How Lobbies are Involved in Social Programs
It is necessary to define lobby and school as this paper will point out how lobbies interfere with normal social programs of school for their social financial benefits. Therefore, the school can be defined to be a social institution where students/learners gather to acquire education. On the other hand, lobbies can be defined to be groups of people who try acting to influence legislation. To begin with, the national school lunch program was a federal organization that looked to provide meals in private and public schools, and child care institutions. The program was started in 1946 under the national schools lunch act that was signed by President Truman Harry. The foremost aim of the program was to provide free and balanced nutritious lunches to children each day.
According to web sources about the antiquity of the school lunch program, in New York the program started in 1853, but it was not active. Following Robert Hunter’s book “poverty” that was published in the year 1904, other area took up the challenge and made it active. According to Hunter, he felt that there was need for having a law that would propel children from poor/ low-income families to go to school even if they were hungry; this was because it was rather hard for the children to concentrate. The poverty was as a result of America involving in the Second World War; many of its citizens were affected and there was need to wave out communism in order for a nation to prosper (Poppendieck 76).
Under the sponsorships of General George C. (Member of the cabinet), he declared to the congress that the program was on a vital role since it was a national security to safeguard the well-being and the health of the nation’s children. So he encouraged consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities that were directly from the farms and other food stuffs. Now, it was through the government grants and aid the school lunch program started.
In the present, the program assists around one hundred thousand school both the private and public schools, this implies that 7.1 million children do benefit from the program each year. Studies about the program reveal that at the beginning, the program was not that costly but, with time it costs are going higher. This is evident by the fact that the figure for government expenditures to fund the program does go higher each year; for instance in 1947 the government spent about 7 million, similarly, in two thousand the government spends 7.9 million. Thus, numerous people have questioned the expenses.
There have been modifications to the national school lunch program that have caused many controversies all over the nation. For instance some few years ago, the national school lunch program was under inspection and there were many changes that took place; the ingredients and how the lunches were prepared was changed, this was aimed to improve the health of school children (decrease the rate of childhood obesity rates in the nation). In some cases, new commodities were introduced as part of the diet for the school children; carrots, oranges among others were introduced. As every person has different in tastes, not all students like oranges, carrots and the other commodities that were introduced. Therefore, some of the commodities as much as they are good for the health of children, children do not always see the need of taking them since they may not me sugary as they want them to be. Thus, when some of these meals are served to students, they end up throwing them.
The untouched/unconsumed are ever wasted since the food is bought and prepared using money; when the prepared food fails to meet the intended course, then it is said to have been wasted. This brings the one to agree or disagree with the topic that some special lobbies to participate in lawmaking for their selfish benefits. In my own opinion, I agree with the topic that some lobbies to involve/participating in setting social programs for their own selfish financial benefits. This can be supported by the case witnessed last week where children served food and did not consume them; they throw them in the trash untouched.
My reason to agree with the topic is that an alternative food/ lunches could be provided to the students that had the same nutrients, but since the students were not provided with what they wanted. They ended up throwing the food and buying ice cream for their lunch. It is clear that whether the children take the commodities/food or not, the lobbies will still have their pay. In this way, the social program was interfered for the benefits of the lobbies and not for children. Thus, the lobbies are evident to satisfy their selfish financial benefits (Hiatt 55).
On the other hand, one may not agree with the topic. This is because the food/ lunches provided in school may not taste sweet but may be so nutritious. For instance natural fruits are not as tasty compared to some snacks such as chips, processed food, and bottle soda. When students take some of these snacks frequently, they do increase their chances of getting obesity. Therefore, one may say that the program is there to help student reduce the amount of fats and sugar in their body, so as much as children may not like the food, it still stands that the food served in schools are nutritious.
To stress on the same, the hunger-free kid acts that were passed in the year 2010, it gave the agricultural department more authority to set more healthy standards for all commodities and food sold in schools not leaving behind the vending machineries. The main reason of not leaving the vending machine was that it helped students burn the excessive fats in their body; an alternative for this was to set up more sporting activities. This can be supported by the study that was taken by national academy of sciences, it's estimated that around 2.3 billion worth of beverages and snacks are sold each year to schools nationwide, this implied that a greater percentage of the student population does consume beverages and snacks as their meals; this explains why in the United States students do not usually finish the food that they are served in school (Levine 63).
Last but not least, in order for the government to ensure that health issues are reduced, the junked food should not be sold to schools; this will reduce the of fat and sugar by the students hence reducing obesity rates for children. Similarly, parents should be educated on the right proportions of foods to take; this will attribute to reduce cases of obesity in both the children and adults in the nation. If the same measure is taken for the next ten years, then by 2025 we will be having fewer obese cases. Therefore, the school lunch program is more meaningful if it will meet the future needs of children, this can only be achieved by not giving students choices, but by deciding what is right for them.
In conclusion, it becomes clear that as much as the public is blaming the lobbies for legislation for their selfish financial benefits, the changes in the school lunch programs were intended to improve the health status for students. On the other hand, students do not respond to the changes positively, instead, they avoid taking the meals and they buy junked food. The lobbies are falsely accused of being involved in changing the school programs for their benefits which it not the case. As stated earlier in the essay, the nutritional needs can be met by reached scholars with alternative forms of food that have the same nutrient. In this way, the lobbies would have been saved from the mess that they are changing the school program for their benefits. In addition, students in school should be provided with many forms of co-curriculum activities that will help them reduce fats and sugars in their bodies, by so doing, the nation will have improved the health condition of the children as they mature up being adults. This may imply that life styles of the youths (students) change as the nation will be looking forward to meet their needs for the future.