Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Rolls Back Obama-Era Nutrition Standards For School Lunches (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Just a week into his position, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced Monday a rollback of nutrition standards for school meals, previously championed by former First Lady Michelle Obama as part of a larger initiative to improve the health of America's children. Under Perdue's new rollback, schools across the country can now delay a requirement to reduce sodium levels, can serve kids fewer whole grains, and can provide one percent flavored milk in addition to flavored skim, unflavored skim, and unflavored one percent. In a news release that declared the move would "make school meals great again," Perdue said: "This announcement is the result of years of feedback from students, schools, and food service experts about the challenges they are facing in meeting the final regulations for school meals. If kids aren't eating the food, and it's ending up in the trash, they aren't getting any nutrition -- thus undermining the intent of the program." Specifically, under Obama-era nutrition rules, schools were supposed to decrease sodium from meals in three phases. For instance, 2012 school lunches had average sodium levels between roughly 1,400mg to 1,600mg, with elementary school lunches on the lower end. Federal dietary guidelines, which schools must follow, recommend kids get 1,900mg to 2,300mg or less of sodium per day (depending on age). Currently, schools have dropped down to "Target 1," which is a range of about 1,200mg to 1,400mg or less. Schools were supposed to get that down to about 900mg to 1,000mg this year ("Target 2") and then to between 600mg and 700mg by 2022 ("Final Target"). The USDA will now waive the requirement to reach Target 2 until 2020. The USDA will also grant exemptions from the current requirement for schools to serve only whole-grain-rich foods.
To be fair, the regulations are trying to push a low fat whole grain diet, which I don't believe is actually healthy. Fat is essential for brain development, our kids definitely shouldn't be eating low fat.
In the spirit of Saint Reagan
http://saveie6.com/
Shame on migo for taking food out of the mouths of childrinz
Ever see that TSA South Park episode? Yeeeeeeaaaah.
In the spirit of Saint Reagan
Oh, be fair.
The regulations were many, and often at odds with each other and at odds with the goals of School Nutrition Association. It was pushed by Michelle Obama with little or no input from nutrition experts or the aforementioned group, and caused so much anger with it's one-sided dictates that Michelle's "food policy czar" was asked not to speak/hand out awards at the SNA association dinner.
School regulations are the purview of state, not federal. It's much *much* better when the local population has a say in how their kids get schooled. Common core and "no child left behind" was a disaster.
Schools are better off managed at the local level.
Everyone knows that.
In other words, schools are now allowed to serve stuff that kids will actually eat again, making afternoon class teachers and any student with afterschool activities happy again.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/1m-kids-stop-school-lunch-due-michelle-obamas-stan/
That's what they've been famous for in the rest of the world for decades...
The unwritten tidbit here was the lunches became so bland and boring that kids stopped eating them and instead either didn't eat or brought in food. This isn't good because school lunches come from farming subsidizes and under utilized school lunch programs in low income areas mean kids aren't eating. The real solution to this is more physical education (with physical exertion).
Beyond just to get rid of all traces of Obama, is there any reason to go back to the previous standards? Lowering sodium intake seems like a good idea given all the studies that show correlation between cardiac health issues and high levels of sodium. Honest question here...
If the students refuse to eat it? Would it not be better for educating students if they were neither experiencing growling stomachs or suffering from food comas?
Being on the "I'd rather starve" end of the spectrum is not desirable from a development and learning standpoint.
Food for thought.
Caution: Contents under pressure
It was never the Federal Government's business what a school kid was eating for lunch.
If the parents forgot to pay off a previous balance for school lunches, the kid's lunch gets thrown into the garbage to shame them. Only in America...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/well/family/lunch-shaming-children-parents-school-bills.html
On the first day of seventh grade last fall, Caitlin Dolan lined up for lunch at her school in Canonsburg, Pa. But when the cashier discovered she had an unpaid food bill from last year, the tray of pizza, cucumber slices, an apple and chocolate milk was thrown in the trash.
I've eaten with my children and the school meals are terrible. Every kid thinks their school lunch sucks, I'm no exception, but by comparison I was given haute cuisine. If it was actually healthy I could nearly forgive it, but the plans are built on junk science.
Being happy with the results of anything coming from our current president makes my stomach churn. Nonetheless, this is a good thing.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
when you're hungry enough everything tastes good. This is mostly about cost. The healthier options cost more. This lets them cut the program and pocket the difference somewhere else. The people who did this are not good people. Don't kid yourself.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because school children are at high risk for undiagnosed hypertension?
Lets face it, Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
No, the only thing Trump did, was see it was an Obama rule and do the opposite.
Because that is what Trump defines himself as: the opposite of Obama.
Hence the Trump inauguration cake that copies Obamas but was sligthly bigger. The piss on the Moscow hotel bed Obama slept in. The Obamacare ill conceived replacement. The cancelling of Obama sea reserves, the removal of Obama net neutrality.
