An Urban's Rural View

When it comes to the school-lunch debate, our politicians can't or won't acknowledge what most people know instinctively, which is that both sides have a point.

Yes, kids must eat healthier meals; Uncle Sam should use taxpayer dollars to prevent, not promote, obesity. The new USDA rules mandating more fruit, vegetables and whole grains and less salt, fat and sugar are steps in the right direction.

But, yes, it's also a problem when kids throw away the vegetables the new rules require. Jettisoned veggies do the kids no good and pose a financial burden for the school districts that must pay for them. It's especially burdensome because veggies tend to cost more than other comestibles the districts serve.

Both sides would deny they're oversimplifying the issues to score political points. But if they're not, please explain why the Republicans seem indifferent to promoting healthier eating in kids. Their proposal (waiving the rules for money-losing school districts) does nothing to address child obesity.

Then explain why the Democrats' rhetoric suggests they don't care that kids are boycotting vegetables and don't sympathize much with struggling school districts. Their solution (administrative flexibility and softening a couple of the rules) would leave tons of greens in garbage cans.

If both sides would just acknowledge that there's more than one problem to be solved, they might be able to work together to find a solution that addresses all the issues.

In the real world, child obesity is a problem. You don't have to take Michelle Obama's word for that. Take the word of retired military officers, who support the rules. They fear too few Americans will pass the physicals to serve in tomorrow's army and navy. The American Medical Association endorses the rules, too.

Making kids eat their veggies can also be a problem, as real-world parents know. Do you trick kids into swallowing the carrots and green beans by hiding them in soups, stews and casseroles? Or, as some nutritionists urge, do you keep putting the good stuff on kids' plates, trusting they'll eventually come around and eat it?

Or try something creative? I didn't love vegetables as a boy but I learned to tolerate them because my parents' had a rule. If my sister and I didn't eat everything on our plates -- and there were always vegetables on our dinner plates -- we didn't get dessert. The prospect of mom's home-baked pies and cookies made Brussels sprouts and squash palatable.

The School Nutrition Association, which represents school-lunch preparers, endorses waivers for money-losing school districts. These people live in the real world, but you have to wonder where their proposal comes from.

As DTN correspondent Jerry Hagstrom pointed out in a column for National Journal, schools don't cook their own meals these days; they buy and heat up prepackaged, processed food (http://tiny.cc/…). The SNA position dovetails neatly with the interests of the companies that make and sell that food. As if to underscore that curious coincidence, 19 past SNA presidents have endorsed the rules.

At the other end of the interest-group spectrum, fruit and vegetable growers stand to benefit if the rules are enforced but not if they're waived. They would benefit still more, though, if someone could get more kids to eat what they grow and help more school districts afford it.

Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is the Republicans will continue to score political points with their base deploring the nanny state and the Democrats will continue to score political points with their base standing up for child health.

Meanwhile, the rules will stay in effect -- they're the status quo now -- but they won't be as effective as they could be if more kids actually ate the vegetables, and some school districts will continue to struggle to pay for food that's wasted.

This is Washington we're talking about, after all.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com