Comments about ‘Students, parents, educators displeased with new school lunch standards’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 27 2012 7:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
smarty pants
Herriman, UT

I think the schools are trying their best providing fruits and veggies, but sometimes they are not as fresh as they could be. My children tell me the carrots are dry, or the grapes are not firm. I know it's not the same as having those at home all fresh cut. The size of the bread rolls is smaller from last year. So I guess it's fine they want to have more fruits and veggies, it just takes time to re-educate our children. And there is always the option of packing their lunch. Children can be picky, if they don't like the school menu or are still hungry then pack something extra. I'm just sorry not all children have that option. But at least we have school lunches in our public schools. Other countries don't have that at all.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


You said, "Why do people have children if they can't feed them... Everyone had access to school, yet half our people are on welfare... Schools are suppose to feed our kids?... This is not the same America I grew up with."


I'm basing my reply off of our previous discussion on 'paying for moochers'. I do believe that helping children is a good thing and I believe that you do also. I don't believe that people should take help when it isn't needed, that many do, and I'm sure you do too. I also believe that no one's tax dollars should pay into things like welfare if they don't believe it should (based on my beliefs regarding property rights). For the most part, I think we are in agreement so far.

The points I'm most concerned about addressing now:

1) While I believe a more financially sustainable, less 'indebting', and more moral society would not be running a system such as ours (where schools manage lunch, etc)... I wonder if perhaps according to the decisions of our society, that several children would suffer...


A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


'if from our social practices'... that several children would suffer more from taking away the "meal machine" from the parents that just take. (I think the Deseret News ought to consider looking at 'how long' most on welfare, unemployment, etc. have been on it, etc)

I don't like the system and you don't. One may want to go "cold turkey" from the system, but my concern is for children before 'stopping spending'. Consider a family - In the long run, debt free is good. But to stop spending every last dime today, including buying groceries you can't afford, isn't wise either.

I believe Americans were once more charitable (thus our near-socialist systems today were less present then)... but people won't "all the sudden" be charitable.

My questions to you is 1) How could we best 'wean people off' the mooching system? 2) Could you support a 'weaning' instead of a 'cold turkey' approach? 3) If not, do you believe it's right to go cold turkey, even if hurting children? (not justified, but morally right).

These are friendly questions. I'm not sure myself here. I'm merely contemplating the issue.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


Yes, I am aware of my grammar mistakes in my previous posts. lol

While I'm curious about what you'd reply with regarding the 'weaning off' vs 'cold turkey' point- I'm also wanting to look at a couple other things I didn't have room to mention.

2) Even if parents COMPLETELY refused to send their child to school with food, would you refuse to help the kid because of the parents? Is that justified?

What I'm trying to wrestle with here isn't whether our system is working. I believe it's an utter failure. I'm very conservative on this point. But as far as 'stopping' or 'how to move forward', I'm mostly concerned with 1) helping others 2) maintaining my rights as a tax payer and 3) Not just giving to people, but helping people in a self-sustainable way where they because some-reliant. What I can't wrap my head around is "How is that possible while human greed still exists?" Maybe it isn't. It seems like even if I did things my conservative way that seems ideal to me, there is still a problem that remains unaddressed.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

This is interesting. Kids are feeling hungry after eating lunch, but the trash can is overflowing with fruits and vegetables. If the kids get hungry enough, maybe they will learn to finish the food on their plate. That's love and logic, but now we have whiny, enabling parents who complain that kids are getting obese, blame the schools, but then complain when schools try to help the kids eat healthy. We have turned into a self-centered, mentally ill society. With that said, some kids need more food. They have fast metabolisms and are many are quite active and they should be allowed to eat more food, but I think others need to have someone intervene on their behalf.

I'm not sure why schools have to be the ones to fix the obesity problem in this country anyway. It is bad parenting, and parents should be held accountable for not controlling what a child eats at home. A kid can eat healthy at school, but all that is negated as soon as he/she gets home. An obese child is basically a victim of child abuse at the hands of enabling parents.

Mcallen, TX

A voice of Reason,

I'm not against children receiving welfare. They're innocent. It's the irresponsibility of parents having children without means of support.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ worf: One over-zealous teacher took a lunch containing a peanut butter sandwich from a child because the school had a no peanuts policy due to a child with a severe peanut allergy - it had nothing to do with the lunch not "being up to snuff."

@ K: Some lunches are subsidized more than other lunches, but the entire program receives government subsidies. Even children who pay "full price" are having their lunches subsidized to some extent.

@ 3grandslams: When you go to the store and purchase a product, do you take as much as you want? Or do you buy an amount specified by the manufacturer or seller? You buy the amount specified by the person selling the product - when you buy bread, you buy a loaf of bread; when you buy cereal, you buy a box of cereal.

Are you seriously suggesting that kids should be able to pay their $1.40 and take as much food as they want?

Neither Kellogg's nor the Government is rationing your food - you are merely limited to what you pay for.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT


Thanks for the response. I was more trying to understand how one can argue against school lunch and for children getting help at the same time. The two positions seem to conflict with each other. But I have my answer now either way.

American Fork, UT

I wonder how many of the complainers are actually receiving free or reduced cost lunch. At my kids' school some of the loudest complainers don't even pay for the meal.

Colorado Springs, CO

@Mapledon: You can spout off all you want about government control vs. freedom of choice, but you have freedom of choice. No one is making anyone eat these school lunches. You can choose to send in a lunch from home and pack it with anything and everything you want. No one is mandating what food you eat. And if you believe they are, I would dare you to provide one iota of evidence to support that.

@Worf: I haven't read all your posts, but here's one more subject we agree upon. See, I'm not the crazy liberal you think I am.

Price, Utah

Typical Obama idea sounds good. Might even be good for her girls at their expensive private school. In the real world doesn't work any better than he husbands failed energy, failed foreign policy, or his failed economic policy.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

I hear the teachers don't much like the new lunch menu either...

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments