Nationwide school junk food changes. Your opinion?

[Dragon]

School leaders are getting ready for a big change in school food service.

The USDA’s Smart Snacks in School rules go into effect July 1, 2014. In short, all “junk food” in vending machines, a la carte lunch, student stores and fundraisers such as bake sales will be banned July 1.

“I think that’s great!” said Betsy Hunsucker, a Brownsburg mother. “I think kids would love fruits and vegetables.”

Fruits, vegetables, dairy, protein-rich foods and whole grain-rich foods are allowed.

Water, milk and 100 percent fruit and vegetable juice is permitted. High school students can have caffeine and low-calorie carbonated drinks.

There are also rules when it comes to nutritional values like calories, sodium, sugar and fat.

“I’m afraid that parents have spoiled their children so much with the choices that they allow them to make at home that the kids will turn up their noses to the nutrition,” said Hunsucker.

Some schools, like Brownsburg, have already started. They have been compliant with grades K-5 since Christmas break, and have been slowly introducing older students to items like baked chips.

Katie Sherven, the director of food services for Brownsburg Schools, says they’re really excited about their plans to put a “garden bar” in all of their schools next year.

As for the possible impact on fundraising, Sherven says fortunately for them, many of their fundraisers do not revolve around food, like the Fun Run and Dog Jog.

She said she’s met with all Brownsburg principals about the guidelines for vending machines and any food-related sales.

Schools that don’t comply face hefty fines or loss of federal funding.

Not all parents think it’s a great idea.

“I like the way it’s done now because they have fast food one day a week,” said Vicki Masters. “They are in Plainfield and they have a lot of choice. They have things that they actually will eat so they do get food in them to go through their day. There are things they just won’t eat. They’d rather not eat than eat something they don’t like.”

The USDA guide on the rules is 54 pages long, but these are the basics:

Ingredient Rules
Any competitive food sold must be a:
a. Fruit
b. Vegetable
c. Dairy product
d. Protein-rich food (meat, beans, poultry, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds)
e. Whole-grain rich food (first ingredient is a whole grain or product is 50% whole grains
by weight)
f. Combo food that has at least ¼ cup fruit and/or vegetable
* Exception until July 1, 2016 – A food is allowed if it contains a minimum of 10% of
the Daily Value of calcium, potassium, Vitamin D or fiber
Nutrient Standards
All competitive foods must meet each of the following nutrient limits:
a. Calories
• Max 200 calories for snacks and sides
• Max 350 calories for entrees (outside the school lunch program)
b. Sugar
• Max 35% sugar by weight (some fruit exceptions)
c. Sodium
• Max 230mg sodium for snacks (200mg after July 1, 2016)
d. Fat
• Fat: Max 35% calories from fat (as packaged or served; some exceptions
for reduced fat cheese and nuts apply)
• Sat fat: Max 10% calories from fat (as packaged or served; some exceptions
for reduced fat cheese and nuts apply)
• Trans fat – 0g as served
Beverage Rules
All grade levels may sell:
a. Water or carbonated water; unflavored low-fat milk; flavored or unflavored fat-free
milk and soy alternatives; and 100% fruit or vegetable juice. Size limits: 8 oz for
elementary schools & 12 oz for middle and high schools.
b. High schools may also sell lower calorie flavored and/or carbonated beverages
that meet the following rules:
a. 5 calories per 8 fl oz, or 10 calories per 20 fl oz; and
b. 40 calories per 8 fl oz, or 60 calories per 12 fl oz.
c. Note: caffeine only permitted in high schools

If students have access to the teacher’s lounge, the same rules apply in the teacher’s lounge.

State agencies will monitor compliance.

Read more: http://fox59.com/2014/04/10/hello-f...ood-banned-from-schools-july-1/#ixzz2ycMt9lMu

So I saw this today, and I really think it's worthy a debate. I know this doesn't apply to hardly any of us because a lot of us have already graduated, but it's still something worth discussing.

Honestly, schools can't afford good healthy food. Everything that's "healthy" in a school lunch comes out of a can, and it's just not appealing to the taste. Forcing a kid to eat that will only make them hate vegetables and fruits even more. It's a good idea on paper, but the government cannot force schools to purchase quality healthy foods for students to eat. Also, banning bake sales and food fundraisers is excessive. Those were the only two ways for sports, band, and other extra-curricular activities could make money at my old school, because nobody else wanted to do magazine subscriptions or wrapping paper. On top of that, banning this puts a lot of fundraising companies at a halt, which means some jobs in that field are probably going to be lost. Like, it's nice that the one school this article used as an example doesn't typically have food fundraisers, but they aren't the only high school in the world either.

