Donald Trump’s new budget proposal includes huge cuts to many agencies and organizations that do great things, such as the EPA, the UN, and the World Bank. But the budget would also make significant cuts to social welfare programs, including Meals on Wheels, which delivers food to senior citizens who are unable to shop or cook themselves. Cuts would also apply to after-school programs that feed poor children.

In a press conference on Thursday, budget chief Mick Mulvaney defended the budget outline. He said that Meals on Wheels “sounds great” but that it’s unfair to taxpayers to use their money for something that doesn’t have a proven effect. He even called the decision to cut Meals on Wheels “one of the most compassionate things we can do.”

Trying to explain his viewpoint, Mulvaney told reporters that they are focusing only on the recipients of the money, while they should be focusing on the poor people that give their hard earned money. “And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, ‘Look, we’re not going to ask you for your hard-earned money anymore… unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually going to be used in a proper function,” he said. Per the budget draft those “proper functions” mostly involve national security.

Mulvaney’s comments led to some angry comments on social media.

@ParaComedian09 People living is the god damn result

— Erin M Barlow (@ErinMBarlow) March 16, 2017

Mick Mulvaney says Meals on Wheels “not showing any results.” Actual peer-reviewed research says otherwise. https://t.co/B6ZRxtWIAf pic.twitter.com/YI6jiAgMBk

— Christopher Ingraham (@_cingraham) March 16, 2017

The Mick Mulvaney presser right now has made it clear that Republicans have become the party of cruelty. Sad for America.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) March 16, 2017

Mulvaney also implied that he doesn’t see any proof that a well-fed child does better in school than a hungry one. The new budget would cut after-school programs, which often provide food for poor kids so that they can perform better in school. “They’re supposed to help kids who don’t get fed at home get fed so they do better in school. Guess what? There’s no demonstrable evidence they’re actually doing that,” he said.

That Mulvaney wants to deprive children who might not get enough food at home from a meal at school was just too much for some.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is shameless: “No evidence free meals to kids improves performance” https://t.co/yzDerB7tb0

— Aaron Vallely (@Vallmeister) March 17, 2017

you, a hungry child: “please sir, can i have breakfast”

me, a mick mulvaney: “that’s not efficient”

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 16, 2017

If Mulvaney needs some proof for why Meals on Wheels is a good idea, the nonprofit group itself can provide it. The group’s workers provide food for more than 2.4 million seniors every year. A 2013 study showed that the home-delivered meals “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.” Also, by making sure these citizens get fed, Meals on Wheels makes sure that they don’t need to move into a nursing home just yet. That’s a pretty good way to save money on healthcare.

And it comes to those after-school programs, it’s important to note that as many as 21 percent of kids in the U.S. live in poverty, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. Many kids even get the majority of their meals at school. “Recent studies have demonstrated that nutrition affects students’ thinking skills, behavior, and health, all factors that impact academic performance,” a 2014 study from Wilder Research stated, which makes sense to anyone who has ever tried to work on an empty stomach.

These kids are the people that will make up the workforce in a couple of years. Insufficient nutrition will definitely not help them excel academically, or physically for that matter. If this kind of thinking doesn’t change soon, the future of this country doesn’t look very bright.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mick Mulvaney: No Evidence After-School Meals or Meals on Wheels Work appeared first on Law Street.

Americans all have different relationships to food. I didn’t know that you could buy applesauce in a jar until I went to college. I was aware that you could get soup in a can but I had never experienced it personally. My mother and grandmother made these things from scratch. So there were no food labels indicating the nutritional value on any of these items, but following Michael Pollan’s advice to not eat anything that my grandmother would not have recognized as food, the nutritional value wasn’t something we worried about calculating with numbers. It just felt wholesome.

However, not everyone has the luxury of making food from scratch. Americans increasingly rely on processed foods to replace or supplement home-cooked meals. These foods are convenient and often a cheaper alternative. In some cases, they are the only option, since many Americans live in “food deserts.” A food desert is a location where grocery stores that carry fresh produce are more than a mile away and residents don’t have access to them via a car or public transportation. Neighborhoods like this tend to have grocery stores that only have processed food options. A lot of food deserts are in urban areas, but there are also some in rural communities as well, because if the nearest store where you can buy a tomato is five miles away and you lose or don’t have access to your car, you have a very long walk to purchase a tomato.

You can actually go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and take a look at food deserts around the country.

Since Americans are either being forced–through economic necessity or location–or choose to consume more processed foods, efforts have been made to make the labeling on these foods easier for consumers to understand. The strategy adopted by the White House, as part of Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat obesity, has been to modify our existing food labeling. But there may be other ways to label our food that better informs consumers and encourage them to make different choices.

Facts Up Front Food Labels

Our current food labeling method is called the “facts up front” system, which utilizes a black-and-white label on the back of the product, with some key facts also displayed on the front of the product. In the following video, Allison Aubrey of NPR explains some of the changes that were made to the facts up front system that will hopefully make it more user-friendly for consumers.

The two main changes to the labeling system, which are designed to promote healthier choices, are the modifications in serving size and the “added sugar” reference on the label. With the previous labeling system, it was not always clear to consumers that what they consider a “serving” and what a “serving” actually is for the purposes of calculating the calories are rarely the same thing. For example, a 24-ounce bottle of coke, which many adults would drink with their meal and think of as a “serving” because it was in one unit, might actually be 2.5 servings. So the number of calories listed was not the number calories in the bottle, which would be much higher than what people were actually consuming.

The other major modification designed to assist consumers is the “added sugar” valuation. Most people don’t realize that sugar is put into nearly all processed foods, even ones that aren’t sweet. Salad dressing, for example, often has sugar added to it. The added sugar value is designed to alert consumers to the hidden sugars in their foods, which are a huge driver for obesity and other health risks.

These changes to the food labels may, in fact, help consumers make better choices. A majority of Americans do look at food labels when they are deciding whether to purchase a food item, so making sure that they are better able to understand the number of calories and nutritional value of the food they are about to consume may help them avoid (at least most of the time) foods that are unwise to eat. If sales for a particular food decline because consumers are changing their behavior, that may even encourage manufacturers to alter the amount of sugar and fat they use to attract more health-conscious consumers.

But there is another way that we can label our food that might be even more beneficial to the consumer.

Traffic Light Labeling

This video explains some of the studies conducted that compare the facts up front food labeling system with an alternative option known as the “traffic light” system. As the name suggests, the traffic light labeling system uses red, green, and yellow/orange to indicate that a nutrient level is healthy or unhealthy. For example, a food that has low fat and low fiber would have a green circle that says low fat (which is a good thing) and a red circle that says low fiber (which would be bad). Glancing at it quickly, if you saw a string of red circles on the label you would know that this food should be eaten in moderation or avoided completely. In contrast, a food with a lot of green circles is something that you can eat more frequently.

Here is the good news: both kinds of food labels will be helpful if you are trying to decide between two different kinds of products. If your choice is between a bag of Fritos and a bag of sourdough pretzels then either the facts up front type of labeling or the traffic light labeling is going to help you know which choice is healthier. However, when you are looking at a product by itself and trying to decide if it is a good choice the traffic light system is much better at helping you make an informed decision.

The traffic light system may be of more use to people as they actually shop than facts up front food labels. It depends on how people make their purchasing decisions. If consumers are going to the store and holding two types of bread in front of them to try to figure out which one is healthier, then the facts up front label is just fine. But if they are reaching for a salad dressing on its own, not comparison shopping, a facts up front label may not alert them to the fact that it is a bad choice, whereas a traffic light label with a red warning circle that says “high sugar” may be more effective at steering consumers away from that product. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a prevalence of red labels will lead to a reduction in purchases, which is why food manufacturers in Europe are resistant to the implementation of the traffic light label system. Its use in the U.K. is voluntary for manufacturers.

