The ongoing politics of the diet offered at schools causes a major debate. There are differing opinions on the government's intervention in the feeding programmes of public schools. The debate results from the question of responsibility of obesity in children. Some feel that the government is to blame and should take the necessary actions to minimize obesity while others feel that it is the responsibility of parents to keep their children healthy. The government should formulate other ways of managing obesity in children in place of regulating intake of meat in school. The government should leave the decision of diet to citizens. The government of New York recently created a program for all the public schools that ban the inclusion of meat, both red and white, on Mondays. Students will have to consume alternative meals. Politics of food in New York arise in the debate on the reasons for the government to state so. The government and its supporters on the matter feel that the move is necessary with the reasons that it is a way of promoting healthy and environmental-friendly alternatives (Ihnat 2019). The move is an extension of the ongoing advocacy for meatless meals in other public entities such as hospitals. However, some feel that there is a political game that the New York City Mayor is playing. Some of them cite the reason that in a free country, everyone has the right to choose what they want to have for food. The decision, therefore, should be left in the discretion of parents and not imposed on them since it is a way of limiting them to what the government deems fit. People should be opposed to the idea because it is a way of practicing undue power over its subjects.

Regulating school feeding programmes may be not effective enough. Obesity in children occurs due to a multiplicity of factors. Meat is to some extent unhealthy but is a very small fraction of the factors that contribute to obesity. Although the government is moving in to help in making a better diet for children, the effort of minimizing the amount of meat taken is a slow method of doing so. There are several other factors that contribute to increasing obesity among school children. The US Department of Agriculture has been making policies to make healthier meals for students. The New York City Mayor is excited to introduce...

He may be basing his arguments on dieticians’ advice which supports that even the shortest time of having no meat in meals can make a great difference. However, the politics of food that the mayor is playing may be wrong because there are greater deeds that should first be catered for long before narrowing down to the small efforts of reducing meat intake. The government should first take care of such major issues as the playing time for children. Reducing meat intake for the children is hyped and not as effective as it may seem.
Schools should have flexibility instead of rigid guidelines that the government may impose. Although the government of New York has the mandate to exercise power and...
The government should take care of all the contributing factors that are beyond the parents’ reach. The government has a much wider scope of coverage than the parents of any child. Parents have more specific roles to play than the government in the children’s well-being. One of the areas that are beyond the reach of parents is advertisement and branding of goods (Jacobs 2019). Although the parent is responsible for what the child consumes, it is hard for them to completely stick to a healthy diet. The government should, therefore, be involved in helpful politics of ensuring that the advertisements for children do not go beyond what they can handle and learn at their age (Jacobs 2019). Also, it should ensure that the content of what is in the children’s products is safe to the health of children. It can also warn parents of the products that may harm children other than leaving them and their children to battle with obesity.

The policy of the New York Mayor requiring public primary schools to exclude meat from the Monday meals is a viable but poor strategy of handling obesity among children. The government is justified to work towards the alleviation of obesity in the city’s children. However, there are better ways in which it can achieve its objectives other than providing an alternative to meat. Such methods as the education of parents and students on matters of health, increasing the affordability of food, and others can work faster and more efficient to produce much better results in the short and long terms.

…