Pizza. French toast sticks. Mozzarella sticks. Chicken nuggets. Sloppy Joes. Hot dogs. Ramen noodles. These are some of the entrees you’ll find distributed by large processed food corporations that make their way into Ulster County students’ stomachs every week. What if the options were healthier, fresher and sourced locally?
State residents will continue to wonder after New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed the Good Food NY bill (sponsored by, among others, Senator Michelle Hinchey). The bill was designed to revolutionize school meals by prioritizing healthier and locally sourced options. The decision has sparked criticism from advocates who argue that the veto prioritizes the interests of major processed food corporations over the nutritional well-being of students.
The proposed legislation sought to introduce funding incentives for schools to purchase fresh, locally sourced ingredients, thereby supporting regional agriculture and improving meal quality for students. Proponents believed the policy could have served as a model for other states aiming to enhance public school nutrition.
However, the veto ensures that current meal procurement practices remain largely unchanged, favoring large-scale food distributors and processed food companies. These corporations profit from providing low-cost, highly processed meals that often fail to meet basic nutritional standards. The lack of fresh produce and over-reliance on processed foods contribute to childhood obesity and other diet-related conditions. While these meals meet federal guidelines, health experts frequently question their long-term impact on children’s health.
In defense of the veto, Governor Hochul stated that the bill lacked adequate provisions to ensure its implementation without significant administrative burdens on schools and state agencies. She also highlighted concerns about the costs associated with the program, arguing that without clear funding sources, the legislation could strain state budgets and divert resources from other critical educational priorities. Supporters of the veto suggest that more comprehensive planning is necessary to balance health goals with financial feasibility.
Had the bill been signed into law, it could have redirected significant funding toward local farms and producers, fostering economic growth in rural areas while ensuring healthier meals for students. Though area schools have been making efforts to improve the nutritional value of meals, they might have been able to serve fresher fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins had the bill passed. Advocates envisioned a ripple effect, where improved nutrition would enhance student health, academic performance, and long-term wellbeing — not to mention animal welfare (the ASPCA was a major supporter of the bill) — and the economic support of sustainable local farms.
Join the family! 
