Comments about ‘Report: $40M needed in Utah to serve healthy school lunches’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, May 1 2014 2:13 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

What if Mothers packed a healthy little lunch in a brown paper bag, then their child could take it with them to school and eat it at lunch.

netjes
Grand Rapids, MI

"Healthful". A meal is, for the most part, dead.

bigv56
Cottonwood, CA

Why is this the rule now. Parents get off your backsides and shop. prepare a decent lunch each day. You won't find good lunch at school. Our parents made our lunch and we were more healthy and less fat than the govr school lunch food bank kids are.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's an idea. Since many subsidized students rely on taxpayer dollars to get food. Why not use some of the lawn space at the schools, and have the students grow their own food? We can also include their parents or guardians in the process. Just ask for 1 hour of their time each week to weed the garden and care for the plants. With 200-300 students and 200-600 guardians, that equates to 5-15 full time employees. Think of the savings and the benefits these people will learn to become self-reliant and self-sufficient. It also eases the taxburden and allows tax dollars to go towards other things that the schools need. Like paper, pencils, pens, computers, text books etc.

C'mon when our educators are incapable of solving their own financial problems, how can we expect them to teach the next generation how to deal with finances?

K
Mchenry, IL

If it happens at school it should be covered by the school. Unless they want to bus the kids home in the afternoon and bus them back again. It is interesting how much better other countries feed their students. Meat, grains, and lots of veggies with maybe some soup. I do think if we just provided a cold lunch it would be easier. The American palate is used to eating raw fruits and veggies and sandwiches.

Utah has no idea how good they have it. A homeowner in IL in cook and the counties surrounding it pay between 5 and 7 thousand in property taxes annually on a home worth 200K.

Strider303
Salt Lake City, UT

Why does the school have to feed the students? Let the families prepare a lunch, and send it with the students. Commercial providers could make and sell sack lunches for those who wanted to buy them just off grounds, and for those who could not afford the modest cost, have a fund raiser to provide funds to purchase the sack lunches.

Children will not die if they do not get a "hot lunch".

Keep the school and government out of it. This is so bogus. If this were left to private enterprise think of the savings to taxpayers by avoiding the cost involved of personnel and equipment.

I have worked in a public school cafeteria and with the exception of salads, most of the food is extremely high calorie, sugary and nothing like I made for myself when in junior high or high school in the dark ages.

Low income families (read on the dole) get money for food based upon the size of the family. Free or low cost meals is redundant.

K
Mchenry, IL

Because the growing season takes place in the summer when there is no school for most students. The produce grown can only be eaten when fresh.

The taxes that pay for schools come from property taxes. People who live in the district, including those who get free or reduced lunches pay property taxes or rent to a landlord that pays property taxes from the rent. Those getting free or reduced lunch almost always work and pay some federal, state and other payroll taxes. Their parents pay taxes too. One child needs to work for their lunch and another doesn't? Does that make sense?

A sandwich using whole grain bread. Forty cents. A piece of fruit. Thirty cents. Milk or water bottle. Forty cents max. $1.10 plus labor and supplies. Done. No cashier. Everyone who doesn't bring a lunch gets it. Only need staff to maintain supplies, clean, prepare and serve.

sally
Kearns, UT

Why not hire a local restaurant to cater the meals instead of spending so much money on equipment that will soon be outdated. Has anyone done a cost analysis on this approach? The lunchroom staff could be cut back. It has so many possibilities.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

@ K

Yes some of them might pay a little in taxes via rent. However, most of them are getting their rent, heating, electricity, water, sewer, food etc. subsidized already. It boils down to lazy parents, parents that have to work several part-time jobs and aren't around, kids that are left to fend for themselves.

Instead of teaching the children to rely on welfare from the state or church or neighbors etc. Why not teach them how to lift themselves up and improve their lives? Summertime would be excellent to grow. We can also install a greenhouse for the winter months. And food can be frozen and preserved. It doesn't have to be picked that day. Since they're eating canned and processed foods anyway, this is still a healthier alternative.

It makes sense for the kids to work for their lunch. That is the reality of life. My job as a child was chores around the home and I worked the garden that subsidized our food source. I weeded and garden everyday (worked for my lunch). I would then bake my own breads, cookies and used that to make my sandwich for school. That's life.

K
Mchenry, IL

Public education isn't welfare. Why would the lunch or breakfast they eat in the building on a school day be considered welfare?

You know nothing about gardening. A kid in salt lake can't grow the tomatoes for their salad in December. You are going to pay extra people to open up a building in the summer and use water and such to maintain a garden? Or spend money on a green house? Or spend money on a freezer? You can't bring in home made treats in most schools. No one is going to let someone can something going to whole school for fear it's done wrong, people get sick and people get sued. Lunches aren't tater tots anymore. That changed years ago. Further there are so many rules about lunches, produce is a small amount of the meal. They aren't going to raise wheat. They aren't going to house chickens or cows. They are not going to plant an orchard.

