I am all in favor of children being provided healthy food at school for both breakfast and lunch. I do not have a problem with seeing my tax dollars go to fund such initiatives. Many children do not have the money to pay for lunch. If they charge those who can afford it, and don't charge (or charge reduced price) for those who can't afford it, that labels the poor children as being poor, and creates bookkeeping issues that you avoid when you just go ahead and feed everyone at taxpayer expense. In many poor districts, such as in Appalachia and the South, they do precisely that.
At my son's former would-be "elite" Newchurch school (which also functioned as a segregation academy for the wealthy of all faiths and none, let's not mince words, everybody damn well knows that's how the place stays afloat!), they just had huge boxes of fast food brought in by various local outlets. They could hire a music teacher, and they could hire a Spanish teacher, and they could hire a computer teacher, but money to hire a cook, nutritionist, and health teacher? Once again, faculties win, kids lose. All about the Benjamins, all about the test scores.
(Back in my day, in the public school at least, they had someone called a "health nurse", which is kind of an oxymoron, but I digress. At my son's school, that job was done by the secretary with Band-aids, a thermometer, and Tylenol. Mo' money, mo' problems...)