The government for the first time is proposing broad new standards to make school snacks healthier, a move that would ban the sale of almost all candy, high-calorie sports drinks and greasy foods on campus. (Courtesy of AP)

Gather your pitchforks. Prepare your picket signs. And please, light your torches. The government has committed a heinous crime.

They want to provide our children with nutritious foods at school.

Now, I can agree that the government is good at poking its nose in where it shouldn’t. But there is something disturbing about the fight against removing unhealthy foods from public schools. Especially if parents are the ones advocating Cheetos in the lunch line.

It seems that what we’re really overlooking is the fact that these are public schools. Public. A service provided by the government. Parents willingly hand over their little ones to free childcare and trust that they will be taken care of and properly educated. Nutrition can easily fit into both of these categories. It’s very hard for me to imagine a parent saying to a babysitter, “Yeah, just give Jimmy a Snickers for dinner. And make sure you explain to him that it is perfectly acceptable to eat it.” If our society expects quality in the area of public education, then decent meals accompanied by knowledge of a healthy lifestyle should be encouraged.

Claiming that the government is trying to tell our kids what to do is such an absurd argument. Have they not been “telling them what to do” all along? When kids are at school, they are clearly under the authority of government employees.

I don’t know what your parents did when they got a call from the school about you finding a nice seat in detention, but mine certainly didn’t tell the principal to shove off. Parents usually accept the discipline the school provides, along with a bit of their own if they really want to get the point across that spit-balls are not tolerated. Improving the quality of cafeteria food is far less intrusive than demanding a certain type of behavior and level of academic performance among students.

Kids can still bring whatever food parents will allow them from home. Kids can still eat a candy bar a friend shares with them. Kids, however, cannot act out in class and get by without doing their work.

For many students from low-income homes, breakfast and lunch are provided either in full or at a reduced price. This is a charity, in many cases, for children who are not properly fed at home because of financial struggles. Why would we want to deprive a small child of an adequate diet for the sake of schools turning a profit on cans of soda? We have a duty to protect children. We do not have a duty to give children whatever they want.

Parents, if you want to give your six-year-old an exercise in making choices, stop at the gas station on the way to school and give him two bucks. But I’m sure that most of you know that little Bobby is a bit short-sighted, so you would prefer to just pick his meals out for him. Schools are only approaching nutrition with the same mentality. They understand that if children are sent to school with money and instructions to buy a salad for lunch, they may just end up with an ice cream sandwich instead.

Let us remember that nobody is forced to eat cafeteria food. It is a public service, which an individual can accept or decline. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Thrall is a sophomore majoring in journalism and film.