May 30th, 2014
01:30 AM ET
Share this on:

First lady Michelle Obama's drive to stop a Republican-led effort to slow adoption of nutrition standards for school meals, a centerpiece of her anti-obesity "Let's Move" campaign, was dealt a setback in Congress.

Democrats aligned with Mrs. Obama on the issue failed on Thursday to strip the proposal from a $142.5 billion Agriculture Department spending bill, which was approved by the Appropriations Committee and sent to the full House for consideration.

The controversial plan offered by Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama would give schools struggling financially an extra year to comply with rules approved by Congress in 2010 to limit fat and salt and promote fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

"I want to be clear that everybody supports healthy lunches and meals for children, but the bottom line is the schools are finding the regulations to be too much too quick," Aderholt said during consideration of the measure by the appropriations panel. "School districts need more time to implement the changes."

Read - Setback for first lady in food fight with Congress

More on the politics of school lunch

Tom Colicchio talks childhood hunger
Hungry at the holidays
Cafeteria workers win right to eat expired food at their own risk

soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. Carn E. Vore

    Michelle will just blame white people for this.

    June 1, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
    • Why not?

      We all blame you for posting stupid comments.

      June 4, 2014 at 7:09 am |
  2. Jeri Nielsen

    I have a friend who works in a school cafeteria. She has a very serious concern about the mandated school lunches that I have not seen anyone address. She says they have children who often won't eat things they are mandated to feed them. They are not allowed to give the child a substitute such as an extra milk or a peanut butter sandwich. It really bothers them to see children go hungry because of this. I don't have a problem with giving children more nutritious foods at school but making a child go hungry when they could have an extra milk or a peanut butter sandwich is wrong in so many days. When you factor in the fact that the school lunch is the only meal some children get it is even worse.

    May 31, 2014 at 11:39 am |
  3. Cindi

    First it is going to be one year...and betcha its going to be extended after the '14 elections. More and more children depend on at least one nutritious meal every day and for more children that meal comes at school as more jobs get outsourced, most workers' wages buy less and less, and more families do not have a home, or a home with enough lot space or time to grow their own food. As the government bewails our growing weight, why is "bad for you food" also cheap? Bewail our government will, but hope more of us die younger than our parents. BTW, do taxpayers subsidize Congressional dinning rooms and menus in any way?

    May 31, 2014 at 12:15 am |
  4. RC

    Maybe if we bought a few less tanks that nobody wants or needs, there would be a few billion dollars to spend on school lunches.......

    May 30, 2014 at 10:34 am |
    • Barbarossa

      Wait - feed our own country's children at the expense of obliterating our enemy's? That's commie talk, comrade.

      May 30, 2014 at 11:32 am |
      • RC

        You're right. How silly of me..........

        May 30, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Jerv

          I never understood why it has to be one or the other...and I do not mean just this topic...

          Hey, what's for breakfast?

          June 1, 2014 at 6:00 am |
  5. Sir Biddle

    Typical congress and the political sausage making process of DC. Then again the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to eat free now have someone to blame for being overweight.

    You can take my fast food and my 96 oz sodas when you pry them from my obese dead hands.

    Merica!!! F yea!

    May 30, 2014 at 8:30 am |
  6. Jerv

    Here we go...

    May 30, 2014 at 7:49 am |
| Part of