OK, I have no number. The school my kids attend and the school a friend’s kids attend restrict what can be brought from home for lunch.
I’ll change my statement from "“many” to “there exist at least two”.
That’s two more than there should be, anyway.
OK. Can you link to the school’s web sites or to news stories about the schools so we can see exactly what those restrictions are?
Here is an example of a current school lunch menu from Kitsap County, Washington. Note the high carb and sugar items on the menu.
Those look like pretty typical American meals. I don’t see much that has to be high in sugar, although some of it could be.
Took me awhile to realize that “theme bar” meant some sort of buffet style offering, and not something like a Power Bar. 
I think it’s because she sounds like a self-righteous arugula-loving Whole Foods-shopping type of mom. And she did tell the entire world she was concerned about her daughter’s weight. And like it or not, we have this thing in America that says, “It’s impolite to talk about weight.” So that’s part of it. I think we need to see her eating a giant ice cream sundae once in awhile. The current WH family is so…perfect. And food is an extremely personal choice.
But I really don’t think that many people hate it as much as you say. Sure, conservatives will jump all over it, but no one likes it when a woman who doesn’t have to pay for her own food says to the rest of the country (many of whom are struggling already), “Buy this more expensive food and prepare it at home and sit at the dinner table like we do, because this is the best way to o it,” when some families are struggling just to catch a breath until the next paycheck and, well, like I said, it comes off all hoity toity.
The Obamas act like snobs. <shrug> But I’m a Democrat and I feed healthy food at home and so for me, I can just roll my eyes at the price of arugula (yes, I know that was BO). Others…maybe it’s just more offensive? It’s not just the food, though. It is the general attitude and clothes and vacations and parties and comments. Are these things within their rights? Sure! Are they doing anything inherently wrong? Nope. But I still cringe a little when I see her and I most definitely am not going to start changing my eating habits because the First Lady tells me to.
She just sounds all judgy…so I think people generally agree with her about a lot of things, maybe not the way she says it.
Food has become a class issue, and so I guess when a woman with chefs and a financially easy life tells America what to eat, it just sounds so wrong. Organic food, gardens, Whole Foods, super healthy, yoga, whatever - it’s all on the Stuff White People Like. She’s being a food snob while others are barely eating.
Look at the first week - orange chicken and teryaki chicken are loaded with sugar. We already know about the macaroni. Who knows what the ‘theme bar’ will be?
Pretty bad food options just looking at Week 1.
Cite? 
They are? I mean, I can see that they could be, but do they have to be?
We do? I don’t. (I never eat the stuff.)
Exactly. We don’t know.
On a separate note, it didn’t take much googling to find this:
Laura Bush, HHS Launch Initiative to Fight Childhood Obesity.
I see what you did there!
More teriyaki and sweet & sour the next weeks, and tons of carb.
Schools are entitled to and should exert control over behaviors within their walls.
A parent doesn’t think a child should exercise and wants their kid exempt from PE? Too effing bad. At home park the kid in front of the TV, but at school the kid will go to gym class and be forced to run laps along with other fitness activities, some of which they may even learn to enjoy … or not.
A parent thinks that a diet of L’il Debbies and soda is healthy? No one will stop them from feeding that crap to their kids at home, but the school is not only no obligation to make such crud available, they are under an obligation to make healthy choices available, to restrict access to the crap while the kids are within their walls, and even to provide education to the children about nutrition … education that may even invite the parents to become better informed as well. A school providing guidelines restricting kids from bringing in excessive crap? Excellent! Completely their job. Too bad it is not done routinely.
Guess what? If the school says the kids wear uniforms, you can’t send your daughter there in a miniskirt and a halter top, or your son in a tank top with his pants hanging down so his underwear shows either. Deal with it.
Meanwhile the most effective approach to dealing with obesity within our society (and the expense it is for all of us, obese or not) is to prevent it, to keep kids from becoming obese and to get fat kids to not be obese by the time they reach adulthood. The only way to do that is to hit at all levels, from education in the doctors’ offices, to PSA’s, to teaching good nutrition and fitness habits in the schools, which includes making tasty healthy choices, and only tasty healthy choices, available within the schools.
And it is working. Even the half assed crappy job of healthier options that schools are offering now, with the messaging from all sorts of sources, including our First Lady, is working. The rise of obesity rates in middle school age groups has not only topped off, it is decreasing. Across the country. (Cites provided in many past threads but available again upon request.)
Don’t like it? Opt out of public education.
The tactic of a certain segment of the hardcore conservative base is to message against anything that can be shoehorned into a “nanny state” motif, at least if such comes from someone other than a conservative.
And it resonates with a certain segment of America … after all, half of all Americans have below average IQ.
