Who's afraid of a healthy school lunch?

In Japan, most schools serve freshly prepared, nutritionally balanced lunches — often rice, fish or meat, soup and vegetables. French cafeterias typically offer multi-course meals that might include salad, a main dish, bread, cheese and dessert.

By contrast, many Americans recall their own school lunches as far less appealing.

Some of us remember rectangular pizza with cheese the consistency of plastic, topped with tiny cubes of what was described as "pepperoni." Wilted lettuce doused in watery dressing passed off as salads. Mashed potatoes out of a box and mystery meatloaf. It's hard to imagine there was much nutritional value in any of the food we were fed.

So why not make it better?

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has launched an initiative to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches — a move that, despite his controversial reputation on other issues, deserves serious consideration.

It's not as if this is a partisan notion, and people of all political persuasions have taken on the cause of championing better nutrition for school kids, which certainly encourages better cognitive function and makes it easier for kids to check in — rather than out — of the classroom during the school day.

Over a decade ago, Chicago Public Schools kicked off its Farm to School initiative, incorporating produce and other products from local farms into the district's lunch program.

"The program influences food purchasing to allow students to gain access to healthy, local foods," according to the district website.

Around the same time, New York City piloted a "Fruit and Vegetable Prescription Program" that let doctors give low-income patients vouchers for fresh produce — including pediatric patients — recognizing the role of diet in health and the barriers many families face in affording healthy food.

These trends of the 2010s are also absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the current conversation about what kids should be eating in schools.

The HHS secretary initially announced his school lunch initiative in the spring, but now with school starting across much of the country, administrators are grappling with what updated guidelines would mean for their meal programs and their bottom lines.

His plan calls for removing processed foods and synthetic dyes from school meals, citing evidence that about 70% of the food served in these programs is ultra-processed. Research shows the stakes are high. In 2023, children were 15% to 20% more likely to have a chronic condition than in 2011, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. And 1 in 5 young people in the U.S. are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

This isn't about fat or skinny, this is about being healthy. And these numbers are alarming, which makes action worthwhile.

Of course, idealism always hits a brick wall when it runs up against the harsh reality of budget constraints and sourcing difficulties. Moving to a school meal model centered on whole, locally sourced foods would likely demand major new investments in food, infrastructure and staffing. Securing that funding could be challenging.

Yes, it will cost money, but a chronically unhealthy U.S. population is costly too.

Past reforms — from eliminating trans fats to adding more fresh produce — once seemed impossible too. The payoff in healthier kids, sharper minds and fewer long-term health costs is worth the investment.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Chicago Tribune
(TNS)
Previously:
• 08/06/25: Joe Rogan belonged on Time's list of best podcasts
• 07/22/25: At a Coldplay concert, a kiss cam catches a cuddle and ruins lives
• 06/26/25: Want to know how a socialist mayor would govern New York City? Just ask Chicago
• 06/11/25: Hoping for a bond market crash to take down MAGA?
• 05/06/25: The Biden health saga should remind the media to tell the truth
• 05/06/25: Dems are doubling down on vulgar language. To what end?
• 02/25/25: Antisemitic fears in Windy City coalesce around a controversial puppet
• 02/05/25: Want a low-stress job with lots of time off? This state says it wants to recruit you
• 01/28/25: We are in a mental health crisis. A 'moonshot' is needed
• 11/07/24: Trump's win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes
• 03/21/24: Crypto's improbable comeback is cause for cheer --- and prudence
• 02/20/24: Don't write off fake meat just yet
• 11/23/23: Critical thinking is losing out to TikTok. A Thanksgiving intervention might help
• 11/23/23: Did the maker of Oreos surreptitiously cut the creme-to-cookie ratio?
• 11/15/23: David Cameron, a former British PM, makes a surprise return as Suella Braverman gets the chop. Is there a lesson here for the US?
• 10/23/23: Turns out it's bad business to jack prices just because you can
• 09/28/23: Here's why President Joe Biden should not have joined the UAW picket line
• 07/28/23: Surprise! Some good news from the IRS
• 06/07/23: Supreme Court just fired a shot at delinquent property taxes
• 05/05/23: Can't force an unprofitable grocery store to remain open
• 03/06/23: A powerful paper comes clean about its 'China virus' coverage
• 02/08/22: Facebook flops and The New York Times buys a puzzle. What's going on?