las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

We are Hungry Video

I plan to blog quite a bit more on childhood nutrition in general, but the We Are Hungry video on YouTube, made by students in response to the new school lunch guidelines, has been making the rounds.   If you haven't seen it yet, I've embedded it below:



I'm curious as to the reactions of my readers to this video.  Not the guidelines per se, or whatever is available/allowed for lunch, but just the video and its underlying messages.  And I'll even give my own impressions first here, and feel free to agree or disagree to your liking.  (Skip the below if you want to react w/o responding to mine)


















I think it's stupid!  S.T.U.P.I.D.   To me it just smacks of spoiled kids or kids who have been so coddled at school all their lives, or so bombarded with messages undermining parents, that they have no idea what the role of the school vs. parents vs. even themselves at that age is.  I'm talking the bulk of the video, not the young grade schoolers crawling (just a ridiculous scene, sigh).  I was a volleyball player in high school and while (idiotically) going on a crash diet my senior year managed to perform to a level earning me most valuable player honors.  Many times (again idiotically) on 800 calories for the entire day, I managed to foist power serve after power serve without ridiculously fainting afterwards.  And anyone familiar with the role of a setter in volleyball will know that my role on the team was to run all over the court as much as possible to get the second "hit" and set up my teammates' spikes.  So the scenes of students sleeping and fainting at the slightest exertion just torque me off.  And that is before considering what a kid who is truly in need -- who can't afford to participate in after school sports, and experiences genuine hunger from not getting enough to eat and having no money or means to get to the store to even buy junk.

In addition, if the school doesn't provide or they are not allowed to buy a large lunch, these little -- to borrow a term from Susanne -- "special snowflakes" apparently have no clue how to deal with this!!  Bring a snack from home?  No.  Go to the corner store to buy junk food to stuff in your locker?  Yes.   That's the message of the video -- don't tell and provide students with what to eat, and left to their own devices only crapola comes to mind?  Take the responsibility to pack your own snack or lunch?  Oh the horrors!!!   Sheesh ... by that age I had spent many hours on either a one-to-one (sitting) or larger scale (camp counselor) basis preparing and/or serving food to others, let alone myself.  So I find this video a VERY VERY sad commentary on the state of teenagehood these days.   And somehow in the era of helicopter parenting, even the parents are grounded at the heliport on this issue?  Really?

I suppose in this day and age of YouTube celebrity, this was their first thought.  Some find it entertaining, even funny.  But I find it ridiculous and off-putting.  Oh, and I was at a convenience store just the other day, and if I was looking for some nutrition it's there for the taking.  I can get nuts and sunflower seeds instead of potato chips and cheez doodles.  Protein?  I can get a milk or a hot dog or other various things on the rolly-thingies.  I could get a banana, or heck, a jar of peanut butter to go with a sleeve of crackers.  If these kids have disposable income to buy junk at a convenience store, they have the money to buy stuff in a regular grocery to keep at home and prepare reasonably nutritious snacks.  

What will these kids do when they go off to college, or .... gasp! .... out into the real world?

61 comments:

oboereedgal said...

I understand your point. If students don't like the changes they should just bring their own lunch or bring extra food. Problem solved. No one is forcing students to eat school lunch.

I do agree that buying the junk food in the video was probably not the best example. Maybe they should have included healthier items or highlighted what about the school lunches that they have a problem with than just go for junk food. I also think it was probably more for entertainment than an example of what one should eat.

One thing to consider. I live in Kansas so I heard one of the teachers from this school on a local radio show. It sounded like they weren't expecting such a big reaction. Sharon Springs, the town the video came from, is a super small town. The school district's website says there are about 185 students total in grades K-12. They do have a newsletter online that lists what the daily school breakfast/lunch will be. It looks pretty normal, at least for this area. However, it's possible that due to the small size of the school district that they don't have all the options for lunch that bigger school districts have. (or it could also be much better!!) I don't know but it's something to consider. Again though, the students could just bring a lunch from home. Another interesting fact about this town is that there are not any fast food restaurant chains in the town. (they talked about that on the radio show)

screennamerequired said...

