First lady responds to school meal critics

[Gingersnap]

First lady responds to school meal critics

Posted: May 27, 2014 1:11 AM MDT
Updated: May 27, 2014 3:29 PM MDT

By MARY CLARE JALONICK
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - First lady Michelle Obama is striking back at House Republicans who are trying to weaken healthier school meal standards, saying any effort to roll back the guidelines is "unacceptable."

The rules set by Congress and the administration over the last several years require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains in the lunch line and set limits on sodium, sugar and fat. The first lady met Tuesday with school nutrition officials who said the guidelines are working in their schools.

The event was an unusual move for the first lady, who has largely stayed away from policy fights since she lobbied for congressional passage of a child nutrition law in 2010.

"The last thing we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids' health," Mrs. Obama told participants.

An agriculture spending bill approved by a House subcommittee last week would allow schools to waive the standards if they have a net loss on school food programs for a six-month period. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., who wrote the bill, said he was responding to requests from school food directors who have said the rules are too restrictive. The School Nutrition Association, which represents school nutrition directors and companies that sell food to schools, has lobbied for changes to the standards and endorsed the House bill.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to approve the spending bill this week.

At the White House event, school nutrition directors from New York City to Los Angeles to a rural county in Georgia told the first lady success stories about implementing the standards and said they would be disappointed to see any roll backs.

"We're not just talking about food, we're talking about education," said David Binkle of the Los Angeles Unified School District. He said participation is up in his district, along with test scores and graduation rates, since they made school foods healthier there.

The first lady asked the group for advice about how they can better respond to schools that are struggling, and suggested that the conversation should be focused on helping those schools rather than rolling back some of the standards completely. She said the government and schools can also do more to work with students to get them interested in what they are eating.

The president of the School Nutrition Association said Tuesday that the school officials invited to the White House weren't representative of those who have concerns.

"Our request for flexibility under the new standards does not come from industry or politics, it comes from thousands of school cafeteria professionals who have shown how these overly prescriptive regulations are hindering their effort to get students to eat healthy school meals," said SNA's Leah Schmidt.

The schools pushing for changes say limits on sodium and requirements for more whole grains are particularly challenging, while some school officials say kids are throwing away fruits and vegetables that are required.

If you are trying to solve a problem, it can be helpful to examine the system as it operated before the problem developed.

We know what the system looked like before childhood obesity was an issue. Children ate fewer types of foods, many of the foods were plain, children didn't have free access to all foods at home, body size was a significant social signifier, children walked, biked, and played for many more hours per day, and more children ate sack lunches at school.

Let's start there - with what we actually know about kids and why they get fat today.

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/story/2561580...#ixzz32xaNLMch
Follow us: @myfoxny on Twitter | Fox5NY on Facebook

[Adam]

If you are trying to solve a problem, it can be helpful to examine the system as it operated before the problem developed.

We know what the system looked like before childhood obesity was an issue. Children ate fewer types of foods, many of the foods were plain, children didn't have free access to all foods at home, body size was a significant social signifier, children walked, biked, and played for many more hours per day, and more children ate sack lunches at school.

Let's start there - with what we actually know about kids and why they get fat today.

Once again, restrict food stamps to healthy items only. Get rid of the Ho-Hos and Doritos at home and you'll go a long, long way to putting an end to obesity.

[phillygirl]

Once again, restrict food stamps to healthy items only. Get rid of the Ho-Hos and Doritos at home and you'll go a long, long way to putting an end to obesity.

School lunches are welfare for everyone. Ho-hos, doritos, etc. should not be on the school lunch menu. If it's being provided so that someone who can't afford lunch at school, it should be basic, nutritious, and generally palatable.

What people do at home is their own business.

[Adam]

School lunches are welfare for everyone. Ho-hos, doritos, etc. should not be on the school lunch menu. If it's being provided so that someone who can't afford lunch at school, it should be basic, nutritious, and generally palatable.

What people do at home is their own business.

Right up until the point when they're doing it on my nickel.

[phillygirl]

Right up until the point when they're doing it on my nickel.

Yes, well, I thought the article was about school lunches. I might not have read it closely enough though.

[Gingersnap]

Really, it's deal with the devil. If the State is going to provide supplemental nutrition to people who need it, it probably should be nutritious, fairly unprocessed (people can contribute their own labor to it), and not in conflict with other government health mandates.

Restricting SNAP to fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables and fruits along with staples like rice, flour sugar, butter, etc., and limiting items like soft drinks, candy, chips, and all that is probably something we will have to look at whether we like it or not. Too many people now qualify for this supplement but it isn't being used as a supplement for a lot of people. They using it to buy the bulk of their groceries and then using money they would otherwise spend on groceries to fund non-nutrition purchases. That's not sustainable.

[Adam]

Yes, well, I thought the article was about school lunches. I might not have read it closely enough though.

Bigger picture. The alleged reason for the First Lady seizing control of what schoolchildren eat at lunch is childhood obesity (the irony and indeed hypocrisy of her own persistent obesity notwithstanding). Ergo, the problem in question is not school lunches, it's childhood obesity.

Hence, if you're going to actually solve a problem (rather than just engage in a power-grab, as the First Lady is doing), then address the roots of the problem.



The statists can't have it both ways: if the feds are going to control what kids eat at school, paid for by the federal government, then they have the obligation to control what kids eat at home when those meals are paid for by the federal government as well.

[phillygirl]

Really, it's deal with the devil. If the State is going to provide supplemental nutrition to people who need it, it probably should be nutritious, fairly unprocessed (people can contribute their own labor to it), and not in conflict with other government health mandates.

