Child Nutrition Bill Becomes Law: Obama Signs Today

WASHINGTON — Thousands more children would eat lunches and dinners at school and all school food would become more nutritious under a bill President Barack Obama signed into law Monday, part of an administration-wide effort to combat childhood obesity.

"At a very basic level, this act is about doing what's right for our children," Obama said before signing the bill. The ceremony was moved from the White House, where most signings are held, to an elementary school in the District of Columbia to underscore the point.

Besides Obama, the bill also was a priority for his wife, Michelle, who launched a national campaign this year against childhood obesity.

"We can all agree that in the wealthiest nation on earth all children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams," said Mrs. Obama. "Because in the end, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our children. Nothing,"

The $4.5 billion measure increases the federal reimbursement for free school lunches by 6 cents a meal at a time when many school officials say they can't afford to provide the meals. The bill will also expand access to free lunch programs and allow 20 million additional after-school meals to be served annually in all 50 states. Most states now only provide money for after-school snacks.

Many Republicans, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have criticized the effort and the fundraiser limits in particular, saying the bill is too expensive and an example of government overreach.

Supporters say the law is needed to stem rising health care costs due to expanding American waistlines and to feed hungry children in tough economic times. Mrs. Obama cited a group of former generals and military officials who have said unhealthy school lunches are a national security threat because weight problems are now the leading medical reason that recruits are rejected.

____

Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Comments

[Ari Gronich]

03:28 PM on 01/20/2011

Great bill to put forth, but there are so many other ways as well to increase the health and wellness of children and their school nutrition programs.

One such example is an idea that I promote as well as several others in regards to creating the space for organic gardening on school grounds. Use the program to teach the kids about proper nutrition and health while growing the food that will feed the school. Giving them both the knowledge of and access to healthy high quality fresh foods at the same time. There are so many possibilities to get communities involved in helping these kinds of programs.

We do still need the government to stop the subsidies for unhealthy large farm manufacturing pesticide herbacide toxic foods that do not provide health benefits for our communities though. It is absolutely necessary to replenish our soil and provide food the way nature intended... For the health and well being of our kids.

[MikeyJaii]

12:35 AM on 12/28/2010

I'm in high school, being educated at N.Y.C and the lunch here is nasty. 99% oil 1% actual meat.

[billhodges]

07:34 PM on 12/15/2010

““I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience,” Parham said. “But as other busy, working moms and dads know, we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.””

Translation:
“I am concerned that I am a bad parent and cannot impose self discipline on myself, let alone on my children. Since I am helpless, I want the government to step in and make all of my decisions for me. That other parents, who may not lack my self control, may be inconvenienced or have their freedom taken away, is a risk I’m willing to take.”

[mphalen]

01:40 PM on 12/15/2010

But then again, they serve realy bad food, at least in the Chicago Public Schools. Every once in a while they actually serve green ham. Seriously, it has a green tint to it. I think they use the lowest quality of food they can get away with.

[mphalen]

01:31 PM on 12/15/2010

You really want to inprove the nutrition of economically-disadvantaged kids? Ban Flamin' Hot Cheetoes. They are full of MSG and really unhealthy. But the kids love them. The most common breakfast for kids in the 'hood is Flamin' Hot Cheetoes and orange soda. My little kindergardeners would come to school with little red fingers from the Flames.

[Hayek89]

05:43 AM on 12/15/2010

I’m all for healthier school lunches and making sure underprivileged kids get proper nutrition. The other issue worth considering before jumping on the First Lady’s anti-fat bandwagon is just how big a problem obesity is and how we define obesity.

Eric Oliver, a respected (and liberal) political scientist at the University of Chicago, argues in the pioneering book “Fat Politics: The Real Story behind America's Obesity Epidemic” that obesity is vastly overrated as an issue. In his research, he found that the studies the Center for Disease Control and other government agencies used to define obesity and its health risks were largely funded by the weight loss and pharmaceutical industries. He finds little scientific basis for clinical definition­s of overweight and obese, and finds that claims of health issues from obesity are vastly overblown. In short, he finds that most of our assumptions on the dangers of obesity are based on junk science created to support special interest agendas and funding.

If we are going to spend money to fight obesity, we need to first address Oliver’s arguments to determine if the fight is worth the cost.

