Understandably, it's tough for children with empty stomachs to focus on learning. Studies confirm that kids need adequate nutrition to feed their brains and that many children come from families experiencing food insecurity.

That's partly why Minnesota House members voted 70-58 last week to pass HF 5, which would provide universal, no-cost school breakfasts and lunches statewide. Under the bill, the state would pay schools about $360 million over the next two years to supplement federal food payments. That would make two school meals available to all students — regardless of family income.

That's excessive. In our view, millions of dollars that would be spent to feed more affluent students would be better spent in other areas of education.

In support of the measure, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Sydney Jordan, DFL-Minneapolis, said, "One in four students experiencing food insecurity come from families that do not qualify for existing nutrition programs in our schools." She added that the status quo lets too many Minnesota schoolchildren go hungry.

The status quo is the federally supported family income-based, free- and reduced-price program that offers meals to many students. Those programs require families to be income-qualified and require school districts to collect income information.

Jordan noted that the federal government provided universal no-cost school meals nationwide in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of the 2021-22 school year. Her bill would allow that to continue with the state making up part of the bill for less needy kids.

If adopted, the measure would guarantee two free meals per day to any student who wants them. Groups such as the School Nutrition Association support free universal meals because of the rising food costs for families and schools. Free meals would also eliminate paperwork for schools and families and the stigma that some students experience if they are eligible for free lunch or unable to pay.

However, some Republican lawmakers have rightly argued that spending millions on meals for kids whose families can afford them would be fiscally irresponsible.

That's why Rep. Peggy Bennett, R-Albert Lea, a retired educator, said she would vote against the bill. "It's not because I don't care about kids who are hungry — we want students whose families cannot afford to feed them to have lunch," she told the Star Tribune. "Rather, this is a shotgun technique instead of surgical approach." Republican lawmakers offered sensible amendments that would have raised the income threshold to qualify for no-cost meals rather than providing them universally. But those amendments were not approved.

If the bill passes and is signed by Gov. Tim Walz, who has made the legislation a priority, Minnesota would be the third state — following California and Maine — to cover the cost of meals for all students. There are active campaigns for similar legislation in Wisconsin, North Carolina, New York and Maryland, according to the Associated Press. And at least three states — Massachusetts, Nevada and Vermont — will continue to support meals for all through the end of this academic year.

As the Senate considers its version of the legislation, members should strongly consider the amendments that the House rejected. Those modifications would still assist families that are now very close to the family income limits but find it challenging to cover all their food needs in monthly budgets.

Again, Minnesota schools should provide breakfast and lunch for needy students, and expanding eligibility for free meals so that no student goes hungry is the right thing to do. But there are myriad needs for taxpayer dollars, especially in education, and covering the cost of meals for families that can afford them is bad policy.