Let them Eat Cake!!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

A new study (pdf) carried out by researchers at Virginia Tech concluded that preschoolers and kindergartners tend to eat healthier lunches when the food is chosen by their school, not their parents. The study, which surveyed more than 1,300 lunches at three schools in Virginia, found that parents frequently pack things like chips, sweets, and sugary drinks—all of which are not allowed under the National School Lunch Program. “I wasn’t expecting there to be such a strong difference between school meals and lunches packed by parents,” said Alisha Farris, one of the study’s authors. “We thought that parents would send lunches that reinforced the sort of healthy habits we hope they are trying to establish at home.”

Parents, it turns out, appear to do just the opposite. More than 60 percent of meals packed at home had one dessert (nearly 20 percent had two or more); just under 60 percent had savory snacks, like chips; and roughly 40 percent had a soda or sugar-added juice. School meals, meanwhile, were more likely to contain fruits, vegetables, naturally sweetened juices, and milk.

Maybe we should limit what kind of food people can buy with SNAP cards.

I can't figure out if your lack of common sense and restraint is humorous or troubling, probably both.

Isn't it already limited? ??  If not, why does so much food at the Walmart have an orange "snap eligible sticker on it?

Perhaps it should be further limited to food that doesn't cause so many poor people to be in such terrible health.

Dummy, I was referencing him thinking that people that qualify for free lunch actually send their kids to school with lunches. Do you guys have some sort of computer glitch that doesn't allow for thought not fed to you by Sean, Rush, and the ghost of Breitbart?

The point was if the government can limit what kids get for a subsidized school lunch to only healthy food and portion control, they should limit SNAP cards in the same manner.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

A new study (pdf) carried out by researchers at Virginia Tech concluded that preschoolers and kindergartners tend to eat healthier lunches when the food is chosen by their school, not their parents. The study, which surveyed more than 1,300 lunches at three schools in Virginia, found that parents frequently pack things like chips, sweets, and sugary drinks—all of which are not allowed under the National School Lunch Program. “I wasn’t expecting there to be such a strong difference between school meals and lunches packed by parents,” said Alisha Farris, one of the study’s authors. “We thought that parents would send lunches that reinforced the sort of healthy habits we hope they are trying to establish at home.”

Parents, it turns out, appear to do just the opposite. More than 60 percent of meals packed at home had one dessert (nearly 20 percent had two or more); just under 60 percent had savory snacks, like chips; and roughly 40 percent had a soda or sugar-added juice. School meals, meanwhile, were more likely to contain fruits, vegetables, naturally sweetened juices, and milk.

Maybe we should limit what kind of food people can buy with SNAP cards.

I can't figure out if your lack of common sense and restraint is humorous or troubling, probably both.

Isn't it already limited? ??  If not, why does so much food at the Walmart have an orange "snap eligible sticker on it?

Perhaps it should be further limited to food that doesn't cause so many poor people to be in such terrible health.

Dummy, I was referencing him thinking that people that qualify for free lunch actually send their kids to school with lunches. Do you guys have some sort of computer glitch that doesn't allow for thought not fed to you by Sean, Rush, and the ghost of Breitbart?

The point was if the government can limit what kids get for a subsidized school lunch to only healthy food and portion control, they should limit SNAP cards in the same manner.

Nuh uh, he totally got us with that clever quip.

MIR, aren't you a social worker or something?

[MakeItRain]

A new study (pdf) carried out by researchers at Virginia Tech concluded that preschoolers and kindergartners tend to eat healthier lunches when the food is chosen by their school, not their parents. The study, which surveyed more than 1,300 lunches at three schools in Virginia, found that parents frequently pack things like chips, sweets, and sugary drinks—all of which are not allowed under the National School Lunch Program. “I wasn’t expecting there to be such a strong difference between school meals and lunches packed by parents,” said Alisha Farris, one of the study’s authors. “We thought that parents would send lunches that reinforced the sort of healthy habits we hope they are trying to establish at home.”