The facts up front system actually leads consumers to make the wrong estimates. It encourages people to think there are more good nutrients in a product than there actually are and fewer bad nutrients. Overall, the traffic light label was easier for consumers to understand, since it can be confusing to think about the recommended daily value of a nutrient and to make the necessary calculation. But a red warning on a package is immediately perceived as “don’t eat this!”

It’s unclear how the traffic light system might affect consumers and manufacturers but the system has been used in the U.K. to try to combat label confusion. Ideally, any labeling system that we use should tell consumers as clearly as possible which products are healthy and/or exactly how unhealthy for you a particular junk food is. And hopefully, that would reduce the amount of particularly unhealthy junk food people consume. But a good labeling system will also influence manufacturer behavior and the traffic light system may be even better at that than a facts up front label. Manufacturers may not want to put a series of red circles on their products, increasing the perception that they are unhealthy, so they might modify their product to get the label reduced from red to yellow.

Conclusion

In a perfect environment, the food labeling system could be complicated and consumers would have the time needed to analyze each product for its relative health merits. As a result, they would wisely avoid the foods they should. But we do not live in the perfect environment. Food shopping is something that many consumers engage in almost as muscle memory, relying heavily on brand loyalty and a general feeling that a product is wholesome. Even when consumers look at food labels, which most of them do, they may not understand them. They know that a bag of potato chips is bad, especially when comparing it to a rice cake, but they may not understand just how bad.

A traffic light labeling system should be explored to figure out if it does a better job accomplishing the goals of a labeling system, which are to inform consumers, modify their behavior where possible, and encourage manufacturers to make their products healthier in an attempt to capture market share. We put warning labels on dangerous products like cigarettes, but our food labeling system does not treat sugar with the same level of danger. Given the health crisis that overconsumption of these products has helped to create, perhaps we should.

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Food Labels: Is the ‘Facts up Front’ System Good for Consumers? appeared first on Law Street.

For decades, Americans have been grappling with what it means to eat a healthy, well-balanced diet as more information regarding our industrial food system comes to light. Now, it seems the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jumped on the bandwagon, revisiting food labels and the definition of “healthy” in an effort to redefine an outdated version.

Public health concerns over misleading food labels and nutrient content claims have increased rapidly, particularly because of the growing obesity epidemic in America. While it is sure to be a lengthy and laborious process, the FDA is seeking public comments to help shape the new definition of “healthy.” The original definition of “healthy” was created decades ago in the mid-1990’s. As nutrition science has evolved, food labels and FDA-regulated definitions of nutrient content claims have been exceedingly slow to catch up. 

Food Labels and Nutrient Content Claims

The FDA is responsible for ensuring that all food sold in the U.S. is safe and properly labeled, whether food is produced domestically or in foreign countries. The federal laws governing food products are primarily the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. The FD&C Act is a set of laws passed by Congress in 1938 to give the FDA oversight in ensuring the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. These laws regulate many aspects of the food industry, including food additives, food coloring, and even bottled water.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act applies to labels on most consumer products. Passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, it requires a label to state: (1) the identity of the product; (2) name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (3) the net quantity of contents. The Act applies to products considered “consumer commodities” to prevent unfair or deceptive packaging and labeling.

The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), however, amended the FD&C Act and gave the FDA explicit authority to require food labeling on most food packages and nutrients listed on the nutrition label. The NLEA was passed in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. Moreover, the NLEA requires that all nutrient content claims, like “low fat” or “high fiber,” comply with the FDA’s regulations. The NLEA does not apply to food served or sold in restaurants, nor does it apply to meat or poultry products, which are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture. The FDA  proposed a variety of new amendments and regulations, with a few goals in mind: clearing up any sort of confusion surrounding nutrition and food labels, assisting consumers in choosing healthier products, and finally, giving food companies an incentive to improve nutritional qualities of their products.

Nutrient content claims can be found plastered all over food products and packages. Under the NLEA, the FDA regulates the definitions of  “free,” “low,” “light,” “reduced,” “less,” “high,” and many more. In developing the criteria for each of the claims, the FDA looked to dietary recommendations for each nutrient, analytical methods, distribution and abundance of particular nutrients in the food supply, and other considerations.

“Healthy” Food

The push to change the FDA’s definition of “healthy” came originally from the makers of Kind bars, which are granola bars containing many fruits and nuts. The product is currently marketed as “healthy and tasty.” The problem, however, is that the amount of fat contained in the bars is far too high to comply with the FDA’s low-fat restrictions on healthy food. In May of 2016, the company challenged the status quo when the FDA complained that the label “healthy” on Kind bars was improper based on the current definition.

“Kind Snack Bars” Image Courtesy of Mike Mozart : License (CC BY 2.0)

Currently, if a food product is to be labeled “healthy,” the product must be very low in fat according to the regulations. Essentially, it is a nutrient content claim, meaning the term can only be used on a product if it has certain nutritional qualities based on attributes like levels of fat and sodium. While the rules themselves are highly complex, it boils down to the fact that a snack food, for example, can have no more than three grams of fat per serving to be considered “healthy.” It also must contain at least ten percent of the recommended daily value for vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber per RACC (Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed). The definition differs for individual foods, seafood/game meat, and a meal or main dish.

Thus, under the current definition, nuts–which have long been known to be a high-fat food–cannot qualify as “healthy” under the current FDA regulations. While nuts are high-calorie, they are full of healthy fats that are known to be good for preventing cardiovascular disease, maintaining mental health, and are now seen as an ideal source of protein.

The term “healthy” was originally defined in 1994, at the height of the fat-free craze. Americans started replacing high-fat foods with more processed foods that were full of refined sugar, but still touted as healthy because they were “low-fat.” It was difficult to navigate a grocery store aisle without seeing “low-fat” labels plastered proudly on a variety of products, even ones that a consumer would not even think to have a high-fat content. We now know that consuming massive quantities of other food products with additives, like sugar, has far more negative consequences than eating plant-based food sources teeming with healthy fats.

The Future of “Healthy

Critics of the current definition of “healthy” have valid points. Under the current regulations, Frosted Flakes may be labeled “healthy” as the product is low-fat and fortified with vitamins, which is counterintuitive to what Americans know to be healthy food choices. While the FDA is determining how best to redefine “healthy,” it has stated it will exercise discretion in how it enforces the current rules. Thus, the agency will not be taking action against food manufacturers, like Kind, who produce foods that don’t meet the exact definition, but are still low in total fat and contain at least ten percent of the recommended vitamin D and potassium. The FDA issued guidance in September to reflect its newfound discretion, as prior public participation was not deemed feasible or appropriate.

Dietary guidelines have been more quickly catching up to changing nutritional science. Earlier this year, the dietary guidelines for 2015-2020 and the Nutrition Facts label were updated to recommend that people eat food rich in healthful fats. Over the next few years, nutrition labels will be updated to more accurately and clearly reflect a serving size, as well as how much added sugar is in a particular product. After decades of nutrition labels remaining mostly the same, this is a significant step in addressing the obesity epidemic in the U.S., particularly since many citizens rely on nutrition labels to provide them with reliable information. A governmental study showed that 77 percent of American adults say they read labels on food packaging when they shop.

When imagining how the new definition of “healthy” could unfold, it is likely there will be a focus on sugar. Current evidence demonstrates a link between excessive sugar consumption and obesity. Additionally, the new definition will likely redefine fat intake, particularly encouraging responsible consumption of healthy fats from plants and omega-3 sources, like fish.

Conclusion

These proposed changes clearly show the FDA is finally attempting to follow significant nutrition science breakthroughs. Ideally, people would not need food labels to tell them how to eat more healthfully and would simply make smarter food choices, like limiting processed foods and eating loads of fruits and vegetables. Famed nutrition scientist Marion Nestle argues against food labels, stating that companies utilize them to make misleading claims about their products.

