I'm a junior in a Kentucky high school. Usually at lunch, we have a choice between 8 oz bottles of chocolate or white milk, or 20 oz bottles of Aquafina water. Today, however, the school informed us that because of a Federal law, they were no longer allowed to serve water in the free lunch program because it has no nutritional value. [It seems to me that since a majority of the human body consists of water, it would be rather important to keep it in our diets =S but i guess i don't know what i'm talking about!] I have friends that are lactose intolerant, so they had to go without anything to drink at lunch today. Then, after lunch was over, we were informed that those who could not drink milk for whatever reasons would have the opportunity to buy a water at lunch. Does anyone have any information about this? Is it a new law, or one that has simply been made stricter, to include even water? Thanks for any information you're able to give =)
-Cassandra
2006-10-30
07:56:36
·
6 answers
·
asked by
wind_blow_shame
2
in
Food & Drink
➔ Non-Alcoholic Drinks
Needless to say i wasn't the only one wondering! I went with a group of people to the principal's office to ask, and we were told that the school itself cannot control it, because it is a Federal law. I looked it up on the internet, and it does say that foods of minimal nutritional value will not be served. . . I would never have imagined they would define water as having no nutritional value! I suppose they're being technical about it. Water does not have any nutritional value in it's natural state, but replacing water with foods high in BAD things [like chocolate milk] doesn't quite make sense to me. It's like when they first took non-diet pops away from our school - they still served a sausage and buscuit packs that had well over the same amount of calories as a pop >.<; I guess whatever makes them happy, they'll do it. I just wish we [the students] had more say in what happens.
2006-10-30
08:15:59 ·
update #1