I think you're taking the video a bit literally.
Although 800 calories can feel like a starvation diet if it consists of fries and juice. If it's a sensible meal with lots of fruits, steamed vegetables and lean protein it can be a good satiating meal for most people. Lunches at schools in Australia are brought from home, only a few kids actually ate from the school shop/canteen on a consistent basis and you could easily pick who they were from their weight.

Charles L. Peden said...

I was confused by the video. I was trying to figure out why 850-900 calories for lunch was causing such starvation. I did not understand what was wrong with going to the convenience store to buy additional food if one was hungry. It seemed as if they were suggesting that they needed more calories for lunch. Can't they buy an additional lunch? I'm confused by it.

I liked the singing :)

Charles L. Peden said...

SPECIAL NOTE--I appreciate that you are not moderating. I think odd comments from people are to be expected and some people are certainly persistent and annoying. But just as we would not practice genocide to get rid of them, I believe they also shouldn't be censored (unless they are making threats).

Scanning through comments would be required with or without them so it does little to censor them. I think your position is high-minded and admirable. Ignoring comments seems to be a learned skill that takes practice (as does choosing which ones to reply to).

Gianni said...

Meh... for the most part, just kids having fun.
The ridiculous faints and much other stuff are clearly to try to make it more funny.
So I think it would be unfair to take them literally.


That said, who knows, they might have a point.
While I'm a bit surprised from some of the comments above.
So are you supposed to both pay taxes for school lunches and bring your own?
How "little" is 800 is arguable, but I have no idea about what the taxes arrangements are and it's true that "you guys" have a lot of sport activities organized by schools while here they are generally completely outside of it.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Hi Charles! How goes the battle? I think the big issue is that now kids can't buy an additional lunch at school. They are not allowed to. This is ridiculous, but it doesn't get changed (in my view anyway) by making it seem like the only options outside of school are junk. I guess that's my bottom line.

Lighthouse keeper said...

Looks like a manifestation of Eat Less Move Less

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Thanks! I've been less able to directly respond to those comments I DO want to respond to lately. I read them all, and sometimes don't get to respond until later and then often forget. The new comments "dashboard" on Blogger isn't helping. I refreshed it this morning and it was still on last night's last comment.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

You have a point there -- kids having fun. They still come across spoiled to me, but that's just me. What bothers me more I guess is the serious attention they are getting from some adults.

So are you supposed to both pay taxes for school lunches and bring your own?

Now that's a can of worms, because many already pay taxes for their kids' education and pay for private education. Most of this as I see it is imposing limits which is indeed ridiculous.

Not all lunch programs are alike. Some I guess there's a standard lunch provided "free", others you still buy from the available options.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

It makes more sense if the only place they can get "real" food is at school, but for the 7th-11th grade that was the case in my school. K-6 you could go home for lunch, 11th grade we got off-campus privileges during lunch hour. But, they could still bring food from home. This being a small community changes things quite a bit and highlights the idiocy of the federal government dictating lunches. Surely in such a small community there are parents who might be interested and capable of running a cafeteria to feed their children.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The school lunch menus I see seem rather sufficient. I definitely disagree with imposing limits which I guess is the main point of this video and other protests I'm hearing about.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Or .... gasp ... exercise just makes you hungry! ;)

Unknown said...

When I was a kid back in the stone ages nobody cared what I had to say about school lunch.

I could have complained about being served canned spinach every single day but nobody would have listened.

So I didn't play the video.

500 said...

I taught school - 8th grade - for some time, and many of my students did not get breakfast at home. They came from very poor families where food was scarce, and parents figured that the school would feed them. We did have a breakfast program, but some kids wouldn't show up in time to get something, and sometimes the food ran out. For these kids, 800 cals at lunch probably isn't nearly enough. Just food for thought.

Dahlia said...

