La Vida Locavore - Recent Comments

iTunes U

count — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:12:27 GMT

I just now accidentally discovered iTunes U. Lawdy lawsy, more megaworlds to explore.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE iTUNES I don't know what will happen if you click the following iTunes U Store link. If you do have iTunes, I think a dialog box will appear. Press "Allow", this window will return, and iTunes will open showing the iTunes U store.

I think.

iTunes U Store

parastic wasps

count — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:31:14 GMT

parasitic wasps

more cost of food

count — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:20:01 GMT

At a supermarket in my neighborhood, large navel oranges are ON SALE this week, $1.00 each. Is that a lunch?

The Texas mom

count — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:16:46 GMT

Guest blogger: Texan mothers dish it up - Part 1: High School

shortfalls

count — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:15:17 GMT

Something is seeping slowly into my so-called brain. Do school districts charge enough for school meals? If the government reimburses $2.68 for a free lunch (and I think that's the number only for lunch, isn't it lower for breakfast?), should a district's full-price charge be at least $2.68 and perhaps more? Recently I linked to a district that charges $2.00 for a full-price lunch. A post today at fedupwithlunch is from a Texas mom, a teacher at a Dallas high school where a full price meal is $1.85. Is that enough? At a convenience store near me, one slice of pound cake costs $1.69 and a pint of milk is $1.19, total cost without sales tax is $2.88. The supermarket across the street offers a salad bar at $4.99 per pound and hot food is $5.99 per pound. $1.85 would buy me 6 ounces of green salad, tuna salad (no bread), or hard boiled eggs (about 3 eggs). It would buy me 5 ounces of meatloaf, mac and cheese, bashed potatoes, or fried chicken (bone in), and I'll bring drinking water from home.

Let's say a Dallas high school lunch costs $3.00, being arbitrary about it. The district subsidizes a "free" lunch at the rate of $0.32 per meal. A "full price" lunch is subsidized at $1.15 per meal.

$1.00 for cost of food? $2.00 for cost of everything else? Hell's bells, for such stratosphericly exorbitant sums of money, I'd be ticked off if I were a student and had to get the food from the plate to my mouth by myself. Maybe the district thinks that, if they charged $3.00, I would demand Nubian princesses to serve me.

A fundamental flaw in our discussions about school meals is, we act as though the numbers somehow make sense. The numbers are not sensible, they're crazy. In your own home, scratch cooking food you don't grow in your own garden, what could you serve for 180 days at $1.85 per lunch?

I don't know what would happen if a district charged a more realistic price for meals. Maybe program enrolment would decline, perhaps the decline would be so steep that revenue would decline. Spreadsheet gurus would need to get involved, I suppose. Maybe food quality would not improve, but it might.

Maybe the best way to improve school lunch quality is to fund a massive campaign to have parents and guardians give their kids good food to bring from home.

bill test opens

count — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:05:52 GMT

The full bill text (pdf) opens for me.

grams in a teaspoon

euclidarms — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:01:08 GMT

Thanks, I am always impressed by the thoroughness of these comments.

little known about effects of school meals programs

euclidarms — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:59:56 GMT

Some would argue that federally-subsidized meals keep many children from going hungry. So are kids getting fat off school meals, or just filling their bellies? Lots more study would be needed to answer that question. But typical school meal--shot full of cheap carbs and sugar--puts kids at a definite metabolic disadvantage, whether or not they are drinking soda with it. In most cases, they are drinking chocolate or strawberry milk--the dairy version of Coke and Mountain Dew.

Ahem

la motocycliste — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:12:23 GMT

Even with your lower calorie chocolate cake, you are looking at about 500 calories for a satisfying hunk

In order to burn off those 500 calories, you are going to have to work your rear off for several hours.

Now, here is an idea for Joanne, and other farmers out there who have no money but need help: Disguise your farm as an exercise studio! Convince aspiring dieters that hoing weeds, building stone walls, digging ditches and cleaning out barns is wonderful, healthy EXERCISE

King Arthur Flour

la motocycliste — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:02:29 GMT

Everything you need, except onions and rye bread pieces, can be ordered from their catalog.

You can avoid Whole Paycheck and support a worker-owned company.

Where are the Repubs?

count — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:04:44 GMT

I see Lugar, that's it, although I haven't canvassed the co-sponsors. How about demonstrating some responsibility, guys?

a conclusion

count — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:56:43 GMT

One true thing is, I think, shockingly little is known about the effects of school meal programs. For all the billions of dollars that have been thrown into that bucket, little good research has been done.

I think this is too broad a conclusion

elfling — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:53:24 GMT

We know that low SES is linked to obesity already; we know that low SES kids almost all do school lunches. They certainly aren't serving sodas as part of the official school lunch.

In addition, this is only Michigan, which does not reflect necessarily what lunches are like nationally, nor is a national comparison all that useful when wondering what's going on in your local school.

comment period

count — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:12:03 GMT

My strange thought for the day: major bills should have public comment periods, as regulatory packages do.

weaponry

count — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:09:14 GMT

How about outdated Cold War era weapons programs?

How about the Star Wars "missile defense" program? One of the worst of Bill Clinton's failures was that he didn't cancel that boondoggle when he had the chance. He thought it worthless, but left the decision to GWB? Pshaw.