Food for thought |

Food for thought

Almost every day, we get a new opportunity to be disgusted and saddened by the actions of our federal government. But the school lunch program that has been shoved down our throats has to be one of the worst.

Consider just this one aspect of it:

In the past, the parents of children who qualified for free or reduced lunches could take heart in the fact that their kids got at least one filling meal a day even if food wasn’t plentiful at home. Under the new plan, designed to fight obesity, that one meal could consists of small quantities of food that most kids don’t even want to eat unless they are starving.

Have you tried whole wheat pizza crust or meat dishes made of ground-up soy-fortified meat products? That’s the only way to accurately measure the exact number of grams of fat or carbs or sodium or calories in every meal, all computer calculated right down to the last bite.

To add insult to injury, because of the lack of good paying jobs with family-sustaining wages, there are more children on the free and reduced lunch programs than ever before. And these are the kids who don’t have money to buy some extra food at school. To be sure, they are going home hungry.

Your school might tell you this new plan is all for the good of your children. Or they might just be honest and tell you that, if schools don’t abide by these new food-police rules, they won’t get their government subsidy via the National School Food Lunch Program.

If you care about losing more of your freedoms every day, consider taking a stand on this one that is in your own backyard.

Kathryn Starr


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.