Our Findings
After carefully reviewing our sources, we have concluded that it is indeed beneficial to allow In-N-Out to be in charge of food in the Los Angeles Unified School District. There are multiple benefits that stem from this relationship, mainly economical, yet there are still social and moral benefits.
One basic economic theory that this can be used to increase efficiency and decrease cost in specialization and trade. School has an obvious specialization in providing children with quality education. However, schools do not have a good track record when it comes to other things. A good example of this is the amazing delay of doing something as menial as replacing a light bulb. Schools are unfit for anything but education, which is why food production should be left to the experts.
One might argue that by outsourcing our food product, we are increasing cost. However although this may seem logical at first glance, upon scrutiny, this is obviously flawed. The relationship between schools and a food provider is a symbiotic relationship, one where both parties benefit. Schools will get a cut of the profits and the food provider will get a new venue to do business. In addition to having a slice of the pie, schools are able to reallocate resources previously used to produce food into something much more useful to education, such as catching up on paperwork. The slight increase in the price of lunch will become negligent in comparison to the quality and presentation of the food, as parents understand their children will indubitably be served the best in nutrition, the most transparent in production, and the lowest in price.
America is a wonderful country, one that sets itself apart from others based on everyone’s right to choose. We as Americans are able to choose our religion, our political affiliation, and what we say. Is the right to choose what one can eat any different? This restriction on what we can eat is an outrageous imposition on our freedom. Who is it to say what we can eat? Currently if a child wishes to purchase school lunch, he is forced to eat food that is defined as healthy by the California government. Judging by the lunches served in schools today, there is definitely many variations regarding the definitions of healthy.
What exactly defines healthy? Does the item in question have to supply all daily dietary needs? What if it exceeds them? Contrary to popular belief, consuming only fruits and vegetables can actually cause harm to your body since they contain excessive amounts of iron and sugar. This proclaimed healthy food is starting to sound like a religion. There is no set standard for healthy just like religion. If it is wrong to force a religion on someone, how can we justify forcing healthy food on others given their similarities.
One basic economic theory that this can be used to increase efficiency and decrease cost in specialization and trade. School has an obvious specialization in providing children with quality education. However, schools do not have a good track record when it comes to other things. A good example of this is the amazing delay of doing something as menial as replacing a light bulb. Schools are unfit for anything but education, which is why food production should be left to the experts.
One might argue that by outsourcing our food product, we are increasing cost. However although this may seem logical at first glance, upon scrutiny, this is obviously flawed. The relationship between schools and a food provider is a symbiotic relationship, one where both parties benefit. Schools will get a cut of the profits and the food provider will get a new venue to do business. In addition to having a slice of the pie, schools are able to reallocate resources previously used to produce food into something much more useful to education, such as catching up on paperwork. The slight increase in the price of lunch will become negligent in comparison to the quality and presentation of the food, as parents understand their children will indubitably be served the best in nutrition, the most transparent in production, and the lowest in price.
America is a wonderful country, one that sets itself apart from others based on everyone’s right to choose. We as Americans are able to choose our religion, our political affiliation, and what we say. Is the right to choose what one can eat any different? This restriction on what we can eat is an outrageous imposition on our freedom. Who is it to say what we can eat? Currently if a child wishes to purchase school lunch, he is forced to eat food that is defined as healthy by the California government. Judging by the lunches served in schools today, there is definitely many variations regarding the definitions of healthy.
What exactly defines healthy? Does the item in question have to supply all daily dietary needs? What if it exceeds them? Contrary to popular belief, consuming only fruits and vegetables can actually cause harm to your body since they contain excessive amounts of iron and sugar. This proclaimed healthy food is starting to sound like a religion. There is no set standard for healthy just like religion. If it is wrong to force a religion on someone, how can we justify forcing healthy food on others given their similarities.