When you think of controversial policies, school lunch isn’t the first thing that should come to mind. As a nation fighting a childhood obesity epidemic, school lunches play an important role in getting us back on track. Schools provide one, and sometimes two, of the three meals kids eat each day, packing the biggest punch for kids who depend on these meals for nourishment. How can we justify serving anything but wholesome, nutritious food when that is the case?
The House Appropriations Committee begs to differ. Tomorrow they are expected to approve a 2015 spending bill for the Agriculture Department granting a waiver from nutrition standards required by the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. The requirements set limits on sodium and substitute whole grain foods for those that are not. The Senate Appropriation Committee’s bill does not include the waiver setting this up to be a drawn out fight.
Tuesday, Michelle Obama came out strongly opposing the House Republican led attempts to scale back healthier school lunch standards saying we can’t afford to play politics with nutrition standards. Prior to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, there were no standards for what could be served in schools. Hiring criteria for food service personnel and annual nutrition education training as well as grants for upgrading kitchen equipment and providing farm to school education to students are a few of the major proponents of the original bill.
The School Nutrition Association, an industry backed trade association representing cafeteria administrators, argues the new requirements are unduly expensive and lead to food being wasted by students. Since issuing their statement in opposition of the regulations, nineteen former presidents of the School Nutrition Association have publicly opposed the group’s platform and urged Congress to keep the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act regulations intact. As Michelle Obama said, “ the last think we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health.”