School lunches should be more nutriotinal

As my opponent did not address my points, I'll move right into rebuttals. "Learning information depletes the brain's supply of glucose, it is important to refuel children's glucose supplies with a healthy lunch. A healthy lunch can give children the energy they need." -----Glucose can be refueled without a more 'nutritional' lunch program. Glucose is found in normal school lunches just as much as it is found in new healthier lunches. ----- "A person's eating habits are typically acquired during his childhood. Therefore, healthier nutritional choices throughout children's entire lifetimes. By making healthy school lunches the norm, children will inadvertently learn about nutrition and healthy eating." -----Giving a student a 'healthier' lunch teaches them nothing about nutrition and healthy eating. Teaching the student to be responsible for his/her own decisions IN CONJUNCTION WITH actually teaching them about nutrition will lead to healthier eating with no economic input. Giving the students healthier food and merely hoping that they "inadvertently" learn will not actually teach them anything.----- "School lunches that provide more calories than a child needs to maintain his body weight can lead to weight gain and obesity. This not only can compromise the child's health, but also lead to health problems as an adult. Children who are overweight have increased risks of developing health problems, including diabetes and hypertension, and becoming obese adults." ----- There is no evidence provided that the 'unhealthier' school lunch program had too many calories, or that it lead to obesity. Eating too many calories can obviously lead to health problems, but one meal out of the day isn't going to make a child obese. It is the school's responsibility to teach the kids about what they are eating, not to tell them what to eat. If the students understand basic nutrition, they will make healthy choices at every meal. Giving them a slightly healthier lunch will just teach the kids to eat whatever is in front of them.----- "According to School Health Policies and Programs study in 2006, 11.7 percent of elementary schools, 19 percent of middle schools, and 23.5 percent of high schools included meals from fast food restaurants ... Teenagers who eat fast food frequently consume more fat and calories and fewer essential nutrients than their counterparts." ----- This is a bit of a reach. Teenagers who eat fast food AT FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS have these health problems. Restaurant branded food IN SCHOOLS is actually significantly healthier. USA TODAY examined about 150,000 tests on beef purchased for the school lunch program. They found cases in which the agency bought meat that retailers and fast-food chains would have rejected. From late 2008 through early 2009, there were nearly 500,000 pounds of ground beef bought from Beef Packers and Skylark for the school lunch program. This beef had unusually high levels of an indicator bacteria known as generic E. coli. This is considered an indicator of whether contaminants from the intestines of cattle have gotten into slaughtered meat. Restaurant branded food can come from a non-federal source, and be just as healthy.----- "Lunch is supposed to supply a child with about one-third of his total daily calories." ----- This is a bit random. The children can get one-third of their daily calories from just about anything. This does not support the affirmative's side. ----- Because my opponents dropped my points, and because of my effective rebuttals, I urge a negative vote.