3
   

Another NANNY STATE FAIL, retreat on "healthy" School Lunches

 
 
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 03:54 pm
Quote:
In a reversal, the Obama administration on Thursday announced they would permanently relax unpopular nutrition rules for the federal school lunch program. The rules were intended to fight childhood obesity by lowering calories and portion sizes, but proved wildly unpopular with students and parents throughout the country.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initially loosened the regulations in late 2012 by suspending daily and weekly portion limits for grains, meat, and meat alternatives — permitting school districts to rejigger portion sizes without federal overrule.

"Earlier this school year, USDA made a commitment to school nutrition professionals that we would make the meat and grain flexibility permanent and provide needed stability for long-term planning. We have delivered on that promise," Kevin Concannon, USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, said in a statement.

The regulatory scheme had drawn protest from not only political conservatives wary of federal oversight but parents and children alike, who complained the lower-calorie meals left children hungry and unsatisfied. In many school across the country, lunches deemed unpalatable by children were thrown uneaten into the trash.

The new rules follow a bill introduced by Senators John Hoeven and Mark Pryor, a Republican from North Dakota and a Democrat from Arkansas, to permanently loosen requirements instituted in 2012 as part of the administration’s focus on the growing problem of childhood obesity and related diseases.

Follow Us
"Today, the USDA made the permanent changes we have been seeking to the School Lunch Program," Hoeven said in a statement. "A one-size-fits-all approach to school lunch left students hungry and school districts frustrated with the additional expense, paperwork and nutritional research necessary to meet federal requirements. These are exactly the changes included in our Sensible School Lunch Act."

Although some may see the policy reversal as a failure, administration officials say they see regulatory law as more of an experiment. “We always anticipated that some modifications and other allowances would be required for changes of this size and scope,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack wrote to Hoeven last year, in response to complaints the senator had received from his district. “USDA has asked for, and states and schools have provided us with, valuable feedback. As a result, you should be pleased to know that we have recently moved to allow for additional flexibility in meeting some of the new standards.”

Vilsack said the administrative rule change follows feedback the government received from states and school districts with regard to daily and weekly maximum amounts of specific categories of foods, such as meats. To be sure, the Obama administration has not yielded in the fight against childhood obesity, Vilsack asserted. "This flexibility is being provided to allow more time for the development of products that fit within the new standards while granting schools additional weekly menu planning options to help ensure that children receive a wholesome, nutritious meal every day of the week."

As American as apple pie, the National School Lunch Program began during World War II with the iconic half-pint boxes of milk arriving at schools in 1954. In fiscal year 2012, the federal government provided funding for more than five billion lunches served to more than 31 million schoolchildren at a total cost of $16 billion. School lunches remain the best opportunity for the government to reach many lower-income children, who are also most at risk of experiencing weight problems or obesity

http://www.medicaldaily.com/unpopular-healthy-school-lunch-rules-loosened-permanently-266352

the law was comically called Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 ...feeding kids crappola "healthy" food in tiny portions is a sure way to increase kid hunger.

In other news the law demanded that the kids get only fat free or 1% milk, and chocolate must have almost no sugar. Predictably the kids have largely stopped drinking the reduced flavor milk at lunch. Apparently this will not be fixed.

Quote:
Several colleagues said that the decline in consumption of fluid milk in schools will continue to be a major issue this year, and will require all of our best efforts to win back milk drinkers among school kids. While retail sales of fluid milk have declined by one and a half to two percent over the past four years, the 2012-2013 school year saw a dramatic drop in consumption when changes to the school meals program limited the choices of milk. This was a larger decline than the past five years combined — and resulted in a loss of 23 million gallons in sales.

http://dairyline.com/wpbackend/?p=7337
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 2,455 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 04:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Food waste also is a problem, Brown said. Students take the food they are required to put on their cafeteria tray, but they don’t have to eat it. “Although none of the districts we visited had fully analyzed food waste over the past few years to determine if it changed during school year 2012-2013, six of the SFAs we visited told us they believe food waste has increased because of the new lunch requirements."

