School lunches to have more veggies, whole grains

First lady Michelle Obama has lunch with school children Wednesday at Parklawn Elementary School in Alexandria, Va. Celebrity cook Rachael Ray, left, also ate with the students after new school lunch guidelines were announced. Photo by The Associated Press.

By The Associated Press

Thursday, January 26, 2012

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The first major nutritional overhaul of school meals in more than 15 years means most offerings — including the always popular pizza — will come with less sodium, more whole grains and a wider selection of fruits and vegetables on the side.

First lady Michelle Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the new guidelines during a visit Wednesday with elementary students. Obama, also joined by celebrity chef Rachael Ray, said youngsters will learn better if they don’t have growling stomachs at school.

“As parents, we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure they have a reasonably balanced diet,” Obama said. “And when we’re putting in all that effort, the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria.”

After the announcement, the three went through the line with students and ate turkey tacos with brown rice, black bean and corn salad and fruit — all Ray’s recipes — with the children in the Parklawn Elementary lunchroom.

Under the new rules, pizza won’t disappear from lunch lines, but will be made with healthier ingredients. Entire meals will have calorie caps for the first time and most trans fats will be banned. Sodium will gradually decrease over a 10 year period. Milk will have to be low in fat and flavored milks will have to be nonfat.

Despite the improvements, the new rules aren’t as aggressive as the Obama administration had hoped. Congress last year blocked the Agriculture Department from making some of the desired changes, including limiting french fries and pizzas.

A bill passed in November would require the department to allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. The initial draft of the department’s guidelines, released a year ago, would have prevented that. Congress also blocked the department from limiting servings of potatoes to two servings a week. The final rules have incorporated those directions from Congress.

Among those who had sought the changes were potato growers and food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools. Conservatives in Congress called the guidelines an overreach and said the government shouldn’t tell children what to eat. School districts also objected to some of the requirements, saying they go too far and would cost too much.

The guidelines apply to lunches subsidized by the federal government. A child nutrition bill signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 will help school districts pay for some of the increased costs. Some of the changes will take place as soon as this September; others will be phased in over time.

Weblink:

USDA school lunch rules at www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/nutritionstandards.htm

More like this story

wyriontair 1 year, 3 months ago

Mrs. Obama and the feds need to take care of their own children, leave ours alone. It's not the feds nor Rachel Ray's business to tell us what to serve our children, it's the local level that should be deciding what to have in school lunches.

JCLifer 1 year, 3 months ago

He said in his SOU speech that he wants a smaller government. Wonder why he says one thing, but acts a different one?

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

I wonder if there would be such opposition if Mrs. Obama was not involved in this. After all, the feds have been involved in school lunch programs since the 1940s I believe.

If a school district is going to take federal subsidies to finance school lunches then the feds have a right to have a say in how that money is spent. And I would think that any decent government would have a vested interest in maintaining the good health of its citizens.

The whole government intrusion meme is a red herring anyway. I would think that people would want to be assured that their kids are getting healthier meals in school. Especially in a state that ranks 9th in having the fattest kids in the nation and whose overall health ranking just dropped to 40th worst in the country, largely due to obesity, diabetes and other cardiovascular factors.

Pick your battles people. Opposing healthy nutrition for our children just makes you look dumb and mean-spirited.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

Read my last paragraph above. Other than that I've nothing to say to you. You are intellectually dishonest and there can be no honest discussion with someone like you. My great grandma had a saying: "never try to wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig actually enjoys it."

wyriontair 1 year, 3 months ago

No one is "opposing healthy nutrition", that's just false. There has been government "GUIDELINES" when it comes to school lunches, NOT MANDATES. There's a difference. What schools serve in their lunch rooms should be determined by the local school districts and parents.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Lunch menus are actually determined by the cafeteria lady, the feds are just requiring she choose from higher quality options. You make it sound like TSA goons will be going through the school trash to make sure wednesday spinnach is followed by thursday broccoli, or else. The feds are paying much of the cost of the food, the teachers, the buildings, the roads, the buses, the administrators, the nutrition science, the garbage hauling; the feds are spreading the cost of education more evenly than local funding could ever accomplish. Why? so you don't have to live in Ladue to get a good education. If you polarize it as the evil government telling our kids what to eat than I'll quote Mitt, shoot at me and I'll shoot back. This opposition to federal lunch rules is childish and superstitious, serving political agendas of fear mongering haters of the federal government solely to avoid taxes and regulations. It's nuts! The Right calls it a victory when they can call tomatoe paste a vegatable for pete's sake! You are being used.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

Reminds me of the Reagan era, when ketchup and pickles were reclassified from "condiments" to "vegetables" for purposes of the school lunch program. Leaving aside the fact that tomatoes are actually a fruit, this is so cynical and disgusting. The fact that people let their opposition to government in general and Obama in particular blind them to doing what is right, even when it comes to our children, is an appalling testament to our collective ignorance. If I had school-age children, I would be furious that a school could slap some tomato paste on a piece of dough and call it a vegetable.

The other issue here is the fact that the government has the right to require that funded programs adhere to certain guidelines. I'm happy that there is at least SOME oversight SOMEwhere on how my tax dollars are being used.

I suppose school districts and communities have the option of NOT taking part in the program but that's not going to happen. Everyone hates big government until they NEED big government.

bewareignorance 1 year, 3 months ago

And look how your kids turned out 80-85% are a bunch of obese ignorant putz losers, because their parents don't care because they're too busy running around yelling "death panels" and other such non-sensical rot because they didn't eat their veggies and drink their milk.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

So, right now, companies like ConAgra and ADM decide what kids should eat. Why is it better for these companies to dictate school menus than it is for the government to do so? It would be nice if parents and local administrators stepped up to feed kids better food, but if they haven't done it by now, what makes you think they'll start anytime soon?

Some people seem to assume that the alternative to government regulation is that somehow "the people" will organize and do it themselves (leaving aside the fact that that's exactly what government is!) My point is that if the government steps out, private business steps in. Why is that any better?

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

You apparently haven't been paying attention. The federal government has been hijacked by islamo-facists in a conspiracy to destroy all that is good in America, while the private corporation is a godsend to everything it touches. Seriously Sequoia you've stated it perfectly, and it is a perfect reflection of the larger health care issue; would we rather have poorly regulated corporate insurors motivated almost entirely by the bottom line make life-or-death panel decisons about our health, or the federal government. Yes, I know the government has its share of greed driven bad actors, but I can at least shine a light on them more easily than MegaHealthCorp.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Are you kidding? Business basically OWNS the federal government.

When we demand that the government work for human people, the way the founders intended, instead of corporate people, the way lobbyists intend, you call that socialism.

I call it "promoting the General Welfare," which is THE FIRST FREAKIN' PARAGRAPH OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!

The power of business over government is RIGHT HERE IN THIS STORY THAT YOU'RE ARGUING ABOUT. THEY HAVE THE POWER TO TURN TOMATO PASTE INTO A VEGETABLE!

Witness: "Despite the improvements, the new rules aren’t as aggressive as the Obama administration had hoped. Congress last year blocked the Agriculture Department from making some of the desired changes, including limiting french fries and pizzas. A bill passed in November would require the department to allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. The initial draft of the department’s guidelines, released a year ago, would have prevented that. Congress also blocked the department from limiting servings of potatoes to two servings a week. The final rules have incorporated those directions from Congress. Among those who had sought the changes were potato growers and food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools."

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

Sequoia:You make some points I consider 'valid'. My guess is everyone wants children to eat healthy meals - in school and out. How do we make that happen? Grace can correct me on this - what I am hearing from Graceful is 1. not the role of federal government. 2. Let it be the people's choice. Those that I have known to be involved in this at the community level - elsewhere - find the bottom line is $$. The cost of food. There is a price to pay.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

Good! I am glad I have your position down. Its taken a little while to understand. I even think I am getting why you say things along the lines that a complete fall of our government is necessary. Feel free to elaborate.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

It makes perfect sense. This case is a fine example. Agribusiness lobbied the government to stay out of the school lunch business, so they could stay IN the school lunch business. Your so-called conservatives were happy to oblige.

I don't support big government for its own sake. I support a government that will CONSERVE the founder's original vision of the purpose of government. This vision is summarized very neatly in the preamble to our United States Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

If that's not the purpose of government, then what is?

The Constitution gives government power, and also sets limits on that power, in order to execute this vision.

