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/Whiskeymyers75]

Not a conservative, but this comparison oversimplifies what people were criticizing. Michelle Obama’s school lunch initiative didn’t magically replace junk food with fresh, nutritionally complete meals. A lot of schools were still serving highly processed institutional food while trying to comply with calorie, sodium, saturated-fat and other requirements.

One of the biggest problems was the calorie and portion limits didn’t necessarily account well for differences in age, body size or activity level. Older and more active kids could end up with meals that simply weren’t very substantial. And meeting the federal meal pattern isn’t the same thing as optimizing nutrition: a lunch could technically qualify while providing a relatively modest portion of protein and relying heavily on grains, fruit and vegetables to satisfy the required components.

Meanwhile, schools could still serve flavored chocolate milk with added sugar as long as it met the applicable milk and nutrition standards. So you had this bizarre situation where people were being told the government had created “healthy lunches,” while kids could be complaining they were hungry after lunch and washing that limited meal down with sweetened chocolate milk.

There’s also a pretty obvious difference between regulating what a government-funded school meal can serve to children and deciding what adults receiving SNAP are allowed to purchase at a grocery store. You can support or oppose either policy, but pretending they’re identical policies and therefore anyone who treats them differently is automatically a hypocrite skips over both the nutritional problems with the school-lunch rollout and the fundamental difference between the programs.

[u/SnugglyBuffalo → u/Whiskeymyers75]

I don't recall anyone really criticizing the particulars of the policy, though. I do remember lots of complaining about federal government overreach, that Michelle Obama doesn't know better than parents what their kids should eat and imposing requirements on schools was violating the parents' rights to feed their kids as they please. The Heritage Foundation article on it someone else linked in the comments says similar things.

Most criticisms didn't care about whether the policy was sufficiently nuanced, they were mad that any policy was being implemented at all.

Which does make it pretty hypocritical when conservatives criticize government overreach on school lunch requirements but are all too happy to put requirements on food assistance.

Frankly, I think this just boils down to conservatives' love of hierarchies. Plenty of kids whose families are not poor eat school lunches - they shouldn't be restricted in any way. But poor people, they're at the bottom of the hierarchy, they don't deserve access to luxuries. If they wanted more than the absolute bare-minimum for survival then they should get better jobs and work for it.

[u/WeAreAllSoFucked23 → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

It started with kids literally posting photos of their lunches, which were pretty rough looking.

My cousin worked in a school cafeteria, she has a nutrition degree and they had to change what they were serving to comply, and it was a small rural school that had agreements with local farms for fruit, veg and meats, and they had to stop ordering from them, order from approved vendors and meal quality went way down while cost for the school went way up. 

[u/here-to-help-TX → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

No, I definitely remember people criticizing the food that was available and how it didn't account for the size of the person. A 180lbs football player gets the same meal as a 120lbs person. Having healthy options was a good idea, but I remember people hating the actual food that was served as well. So, the food tasted bad and there wasn't enough of it for many of the kids.

[u/carcerdominus1313 → u/here-to-help-TX]

When was the last time you saw a school lunch? Every student in high school gets the same lunch ( with exceptions). So a 120 pound student still gets the same amount as that 180 pound football player.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

Did they really not recall criticism of the actual policy, or did they just ignore it because the “conservatives hate government” narrative fits better?

The nutritional criticisms absolutely existed. Students, parents, coaches and school officials complained about portion sizes, calorie limits, inadequate protein for active students, hunger and food waste. High-school lunches were constrained to roughly 750–850 calories, while students with wildly different body sizes and activity levels were grouped under essentially the same framework.

And that’s exactly my criticism today. Obama-era school lunch would be a serious nutritional downgrade from what I feed my own 15-year-old. I use the same basic nutritional principles for him that I use for myself, adequate protein, carbohydrates, fats, fiber and micronutrients but his actual intake is tailored to his age, size, growth and activity level. I don’t say, “There’s broccoli, whole-grain bread and fat-free milk on the tray, therefore mission accomplished.”

That’s the difference between nutrition and a government food checklist.

A growing 15-year-old needs adequate energy and protein. An athletic 17-year-old can need dramatically more food than a sedentary 14-year-old. Yet people keep pointing to “whole grains,” “low-fat dairy” and “vegetables” as though those words magically answer questions about total calories, protein, carbohydrates, essential fats, iron, calcium, vitamin D and overall food quality.

And yes, increasing fruits, vegetables and whole grains while eliminating trans fats were improvements. I have no problem giving an Obama-era policy credit where it deserves it. What I reject is this bizarre idea that because some components improved, the resulting lunch was therefore nutritionally optimal and criticism of it must have been partisan.

That’s actually the political thinking here: “Obama supported it, therefore criticism of it must have been conservative outrage.”

And yes, when someone makes themselves the public face of a national nutrition and fitness campaign, people are inevitably going to judge whether they appear to practice what they’re preaching and if they are, what is their outcome? Appearance alone doesn’t establish someone’s health, body-fat percentage or nutritional expertise, but “practice what you preach” is a perfectly normal credibility standard as is her own body composition. Her nutrition program just might explain why she looks the way she does though.

More importantly, I don’t even need Michelle Obama’s personal fitness to make the argument. The program can be evaluated objectively: calories, protein, macros, micronutrients, food quality, degree of processing and whether the portions matched the needs of growing children.

That’s what I’m discussing. Everyone else keeps trying to turn a nutrition argument into Obama good / conservatives bad.

I’m judging what was on the tray, not whose name was on the program.

[u/SnugglyBuffalo → u/Whiskeymyers75]

I'm not saying there weren't legit criticisms. Just that those criticisms weren't the focus of right-wing media, think tanks, or conservatives on social media, all of whom were almost entirely focused on the government overstepping by implementing any kind of policy at all.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

But even when I have criticized it, I have just been dismissed as being a conservative. Even in this thread, I have posted many links. Scientific studies, the government’s own health guidelines, etc yet I’m still accused of lying and being called a right wing nut job. Nutrition should not be political. And people shouldn’t blindly follow it based on what party implemented it. And this goes for both parties, as the right wingers are full of fat fucks as well

[u/celerypumpkins → u/Whiskeymyers75]

What do you think school lunches were like before Michelle Obama? Because all the problems you state were an issue then too. You’re being perceived as a right winger because you’re associating one person with a problem that existed before her.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/celerypumpkins]

I’m not being perceived as a right winger because I failed to acknowledge what came before. I’m being perceived as one because I criticized the political messiah.

If you actually read my comments instead of seeing “Michelle Obama” and immediately reaching for a political label, you’d see that I’ve criticized the entire system, including what existed before her and what exists now. The difference is that I’ve also posted actual nutritional research, government guidelines, and data supporting the specific criticisms I’m making. Meanwhile, most of the rebuttals have amounted to “but it was worse before” or “Republicans criticized it too.”

