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

Marketplace
  Display Ads
  Classifieds
  Dir. of Advertisers

Opinion

Sexual dis-orientation and the Boy Scouts

Legislature: Retirement plan needs revisions

More opinion

Ag News

Opinion: Cap subsidies to farms

Nebraska Wheat Board welcomes new intern

More Ag News


   
Email Article | Print Article
News - Local News
 
Feds back off on school lunch regulationsTell North Platte what you think
 
Courtesy Photo­Image

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has lifted limitations on what kids can eat at schools -- the caloric intake of grains, starches and protein in the school lunch program.

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

Limitations were installed this school year, aimed to stem the rising tide of childhood obesity. They were fostered by First Lady Michelle Obama, but they raised the anger of parents who said their children weren’t getting enough to eat.

Under Obama's “Let’s Move” program, limits were placed on the number of lunch servings per student, and more emphasis was placed on vegetables and fruits.

During the past three decades, childhood obesity rates in America have tripled, and today, nearly one in three children in America are overweight or obese, according to the USDA.

But one size of regulations do not fit everywhere. The USDA regulations shorted some students, especially fast-growing young athletes, and created burdensome paperwork.

The new revisions will lend more flexibility to schools and students, especially such athletes. Schools in Nebraska and across the country will receive official notice in a few days of the changes, which will be in place for the 2012-2013 school year, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has said.

The Bulletin reported complaints about Michelle Obama's school lunch initiative soon after school began in September.

Officials in Arnold and Stapleton said obesity is not a big concern in their schools compared to urban schools, because rural students tend to be much more active.

“These laws don’t always fit our rural areas,” Arnold Principal Dawn Lewis told Bulletin Correspondent Karen Hough. “Our children are active from elementary through high school. Most of the elementary students participate in Pee Wee or junior high volleyball or football and some go to gymnastics or dance. High school students who lift weights arrive at 6 a.m. and are here until after practice at 6 p.m.”

Officials in Hershey and North Platte said the lunch requirements didn’t really change, but the paperwork increased. They said cooks and lunch clerks spent hours filling out mandatory paper work.

“It’s tough to get used to,” Young said in September. “Lots of schools around the country were giving away seconds… but the state said ‘no, you can’t do that.’”

When seconds were served, they had to be recorded and students had to pay extra for them, under the first set of rules. And unlike the cost of the main meal, second helpings were not subsidized for low-income families, so costs kept some students from eating as much as they needed.

Rep. Adrian Smith, who met with students throughout Nebraska in October, said the newly revised rules are a good step, but he’s not sure they go far enough.

“I appreciate the Department of Agriculture’s decision to allow for more grains and meat in school meals,” Smith said. “These changes are a step in the right direction and should be made permanent.”

But Smith also said local officials should get more flexibility to implement school food guidelines.

“The legislation failed to adequately consider budget limitations faced by school lunch providers and provided no credit to schools already taking steps to offer students healthier choices,” he said.


Like this story to send to your facebook

The North Platte Bulletin - Published 12/12/2012
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
 
My kids are grown and out of school now, but when I discovered that my daughter was eating ice cream and a cookie every day for lunch, the sack lunches began. The only kids that were required to eat balanced were the kids that were on reduced lunches. My thought was to let kids choose from a healthy menu (minus the option of the junk food altogether). If they choose not to eat, so be it. If they're hungry enough, a salad or a piece of fruit or a wrap might look pretty darned good.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 12/17/2012 2:08:29 PM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

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

I like that NP schools have recess first, then lunch. That way kids aren't in a hurry to eat so they can play outside. I don't like that students who have "free and reduced lunches" can't have seconds as they probably need it the most.
+1
Posted by tiger4    - 12/17/2012 10:21:14 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

North I hate to be the one to break this to you but the kids have access everyday to fresh fruit, juice, fresh vegetables, cut lettuce, and canned fruit and that is what is normally on the salad bar. The kids then get to have the choice of four main menus with 2 hot, some type of salad, and either a sandwich or a wrap. They then get to have either skim chocolate milk or 1% white with water available to drink. After all that quite a few kids will take the main meal because they have to and the required half cup of a fruit or vegetable with a milk and then not eat nothing, say they don't like what they have and ask to leave the lunch room. And to point out that the elementary schools have take out the al le carte items so the kids can no longer buy sun chips, cheezits or gogurt. The kids do not eat school food because they do not eat the like at home. I dare you to go to an elementary school for lunch and watch what is eaten and what is not, then come back and offer answers to questions that you have first hand knowledge on. This is not , if you serve it they will eat it, they will only eat it if they first eat it at home in their daily family lives.
0
Posted by robobeek    - 12/16/2012 8:46:43 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

But Robobeek, if the school stopped serving things like pizza, nuggets, nachos and replaced those items with fruits, vegetables, healthy proteins and dairy - if we left the lunch line as an ala carte choice rather than forcing these foods on the kids, kids would have no choice but to choose from and eat a healthy meal or not eat at all. And then if parents would prefer their kids to eat nuggets, nachos and all sorts of junk food, they can send it in a sack lunch. I think most parents would prefer that the junk food be removed.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 12/16/2012 4:58:40 PM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

good discussion, thanks especially for yr perspectives, robobeek & horseygirl
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 12/15/2012 10:18:59 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

Yoda - There is a way to solve much of this problem, but in reality, it's a pipe dream that will never happen. Why? Because a great number of people are now conditioned to not have to sacrifice anything. And they have come to expect that they deserve a certain standard of living without working for it.

I know there are poor people who are struggling to get by. I was one of them, and it wasn't all that long ago. So don't any of you tell me to get down off my high horse. I was left with four athletic teenagers to get through high school when their father went to prison. The school didn't have a lunch program at all, it was so small. I made less than $20,000yr and took zero help from the government other than the kids being on medical assistance which fortunately we hardly ever had to use. My children never went hungry, but then we didn't have cable/satellite TV, a cell phone for everyone, lavish Christmas presents, and all the other gadgets and gizmos that people these days think are essential for life. It's called being a grownup and prioritizing your life.

If our school would have had a lunch program to qualify for I could have made close to $40K per year and still qualified for free lunch. Sorry, in my book, that's not "poor". I'm not against helping people who really need it. But when we have a welfare system that is more lucrative to be on it than get a job and better yourself, we have the root of the problem right there.

0
Posted by horseygirl    - 12/15/2012 2:00:42 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Didn't congress allow pizza to pass as a veggie because of the tomato paste? Romes burning. LOL!
0
Posted by dragracer    - 12/15/2012 9:08:49 AM
(0 current warnings - 2 warnings total)

All the back and forth is for not. Have anyone you every watched the kids eat at any of the schools? The kids come home hungry because they don't eat anything at school. I stand in the lunchrooms of a school every lunch for the last 7 years and watch what they eat and don't eat. I can say for a fact that kids don't eat tinfoil or should I say anything wrapped in tinfoil. They don't like to eat anything that looks like it has more than 3 ingredients. A lot of kids won't eat anything that looks like grownup food, ie 3 bean salad, coleslaw, stuffing. Now if you serve up pizza, chicken nuggets, hamburgers, nachoes or chips. That is when you will see the plates empty. The government is trying to get the children to eat better foods but until the children eat better at home and are served better at home, this is an uphill battle that will probably not be won until the next generation of kids have kids.
0
Posted by robobeek    - 12/15/2012 8:41:01 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Outsider: the practice of re-defining issues and actions, such as calling others' stated opinions whining, is such a negative tactic in wide use by Leftists, aimed at diminishing and silencing those with opposing views. Right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. So -- yes, still mean.
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 12/14/2012 3:14:51 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Once again, the trees get in the way. Why are these meals subsidized? Can many of the kids these meals are subsidized for, or their parents, afford to pack a lunch for them? Hence, why they are subsidized in large part. A 'public health issue' sure...but also an individual issue. Not all individuals are obese. Some actually need more, some less, based on individual circumstances. Yet those that need more, for their healtrh (which can also be a public health issue) don't get it because a cooker cutter approach is the simple solution to a complex issue. Now, as to the suggestion that parents pack a lunch ffor their kids that need the extra calories, but can't sfford to...I'd really like to hear how that gets solved.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/14/2012 2:19:08 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

There is a real easy way to kill two birds with one stone here. You can get your kids eating what ever you want them to eat and lower your taxes by sending your kids to a private school. Yes. If enough people yank their kids out of public school for petty reasons the schools will get less funding, when schools get less funding it means you are paying lower taxes. Sure, you're paying enrollment at the private school, but at least you aren't being a victim!
0
Posted by Mike    - 12/14/2012 9:18:59 AM
(0 current warnings - 3 warnings total)

