But I think you're exaggerating a great deal in describing how atrocious the action is, and since that's the core of your argument why you don't believe it...

For it to be as outrageous as you are saying, the adults would have had to take that food with the conscious notion of "this way, there'll be kids that go without a proper meal today". I agree that *that* is highly unlikely.

But then, they most likely did not think any such thing when they ate that food. The whistleblower herself is quoted about how it's inappropriate to eat food paid for by federal funds and intended for children. Which it obviously is. But it only becomes outrageous if doing so leaves insufficient amounts for children. Those teachers seem to have taken their food at a point at which they couldn't really see how much was needed for the children, though. And they may just have figured that every child would get a few bites less, then. They certainly wouldn't have thought that children would go without food entirely because of that, which incidentally is a claim I rather doubt anyway.