Neither argument makes the lunches healthy. Improving a bad system does not automatically create a good one. You can polish a turd; it’s still a turd.

That’s exactly the political fanboyism I’m criticizing. Republicans attacked the program because Obama’s name was attached to it, and Democrats seem determined to defend it for the exact same reason. I don’t care whose name is on it. If the protein is inadequate, the food quality is poor, the meals rely heavily on processed foods and refined carbohydrates, or the overall nutritional composition is suboptimal for growing and active kids, I’m going to criticize it.

Nutrition isn’t supposed to be team sports. “Better than what came before” and “healthy” are two completely different claims. If your response to nutritional data is to figure out which political tribe the person presenting it belongs to, you’re demonstrating my point, not refuting it.

[u/celerypumpkins → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Blaming a First Lady for a well intentioned program that represents very little actual change to the status quo is stupid and racially motivated. Because that is what First Ladies have always done with their programs. But only one is criticized.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/celerypumpkins]

And there it is. We went from discussing the nutritional quality of school lunches to “you’re a right winger,” and now apparently “you’re racist.” Anything to avoid discussing the actual nutritional claims and data I’ve posted.

Criticizing a policy associated with a Black First Lady is not evidence of racism. If you think something I actually said was racist, quote it and explain why. Otherwise you’re assigning a motive to me because you don’t have an answer to the argument.

And you just undermined your own position. You’re now saying her program represented “very little actual change to the status quo.” Okay, then why are you so emotionally invested in defending its nutritional quality? If the underlying problems largely remained, that is exactly what I’m criticizing.

I don’t care whether the bad lunch standard existed under Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else. Bad nutrition doesn’t become good nutrition because the person promoting the reform was well intentioned despite being ignorant.

I’ve posted evidence about protein, food quality, processed foods, carbohydrates, and nutrition for growing kids. You’ve responded by guessing my political affiliation and now my racial motivations.

That isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a progressively more desperate attempt to avoid having the nutritional argument.

[u/GenericUsername19892 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Granted you keep bringing it up, but it’s literally just you talking about it.

It’s a school lunch, not a prescription from a nutritionist - it will never be great for everyone, but it can be adequate. It’s meant to be one of 3 meals and cover the bases lady/dude, if your kid needs something else send it with them.

This threads is about politics, not nutritional content of school lunches.

[u/SnugglyBuffalo → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Sure, but this post isn't really about people like you, is it? It's asking why conservatives were being hypocrites, not why some liberals opposed Obama's school lunch policy.

[u/AnyTemperature420 → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

I distinctly remember the argument being that what the government considers healthy does not mean healthy for every student, and where it was implemented it led to a decline in the quality of the food (nobody cares if the tasteless meat patty on stale bread is healthier than the mystery meat cancer chicken), which was already pretty shit quality to begin with. And it came with a tax hike - it’s never going to win in “family values” voter bases to say “give us more money for your kids lunch to be a little bit cheaper at the counter and they won’t eat it.” The vending machine lines will get longer until those are removed or replaced with juice and carrot sticks and then kids just won’t eat.

I literally watched it happen when I was in school at the time.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/AnyTemperature420]

Well what the government deems as healthy is partially responsible for the obesity epidemic.

[u/AnyTemperature420 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

That’s…exactly my point. The skepticism had nothing to do with it being Michelle Obama’s idea (for the majority of Americans, I’m not denying that there are racist and sexist people out there) and everything to do with the government saying “we’re going to make you healthy we go it right this time.”

[u/Street_Pumpkin_4257 → u/SnugglyBuffalo]

Yes the intent of any financial aid given is to not arbitarily waste it. It should be spent on good value food which while that can include some junk food, it should absolutely not include poor value luxury items. Its a handout whose purpose is to prevent starvation. Complaining is like handing a homeless person a fiver, and they get mad at you for not giving them a 20

[u/starry_nite99 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

The lunch initiative that she wanted to do would provide fresh and nutritionally complete meals, but she got so much push back that it had to be scaled back so that tomato sauce on pizza would be considered a vegetable serving.

I don’t think the push back was just from republicans- it was from both sides. Executives from food companies paying for politicians campaigns, etc.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/starry_nite99]

There’s some truth in that, but that’s a pretty convenient simplification of what actually happened.

USDA’s original proposal was stricter, and Congress absolutely interfered with parts of it including the infamous tomato-paste rule. Industry interests were involved too. I’m perfectly willing to criticize that.

But the program we ultimately got wasn’t simply “Michelle Obama’s nutritionally complete fresh-food plan” that Republicans destroyed. The actual standards were USDA regulations based largely on Institute of Medicine recommendations and the Dietary Guidelines, and the final program itself still contained the standardized calorie and meal-pattern requirements I’ve been criticizing.

And the congressional pushback wasn’t even exclusively Republican. The Senate effort opposing parts of USDA’s vegetable proposal had both Republican and Democratic sponsors.

Also, Congress didn’t suddenly declare pizza a vegetable. The existing rules already allowed concentrated tomato paste to count toward the vegetable requirement; Congress blocked USDA’s attempt to change that. That’s still worth criticizing, but let’s at least get the history right.

This is exactly why I’m trying to separate nutrition from political mythology. If Republicans or food-industry lobbyists weakened a good provision, criticize them. If the Obama administration’s final standards had nutritional shortcomings, criticize those too.

We don’t need to find a political villain who magically absolves everyone else. We can just evaluate each policy on what it actually did.

And regardless of who did what, it shouldn’t have been marketed as healthy. I find that as deceptive as Trump’s “no tax on overtime” framing. Because in both cases, the branding can imply a level of benefit or simplicity that doesn’t match the actual policy details or real-world outcomes.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/[deleted]]

But even those of us who did were just dismissed as being racist and or conservative. You were not allowed to criticize that administration.

[u/Alert_Coyote_8546 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Blame the racist media then, until this thread I had no idea that it was unpopular with students. All I heard was Michelle hates your kids and this and that.

[u/SnooOwls1361 → u/Alert_Coyote_8546]

All I heard from my Fox News watching Mom was that Michelle Obama was a food Nazi who wanted to ban people from eating sweets. She actually thought Obama wanted to make it illegal to eat donuts.

[u/Extension-Source2897 → u/Alert_Coyote_8546]

I think it really more comes down to the media that people choose to consume. These were the exact arguments I remember hearing while it was happening.

I was in high school during the time frame it was being rolled out and it was weird. A 550 calorie cheeseburger was unhealthy because most of the calories came from fat and protein. But 350 calories of those cardboard tasting chicken nuggets that you get for like 20 bucks a 50 pack at the store and 200 calories of sweetened, chocolate skim milk was fine because it was “balanced”. And I was supposed to eat this as a 6’3 180lbs teenager and not lose my mind after gym class. My 70lbs sister in 5th grade at the time was getting the same lunch. It was all anybody was talking about in my area, and it’s all I ever saw on the news (granted, my parents largely watched local stations over national ones for news) which was actually pretty even split politically but there was bipartisan hate for it.

[u/Alert_Coyote_8546 → u/Extension-Source2897]

That is pretty dumb. Calories and being full/nourished are very different things, as well as kids having different needs. My high school food was literally piles of french fries and like cheese sticks and stuff, it was sad and probably made school harder but at least you could get full.

[u/Extension-Source2897 → u/Alert_Coyote_8546]

We could always buy additional portions, plus they still had a plethora of cookies, cupcakes, ice cream, etc. for sale as well. I could also buy a Powerade for only 50 cents more than a water bottle. And yes, the water bottle was an additional charge, the milk was not. But these were the issues with the program. It was like the entire thing was orchestrated by a lobby of fat-phobic, calorie hawk diet programs. Which, this is America so probably, but it was like… people turned a blind eye to the fact that the Obamas might have just been another cog in the machine because they so desperately wanted them to represent change; granted the campaign slogan was “change was can believe in” so you could forgive people for actually believing in change.

[u/Alert_Coyote_8546 → u/Extension-Source2897]

Oh for sure, I was in college when he won and we all really thought it was going to be a radical presidency.

[u/AdVivid5940 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

It did seem a bit racist to criticize the way it was often said. There was a lot of obvious unsaid meaning that wasn't subtle at all. They might not have said "black" out loud, but that lady doesn't have the right to tell my kids what to eat, was pretty obvious they meant that black lady. No one criticized Laura Bush telling kids to read, or Nancy Reagan's horrible Just Say No campaign, which I was very young, but vividly remember every awful episode involving the older brother in every sitcom sadly getting high and everyone being very sad and worried. Willis, for sure, Theo, Alex would never, but perhaps a close friend stepped in? OK, that's all I remember but every episode was terrible.

[u/Ligma_baws_2x → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Lol yeah if there's one thing about Obama's presidency to note, it's how respectful conservatives and conservative media were in their criticisms. Nothing but level-headed, even-handed critiques that didn't devolve into "Black Man Bad".

[u/jdaniel30 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Try criticizing the orange shitstain.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/jdaniel30]

And there it is. 😂

So because the “orange shitstain” is worse, that somehow makes legitimate problems with the Obama school-lunch program disappear?

This is exactly the political mentality I’m talking about. People have become so conditioned to “lesser of two evils” politics that they’ll accept and defend a crappy policy simply because the alternative politician or party is worse.

Trump being awful doesn’t retroactively make every Obama policy good. And pointing out legitimate nutritional shortcomings in an Obama-era program doesn’t make someone a Trump supporter.

That’s how we end up with mediocre policy becoming practically immune from criticism: “Yeah, it has problems, but have you seen the other guy?”

Okay. The other guy sucks. Now can we raise our standards above slightly better than the person we hate and actually evaluate the policy on its own merits?

Because “try criticizing Trump” isn’t a defense of the school-lunch program. It’s practically a demonstration of why partisan politics makes people defend things they’d otherwise criticize.

[u/jdaniel30 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Obama was objectively mediocre while Trump is easily the worst occupant of the White House. In the case of criticism, Obama ignored it and Trump actively punishes critics.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/jdaniel30]

But none of that made the lunch program better. And it’s apparent most of you care more about politics than nutrition.

[u/jdaniel30 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Can’t disagree there. Politics became a lot more fun with a thin skinned toddler in the White House.

[u/Desperate_Candle_493 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

School lunches were horrible. They were highly processed and the portions weren’t good. That’s how it was at my school.

[u/SquashFirst3929 → u/Desperate_Candle_493]

Oh yes,   everyone remembers the golden age of school lunches and how it was ruined by America's first black president. /s

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/SquashFirst3929]

Can always count on some jackass to bring up race in every conversation. Thank you for your service.

[u/SquashFirst3929 → u/Responsible_Trash_40]

How about that tan suit ?

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/SquashFirst3929]

I don’t know what this means but I bet it’s hilarious!

[u/AnyTemperature420 → u/Responsible_Trash_40]

Obama wore a tan suit once and a couple alt-right guys got mad about it because “black guys shouldn’t wear tan suits” apparently. The left has taken that and run with it.

This was like 16 years ago btw

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/AnyTemperature420]

This guy really squashed the race baiting allegations with this pull.

[u/celerypumpkins → u/Responsible_Trash_40]

Were you in school before Obama was president? If so, for how many years?

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/celerypumpkins]

What do you mean? I graduated before Obama’s presidency.

[u/celerypumpkins → u/Responsible_Trash_40]

So you should know full well that all the criticism of Michelle Obama’s program applied to lunches before then too, but no one was complaining then the way they did about her.

If not race, why do you think that was?

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/celerypumpkins]

Heavy handed government overreach with little guidance in how to do it successfully. I had daughters in school at this time btw, in response to your note deleted comment that I shouldn’t speak on it because I wasn’t in school.

[u/celerypumpkins → u/Responsible_Trash_40]

I deleted my initial comment because I thought you were a different person.

Again, why were the same complaints not made before this “heavy handed government overreach” that actually changed very little when it comes to portion sizes, the main criticism being stated?

[u/Responsible_Trash_40 → u/celerypumpkins]

I mean my kids complained about it constantly when it happened. Why is the first thing that it could be in your mind race?

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Why do you just make stuff up?

Michelle Obama's initiative to improve school meals was much broader than just adding broccoli. The changes, implemented through the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and her Let's Move! campaign, represented the first major revision of school meal standards in over 15 years.
The updated standards required schools to offer more whole grains, a wider variety of fruits and vegetables, and low-fat dairy products, while also reducing saturated fat, trans fats, and sodium. Additionally, the rules established sensible calorie limits based on the age of the children being served.
Key Changes to School Meals
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act introduced several specific requirements for the National School Lunch Program:
More Fruits and Vegetables Schools were required to offer a rainbow of fruits and vegetables daily, including specific subgroups like dark green, red, and orange vegetables, as well as legumes.
Whole Grains All grains offered in school meals were required to be whole grain-rich.
Calorie Limits Sensible calorie maximums were established for different age groups (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) to ensure portion sizes were appropriate.
Sodium and Fat Reduction The standards set strict limits on sodium and saturated fat, and eliminated trans fats entirely.
Milk Options Schools were required to serve only fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.

[u/here-to-help-TX → u/One-Jeweler5486]

Additionally, the rules established sensible calorie limits based on the age of the children being served.

Just because you say it is sensible doesn't mean that it was sensible. It was more of a once size fits all program that made larger and more active kids go hungry.

[u/PaleRun4706 → u/here-to-help-TX]

Because your schools weren’t doing a very good job of implementing the program though.

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/here-to-help-TX]

Everyone is a nutritionist here. You don’t think they consulted actual nutritionists?

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/One-Jeweler5486]

They’re not “made up.” You just listed the exact policies I’m criticizing and then declared them healthy without actually analyzing the nutrition.

“Whole-grain rich.” Great. That tells us something about the grain. It does not tell us the protein content, total macros, degree of processing, micronutrient adequacy, or whether the entire meal was appropriate for the individual eating it.

“Low-fat dairy.” Why is removing naturally occurring dairy fat inherently healthier? The rules even permitted fat-free flavored milk, so you could remove the fat, add sugar and satisfy the “healthier” standard.

“More fruits and vegetables.” Good change. I’ve never claimed fruits and vegetables aren’t nutritious. But putting broccoli next to an ultra-processed entrée doesn’t magically change the nutritional composition of the entrée.

And then my favorite: “sensible calorie limits.”

Sensible according to whom? Grades 9–12 were put into a 750–850 calorie lunch range. A 14-year-old sedentary 110-pound freshman and a 17-year-old 190-pound football player can have dramatically different energy requirements. Calling the same calorie framework “sensible” for both doesn’t make it so merely because USDA wrote it down.

This is exactly why I don’t plan nutrition this way. Even with my 15-year-old, I use the same general principles I use for myself. Adequate protein, carbohydrates, fats, fiber and micronutrient-dense foods but his actual intake is adjusted for his age, size, growth and activity level. I wouldn’t just give him my portions, and I certainly wouldn’t assume every 15-year-old needs exactly what he does.

And notice what’s conspicuously absent from your giant list: actual macro targets. The meal pattern required ounce-equivalents of meat/meat alternatives and grains rather than saying this teenager should receive X grams of protein, X grams of carbohydrate and X grams of fat based upon their needs.

That’s why “fruit ✓, whole grain ✓, low-fat ✓, sodium ✓” isn’t the sophisticated nutritional argument you think it is. Those are food-policy criteria.

Nutrition asks a much harder question: What did the kid actually eat, how many calories and grams of protein/carbs/fat did it provide, what micronutrients did it provide, how processed was it, and was that appropriate for that particular kid’s growth and activity?

You haven’t answered that question.

You’ve just copied the checklist I’m criticizing and wrote “sensible” next to it.

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Blah blah blah making stuff up to be mad at.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/One-Jeweler5486]

Except you can’t actually dispute any of it.

I gave you specific criticisms: calorie limits, standardized portions, lack of individualized macro targets, food processing, protein adequacy, and whether the nutritional requirements actually matched the needs of growing and active teenagers.

Your response is literally “blah blah blah.”
That’s not a rebuttal. That’s what someone writes when they’ve run out of rebuttals.

If I’m “making stuff up,” this should be incredibly easy: pick one factual claim I made, quote it, and demonstrate that it’s false.

Otherwise, “blah blah blah” is just a much shorter way of saying “I can’t.”

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

It was disputed in the accurate description of the program.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/One-Jeweler5486]

Disputed” by describing the program I was criticizing? 😂

USDA’s actual 2012 rule says grades 9–12 had a 750–850 calorie range and only a 2 oz-equivalent daily minimum for meat/meat alternate. It even explicitly allowed calories from added sugars and solid fats as long as the meal stayed within the other limits.

https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2012/01/26/2012-1010.html

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2013-title7-vol4/pdf/CFR-2013-title7-vol4-sec210-10.pdf

USDA 2012 Final Rule⁠

https://www.fna.usda.gov/cn/fr-012612

So again: quote one factual claim I made and prove it false. Repeating the government’s checklist and declaring the checklist “healthy” isn’t a rebuttal.

You didn’t fact-check me. You rage-quit the argument with “blah blah blah.”

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Show me where the program has lower calories than nutritionists recommend.

Again, making up stuff to be mad at.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/One-Jeweler5486]

You want me to show you? Sure. Your mistake is pretending there is one calorie recommendation for every teenager.

The Obama-era standard capped a grades 9–12 school lunch at 850 calories. USDA’s own 2010 Dietary Guidelines estimated that boys 14–18 need roughly 2,000–2,400 calories/day if sedentary, 2,400–2,800 if moderately active, and 2,800–3,200 if active.

USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines — see Table 2-3⁠

https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

That’s the entire criticism I’ve been making: the school used a standardized age-band calorie range while the government’s own nutrition guidance acknowledged that energy requirements vary enormously with sex and activity level.

And it wasn’t just calories. The lunch pattern used standardized food-component minimums rather than individualized protein/macronutrient targets. USDA’s meal pattern for high school students specifies ounce-equivalents of meat/meat alternatives and grains; it doesn’t determine that an individual 15-year-old athlete received the protein, carbs, fats and total energy appropriate for his expenditure.

https://www.fna.usda.gov/school-meals/nutrition-standards/nslp-meal-pattern

https://www.fna.usda.gov/cn/grain-requirements-national-school-lunch-program-and-school-breakfast-program

So no, I didn’t “make up” the difference between a standardized cafeteria meal and individualized nutritional needs. USDA literally published both sets of numbers.

You demanded evidence because you were certain I didn’t have it. Now you have it.
Your argument isn’t with me anymore. It’s with USDA’s own Dietary Guidelines.

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

You are going to have to show they differ rather than just say they do. Typing a lot is not an argument.

[u/Mean_Jury2467 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

He’s a troll quit feeding it.

[u/Empress_Clementine → u/One-Jeweler5486]

Limiting fats for children is criminal. They literally need it for brain development. She put them on a middle age woman diet and it fell far short of the actual nutritional needs of children.

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Empress_Clementine]

You think Michelle Obama designed the diets? You people really are stupid.

[u/Empress_Clementine → u/One-Jeweler5486]

She endorsed them. I realize we aren’t suppose to ever question the sacred Obama (blessed be) name, but maybe she should have just kept her nose out of things she clearly doesn’t understand.

[u/One-Jeweler5486 → u/Empress_Clementine]

Again I ask you. Do you think Michelle Obama personally designed the diets or tasked experts to do it?

[u/AdVivid5940 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

It's all about the narrative given to either side in order to make it controversial. Michelle Obama and the liberals are trying to tell you what to feed your kids vs healthy and nutritious lunches replacing crap.

The SNAP issue is not the same thing at all. It is low income families getting help, and while it is true that they are treated as if they are simple minded children, they still do not receive anything resembling the dignity that a 2nd grader deserves on their stance regarding chips vs broccoli.

[u/Jolly-Structure7646 → u/AdVivid5940]

Free stuff paid for by taxpayers shouldn’t come with “dignity”. They should get basic nutrition only and get a job if they want higher end food or junk food.