Restricting SNAP to fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables and fruits along with staples like rice, flour sugar, butter, etc., and limiting items like soft drinks, candy, chips, and all that is probably something we will have to look at whether we like it or not. Too many people now qualify for this supplement but it isn't being used as a supplement for a lot of people. They using it to buy the bulk of their groceries and then using money they would otherwise spend on groceries to fund non-nutrition purchases. That's not sustainable.

And then the sodium, starch, and fat police come along.

My mom was part of a program offered to cancer patients for fresh vegetables and fruit. The local farmers donated their excess wares and once or twice a month she picked up a box of fresh produce. I'm really not certain why she got it, other than that she was on Medicare and had cancer. I'm sure it was to encourage nutritious eating. Not a bad idea. Her neighbor loved all the fresh vegetables she gave her each time!

Definitely something to think about for these programs, at least on a local level.

[Adam]

Really, it's deal with the devil. If the State is going to provide supplemental nutrition to people who need it, it probably should be nutritious, fairly unprocessed (people can contribute their own labor to it), and not in conflict with other government health mandates.

Restricting SNAP to fresh, frozen, or canned vegetables and fruits along with staples like rice, flour sugar, butter, etc., and limiting items like soft drinks, candy, chips, and all that is probably something we will have to look at whether we like it or not. Too many people now qualify for this supplement but it isn't being used as a supplement for a lot of people. They using it to buy the bulk of their groceries and then using money they would otherwise spend on groceries to fund non-nutrition purchases. That's not sustainable.

That's precisely why it needs to be severely restricted. People will flee food stamps like the cops are coming if they can only get healthy foods, and a limited amount of them at that. Those who genuinely need food stamps will continue to use them, and most likely use them properly already. The rest will leave, and the whole system will shrink dramatically.

[Gingersnap]

And then the sodium, starch, and fat police come along.

My mom was part of a program offered to cancer patients for fresh vegetables and fruit. The local farmers donated their excess wares and once or twice a month she picked up a box of fresh produce. I'm really not certain why she got it, other than that she was on Medicare and had cancer. I'm sure it was to encourage nutritious eating. Not a bad idea. Her neighbor loved all the fresh vegetables she gave her each time!

Definitely something to think about for these programs, at least on a local level.

Well, giving people free veggies isn't really going to solve the fatness problem. If fat people loved minimally processed foods (I'm including minimally processed at home), we wouldn't be talking about this because veggies have few calories and oddly little nutrition (at least in the amounts most people eat).

That's key, I think, to this issue. The problem isn't getting people to eat salt-free, fat-free veggies (no human culture willingly does this today), the problem is more practical: you will eat what you can afford. If you can't afford soft drinks and chips or take-out, then you will eat beans and rice or corn and pork or whatever your culture deems as 'basic food'.

I've eaten that way (as did Mr. Snaps). Is it fun? No, but it does take your mind off food since you are eating more for fuel and less for entertainment. I still eat fairly plainly since I pork out if I'm constantly experimenting with new recipes and new flavors. People don't overeat soup or salad or grilled/baked meat.

Food is thankfully cheap (most of human history is the history of starvation) but it does have unintended consequences.

[phillygirl]

Well, giving people free veggies isn't really going to solve the fatness problem. If fat people loved minimally processed foods (I'm including minimally processed at home), we wouldn't be talking about this because veggies have few calories and oddly little nutrition (at least in the amounts most people eat).

That's key, I think, to this issue. The problem isn't getting people to eat salt-free, fat-free veggies (no human culture willingly does this today), the problem is more practical: you will eat what you can afford. If you can't afford soft drinks and chips or take-out, then you will eat beans and rice or corn and pork or whatever your culture deems as 'basic food'.

I've eaten that way (as did Mr. Snaps). Is it fun? No, but it does take your mind off food since you are eating more for fuel and less for entertainment. I still eat fairly plainly since I pork out if I'm constantly experimenting with new recipes and new flavors. People don't overeat soup or salad or grilled/baked meat.

Food is thankfully cheap (most of human history is the history of starvation) but it does have unintended consequences.

Please...I can eat 3 bowls of soup if it's mine. I can pretty much overeat anything.

Hi, I'm philly and I love food!

[Gingersnap]

Please...I can eat 3 bowls of soup if it's mine. I can pretty much overeat anything.

Hi, I'm philly and I love food!

Do it for 7 days in a row and then we'll talk. You may over eat that Yankee Bean soup or that Italian salad for one or two nights but you won't be over-eating all week long. I speak from experience. I make killer soups and impressive salads but even I lose interest over 4 days and I have a high tolerance for repetitive food.

You've talked about eating the same exact lunch in school for years. Did you want double or triple portions of that lunch? I doubt you did. You were just fine with the portion you took.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Billy Jingo]

You think Michelle Obama is obese?

BTW, I remember arguing with some guys on here about how kids weren't eating healthy food being served at the school and she should just quit trying and she's a Nazi and kids will starve without their tacos or some such nonsense.

You guys give me whiplash, I swear.

[Billy Jingo]

If you are trying to solve a problem, it can be helpful to examine the system as it operated before the problem developed.

We know what the system looked like before childhood obesity was an issue. Children ate fewer types of foods, many of the foods were plain, children didn't have free access to all foods at home, body size was a significant social signifier, children walked, biked, and played for many more hours per day, and more children ate sack lunches at school.

Let's start there - with what we actually know about kids and why they get fat today.

If only someone, maybe a famous person with access to the Media, would start a public service program encouraging kids to be active. They could call it "Let's Go!" or "Just Move" or something like that.

[Billy Jingo]

Perhaps I don't understand the threshold for obesity.

That is not an obese or unhealthy woman. I understand that you might not find her attractive for some reason (all that stuff is subjective) but that is not a fat woman.

For my part, I am with Sir Mix-a-Lot on the issue.