How can you possibly say that the founding fathers did not want the federal governement to work for human people? If that's the argument of movement conservatives... well, good luck with that.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE! WE THE PEOPLE! What else is the government supposed to do????? Good gravy, your post above is all tied in knots. You talk about the founding fathers, but you ignore the very words they wrote down.

This is the purpose of government, straight from the pen of the Founding Fathers. This is what I want to conserve. This is why I'm conservative.

What exactly do YOU want to conserve? All I hear from you is what you want to destroy.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Where did the founders say anything about school lunch?

If the founders really didn't want the federal government to get involved in school lunches, they would have written it into the constitution. The fact that they didn't say anything about school lunch (or abortion, gay marriage, tax rates, health care, marijuana, etc. etc.) means that we have to figure it out for ourselves, like the free people we are.

It is true that the Preamble is not law. But it IS a statement of the founders' intent. And I didn't take it out of context. I quoted the whole thing.

Everyone should read the preamble, and the entire constitution for themselves. It takes just a few minutes. The power and the limits are all there. Decide for yourself what you think the words mean. We all won't agree. We never have. That's what our democracy is.

Graceful and movement conservatives think the constitution is a set of handcuffs that close around everybody except, it seems, the corporate person. I think it allows (and demands) that each generation do the hard work of balancing individual freedom and social order for themselves.

Read it for yourself. You tell me.

JMO 1 year, 3 months ago

"The Constitution says nothing about school lunch. That should be your first hint that maybe the federal government isn't supposed to be involved." I pretty much stayed out of this, but really? That may be one of the oddest sentences I've read yet. The Constitution says nothing about school lunches maybe because there wasn't actually any reason for such a thing as a school lunch program? Heck, there were barely schools! The Constitution is a living document, it must evolve as the nation does, or else it may as well be thrown out the window.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Oops, JMO you just said a bad thing. Constitutional fundamentalists like Grace don't take kindly to the concept of evolution in anything, least of all the constitution.

JMO 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes, but I'm right. So I totally don't care. LOL

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

"In your world the federal government can do whatever it wants as long as enough people think it is a good idea."

Just a minor edit: "In my view, the federal government can do whatever the people want it to do, subject to the limits of the Constitution, as long as enough people think it is a good idea." Yes. That is the government the Founders gave us. This is our heritage that we must try to conserve against the movement that wants to trash this system.

I want the government to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." The conservative "movement" wants a government "of the corporate person, by the corporate person, for the corporate person."

That's the choice we face.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Grace said: "Yes you do take the preamble out of context because it can only be considered in relation to the specific powers the federal governmnet was given."

Okay, let's do it:

See Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United States."

Check. Mate.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

I know you made a point - I just didn't get it. Would you spell it out for those of us who didn't get it - namely me?

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

I argued that the Preamble of the Constitution is a statement of what the Founding Fathers thought was the purpose of the U.S. govt.

Grace does not like that argument, because the preamble says that the Constitution was established to (among other things) "promote the general Welfare." Grace, above, straight up said that the govt should NOT work for the people, and she made the comment that the phrase "general Welfare" in the preamble must be read "in relation to specific powers that the federal government was given."

So I took her up on it. I quoted an actual law from Article I Section 8 (which sets out the powers of Congress). As you can see, that provision EXPLICITLY says that Congress has the power to tax "to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States."

So, I'm saying that this law reflects the preamble. I'm saying that our government has the power to tax to promote our general welfare. I think Grace would rather this wasn't true, but its right there in black and white. Hence my checkmate.

Grace believes that a federal govt that works to "promote the general welfare" is exceeding the power intended by the founders. I'm saying that a govt that works to promote the general welfare is EXACTLY what the founders intended.

We can, and should, argue about what is in our general welfare. Obviously, you can argue that cutting back govt, or transferring power to local govts, is in our general welfare. That's a good argument. But you CAN'T argue that "promoting the general welfare" is illigetimate and completely off the table as a role for government.

Grace seems to say that if we want the federal government to do things like, say, add vegetables to school lunches, then we need to amend the constitution to specifically give the govt power to add vegetables to school lunches. I think that's crazy. If you think the govt shouldn't add more vegetables to school lunch menus, then vote out Obama. All I'm saying is that it is not unconstitutional, or against the intent of the founders, if WE decide that we do want the govt to add vegetables for our general welfare.