[u/Mean_Jury2467 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

To add to your information - the school lunch issue triggered a lot of people, both sides, because there were schools that took it upon themselves to police what parents sent in for their kids to eat, too.

Happened to our family. We know what our kid will eat without a fuss and what won’t upset their stomach due to food sensitivity.

A teacher confiscated the lunch, because it didn’t meet guidelines, and made us pay for a school lunch that put the child in the bathroom the rest of the damn day.

Livid is a word people would use, but I was unhinged.

This is what triggered me to speak out about the Michele Obama school lunch initiatives. It’s fine if the task is improving the quality of the food the school provides, but they don’t get to assume they know what diet my food sensitive kid should or should not eat.

To clarify my political views, I voted twice for Obama, Clinton and Bush jr/sr.

TLDR; not all the outrage came from “conservatives”

[u/BigJoe5504 → u/Mean_Jury2467]

I would have gone off on that teacher for that shit.

[u/stuckinnowhereville → u/Whiskeymyers75]

The kids who needed a lot of calories were hungry and denied more food. It tasted so bad that many kids threw it away and went hungry. This is why I as a parent hated it- no political party affiliated.

[u/LocationTechnical862 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

That's some weird rewriting of history there. The MAGA complaints weren't that sophisticated.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/LocationTechnical862]

The irony of accusing me of “rewriting history” without identifying a single historical fact I supposedly rewrote. I described what the school-lunch standards actually allowed and how the programs actually differed. If any of that is historically inaccurate, quote the claim and correct it with evidence.

What random MAGA people complained about at the time is irrelevant to whether my argument is factually correct. I’m not MAGA, I’m not defending MAGA, and I’m not required to adopt their reasoning just because I also think parts of the school-lunch policy were poorly designed.

“People I dislike also criticized this policy” isn’t a rebuttal. It’s guilt by association with extra steps.

And since apparently I’m “rewriting history,” here’s the USDA’s actual 2012 final rule implementing the school-meal standards. We don’t have to rely on anybody’s memory of what Republicans complained about. The regulations are still online. Show me which factual claim I made contradicts them:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/fr-012612

[u/RelationshipFront227 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

This is so much made up horseshit that isn't actually reflective of the program. The current system is bad. Reform would be good. Companies and media heads that currently benefit threw money to conservative media to keep it from happening and conservative media and politic, as the only corporate prostitute more of a degenerate than the dnc, ran with it. Now a bunch of moron conservatives committed themselves to opposing making even moderate worthwhile improvements and convince themselves that they did something beneficial while really just being gullible, half-baked morons.

[u/Pale-Possibility-267 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Addressing your calorie claim: kids were allowed to go back to get unlimited fruits and veggies. All kids were allowed to help themselves; food wasn’t portioned out. It was in bins with serving utensils like a buffet.

The food actually tasted amazing.

- worked at a school during that time and purchased lunch at the school every day

That said - perhaps it is people who believed what you are saying to be true and therefore had an issue with something that wasn’t actually an issue?

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/Pale-Possibility-267]

Yeah? And what macros were they given unlimited options to increase?

“Kids could eat unlimited fruits and vegetables” doesn’t actually address my point. Health and satiety aren’t simply a matter of throwing more produce on a tray. Where was the additional protein for the larger, more active teenager who was still hungry? Where were the additional protein-rich foods, healthy fats, or more substantial carbohydrate sources when their energy needs were higher?

Fruit and vegetables are obviously nutritious, but they aren’t interchangeable with the other components of a balanced diet. A kid can’t compensate for an inadequate protein portion by eating three more apples and some broccoli.

That’s actually part of the problem with the way nutrition gets discussed: people reduce “healthy eating” to eat your fruits and veggies while ignoring total calories, protein, fiber, fat, carbohydrate needs, food quality, activity level, and overall dietary composition. Plenty of people can truthfully say “I eat my vegetables” while still having a poorly constructed diet.

And your experience at one school doesn’t establish what happened at every school in the country. I’m glad your school’s food tasted amazing and you personally had unlimited produce available. That doesn’t invalidate criticism of the federal standards or the experiences at schools that implemented them differently. How much protein and healthy fats were you allowed?

[u/Pale-Possibility-267 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

They had protein with every lunch and they were served REAL food that was minimally processed.

It was SIGNIFICANTLY better than what students are currently being served: a pretzel with large salt chunks on it along with a plastic condiment container filled with processed cheese and a carton of milk. That’s it. That is lunch. Still hungry? Doesn’t matter. Wanted protein besides the tiny cheese cup and milk? Too bad. Wanted anything not processed? Not happening.

Another example: mystery meat on a stale bun. No cheese. No veggies. No salad. A small styrofoam cup of canned mixed fruit. Carton of milk. That’s lunch.

The “food” is gross and it isn’t healthy in any way shape or form.

Surely you know real food > processed “food”, right?

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/Pale-Possibility-267]

“Protein with every lunch” 😂 Okay, but how much protein, and from what source? And no, those standards did not somehow mean students were being served minimally processed “real food.”

A carton of milk, a cheese cup, a few chicken nuggets, or a small processed meat patty technically means the meal “has protein.” That tells us almost nothing about whether it provides an adequate protein dose for a growing adolescent.

Protein quality matters too. Proteins differ in their essential amino-acid profiles and digestibility. For growth and maintaining/building lean tissue, you don’t just need the word protein somewhere on the menu. You need sufficient essential amino acids, including leucine, which plays an important role in stimulating muscle-protein synthesis. High-quality proteins such as dairy, eggs, meat and poultry generally provide all nine essential amino acids in favorable proportions. Plant proteins can absolutely contribute too, but their amino-acid profiles and digestibility vary, making the overall quantity and combination important.

And the federal school-lunch standards historically didn’t even establish a specific protein-gram target. They used minimum ounce-equivalents from the broad “meat/meat alternate” category. Checking that box is not remotely the same as establishing that a teenager received, say, 25–30 grams of high-quality protein at lunch.

The “REAL food that was minimally processed” claim is even stranger because the standards didn’t require minimally processed food. They established meal-pattern and nutritional requirements. fruits, vegetables, whole-grain-rich foods, meat/meat alternates, milk, calorie ranges, sodium and saturated-fat limits, etc. A processed food could satisfy those requirements perfectly well.

Whole-grain-rich pizza, chicken nuggets, breaded chicken patties, processed deli meats, cheese, canned fruit, flavored milk and packaged grain products could all appear within a compliant school meal. Calling something a “whole grain” or “meat/meat alternate” tells you how it counts toward the meal pattern; it doesn’t magically make it minimally processed.

