August 2, 2010 1:46 PM

First Lady Urges Congress to Act on School Meals

(AP)  First lady Michelle Obama urged Congress to pass legislation that calls for higher nutritional standards for school meals.

In an op-ed essay appearing in Monday's edition of The Washington Post, Mrs. Obama wrote that the Child Nutrition Bill would require more fruits, vegetables and whole grains and less fat and salt in school lunches and breakfasts. And she said it would help eliminate junk food in vending machines.

"We owe it to the children who aren't reaching their potential because they're not getting the nutrition they need during the day," the first lady wrote.

In encouraging Congress to pass the bill, she wrote that "our prosperity depends on the health and vitality of the next generation."

The bill was approved by the House Education and Labor Committee last month, and a Senate committee has approved similar legislation.

Congressional passage would be just the first step. Many of the most difficult decisions, including what kinds of foods will be sold and what ingredients may be limited, will be left up to the Agriculture Department.

The legislation would also expand the number of low-income children eligible for free or reduced-cost meals, a step Democrats say would help President Barack Obama reach his goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 16 Comments
by mari1963 August 5, 2010 12:11 PM EDT
Please, Please, Please ! No more french fries in our schools! Please ! Get rid of the pop machines! Please !
Reply to this comment
by jgg000101 August 2, 2010 4:39 PM EDT
if I am not mistaken, the seiu is involved in running this program and it expands school lunch to also include school breakfast. The public schools are being turned into daycare centers. Maybe if you can't afford to feed and house your children you shouldn't have children. When did we become everybody's mommy and daddy?
Reply to this comment
by dadirt August 2, 2010 3:55 PM EDT
Keep the government out of telling us what we can eat and what we cannot. Back in the good old days when moms made our lunch and milk was 3 cents, and we walked to school we stayed thin. Now moms spend their money on cell phones, rely on schools for day care, to feed and discipline them. Parents had much less disposal income than is available now, and those qualifying for free lunch are on welfare and food stamps. They want to reduce the weight of kids, quit feeding them. The government is not our mother or father. theywant to be, but we cannot afford it!
Reply to this comment
by papayaaaa August 2, 2010 3:48 PM EDT
Anyone who votes against better food for poor children should be thrown out on their eat.
Reply to this comment
by fcs25 August 2, 2010 12:12 PM EDT
More government control over the freedoms and lives of Americans.Is this all Democrats care about?Marxism at is best is defined as Obama and his co-horts.
Reply to this comment
by tsigili August 2, 2010 9:47 AM EDT
Right. Then the property owners will be taxed even more for all those kids that don't pay school taxes, because healthier meals cost more, and the only way to pay for that increased cost, is higher property taxes on the middle class, to pay for the poor who pay nothing themselves, for their kids.
Reply to this comment
by book_of_wally August 2, 2010 9:57 AM EDT
Actually healthier meals cost less.
by book_of_wally August 2, 2010 9:02 AM EDT
I fondly remember my school lunches in 1975 of spagetti sauce with parmesian cheese on a hamburger bun and they called it "pizza". They also had other things like jello that would stick to the ceiling when tossed up there. Shortly afterwards I got my lunches from Jack in the Box because they were healthier. I applaud Obama for trying to improve the lunch program.
Reply to this comment
by pragmatist1 August 2, 2010 9:02 AM EDT
Taxpayers should have never been forced to support other kids born to parents that lack basic parenting skills or lack an interest in properly taking care of them, including the feeding of them. There should be no free breakfasts or lunches for any kid in a public school. Either the parent(s) feeds them or they go without. Parenting 101. Can't take of your kids, then stop having them.
Reply to this comment
by jbrooks45 August 2, 2010 9:37 AM EDT
What you're doing is generalizing... My parents could feed us but we received free lunch at our school. I went to an all Black school, which I enjoyed to the utmost and hated it when we had to integrate. Both parents were working parents, we lived in the projects, had 2 cars and the necessary essentials for living. My mother knew back then (in the'60's) how to budget. Taxpayers are working mothers and fathers who pay taxes:therefore, if I pay taxes my child could surely get on free lunch or reduced lunch.
by gullybore August 2, 2010 7:55 AM EDT
I don't know Mr or Mrs Obama, neither do I care to, but, they are just "sticking to it".

It really doesn't matter if they serve one term or two terms, what really matters is their contribution now they have been given the opportunity.

Life has given us only one term and what really matters is what we have done while given the opportunity..
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 August 2, 2010 7:37 AM EDT
The States should ignore any law passed by Congress on this. They dont have the power to do it, thus anything they pass in this are is null and void.

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers,
its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Thomas
Jefferson
Reply to this comment
See all 16 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook