Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum,* writes on NRO that the newly signed Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will ?lead to a greater reliance on the badly managed school food programs while simultaneously weakening the very institution that might be the key to solving the problems of childhood obesity?good parenting.? It is unconvincing to argue that a bill whose main purpose, whatever other unsavory odds and ends made their way into its 200-plus pages, is to improve the quality and nutrition of the fare being served in school cafeterias will undermine good parenting. Is Gunlock suggesting that were the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act not to become law bad parents would suddenly begin making virtuous child-rearing choices? Or is she suggesting that the bill's signing will transform current practitioners of good parenting into uncaring adults? Makes no sense.
The bottom line is this: Lots and lots of kids count on school food for their sustenance. School food is currently lousy, and this law will absolutely make it better. Unlike improving education, improving food is easy?more money buys more healthful products, stricter nutrition standards mean better nutrition, mandating more green vegetables means more green vegetables. Gunlock is right that the federal government has mismanaged the school food program and probably will continue to do so. But that's the program and the government we have, and neither is going anywhere. So why not try, at the very least, to make sure that kids who eat the food the?USDA provides?don't eat?garbage? Time to dismount the ideological hobby horse.
* A group that is, according to its website, ?dedicated to building support for free markets, limited government, and individual responsibility? and combating ?the too-common presumption that women want and benefit from big government.?
?Liam Julian, Bernard Lee Schwartz Policy Fellow