But pink slime has been a part of millions of people’s diet for almost a century. Remove it and those people might just outlive the administration.
Pink slime is just meat. That’s not the processed food we need to be worried about.
Yet. Processed lunch meats are often made of the stuff
The problem with those is all the additives, such as nitrates. You can also get nitrates from eating bacon which is not nearly as processed.
Banning is all swell and dandy but a big issue that most schools have is having to make lunch for so many kids with so little money.
And on top of that there’s the outrageous charges they place on families and the draconian debt collection measures they sometimes rely on.Banning is easy, solving is not. Sorry.
Your concerns are not valid for my state of California. School lunches are provided through state and federal funding to all kids.
California might as well be another country at this point. I mean, we do have the fourth largest economy in the world.
More:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-calls-kids-freeloaders-wanting-190918582.html
These people are fucking evil.
Edit: Just keep finding more:
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-plan-cut-free-school-lunches-1807361
And on top of that there’s the outrageous charges they place on families and the draconian debt collection measures they sometimes rely on.
California schools are mandated to offer breakfast and lunch to every child for free, so not a concern on that front.
While Texas banned school meals altogether! “If god meant for you to eat he would have provided you a sack lunch” said Gov Abbott
Yeah, Texas isn’t kind to it’s citizens. Power (heat), food, you name it… They don’t care unless they (the people in charge) are getting paid.
Seems rich coming from a wealthy, disabled politician. Sure, god doesn’t provide sack lunches to poor kids, but he apparently does hand out wheelchairs, ADA ramps, elevators and door buttons to you?
Don’t slam the door in other’s faces. There’s a reason why traditional America did things like the ADA and EPA.
I have mixed feelings on this. Multiple family members worked in public schools, and a lot of kids want garbage processed foods. They know and like fruit loops and gold fish. They also like tomatoes and fresh fruit sometimes, but sometimes they just want comfort foods. I fully support healthy options and funding school lunches to the point they are delicious and nutritious, but you gotta meet some of these kids where they are, not where you want them to be.
you gotta meet some of these kids where they are, not where you want them to be.
The government uses its funding to buy these meals. So, I do not think that the government should be adding revenue to some of the worst players in the food industry.
If the kids want to go get junk food using their parents’ money and bring it into school, they can do that.
I don’t think you’re coming from a bad place, I just feel like there are competing interests between whats good for kids physically and economicaly (long term) vs short term (mentally). We want schools to do both, and ideally with healthy great food. but I’m sure you have needs for terrible food sometimes, judgement free, and denying that comfort and calories because you think they should like better food, doesn’t feel great. ideally, healthy whole local food…but also some baby steps into it maybe?
I don’t actually have a need for terrible food sometimes and neither does anyone else. Personally, I reach for it at times because it’s the only thing that isn’t spoiled, or it’s the thing that takes the least amount of time to prepare, both of which aren’t problems when someone else should be making sure that the food isn’t spoiled and preparing it for the kids.
The government should not be paying Lay’s (for example). Again, the food is free…so if they want some specific type of cheesy poof trash they can get their parents to cough up the $5 for the bag.
So instead of Lays they’ll start serving the kids fresh cut fries, double fried and generously salted.
Why are those the only two choices?
Also, even stuff that is processed a bit unhealthily as it’s being freshly cooked is better than bullshit that’s stuffed full of preservatives so it can be consumed non-refrigerated a decade after the apocalypse.
They’re not. I was just trying to give an example of something you could swap out the Lays for that would not be “ultra processed food” but still be just as unhealthy.
I think you’re establishing a burden of proof there you’re not actually prepared to meet, so you can just go ahead and stop replying.
You ever sweeten a bit of iced tea you brewed yourself? I can nearly guarantee you didn’t stuff it full of the type of shit you find regularly in, for instance, a canned lipton tea.
You’d really have to try extra hard to make regular food as unhealthy as junk food regularly is.
i get your line of thought, but i think schools and public infra in general should promote public well being over potentially making them slightly happier. As i see, it is similar to schools having mandatory sports for all, which promotes health. many students want to be lazy, but it does not harm them in general to do exercise
I can’t say you’re wrong, I just think theres a line between can and can’t removes discretion. Given the budget and produce to make nice healthy meals, the school hopefully try to get kids healthy food. But sometimes a sad kid needs an oreo, or a kid needs shelf stable food to eat over the weekend, let the locals do it and not ban all garbage food.
Another point to add is that the definition of upf is extremely broad and vague. And there isn’t much evidence that this whole category is harmful because of how broad it is. But hey, maybe it will still result in healthier meals overall nevertheless.
No more Poptarts and Sunny D. Hell yeah
California is the definition of a broken clock.
Yeah, how dare we feed our school kids for free, and ensure those tax dollars are going towards healthy food!
