The Drudge report site has carried links to articles, which are critical of Michelle Obama’s role in setting standards for school lunches. Many of these focus on the following points:
-the new lunches are not of good quality
-they are often discarded by the kids (they don’t want to eat the food)
-many of the foods are insufficient (calorically) for adolescents
With this in mind, I have some factual questions:
-what is Obama’s role in setting standards for school lunches
-is Michelle Obama a trained dietician?
-are the new lunches nutritious and attractive to kids?
Many of the Drudge linked articles suggest that kids are discarding a LOT of food-is this true or sensationalism?
She’s just the PR director. The USDA creates the program guidelines under authority granted by Congress in the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. States and local school boards select the meals.
Michelle is not a trained dietician. She’s a lawyer. The lunches are nutritious, but unlikely to be attractive to kids; they’re school lunches.
You mean to tell me school lunches don’t taste very good and kids don’t like them?
Breaking news indeed.
There’s no such thing as a squee lunch.
“[M]any of the foods are insufficient (calorically) for adolescents.”
It’s always nice when criticism is so wrong that it is self-evidently wrong. Saves work.
Maybe she can succeed where Jamie Oliver failed. Will we ever forget pink slime in US ground meat and in US school lunches?
Well, the healthy lunch menus are not full of the old favorites like Hamburger/Fries/Hot Dogs/Mac & Cheese/Fries kind of stuff that American kids DO kinda like.
We might be better able to judge the sensationalism of said articles if the OP were to be so kind as to provide a link. 
That said, one may do well to remember that kids discarding school-provided meals is not exactly a new phenomenon.
Define “quality”. Are we talking health hazard levels, or something that Gwenneth Paltrow might not find fresh and organic but will sustain life and basic nutrition?
No one is going to starve to death if they skip lunch. If someone IS starving to death they’ll eat the food even if it’s not the greatest.
In what sense? School lunch is not intended to supply all of a person’s food needs for the day. Are there football players fainting from weakness and hunger? Caloric needs vary widely. If some kid is getting too skinny maybe we can supply him/her with two lunches until they fatten up but honestly, “not enough calories” is not a common problem in the US at any socio-eoconomic level.
You realize that those two traits do not always travel together?
If the changes are made too rapidly yes, there probably is food discarded. No matter what SOME food is going to be discarded. Back when I was living on school lunches there were some things I just would not eat and if I couldn’t trade them for something I liked better yes, it hit the trash. You are not going to get 100% compliance.
Anecdotally I can tell you that for my kids and other kids in my kids’ school, school lunches have taken a turn for the worse since recent standards have been implemented, and far fewer kids eat them. School personel acknowlege this, but have told my wife that their hands are tied.
I don’t know what actual (as opposed to PR) role Michele Obama had in all this, if any.
This article (from November, 2014) backs up Really Not All That Bright’s earlier post that the specific foods for the lunches are chosen locally (by the local school board). So, the individual school may say that there hands are tied, but it’s still due to a local governing body, and not the First Lady.
And, the article further notes that, while kids do throw away lots of their vegetables (60%, per a Harvard study), they used to throw away even more (about 75%). Now, that is only one study, but it does support the argument that the new school lunch standards are not the reason that kids don’t like to eat veggies (shocking, I know).
Where do you see that in the linked article? ISTM that it says the opposite. From that article (emphasis added):
(What my kids complained about the most was the whole wheat bread.)
Gee, a pregnant 17 year old is complaining about a school lunch. Maybe if she’d been paying attention in Health class she wouldn’t be “eating for 2.”
But she’s in Oklahoma. They probably teach “abstinence.”
To emphasize the local control of school lunches, here’s the menu from one of our local middle schools.
Meets all the standards, and still provides food kids will eat.
I was referring to this quote:
ETA: If your kids are complaining about the use of whole grain bread, then I suspect that they are picky eaters who wouldn’t be happy with any food selections that aren’t loaded with fat, salt, or sugar; whole wheat bread isn’t exactly pushing boundaries here.
That quote doesn’t contradict the other quote, or make your point. That person is only saying that the specific items chosen are chosen by the local school administration. But that doesn’t contradict the fact written elsewhere in that article that the school board needs to follow guidelines dictated to them, and over which MO had influence.
That’s a matter of perspective, I guess. I imagine MO herself agrees with you, for one. I myself never eat whole wheat either, so I’m a bit more symphathetic.
The Dept. of Agriculture sets rules for how many fruits, vegetables, and grains the school must serve each week. The state/locality decides how to satisfy those requirements.
Whole wheat bread is a very common and cheap way to get grains into people. But schools are free to do whatever **F-P’**s preferred method of eating whole grains is.
And as to the OP, since this is GQ, the objective answer is “not much.”
The federal government has paid for and regulated the content of school lunches since 1945. The very most influence M. Obama could have had here was to urge passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was duly approved by Congress and signed by the President, which is what the Department of Agriculture implemented with these updated guidelines. It’s hard to see how she was anything other than a spokesperson for those guidelines, since they represent the expert opinion of other departments. It’s not as if eating more vegetables is some kind of niche nutritional theory advanced by liberal-pinkos.
My point was that the specific food selections are made at the local level, so if your local school is saying that their hands are tied as to what to serve, it’s because of local government choices, and not somebody at the Federal level. The quote says that the food choices are made by the school board.
Yes, it is certainly true that these choices are dictated by standards set at a national level (which, by the way, has been true for a long time - remember when the federal government wanted to let schools count ketchup as a vegetable to meet the minimum vegetable requirement for school lunches). But that wasn’t something I was trying to disagree with.
Instead, I was trying to answer your question about how much Michelle Obama had to do with whatever “gross” food kids are being asked to eat. The answer: not much, if anything. Even your own quoted portion of my link says that she was “an instrumental player” and “helped inspire” food standards (which comports with the idea that she was a PR spokesperson for a change to the law, as you’ve acknowledged), which is distinct from the idea that she was deciding what foods were to be served, or even that she set the standards.
(Perhaps, by analogy, it would be like a kid in grade school in the early 2000s complaining about the boring books that they are assigned to read, and then blaming Laura Bush, since she had made literacy her special focus. She may have trumpeted reading, but she isn’t deciding what kids are being assigned, even if she was in support of - or even instrumental in - increasing reading activities at schools).