I agree with Grace that the federal govt is one of limited, enumerated powers. But I think that those powers are much broader than Grace does, and I think the constitution itself supports my argument.

To me, that really is the beauty of the constitution: It doesn't say too much. It leaves room for interpretation and argument. The founders gave us this govt to use as we, the living people of this nation, through our elected representatives, see fit. The founders didn't tell us what kind of society we have to live in. They gave us the government so that we could make the kind of society we want.

You can argue that Obama's policies are not in our general welfare. But you can't say they are unconstitutional. That's my point.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

this is what makes Ron Paul attractive as a Presidential candidate.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

I confess, I sometimes think federal government is involved b/c of altrusitic reasons....b/c the people who promote it have altrusitic intentions...at the very least some of the time. The problem is how it plays out - it is the 'foot in the door' that was mentioned in someone's comment. Things get out of control - altruistic intentions lost - it becomes a power struggle - even dictatorial. The more I understand of the way government is set up , the more I see how really wise these men were back then. Certainly, they wouldn't have - couldn't have - foreseen circumstances to be what they are today - so it becomes a challenge, sometimes, to keep their prinicples in mind as today's dilemmas are resolved.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Only the paranoid think the federal government is out to get them. There is altruism and greed at work in all levels of goverrnment. Right now money makes altruism hard to exercise, but the mechanism is still there Grace and you fear of the fed is a pathology inflamed by FOX on behalf of that same cash.

bewareignorance 1 year, 3 months ago

Said the greed driven business person.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Great idea, we need more fat kids with rotting teeth. Let's drop science-based federal food guidelines and food subsidies, double local property taxes to pay for lunches, or let local kids eat whatever the school district can find on the side of the road. Yessir, that school lunch program is just a takeover ploy by our muslim-in-chief trying to poison our children.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes, only socialists want good nutrition for children. That's why they have all those tall, strong, healthy children in North Korea.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Grace that's an irrational allegation.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

I sometimes wonder if these people think it's normal to end up obese and toothless, tooling around in a motorized wheelchair/scooter and carrying an oxygen tank.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

Ridiculous. I refuse to even engage such willful and wicked ignorance as yours except to say that it is my business and that of other taxpayers who eventually foot the Medicaid et al bills for these people. And your non sequitur reference to unborn children has nothing to do with either me or this issue. You are thoroughly disgusting. Good day, dis-Graceful.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Ouch! Hank that's just mean. It's also been know forever.

JMO 1 year, 3 months ago

It's certainly a good idea to serve healthier food to kids, especially little ones who may still try something new. Some ideas they have is pretty dumb though, like getting rid of whole milk. Whole milk is good for kids and has about 70 more calories a cup than 2%. That's hardly enough to worry about. Calling ketchup and pizza sauce a vegetable? That's something to change. I can't remember the number of times I asked my son what he ate for lunch and it was breadsticks or fried cheese sticks with french fries! The maranara sauce was counted as a vegetable. Cutting out potatoes isn't needed. Potatoes are not bad for you. Frying them in oil then smothering them with sugary ketchup - that's bad for you. How about they switch to whole grain breads - even white whole grain bread - more fresh fruits and vegetables, more baked and less fried foods? Kid's don't need 2000 calorie lunches, they do need nutritious lunches they'll actually eat.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

Some communities have been attempting to address this in their community. I know some people in Columbia that have been at this for years..... a decade already? I am curious to know if they want the federal government to dictate.

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Here is what they've done in Columbia.

columbiatribune.com/news/2010/sep/02/columbia-schools-try-to-enhance-lunches/

It cost a little more, but it seems pretty cool and includes local produce. Can't really see this happening in Jeff City, but it would be nice (although I can already imagine the complaints that would appear here).

I would think the federal program would help them reduce the cost of their lunches back to normal. Since you know some of them, why don't you just ask them what they think? Then you don't have to wonder!

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

This is interesting - why do you think it wouldn't work in Jefferson City?

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Asking parents to pay more for locally grown vegetables seems a little too hippie for this town. I would love to be proven wrong about that.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

hippie?

