

The story seems weird to me.
What kind of paint are they putting on food that wouldn’t be at least weird tasting?
And why do you actually care if the kids eat the food, to the level of trying to adulterate it? Isn’t it enough from a legal perspective to provide food?
I could see painting sample dishes to photograph for their advertising, to flimflam parents who are actually paying for the service, and then people might complain the actual meal is less vibrant, with far less risk and ongoing cost.
This is a remarkable combination of cunning and stupid.


Kohler is never getting a kopeck of my money.
We put in a fancy one-piece Kohler toilet in the ~2000s.
Never flushed well because it was an early low-flow model and clesrly built for looks instead of functionality. The design provided no purchase for easily removing the seat for replacement, even with the special tool they provided for the task.
We finally broke down and replaced it with an American Standard which at least flushes well.