Lunch police...

[Steve]

I dont think that shutting down the cafe is the answer. Like I said, once the kids leave school, nothing says that they can't chow down on junk. Would educating people on the better ways of eating work? Maybe, maybe not. Take a look at this link.

http://www.cromwell.k12.ct.us/chs/page.php?pid=50

Its the breakfast/lunch menu for some schools in my hometown. What are your thoughts on the food selection?

The issue is larger than just school lunches. Education is the key. If you think about it, the heart of the home used to be the kitchen. Now, it's the TV room. People don't cook like they used to and then their kids don't cook. That's not a judgement... just the way things are.

So, yeah, I agree that education is critical. My wife travels for work, so it's usually just me and the three kids during the week. I do almost all the cooking in the house, and have gone out of my way to teach both of my oldest kids to cook. While my son doesn't like it, he can get around okay in the kitchen and I can rely on him to make things like chili or tacos. Nothing fancy, but he won't starve. My daughter likes to cook, and she can do more elaborate dinners. But mainly, I have tried to teach them survival skills. And the truth is, cooking from scratch is often faster than cooking out of a box. It takes a little more hands on than putting it in the microwave, but for many it's about time. And I can cook a fresh salmon filet on the grill with grilled veggies in less than 1/2 hour start to finish (add 15 minutes if I want to use the charcoal grill).

 

[billc]

A basic, heathy lunch should be offered by the school. The responsibility for this rests with the local community through the school board. The menu should be submitted for public viewing before the school year, and any concerns should be brought up to the board. For all I know this is how it is already done. Beyond that, I don't think there is anything that can be done that will defeat bad parenting. If there are families that just can't afford to provide a lunch, then the state should provide the healthy lunch for the kid. I don't think the school should be searching lunch sacks or confiscating the food that parents allow their children for lunch. I think that goes beyond their jurisdiction.

The feds, however, should not be any more involved than they are already.

 

[billc]

this is the kind of help the feds give...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/19/super-school-fined-15k-for-selling-soda/

Davis High School has been fined $15,000 after they were caught selling soda pop during lunch hour, which is a violation of federal law.
The federally mandated law prohibits the sale of carbonated beverages after lunch is served. The program is an effort to help fight childhood obesity and to have young students make better food choices.
The mandate allows for carbonated beverages to be sold before lunch, but restricts students from buying lunch, then purchasing carbonated drinks afterward.
“Before lunch you can come and buy a carbonated beverage. You can take it into the cafeteria and eat your lunch, but you can’t first go buy school lunch then come out in the hallway and buy a drink,” said Davis High Principal Dee Burton.


​

Wait a minute…..it’s OK to by the pop and then go into buy lunch but you can’t leave the lunchroom to go get the pop second? You can buy a Snickers but you can’t buy licorice? You can buy ice cream but not Skittles???? WTF???????
Parents have learned the art of education and give and take. You let them have the junk food (in moderation) and you educate them on the dangers of sex outside of a committed relationship. You tell them about the dangers of overindulging in alcohol and you don’t make it as attractive as if you were to just prohibit it. And at some point, you have to let go of the reins and trust them to make intelligent decisions on their own and be ready to allow them to suffer the consequences of the bad decisions.
Which is something that the Obama Administration can’t do…let the American people make their own decisions and take the consequences of those decisions.


​

Yes, having the feds step in is going to help...

The $15K to pay the fine will come from funds normally used for the school’s music program, art department and sports. That should make for some better, more well rounded students, eh? Oh… and how do they plan to avoid being fined again in the future? The principal is looking for a way to move the soda machines into a room which can be locked and guarded starting at lunch time.

Yes, first the dumb law, and then the new police needed to enforce it...

 

[granfire]

A basic, heathy lunch should be offered by the school. The responsibility for this rests with the local community through the school board. The menu should be submitted for public viewing before the school year, and any concerns should be brought up to the board. For all I know this is how it is already done. Beyond that, I don't think there is anything that can be done that will defeat bad parenting. If there are families that just can't afford to provide a lunch, then the state should provide the healthy lunch for the kid. I don't think the school should be searching lunch sacks or confiscating the food that parents allow their children for lunch. I think that goes beyond their jurisdiction.

The feds, however, should not be any more involved than they are already.

this is the kind of help the feds give...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/19/super-school-fined-15k-for-selling-soda/





Yes, having the feds step in is going to help...



Yes, first the dumb law, and then the new police needed to enforce it...

While you are not completely wrong, you have no idea.

it makes no sense, of course, that you can buy a snickers bar over licorice. However (assuming one is not talking about German style real licorice, but 'Twislers') a Snickers bar has some redeeming qualities, having some milk properties and peanuts (btw, more and more schools do go peanut free....no Snickers in our school)

Icecream. Not sure why it has a bad rep. Depending on the kind you get, icecream is actually - wile not healthy - not bad. Skittels? LOL....(Gummiebears would be debatable, but I would ahve to say they should be the good kind, Haribo...they have gelatin in them that is good for the bones and joints)

I do agree, the schools and the powers in charge of them should provide healthy food in the cafeteria, instead of searching lunch bags.

But you can only offer, not actually make the kids eat it.
They don't get it at home, they won't know what to make of it when it's served.

A growing majority of people have no idea anymore how the food is supposed to taste. They have been brought up on TV dinners and fast foods. Either is loaded with MSG, salt and fat. You take that out and people will not recognize the base food and likely reject it.

 

[Makalakumu]

My solution is thus.

Get the government out of providing food for our children. You have no idea what's in it. For example, Eric Schlosser wrote Fast Food Nation and I read it in horror. The meat that I ate as a child came from the cheapest and sickest animals and 96% of it was contaminated with fecal matter. That could have killed me. And who knows how many times it actually made me sick.

Whilst the nutritional value of the food is worth discussing, the overall safety of the products they push on kids is something that's being overlooked. You will not be told the truth and you have no way of checking because the agency in charge of food safety is compromised.

Schools need to educate students and parents about what foods actually help their children learn. Schools can contract with any number of private businesses to bring in food and these places can be held accountable if they bring in unsafe products. I worked at a school that contracted with Subway. Students could buy a small sandwich, an apple, and either a juice box or carton of milk for $2.50. I've seen schools contract with companies that provide full healthy meals for as little as $4. Students ate part of the food in the morning at a break and finished it at lunch.

The positive benefits of healthy food are better grades, longer attention spans, and less disruptive behavior. I've seen it with my own eyes and all of the studies I've read support this. And when students are involved in actually making/distributing healthy food, schools affect a lifelong change in behavior because now kids know how to do it for themselves.

I promise, get the government out of the business of giving our children ****** food and we'll see things actually get better. We cannot affect change to a system that knowingly feeds kids food with **** in it.

 

[granfire]

My solution is thus.

Get the government out of providing food for our children. You have no idea what's in it. For example, Eric Schlosser wrote Fast Food Nation and I read it in horror. The meat that I ate as a child came from the cheapest and sickest animals and 96% of it was contaminated with fecal matter. That could have killed me. And who knows how many times it actually made me sick.

Whilst the nutritional value of the food is worth discussing, the overall safety of the products they push on kids is something that's being overlooked. You will not be told the truth and you have no way of checking because the agency in charge of food safety is compromised.

Schools need to educate students and parents about what foods actually help their children learn. Schools can contract with any number of private businesses to bring in food and these places can be held accountable if they bring in unsafe products. I worked at a school that contracted with Subway. Students could buy a small sandwich, an apple, and either a juice box or carton of milk for $2.50. I've seen schools contract with companies that provide full healthy meals for as little as $4. Students ate part of the food in the morning at a break and finished it at lunch.

The positive benefits of healthy food are better grades, longer attention spans, and less disruptive behavior. I've seen it with my own eyes and all of the studies I've read support this. And when students are involved in actually making/distributing healthy food, schools affect a lifelong change in behavior because now kids know how to do it for themselves.

I promise, get the government out of the business of giving our children ****** food and we'll see things actually get better. We cannot affect change to a system that knowingly feeds kids food with **** in it.

I don't know the guy, but I am assuming he has a great deal of sensationalism going for him.

You think school food is any different from what the grocer sells you, you are sadly mistaken.
You want real food, find a 4H organization that still does lifestock.

Alas, there is nothing with old dairy cows ending up in burgers: They are lean and ground up you won't notice how tough.

Sadly we have reached a point where we cannot leave the food choices to parents anymore and until we treat cafeteria food like real food Subway is probably one of the better options.

better yet, home ec becomes a staple in schools again, from an early age!


Don't forget: because you have a grocery store around the next corner, a lot of areas in the US d not have that privilege. The Salad at McDonalds is the closest they will get to fresh produce! That is a real problem!

In addition to that, seems like food banks need to offer cooking classes, too...

 

[Makalakumu]

You think school food is any different from what the grocer sells you, you are sadly mistaken.

I think you should read the book. The government produces food at a level of quality far below what you can by at the grocery store. Cafeteria food is pretty disgusting...

 

[Tez3]

Try food the French way...http://www.vancouversun.com/enterta...ench+Kids+Everything+Yours/6549934/story.html

French schools have three course Cordon Bleu lunches, no choice and an hour and a half for lunch. Sitting in French eating places is a pleasure with well behaved children eating what the adults eat.

Jamie Olivers campaign in America. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/american-school-kids-trash-jamie-658131

 

[Makalakumu]

Does the UK provide lunches for school children? If so, how are they? If not, what do children bring to school?

 

[granfire]

I think you should read the book. The government produces food at a level of quality far below what you can by at the grocery store. Cafeteria food is pretty disgusting...

Cafeteria food is a mystery to me anyhow. If you think it is a new thing that they churn out gross stuff, you are mistaken.
It has been and is and likely will continue to be a joke among people how they can take prime ingredients and render them inedible in the end.

It took forever to make military rations edible, and still there are some in the assortment you better not touch.
"the government" does to my knowledge not produce food. Aside from the mess halls of the armed forces, and their grub is actually good.

Don't get me started on the USDA and the FDA though...there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Tez3]

Does the UK provide lunches for school children? If so, how are they? If not, what do children bring to school?

Yes they provide lunches, free to children with a parent/guardian on benefits. The quality varies. Schoool children used to get free milk to drink at school, I used to love 'milk time' but Thatcher stopped that, she also put the price up for those that paid making it hard to afford. Many bring a packed lunch from home to eat at school.
the Conservatives want to destroy school meals. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...r-attacks-Michael-Gove-over-school-meals.html


It was the Liberals ( British not the American type) who after winning the election here in 1906 who passed the Act that made school meals available. The Conservatives of course opposed it and the Labour Party not yet big enough to have any effect. A 106 years later the Conservatives are still trying to have school meals stopped, perhaps they will succeed. http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2045 Thatcher has left us a legacy of many things being worst not least the standard of schools meals. Wealth before children.

"School meals were provided as a charitable act from the mid-nineteenth century and expanded after the 1870 Education Act, amid rising concerns about undernourished children.[1] Manchester and Bradford began to provide school meals, and lobbied central government to legislate encouraging other local authorities to follow.[2] The Liberal government elected in 1906 introduced policies dealing with the poor health of Britain's children, with an urgency brought on by fears about the nation's capability for war and colonial conquests. These policies included the 1906 entitlement for local authorities to provide food for poor children. By 1945 1.6 million meals were being provided, 14% free and the rest charged at the cost of ingredients. [3] School meal provision was made compulsory, by the 1944 Education Act, which made it a statutory duty rather than optional entitlement for local authorities. This was part of the wide political shift of the 1940s under Labour that involved the creation of the welfare state and the NHS. In 1945 school meals were described by the Ministry of Education as having 'a vital place in national policy for nutrition and well-being of children.'[4] A 1999 survey by the Medical Research Council suggested that despite rationing, children in 1950 had healthier diets than their counterparts in the 1990s, with more nutrients and lower levels of fat and sugar.[5] Regulated nutritional standards, having been introduced in 1906, were standardised in 1966. These provisions were removed by the 1980 Education Act of Margaret Thatcher's government. The act removed the requirement to provide school meals of any nutritional standard and statutory requirement to provide meals other than for eligible children of families on income support. Additionally, school meals were opened up to Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), obliging local authorities to open services to private sector competition and award contracts to the most 'competitive' offer. It 'transformed a free education service into a commercial operation.'[6] Spending cuts increased charges, and half a million children lost the right to free meals, so uptake fell rapidly.[7] Schools which had provided set meals switched to free choice cafeteria systems, with services outsourced to private companies. The Social Security Act of 1986 further ended entitlement to free meals for thousands of children.[8] What was lost in the 1980s was not just the right to school meals, but the principle of school meals as a state-owned public service, an activity of schools, and part of children's education. The companies that stepped in, and local authorities still owning services but now needing to compete with those companies, were driven not by concerns with children's health and education, but by requirements of competition, profit and cost-cutting measures which were bound to impact on the nutritional quality and social role of school meals."

 

[Cryozombie]

I think the government should be in charge of school lunches. Then, since they are Monsanto's buttboys, they can make sure that our kids get "healthy and nutritious" foods, Good quality vegetables like Pizza and Toxic Monsanto Corn, Healthy Pink Slime chicken nuggets instead of Mom's turkey Sandwich and Banana meals, etc.