On Friday, the Trump Administration announced that they will roll back school nutrition guidelines put in place under the Obama administration that required public schools to increase their offerings of fresh fruit and vegetables, and adhere to higher nutritional standards when making other menu offerings. Schools will now be free to once again serve canned, sugary fruit instead of fresh produce, potatoes instead of vegetables (as lobbied by the potato industry), high sodium, high calorie, low nutrient snacks, and soda to elementary school kids.
If there was any question whether these were earnest "red-tape cutting" to address legitimate issues with how we feed our nation's children or just the latest episode of owning the libs, the plan was rolled out on the birthday of Michelle Obama, who made childhood nutrition the hallmark of her time as FLOTUS and originally championed this initiative.
Of all the reckless and spiteful policy enacted by this administration, this move might enrage me more than anything (besides the kids in cages, of course). Trump has no vision for the country, other than - if Obama did it, it's bad. Now, fruits and vegetables are a partisan issue.
Additionally, one of the few consistencies between the Trump GOP and the pre-Trump GOP is the belief that nearly all government regulation is bad, when in fact, much of their anti-regulation agenda is nothing more than lobbyists for Big Corporate, leaving GOP voters to cheer as they cut off their nose to spite their face.
So what if childhood obesity/diabetes spikes? At least Sysco won't have their margins compressed now that they don't have to provide fresh fruit. Serving french fries instead of carrots for lunch? Hey, McCain Foods has to hit those quarterly budgets and kids love fries. Serving third graders "hamberders" and Coke for lunch every day? Cheaper than passing a new bond levy and raising taxes to expand school budgets.
This certainly isn't a new phenomenon, as the very first bill Trump signed as POTUS was to repeal the Stream Protection Rule - which restricted coal miners from dumping coal debris into West Virginia water streams. This of course doesn't benefit West Virginia voters, but it will certainly put millions back into the mine owner's pockets, while the West Virginia MAGA crowd can now drink their black lung right from the faucet while getting distracted by some migrant caravan 3,000 miles away.
I'm convinced that if today's GOP existed at the turn of last century, they'd decry the elimination of child labor as a nanny-state, heavy-regulation SJW move that would leave our industries uncompetitive.
Just absolutely backwards, and I don't understand how anyone can look at today's Republican party as responsible shepherds to carry us into the future.
There is nothing wrong with serving hamburgers and pizza in schools. #MAGA
There is in a country where little piggies have no sense of self-control. I have always found diet and nutrition in the US interesting. There doesn't seem to be a mid-way point for the average person. People either give 0 fucks and are happy to croak aged 50 or people dedicate their lives to super health food trends.
Either way, agree with the OP. This administration seems to spite anything Obama did. If Obama had known, he could have used reverse psychology to get shit done. Want to spend less on military? Increase spending drastically - Donald will go against it and reduce it. Want to give more people free healthcare? Abolish all types of medical support and let Donald roll out DonaldCare. Lol.
I was just trolling with the MAGA part but as far as pizza and hamburgers in schools why not just exercise reasonably and then you can almost eat whatever you want? Also most of the eating that kids are doing happens at home not during lunch so we should ban parents from feeding their children junk food if we want to keep kids healthy.
I love how idiot OP points out WV and coal mining because he evidently thinks this is Reddit and everyone will begin a spontaneous slow clap after he drops the mic, but doesnt realize that obesity rates are highest amongst black and hispanic populations. It’s obviously terrible that something obscene like 60% of black women are obese, but none of this has to do with school lunches. It might be reason number 47 down the list as to why obesity has skyrocketed in America.
Anyways, everyone knows nutrition and healthy eating habits start at home. Five lunches per week during the nine months of the school year will never makeup for parents stuffing their kids with chips, cookies, and soda.
Holy shit...
https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=25
80% of black women are considered overweight or obese compared to 63% of non-black women. I'd guess much of the difference is because black ppl make up a disproportionate amount of poor and poor ppl disproportionately eat processed foods, which are cheaper than fresh food. In any case, initiatives like improving school lunches to help combat this issue can do nothing but help.
I mean, I get the eagerness to defend basically anything Trump does but I don't see the point of defending this.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/overweig…
This source cites a 60%/44% split in obesity+ extreme obesity between black and non-hispanic white.
