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.

Chicken nuggets are amazing capsules of delicious taste. Don't go disbelieving.


What a way to start a new page.

I honestly don't care if the food is processed packed meat, my qualms with mcdonalds come from it tasting like ass 90% of the time and the lack of any nutritional value.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Thankfully, this is my last year of public school, and after this, I'll be eating in a brig on ship somewhere .

Fixed that for you...

Joey wrote:Apple juice may as well be coca cola with vitamen C, it's not "healthy" At all.

It depends on the type of juice. I don't know how it is in the U.K., but here in the U.S. there are potentially dozens of different types of apple juice, some healthy, some not.

hotsauceman1 wrote: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.

For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.

biccat wrote: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.

A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it? Otherwise, we must conclude that because little Johnny does not like broccoli, but does like chocolate cake, the cake must have better nutritional value than broccoli.

To put it another way, the nutritional value of the meal that is served is not dependent on whether the child eats it. The meal is still equally nutritious. Whether or not the child will eat it is an entirely separate issue.

IcyCool wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote: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.

For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.

I think its gross because alot of the time meat like that is forced through chlorine baths and is the discard or other food.

IcyCool wrote:

For some strange reason, people seem to equate "things I think are gross" with "unhealthy". That is honestly, rarely the case. For example, I think a great deal of different types of fish are "gross", but that doesn't invalidate their nutritional value. Without knowing the specific nutritional value of these chicken nuggets, it's difficult to say they are unhealthy.

My disagreement is not in the nutritional value, it's how awful I think it is. When I have kids they will take sack lunches specifically to avoid processed foods like chicken nuggets. I don't think my kids should be ingesting ground bones, connective tissue, and chlorine processed dog food that is now fit for human consumption. If I went to the trouble to pack a sandwich, 2 fruits, and a natural fruit drink my kid left the house well fed and I have done my duty as a parent. If someone who is not my child's parent takes that food away from them and forces them to eat something I have not approved for their consumption and because of that goes hungry; now my child is not well fed. That is not the decision of the school to make. Especially not when the school uses standards that consider french fries, tomatoes sauce, and ketchup vegetables. It IS the decision of the parent what their child eats, what if pork chops were the meal of the day and the kid followed Kosher? What if the kid was vegetarian, or allergic? NOT the place of the school to interfere with the parents in the cafeteria until and unless it becomes a health and welfare issue, and then it's not the SCHOOL that get's involved.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.

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?

When there is more sugar, preservatives, and artificial goop then tomato.
Also, Whatever happened to the presidents idea of getting a cooperation between school cafeterias and farmers markets?

The republicans didn't like it.

Melissia wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:That and a metric ton of lobbyists say it is a vegetable.

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?

When there is more sugar, preservatives, and artificial goop then tomato.
Also, Whatever happened to the presidents idea of getting a cooperation between school cafeterias and farmers markets?

The republicans didn't like it.

Yes, because getting healthy food to ur nation childrens would somehow harm america. They probably called the farmer terrorist trying to poison children.

Melissia wrote:The republicans didn't like it.

Was there ever a bill introduced in Congress or the Senate that the Republicans opposed? Is it even feasible for local farmers to provide all of the crops to schools? Even if it is, how would this affect the cost of school meals?

Schools don't get supplies from major farms simply because they hate the environment. Big farm operations are very cost-effective. This is, IMO, a good thing. YMMV.

IcyCool wrote:A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it? Otherwise, we must conclude that because little Johnny does not like broccoli, but does like chocolate cake, the cake must have better nutritional value than broccoli.

Chocolate cake is not an inherently bad food, nor is broccoli inherently good. Johnny could certainly receive some nutritional benefit from chocolate cake, and it might even be preferable if the the alternative is not eating at all.

What a child will or will not eat certainly affects the nutritional value that they receive from lunch. If the objective of the school lunch screening program is to ensure that children get appropriate nutrition at school (rather than just serving the right food), then they should definitely consider what the kids will or will not eat. Particularly if the decision is between the child eating a marginally healthy lunch and not eating a fully healthy lunch. Your argument is one of form over substance.

Briefly to address the in loco parentis argument presented by others; the school does not have an absolute right, and particularly does not have the right to overrule a parent's decision making.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:The republicans didn't like it.

