world

Michelle Obama takes on Republicans over school lunches

69 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

“The stakes couldn’t be higher on this issue,” the first lady said, pointing to adult and child obesity rates.

Of course she's right, but she won't win because Fox news is so hell bent on turning everything the Obama administration does, even things like this that are backed by science, into a debate about "big, bad government interfering with state/local rights". And if a few more kids become obese and fall into a lifetime pattern of poor health, too bad.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

jerseyboy--Have you ever heard the saying "you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink"? In a perfect world the kids will eat what you provide to them and a well balanced nutritional lunch would be it.

But, real world the trash cans are full of what kids do not eat. And that applies to packed lunches also. So, their may be more to your statement than loosing to Fox News.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

the trash cans are full of what kids do not eat.

For now. It takes time to change kids' eating habits. Continuing to serve french fries and pizza (and classifying it as a vegetable) is simply a failure to address an enormous health crisis in America.

I didn't know conservatives were so soft on kids, letting them eat whatever junk they like best.

Food manufacturers and their lobbied friends in congress may have won this round, but ultimately the country will have to pay the price.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Of course she's right, but she won't win because Fox news is so hell bent on turning everything the Obama administration does, even things like this that are backed by science, into a debate about "big, bad government interfering with state/local rights". And if a few more kids become obese and fall into a lifetime pattern of poor health, too bad.

It has nothing to do with FOX. That is just a sad and deplorable excuse. I think you want EVERY news network to give the president a pass and not challenge him which is what the news outlet is NOT designed to do, take a neutral position instead of the other networks that NEVER question him and give him a pass on everything. Now to be fair, I always went to private schools in the States and when I was abroad and I think kids should eat healthy, but I also don't believe it should be forced on people. Do you know how much food is wasted a year, from kids dumping the food in the trash because they don't like it? Healthy eating habits start at home and it's up to the parents to teach their kids about healthy foods, then kids won't have a problem with food or eating anything, but if you feed the kid crappy food, expect the kids to want more crappy food. The schools should give the kids the option and NOT force it down their throats that is where my argument comes in. If the kids become obese because of bad eating habits and teaching the kids improperly about healthy food options that is on the parent.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

I think we all need to be very careful here. Food and nutrition is not truly a political issue. I understand that it looks like a political issue...it looks like the Democrats are saying this or the Republicans that; and we all have our favorite media channel and the one we thing is a rag for the other side. But in fact, all the evidence seems to suggest that this whole food thing is a money issue. Certain interests make money from the food industry...and sometimes, so I read, almost bankrupt schools get monetary incentive to initiative certain food programs. Suddenly this all starts looking very gray. not quite so clear-cut.

I think both plasticmonkey and bass4funk are essentially right: food manufacturers and their lobby is powerful; but it is up to parents to teach their children how to eat healthy. The problem comes when one tries to figure out HOW to teach parents about proper nutrition. (Has anyone read the fine print or looked into who has provided input into the food pyramid?) And, of course, there is economics. A bag of chips is cheaper than a head of lettuce in many cities. These priorities could use adjustment...

How can we make this right? How can we save our kids and look forward to their healthy future? I'd say that's rather important, no?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Thanks for saying "Healthy eating begins at home and its up to the parents to teach their kids about healthy food." Bass Somehow some poster believe the government mandating a diet will be followed. I guess its the ostrich approach viewing it that way.

Oh, I desperately try daily with my kids to eat healthy. As I said, because its packed or on the menu does not mean it is consumed. Well if Michelle Obama says they should eat it I guess they will.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

@nightshade

Exactly, well said. My problem is, I just hate the BIG GOVERNMENT trying to dictate what we can or cannot eat. What I love in the states is when I say hold the onions or I want extra pickles on my Big Mac I can get that as a paying customer, whereas in Japan, you can't alter or change usually anything on the menu. I want to be able to have choices and the way things are going, especially in NY, it seems you are allowed to do anything. I always pay close attention to my health because it is important to me, but the government can't play mommy and daddy to all of its citizens. If you stuff your face with donuts and twinkies all day, you can expect to look like the Hindenburg. Everyone should care about their health, but sadly many don't and MANY don't care. I think Michelle is a good mother and is doing the right thing for her kids when it comes to teaching them how to take care of their health, and I know her intentions are in the right place, I think so, but I just get scared when I hear government or PETA trying to tell me what I can or cannot eat and America is and should never be that kind of country where others try to dictate what is good for us.

How can we make this right? How can we save our kids and look forward to their healthy future? I'd say that's rather important, no?

I don't know. I teach my kids the same way my folks have taught me and so far it worked on my and I hope the same gets passed down onto my kid, that is basically all you can do. Once they are of age, it's out of our hands.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

The schools should give the kids the option and NOT force it down their throats that is where my argument comes in.

Many schools do give kids an option. That option is this: "Here's your lunch. Eat it or don't. It's up to you." A whole lot like my mom used to say to me when I was a child and being particularly picky about food. Y'know, that whole, "Good eating habits start at home" thing. No one's rights are being trampled by mandating that school lunches be healthy. Not even a teeny tiny bit.

Providing a healthy lunch for children as a matter of course is not forcing anything. It's the implementation of sound public policy that benefits the greater good.

Offering the kids a choice for lunch between, say, healthy food and junk... Well, as many school districts have finally come to realize, that borders on downright criminal negligence.

This isn't a individual rights issue, Bass. It's not some great debate on BIG GOVERNMENT. (For the love of Pete, I'm getting tired of you throwing that phrase around anytime it suits any one of your countless beefs against anything and everything potentially Democrat-related). Again, this is a public policy issue. It's about school lunches and the overall health of our nation's children, both of which rank -- or rather should rank -- right up there with getting your vaccinations.

You know what? These are children. We not only can, but absolutely should tell them what to do, particularly when it's for their own health. Your argument is tantamount to asking, "Why should kids have to take P.E. classes, or mathematics, or English in school? If they don't want to, we can't make them."

We can and we do. We've been making our children do things they don't want to do for the better part of human history. And it's largely why we've managed to get this far as a species.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Since the new rules were implemented, the kids have begun avoiding the lunches served at their schools. Much, or most of the food is thrown away. The food is more expensive, and the kids are not eating it, so what good has changing the rules done?

How many of you reading this article now listens to the National Academy of Sciences recommendations when you are grocery shopping, or choosing items at a restaurant? Anyone? And what does Michelle Obama know about food, cooking, or nutrition? If i make lunch for my kids, of course I want it to be good for them, but I also make sure that the food is likable to them. If they are simply going to toss it in the can and then go to a fast food place and get burgers, then there is a problem.

We don't need politicians to tell us when, where, or what to eat. Particularly those who live in the White House who have a 5 star kitchen and staff to make and serve their meals.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

A point being missed in this is the free lunches trashed. And the waste when leftovers. Yes, the choice is eat this or remain hungry. Many do choose to be hungry after eating very selectively the food or snack they like.

As a taxpayer I do not want to fill the trash with unpaid lunches simply because its free. I do not want to waste the resources of growing, processing, packaging and preparation of food for slight benefit of very few. This is the "green" efficient part of me commenting. After all we are globally warming the planet and yes, these processes contribute to the impact also.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

My problem is, I just hate the BIG GOVERNMENT trying to dictate what we can or cannot eat.

In this case, the government is already involved by feeding children at school. If so, then the government should do it correctly and should not be subject to the whims of a local school board looking to save money or to pay their friends for the cheap processed food that is fed to children.

The rules require government, which is already involved, to give nutritious food to children rather than claiming french fries and catsup are a vegetable. That doesn't seem so wrong.

The republicans are just trying to make an issue for the Obamas and talking points for Fox news. They have no interest in the school and certainly not for the health of the children.

Or, do you think local schools should continue to buy from "BIG (caring) CORPORATIONS" like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Heinz?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Schools are for educating and if that includes what to eat...then so be it. Just take one look around the U.S. and all you see are overweight people and diabetes on the rise. And some of you arguing about tax payer's dollars? The health-related costs of being obese far outweigh what it costs to eat healthy.

