Students, parents, educators displeased with new school lunch standards

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Oct. 1, 2012 11:45 p.m.

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

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    Sept. 30, 2012 8:38 p.m.

    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.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Sept. 29, 2012 9:37 p.m.

    @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.

  • Bono American Fork, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 12:36 a.m.


    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 29, 2012 12:21 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 28, 2012 10:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:31 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:17 p.m.


    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:56 p.m.


    '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
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:55 p.m.


    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...


  • smarty pants Herriman, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 7:08 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 28, 2012 5:34 p.m.

    They are subsidizing some of the kids lunches. Not all. Some kids show up with the full amount. It's like NY not allowing a large beverage to be sold.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    @worf -- I do vaguely remember that happening. However, it is the exception and that's why it made the news. It doubt that it's happened anywhere else or we would have heard about it. I agree with you on that one -- schools should not throw out lunches brought from home.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 28, 2012 4:56 p.m.


    "No one is going to stop you or your kids from eating all the junk food that you want to eat."

    Didn't you read about an elementary school in North Carolina who took away lunches from children who brought their own. The peanut butter sandwich, fruits, and chips were not up to standards.

  • mr3futbol American Fork, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 4:28 p.m.

    The National School Lunch Program became a law in 1946. It is a federally assisted meal program that provides low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. This is not a new program yet so many of you act like it is because of Obama and so-called Socialism that we are providing free lunch. My father and his siblings received free lunch over 50 years ago because his family qualified for the program because of low income. Recently, changes have been made to try and make the lunches healthier. That is it. If you don't like the new lunches there is an easy solution -- Bring one from home.

    Nobody is being forced to eat school lunch and Michelle Obama is NOT in your kitchen unless your kitchen is the school cafeteria. I'm sick of people in this state blaming every problem we have on Obama. He is not perfect and has made mistakes but the problems with our country and economy are not that simple and have been around long before Obama took office. Maybe if the political parties decided to work together rather than fight each other our country would have a chance.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    @CougarBlue -- How are you forced to eat fruits and vegetables by these guidelines? No one is going to stop you or your kids from eating all the junk food that you want to eat. It's just that now, we the taxpayer, don't have to pay for that kind of junk for lunch. Now we pay for healthy, nutritious food. The horrors!!

  • CougarBlue Heber City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    More rules made by burocrates (sp) sitting in an office in Washington who are absolutely clueless and figure one size fits all. Our Founding Fathers have to be turning over in their graves and the stupidity that is taking place in our government. Our legislators and their cronies are becoming the Taliban, forcing us to do what they say is right.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 2:03 p.m.

    @William -- What do you think the Obama kids eat? Are you saying you don't think they eat fruits and vegetables? What -- do you think they are secretly eating meatloaf and mashed potatoes while your poor kid has to suffer with salad and a turkey sandwich?

  • William over there, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    Someone should take a video of what Obamas kids get to eat at thier school? Wonder if its the same as my kids?

  • RunAmuckMom Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    One more thing to add, we should not be counting on our schools to feed our children breakfasts...that is where they can get the resources for morning healthy lite meal in between breakfast and lunch to help get the children through. Working with the right idea, there is room in the balance act for tweeking for sure.

  • RunAmuckMom Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    The intentions in the right place. but the plan was not complete. There are many articles by nutrionists, doctors, and trainers alike that food portion along with the what you eat along with frequency is important. They forgot to put that into account with these healthier meals. They needed to allow for increase of the amount of meals during the day, generally every 2 to 3 hours. If a child or adult eats breakfast at 6am it stands that by 8:30 to 9am it's time for another healthy meal, lunch @ noonish followed by a healthy snack a few hours later. These things along with daily routine of school/work and the exercises throughout the day will curb the "feeling hungry" all the time and produce healthier habits and weight results for any body type. (I did say "healthier" not commercial unrealistic body type.) Big brother just forgot to complete the plan.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    We overeat and now we've taught our children to overeat. No wonder the kids say they're still hungry, now they're just happening to eat the right amounts of food rather than too much.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    Why do people have children if they can't feed them, buy them glue sticks, pencils, paper, or pencils? Everyone had access to school, yet half our people are on welfare, and whining for what they can take from the others. Schools are suppose to feed our kids?

