Kids Flee the Lunch Line

Children are not getting fat from the food that they eat as school. The quantity eaten at the school lunch is not great enough to create obesity. (I know nothing of the free breakfasts.) The inactivity at school does contribute to obesity.
The quantities necessary for obesity are being eaten at home. And the inactivity is being continued at home.
But these are NOT the government's children. The schools should serve for lunch what the LOCAL citizens decide that they are to serve, not the state or federal government.

If we care enough then we don't let the kids throw their veggies and fruits in the trash archer? We make them eat their veggies and fruits? So better food was provided and the kids don't want to eat it. What's Michelle's plan now?

archer wrote: No one cares if gym class is eliminated, ...

Actually, Archer, this is an area we probably agree on for a change. What happened?

1. Little Billy gets injured on the playground.
2. Billy's parents, subscribing to the selfish 'its always someone else's fault' mentality decides to sue the school.
3. The school district, strapped for funding as it is, decides to eliminate recess and physical activity to avoid further litigation.

This exact scenario played out in Pennsylvania several years ago.

As far as obesity? It is really quite simple for most people. Eat too much and do not exercise and you will get fat. Exercise is the closest thing to a 'silver bullet' for personal health. But, kids seem to be doing it less and less. Most kids today are lazy when it comes to any form of exercise. I've seen my nephews over the years sitting on their butts playing video games on 80 degree summer days - all I can do is shake my head.

The kids didn't get lazy, the adults did. Parents found it easier to let their kids amuse themselves with TV and video games than to actually supervise the young ones outside in the fresh air. The school district found it easier to eliminate gym from the curriculum than to provide both the facility and the physical education teachers to provide both supervision and training in phys ed.

Kids leave veggies in the trash because the adults don't take the time to educate them about healthy foods and don't start them early on eating right. For some families the cost to eat healthy is to high, if the schools can supplement the low income kids diet with food that is good for them, I'm all for it. I believe that if a kid is truly hungry he will eat, even if all that is available is healthy food and drinks.

Don't disagree with a lot of what you said archer. We are the responsible parties/parents for allowing the school districts to do what they are doing and allowing kids to get lazy and not educate. But how does Michelle's edict fix anything when the kids are throwing the veggies and fruit in the trash? Your approach of providing only healthy doesn't seem to be making it even when low income are truly hungry. Now what?

archer wrote: The kids didn't get lazy, the adults did. Parents found it easier to let their kids amuse themselves with TV and video games than to actually supervise the young ones outside in the fresh air. The school district found it easier to eliminate gym from the curriculum than to provide both the facility and the physical education teachers to provide both supervision and training in phys ed.

Kids leave veggies in the trash because the adults don't take the time to educate them about healthy foods and don't start them early on eating right. For some families the cost to eat healthy is to high, if the schools can supplement the low income kids diet with food that is good for them, I'm all for it. I believe that if a kid is truly hungry he will eat, even if all that is available is healthy food and drinks.

LOL. You sound like an evil republican. Let them starve if they don't eat what we give them.

You know, there is a lot being taken for granted in this thread. First, that we should be giving free lunches. Second, that some food is "healthier" than others. Third, that the government knows better than the parents what is to be fed to the children.

It isn't conservative or liberal to want what is best for our kids. And it isn't starving kids to offer them decent food.Can we make them eat it? Maybe not immediately, you don't change long ingrained habits and preferences over night even in children. But abandoning the plan to improve the health of kids because it doesn't produce immediate results is short sighted and just plain wrong.These kids are worth the effort.

archer wrote: It isn't conservative or liberal to want what is best for our kids. And it isn't starving kids to offer them decent food.Can we make them eat it? Maybe not immediately, you don't change long ingrained habits and preferences over night even in children. But abandoning the plan to improve the health of kids because it doesn't produce immediate results is short sighted and just plain wrong.These kids are worth the effort.

No, but it is conservative to let kids starve, right? You can't walk this back. You want us to put healthy food in front of them and let them starve until they eat it. Dr. Spock would not approve.

archer wrote: I believe that if a kid is truly hungry he will eat, even if all that is available is healthy food and drinks.

What is that you say? Out of context, that is not what you meant? :splat: :rofllol :rofllol

It's exactly what I meant, why does that irritate you. If the kids were offered no food, or it was taken away from them, that would be starving them, which as you pointed out is something a conservative would do. If, however I offer those kids good healthy food, and they choose not to eat it, and I then tell them that they can either eat what is put in front of them or go hungry, that is a good parent, or a liberal, take your pick.