http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/xx_fa...tml?original_referrer=https://www.google.com/ fair, Kersting's justification for starving kids is to teach the parents a lesson, but his reasons don't make a whole lot of sense: "We have more food than any other nation. You know, no kid is going to starve." Well, yes, there's plenty of food to go around. That's why the critics of the policy are mad. They object to throwing perfectly good food in the trash instead of feeding kids who are hungry. Even if a kid has plenty to eat when she gets home, skipping a meal and having low blood sugar means she's going to struggle to pay attention in class. Presumably, educating the actual students should be a higher priority for schools than teaching abstract lessons to the non-student parents about getting their chores done on time. http://video.foxnews.com/v/2649916187001/new-lunch-program-may-leave-students-hungry-in-new-jersey/ The new lunch program states that if kids, not on the Free and Reduced Lunch program, don't have money to pay for that school lunch, they will go hungry for the day. The child & everyone else in line will witness his lunch tossed in the trash!