A Call for a Better Solution: Feeding Our Kids Without Wasting Our Resources

By Tim Rubash

I appreciate the passion and dedication Mr. Satre brings to his students and to this conversation. As someone who also cares deeply about children's well-being, I want to begin with common ground: no child in Minnesota—or anywhere—should go hungry. That is not up for debate. In my original article you will not find any sentence that supports or even implies not feeding our children. But how we go about feeding children effectively, affordably, and nutritiously is where sincere disagreements can lead to progress.

Let me respond to Mr. Satre’s points not with confrontation, but with a shared desire to improve outcomes—for students, schools, and taxpayers. I think it is great that we are having this conversation and even better if the Star Tribune continues to support this dialogue in their newspaper.  I’ve already been contacted by someone from the MN House of Representatives because of the original article.  This is how real change happens!

Waste Is Real and Must Be Addressed

While Mr. Satre cites a Harvard study showing no significant increase in waste following the 2012 nutrition standards, the concern today is not about that change—it’s about the unintended consequences of universal free meals. Teachers, staff, and even students have repeatedly described scenarios where entire trays of food go untouched. If waste isn't increasing, it’s still at an unacceptable baseline. Studies from USDA and environmental groups routinely estimate 30–50% of school food ends up in the trash, especially vegetables and milk.

Anecdotal reports across Minnesota show students taking meals because they’re free—even when they aren’t hungry or don’t want them. We must ask: Are we solving hunger or creating a system that unintentionally devalues food?

Nutritious on Paper ≠ Nutritious in Practice

Mr. Satre rightly points out that menus include fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. But parents and school staff often observe the quality and preparation of these meals falling short. Overcooked vegetables, reheated frozen items, and high-sugar breakfast offerings are all too common. If students are throwing out apples and drinking sugary chocolate milk, we haven’t succeeded in promoting health—we’ve subsidized waste.

The USDA’s nutritional guidelines allow considerable leeway, and local implementation varies. If we are going to spend hundreds of millions on universal meals, let’s make sure they aren’t just technically compliant, but practically nourishing.

Means Testing Isn’t Cruel—It’s Sensible

Mr. Satre argues that targeting help to those who need it is more bureaucratic than universal programs. But that assumes the administrative cost of means testing outweighs the enormous financial burden of feeding all students regardless of need—including many from affluent families. In reality, universal programs often waste limited resources on those who don't need assistance, which reduces what's available for those who do.

Would we offer universal housing subsidies or utility payments for all Minnesotans regardless of income? Of course not—because needs-based assistance is a hallmark of responsible governance. If we’re serious about helping hungry kids, let’s focus every dollar where it matters most.

Cost Is Not an Afterthought

Minnesota’s universal school meals program is estimated to cost $200 million per year—and growing. This is not monopoly money. It's taxpayer money, pulled from a state budget already struggling with shortfalls in special education, infrastructure, and teacher pay. To suggest that critics of this program are ignoring federal cuts is a deflection. Budget constraints are real at every level, and universal free meals should not become a sacred cow immune from scrutiny.

I am not against feeding children—I am against spending vast sums in a way that is not targeted, not proven to be the most effective, and not responsive to local feedback.

Toward a Smarter Path Forward

Here’s what a more balanced solution could look like:

* Expand free meals for all students in Title I schools and any student who qualifies for state or federal aid.

* Offer opt-in universal breakfast programs where hunger is most acute.

* Encourage partnerships with local farms and food co-ops to improve meal quality and reduce reliance on mass-distributed, low-nutrient foods.

* Allow schools more flexibility in meal design and scheduling so food fits students’ preferences and schedules better.

* Continue offering meals to all—but with accountability measures for waste and nutrition outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Mr. Satre urges readers not to "take food from students." But what’s at stake isn’t the principle of feeding children—it’s the efficiency, nutritional quality, and fiscal sustainability of the system we’ve built.

If we want to truly help students, let’s work together to target resources wisely, feed students well, and ensure the food served is not just free—but worth eating.

Let’s not choose between feeding children and being fiscally responsible. Let’s choose both.