School lunch programs.

[Whistlebritches]

The no peanuts or peanut-butter thing is almost assuredly because of allergies. I'm only familiar with one elementary school but the peanut allergy kids have their own table in the lunch room separated by quite a bit of space from everyone else. In the classroom, neither the teachers or the students can have snacks with peanuts in them if there is someone in the room that is allergic.

 

Heating up lunches? Maybe it's because I graduated so long ago but that sounds completely foreign to me. Is the school supposed to supply microwave ovens for the students to use? Grown adults in workplaces everywhere struggle to keep them clean and in working order. It's no surprise to me a school wouldn't want to deal with that.....and then there is the cost issue of having them.

 

I don't know why corporate logos would be banned.

[krc1995]

I am a teacher so perhaps I have a different perspective. I support the no heating rule. You cannot have one teacher going to the staff lunch room, likely a fair distance, to heat up kid's lunches. It's not possible and its not practical. Logos are not allowed at the elementary level because if one kid brings a bag of doritos, all of them want it. You even have to pour juice into a container.

[ZRod]

I don't know why corporate logos would be banned.

Because it's almost guaranteed to be processed food with little nutritional value.

[Moiraine]

I don't know why corporate logos would be banned.

Because it's almost guaranteed to be processed food with little nutritional value.

 

My first thought is that certain corporations sponsor schools so they can have their products sold there. Perhaps if Coke is the sponsor they don't want people bringing in Pepsi bags.

 

Edit: just read krc's post so nm

 

 

As far as banning sack lunches... I think I would either fight that or remove my kids from the school.

[knapplc]

I am a teacher so perhaps I have a different perspective. I support the no heating rule. You cannot have one teacher going to the staff lunch room, likely a fair distance, to heat up kid's lunches. It's not possible and its not practical. Logos are not allowed at the elementary level because if one kid brings a bag of doritos, all of them want it. You even have to pour juice into a container.

 

You work in a ridiculously controlling school district. Yikes.

[krc1995]

I am a teacher so perhaps I have a different perspective. I support the no heating rule. You cannot have one teacher going to the staff lunch room, likely a fair distance, to heat up kid's lunches. It's not possible and its not practical. Logos are not allowed at the elementary level because if one kid brings a bag of doritos, all of them want it. You even have to pour juice into a container.

 

You work in a ridiculously controlling school district. Yikes.

the silverlining is that your kids probably should not get use to eating out of a bag or a wrapper.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess our school isn't the only one that is tired of this crap.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/students-strike-against-new-federal-school-lunch-rules-t96t7sp-170124676.html

[BigRedBuster]

I applaud this effort.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/house-republicans-introdu_n_1893936.html

 

Thanks but no-thanks Michelle.

[knapplc]

Why "thanks but no thanks?" 850 calories of healthier food is plenty for high school students. Why should the government be required to provide more calories for these kids if they choose to be athletes? At what point do we say enough to living off the government dole and provide the extra calories athletes need ourselves? Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

[carlfense]

I applaud this effort.

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1893936.html

 

Thanks but no-thanks Michelle.

From your link:

"The goal of the school lunch program was -- and is -- to ensure students receive enough nutrition to be healthy and to learn," said Rep. King, according to Food Safety News. "The misguided nanny state, as advanced by Michelle Obama's 'Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act,' was interpreted by Secretary Vilsack to be a directive that, because some kids are overweight, he would put every child on a diet. Parents know that their kids deserve all of the healthy and nutritious food they want."

So . . . Rep. King doesn't argue that the government shouldn't be providing school lunches . . . but any effort to make those government-provided lunches healthy is advancing a "misguided nanny state?" Then he goes on to say that the government should be providing more services and more food? Is this bizzarro world?

 

Is the argument that we lose freedom if the government tries to ensure that the meals provided by the government are healthy?

 

(Our freedom was so much greater when Reagan's USDA argued that ketchup was a vegetable.)

[carlfense]

Why "thanks but no thanks?" 850 calories of healthier food is plenty for high school students. Why should the government be required to provide more calories for these kids if they choose to be athletes? At what point do we say enough to living off the government dole and provide the extra calories athletes need ourselves? Whatever happened to personal responsibility.

Freedom = unhealthy government meals

Nanny state = healthy government meals

[teachercd]

You guys are looking to place blame, blame the parents. Look, its the parents that start these things by complaining about EVERYTHING

[BigRedBuster]

Teachercd...

 

If you are talking about my side of this, it was my kids who came home every day for the first several weeks of school constantly complaining about the school lunches. The same thing happened to all of the families in our community.

 

Now, I agree that the blame needs to be pointed to the parents but not for what you're saying. The parents need to take control of what their kids eat and THAT is where the obesity problem will improve.

 

Knapp...

 

Thanks but no-thanks to Michelle simply because she is the face of this movement.

 

Carl....

 

No place have I ever said anything about "nany state". But, this is a perfect example of good intentions by the federal government totally failing in practice.

 

This needs to be a local issue. I am fine with the federal government giving guidelines as to what the "recommend". But, these decisions need to be handled on the local level.

[carlfense]

Carl....

 

No place have I ever said anything about "nany state".

I didn't say that you said "nanny state." The article that you linked contained a quote from Rep. King that used the phrase.

 

But, this is a perfect example of good intentions by the federal government totally failing in practice.

 

This needs to be a local issue. I am fine with the federal government giving guidelines as to what the "recommend". But, these decisions need to be handled on the local level.

So the federal government should just cut a check with no strings attached? Or should school lunches be funded on a local level as well?

[The Dude]

our school is one step from saying kids can't bring their own lunch. Right now, you can't bring anything that requires heating or anything in a box or bag that has corporate logos. You also can't bring peanuts or peanut butter. I have a friend that is a dietician for the school system and she mentioned that it has been brought up that a few school board members would like to "outlaw" sack lunches. If our school forbids lunches brought from home I think I'll see if my doctor will write an excuse that my son is allergic to pink slime.

Pink slime is goddamn delicious.