Among the issues the “lame-duck” Congress is expected to address before new members are sworn in next January is a bill that would grant the federal government control over food served in public schools.
The $4.5 billion bill would let Washington dictate what type of hamburger buns schools may use, for instance. And the federal government would decide whether meat in school lunches is lean enough.
Some of the bill’s goals are good. Many schools serve meals that are not very healthful, and vending machines are poor alternatives.
Those are good reasons for state governments and local school boards to revise school nutrition standards. But we see no authorization in the Constitution for Washington to get involved. And even if you don’t care about the constitutional argument, look at the government’s record in education.
The Heritage Foundation notes: “Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education … increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent. According to the department, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006. … Since the early 1970s, inflation-adjusted federal spending per pupil has doubled. Over that period, student performance has not markedly improved, according to the long-term National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is designed to measure historical trends.”
If federal money has hardly boosted academic performance in public schools, why should we assume that federal spending on nutrition programs will achieve desired health goals?
Nutrition in schools should be set by state and local policies — though parental and personal responsibility are still the most important factor.