USDA to ban "Junk Food"

INDIANAPOLIS — School leaders are getting ready for a big change in school food service.

The USDA’s Smart Snacks in School rules go into effect July 1, 2014. In short, all “junk food” in vending machines, a la carte lunch, student stores and fundraisers such as bake sales will be banned July 1.

“I think that’s great!” said Betsy Hunsucker, a Brownsburg mother. “I think kids would love fruits and vegetables.”

Fruits, vegetables, dairy, protein-rich foods and whole grain-rich foods are allowed.

Water, milk and 100 percent fruit and vegetable juice is permitted. High school students can have caffeine and low-calorie carbonated drinks.

There are also rules when it comes to nutritional values like calories, sodium, sugar and fat.

“I’m afraid that parents have spoiled their children so much with the choices that they allow them to make at home that the kids will turn up their noses to the nutrition,” said Hunsucker.

Some schools, like Brownsburg, have already started. They have been compliant with grades K-5 since Christmas break, and have been slowly introducing older students to items like baked chips.

Katie Sherven, the director of food services for Brownsburg Schools, says they’re really excited about their plans to put a “garden bar” in all of their schools next year.

As for the possible impact on fundraising, Sherven says fortunately for them, many of their fundraisers do not revolve around food, like the Fun Run and Dog Jog.

She said she’s met with all Brownsburg principals about the guidelines for vending machines and any food-related sales.

Schools that don’t comply face hefty fines or loss of federal funding.

Not all parents think it’s a great idea.

“I like the way it’s done now because they have fast food one day a week,” said Vicki Masters. “They are in Plainfield and they have a lot of choice. They have things that they actually will eat so they do get food in them to go through their day. There are things they just won’t eat. They’d rather not eat than eat something they don’t like.”

The USDA guide on the rules is 54 pages long, but these are the basics:

Ingredient Rules
Any competitive food sold must be a:
a. Fruit
b. Vegetable
c. Dairy product
d. Protein-rich food (meat, beans, poultry, seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds)
e. Whole-grain rich food (first ingredient is a whole grain or product is 50% whole grains
by weight)
f. Combo food that has at least ¼ cup fruit and/or vegetable
* Exception until July 1, 2016 – A food is allowed if it contains a minimum of 10% of
the Daily Value of calcium, potassium, Vitamin D or fiber
Nutrient Standards
All competitive foods must meet each of the following nutrient limits:
a. Calories
• Max 200 calories for snacks and sides
• Max 350 calories for entrees (outside the school lunch program)
b. Sugar
• Max 35% sugar by weight (some fruit exceptions)
c. Sodium
• Max 230mg sodium for snacks (200mg after July 1, 2016)
d. Fat
• Fat: Max 35% calories from fat (as packaged or served; some exceptions
for reduced fat cheese and nuts apply)
• Sat fat: Max 10% calories from fat (as packaged or served; some exceptions
for reduced fat cheese and nuts apply)
• Trans fat – 0g as served
Beverage Rules
All grade levels may sell:
a. Water or carbonated water; unflavored low-fat milk; flavored or unflavored fat-free
milk and soy alternatives; and 100% fruit or vegetable juice. Size limits: 8 oz for
elementary schools & 12 oz for middle and high schools.
b. High schools may also sell lower calorie flavored and/or carbonated beverages
that meet the following rules:
a. 5 calories per 8 fl oz, or 10 calories per 20 fl oz; and
b. 40 calories per 8 fl oz, or 60 calories per 12 fl oz.
c. Note: caffeine only permitted in high schools

If students have access to the teacher’s lounge, the same rules apply in the teacher’s lounge.

State agencies will monitor compliance.

You can find more information here and here.

http://fox59.com/2014/04/10/hello-fruits...z2yZgyYKmO

“I think that’s great!” said Betsy Hunsucker, a Brownsburg mother. “I think kids would love fruits and vegetables.”

This is satire right? it has to be satire.

This is satire right? it has to be satire.

look into your inner american, just look at it and tell me, is this level of ignorance truly impossible?

Shitty parenting everyone, stripping yet another freedom away.

I have mixed feelings about this. Yes I'm glad they are promoting good nutrition especially at an early age when healthy eating habits are formed, but I'm not sure a wholesale ban is the right answer. The choice between a cookie and an apple will exist for the rest of their life. Is taking away that choice really the most helpful thing we can do? I don't know.

#fatshaming
#thinprivilege
#nazistate
#pineappleobama

look into your inner american, just look at it and tell me, is this level of ignorance truly impossible?

Deep down I know you are right.

#fatshaming
#thinprivilege
#nazistate
#pineappleobama

Well, at least Congress knows pizza is a vegetable.

Honestly the only edible thing at my schools lunch place is the yogurt parfait. Everything else is "healthy" which is actually just the cheapest food they can get in the area, and tastes like plain flavored mush

Well, at least Congress knows pizza is a vegetable.

oh god, i can only hope all schools fill their cafeterias with pizza.

Do people really have a problem with kids having their diets being limited to healthy foods rather than the alternative? And bear in mind these are public schools and vending machines owned and operated by the school district, and it's their prerogative to decide what foods to sell to begin with.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I could have done without the general lack of healthy foods while growing up. Flaming Hot Cheetos and Cinnamon rolls certainly didn't help my overall health while I was still in school.

Do people really have a problem with kids having their diets being limited to healthy foods rather than the alternative? And bear in mind these are public schools and vending machines owned and operated by the school district, and it's their prerogative to decide what foods to sell to begin with.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I could have done without the general lack of healthy foods while growing up. Flaming Hot Cheetos and Cinnamon rolls certainly didn't help my overall health while I was still in school.

I mostly agree with this. The sheer volume of junk food as compared to actually nutritious food in public school cafeterias is astounding. I can see both sides, however. I'd rather they just further limit the selection instead of an all out ban. Or make the portions for the junk food smaller.

Do people really have a problem with kids having their diets being limited to healthy foods rather than the alternative? And bear in mind these are public schools and vending machines owned and operated by the school district, and it's their prerogative to decide what foods to sell to begin with.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, I could have done without the general lack of healthy foods while growing up. Flaming Hot Cheetos and Cinnamon rolls certainly didn't help my overall health while I was still in school.

At least for me, it's the fact that, once again, parents are having their jobs done for them because they're so awful at it. We don't do anything to stop parents from being awful.

We're blaming the food for the kids being overweight, but it's not the food's fault, it's the parents' fault.

And in reality, is changing the school cafeteria menu REALLY going to do anything? No. The kids who overeat/eat the wrong things will just go home and continue to do what they always do. The kids that get prepared lunches where it's the wrong kinds of foods will have the same issues. Changing one meal in three will do nothing.

Hell, at least when I was in school, the kids that had problems didn't even get those problems from school lunches.

The problem is that the parents are not being parents.

At least for me, it's the fact that, once again, parents are having their jobs done for them because they're so awful at it. We don't do anything to stop parents from being awful.

We're blaming the food for the kids being overweight, but it's not the food's fault, it's the parents' fault.

And in reality, is changing the school cafeteria menu REALLY going to do anything? No. The kids who overeat/eat the wrong things will just go home and continue to do what they always do. The kids that get prepared lunches where it's the wrong kinds of foods will have the same issues. Changing one meal in three will do nothing.

Hell, at least when I was in school, the kids that had problems didn't even get those problems from school lunches.

The problem is that the parents are not being parents.

Conversely, kids who do eat healthy at home, are currently being sabotaged by greasy, starchy school lunches and snacks.

Other than completely cancelling the whole "school lunch" idea and making all children bring a packed lunch from home, I don't know how to leave both the responsibility and power in the parents' hands.

Conversely, kids who do eat healthy at home, are currently being sabotaged by greasy, starchy school lunches and snacks.

Other than completely cancelling the whole "school lunch" idea and making all children bring a packed lunch from home, I don't know how to leave both the responsibility and power in the parents' hands.

At least in NJ, they've put a massive amount of limitations on what kinds and quantities of greasy, starchy school lunches could be served years ago. Snacks and the like are the smallest possible sizes, unless they are ensured to be healthy, and to my knowledge almost none of the actual lunches are unhealthy anymore. In my high school, we had four sections of potential lunches, two of which were guaranteed healthy (salads and the like).

I'm not sure that a complete and utter ban is really a smart move, especially when it's already limited to a very high degree. It's just asking for kids who are used to unhealthy foods to bring them in en masse and distribute them to their friends, thus worsening the situation. And you can't really say that can't happen, it happened when I was a kid before these bans and limitations were put in place. The only difference is now that all things that are considered unhealthy are banned, it makes the likelyhood of it getting worse so much higher.