The problem with America is you can barely find a healthy place to eat, unless it's at home. And thankfully, now, it's at school, too. Children need a healthy diet. And parents can be as strict as they wish to be about their kids diet. But school's shouldn't be offering unhealthy foods, especially if it's going to be using my tax dollars.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

So basically, the thumbs down are coming from the socialist crowds that think forcing people to eat and live a certain lifestyle is better than having your own opinion. Because the general public is just too stupid and indecisive to think for themselves.

The problem with America is you can barely find a healthy place to eat, unless it's at home. And thankfully, now, it's at school, too. Children need a healthy diet. And parents can be as strict as they wish to be about their kids diet. But school's shouldn't be offering unhealthy foods, especially if it's going to be using my tax dollars.

That's absolutely not true, there are tons and tons of places where you can eat healthy food. Go to California, to the West coast or do some research, you'd be surprised that California has some of the best Vegan, Vegetarian and organic restaurant, supermarkets eating places around. I have never eaten bad food and just like everywhere else, you have choices, but some people and even tourists when they travel make the wrong choices or don't put in ANY effort to research what is out there. Now that's being lazy. Also, again, kids should eat right, I do my part as a parent, but everyone has to see fit what they think is right when raising a child and the government has Zero business trying to tell people what to do.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

No, the thumbs down are not from "socialist crowds", just the regular readers of Japan Today who are used to your long winded rants whenever the current administration is in the news. Is this article about California? Tourists? Big Mac toppings? PETA? Nope, no, nah, and nada. Focus and at least give us something faintly on topic, why don't ya?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So basically, the thumbs down are coming from the socialist crowds that think forcing people to eat and live a certain lifestyle is better than having your own opinion.

Because no one is allowed to bring their lunch from home.

That's absolutely not true, there are tons and tons of places where you can eat healthy food. Go to California, to the West coast or do some research, you'd be surprised that California has some of the best Vegan, Vegetarian and organic restaurant, supermarkets eating places around.

Because everyone can just upheave their lives and move to one of the most expensive states because they want to eat healthier.

You're not convincing. You're ranting. And it's even worse when you can't even refrain from insults like "too stupid and indecisive to think for themselves". Your talking points are just as regurgitated.

just like everywhere else, you have choices

Two words: FOOD DESERT

And the government has LOTS of business telling people what to do. That's the difference between government and anarchy. The entire point of congress is to decide what we can do. The entire point of the courts is to decide if we should have done it. And I can't believe that people are so against the idea of GIVING KIDS HEALTHY FOOD?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

the government has Zero business trying to tell people what to do

I generally agree with this statement, but in this case, it is the government telling the government what to do.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If the rules change, does that mean that things like ketchup and pickle relish are going to be considered vegetables in the US?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

By all means, let's give them food, but let's get ONE MORE Taxpayer to help out. How about you GET a JOB Michelle, and help PAY for this stuff?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I really have no idea what Republicans here are upset about. It's a school lunch. The school.....errr.....BIG GOVERNMENT....has to provide one. I think they're caught in a catchphrase loop with "BIG GOVERNMENT" and "personal choice" or something and they think they actually have a point?

It's simple.....schools want to serve unhealthy food because it's cheaper. You're either OK with that or you're not. It's not about you as an adult or personal choices of all Americans or whatever else you can make up.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If it's the obesity rate that we are most concerned about, then taking away the PlayStation would do a lot more towards this than changing the school lunches. IMO

When I was in Jr. High School back in the late 70's, it was mostly hot dogs, pizza, hamburgers, french fries and ketchup, etc. There were no obese kids except for one with a genetic condition, some chubby kids but this is natural for some as well. However, the lunches were not free.

A quick search turned up at least 3 to 4 full Google pages running the same exact story from AFP. Which raises a red flag for me. So I'm not surprised FOX picked it up to counter the left's onslaught. This news is not really that big to warrant that much exposure, but when the Republicans stick their finger in the door, the Dems are gonna slam it shut, and vice versa.

I'd agree with most here that if the school is offering free lunches, then they have to follow the governments guidelines for nutrition. But when you get the frozen/processed food companies lobbying Congress, well.....we all know easy they can be bought.

Oh...and by the way, I posted this in another news story, but since we're talking about food, the Pink Slime is back and selling better now than before the big controversy two years ago.

Finally, I just don't get how the politicians (Dem & Rep) could jeopardize the health and well being of our younger population, while keeping the war machine rolling without question.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I really have no idea what Republicans here are upset about.

I'd figure you'd say that.

It's a school lunch. The school.....errr.....BIG GOVERNMENT....has to provide one. I think they're caught in a catchphrase loop with "BIG GOVERNMENT" and "personal choice" or something and they think they actually have a point?

Yes, it's a school lunch, but let me make the choice meaning, I don't want to hear Michelle Obama trying to lecture me or my kids what to eat, watch or wear, save it for her kids. Everyone should have a choice. This PC correctness has gone way overboard. I didn't like it when Bloomberg was pitching it, I like it even less when Michelle is doing it!

It's simple.....schools want to serve unhealthy food because it's cheaper. You're either OK with that or you're not. It's not about you as an adult or personal choices of all Americans or whatever else you can make up.

Yes, so it's up to the parents to teach their kids how to eat properly, I do and that's more than enough, let Michelle worry about her own kids and leave everyone else alone!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I don't want to hear Michelle Obama trying to lecture me or my kids what to eat, watch or wear, save it for her kids.

And here's where your irrationality starts to really show through. You're told what to do every day of your life, whether you choose to admit it or not. You're told when, how, and where you can use public roads, you're told what types of fuels you can and can't use for your automobile, what kind of electical wiring your can put in your home to power your appliances. You're told what to wear based on government regulations regarding what materials can and can't be used for clothing garments. You're told what to watch based on FCC rules governing what can and cannot be boradcast across the airwaves. You're told what to eat with every singe FDA rule that attempts to make certain our food and water supply is chemical and poison free.

You're told what to do, and you passively do it every second of your life, with nary a whimper of objection.

At least until you perceive orders might be coming from the wife of America's first black president.

You've been hammering this BIG GOVERNMENT drum nonstop since Obama came into office, trying to convince everyone here that you're making some grand, libertarian stand against totalitarianism, when in fact, you're just like the rest of us schmucks. You do just what you're told ALL. THE. FREAKIN' TIME.

Enough, Bass.

The gig is up. That you can't see the absurdity of your argument against Ms. Obama's insistence that government rules already madating the provision of school lunches across the country adhere to a minimum nutrition requirement speaks volumes about how truly far off the reservation you've gone over the years when it comes to the Obamas.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

If Michelle would like to dictate good living start in her own backyard, Chicago! How often has she discussed the murderous rampage there?

The Playstation comment from FizzBit is spot on! The kids are too sedentary today. Add cell phones too. In the lazy convenience society here in USA most all activity has vanished.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@bass4funk

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. You, yourself, seem to eat healthily and you want your own children to eat well, and yet you are arguing against having healthy food in schools. You even say, 'if you feed the kid crappy food, expect the kids to want more crappy food." As a parent, isn't this exactly why you'd prefer for schools to offer healthy food?

The irony of your words just astound me.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

And here's where your irrationality starts to really show through.

Some posters' irrationality shows through with every issue related to politics. Here is what it is in a -- pardon the pun -- "nutshell: "If a proposal from anyone deemed a liberal will not achieve Utopia, it must be rejected." (Of course, they hold themselves and their positions to no such standard. They're just hate-filled hypocrites, period.)

That you can't see the absurdity of your argument against Ms. Obama's insistence that government rules already madating the provision of school lunches across the country adhere to a minimum nutrition requirement speaks volumes about how truly far off the reservation you've gone over the years when it comes to the Obamas.

Well said. Childhood obesity in the United States is a very real problem. Thousands upon thousands of professional nutritionists and other concerned adults are actually the ones being spoken for and championed by Mrs. Obama. It's actually an important problem from a financial standpoint too -- as kids who don't develop healthily will end up needing to draw more out of the health-care system. Many forms of diabetes, for example, are completely preventable.

