Congress pushes back on healthier school lunches

[TeyshaBlue]

Vanilla mayo ftw....

[Drachen]

Vanilla mayo ftw....

:lol

oddly enough, it is only the scent. I can eat vanilla ice cream.

[AFBlue]

But the parents aren't controlling what their kids eat when they're at school. Packing a lunch is kind of ridiculous when kids don't have access to refrigerators. Would you want to eat a stinking piece of chicken that's been sitting out for 5 hours? Bacteria grows like hell on food between 40 and 140 degrees.

There's nothing wrong with packing a lunch as there many items to serve cold or at room temperature. There are also insulated containers that keep food cold enough to prevent growth of bacteria.

[AFBlue]

Parents tend their sick children all the time. You can characterize everything as condescending with that standard. Dieticians and nutritionists are real occupations as well. Instead of looking at it like 'daddy' look at it like nutritionist and you can get over it. The food is unhealthy shit. If nothing else call for it to be shut down if you want to bitch about any federal involvement in anything.

Do parents administer x-rays? I don't think so. That's the logic strain that was used by someone else, and that is what I was arguing. I have no idea how to respond to the rest of your rant.

[AFBlue]

I am sorry, but this is a bit of a bad argument. I (or my wife) pack my daughter's lunch every day. I ate packed lunches when I was a kid. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it is even better nowadays with the cooler bags and those refreezeable cold packs.


This is the gist of her what we pack for her.

A ham and cheese/turkey and cheese/roast beef and cheese, etc. sandwich with mayo, tomato and lettuce.

A yogurt,

A cut up apple/orange/grapes

Then for snack time:

A cheese stick / bag of gold fish / or something of the sort.

For a drink at each meal, we have those fruitables that I was talking about upstream


If we have leftovers that she really liked or wants, we will send a small tupperware of that with her and if it is something that needs to be kept cold, we put one of those ice packs in with her lunch.

Her "lunch box" is a "cooler bag" that is shaped like a purse that keeps the stuff pretty cool.

Oh and to be clear, this is very similar to my lunch most of the time (minus the mayo - disgusting), so I make sure to keep switching out the meats, cheese, and fruit that we have to keep things new.

:tu

[Drachen]

:tu

I do want to say that despite the fact that I do this, I still am all for regulations that public institutions should be providing far more healthy options and far fewer unhealthy options. If for whatever reason I cannot make lunch, I cannot be there to choose the one (maybe) healthy option that is offered amongst the 7 or 8 unhealthy options. Additionally, the packing the lunch thing costs more than a reduced or free lunch. If I was to ever have to take advantage of the program, the same argument applies. Lastly, I am in the minority, and its not some of the kids' fault that their parents suck, yet they are suffering.

[Agloco]

Are parents responsible for administering x-rays? I just don't think the reasoning proves out, because it's within the realm of expertise and ultimate responsibility for parents to control what their kids eat. I think there's some tolerance for when the federal government plays "doctor", but there's understandably less when it plays "daddy".


This isn't about controlling what parents give their children is it? It's about what schools give the children. In that context, the logic does indeed prove out. You as a parent want the same assurance that good nutritional standards are being met at your child's school, just as you would like for your friendly radiologist to follow good radiation limiting protocols when deciding which exam is best for you. Both necessarily entiail some broad oversight.

[Wild Cobra]

---oooopppppsssss----

[Wild Cobra]

I do want to say that despite the fact that I do this, I still am all for regulations that public institutions should be providing far more healthy options and far fewer unhealthy options. If for whatever reason I cannot make lunch, I cannot be there to choose the one (maybe) healthy option that is offered amongst the 7 or 8 unhealthy options. Additionally, the packing the lunch thing costs more than a reduced or free lunch. If I was to ever have to take advantage of the program, the same argument applies. Lastly, I am in the minority, and its not some of the kids' fault that their parents suck, yet they are suffering.
Maybe that's part of the problem.

If kids are getting reduced or free lunches, then they should qualify for food stamps also. Maybe the solution is not to have reduced or free lunches since the families are already getting subsidies.

