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.
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.
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!
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?.
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.
"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?
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
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.
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
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.
@ KYes 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"Healthful". A meal is, for the most part, dead.
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.