Critics of universal school lunch argue health and academic outcomes improve when all children eat; in fact, some studies show increased test scores and attendance after universal meal implementation. However, these studies largely focus on marginalized districts where many students were previously food-insecure, not on affluent or mixed-income areas where waste is higher and stigma is lower. The goal should be to address hunger, not subsidize convenience.
By channeling real resources into at-home meal strategies, we can help the 12% of Minnesota kids who experience food insecurity, without losing tens of millions on uneaten food in the process.
Good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Minnesota’s universal free meals started with enthusiasm, but facing growing food waste, low nutrition standards and rising taxpayer burden, it’s time to rethink the approach. We should adopt a targeted model that gives families in need the agency — and the support — to feed their children well at home. That way, every dollar goes further, each meal is valued and the real problem is addressed: hunger, not bureaucracy.
Tim Rubash, of Apple Valley, is retired.