Senators: Are schools starving kids in the name of reducing lunch calories?

[RandySF]

NOTE: This article is of special interest to me because our kid ALWAYS comes home starving.

“This has been a battle for common sense in the cafeteria,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Friday. “These guidelines were leaving students hungry throughout the school day and athletic events; in the end we were able to convince USDA to listen to reason.”

Last year, the USDA issued a rule restricting how many calories a child could consume by changing school lunch menus. The administration was trying to react to the childhood obesity epidemic, but some lawmakers complained the administration went too far.

“Today, the USDA made the permanent changes we have been seeking to the School Lunch Program,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said. “A one-size-fits-all approach to school lunch left students hungry and school districts frustrated with the additional expense, paperwork and nutritional research necessary to meet federal requirements.”

Hoeven and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) recently introduced a bill called the Sensible School Lunch Act that did the same thing as this recent USDA decision to repeal limits on the amount of grains and protein that could be served in a school lunch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/194360-senators-claim-victory-in-school-lunch-battle

[femmocrat]

1. Oh for pete's sake, they are hardly "starving"!

If they were starving, they wouldn't throw their lunches in the trash so they can hurry to buy ice cream, corn chips, and fruit rolls from the snack bar.

I have lunch duty EVERY day. They throw away more than they eat, believe me. It's really a shame to see so much wasted food.... and much of it is on the free and reduced lunch program.

[RandySF]

3. A snack bar?

Where is this? That kind of food is prohibited at the SF Unified School District as well as our son's Catholic School.

[femmocrat]

6. Pennsylvania.

That is how the food service makes their profits. We cannot restrict the kids from getting "snacks" even if they have not finished their lunches. True!

[Igel]

13. And that's not a really old prohibition, I'm guessing.

Used to be fairly standard. Even when I was in school there were two lines: One for those getting a hot meal, and another for those who wanted something else--just milk, soda, ice-cream, chips.

I never bought my lunch, always brown-bagged it. Handy having a snack bar, not having to go through the main line with all the other kids just for a beverage or adjunct to whatever was in the brown bag.


Heck, one school I've seen not only has a snack bar in its cafeteria (with a couple of different lines--one for sandwiches and another for hot meals), it has a coffee house not far from the entrance.

[flvegan]

2. Read the article...so what are the changes?

Shit journalism. And how does it tie into the subject line?

I see that the school lunch providers now might have the flexibility to keep kids "healthy and successful"...what does that mean? More tater tots and pizza?

Mmmm...tater tots.

[RandySF]

4. I found a better article.

You're right, the one I cited was crap.

[femmocrat]

9. Most of those senators are repukes and conservadems.

Didn't see any real liberals on the list of co-sponsors. IMO, the repukes have been against the nutrition act so they can make the First Lady look bad.

[femmocrat]

8. Our local news said they could have larger portions of "lean protein" and carbohydrates.

Since they never serve any "lean" protein, who knows? Chicken nuggets and pizza are the standard fare. Yep, and Tator Tots are a "vegetable".

[NYC_SKP]

5. My reading is that it's lifting maximums, quite the opposite.

I could be wrong. Bill as PDF file: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s427is/pdf/BILLS-113s427is.pdf

1.
Short title

This Act may be cited as the " Sensible School Lunch Act ".
2.
Nutritional requirements for school lunch and breakfast programs
(a)
Additional reimbursement

Section 4(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(3)(A)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(III)
Maximum quantities

The interim or final regulations required under this clause shall not establish a maximum quantity of grains, meat, or meat alternates that may be served in any meal or during any period of time of any school year.

.
(b)
Rules

Section 9(a)(4)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4)(B)) is amended—
(1)

by striking "Not later" and inserting the following:
(i)
In general

Subject to clause (ii), not later

; and
(2)

by adding at the end the following:
(ii)
Maximum quantities

The rules required under clause (ii) shall not establish a maximum quantity of grains, meat, or meat alternates that may be served in any meal or during any period of time of any school year.

.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s427/text

[1000words]

7. Kids are "starving," yet childhood obesity is at an all time high.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

[LeftyMom]

10. If hungry kids are the problem, wouldn't serving a greater quantity of healthy food solve it?

The problem seems not to be that most kids aren't getting enough calories, it's that a fair portion of kids won't eat anything that isn't bleached white, fried, or covered in cheese. If you doubled the vegetable portion and offered unlimited access to fresh fruit those kids would still be "starving" because they refuse to eat actual food.

FWIW, if you can afford to send your kid to a parochial school you can afford to pack a snack.

[femmocrat]

11. One of the provisions of the nutrition act was that the kids could have "seconds" on....

fruit and vegetables. However, I have never seen this actually occur. My guess is that the food service provider didn't tell the kids, so they can save money.

Fresh fruit is a rock-hard red delicious apple, a green or over-ripe banana, or an orange. The rest of the fruit is canned fruit cocktail or neon applesauce flavored with colorful Jello. No wonder the kids don't touch the fruit. Vegetables are usually Tator Tots. They usually have mini-carrots, celery sticks or cauliflower with regular ranch dressing, too. It's the same selection every day. The kids have to take it... but they won't eat it. It goes straight into the trash.

[RandySF]

12. We send snacks

And he's still hungry. We're going through a growing period.

[bhikkhu]

14. The meals have specified calorie measures, and they'll still have to comply with that

I don't think starving is an issue at all, or if it was it would still be because they aren't raising the calorie limits.

This is what they do in congress to avoid actually doing things, like passing any real job creating bills.

[pipoman]

15. regulation in food service is necessary

Over regulation destroys food quality...they should take a hint from "hospital food"..

[d_r]

16. my pub;ic school son

eats lunch at 10:30

[RandySF]

17. OMG

What time does the day end?

[d_r]

18. 3:00

[Le Taz Hot]

19. When I visited the Bible Belt

this last summer I heard this from several people. Because I was a guest at their respective houses, I didn't argue. Their point was that a lot of these kids are farm kids (a lot aren't) and athletes and they need the extra calories. Of course, I looked around and saw plenty of obese kids but I kept my mouth shut.