Federal “Healthy Lunch” Policies Mean Schools Can Add More Ice Cream, But Not More Pasta Or Bread
I had to laugh when I saw this headline in the Grand Forks Herald over an article about local dissatisfaction with new federal school lunch policies:
They make it sound as if it were people for healthy lunches versus people for unhealthy lunches. But that’s supposing that the federal policies in question are actually promoting healthy lunches, and that’s not clear at all. As illustration, these comments from a Grand Forks school official quoted in the article:
The new requirements have also created some challenge organizing meals, as there are even limits on grains and proteins, said Julie Tunseth, director of child nutrition for Grand Forks Public Schools.
“If I know I’m low on calories, I can’t put another whole grain slice of bread or cup of pasta on there, but I can put a Jell-O or pudding or ice cream treat,” she said. “That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
No, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Nor does a limit of 550 – 650 calories for lunches that serve everyone from physically-active, physically-large athletes to perhaps smaller, less active students.
But while we can debate about what is and is not good school lunch policy, you really have to wonder why these policies are being set by the federal government and not local school officials. Yes, I know, it’s all about the federal school lunch program. Schools either toe the line on these mandates or they loose their federal funding.
That sounds to me like an argument against taking money from the feds for these sort of programs. Not only can the federal government not afford it (they’re running a $1 trillion annual budget deficit these days) but along with the money we get stuck with this sort of micromanagement.
We need less federal government, and more local control.
Tags: federalism, North Dakota News, school lunch
