Posted on 04/19/2014 8:41:31 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Northwest Suburban High School District 214 may drop out of the National School Lunch Program next year due to what officials called restrictive changes in the law.
The change comes in advance of a new "Smart Snacks in Schools" law that goes into effect July 1. The law will mandate what can be served, not only for reimbursable meals, but for all food items available in the morning, during the school day and 30 minutes after school ends, including food sold at a fundraiser such as a bake sale, food in vending machines and school stores and school breakfast.
"The loss of revenue for both the food service program and student activity fundraisers is believed to be substantial," according to a district memo.
Frole said the standards would prevent common items such as baked goods and a la carte snacks, but also items such as hummus, hard-boiled eggs and nonfat milk more than 12 ounces.
"I'm a little cranked up over this," said Superintendent Dave Schuler, who said the rules, part of an anti-obesity campaign pushed by the Obama administration, seem to have gone too far.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyherald.com ...
I didn’t even realize there was a National School Lunch Program. I thought it was a state program or even local.
It’s not just that their trying to tell us what to eat, it’s that the low-fat diet they are pushing is manifestly unhealthy.
seem to have gone too far.
Ya Think!
The FEDERAL Government telling the people what foods their children can eat? By law? You think that may have gone to far.......
I would like to know who the Principal voted for in 08 & 12...
I’m sure no one will be surprised.
This how the damned government ends up forcing you to their will. They start out with ‘supplements’, ‘incentives’ and ‘good will’ additions to school budgets for breakfast, early lunch, and even afterschool dinners for the chilluns.
And then they start with the mandates. What parent voters do not realize that if their sandbagging, featherbedding, thieving local school boards, superintendents and supervisors STOPPED taking this money, all that requirements crap would be out the window: impotent, ineffective, unenforceable, meaningless twitter from a government so far disconnected to reality it isn’t funny.
Give up that stolen money and start doing what you promised your local voters to do, educate the children the best way you know how, and stop trying to get rich, get lazy, or take that government sponsored education seminar in Hawaii you lazy effing mo’tards.
“It’s not just that their trying to tell us what to eat, it’s that the low-fat diet they are pushing is manifestly unhealthy.”
For children, that is. For most adults a low fat, lean protein diet with plenty of fresh veggies and fruits is the healthiest way to eat.
Children need fat in their diets for brain development.
I tried to google up a complete list of approved menu items, but couldn’t seem to stumble over one.
Does anyone have a URL?
What is really frightening is many areas demand that ALL kids go on the Lunch Program. My friend moved to West Virginia. All the kids, whether the parents can pay for breakfast/lunch or not.. are on the subsidized program. Why do I have the feeling that all states will be forced to adopt this type program?
If you have to call something “Smart” in order to sell it, it’s not smart at all, and you’re an idiot if you got whatever it is.
Mobama wouldn’t eat at Mobama’s. No Wagyu beef.
I eat a very high fat diet, but I’ve eliminated sugar and processed foods. My family is healthier as a result. Even the arthritis in my feet went away. We are meant to eat fat.
For most adults a low fat, lean protein diet with plenty of fresh veggies and fruits is the healthiest way to eat.
There certainly was reason to think that might be true, forty years ago, when the public health community manufactured the "dietary fat causes heart disease" consensus. But the research necessary to demonstrate hadn't actually been done.
Since then, the research has been done, and it turns out to have been a mistake. There were fundamental flaws in the epidemiological studies that had suggested such a relationship existed, and the correlations that had appeared in them have not appeared in any of many large-scale random controlled trials, in in epidemiological studies that control for some what appear now to be rather obvious confounding factors.
Now it's true that some people eating diets that can be characterized as low-fat diet thrive. That doesn't mean that all low-fat diets are healthy, there are plenty of low-fat diets that aren't healthy. And it doesn't mean that even a "healthy" low-fat diet is appropriate for everyone.
In fact, given that our current health care crisis is driven almost entirely by chronic diseases - obesity, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, etc. - that are primarily the consequences of metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance, to claim that low-fat is the healthiest way to eat for "most" people is positively dangerous. Because for the very large proportion of the population who are suffering from these issues, what they need more than anything is to restrict carbohydrates - at least until their glucose response is back to where it should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.