School Lunch

EHS, let me ask you a question: How often do you enter school on an empty stomach, sit in 4th or 5th period with the harsh growl of your stomach disturbing your studies, or perhaps, leave school in search of something to fill the emptiness that’s been bugging you all day? For me, I can say pretty often, and this is why I feel that high schools should be providing more affordable, and sufficient lunches to their students. 

Firstly, students don’t eat enough food during the day, and affordable lunch would make them more inclined to eat. Some students believe that the cafeteria does not give enough food to students, leaving them hungry during and after school. In addition to that, the EHS Student-Parent Handbook expresses the no food policy during 5th period by writing in bold under ‘Food and Drink Rules’: “No food during 5th period!” which is essentially mid-day for students. Furthermore, CDC states that less than three-quarters of the adolescent population does not consume breakfast. Eating nothing until lunch is around 5 hours without food, and kids need food to help them focus, otherwise, they will perform poorly. That is why it's the school’s duty to provide nutritious food for a reasonable price. The School Nutrition Association even records that pre-pandemic, 21.8 million students ate the reduced/free lunches, whereas when it was full price, only 7.7 million students ate the offered food. Considering the gap, kids will eat more if given affordable food. 

Next, reasonable prices would also reduce lunch debt alongside “lunch-shaming.” The term is used when students are denied school meals simply because they can’t afford them. It is seen in all sorts of ways such as when a student is offered a less nutritious “alternative meal,” all the way to a student having their lunch thrown out in front of them if they can’t pay. It subjects people to embarrassment since it shows that the lack of funds is always unacceptable. This debt is an issue considering that many families don’t meet the cut for financial aid from the government or school. NBC news says: “If there were affordable meals, then more families could be able to pay for them, and not remain in debt… which would lead to a decrease in lunch shaming”. 

Therefore, if offered affordable meals, families could buy lunch and live without the fear of being shamed by others.

Lastly, reduced school lunches would help eliminate food insecurity and youth hunger. Not all students are fortunate enough to be fed well at home. Some students rely on school lunch as their only meal for the day. GlobalCitizen states: “A third of US families are experiencing food insecurity. 1 in 5 say their children don’t have sufficient food and don’t have the funds to buy more.” That’s more than 30 million children in the country who rely on free or affordable meals in school. The USDA also claims that in 2020 food insecurity affected 14.8% of households with children. Having well-priced lunches would decrease this number, and lead to more food-secure homes.

So, what do you think? Should high schools offer more affordable and sufficient lunches for their students? Or are we asking too much? The question up for debate is for you to discuss, EHS.