There are better ways to get kids to stop eating junk food than trying to make it practically illegal. They might as well put an 18 age limit on chocolate while they're at it.

Oh and that woman trying to say that parents are spoiling their children by not feeding them right is making a really pompous and ignorant generalization and needs to stop.

So what's your opinion on this manner?

 

[Monorail]

I would assume that these changes are only for public schools. Don't they already receive food from the federal government, or some sort of subsidy?

Going to public school, I can say first hand that not only is the food not good for you, but healthy options are few and far between. Most meals are pizza, burgers, fried foods, etc.

 

[Kirito]

The problem with it is that lots of kids refuse to eat that kind of food and will throw it away, starving themselves. It's a nice thought to try and make kids healthy, but I doubt they're going to eat it. The lunch at my school is very strict and healthy, and almost everyone throws it all away.

 

[Whispered]

My school has always had a-la-carte options, or non-government-free-lunch options that, frankly, are the only thing I'd be able to eat. They have Chick-Fil-A delivered on T/Th, that's going to stop. They have nachos with cheese, beef/chicken, jalapenos, etc. That's going to have to stop. They offer other appetizer style foods, that'll stop.

And of course they don't think of the jobs that'll be lost because of this - they don't care. All they care about is making themselves look like they care about the population and our children, when in reality they only care about themselves and their party.

----------

I would assume that these changes are only for public schools. Don't they already receive food from the federal government, or some sort of subsidy?

Going to public school, I can say first hand that not only is the food not good for you, but healthy options are few and far between. Most meals are pizza, burgers, fried foods, etc.

Not anymore - the pizza is whole grain and not greasy at all, heck it barely has any cheese on it. It's not even pizza to be honest. Same with the burgers. The only "real" food we get anymore is chick-fil-a which is way marked up by our school and only two days a week, but we won't be able to get that anymore after the changes.

Some have also pointed out that these new laws that are being pushed by the administration will effectively put an end to any school with "open campus" or off campus lunch options for upperclassmen, which is both a privilege and a deterrent to doing bad things, as well as an option for kids to eat something they actually want to eat. You're effectively trapping them in school with crappy food that does not taste good, isn't even that nutritious (their guidelines forget all about vitamins, minerals, the different *kinds* of protein, fat, lipids, etc), and kids won't eat.

 

[allison]

Pure bs. I laugh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karkat]

i think we've had something enacted like this in the state of california for a while now
honestly cant even picture a school offering any other alternatives other than "healthy" food

 

[Chicknoodle]

isnt pizza a vegetable? i would hate this. all i had to look forward was chinese food day @ school. everything else tasted awful. also fruits and veggies (mainly carrots) looked like they were there for eons

 

[Klamath]

I hated the government-regulated school lunches in high school. I remember having a-la-carte and a snack bar (with so many goodies) in the sixth grade before the school district changed everything. It was so wonderful. I wish the wonderfulness would come back.

Lunch in high school wasn't too bad after the cafeteria added a make-your-own salad bar (which I thought was a lot healthier than the subsidized food). I never went back to the terror that is pre-packaged monstrels of tasteless food...

When in doubt, ditch school and head over to McDonald's across the street. I liked having that option (before people started getting suspended for doing so!). :P

I don't really find the food that fits government standards to have many benefits. The quality of the food can be debatable, but overall, it just looks bad. It does fit standards of what is considered nutritious and healthy, but I don't feel like many students would accept the food solely on its nutritional quality (e.g. good-for-you mystery meat... yuck!). The food often doesn't even look presentable; I fondly remember burritos for lunch that barely looked like burritos. I'm not sure if food can look and taste good by current "healthy" standards, but if it could, it would help a lot (of course, that requires more money being put into the program, and for some states that is not fiscally advisable).

Maybe these standards don't have to be so strict upon students' health choices. I can understand soda and the like, because those beverages are pretty unhealthy. However, I don't think it would hurt to give the schools a little freedom, no? Bake sales and certain a-la-carte options are not that endangering to health quality as they would seem. I know that students can make unhealthy choices and whatnot, but I find it better to raise better awareness of eating choices rather than tight-lock the students to foods that don't seem enjoyable.