FYI: the federal rules say that if kids are hungry they can have more fruits and veggies. Also, a TEACHER got the kids to do the video. it wasn't just done by kids.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome 500. I agree, for kids like that 800 cals isn't nearly enough. This goes to using the schools to "feed the children" however. Poor parents found a way of feeding their children before they could presume they got fed at school. Perhaps I'm a bit jaded by seeing first hand what assistance program abuse goes on wrt food stamps and such. I guess another way to look at it is that 800 cals should be sufficient for every child given the amount of food assistance in this country. There's no reason for a child to rely on just what a school provides for their full daily nutrition. Something is very wrong with that picture.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome Dahlia! I have to look around to listen to some of these interviews that give more details. I'd be curious as to what influence the teacher had over the content and such. The either school provides enough nutritious lunch or we'll go buy junk at the corner store part sounds like something coming from kids, and hopefully not an adult.

For the record, I don't agree with the calorie limits, they should allow more if a kid wants it. Even an overweight kid, as 5 meals a week are not going to change a kid's weight fate.

Not directed at you, but I've heard innumerable reports now of kids leaving many "healthy foods" on their plates or trashing them. It does not equate with true hunger in my opinion. A truly hungry person eats what is available, so we're talking about something else.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Nobody cared if we didn't have a lunch either! The kids who ate lunch had to pay for it, and if they forgot their lunch money they had to borrow from a friend or go without. Same for those of us who mostly brown bagged it, if we forgot it and had no money on us it was tough patooties for us.

Hornet0123 said...

If they had done this from a different angle, like they said that we can't AFFORD to offer more than 800 calories per meal. I bet my left leg that all those complaining now would be all for it, and all those in favor would be screaming about the starving kids. This whole thing just reeks of stupid politics!

bentleyj74 said...

I think one of the unintended consequences of these types of food programs is that is further blurs the line of demarcation making it harder to tell which children are truly being neglected. Sort of implies that it's OK to live in a state of neglect that would leave you underfed as long as you can get some extra pizza at lunch. Child neglect is a serious crime that should not be brushed under the rug.

Unknown said...

I wouldn't mind providing food in endless amounts to the kids who have lousy parents, I just don't want to hear from the kids or the lousy parents.

If a child complains about not getting enough food at school, problem number one is the child is complaining rather than keeping its mouth shut and doing as it is told.

bentleyj74 said...

I wouldn't mind providing the food once the children have been removed from the home and the parents are being criminally investigated for child neglect. Probably most of these types of complainers would be singing a different tune if they were actually held accountable for what they are implying.

Ben Kennedy said...

The problem is the existence of public schools... In a sane world, parents could actually send their children to schools where they were taught/fed/whatever according to the parent's wishes. In the crazy world we live in, parents (and everyone else) are forced to extravagantly fund their local public schools, which utterly crushes competition for private schooling. Thus we get these flare-ups over creationism, sex education, pledge of allegiance, and other ridiculous issues that would go away overnight if people could just pick their school based on their own preferences, rather than being forced to attend a specific school based on the latitude and longitude of your house. Public subsidies create huge economic distortions, so parents have every right to complain - but they should make sure to complain about the right thing, which is the subsidy itself that limits their choices

Charles L. Peden said...

Evelyn,

Regarding "the battle". I have a VERY interesting experiment going on at the moment. Similar things to what I'm doing have been suggested by many people (including you). But I tweaked some ideas I have read about and I'm blown away by the initial results. I don't want to go into details until I get some more experience with this and see if it continues to be effective. Give me a couple weeks and I'll let you know what I did and what happened. I'm only on day 5, but my mood is uplifted and I have this weird feeling of energy. It may be a passing phase so I'll ride it out and see what happens. This has exceeded my expectations. I will get back to you in a couple weeks either way.

Hornet0123 said...

+1!!!!!!!!

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Interesting ... I bet you will still have two legs to stand on ;-)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Welcome Ben. I'm not so sure I'd go as far as to blame the existence of public schools per se, but certainly that system as it exists today is a huge part of the problem. It wasn't THAT long ago that public schools served their communities and the PTA was a hugely influential body in all that went on ... moreso than the school boards. And there was no new edicts coming down from on high with piddly funding carrots (that nobody seems willing to resist in exchange for freedom) attached. The current funding mechanism through property taxes is also something that needs to be changed, I just don't see how.

From my vantage point I'm seeing the deteriorating product of these schools (college) and it is most disheartening.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Cool! Good luck with it!

paleotwopointoh said...

It's not 850-900 calories in the first place, for one thing.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

For the highschoolers I think it's 750-850, and the minimum used to be 825. I still really just don't get this. I'm all on board with imposing limits on kids being one of the more stupid ideas to come down the pike, but the stupidity that if the school limits what you can buy (or are given) at a single meal that you would go hungry?

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

@bentley, this is why that Annie from the Farm's story bothered me so. She spoke of an older teen who slept through all his classes and was only awake at lunch to eat. It was apparently something that concerned her enough to inquire of another teacher if he slept in his class, and indeed he did. And that teacher supposedly surmised that this kid had a bad homelife and this was probably his only real meal of the day.

But, apparently, they didn't see any reason to alert anyone to this situation? If one truly believes this is the case, how does one not do what they can. I mean, ever approach the boy and find out why he's falling asleep? If he seems evasive then take it further? Or rant about the lunch program.

5 meals a week cannot sustain a child properly. Trying to fix unknown issues like that with such a program is insane.

Craig in CT said...

I start with the wisdom of setting a calorie target for an entire population, ranging from 5' sedentary teenage girls to 6'5" male athletes. No consideration for activity level, lean body mass, sex??? Kind of stupid, I think.


So a kind of stupid (in a teenager way) response doesn't really bother me that much. After all, they still are just goofy kids....

bentleyj74 said...

Exactly, these people are mandatory reporters by law in most scenarios. Their failure to report obvious abuse/neglect is of much greater concern to me than what was provided as free lunch. Gossip and hyperbole is less fun when you are facing legal consequences and standing before an ethics board.

Ben Kennedy said...

Thanks for the reply - I would say that the problems are not actually the schools themselves, there are many public schools that do a good job educating students. The issue is the lack of alternative options as a consequence to public funding. Some public school are undoubtedly just what parents want. While no school can be 100% accountable to every parent, a school can be found that suits the most important priorities.

You are right to identify the funding mechanism as a problem. An organization funded by taxes has an enormous competitive advantage over private organizations. And as if that weren't bad enough, in Pennsylvania there are pretty strict laws regarding homeschooling, which have the impact of pushing more kids into the public system. Ugh.

Vouchers are reasonable, as long as the amount is the same as the per-pupil expenditure of the public school district, and there are not onerous strings attached. The funds could be placed in Education Savings Accounts (already defined by the IRS, the rules would have to be expanded), with all unused funds getting returned to the taxpayers at the end of the school year. That would go a long way to improving school choice. What is nice is that for homeschooling parents, they may spend only a fraction of the money and return most of it - but this money won't distort the education market as it does today.

Of course, the teachers' union would go completely berserk if anyone tried to implement it.

Diana said...

My reax....there's a difference in the caloric requirements of a football playing boy, and an active girl. And an even bigger difference between the req's of a football playing boy and a sedentery girl. Etc., etc. Plug in your own values.

Secondly, most of the boys look lean to me, but some of the girls need to lose a few. Not the best role models for this vid.

I support MO's childhood obesity fight, although I am studiously non-partisan on this blog with respect to politics. Whether she continues the effort after the election in the WH or elsewhere, I think her heart's in the right place.

Unknown said...

I dunno...I work with kids. It's simply not enough food for some athletes. Of course there may be some political influence involved in making the video. Overall I've noticed schools are vary in their food programs. Some of the private schools have excellent food programs, but some low income kids in the inner city are not getting enough food at home and the school programs are pathetic. But I don't see how setting calorie limits is helpful. Junkfoodscience noted two high school studies where soda was restricted and the kids found other ways of getting calories from junk food outside of school and those kids ended up being unhealthier as a result. -Antonio

Simon Carter said...

I'm old school on this. I believe that it is a parents responsibility to feed their children. I don't think that there should be any food preparation in a school. Kids should bring their own food to school. When I see an obese teenager I think it is a total parental failure. That video is idiotic, I'm sure the kids had a lot of fun making it. How have we let politics into our kids lunch bags?

Gabriella Kadar said...

Yup, it's all stupid.

As an aside: I find those plastic lunchfood trays are a truly unappetizing way of 'plating' food. Plastic knives and forks are even more gross. Nothing looks or tastes good when served like that. A banana leaf and fingers are better.

Here in Toronto over 30 school cafeterias were closed this year because kids voted with their feet. The actual cafeteria rooms were ugly unwelcoming spaces. The companies running the cafeterias were losing money. It's a classic case of 'do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result'... So now they've decided to get one of the local celebrity chefs to change things up. In England, when Jamie Oliver got involved in the healthy food for kids at school stuff, there actually were parents who objected to having strange foods shoved at their children's faces. Apparently some of those children had never eaten an apple.



paleotwopointoh said...

It is not true that a truly hungry person eats what is available. People have opted for starvation rather than violate a beliefs relating to consumption of certain foods.

Why would that not hold on a lesser-hunger scale?

There just seems to be a lot of projection by adults on this.

bentleyj74 said...

That's reaching pretty far. People have also volunteered to be executed for their beliefs rather than recant them...anyone think that's in play here? Hungry people will eat food that has rotted, they will eat it out of dumpsters, they will eat dirt, they will occasionally cannibalize...are any of those comparisons on par with some well fleshed teenagers bemoaning limits on their free pizza while they toss edible but less desirable foods into the overflowing trash?

paleotwopointoh said...

It's not reaching any farther than all the people who keep forgetting that the new horrible guidelines apply to more than just teenagers, but all children k-12 and those in publicly funded daycare and pre-k as well. And the new guidelines suck from a nutrition-for-kids perspective.

bentleyj74 said...

Comparing protest/disaster starvation or martyrdom isn't reaching any further than limits on the cal intakes for already nutrient sparse calorie dense snack foods provided free for kids as though it was their only source of nourishment or as though it's consumption was mandatory? Agree to disagree then.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/nyregion/healthier-school-lunches-face-student-rejection.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

"Few school districts have been as extreme in their efforts as Los Angeles, which introduced a menu of quinoa salads, lentil cutlets, vegetable curry, pad Thai and other vegetarian fare last fall. When students began rejecting the lunches en masse, the district replaced some of the more exotic dishes with more child-friendly foods, like pizza with whole-wheat crust, low-fat cheese and low-sodium sauce.

But this year, even the whole-wheat pizza is gone, replaced by calzones, fajitas and other, smaller entrees with side dishes of fruits and vegetables."

"Ms. Anthony is not optimistic that the students will warm to their new lunches anytime soon — not as long as they can buy Flamin’ Hot Cheetos from the vending machines or brownies from the student store for lunch.

“Why would I come over here for a chicken and apple when I can get a cookie and some Gatorade and some gummies?” she said. “What would you choose?”

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yeah, the fainting and hunger may be a bit more believable from active girls carrying a little extra weight. IOW, the school lunches are sufficient for them.


Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Trying to control 5 meals a week is a totally absurd way of tackling the obesity epidemic ... even if cals aren't capped. The Junkfoodscience studies don't surprise me. My parents were far more restrictive of junk than most, which made junk more alluring to me once I had a little more freedom and $$. My mistake was going on crazy diet when too many BK lunches pudged me up a bit, rather than just eating it less often or having a smaller meal. Eating "nutritionally devoid" Wonder bread didn't seem to cause my friends to get obese.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Yeah, I've noticed the various videos of kids filling little voids in a giant plastic tray with the appropriate foods that fit there. Sigh. We had real plates and metal utensils that went through the dishwasher.

@Simon, and referencing other discussions here: The more I think about this it makes me more angry than just shaking my head. Because for an 800 or so calorie lunch to be a hardship in any way, there's parental failure involved. Back in my day my parents were probably bothered by the fact that so much crap was available to me at school and now we've gone 180 to where unlimited food availability is expected -- nay demanded. I keep hearing about kids who don't get fed at home and my question is why? So they can't be expected to send the kidlets to school with a lunch if they can't even provide a breakfast? Even Oliver got gruel!

This also ties back to Gabriella's noting of cafeterias closing because of lack of business. The way to fix this is to do just that -- kids bringing lunch from home -- not demand more food be provided.

Though I still disagree with limiting what any student can buy.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The answer is obviously to shut the store and take away the vending machines. >:)

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

The solution to the guidelines sucking is not to allow unlimited bad stuff ;) That seems to be what these kids and others are protesting more than anything. And I agree, there shouldn't be arbitrary limits. A big eater ought to be able to get two entrees or an extra side of whatever they choose.

But, I'm with Bentley here, I don't think you can equate hunger strikes and religious martyrdom with spoiled kids. In my house you didn't get more to eat if you didn't eat the full dinner that Mom served. I hardly think that is unreasonable it just comes off worse when it's a non-parent imposing the same thing.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

My patience for entitled goofy kids must just be growing thin :D

Simon Carter said...

And heaven forbid we EDUCATE the kids in a SCHOOL about nutrition and how their bodies react to it.

Gabriella Kadar said...

Riiiight Simon: when teachers don't know what 'carb' means? As outrageous as this allegation may appear, I have patients who are teachers in the public school system who needed me to give them a definition of the word. Even 'carbohydrate' did not ring a bell.

These days I've decided that what people eat is their business. Food has become so politicized and there are so many whacky ideologues out there.

The other day a patient told me that she does not 'believe in sleep apnea'. Good thing she didn't include 'tooth decay' as well or she'd soon need to embrace the concept of 'tooth extraction'.

No, I will not will not bash my head into the nearest wall although a discrete palm face plant was definitely in order.

Gabriella Kadar said...

Wonder bread isn't nutritionally devoid. It's typical industrial bakery stuff. It's cheap, has vitamins and minerals added so poor kids can get their nutrients. Good for people with no or few teeth. Imagine how bad things would be if poor women and children wouldn't have access to stuff like this. The incidence of spina bifida, cleft palate, heart defects, etc. would be epidemic.

The breakfast cereals sold in the US are also a 'vitamin pill' in a bowl.

I'm pro real food but in the absence of parents who are capable or willing to provide this for their children and themselves, at least these sorts of foods provide a sort of 'safety net'.

Better than nothing or not much.


bentleyj74 said...

Agree with Gabriella that wonder bread isn't nutritionally devoid and in fact if the phytic acid issues play out it may be more nutritious than typical whole grain as you can actually absorb the nutrients it contains. There is a long history of white bread consumption in the US without obesity being a result. Malnutrition could be if their diet over relied on it but that'd be true for anything.

At the same time a level of parental failure that will leave a child malnourished is a criminal offense and one that parents should take seriously. When parents don't perceive that it is their responsibility to feed their children adequately it's sort of a whole perception/priority game changer with a lot of potential for unintended consequences. The band aid of food supplementation isn't one I'd like to see removed because I don't want children to starve...but it's an inch deep and a mile wide and often doesn't address underlying problems.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.sfgate.com/food/foodmatters/article/School-lunch-rules-caught-up-in-politics-3923430.php#ixzz28TdtuBHO

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Ah ladies, I tend to agree with you, as white flour is almost always enriched. Still, it can be downed in excess far faster than whole grain or even an artisan type crusty bread and is quite a bit less filling. Mom was into the thousand sprouted grain breads like today's Ezekiel long before it was cool, I used to be like Tula in My Big Fat Greek Wedding when it comes to white bread. Oh, and I used to laugh at my friends who wouldn't eat the crust on white bread!!

IAC, I put that in the "" because it is often perceived as a junk food when it sustained nutrition, rather economically I might add, without promoting obesity.

FWIW, lots of whole grain foods are quite a bit more calorically dense and may well be part of the obesity problem in that they often come sweetened and/or fattened up more than a good old fashioned donut. I'm talking granola here. I was at TJoes register the other day they had granola and I picked up the bag -- I think it was 8 oz, it was like a quart sized zip lock baggie size. I added up the calories in the entire bag and it was like 1600! It would be easy to eat half that bag ... rather a lot more difficult to eat a loaf of white bread!

The parental failure thing is truly disheartening. I have never been that poor myself, but I know quite a number of people who have been and feeding their family was a top priority, and getting the most nutrition for their dollar was too. There's got to be a way to get back to that mindset as a society. I sure hope so anyway.

Evelyn aka CarbSane said...

Oh ... I might add that we've gone way too far the other way where kidlets feelings are concerned. They can do everything with assemblies and trying to promote diversity while ignoring all differences between individuals at the same time and the whole self esteem thing, and it won't fix reality -- that's not the real world. I've heard many news reports that schools with regular cafeterias also serve cheese or peanut butter sandwiches to the poor kids. Then they had to stop because of stigmas and this either resulted in a more costly broader lunch program or nothing. This kind of idiocy needs to stop!

bentleyj74 said...

Yep, I completely agree. In order to make the whole grain foods more palatable they sugar and fat them up quite a lot. Big difference between a bowl of granola and a bowl of oatmeal in every respect. Cost, satiety, cal density....everything. You can sort of mix and rearrange this stuff to be both economical and relatively nutritious at lower cal intakes.

Problem is executive function usually, not merely low income all by itself. I have seen people who use entitlement programs that also drive a nicer car than I do and have every new iphone/ipad version that comes out. This creates stigma and social disdain that's both not entirely fair and still understandable. We can feed a family of 8 on less than what a food stamp program would give us because we can and do plan, prioritize, and execute in a deliberate and organized fashion. If you took away the social program and the iphone they would still be screwed and so would their kids.

Gabriella Kadar said...

There was an article in Foreign Policy magazine sometime spring 2011 about families in India where an increase income did not translate into better quality food choices for malnourished children. Instead parents bought the big ticket items like televisions instead. So this appears to be a problem elsewhere than in USA or Canada.

I don't know if I can correlate this to the studies done by Fogel and Engermann in regards to the nutrition of both slave and plantation owners children in America. Children up to the age of about 4 were not fed well at all regardless of status. It appeared that only after children became 'useful' was their nutrition improved. Then they would suddenly catch up to the what should have been normal size.

It makes me wonder, in today's society, when children really are not an asset but a liability, if not investing in the children has extended beyond the traditional age 4 mark.

Unknown said...

I'm late to the party, but I feel compelled to respond to this one because everyone is missing the point. The point is not whether the government is responsible for feeding our kids (I personally think it's not the government's responsibility but rather a courtesy). The point is the practicalities of daily life.

Let's do a reality check here. Think about a teenager's schedule. Wake up at 6:30am and get on the bus before you're awake enough to eat. After school there's drama, sports... 11 hours away from home is not uncommon. Even as an adult, I have trouble if I have to pack more than one meal and one snack because packed food is not as filling. And schoolkids don't have access to microwaves to heat up good solid leftovers from home.

Besides, the new protein minimum is 2 oz. Who came up with that one??? That's a recipe for hunger if I ever heard one. Why pretend you're offering lunch at all?

Unknown said...

I'm not sure why that showed up as unknown because I'm logged in... but my name is Abby Halpern and I'm not trying to hide and anonymously disagree with everyone.

Blogger said...

EasyHits4U - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Ratio, Business networking. Get FREE Advertising!

Post a Comment

Moderation is currently on. Thanks in advance for your patience.