In the last five years there has been an obvious change in the lunches being served in schools. The United States Department of Agriculture; Food and Nutrition Services has been in charge of this program change, “The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost, or free lunches to children each school day”. The NSLP was created along with the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Michelle Obama was a major proponent in pushing for this 2010 Act and the program. This program serves nearly 32 million children or 45% of the youth population and costs about $15 billion a year (Kelly
…show more content…
They argue that meals served at school are healthy and balanced. The NSLP has cut the amount of calories and sodium in lunch and upped the amount of “fresh” fruit and vegetables.The reality is the food served at lunches is unappetizing. It is generally soggy and unflavorful and fruits and vegetables are not fresh. Even when a student eats their whole lunch, it is not filling enough for the amount of calories a student burns. People that are for the school lunch program argue that this is the only full meal some students get. If it’s the only meal some students get shouldn’t there be more calories? The next argument is the calorie limit has caused a drop in childhood obesity. Schools have cut calorie and sodium limits but there still hasn’t been a significant drop in childhood obesity since 2010. All the calorie max does is up students hunger which cause higher consumption of junk food. Lastly, supporters of the program argue that less food and money is being wasted now that students have adapted. “Adaption” is students getting used to receiving the same revolting food day after day and instead of protesting they resort to eating it because they need to have something in their stomach to give them enough energy to get through the day. As of 2013 over $2.7 billion was wasted on thrown away food, the whole food program itself is costing $15 billion. Many schools let anyone get free lunch even if they can afford it so there is definitely money still being
They argue that meals served at school are healthy and balanced. The NSLP has cut the amount of calories and sodium in lunch and upped the amount of “fresh” fruit and vegetables.The reality is the food served at lunches is unappetizing. It is generally soggy and unflavorful and fruits and vegetables are not fresh. Even when a student eats their whole lunch, it is not filling enough for the amount of calories a student burns. People that are for the school lunch program argue that this is the only full meal some students get. If it’s the only meal some students get shouldn’t there be more calories? The next argument is the calorie limit has caused a drop in childhood obesity. Schools have cut calorie and sodium limits but there still hasn’t been a significant drop in childhood obesity since 2010. All the calorie max does is up students hunger which cause higher consumption of junk food. Lastly, supporters of the program argue that less food and money is being wasted now that students have adapted. “Adaption” is students getting used to receiving the same revolting food day after day and instead of protesting they resort to eating it because they need to have something in their stomach to give them enough energy to get through the day. As of 2013 over $2.7 billion was wasted on thrown away food, the whole food program itself is costing $15 billion. Many schools let anyone get free lunch even if they can afford it so there is definitely money still being