I think you want EVERY news network to give the president a pass and not challenge him

In this case, it is Michelle Obama who is doing the challenging to the Republican plan to change nutritional standards -- part of the the overall conservative rejection of sound science. FOX news and the right wing crowd want to give every Republican proposal a pass and not challenge them.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. You, yourself, seem to eat healthily and you want your own children to eat well, and yet you are arguing against having healthy food in schools. You even say, 'if you feed the kid crappy food, expect the kids to want more crappy food." As a parent, isn't this exactly why you'd prefer for schools to offer healthy food? The irony of your words just astound me.

Yes, what I meant to say and I'll say it again, I DO want all kids to eat healthy, but this is a very slippery slope and I just had more than an earful of Michelle trying to dictate what we and how we should eat. All the healthy food that is wasted in these programs, we can use the money for something else, I don't want to pay for any programs kids don't want to partake in, meaning, many kids that decide to throw away their healthy food and would rather munch on a sloppy Joe get no sympathy from me, many schools tried it and if it doesn't work, discontinue the program and STOP WASTING TAX PAYER MONEY! It's not all the kids fault, if they have dimwited parents that eat crap, what do you expect from the kid? The apple never falls too far from the tree.

Some posters' irrationality shows through with every issue related to politics. Here is what it is in a -- pardon the pun -- "nutshell: "If a proposal from anyone deemed a liberal will not achieve Utopia, it must be rejected." (Of course, they hold themselves and their positions to no such standard. They're just hate-filled hypocrites, period.)

Hmmm, more like the other way around.

Well said. Childhood obesity in the United States is a very real problem. Thousands upon thousands of professional nutritionists and other concerned adults are actually the ones being spoken for and championed by Mrs. Obama. It's actually an important problem from a financial standpoint too -- as kids who don't develop healthily will end up needing to draw more out of the health-care system. Many forms of diabetes, for example, are completely preventable.

Very true, I agree, but you can't beat a dead horse. That's not for you or me and especially the government to decide. Michelle should worry about herself and her kids.

In this case, it is Michelle Obama who is doing the challenging to the Republican plan to change nutritional standards -- part of the the overall conservative rejection of sound science. FOX news and the right wing crowd want to give every Republican proposal a pass and not challenge them.

Ahh, but the left want to force all of America fall in lock and step to do what they think is necessary for the greater good and bypass the will of the people. Why am I not surprised. How about putting the money to better use in building the much needed Keystone pipeline instead?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

How about putting the money to better use in building the much needed Keystone pipeline instead?

Along with all that money the government spends criminalizing pot. How dare BIG GOVERNMENT tell me and my family what to smoke!

Outrage! All that money wasted on trying to get kids to eat some veggies!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What I love in the states is when I say hold the onions or I want extra pickles on my Big Mac I can get that as a paying customer, whereas in Japan, you can't alter or change usually anything on the menu.

Yeah amazing. Hold the onions. Freedom baby!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@plasticmonkey,

Lol (I think), but then where would the prison industrial complex be?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"It's unacceptable to me not just as First Lady but also as a mother."

Really? Because your own daughters don't eat like that. Nor do the millions with EBT cards. They eat whatever brand-name junk food their heart desires (in addition to choice steaks and seafood). That's why obesity and diabetes rates are highest in America among the "poor".

Mr.s Obama, you're neither a dietitian nor an elected official. You're in no position to lecture public school prisoners on what to eat, much less congress on their procedures.

Besides, whatever the Republican-led congress passes will be killed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Just like he's killed hundreds of other congressional bills since the Republicans won congress. (And the Left says the Republicans are the obstructionists? No wonder they oppose mental health care reform.)

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Can someone explain what's happening here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While about 3 million kids refuse to put Big Government's God-awful "food" anywhere near their mouths, Michelle's "kids" get to pig out all they want on the food she would call bad at their private school. But, hey that's different.

"By contrast, the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., where many politicians have sent their children to school, serves school lunches designed by chefs. This week, for example, they might enjoy meatball subs, BBQ wings and ice cream, in addition to chicken curry, deviled egg salad and the “Chef’s Choice.” Other options on the exclusive menu include:

Crusted tilapia

Herb roasted chicken

Pesto cream & garden-fresh marinara sauce

Roasted edamame & shitake mushrooms

BBQ sliders

Pesto pasta

All-natural rosemary chicken

All-natural beef nachos

Baked three-cheese lasagna

Pepperoni flatbread pizza"

<http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/141806-public-school-kids-eat-healthy-lunches-obama-girls-dine-lunches-designed-chefs/

RR

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Superlib,

Can someone explain what's happening here?

Sure. "Libertarians" (coff! coff!) and the usual partisan politic squawk-boxes here oppose requirements for already-mandated school lunches to be nutritious for no ther reason we can see beyond the effort being led by Michelle Obama.

In other words, just another day at JT.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I wouldn't care so much if it's privately done or if it's government mandated and the kids are forced to finish their plates, meaning, they can't leave the table until they eat all their greens, then I might be more willing to accept it, but that is not what is happening, the kids just throw away the food that they don't like, which is a lot and a lot of veggies, then why do I as a tax payer have to fund a program that doesn't work, which is not even enforced? Also having Michelle Obama preaching that kids should eat healthier, won't make a bean of difference.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Bass,

I wouldn't care so much if . . . . and the kids are forced to the kids are forced to finish their plates, meaning, they can't leave the table until they eat all their greens

I agree with you to a degree here. I would like to see more efforts being made towards ensuring the kids eat more of what they take, as well as changes in federal regulations governing how served food can be treated after it has left the food counter. One of the issues noted by observers is that completely untouched, whole pieces of fruit and unopened beverages are being just tossed in the trash by kids. This needs to be stopped someway, somehow.

But the other side of the coin is that there is not one reliable study out there right now showing that food waste in schools in appreciably any greater now than it was before the new school lunch nutritional guidelines went into effect. Almost everything out there now on the subject is purely anecdotal. However, one small study done in Wichita, I believe, showed that the number of students selecting fresh fruit when offered rose 57%, while the amount of food being thrown away remained static over the previous school year.

The thing is, kids have ALWAYS thrown away food. It's been a problem plaguing the school lunch program since its inception in 1947. But now that Michelle Obama has something to add to the dialogue, you've got problems? I think you're being disingenuous at best, Bass.

The stickler for you is that it's coming from Ms. Obama, which is simply irrational. We live in a society where spokespersons are employed all the time to forward this position or that. What do you think Charlton Heston was when he was shilling for the NRA? A constitutional scholar? Hardly. He was an actor. But he was an actor who was a readily recognizable and respected public figure employed to put forward a certain perspective with regard to public policy.

Besides, the idea of First Ladies championing social causes is nothing new. Herbert Hoover's wife, Lou, was an active leader in the Girl Scouts and passionate about athletics and education. Eleanor Roosevelt helped create the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. "Lady Bird" Johnson's advocacy led to the creation of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Betty Ford raised public awareness about cancer and devoted herself to the Equal Rights Amendment. Nancy Reagan spearheaded the "Just Say No to Drug" campaign of the 80s.

Would you argue that Ms. Reagan has no right to tell people what drugs they should or should not take, or that Ms. Ford's thoughts on Equal Rights should simply be kept to herself? I think not.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Families do this all the time

"Hey Johnny, no ice cream unless you finish your carrots"

It would not be so hard to have the schools do this by serving the healthy food first, guard the trash cans, then the shit food for seconds.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

LFRAgain: Sure. "Libertarians" (coff! coff!) and the usual partisan politic squawk-boxes here oppose requirements for already-mandated school lunches to be nutritious for no ther reason we can see beyond the effort being led by Michelle Obama.

But on some levels you have to admit it's fascinating. We have grown men telling us that their children eat healthy......advocating for unhealthy lunches in schools meals as if pizza for lunch is a symbol of freedom. They've strung together some catchphrases like "big government" and even told us that if we don't serve hamburgers then it may lead to big government telling us what clothes to wear. Tell me that isn't fascinating to you.

On top of that, you have a Republican complaining about job creators and the benefits that their children have in school lunches. Aren't we supposed to aspire to that?

Admit it. It's an interesting study in psychology. Let's see how far we can take it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She stressed that she believes nutrition experts, like the Institute of Medicine, which operates under the National Academy of Sciences, should set standards, not Congress.

Very true, I agree, but you can't beat a dead horse. That's not for you or me and especially the government to decide. Michelle should worry about herself and her kids.

As long as public institutions like schools serve food to kids, there should be as many healthy choices as possible and as few unhealthy ones as possible. Science should set the standards and not politics. Only a moron would want schools to limit the healthy choices available.

Ahh, but the left want to force all of America fall in lock and step to do what they think is necessary for the greater good and bypass the will of the people.

If the person is a moron, their "will" should be noted, just to see where the morons stand on things, and then bypassed. Human nutrition is a part of science and those folks who actually study the field should have more influence on "public policy" as it relates to government institutions serving food than any moronic twit. After all, it is the "will of the people" to fund science in the public interest. We can always expect ignoramuses out there who think they know better -- they were the tobacco companies' best customers.

This campaign against healthy food reminds me very much of the rhetoric employed against the "fascists" who wanted to ban smoking in public places. Rhetoric employed by complete and utter morons.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@yabits

As long as public institutions like schools serve food to kids, there should be as many healthy choices as possible and as few unhealthy ones as possible. Science should set the standards and not politics. Only a moron would want schools to limit the healthy choices available.

I'm for it, but if the kids don't eat and their less educated parents don't teach them properly, that is on them and I don't want MY money to pay for someone else's lack of education, simple as that.

If the person is a moron, their "will" should be noted, just to see where the morons stand on things, and then bypassed. Human nutrition is a part of science and those folks who actually study the field should have more influence on "public policy" as it relates to government institutions serving food than any moronic twit. After all, it is the "will of the people" to fund science in the public interest. We can always expect ignoramuses out there who think they know better -- they were the tobacco companies' best customers.

I would tend to say that is a reasonable argument.

This campaign against healthy food reminds me very much of the rhetoric employed against the "fascists" who wanted to ban smoking in public places. Rhetoric employed by complete and utter morons.

Again, for the most part, I would agree with you, however, I just don't want to see more money thrown down the drain, I think if you really want to resolve the problem, then start from K1 and up, then I think the kids will acclimate themselves better to being to eating healthier, better than starting from High school where pretty much they have established themselves as picky eaters already. If that is the case, I would be on board. I think that's fair. This is NOT a partisan issue for me, this is about freedom of choice.

@LFRAgain

The thing is, kids have ALWAYS thrown away food. It's been a problem plaguing the school lunch program since its inception in 1947. But now that Michelle Obama has something to add to the dialogue, you've got problems? I think you're being disingenuous at best, Bass.

The stickler for you is that it's coming from Ms. Obama, which is simply irrational.

On the contrary, I think it is very rational, why would I want ANY public official telling me how I should live my life. No, thanks.

We live in a society where spokespersons are employed all the time to forward this position or that. What do you think Charlton Heston was when he was shilling for the NRA? A constitutional scholar? Hardly. He was an actor. But he was an actor who was a readily recognizable and respected public figure employed to put forward a certain perspective with regard to public policy.

This is not a partisan issue for me and I understand your point, but I taking advice from Michelle is just as bad as taking it from Dr. Phil! Also, the way she delivers the message to me is a bit more pushy and talking down to the average citizen as if she is implying that she is the one that knows best and the rest of us are all complete incompetent fools.

Would you argue that Ms. Reagan has no right to tell people what drugs they should or should not take, or that Ms. Ford's thoughts on Equal Rights should simply be kept to herself? I think not.

They have the right to say what they want of course, but I also have the right to NOT listen to them. If there is a licensed medical expert or any expert for that matter trying to give me proper insights to a pertinent social issue, I would probably listen, but when it comes from any of our elected government officials, I'll take it with a grain of salt

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don't want MY money to pay for someone else's lack of education, simple as that.

Well of course you do. You're arguing against healthy school lunches because kids don't eat them so you're exactly catering to the people who lack education.

this is about freedom of choice.

Oh, so kids will be able to choose between healthy and unhealthy food? Because the way I read the article, Republicans want to serve unhealthy food because it's cheaper. Kids don't have a choice one way or the other.

the way she delivers the message to me is a bit more pushy

Then you should support kids eating unhealthy food because it will help you "push back" at Micehlle Obama. Seems fair to me.

They have the right to say what they want of course, but I also have the right to NOT listen to them.

None of us doubt your belief that you don't have to listen to anyone. You're arguing for unhealthy lunches, after all.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well of course you do. You're arguing against healthy school lunches because kids don't eat them so you're exactly catering to the people who lack education.

Sorry, No, I don't.

Oh, so kids will be able to choose between healthy and unhealthy food? Because the way I read the article, Republicans want to serve unhealthy food because it's cheaper. Kids don't have a choice one way or the other

No, Republicans want the parents and the schools to make the choice or if a "private" company wants to work with the schools to implement a better system, then fine. The government should not force anyone to do anything, it's not there business to call the shots.

Then you should support kids eating unhealthy food because it will help you "push back" at Micehlle Obama. Seems fair to me.

No, I worry only about my kids.

None of us doubt your belief that you don't have to listen to anyone. You're arguing for unhealthy lunches, after all.

No, (this is why it's difficult having a discussion with liberals, they take EVERYTHING out of complete context) I'm arguing against liberals and the government trying to force feed the people into doing what should be done in the private sector.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The government should not force anyone to do anything, it's not there business to call the shots.

Oh, really? So it seems you would be against standards like bureaus of weights and measures, and building codes with inspectors to ensure that safe electrical and construction materials are used. It should all be left to private sector decisions -- if local officials want to use asbestos or aluminum wiring to save some money, they should be able to do so on their own. Wow.

No, I worry only about my kids.

Typical conservative self-centered thinking. Let everyone else's kids be damned. Yes, it is obviously liberal thinking to want to maintain higher minimum standards set by science-based entities like the nutritional experts at the Institute of Medicine.

I'm arguing against liberals and the government trying to force feed the people into doing what should be done in the private sector.

We are talking about public schools. Stop trying to force people into adopting lowered standards. The "private sector" is paying for politicians to write rules which lower them. Lowered standards will mean fewer healthy choices available, which is identical to forcing less healthy food on everyone's kids. After all, the private sector thought it was great to add lead to paint and gasoline, and asbestos to building materials.

Arguing for less healthy food is like arguing for re-adding those "less healthy" substances to be re-added if it will help save some money.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Oh, really? So it seems you would be against standards like bureaus of weights and measures, and building codes with inspectors to ensure that safe electrical and construction materials are used. It should all be left to private sector decisions -- if local officials want to use asbestos or aluminum wiring to save some money, they should be able to do so on their own. Wow.

Now you're making an Apple and Orange comparison?

Typical conservative self-centered thinking. Let everyone else's kids be damned. Yes, it is obviously liberal thinking to want to maintain higher minimum standards set by science-based entities like the nutritional experts at the Institute of Medicine.

This is why liberals bug me to no end, you guys think that you are the saviors of society and know what's good for you, everyone else is too stupid to understand or how to live their lives, liberals are experts at everything, but ultimately masters at nothing.

We are talking about public schools. Stop trying to force people into adopting lowered standards.

Of I'm not mistaken, it's liberals that are forcing this issue.

The "private sector" is paying for politicians to write rules which lower them. Lowered standards will mean fewer healthy choices available, which is identical to forcing less healthy food on everyone's kids. After all, the private sector thought it was great to add lead to paint and gasoline, and asbestos to building materials.

And liberals thought it was great to approve homes for people that couldn't afford them and look what happened, so what's your point?

Arguing for less healthy food is like arguing for re-adding those "less healthy" substances to be re-added if it will help save some money.

And arguing and forcing people to adopt and buy into something where the government shouldn't stick it's nose in, in the first place. Leave it to the parents, their choice.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

My school lunches consisted of the sandwiches that I made in the morning, sometimes peanut butter & jelly, sometimes ham & cheese on rye bread ( real rye bread, unfortunately not sold in any supermarkets or bread shops in Japan, lol ), or whatever, and an apple or other piece of fruit, and sometimes a Milky Way bar. Things were so simple and cost-effective back then...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Serrano

Come to Fukuoka, my friend.... We've got a couple of real bakeries that would blow your mind.

Rye bread? hah, that's for the babies of bread connoisseurship!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

luca - I can't afford to travel to Fukuoka, can you just takkyubin me a loaf of real rye bread, if, it really exists there, lol, and I'm going to send an email to Michelle Obama to suggest having kids make their own lunches at home and bring them to school like I did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Serrano

sailer.jp

I'm sure they deliver.... And it's wonderful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now you're making an Apple and Orange comparison?

Standards for asbestos, lead, second-hand smoke all relate to public health and safety. And so too nutritional standards for food. That's Apples to Apples.

This is why liberals bug me to no end, you guys think that you are the saviors of society and know what's good for you

Intelligent people who are not professional nutritionists will listen to what nutritionists have to say, and place more credibility in them than some "low-information" person with ignorant opinions.

everyone else is too stupid to understand or how to live their lives

Everyone is not a professional nutritionist. When it comes to eating healthy, it is rather obvious that a fit person is much smarter than someone who is obese through eating a steady diet of junk food. I wouldn't want those morons having any influence over lowering standards of nutrition over public schools.

Of I'm not mistaken, it's liberals that are forcing this issue.

As with lead, asbestos, and second-hand smoke, it is the Science of nutrition that is forcing the issue. Liberals want to maintain high standards; conservatives fight for LOW standards. Per the article, conservatives are trying to lower the standards set by medical professionals, forcing the issue of maintaining the high standards previously established. (Politicians are being paid by the junk food industry to lower them.) So you ARE mistaken.

And liberals thought it was great to approve homes for people that couldn't afford them and look what happened, so what's your point?

You shouldn't try to change the topic by making an erroneous point. The point is that lowering standards will mean fewer, if any, healthy choices available, which means conservatives paid off by the junk food industry have forced their low standards on everyone else.

And arguing and forcing people to adopt and buy into something where the government shouldn't stick it's nose in, in the first place. Leave it to the parents, their choice.

People do not have a choice of whether to eat or not. If kids have to be in a school all day, they will have to eat. It is far better for the public institutions serving food to maximize nutritionally healthy offerings and minimize unhealthy ones. You certainly don't have to "buy in" to eating healthy, but you shouldn't force your low standards on everyone else's kids by depriving them of healthy choices. As a parent, it is my choice to see to it that schools provide the healthiest choices possible, according to standards set by science, and not some moron's uninformed opinion.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

As much as I am for more nutritious lunches, I am going to continue to have serious doubts until I see and eat these lunches for myself. This is America after all, and Americans don't seem to understand that yes, spinach is nutritious, but if you boil the hell out of it, it isn't. Plus it tastes likes like slime with the texture of slime. So yeah, when some complain that a great amount is being thrown away I am not surprised.

Japanese lunches are not my favorite for what they serve, but what they serve is well prepared and somewhat fresh.

Like I say, I cannot judge before I see it, but I tell you, I had to leave America to discover that some vegetables actually do taste good. Preparation is vital. In fact, some of them are best raw!

As for fruit, I think its impossible to appreciate fruit if you are eating candy and junk food all the time.

We do need to give kids good food, but we also seriously do need to find ways to get the kids to eat what is given them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Standards for asbestos, lead, second-hand smoke all relate to public health and safety. And so too nutritional standards for food. That's Apples to Apples.

So now liberals care about equal comparisons all of a sudden, I could mention a serious incident where you libs will never make that same comparison, but I digress.

Intelligent people who are not professional nutritionists will listen to what nutritionists have to say, and place more credibility in them than some "low-information" person with ignorant opinions.

So now you want to throw Ad hom attacks? The parents still have the final say over ANY professional nutritionist.

Everyone is not a professional nutritionist. When it comes to eating healthy, it is rather obvious that a fit person is much smarter than someone who is obese through eating a steady diet of junk food. I wouldn't want those morons having any influence over lowering standards of nutrition over public schools.

Let me get this straight, if you are fit, you're smart, but if you are unhealthy, you are just a dumb person as well as a moron? I am completely astounded by what you just said.

As with lead, asbestos, and second-hand smoke, it is the Science of nutrition that is forcing the issue. Liberals want to maintain high standards; conservatives fight for LOW standards. Per the article, conservatives are trying to lower the standards set by medical professionals, forcing the issue of maintaining the high standards previously established. (Politicians are being paid by the junk food industry to lower them.) So you ARE mistaken.

No you're talking BS once again! Liberals want to force people into believing that the way they live their lives, it is the moral and proper way that everyone should aspire to be. I call it BS! Liberals don't believe in freedom of choice, but when it comes to issues like abortion, they DEMAND that a woman's right is respected at all costs, NO matter what. Hypocrites!

You shouldn't try to change the topic by making an erroneous point. The point is that lowering standards will mean fewer, if any, healthy choices available, which means conservatives paid off by the junk food industry have forced their low standards on everyone else.

The funny thing is almost every conservative that I know eats very healthy. The difference is, they usually stay out of other peoples lives when it comes to telling people how to live and eat. If I want to eat chili cheese burgers every single day, that is my choice, I know it's bad, but that's my life and let me ruin it, if I so wish.

People do not have a choice of whether to eat or not. If kids have to be in a school all day, they will have to eat.

So if you want a program in place that funds healthy school lunch, let it come from the private industry!

It is far better for the public institutions serving food to maximize nutritionally healthy offerings and minimize unhealthy ones. You certainly don't have to "buy in" to eating healthy, but you shouldn't force your low standards on everyone else's kids by depriving them of healthy choices. As a parent, it is my choice to see to it that schools provide the healthiest choices possible, according to standards set by science, and not some moron's uninformed opinion.

My standards are high, I just won't dictate what and how a school should serve their food. In that case, they should bring their own lunch. Unlike you, I just will not force anyone that doesn't believe in the program, nor should any tax payer that believes it is a waste. And trying to insult me, will not change my opinion on the issue. FYI.

@Mr. G

100% on the mark, exactly!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So now liberals care about equal comparisons all of a sudden

Comparisons can only be reliably made with solid knowledge to back them up. For conservatives, politics and the lousy buck trumps knowledge. That much is clear from your posts.

The parents still have the final say over ANY professional nutritionist.

At home they certainly do. And the kids often suffer for it. A LOT of parents don't have the knowledge of the average nutritionist. And that's why childhood obesity is such a serious problem. Many homes have both parents working, and neither has time to prepare wholesome meals. It's quite possible that a nutritious meal at school is their best meal of the day.

Let me get this straight, if you are fit, you're smart, but if you are unhealthy, you are just a dumb person as well as a moron? I am completely astounded by what you just said.

Why be astounded at what is so patently obvious? Any moron can eat junk food until they attain obesity. And many morons do. I was witness just this week to a pathetic individual who had eaten himself to nearly 500 pounds and couldn't receive radiation treatment because the maximum weight the platform could bear was around 440. (Another "solid" conservative.) Do you actually believe that a person can get to 500 pounds on fruits and green vegetables?

The funny thing is almost every conservative that I know eats very healthy.

LOL!! The place where people are most obese is in the South -- which is also the most solidly conservative area of the United States. Yeah, they eat lots and lots of very healthy portions.

So if you want a program in place that funds healthy school lunch, let it come from the private industry!

LOL!!! Why? Do you really thing private industry cares about the health of kids? When the government puts out contracts for private industry to feed our men and women in uniform, do you actually think they leave the nutritional guidelines completely up to the private companies? Really? Meals for our military troops are very nutritious and it's not because of letting private companies operate freely as they see fit. Sheesh.

My standards are high, I just won't dictate what and how a school should serve their food. In that case, they should bring their own lunch.

Well, duh... If schools are serving healthy, nutritional meals, your kids should opt out and bring junk food. But don't force the schools to serve food that's low in nutrition just because your idols in the junk food industry have paid off politicians to relax standards. What should dictate what is served are high nutritional standards, backed up by science. Period. Anything less is stupid.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Comparisons can only be reliably made with solid knowledge to back them up. For conservatives, politics and the lousy buck trumps knowledge. That much is clear from your posts.

No, it boils down to big government wanting to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives and then tries to justify it by saying it's for the greater good. Yawn......

At home they certainly do. And the kids often suffer for it. A LOT of parents don't have the knowledge of the average nutritionist. And that's why childhood obesity is such a serious problem. Many homes have both parents working, and neither has time to prepare wholesome meals. It's quite possible that a nutritious meal at school is their best meal of the day.

So if they don't want to eat it, which a huge percentage do not, what do you suggest, shoving it down their throat? Once kids reach a certain age and they have been eating a certain way, it's not that easy to try convert many children, some people never will accept the changes, offer them, or at least make the food palatable and visually appetizing and maybe they might like it, but it should never be forced.

Why be astounded at what is so patently obvious? Any moron can eat junk food until they attain obesity. And many morons do. I was witness just this week to a pathetic individual who had eaten himself to nearly 500 pounds and couldn't receive radiation treatment because the maximum weight the platform could bear was around 440. (Another "solid" conservative.) Do you actually believe that a person can get to 500 pounds on fruits and green vegetables?

I never said that.

LOL!! The place where people are most obese is in the South -- which is also the most solidly conservative area of the United States. Yeah, they eat lots and lots of very healthy portions.

I'm not from the South, I'm from California and I was referring to my conservatives friends in my home state and yes, in Orange County CA, there are many conservatives here and No, a vast majority of them are not exceedingly overweight. My that kind of comment is equal to me saying, most liberals are the smartest people on the planet. :-) (toungue and cheek)

LOL!!! Why? Do you really thing private industry cares about the health of kids? When the government puts out contracts for private industry to feed our men and women in uniform, do you actually think they leave the nutritional guidelines completely up to the private companies? Really? Meals for our military troops are very nutritious and it's not because of letting private companies operate freely as they see fit. Sheesh.

I'll tell you what, the private sector cares as much about the kids as liberals care about our personal freedoms that are coming more and more under attack. Here we go with the Apples and Oranges comparison once again, the food in the military is at least better looking and better tasting than what Michelle is pitching. Maybe they should hire Jaime Oliver as the chef and nutritionist and he could be put on the board, I'm sure his recipes at least will have fans coming back and the kids might dive in.

Well, duh... If schools are serving healthy, nutritional meals, your kids should opt out and bring junk food.

So now people that don't want to eat Obama's state sponsored lunch HAS to bring junk food? You're panting a very broad monolithic thinking brush.

But don't force the schools to serve food that's low in nutrition just because your idols in the junk food industry have paid off politicians to relax standards. What should dictate what is served are high nutritional standards, backed up by science. Period. Anything less is stupid.

And these politicians that cave in, I guess they would rather take the bribe than hold on to their principle, if they had it. But you are the person that believes government over reach is the answer and that never goes well. I don't care what the science says, you and liberals like-minded, think the government should force people to eat a certain way, which is completely un-American, I'm NOT responsible for taking care of someone else's children as long as I guide my kids on the right path, that's the only thing I care about, as I said, let some private company invest in the program and I'm in, other than that, the government should stay out of it. Every time when the government sticks it's clumsy hands into the lives of Aermicans, bad things happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, it boils down to big government wanting to stick its nose into every aspect of our lives and then tries to justify it by saying it's for the greater good.

When "government" operates a food-preparation and serving function in a public facility, it has every right and obligation to ensure that function is being run according to the highest standards.

The standards themselves should be established by nutritional experts, whose findings should trump the person who thinks that a steady diet of junk food is the way to go. Healthy, nutritional food does tend to cost more than cheap, junk food, and that's what this article is really about: Conservatives want their buddies in the junk food industry (who give them donations) to increase the profit margin on taxpayer dollars by taking the money and providing cheaper food for it.

To do that, the conservatives have to try to relax (ie: lower) the nutritional standards on which the contracts were bid out. It has been stated here that some conservatives clearly don't care if kids in general are eating healthy. As a taxpayer whose taxes help pay for school lunches, I think most people naturally want the most value for the money, without sacrificing nutritional choices offered in the schools. Let that private company win which can offer the most nutritional food that meets the standards for the best price. But don't lower the standards after awarding the contract!

If the conservatives are able to get the standards lowered -- the same kind of perverse "genius" that declared ketchup to be a vegetable -- the obvious outcome is that the more highly nutritious food won't be offered as a choice at all. This is how the conservatives end up dictating their unhealthy choices on everyone else.

If I want to eat chili cheese burgers every single day, that is my choice, I know it's bad, but that's my life and let me ruin it, if I so wish.

Yes. Conservatives know and admit that a steady diet of low nutritional food is bad. But they are fighting to enable public schools to be able to serve the nutritional equivalent of chili cheese burgers at every lunch -- forcing their low standards on everyone else's kids -- because the more nutritional choices will no longer be offered by the system, being a bit more expensive than the cheap stuff. (If it won't be purchased by the system, it can't be offered as a choice.) And so, a fight to maintain the higher standards established by professional nutritionists in our public facilities is viewed by conservatives as an "intrusion," when in fact government has every obligation to manage its facilities to the highest standards possible.

A government food-service function, even when contracted out to private vendors, still concerns public health and general welfare of young Americans. I realize that many conservatives fully admit that they don't care about young Americans in general -- just their kids. If conservatives are going to be so self-centered about it, they really have nothing to offer in public discussion. They can provide their own kids with chili cheese burgers every day if they so choose, but other kids should be able to have other choices made available to them by our taxpayer-funded schools. No student is being forced to purchase a healthy school lunch if their parents are dead set against it. There is no reason for them to be deprived of low-nutritional food, but they should not be expecting public food service functions run on higher standards to provide it to them. Let them get junk food from their parents.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funk: our personal freedoms that are coming more and more under attack.

If they serve apples then you can say the government is forcing kids to eat apples. If they serve pizza then you can say the government is forcing kids to eat pizza. That part never changes based on the menu, so I really don't see how this is a debate about personal freedom. Something has to be served. Give me any food and I can say, "You're not forcing my kid to eat XXX" every time you offer something up. The only way around that problem would be to ban schools from serving lunch.

So the real question here is what should be served. There are people who are pushing for healthy lunches and others who are trying to save money by serving junk. In this particular case, some Republicans decided to save money and serve junk.

That's the long and the short of it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@SuperLib:

So the real question here is what should be served.

No that actually isn't the question at issue as I see it. To those that oppose Mrs. Obama's use of Federal power to coerce local school districts to serve the types of food that she approves of or else lose funding, the question is who decides what should be served? The idea that a far off government knows better than the local school districts and the constituents that they are accountable to is stupendously ignorant at best. It is the height of arrogance for a small number of so-called experts at the pinnacle of government power in a far off capitol to believe that they know better than collective wisdom of those representatives closest to those school children spread out across a huge country with a diverse populace.

Instead of healthier children what you will have instead is an inflexible and inefficient system that winds up with children tossing huge amounts of "healthy" food into garbage bins. Instead they will smuggle in food that they will actually consume or they will just gi without until they get home. Either way, it's a stupid waste of resources.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

To those that oppose Mrs. Obama's use of Federal power to coerce local school districts to serve the types of food that she approves of or else lose funding, the question is who decides what should be served?

This is ignorant. Mrs. Obama has no access to the "use of Federal power." Food that she approves of? Let's see the article again:

"She stressed that she believes nutrition experts, like the Institute of Medicine, which operates under the National Academy of Sciences, should set standards, not Congress."

There is no mention of her dictating menu items, and no proof whatsoever that she is doing so from her dishonest opponents.

The idea that a far off government knows better than the local school districts and the constituents that they are accountable to is stupendously ignorant at best.

What is stupendously ignorant is the idea that the standards for healthy, nutritious food in one part of the United States have to be different from another part. Most people know that there are a wide variety of local choices available that still meet the nutritional guidelines. It is unfortunate that these right-wing opponents have to resort to such dishonesty.

It is the height of arrogance for a small number of so-called experts at the pinnacle of government power in a far off capitol to believe that they know better than collective wisdom of those representatives closest to those school children spread out across a huge country with a diverse populace.

The state of Washington, to cite one example, sends delicious apples to children spread out across this "huge" country. Have you ever heard of trucks? Most children in non-wheat growing states are able to eat bread. Collective wisdom? When I read these ignorant, right-wing arguments, I am thankful for the collective wisdom of nutritionists who operate outside of this LOW form of craven politics.

Instead of healthier children what you will have instead is an inflexible and inefficient system that winds up with children tossing huge amounts of "healthy" food into garbage bins.

Stupid kids will do that. At least the smart ones have had healthy food available to them, and not removed by the parents of the stupid kids.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think it is a good drive. Back home lunch was not served at schools.

In my City from Creche up to Jr. High the meals are compiled by nutritionists and the use local produce/suppliers.

Jr. High didn't used to get lunch served but the City changed it on demand from parents and after seeing what the students used to bring/buy. All meals are prepared in 3 kitchens throughout the city and distributed, few schools cook on the premises.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack: is stupendously ignorant at best. It is the height of arrogance

No one gets this worked up over minimum nutrition standards for schools. You sound like an out-of-touch old Republican trying to sound relevant by propping up a bogus argument, then pretending that you are our savior. Those included in the new demographics think Republicans are out of touch in record numbers and talk like this is a big reason why.

Sorry, but defending Americans from nutritional school lunches isn't what's keeping the fabric of the entire republic together. You sound unhinged.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

She has a good point on this. Look at American kids and we do not have to debate on this issue.

The truth hurts. American kids are too FAT and not healthy eaters, period. Many are becoming diabetic.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@yabits:

"This is ignorant. Mrs. Obama has no access to the "use of Federal power." Food that she approves of?

You mean bureaucrats funded by Congress? It's her program so she gets credit and blame for her coercive efforts.

This is ignorant. Mrs. Obama has no access to the "use of Federal power."

Yes, her initiative does employ the use of Federal power. If that were not the case why would it be necessary for Mrs. Obama to 'take on Republicans over school lunches'. Why would 'The rules require' any school district to comply with her dictates (via her Federal government agency).

What is stupendously ignorant is the idea that the standards for healthy, nutritious food in one part of the United States have to be different from another part

Why can't the people living in different places make these types of decision for themselves? If they want to follow the national standard then that's okay too. Is it really that important for every one to comply with the central government? Are people in different areas of the country too stupid to make decisions in their own interests? Progressives apparently think so. I don't think the people of different countries should all eat the same. Why should people from the Southwest eat the same way as those in the Northeast.

The state of Washington, to cite one example, sends delicious apples to children spread out across this "huge" country. Have you ever heard of trucks? Most children in non-wheat growing states are able to eat bread. Collective wisdom? When I read these ignorant, right-wing arguments.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about not eating apples from Washington state? You are raging against an argument that I am not making.

@SuperLib

No one gets this worked up over minimum nutrition standards for schools. You sound like an out-of-touch old Republican trying to sound relevant by propping up a bogus argument, then pretending that you are our savior.

Clearly given Mrs. Obama's strident defense of her school lunch plan and the opposition she is getting from Republicans, you are wrong. It is Mrs. Obama that is trying to be "our savior". You sound like an old out of touch Marxist who cannot understand why everyone doesn't agree that you are right about everything.

I just want the right to make as many choices as I can for myself and my family. If people want to allow "government experts" make their decisions for them then that's fine for them. That's just not how I want to live my life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@super

If they serve apples then you can say the government is forcing kids to eat apples. If they serve pizza then you can say the government is forcing kids to eat pizza. That part never changes based on the menu, so I really don't see how this is a debate about personal freedom. Something has to be served. Give me any food and I can say, "You're not forcing my kid to eat XXX" every time you offer something up. The only way around that problem would be to ban schools from serving lunch.

Look, I'm not for pizzas or for any kind of junk food, but I think both sides and especially private sector companies should sit down with the parents and kids and come to a middle ground on what's best for the kids, just serving them healthy food is not going to make kids eat, especially if the food is not visually appealing and appetizing. But on the other hand, the growing tentacles of government overreach is way too much, in that case, the program should be scraped and let the kids bring their own

So the real question here is what should be served. There are people who are pushing for healthy lunches and others who are trying to save money by serving junk. In this particular case, some Republicans decided to save money and serve junk.

And Democrats want to force all Americans to adopt to yet, another form of government gone bad overreach, regardless of what the people want, instead of letting the people decide or putting the program in the hands of the private sector.

Now, That's the long and the short of it.

No one gets this worked up over minimum nutrition standards for schools. You sound like an out-of-touch old Republican trying to sound relevant by propping up a bogus argument, then pretending that you are our savior. Those included in the new demographics think Republicans are out of touch in record numbers and talk like this is a big reason why.

Oh, so you're not worked up or out of touch, not to mention out of sync when it comes to putting the gun to people's temples and force feeding them, what they don't like, it's the same thing like with everything else Democrats try to do, you either do it our way or you're going to suffer the consequences! But yeah, Republicans are out of touch that's why it looks more and more for certainty that they will retake the Senate, because they are so out of touch.

Sorry, but defending Americans from nutritional school lunches isn't what's keeping the fabric of the entire republic together. You sound unhinged.

No, just defending their right to choose, America is still somewhat of a democracy, even though, it has greatly eroded since Obama has been in office.

@yabits

Like Super, you guys keep rambling about Science, no one really cares, meaning, I believe what these scientists say, but it's my child and if my child doesn't like the way the food looks or tastes, then I as the parent knows what's best not the government.

What is stupendously ignorant is the idea that the standards for healthy, nutritious food in one part of the United States have to be different from another part. Most people know that there are a wide variety of local choices available that still meet the nutritional guidelines. It is unfortunate that these right-wing opponents have to resort to such dishonesty.

More like it is a disgrace that liberals HAVE to push people to think and live as they do to resort to brute thuggery.

The state of Washington, to cite one example, sends delicious apples to children spread out across this "huge" country. Have you ever heard of trucks? Most children in non-wheat growing states are able to eat bread. Collective wisdom? When I read these ignorant, right-wing arguments, I am thankful for the collective wisdom of nutritionists who operate outside of this LOW form of craven politics.

You guys just hate FREEdom of choice and that irks you liberals to No end.

Stupid kids will do that. At least the smart ones have had healthy food available to them, and not removed by the parents of the stupid kids.

