Good idea overall, especially with regard to local food sources. The products used by ‘conventional’ farmers that are presented as needing to be not present in food are ALL legal, regulated, components of 'conventional ’ farm management.
The policy declares the food eaten by students is FREE OF these microcomponents of an animal or plant’s growth stages. Whether it be hormones to aid in growth rate of pre-weaning beef cattle, or modified genes to aid in a plant’s resistance to certain microbes, the additives would be useless unless ‘used up’ by the plant or animal. Just because we have testing equipment that can detect PPB does not mean those remnants are harmful. As with virtually all groups that want foods to be labelled for the products they object to, the objection to their presence, in my opinion, boils down to a mistrust of large multinational companies. Anecdotal evidence seems to trump science for such groups. Household income for most such advocates must surely be greater than average.
I personally have no objection at all to eating food composed of genetically modified primary sources [cows, sheep, wheat, canola, corn] Nor do I consider properly used antibiotics a problem. People who badger a pharmacist to provide antibiotics for a cold (which is viral, not bacterial!!} do much more harm with regard to resistance than do lame cows who may have had an antibiotic for a bacterial infection three years before slaughter.
There’s more to say, much more, but this has to end here. To place a high priority on students getting good food, nevertheless, is a very good goal. Just not a real connection to primary ag production among policy makers.