Doesn't matter how much in taxes are paid. They pay taxes. Period. They pay taxes kid years and no kids years.

Christopher B
Ogden, UT

K,

Its a parents job to feed their kids. If you don't think its a parents job to feed their kids, well, thanks for showing us how out of touch with common sense liberals are.

No, they aren't going to raise wheat, but kids and parents can buy wheat and make home made wheat bread.

No, they aren't going to raise chickens.

But they can buy chicken or turkey or peanut butter at the store and make a sandwich to take to school.

No, they aren't going to plant an orchard.

But they can buy an apple and give it to their kids.

And no, most of these people aren't paying federal income tax. Don't you remember when Mitt so correctly(even if not PC) reminded us only half of the country pays anything in federal income tax.

Parents - feed your kids.

Stop doing the liberal think and expect someone else to take care of your responsibility.

You had the kid - feed him/her

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

How does a person pay taxes on their rent, when their rent is being paid by taxpayers or a church? That's not really that person paying taxes.

My challenge to K is this. Why don't you come and actually work with people on welfare. Maybe you do already. I work with and volunteer to help serve people on welfare. About 1% of the people use the program as it was initially intended. The rest live lives better than most of us that work 40+ hour weeks. Why should someone receive welfare when they can afford cable each month? Why should someone receive welfare, when they have 8 dogs and cats, but, struggle to feed themselves?

One of my favorites is working with inmates. They talk about their food stamps. They go into the store buy a bagels with smear on it for $4. They could have bought a whole bag of bagels and smear at that cost. But they don't care. They have another girl pregnant and more money coming.

Come and work with welfare people. See where your money goes to. These people need help, but, they don't need more welfare.

Z
South Jordan, UT

Here is an unpleasant fact that most parents of school-age kids already know: you can make a lunch healthy, but you can't make a kid eat it. I hear stories from my kids every week about the 'healthy' food that goes to waste all the time because kids are forced to take food that they won't eat that just goes straight into the garbage. Face it, folks; we can either give them enough calories to keep them running, or schools can keep loading up plates with 'healthy' food that ends up in the garbage. What is our real goal?

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"What if Mothers packed a healthy little lunch in a brown paper bag"
Do you favor a law that requires parents to pack a healthy lunch?

K
Mchenry, IL

I seriously doubt that you work with anyone if only 1% are worthy if anything.

The church paying the rent is paying taxes and would want the kid to have lunch. You are really stretching to suppose that they are limited in their benefits of living at a location. The arrangement is between them and the church or gov what they need to do to get that rent paid. They get all the benefits including school and school lunch in return.

You need to drive in a car and buy and carry $50 worth of wheat and then spend $ on a grinder and then yeast and all the other ingredients and then buy bags to put the bread in... Rich people can be frugal.

Local taxes should pay for lunch. The lunch room is not the money sieve you imagine.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Are schools replacing parents?

Many of these parents receive food stamps, and yet the tax payer must pay more?

Where's the equality in that?.

one old man
Ogden, UT

On a recent tour through the LDS Conference Center, I was reminded of something most conservative LDS members have completely forgotten.

Who was it who originated the national school lunch programs? Who was it who told the President "In a nation that is this wealthy, no child should be hungry?"

According to many posters here, such a thing is akin to socialism and should be completely shunned. Whoever dreamed that scheme up must be a socialist or communist or something equally liberal and evil.

So who was this socialistic communistic liberal fool?

It was none other than President Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture.

A man named Ezra Taft Benson.

Really!

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

one old man:

Thanks for reminding us all about that. it seems that the majority of these posters range from heartless to clueless or both.

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

Z beat me to it. You can force schools to serve up all the healthy food you want, but if it strikes kids as "healthy" isntead of "tasty," the bulk of it will end up in the trash. So, hooray for taking a stand. Now the kids aren't eating empty calories and/or fat; they're eating nothing.

I have four kids in public schools here in MO. They buy school lunch about once a week. The other days I make them a sandwich, a wrap, or a salad. When I've gone to lunch with them on rare occasion, I've seen how much picky little kids throw away . . and schools here haven't even gone overboard with the "healthy" stuff. This isn't brussell sprouts and hummus.

Kids left without parents to "encourage" them to eat well, will eat what they want. Unfortunately, too many parents allow their kids to turn their noses up at unfamiliar dishes, training them to be insufferably picky in the process. Conspicuously healthy school lunches is a pretty poor solution. I'm just happy my kids like a wide variety of foods, including fruit and veggies.

to comment

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