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

You know, flower power, peace man, let's all eat local vegetables. Hippie. I think that if the local school board mandated an extra cost to pay for local vegetables, you'd hear the exact same complaints from the exact same people on this board. The only difference is that they'd say the local school board is being dictatorial, instead of the federal government.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

think again! My father must be rolling over in his grave to hear that 'eating local vegetables' determines one is a hippie!...or is even part of the definition. I firmly believe the same people on this board would welcome maximizing on freshness and keeping it local AND if anything, don't even attempt b/c dealing with 'government' is so many times an uphill battle. There are many situations where people feel 'not listened to' when it comes to government. This maybe one of them. Quite honestly, I don't know if there is a group here in town who is working on this....wait ....maybe I remember a story in the NT about classes teaching about where food comes from - with gardens....hippie?!?!

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

Now this is sweet. I totally agree with both of you.

Petunia, I was throwing around the term "hippie" pretty loosely based on the Columbia Tribune article and its comment thread.

The story says that when Columbia Public Schools changed the menu and charged more for local vegetables, the nutrition specialist also ordered that Wednesdays would be meatless. Some parents objected, and the school district responded by ordering that meat be served at every lunch.

The Tribune comment section reflected a debate that I kinda reduced down to "hippie vegetarians" versus heartless carnivores like myself. I was just thinking of Michael Pollen, "slow food," people who shop at Whole Foods. I think Grace would call them "liberals," right Grace? Don't some people make fun of Michelle Obama's vegetable garden at the White House?

I don't mean "hippies" literally or in any mean way.

I would suggest, however, that we live in a society where deciding to pay more for local food is, in a way, "counter" cultural. Just think about the fact that it was more expensive for Columbia to purchase fresh food than to buy garbage from ConAgra that has been "processed," preserved, packaged and shipped across the planet. This is how we as a society choose to supply this demand. That's crazy.

Think about the fact that we taxpayers will feed our kids ConAgra garbage (and a significant portion of Congress will fight to keep feeding them ConAgra garbage) unless parents demand local vegetables. That doesn't make sense. We can see our kids getting fatter right before our eyes. A society where this is true must be insane.

I have no idea what the local school board would think. Have you ever tried to speak to them? I think they take public comments at meetings. I was thinking more that the resistance would come from parents being asked to pay more for lunches, but, like I said, I would love to be wrong about that.

But yeah, my grandma, a widow, fed nine kids from a vegetable garden and by sharing goods and services with neighbors during the 30s and 40s. She was no hippie, that's for sure, and I think we could learn a great deal by reflecting on how people lived in Missouri back in those days.

Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago

You must have something against ConAgra. Eating local vegetables does little for kids/people who are getting fatter. The bigger picture of health and well-being includes many things - you don't need me to tell you that. Eating fresh locally grown vegetables is a part of that. My guess is the schools have an enormous responsibility to the community - as is apparent, it is not limited to numbers, words, and books!

Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago

As for Grace, I think this is what unites us as conservatives: the belief that local government is much, much better at well, governing. Because all government is local. It's like you said: The "government" and the citizen see each other in the line for the bathroom at Little League.

There are a couple issues with that, though. The most obvious is money. The way taxes are currently collected does not favor local government.

But there's also the issue of competency. I mean, there are some issues that I do NOT want handled by the people I meet in the line for the bathroom. This is what grates about complaining about "the elite." Sometimes I WANT the best, the elite.

But the most important issue is power, and it relates to the food thing we're talking about. Why IS it, after all, that it is cheaper and easier to serve ConAgra food in our schools, despite all the overwhelming evidence that this is literally killing our very own children, instead of wholesome local food? Why do we have to fight for local food? Why is it not the norm?

I don't know, but doesn't it suggest that we should ask hard question the amount of power that ConAgra has over our freedom? As conservatives, shouldn't we always be suspicious of concentrated power and about the motivation of large, powerful institutions? And, more importantly, is our destiny to be no more than the recipient of that power? How can we the people answer that power? How? The local school board???

Think about what the Founding Fathers did in the Constitutional convention. They were there to make the federal government MORE powerful, not less. State sovereignty is balanced with the Union. The government you seem to want was the Articles of Confederation. They didn't work. This is not me passing judgment on that form of government, it is the Founders. The United States of America stands on the ashes of the country you seem to want to live in. If your argument is to bring that back, it failed long ago.

