retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times has a piece by columnist Mark Bittman about how and why the School Nutrition Association is trying to eviscerate and/or roll back the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

"The new nutrition guidelines — which the School Nutrition Association once backed, and even helped develop — gently nudge school lunches into the 21st century," Bittman writes. "Of course one could nitpick the act to death: It’s a government decree, it doesn’t go nearly far enough and some of its standards are already outmoded. (The fact that McDonald’s is now outpacing federal agencies in demanding food raised with fewer antibiotics is simply surreal.)"

Bittman argues - and his conclusion is based on a Politico report - that the obvious reason for the School Nutrition Association to take this position is money - roughly half its annual $10 million budget is provided by major food industry companies that may actually find the idea of more whole grains, fruits and vegetables to be threatening to their long-term business prospects. And even though there seems to be some evidence that the law's provisions are working, the School Nutrition Association continues to argue that it is too expensive and difficult to implement.

You decide. The entire column can be read here.
KC's View:
Too expensive and too difficulty to implement regulations that address what some people is a critical national security issue, not to mention an economic problem? I don't get it ... but then again, it always seems like money talks.