This is a public health issue, not an individual issue. You're not going to get kids healthy by wagging your finger at them and their parents. I wish it were that easy, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic. These are public schools. Student lunches are subsidized by the federal government. Greenwood, that non-troversy is unique to THAT North Carolina program for Preschoolers (a fully subsidized program kids opt in to, most parents have to pay for preschool in the US, not those parents). If you don't want the government giving guidelines to have a healthy (highly subsidized) lunch, then pack your kids a lunch and don't get subsidized. It's that simple. As far as being 'mean', I don't feel I have been. I don't think I've ever seen a group of (what I believe to be) adults whine and complain about anything quite as much as this. It reminds me of children at a table complaining about eating their fruits and vegetables. None of you see the irony?
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/14/2012 9:05:29 AM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

Uh...outsider, I already did, that's why I suggested you do it. It is obvious that you haven't. Here's the Cliff's version: increase in fruits and veggie offerings. A good thing, but of course the word 'increase practically meant provide them more frequently, not increase of protions. Decrease starchy carbos, grains and proteins (to the point that reccomended daily allowances were not being met. Additionally, decrease portion sizes of all offerings. Additionally, the opportunity for kids to actually get more fuel, what they needed was diminished. Now, were these portions based on the kids who needed the most nutrition becasue of activity...nope. Were the based on the median...nope again. The practical appication of these regulations lead to kids, a lot of them, not getting enough of what they actually needed during a day. When healthy kids are provided with mandated food portions, that at best, allowed them to maintain, sometimes even lose, when their bodies actually need more, because they are growing and active, it is not a good idea. I don't know how anyone with even a remote sense of objectiveness, regardless of political leanings, can look at this issue, and what it produced and come to the conclusion that it was a good idea. Which again, apply a solution to a specific problem to all people, even if they are not part of the problem. When the government mandates food and portion size that is actually detrimental to many, that is just not a good idea. Hey, I'm all for balanced diets, and like I said, my kids eat them, but this program was not balanced, and was actually harmful to a good number of students. Curious...does all that hate and vile you carry around for people that simply disagree with you ever wear on you?
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/14/2012 8:59:40 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

I feel that it's the responsibility of the parents to teach your children to eat healthy & encourage activity over having video games & tv babysit their children. My son is 15 and a athlete. He requires more calories than the school lunches dropped down to. So yes, he was hungry cuz they took out a lot of the proteins & fats which is what these kids need to run on. if the kids are starving when they get out of school, they are going to go home and eat everything in sight which basically voids any healthy lunch they might have had or you have parents that just do a lot of fast food cuz it's easier than planning & cooking a healthy meal.
0
Posted by scooter64    - 12/14/2012 7:46:36 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

School vouchers would fix lots of government control problems. Outsider, PHD? still at the university?
0
Posted by dragracer    - 12/14/2012 7:31:12 AM
(0 current warnings - 2 warnings total)

Good reply, Greenwood. There is no need to be so nasty about this whole thing. And, I agree with those remarks about the rural kids, because I was one - if you have not experienced country life you don't have ANY idea how hard, or how long those kids work. They are some of the best kids, in part because they work hard (and play hard), they have a good work ethic, and they are rarely obese because of it. I also doubt their "whining" about their lunches. My issue is with the government being involved, yet again in our life...really?!
0
Posted by garol    - 12/14/2012 7:19:19 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

To Outsider -- for instance, here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/14/nanny-state-report-nc-school-officials-confiscate-preschoolers-homemade-lunch/ Is this really the appropriate role of big government that you seem to like so much?
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 12/14/2012 2:37:07 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Outsider -- fortunately I have no kids to worry about this issue, but this is not a "rural" issue. Starting with the opening of school this year, I started reading concerns about this nationwide, and some stories with outrageous interventions on the part of the lunch staff who were required to monitor intake and make "appropriate substitutions" or supplement what a kid brought to school. You might want to explore a wider view of this. And just curious, why are you so danged mean? It's simply uncalled for.
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 12/14/2012 2:26:20 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Here's a novel idea ... eliminate the school lunch program altogether and have the parents be responsible for a change. Is one packed meal a day for their kids going to break them? Why is it the government's responsibility to feed them anyway? I know, I know ... I'm heartless. And it's an unrealistic proposal simply because of the dependency created by "well-meaning", power-hungry politicians. Isn't it ironic that the same government that puts up signs in parks saying, "Don't feed the animals, they will forget how to forage for themselves" thinks that it's a good thing for people to depend on the government for everything. Oh, that's right ... animals don't vote.
0
Posted by horseygirl    - 12/13/2012 10:57:24 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Research, something conservatives always try to pass on to liberals. State them plainly, lets see what is 'actually needed'.
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/13/2012 9:46:20 PM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