I say make the parents pack a lunch if they can't afford the meal price.

[Agloco]

If Oregon implemented the polices, I wouldn't argue like I am now. I am a firm believer in States Rights, and people who want an ever growing federal government really piss me off.

At least you came clean.

[Agloco]

Maybe that's part of the problem.

If kids are getting reduced or free lunches, then they should qualify for food stamps also. Maybe the solution is not to have reduced or free lunches since the families are already getting subsidies.

I say make the parents pack a lunch if they can't afford the meal price.

You know what a bigger problem is? You not do any sort of research before posting. Qualifying for reduced or free lunch does not automatically make one eligible for food stamps.

Even if it were true, what you posted here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Wild Cobra]

You know what a bigger problem is? You not do any sort of research before posting. Qualifying for reduced or free lunch does not automatically make one eligible for food stamps.

Even if it were true, what you posted here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Just the same, people need to be responsible for their kids health and not expect the government to be Nanny.

I agree it would be best to have the schools offer healthier options. I just want to see the federal governments intrusion in our lives become less. Not more. Why si it soo hard to address this at a local level?

[Drachen]

Maybe that's part of the problem.

If kids are getting reduced or free lunches, then they should qualify for food stamps also. Maybe the solution is not to have reduced or free lunches since the families are already getting subsidies.

I say make the parents pack a lunch if they can't afford the meal price.

This is untrue. Thanks for playing.
Would you like to continue with your (consistently false) assumptions?

[Winehole23]

WC often muses ex tempore. Is there an intellectual equivalent of skinny dippin?

[Drachen]

WC often muses ex tempore. Is there an intellectual equivalent of skinny dippin?

Don't associate good times with WC...

[Agloco]

Just the same, people need to be responsible for their kids health and not expect the government to be Nanny.

I agree it would be best to have the schools offer healthier options. I just want to see the federal governments intrusion in our lives become less. Not more. Why si it soo hard to address this at a local level?

I agree with that in principle. I think your real argument is with the concept of school lunches themselves rather than their content. If you always come back to "parents responsibility" , then abolishing the school lunch program is what you should be pushing.

Why not at a local level? Because the nutritional needs of a kid in NJ are largely the same as one in WY. Its critical that standards be exactly that, standard.

[Winehole23]

@ Drachen

lol

[Drachen]

@ Drachen

lol

Don't worry, I got ya the first time.

[Winehole23]

I just meant that his arguments, such as they are, are often brutal, dirty and shabbily dressed.

[LnGrrrR]

WC often muses ex tempore. Is there an intellectual equivalent of skinny dippin?

Being fucking retarded is the common vernacular, I believe.

[Winehole23]

Don't worry, I got ya the first time.Got you, too. Hence lol.:toast

[Drachen]

I just meant that his arguments, such as they are, are often brutal, dirty and shabbily dressed.


LOL

Being fucking retarded is the common vernacular, I believe.

True, there he goes using his cockroach logic.

[Winehole23]

@LNGR:

It was in my childhood, too, but can't we settle on a cliche that's somewhat less brutally offensive to people who have legit mental development issues? This is after all a public forum and not a locker room or even a sub locker room.


(Just us chickens in here, boss.)

[Winehole23]

feel free to disregard, LNGR. just wanted to register strong feelings on this count.

[Winehole23]

it's bad manners

[Winehole23]

also, a bad simile IMHO

[LnGrrrR]

@LNGR:

It was in my childhood, too, but can't we settle on a cliche that's somewhat less brutally offensive to people who have legit mental development issues? This is after all a public forum and not a locker room or even a sub locker room.


(Just us chickens in here, boss.)

I really think that in this case, using polite language fails us, as it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi. To use polite language would merely be putting a curtain up over a grimy, stained window, or using incense to cover up the smell of a rotting corpse. The window is still grimy, the corpse is still there. In this case, WC's beleaguered thinking requires us to refer to it as it is, in the most open, honest, and sincerest of terms.

