The piece contends that banning ultra-processed foods in school cafeterias is not a solution to improving children's nutrition. It emphasizes that such prohibitions are often counterproductive and stem from a paternalistic mindset that confuses protection with control. Instead of imposing strict regulations, the article advocates for educational approaches that foster critical thinking about food choices among students.

Furthermore, the author argues that schools should serve as real-life laboratories where students engage with the challenges of the external world, rather than isolated environments devoid of temptation. By allowing the availability of ultra-processed foods, educators can teach children how to make informed and responsible food choices themselves. The article critiques the notion that simply removing certain foods is an effective means of enhancing nutrition and suggests this approach fails to equip students with the necessary skills for lifelong health.

Ultimately, the discussion raises significant questions about public health policy, autonomy, and empowerment in education. Rather than assuming that a ban will automatically lead to better health outcomes, the author calls for a more nuanced understanding of nutrition that incorporates education and personal responsibility, thereby encouraging students to navigate their own dietary decisions in a reflective way.