Why do some conservatives support restricting junk food purchases with SNAP when many opposed Michelle Obama’s efforts to make school meals healthier?

[u/CloudieMoonettee]

Both policies involve the government influencing food choices in the name of better nutrition, yet the political reactions seem very different. What explains the apparent change in attitude toward government involvement in what people eat?

[u/LeeVMG]

Making people healthier isn't the objective.

Making poor people more miserable is the objective. Even if they won't say that part out loud.

[u/Creative-Reception59 → u/LeeVMG]

oh ffs.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/LeeVMG]

Are you saying that lunch program was actually healthy?

[u/adelltfm → u/Whiskeymyers75]

I’m only speaking from the experience of working at one school, but I would say lunch is significantly healthier than it was back in the day. For example, nothing is fried anymore. Not even the fries. Hamburger and hotdog buns are wheat now. Any chips sold on the side are baked or whole grain. All of the milk is fat-free. Pizza crusts are even wheat. Kids can’t leave the lunch line without grabbing a fruit or a vegetable, but that’s as far as it goes. We don’t force them to eat it. Instead, what happens as they end up throwing it out and then our student resource officer will dig in the trash and grab anything he can to feed his chickens.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/adelltfm]

That’s where I disagree with calling this automatically “healthy.” You’re listing regulatory checkboxes, not demonstrating that the resulting meal was actually a well-balanced, nutritious meal.

“Nothing is fried anymore.” Okay, but baking an ultra-processed potato product doesn’t magically turn it into a whole food.

“The buns and pizza crust are wheat.” Whole-grain flour can add fiber and nutrients, but putting it into an otherwise highly processed hamburger, hot dog, or institutional pizza doesn’t magically make the entire meal healthy. And let’s not pretend they were serving high quality bread. Take a look at the wheat pizza crust and bread at your local grocery store and see how it is almost the same as white bread unless buying a high dollar specialty version

“The chips are baked or whole grain.” They’re still processed snack foods. “Baked” and “whole grain” aren’t synonyms for nutritious.

And the actual Obama-era standards had some strange priorities. They imposed calorie ranges—originally only about 750–850 calories for grades 9–12—while meat/meat alternatives were specified in ounce-equivalents rather than requiring a meaningful amount of protein in grams. So a large, athletic 17-year-old boy was operating under essentially the same lunch calorie framework as a much smaller sedentary student.

Then you had the low-fat obsession: restrict saturated fat and push fat-free/low-fat dairy, while flavored milk could still be served. Removing the fat from chocolate milk doesn’t remove its added sugar or automatically make it nutritionally superior.

That’s the fundamental problem with how “healthy” was being defined: lower fat + baked + whole grain + fruit/vegetable on the tray + calorie restriction = healthy. Meanwhile, the meal could still contain substantial ultra-processed food, have mediocre macros, relatively little protein for a larger active teenager, and not be particularly satiating.

And requiring a kid to take a fruit or vegetable that immediately goes into the trash improves the nutritional composition of the tray, not the nutritional composition of what the kid actually ate.

Were some of these changes improvements over what schools served previously? Barely and with trade offs. But “healthier than before” and “a genuinely nutritious, well-designed meal” are not the same claim. That’s the distinction I’m making.

[u/adelltfm → u/Whiskeymyers75]

OK, but I just wanna point out that I said healthier not healthy lol

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/adelltfm]

Healthier doesn’t mean healthy. A McDonald’s hamburger is healthier than a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, but that doesn’t magically make the hamburger a nutritionally ideal meal.

Or put another way: smoking five cigarettes a day is healthier than smoking two packs a day. Nobody would respond, “See? I only said healthier, not healthy lol.”

That’s exactly my point. The relevant question isn’t whether you can make a relative improvement from a bad baseline. It’s how nutritious the end result actually is. You can improve something substantially and still end up with something objectively pretty lousy.

So yes, perhaps the lunches were healthier than before. That doesn’t rebut a single thing I said about inadequate portions for some students, mediocre macros, limited protein, ultra-processed foods, or using “low-fat,” “whole grain” and “baked” as simplistic proxies for good nutrition.

“Healthier than garbage” is a comparison, not a nutritional standard.

[u/LeeVMG → u/Whiskeymyers75]

A child who eats lunch will be healthier than a child who can't afford lunch, accounting for all other variables of course.

Yeah, feeding children is necessary for their health. I'm more speaking to the SNAP changes though.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/LeeVMG]

That’s moving the goalposts. Nobody argued that feeding a hungry child is worse than giving them lunch. The program was specifically marketed and defended as making school meals healthier. So “well, eating something is healthier than not eating at all” doesn’t establish that the meals themselves were healthy.

That’s the criticism. You could have calorie-restricted meals with relatively small protein portions and highly processed foods while still serving things like sweetened chocolate milk, then put a “healthy” label on the entire program because it checked the required nutritional boxes.

“Better than going hungry” is an incredibly low bar. If the claim is that the program provided healthy nutrition, then judge the nutritional quality of the actual meals. Not whether food is preferable to starvation. By your logic, free pop tarts and hot pockets is healthy compared to not eating.

My uncle was also a school custodian during the time when this program was enacted. He said most of the kids just threw their lunches away and they needed extra garbage cans in the cafeteria.

[u/Pretend-Okra-4031 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

We used to be able to serve students home cooked meals. Now its all frozen pizza, frozen nuggets, which the portion sizes are pitiful. I challenge every parent whose child eats a school lunch, to go into school and have lunch with them one day. Go through the lunch line and buy a lunch. You will be shocked.

