It's hard not to get the impression that this fight really is less about healthy kids than
attacking the first lady.
First lady Michelle Obama’s signature school lunch regulations are coming under fresh fire from GOP lawmakers, who view impending reauthorization legislation as their best chance yet to dial back the controversial nutrition standards. […]
"To force you to serve food that hungry kids throw out maybe tops the list of things the federal government shouldn't be doing," Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) said at a recent hearing.
The 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) expires on Sept. 30, giving the Republican-controlled Congress an opening to push through reauthorization legislation.
Republicans see reauthorization as an opportunity to tout the failures of the standards and demand changes that give schools—and students—more options.
More options in Republican-speak means more salt, more refined sugar, and less whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. Republicans, along with the National School Boards Association and the School Superintendents Association, argue that the government is spending too much money trying to help kids have healthy lunches and that the kids are just throwing them out. Not all school administrators agree, however.
Donna Martin, director of the School Nutrition Program for Burke County Public Schools in Georgia, said her program has not seen any reduction in participation since implementing the new standards.
When she started offering local fresh fruits and vegetables, she said, her participation rates actually doubled.
Is it more expensive for the federal government—and local school districts—to provide healthier lunch alternatives? Probably. But it's hard to argue against the benefits of raising a healthier generation of kids, unless you're a Republican.