Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

9 Bumps

New nutrition bill to be signed...

I see a lot of benefits from this, more money for low-income food programs, better food in those programs, etc. But, I have a few issues with the bill at the same time.

It sounds a little like big brother to me, we are the government and we will tell you what to eat. Also, we all know that the healthier foods are more expensive. Does this mean that parents who don't get the free lunches will be charged even more? And if not, where will the schools get the money to purchase the healthier foods? Will portion sizes go down because of this? And, if they are adding a dinner option with the after schoolprograms, will each school have to hire an extra set of cafeteria staff, or will those staffers be forced to work 12-16 hour days?  And, where is that $4.5 billion coming from?  Are we cutting school funding in other areas, are we in for more taxes, what?   Also, does any one's school really do a weekly fundraiser that is a junk food meal replacement?  I have seen our elementary schools have ice cream (really frozen yougert) machines and sell that or a sucker sale or something.  As for the high schools, the lunch lines are so long and the lunch periods so short, half the kids don't even get a chance to eat lunch.  Even a junk food option (as in vending machines) in those cases is better than no food at all, at least in my opinion.


Asked by scout_mom at 10:53 AM on Dec. 13, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 41 (125,190 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (19)
  • I like the general ideas, but the way they will be implimented has really created some concerns. Healthy food does not cost less when the government burocracy is involved. There is going to be a lot of paperwork involved in the new proceedures. The money for this is supposed to come from cuts to food stamps. I don't see how that can happen. Portion sizes can't go down. There are already laws in place to prevent that. In my county, there are some strict regulations about junk food in the classroom, and no fundraisers can be junkfood. No machines on campus in elementary schools. The afterschool dinner option is already being offered in many areas. It's a pre-packaged bag lunch, so no lunchroom personnel are involved in that. There's a lot that I don't know, and, as usual no one knows about this new bill, though it has taken two years. Another fiasco.

    Answer by SweetLuci at 11:19 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • ¸.•*"i don't like how they think they can tell us what to eat now ...

    Answer by gracelessstar21 at 11:04 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • Our school lunches are a lot heathier then they where 10 years ago. They use organic and local food. We only pay $1.85 for lunch and $1.00 for breakfast so I don't see it being to much higher.

    But I do agree that the gov shouldn't be telling us what to eat, but I think for the schools they should feed our kids heathier, but at home its none of their damn business.

    Answer by 1Giovanni at 11:29 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • This is a total power play. If you pay attention you know the government does not care what our kids eat.

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 11:36 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • Healthy food is not more expensive - pre-packaged, processed food with the word "healthy" printed on the label is more expensive. People need to learn the difference, including the government. Unfortunately, the way the lobby system works, I suspect any act to make school lunches "healthier" will revolve around using more processed food with the word "healthy" in bright letters, not actual food with nutritional value.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 11:45 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • Yep. Healthy food is cheaper. Think "whole" food. The less done to something, the more healthy it is.

    Answer by lovinangels at 12:10 PM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • First let me say that I have not read the bill, nor do I know where the payment for it is coming from
    I agree that something should have been done like this a very long time ago. Not sure I would have handled the problem the same way though.
    Better food, more food choices and more opportunity for the kids to have healthy choices is a win win in my book. From what I see, kids get healthy food at school, and junk at home. If the kids were eating 3 meals a day at school it might actually be better for them. I am not into government getting into my pantry-But I have the intelligence to stock my pantry with sensible foods. Clearly 66% of American households DO NOT. Or 2/3 of the population would NOT be overweight.
    The biggest reason we have kids at my house 3-5 nights a week is because I feed them. They show up hungry.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 12:50 PM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • 1) Healthy foods cost LESS (otherwise we would starve to death on our budget)

    2) 60 years ago people had common sense, what is being proposed is simply enforcing what was lost

    3) In most areas kids ARE getting supper @ their after school program, only thing which would change is what they are fed

    4) Again, for the record- Healthy food costs LESS.

    Answer by ObbyDobbie at 11:07 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • If you're relying on the government to provide your food, it's stupid to complain when the government decides WHAT to provide.

    Beggers can't be choosers. In today's pc don't make anyone feel bad times, that sounds mean. But it's a fact. You want to choose what to eat? Buy your own food with your own money. Otherwise gratefully accept what is provided to you by others, without complaining it's too heatlhy.

    Answer by SuperChicken at 11:13 AM on Dec. 13, 2010

  • 1st off, why hasn't the gvt been doing this all along; are they admitting to feeding our kids unhealthy food for all previous years? Class action lawsuit time!!! And, fruit and lean meats are very expensive where I live!

    Several years back, I became aware of a nice bonus that was received by certain lunch room personnel, at the end of the year, providing their budget came in at less than expected. So in knowing of this little incentive; I can't see how certain lunchroom personnel will be wiling to spend more money for healthier food, when they are in a contest to spend less money in order to get a gvt. bonus! Anyone else ever heard of this bonus program for lunchroom personnel?

    I completely agree, this is nothing but another way to gain power for the progressives and God only knows what they will genetically engineer to feed our kids.

    Answer by agentwanda at 1:07 PM on Dec. 13, 2010