Just because a parent doesn't want to eat what Michelle recommends doesn't qualify as dumb. Again, hire a top notch chef like Jaime Oliver and you might have a chance to win the kids over, but just slapping food on the table is not hitting it out of the ballpark with the kids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

just serving them healthy food is not going to make kids eat, especially if the food is not visually appealing and appetising

Isn't it a given that healthy food is visually appealing and appetising? Certainly way more so than junk.

putting the gun to people's temples and force feeding them, what they don't like

How is making school dinners healthy 'putting the gun to people's heads and force-feeding them'? Isn't it rather the schools serving junk that are force-feeding kids with rubbish? And we're talking school dinners here; kids are in the process of learning good dietary habits. 'Free choice' is as relevant in the school dining room as it is in the classroom. Kids don't get to choose what they're going to study, letting them do so would create chaos, just as letting them choose whatever junk they want to eat at lunchtime has already created chaos in the country's waistlines and lifestyle disease statistics.

it's the same thing like with everything else Democrats try to do, you either do it our way or you're going to suffer the consequences! But yeah, Republicans are out of touch

Why does giving kids nutritious food have to be a political thing? Don't both Democrats and Republicans want what's best for their kids? So sad that everything has to be Us vs Them.

hire a top notch chef like Jaime Oliver and you might have a chance to win the kids over

Well poor Jamie didn't seem to do very well when he came up against the Los Angeles school district a few years ago -

Education insiders claim Los Angeles school canteen staff didn’t want to risk being embarrassed at a time when budget cuts have made it even more difficult to serve up healthy food.

some children couldn’t even identify common fruits and vegetables

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348158/U-S-loses-appetite-Jamie-Oliver-75-LA-school-districts-turn-away-Food-Revolution-show.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

Isn't it a given that healthy food is visually appealing and appetising? Certainly way more so than junk.

It depends, if you have a cook that knows what they're doing, yes, but if not,vit could have the opposite effect. But playing Devils advocate, some junk foods look appealing to some people, a lot more than healthy cuisine.

How is making school dinners healthy 'putting the gun to people's heads and force-feeding them'? Isn't it rather the schools serving junk that are force-feeding kids with rubbish? And we're talking school dinners here; kids are in the process of learning good dietary habits. 'Free choice' is as relevant in the school dining room as it is in the classroom. Kids don't get to choose what they're going to study, letting them do so would create chaos, just as letting them choose whatever junk they want to eat at lunchtime has already created chaos in the country's waistlines and lifestyle disease statistics.

Look, you're NOT getting any arguments from me on this issue, I'm a firm believer in eating healthy and making sure that my kids do the same, however, my problem is with the way this is being handled. I think the government has once again overstepped it's boundaries and managed to worm itself into people's lives and claiming it is the savior of all mankind, that's my problem. I get it with all the studies about health, nutrition and physical exercise, but the responsibility should fall on the parents and NOT on big brother government to come in an wave their finger telling us, we have to eat our veggies. If you have parents that don't care and teach the kids proper food etiquette, you actually think the government can do a better job at persuading the kids that they are on the wrong path? I seriously doubt it. If these parents want to stay ignorant and load up on the chicken nuggets daily, that's their choice ( the wrong choice, but their choice) right or wrong.

Why does giving kids nutritious food have to be a political thing? Don't both Democrats and Republicans want what's best for their kids? So sad that everything has to be Us vs Them.

I don't think politics should be involved at all, I don't like the way government is trying to force people how to eat. I think the private sector should be more involved in this, it's kind of a catch 22. Republicans don't want the program NOT because they want more unhealthy kids or they just don't care, it's becuase it costs too much money and so much food is wasted, on that note, then either allow the kids to bring their own lunch, scrap the program or hire a professional chef to teach the cooks how to at least come up with some appealing or better tasting recipes. Either way, both sides need to get tougher and stop making this a partisan issue.

Well poor Jamie didn't seem to do very well when he came up against the Los Angeles school district a few years ago -

Education insiders claim Los Angeles school canteen staff didn’t want to risk being embarrassed at a time when budget cuts have made it even more difficult to serve up healthy food.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The entire public school system is a problem in most of the states and I'm sad to hear that about Jaime. Love the guy. I'm all for wanting the kids to eat better, but some parents are just completely ignorant when it comes to food. Maybe the parents should sit in a culinary, nutrition class and learn what they are doing wrong and hopefully learn how to make the right and healthier choices when it comes to food. You and I don't always agree, but on this issue, I think we are not that far apart. I do get frustrated and I do believe there should be a middle ground, I know Michelle Obama means well, and I applaud her for the effort, I just don't want the government to control my life, but I get it, the cuts that many Republicans are doing is also not great, even though, I don't want my tax dollars wasted on food kids refuse to eat. There has to be a better way or a middle ground.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It depends, if you have a cook that knows what they're doing, yes, but if not,vit could have the opposite effect. But playing Devils advocate, some junk foods look appealing to some people, a lot more than healthy cuisine.

Yes, I suppose it does depend....but imagine having that same cook who doesn't know what they're doing, serving up nothing but cheap junk food - disaster!

the responsibility should fall on the parents

Well in a perfect world yes it should, but -

some parents are just completely ignorant when it comes to food

and it's the kids who end up as ignorant as their parents because no one saw fit to teach them any better.

If you have parents that don't care and teach the kids proper food etiquette, you actually think the government can do a better job at persuading the kids that they are on the wrong path?

Well if the parents aren't able/willing to do it, who else is going to?

If these parents want to stay ignorant and load up on the chicken nuggets daily, that's their choice ( the wrong choice, but their choice) right or wrong.

Yes, it's their choice; but what choice are their kids being given?

Suppose the problem was not school dinners but the content of lessons; would you be OK with the kids of illiterate parents not being allowed to learn how to read? With the kids of parents who don't speak English not being allowed to learn English? Why should dietary education be any different from the 3Rs?

I think the private sector should be more involved in this

If it's the school board/nutritionist telling the private sector what to serve, that would work; but if it's simply a case of giving the contract to the lowest bidder, the kids are going to get served low-cost, low-quality rubbish. And they're going to grow up thinking that is an appropriate diet.

either allow the kids to bring their own lunch, scrap the program or hire a professional chef to teach the cooks how to at least come up with some appealing or better tasting recipes.

Getting back to the idea of dietary education being on a level with the 3Rs, letting the kids bring their own lunch is the equivalent of letting them bring comics into class because they don't like the English Lit. set books: scrapping the programme is the equivalent of the teachers throwing up their hands in despair and walking out: teaching the cooks how to provide appealing, nutritious meals is the equivalent of expecting the teachers to have proper teaching qualifications - a given for the job, surely. Cooks who cannot provide decent meals need to be replaced with those who can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well if the parents aren't able/willing to do it, who else is going to?

How about someone else who may actually know the child?. You know, someone other than the government. If the parents are so incompetent as to risk the a child's life or health, the government should probably consider rescuing the child from such dangerous people. Other than that, big brother should mind his own business (unless the incompetent or overwhelmed parents requests it's help). Again, local school districts should not be coerced into participating in a Federal program that micromanages it's business. In other words, keep your nose out of other peoples business.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the parents are so incompetent as to risk the a child's life or health, the government should probably consider rescuing the child from such dangerous people. Other than that, big brother should mind his own business

So should all state schools be shut down? After all, no child is going to be in immediate danger of death for being unable to read or do sums. If parents can't be bothered/don't have the skills to teach a child the 3Rs, what business is that of anyone else?

After all, it's only someone else's kid...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@cleo

So should all state schools be shut down? After all, no child is going to be in immediate danger of death for being unable to read or do sums.

I was talking about a one size fits all Federal school lunch program and now Cleo is off talking about shuttering schools. I suppose you were trying to make a point but it must have gotten lost in some cloud somewhere.

After all, it's only someone else's kid...?

So you are telling me that Michelle Obama (ie. the Federal government) cares more for the average American child than their own parents? That's loony. If you have a problem with incompetent parenting then maybe you can convince Mrs. Obama to take over the responsibilities of raising those unfortunate kids. In the meantime, leave the feeding for the rest of the countries children to their parents and local school officials.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So you are telling me that Michelle Obama (ie. the Federal government) cares more for the average American child than their own parents? That's loony.

We have a conservative poster in this thread who clearly stated that he didn't care about what other kids were being served. Only his own kids. So it is very clear that those who support stricter nutritional guidelines care far more about the average kid than do the conservatives trying to downgrade those programs.

Remember, these are the same conservatives that tried to pass off ketchup as a vegetable.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

a Republican bid to change U.S. school nutrition standards

Shareholder trumps stakeholder syndrome.

Big Food partners with Big Catering to offer an optimized value proposition - to Wall Street and GOP coffers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites