The most recent New York Times article on school lunch controversies was written by Nicholas Confessore, a political correspondent. His article focuses on personalities and doesn’t address the substance of the advocacy of the School Nutrition Association (SNA) for changes in some of the new regulations.
He calls the members of SNA “lunch ladies,” a term he says that almost nobody in Washington uses in public and almost everyone uses in private.
The consistent use of this term throughout the article adds to a dismissive bias against critics of certain regulations. I think that Congress should change some school lunch requirements. Perhaps the Times should assign some of its science reporters to explain the scientific, rather than the political, controversies on subjects such as salt and fat.
It is misleading to imply that this is a contest between politicians and scientists. At one point in the article, Confessore describes the School Nutrition Association as “isolated.” He cites other organizations that opposed the one-year waiver of some of the school meal standards.
So, instead of trying to explain the rationale behind certain rules, such as the amount of sodium in school lunches and breakfasts, the Times instead subtly tries to persuade its readers to ignore the “isolated” lunch ladies. The article refers to the federal dietary guidelines for sodium, but does not note the new studies questioning these guidelines or the Times editorial noting these questions.
Is this an article about the latest fashions, or the latest in the science of nutrition?
I support the school lunch ladies.