I forgot to add...FACTS are the worst thing someone of liberal mindset can face...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/13/2012 4:27:13 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Tell ya what...go look up the regulations, and post the differences. I already know what they are. Yes, more fruits and veggies, and like I said, a good thing. But less, substantially in some instances, of other things that are actuaslly needed. And, less opportunity for the students to gasp, purchase with their owbn money, or their parents, what they actualkly needed. So, about those similarities between urban and rural kids that you know so much about...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/13/2012 4:18:16 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Pretty sure there were regulations on student lunches before 2010, it wasn't just a free for all. The difference is, the new regulations require (gasp!) more fruits and veggies. The humanity of large government. And the children, oh the poor children. I need smelling salts quick. What will they do without refined flour and french fries?!
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/13/2012 4:13:01 PM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

Hatred is a tool of the extreme liberal. Believing in religion makes you a dupe. Hate speech is when you do not agree with them. You are a racist when they run out of what little reason they have in an discussion, etc. This is what your kids learn at the government controlled education system today. Creeping government control long been here. Question is have we hit the tipping point?
0
Posted by dragracer    - 12/13/2012 4:10:44 PM
(0 current warnings - 2 warnings total)

Yes...yes, how dare anyone have the audacity to want to make decisions for their own kids based on what they actually know and observe. Such decisions are best left with politicians. And, true to form...cookie cutter. Well, urban kids aren't as obese as rural kids, well maybe it's the same, well maybe it's...that kids are, well, different and individual, requiring differnet needs. I though you liberal folk were all about recognizing individuality? Does that only matter for race, sex, hair style, belief (as long as liberally acceptable, that is)? Right, right, the number of urban kids getting up before the sun, going to work, doing such things as chores, feeding the animals, calving, then going off to school to get exercise, then sitting through class, then after school activities, then home to repeat the morning's chores, are exactly the same as us urban folk. Interesting way of looking at the world...from an idealogy that proclaims to promote individualism...everybody, everywhere, regardless of circumstance, needs exactly the same thing...brilliant.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/13/2012 3:43:10 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

My GOD! Liberals can be so NASTY and ingorant--
0
Posted by floyd    - 12/13/2012 3:27:36 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Nebraska is one of three states that continues to buy finely textured beef for school lunches. That in itself says that the state compromises food intended for it's kids. If they don't care about what their eating, why should they care about how much they eat.
0
Posted by DonMega    - 12/13/2012 3:16:00 PM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

It's official, Calirado is a done deal, Next Calibraksa!LOL!
0
Posted by dragracer    - 12/13/2012 1:11:34 PM
(0 current warnings - 2 warnings total)

oh my. Somebody is all fired up.
0
Posted by Country    - 12/13/2012 12:26:19 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Won't it be truly terrible if lower income families were given food assistance and had to pack sack lunches? The kids would be totally devastated.
0
Posted by npscout    - 12/13/2012 12:04:19 PM
(0 current warnings - 3 warnings total)

I wish I had a survey of whining about student lunches and political affiliation. I do not think for one minute that rural Nebraska kids (not that Lincoln county is rural) need more calories than urban Nebraska kids, and I know rural kids are actually MORE likely to be obese. I also don't believe that western nebraskans just worry about their kids' diets more. I've eaten student lunches in NP and in Lincoln (often) in the last year. I didn't hear any kids complaining in NP, I've never heard a parent or kid complain here. Crickets. There aren't newspaper stories here with people crying about their kids 'starving' because there are too many fruit and veggies and not enough meat. We follow the SAME guidelines as you guys. There are stories about the awards many schools have won here, but I digress. The only time I've heard anything about this whole fiasco are in newspapers like this, and usually it's from conservatives who ideologically oppose anything that is federal. After looking at Nebraska data on activity levels and obesity rates on rural and urban kids in Nebraska (which are VERY similar), I can only conclude that you conservatives out west are a bunch of whiners who stomp your feet and get mad anytime anybody tells you that, kids need more fruits and veggies, or the sky is blue, or any other fact you ideologically oppose because the federal government, wah.
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/13/2012 11:42:36 AM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

