Scott Jennings Schools Libs on the Trump-Kennedy Center and the Epstein Files on...
We Know When the Brown University Shooter Killed Himself
The Real Hero of the Brown University Shooting Is Getting the Shaft
Time for the GOP to Grow a Pair on Healthcare
This Democrat Made a Huge Mistake When Celebrating Jasmine Crockett's Endorsement
British Citizens Are in an Abusive Relationship With Their Government
Did the Biden Administration Seek to Punish Kyrsten Sinema for Refusing to Nuke...
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 299: The Meaning of Christmas for Those Who...
Report: America Gets $48B Return on $3.8B Israel Spending
The Baby in the Manger Was Divine
Will We Have a Christmas Day Massacre in Nigeria?
A Culture in Crisis Needs a Different Kind of Courage
Ban the Hangman's Regime From the World Cup
Suitcases of Cash: L.A. Gold Dealers Busted in $127M IRS Scheme
Democratic Candidate: 'Send Me to Congress to Smoke These Fools!'
Tipsheet

Michelle Obama Pens NYT Editorial, Defends School Lunch Program

First Lady Michelle Obama defended her school lunch program in an op-ed published in the New York Times Wednesday. It was well-timed, considering angry children are tweeting relentlessly about their small and limited lunch options:

Advertisement

Obama’s primary pitch for the program was not an appeal to effective policy-making or good governance, but rather, an appeal to science. Obama correctly stated that “less sugar, salt and fat” in a child’s diet improves overall health. No one is denying this fact, and it is wonderful to allow children the option of serving themselves up a plate of fresh fruits and vegetables. However, mandating what a child eats for five out of the average 21 meals a week they consume is neither effective nor good-policy making.

The problem with the op-ed was, primarily, that it didn’t address the issue: government overreach.

Right now, the House of Representatives is considering a bill to override science by mandating that white potatoes be included on the list of foods that women can purchase using WIC dollars. Now, there is nothing wrong with potatoes. The problem is that many women and children already consume enough potatoes and not enough of the nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables they need. That’s why the Institute of Medicine — the nonpartisan, scientific body that advises on the standards for WIC — has said that potatoes should not be part of the WIC program.

Advertisement

Related:

NEW YORK TIMES

Potatoes? Really? It isn’t as though they are buying cigarettes or alcohol.

A recent investigation by NBC4 in Washington, D.C. found that more than 60,000 low-income children have actually been skipping lunch:

Food service directors in Montgomery, Prince George’s, Frederick and Prince William county schools said newer, stiffer federal requirements for school lunch menus are contributing to the shortfall of student participation in lunch programs. A review by the Government Accountability Office said newly imposed federal rules, requiring healthier food options, can increase cost and decrease portion size. The report from the GAO said, in multiple school districts, “Negative student reactions to lunches that complied with the new meat and grain portion size limits directly affected program participation in their districts.”

So what is the solution to getting kids to eat healthy? Parents have been struggling with this problem for ages.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement