Michelle Obama is starving our kids

amother

Fri, Dec 05 2014, 9:44 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

I cannot possibly see how this would work.

Let's take an elementary school with middle school in a separate location.
So you have the highest grade being 10 year old 5th graders.
Let's say there are 100 kids in a class.
But you can only fit maybe 1 class of 20 at a time in the kitchen.
And let's say generously that lunch starts at 12.
But the food needs to be in by 10;30.
For 500 kids!! (Grades 1-5)
Let's say only half are on school lunch, so 250.
You're going to have 20 10 year olds cook lunch for 250 kids in an hour long cooking class first thing in the morning?

My high school had an work program, and two of us cooked dinner for 250 people every night--a meat and vegetarian option, starch and veggies. it *can* be done. We were a poorly funded charter school and many students needed breakfast, lunch, *and* dinner.

(There's no reason "labor" should be the excuse for xx kids needing instant oatmeal/pbj in the morning.)

Hashem_Yaazor

Fri, Dec 05 2014, 10:03 am

amother wrote:

I have no problem with work programs and it would work in a high school.
I was giving an example of an elementary school where it absolutely would not work!
And it certainly cannot be done in the context of a 'class'.
2 people working in a kitchen is actually easier than a class of 20.

(I also cooked hot lunch for the school here as there was parental obligation, and I would come in with my mother. In fact, my lasagna recipe is based on the recipe I learned while making it! But we had a night or a Sunday to come in. There is no way you can have elementary school students do that in a class situation.)

And those breakfasts are not so terrible. Instant oatmeal is high in sugar but that's a side issue. It's still decent. PB&J is decent as well to balance protein, carbs, and fruit (it would be better if it was wholegrain bread and natural PB and sugarless jelly, but that's again a side issue)

vintagebknyc

Fri, Dec 05 2014, 10:12 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

I guess my point is that people are actively blaming michelle obama, who is promoting healthy eating. why that's a bad thing, I don't know. if the food served is lousy, it's the fault of the caterer/cafeteria, not of the first lady. (I know this is a hard program to implement, and perhaps it should have rolled out more slowly, but I do believe some caterers are not helping matters. they're serving gross mush to make a point, or because they haven't figured out how to make healthy food, and the backlash against FLOTUS is ridiculous and immature.)

HindaRochel

Sat, Dec 06 2014, 11:03 am

spring13 wrote:

My post was in response to people claiming that their kids flat refuse to eat whole grain bread, etc. - healthy foods that are reasonably common and easy for most kids to manage. People seemed to be saying that their kids' pickiness would extend to ANY form of healthy lunch options, regardless of how they're prepared, implying that there's just no point in the schools trying at all. I've said a couple of times in this thread that the OP school clearly has catering and guideline-application issues, and I'm sure that's not uncommon.

I work in a school with private catering, and they do a good job of providing a range of healthy options at each meal, and mixing up "fun" stuff with more distinctly healthy options. The parents who use the program pay for it. If a school is using government funds to provide meals for it's students, then it has to be able to deal with the regulations in an intelligent manner.

And we've already got droves of kids with eating disorders and obesity issues: we as a society owe it to our kids to at least TRY to figure out how to fix things.

I agree we should try, but as I said, the issue needs to be directed at the particular community, not on a national level.

There are a number of eating disorders that exist, and not all are served by mandating a maximum number of calories per meal as well as requiring the child to take a fruit or vegetable.

Options, especially at a particular age, work better for children than giving an absolute demand.

If they aren't eating the food, then the program is failing. That doesn't make Obama an awful First Lady, but it does me that rather than hold tightly to the program she needs to reassess it (as it is her baby).

One solution may be as simple as allowing the children to take part of the food with them to eat later. They may be willing to eat an apple or banana as a snack later in the day or on the way home. Another is to offer more of a variety of fruits and vegetables in a variety of forms. Canned/frozen food can sometimes be healthier than fresh as there are some vegetables/fruits (don't know which ones) which release more vitamins when cooked than when fresh.

Having various spices that the child can add, including salt (kept perhaps at the cashier table, so they have to get up to salt their food, which may help prevent over salting) may also work.