Kind of missing the point. I totally agree that this isn't a partisan issue and I also pity fat MAGAites. The two key issues are that the fat acceptance and "healthy at any size" cartel are almost exclusively left-wing progressives, and kids eating chicken nuggets at school is so damn far down the list on causes for obesity that its hilarious. Single parenthood and divorce thus less home cooked meals, sedentary office jobs, two working parent households, increasing Hispanic demographics, sprawling infrastructure, fat acceptance, and the bullshit food pyramid are all significantly more important reasons.
Also the poor excuse is bullshit. Bananas are like $0.10 each and chicken + brown rice + brocolli bought in bulk is an extremely healthy meal that can be had for around $3 per serving.
I remember reading a paper about "food deserts" in a lot of poorer parts of America. You'll find a McDs on every corner but you'll have to drive many miles to find a healthy grocery store. LA is a good example. There's literally 5 Trader Joe's, 4 Whole Foods, 3 Bristol Farms, and countless other regular grocery stores (Ralphs, Albertsons, etc) where I live. I drove through another part of town and struggled to find any grocery store within a 5 mile radius. 5 miles in LA is a lot when considering the time to travel.
Love how systemic issues are never accountable to the erasers of culture and identity by the same whites who used to value what those people had before they decided that destroying them was more convenient.
Is this about politics or food because it seems to be mostly geared toward why Republicans are bad rather than why kids should eat healthy
Politics, obviously.
Making school lunches less healthy is something a comic villain would do on a Saturday morning cartoon.
Problem is if OP’s motivation is primarily politics than it undermines whatever he might be saying about the kids.
Tax obesity.
I thought you libs were against fat shaming. Can you keep it coherent for like two seconds?
Conservatives think what you eat (just like many other life choices) is your personal responsibility.
Liberals think that the state should tell you what to eat (and what to think and how to speak, they also lash out at society when the micro-management of personal lives fails to deliver better standards).
We aren't compatible.
And how's that working out for you champ? The top 17 most obese states are all deeply conservative. https://stateofchildhoodobesity.org/adult-obesity/
I've got to give you credit for being the most nihilistic WSO poster at least.
Ironic because the source it's the one group already mentioned in the thread that your side has a racial fetish for.
Nihilist? I actually care about my community. That's why I fight back against your side's bad ideas, since they historically result always in catastrophes. It's the only reason I'm interested in politics, otherwise yeah, I wouldn't care.
When I was in High School under the Barack Hussein regime I was forced to take raw broccoli and other gross stuff. Even if you didn't want it you'd still have to take it. Everyone just ate the unhealthy stuff so it really doesn't change anything except waste.
lol you had to eat raw vegetables. The horror!
Right lol
Shouldn't healthy eating be personal responsibility?
I like how much MS I'm getting for even suggesting personal responsibility lol
No one is demanding anything of kids who bring their own lunches. Simply arguing that food for children paid by taxpayers should be healthy. How many 6 year olds demonstrate “personal responsibility”? Establish some good habits in childhood, and maybe our adult obesity crisis subsides. How is this controversial.
I’m sure he means personal responsibility of the parents
great idea, seems like a no brainer. not surprised a guy who downs cokes like he's warren buffett gives zero fucks about nutrition
curious though, in this same vein: how do you feel about food stamps? on the logic that taxpayer funded food ought to be healthy to reduce the amount of taxpayer funded healthcare for the poor (on the presumption that many chronic diseases can be prevented with good nutrition), shouldn't all taxpayer funded food be healthy?
these aren't easy questions, but I think the idea is in the right place (healthy kids, who would disagree with that?)
For adults, yes. People eating school lunches are kids though and kids get served whatever's on the menu. Kids also are notorious for preferring unhealthy food, against their better interests.
If you left it to me as a kid, I would have eaten pizza three times a day and only rotated pasta, cheeseburger, taco, or steak in from time to time as a break.
It should be the parent's responsibility that their kids eat healthy
I will start by saying that the need to improve nutrition for kids is a major issue that needs to be addressed. I think the former FLOTUS took an admirable step by bringing this issue into the national spotlight.
BUT - the key piece that the OP is missing is that the current plan simply was not working. Apparently the food provided through the government contracts was not being eaten and large quantities were being thrown away because the kids didn't like it. Participation in school lunch programs by students is down and costs passed along to already financially strapped school districts are up under this program. Why is rolling back a program that has good intentions but isn't working a bad thing?
Back in 2014, shortly after this plan was implemented, schools started pulling out of the program - and leaving their federal subsidies behind just to get out from under this program's regulations. An unintended result was that the wealthier school districts sought out private contracts that provided acceptable and more affordable food to their students, while less affluent districts - who could not afford to pass up the 6 cent per meal federal subsidy - were forced to stick with the program regardless of whether the kids actually ate the food.
The federal government has absolutely no business regulating student lunches. This is a parenting/personal issue all the way. If parents actually care about nutrition, it is their responsibility to teach those values to their own children. If parents don't care about nutrition, then a school lunch program is never going to force children to care about nutrition. If you want to include nutrition alongside history, math, science and literacy as a subject covered in class everyday to educate kids about healthy food choices that is a different conversation. But, at the end of the day, choices matter.
The bigger problem is the vast majority of adults have absolutely trash nutritional and dietary habits and they expect that kids won't figure out that the adults themselves aren't following the same "healthy eating guidelines" they are teaching.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I'm sure, like with any policies, there are improvements that can be made. But if the intent here was just to simply modify and optimize federal-funded nutrition guidelines (and not reflexively reverse any Obama legislation), then why announce the rollback of Michelle Obama's signature initiative on her birthday?
Why must these two be mutually exclusive? Like all politicians, he's using a policy change to score political points. You can be cynical about his motives and still think the policy change is positive.
And there we have it. You're more interested in how this all affects your favorite political side than you are interested in how this actually impacts the kids. DisgruntledAppraiser explains why the rules weren't effective but you want to talk about the political slight against Michelle Obama.
If you're looking for someone to acknowledge that Trump was motivated by spite, I'll do that right now. I'm sure he was. I have no way of knowing directly, but I have little doubt about that. He's a spiteful, immature, ridiculous person.
Doesn't change the fact that the rules were also probably not all that helpful or thoughtfully implemented, and you're out to use this story to prove that Republicans are evil. Why you're interested in proving that, I have no idea. Are you running for office?
I am always a fan of an intelligent, well thought out argument - especially one that doesn't use any Fox News buzzwords.
I disagree with you on points, but well done. There is hope for this forum yet.
And for those who don't think this point also requires a conversation, who remembers this Federally-mandated piece of work that was taught to America's youth as scientific fact?
I ate canned foods, cardboard pizza, and bush meant during MS/HS in the Obama administration. You have to be smart, and navigate to find a different source of nutrition. Me being the athlete I am, took refuge in 20 cent cup noodles and krispey kreme donuts. Led to a full ride to a D1 school. When there isn't good food available, you have to pivot and get the nutrition YOU NEED.
Since OP says that this rollback of Obama's rules will increase diabetes/obesity . . is there evidence that the rules decreased it? We're just going back to where we were before.
Also I can't believe my obesity thread is a day old, and @FCFE" hasn't stopped by to call me a fatty yet. Come on in, Brady! The water is fine (and contaminated).
Well we need Ozymandia and @real_Skankhunt42" to complete the full CNN panel.
Who will win the WSO Off Topic Forum Debate? Tune in tonight at 7!
Nihil quam temporibus odio sequi voluptas. Rerum soluta dignissimos debitis voluptatibus magnam error culpa. Voluptatem repellat tempora neque est corrupti. Vero non quidem possimus culpa dignissimos.
Consequatur libero qui autem asperiores rerum adipisci rem. Pariatur qui vel qui magni. Nobis officia esse magnam repellendus recusandae facere. Et culpa vitae accusantium omnis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Quo id aliquid magni ea minima. Laudantium iste qui nam at aliquam ullam voluptatibus et. Aspernatur consequuntur provident aut molestiae natus dolor. Architecto soluta aut qui ipsam dolor. Quidem illo labore minima repudiandae est.
Blanditiis voluptates dolor quaerat facere. Sapiente quos ut aspernatur ullam molestiae. Voluptatem consequatur perspiciatis libero ut nesciunt praesentium fuga. Harum harum magni est reiciendis voluptatem ratione. Aliquam accusamus consequatur soluta ab.
Eum quos nostrum officia ab veniam eum aspernatur. Repellendus vitae atque quis est natus nam. Temporibus assumenda dolorum iste quis eos corporis accusamus.