Currently, many Americans still rely heavily on food labels to provide them with information about how to eat more healthfully. For now, nutrition labels and dietary guidelines are here to stay, particularly as this country attempts to combat a widespread obesity epidemic. Moreover, “healthy” isn’t the only label that may receive a significant overhaul; the FDA is currently reviewing giving “natural“a legal definition after receiving roughly 7,600 comments on the term.

The public has the ability to comment on the FDA’s website right now to help shape the new definition of “healthy” for the future. The changes may not be implemented for some time, but having a concrete voice in the FDA’s future rules and definitions is an important thing to consider. The comment period started on September 28, and will remain open for the time being. You may submit electronic comments and information to the Regulations.gov website or mail in written comments to the address listed on the FDA’s website.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Food Labeling Guide

FDA: Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) Requirements (8/94 – 2/95)

FDA: “Healthy” on Food Labeling

FDA: Guidance for Industry: Use of the Term “Healthy” in the Labeling of Human Food Products

NIH: History of Nutrition Labeling

NIH: FDA Regulatory Requirements for Nutrient Content Claims

Additional

NPR: Why The FDA is Re-Evaluating the Nutty Definition of ‘Healthy’ Food

Wall Street Journal: FDA Takes Step Toward New ‘Healthy’ Labeling

CNN: Your Food Labels are Getting a Makeover, FDA Announces

NPR: FDA Is Redefining the Term ‘Healthy’ on Food Labels

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Healthy” Food: FDA to Redefine the Term on Food Labels appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland’s Lewis & Clark Law School, the top-ranking law school in the country for Environmental and Energy Law, opened its doors for the first “Eat, Pray, Law” food forum on March 13, 2015. Food affects pretty much every part of our lives, and concerns about food exist at every level. From an individual perspective, we all obviously want to be comfortable with the nutrients we put into our bodies; on a larger scale, questions of sustainability, regulation, and equality all have their parts to play in a discussion about the ethics and legal issues of our food industry. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, Lewis & Clark brought together a day of panels to engage in lively discussion on some of the most pressing questions in food law.

I had the opportunity to speak to two of the event’s organizers, Janice Weis, the Associate Dean and Director of the Environmental & Natural Resources Law Program, and Vytas Babusis, a 2L and the President of the law school’s Food & Wine Law Society, in order to answer some of my questions about the event’s inception, purpose, and reception.

The fact that there’s been rising interest in topics such as sustainable eating, food justice, and food ethics is no surprise. But Dean Weis reports seeing a noticeable uptick in applicants who cite food law and policy as topics of interest in recent years. Given Lewis & Clark Law’s cutting edge environmental, animal, and business law programs, delving into the different facets of those issues seemed like a natural fit. It was out of this collaboration that the “Eat, Pray, Law” forum was born.

The event hosted at least 120 attendees, although Babusis told me he believed there were more who were drawn in at the last moment who had not registered. The day started out with a keynote speech from Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon’s third district.

Just addressed Lewis & Clark’s Eat Pray Law food summit -no wonder my alma mater was judged #1 enviro law program in the nation! @lclarklaw

— Earl Blumenauer (@repblumenauer) March 13, 2015

Blumenaur discussed the ongoing attempts to overhaul the “Farm Bill” to reflect current food policies and public consciousness.

Each of the three departments–environmental law, business law, and animal law–had a panel that loosely corresponded to it. Weis told me the panels touched on a veritable “potpourri” of hot issues in food law. Most interestingly, she also reported that while each panel had its own focus, consistent themes were apparent across the discussions–a good reminder that so many aspects of food law and policy intertwine and intersect.

One of those consistent themes was a focus on transparency–consumers want to know what is in their food, where it comes from, and the collateral effects of its production. This applies across the board–from consumers reporting these concerns, to the possibility of government regulations to ensure greater transparency, to businesses making the commitment to provide greater transparency.