[AFBlue]

This isn't about controlling what parents give their children is it? It's about what schools give the children. In that context, the logic does indeed prove out. You as a parent want the same assurance that good nutritional standards are being met at your child's school, just as you would like for your friendly radiologist to follow good radiation limiting protocols when deciding which exam is best for you. Both necessarily entiail some broad oversight.

In that vacuum the logic does indeed prove out, but I would argue the fact that parents have the control and ultimate responsibility can't be ignored. As a parent I want some assurance that my children have the option to choose a healthy meal. Further, I believe that if that option was not presented, I would be able to influence change at the local level. I do not believe the federal government has that responsibility, and therefore should not have the authority to legislate change.

[Winehole23]

fair enough LNGR. i say it sometimes too, but it no longer sits right with me.

[LnGrrrR]

fair enough LNGR. i say it sometimes too, but it no longer sits right with me.

You obviously haven't been reading the Occupy thread. That said, if you must divorce it from the vulgar, I would suggest something that implies disease and disorder. Skinny dipping is far too neutral.

[Winehole23]

ok. noted.

[Winehole23]

You obviously haven't been reading the Occupy thread. That said, if you must divorce it from the vulgar, I would suggest something that implies disease and disorder. Skinny dipping is far too neutral.I don't fight every battle. I try to choose carefully. I don't mind losing.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't fight every battle. I try to choose carefully. I don't mind losing.

I pick and choose as well... usually. I drive-by here and there of course. There's just been quite a few civil liberty violations/threads as of late, hence my increased activity.

Is "itchy scrotum" a bit too vulgar? :lol

[Winehole23]

for what, a personal disclosure?

[Winehole23]

Vulgar in its unelaborated form, but perhaps not too vulgar for this forum, in fact a bit prosaic.

[Winehole23]

itchy balls: guiding emblem of leisure time

[Winehole23]

also, WC, besides being everybody's personal pin-ya-ta, is just a dude behind a keyboard. It's not helpful in any respect to call him retarded, but in fairness, perhaps it's not intended to be.

[Winehole23]

:worthy::worthy:
You'll have to excuse him, he went to pray the gay away with a flog.:worthy::worthy:

[LnGrrrR]

Vulgar in its unelaborated form, but perhaps not too vulgar for this forum, in fact a bit prosaic.

WC's posts are akin to an itchy scrotum. You know it's unhealthy to engage, and it will probably make you look stupid, but sometimes you just have to scratch.

[LnGrrrR]

also, WC, besides being everybody's personal pin-ya-ta, is just a dude behind a keyboard. It's not helpful in any respect to call him retarded, but in fairness, perhaps it's not intended to be.

Not really. When WC deigns to use his brain in a topic, then I deign to recognize him as a person. When he devolves into mindless paranoia, bias, and outright folly, I see no need to engage him as a person looking for actual discussion. Others are more tolerant than I though, to be sure.

[Agloco]

In that vacuum the logic does indeed prove out, but I would argue the fact that parents have the control and ultimate responsibility can't be ignored. As a parent I want some assurance that my children have the option to choose a healthy meal. Further, I believe that if that option was not presented, I would be able to influence change at the local level. I do not believe the federal government has that responsibility, and therefore should not have the authority to legislate change.

In that case ill refer you to my response to WC.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5476112&postcount=266

If you come back to the parental responsibility argument then your real beef is with the existence of school lunches, not with their nutritional content. This particular discussion hinges on that.

Additionally, if your argument is one of local vs federal control, thats better stated up front.

[boutons_deux]

I think we are in a totally polluted, toxic culture where UCA pushes their pathogenic shit (esp food and drugs) everywhere, all the time.

UCA loves to addict them young, hook kids on their shit, junk food-like salty/greasy/sweet substances, cigarettes.

Informed parents have an extremely hard time overcoming the UCA onslaught.

I sorta agree with WC that one healthy meal at school (some poor kids also eat breakfast at school) isn't going to help much, but it certainly can't hurt. My biggest objection is to govt intervention itself, but USDA intervention to flog/dump the taxypayer subsidized low-food value stuff on a captive audience.

It might help by showing kids how a healthy meal, absent high carb filler like potatoes and corn and estrogenic soy, can be tasteful and satisfying. However, their palates and eyes, jaded by junk food engineered and hyped up with chemicals, flavor/color enhancers, may be beyond reach.

[scott]

On a philosophical level, the role of government is act a correcting force when market failure occurs (and before any of the wingbats chime in - markets fail. Even the staunchest of staunch free market supporters will agree with that) or when local government is either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary.

The question become: how did "unhealthy junk" become the default for school lunches? By schools providing healthy lunches, the government has not infringed upon your right to feed your kid a bunch of junk food - you still retain that right, you'll just have to provide that junk for the kid for yourself.

As for "why the federal government, why not the local level?" Great question. Why Not the local level? At some point for the health of our nation's citizens we can't sit around and wait for a bunch of localities to get off their ass and do something obvious.

To recap, with mandated healthier school-provided lunches:

1) If you want your kid to be fat, you still retain the right to do so.
2) If you want the school to feed your kid, then the default is going to be a healthy, balanced meal. We're not talking about a sprout sandwich on unleavened stone ground wheat... but you know, just a regular well-balance meal. A healthy portion of meat with a side of carbs and a side of veggies.

This is also overlooking the fact that, from an economic perspective, *all* school lunches are subsidized either directly or indirectly. Even if the exact cost of the lunch were passed along to a student who did not qualify for direct subsidies, the economies of scale the district experiences lowers the cost for all students, thus providing a de facto subsidy. It's blows my mind that we would want our publicly available, subsidized lunches to be defaulted to "unhealthy shit"

[scott]

also, WC, besides being everybody's personal pin-ya-ta, is just a dude behind a keyboard. It's not helpful in any respect to call him retarded, but in fairness, perhaps it's not intended to be.

Am I the only one getting creepy PMs from WC crying about how he is mistreated in this forum?

[CosmicCowboy]

Am I the only one getting creepy PMs from WC crying about how he is mistreated in this forum?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[scott]

Do you realize how unethical you are, and how evil your motives are when you have to always find bad in others?

Why can't we ever have civil thread.

Fuck off troll.


I don't always find bad in others, I just always find stupid in your posts and I'm not even trying.

We "can't ever have civil thread" because you simply lack the mental capacity to do so.

Given your history of stalking, it is best you voluntarily fade away into the ether now as opposed to by an eventual restraining order.



Maybe you should stop stalking me. How can you be so vile as to turn a civil thread into a personal attack.

You are such a loser it's ridiculous. You remind me of he 1st grade bullies that had such low self esteem, they had to attack others to feel good about themselves.

How much more pathetic can you be? Attacking me in a thread just because you don't like me.


Are you going to tell your mommy?

I'll make sure to keep you posted on updates. Since I'm so unethical, I don't know why WC didn't foresee that I would post all these.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll make sure to keep you posted on updates. Since I'm so unethical, I don't know why WC didn't foresee that I would post all these.
I see you're telling your mommy.

Nice job crybaby.

[scott]

WC, I come to these forums for entertainment purposes. You provide countless hours of unintentional comedy. I'm not telling my mommy because I don't want you to stop. I want you to increase your efforts. Please continue!

[Blake]

Am I the only one getting creepy PMs from WC crying about how he is mistreated in this forum?

lol

The difference between sandusky and this forum is quite clear:

If you don't like getting thrown against the shower walls, then put some fucking clothes on and get out.

[Wild Cobra]

Scott left out something I think is important. Here is my post to him:



You realize your "I don't know so I just assume" mentality to everything is about 25% of the reason everyone here thinks you're a complete moron, right?Do you realize how unethical you are, and how evil your motives are when you have to always find bad in others?

Why can't we ever have civil thread.

Fuck off troll.
I simply replied to him in person rather than a thread that I was attacked in without provocation. I simply wish we could have civil threads.

Fuck off Scott. Stop stalking me.

[boutons_deux]

"I was attacked in without provocation."

You are a standing provocation.

[Wild Cobra]

"I was attacked in without provocation."

You are a standing provocation.
No, that's you. Look in a mirror lately?

[scott]

Scott left out something I think is important. Here is my post to him:


I simply replied to him in person rather than a thread that I was attacked in without provocation. I simply wish we could have civil threads.

Fuck off Scott. Stop stalking me.

You clearly fail to understand what stalking is.

What you did to that girl you met on MySpace is stalking.

Me responding to a stupid statement you made in a public forum (and the post was at the top of the forum list), is not stalking.

[boutons_deux]

I INTEND to provoke, since the shithole the VRWC/UCA has pushed the country into provokes me intensely. Can't take the pushback, can you, right-wingers?

[AFBlue]

In that case ill refer you to my response to WC.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5476112&postcount=266

If you come back to the parental responsibility argument then your real beef is with the existence of school lunches, not with their nutritional content. This particular discussion hinges on that.

Additionally, if your argument is one of local vs federal control, thats better stated up front.

I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the parent to provide meals for their kids, but I don't have a problem with schools offering lunch programs. Further, I think I've stated that any decisions about the existing school program could and should be handled at a level below the federal government.

[CosmicCowboy]

Interesting note...recently here in SA there was a news story about how the free lunch programs have become a profit center for the school districts...there is actually a financial incentive for the schools to bend the rules and get as many kids enrolled as possible because the Feds pay more per lunch than the cost of the meal or the charge to the "non-free" student lunches...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't always find bad in others, I just always find stupid in your posts and I'm not even trying.

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin: rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[scott]

I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the parent to provide meals for their kids, but I don't have a problem with schools offering lunch programs. Further, I think I've stated that any decisions about the existing school program could and should be handled at a level below the federal government.

I raise this question:

Whereas obesity affects the entire nation by increasing the real cost of health care for everyone, why should the cost of some school board in Alabama to serve nothing but Hot Pockets be subsidized by the entire nation?

Aside from the fact that levels below the federal government aren't handling the issue, why should a problem with a national impact be dealt with by a series of local solutions?

[AFBlue]

I raise this question:

Whereas obesity affects the entire nation by increasing the real cost of health care for everyone, why should the cost of some school board in Alabama to serve nothing but Hot Pockets be subsidized by the entire nation?

Aside from the fact that levels below the federal government aren't handling the issue, why should a problem with a national impact be dealt with by a series of local solutions?

There's a school board in Alabama that serves nothing but Hot Pockets?

[AFBlue]

To clarify, my re-direct is a response to your assertion that school districts will default to the most unhealthy option if they aren't legislated on what to serve and not to serve. I jus think it's a bad assumption. Further, where is the research that suggests obesity, and by extension healthcare costs, are directly tied to the school lunchroom.

[scott]

To clarify, my re-direct is a response to your assertion that school districts will default to the most unhealthy option if they aren't legislated on what to serve and not to serve. I jus think it's a bad assumption. Further, where is the research that suggests obesity, and by extension healthcare costs, are directly tied to the school lunchroom.

Is it that hard to imagine school districts defaulting to unhealthy options? Just look around.

Obviously the link isn't that unhealthy lunches cause obesity, but to require that burden seems a bit steep don't you think? Unhealthy diets lead to obesity, and whereas school lunches are part of that diet, they are a part of the problem.

[boutons_deux]

"imagine school districts defaulting to unhealthy options"

the link I posted above showed how the govt buying excess production dumped some of it on the schools, who, thanks to the Banksters' Great Depression and insane tax cutting, love cheap, filling crap above any question of quality. And it's from the govt and our own BigFarm megacorps, what could be wrong with GMO/x-cide polluted stuff?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is it that hard to imagine school districts defaulting to unhealthy options? Just look around.

Obviously the link isn't that unhealthy lunches cause obesity, but to require that burden seems a bit steep don't you think? Unhealthy diets lead to obesity, and whereas school lunches are part of that diet, they are a part of the problem.

It also comes down to what is defined as healthy. Pizza is a perfect "food triangle" food ( The food triangle being the golden standard of a healthy meal for at least 60 years)...bread, vegetable, cheese, and meat all wrapped up in one serving...:p:

[AFBlue]

Is it that hard to imagine school districts defaulting to unhealthy options? Just look around.

