NY Schools Warned Free Lunches May Lead To Obesity

[Shadow]

A top New York City Department of Health official has criticized a free breakfast program in city schools, saying it makes poor kids fat.
Director of Community Epidemiology Gretchen Van Wye said in-class meals result in a whopping 21.2 percent of kids gobbling up two breakfasts.
"Special care should be taken to ensure that children are not inadvertently taking in excess calories by eating in multiple locations," she wrote in a research paper recently presented to her agency co-workers, sources told the New York Post.
She said "further evaluations" are needed to weigh caloric consumption in schools with the program versus schools without.

Some of Van Wye's colleagues are losing their lunch over the controversial study, fearing that the Yale-educated scientist's findings could lay the groundwork for scrapping part or all of city's free breakfast program.
"We'd rather have kids be hungry than fat? Horrible!" a stunned health official told the New Post. "The evidence is so shaky. And the implications are terrible—kids going hungry."
Van Wye's paper examines the impact of in-class breakfasts, a voluntary program that was introduced in 2008.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/0...ad-to-obesity/

[ConHog]

WOW all the guy did was suggest that care should be taken to make sure kids aren't eating multiple breakfasts. It's not like he suggested taking away anyone's tray and telling them they had enough to eat.

Our school nurse has voiced the same concerns to us. In our case we have decided that the risk of kids over eating is outweighed (no pun intended) by the benefits of feeding those who are hungry.

[Shadow]

Study shows that 1 in 5 of these children would not go hungry and infact are greedy little bastards ( oh wait or is it...fat children who over eat are stupid fat fucks) who are now being given and eating breakfast twice because it is FREE. Makes you wonder if this program is even needed. So...now they are going to do what?? Now that these kid are "obese" are they going to force these little brats parents (that they made fat with their own program) to get them on a "maditory" diet program...or threaten to send them to foster care?

[ConHog]

Study shows that 1 in 5 of these children would not go hungry and infact are greedy little bastards ( oh wait or is it...fat children who over eat are stupid fat fucks) who are now being given and eating breakfast twice because it is FREE. Makes you wonder if this program is even needed. So...now they are going to do what?? Now that these kid are "obese"? Force these little brats parents (that they made fat with their own program) to get them on a "maditory" diet program...or threaten to send them to foster care?

HUH?

I don't get it anyway. There are supposed to be safeguards in place to make sure money isn't wasted by feeding kids who don't need the meal (I'm talking about free meals here of course) if a parent is paying for it, then I don't think the school should be saying anything one way or the other unless the kid is just OBESE and maybe no even then unless it's really bad.

[Shadow]

HUH?

I don't get it anyway. There are supposed to be safeguards in place to make sure money isn't wasted by feeding kids who don't need the meal (I'm talking about free meals here of course) if a parent is paying for it, then I don't think the school should be saying anything one way or the other unless the kid is just OBESE and maybe no even then unless it's really bad.

If these kids are eating two breakfasts every day...what does that tell you about this program? And the school officials are worried that because of these findings this program may be "scrapped"? It should be scrapped...it's a waste of tax payers money.

[ConHog]

If these kids are eating two breakfasts every day...what does that tell you about this program? And the school officials are worried that because of these findings this program may be "scrapped"? It should be scrapped...it's a waste of tax payers money.

Of all the wastes in government spending I feel the same way about this as I do about welfare. I can live with a little abuse if a few who actually need the help are getting it.

Our school has SEVERAL kids who are coming to school without any breakfast at all, and although it's obviously not an obligation to feed them, I have no problem doing so.

[Shadow]

How do you know it's only a "little" abuse? What makes you think that the other kids in the survey would go hungry if they didn't get a free breakfast every morning? Maybe their parents would feed them (or they would fix their own breakfast) if they didn't already know they would be fed for "free" once they got to school? Bet you every one of those kids gets a free lunch too.

[Nukeman]

Here's my take on this. Most kids who qualify for "free" lunches and breakfast also qualify for food stamps. In my opinion that is "double dipping" I went round with someone on this topic before. The whole point of food stamps is to FEED the people that are on it, why can't they fix a lunch for junior or give them breakfast BEFORE they go to school after all we are already paying for the food for them, why the double dip???

[ConHog]

Here's my take on this. Most kids who qualify for "free" lunches and breakfast also qualify for food stamps. In my opinion that is "double dipping" I went round with someone on this topic before. The whole point of food stamps is to FEED the people that are on it, why can't they fix a lunch for junior or give them breakfast BEFORE they go to school after all we are already paying for the food for them, why the double dip???

Because people are stupid.

Children shouldn't be punished with no lunch because their parents are stupid.

Now, if you're advocating cracking down on these stupid parents. I'm in. But feed their kids while we do so.

