In response to:

Complaints Mount Against Michelle Obama’s New Lunch Menu

frieda49 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 6:25 PM
If they don't serve vegetables and serve twinkies, isn't that still the gov't telling us what to eat?
chalverson Wrote: Sep 28, 2012 12:52 PM
My point exactly! NOTHING has changed, except that our kids are being fed HEALTHY FOOD!

What about this don't you people get? It's not as if we (adults) always liked what they fed to US in school! I would have taken fresh fruit and veggies over the slop they fed us any day!
Am I missing something? Did there USE to be a real CHOICE in what our kids were fed and now all of a sudden the Government has taken away those choices? Or did they just take a menu consisting of empty-calorie, grease-soaked "food" and turn it into something HEALTHY for the body? Seriously, I'm asking! Because to me the people complaining seem mighty UNGRATEFUL!
Richard31 Wrote: Sep 26, 2012 12:52 PM
Constitutionality of it or not - either way is stupid.

Intelligent families - and schools - do it the old-fashioned way, tested and proven by time. Serve the vegetables - and then the Twinkies if the vegetables are eaten (at home, you can relax this to "at least tried, if this is the first time", not possible for schools).

When I was in school, many, many years ago, we got our trays for lunch. IF we finished everything on those trays, we could turn them in at the dessert window.

And the argument that "if they don't eat it when they're young, they'll never learn to eat it later" is completely false. I would not touch salad until I was in my mid-teens, but now will gladly eat a good salad for lunch rather than a hamburger (usually).
Richard31 Wrote: Sep 26, 2012 12:55 PM
And, re salads, my three very non-obese children followed the same pattern. Salads do not have sufficient calories to sustain an active child's life.

If the children of today were as active as my generation, 850 calories (assuming they ate every morsel) would never sustain them until dinner.
NullifyNow Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 6:27 PM
frieda
Yes. They have no authority to serve either (if through the federal government)
frieda49 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 6:58 PM
So what your saying, I think, is public schools should not serve lunch? Or no public schools --that receive any federal money? Which is all public schools
NullifyNow Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 7:14 PM
frieda
Uh YEAH. That is right. The feds have NO authority for this.
frieda49 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 7:14 PM
So If they have no lunch served, wouldn't they be hungry - which seemed to be the gist of the article?
NullifyNow Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 7:27 PM
frieda
There is no reason for them to be hungry if their parents send them to school with a lunch.
frieda49 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 7:40 PM
I agree, I just can't figure out all this vitriol over whether school luches should contain twinkies or veggies.
kvig Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 7:45 PM
The Federal Govt has no business telling your child what he or she can eat
frieda49 Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 8:17 PM
They have no business paying for it!!
kvig Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 8:33 PM
Exactly.....The Federal Govt has no business in education or feeding the schools. The Govt can suggest all they want but they have no Constitutional authority to demand
NullifyNow Wrote: Sep 25, 2012 8:40 PM
frieda
It is not vitriol over twinkies. It is battling for the rule of law and battling against usurpers and those who trample the Constitution then demand the rest of us be law abiding.
In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.

The story we published earlier this week on that subject is unfortunately not unique. Students across the country are complaining about the new school lunch regulations.

Perhaps the real motive is to starve students into slimming down. Just ask students in Pierre, South Dakota who, too, are in an all-out revolt.

"I know a lot of my friends...