I just read that Wayzata schools are opting out of the federal school lunch food program because "students weren't getting enough calories" according to officials. That was printed in a Star Tribune article dated June 11, 2014 with the headline: "Food fight: school lunches get political."
I wish we could afford to do the same in Jaguar Country. I find it truly offensive to suggest that childhood obesity is anything even remotely close to being a problem at B-B-E schools. That's gotta be one of the most absurd suggestions I've ever heard!!! Walk our hallways and then come back and tell me we have a problem. Way to go, federal government, with a senseless one-size-fits-all solution to what you think is a problem in our small towns in central Minnesota.
As the son of dairy farmers, the push towards skim milk is also about as offensive as it gets.
Whole grain pasta...again, absurd! The list goes on and on...about the only thing I appreciate is having extra fruits/vegetables available.
Why on earth couldn't the federal government have mandated extra fruits/vegetables and then backed off? Talk about overkill. They raised the subsidy to each lunch by 6 pennies to supposedly pay for the increased costs of the new mandates. Here's the problem, though: the typical cost to each meal for extra fruits/vegetables is 25 cents a meal!
I have a lot more to say about it, but I don't need federal employees breathing down my neck.
I just saw that AFSCME, who has what I feel is corrupt leadership while they try to weasel their way into private, family-based child care businesses, said this on one of their websites:
"The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 made school children healthier
by providing them with nutritious meals. But Republicans in Congress,
under pressure from the fast-food industry, are trying to roll back
those guidelines."
Hey, AFSCME, how does not getting enough food to fill your stomach at lunch time somehow equal "nutritious"??? Going away from lunch hungry...I call that HUNGRY!