[Eumenes]

Your entire comment is strange and snarky but this stuck out:

> You know why no-questions asked, free lunch programs for everyone are so hugely important for kids suffering from food scarcity? Often it’s because their shitty parents won’t even sign forms to get them free lunch.

So its no questions asked but "shitty parents" still have to sign forms? Most states with reduced/free lunch programs have income thresholds. Regardless, if you let your kid eat that crap, you're a "shitty parent", because its literally choked full of sodium and fake ingredients. If I lived in one of those states, I'd be asking for my lunch voucher in cash to go towards real food.

[BryantD]

Indeed. People tend to reflexively assume that income thresholds are a good idea because it prevents people who don't need the program from benefitting, but you've got to think about the cost to the kids whose parents won't do that particular piece of paperwork. Just give kids food if they say they need it. You'll also save money on bureaucracy.

This is a separate question from the quality of the food. I will note that if you give out cash instead of vouchers you are giving the kid something that others can and will take away from them.

[Yawrehto]

I think what they meant was that if there are eligibility requirements and such, paperwork is required and some parents won't do it. So no questions asked solves that problem. That's how I parsed it, at least.