To the Editor:
As a parent of three children in Riverside Middle School and a registered dietitian, I feel compelled to address the ongoing debate about our school lunch program. While budget constraints are real, the argument that healthier food options are "too expensive" fundamentally misunderstands the true costs we're dealing with.
Currently, our cafeteria serves processed foods high in sodium, sugar, and saturated fats. These meals may cost less per serving, but this calculation ignores the long-term health costs. According to the CDC, childhood obesity has tripled since 1980, and diet-related diseases now affect children at rates previously seen only in adults. The medical costs of treating these conditions far exceed any savings from cheaper school lunches.
I've heard some argue that students won't eat healthier options. This claim is contradicted by evidence from districts that have successfully implemented nutrition programs. When healthy food is prepared well and consistently offered, students adapt. The key is commitment, not capitulation to the assumption that children can't change.
Consider what we're actually teaching our children when we prioritize cost over nutrition. We're sending the message that their health isn't worth investing in, that convenience matters more than wellbeing. Schools are supposed to prepare students for successful futures--shouldn't that include teaching them to value their own health?
I urge the school board to view nutrition not as an expense to minimize, but as an investment in our children's futures. The real question isn't whether we can afford to improve school lunches; it's whether we can afford not to.
Respectfully,
Dr. Amanda Torres, RD