Kentucky students to first lady Michelle Obama: Your food ‘tastes like vomit’

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:Like many others who have posted on this subject, I, too, have fond memories of the food . . . . the smell . . . the satisfaction of a great lunch.  At our school it was .25 . . . . I was allotted .35 which allowed me to spend the other dime at my discretion.  I usually saved those in a secret place at home.  The food, however, was good or at least very acceptable . . . .. I cannot attest to how fresh or nutritious it was but I suspect it was both.

Those criticizing or making mean-spirited remarks directed at "Moochelle" should be ashamed of themselves but that is the cost of free speech.  The concept of providing fresh and nutritious lunches for kids is more than a laudable endeavor . . . . it is an uphill climb to change the attitudes of these kids but it's either grow up to to be a "disgusting fat body' (re: Full Metal Jacket) or change these kids views of taking responsibility for their eating habits.  I say Moochelle is on the right track . . . .  

  

I don't think it's the right track and I'm not ashamed of saying so. If you read about the problems associated with trying to  maintain good nutrition and cutting calories, you might understand. 

Since the implementation of the program... Less children are eating the school lunches, more food is wasted, and the schools are loosing money.  If it keeps going......there will not be any school prepared lunches. 

 Overweight children are receiving about 25% of their meals at school......the other 75% at home. Healthy active kids do not need reduced portions and reduced calories just because 14% of kids are overweight.

*****************************************************

Joani,

I will respond to your post but not to the ignorance of PD.  You are smart and informed . . . . . would you agree that this is going to require a learning curve and incentivise smart decisions? It's irrelevant that kids turn their nose up at healthy food initially but like all things it requires an informed and respected source (educators) to drive in their knuckleheads the benefits of healthy eating habits and the dire consequences of poor eating habits.

Healthy eating habits are very important and food has to be palatable and nutritious. I said earlier the new program is not benefiting all the children.  Many of the indigent students, the ones that need a good meal in the middle of the day, are not eating the food. Kids involved in school sports are not getting enough needed calories to maintain their activities. Some schools report kids  bringing junk food snacks  because they are hungry. Junk food defeats the program. Give them healthy food that they will eat. 

Teach children about the benefits of healthy nutrition, moderation, and physical exercise.


If you read some of the articles you will get the idea this is a growing problem.  The program results : calories have been cut, portions cut, and food sources changed to fit the new guidelines. Forced nutritional changes, to curb obesity in a low percentage of students, is causing major problems. Problems that could potentially bankrupt the school meal program. Junk food to fill an empty belly is not the desired outcome nor is the loss of school meals.


A report from the Government Accountability Office cited increased food waste, loss of school revenue due to decreased sales and increased administrative costs among the headaches created by the new regulations.

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:Like many others who have posted on this subject, I, too, have fond memories of the food . . . . the smell . . . the satisfaction of a great lunch.  At our school it was .25 . . . . I was allotted .35 which allowed me to spend the other dime at my discretion.  I usually saved those in a secret place at home.  The food, however, was good or at least very acceptable . . . .. I cannot attest to how fresh or nutritious it was but I suspect it was both.

Those criticizing or making mean-spirited remarks directed at "Moochelle" should be ashamed of themselves but that is the cost of free speech.  The concept of providing fresh and nutritious lunches for kids is more than a laudable endeavor . . . . it is an uphill climb to change the attitudes of these kids but it's either grow up to to be a "disgusting fat body' (re: Full Metal Jacket) or change these kids views of taking responsibility for their eating habits.  I say Moochelle is on the right track . . . .  

  

I don't think it's the right track and I'm not ashamed of saying so. If you read about the problems associated with trying to  maintain good nutrition and cutting calories, you might understand. 

Since the implementation of the program... Less children are eating the school lunches, more food is wasted, and the schools are loosing money.  If it keeps going......there will not be any school prepared lunches. 

 Overweight children are receiving about 25% of their meals at school......the other 75% at home. Healthy active kids do not need reduced portions and reduced calories just because 14% of kids are overweight.

*****************************************************

Joani,

I will respond to your post but not to the ignorance of PD.  You are smart and informed . . . . . would you agree that this is going to require a learning curve and incentivise smart decisions? It's irrelevant that kids turn their nose up at healthy food initially but like all things it requires an informed and respected source (educators) to drive in their knuckleheads the benefits of healthy eating habits and the dire consequences of poor eating habits.

Healthy eating habits are very important and food has to be palatable and nutritious. I said earlier the new program is not benefiting all the children.  Many of the indigent students, the ones that need a good meal in the middle of the day, are not eating the food. Kids involved in school sports are not getting enough needed calories to maintain their activities. Some schools report kids  bringing junk food snacks  because they are hungry. Junk food defeats the program. Give them healthy food that they will eat. 

Teach children about the benefits of healthy nutrition, moderation, and physical exercise.


If you read some of the articles you will get the idea this is a growing problem.  The program results : calories have been cut, portions cut, and food sources changed to fit the new guidelines. Forced nutritional changes, to curb obesity in a low percentage of students, is causing major problems. Problems that could potentially bankrupt the school meal program. Junk food to fill an empty belly is not the desired outcome nor is the loss of school meals.


A report from the Government Accountability Office cited increased food waste, loss of school revenue due to decreased sales and increased administrative costs among the headaches created by the new regulations.

You make some excellent points . . . . . . we've got to educate the kids to the consequences of eating that pleasure food but if they are athletic and/or very active they need sufficient caloric intake to sustain the mind and the body.

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

knothead wrote:Like many others who have posted on this subject, I, too, have fond memories of the food . . . . the smell . . . the satisfaction of a great lunch.  At our school it was .25 . . . . I was allotted .35 which allowed me to spend the other dime at my discretion.  I usually saved those in a secret place at home.  The food, however, was good or at least very acceptable . . . .. I cannot attest to how fresh or nutritious it was but I suspect it was both.

Those criticizing or making mean-spirited remarks directed at "Moochelle" should be ashamed of themselves but that is the cost of free speech.  The concept of providing fresh and nutritious lunches for kids is more than a laudable endeavor . . . . it is an uphill climb to change the attitudes of these kids but it's either grow up to to be a "disgusting fat body' (re: Full Metal Jacket) or change these kids views of taking responsibility for their eating habits.  I say Moochelle is on the right track . . . .  

  

I don't think it's the right track and I'm not ashamed of saying so. If you read about the problems associated with trying to  maintain good nutrition and cutting calories, you might understand. 

Since the implementation of the program... Less children are eating the school lunches, more food is wasted, and the schools are loosing money.  If it keeps going......there will not be any school prepared lunches. 

 Overweight children are receiving about 25% of their meals at school......the other 75% at home. Healthy active kids do not need reduced portions and reduced calories just because 14% of kids are overweight.

*****************************************************

Joani,

I will respond to your post but not to the ignorance of PD.  You are smart and informed . . . . . would you agree that this is going to require a learning curve and incentivise smart decisions? It's irrelevant that kids turn their nose up at healthy food initially but like all things it requires an informed and respected source (educators) to drive in their knuckleheads the benefits of healthy eating habits and the dire consequences of poor eating habits.

Healthy eating habits are very important and food has to be palatable and nutritious. I said earlier the new program is not benefiting all the children.  Many of the indigent students, the ones that need a good meal in the middle of the day, are not eating the food. Kids involved in school sports are not getting enough needed calories to maintain their activities. Some schools report kids  bringing junk food snacks  because they are hungry. Junk food defeats the program. Give them healthy food that they will eat. 

Teach children about the benefits of healthy nutrition, moderation, and physical exercise.


If you read some of the articles you will get the idea this is a growing problem.  The program results : calories have been cut, portions cut, and food sources changed to fit the new guidelines. Forced nutritional changes, to curb obesity in a low percentage of students, is causing major problems. Problems that could potentially bankrupt the school meal program. Junk food to fill an empty belly is not the desired outcome nor is the loss of school meals.


A report from the Government Accountability Office cited increased food waste, loss of school revenue due to decreased sales and increased administrative costs among the headaches created by the new regulations.

You make some excellent points . . . . . . we've got to educate the kids to the consequences of eating that pleasure food but if they are athletic and/or very active they need sufficient caloric intake to sustain the mind and the body.

Yes, they do.  

Obesity is a multi-faceted problem. Lunches served at school are a very small part of the equation.

 Schools have reported the school lunches are the only hot meal some kids get...I would rather see them eat instead of feeding it to the garbage can.

Not a huge caloric intake to sit in front of a screen watching video games, using "social media" or watching TV.

