Log In | Register   
HomeLocal NewsState NewsSportsOpinionObituariesAgriculture
Quick Links
  Home
  My Bulletin
  Contact The Bulletin

Marketplace
  Display Ads
  Classifieds
  Dir. of Advertisers

Opinion

Mail: Good time to adopt a cat

Mail: Wanted, class of 1943 graduates

More opinion

Ag News

UNL Short course: Invasive plants

Unapproved genetically altered wheat shows up in Oregon

More Ag News


Email Article | Print Article
Opinion - Opinion
 
Smith: Students need nutritious, healthy meals Tell North Platte what you think
 
Courtesy Photo­Image
Courtesy Photo­Image
Adrian Smith

During a recent visit to Wilber-Clatonia High School, I was approached by a number of students and staff regarding new school menu requirements.

NebraskaLand National BankYou've got a
facebook Request!
CLICK HERE!

The new rules, while well-intentioned, are leaving many students hungry and squeezing already limited school budgets.

I recognize the need to address health issues associated with childhood obesity and diabetes, and I applaud efforts to continually find ways to improve school meals. But we must focus on addressing these concerns without undermining the number one priority of the school meal program -- feeding hungry children.

For many students, school meals are their primary source of nutrition, and reducing the size of meals could affect the overall health and wellness of these and other students.

The new school meal requirements stem from the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This legislation gave the USDA authority to set nutritional standards for all food regularly sold in schools, including cafeterias, school stores and vending machines. The legislation failed to adequately consider budget limitations faced by school lunch providers, and gave no credit to schools already taking steps to offer students healthier choices. The result for many schools has been a lose-lose scenario -- decreased meal sizes and increased costs.

Uniform policies and one-size-fits-all approaches rarely work in a nation as large and diverse as ours.

Why should the same strict dietary requirements be applied to children with vastly different needs, levels of activity, and lifestyles? For example, athletes have different needs than non-athletes, and children working on a farm likely need more energy than those living elsewhere.

If states and local school districts were given more flexibility to comply with the rules, they would have a greater ability to manage their budgets and meet the unique nutritional needs of each student.

The same is true of federal education policies in general. Unfunded mandates and strict national requirements have limited the ability of teachers to do their jobs and for school boards to spend limited resources as they see fit. Decisions on what is taught in the classroom and what is served in the cafeteria are better made at the local level.

In light of the feedback I have received from officials, parents, and students across Nebraska surrounding the implementation of the new meal standards, I wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsak expressing my concerns.

In my letter, I encourage Sec. Vilsak to review the current guidelines and consider abandoning the bureaucratic and burdensome approach to school meal planning.

I am also asking for local officials to be given more flexibility in implementing the guidelines, and for the USDA to conduct a thorough evaluation of cost and participation rates across the county.

Allowing for more flexibility in the new requirements would help school districts manage their budgets and importantly, nourish their students with adequate, quality and healthy meals.

We can all agree on these goals, and I hope the USDA will reconsider the new school lunch regulations.


Editor's Note: The Bulletin reported problems with school lunch requirements in our Sept. 5 print edition. We published it online Sept. 21.


Like this story to send to your facebook

The North Platte Bulletin - Published 10/5/2012
Copyright © 2012 northplattebulletin.com - All rights reserved.
Flatrock Publishing, Inc. - 1300 E 4th St., Suite F - North Platte, NE 69101
 
Hide Talk Back
 

Talk Back
 
Pack your child's lunch rather than waiting on the gov't to do it for you.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 10/10/2012 6:29:36 AM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

As a son who is an avid runner, I believe the votes AGAINST the rule were due to focus on obesity, instead of healthy nutrition. Compare a child who doesn't get any exercise to the kid who runs 80 miles per week. We pack a lunch to support his needs, but for those who may be financially challenged, this may not be practical. The laws only focus was on calorie reduction, not nutrition. I would have voted against it too, one bad law replacing one that could needed serious improvement.
0
Posted by cliffne    - 10/9/2012 7:13:06 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Or...the votes against the program could have been inspired by the very nature of the column...the unchallenged ability of the USDA to set a cookie cutter standard for all meals, thereby depriving children of the food they actually need to adequately grow and learn during a given day. Food for children is a good idea, as long as the system allows the amount of food to be determined appropriately for the children. This program, like so many others, doesn't do that...and you think that is a good idea. Food for sustainability vs. food for growth. Which is better? Which one is this program? Yes, gasp, letting local schools and parents determine what is best for their children...or letting the Fed. Govt. determine what is best for all children, treating them all the same, even though they are not. Which based on this column, is exactly what is being complained of...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/8/2012 12:09:44 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

No child in America deserves to go hungry. Right now there are children in our country that go without food. When kids go hungry, we starve our future. S.3307, “The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010“, was passed and signed into law on December 2, 2010, in order to do better by America’s kids. The law, which makes the first inflation-adjusted increase to the federal school lunch program in 30 years, also expands support for joint summer reading and free lunch programs, to keep hungry kids well fed and to keep their literacy skills up. Research shows these programs lead to better education outcomes. You’d think that food for hungry kids would be a no-brainer. But no. There were 157 members of the House of Representatives, who voted against the “Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act” on December 2. Two weeks later, those who voted against food for poor kids overwhelmingly voted to give billionaires a tax break. . Two Nebraska members of Congress who voted against food for hungry kids, Adrian Smith and Lee Terry, and they both voted for a tax cut for billionaires. Mr. Smith has never supported the School Lunch Program. Maybe now he has taken notice?
0
Posted by Terry 1951    - 10/6/2012 11:18:55 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

FLAG LEGEND:
Green Flag = No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired.
Yellow Flag = Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days.
Red Flag = A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days.
Black Flag = The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days.
Skull & Crossbones = Banned.
 
 
Login to post Talk Back

Click on the cop Report Talk Back Abuse to report Talk Back abuse and misuse
 
 
 

Copyright © 2003 - 2013 northplattebulletin.com
All rights reserved.

Flatrock Publishing, Inc.
1300 E 4th St., Suite F
North Platte, NE 69101

 
Your Ip Address - 67.202.9.192
North Platte, Nebraska