
No Lunch Left Behind - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20waters.html
======
katz
I was with the author until this sentence:

“that are produced without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. When possible,
these foods should be locally grown.”

Uhm... I eat foods with “pesticides” every day. Pesticides increases the crop
yields and increases quality. Correct use of pesticides pose no harm to
humans. Chemical fertilizers also increase crop yields (dramatically) and
makes food cheaper. Oh... and guess what – anything is “chemicals”.

Some areas are more suited than other areas for crop production (e.g. climate,
land and labour costs). Why should everything be locally grown?

“cash for every meal they serve — $2.57 for a free lunch”

170 grams of Tuna costs me as a consumer $1 dollar. I am pretty sure they can
get it for cheaper. It is fairly healthy – a healthy meal can cost less than
$3 (but I guess they want to grow the Tuna locally).

She suggests that the budget should be tripled – meaning at each lunch will
cost about $8. That is just preposterous.

“not to the continued spread of youth obesity, Type 2 diabetes”

I live in a third world country – and there is no problem of diabetes or
obesity under the youth. Most people eat a lot less and food that costs a lot
less than that of USA school kids.

“Let’s prove that there is such a thing as a good, free lunch. “

There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is however a lunch for which
another person pays.

~~~
gcheong
"Pesticides increases the crop yields and increases quality."

Same with genetically modified crops which, by the way we have been doing for
centuries - we just call it hybridization.

------
indiejade
_Every public school child in America deserves a healthful and delicious lunch
that is prepared with fresh ingredients. Cash-strapped parents should be able
to rely on the government to contribute to their children’s physical well-
being, not to the continued spread of youth obesity, Type 2 diabetes and other
diet-related problems. Let’s prove that there is such a thing as a good, free
lunch._

Politely disagree. The article also states that the government is subsidizing
school lunches to the tune of something like $2.57 for free lunches, $2.17 for
reduced-price lunches, and $0.24 for paid lunches. It then states that most of
this subsidization isn't even going into the school lunch program, instead
it's going to "heat the cafeteria" or for "custodial services."

Utilities aren't free; nor are janitorial services. At first glance, it seems
to be an accounting problem: incorrect cost assignments wrapped up with a
budgeting problem.

One of the things we learn in managerial accounting is that variances (diffs.
between "budget" and "actual") is that they are opportunities for
improvements. Accounting for "free lunches" isn't free!

~~~
gcheong
I don't know about delicious, but I seem to have done OK on my mom's
sandwiches. Government subsidized school lunches were crap 30+ years ago and,
not surprisingly, are still crap today.

