Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:When does a tomato stop becoming a vegetable? When it's mashed, puree'd and canned? When it is put on the dough? Once the cheese is applied?

A tomato stops being a vegetable the moment you discard the plant and keep the big red fruit.

biccat wrote:When you're the one advocating for an alternative explanation, yeah.

It isn't so much that I am advocating an alternative explanation as pointing out the statement was vague and that you decided for yourself what others mean without knowing what they meant. I also notice that even after explaining it you are not retracting your statement, as you stated you would.

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:When you're the one advocating for an alternative explanation, yeah.

It isn't so much that I am advocating an alternative explanation as pointing out the statement was vague and that you decided for yourself what others mean without knowing what they meant. I also notice that even after explaining it you are not retracting your statement, as you stated you would.

Just because you're such a nice guy Ahtman, I changed my response to Kanluwen.

White knighting for a white knight, I never thought I'd see the day.

biccat wrote:Just because you're such a nice guy Ahtman, I changed my response to Kanluwen.

White knighting for a white knight, I never thought I'd see the day.

Or how about you changed it becuase you said you would.

Not shockingly, you don't seem to know what an internet 'white knight' is, as it doesn't apply here in the slightest.

biccat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Before we get any further into the whole "nanny state" bit, this is quite clearly a case of one official being in the wrong.

It's OK for a school official to inspect lunches, but only if they make the 'right decisions'?

I'd rather avoid trying to determine whether chicken nuggets are healthier than a turkey and cheese sandwich.

Since school officials(teachers and administrators) are effectively acting custodial guardians, yes it's okay for them to inspect lunches.
The entire purpose of a school is to foster the development of a child's education and their well-being.

This case is simply the official being wrong unless there's something which puts the whole thing into context missing from the article.

For all we know, the turkey or other parts of the bagged lunch were obviously spoiled or presenting with something that made this particular official think it wasn't in the child's best interest to eat the food. Given that the child's mother says she packs the lunch all the time but had never been confronted with this problem before. Also given the way public schools here in North Carolina have the whole food inspector role being filled by a principal or vice principal(with many of the elementary schools here having principals who have impressive backgrounds in child development and several children of their own), I'm more inclined to give the system some leeway.

So what you're saying Kan, is that my original post was correct in its inference and Ahtman was being needlessly pedantic?

Thanks for the clarification of your original comment, it is appreciated.

biccat wrote:So what you're saying Kan, is that my original post was correct in its inference and Ahtman was being needlessly pedantic?

Thanks for the clarification of your original comment, it is appreciated.

Ahtman was actually correct in his statement regarding the part that you seemed to focus on, "the nanny state" bit. This isn't a case of "big government ruining our children!"--it's a case of a school official, likely a vice principal, making a decision.

Without the specifics of the situation, it comes off as the official making a stupid decision. But like I said, there's factors which could have been making the official state that it wasn't in the child's interest to eat the home prepared meal and instead give them a meal from the cafeteria.

daedalus wrote:Damn near every day from about 6th grade on to about my sophmore year in high school, I ate a meat/cheese/lettuce sandwich, had a soda, a small bag of chips, and a twinkie or equivalent, and I was remarkably fit. I didn't become a fat guy until afterwards, when I discovered beer.

Nobody wants to work out, and it's not their fault they eat unhealthily. Therefore, we need people telling us what to eat.

you can thank michelle obama for this. she's been trying to bark up the food control tree ever since her husband came to office, this is why schools have begun serving this inedible gak for our young to consume.

Except this kind of crap was served before Obama came into office, so negative on that remilia.

They had these kinds of meals when I was in middle and high school.

Kanluwen wrote:Except this kind of crap was served before Obama came into office, so negative on that remilia.

They had these kinds of meals when I was in middle and high school.

Agreed.

Ok... Further research into this has revealed something interesting.....
what we already know:

the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice

The "Standard" being applied:

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Now... the sandwich had Cheese, a milk product. In most cases, a single slice of cheese is considered to equal one serving. So, Milk was covered by the cheese in the sandwich.
The lunch also included a whole banana and Apple juice which would cover the requirement for "two servings of fruit or vegetables."

As far as I can see the packed lunch, which the child's mother stated the child would eat, fulfilled the USDA requirements.

Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.

Slarg232 wrote:

daedalus wrote:Damn near every day from about 6th grade on to about my sophmore year in high school, I ate a meat/cheese/lettuce sandwich, had a soda, a small bag of chips, and a twinkie or equivalent, and I was remarkably fit. I didn't become a fat guy until afterwards, when I discovered beer.

Nobody wants to work out, and it's not their fault they eat unhealthily. Therefore, we need people telling us what to eat.

Well, yeah, I know that, but I just want to hear the people admit it.

helgrenze wrote:Ok... Further research into this has revealed something interesting.....