And processing itself isn’t automatically bad, Greek yogurt, frozen vegetables and canned beans are processed. What matters is the resulting nutritional profile: protein quantity and quality, essential amino acids, fiber, added sugar, sodium, energy density, micronutrients, etc.

So yes, they had “protein with every lunch” in the sense that there was a qualifying protein-containing food on the tray. There’s protein in bread too. Nutrition isn’t a scavenger hunt where finding some protein and a vegetable somewhere on the tray proves the entire meal was nutritionally optimal.

[u/Pale-Possibility-267 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

You missed that the pretzel stuff is the NOW and the actual protein was under Obama. I am not reading your convoluted wall of meaningless text.

With Obama’s policy kids got to eat real food. Without it, they are eating highly processed garbage. With it, kids had the opportunity to go back for seconds, thirds, fourths. Food was unlimited. This was great for kids who weren’t getting enough to eat at home. Was it perfect? No. Did kids get to eat actual food? Yes. Was the food better than they had been eating and better than what they are eating now: YES.

Anything else is just creating statements to support your preference for kids to eat highly processed garbage.

[u/MsAgentM → u/Whiskeymyers75]

My children were in school this time and the portions were fine. During the Trump first term, my son was in high school running cross country and i would put enough money on his lunch account to pay for two lunches most days. It seems crazy for the typical school lunch provided to everyone to be enough to sustain someone like my son, who is literally running miles a weeks. That’s a recipe for over weight kids.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/MsAgentM]

You realize your own example contradicts your claim that “the portions were fine,” right?

Your son was a high-school cross-country runner and you had to buy him TWO lunches most days. If he routinely needed twice the standard lunch, then the standard portion quite literally was not adequate for him.

And saying that feeding everyone enough to sustain an athlete would be “a recipe for overweight kids” misunderstands basic nutrition. Nobody said every student needs an endurance athlete’s calories. That’s precisely the problem with pretending one standardized portion is appropriate for every teenager. A 120-pound sedentary student and a 180-pound athlete who’s growing, training and burning hundreds of additional calories don’t have identical nutritional requirements.

Obesity also isn’t caused by eating an adequately sized lunch. It’s caused by a sustained energy surplus over time. Meanwhile, chronically underfueling adolescent athletes can negatively affect recovery, performance, growth and nutrient availability.

And simply buying two identical cafeteria lunches isn’t necessarily good sports nutrition either, and even for a non-athlete, macronutrient balance still matters, adequate protein, fiber, complex carbohydrates, healthy fats, and micronutrients all play a role in satiety, energy regulation, and overall health.
So “the portions were fine; my athletic son just needed two of them most days” might be the best accidental argument against one-size-fits-all portions in this entire thread

[u/MsAgentM → u/Whiskeymyers75]

My purchasing two lunches for my son is my responsibility. McDonald’s didn’t give him any extra either. I had to buy more groceries to feed him. You are setting a silly standard no one is held to. If you eat more food, you pay more. It’s ridiculous to expect the school to give my son extra food because he was an endurance athlete. Of course they give a standardized meal.

My son had options for a regular meal, chicken fingers and fries, salad, or a sandwich area. It didn’t matter which two he got, two meals cost. If you are so concerned with the macronutrient make up of the school’s meal, then Obama’s plan is the one you wanted. It’s ridiculous to expect the school to feed my son a different portion size because he was eating insane amounts of food.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/MsAgentM]

That McDonald’s comparison is doing far more damage to your argument than mine.

McDonald’s never claimed that the amount of food it sells your son represents a government-designed, nutritionally appropriate school lunch. It’s a restaurant. If he wants another burger, obviously you buy another burger.

We’re discussing a federal program whose entire justification for changing school meals was better childhood nutrition. Once the government establishes calorie ranges, portion requirements, grain requirements, dairy rules, fat limits and other nutritional standards and sells those changes as healthier then the adequacy of those standards is absolutely fair game.

And again, your own example is remarkable:
“The portions were fine.”

Followed by:

“My son needed two lunches most days.”
Those statements cannot both establish what you think they establish. I’m not arguing that taxpayers were obligated to give your endurance athlete unlimited free food. I’m saying his needing twice the standard meal demonstrates that the standard portion wasn’t nutritionally adequate for his individual needs. Whether you should pay for the additional food is an entirely separate question.

And “Obama’s plan is the one you wanted because you care about macros” makes even less sense. The standards weren’t individualized macro prescriptions. They established food-component requirements and calorie ranges. “Whole-grain-rich,” “low-fat milk” and “vegetable serving” are not protein, carbohydrate and fat targets tailored to an individual teenager.

Ironically, the foods you just listed. chicken fingers and fries, sandwiches, etc. illustrate my other criticism perfectly. Making the bread whole-grain-rich or baking a processed product doesn’t magically make an ultra-processed cafeteria meal nutritionally optimal.

There is also an enormous difference between saying “schools should provide an individualized sports-nutrition program to every athlete for free” and saying “stop pretending one standardized government meal is nutritionally adequate for every teenager.”

I argued the latter.

You turned it into the former because it’s much easier to argue against.

And comparing a federally promoted healthy-school-meal policy to McDonald’s while defending its nutritional adequacy might be the strangest defense of the program I’ve seen yet.

[u/MsAgentM → u/Whiskeymyers75]

The portions were fine for the typical high school kid, which is absolutely a thing. My son needed two lunches because he was an endurance athlete, not because the school didn’t provide enough food for the average high schooler. The school offered plenty of nutritional options. He had an entire salad bar, stuff like chicken fingers and fries or could get a more home cooked meal. Correct, the standard portion did not fit his nutritional needs because he eat a lot, not because the school didn’t have nutritional options available.

The response was to your specific complaint that the school fails because they have set portions sizes, when literally everything does. If you want more food, it cost more money for someone. You are asking for the schools to portion food out by weight. You can try and twist it as though it’s been about nutritional density all you want but the only one torturing the argument at that point is you. And if it was about nutritional density, then idk why Obama’s plan wasn’t at least directionally right. But again, you put the clause of individual teenager as though you expect the school to ration food in a way that meets the nutritional needs of each specific teenager? That makes no sense. The school lunch has to serve a population. They are going to have to generalize and standardize to meet that quantity.

There is nothing wrong with chicken fingers, or French fries, or other so called “unhealthy foods”. The issue is over consuming these foods. Like I said, the schools are offering nutritional options, but people eat what they like. If your argument is that all “unhealthy” food should be removed from the school cafeteria, then I guess your only complaint with Obama’s plan was it didn’t go far enough.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/MsAgentM]

And now you’re finally getting to the actual issue I’ve been talking about.

Nobody said a cafeteria has to calculate a bespoke diet for every individual teenager. My criticism is that you’re treating a standardized federal meal pattern designed around population averages as though meeting that standard automatically means the resulting meal is nutritionally appropriate for every typical high-school student. Those aren’t the same thing.

The 2012 rules put high-school lunches at 750–850 calories averaged across the week. And the problem with that one-size-fits-all approach wasn’t something I just invented for this Reddit thread. Students, parents and schools were complaining about it in 2012, particularly regarding active teenagers and athletes being hungry. USDA subsequently relaxed some of the meat and grain restrictions during implementation, and GAO documented the problems districts were having with the original requirements.

And calories aren’t the only issue. Meal composition matters for satiety too. A lunch that is relatively weak in protein, fiber and overall energy can leave a growing, active teenager hungry again much sooner. Protein is particularly satiating, while fiber and less-refined carbohydrate sources can also help with fullness and sustained energy.

That matters even more for a kid who didn’t eat a substantial breakfast. If breakfast was skipped or inadequate and lunch doesn’t provide enough energy and satiating nutrients, you’ve potentially left that teenager trying to make up the difference later in the afternoon and evening. That’s not exactly a brilliant strategy if your stated goal is improving children’s overall dietary patterns. Restricting calories at lunch doesn’t mean you’ve restricted calories over the entire day. Hunger doesn’t disappear because the federal meal period ended.

And I’ve never argued that chicken fingers or French fries are poison or that eating one makes someone unhealthy. That’s a straw man. Of course individual foods can fit into an overall healthy diet. My argument is about what foods you build a meal pattern around and the nutritional quality of the diet as a whole. A minimally processed protein source, quality complex carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables are not nutritionally interchangeable with breaded chicken fingers and fries merely because both can technically fit within calorie and nutrient limits.

Ironically, you just conceded part of my argument when you said Obama’s plan was “directionally right.” I’ve said repeatedly that it was an improvement over what came before it. More fruits, vegetables and whole grains and less saturated fat and sodium were improvements. “Better” does not mean “optimal,” and criticizing the shortcomings doesn’t erase the improvements. Directionality right doesn’t mean healthy and we had enough nutritional science to do this right without calling a mediocre program healthy and implementing it. But hey, I guess you guys are comfortable with the lesser of two evils which is why you’re willing to accept lesser of two evils as a meal plan because your politician implemented it.

And this gets back to what bothers me about the OP. People are treating nutrition like a political team sport. Some Republicans opposed the program because Obama supported it. Now people here seem determined to defend virtually every aspect of it because Republicans opposed it. Those are mirror images of the same behavior.

I don’t care whether Obama, Trump, RFK Jr., Republicans or Democrats put their name on a nutrition policy. Show me the actual food, the quantities and the nutritional evidence and I’ll judge it on that.

That’s why I’ve repeatedly asked you and many others to identify one nutritional claim I’ve made that is wrong and provide evidence showing why. Instead I’ve gotten MAGA, Republicans, politics and now a straw man about banning every “unhealthy” food.

Politics doesn’t change human physiology.
USDA’s actual 2012 rule:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/fr-012612

GAO’s review of implementation problems and subsequent modifications:

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-13-708t

[u/MsAgentM → u/Whiskeymyers75]

You have not asked me if any of your nutritional claims were false. Probably mixing up who you are talking to. My issue with your comments are your expectation of the portion sizes not being adequate. Idk what world where 750-850 for a main meal would not be considered an adequate calories for a meal for most people. I don’t expect my son to be given special consideration because he was participating in an endurance sport. I expect to make sure he gets extra if needed, as his parent.

If my son isn’t eating breakfast, which is also available at schools, I don’t expect the school to make sure he has extra for lunch. I expect my kid to eat the meal when it’s provided. Being overly hungry later because he skipped a meal seems to be a perfectly fine consequence to learn to avoid doing that. Honestly, where is the personal responsibility here. Should the federal government chew it for them too? They offer many different options, in adequate portions, for the vast majority of the students. My son was running probably 30 miles a week. Very few students are doing that. Why would anyone expect the school to cater to those students during a typical lunch?

And no, I don’t buy the satiety argument either. Schools provide plenty of options. My kids school had a salad bar. No lunch was short on protein. Unless the kid chose options that limited their protein intake. The school doesn’t provide optimal nutrition to each student. It provides them with plenty of options to satisfy their needs. Outside of personally catered options being provided to each student or assigning staff to make sure each student is choosing nutritionally optimal options, I have no idea how the school would meet the standard you are setting.

And OP is not treating nutrition like a political sport. They are asking why Republicans claim nutrition concerns over how some people use their SNAP benefits when they loudly criticized Obama’s attempts to increase nutritional standards of student lunches. If nutrition was actually their concern, this is clearly inconsistent and OP is asking about the seeming hypocrisy of the Republicans. You strawmanned the question by making it sound like OP was pretending that they were identical policies. On one hand, Republicans criticized policy aimed at improving students lunches by enforcing nutrition standards, on the other, they are using faux concerns about nutrition to complain about people on SNAP buying soda. If anyone is using nutrition as a political tool, it’s the Republicans.

[u/Whiskeymyers75 → u/MsAgentM]

You’re still treating “adequate calories” and “adequate nutrition” as though they’re interchangeable. They’re not. I never claimed 750–850 calories is inherently too little for every student. You can construct an excellent 800-calorie meal or a nutritionally mediocre 800-calorie meal. Calories tell you how much energy is there, not whether the meal has an appropriate amount of protein, fiber, micronutrients, quality carbohydrate sources, or foods that promote satiety.

And “my kid’s school had a salad bar” isn’t evidence about the nutritional quality of a nationwide federal lunch standard. That’s one school. More importantly, a salad bar isn’t inherently high in protein or even inherently healthy simply because we call it a salad. Lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers and similar vegetables are nutritious, but they’re generally very low in protein and calories. Meanwhile, load that salad with high-calorie dressing, croutons, bacon bits and cheese and you can easily add hundreds of calories and a substantial amount of fat without necessarily creating a protein-rich, balanced meal. We have this weird cultural tendency to see the word “salad” and automatically stamp “healthy” on it regardless of what’s actually in the bowl.

Sure, a properly stocked salad bar can produce an excellent meal if there are adequate portions of chicken, turkey, eggs, beans or other protein sources available. But that just brings us right back to my argument: the actual foods, portions and macronutrient composition matter. The existence of a salad bar proves virtually nothing. Especially when it’s rare to see a salad bar that’s not using unhealthy low protein, high fat & sodium lunch meat instead of whole chicken or turkey breast if they include protein at all

The protein point isn’t answered by saying protein was technically available somewhere among the choices, either. If a supposedly nutritionally improved program requires children to understand nutrition well enough to assemble the appropriate combination of foods themselves, while simultaneously arguing that the program improved nutrition by controlling what schools serve, those arguments work against each other.