The day wrapped up with a discussion on food justice. Babusis explained food justice as he sees it by saying,

For me “food justice” is doing the right thing for the planet and for the people in every aspect along the food chain.

He continued:

If we truly understand where our food grows, how to grow it sustainably regenerating the soil and what we have to do to feed people the right food from plants to animals, then we are better prepared to make laws which encourage that and know best how to help those in the industry from employment, IP and business law, to environmental and animal advocacy.

An important facet of food justice is the accessibility of food for many of our low-income citizens. “Food deserts” are defined by the Department of Agriculture as:

Urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options.

Essentially, it’s all very well and good if sustainable, transparent food is made a higher priority, but it needs to be made a higher priority for all of our citizens. The last panel at “Eat, Pray, Law” brought in members of the community for a tangible discussion on promoting food justice and accessibility.

Weis said that they plan on reprising the event again next year, and continuing to expand opportunities for students to discuss and become involved in food law. Overall, this panel was a great example of the innovative work going on at Lewis & Clark Law with regard to the intersections between food, animal, business, and environmental law.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Eat, Pray, Law: Lewis & Clark Law Forum Discusses Food Law appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who went to public school (and probably a decent chunk of the children who went to private school, as well) remember school lunch time. You file into the cafeteria, grab one of the brightly colored plastic trays, and then take whatever they give you, with maybe a scant handful of options along the way. Of course, some students bring lunch, and others have dietary concerns–in middle school I ordered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich approximately 75 percent of the time–but that was of course before peanut butter was banned from many cafeterias. But for the vast majority of the many, many students who order lunch each day there is very little choice. In addition, in many places there are very specific rules governing students during lunchtime. An overall unhappiness with their school-provided nutrition is why students at Farmington High School in Farmington, Connecticut, started boycotting school lunches.

Students at Farmington High in particular have a problem with Chartwells, the food provider for the school. They allege that the food is disgusting–according to a Washington Post article:

Since Chartwells replaced the district’s in-house meal program in 2012, according to the students, it has meant an increasingly unpalatable menu, with food that sometimes features mold, human hair, dangerously undercooked meats, insects and portion sizes fit for a small, starving child.

In addition, students have butt up against policies by the school involving the ability of students to charge food. So, they boycotted the lunches this week. The boycott has apparently been ended, and dialogue has opened up between the students, the school, and Chartwells. Principle William Silva stated:

We had some of the boycott organizers, so to speak, and other student leaders who we had reached out to make sure we were hearing all student voices. Everyone contributed, it was very positive, very respectful and we talked about some of the things we’re immediately going to do.

This nation has a big problem when it comes to school lunches, especially because so many of them are served to students who do not have any other choice when it comes to their nutrition. In fiscal year 2013 alone, the government provided free or reduced-price meals to nearly 31 million students–totaling about 5 billion lunches. That’s an essential source of nutrition for students whose families don’t necessarily have the resources to pay for healthy nutrition outside of school, and its exactly those kind of students whom the aid programs are designed to help. In addition, while it’s easy to make the argument that students who have the means but do not want to buy lunch can just bring it from home, it’s not really a fair one. Even students who could make lunches at home might not have the time, the ability, or the support, or they have to contend with long bus rides that mean that they don’t have access to proper refrigeration.

The students of Farmington High School were right to boycott the fact that they were not being provided adequate nutrition. And it’s not just that particularly school–Everett High School in D.C. is also undertaking a boycott for pretty much the same reasons. Meghan Hellrood is a senior at the school and is organizing the boycott, complaining that the lunches aren’t filling enough. While these are just a few isolated incidents, I’d love to see students nationally stand up for themselves and make sure that make their voices heard about bad school nutrition.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Lunch Boycotts in Connecticut, D.C. Highlight Bad School Nutrition appeared first on Law Street.