Parents, it turns out, appear to do just the opposite. More than 60 percent of meals packed at home had one dessert (nearly 20 percent had two or more); just under 60 percent had savory snacks, like chips; and roughly 40 percent had a soda or sugar-added juice. School meals, meanwhile, were more likely to contain fruits, vegetables, naturally sweetened juices, and milk.

Maybe we should limit what kind of food people can buy with SNAP cards.

I can't figure out if your lack of common sense and restraint is humorous or troubling, probably both.

Isn't it already limited? ??  If not, why does so much food at the Walmart have an orange "snap eligible sticker on it?

Perhaps it should be further limited to food that doesn't cause so many poor people to be in such terrible health.

Dummy, I was referencing him thinking that people that qualify for free lunch actually send their kids to school with lunches. Do you guys have some sort of computer glitch that doesn't allow for thought not fed to you by Sean, Rush, and the ghost of Breitbart?

The point was if the government can limit what kids get for a subsidized school lunch to only healthy food and portion control, they should limit SNAP cards in the same manner.

I wasn't aware that the government was limiting what kids can get for lunch. Looks like kat kid has been trying to tell us that, you should believe him.

[MakeItRain]

MIR, aren't you a social worker or something?

Nope, not even close. I don't have the temperament for that. I will tell you that I have voluntarily familiarized myself with the nutritional standards for school lunches to help me with a component of what I do. I can tell you that when you see stories and pictures of kids who aren't getting enough food it is because of adults playing bullshit political games with children's nutrition. Like two years ago when whatever NWKS town that was (Otis/Bison?) that made national news by making that music video about their disappearing food, total bullshit. The standard is that schools have until 2022 to fully comply, there are essentially mile markers they have to meet from when the new standards were in acted until 2022, its a long progression to comply and the first mile marker wasn't even until this school year. So if dumb administrators couldn't figure out or get their food service people to figure it out they have plenty of time to get their crap together.

The biggest issue for food service professionals who insist on serving food the same way they have since we were kids is that there is so much damn sodium in food and the sodium reduction is the most difficult aspect of complying to the new standards. Like I said though they have until 2022 to reduce the sodium intake each meal by 50%. This year the schools have to cut a whole 30mg of the 500+mg of sodium allowed before this school year. Yet lazy people want to continue to order the same damn chicken strips from Sysco instead of I dunno, doing something different. They are ordering the same crap yet serving it in smaller quantities instead of trying something differently.

So instead of just doing what they need to do to keep harmful sodium out of our kids diets they are instead starving kids and telling them that it is Moochele's fault and turning it into photo ops. rough ridin' selfish assholes putting their racist political agendas in front of the health of our children.

[sys]

The biggest issue for food service professionals who insist on serving food the same way they have since we were kids is that there is so much damn sodium in food and the sodium reduction is the most difficult aspect of complying to the new standards...

that is awful.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

A new study (pdf) carried out by researchers at Virginia Tech concluded that preschoolers and kindergartners tend to eat healthier lunches when the food is chosen by their school, not their parents. The study, which surveyed more than 1,300 lunches at three schools in Virginia, found that parents frequently pack things like chips, sweets, and sugary drinks—all of which are not allowed under the National School Lunch Program. “I wasn’t expecting there to be such a strong difference between school meals and lunches packed by parents,” said Alisha Farris, one of the study’s authors. “We thought that parents would send lunches that reinforced the sort of healthy habits we hope they are trying to establish at home.”

Parents, it turns out, appear to do just the opposite. More than 60 percent of meals packed at home had one dessert (nearly 20 percent had two or more); just under 60 percent had savory snacks, like chips; and roughly 40 percent had a soda or sugar-added juice. School meals, meanwhile, were more likely to contain fruits, vegetables, naturally sweetened juices, and milk.

Maybe we should limit what kind of food people can buy with SNAP cards.

I can't figure out if your lack of common sense and restraint is humorous or troubling, probably both.

Isn't it already limited? ??  If not, why does so much food at the Walmart have an orange "snap eligible sticker on it?

Perhaps it should be further limited to food that doesn't cause so many poor people to be in such terrible health.

Dummy, I was referencing him thinking that people that qualify for free lunch actually send their kids to school with lunches. Do you guys have some sort of computer glitch that doesn't allow for thought not fed to you by Sean, Rush, and the ghost of Breitbart?

The point was if the government can limit what kids get for a subsidized school lunch to only healthy food and portion control, they should limit SNAP cards in the same manner.

I wasn't aware that the government was limiting what kids can get for lunch. Looks like kat kid has been trying to tell us that, you should believe him.

Dummy, that's what this thread is all about. Maybe stop worshipping at the alter of Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews for second, bro. You might also let Moochelle know her health kick is a fantasy.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

MIR, aren't you a social worker or something?

Nope, not even close. I don't have the temperament for that. I will tell you that I have voluntarily familiarized myself with the nutritional standards for school lunches to help me with a component of what I do. I can tell you that when you see stories and pictures of kids who aren't getting enough food it is because of adults playing bullshit political games with children's nutrition. Like two years ago when whatever NWKS town that was (Otis/Bison?) that made national news by making that music video about their disappearing food, total bullshit. The standard is that schools have until 2022 to fully comply, there are essentially mile markers they have to meet from when the new standards were in acted until 2022, its a long progression to comply and the first mile marker wasn't even until this school year. So if dumb administrators couldn't figure out or get their food service people to figure it out they have plenty of time to get their crap together.

The biggest issue for food service professionals who insist on serving food the same way they have since we were kids is that there is so much damn sodium in food and the sodium reduction is the most difficult aspect of complying to the new standards. Like I said though they have until 2022 to reduce the sodium intake each meal by 50%. This year the schools have to cut a whole 30mg of the 500+mg of sodium allowed before this school year. Yet lazy people want to continue to order the same damn chicken strips from Sysco instead of I dunno, doing something different. They are ordering the same crap yet serving it in smaller quantities instead of trying something differently.

So instead of just doing what they need to do to keep harmful sodium out of our kids diets they are instead starving kids and telling them that it is Moochele's fault and turning it into photo ops. rough ridin' selfish assholes putting their racist political agendas in front of the health of our children.

Form calling lunch ladies food service professionals down to blaming hungry children on a racist political agenda, this may be the biggest load of bullshit dumped in the pit in a while. STFU you disingenuous assclown.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

A new study (pdf) carried out by researchers at Virginia Tech concluded that preschoolers and kindergartners tend to eat healthier lunches when the food is chosen by their school, not their parents. The study, which surveyed more than 1,300 lunches at three schools in Virginia, found that parents frequently pack things like chips, sweets, and sugary drinks—all of which are not allowed under the National School Lunch Program. “I wasn’t expecting there to be such a strong difference between school meals and lunches packed by parents,” said Alisha Farris, one of the study’s authors. “We thought that parents would send lunches that reinforced the sort of healthy habits we hope they are trying to establish at home.”

Parents, it turns out, appear to do just the opposite. More than 60 percent of meals packed at home had one dessert (nearly 20 percent had two or more); just under 60 percent had savory snacks, like chips; and roughly 40 percent had a soda or sugar-added juice. School meals, meanwhile, were more likely to contain fruits, vegetables, naturally sweetened juices, and milk.

Maybe we should limit what kind of food people can buy with SNAP cards.

I can't figure out if your lack of common sense and restraint is humorous or troubling, probably both.

Isn't it already limited? ??  If not, why does so much food at the Walmart have an orange "snap eligible sticker on it?

Perhaps it should be further limited to food that doesn't cause so many poor people to be in such terrible health.

