retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times reports that First Lady Michelle Obama is "pushing back" against a proposal in the US House of Representatives that would exempt some school lunch programs from meeting mandated dietary and nutrition standards, based on whether school districts are profitable or not.

The story reports that "the standards, approved by Congress and the president in 2010, set limits on sodium, fat and calories, and require that unhealthy menu items be replaced with fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Some big food companies and Republican lawmakers have criticized the rules, calling them inflexible, ineffective and expensive."

The First Lady told a group of school officials yesterday that "the last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health, especially when we’re finally starting to see some progress on this issue. It’s unacceptable to me not just as first lady, but as a mother."

The Times writes that the "School Nutrition Association, which represents cafeteria administrators, issued a statement on Tuesday calling the rules 'overly prescriptive' and citing Agriculture Department data showing a drop in school-lunch participation since the standards were adopted."
KC's View:
There always are reasons not to do such things. But I have to say that IMHO, making school meals more nutritious ought to be a high priority. Too many of them serve slop that does nothing to nourish the kids who eat it. And nourishing kids' bodies ought to be seen as important as nourishing their minds.