A lunch can only be so healthy before you do not get all of the ingredients your body needs to survive. Another example is, if you change the students school lunch, and make it healthier you should do that to the teachers as well. Students do not like new changes just as much as teachers don't. The school will have a big drop in money because the students will eventually stop buying the school lunches, because they do not like what they are eating and paying for. I also believe that we should be able to pick and choose what we like to eat or what we want to eat because we are paying for the meal.
Although changing the school lunch to a healthier, better option would be a good idea, you should not change the lunch from what it is now. Even though the kids would be eating healthier, most of the kids that eat lunch now would not buy the new lunch, also kids not buying the new lunch means not as much money comes into the school, and if you want kids to be healthier all you have to do is give them more time to be active. To begin with, if you changed the lunch at school a lot of the kids that eat lunch now would not eat lunch if you changed it. The new lunches would not taste as good as the lunches they serve now. Taking away some of the kids favorite foods is not a good idea.
The last reason, is that it is not good to make school lunches healthier because the government is ignoring parents and saying that parent can’t make the healthy choice for their children. One of the reasons that people agreed is some parents are paying unhealthy school lunches that their kids are eating. In the article it stated “Less Fat, More Veggies”, it said, “It recommends meals containing fewer calories, less fat and salt, and more fruit, vegetables
Crunch! That was the sound of my tooth breaking from biting into a chocolate chip cookie. If you don 't want this to happen to you your probably not going to want to eat school lunch in the U.S. Most kids in the U.S. don 't like school lunches, but some kids have to eat school lunch. Some kids rely on school lunch as their only food for the day.
Letting them sit down all day and watching t.v is not very good either. The parents have to take responsibility and show their children how to eat healthy and get the right amount of exercise. In the article, Weintraub shows data that says 26 percent of schoolchildren are obese. Boys more obese than girls. Not that it is really relevant, minorities more than whites.The Center for Public Health Advocacy blamed the problem on the large portions sizes in restaurants, allowing junk food on school’s campus, and the lack of physical education in schools.
The possible consequences are schools are faced with higher expenses due to these requirements, in response some schools have opted out of the NSL, so they do not need to follow the new rules (Turner & Chaloupka, 2014). Thus, students eligible for the NSLP will not longer have access to free or reduced meals and also, children have expressed their dislike of the new lunch options served through the revised guidelines (Turner & Chaloupka, 2014). In 2012, students at a high school in Kansas made a parody video called “We are Hungry” complaining about lack of energy due to the low calorie meals served at their school for lunch (Yee, 2012). The students argued the HHFKA targets overweight children, which leaves average children feeling fatigued and leaving them hungry (Yee,
Closed campus is not a excellent idea because the food at the school isn’t that great. I would rather go somewhere pay for food then eat at the school a lot of students would agree with me on this statement. Closed campus also is also a bad idea because there will be more fights. One reason I say their are going to be more fight because students aren’t going to get a chance to relax. If the school has a closed campus they should at least get better food.
The kids stomachs are desperate but not desperate enough to eat the school lunch.The Healthy slop makes stomachs quiver in fear. Michelle Obama has put into use the Hunger, Hunger free Kids Act, that will help feed kids from low income families with healthy lunches . Some people suggest that the new lunches are healthier with less salt and fat; however, they fail to recognize kids are disgusted by the food given to them and sometimes throw most of it away. Therefore, Parents should not agree with the new school lunch requirements Admittedly, some people think that kids are getting the required amount of nutrition. They also think this is a low cost way to feed their kids.
Children in our schools are going hungry and we do not know it. Hunger affects learning abilities because it slows cerebral function causing difficulty in concentration and academic tasks. Most food assistance programs only provide help to low-income families, but food insecurity extends into the working class as well. Providing training on signs of hunger can help school personnel mitigate this issue early. The discussion and implementation of federal and community food assistance partnerships will also help reduce the hunger issue in schools.
They would need to spend more money because they would have to buy more books for the students to use or read. The school would have to buy more lunches than they already have to buy because they would be making us be in school all year long. If we had school all year the school would have to pay double the bills because they would be using more water, electricity, heat, and etc. But on the other hand, school year round could be helpful to some students. It could help the kids who struggle in school to get more help with what they don’t understand.