It's not that lazy fucker Trump knows or cares about any of it. He only knows it was an Obama rule.
He really is nothing, not even defined by himself, he's defined by whatever he's attacking. At the moment its Obama, so he's attacking everything Obama did, even if it means siding with Putin and attacking America.
... just like 44.
I'm Aussie and I think the culture is different compared to the states, but when I went to school virtually everyone brought their own packed lunch from home.
Me and a number of my friends were given money by our parents to buy our lunches from the school canteen once a week, usually on shopping day when we had not much food left in the house.
Does anyone in the US send their children to school with packed lunches, or is it something of a social stigma to do so?
, getting them used to bureaucrats making decisions for them good or bad. Like forcing people to wear seat belts (good or bad) in the 70's and 80's.
Trump is a school-yard bully with Alzheimer's disease who has access to the big red "end world now" button. Impeach his ass ASAP.
No matter, GAO will no doubt assess how many children will die as a result of Trumps changes.
Nutrition isn't done for political motives, it's done based on health advice. Those schools should not have provided candy vending machines to students no matter how profitable they are.
The wife works at an LAUSD middle school and she reports the amount of food wasted is horrendous. While a single data point, I doubt it's an outlier. Pushing 'healthy' food to kids who turn around and trash it, typically finding some other source of 'junk' food, has not been a success. Even if regulations are eased it's doubtful the bureaucratic school districts will discover common sense.
Chris Christie and Glen Beck approve this message!
Otherwise, how else will they keep getting elected?
http://time.com/4279538/low-fa... "In a new study published in the journal Circulation, Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and his colleagues analyzed the blood of 3,333 adults enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study of Health Professionals Follow-up Study taken over about 15 years. They found that people who had higher levels of three different byproducts of full-fat dairy had, on average, a 46% lower risk of getting diabetes during the study period than those with lower levels. “I think these findings together with those from other studies do call for a change in the policy of recommending only low-fat dairy products,” says Mozaffarian. “There is no prospective human evidence that people who eat low-fat dairy do better than people who eat whole-fat dairy.”" http://holisticsquid.com/skip-... "the skimming process not only strips the milk of essential saturated fats, fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 and healthy cholesterol; but also most reduced fat milks have powdered non-fat milk added which contributes toxic nitrates and oxidized cholesterol."
It's well known that kids in Democrat areas are a different species to kids to kids in Republican areas, so they need different rules for each.
It's not like nutrition is a science or anything, it's all just politics and the important thing is we pretend Trump did this because its a good thing and pretend he thought it through.
Plus surgury for child obesiety is growing, and that is good for jobs! Not just any jobs but well paid jobs.
The regulations were many, and often at odds with each other and at odds with the goals of School Nutrition Association. It was pushed by Michelle Obama with little or no input from nutrition experts or the aforementioned group,
Literally everything you wrote is false.
Obama worked with top experts on nutrition. These guidelines were the product of the best current science in conjunction with many in the industry itself, not politics and certainly were not arbitrary "dictates."
The SNA originally supported the law when it was passed in 2010.
The board has since flip-flopped to the serious consternation of many of their members.
And the cause seems to be due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly funded by food suppliers. One of their largest donors was previously responsible for getting pizza declared a vegetable. The SNA no longer advocate for children's health, they advocate for business's profitability at the expense of children's health.
Schools are better off managed at the local level.
Everyone knows that.
Everyone knows that kids need the same nutrition regardless of where they live. The law does not mandate meal choice, only nutrient content. Every school is free to follow their own direction within the guidelines.
I swear, I don't know why anyone trusts what you write anymore. You regularly tell bald-faced lies which you then pad with misrepresentations and to top it off you cite breitbart. WTF dude? Breitbart?
Most health food gets corrupted anyway. Like the granola bar. That's been completely corrupted.
Because you know initially some guy was like, hey kids are eating candy bars, right? All we got to do is shape granola like a candy bar, kids will eat the granola.
And then like a week later, uh Bill, kids are not eating these granola bars.
Well, all you got to do is put chocolate chips in the granola bar. Kids will eat the granola.
Uh, Bill, kids are picking the chocolate chips out of the granola bar.
All you got to do is cover it in chocolate. Get rid of the freakin' granola. I gotta tell you how to do everything?
And now, obligatory link to Jim's website:
http://www.jimgaffigan.com/pro...
#DeleteFacebook
Back when I was a kid, schools were teaching, not feeding.
And I had PB&J sandwiches, a lot! And I liked it!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Local population are for spanking and corporal punishment, which we know is counterproductive through studies. Local population are "local" and thus in lower numbers and don't have the power to do a lot of studies, and thus can have hit and miss. In this precise case, I am pretty sure "low fat" is stupid, but this has nothing to do with the "state vs federal". De genere, the feds will have more power for studies and will in average know better than the state.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
School lunches should be balanced in nutrients. They should be available to any student regardless of income level. They should be fresh. And students should want to eat them, to enjoy eating them. I think these are core principles that any reasonable American can agree to.