And look, the Jeffersonian dream of an America of small farmers failed too. The Hamiltonian vision of an industrial America won out in the end. I wonder what life would be like today if America went Thomas Jefferson's route instead of Alexander Hamilton's.

But we didn't. In my view, the federal Union is the only institution powerful enough to deal with the ConAgras of the world. What else is there? Even now, doesn't it seem like the ConAgras of the world still hold all the cards? Isn't that what the Tea Party and OWS has in common, the idea that the government responds to lobbyists and donors and doesn't listen to the people? That our politicians spend far, far, FAR more time raising money than they do governing?

What do we the people do about this?

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Add to this love fest a truth about local government . . . while more responsive than the fed, that responsiveness can be to local, non-democratic, power rather than local good. This is often a driver of local power's disdain for higher level governments, they're harder to buy. You have to organize at the national and international level to to have high level influence. A truth about bigger, wider, government; it can spread costs and bring higher quality services and protection to poorer areas, like a good military, highways and out-of-season foods. This is what doomed the Articles of Confederation, too many local power obstacles to spreading the cost of a growing historically great nation. We all have votes at every level of government, but only one per person in the democratic definition. Corporations, and their shareholders, have many more votes per person. Although the corporate votes are virtual ($$) they're effective in their numbers.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

I understand the hippie comment. I agree with you and I'd love to see us proven wrong as well. Now, the stores here sell fresh produce so someone must be buying it. But many of the people I meet and talk with think me elitist because I won't buy canned vegetables and insist on fresh or fresh frozen. They think I'm crazy because I prefer to eat in season fresh produce. When I rant about the virtues of a variety of fruits and vegetables I get responses like, "We eat vegetables. Corn and potatoes!" And I find the number of people I encounter who don't like or eat fresh fruit amazing. "I eat fruit! Canned peaches." sigh And I've been called "hippie" for saying that I prefer organic produce and meats (although I can rarely afford same).

I'd love to see local schools benefit both the children AND farmers and producers by using locally produced items. But I agree with you that such a move would ruffle more than a few feathers.

asb 1 year, 3 months ago

Many people have pointed out that nobody wants poor nutrition for our schoolkids, that it's really a bugtussle over what level of government should be making the decisions. First of all, schools are funded and managed by all levels of government, and that's a good thing. But consider; the quality of school lunches has deterioriated to the point of being less healthy than they should be. Why? Because the very source of the food has lobbied and paid off all levels of government to allow them to peddle their easiest to produce, most subsidized, least healthy food to the schools. Our taste for fat, sugar and starch are natural drives, and nature makes all of these more easily than the higher quality protein, fiber and varied nutrient bearing fruits and vegatables. Fat is cheap and profitable, vegatables cost more to produce and have narrower profit margins. So, it's true that nobldy wants our kids to have low-nutrition lunches, but the source of our school lunch food, Corporate Ag, is more interested in profit than health, knowing that the little dears are getting by.

spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago

I had a choice between chocolate milk and white milk in elementary school. Central Dairy must have lobbied hard to get me to drink the least healthy milk they could peddle on me, but I still chose white. I still believe in the power of the individual and it is sad that some on here don't. It always boils down to individual responsibility no matter how you try and spin it.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

"Many people have pointed out that nobody wants poor nutrition for our schoolkids, . . ."

I think that's a good point asb. The other side of that coin though is education. People say that decisions as to what's healthy or not need to be left to parents. Unfortunately, many parents lack the nutritional education needed to make informed decisions of this nature. It would be great if local communities invested in some educational programs for folks, although some would consider it a waste of money. And I have to wonder how well attended such programs would even be.

There are reasons that the health of our children and the general population of Missouri are in decline. As I referenced in another post, I know people who feed their children solely on potatoes, corn and canned green beans as vegetables. Fruit is canned peaches or pineapple or something else in syrup. And kids are allowed to drink juice or soda instead of water. These people aren't evil and trying to kill their kids. They're simply uneducated. that can be remedied.

spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago

Eat, drink, and be merry...for tomorrow we die.

xhepera 1 year, 3 months ago

Unfortunately for some, that tomorrow can come sooner than for others; often due to poor dietary habits. Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoy cooking with and eating foods that contain lots of butter, salt, fats and sugars. I also love good wine, good beer and fine liquor. But not everyday or even every other day. That's just cruisin' for a bruisin'.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID