(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Feds give in, more meat in school lunches, your Mom

09 Dec 2012 02:00 AM   |   5008 clicks   |   AP
Showing 1-50 of 62 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
cretinbob     
farking socialism.

08 Dec 2012 11:35 PM
fusillade762    [TotalFark]  
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


/oblig

08 Dec 2012 11:54 PM
Shostie    [TotalFark]  
bhisham87.webs.comView Full Size


Yay...!

09 Dec 2012 12:02 AM
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     
Oh, great. Now they'll never have any pudding.

You, stand still, laddie!

09 Dec 2012 12:13 AM
Snapper Carr     
I wager there's a GOP legislator somewhere out there who is outraged by this.

09 Dec 2012 02:01 AM
DarkSoulNoHope     
*REAL* meat plz!

09 Dec 2012 02:09 AM
My Bologna Has A Maiden Name     
All things in moderation.

SAY IT!

All things in moderation.

09 Dec 2012 02:13 AM
swingerofbirches     
Cafeteria meat: now contains more meat product.

09 Dec 2012 02:14 AM
L.D. Ablo    [TotalFark]  
More pink slime for children!

www.takepart.comView Full Size

09 Dec 2012 02:16 AM
Doom MD     
More obesity, fantastic.

09 Dec 2012 02:16 AM
wildsnowllama     
There's very little meat in these gym mats.

09 Dec 2012 02:17 AM
bigdanc     
bad food is better than no food.

09 Dec 2012 02:32 AM
Smackledorfer     

Shostie: Yay...!


Umm, I'm all for mocking the obese, but I think that kid is balding and likely suffering a disease.

Let him eat cake.

09 Dec 2012 02:32 AM
Kenny B    [TotalFark]  
Good. My son told me the breakfast biscuits at school had gotten smaller. Strangely the price remained the same.

09 Dec 2012 02:35 AM
jtown     

fusillade762: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x334]

/oblig


More testicles means more iron.

09 Dec 2012 02:41 AM
Dialectic     
♪ If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding ♪

09 Dec 2012 02:43 AM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  
"Allow"?

You mean up till now schools had been pleading to put in more meat and grains and the USDA had been saying Nope! Give those little brats fat and starch, but don't give them one gram more of meat! They don't deserve it!

09 Dec 2012 02:43 AM
phrawgh     
mylifeandkids.comView Full Size

Your mom is a big fan of meat.

09 Dec 2012 02:47 AM
ladyfortuna     
The difference is what *kind* of meat and grains you allow. Chicken, fish, lean beef/pork, rice, beans, etc are all pretty good for you in normal serving sizes, which of course most people in this country ignore.

I'm guilty too, but at least at home I try to keep it more balanced, and we usually don't go out to eat. My biggest problems are working from home and general lack of motivation to eat better (snacks)/exercise... nutritionally I think we're all right.

09 Dec 2012 02:49 AM
StashMonster     

Gyrfalcon: "Allow"?

You mean up till now schools had been pleading to put in more meat and grains and the USDA had been saying Nope! Give those little brats fat and starch, but don't give them one gram more of meat! They don't deserve it!


Probably. The american legislation about what foods school kids were allowed to have was farking ridiculous when I watched Jamie Oliver try to change school lunches in california. He got stuck in endless battles with the powers that be over issues just like that.

09 Dec 2012 02:51 AM
Bennie Crabtree     
This is really sad. Ignorance is a shiatty drug, but outright anger against people who are useful and effective at caring for the health of children is even shiattier planning.for a nation.

09 Dec 2012 02:53 AM
BoxOfBees     
Why is the federal government even involved, except maybe to promote some segments of farming and food packaging industries over others? Most of us have seen "nutritional standards" that are espoused by various governing and accrediting bodies. It's a farking joke. You could go to school for twelve years, get a free breakfast and lunch every single day, and never eat a single fresh food item.

"Whole grains" is a label that means nothing. Your farking Lucky Charms say they are made from whole grains.