Obviously the link isn't that unhealthy lunches cause obesity, but to require that burden seems a bit steep don't you think? Unhealthy diets lead to obesity, and whereas school lunches are part of that diet, they are a part of the problem.

It's a steep burden of proof, but if you want to assert that school lunchrooms are full of nothing but junk food, you have to do better than "just look around".

[Drachen]

It's a steep burden of proof, but if you want to assert that school lunchrooms are full of nothing but junk food, you have to do better than "just look around".

I posted the neisd middle school lunch menu for November upstream.

[scott]

It's a steep burden of proof, but if you want to assert that school lunchrooms are full of nothing but junk food, you have to do better than "just look around".

I'm also not necessarily suggesting school lunchrooms are full of nothing but junk food, rather I'm suggesting that they should have NO junk food and be nothing but balanced, healthy options. Junk food should be what parents opt into by sending it with their kids, not an option for kids to get on their own, IMO.

[baseline bum]

WC's posts are akin to an itchy scrotum. You know it's unhealthy to engage, and it will probably make you look stupid, but sometimes you just have to scratch.

:rollin

[CuckingFunt]

I've never understood why this argument tends to be based only (or at least primarily) on health concerns, rather than also potential educational benefits. It's anecdotal, I know, but the difference in my attention and energy levels after eating a healthy lunch I brought from home and after eating the fatty, processed crap available at school was night and day. Can't help thinking that a focus on healthier lunches made from actual, real food would lead to a more enthusiastic and engaged student body.

[baseline bum]

This is the gist of her what we pack for her.

A ham and cheese/turkey and cheese/roast beef and cheese, etc. sandwich with mayo, tomato and lettuce.

A yogurt,

A cut up apple/orange/grapes

Then for snack time:

A cheese stick / bag of gold fish / or something of the sort.

For a drink at each meal, we have those fruitables that I was talking about upstream


If we have leftovers that she really liked or wants, we will send a small tupperware of that with her and if it is something that needs to be kept cold, we put one of those ice packs in with her lunch.

Her "lunch box" is a "cooler bag" that is shaped like a purse that keeps the stuff pretty cool.

Oh and to be clear, this is very similar to my lunch most of the time (minus the mayo - disgusting), so I make sure to keep switching out the meats, cheese, and fruit that we have to keep things new.

Fair enough, if you're keeping it reasonably near 40 degrees. I'm with you on skipping the mayo :vomit:

[boutons_deux]

What's wrong with (making your own) mayonnaise?

As usual, the BigFood industrial mayo is tasteless, chemical crap.

recipes all over place. If you've only had factory mayonnaise, you're in for a very big and very pleasant surprise when you make your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayonnaise

[Agloco]

I believe it is ultimately the responsibility of the parent to provide meals for their kids, but I don't have a problem with schools offering lunch programs. Further, I think I've stated that any decisions about the existing school program could and should be handled at a level below the federal government.

I see your argument as being a federal versus local one, a la WC. Here I assume that you're in favor of the healthiest options for your child should you ever be unable to provide lunch for them.

[Agloco]

WC's posts are akin to an itchy scrotum. You know it's unhealthy to engage, and it will probably make you look stupid, but sometimes you just have to scratch.

Ugh...now I have a visual that I really could have done without. :lol

[Agloco]

I sorta agree with WC that one healthy meal at school (some poor kids also eat breakfast at school) isn't going to help much, but it certainly can't hurt. My biggest objection is to govt intervention itself, but USDA intervention to flog/dump the taxypayer subsidized low-food value stuff on a captive audience.

It might help by showing kids how a healthy meal, absent high carb filler like potatoes and corn and estrogenic soy, can be tasteful and satisfying. However, their palates and eyes, jaded by junk food engineered and hyped up with chemicals, flavor/color enhancers, may be beyond reach.

CF brings up a great point above. It more than just the physical benefit. Its about an exposure to healthy foods and the messages sent with your school serving them. Identifying with healthy habits while around your peers can be quite a powerful message for some kids despite what happens at home. Thats anecdotal to be sure, but I believe it to be true for a significant number of kids.

[boutons_deux]

How The Food Industry Eats Your Kid's Lunch

By Lucy Komisar, The New York Times

05 December 11

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs5k/5150-food-industry-processed-kids-lunches120511.jpg

An increasingly cozy alliance between companies that manufacture processed foods and companies that serve the meals is making students - a captive market - fat and sick while pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. At a time of fiscal austerity, these companies are seducing school administrators with promises to cut costs through privatization. Parents who want healthier meals, meanwhile, are outgunned.

Each day, 32 million children in the United States get lunch at schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program, which uses agricultural surplus to feed children. About 21 million of these students eat free or reduced-price meals, a number that has surged since the recession. The program, which also provides breakfast, costs $13.3 billion a year.

Sadly, it is being mismanaged and exploited. About a quarter of the school nutrition program has been privatized, much of it outsourced to food service management giants like Aramark, based in Philadelphia; Sodexo, based in France; and the Chartwells division of the Compass Group, based in Britain. They work in tandem with food manufacturers like the chicken producers Tyson and Pilgrim's, all of which profit when good food is turned to bad.

Here's one way it works. The Agriculture Department pays about $1 billion a year for commodities like fresh apples and sweet potatoes, chickens and turkeys. Schools get the food free; some cook it on site, but more and more pay processors to turn these healthy ingredients into fried chicken nuggets, fruit pastries, pizza and the like. Some $445 million worth of commodities are sent for processing each year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2006.

The Agriculture Department doesn't track spending to process the food, but school authorities do. The Michigan Department of Education, for example, gets free raw chicken worth $11.40 a case and sends it for processing into nuggets at $33.45 a case. The schools in San Bernardino, California, spend $14.75 to make French fries out of $5.95 worth of potatoes.

The money is ill spent. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has warned that sending food to be processed often means lower nutritional value and noted that "many schools continue to exceed the standards for fat, saturated fat and sodium." A 2008 study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that by the time many healthier commodities reach students, "they have about the same nutritional value as junk foods."

Monica Zimmer, a Sodexo spokeswoman, said that "much has changed" since those studies, pointing to the company's support for "nutrition education to encourage young students to eat more fruits and vegetables."

Roland Zullo, a researcher at the University of Michigan, found in 2008 that Michigan schools that hired private food-service management firms spent less on labor and food but more on fees and supplies, yielding "no substantive economic savings." Alarmingly, he even found that privatization was associated with lower test scores, hypothesizing that the high-fat and high- sugar foods served by the companies might be the cause. In a later study, in 2010, Dr. Zullo found that Chartwells was able to trim costs by cutting benefits for workers in Ann Arbor schools, but that the schools didn't end up realizing any savings.

Why is this allowed to happen? Part of it is that school authorities don't want the trouble of overseeing real kitchens. Part of it is that the management companies are saving money by not having to pay skilled kitchen workers.

In addition, the management companies have a cozy relationship with food processers, which routinely pay the companies rebates (typically around 14 percent) in return for contracts. The rebates have generally been kept secret from schools, which are charged the full price.

Last year, Andrew M. Cuomo, then the New York State attorney general, won a $20 million settlement over Sodexo's pocketing of such rebates. Other states are following New York and looking into the rebates; the Agriculture Department began its own inquiry in August.

With the crackdown on these rebates, food service companies have turned to another accounting trick. I found evidence that the rebate abuses are continuing, now under the name of "prompt payment discounts," under an Agriculture Department loophole. These discounts, for payments that are often not prompt at all, are really rebates under another name. New York State requires rebates to be returned to schools, but the Sodexo settlement shows how unevenly the ban has been enforced.

The food service companies I spoke with denied any impropriety. "Our culinary philosophy, as a company, is to promote scratch cooking where possible and encourage variety and nutritionally balanced meals," said Ayde Lyons, a Chartwells spokeswoman. "We use minimally processed foods whenever possible."