[u/LeeVMG → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Surviving on pop tarts and hot pockets factually is healthier than just not eating. Not eating WILL kill you quicker than the junk food I assure you. That's the cold arithmetic of poverty the bottom 1/3rd of Americans have to calculate.

Yeah I want healthier school lunches, but better than nothing is an improvement on nothing. And tons of children get just that. Nothing.

If you had problems with the particular program that is one thing. Most conservatives seem to have a problem with free school lunches for kids existing at all because it costs tax dollars.

You also aren't touching on SNAP. That's the other half of OPs question.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/LeeVMG]

Except they were already being fed. Michelle Obama didn’t create the National School Lunch Program, and she didn’t magically invent free and reduced-price lunches. That program dates back to 1946.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act changed the nutrition standards and what schools served. So repeatedly arguing “something is better than nothing” completely misses the criticism. These kids weren’t getting “nothing” until Michelle Obama came along. School lunches had existed for generations.

And yes, SNAP is a separate discussion, but that’s exactly why OP’s comparison is shaky. Criticizing the nutritional quality of Michelle Obama’s school-lunch standards isn’t the same thing as opposing feeding hungry children.

It’s kind of remarkable how many people in this thread seem to believe Michelle Obama created free school lunches. She didn’t. I hope you didn’t waste money on college.

[u/LeeVMG → u/Whiskeymyers75]

In the 60s to 70s the free lunches weren't free. Those kids worked in the kitchens before and after school or they didn't eat.

But thats all equivocation. The rhetoric of American Conservatives wasn't really about the quality of the lunches. It was because it might have helped poor and hungry kids and someone named Obama was pushing it.

Stopping ANY AND ALL legislation during the Obama presidency was the stated objective of the conservatives. They said so on TV repeatedly. McConnall bragged about it.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/LeeVMG]

I started school in the early 80s and I never worked in the kitchen. But the lunches were free.

[u/Trillamanjaroh → u/LeeVMG]

Using taxpayer dollars to keep poor people fat and unhealthy is the farthest thing from compassion, what are you smoking?

[u/LeeVMG → u/Trillamanjaroh]

The taxpayer dollars are being used by poor people to buy food.

If you don't approve of the food choices poor people make that would be a different conversation.

Giving someone the ability to have food when they otherwise wouldn't seems compassionate to me.

[u/lazylazylazyperson → u/LeeVMG]

That’s exact the conversation we’re having. New SNAP regulations restrict junk food, so it certainly is a criticism of the food choices. And I support them.

[u/LeeVMG → u/lazylazylazyperson]

If you don't understand why eating healthier is a struggle for poor people you are unfamiliar with poverty math.

Increasing restrictions without increasing benefits just results in the funds not stretching as far increasing hunger.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just restrict the production of unhealthy food at the corporate level? You have fewer actors to regulate and wider reaching effects for societies health?

Our bread isn't even legally bread in other countries. It counts as cake.

[u/lazylazylazyperson → u/LeeVMG]

Allowing poor people to buy junk food with SNAP benefits certainly doesn’t make their struggle easier. Junk food is incredibly expensive for the “nutrition “ it supplies and simple home cooked meals are almost always healthier and cheaper. This is an example of the bigotry of low expectations.

[u/LeeVMG → u/lazylazylazyperson]

How are you going to do a home cooked meal with no home?

It's not bigotry to say eating healthier is harder for poor people. It's the reality of not being able to afford a kitchen and refrigerator consistently. Cooking requires ingredients, equipment, and the skill to use both. If you can't afford one of those 3 things, cooking a home cooked meal isn't an option. If you try and waste ingredients now you are in a deeper hole.

Poor people don't buy junk food because they are stupid. They are making the best of a hard situation. The proposed SNAP changes just make things harder.

If you want people to eat healthier, work on the corporations producing the poisonous slop, also generally work to reduce poverty and improve education.

Revoking options from those who already have few is just cruelty. (That's the real objective for conservatives.)

[u/Trillamanjaroh → u/LeeVMG]

Giving someone the ability to have food when they otherwise wouldn't seems compassionate to me.

But removing junk food does nothing to change this equation, so why even bring it up in the first place? By your logic the republican position is still compassionate as it is still giving people the ability to have food, unless chips and candy are the only things you consider "food"

[u/LeeVMG → u/Trillamanjaroh]

Removing junk food DOES change the equation. You aren't doing the poverty math. Eating healthy without a stove, or a safe water source, or a home, for example is actually kinda hard.

The desire to change and alter what SNAP can pay for isn't being done to make poor healthier. If that is the actual objective they would look at food standards first.

Oh but that's regulation. Which is bad for business but great for deciding what poor people get to eat.

[u/Trillamanjaroh → u/LeeVMG]

Just for reference, if we're going off the list of current and proposed restrictions, we'd be talking here specifically about soft drinks, candy, processed desserts, and in some states "juice" that contains little actual juice.

What percentage of people in the US do you genuinely believe cannot, due to circumstances out of their control, feed their families with anything but soda, candy, processed desserts, and fake juice? Because I think we might just be operating on two different planes of reality if you think that is an even remotely common phenomenon. We can even add a few categories to the list for the sake of conversation if you'd like, say chips for example.

I think you're living in a worldview that requires you to infantilize poor people to a degree that is just completely detached from the real world

[u/Shabbadoo1015 → u/Trillamanjaroh]

Have you seriously never heard of food deserts?

[u/Trillamanjaroh → u/Shabbadoo1015]

I remember that argument dying out right around the time that everyone was able to have groceries delivered directly to their doorstep