I think the issue is the amount of control that is being exerted.

Also, as I said, limiting the calories is fine if it is known the child will get more food later, but for some children the 850 calories for lunch may be it.

HindaRochel

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 12:05 am

Clarissa wrote:

I will never, ever understand all of these sentence including “not on a national level.” If it isn’t dictated, most schools will not include healthy food because healthy food is more expensive sometimes and takes more effort.

I also don’t understand quibbling over options vs. demands. Nobody is demanding anything of children. They’re demanding that certain things are healthier. Bad, bad government!

I've tried to explain why I think it should be on a local not general level. There are local programs that are working through various charitable organizations. I've included links.

Programs need to target the population they are supporting. The more local one can get, the better.

It is also wiser to include a menu that is similar to what the children eat normally, but made in a way that is healthier. Again, is the population mainly Inuit? Middle class? Impoverished? How many children have access to other sources of food? Exercise? How many children in the school? (This affects how much a given staff can prepare in a given amount of time). What food is available locally that can be used?

They are demanding things of the children, namely that children are obligated to, if they are part of the program, take certain foods. They don't have to eat it, but they do have to take it on their plates. This leads to a lot of waste.

Did you read the link of the more local program that is having success that I listed somewhere above? It works.

Not everything should be on the Federal level. I haven't argued against all government oversight, but this program is extremely dictatorial about can and cannot be served.

Think global buy local. Same sort of liberal thinking applies here. Think about the overall global effect of poor nutrition, act locally so that the needs of the local population is taken into consideration.

If the program is working in a particular school as is, no need to change.
If it isn't, then schools should have other options available in order to meet the needs of their student body.
Not certain why this is controversial.

Clarissa

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 12:36 am

HindaRochel wrote:

You do know that school lunches aren’t like a buffet at a wedding, right? Even when I was a kid, I paid my money and got a plate with the entire designated lunch. What I didn’t want to eat, I didn’t eat. Sounds like you want to change how they’re plated.

Dictatorial? You think trying to make schools serve whole grains and veggies is dictatorial? I guess it’s good that you don’t live here. Maybe you left to avoid raising children in the whole wheat dictatorship. Speaking for me, I’m glad my kid is being to encouraged to more whole grains and vegetables.

HindaRochel

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 12:57 am

Clarissa wrote:

It isn't the serving, it is the requirement that the children take the food. The food is then wasted. The food, because of local availability and the lack of time necessary to prepare it, is unpalatable.

Has nothing to do with whole wheat at all. Not sure why you raised that.

My children eat a variety of food, and have a good relationship to food mainly because food was our friend, not our enemy.

Since wasting food is non-productive, why not change that? Sounds intelligent.

As I said before, schools are dropping out of the program, mainly wealthier ones where that is more easily done. Standards that the government set are being eased.

Again, where have I stated that the schools should NOT encourage healthier eating? Find one word in what I've written where I've said "schools shouldn't encourage good eating habits" I'm saying they should, but programs, standards, should be driven by local needs not Federal requirements.

Nothing about not serving whole grains or withholding fruits and vegetables.

As I provided a link to a local program that worked I'm not certain why you feel I think differently.

Clarissa

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 8:32 am

Once again, when you get a school lunch, you “take the food” they give you. It’s been that way since I got my first school lunch fifty years ago.

Personally, I’m grateful to the government for these measures. You should just thank your lucky stars that it’s no longer your government.

We’re going to go around in circles. What can I say? As an American who lives in the US, thank you so much for your enduring commitment to the nutrition offered to children in American schools. My children would grateful that people so far away care about what they eat at school.

winter_rose

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 11:55 am

MaBelleVie wrote:

Some of them were kids whose parents drove luxury vehicles.

I read a great article by a woman who was on government assistance and drove a luxury vehicle. The vehicle was only a few years old but had been purchased new and paid in full before the market crashed and the family lost their money and their jobs. Because resale value is so poor and having a reliable vehicle is important, the family would not be able to purchase a good reliable car and have liquidable assets that would realistically help them through a tough time by selling the car.