USDA allows more meat, grains in school lunches

[alp227]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Agriculture Department says it's making permanent rules that allow schools to serve larger portions of lean meat and whole grains in school lunches and other meals.

Guidelines restricting portion size were originally intended to combat childhood obesity, but many parents complained their kids weren't getting enough to eat. School administrators say that rules establishing maximums on grains and meats are too limiting and make it difficult to plan daily meals.

The department eliminated limits and on meats and grains on a temporary basis more than a year ago. On Thursday officials made the rule change permanent.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/usda-allows-more-meat-grains-school-lunches

[pipoman]

1. Regulations are a double edged sword

Some schools offering high fat fast food and sugary drinks made regulatory changes necessary perhaps. The regulatory changes however make scratch cooking and creative alternatives difficult or impossible, dooming school food service mostly to institutional, pre prepared options. A very similar set of circumstances to what happened to healthcare food service several decades ago resulting in what we all know now as hospital food. Healthcare is now going through a revival...regulatory relaxation allowing for more creative solutions to food production. A similar model should be considered for school dining regulation..too bad we can't ever learn from our past failures. .

[bemildred]

2. I don't like the FDA telling people what to eat.

Guidance is OK, rules and "allowing" things is not.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. This is about the USDA, not FDA. nt

[bemildred]

4. Them too. nt

[Gormy Cuss]

9. They're paying for the food program. That's why they have say over its contents.

School systems can opt out of it and serve whatever they want -- hot pockets, McDonald's food, etc.

[bemildred]

10. And I'm saying they meddle too much and focus on the wrong things;

and most of all they pretend to the power to order people around when it is not appropriate.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. It is wholly appropriate.

The purpose of USDA funding of school food programs is to enhance the nutritional intake of children during the day. Without it most schools would simply fold up the tent and stop serving meals.

That's not to say that the USDA doesn't have some stupid restrictions nor that these stupid restrictions are easy to change, but with enough persistence and evidence the USDA restrictions have been changed over the years.

[bemildred]

12. Food programs are appropriate, money is appropriate, guidance is appropriate.

Ordering people around as a condition of the help is not. That puts kids at the mercy of administrators, state pols, and their egos, and we can easily see how well that works.

[Swede Atlanta]

5. Distinction - School Lunches

I agree with you that in general those responsible for public policy around food and food choices should analyze the science and make recommendations or guidelines for general population consumption and consideration.

But we have a higher duty when it comes to children in schools. They are not, in any legal sense, responsible for themselves or for making informed decisions about their lives. As well children at schools often have no choice but to eat in the school cafeteria. And usually there is no choice of what you can select. There is usually one thing on the menu, period.

In limited, coercive environments such as schools and especially when minors are involved it is important that there be more vigor in the regulations.

As with any regulation, experimentation is important. You start with a baseline based on the best information you have at the time and then you experiment and even over time you tweak and modify to improve. Improvement over time.

The same is true with the ACA. I listen to the Sean Hannity radio show about once every couple of weeks for about 10 minutes of my drive home. I cannot take more than 10 minutes without having heart palpitations or wanting to hurt someone (figuratively). Yesterday there was a caller who was criticizing the President for making "tweaks" to the law by extending deadlines and offering exemptions. The upshot was the caller (egged on by Sean the A--h*le Hannity) thought that the law should be taken and implemented as originally planned or shelved. She claimed he was making these, in her words, illegal changes out of pure political expediency.

I'm not going to say there aren't political calculations in some of the recent tweaks but in general every new law, especially one as expansive as the ACA, will require some refinement. Learn as you go along. That is how mankind progresses.

[bemildred]

6. Children, all children, ought not be fed cheap, lousy food.

You don't need a regulation to know that.

It's the "avoid this" and "eat that" instructions I object to. Many people have specific needs, and it is important to listen to your body about what to eat, sometimes you need one thing, sometimes you need something else. I have known people with all sorts of strange diets in my life, all of them self-selected, and all doing quite well and not about to take instruction from anyone else. That's the right attitude.

[mac56]

13. "You don't need a regulation to know that."

Knowing it, and being willing to comply with it, are two very different things. You can't always rely on organizations to do the right thing when they're dealing with budgets. That applies to school boards too. That's where regulations are useful.

[bemildred]

14. Yes, I don't like the word "comply" either. There is no right to make them "comply".

Micro-managing from Washington is not the answer. Persuasion, plenty of money, and support is the answer. People are not stupid.

[mac56]

15. Do we at least agree that serving school lunches to kids

is not the same as grownups selecting their own dietary choices? One is a captive audience and the other is not? So shouldn't be judged by the same standards?

Apples and oranges, no pun intended.

[bemildred]

16. I'm not for MickeyD's at school, if that's what you mean.

Kids diets need to be supervised. But the goal is education, not "compliance". "Compliance" just alienates people, and then they ignore you, if they don't go out of their way to annoy you.

[FrodosPet]

7. "I listen to the Sean Hannity radio show"?

[2banon]

8. well said.. full agreement.. n/t

[Hestia]

17. What really blows my mind about the school lunches is where the kids throw away the apples

and oranges instead of offering them to kids who don't have as much to eat at home as others. If they don't want to eat, do they *have* to take it? In HS, way back when, we had options on what we wanted to buy, mostly an a la carte menu. It's the blatant waste of food with parental approval of fresh fruit and vegetables that gets me.

Sorry for the thread drift...