Quantcast

Comments about ‘Student attitudes changing on healthy school lunches, studies say’

Return to article »

Discarded lunches drop in one Utah district, but others still see lots of waste

Published: Thursday, July 24 2014 2:53 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Interloper
Portland, OR

The national consensus is children have gradually adjusted to being served healthier lunches. I have to wonder if the school officials still claiming the healthy meals are a disaster are doing so because of facts or political expediency. Much like the continuing grumbling about better light bulbs, many on the Right consider federally mandated school lunch rules something they are supposed to complain about.

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

If the Obama supports it than it has to be bad! This is the battle cry of the Republican party. How could the GOP ever condemn healthy school lunches and yet they have. Michelle Obama has fought the House Republican to create better school lunches to help fight childhood obesity. Michelle Obama lobbied behind the scenes four years ago for the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which requires more fruit, vegetables and whole grains in school meals, along with less sodium, sugar and fat. It was a major achievement, the first update to school lunch rules in decades designed to make school meals more nutritious. House Republicans and their media mocked her all the way and wasted millions of dollars fighting her healthy school lunches. WHY?

I am glad Michelle Obama has stood her ground and I support her strong minded efforts not to back down from Republicans. Why would anyone ever oppose children eating healthy???

RBB
Sandy, UT

The big question is why is the Federal Government involved in school lunches at all. Shouldn't each district decide what we are going to serve. It has gotten so out of control that children have had their sack lunches taken away because someone at the school decided it did not meet federal guidelines. Thanks, but I can decide what my children eat. I do not need the nanny state doing that for me.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

@RBB The US gov't is involved in school lunches because the Constitutional Preamble requires it ("Promote the general welfare") as well as national security. A nation of healthy children is more secure than a nation of fat, sick, diabetic children.

And I don't believe anybody anywhere has "taken away sack lunches from children." Where's the source for that, besides some right wing fantasy?

Uncle_Fester
Niskayuna, NY

If the food is so much "healthier" a truly meaningless word anyway, then why is the obesity problem getting worse?

cocosweet
Sandy, UT

@RBB ?? The Feds had nothing to do with students not being allowed to take their lunches to school... That was a local decision (similar to what a Utah school did by throwing away students lunches because their parents hadn't paid up). Both foolish decisions by local officials.

As for the Feds, it would be nice if the Feds didn't have to intervene, but have you seen the school lunches? At least give the kids an idea what healthy food looks, and tastes, like instead of feeding them cheap, high fat, food.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

"Researchers polled 500 administrators...."

I bet the statistics would be different if they had polled the kids themselves! I have eaten school lunches over the past 6 years. There are about 50% fewer lunch entree's offered today that I will actually pay for any more. I brown bag far more than I used to. Many of the "whole grain healthy" items are simply not palatable. I used to look forward to pizza friday, now that's the one day I brown bag for sure!

Kids eat more meals at home than they do at school. 5 meals a week at school isn't going to change that much for an obese child who is eating poorly at home. Michelle's lunches ARE being trashed, which means poor academic performance all afternoon. I'd rather a kid eat a less healthy lunch and finish it, than 2 bites of a "healthy" lunch and pitch the rest! Offer more fruits and vegetables for sure, take away the cookies if you must, but at least offer an entree that's worth eating! Our nation's lunch ladies can surely find a way to do that!

worf
Mcallen, TX

How sad, when schools decide what our children eat.

I miss the old days of taking a Fred Flintstone lunch box to school.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Parents receiving food stamps can't even prepare meals for their own children.

This is sad.

SAS
Sandy, UT

@LOU Montana:

"If the Obama supports it than it has to be bad! This is the battle cry of the Republican party."

Seems like the case. Now if we can only spread the message that Obama supports breathing air and drinking water, we might get somewhere....

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "SAS" actually it is the Obama supporter's undying loyalty to him that you see. The Obama supporters don't question anything that Obama does. If Obama said that drinking and driving was good for the nation, the Obama supporters wouldn't question it.

Having the government push food guidelines is bad, and historically is a bad thing. If you look at when government started to teach healthy food guidelines back in the 1960's, the obesity rate was lower than it currently is. Since the government began to tell us what is good and what is bad, the obesity rate has risen significantly. You can't blame video games because they were not around for over nearly 20 years after the government began preaching its idea of healthy eating.

hockeymom
Highland, UT

@ Irony guy

Here's a thought.... let's take all those healthy lunches our American kids want to dump, wrap them in plastic and send them to the Texas border. We'll call it humanitarian aid and get a two-fer on our tax dollars! Those kids sitting at the border demanding amnesty will be even healthier - the long walk through Mexico would suggest they're already in pretty good shape - and then we'll see if our nation somehow becomes more "secure".

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Irony Guy

The Preamble is not constitutional law.

It is simply the reason for the articles and amendments to come.

There is difference between "Promote" and "Provide"

Again how WE accomplish this "promotion" is in the articles and amendments.

In other words the articles and amendments set forth how the federal government to do those in the preamble.

And again "promote" and "provide" are different things.

The federal government was never intended to provide us things.

In fact our founding fathers warned us strongly against that.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I'm glad that school children are given a few more healthy choices; not everyone is addicted to artery clogging fat..

I'm not sure that schools should be providing lunches to begin with but, since they do, they might also cater to children who haven't been raised on pizza andchicken nuggets. I'm all for the "Word of Wisdom" but am appalled that, even in hospital cafeterias, there are so few healthy choices; keeps the customers coming into the hospital wards I guess. Thankfully more restaurants realize it is in their own self interest to offer more choices unless their target market is largely to carniverous tastes, and there are admittedly many of them.

Schools and parents alike often provide little choice to children, and personally can be bad examples of dietary health, when it comes to children and the foods that are offered them. Once a grandchild refused fruit because "it wasn't cooked"; Mom had told them to eat nothing that wasn't cooked and this child had never had fresh fruit in over six years of life.

to comment

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