"Meats" are often salty over-processed meat leftovers like hot dogs, chicken nuggets/patties, and low-quality burgers. You know, dog food.

Parents need to take an active role in the foods their children eat and not wait around for the government to invent some magical infallible formula for healthy eating. End soapbox.

09 Dec 2012 03:07 AM
cowgirl toffee    [TotalFark]  
We should have government bacon.

09 Dec 2012 03:08 AM
cptjeff    [TotalFark]  

BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,


Because they pay for much of it?

09 Dec 2012 03:10 AM
cowgirl toffee    [TotalFark]  

cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?


Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

09 Dec 2012 03:29 AM
david_gaithersburg     

cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

.
You do realize his fat ass wife is the one who took away food from the children?

09 Dec 2012 03:38 AM
Prof. Frink     

cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?


Obviously the meat being pushed by Obama is noticeably larger than the one offered by any previous administration.

Thank goodness no Asian presidents...the kids would starve!

09 Dec 2012 03:42 AM
cowgirl toffee    [TotalFark]  

david_gaithersburg: cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?
.
You do realize his fat ass wife is the one who took away food from the children?


I guess that when you reach a certain age, a woman will take her meat wherever she can get it.... even if it's from children.

09 Dec 2012 03:51 AM
DarkSoulNoHope     

Prof. Frink: cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

Obviously the meat being pushed by Obama is noticeably larger than the one offered by any previous administration.

Thank goodness no Asian presidents...the kids would starve!


Or they would be eating dog.

09 Dec 2012 03:56 AM
Old enough to know better     

Snapper Carr: I wager there's a GOP legislator somewhere out there who is outraged by this.


You kididng? I'm sure they're behind this. Apparently getting kids to eat healthier is a Liberal plot.

A win for the white bread and mystery meat lobbies.

09 Dec 2012 03:58 AM
vinniethepoo     
If they want to do something about obesity in kids, they should reduce or even eliminate the grains. They get converted to sugar in the body, which causes an insulin spike, which eventually causes the body to retain more fat. Plenty of meat, plenty of veggies (especially raw, like salads), some fruit, a few nuts: that's what's good for us.

Think about it: why is the recommended diet, a.k.a. The Food Pyramid, set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and not the health department? Because the USDA is pushing to sell more farmers' grains. That's what the agency does- help market agribusinesses' products. That's why there's high-fructose corn syrup in everything sweet, rather than sugar: to sell more corn. It's not because a diet high in grains is actually healthy, it's because such a diet sells more grain.

09 Dec 2012 04:04 AM
Metalithic     

DarkSoulNoHope: Prof. Frink: cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

Obviously the meat being pushed by Obama is noticeably larger than the one offered by any previous administration.

Thank goodness no Asian presidents...the kids would starve!

Or they would be eating dog.


I think you may have missed the innuendo. I hope.

09 Dec 2012 04:07 AM
DarkSoulNoHope     

Metalithic: DarkSoulNoHope: Prof. Frink: cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

Obviously the meat being pushed by Obama is noticeably larger than the one offered by any previous administration.

Thank goodness no Asian presidents...the kids would starve!

Or they would be eating dog.

I think you may have missed the innuendo. I hope.


I didn't, but believe me, there is no smaller meat out there than Hummer drivers!

09 Dec 2012 04:12 AM
cowgirl toffee    [TotalFark]  

Metalithic: DarkSoulNoHope: Prof. Frink: cowgirl toffee: cptjeff: BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved,

Because they pay for much of it?

Can we now call it "Obama Meat"?

Obviously the meat being pushed by Obama is noticeably larger than the one offered by any previous administration.

Thank goodness no Asian presidents...the kids would starve!

Or they would be eating dog.

I think you may have missed the innuendo. I hope.


It's a small dog. (?)

09 Dec 2012 04:14 AM
Spaced Lion     

vinniethepoo: Plenty of meat, plenty of veggies (especially raw, like salads), some fruit, a few nuts: that's what's good for us.


You might be able to get schools to put it in the lunches, but good luck trying to get the kids to actually eat it.

09 Dec 2012 04:31 AM
david_gaithersburg     
I wonder how my generation survived without government intervention.

09 Dec 2012 04:43 AM
Snapper Carr     

Old enough to know better: You kididng? I'm sure they're behind this. Apparently getting kids to eat healthier is a Liberal plot.

A win for the white bread and mystery meat lobbies.


You're probably right (actually after I RTFA, yeah, you're right), however I was going more for the "spending money caring for children is a waste of resources" school of thought that many of them seem to subscribe to.

09 Dec 2012 04:46 AM
Gyrfalcon    [TotalFark]  

BoxOfBees: Why is the federal government even involved, except maybe to promote some segments of farming and food packaging industries over others? Most of us have seen "nutritional standards" that are espoused by various governing and accrediting bodies. It's a farking joke. You could go to school for twelve years, get a free breakfast and lunch every single day, and never eat a single fresh food item.

"Whole grains" is a label that means nothing. Your farking Lucky Charms say they are made from whole grains.

"Meats" are often salty over-processed meat leftovers like hot dogs, chicken nuggets/patties, and low-quality burgers. You know, dog food.

Parents need to take an active role in the foods their children eat and not wait around for the government to invent some magical infallible formula for healthy eating. End soapbox.


See, this is why labels mean nothing and yet mean everything. Lucky Charms are indeed made from whole grains. That is, the flour they are made from does in fact start out as whole grains. The fact that it is no longer "whole" by the time it ends up in the box as Lucky Charms is irrelevant. The label is true. They are made from whole grains. It doesn't say they are STILL whole grains.

Same with "meats." They are meat. Hot dogs are 100% beef. It doesn't say they have to say which part of the cow they came from, since hooves, tendons, intestines are from the cow, they are included in the monicker "beef." Nowhere is it required on a hot dog to say "100% top sirloin" (unless it's marketed as being 100% sirloin, as some kinds of meats are). A hot dog made from organically raised beef entrails could quite honestly claim it was 100% organic and still be made of pure floor scraps, so long as there was no pesticide or antibiotic residue in it; and people would think it was really good shiat.

The real question here is, what is the goal of school lunches? Is it to get kids to learn healthy eating habits, or is it to force them to eat fruits and vegetables? Realistically speaking, we'd be doing better to have them eating healthier pizzas and better chicken nuggets than trying to force them to eat salads and steamed broccoli; but neither one of those is likely to happen. Health nuts are going to insist on Fresh veggies! Fresh fruit! Lower sodium! and their opponents are going to say Keep government out of my kid's lunch! and the end result is kids will throw away the mushy apples and skim milk like we always did and eat out of vending machines; or more probably just skip lunch completely and binge on crap at 7-11 after school, which is a great way to learn how to eat.

09 Dec 2012 05:07 AM
vinniethepoo     

Spaced Lion: vinniethepoo: Plenty of meat, plenty of veggies (especially raw, like salads), some fruit, a few nuts: that's what's good for us.

You might be able to get schools to put it in the lunches, but good luck trying to get the kids to actually eat it.


I've always liked veggies, even when I was a kid. Maybe I'm different that way (I've always liked fried liver, too), but when I was in school I don't remember any kids who hated absolutely all vegetables: maybe one who didn't like tomatoes and another who hated mushrooms, and like that. I think most everyone can get behind a nice chef's salad with their favorite dressing, though. Or a chicken Caesar, or taco salad.

From what I remember of school lunches we were given small servings of corn, carrot sticks, cole slaw, cooked green beans or peas, or carrot slaw with raisins (that was popular. The rest, not so much, but we'd eat them 'cause we were hungry and they didn't serve seconds.) Not many kids left any food on their trays, that I remember seeing. Of course, many of us had parents who grew up during the Depression, so we were taught that it was practically a sin to waste food.

09 Dec 2012 05:17 AM
Buffet     
Every year, when I was in school, there was always "the fat kid", that is, ONE kid in each grade that was fat and everyone ridiculed. Now, it seems like nearly all the little Farkers are fat!

09 Dec 2012 05:30 AM
AbbeySomeone     
You know how this issue can be fixed or avoided?
Sack lunch. Yes, get off your lazy ass and pack your kid a lunch or teach them to do it themselves.

09 Dec 2012 05:46 AM
owlie     

AbbeySomeone: You know how this issue can be fixed or avoided?
Sack lunch. Yes, get off your lazy ass and pack your kid a lunch or teach them to do it themselves.


We're taking about kids eating subsidized lunches. Their parents can't afford to pack lunches for their kids, a bunch of them don't even know what to pack, and the rest are too cracked out to care. Blame the parents, but don't punish the kids.

09 Dec 2012 06:56 AM
AbbeySomeone     

owlie: AbbeySomeone: You know how this issue can be fixed or avoided?
Sack lunch. Yes, get off your lazy ass and pack your kid a lunch or teach them to do it themselves.

We're taking about kids eating subsidized lunches. Their parents can't afford to pack lunches for their kids, a bunch of them don't even know what to pack, and the rest are too cracked out to care. Blame the parents, but don't punish the kids.


How is it punishing the kids by suggesting the parents make them a lunch or teach them to do it themselves?

09 Dec 2012 07:04 AM
owlie     

AbbeySomeone: owlie: AbbeySomeone: You know how this issue can be fixed or avoided?
Sack lunch. Yes, get off your lazy ass and pack your kid a lunch or teach them to do it themselves.

We're taking about kids eating subsidized lunches. Their parents can't afford to pack lunches for their kids, a bunch of them don't even know what to pack, and the rest are too cracked out to care. Blame the parents, but don't punish the kids.

How is it punishing the kids by suggesting the parents make them a lunch or teach them to do it themselves?


"Hey kid, go pack your lunch. Haha just kidding. I sold our food stamps for crack. Here's a candy wrapper."

09 Dec 2012 07:07 AM
owlie     
But seriously, I am on a bus right now going through one of Philadelphia's many shiatty ass neighborhoods and you can bet a lot of kids are waking up to no food in the house and none to look forward to until lunchtime Monday. Of course it's worse at the end of the month before that welfare check comes in. It really stinks. Leave the subsidized lunches alone and let the kids eat while they can.

09 Dec 2012 07:14 AM
Mr. Right     
People need to understand that the whole debate about what children are "allowed" to eat is the result of the "free" school lunch program. When voters demand that the government provide a good or service to the people, they never want to come to terms with the fact that, sooner or later, the government will then arrogate to itself the power to tell you what you will get. This is true of welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, health care and, yes, even the free contraceptives. If you want the government to give you stuff, accept the fact that the government will decide what it is you will get.

09 Dec 2012 07:19 AM
Dwight_Yeast     
Big Food wins again!

09 Dec 2012 07:30 AM
david_gaithersburg     

Snapper Carr: Old enough to know better: You kididng? I'm sure they're behind this. Apparently getting kids to eat healthier is a Liberal plot.

A win for the white bread and mystery meat lobbies.

You're probably right (actually after I RTFA, yeah, you're right), however I was going more for the "spending money caring for children is a waste of resources" school of thought that many of them seem to subscribe to.

.
So what your are admitting to is that you are a mindless drone incapable independent thought. Sad. You remind me of when Howard Stern went on the streets of Harlem and interviewed people during the 2008 election.

09 Dec 2012 07:42 AM
RichMeatyTaste     
The automated health assessment at work we use to get lower rates dings your nutrition if you don't eat *enough* grains. I have to lie every year if I want that question to go well.

09 Dec 2012 08:09 AM
heavymetal     
Wow the Federal government working with local school systems to make new school lunch guidelines more practical. The tyranny!!!!!! This must have been what it was like to live in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. I am outraged or something!

09 Dec 2012 08:13 AM
Showing 1-50 of 62 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined