In Our View: Good Deed Punished

How does that old saying go? Something about no good deed goes unpunished? While politics and social policy are rife with examples of that old axiom brought to life, today we shall use it to explore the raging argument over nutrition in school lunches. Yes, even school lunches — those much-needed but often-reviled rites of childhood — are not immune from political nose-thumbing and arm-twisting.

Just ask the First Lady. Since President Barack Obama first came to office, Michelle Obama has made the fight against childhood obesity her favorite cause. In 2010, with backing from the White House, Congress passed mandates on school lunches designed to reduce sodium intake and increase the amount of whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables available to schoolchildren. These actions could help reduce the odds of students eventually contracting diabetes, coming down with high blood pressure or becoming obese. A good deed, indeed — and one that was certain to be punished.

Last week, a House committee voted in favor of a Republican-backed measure that would allow school districts to temporarily opt out of the nutrition standards. On one level, this action reflects concern over the power of the federal government and the rights of states or local governments. School lunches might be considered an unlikely platform for such a constitutional conundrum, but seemingly nothing these days is too miniscule for such arguments.

The Obama administration has helped to create this culture of backlash by expanding the federal role in health care (Affordable Care Act) and school curriculums (Common Core), but the argument against lunchtime nutritional standards actually has a more nefarious genesis. As The Washington Post reported: “The dispute provides a fresh illustration of the ways special interests can assert power in Washington. In this case, food companies forged an alliance with a key lobbying group, the School Nutrition Association, and pushed it to shift its position from publicly supporting the Obama-backed standards to pressing Congress for relief.” Therefore, the push against improved nutrition in school lunches has been led by companies that sell items such as frozen pizzas and french fries to schools.

Some school officials across the country have complained that the new standards are resulting in more food being thrown away as students eschew the healthy alternatives. Lyman Graham, food service director for a school district near Roswell, N.M., said: “We can’t force students to eat something they don’t want. Many families in the Southwest will not accept whole-grain tortillas. Schools can’t change cultural preferences. And with sky-high produce costs, we simply cannot afford to feed our trash cans.”

No, school districts cannot afford to feed their trash cans. But countless districts have managed to provide more nutritious lunches that a significant number of students actually eat, choosing to work on solutions to the problem without relying upon a powerful lobby to get the rules changed.

Childhood obesity and poor nutrition is a growing problem in this country, and it is one that fosters lifelong health problems. Regardless of whether they come from the federal government or from local school districts, parents should be pushing for strong nutrition standards when it comes to school lunches. Healthy eating can improve day-to-day attentiveness in class, generate more active minds and create good habits that will pay lifelong dividends. But beware any effort to do a good deed for our children. We know how that can work out.