There are economic and nutritional consequences to privatization. School kitchen workers are generally unionized, with benefits; they are also typically local residents who have children in public schools and care about their well-being. Laid-off school workers become an economic drain instead of a positive force. And the rebate deals with national food manufacturers cut out local farmers and small producers like bakers, who could offer fresh, healthy food and help the local economy.

Children pay the price. Dr. Zullo found that privately managed school cafeterias offered meals that were higher in sugar and fats and made unhealthy snack items - soda, cookies, potato chips - more readily available. The companies were also less likely to use reduced-sugar recipes. Linda Hugle, a retired school principal in Three Rivers, Oregon, told me that when her district switched to Sodexo, "the savings were paltry." She added, "You pay a little less and your kids get strawberry milk, frozen French fries and artificial shortening."

Advocates who fight for better food face an uphill battle. Dorothy Brayley, executive director of Kids First, a nutrition advocacy group in Pawtucket, R.I., told me she encountered resistance in trying to persuade Sodexo to buy from local farmers. (Sodexo says it does buy some local produce and has opened salad bars in many schools.) Donna D. Walsh, a former school board president in Westchester County, N.Y., told me she worked with a supportive superintendent to get Aramark to stop deep-frying food and to open a salad bar. But after a new superintendent came in, she said, the company went back to profit-driven menus of pizza and bagels.

The federal government could intervene. The Agriculture Department proposed new rules this year that would set maximum calories for school meals; require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains; and limit trans fats.

Not surprisingly, the most committed foes of the rules are the same corporations that make money supplying bad food. Aramark, Sodexo and Chartwells, as well as food processing companies like ConAgra, wrote letters arguing, among other things, that children may not want to eat healthier food.

Any increase in fruit and vegetables might result in "plate waste," wrote Sodexo. A protein requirement at breakfast, Aramark said, would hamper efforts to offer "popular breakfast items." Their lobbying persuaded members of Congress to block a once-a-week limit on starchy vegetables and to continue to allow a few tablespoons of tomato sauce on pizza to count as a vegetable serving. Thanks to that cave-in, children will continue to get their vegetables in the form of potatoes for breakfast and pizza for lunch.

One-third of children from the ages of 6 to 19 are overweight or obese. These children could see their life expectancies shortened because of their vulnerability to diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Unfortunately, profit, not health, is the priority of the food service management companies, food processors and even elected officials. Until more parents demand reform of the school lunch system, children will continue to suffer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/school-lunches-and-the-food-industry.html?pagewanted=all

=======

UCA doing its evil deeds once again, sucking in taxpayer dollars (federal subsidies and local property taxes) and delivering the shittiest, cheapest shit possible.

Let's hear a ROARING CHEER go up from all you blindly PRO-corporate lovers!

That's The Way, uh huh, uh huh, We Like It!

[boutons_deux]

Score One for the Crony Capitalists in the School Lunch Program

In general, the USDA, which seems more concerned with getting food sold than making our children healthy, gets a very poor grade as a nutrition advisor. But it gets worse. Far worse.

Congress just passed an appropriations bill including a particular rider (an additional provision added to a bill which has little connection to the subject matter of the bill) forcing USDA to change its feeble new guidelines in ways that further benefit special interests—and harm kids’ health. Serving the interests of giant food companies, the rider seeks to preserve pizza as a “vegetable” under the school lunch program and also to be sure that unlimited French fries can be served.

http://www.anh-usa.org/crony-capitalists-in-the-school-lunch-program/

=========

UCA and its captured USDA and Congress dumping their shitty, industrially processed, food-like substances into school children. Corporate-Americans fucking up Human-Americans for profit.

[Winehole23]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/baked-cod-miso-and-bok-choy-worlds-healthiest-school-lunches-japan-kyushoku

[RandomGuy]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/baked-cod-miso-and-bok-choy-worlds-healthiest-school-lunches-japan-kyushoku

Cut School Lunch Money To Improve Reading: Arkansas Legislator
https://patch.com/arkansas/little-rock/cut-school-lunch-money-improve-reading-arkansas-legislator

Anything to reduce government spending makes this almost logical. The dumb end of the Republican idea pool.