Government is being immensely successful in teaching a parent or parents that they are not necessary to feed their children, or even make decisions. They don't even have to get out of bed to fix breakfast or lunch for the kids. Government will make those decisions and teach your children that it is not their parents upon whom they should depend but rather GOVERNMENT. What can go wrong with that idea? I've read that dinner is being offered in some locations.

Markle wrote:Not a huge caloric intake to sit in front of a screen watching video games, using "social media" or watching TV.

Government is being immensely successful in teaching a parent or parents that they are not necessary to feed their children, or even make decisions.   They don't even have to get out of bed to fix breakfast or lunch for the kids.  Government will make those decisions and teach your children that it is not their parents upon whom they should depend but rather GOVERNMENT.  What can go wrong with that idea?  I've read that dinner is being offered in some locations.

LOL.......the truth will hurt some on this forum.

I had to think back on what I expected from the schools when my kids attended.

I wanted competent teachers, up to date curriculum, environment conducive to learning, adequate teaching materials, a proper student teacher ratio and a good physical education program ...... Lunch was not a priority at all.

I never felt it was the schools responsibility to provide and control my child's diet.....that was my responsibility, my job as a parent, and none of their business.

 I did expect edible food to be served and I always checked the menu to make sure my kids liked what was being offered each day.... If they didn't like it they took their lunch. As far as adequate nutrition.....my job.

Joanimaroni wrote:

Markle wrote:Not a huge caloric intake to sit in front of a screen watching video games, using "social media" or watching TV.

Government is being immensely successful in teaching a parent or parents that they are not necessary to feed their children, or even make decisions.   They don't even have to get out of bed to fix breakfast or lunch for the kids.  Government will make those decisions and teach your children that it is not their parents upon whom they should depend but rather GOVERNMENT.  What can go wrong with that idea?  I've read that dinner is being offered in some locations.

LOL.......the truth will hurt some on this forum.

I had to think back on what I expected from the schools when my kids attended.

I wanted competent teachers, up to date curriculum, environment conducive to learning, adequate teaching materials, a proper student teacher ratio and a good physical education program ...... Lunch was not a priority at all.

I never felt it was the schools responsibility to provide and control my child's diet.....that was my responsibility, my job as a parent, and none of their business.

 I did expect edible food to be served and I always checked the menu to make sure my kids liked what was being offered each day.... If they didn't like it they took their lunch. As far as adequate nutrition.....my job.

My how times have changed!

A recently retired Teachers Union official may have touched on the reason for the changes in a speech.

.
National Education Association General Counsel Bob Chanin stated in July 2009.

Chanin: "It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwxiRXqH_hQ&NR=1

Says it all, does it not?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

knothead wrote:Like many others who have posted on this subject, I, too, have fond memories of the food . . . . the smell . . . the satisfaction of a great lunch.  At our school it was .25 . . . . I was allotted .35 which allowed me to spend the other dime at my discretion.  I usually saved those in a secret place at home.  The food, however, was good or at least very acceptable . . . .. I cannot attest to how fresh or nutritious it was but I suspect it was both.

Those criticizing or making mean-spirited remarks directed at "Moochelle" should be ashamed of themselves but that is the cost of free speech.  The concept of providing fresh and nutritious lunches for kids is more than a laudable endeavor . . . . it is an uphill climb to change the attitudes of these kids but it's either grow up to to be a "disgusting fat body' (re: Full Metal Jacket) or change these kids views of taking responsibility for their eating habits.  I say Moochelle is on the right track . . . .  

Moochelle needs to take her own advice then....her rear end is as big as a school bus.

Me thinks p-dog is as blind as he is ignorant.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:This is insane!  They should just ask the kids what they want to eat and then give it to them.  What kind of irresponsible person would dare give kids food that is nutritious, particularly when they are in a learning environment?  I say give them all the junk and sugar that they want.  On one hand, it tastes great to kids.  On the other hand, countless studies have shown that a diet high in processed sugar goes along way in preparing the juvenile brain for learning and really enhances a kid's ability to focus on stuff that they would otherwise find boring.  Plus there are all the dental benefits.  I could go on but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here.

Well, what's the point if kids won't eat it or parents won't buy it from the cafeteria? Having eaten blah, blah, now and the workers are members of that company (Sodexho in Santa Rosa County). These companies are in business to make a profit and were probably doing fine until now.

