Apparently conservative opponents of Michelle Obama think so.  In this townhall.com is talk of complaints mounting about the changes to the lunch menu, to get kids to eat healthier:

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/09/23/complaints_mount_against_michelle_obamas_new_lunch_menu

In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.

 

The story we published earlier this week on that subject is unfortunately not unique. Students across the country are complaining about the new school lunch regulations.

 

Perhaps the real motive is to starve students into slimming down. Just ask students in Pierre, South Dakota who, too, are in an all-out revolt.

 

"I know a lot of my friends who are just drinking a jug of milk for their lunch. And they are not getting a proper meal," middle school student Samantha Gortmaker told Keloland.com.

 

Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it’s not pleasing students.

 

Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according toSouthCoastToday.com.

 

Nancy Carvalho, director of food services for New Bedford Public Schools, was quoted as saying that hummus and black bean salads have been tough sells in elementary cafeterias. That means even smaller children are going through the day fighting hunger pains, which can never be considered a good thing.

 

One government official tried to put the blame on the students.

 

"One thing I think we need to keep in mind as kids say they're still hungry is that many children aren't used to eating fruits and vegetables at home, much less at school. So it's a change in what they are eating. If they are still hungry, it's that they are not eating all the food that's being offered," USDA Deputy Undersecretary Janey Thornton was quoted as saying.

 

Ms. Thornton just put her finger on the problem. The government is trying to impose a new diet that children are not accustomed to. It’s not reasonable to expect them to either eat what the government deems healthy or go hungry.

 

Many will opt to go hungry, and that’s the government’s fault.

 

So, we have an obesity epidemic and it is the big bad government making kids go hungry?  So, townhall.com is defending kids not being accustomed to eating fruits and vegetables and saying these kids SHOULD end up determining what they eat for lunch?  So, kids should be the one deciding what they eat?

No. No one should ever make a decision for himself. That's anarchy and un-American.

Kids should only get Black beans / humus salad for the rest of their lives!

The problem with only offering healthy foods is that you can't force the kids to eat them. So you end up with a situation like this.

Should kids be able to choose? Yes. Quite frankly, I'm all for kids bring their own lunch to school. Or, you could leave it up to the parents of the children to decide what is served at the school, since they're the ones paying for it. But I don't think that a government ban is going to help. It's like NYC banning large sodas. People could either go for refills or buy another drink. All it does is piss people off.

badgenome said: No. No one should ever make a decision for himself. That's anarchy and un-American.

So, you advocate, irregardless of the age, minors should competely and totally decide for themselves every part of their lives?  The question is teenagers and children.  And there is some law that prevents kids from bringing in what they want to eat foodwise everywhere?

Or, the other case is you fully support fast food places setting up shop in schools and selling food to kids there, complete with no limits on soday size.  If the market provides it, it is ok.

School lunches aren't what's causing obesity or most health problems. In fact, they're not really a factor at all.

Obesity is caused by what kids do/eat at home. It's mainly the lack of exercise though. In terms of food, its the fast food and junk that kids eat, not school lunches.

So yeah, let kids eat what they want during school lunches. If they don't want to get fat, then go exercise. And even if they do get fat, school lunches wouldn't be a factor. It's the food outside of school and lack of exercise. Only allowing healthy isn't going to change anything for those two reasons.

The cost of producing healthy food alternatives would be far cheaper than the inedible junk they serve in cafeterias. Health benefits may even include a reduction in childhood obesity, diabetes and cancer.

Jay520 said: School lunches aren't what's causing obesity or most health problems. In fact, their not really a factor at all. Obesity is caused by what kids do/eat at home. It's mainly the lack of exercise though. In terms of food, its the fast food and junk that kids eat, not school lunches. So yeah, let kids eat what they want during school lunches. If they don't want to get fat, then go exercise. And even if they do get fat, school lunches wouldn't be a factor. It's the food outside of school and lack of exercise.

Idea I believe is to try to cause some exposure to better foods for kids to eat SOMETIME during their day.  Outside of Chicago, I am unaware of any bans on bag lunches, so kids are free to bring whatever.  The question is what the government lunches should be.  Should they try to be healthy, or end up pandering to every impulse appetite that children have?  

Isn't the point of raising kids to provide them boundaries and teach them to say no?

richardhutnik said: So, you advocate, irregardless of the age, minors should competely and totally decide for themselves every part of their lives?  The question is teenagers and children.  And there is some law that prevents kids from bringing in what they want to eat foodwise everywhere? Or, the other case is you fully support fast food places setting up shop in schools and selling food to kids there, complete with no limits on soday size.  If the market provides it, it is ok.

Irregardless is not a word, and I'm of the opinion that parents - not children, not school boards, and not fucking Michelle Obama - should be the ones making decisions about a child's nutrition.

richardhutnik said: 1. Should they try to be healthy, or end up pandering to every impulse appetite that children have?   2. Isn't the point of raising kids to provide them boundaries and teach them to say no?

1. They should still offer healthy food and lesser healthy food. But of course don't offer dangerously unhealthy food like 1000-calorie burgers or anything like that. Those types of food should be excluded, but the entire menu shouldn't really be appealing to some ultra fitness freak. Just somewhere in between strictly no-fat foods and fast food junk. There should be a decent balance possible.

2. Yeah, at the end of the day, kids are going to be unhealthy because of their actions at home. Changing school lunches will change virtually nothing. All it does is makes a few kids hungry during school which wool cause them to make up for it when they get home.