Retired admiral: Michelle O’s School Lunch Rules Needed For ‘National Security’

I am almost speechless...almost.

Unless I'm missing something here, this guy actually comes out to say that the kids have to be put on food restrictions because it's a threat to National Security, to the Homeland. (Man I hate that term)

MARIETTA, Ga. – As schools across the country continue to struggle to comply with food restrictions championed by first lady Michelle Obama, supporters of the federal regulations are reframing the issue as one of national security.

Re-framing?

“As a retired rear admiral, I view the school lunch program as one of our most important assets in the battle against obesity, which is a major problem for the military because almost one in three young adults in the U.S. is too overweight to serve,” Coane wrote.

Yup, if you're too fat to be enlisted 10 years down the line, it's a threat to National Security. Now if that doesn't reek of grooming our kids for a Police State I don't know what does.

You can read the rest here but it isn't much more palatable.
eagnews.org...
thehill.com...

a reply to: jude11

The logic is simple, your children belong to the state.

The state will allocate what it believes is appropriate sustenance in order to produce physically valuable specimens for a variety of tasks to be determined at a later date.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Dint fluoridation was put in place because most of army rejections were due to poor dental health?

Influx of future soldier is important

ETA:

The single greatest reason for rejecting draftees from enlisting in World War II was poor oral health. We saw a personal concern become a social concern and, ultimately, a significant concern for national security.

www.dentalcare.com...

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: jude11

The logic is simple, your children belong to the state.

The state will allocate what it believes is appropriate sustenance in order to produce physically valuable specimens for a variety of tasks to be determined at a later date.

Thank you for your cooperation.

You should frame that for posterity.

Jude11

originally posted by: Indigent
Dint fluoridation was put in place because most of army rejections were due to poor dental health?

Influx of future soldier is important

Or maybe the fluoride was put in place to dumb them down enough to SERVE without question?

Can't have intelligent cannon fodder.

Jude11

I have to put out there that this program didn't have any effect on my children. They attend a private Vegetarian school. That being said I think being taught nutrition is important. When I was in public elementary school we had snack time half way to lunch while we read together. We were only allowed to bring fruit or pretzels. Then by lunch we didn't pig out on crap. My children only get this because they go to private school.

Children have to learn how to be healthy. That doesn't mean they should be starved or provided gross food. One of the things I wonder if I go out to eat is how restaurants take the same ingredients I do but it tastes better when I make it? This is due to my kitchen cooking and making adjustments for 3 people not 300 or even 3000.

I think the key to children eating healthy isn't starving them until some scheduled lunch time. At home we eat if and when we are hungry, that's healthy. Not a designated lunch that makes children wait so long they can't concentrate on class for being hungry.

I also think that with all the various diets and food choices we have children should be taught what vitamins and minerals their body needs to he healthy and what food these can be found in. Alcohol is a Carb, it doesn't exactly have any nutritional value.

He must be talking in opposites.

They actually *want* people to be unhealthy and ignorant.

The methods of control work better that way.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

Agreed. It's kind of like: Give a person a fish, feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, feed them for life.

calories needed for healthy development:
www.mayoclinic.org...

maximum calories allowed for Michelle O's breakfast/lunch school rules:
www.fns.usda.gov...

percentage of children whose only meals are school meals.
www.nokidhungry.org...

consequences of too few calories on children:
health.usnews.com...

consequences on intellectual development of too few calories long term:
healthyeating.sfgate.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen
He must be talking in opposites.

They actually *want* people to be unhealthy and ignorant.

The methods of control work better that way.

But if they can't run full tilt to their death for the benefit of TPTB, what's the point?

jude11

a reply to: grandmakdw
I am a parent that asked my kids to eat breakfast at school. It helps my budget a whole lot. Growing boys are insane eaters and healthy food isn't cheap. A granola bar an orange and tea with honey stuffs me. My kids can eat an entire box if granola bars with 3 or four oranges EACH . If I only have to plan that for the weekend that a big difference.

I'm grateful that if they get good food at school and they do have the option to grab something as they walk out the door. Those that don't really have my heart.

ETA; it's only recent that it been recognized that a person that is overweight could be nutritionally starving. This is a reflection of bias and uneducated not only public but also Drs

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: grandmakdw
I am a parent that asked my kids to eat breakfast at school. It helps my buyer a whole lot. Growing boys are insane eaters and healthy food isn't cheap. A granola bar an orange and tea with honey stuffs me. My kids can eat an entire box if granola bars with 3 or four oranges EACH . If I only have to plan that for the weekend that a big difference.

I'm grateful that if they get good food at school and they do have the option to grab something as they walk out the door. Those that don't really have my heart.

I fully agree... if that was the actual reasoning behind the program.

But it seems there may be another reason and I'm NOT ok with that. Saying it's for the kids but using it as a grooming tool is just wrong.

Jude11

a reply to: jude11
It always seems to come back to the kids. That's the fall back excuse. What about having gym daily? Or in class Pilates or whatever is easy and already has the supplies at the school.

A healthy diet is only part of the answer. Just because a child doesn't consider themselves a jock doesn't mean they can't exercise.

health.usnews.com...

kidshealth.org...

too few calories stunt intellectual growth and physical growth even if the diet is full of fruit and veggies -
goals of proponents for starving children by default?

One would think that boot camp would shed pounds off of fat recruits in short order, but someone always has a better idea


Retired admirals meet with U.S. Sen. Inouye to voice support for efforts to remove junk food from schools

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: jude11
It always seems to come back to the kids. That's the fall back excuse. What about having gym daily? Or in class Pilates or whatever is easy and already has the supplies at the school.

A healthy diet is only part of the answer. Just because a child doesn't consider themselves a jock doesn't mean they can't exercise.

The real problem with all the talk about what schools have to do to fix childhood obesity is that we're talking about SCHOOLS. Schools are not a place we should be looking to for solutions to this problem. The problems and the solutions all start at home. Children are learning inactivity and poor eating habits before they ever walk through the door of a school and school isn't going to change that. You can teach them nutrition and exercise routines from the time they arrive until the time they leave every day and if they go home to eating crap and sitting on xbox nothing will change.

The whole system was designed to provide a commodity for people that have power when these kids graduate. School prepares them to be low-income earners that will rent a place to live, spend their money on cheap fake foods, rack up credit card bills, and otherwise fund the people in control. If you want to solve the problems it's not going to be the schools that do it.

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: xuenchen
He must be talking in opposites.

They actually *want* people to be unhealthy and ignorant.

The methods of control work better that way.

But if they can't run full tilt to their death for the benefit of TPTB, what's the point?

jude11

TPTB always have enough people to do the work.

The rest are expendable.

They keep just enough and the others are held in reserve limbo.

Wow, just wow

"National Security" is the modern age's equivalent to "Burn her, she's a witch!!!" and "Ack! Communists!!!" on the list of "Really stupid crap Americans believe in."

originally posted by: Bilk22
One would think that boot camp would shed pounds off of fat recruits in short order, but someone always has a better idea

Retired admirals meet with U.S. Sen. Inouye to voice support for efforts to remove junk food from schools

It would be so much better to have the kids exercise more, rather than cut their calories.
I'm all for removing the junk foods, but kids need calories, lots of them, from good food, to grow. Diets without proper exercise don't work for adults, yet that's all they're doing for these kids - calorie restrictions.