Iran Cuts Off All Communication With US as Trump's Deadline Looms
New Business Steps Up After LGBTQ Club Bows to Pressure Over Iryna Zarutska...
Here's What Voters are Most Concerned About Heading Into the Midterms
Scott Jennings Reminds Us There's No Moral Equivalence Between Iran and the U.S.
Did Wisconsin's Liberal Supreme Court Candidate Just Violate Electioneering Laws?
Antisemitic Activism Is on the Rise in America's Public Schools
DOJ to Probe Mamdani's 'Fishy' Racial Equity Plan
The Bulls Made a Mistake Cutting Jaden Ivey and Now They're Facing the...
Why Are Wisconsin Democrats Defending This Islamic Terrorist?
Boston Sent a Social Worker to Deal With a Violent Situation and It...
If I Were Them… I’d Just Do What He Says
Don't Worry Guys, This Dem Rep. Says He Can End The Iran War...
President Trump Doubles Down on His Deadline For Iran: '8 PM is Happening'
Iran Deploys Human Shields Including Children to Key Infrastructure Ahead of US Strikes
President Trump and Marco Rubio Move to Revoke The Visas of Iranian Elites...
Tipsheet

Michelle Obama Pens NYT Editorial, Defends School Lunch Program

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