Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,664 posts)
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 10:47 AM Dec 2014

Congress relaxes whole grain standards for schools

Source: AP-Excite

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is taking some whole grains off the school lunch line.

A massive year-end spending bill released Tuesday doesn't allow schools to opt out of healthier school meal standards championed by first lady Michelle Obama, as House Republicans had sought. But it would ease standards that require more whole grains in school foods.

The bill also would put off rules to make school meals less salty, putting off lower sodium standards that were supposed to go into effect in 2017.

Some school nutrition directors have lobbied for a break from the standards, which have been phased in since 2012, saying the rules have proven to be costly and restrictive. Some kids don't like the meals, either. House Republicans have said the rules are an overreach, and have fought to ease them.

FULL story at link.



FILE - First lady Michelle Obama visits the cafeteria as she has lunch with school children at Parklawn elementary school in Alexandria, Va., in this Jan., 25, 2012 file photo. A massive year-end spending bill released Tuesday Dec. 9, 2014doesn{2019}t allow schools to opt out of healthier school meal standards championed by first lady Michelle Obama, as House Republicans had sought. But it would ease standards that require more whole grains in school foods. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)



Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141210/us-congress-healthier-school-lunches-8d0394ea11.html

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

My Good Babushka

(2,710 posts)
2. It is sickening that the school nutritionists
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 11:16 AM
Dec 2014

are fighting against changes. They don't want to spend the money required to actually provide healthy, good food. They have too many relations with contractors that dump pre-packaged garbage foods onto our school menus. They never made a real commitment to healthy, fresh food.

Mass

(27,315 posts)
4. In plenty of places, they just do not have the money.
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 11:19 AM
Dec 2014

Rich places have healthy meals. Poor places cant afford them. Processed food is a lot less expensive.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
9. When I went to public elementary schools
Thu Dec 11, 2014, 10:18 AM
Dec 2014

they had a kitchen and some staff that actually made the meals. If I recall correctly, it tended towards "plain" food, like boiled or steamed corn on the side, but it was okay tasting.

Some of us would have enjoyed working in that kitchen in liew of sitting in class. Some of us actually went on to work in kitchens, but no, we couldn't "work in the kitchen" in elementary school as preparation for those careers we might later have.

Psephos

(8,032 posts)
6. Grains are not a great idea anyway.
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 04:49 PM
Dec 2014

They should be de-emphasized regardless of whether whole or refined.

Young metabolisms can handle them better than older ones, but apart from metabolic impact (i.e., elevated blood sugar and insulin hyperproduction leading to fat deposition), eating a grain-oriented diet while young creates emotional associations and distorted appetite signals that stubbornly persist into later decades. Ask any 40-year-old who tries to give up bread, pasta, cereal, etc., how powerful the urges are.

Grains were not available during more than 99% of human evolution, and our bodies are ill-equipped to handle having them be a substantial part of our diet. To maintain health, our weight and inflammation regulating systems require the type of diet humans ate for the million years before the invention of civilization and grain agriculture. That's what's written in our DNA.

Mass

(27,315 posts)
3. Because giving poor schools money is not an option, of course.
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 11:17 AM
Dec 2014

Poor people do not deserve healthy food. They are lazy. (:sarcasm

yellowcanine

(35,699 posts)
5. But they are requiring that ketchup be added as a vegetable so it is hunky dory.
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 12:38 PM
Dec 2014

Schools have to have a ketchup dispenser at the end of the line - no extra charge.

Igel

(35,320 posts)
8. Backing off a bit is good.
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 06:25 PM
Dec 2014

The kids don't eat them. I have more kids after lunch hungry because they can't find enough that they'll eat, or they get tired of the few things they will eat. The trash cans fill up a lot more with uneaten food that some bureaucrat somewhere is patting himself (or herself) on the back over--how much better students are eating, since surely they wouldn't waste the food. (Yes, they would. They would waste the food ... surely, not hesitantly. Gleefully, even.)

It's led to a lot more kids trying to skip out during lunch to find off-campus food.

I like salads. But I have a desk drawer at school filling up with salt-free whole-wheat crackers. The whole-wheat croutons are bad enough. And the pseudo-Chinese food on brown rice ...

Somewhere between junk-food junkie and a macrobiotic diet is where I eat. And it's where most of the kids would be comfortable enough.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Congress relaxes whole gr...