[boyoboy]

07:59 PM on 12/14/2010

This is great. We recently moved from a charter school (no hot lunches) to a traditional public school with hot lunch every day. I love it. I can't pack a more nutritious lunch than the school can serve because it sits in a lunch bag, gets yucky, and the kids won't eat it. You have a lot of limitations when you pack lunches. My kids' school serves a veggie, salad bar and low-fat sherbet every day in addition to various entrees. I couldn't pack a salad each day because it was wilt in the heat. Today they had ravioli. My kids wouldn't eat hours-old ravioli if I packed it in their lunches. We don't use free/reduced. Our lunches cost $2.50, and I think it's a bargain. I can't pack a lunch for $2.50.

[pm247]

06:39 PM on 12/14/2010

Schools should really be open seven days a week, to allow neglected and destitute kids a place to go and a meal on weekends. The fact is there are millions of such kids in America. Schools can be more than bureaucratic institutions; they can be youth centers that make a positive impact.

[boyoboy]

07:47 PM on 12/14/2010

I like it. F&F.

[Super Sarcastic]

09:18 PM on 12/14/2010

Ditto to that.........I fear however the Conservatives would label them as Left Wing Indoctrination Centers.

[lisalulu]

10:10 PM on 12/14/2010

Love it. I would be a parent volunteer and work on the weekends at the youth center - teaching kids basic fitness and nutrition.

Think about it: push ups, sit ups, planks, lunges, high knees, high skips, side shuffles - only require being there - no equipment. Get the blood flowing and mood elevated. Its something I would love to see at an aftercare program or weekend program. We have some schools here that have open gym during the summer. f/f

[Weirdwriter]

02:10 AM on 12/15/2010

I thought about it -- as a kid, I would have avoided the kind of exercise you suggest.

Active games, dancing, and things that don't depend on "picking" kids for sports-- leaving less adept kids humiliated, that would appeal to me.

[niko73]

05:11 PM on 12/14/2010

I’m having a hard time figuring out what the problem is with this bill. I read the attacks, but they’re just not true.

The government, through its schools, provides lunches for children. (This is usually for a cost, so spare me the talking points about socialism.) This bill ensures those meals are nutritious. You can feed your child whatever poisons you want; but I say the government should have a responsibility to do better.

There are many standards the government sets for schools. Do you have a problem with all the other standards as well? If you don’t have a problem with a school setting standards for teachers, why do you have a problem with them setting standards for the food they serve? How is one okay and the other “socialism”?

The government is not forcing any food on your child. You can pack them a lunch if you don’t like what they’re serving.

This is NOT the government stepping into your private life. You can feed your child whatever your heart desires. This is about the government improving a service it provides.

[lisalulu]

10:15 PM on 12/14/2010

Bingo.

[PathofTotality]

04:00 PM on 12/14/2010

There was also a Child Nutrition Act in 1966 signed by LBJ which originated from a National School Lunch Act signed by Harry S. Truman. For all the haters, go ask your parents (or grandparents) how they felt about the Government stepping in. Now if you want you can default to the standard "that was different" defense but............

[PathofTotality]

04:05 PM on 12/14/2010

And by the way, the above mentioned 1966 Act also established the School Breakfast Program FUNDED by the government ("federally assisted"). SO, if you are around my age (I'm 47) then guess what, if you had breakfast in grade school you can thank the government.

[boyoboy]

07:51 PM on 12/14/2010

Born in 1963. The school lunch and breakfast programs have always been tiered (free, reduced, full-price). Luckily, we could pay full-price at $.35 for lunch when I was in elementary school. I was in Jr. High before we started having breakfast. I can tell you that the cafeteria was a busy place in the mornings. The only drawback I see now with the breakfast program is that it's limited to a small number of schools (at least in my district). I'd like to see it expanded to more schools to give more kids access.

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

03:39 PM on 12/14/2010

What if they are adding to the obesity problem by feeding already well fed kids ?
Kids will lie for food !

[caymen]

04:49 PM on 12/14/2010

Did you leave your brain at home today??

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

04:54 PM on 12/14/2010

No..no...its....its right here..somewhere...ahhh yes , here it is !

[mphalen]

01:33 PM on 12/15/2010

Your kids lie for food? Don't you feed them? Maybe we should call DCFS on you.

[lisalulu]

03:26 PM on 12/14/2010

Per Media Matters: Obama was not saying that we cannot trust parents to control what their children eat. Rather, she was saying that parents don't have control over the meals their children are served at school, adding: "parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway." The statement of the First Lady, in context, reads,

MICHELLE OBAMA: And everywhere I go, fortunately, I meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. They're doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables. They're trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime.

But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it's clear that we as a nation have a responsibility to meet as well. We can't just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritional standards.

