The recent medical studies point a deep concern about the increasing risk for developing child obesity, osteoporosis, dental caries, and heart diseases. Area of problems encompasses high intakes of saturated fat, total fat, soft drinks, and low intakes of fiber, fruits, and vegetables. As a result, First Lady Michelle Obama has launched a new menu lunch mandating a maximum calories of 650 for elementary; 700, middle school; and 850, high school. However, the current California lunch policy reflecting the recommendation of the first lady turns out to be a flop in altering student’s perspective nutrition and health.
In fact, the new lunch program is inferior to its predecessor. The obtrusive limitation of the current lunch policy lies on two key factors—time and appetite. For one thing, the current lunch time given to students is approximately 30 minutes, not enough time for digesting food with high in fiber and low in calories after the everlasting lunch lines. Students can devoured a pizza and a hamburger expeditiously with few bites whereas students can only nibble away black been burgers, tasteless salad with a drink they disgust with.
Not surprisingly, the students from L. A. United School meals are “being rejected in en masse. ” Who would want wait a long lunch line for food they annoy? Who would have an appetite to battle with fruits and veggies when they could wait an hour and eat what they savor. Clearly, a successful meal should be the ones that could restore kids’ appetites and reduce eating time. In turn, this may transform student’s life style. Equally important, it is costly ineffective to continue the current lunch program in California. “Participation in the school lunch program has dropped by thousands,” says the report from LA schools.
Therefore, Principals have voiced “massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away. ” Consider the overwhelming cost to operate a school cafeteria: hiring workers for serving and cleaning, lightening the cafeteria, cooling food and the rooms. Who will pay the cost? The cost should have covered by those students that ditch their lunches. Apparently, the current situation in term of financial feasibilities indicates an ultimate failure of the lunch policy. Hence, it is also important to serve what buyers want.
Shortage in considering what students might want has discouraged students from eating healthy. Replacing junk food with low calorie food is not the solution. Rather, giving an inviting meal is cost effective and better for changing the student’s intake pattern. Most importantly, the heath should be the key factor in determining success and failure of the lunch program. For instance, the statement of Van Nuys High School encapsulates well deserved criticism of the current lunch policy: Iraides says “We are eating more junk food now than last year. Indeed, a famished stomach craves for more calories.
As the ditched students walk out school, they will surely indulge themselves in cookies, fried food, ice creams, pizzas, and soft drinks. In addition, students need calories to perform well in classroom. Some argue that high calories food is unhealthy, but not eating food on time is unhealthier. Furthermore, some LA county students say they’re suffering from headaches, stomach pains and even anemia. Finally, no study has shown that a direct link between the school food environment and student eating patterns.
California Lunch policy has a decent motive in altering student’s eating habit, yet the result proves otherwise. The current program is ill-fit for a short duration of lunch in schools and creates ill-feelings towards the healthy choice. The program not only wastes tax payers’ money but also squanders the food itself. Moreover, ditching lunch is unhealthier than not consuming better food. The solution for changing the perspectives about health and nutrition is at home.