Was there ever a bill introduced in Congress or the Senate that the Republicans opposed? Is it even feasible for local farmers to provide all of the crops to schools? Even if it is, how would this affect the cost of school meals?

Schools don't get supplies from major farms simply because they hate the environment. Big farm operations are very cost-effective. This is, IMO, a good thing. YMMV.

So cost effectivness is better then feeding children healthy food.
Maybe if the governemnt subsidized the organic food rather then all the GMO food.

IcyCool wrote:
A child's hunger strike does not affect this situation, does it?

Yes, but only because the school cannot really coerce a child into eating something.

I remember in the distant and murky past of the early 90's being dropped off at (private) day care, and not being allowed to have my food provided by my parents. This lead to a lot of not eating (and eventually being allowed to have food from home), because all they could really do is put me into "timeout" or something similar.

I was 4-5, its hazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Chocolate cake is not an inherently bad food, nor is broccoli inherently good. Johnny could certainly receive some nutritional benefit from chocolate cake, and it might even be preferable if the the alternative is not eating at all.

Given what "bad food" generally means, yes it is.

That said, I agree that "bad food" doesn't mean much, and relies on many assumptions.

But, but 5% real fruit.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Dammit! Juice is not healthy. Its just sugar! You are not even supposed to drink milk or juice.

You know sugar isn't intrinsically bad, right?

First of all regarding the matter or the tomato/sauce discussion. A tomato is a fruit.


Now on to the other subject. Should teachers/monitors be searching a kids lunch bag and replacing it at thier discretion with something else? No.

Both the searching of the lunch, and the replacement of the lunch were wrong.

The searching is apparently a policy they have decided to do, and is wrong and is nanny state stuff.. The person who did the searching, the making the lunch switch decision was really wrong. The searching was them doing what they were told is their job.

I am not sure how it is in the rest of the states, but in Oregon, we have mandatory reporting laws for people such as teachers, police officers, nurses, etc etc etc. Mandatory reporting is for signs of harm to children, in which case they are obligated to file a report with child services and/or the police if they suspect something amiss. Of course for some reason they often fail to do so here even in clear cut cases where they actually see children being assaulted. It is also a crime to fail to report something.

Anyways, back to the point. Instead of searching lunches, could they not just stroll around the cafeteria and observe? Then if they see a child with nothing but a twinkie and soda for lunch or less, they could do the proper investigating/reporting?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Anyways, back to the point. Instead of searching lunches, could they not just stroll around the cafeteria and observe? Then if they see a child with nothing but a twinkie and soda for lunch or less, they could do the proper investigating/reporting?

That's...actually pretty reasonable, and in line with other abuse observations.

It just seems less intrusive, and less work, and well more common sense. You know, instead of searching through every lunch bag.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:It just seems less intrusive, and less work, and well more common sense. You know, instead of searching through every lunch bag.

Yeah, public school has gotten a bit odd since I graduated HS.

I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.

It is funny though, because a lot of the objection (not your's) in this thread has revolved around giving public school employees too much power, while the regulation in question gives them less than they might have under a generic child abuse statute.

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.

Do you think that food vendors should be allowed to serve sawdust, poison and drugs?

Of course not.

Then the government has a role in picking what people eat.

It was true in mediaeval times, and it's even more true now that food technology has produced so many different additives.

dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.

So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.

I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.

And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warrior Squirrel wrote:

You know sugar isn't intrinsically bad, right?

Most of the nutrition is lost when made into juice.

So? Sugar itself isn't actually bad. In fact, I frequently find myself with a deficiency in it (hypoglycemia), myself, requiring me to do something like... I dunno... drink fruit juice or something. Oddly enough the sweetness from fruit juice or fruit snacks I've found reduces the cravings the most-- more than, say, sodas or chocolate or other candies.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.

So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.

I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.

And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.

Wait they tried that, in Texas???

In normal years a good duster/trenchcoat is required wearing on many days due to constant rain - like in the last two months (HURRAY! come on break that drought do it!). Not to mention that two weeks of winter we have.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:First of all regarding the matter or the tomato/sauce discussion. A tomato is a fruit.

"Fruit" isn't really a term that's well defined, at least nutritionally. Vegetable is. A tomato is a vegetable.

hotsauceman1 wrote:So cost effectivness is better then feeding children healthy food.

Well, I personally like being able to buy food at current prices. I'd rather pay $.50 for a tomato than $1 for a tomato.

Besides, by producing more food we have fewer hungry people.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Maybe if the governemnt subsidized the organic food rather then all the GMO food.

Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:I used to, and still do, carry a pocket knife (granted they've evolved from my original Swiss Army Knives) everywhere. Now that would be an incredibly foolish thing were I 14.

So did I, and mine wasn't a swiss army knife.

I still remember the year they tried to ban all button-down long coats. Not just trenchcoats, but dusters too, rain cloaks, ponchos-- any coat or coatlike item that went below the waist.

And not only that, our vice principle was a total douchebag about it and everything else.

Wait they tried that, in Texas???

In normal years a good duster/trenchcoat is required wearing on many days due to constant rain - like in the last two months (HURRAY! come on break that drought do it!). Not to mention that two weeks of winter we have.

Yyyup. Zero Tolerance and fear of school shootouts were the justifications for it.

Zero Tolerance is the worst thing to happen to schools since schools began.

Biccat your wrong, the tomato is a furit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable
I thought every one knew that.

All fruits are vegetables but not all vegetables are fruits.

Lunches are inspected!?

One or two "Bad" lunches do not ruin a child's life chances. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when a lot of kids foods were neon in colour*.


I make no claim to be normal or well balanced

biccat wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:So cost effectivness is better then feeding children healthy food.

Well, I personally like being able to buy food at current prices. I'd rather pay $.50 for a tomato than $1 for a tomato.

Besides, by producing more food we have fewer hungry people.

Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.

And you pay an extra 1.50 when you get horrble food and get sick from it later on. you pay on way or another.
Also Many countries seem to do fine with organic only. Like mexico before the whole drug cartel crisis.
And besides. if proper organic practices where followed we could.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:Dammit! Juice is not healthy. Its just sugar! You are not even supposed to drink milk or juice.

bs

Ribon Fox wrote:Biccat your wrong, the tomato is a furit;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/is-a-tomato-a-fruit-or-a-vegetable
I thought every one knew that.

Everyone but the USDA, who consider tomato based sauces a "vegetable" serving.

George Spiggott wrote:Chicken nuggets are a vegetable now? Fair enough, 'cause they sure ain't meat.

Made me think of this meme



To be honest, there is a real problem at the moment in the UK with schoolkids eating crap food.
As much as Jamie Oliver (celebrity chef here in the UK) irritates me, I admire what he was trying to do with campaigning for healthier school lunches.
After he had introduced a new menu at a particular school, there was a news report of parents going to the school and pushing hamburgers through the fences to desperate looking children (seriously).

I was also reading the other day that there are a growing number of kids going to school who haven't even been potty trained, and it's putting a lot of stress on the teachers.
TBH it's obvious that there is an increase in the amount of gakky parenting, and parents who just make zero effort with their kids.
The problem is, while this is obvious to most of the population who do look after their children, unfortunately it would be absolute political suicide for any politician come out and say that something needs to be done about it.

biccat wrote:
"Fruit" isn't really a term that's well defined, at least nutritionally. Vegetable is. A tomato is a vegetable.

The confusion is between the two, you can't claim one is poorly defined and the other is not.

Hence the point of "Is a tomato a vegetable?"

And no, it isn't well defined, not even in the nutritional field.

biccat wrote:
Organic food isn't necessarily better, and even if subsidized, would never meet our food demands because it's inefficient.

I know you know what is wrong with what you wrote, but I also know you will never admit to it; so I'll spell it out.

Inefficiency is not the same thing as being unable to meet demand, especially if demand is predicated on perceived need and not just desire.

dogma wrote:The confusion is between the two, you can't claim one is poorly defined and the other is not.

Hence the point of "Is a tomato a vegetable?"

And no, it isn't well defined, not even in the nutritional field.

It's well defined in biology!

A vegetable is an edible plant or an edible part of a plant. Edibility is all that is required for a plant to be a vegetable.

A fruit is a specific organ on many species of flowering plants that usually contains the ovaries of the plant.