If a critic of the new federal guidelines wants to make a convincing case against them they should quote the language they disagree with and point out exactly what is wrong with that particular rule. All I have seen on this thread is ignorant misconceptions about nutrition, speculation and kneejerk anti-government and and anti-Obama rhetoric.
Here, I'll even help you:
"...In summary, the January 2011 proposed rule sought to improve lunches and breakfasts by requiring schools to:
•Offer fruits and vegetables as two separate meal components;
•Offer fruit daily at breakfast and lunch;
•Offer vegetables daily at lunch, including specific vegetable subgroups weekly (dark green, orange, legumes, and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines) and a limited quantity of starchy vegetables throughout the week;
•Offer whole grains: half of the grains would be whole grain-rich upon implementation of the rule and all grains would be whole-grain rich two years post implementation;
•Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast;
•Offer fluid milk that is fat-free (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat (unflavored only);
•Offer meals that meet specific calorie ranges for each age/grade group;
•Reduce the sodium content of meals gradually over a 10-year period through two intermediate sodium targets at two and four years post implementation;
•Prepare meals using food products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per serving;
•Require students to select a fruit or a vegetable as part of the reimbursable meal;
•Use a single food-based menu planning approach; and
•Use narrower age/grade groups for menu planning..."
Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs; Final Rule
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf
Which of those rules is unreasonable or not scientifically valid?