Unintended Consequences

Dear Political Therapy,

       I have been hearing a lot about the new school lunch requirements. Lots of people don't like them. What do you think?

Hungry in the Classroom

Dear Hungry,

      I'm very glad you asked that question. This is a story that got a lot of press back at the beginning of the school year. Unfortunately, this columnist was too busy to make up your letter back when the news was hot. But better late than never with a column, even when it's as fresh as a two-day-old cafeteria meatloaf. 

      This issue is a classic example of the principle of unintended consequences. Last year, the USDA passed new nutritional requirements for school lunches. Now, that sounds like it could be a good thing. Kids eating healthier lunches, less over-eating and less childhood obesity, more fresh vegetables offered, less junk food on the trays. Those are all positive goals to have for someone who cares about kids' health. 

     But as often (some might say, always) happens with increased governmental rules, there turned out to be some unintended consequences. The new regulations came with new caloric caps on lunches for various grade levels. Student lunches grades K-8 must have no more than 650 calories, and lunches for grades 9-12 must have no more than 850 calories.

   That means that a 190 lb. 12th grade football player is bound by the same formula as a 95lb. 9th grade ballerina. This one-size-fits-all approach to regulation almost never works, for the simple reason that we are not a nation of one size. Nor do we fit all. We are individuals with individual abilities and needs.

    So, as the new regulations began to be implemented, there began to be some unhappy people. The cafeteria workers, while glad to be able to offer better options to their students, didn't like having to turn away still-hungry kids who wanted seconds. They also didn't like the trash cans full of food that students were tossing because they didn't care for the healthier fare. However, if the schools didn't comply with the requirements, they would lose all government subsidies for their meals. Caught between a rock and a salad bar, cafeterias across the nation are forced to comply.

   Remember how all this started with good intentions? A plan to benefit the student and improve their health? Students are responding to the new regulations by bringing more lunches from home. The new lunches cost more for less food, and parents see no reason to pay for lunches their kids are going to throw away. The home-lunches may---or may not---be healthier than what the cafeteria used to offer.

     Other students are handling it by skipping lunch and getting a quick fix at the vending machine before class starts. A candy bar and soft drink are definitely less healthy than the old lunches! And those students who are old enough to go off campus are leaving to eat elsewhere at lunch. At our local school, seniors were actually meeting for a barbeque every noon hour rather than eat the pickings at the cafeteria.

    I asked my own son for his reaction to the menu changes, and in spite of having the caloric requirements of a bull moose, he hasn't noticed anything different. Sigh. But plenty of students have, and have handled their discontent in ways that leave them worse off than before. 

Cafeterias with greatly reduced clientele. Unintended consequence.

Kids bringing less-healthy options from home. Unintended consequence.

Students grabbing snacks from the machines instead of eating lunch. Unintended consequence.

Parents refusing to pay increased cost for decreased value. Unintended consequence.

     A great many government programs were begun with the best of intentions, but sometimes it's not enough to have good intentions.You can start with the best motives in the world and end up accomplishing the exact opposite of what you set out to do. Because of this, I believe it's best to err on the side of liberty and individual choice where possible.

    In conclusion, dear Hungry, I advise you to pack a sandwich.

Political Therapy