go with their main dish and they overwhelmingly choose fries. Choice of a sugary soda or gatorade or going with milk or water, they take the sugary drink. It was at a point where it was costing the schools too much to even really offer the healthier options. I'm sure a large part of the problem lies with parental decisions on feeding kids... we've previously had the discussion about going to McDonalds for dinner vs. making something at home - time benefits etc. that lead to the decision, but I also think a lot of it is as jetsfan said above in that many of the parents don't know how to make good choices and are essentially incapable of passing that knowledge down to their children. If a parent is eating all processed stuff at home or is having fast food 6 nights a week, the child is also and is not developing the ability to make healthy/unhealthy decisions as they are not seeing it at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 No one is really advocating that requiring a school to provide healthy food to children is some sort of government control...? so who, in your view, would be doing the "requiring"? far as I can tell, this is a story of the current administration trying to impose a silly legislative agenda via bureaucratic fiat, and the republican legislative opposition feebly and rather stupidly "fighting back" by trying to undo that fiat via legislation. and bushwanked acting like it's all a big deal, "for the cheeldren" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 And finally at issue here is this... Don't these people really have more important things to worry about than passing laws as to what a school is required to serve in a lunch room? Wouldn't the local jurisdiction be more in touch with this issue and be better able to evaluate the costs associated with such changes in their menus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 so who, in your view, would be doing the "requiring"? The f*ck if I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 and bushwanked acting like it's all a big deal, "for the cheeldren" link? As stated, I really don't see much of a negative, other than cost, for advocating healthier public hot lunches and I don't think it's a "silly legislative agenda" in theory; especially relative to the Repubs legislation where tomato paste is classified as a vegetable. The govt. control argument is a rhetorical red herring and one of the many signs of how far out of whack the Repub party has become. It's obvious you're rather desperate in another one of your intellectually disingenuous and failed attempts to make a valid counterpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I've been wondering why do schools have to offer ANY lunches? The schools/govt wail about budget cuts so here's a nice little cut to make and have families actually responsible for all their kids' lunches. Since almost all brown bag at least occasionally and many I suspect most/all the time (since school food is notoriously nasty), it shouldn't be much of an impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 I've been wondering why do schools have to offer ANY lunches? I'm not sure they have to...there wasn't a public school lunch program in the school district I was edumacated in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I've been wondering why do schools have to offer ANY lunches? The schools/govt wail about budget cuts so here's a nice little cut to make and have families actually responsible for all their kids' lunches. Since almost all brown bag at least occasionally and many I suspect most/all the time (since school food is notoriously nasty), it shouldn't be much of an impact. Umm . . . the lunches arent free, at least at my kids school. We pay for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Umm . . . the lunches arent free, at least at my kids school. We pay for them There are programs for free or reduced-cost lunches for low-income families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitansFan Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 It's not a public school, but when I was in high school (graduated 5.5 years ago) they would order large quantities of food from local fast food joints (Taco Bell, Runza, Valentino's, etc) and resell it to us at a profit. They had no kitchen so this was their solution. It's actually kinda amazing how few overweight/obese kids there were. They did buy some adjacent land and added on a kitchen a few years ago, so they don't do this anymore as far as I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 It's not a public school, but when I was in high school (graduated 5.5 years ago) they would order large quantities of food from local fast food joints (Taco Bell, Runza, Valentino's, etc) and resell it to us at a profit. They had no kitchen so this was their solution. It's actually kinda amazing how few overweight/obese kids there were. They did buy some adjacent land and added on a kitchen a few years ago, so they don't do this anymore as far as I know. I read that my HS (a public one) contracted with those type of places after I graduated from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 It's not a public school, but when I was in high school (graduated 5.5 years ago) they would order large quantities of food from local fast food joints (Taco Bell, Runza, Valentino's, etc) and resell it to us at a profit. They had no kitchen so this was their solution. It's actually kinda amazing how few overweight/obese kids there were. They did buy some adjacent land and added on a kitchen a few years ago, so they don't do this anymore as far as I know. Where did you go that didn't have a kitchen? Never heard that. Although I knew some of the Millard schools did have a T Bell or something option in the cafeteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Umm . . . the lunches arent free, at least at my kids school. We pay for them I know but there are still costs associated w/the school. I doubt they break even let alone make a profit, though I can't say for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 link? As stated, I really don't see much of a negative, other than cost, for advocating healthier public hot lunches and I don't think it's a "silly legislative agenda" in theory; especially relative to the Repubs legislation where tomato paste is classified as a vegetable. The govt. control argument is a rhetorical red herring and one of the many signs of how far out of whack the Repub party has become. It's obvious you're rather desperate in another one of your intellectually disingenuous and failed attempts to make a valid counterpoint. you switch so often and fluidly from trying to be faux-serious to schtick-stoopid it's hard for me to tell which this is supposed to be, especially when the intellectual substance is so consistent. do we really need federal regulation dictating exactly what constitutes "vegetables", what it costs, whether the kids will eat it, etc.? and even assuming you say yes, does it really need to be imposed via an "executive order" end-around congress? can't the schools and/or districts figure this one out themselves? government control is the ONLY issue here, far as I"m concerned. I completely fail to see why this is an area why we need federal legislation, whether imposed the regular way or by executive fiat. but that of course is an issue you will avoid completely, in favor of ZOOMG NEWT GINGRICH THINKS KETCHUP IS A VEGETABLE!!!1!1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 I know but there are still costs associated w/the school. I doubt they break even let alone make a profit, though I can't say for sure. Agreed. My wife is one of the active parents that volunteer and help with the hot lunch program. The program there breaks even every year, but I am sure that is not indicative of all schools. Esepcially ones that rely on federal grants to help poverty level children get meals becasue they cant afford lunches on their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 ZOOMG NEWT GINGRICH THINKS KETCHUP IS A VEGETABLE!!!1!1 I expect better fact checking out of you Az. That initative was championed by Ronald Reagan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 government control is the ONLY issue here, far as I"m concerned. I completely fail to see why this is an area why we need federal legislation, whether imposed the regular way or by executive fiat. So, despite the fact the govt. is paying for these meals; it is simply becomes too much govt. control for the govt. to legislate how its own money is to be spent. And we can't let the govt. control that, especially if it means school lunches become healthier. Brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkirc Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) I look at this as the First Lady's project and therefore the "other side" is going to fight it tooth and nail. Politics in our country has become a great big joke. They can't get out of their own way...... Edited November 18, 2011 by lkirc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.