[PathofTotality]

03:35 PM on 12/14/2010

Thanks for a very good post.

[Phoobie]

05:21 PM on 12/14/2010

Good find lisalulu! The quote doesn't sound sensational in context.

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

03:19 PM on 12/14/2010

Just take away their Playstations and computers and kick their little buts outside.
I used to play in two feet of snow ! ; )

[PathofTotality]

03:23 PM on 12/14/2010

Certainly part of the equation.

[pammiethekid]

06:25 PM on 12/14/2010

But did you eat the junk that's at schools these days?

[mikey09]

02:56 PM on 12/14/2010

Well, in some cases parents wont have to fix any meals for their kids except on weekends...breakfast, lunch and dinner at school.....is it really that bad out there in the USA that kids no longer even eat meals with their parents? Or, that parents can't afford one meal a day at home during the school year?
I want NO one to be hungry so if this is what it takes fine.....just seems parents won't have much family time together this way.
 
How late do schools stay open now? Dinner is 5:30-6:00 pm at my house.

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

03:20 PM on 12/14/2010

But the kids will grow up thinking the government helped raise them.
Clever idea no ?

[mikey09]

03:32 PM on 12/14/2010

Well, if kids are eating breakfast, lunch and dinner at school, government is feeding them thats for sure....but my issue is..WHEN do these kids go home, 7-8 at night?
 
My daughter-in-laws all work, but still between both parents, kids get a good family dinner every night, even if its a crockpot dinner...which can be healthy meals too.

[pammiethekid]

06:27 PM on 12/14/2010

Per Media Matters: Obama was not saying that we cannot trust parents to control what their children eat. Rather, she was saying that parents don't have control over the meals their children are served at school, adding: "parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway." The statement of the First Lady, in context, reads,

MICHELLE OBAMA: And everywhere I go, fortunatel y, I meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. They're doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables . They're trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime.

But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it's clear that we as a nation have a responsibi lity to meet as well. We can't just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritiona l standards.

[PathofTotality]

03:22 PM on 12/14/2010

It's probably a combination of many things but I think some of it started with pre-processed foods. A lot of the time, both parents have to work and some on different shifts so the afore mentioned pre-processed food becomes more popular. I firmly believe that the percentage of parents that just really don't care is small but between budget and time is where the problem is. If this bill helps to make the meals at schools healthier than I say have at it. If this bill helps kids get a meal that maybe their parent(s) can't always afford then again I say have at it.

[mikey09]

03:33 PM on 12/14/2010

I agree it takes effort when you busy...love my crockpot...lol

[Sandman911]

02:52 PM on 12/14/2010

Great, now government is telling us what to eat. What's next ? Regulating AIR ??? Oh, ya, Cap & Trade, i almost forgot.

[Giverny]

03:50 PM on 12/14/2010

They had nutrition programs under Kennedy also and exercise with the Presidents council on Fitness. Many parents set poor examples for the children and if children can't get a nutritional meal at home, then give it to them at school. I remember having friends who lived on graham crackers and milk from school, those kitchen cabinets at her house were BARE.

[Sandman911]

06:17 PM on 12/15/2010

Exercise fine, eating habits ? Parental issue, maybe even the State considering their responsible for education. The Federal Government ? Which ammendment gives them the authority to determine eating habits again ? I can't seem to find that one.

[pammiethekid]

06:33 PM on 12/14/2010

Per Media Matters: Obama was not saying that we cannot trust parents to control what their children eat. Rather, she was saying that parents don't have control over the meals their children are served at school, adding: "parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway." The statement of the First Lady, in context, reads,

MICHELLE OBAMA: And everywhere I go, fortunatel y, I meet parents who are working very hard to make sure that their kids are healthy. They're doing things like cutting down on desserts and trying to increase fruits and vegetables . They're trying to teach their kids the kind of healthy habits that will stay with them for a lifetime.

But when our kids spend so much of their time each day in school, and when many children get up to half their daily calories from school meals, it's clear that we as a nation have a responsibi lity to meet as well. We can't just leave it up to the parents. I think that parents have a right to expect that their efforts at home won't be undone each day in the school cafeteria or in the vending machine in the hallway. I think that our parents have a right to expect that their kids will be served fresh, healthy food that meets high nutritiona l standards.

[Sandman911]

06:14 PM on 12/15/2010

Meanwhile the Obama's sit down for a lavish dinner of Crab legs & Butter, Fried Chicken, Baked potato loaded with sour cream, and a nice four layer chocolate cake for dessert. LOL
And then Barrack kicks back with a smoke.