The problem is that this is not what school lunches are: they never have been, nor should anyone with a brain have any illusions that the Trump administration's rollback would do anything meaningful to solve the problem.
Do you really want to know why school lunches suck? Because Americans are hypocrites. They talk about caring about education. They talk about caring about children. A balanced diet is a critical part of those priorities, yet when it comes down to the putting the money where their mouth is, nobody wants to pay to feed them real food. Oh, you will hear how parents say they want the freedom to choose what to feed their kids...but let's be brutally honest: Americans are fucking fat and they didn't get that way by making good dietary choices for themselves, did they? So if they can't stop guzzling sodas and calling frozen pizzas "dinner," what do you think their kids will eat?
But how dare I question the inviolable rights of a parent to choose whether to give their kids cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes? Because we live in the Land of the Free...free to gorge yourself on Chick-fil-A and Burger King, that is. And with the fast food industry essentially using an addiction model to sell their poison, is it any surprise that kids (and their parents) would choose to eat a high-fat, high-salt, high-sugar diet?
Americans are hypocrites: they howl at the idea of being told by anyone else what they can and can't do, but when it's time to pay the consequences of their own poor choices--the millions of dollars spent on their cancer, diabetes, and heart disease--suddenly, it's someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility.
At some point, you have to decide to make a stand and say, "I the taxpayer, am willing to pay more now to ensure that your kid eats right, so that I don't have to pay more later to subsidize the lifelong health consequences of the shitty lifestyle and dietary choices you made for your kids because you're too fucking stupid to be a parent." Freedom doesn't mean freedom from responsibility.
If you doubled the school food budget and cut out all the factory farm subsidies and waste, and hired real cooks to make lunches, these kids would be eating real food. And the cost savings would be enormous. And if you have even the slightest bit of intelligence you'd know that the food industry drives these policies: their profit relies on addicting each new generation on junk food.
The meals they are serving at schools these days are tasteless garbage.
These stupid restrictions have got to go.
Ah yes, the old "I think we can all agree" followed by paragraph upon paragraph of one-sided rant, sweeping generalizations, and insults that we most definitely DO NOT agree on. How quaint.
Even if we DID "all" agree on many of the principles we would still not all agree that it's the massive federal government's responsibility to force the issue!
Provide recommendations and do research, sure. Force schools to feed kids stuff they hate* based on the assumption that a few cherry picked attributes of food will magically make all the kids healthier? Just no. Steal twice as much money from our pockets to "hire real cooks" while also hurting farmers who actually produce the food? Even worse.
* Personal anecdote: I wasn't paying enough attention to Mrs. Obama's nonsense but one day my kids came home asking what the heck the school had done to the mashed potatoes (which they had previously looked forward to a couple times a month). They used to like them, but now claimed they suddenly tasted like runny wallpaper paste and Elmer's glue, and no amount of the so-called gravy could make it edible, so they stopped eating them. This was followed by other complaints about how the food was no good anymore. I initially guessed that they were just trying to cut costs, but it turned out to be more complicated than that. The guidelines were the main driving factor, both in making the food far less desirable, and reducing the quality of various items that weren't mandated in order to make up for the increased cost of the mandated items/attributes.
Trump will be happy.
And I said as much when it was published.
Look, you have two choices:
1. Feed every kid anything they want, for "free" including the kids with two parents each making 6-figures but who are too lazy to actually pay off their lunch balance. I'd be OK with this, but the cost is high, and the parents who give their kids sack lunches (for whatever reason) also end up unnecessarily subsidizing those who eat school lunch even if those parents could easily afford to pay.
2. Expect parents with sufficient incomes to either send their kids to school with food, or pay the frickin' negative balance within a reasonable length of time, after numerous notices, notes home, and sometimes even calls!! Free/reduced lunch programs are readily available for low income families. You can (and most schools do) even offer a basic, alternate lunch (which is as good or better than what I ate most days growing up) to kids whose parents are able to, but simply refuse to pay, repeatedly and habitually.
That's all. You can't just say "oh, you have to pay... except if you don't, that's fine too, no consequences whatsoever" That's total lunacy. What kind of a moron would even consider that? My school had no basic lunch option. If I forgot my lunch and didn't have money (at least once paid with (literally) pennies I'd saved up myself) I'd have to tough it out. I would have been thrilled to get a cheese sandwich and milk on those days instead of maybe mooching a chicken nugget off a friend and then hitting the water fountain.
> Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
Pretty much right. Well he doesn't assign a specific researcher. There are two MILLION federal employees. The president doesn't assign research tasks - he doesn't even know the researchers' names. He knows the names of the department heads - a couple dozen of the millions of federal employees. What Trump did is he told all federal agencies, in one memo, "review all of the regulations that Obama made on his way out the door". Then Trump was off to deal with North Korea or the budget or health care or China or Russia or jobs or taxes or whatever. School lunch regulations are about number 5,762 on a president's priority list. So the agency head forwarded that memo "review all recent regulations" to his top management, who forwarded forwarded it to someone who deals with lunch standards. And this manager, who has never seen the president, undid some of the recent changes.
> It's not that lazy fucker Trump knows or cares about any of it.
Right. He's a little busy with trying to learn whose who in Chinese politics to prevent wars, find out what the federal reserve is up to trying to keep the economy afloat, have some general input on the federal budget, etc.
> He only knows it was an Obama rule.
He doesn't know or care if someone that Obama's wife talked to decided on skim milk or 1% or 2%. He likely doesn't know that school lunch standards were changed under Obama - those two million federal employees handle that stuff.
What the president knows is this:
Obama's administration made a bunch of regulations that liberals like. In the final few months, knowing they would be replaced regardless, they went a little wild. So his team of more conservative people should tell their people to have a look the changes done by Obama's people and consider doing things differently.
That's what President Trump, or any president, knows. They don't read millions of pages of federal regulations.
You jest, but an 8 year old absolutely can and should understand that actions have consequences.
I've been one, and I've raised some, and both I and they knew full well long before 8 years old that if you want to buy something you need to pay for it. If I had no money and no sack lunch, I'd get no food, so I very quickly learned to make sure I did, and blamed nobody but myself (or maybe my mom) if I failed. A hungry kid is not going to learn as well and is more likely to be disruptive though, so I can see some value in safety net lunches that provide something to fill the stomach even if you repeatedly fail to pay, but there still has to be at least SOME consequence or neither the parents nor the kids will ever learn any personal responsibility.
Now, when it's an actual mistake by the school that's a problem and steps should be taken to minimize mistakes, but we're all human (parents, teachers, kids) so a mistake is going now and again, either in the kids favor or in the school's. Deal with it and move on.
You are what you eat: you are shit, you eat shit. Typical american. Signed, a superior European.
Dear America,
You may have missed this, but in a Democracy, laws are made for the People by the People's representatives. In a Corpocracy laws are made for corporations by corporations' representatives.
Signed, Most of the Rest of the World.
This could be actually a good thing, but for their unintended consequences.
After the publication in 1980 of USDA dietary guidelines the percentage of obese people in USA started to rise.
Same thing happened in the UK with the introduction of the Eatwell plate.
I think that all stems from the idea that eating fats and cholesterol make one fat, so the energy intake should be based on starchy foods like rice, potatoes and refined wheat: these are foods with a really high glycemic index so the starches are rapidly converted in glucose, the pancreas stats to produce insulin and the glucose is transformed in fat. Then normally the level of glucose in food decreases and the brain registers it as starving and if food is readily available one eats again the starchy foods, that are healthy. Unfortunately this is a sure way to eat too much.
Eating some fatty food, like cheese, eggs, olive oil, nuts or meat requires more times to be digested and the glycemic response is much lower, so one feels more satisfied to eat.
In this case I think thast giving to kids "boring" foods makes them eat more "tasty" food like snacks and fried potatoes, that are high in calories and surely not "gourmet" foods, making the whole dietary advice moot.
If in schools they start to serve a real pizza margherita made with buffalo mozzarella, olive oil, fresh tomato sauce and freh basil, maybe the kids will get a more decent taste for good food, istead to eat some baked thing called pizza made with leftovers
Well, I do see value in learning to eat what you're given, but deliberately giving kids allegedly-healthful crap isn't necessarily the best option.
Schools ended up compromising on food quality in order to meet the specific requirements without blowing the budget.
On a side note, one of my children literally would not eat vegetables. People say "oh, they'll eat if they get hungry enough." Nope. Not always. Certain children will literally sit in front of delicious and wholesome food for extended periods of time and refuse to eat it, repeatedly, for days or weeks. This was years ago, but it got to the point where someone reported us to social services for "not feeding" our child. We had to start buying overpriced and questionable-nutrition PediaSure to appease them, and eventually said eff this and stopped trying to feed the kid vegetables. It wasn't worth it.
WTF is the federal government doing, micromanaging cafeterias in local schools?
Even more bizarre: it isn't even the (entirely counterproductive) Department of Education doing this, but the Department of Agriculture. Aren't they supposed to manage farm subsidies and the like?
Dear Mr. Trump: Please drain the swamp like you promised. Regulations like this have no reason to exist in the first place.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I had a heart attack from bad diet.
I decided to try nutrition instead.
I worried what to do if obamacare or society collapses and I ain't sitting around for slashdot programmers to get me off grid.
here's what you do after/before society breaks down, you plant beets, and carrots, your kid eats a carrot, beet and apple before they leave the front door every day.
barter the apples, the "sea salt", the meat, and dark chocolate.