    I don't get it. This is not the same America I grew up with.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    Hey, how about this. If you don't like having your kid eat fruits and veges like the feds are "telling you" to do, then send them Twinkies and brownies from home and they can eat that. Then no one is telling your kids what to eat and they are eating junk just like you want them to. Great parenting by the way -- wah, wah, my kids HAVE to eat fruits and veges. No, they actually don't have to eat them. It's just that YOU have to provide the garbage food, not the taxpayer.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    This is getting way out of control. Our government is rationing our food. Stop it. What happened to the party of Pro-Choice?

    To much taxation, to much regulation, to much debt equals rebellion.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    I told my 9th grade son it's time for a National Bag Your Lunch Day to show Congress what the students and parents think of their new rules.

    It's time for Utah to get the Feds out of our education.

    Sept. 28, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    Why don't we have PE in public schools? Because the taxpayers are unwilling to pay for anything that is not related to math scores. My son just graduated for the University of Utah with a degree in PE Teaching. He hopes to be a middle school teacher. His skills are so necessary. There are very few schools who hire "just PE teachers." You have to teach a "real" subject.

    Sept. 28, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    When I was in shcool, kids who ate school lunch were "forced" to eat in an unhealthy manner. Now they are "forced" to make healthy choices. Why is one force and the other freedom? Just because that's the way it's always been does make it the proper "choice."

    In any case, the vast majority of our children are not forced to do anything. They have the option of bringing their own lunch - full of whatever they find in the family refrigerator - be it healthy or not.

    Children who are not getting proper nutrition at home need to have at least one healthy meal each day.

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    If Michelle Obama is so worried about Obese children, why don't we put Physical Education back in. As a kid, I had at least 50 minutes of P.E. everyday in elementary school, now they get it once a week. I had it everyday in Jr. High School, now it is only one semester a year. In High School, it got limited but I played sports year round. How about instead of giving kids free periods or open periods so they don't have to come to school as early or get out early, why not take some more P.E. classes. Really is it bad to have to work to be fit? Or do we think just changing the way we eat at school is going to fix it. These kids are going to be eating whatever they want when they get home or are away from school anyway, so why not go after it another way with more P.E., this is the problem today, kids sit on their rumps feeling entitled.

    I had a great friend I played with everyday as a kid, it was called OUTSIDE!

  • UtahBruin Saratoga Springs, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 11:45 a.m.


    You didn't read the article. Yes trash cans are full, but even the kids still eating the lunches are hungry. My wife teaches at an elementary school. She has said the portions have decreased to but half of what they were last year. And even elementary school kids are complaining they are still hungry. Elementary school aged kids are usually those who are only eating a small portion anyway and running out to get more recess time. Now they are finishing their food and are still complaining about being hungry. And we try to teach our kids how to grow up on their own, despite the left who wishes to hold someones hand. Mom and Dad can't go to school with their kids to make sure they eat all their food.

  • Elaine Douglass Grand, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 11:34 a.m.

    I fail to see how healthy meals served in schools is "the government" "telling us what to do," but lousy meals served in schools isn't. Could somebody clear that up for me?

    I also notice that all the kids in the "Hungry Kids" video were slim. Wonder what peoples' reactions to it would have been if the kids had been fat.

    I find the problem of obesity disturbing. Every time I go to the supermarket here in Moab I see beautiful young teenage girls who weigh about 200 lbs. It's heartbreaking.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 11:08 a.m.

    I don't care if they are feeding the kids Twinkies or turnip greens, that is not something our tax dollars should be funding at all. I don't mind paying for teachers and math books, but the responsibility for feeding kids belongs to THEIR parents, not every taxpayer. (But, I applaud charitable individuals or groups who want to provide free food to anyone-- if government red tape will allow it.)

    We are required to provide a free public education. That used to be reading, writing and arithmetic and a classroom. Now, despite being broke, taxpayers are providing one, two, or even three meals as well, which is absurd.

    Government funding comes with strings attached, and they get to call the shots on how "their" (really "OUR") money is spent and with that comes the power to control how state and local tax money is spent.

    Get the schools out of the cafeteria business and turn it over to concessionaires. The convenience stores near schools are making a fortune selling food to school kids, so there is money to be made. Let the vegetable, meat and sweet sellers compete for lunch money (provided by the parents, not taxpayers).

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 10:44 a.m.


    The issue is whether you prefer "force" or "freedom" and there is a difference.

    "We're forcing you to be good." "We're forcing you to eat right." "We're forcing you to be safe." We're forcing you to obey." And "it's all for the common good," or, in this case, "it's for the children."

    Personally, I prefer freedom of choice.

    This nation's people have been slowly induced into trading freedom for a "healthy meal," a "free phone," or whatever other handout is offered. But there's always a price for that free thing. In this case, like others, it's freedom. And ultimately, someone else will control us.

    Let the kids and parents make these choices. Believe me, they'll survive.

    Just like you want the government to stay out of your bedroom, I want Michelle to stay out of our kitchens.

    Sept. 28, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    I'm sorry. People are complaining because healthy food is being forced on their kids? You prefer junk food and empty calories be all that is offered? It says in the article that kids can take more, they just don't.

    If your kid is coming home hungry, maybe you should teach him how to make his own (larger) lunch each morning.

    I do agree with the statement, that local control, following the federal guidelines, would be ideal. Hopefully, once the Federal administrators get the program off to a good start and get feedback from local school districts, that will happen.

    Teaching kids to eat healthier is a good thing. I can't believe people are complaining because their kids don't get to eat Tater Tots every day. Amazing.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:53 a.m.


    Atta boy. Spoken like a true prison warden.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    Hilarious! Michelle is giving you a "taste" of the food mandates that are going to be enforced upon the rest of during the next four years. Marvelous!

    Nation's economy is in the toilet, Middle East is a burning revolution, national interests abroad are at risk, ambassadors and other U.S. personnel murdered, national debt spiraling out of control, education and related standards plummeting, gasoline prices more than doubled, domestic coal and energy extraction shut down, real unemployment at depression levels,...

    And you people want more of this?

    You just can't get enough punishment?

    Well, you can look forward to national mandates on what you and I are allowed to eat. And it won't be filling.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    I still remember when Reagan decided catsup was a vegetable.....

    School lunch is a federally subsidized program - therefore, the federal government gets to have a say in it. The federal government consists of - believe it or not - voters! A majority of those voters (or at least a very vocal group of them) complained about the quality of school lunches and asked that changes be made so that tax money pays for healthier food instead of junk food.

    Several of the commentators on this thread - who are slamming on Obama and blaming this all on him - have, on threads on junk food, obesity, and school lunch, complained about their tax money paying for junk food for fat kids. Now you are whining because someone listened to you and did something about it? Really?

    I realize many conservatives think the Obama's are omnipotent, but they are not the ones who made this change, and the change was not made in a vacuum.

    And if the kids choose to be hungry instead of eating the food they are given, well - that is a choice they are making. It is their own fault.