[Abbey Marie]

Here's my take on this. Most kids who qualify for "free" lunches and breakfast also qualify for food stamps. In my opinion that is "double dipping" I went round with someone on this topic before. The whole point of food stamps is to FEED the people that are on it, why can't they fix a lunch for junior or give them breakfast BEFORE they go to school after all we are already paying for the food for them, why the double dip???

You see, Nuke, free food doesn't mean "already prepared food", or even better, "cooked food". For a few years at least, the kids still needs a responsible parent who will actually get up and take care of this for them. The nanny state would never expect parents to be this responsible.

[Nukeman]

Because people are stupid.

Children shouldn't be punished with no lunch because their parents are stupid.

Now, if you're advocating cracking down on these stupid parents. I'm in. But feed their kids while we do so.

Once again the argument "its for the children". When does that become enough. I feel for them I truely do, my parents worked 2 jobs while I was growing up to put food on our table they payed for school lunches for 3 of us and NEVER took a dime in money fromt he govt. As long as YOU and others are willing to fall back on the argument of "its for the children" it will NEVER stop. you have to take a stand and unfortunately soome will suffer for a while until it resolves but if the parents are jsut dead beats than take the kids from them and place them where they can be cared for.. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY... we all need to have it or get it....

You see, Nuke, free food doesn't mean "already prepared food", or even better, "cooked food". For a few years at least, the kids still needs a responsible parent who will actually get up and take care of this for them. The nanny state would never expect parents to be this responsible.

I grew up with cold cereal for breakfast, I made it myself from the age of 7-8 on becasue my parents were already at work. All most parents have to do is have "something" there for them to eat and kids will eat it.... You know that stuff the food stamps went for...

[ConHog]

Once again the argument "its for the children". When does that become enough. I feel for them I truely do, my parents worked 2 jobs while I was growing up to put food on our table they payed for school lunches for 3 of us and NEVER took a dime in money fromt he govt. As long as YOU and others are willing to fall back on the argument of "its for the children" it will NEVER stop. you have to take a stand and unfortunately soome will suffer for a while until it resolves but if the parents are jsut dead beats than take the kids from them and place them where they can be cared for.. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY... we all need to have it or get it....

Here's the way I , and most school boards, look at. Studies show that students that are hungry learn far less than students who are not. So HOPEFULLY be making sure these kids aren't hungry they will then focus more on their school work and have a better chance at becoming productive citizens. Of course that won't always work out, but we have to try.

[Nukeman]

Here's the way I , and most school boards, look at. Studies show that students that are hungry learn far less than students who are not. So HOPEFULLY be making sure these kids aren't hungry they will then focus more on their school work and have a better chance at becoming productive citizens. Of course that won't always work out, but we have to try.

Once again its the same story.. "its for the children".. I understand the issue here but WHEN is enough enough??? They are already getting money for food and if they are not using themoney for food than they need to be cut the amount it cost to feed the students at school. See if the parents scream than when it cuts into cig and beer money.. it comes down to parental responsibility and as long as someone else is willing to take care of little junior there they will NOT do it...

So when is it enough of "its for the children"?? We cant parent for EVERYONE!! Plus it isn't the states responsibilty to parent for these kids!!

[ConHog]

Once again its the same story.. "its for the children".. I understand the issue here but WHEN is enough enough??? They are already getting money for food and if they are not using themoney for food than they need to be cut the amount it cost to feed the students at school. See if the parents scream than when it cuts into cig and beer money.. it comes down to parental responsibility and as long as someone else is willing to take care of little junior there they will NOT do it...

So when is it enough of "its for the children"?? We cant parent for EVERYONE!! Plus it isn't the states responsibilty to parent for these kids!!

I see your point man. I really do, and that's cool. Let's do away with food stamps and feed kids 3 squares a day at school. Adults you're on your own. telling a kid , you're a parent is a piece of crap so sorry, no breakfast for you is no solution. AND when we have verifiable proof that kids who aren't hungry at school do better in school , isn't that something we should encourage?

[Abbey Marie]

Once again its the same story.. "its for the children".. I understand the issue here but WHEN is enough enough??? They are already getting money for food and if they are not using themoney for food than they need to be cut the amount it cost to feed the students at school. See if the parents scream than when it cuts into cig and beer money.. it comes down to parental responsibility and as long as someone else is willing to take care of little junior there they will NOT do it...

So when is it enough of "its for the children"?? We cant parent for EVERYONE!! Plus it isn't the states responsibilty to parent for these kids!!

Nuke, you sound like my husband, and from me, that is a compliment. He has been saying to me for a while that the fastest way to make someone scared to disagree with you, no matter how crazy your ideas, is to say "It's for the children."