TitoMorelli
4/2/2012, 08:06 AM
http://middletownpress.com/articles/2012/04/01/news/doc4f780090b37b3855481492.txt?viewmode=fullstory
Beginning next school year, students across the country may be in for a shock when they purchase their lunch in the cafeteria.
In an effort to fight childhood obesity and diabetes, the federal government is requiring students of all ages to buy at least one serving of fresh fruit or vegetable for lunch. Even if they toss the produce into the garbage.
Fresh fruit and vegetable portions will double next year. “Some students don’t take one now, but they will have to,” Eileen Faustich, ****ord’s food services director, said Friday. “We can’t let a child go by the cashier without a fruit or vegetable on their tray.”
There’s more, a lot more, in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act.
Next year, students can buy only nonfat flavored milk or 1 percent white milk. Half of the grains must be “whole” next year. In 2013-14, all products must be whole grain. School cafeterias must offer green and orange leafy vegetables, and drastically reduce sodium use over the next three years. Trans-fats are banned.
If a student refuses to take the fruit or vegetable, the cafeteria employees will have to charge an a la carte fee, which typically is higher because the lunch will not be reimbursable under federal guidelines.
The federal mandate will result in extra costs for municipalities nationwide. Federal officials estimate there will be a 30-cent increase in lunch prices, and the government will provide another 6-cent reimbursement.
It may be difficult for local school districts to not raise lunch prices, food service officials predict.
State Department of Education spokesman James Polites said if a student next year declined to take a fresh fruit or vegetable, the school system cannot claim the lunch for federal reimbursement.
Seymour Food Services Director Cindy Brooks, who is in the national School Nutrition Association and is chairwoman of its public policy and legislative committee, said Friday she is “excited” by the new guidelines.
“It’s an excellent opportunity for all schools to be on the same playing field,” Brooks said. “Here in Connecticut, we’ve been offering a lot of healthy foods already. There is a concern this will increase our costs, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education Policy Director Vin Mustaro said the impetus for the federal program is to combat childhood obesity, and to tackle childhood hunger.
“We’re seeing a rise in preventable diseases like heart and diabetes,” Mustaro said. “We can’t leave this unaddressed.”
He said if the country doesn’t get a handle on childhood obesity now, “we may have a generation with a shorter life span than their parents.”
But Mustaro said just because the policy may make sense from a health standpoint, it doesn’t mean there won’t be issues. “Any time you replace something or remove something, people will have resistance,” Mustaro said.
The state Department of Education is offering training this spring to prepare cafeteria workers for the “comprehensive changes,” Mustaro said.
Parents have differing views on whether the mandate is appropriate.
Joseph Meade of ****ord summarized the feelings of many parents who commented on Facebook.
“It is with good intention, but I believe that (the) government has overstepped its boundaries and is sticking Uncle Sam’s nose where only Aunt Sally should be allowed,” Meade said. “You can’t protect people from themselves. That’s not governing, that’s dictating. ... Big Brother!” Continued...
Denise Vincelette Van Hise of Orange wrote, “While I think this is a great idea, it is an intrusion into people’s rights.
“The government is not supposed to tell us what to do. What’s next? Too much government is NOT a good thing,” she wrote.
But Jenifer Blemings of New Haven wrote she thinks it’s a “great idea,” and Marquise Pinnock wrote that he, too, supports the new mandate.
“It encourages children to eat healthy as well as fight the good fight against childhood obesity,” Pinnock, a native of New Haven, wrote.
(sidenote - can you believe that the "filter" on this site is actually taking the M-I-L-F out of "M.i.l.f.o.r.d. CT?)
Beginning next school year, students across the country may be in for a shock when they purchase their lunch in the cafeteria.
In an effort to fight childhood obesity and diabetes, the federal government is requiring students of all ages to buy at least one serving of fresh fruit or vegetable for lunch. Even if they toss the produce into the garbage.
Fresh fruit and vegetable portions will double next year. “Some students don’t take one now, but they will have to,” Eileen Faustich, ****ord’s food services director, said Friday. “We can’t let a child go by the cashier without a fruit or vegetable on their tray.”
There’s more, a lot more, in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act.
Next year, students can buy only nonfat flavored milk or 1 percent white milk. Half of the grains must be “whole” next year. In 2013-14, all products must be whole grain. School cafeterias must offer green and orange leafy vegetables, and drastically reduce sodium use over the next three years. Trans-fats are banned.
If a student refuses to take the fruit or vegetable, the cafeteria employees will have to charge an a la carte fee, which typically is higher because the lunch will not be reimbursable under federal guidelines.
The federal mandate will result in extra costs for municipalities nationwide. Federal officials estimate there will be a 30-cent increase in lunch prices, and the government will provide another 6-cent reimbursement.
It may be difficult for local school districts to not raise lunch prices, food service officials predict.
State Department of Education spokesman James Polites said if a student next year declined to take a fresh fruit or vegetable, the school system cannot claim the lunch for federal reimbursement.
Seymour Food Services Director Cindy Brooks, who is in the national School Nutrition Association and is chairwoman of its public policy and legislative committee, said Friday she is “excited” by the new guidelines.
“It’s an excellent opportunity for all schools to be on the same playing field,” Brooks said. “Here in Connecticut, we’ve been offering a lot of healthy foods already. There is a concern this will increase our costs, but it’s the right thing to do.”
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education Policy Director Vin Mustaro said the impetus for the federal program is to combat childhood obesity, and to tackle childhood hunger.
“We’re seeing a rise in preventable diseases like heart and diabetes,” Mustaro said. “We can’t leave this unaddressed.”
He said if the country doesn’t get a handle on childhood obesity now, “we may have a generation with a shorter life span than their parents.”
But Mustaro said just because the policy may make sense from a health standpoint, it doesn’t mean there won’t be issues. “Any time you replace something or remove something, people will have resistance,” Mustaro said.
The state Department of Education is offering training this spring to prepare cafeteria workers for the “comprehensive changes,” Mustaro said.
Parents have differing views on whether the mandate is appropriate.
Joseph Meade of ****ord summarized the feelings of many parents who commented on Facebook.
“It is with good intention, but I believe that (the) government has overstepped its boundaries and is sticking Uncle Sam’s nose where only Aunt Sally should be allowed,” Meade said. “You can’t protect people from themselves. That’s not governing, that’s dictating. ... Big Brother!” Continued...
Denise Vincelette Van Hise of Orange wrote, “While I think this is a great idea, it is an intrusion into people’s rights.
“The government is not supposed to tell us what to do. What’s next? Too much government is NOT a good thing,” she wrote.
But Jenifer Blemings of New Haven wrote she thinks it’s a “great idea,” and Marquise Pinnock wrote that he, too, supports the new mandate.
“It encourages children to eat healthy as well as fight the good fight against childhood obesity,” Pinnock, a native of New Haven, wrote.
(sidenote - can you believe that the "filter" on this site is actually taking the M-I-L-F out of "M.i.l.f.o.r.d. CT?)