I remember the school newspaper doing a survey on what fellow high schoolers had for lunch. Of roughly 200 students, about half ate what the school provided; the other half of students ate "cold lunches," the majority brought from home. The general concensus on campus (by word) was that the lunches were pretty bad. Students who were able to get lunch from home most likely chose that option. I had a friend who avoided school lunches like the plague; he would rather not eat then eat whatever the school gave him.

 

[kalyee]

Since when is it the schools job to dictate what meals your kids can and can't eat? Jeez.

Anyway, in my opinion, it shouldn't be about taking all the options away that aren't "healthy" - and by healthy it's hardly even really healthy, considering it mostly gets tossed out or replaced by from-home junky lunches, or is so overly processed to stay "fresh" for ages that it has lost a lot of its nutrients.
It should be about teaching - or at least encouraging - kids balance. You can have junk food, and eat less healthy lunch options, and not explode into a morbidly obese, health-problem ridden monster. You just need to balance out that junk food with healthy options, and get incorporate exercise into your life. Some people aren't going to eat healthy, and don't care if they don't feel good as a result. That's their choice.
You can't force someone into health by making really dry lunch options the only alternative to starving throughout the day. They're still going to find a way to eat just as much junk food, if not more just to "show the system".

 

[Solar]

I have mixed opinions about this new rule. It should definitely be a young adult's choice to eat what they want to eat. The school has no right to decide the diet of another person for them. However, this could definitely help cut down on childhood obesity, which is currently a huge issue in today's youth. This could definitely go either way but I'm against it. Maybe making unhealthy food more expensive in schools, then lowering the price of healthy food might push students to make the better choice.

 

[allison]

I really don't think it can help with the obesity problem because kids are gonna get mad and just eat the junk food at home, probably more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cat]

I've already seen some of this implemented and attempted at my school. You have to get an apple, orange or banana to go with your entree, with the addition of a side item or they charge you for the entree instead of the meal which costs more (lol?). So kids are forced to get these tasteless, store room fruits that are of low quality and very very few eat them. The uneaten fruit ends up in garbage cans, in the courtyard, left at tables, thrown around as play food, etc. If they served edible quality fruit, then yes, this would be a great way to positively enforce healthy eating. But the schools just don't have the money for that.

Ontop of this, at the moment the entree choices at are school are terrible for you. You can have pizza (which is often under cooked and doughy), nachos, enchiladas, burger (seriously with mystery meat) and this is all food that's factory made, frozen, and put into a store room for who knows how long. I'm not comfortable with eating food that comes off of a conveyor belt. They DO have salad options, but just like the fruit, the lettuce is low grade, and the fix-ins all out of a can. It's just not appetizing.

They also block off the vending machines during the school day, and open them up when school gets out for sale.

I'm okay with them enforcing this, but they have to go about it the right way. Better entree options, and better quality fruits and vegetables. I can firmly stand against the sale of vending machine foods and carbonated beverages in school as well.

Idk man, that's why I just bring my own lunch.

Edit-
Here's the menu from my district for school lunches this month.

Spoiler

The breakfast menu is even worse, haha. But as you can see, there's not a lot of 'healthy' foods to choose from, and as I said before, their salads are deceiving.

 

[aceastrofan]

I think the new policy is fair for elementary and middle schools due to the inability for little kids to choose what's good for them. However, it goes a little far in high schools. I know the article said that high schoolers could have low caffeine drinks, but losing snack food helps us lose what could be useful energy to help stay awake. At my school, there's a Walmart and McDonalds across the street, so kids are just gonna go there to get their fix on sweets and other junk foods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

My issues with this, from a purely nutritional perspective:
1) Modern science doesn't villify fat that way the government does. Selling only low fat dairy is a terrible idea. Why? Fat keeps people satiated. Drink whole milk, and you're less likely to indulge in that junky snack later on, because you're not hungry enough to eat. Carbohydrates (we'll get to those in a second) and protein don't hold up as well in the long term.
2) They hate sugar. That's fantastic. They don't hate heavily refined carbohydrates. That's a shame. Glycemic indices show that bread carbohydrates are absorbed into the bloodstream faster than table sugar is. A person who eats a slice of bread with 10g of carbohydrates will get hungry earlier than someone who eats 10g of straight sugar. Granted, this is purely from a blood sugar standpoint, but there is something to be said about the possible dangers of grains in general. (And the "sugar causes cavities" angle isn't gonna fly here -- bacteria love starch.)

Those are the big ones. There are probably issues with nutrient balance (vitamins, minerals), and I'm still a little leery on the phytate content of whole grains (though I've read that this only affects calcium absorption in the short term), but I don't know enough about those to complain in detail.

Since when is it the schools job to dictate what meals your kids can and can't eat? Jeez.

Schools have always dictated what kids can and can't eat by selling food.

 

[Princess_Stitch]

I've already seen some of this implemented and attempted at my school. You have to get an apple, orange or banana to go with your entree, with the addition of a side item or they charge you for the entree instead of the meal which costs more (lol?). So kids are forced to get these tasteless, store room fruits that are of low quality and very very few eat them. The uneaten fruit ends up in garbage cans, in the courtyard, left at tables, thrown around as play food, etc. If they served edible quality fruit, then yes, this would be a great way to positively enforce healthy eating. But the schools just don't have the money for that.

Ontop of this, at the moment the entree choices at are school are terrible for you. You can have pizza (which is often under cooked and doughy), nachos, enchiladas, burger (seriously with mystery meat) and this is all food that's factory made, frozen, and put into a store room for who knows how long. I'm not comfortable with eating food that comes off of a conveyor belt. They DO have salad options, but just like the fruit, the lettuce is low grade, and the fix-ins all out of a can. It's just not appetizing.

They also block off the vending machines during the school day, and open them up when school gets out for sale.

I'm okay with them enforcing this, but they have to go about it the right way. Better entree options, and better quality fruits and vegetables. I can firmly stand against the sale of vending machine foods and carbonated beverages in school as well.

Idk man, that's why I just bring my own lunch.

Edit-
Here's the menu from my district for school lunches this month.

Spoiler

The breakfast menu is even worse, haha. But as you can see, there's not a lot of 'healthy' foods to choose from, and as I said before, their salads are deceiving.

Yeah, uhh... in what way is fried food, pizza, cheesy pasta, gravy, fatty sandwiches, and (assuming) sodium-laden "Chinese" food healthy? Unfortunately, some schools have banned packed lunches so those students are forced to eat the cafeteria food. Almost any packed lunch would be healthier than that junk, I think.

Anything out of can is going to be filled with salt and/or sugar and contain BPA (linked to obesity and diabetes). While not any more appealing when cooked to mush, frozen food is a far more nutritious option. People often don't consider the nasty ingredients hidden in packaged foods and what effect it has on our health (including weight). It goes further than the food itself.

People need to get creative. Serve veggie pizzas, turkey sandwiches, salmon w/ rice, tomato soup, black bean burgers, burrito bowls, bento boxes, hummus, baked fries, etc. All healthier & nutritious options but still familiar, not too expensive, and can easily be made allergen-free. The money spent on unnecessary frying oil, gravy, cheese, meats, and mystery tacos could be used for cleaner ingredients to create simpler meals filled with fiber and protein. What's the problem? I'd think a plate of seasoned chicken breast w/ rice would be far more appealing than a plate of chicken fried slosh. I don't really have an answer for fresh produce. It should not be going to waste, though.

I assume by "low-calorie drinks" they mean diet drinks. Most diet drinks are made with aspartame which has shown to be one of the worst sweeteners out there. IMO, water (carbonated is OK), juice, milk, and tea should be the only beverages aloud.

---

I really don't think it can help with the obesity problem because kids are gonna get mad and just eat the junk food at home, probably more of it.

That's what I was going to say.

Parents are the ones needing education. You can't shove chips and cookies in your kids' faces and later say you're "worried" when they lack energy and start gaining weight. YOU, as a parent, are in control of your child's nutrition from the day they're born. It's very easy to keep junk food out of the house (even on a budget) and there are countless techniques to teach kids to like vegetables. There's no excuse to burden your child with poor eating and exercise habits.

I think there are pros and cons to the changes, but I don't believe it will be beneficial to anyone.

 

[PIGGIESARECOOL]

UGH. IS THIS FORREAL?!?!? SCHOOL LUNCHES SUCK. >.< the vending machines is all we have thats normal!!!!

This is pathetic. -.- hate on me if u want but this is sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[allison]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dragon]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the government is going to only pay for low-quality healthy food, because decent-tasting healthy food would cost a fortune.

Forcing kids to eat bland healthy food is only going to make them hate it more, and banning all their resources to outside food in school is just going to make them want to rebel and do it more often anyways.

This kinda stuff is only good on paper.

 

[Thrill]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

 

[allison]

Also, healthier options are going to be a lot more expensive.

Treating diseases that come from poor diet is way more expensive than eating healthy.

But the school doesn't pay for the kids medical bills


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk