The Harsh Stereotypes Of Cafeteria Food And Negative Connotations Of Assumedly Horrible Lunch Essay

The author’s ethos by describing some of the current uses for the funds being provided, demonstrating the concerns, and showing the aggravations that some Americans towards the issue. Waters and Heron state “Parent advocacy groups like Better School Food have rejected the National School Lunch

One of the most controversial issues today is the question of how to address childhood obesity. Because of the large proportion of meals that children, particularly low-income children, consume in schools, cafeteria food has been targeted by dietary reformers as in need of a major overhaul. However, while many different types of new school menus have been proposed, the extent to which healthier foods can be offered remains controversial. Opponents to reform state that children will not eat healthier lunches, and that changing the food that children eat will have minimal impact, since the children will either bring food from home or eat food at home that is more 'kid friendly.'

Nearly 100,000 schools in America participate in the National School Lunch Program. Lunches created as part of this

School lunch rooms have been evolving over the last decade. Healthier food choices and better-quality food are just two of many improvements happening inside school cafeterias. Although school lunch rooms are making various positive changes, there are still negative consequences for some students. Most students can go through the lunch line and not have to worry about the cost of the meal and whether they have enough money to buy a hot lunch. On the other hand, some students are constantly worrying about not being able to eat lunch due to the price. According to a CNN article titled “School Lunch Shaming” by Heather Long, “…an alarming number of American youngsters still can’t afford a $2.35 lunch, despite the dramatic expansion of free and reduced lunch programs” (paragraph 1), which demonstrates the struggles that these low-income families face when it comes to buying their student school lunches. Staff working in cafeterias have started to “shame” those students by taking away the student’s food and giving them a bag containing a cheese sandwich and milk to those students who are unable to afford their lunch. States such as New Mexico are taking a stand against school lunch shaming and have banned lunch shaming completely. Long also explained that, “The USDA is urging districts to stop “embarrassing” and “singling out” students who don’t have enough money for lunch” (paragraph 9), which further demonstrates the lengths people are going to solve the lunch shaming issues.

The author’s intention is to inform the reader that the healthy lunch programs are failing. The author provides plentiful information and research on the failing school lunch programs in the U.S. “In the war to get America’s children to eat healthier, things are not going well.” Kids are not eating their vegetables. This has become a big problem in America and steps need to be taken to stop unhealthy eating. Like The Agriculture Department mandating that students in the federal lunch program choose a fruit or vegetable with their meals. This solution didn’t work and actually worsened the problem. “Their consumption of fruits and vegetables actually went down 13 percent after the mandate took effect.”

The National School Lunch Program is a great resource for schools to use, to help provide children whom may not be able to afford their own lunches. The problem with the program though is that the recent changes to the requirements schools must follow make it difficult to provide lunches that are appealing and fulfilling to students. Schools also find that it is costing them more to try and follow these requirements and there is a lot more waste because students are not happy. The NSLP needs to change some of its requirements so schools can have some freedom in how lunches are prepared so students will be more likely to eat them. They also need to take in consideration that not every student should follow the same calorie count and how not have enough can affect a student, and too much creates waste. With certain changes the NSLP can be successful once again.

Therefore, modifying the Healthy Hungry-Free Kids Act of 2010 is a great start to meeting the needs of a more diverse student body. In deciding to keep the program the same, active and athletic students leave school undernourished everyday. Consequently, students not receiving their nutritional needs could also quench their hunger with unhealthy alternatives. For example, they could choose to visit a gas station before a sport practice to get through the practice. A healthy lunch program is ineffective if, in effect, it causes students to consume more unhealthy alternatives. Overall, this either causes undernourished students or students indulging in unhealthy alternatives. Neither of these is a good outcome for the students health, it would more effective to offer a second serving of healthier food during

One goal of school lunch is to moderate what students are consuming. In 2010, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act went into effect, setting new standards for lunchrooms across America.

During an average school day, most schools will provide a lunch for their students. After concern that school lunches were helping contribute to the obesity epidemic, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) began to regulate school lunches. “The Obama administration’s new Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, signed into law last December, sets aside $4.5 billion over 10 years to fund school lunches and child nutrition programs; it requires school lunch programs to double the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables in each meal, reduce calories and expand access to drinking water during meal time. With 31 million children receiving school lunches and 20% of all U.S. children suffering from obesity, the measure should help to improve the food

America prides itself on being on of the greatest countries in the world, but this isn’t true for all areas, some of them we are lacking in and could learn from other countries’ example. Some of which are our obesity rates, quality of food, and academic standards. All of which either affect or are affected by our school lunches. American public schools should adopt a hands on and healthier approach to mealtimes because it will decrease the obesity levels in our children, teach students where their food comes from and how to prepare it, also because it merely tastes better.

Obesity is crucial in this country, in order for there to be a change we need to start serving healthy foods at schools. The First Lady Michelle Obama brought this healthy lunch concern to the educational system. California’s Department of Education Nutrition Services provides fresh fruit and vegetables to students as a supplement throughout the day. California’s schools have moved ahead to support Hunger-Free Kids policy. The local government regulates school districts including Los Angeles Unified School District to serve whole grains, fruits and vegetables versus foods high in calories. The Hunger-Free Kids policy allowed public schools to serve healthy lunches preventing obesity.

Nationally, about 17% of people under the age of 20, about 12.5 million are considered obese. School districts that serve students food that are high in calories and fat are to blame for the growing numbers of obese children. Although school lunches provide students food at minimal costs, the poor quality of food served delivers inadequate nutrition and is responsible for the rising numbers of obese minors in the United States. In order to combat this growing problem, school districts must limit student choices in the lunchroom and provide healthier food nationally. Although some school districts may argue this, it is necessary to do so as school districts in Pennsylvania and Mississippi and university studies support this claim.

I think that school lunch does meet federal standards because according to the text it says “Cafeteria food can be delicious, healthy, affordable, and loved by students. Schools have eased impressive results but most importantly, dramatic increases in the number of students participating in school meal programs, which supports student’s ability to learn and at the same time, yields positive finical results for school programs.

Federally-funded school meal programs, including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP), serve an average of 31.3 million lunches and 11.1 million breakfasts per day at a cost to the country of $11.1 billion in 2011 (Food & Nutrition Services, 2012). These federally-funded meals are an excellent opportunity for regulation of nutrition as well as education regarding healthy choices. Obesity is clearly a great threat to the health of our nation, and the federal government must step in to defend its citizens against this growing threat. Children are at the mercy of their families, their social conditions, and their schools, predisposing them to obesity through poor nutritional options and a lack of education; the federal government must intervene through regulation of school meals and snacks to protect children from the abundance of unhealthy options while also educating them and reducing childhood obesity.

The fast-paced lifestyle of Americans today results in unhealthy frozen T.V. dinners and take-out meals. In present day society, the role of woman and men are virtually equal. With this making both the mother and father of families busy, there is little time for home cooked meals. A hardy breakfast is replaced with sugary pop-tarts, hand packed lunches is replaced with money for fast food, and frozen T.V. trays take the place of a healthy dinner. These foods may all taste good, but they are not healthy. By giving children lunch money, the children are having the choice to buy whatever foods they please. It could be easily assumed that a child would choose a candy bar, chips, and a soda over a school lunch. Again, the children are not the only ones to be blamed here. The parents need to take time to guide their children towards what food is healthy and what food is unhealthy. By taking a little more time out of the day and making healthier food choices, the rate of childhood obesity could slow down, if not stop altogether.