You mean reading the article, right? Because that's all in there.

what we already know:

the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice

The "Standard" being applied:

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Now... the sandwich had Cheese, a milk product. In most cases, a single slice of cheese is considered to equal one serving. So, Milk was covered by the cheese in the sandwich.
The lunch also included a whole banana and Apple juice which would cover the requirement for "two servings of fruit or vegetables."

As far as I can see the packed lunch, which the child's mother stated the child would eat, fulfilled the USDA requirements.

Yes, but like I said earlier...there might very well be circumstances which make the official look like less of an idiot. I live in North Carolina. I went through the public school system, as have both of my brothers(with one still currently in there). The "inspections" that they do--which they don't really do in the manner that someone might think, they don't ask you to dump out your food and check it. They generally just ask you what you have for lunch. The only time I think I ever saw an administrator tell a child to dispose of their home lunch and get something from the cafeteria was when the administrator noticed something like mold on the bread or a foul odor emanating from the food.

Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.

Probably not. The option for the meal was there, the child chose not to eat it.

Kanluwen wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
The "Standard" being applied:

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Serving the child a school lunch that the child did not eat actually may have been in violation of the same standard.

Probably not. The option for the meal was there, the child chose not to eat it.

Agreed. Check the bolded part. A lunch just has to be served with those items, it doesn't have to be eaten.

As to the school official, who knows what really happened. If this was a mistake, let's hope they learn from it and adjust their practices. If the mother of the child is being inaccurate (perhaps the food was spoiled, perhaps she didn't actually pack what she said she did), then lets all commend the school official on a job well done.

Grakmar wrote:Check the bolded part. A lunch just has to be served with those items, it doesn't have to be eaten.

Given the choice between the kid between giving the kid a "nutritious" lunch and only eating a few chicken nuggets or given (and eating) a "non-nutritious" turkey sandwich with cheese and fruit, is it preferable to give the kid the nutritious or non-nutritious lunch?

Lets assume for the moment that for some reason the non-nutritious lunch doesn't meet FDA guidelines, for whatever reasons.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except this kind of crap was served before Obama came into office, so negative on that remilia.

They had these kinds of meals when I was in middle and high school.

Agreed.

Hell, two years ago we would get "Pork Chops" for lunch Monday, "Steak" for lunch Wednesday, and then "Chicken" for lunch Friday.

And it always tasted the same.

Slarg232 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except this kind of crap was served before Obama came into office, so negative on that remilia.

They had these kinds of meals when I was in middle and high school.

Agreed.

Hell, two years ago we would get "Pork Chops" for lunch Monday, "Steak" for lunch Wednesday, and then "Chicken" for lunch Friday.

And it always tasted the same.

And by tasted the same I'm sure you'll you meant "tasted like cat."

Wo calm down TBone, no you can't have an school made catburgers. No I don't care what Genghis Connie told you.
You have to watch these wiener dogs, they're little liars.

Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?

Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?

CHicken Nuggets are absolutely healthy.

"Chicken" Nuggets are not, however.

Slarg232 wrote:

Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?

CHicken Nuggets are absolutely healthy.

"Chicken" Nuggets are not, however.

Well 6 McDonald's chicken nuggets have 250 calories and 14g of protein...that's not bad at all.

Thing to note: here in NC, many school systems get the chicken "breast tenders"(they purposely don't use nuggets for the very reason that it's junkmeat) supplied to them by the Perdue company.

Or at least, that's what the high school my brother's at has going on.

Melissia wrote:

I sincerely doubt they've changed enough that the chicken nuggets are made from the GOOD parts of the chicken.

Oh they're not even white meat. They look white, but they've had "stuff" done to them.

helgrenze wrote:
The "Standard" being applied:

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Is that a North Carolina department, or the federal department?

Here's what I think we should do to fat people; when we set up universal healthcare, we should have a doctor determine whether or not their obesity is genetic or if it's their fault. If it is their fault, they're taxed slightly more.

However, the government does not get to pick what people eat.

I've butched, plucked and cooked chickens and I'v not seen any part of the foul that in any way resembles a nugget.
No one should eat them, its disgusting once you know how they get the meat.

LoneLictor wrote:Here's what I think we should do to fat people; when we set up universal healthcare, we should have a doctor determine whether or not their obesity is genetic or if it's their fault. If it is their fault, they're taxed slightly more.

However, the government does not get to pick what people eat.

The stupidity in this statement blows my mind.
Not only do you want state prejudice against fat people when its 'their fault' as you say, you are also saying the government doesn't get to force you do stuff against your will, after they force you do something against your will.
Please explain this hyocrisy.

Joey wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.
And what's wrong with chicken nuggets? Isn't it low-calorie, high-protein?

CHicken Nuggets are absolutely healthy.

"Chicken" Nuggets are not, however.

Well 6 McDonald's chicken nuggets have 250 calories and 14g of protein...that's not bad at all.

Its not the calories or protein. It s the processed packed meat that goes into it. ita made from scraps pressed to look like chicken breast.