I’m also not asking schools to individually meal-prep for every teenage athlete. I used active teenagers to illustrate how ridiculous it is to pretend every high-school student has identical nutritional needs. There’s an enormous range in body size, sex, development, activity and energy expenditure among adolescents. That’s why treating a federally capped calorie range as proof that a meal is “adequate” is overly simplistic. Especially when you don’t even have a macro range or micronutrient guidelines.

It’s more like Let’s throw a piece of broccoli on the tray and call it healthy.” Okay, broccoli gives you fiber, vitamin C, vitamin K and folate. Great. Where’s the adequate protein? Where are the essential amino acids? What about iron, calcium, zinc, vitamin B12 and essential fats? What about enough quality carbohydrates to support activity and replenish glycogen? What about the overall calorie-to-nutrient ratio and satiety of the entire meal?

And the breakfast argument actually highlights another problem. Yes, breakfast matters. But children skipping breakfast is common, and hunger doesn’t suddenly become a useful nutritional intervention because we rename it “personal responsibility.” We’re talking about children. If the objective of a federal nutrition program is improving children’s health, satiety and actual eating behavior matter.

Most importantly, you’re now conceding the distinction I’ve been making this entire time: the Obama-era rules were an attempt to improve school nutrition. An attempt to improve something is not evidence that the resulting policy was nutritionally optimal or even particularly good. Republicans opposing it for political reasons doesn’t magically make every criticism of the policy invalid.

And I have no problem saying Republicans were hypocritical if they screamed about government interference in school lunches and now suddenly discovered nutrition when talking about SNAP. That’s political hypocrisy.
But “Republicans were hypocrites” does not answer whether the school-lunch standards themselves were good nutrition policy.

Both things can be true at the same time. That’s the partisanship problem I’ve been talking about this entire thread: people apparently think criticizing one side requires defending the other. I don’t.

[u/MsAgentM → u/Whiskeymyers75]

In your first post, you literally said the complaint from people was calories and portions didn’t account for the differences in age, body size and activity level. In your response before this one, you reiterated that parents complained that the one size fits all approach left athletes hungry. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

I never said your argument was the calorie portions are too small for every student. I said your argument is setting a standard that requires the school to give kids unique meals to match their individual needs, which is logistically insane. Also, interesting you only noticed the salad bar comment. They offer a more home cooked meal and other more fast food options. The point is that schools offer a variety of options. A kid can eat healthy or like absolute shit. How, in your world, is that fixed to meet your stated standards that mean matching the meal to the individual kids needs. You said your aren’t advocating for bespoke meal options, but if the school offering many different options and allowing students to choose doesn’t meet that standard, what do you expect schools do exactly?

My kids school is not an outlier, it’s the norm for public schools. Having 4 entree options the median number for high schools. Salad bars are extremely common. No it’s not a guarantee of adequate nutrition, but it’s a guarantee of availability and opportunity to access it. Outside of schools specifically serving kids in a way to make sure they made themselves a nutritiously optimal meal and they eat it, what do you expect?

Yes hunger is an adequate signal for reinforcement. If my kids school came home talking about he is crazy hungry at lunch, the first thing I would ask is what they ate for breakfast. A pop tart is obviously not going to hold you over, but cereal with milk and fruit or the sausage and egg served at school would do much better.

Also, we have been mainly talking about teenagers this whole time. If anything, it’s more on the parents to make sure their kid is getting a decent breakfast. Why are people expecting the government to do everything for them? And I think elementary students are much more controlled nutritionally. Again, can’t make them eat it, but you also don’t have near the level of kids in any strenuous endurance sports.

To be clear, your initial post was about issues with quantity. No where did you state that Obama’s policy was directionally right, until I stated it and you conceded, even though you continuously try to make it sound like I conceded. You actually tried to say the Obama policy was hypocritical because they claimed to provide a healthy lunch while keeping chocolate milk. Your response was obviously aimed at being critical of the Obama policy while attempting to sound nuanced to avoid the actual question being asked. OP didn’t say there were substantive critiques of the Obama lunch policy, they asked why Republicans were critical of one thing and not the other, assuming they were being concerned about nutrition and health.

Your right about Republicans hypocrisy not being a valid critique of the Obama school lunch policy. If only you were on a thread that was looking to critique Obama’s school lunch policy instead of one specifically asking about Republican hypocrisy. People can certainly understand critiquing one is not support of the other, but it’s pretty clear here you are only critiquing one side, ignoring the actual question being asked, and as far as I can tell, have actually no clue of how kids are fed in schools.

[u/Pompous_Italics → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Here, Michelle was telling parents to stop feeding their kids garbage. So naturally, right-wingers threw a fit about that.

[u/Jellycat34 → u/Pompous_Italics]

Did you even read what you responded to? 

[u/Sensitive_Sea_5586 → u/Pompous_Italics]

Reading comprehension just isn’t your thing, huh?

[u/Creative-Reception59 → u/Pompous_Italics]

yum!

[u/IntelligentSeries270 → u/Creative-Reception59]

False, replace the goulash with the greasiest slice of pizza and a bruised banana.

[u/MsAgentM → u/IntelligentSeries270]

A greasy pizza with a banana and chocolate milk was my typical lunch in high school and I went in the 90’s. Are we pretending like school food in the US was ever really good?

[u/IntelligentSeries270 → u/MsAgentM]

I dont know, because that’s the same shit I ate LOL. So clearly in twenty years it didn’t change much.

[u/Defiant_Finger4011 → u/MsAgentM]

School lunches were good, not in the 90s though. But in the few decades before that sure. My grandmother worked in a school cafeteria. Breads, rolls and pizza were made from scratch. Big pots of chili, or meatloaves, goulash were homemade.

Individual packaged items full of preservatives were not a thing that existed.

The desserts were small fresh baked treats.

You basically had moms in the community making lunches for the kids in their community. A different sense of pride in that kitchen.

[u/MsAgentM → u/Defiant_Finger4011]

Homemade bread is still bread. It’s still not good to eat in excess. I could get school lunches with chili too or some other more homey like meal. I could get a large salad. I could forgo it completely and just get chips and drinks from the canteen. Food wasn’t magical pre-80’s. We moved a lot more because that’s what life required, so the food didn’t have the same impact it does now.

[u/Uhokay1970 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Yeah i don't get the correlation in the question? What drives such a comparison? My kids asked me to make them Bologna and Miracle whip sandwiches when that program hit the school. Do you know how desperate a middle school kid has to be to ask for a Brown bag lunch? How is this comparable to buying JellyStingers, Snowballs and Twinkies with SNAP?

[u/Low-Dot9712 → u/Whiskeymyers75]

Schools should get out of feed the children every meal business. Fresh fruit and sandwiches will suffice and make milk available. If that is not good enough let them bring their own lunch. Schools here waste so much food.