Kind of. Terayki Chicken and Orange chicken are made with sweetened sauces. I LOVE orange chicken but I rarely eat it because it’s so bad for you. (Plus I like eating organic chicken, sooo…) Teriyaki is soy sauce with extra spice and sweetener.
I hope I don’t have to provide a cite for how bad mac & cheese is.
I think it’s pretty safe to say on a menu that has orange chicken, teriyaki chicken, pizza, mac & cheese, and a host of other high carb high sugar foods is probably not making this stuff organic with alternative ingredients.
Actually, F the organic movement. With the exception of meat and milk, I HATE what the organic movement has done to shopping: Buy these cereal puffs with a shit ton of sugar because it’s HEALTHY. And the organic movement is also controlled by large corporations. Most of it is a gimmick. THAT is why I (as a self-described liberal who lovesssssssssss good food) hate Michelle Obama’s campaign. She’s doing it all wrong.
I think this point is really important. It’s true that some people are going to hate everything that comes from the Obamas just because, but it’s also true that food is intimate. It’s tied to culture and class and a whole complex network of emotions and attitudes. Criticizing people’s food choices feels like criticizing who they are. It’s the kind of thing where you have to tread carefully, particularly if people perceive you as coming from a more privileged background than they do.
There has been a concerted effort over the last 30 years by the conservative elite to undermine public confidence in the government. This destroys the most effective defense the average citizen has against exploitation by the rich and powerful. It also makes it easier for business interests to siphon off funds from public coffers through the wasteful privatization of public functions like prisons and schools.
The result is a large group of know-nothing conservatives who have a knee-jerk opposition to ANY government activity other than the military. (Which is sheltered because of its status as a cash cow for a number of powerful corporations.) Programs are not judged on their merits, but rejected out of hand because “everyone knows the government can’t do anything right”.
Reagan said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” This is a profoundly stupid and cynical statement. It was uttered as part of a calculated strategy to convince the middle class to vote against their own financial interests, and to allow the looting of America to begin.
Healthy food in schools is opposed because there’s money to be made selling crap to kids. And because a large segment of the electorate has bought into the big lie that government always fucks up.
A+. I agree. The only thing I don’t agree with is schools banning sack lunches. But for a lot of these urban schools that serve junk, they’re giving away food for free. Hello!
I’m perfectly fine if a school wants to take out vending machines and restrict cafeteria option. If kids don’t eat it, they don’t eat it - because schools are under NO obligation to serve junk food.
I can’t believe I’m typing this, but the federal government is aiding in making kids fat and they are making food corporation - and local food providers - rich with this nasty junk. Send a poor kid to school and he gets free food…high carb, high sugar, high fat food!
First I want to mention that while Michelle Obama is fine growing any kind of garden she wants, there is no relationship between organic food (or the organic food in her garden, specifically) and healthy living. Organic food is a 100% scam that is basically based around the ideology that “even though science can’t prove it, we think modern farming makes food less healthy.” (In fact organic farming has a higher incidence of spreading fatal infectious disease such as e. coli and salmonella.)
If you want organic out of moral issues, I’m 100% okay with you making that personal choice, but people need to be aware organic food is not one bit healthier than other food.
I will say this, organic food sections in grocery stores have individual food items that will often be healthier than their non-organic counterparts. This has nothing at all to do with the organic meat or plant in the product. As an example maybe an “organic apple pie” has significantly lower fat, calories, and refined sugar per serving than a “regular apple pie” sold at the same grocery store. The difference is not the organic apples, but the fact that they have intentionally used less sugar (or perhaps a non sugar sweetener), the crust isn’t made with the same shortening/etc. Basically it’s like comparing a salad of nothing but organic lettuce to a taco salad that is 85% beef, cheese, and taco shells with the rest regular lettuce and saying the plain organic lettuce salad is healthier because organic lettuce is healthier. No, it’s healthier because it isn’t covered in meat, cheese, and corn chips.
What do you think she is doing in the campaign? Because having seen her bits on kids TV and having seen her “Let’s Move” campaign website, there is nothing “organic” about it. Fresh food, local food when possible, tasty healthy options, community gardening, yes. Decrease the “food deserts” in various urban environments. Promoting the “My Plate” message. Promoting more physical activity. Advocating this action plan. It is just the basic common sense, and if anything has been criticized for playing it “too safe.”
I think you’ve bought into the GOP hype. (And no, a quote about her liking organic food grown in their own garden when possible for herself and her kids does not count as her campaign.)
Yeah, I think the organic thing is a read herring here. There may be a few cranks trying to get organic foods in schools, and there are probably a lot of rich, trendy people trying to do that in their own school districts, but I have not yet seen anyone from the WH or the administration who is pushing organic food for schools.
