The “success” of Michelle Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act is evidenced in school trash everywhere. That's where these meals are ending up, which explains why more than a million participants in the $12 billion federal school lunch program pulled out last year, according to the General Accountability Office.
Never mind kids' own social media responses to lunches of mystery meat and miniscule chicken nuggets. “I'd like to thank Michelle Obama for this school lunch,” one student sarcastically tweeted.
And never mind the program's unrelenting regulations on everything down to weekly servings of “orange” vegetables.
In all, more than 500 schools have pulled out of the federal program because of the new Obama regulations — which defenders insist is insignificant compared with the 98,000 participating schools. What's indefensible is the amount of food that's reportedly being dumped because school kids aren't eating it, according to Investor's Business Daily.
And what happens when hungry children don't eat school lunches? That's right: They load up after school on pound-packing junk-food calories.
And, sadly, poorer school districts get stuck with government's meal diktats while wealthier districts have the financial means to set their own menus — for now.
Whether it's where children are forced to attend school or what they're forced to eat, government's proclivity to push parents aside in matters that directly affect their children will continue — until parents push back.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Taxing consequences: The Shell effect
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Saturday essay: Deer of fools
- A green-tip assault: ATF’s end run
- The silent treatment in Ford City: Forgotten words
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Seeds of a new endeavor: Connellsville Area Garden Club’s latest plans
- SCI Greensburg: A dubious deal
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Homeland Security: A poor GOP fight