Yeah I’m an anarcho-communist now, and I agree with you about almost everything you’ve said in this comment. However, the changes she made directly resulted in me loosing weight, and the only way to counteract that (for me as an individual) was by spending more money.
School lunch in 2011 had enough calories for me to maintain my weight
School lunch post 2012 did not have enough calories for me to maintain my weight
I was underweight until I got a job in 2013 and could buy extra food
Yes, there are broader systemic issues, but I’m allowed to be mad about the direct, tangible cause of this specific thing I struggled with. I understand that I was collateral damage for something that was mostly a good thing, but the negative way it impacted me is real and my feelings about it are valid
Edit: The calorie limit became 650, from what I read, and I guarantee my school’s lunches were significantly below that post 2012- probably 450 max
If you scroll down to calorie requirements, it lists the different age groups. You may have read the maximum for young children, but the high schooler maximum was higher.
I’m glad we agree and quickly found common ground.
It is correct to say that you are allowed to feel angry. And that your feelings are valid. I would still argue that the complaint itself isn’t valid. You chose to make your personal feelings about how you were impacted a public discussion. I’m not mad at that. But it also means that I now get to point out the nuance of the situation for spectators that saw your comment and don’t understand the full story. Because you’re saying fuck Michelle Obama for the wrong reasons. And I want everyone to agree with the “fuck Michelle Obama” sentiment, but I don’t want it to be because of a misunderstanding about what was ultimately probably a positive policy that we then have to deprogram people over later.
I’m usually snarky because I’m an asshole, I don’t even think I was trying to snark you tho, I was just tired and bluntly stating facts.
Yeah I’m an anarcho-communist now, and I agree with you about almost everything you’ve said in this comment. However, the changes she made directly resulted in me loosing weight, and the only way to counteract that (for me as an individual) was by spending more money.
Yes, there are broader systemic issues, but I’m allowed to be mad about the direct, tangible cause of this specific thing I struggled with. I understand that I was collateral damage for something that was mostly a good thing, but the negative way it impacted me is real and my feelings about it are valid
Edit: The calorie limit became 650, from what I read, and I guarantee my school’s lunches were significantly below that post 2012- probably 450 max
Regarding your edit, you read wrong. I am struggling to find a firsthand source of the act itself, but here is a published study
https://schoolnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Quantitative-Evaluation-of-HHFKA-Nutrition-Standards-for-School-Lunch-Servings-and-Patterns-of-Consumption-Spring-2014.pdf
If you scroll down to calorie requirements, it lists the different age groups. You may have read the maximum for young children, but the high schooler maximum was higher.
I’m glad we agree and quickly found common ground.
It is correct to say that you are allowed to feel angry. And that your feelings are valid. I would still argue that the complaint itself isn’t valid. You chose to make your personal feelings about how you were impacted a public discussion. I’m not mad at that. But it also means that I now get to point out the nuance of the situation for spectators that saw your comment and don’t understand the full story. Because you’re saying fuck Michelle Obama for the wrong reasons. And I want everyone to agree with the “fuck Michelle Obama” sentiment, but I don’t want it to be because of a misunderstanding about what was ultimately probably a positive policy that we then have to deprogram people over later.
I’m usually snarky because I’m an asshole, I don’t even think I was trying to snark you tho, I was just tired and bluntly stating facts.