Boom done.
beets are easy, carrots harder to get growing.
You noticed there's no sugar, wheat, iodized salt, tobacco, drugs or other junk. You noticed it's not only vegetarian. You noticed the carbs are slow carbs, also you notice this is written by someone who should be dead in the bed, but didn't listen to doctors and "eat my healthy grains and take my statin."
I had to KNOW what I was talking about and defy the doctors. I don't know why everyone always works to hide things against the doctor, the problem is finding a doctor that will work with you to heal, that's what I found. The other part is you better be real, it's your life, and the truth is no doctor or anyone should be obligated to take care of you, not only that, if you put poison in your mouth, even if you can find someone willing to be obligated, they probably won't be able to HELP ya anymore period since you screwed yourself too much. Not only that medicare and medicaid is going to destroy not only the markets in the US, but the monetary system itself on it's current trajectory. So time to stop being type 2 diebetic now before your end up dead when the hospitals are broke and the people that commit this big fraud in prison. (small window with chaos possibly no doctors at all)
SO, stop putting poison in your mouths. Don't shine my words and end up with a stent or some nonsense. You want a HFLC diet. You want your doctor working with you, not against you. Keep your glycemic load from "overloading" and soon you will be able to see your winky with out sucking your gut in. You probably want to do this before an insurance company READS your A1C. You know what's right and what's wrong, you know the fake news sources, stop listening to the bad advice, stop giving out your data to rip-offs who exploit your HIGH A1C and raise your bills. Speaking of which the billing is the FRAUD, where are the prices posted? That's right FRAUD.
That can lower costs right there, LOOK AT oaklahoma surgery center. Look at their PRICE SHEET. you can pay for your own health out of your own POCKET, you don't need insurance!
STOP THIS INSANITY.
ACT like Adults
or get Treated like Children or worse..
I am not kidding. My way is not the only way, you can feel free to modify your diet and have a heart attack and die.
Diabetes? Yes, probably,
Though not necessarily. Fat tissue can disbalance hormonal regulation.
Among others, you end up with less sensitivity to insulin.
(so you end up with a type 2 Diabetes, because of your fat - which might be caused by other causes than you processed sugar intake,
not because of direct influence of those intake)
Obesity is caused by eating too many calories.
...combined with not doing to much exercise.
Which will encourage the body to use these excess calories to build "reserves, just in case".
(As opposed to other uses for calories :
- burning them, to move muscles
- burning them for thermal purpose
- use them to rebuild muscles).
Whereas, doing lots of exercise, in addition to the direct consumption of calories (you need energy to move),
will also raises a bunch of hormones stimulating muscle growth/repair/up-keep, so calories will be also burned and used in the "construction work" in keeping those muscles.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
My district must have been one of the ones not following the guidelines. I see chocolate milk running down the walls at a high school Monday and they were making loads of whole pepperoni pizzas at a different one.
In my district, any kid, regardless of if they go to the school, can walk in the door and get fed breakfast, lunch, afternoon snack and they're working on dinner...
Whole milk is healthier than skim and 1%. It doesn't sound like the Obama era standards are very healthy.
Very nice post keep it up Best WordPress WooCommerce Themes in 2017 10 Best Open Source CMSs and their Advantages 30 Best WordPress Themes for 2017 The Most Innovative Drone Technology Developments for the Future Best Free Website Builders for 2017 Best CRM Software for 2017
Maybe schools shouldn't be in the restaurant business or deciding what people can eat.
Has the US turned socialist? If you can post on this site you afford to feed your own kids a good meal. It's funny reading all the people complaining about what the government feeds their kids, your kids, your responsibility.
Healthy food is too complicated to regulate with good results. A few years ago, low fat products were considered heathy. Then came Atkins and LCHF and now sugar and sweet food is the culprits. There are also unintended side effects from this kind of regulation - for example that the kids don't like the food and goes to McDonalds instead. Some simple things could be regulated, like limiting sale and drinking of soft drinks on school, but such a limitation can also be requested by parents so it's hardly useful. One thing that might work out is to force schools to describe how they ensure that the school food is healthy - then parents and journalists can keep check on them.
I don't recall "school lunch program" being part of the federal government's responsibilities.
If this is something that concerns you, then go to your state. The feds have no business here.
Love sees no species.
My daughters go to a public school in rural Ohio. This last year we stopped packing their lunches and found it was cheaper to just let them buy at school. We were spending about $40 every 2 weeks on stuff for them to pack (lunch meat, cheeses, vegetables, etc) and it was the same price for them to just buy at school.
They also get a free breakfast at school. I believe this is because our district has x number of people below the poverty line or something like that.
Regardless, I've had both breakfast and lunch with them, and am very satisfied with the meals they are having. The breakfasts are generally high carb and fat, such as french toast, but with a side of fruit. But this is what kids their age need for breakfast. They are growing, and need the fat and calories.
Lunches are quite healthy, generally with side salads or other fresh vegetables.
I've read about some of the regulations that Trump is rolling back, and I don't disagree with it. Eg, one of the articles I read cited that in the south they wanted to serve grits with breakfast, but the whole grain grits had black specks in it that turned a lot of the kids off and they wouldn't eat it.
I know at my kids school, they offer whole grain breads with their meals, but its not super grainy type breads. At home we eat hearty 8 grain type breads, but at school its just slightly browner colored white bread. I really see no difference between that and regular boring bleached white bread. Does it really matter?
What matters is getting calories into hungry kids.
Post your age when you make a "damn govt telling my kids what to eat" comment. We need to know if you are ignorant or just stupid.
It may take some proctors to get the kids to eat their lunches. We can't assume that the kids are not eating due to the food served. Being skinny is a big thing with young kids these days and some simply may not want to appear to be of an eating type of personality. Schools have also cut back on exercise for kids and that may well be causing them to be picky about eating. But the best policy is to serve what highly educated professional nutritionists recommend. I have seen US government mini pizzas served in schools that i would not feed to a dog. If a kid liked those cheap junk pizzas he should be sent to a mental health facility.
When were school lunches great? Not nostalgic memory i have. If they're going to be disgusting they might as well be healthier.
Kids don't need vitamins to work in a sweat shop!
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Lets face it, Trump didn't really consider ANY of that. He wouldn't have studied any of the rules, or considered any of the science. He wouldn't have assigned a researcher to look at it.
No, the only thing Trump did, was see it was an Obama rule and do the opposite.
Because that is what Trump defines himself as: the opposite of Obama.
I don't think you are doing Trump justice here. Reverting Obama's course is just Coolaid for the "Thanks Obama" Republican Party. For Trump, the relevant question is rather "who is going to pay for it?". More specifically, "who is going to pay _me_ for it?".
A number of Obama decisions pitted the interests of the People against the interests of large corporations, and only the latter have a readily available lobbying war chest at their disposal (the People of course pay a whole lot more in taxes but they don't have the option to decide about it on a case-by-case basis).
Trump is stuffing his and his family's and cronies' pockets for as long as he can before getting impeached. And he is grateful to the Obama administration for every policy made in the interest of the People against someone with big pockets since he gets to cash in on overturning it.
Too little water >> you die
Too little sodium >> you die
Around recommended amount >> good
Double amount of recommended amount >> your body attempts to adjust itself to the situation by getting rid of water through, e.g. urinal, sweat, etc. Can cause overhydration, water retention, and hyponatremia (leading to, ironically in context, too little sodium in cells).
Too much water >> you die
Everything should be done in a moderate way.
Oh piss off with this "salt is bad" bullshit.
It's bad enough that so many people still believe fat is bad. Now salt is the new scapegoat.
Salt does NOT affect blood pressure to significant extents in normal functioning people.
There is a subset of the population that have sensitivity to salt.
Not to mention most of these fucking salt studies do not account for so many facets that can cause high blood pressure, that alone nullifies every single one of them.
I've known people to consume silly amounts of salt and have zero problems in to their 90s. Yet others that consume little amounts and are 10 kinds of dying. Both of them are my grandparents and one is dead. Go figure it is the one with salt intolerance, diabetes and a range of problems caused by poor diet.
There are entire countries with higher salt consumption and barely any of the incidence of high blood pressure we see in the west. Go screaming at them that salt is bad, watch them laugh at you.
The biggest reason for salt-related sensitivity is poor diet and exertion. Exertion being a huge part.
Consuming too much salt and not enough water is also a very bad thing.
And just like any nutrient, there is likely a small subset of the population that also have genetic intolerance.
Stop listening to bullshit studies.
The very basis of "salt is bad" was a PRE-study that tried to look for places with lowest high blood pressure issues and found one small place that just happened to have a low-salt diet, but ignored everything else. (never mind the fact it was a closed-off almost-tribal community)
From there, a bunch of retard-studies exploded that still don't account for all the MASSIVE exemptions to their bullshit-science.
It is "fat is bad" all over again. Let's just ignore huge parts of a persons life / a country / a CONTINENT that states otherwise, because those places are icky and don't fit with our agenda.
Food science seriously sickens me. It's so fucking awful. It has ruined entire generations of people for the past 4 decades. So many people are going to horribly die in the next 40, or develop severe illness normally seen in people 70+.
The science isn't settled in just about every field, they're still arguing over sodium, theoretical physicists are still arguing over gravity! Apparently only the very best scientists work in climate science, they're the only ones where the science is settled.
It does make me wonder, if their science is settled, why are they still getting paid to do more climate science?
Perhaps it shouldn't be, but when state and local governments have proven unwilling to so much as acknowledge the problem of unhealthy school meals in most areas, it has to fall to the federal government to intervene.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Those who enjoy food and those who merely see food as fuel. Never ever take nutrition advice from the latter.
Not if they are cooked properly.
Have gnu, will travel.
They just want to see every state implement a successful education program.
But to be successful, students need to eat.
Have you ever tried to teach a student who isn't fed at home? I have. It's a significant challenge.
So, if students aren't getting their nutrition at home, suddenly it becomes the school's responsibility to provide it at school, through no fault of their own.
Thank the parents for Uncle Sam having to dawn a chef's apron.
Healthy eating is a liberal idea. Salt, grease, and preservatives is the way to eat.
There may be rare exceptions, but your case is probably exaggeration. It sounds like your parents gave in too early. A few days is not enough. Hunger will eventually out-vote a stubborn streak in a kid's head. Eventually kids get used to good food.
Note that many kids are naturally skinny and there's nothing wrong with that. Parental instincts may be to "chub" them up with junk food, but that's wrong.
It's not easy to manage a kid's diet, I will agree. But this debate is not about what's easy.
Table-ized A.I.
USDA's food pyramid was created in 1992, which is 25 years, nowhere near 70. It was heavily influenced by the agricultural industry.
Better to let schools determine their own standards and not be shackled into serving something that won't be eaten.
That way, public schools are free to make the balance between nutrition and what will be eaten - versus forcing something on people that the prior regime's family would never eat themselves.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I would hazard a guess that most North Americans have no idea what "real food" tastes like. When you first have it, you might not like it, as you miss all the sugar, salt, MSG, etc.
It doesn't take all that long to get used to it and start really enjoying it. The hardest part is getting and preparing non-processed food. It is more work, but gets easier with time as well.
Am I the only one triggered when I see "1400 mg" all over the place instead of "1.4 g?" Are U.S. Americans really too stupid to figure this out? If it's less than a gram, sure, write it in mg, why not. Otherwise it's just pointless to write 3 extra characters (00 m) that convey no additional information.
Only give them beer and cigarettes.
No smoking though, that shit will kill you dead.
Weren't these the same standards that declared pizza a vegetable?
Weren't these also the same standards that replaced fats with sugars?
Weren't these the standards that were a prime example of the federal government meddling in state affairs?
Not sure how anyone can see this as a bad thing.
- Sodium has minimal impact on cardiovascular health, except water retention (perhaps why it is said to increase blood pressure?)
- Fat is good! It's sugar that's bad
- Grains aren't so good. Sure, fiber is a good thing, thus whole grains are better, but more grains in general might not be. Unless it replaces sugar of course.
*** Focus on reducing sugar! Why are all these things in there, they only increase controversy and compliance problems!
Really? It's your fucking responsibility to feed your kids. Not mine, not the state, not the school, not the taxpayers. It's your damn responsibility. This is an issue only because a very small group of leftists want your kids beholden to the schools, and a large group of parents are so fucking irresponsible that they don't perform the most basic requirements of parenting.
Firstly, the obvious answer is a written check, but someone who cannot navigate a web site might have trouble with that so I just went with the simplest possible option.
And yeah, I've raised my kids thank you very much. They are now in high school and middle school and I actually talk to them openly and know (and care) what's going on in their lives. None of them were ever really bullied beyond a few lame taunts from kids who think being smart is somehow a disadvantage. That rolls right off when my kids "consider the source."
I don't know what school allows "thugs" to break a kid's jaw and steal his/her money without getting not just disciplined or suspended, but actually /expelled and charged with a crime and sent to juvie/, but I would NEVER live in such a district (assuming it exists) even if it meant moving from a nice house to a tiny apartment or temporarily moving in with relatives to get out of that area.
Around here were have "safe to tell" and security cameras and the average teacher (though admittedly not every single one) _actually cares_. We don't have a true "zero tolerance" policy (those can go way overboard and end up calling the cops on a kindergartener with a plastic butter knife or a stick), but still a very strict one, with the clear understanding the bullying is not tolerated under any circumstances and will be dealt with immediately.
Bottom line: You're essentially using the same logic as folks who say "she was asking for it." Seriously? In this day and age?
no foods are "healthy". all foods are "healthier" or "less healthy" than other foods, depending on the consumers dietary needs. Kale is not healthy if you eat it raw and are sensitive to the chemicals found in uncooked greens. chocolate milk is healthy if you are an athlete who needs a boost of milk fat, sugar and cocoa for whatever sport requires such. white rice is healthy for people with crohns disease. steak is unhealthy for babies who choke on it. i support banning the adjective "healthy" as a modifier for foods. however, whatever trumps admin does is completely unhealthy, as its morally tainted (and you dont want your taint anywhere near your food...)
I keep running into facts that piss me off so much about the schools around here.
Why do schools not allow 3 recesses for more physical activity? Why are school serving trash for lunch? Why the hell are the before/after care places all forcing the kids to stay indoors and be inactive?
