In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed, supported and promoted heavily by Michelle Obama. The Act put restrictions on school lunches in public schools (but not the private schools her daughters attend).
Kids can’t stand Michelle’s school lunch program. From the 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 school years, 1.4 million children dropped their participation in the program. Among their complains were that portions were too small and the taste was unappetizing. Some students have simply brought their own salt to add to their school lunch, which completely defeats the purpose of the regulations.
Due to its unpopularity, there’s only one choice to gain compliance: the threat of a lawsuit.
The federal government is taking steps to fine schools that do not comply with first lady Michelle Obama’s school lunch rules.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service issued a proposed rule Monday to codify parts of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama.
The regulation would punish schools and state departments with fines for “egregious or persistent disregard” for the lunch rules that imposed sodium and calorie limits and banned white grains.
A West Virginia preschool teacher was threatened with fines for violating the rules by rewarding her students with candy for good behavior in June 2015. The teacher ultimately did not have to pay, but the school had to develop a “corrective action plan” with training on the policies.
H/T: Fox News
The kids aren’t happy with the food – and neither are the schools whose budgets bear its cost. Her regulations add “10 cents to the cost of every lunch and 27 cents to every breakfast, requiring local school districts to absorb $1.2 billion in additional costs in 2015 alone.”
This has been a disaster for some school districts. A report by the School Nutritional Association found that in response to the costs imposed by Michelle’s new regulations, “Forty-eight percent of school districts said they reduced staffing by reducing hours, imposing layoffs or deferring hiring. About 41 percent of districts said they cut their reserve fund to cope, over 35 percent said they chipped away at menu choices, and about 32 percent deferred or canceled equipment investments.”
And now she wants to sue them on top of that? It sounds like they have enough to pay for.
How ridiculous is this? Spread the word and share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter.