Bit related, wondering what percentage of schools have recess period these days? They did away with it at my elementary school when I was ten, and always felt that hour of activity had more value than just playing as kept kids more active.

You prefer the idea of a lawyer with no scientific background dictating things to said majority?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/snacks-usdas-solution-healthy-school-lunch-protests/story?id=17324285#.UGULLpjO3h8

If you want to get cute, then it would be the first lady vs high schoolers.  So, no, you want high schoolers to be able to FULLY to be able to dictate completely where tax dollars go for their food.  You want them to vote on this.  Either you believe they will make wiser choices or that the guidelines are stupid.

Reality is that the USDA's plan includes more vegetables, complext carbs and less junk food.  That is the meal proposal and 750-850 calories for lunch, and the ability for kids to go back for seconds on fruits and vegetables.  And it is based on the advice of nutritionists who are experts in the area.  But you don't believe in nutritionist guidelines apparently.  So, so much for your arguing about scientific background.  You seriously should look into what is behind here, rather than bite into the first line you find convenient.

Why does it seem like the only options the government want us to think there are, are greasy burgers or salad?

There is a middle ground for students where normal food can be offered to kids instead healthy foods they probably wont eat causing they to go hungry leading to lack energy resulting in less physical activity also bad for health.

The government does NOT have the right to force their ideal image onto children. If they want to live a lifestyle that leaves them with regular fitness or even a bit overweight that's their choice.

They don't have to cater to every student just offer a range of foods for those who want healthy food to those who want to eat something good for lunch.

1: And how would you feel if the cafeteria offered only high fat food and told you to bring you're own healthy meals from home instead of offering something for you.

2: Whats wrong with people wanting to eat regular food niether healthy or un-healthy? People who do get physical exercise and eat reasonable should be able to get a normal lunch and not have to stick with healthy options they dont like.

3: The government wont be contributing to the rising obesity rate if they just offered normal lunches but they are forcing a healthy policy on children who should not have to be super healthy at the expense of enjoying their food.

4: And kids skipping out on lunch and falling asleep in class from lack of energy is such a great alternative.

Apparantly lots of people think obesity is a good choice since there's so many of them.

Lots of people question eating foods like salad and black beans as that seems just as bad of a choice.

Sure obese people should pay more for healthcare but not have their lives dicatated by the government.

It is interesting that people complaining about the government doing this, and not allowing the kids to have what they want, protests when the schools do give kids condoms so they don't get pregnant or catch STDs.

As far as your first point goes, only high fat foods is what they have been offering.  If you wanted to eat healthy, you had to bring from home.  Budgets are limited, so they can't do the full gambit.  Schools actually had fast food places coming in and serve what they are doing.

As far as the second point, the initiative also involves trying to get kids physical exercise.  The constraints by the government are healthier foods and limiting lunch to 750-850 calories.

Did you even bother to read the article I posted?  I said it connects to the discussion here.   These barriers may be an issue, but it doesn't exclude cultural stupidity.  A basic conservative view is that values do matter, and ideas do have consequences, and collectively turning a blind eye to these, means a society will collectively suffer.  Social conservatives and traditionalists hold this to be valid, and the article does speak to it.

This is the trouble with humanity. It doesn't really matter what the issue is, the human body is susceptible to addiction and brainwashing. It's also the human condition to justify your actions. You can be brainwashed by a fast food company and think you're actually practising free will when you choose to eat at one.

There is no way a black bean salad even comes close to 750/850 calories and there are many better more kid friendly choices that can be made that children will enjoy.

Yes resoruces may be limited but have one normal and one healthy option on offer is NOT going to blow resources out of the water. Its easy to have staff working on two simple meals choices each day for kids. And if you still claim that providing two meals choices is a great strain on school resources then they should offer a normal choice as opposed to healthy or unhealthy as it represents the middle ground.

And if they cant let the fast food chains come in and offer what they've got. Then the government wont be contributing to obesity and kids have a choice rather than facing only the healthy option.

Yes it would be great if healthy foods tasted great and were cheap but that isnt the case and kids are kids and arnt eating it.

PS: I went to a public school myself and they offered as much as 8 meals choices per day. Some were healthy and some were unhealthy and most occupied the middle ground. So offering at least one normal menu option per day is easily feasable for any public school. And if schools cant afford that much then we have much bigger problems to worry about.