Back in my day, we had stuffed crust pizza at this side shop from the cafeteria. That was the alternative if you didn't like what they served. I loved that so much. 9 years ago they did away with it, because of the push for healthy food trying to make its way into the school. Those alternatives to school lunches should always be made available. It's pretty bad when lunch is already bad for kids, and that they decide to make it even more unappetizing with pushing healthy foods. Tomato soup on Fridays and pizza on Mondays were the only school lunches I would eat. The occasional salad the schools served were alright if I poured a ton of French dressing on it, but the portions were so small, and had so much cabbage rather than lettuce. Changing the main meal to be super healthy when you already offer salad each meal is pretty ridiculous too.

The fish, burgers, etc can be really bad at schools depending on how they maintain it/cook it. We don't need to push for healthy food, but we need to push for better cooks in schools, and allow different types of dishes to be made. The general consistent crap that is pushed out in cafeterias are the issue. If they want to offer healthy food with things like pizza, chips, or pudding, then fine. Just don't force a pure healthy standard. Students will go hungry throughout the day, because they just won't eat it, which is worse.

Do people really have a problem with kids having their diets being limited to healthy foods rather than the alternative?

No, however, the correct question is

Do people have a problem with being limited?

Which is a yes. Parents should be the ones to enforce for their child individually, not have the government make huge sweeping restrictions on everyone and everything. That's not their job, their job is to be as unitrusive as possible and not get in our way, essentially, but they've been forgetting that more and more recently. The real solution is for the parents to actually care enough about their kid to pack them a lunch from home, it's not that hard, my parents did and they got up at 4:30AM every morning and work 5:30-6 with 45 minute drives to/from; parents can't complain they don't have the time, they can fucking make the time, it's their child. If they can't, they shouldn't have one to begin with.

I've been trying to explain why paternalism makes no sense for ages but it seems many people support it (sometimes without realising it) as long as they aren't personally affected. In fact it seems to be almost encoded to human nature that everything spins around you and your rights only.

I do understand the point in preventing harm to others but allowing the government to tell you what kind of life is good for you is outsourcing your brains to the state. That is the kind of dangerous trust in authorities that's a slippery slope to totalitarism and complete tyranny over the citizens.

We also live in a society where popular opinion and/or money dictate what's accepted and what is not. This is why weed is illegal and alcohol isn't. This is why genital mutilation of boys isn't illegal but genital mutilation of girls is. That is why 18-year-old Americans are old enough to die for the state but not old enough to drink a beer. That is why straight marriage is allowed but gay marriages aren't (and let's not even talk about that clearly immoral polygamy). And the reason why e-cigarettes are having problems getting legalized is because both tobacco industry AND pharmaceutical industry would lose profits.

Governments don't give rat's ass about the health of citizens. What they care about is optimizing the economy and securing their votes from as many people as possible (suck up to the popular opinion).

Hope this wasn't too far off the main topic here.

No, however, the correct question is

Which is a yes. Parents should be the ones to enforce for their child individually, not have the government make huge sweeping restrictions on everyone and everything. That's not their job, their job is to be as unitrusive as possible and not get in our way, essentially, but they've been forgetting that more and more recently. The real solution is for the parents to actually care enough about their kid to pack them a lunch from home, it's not that hard, my parents did and they got up at 4:30AM every morning and work 5:30-6 with 45 minute drives to/from; parents can't complain they don't have the time, they can fucking make the time, it's their child. If they can't, they shouldn't have one to begin with.

But they do have children. And then they have another, and even another. Unfortunately, I'm speaking from my own experience with my brother and his wife, who are still living in the basement of my parents' house. You can assume that if parents care about their children, they will do what's best for them. There is a problem when even the parents don't even know what is fucking best for their children because each new generation is being bombarded with conflicting messages about the correlation between diet and health, and even my parents (who are in their late 40's) don't have a clue about nutrition and diet. People will NOT change. No, they fucking won't. I feel disgusted that our government is forced to step in, and I can only hope that things turn out better than they are now, given our government's track record on "public interest."

A non-intrusive government is the whole reason we have the satirical term "'Murican." It's fucking disgusting.