Outsider -- how does it feel to point that finger and accuse when you have no idea? Great that in Lincoln the kids got enough food, but I am not ignorant nor stupid nor whining. Just commenting.
0
Posted by Country    - 12/13/2012 10:55:57 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

That is laughable, and a true liberal mindset. If someone doesn't like an idea that I do, the only reason they are complaining is because thay are conservative white people who don't like change, and they blame the poor. Nice discussion. There is no way that they can be parents who take responsibility for their kids, and who actually spend time with them, and observe them, and see the effects that a improper diet has on them. No way these folks can be raising their kids different than I am. I mean everything is the same in the city of Lincoln, everywhere else. Except, everything isn't the same. Regardless of political idealogy, facts are facts. Different kids need different nutrition. Different geographics and demographics play a role in that. It has nothing to do with politics...any suggestion that it does, is simply myopic...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/13/2012 10:51:27 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Allow me to quote Northplatypus: "I wish decisions like school lunches were left to the schools and not the government."

Here is a novel idea! Send your kids to private school. If you send your kids to public schools that are funded by tax dollars, big brother government is going to stick their finger in the mix and stir things up.
0
Posted by Mike    - 12/13/2012 9:29:03 AM
(0 current warnings - 3 warnings total)

I live in Lincoln, and my kid loves the school lunches, and we've had numerous schools win awards for providing a variety of healthy foods by meeting these guidelines (numerous fruits and vegetables every day, I eat their twice a month). There has been no uproar here, because it's not a problem and the parents and kids are generally happy with these guidelines. This whole thing has been an ideological crybaby fest, where conservative rural schools didn't like hearing they don't serve enough healthy foods. Nobody likes a bureaucracy, nobody likes red tape or one size fits all 'solutions'. The school lunch program should have some flexibility, we're in agreement. But I do not believe for one moment all of this whining and crying had anything to do with that. This was about a bunch of crybabies resisting change because that's what old white conservative people do. That and bitch about the poor and point fingers at everybody else. The fact is, kids are getting more than enough carbohydrates, they need more fruits and veggies. When given the option, they don't choose them. When given the option of being hungry or eating fruits and veggies? Well, that's sort of a no brainer with some good natural consequences if you ask me. Nobody is starving. Hearing you all whine about the kids starving sounds JUST like when my kid hasn't eaten in two hours, and suddenly 'Starvation' (oh the drama, the cruelty). Somebody call a wahmbulance.
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/13/2012 9:02:05 AM
(0 current warnings - 5 warnings total)

That has to be some kind of record for quickness. The Federal Government actually realized it was wrong, and it took a relatively short time for it to realize the fallacy of its cookie cutter approach to solving problems. Who would have thought that such an approach was assinine. Oh, the travesty was the Federal Government believing it knew better, and knew for all. Fruits and veggies are a staple in my kids diets, the issue is giving them enough of them, and the other things they actually need to be healthy.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 12/13/2012 8:44:01 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

honeygrams. That is a ignorant statement. Have you ever lived on food stamps? I did as a child and know this. Carbs are cheap. You know potatoes and pastas. Quit being so judgmental. Nobody on food stamps are living high on the hog and if you think they are. You have never been there. I think the government should stay out of the school lunches also. Local people can deal with local problems. What I don't agree with is allowing fast food to be sold at the school. We can do better then that.
0
Posted by negirl2    - 12/13/2012 7:56:16 AM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

Good. My very skinny 8 year old little girl was coming home saying they dont feed her enough food. I started making her lunches to take instead of buying from the school because it simply wasn't enough food. Unfortunately, not every family can do that.
0
Posted by Country    - 12/13/2012 7:28:32 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

the obesity problem is not from school lunches or McD's it is from all the parents who receive food stamps and feed their children junk food and let them become lazy. Go to the store the 1st through the 8th and see what their carts are full of.
0
Posted by honeygrams    - 12/13/2012 6:40:15 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

I wish decisions like school lunches were left to the schools and not the government. I'm quite confident that a principal, school staff and cooks can notice when their school has an obesity problem and then take steps to curb it, minus all the paperwork and reporting.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 12/13/2012 4:36:04 AM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

boohoo. My kids have to eat fruits and vegetables to be full. The travesty.
0
Posted by outsider    - 12/12/2012 9:57:50 PM
(0 current warnings - 5 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 - 23.20.196.179
North Platte, Nebraska