    @ worf: Sit for a shock - I agree with you.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    When I was in high school I had weightlifting 4Xs a week for 4 years. Then after that I had either football, basketball, wrestling or track practice. I had the metabolism of a hummingbird. What did I do to not have hunger pains? Just like worf said, I took extra food. I ate school lunch, which barely touched my needs, but then I also had 2-3 sandwhiches between classes too along with fruits.
    It's not going to hurt anybody's feelings if you take extra food. But also, like Ted said, the parents need to take control. Get the government out. The meals schools serve aren't even healthy anyways--fries, hamburgers, chicken nuggets, canned fruits and vegetables. It has nutrition, sure, but not a whole lot. Canning fruits and veggies takes away tons of nutrition. If you want to fix it, be part of the solution.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    Hmm, kids are hungry but the garbage cans are overflowing with food. If you don't eat your whole lunch, don't complain about being hungry. Of course there's going to be a lot of grumbling at first, because these kids are accustomed to the french fries and other carb fillers. This sounds like the classic case of a parent sticking to their guns and not giving their kids dessert until they finish their veggies. If the garbage cans are empty of food and the kids are too hungry, then we have a problem.

  • Go Utes! Springville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    To many government regulations!
    Does Obama really think that there is a one-size-fits-all plan for nutrition? How are athletes like football players, track runners, basketball players or wrestlers supposed to maintain themselves off of 850 calories per meal? What about those kids who only eat at school? how are they supposed to develop when they only get 1700 calories per day?

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Perhaps a wholesale change in the way school lunch works is the key. Continue to offer healthy choices, but institute more of a buffet-style serving line where students are encouraged to "take all they want - but eat all they take," in order to reduce waste. Add a component aimed at teaching students about eating in a more healthy fashion. Do clinics for the students where chefs introduce trial recipes (think: cooking show). Ask for feedback (and take the novel approach of actually listening to it). Open lunch service earlier and later so that students can scale into lunch by grabbing a snack before and/or after the traditional lunch period. In other words, act as if you are running a business where you are genuinely concerned about retaining your clients. Treat the kids like valued customers instead of cattle. Get parents involved.

    The problem with school lunch may not be the food, it may be Soviet-style central-planning coupled with an inflexible one-meal-fits-all approach.

    Reduce waste. Increase freedom. Educate toward the healthier choices. Look for status as a test or pilot program. Apply for grants. Be leaders not followers. Think.

  • dsk par, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    I walk through the lunch room everyday and speak with the student in my school about the food the y are being served for lunch. The amount of strawberries thrown out was amazing, I joked with an administrator that if we made strawberry short cake they would eat it. The prepackaged apples are gross and mushy, and usually get thrown out. One day they had a cup of some type of brown paste looking stuff and that was thrown out by all. The amount of waste is astounding, but then most government projects have an extraordinary amount of waste. Would it be possible to give them options instead of everyone getting the same thing and the same amount. The 85 pound 6th grade girl is getting the same food as the 150 pound eighth grade boy. You gotta love socialism!

  • MC Ute Midvale, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 7:45 a.m.

    @Liberal Ted. Thank you for saying what I would love to be able to say as well as you did. How in the world did we all survive before the Obama's took over. You know how, we were not regulated to death, see Department of Education, we took care of ourselves and our own family. There are 47 million people on food stamps and yet there are hungry children, please give me a break. Stand behind somebody using a "Horizon Card, aka food stamps" at the grocery store and watch what they purchase and then watch the items they purchase with "the money they do not have". Everytime you receive Federal Money it comes with strings attached. Education needs to get out of the Feds hands and back into the local communities.

  • mattwend IDAHO FALLS, ID
    Sept. 28, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    It is somewhat reasonable for government to step in when there is a serious problem that affects all of society. High obesity rates impact healthcare costs for all of us. My problem is that I encourage my children to participate in athletics to help them maintain healthy bodies and weights. They are starving by the end of the school day, just as they are heading into their soccer and cross country practices. I was already told by a personal trainer that my soccer son was eating enough calories and that's why he was running out of steam. Limiting calories is a hard sell when caloric needs vary so much from one child to another. A scrawny freshman eats the same as a full grown senior athlete? I don't think so! A better way would be to have individual plans based on body size and weight, not a one size fits all. Big restrictions really don't help.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 5:56 a.m.

    We should be asking Michelle, what makes her qualified to be the czar over our childrens nutrition....Just like her husband no one is questioning her. Unless you consider the View an unbiased investigation journalism. Sadly that's the level of quality the media has become.

    We need to start asking the tough questions and expect real results.

    The sad part is, there are irresponsible people that have been allowed to breed and then they refuse to take care of the their children. Society steps in and offers free meals. Then society overfed and made them obese. Then society has to correct it.

    Let's go to the core problem. The parent. They need to be held responsible.

    Every time government has stepped in to solve the problem, it has just created more problems and more dependency.

    I propose setting land to the side and have those on welfare go to that land, work the land and grow their own food. 1. They are working 2. They are no longer taking from society 3. They learn work and nothing is free 4. They gain job skills 5. Gets people moving and off the streets

  • Anon 64 Oahu, HI
    Sept. 28, 2012 2:11 a.m.

    Dear Orem Parent: To have 3 lines with different food for each one would be labeling and judgmental. Now in Hawaii we have Obese and we have Samoan who am i to say who is fat. This is a fault of the U.S. Government Not The Obese. The Obese are going to get their food and the food that they like there is little or no question about that. If you go to certain stores and use your false discount card the Government knows everything you buy and eat anyway. This information has been around for over a decade. The problem is not so much the food but the Waste of Food because it is thrown away because the kids WIll NOT eat it. Not eaten food is wasted food wasted food not a good idea. You can Not Force Feed the Kids. If you want to do this and do it right you have to start with K and move through 12 over a period of years. Over time the Government will get the idea and either rescind or ignore the new rules. This is the fault of people trying to enforce their will on others.

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    Sept. 28, 2012 1:40 a.m.

    What ever happened to that good old Brown Bag. The trouble is that for some poor kids this is all the food that they get, as they may or may not get dinner at home. Expect Food fights and also behavior problems do to being hungry. Also more kids hitting the Burger stands and 7-11's after school. Sweet Potato Fries taste nasty. I can do 2% mild but not Non Fat Milk. I prefer whole. My kids if they where still in School would just Brown Bag or wait till they got home. I worry most about the kids who have No Options. I believe that when this silliness is over the obese are still going to be obese. The also may be the subject of bullying as this will be seen as their fault. This is more likely to happen if the obese person is brown bagging. All in all this is about the Government trying to impose its will on the people. The way to end this in part is to make Obama a 1 term president.

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 11:53 p.m.

    I suggest parents go and have lunch at school with their kids a few times and see what's there. School lunches are junk, and the new standards are no help. While there are some fresh fruits and vegetables included, school lunches consist mostly of high-fat, processed foods that are nutritionally inadequate. The real problem, though, is that the government thinks they need to take care of us, rather than getting out of the way and allowing people to come with better solutions. But, how can kids be going hungry AND be obese? Something isn't right here.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 27, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    Excuse my ignorance. Can't children bring food to school, to help with the hunger pains?

  • utahprincipal801 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 10:06 p.m.

    I don't have any problem with healthy food being served. Especially, since kids on reduced and free lunch likely don't get much of it at home. If my tax dollars are subsidizing food (which I think should be done for hungry kids) the sooner kids develop a taste for fruits and vegetables instead of french fries and chips the better. The payoff will be in five years, when kids who have been served healthy food since grade school, will have healthier bodies. If they are hungry, they can get more vegetables and fruit. A variety of fruits and vegetables are served every day. I'd rather my grandchildren get extra servings of fruits and veggies than fatty main dishes.

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 9:49 p.m.

    My kids complains about the new lunch standards as well. He is 6 feet tall and weighs around 125 pounds. Far from overweight. Sadly he isn't getting enough food at school because a few obese kids are shifting the standards around. Kind of like dummying down education standards. Now we are dummying down the food standards to meet the needs. We almost need 3 lines at school based on the kids weight. Overweight, normal, underweight.