Quote:
Public Health Official: New regulations mandating higher nutrition standards for school meals were introduced with the dual goals of improving children's overall health and reducing obesity rates. These regulations required that the meals offer a greater variety of foods, including options with lower calorie content, with the ultimate aim of reducing childhood obesity. However, despite implementing these changes, and robust demand for school meals, there has not been a noticeable decrease in obesity rates among school-aged children.
Which of the following would, if true, best explain the discrepancy outlined above?
(A) Before the new regulations were implemented, most school meals met the nutritional guidelines that were in place at that time.
(B) Parents and guardians often provide children with additional snacks and meals that are not regulated by the school nutrition standards.
(C) The new regulations mandate that all school cafeterias implement menus in multiple languages.
(D) Many schools have objected to the introduction of new regulations.
(E) The increase in food variety makes it harder for students to consistently choose healthier options.
Fact 1: New regulations mandating higher nutrition standards for school meals were introduced with the dual goals of improving children's overall health and reducing obesity rates. These regulations required that the meals offer a greater variety of foods, including options with lower calorie content, with the ultimate aim of reducing childhood obesity.
Fact 2: However, despite implementing these changes, and robust demand for school meals, there has not been a noticeable decrease in obesity rates among school-aged children.
How is it that new regulations for school meals were introduced with the goal of reducing childhood obesity and improving health, but even with the strong demand for school meals, there’s been no noticeable decrease in obesity rates?
A. This is irrelevant. We don’t care about what the regulations used to be.
B. This explains the paradox. If the children aren’t exclusively eating the regulated meals, but instead supplementing with other meals and snacks, then they could have reacted to lower calorie options by making up the calories elsewhere instead of decreasing their consumption.
C. This is irrelevant. We’ve no reason to think that there was a language barrier causing the outcome.
D. This is irrelevant. Whether they objected or not, the changes have been implemented.
E. This is irrelevant. Even if it’s harder to consistently choose healthier options, it’s still possible to choose them sometimes, so there still should have been some effect.
Best answer is B.