Dummy, I was referencing him thinking that people that qualify for free lunch actually send their kids to school with lunches. Do you guys have some sort of computer glitch that doesn't allow for thought not fed to you by Sean, Rush, and the ghost of Breitbart?

The point was if the government can limit what kids get for a subsidized school lunch to only healthy food and portion control, they should limit SNAP cards in the same manner.

I wasn't aware that the government was limiting what kids can get for lunch. Looks like kat kid has been trying to tell us that, you should believe him.

So you're saying the federal government has no say in nutritional requirements for subsidized school lunches? 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Not saying it's a bad thing, just that it is actually a thing.

Through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act championed by the First Lady and signed by President Obama, USDA made the first major changes in school meals in 15 years, which will help us raise a healthier generation of children.

The new standards align school meals with the latest nutrition science and the real world circumstances of America’s schools. These responsible reforms do what’s right for children’s health in a way that’s achievable in schools across the Nation.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards-school-meals

[Rage Against the McKee]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Thanks, Obama!

[Spracne]

You'll have to pry my crispitos from my cold, diabetic fingers...

[star seed 7]

pizza day tho...  go ahead and take that

[Spracne]

I mean... Yeah, school lunches are under govt control, so let's feed those shits some healthier food.

[star seed 7]

keep your government hands off my school lunch 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Healthier = smaller portions of the same crap.
Healthier /= standard portions for children

You are all either obstinate, blind (bbs version of deaf) or both.

[renocat]

Wide body butt Moooooochelle is a hipocrit.  Starving kids, especially in high school leads to permanent brain farts and synaptic spasms.  Growing stupid so they can vote liberal.  Give the youngins meat, taters and pie - calories for brains.  Even Benji the gay bull should be scacrificed as gay-burgers for the cause. Dang what if a bunch of discriminated starving kids go rioting and fire bombing.  Just think when the new immigrunt children come here there will be more to feed, and likely less food due to global warming.  What will Republicans do?  Vote for Keystone and vote against Obamacare so Obama can give us the bird and pass enviromental regs that will destory us before ISIS does now that Ol' Joe Biden is them hunting to hell.

[Mr Bread]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

Who decides how much any particular child gets? 

[CNS]

Levi Strauss (sp), and others who only make kids pants up to a certain waist size.

[Mr Bread]

We let the market decide.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

Who decides how much any particular child gets?

It's all right in here. You may be too lazy to "pit".

[Mr Bread]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

Who decides how much any particular child gets?

It's all right in here. You may be too lazy to "pit".

Listen you shitbrain dumbfuck, fsd here is against the rules championed by the obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), so if they don't dictate how much a particular child eats then who or what does?  The children?  Lunch ladies?  School administrators? 

If you scrap the rules then who makes the call and based on what criteria?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

Who decides how much any particular child gets?

It's all right in here. You may be too lazy to "pit".

Listen you shitbrain dumbfuck, fsd here is against the rules championed by the obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), so if they don't dictate how much a particular child eats then who or what does?  The children?  Lunch ladies?  School administrators? 

If you scrap the rules then who makes the call and based on what criteria?

It's a completely unnecessary intrusion that has already cost $3 billion dollars in additional subsidies and administrative costs over the last 3 years. The people that were making the local decisions on portions were doing a fine job. The problems are at home, not in the schools.

[Kat Kid]

Feeding kids healthy food in reasonable proportions seems like a pretty good idea to me.

They're treating children like livestock.  Some kids need to eat more than others.  The younger the kid the worse the preset meal plan because of how fast the kids grow and how widely they vary in size.  This is especially problematic in head start funded pre schools where many of the kids aren't fed at home and need more food.

The fact that an obese Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) championed these rules only makes the whole thing less appetizing and harder to swallow.  I can't think of anything more elitist, obtuse and idiotic than standardizing nutritional requirements for children.

Who decides how much any particular child gets?

"From each school district according to their ability, to each child according to their need" seems like FSD's solution.