According to the NY Times, congressional opposition to reform of school lunches is being driven by a bipartisan group of farm-state legislators, including Democratic Senators Mark Udall of Colorado and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. Minnesota Public Radio reports that even Al Franken was among the legislators who sent a letter to the Ag Department questioning the proposed new rules.
Big Food has both parties well in hand.
As for the backlash on this, I think it is basically the perfect storm.
Some of it is genuine partisan bullshit, people are jumping to crazy conclusions basically because it’s something the Democrats and the President are talking about. That’s where you get the basic fear mongering statements like “Michelle/Barack Obama are trying to tell you what you should feed your kids.”
Okay, so after that you have the Federalism issue. Some people feel that in general the Federal Government’s involvement in education is always essentially a negative, and would prefer to see it managed essentially by the States without interference.
After that, you have the business end of it. Some food companies would probably go out of business outright if they no longer were able to sell their products to school systems, for an average sized distributor the local school systems could be an irreplaceable portion of their revenue. They may not have the connections to be suppliers for these healthy food options. Then of course the producers of the food will not like it, because they may only produce frozen french fries or frozen pizzas so they don’t have the equipment to switch to anything else etc etc. It has nothing to do with child nutrition but we do live in this world where anything that can put someone out of business is going to get political and people will fight to keep those business in operation.
Finally there is a part of it that is probably legitimate. This opposition I think is the opposition coming from school system administrators and the like, and isn’t the source of much of the backlash (I think most of it is the reasons I’ve spelled above.) The legitimate point is, healthier food is more expensive per calorie, without a doubt.
According to WebMd an active male child age 4-8 requires up to 2,000 calories a day. That’s higher than I had assumed since adults consume around that much, I guess the whole growing thing on top of daily activity uses a lot of food.
An active male child 9-13 requires 2,000-2,600 a day, and an active male child 14-18 requires 2,800-3,200! Obviously not all (and sadly probably a minority) male children age 4-18 qualify as active. But even the numbers for sedentary children are high (2200/day for 14-18.)
The regulations that reimburse the states for free and reduced cost lunches specify the lunches must provide roughly one third of the child’s recommended calories for the day. I don’t know what calorie number the Feds use, but let’s low ball it and say it’s 2200 a day, that’s around 725 calories for a single school lunch.
The Feds reimburse the schools $2.77 for that meal if it’s a free lunch, $2.37 for a reduced cost lunch and $0.26 for the paid lunches. That means obviously that any difference between the price the school buys the food at and the reimbursement price must be covered by local school districts.
I can go down to Kroger and buy one of those smaller single serve cheapo frozen pizzas, on a good day for $1. They usually have around 600-650 calories, so factor in a carton of milk or whatever and there’s my 725 calories. That costs me maybe $1.25 or so assuming I’m pricing my milk by the cup.
Most likely the schools are able to get better deals on their stuff. Their pizzas come in huge frozen lots, and aren’t each in their own individual carton like the one I buy is. They also are buying wholesale versus my buying retail.
I don’t buy frozen pizzas, I actually eat very healthy most of the time. Something I often buy is whole boneless skinless chicken breasts. A quick look in my freezer shows the last pack I bought was $3.99/lb. A whole pound (16 oz.) of raw chicken breast is about 560 calories. Compare that to the 725 calories I got for $1.25 in my earlier example, with the chicken I’m paying $3.99 for 560 calories. I sometimes buy fresh veggies but I’ll buy canned sometimes too. The last time I bought canned green beans, they were $1/can, the whole can is 80 calories. So a whole can of green beans (which is a bit more than I think most would want as a side item) is only 80 calories, and that plus a whole pound of chicken (which I know because I weigh my food is more than a typical breast more like 1.5-2 breasts) is only 640 calories. I’m already at $5 for 640 calories, so it’s safe to say we’re looking at paying 5 x more for my healthy food than I would to get the same calories in bad food.
The thing also is, if I’m required to provide a third of daily calories in healthy food, I have to find really calorie dense healthy foods. Because the reality is healthy food is less calorie dense. I don’t eat a pound of chicken in one sitting pretty much ever, I do sometimes kill a whole can of green beans, but it’s a lot. Most people, kids included, aren’t going to want/be able to finish a whole pound of chicken and a can of green beans for lunch. It’s just too much bulk, so to get a meal that has a third of daily calories all from healthy food is going to be difficult. I know of some healthy foods out there that are calorie dense (chick peas, for example) but most of them tend to be relatively expensive.
What all of this goes to say is, I think school administrators are rightly concerned. It will not be so easy to continue to provide 1/3rd of a growing child’s daily caloric needs, come in under budget, and do it all with healthy foods. It’s difficult form both a financial and a practical perspective.
Yes, that seem to be a local thing (Boulder v Denver, for example). But I meant her attitude is all wrong. And while she may not be pushing for it in schools, she’s an advocate.