It has never been a better time to be a corporation in the U.S. than the present.
Check out the facts if you far-righties dare:
http://mam.econoday.com/byshoweventfull.asp?fid=456139&cust=mam&year=2013&lid=0&prev=/byweek.asp#top

U.S. corporations are enjoying record profits. Nice try, p-dog.
Your rationalizations of why we should not care about our school children's health are illogical and unreasonable.
And, again, you only oppose this because of the black guy and his black wife.
Sad, pathetic, and despicable.

Joanimaroni wrote:LOL....Flying by the seat of your pants?  Michelle wants to ration the portions and cut calories. Students don't get FAT on school lunches. The source of the problem is junk food at home and a lack of physical activity.

Total calorie consumption = t

School calorie consumption = s

Home calorie consumption = h

h + s = t

What happens to t if we decrease s? Hmm. That's a tough one.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

boards of FL wrote: Let's end Michelle's efforts and then just introduce McDonald's and Burger King into the public school cafeteria.  The moral of the story here is that adults are completely powerless and kids call all the shots with respect to their diets.  

Yes end her efforts. She's a ditz that doesn't even eat what she tells others to eat. In the hood they would call that "talking out the side of her neck".

As for this statement:
The moral of the story here is that adults are completely powerless and kids call all the shots with respect to their diets.  

You have ZERO children obviously.  When mom and dad are not there, what do you think they will eat?

I don't need children.  I used to be one (and some on this forum apparently still are...).  And I ate whatever my parents put in front of me whether I liked it or not.  Then again, my parents were rationally thinking human beings who had a firm grasp on the relationship and responsibilities that exist between guardians and children.

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:LOL....Flying by the seat of your pants?  Michelle wants to ration the portions and cut calories. Students don't get FAT on school lunches. The source of the problem is junk food at home and a lack of physical activity.

Total calorie consumption = t

School calorie consumption = s

Home calorie consumption = h

h + s = t

What happens to t if we decrease s?  Hmm.  That's a tough one.

Damn....that is a tough one, especially since you left part of the equation out- exercise ( let's call it E).

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:LOL....Flying by the seat of your pants?  Michelle wants to ration the portions and cut calories. Students don't get FAT on school lunches. The source of the problem is junk food at home and a lack of physical activity.

Total calorie consumption = t

School calorie consumption = s

Home calorie consumption = h

h + s = t

What happens to t if we decrease s?  Hmm.  That's a tough one.

Damn....that is a tough one, especially since you left part of the equation out- exercise ( let's call it E).

With or without E, if we hold all else constant, what happens when s decreases?

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:LOL....Flying by the seat of your pants?  Michelle wants to ration the portions and cut calories. Students don't get FAT on school lunches. The source of the problem is junk food at home and a lack of physical activity.

Total calorie consumption = t

School calorie consumption = s

Home calorie consumption = h

h + s = t

What happens to t if we decrease s?  Hmm.  That's a tough one.

Damn....that is a tough one, especially since you left part of the equation out- exercise ( let's call it E).

With or without E, if we hold all else constant, what happens when s decreases?

Did you read my posts from last night. What happens when a kid skips the nutritious low cal school lunch? Hmm....Dammit,  we have to add  to the equation- junk food (let's call it J)

Joanimaroni wrote:Did you read my posts from last night. What happens when a kid skips the nutritious low cal school lunch? Hmm....Dammit,  we have to add  to the equation- junk food (let's call it J)

The kid who skips will not reap the benefit of a nutritious lunch.  Then there are kids who don't skip the nutritious lunch.

Which is more optimal:

A)  All kids eat junk

B)  Some kids eat junk and some kids eat a nutritious lunch


Perhaps you should take a moment to pause and think about what you are arguing against here.   You are arguing against the idea of providing nutritious food in public schools.  You are arguing against the idea of promoting a healthy diet to kids in their formative years.  These concepts seem like no-brainers.

I will never forget the time, when I was about 6 or so...my dad gave me a fried egg for breakfast, and I had developed an aversion to fried eggs...so I got the egg at dinner...but I have to say that I was completely spoiled on food as a child...fishing, some hunting, fresh eggs from the farm, fresh veggies...sometimes picked by me...barbeque...Tex-Mex...the only thing I can remember not wanting to eat was my mom's Sherried Shrimp...even the dog wouldn't touch it.