Brown noted that student participation in the school lunch program decreased in the 2012-2013 school year – another indication that students don’t like the changes. “Most of the SFAs we visited reported that they experienced decreases in lunch participation in school year 2012-2013 in part because of the new lunch requirements,” Brown said.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/where-s-my-pbj-menu-changes-are-driving-children-out-lunch-line#sthash.EF17CN64.dpuf


FABULOUS IDEA! Put less food on the plate and make sure that it is crap so that we can feed more into the garbage can, this is how you reduce kid hunger!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 5 Jan, 2014 04:59 pm
You just KNOW that if Obama could find a way to intimidate our kids into eating the crappola that he forces to be on their school lunch tray that he would.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:16 am
This is also a problem as in one size (no pun intended) fits all. My older daughter is very thin. She plays on the high school sports teams so she needs the calories. Right after school, they either have a game or practice each school day. If she doesn't have enough calories at lunch she will get sick. We even buy her those Ensure for maintaining calories and muscles (recommeded by her doctor).

Not all children need to be on a low fat; low calorie diet and it is actually bad for their health.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:29 am
@Linkat,
Quote:
She plays on the high school sports teams so she needs the calories. Right after school,
It sounds like this is the most popular reason for opting out of hot lunches, there is not enough energy provided for anyone who is engaged in sports or other energetic after school activities. So parents have to do the work of packing a lunch, being pissed off at the idiotic nanny state as they do.

The milk thing pisses me off more than anything....kids especially NEED the milk fat, as recent science shows. Serving yukky flavored defatted milk is dumb on several levels, and parents who pack lunches cant fix this problem very easily.

Another thing, our high school has open campus. More than ever these kids opt to use the McD dollar menu or go to Costco for a slice or a dog. The attempt to force kids to eat fewer calories actually tends to result in them eating more, I am quite sure.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:50 am
I think they need to put real kitchens and real cooks back in schools. The warmed up, mass produced crap they serve is awful -- whether it be the new "healthy" stuff or the previous crap.

Just this morning I was reading an article in the paper about the privatization of prisons and how Idaho is taking their prisons back. I was thinking about how much it's like what I've read about charter schools so I was poking around and came across this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/school-lunches-and-the-food-industry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, which starts:

Quote:
An increasingly cozy alliance between companies that manufacture processed foods and companies that serve the meals is making students — a captive market — fat and sick while pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. At a time of fiscal austerity, these companies are seducing school administrators with promises to cut costs through privatization. Parents who want healthier meals, meanwhile, are outgunned.

Each day, 32 million children in the United States get lunch at schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which uses agricultural surplus to feed children. About 21 million of these students eat free or reduced-price meals, a number that has surged since the recession. The program, which also provides breakfast, costs $13.3 billion a year.

Sadly, it is being mismanaged and exploited. About a quarter of the school nutrition program has been privatized, much of it outsourced to food service management giants like Aramark, based in Philadelphia; Sodexo, based in France; and the Chartwells division of the Compass Group, based in Britain. They work in tandem with food manufacturers like the chicken producers Tyson and Pilgrim’s, all of which profit when good food is turned to bad.

Here’s one way it works. The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006.

The Agriculture Department doesn’t track spending to process the food, but school authorities do. The Michigan Department of Education, for example, gets free raw chicken worth $11.40 a case and sends it for processing into nuggets at $33.45 a case. The schools in San Bernardino, Calif., spend $14.75 to make French fries out of $5.95 worth of potatoes.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:57 am
@boomerang,
Quote:
I think they need to put real kitchens and real cooks back in schools

HA, HA, HA

NEVER WILL HAPPEN! The costs are completely impossible to handle. I am not even sure that government regulation would allow it, as it fudges up the nutrition stats due to cooks not following recipes (usually to make better food). No no no, we cant have that!

We serve the kids cheap factory food because the corporations had the winning arguments, factory food is cheap and we know the nutrition counts of every plate almost exactly. They won only because absolutely no one has any interest in offering the kids good tasting food. We all this to the lessons that schools teach... food sucks, reading sucks.......
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 12:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
This was Mike Obunga's plan to starve all the bigger kids and athletes to death.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 12:05 pm
Dumb question, what the hell is wrong with simply having TV dinners and microwave ovens at schools?? I mean, most TV dinner type things are edible enough and basically inexpensive....
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 12:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
In fiscal year 2012, the federal government provided funding for more than five billion lunches served to more than 31 million schoolchildren at a total cost of $16 billion.


An increase of 1 oz of meat per portion thus raises government demand for meat products, and expenditure on meat, by about, I think, 130,000 tons annually. North Dakota (livestock feed) and Arkansas are both heavily dependent on agricultural production.

Relaxing the rules is thus a subsidy for unruly kids who won't be told what is good for them and allows an increase in family disposable income to be available for the products of other industries. Gyms for example.

Another Obarmy cave-in.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 01:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
Fortunately at my daughter's school, there is a variety of items to buy so often times she will buy some additional food to have as a snack later on. They also have choices like salad or a sandwich instead of the hot lunch. She isn't complaining about the food and says it is much better than at middle school. She also brings some snacks with her in case she is hungry before or after practice or when going to games.

I doubt we are within the government program (just from what I am hearing) - also there is a very low percentage in our town that get free or reduced lunches - typically you can find those stats within the town statistics.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 02:10 pm
@Linkat,
just as the government decides that it gets to dictate everything that happens on the road if states take highway tax rev they make extensive demands of any school that takes lunch program money. the ability of even rich districts to go around federal mandates is very limited. I will have to read up on this idea of buying extra food, what is allowed.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 02:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
So I looked up the info for my kids' lunches (one in high school and one in middle school). So besides the daily hot lunch; there is salad bar (both my daughters like the salad bar); assocrted hot sandwiches (which I know often times includes cheeseburgers and hot dogs - one love cheese burgers and one loves hot dogs); assorted cold sandwiches (not sure what these include as neither has mentioned them) chicket nuggest meal and lunch alternative (must be some sort of other hot lunch); they can also get some sor of ice cream; other frozen treat; fresh fruit and something named snacks. I know my daughter has purchased some sort of chips before.

Also at each school there is an adult meal option - most likely for the big football players. They can also buy an extra slice of pizza on pizza day as my younger one has done below.

The lunches do usually include health stuff like fruit and veggie - I believe they are supposed to take it with the hot lunches so like mentioned above something depending on the item it gets thrown away. Although there usually is a choice and my kids like fruit so there is usually something they like.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 04:03 pm
@Linkat,
There was nothing thrown away at my school. We must have been hungrier. If anybody ever left anything it was soon on another plate. And if the dinner ladies had anything over they shouted "seconds" and there was a stampede.

All this pernickety pooh-poohing and turning up the nose at things is pretty well established here as well.

I can still eat anything and I haven't an ounce of fat on my lean and wiry frame.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 04:14 pm
@Linkat,
interesting.the high school my kids went to for years let DECA sell pizza for lunch, I think it was two days a week brought in from Costco, but said that it had to stop because of federal healthy lunch regulations.

edit: that " ice cream" is almost certainly non fat frozen yogurt.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 04:18 pm
Crazy. We've sent our kids to school with lunch in hand their entire lives. I would never rely on a public school to feed my children.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 04:20 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Crazy. We've sent our kids to school with lunch in hand their entire lives. I would never rely on a public school to feed my children.

I was not allowed hot lunch till high school except for less than a handful of times when my mom forgot to make it.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 04:53 pm
OMG, look at this tray on the link

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/schools-drop-new-healthy-federal-lunch-program-article-1.1439576

A student at Eastside Elementary School in Clinton, Miss., holds a school lunch served under federal standards, consisting of a flatbread roast beef sandwich, apple sauce, chocolate milk and a cookie.

this is prison "food"!

OK, I now know that schools are allowed to not be in the program. What happens to the free and reduced price lunches then? do the districts pay all of the costs?
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 09:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The milk thing pisses me off more than anything....kids especially NEED the milk fat, as recent science shows.


What studies? And not ones by the American Dairy Association.

Joe(Just curious)Nation
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jan, 2014 11:15 pm
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
Another study in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in March echoed the JAMA study and showed that children who drank lower-fat milk were more likely to be overweight later in life.

"Our original hypothesis was that children who drank high-fat milk, either whole milk or 2 percent would be heavier because they were consuming more saturated fat calories," author Dr. Mark Daniel DeBoer, an associate professor of pediatric endocrinology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine and the chair-elect for the AAP Committee on Nutrition, explained to TIME. "We were really surprised when we looked at the data and it was very clear that within every ethnicity and every socioeconomic strata, that it was actually the opposite, that children who drank skim milk and 1 percent were heavier than those who drank 2 percent and whole."


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whole-milk-may-be-better-for-kids-than-skim-milk/

this is not that but is interesting.

I will look for the one I was talking about, but what is said is that kids need fat, and that dairy is a great place to get the fat. The reason is that certain nutrients are transported only in fat, so fat is required. See studies that kids under 2 should have full fat milk to get their brains and nervous systems up and running. Another troubling thing other than low fat milk not helping with preventing obesity is that the alleged fact that milk fat promotes bad cholesterol is now in great doubt. Several studies in the last years have proven that the alleged pros have no clue how cholesterol works, or how it should be managed, or how we would manage it if we wanted to.

Quote:
There’s been controversy brewing over the past decade about just how bad saturated fat is for health. Fueling the debate, in part, has been the resurgence of the Atkins Diet, which eschews carbs but allows liberal use of high-fat foods, including foods high in saturated fat—butter, bacon, steak, cheese, and the like. (20) More recently, several studies seemed to suggest that eating diets high in saturated fat did not raise the risk of heart disease—a finding that ran counter to decades of dietary advice. (21,22) One highly-publicized report analyzed the findings of 21 studies that followed 350,000 people for up to 23 years. Investigators looked at the relationship between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Their controversial conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.”(21)

With headlines like “Saturated Fat is Not Your Heart’s Enemy,” and “NOT GUILTY: The Long-Standing Vilification of Saturated Fat Finally Turning to Vindication,”(23,24) some of the media and blog coverage of these studies would have you believe that scientists had given a green light to eating bacon, butter, and cheese. But that’s an oversimplified and erroneous interpretation. Read the study and subsequent studies more closely, and the message is more nuanced: Cutting back on saturated fat can be good for health if people replace saturated fat with good fats, especially, polyunsaturated fats. (16,25) Eating good fats in place of saturated fat lowers the “bad” LDL cholesterol, and it improves the ratio of total cholesterol to “good” HDL cholesterol, lowering the risk of heart disease. Eating good fats in place of saturated fat can also help prevent insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes. (26)

Cutting back on saturated fat will likely have no benefit, however, if people replace saturated fat with refined carbohydrates—white bread, white rice, mashed potatoes, sugary drinks, and the like. Eating refined carbs in place of saturated fat does lower “bad” LDL cholesterol—but it also lowers the “good” HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides.The net effect is as bad for the heart as eating too much saturated fat—and perhaps even worse for people who have insulin resistance because they are overweight or inactive. (17,25)


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/

which is exactly what the Obamaslop program does when it demands milkfat be removed and amps up the demand that kids be fed lots of high sugar fruits.
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another NANNY STATE FAIL, retreat on "healthy" School Lunches
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 07:54:20