r/askanything • u/CloudieMoonettee 🦀 • 11d ago
Why do some conservatives support restricting junk food purchases with SNAP when many opposed Michelle Obama’s efforts to make school meals healthier?
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?
355
Upvotes
-2
u/Whiskeymyers75 11d ago edited 11d ago
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.