business news in context, analysis with attitude

Reuters reports that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said yesterday that “schools that serve more fruits, vegetables and whole grains to pupils should see higher federal support rates than those serving less-healthier meals loaded with high fats and sugar ... Child nutrition programs, which include school lunch and breakfast, are due for an overhaul but Congress is not expected to act before 2010. The government has targeted improving the nutritional quality and access to school meals amid rising child obesity rates.”

However, Vilsack did not put specific numbers to his observation, and did not say how much more money schools with better nutrition programs should get.
KC's View:
The irony, of course, is that at least some of the schools serving the crappiest lunches may be the ones that most need federal funding.

I have no problem with tying federal funding to behavior. But maybe it would make more sense to say that the funding has to be used for healthier foods.

Of course, just doing this in a vacuum doesn’t make sense. If schools don’t teach nutrition, don;t offer gym classes, and if parents don’t buy in to the whole notion that their kids ought to eat better and exercise more, then all the funding parameters in the world won’t be worth a damn.