Reading Standards for Informational Text: Proficient Reading and Comprehension (CCSS.RI.7.6) Practice Test

Should School Lunches Go Local? This editorial claims schools should serve more locally grown produce because freshness reduces waste and teaches students where food comes from. Some district accountants argue that local items cost more per tray and strain tight budgets. While price matters, however, looking only at the sticker cost misses an important factor: what students actually eat.

In taste tests across three middle schools, students were offered the same recipes made with local and shipped produce. Staff recorded what students left on their trays. The results were modest but consistent: students ate more of the fresher versions. That difference matters because uneaten food is money in the trash.

Chart: Bars comparing "shipped apples" and "local apples" show higher cost per tray but lower waste percentage for local; similar pattern for carrots

Critics claim buying local is a trend that "sounds nice" but drains funds. I acknowledge there may be weeks when weather makes local supply thin. Yet even accountants admit waste has a price tag. When you factor in waste, the total cost narrows. In one pilot month, local apples cost a few cents more up front, but waste dropped enough to offset most of the gap.

A nutrition coach argues that fresher produce also has better texture, which encourages first bites. That small win can build new habits over time. While we should not overpromise, the likely benefits justify a careful shift. Start with one or two items each season, track both cost and waste, and adjust.

The goal is not to ignore budgets; it is to spend smarter. Compared to paying less for food students throw away, paying slightly more for food they actually eat is a better lesson and a better value.

Many cities are banning plastic straws, but I contend that policy is too narrow to make the ocean meaningfully cleaner. My purpose is to shift attention to bigger sources of marine plastic, especially abandoned fishing gear and industrial packaging. Activists often argue that eliminating straws is a simple first step that teaches new habits. Their hope is understandable, and I respect their energy. While any small reduction helps, however, we should target the largest, most harmful items first. Consider what researchers have found. A recent study estimates that nets, ropes, and lines make up a large share of ocean plastic by weight. By contrast, straws are frequently counted during beach cleanups, yet they represent a tiny fraction of the total mass floating offshore. That contrast matters because weight and volume drive much of the damage to wildlife and propellers. I am not saying straw bans do nothing; I am saying they miss the main problem. Blockquote: "Banning straws is a clear signal that our city cares," an organizer claims. "If we start here, people will change other habits too." Signals are fine, but signals are not the sea. While straw bans feel satisfying, however, they miss the bigger waste. When we measure outcomes, not just feelings, the focus should shift. A coastal engineer I spoke with admits that awareness can rise after a ban; still, she argues that targeted fishing gear buy-backs and port drop-off programs remove far more plastic, per dollar, than straw rules do. If our goal is cleaner water soon, we should invest in the policies with the strongest, most measurable results.