France, Japan, and many others with thin kids allow 3 recesses/exercise breaks and serve better food.
http://www.alternet.org/food/f...
Quote: "Another bigger contribution to French students' healthy disposition? Recess. Students have two 15-minute and one 60-minute recess every day, writes Plantier, and they also have the advantage of walking or biking to and from school, which students only attend four -- not five -- days out of the week."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wh...
Japanese friends rave about their childhood lunches. They also all walked to and from school, about a mile or two away. When they got older, they road bikes.
I hear my kids complaining about not having enough time to eat as well. I visited once and was amazed at the time restraint. Here is an Irish article with the same problem. This can't be good.
http://www.irishtimes.com/life...
You can engineer the most healthy lunches. But if they taste like shit, the kids won't eat them.
Watch Canelo Alvarez vs. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr Live Stream Free
https://www.boxinglivestreamingfree.com/watch-canelo-alvarez-vs-julio-cesar-chavez-jr-live-stream-free/
Watch Canelo Alvarez vs. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr BOXING Live Streaming free online on your PC, laptop, Mac, Ipad, Tab, Ps4/3, I-phone Android or any other online device.
http://bit.ly/2p0PCcs
Yeah, we should let kids do what they want. Don't force the poor darlings to do homework, or take baths or brush their teeth or eat nutritious food. They will just suffer too much. Kids may throw away the lunch, but if you get rid of the vending machines, they will soon find that hunger is a great sauce. Besides, I've never seen any statistics on exactly how many lunches get thrown away.
When my parents were kids, their parents were responsible to feed them breakfast, send them to school with a bag/box lunch, and feed them an evening meal at home. If their parents did not, it was on THEM, and their kids (my folks) would be a little less "obese".
When I was a kid, my parents were responsible to feed me breakfast, send me to school with a bag/box lunch (or a little cash to buy a school lunch), and feed me an evening meal at home. If my parents did not, it was on THEM, and I would be a little less "obese".
People who have kids are responsible for feeding them - I'm NOT advocating for abortion here, just a return to the idea that adults are expected to be responsible grown-ups. Growing up in a family where a person's parents failed at these basic tasks was historically actually a spur to drive many historical figures to say "I'm going to do better than my parents did" and go on to be very productive people. Some limited hardship is sometimes a good thing in the long run. Children learn from their parents, whether for good or ill and sometimes a poor parent is a good example of how not to be. It's also true that people with bad parents who failed at basic things, like providing food, used to often be assisted by extended family and/or charities or the local community.
The idea that it is the government's job to feed kids is a relatively recent notion and quite contrary to historical American traditions that hold individuals responsible and encouraged individualism. There is a cultural reason why so many famous innovative companies were founded in the US and so many new things were invented here: we had a culture deeply steeped in rugged individualism, family, personal responsibility, and the protestant work ethic. There are now places in the US where kids are encouraged to show up at school early for a government provided breakfast, then get a government-provided lunch, then are encouraged to stay late for a government provided dinner. We have schools in California that now encourage the kiddies to show up on weekends and during vacation times to pick up packages of food to take home. This is the creeping destruction of the family, where government is increasingly becoming a replacement for mom and dad, just as it has been gradually replacing husbands as a provider for women and children. It might be politically popular in some circles but the long-term cultural destruction is likely to have unforseen and probably very toxic side effects.
It's NOT THE JOB of a public school to feed your kids!!! They are barely competent to teach your kids reading, writing, and arithmetic. If your kids are in a great school, then you can add-in some science, history, geography, civics, etc. If the school has way too much time and money on hand, then it can add-in some art, music, foreign language, etc.
Even the dumbest animals in nature feed their own offspring! The gradual collapse of society into a bureaucrat-run hammock of mediocrity is truly depressing.
hint: Obama and his federal mandated school lunches were in place for nearly a decade - and it was THIS Obama propagandized bread-and-circuses America that electred Trump.
The America that won WWII and put a man on the moon was an America whose parents fed their own kids.
This is honestly a great thing - I've worked in public education, and the food schools were 'allowed' to sell and still qualify for federal subsidy programs were disgusting... nor even the school the Obamas sent their kids even entertained the idea of complying with those standards.
A tremendous smount of food was wasted trying to appease a non-sensical program that was based on the idea that the First Housewife knew what all of america's school-age children would eat.
Schools were finding cheaper to drop the restrictions and forgo federal food subsidies - it was actually cheaper, more meals were sold in the cafeteria and the kids ate better meals.
Ken
The schools were not "shackled into" anything. They were simply presented with a list of dietary requirements and told "cook what you want, but it must match or exceed these targets".
The schools that serve shit food are run by lazy, greedy and incompetent idiots.
Eat the rich.
The schools were not "shackled into" anything
Except that they were shackled given budgetary and dietary requirements, things that weren't issues at places like Sidwell Friends.
The reality is that they couldn't cook what they wanted.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.