Welcome To Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals

Signs101.com: Largest Forum for Signmaking Professionals is the LARGEST online community & discussion forum for professional sign-makers and graphic designers.

 


  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USDA mandating calorie restrictions in schools

Discussion in 'General Chit-Chat' started by ICeMAnAbk, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. ICeMAnAbk

    ICeMAnAbk Member

    95
    0
    0
    Jun 11, 2012
    Tags:
  2. TheSnowman

    TheSnowman Major Contributor

    6,874
    27
    48
    Aug 28, 2007
    Indiana
    I'm all for not having 500lb 10 year olds...but come on...we had pizza on Fridays and some other things that as a kid you looked forward to in lunch, and we weren't enormous back then. All you have to do is not play video games all day and get out and run with your friends outside.

    I do know that there's a bunch of kids that their only meal(s) they may get are at school lunch. It's a sad situation but I know it happens even more than I'd like to realize. I think it worked fine since the beginning of school, why change it? I have a feeling when those kids get home, they'll just fill their mouths with junk food because they didn't "fill up" at school. I could see it actually doing harm to some kids that have access to unlimited amounts of junk at home.
     
  3. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,266
    148
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN

    I have to agree with this. There needs to be more responsibility on the parents for making sure of the health of their kid. I had a huge caloric intake and yet I was well within the average weight range for my age and body type. However, I was also very active during those years.

    If you limit the caloric intake on children that might need more due to their specific needs (either lack of other sources of food, or need more intake due to activity level, or just in general how quickly or slowly the body uses the energy) that could led to other issues.

    If you want to make a change in this regard, have to push the burden onto the parents. That usually means in the form of hitting them at the pocketbook.
     
  4. rjssigns

    rjssigns Major Contributor

    4,265
    201
    63
    Jun 4, 2007
    Home Office
    Bring it on. Then I can implement my plan of posting hot dog carts across the streets form all schools. Mwhaa-haa-haaa.
    If all goes well I could expand with gyros and knishes.

    On a more serious note we have enough government intervention as it is. We do not need another regulation. It is like Kraig said, get outside and play. Hmm...looks like it comes down to the parents getting the kids away from the electronic baby sitter.
     
  5. Marlene

    Marlene Major Contributor

    10,964
    255
    83
    Jun 8, 2004
    Vermont
    it comes down to the same reason there's no smoking on hospital grounds anymore. a school teaches. teaching better eating habits isn't a bad thing and you can't teach that if you don't apply it to your own luch programs. kids are fat, plain and simple. if they can't learn good eating habits at home, I see nothing wrong with a school teaching good habits and supporting them with their lunch programs. 850 cal lunch for a 16 year old is about 1/3 of their daily required intake so it seems reasonable
     
  6. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,266
    148
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN
    That may not be the 1/3 of the daily requirement for all though. That's the problem. My caloric intake right now is at 3800 a day. That's just to maintain for me specifically. The average is 2000. I'm right in the middle of my weight range. You are also talking about a group of people at a life stage that is radically different from one another. More so, then when you get older. There are still differences, but they don't seem to be nearly as radical compared to that of growing children.

    Also, imposing limits on caloric intake isn't really in effect teaching about good nutrition, it's just imposing limits. I would be willing to bet it's more about cutting costs at the school level. Raising food prices, need to make cuts somewhere, let's impose a bill under the heading of "health" that also happens to benefit in cutting our costs.

    Learning about healthy living has to come from the home front. You want to change that, then you have to have the consequences of having an unhealthy kid solely on that kid's parents "shoulders". Not compensated either later on.
     
  7. omgsideburns

    omgsideburns Very Active Member

    2,180
    0
    36
    Apr 15, 2008
    it doesn't matter what you feed them in school, if they go home and eat the whole box of oreos they are still going to get fat... for example me.

    imposing calorie restrictions might actually harm children from low income families that might not get any food anywhere else.
     
  8. Jackpine

    Jackpine Major Contributor

    It's government intervention. As a nation we don't raise our children anymore. It is because "it takes a village" crap. It takes parents! Raising healthy, responsible, compassionate education is NOT the governments responsibly it's the parents. In New York city the mayor has a law trying to keep citizens from drinking more than 16 oz of soda. Why not take away other personal choices? I am not saying over eating of excessive amounts of anything is good behavior . Just saying our choices and responsibilities are being taking away one by one. A good idea would be that those elected and appointed in government should read the constitution, bill of rights and then follow the rules.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2012
  9. Marlene

    Marlene Major Contributor

    10,964
    255
    83
    Jun 8, 2004
    Vermont
    I agree with you on the banding of soda over 16oz as taking away personal choice. what I am seeing in the school lunch is a little different as it is a school and should be setting a good example and teaching by example. when I went to high school, there was a smoking area for students. they have changed that and it was the right thing to do. this seems like the same thing as how can you teach a class about proper nutrition and then send them to a lunch with a ton of empty calories, the very thing you just taught them was bad for them? there is an ad for Accu-chek Nano glucose tester that really brings the issue to light. listen to the song they play in the ad, it sounds more like an ad for a 13 year old girl's product. the first time I heard it, I pointed it out to my husband as kids are getting fatter and now they are the market for these testers. it is sad and yes, the parents should be the ones taking care of this but it seems like they aren't. since it is a school, they should support teaching on all levels including health and wellbeing.
     
  10. genericname

    genericname Active Member

    928
    0
    16
    Feb 27, 2009
    Canada
    Government intervention or no, there is a war going on right now, with any kid with a couple bucks to spare in the crosshairs. Yes, we need better parenting and public education, but it's madness to ignore how corporate the lunchroom has become. Capitalism isn't the problem, but one of its results are. The lunchroom cafeteria, like any other area of education, should be a place that prepares young students not just for their day, but their post-secondary lives as well. Big gulps and extra large fries have nothing to do with that world, and they never should have.
     
  11. Jackpine

    Jackpine Major Contributor

    As a former teacher I 100% agree with posts 9 and 10. Education is the answer. We, families and educators, are not teaching students how to "learn" in life when they need information and take personal responsibility for their choices.
     
  12. Si Allen

    Si Allen Very Active Member

    2,146
    1
    0
    Jul 17, 2004
    As usual ... when the government gets involved ... things go from bad to worse!

    One size fits all doesn't work.

    Kids who are into sports after school burn up much more calories than those that go home and play electronic games.

    ( from the Drudge Report)

    :frustrated:
     
  13. Move In Media

    Move In Media Member

    170
    0
    0
    Mar 13, 2012
    ..
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2012
  14. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,266
    148
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN

    Unfortunately, putting limits on nutritional intake does not really teach good healthy living. I didn't fit into the average caloric intake at that age, nor do I fit into right now.

    If I were to use the averages for that age group and the age group I am in now, I would be lethargic and not nearly as active as I am now, because it would not be supplying the nutrition that I need. That is what proper nutritional education would be about. I know some people that due to their body type, look like they are obese and yet they are the most active and they are built like you wouldn't believe.

    Education is a must, no doubt, but it has to come more from the home then from the school. The education that kids get from the home front affects how well they receive the education that they get from the school.


    Limiting caloric intake in of itself is not the way to do it. This is coming from someone that has education and real world experience in equine nutrition and there isn't much difference among mammals then people would like to think.
     
  15. Gino

    Gino Major Contributor

    30,269
    1,299
    113
    Jun 7, 2006
    PA
    If I'm paying for these kids health problems through my school taxes and possibly ObamaCare, then I want them to stop abusing their bodies. They want and need my help and support, they have to play by the rules.

    Too many hands out for freebie sh!t.... and we all suffer.

    When I was in school, you got detention if you were found smoking on school grounds or even close by. Lunches cost between 35¢ and 50¢. I got $2.00 a week from my mom for lunches. We didn't have the money to scarf down huge amounts and besides, we used cafeteria time as a social time and did a lot of talking and intermingling.... not eating til we toppled over.

    Nope, just like the welfare people, I don't want to pay for a bunch of derelict people who can't control their lives or their bad eating habits. I have problems with my diet and I pay my own way 100%.

    So regulate away..............
     
  16. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,266
    148
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN
    I think you are shooting for the stars with "if".
     
  17. genericname

    genericname Active Member

    928
    0
    16
    Feb 27, 2009
    Canada
    Problem is, a burger platter with large fries costs less than a fresh veggie platter, or salad with roast chicken. The problem isn't that poor people only want crappy food, it's that the system is so backwards that the poor can only eat crappy food.

    I don't believe a caloric limit is the full answer, but it could help change the demand for the type of food provided, leading to lower prices due to higher production.
     
  18. WildWestDesigns

    WildWestDesigns Major Contributor

    5,266
    148
    63
    Sep 27, 2010
    Mid TN
    Not really. The change in type demanded is going to come from education or taxing people that are over/under weight that hits their pocketbook. Regulation is really only going to work if it hits the pocketbook.

    As far as lower income not being able to afford the better foods, that's absolutely true. It costs to be healthy, environmental conscious etc. That's why developing nations usually don't have those concerns until they are able to afford to do something about it. However, I have to wonder if someone couldn't afford to feed 9 mouths, why did they create those 9 mouths in the first place? Now, I can see accidents happening (even then that's still shame on them in most instances, there are exceptions though), but after that first one, by the time you hit 2-9, that's pushing the "accidents will happen".

    To me, it's all with the parents. Now if you can't do something about it for whatever reason, no shame, but don't have kids until you can or bust your *** so you can if an accident does happen.
     
  19. Gino

    Gino Major Contributor

    30,269
    1,299
    113
    Jun 7, 2006
    PA
    If people followed your logic, nothing would ever get started.

    No one waits til they have all their ducks in a row to pull the trigger on anything, unless your buying a toothbrush or pack of cigarettes. Rich countries, poor countries, smart, dumb or whatever..... humans always do things on impulse and nothing more.

    However, I don't feel like paying for bad decisions. You make a bad decision and can't raise a kid properly.... I'm supported to feed it, send it to the hospital and watch it turn into another person like the rotten parent ?? Then I want no part of it. I will continue to raise my voice, until someone has a stoopid button that clunks stoopid people on the head and squashes them out of existence.

    As long as we keep bailing the bad ones out, they'll keep reproducing. Kill them off [so to speak..... just put an end to doing EVERYTHING for them] and they will learn to learn and do better for themselves, but not as long as we keep feeding the weakest link.
     
  20. gnemmas

    gnemmas Active Member

    838
    11
    18
    Nov 7, 2006
    CA
    What is the purpose of school? They have hard time to accomplish their primary function: EDUCATION as is.

    Why are schools in feeding business? The do-gooders were worried about children starving. Just like welfare program, they don't think through the negative side effects. Once the program started, the food server's union is involved, there is no way to end it.

    Past summer, Los Angeles Unified School District cancelled summer program due to budget shortfall, but they still want the kids to come to school to have meals so not to lose the Federal Subsidy.
     

Share This Page

 


Loading...