EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
School Lunches: Push for Healthier Foods Faces Barriers
On a frigid February day last year, Michele Hays filed into Evanston Township High School with other concerned parents to talk with district administrators about school lunches.
"It feels to me like there is a movement across the country with parents more concerned about school lunches," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. "But it's not reflected on a federal policy level as far as I can see." (photo by flickr user DOliphant) One specific target of the parents' ire was a cafeteria meal called "Brunch for Lunch." As luck would have it, administrators brought a sample of the meal with them.
"When I actually saw it, it was so much worse than I thought it would be," she remembered.
"So I got up at the meeting and said, 'You may be meeting all the guidelines ... but I think it is unconscionable that you are serving pancakes, a tub of maple-flavored high-fructose corn syrup and a side of cookies for lunch.'"
Even for parents in relatively small suburban school districts, such as those in Evanston, the school food system can seem too big to change. Despite Hays' unusually open access to administrators and legislators, her yearlong effort to cut back on the weekly "Brunch for Lunch" offering in Evanston's elementary schools has failed so far.
But a Tribune examination of school food in Illinois' 10 largest districts found small positive changes are possible. Several districts serve only fruit for dessert four days of the week; some restrict nachos entrees to once a week; one has done away with breakfast Pop-Tarts; and some offer daily cold bars full of sliced fruits and vegetables.
Many of these changes have come at the prompting of health-conscious parents, the first generation to spend billions on natural and organic foods for their children. Hays recently persuaded Evanston- Skokie School District 65 to post pictures and nutrition labels for school meals online.
But substantial obstacles to change remain. Most parents, administrators and legislators agree that the national lunch program is underfunded, forcing providers to serve cheap, often low-quality, foods. The system is also structured to let children's preferences dictate the menu because if kids don't take the lunches, the food providers get less money. Those things probably won't change until Congress shapes the new rules for the Child Nutrition Act in the next few months.
At the meeting Hays attended, school food service directors showed a slide show on the mechanics of the National School Lunch Program, which involves an array of government agencies, funding structures and rules. It left them feeling "like this is so much bigger and confusing than we could have imagined," Hays said.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., recently visited her granddaughter's Evanston school to learn about the situation on the ground so she can help shape federal policy when Congress debates the nutrition act.
"It feels to me like there is a movement across the country with parents more concerned about school lunches," she said. "But it's not reflected on a federal policy level as far as I can see."
On her visit, Schakowsky participated in a passionate discussion that reflected concerns reaching beyond the Evanston schools.
One of the most contentious topics at the meeting, which Hays also attended, dealt with the most effective ways for parents to make their voices heard.
She asked what might happen if parents organized a boycott of objectionable meals and, for example, sent all their kids to school with a sack lunch on the day "Brunch for Lunch" was served.
After a long silence, nutrition services director Meghan Gibbons said a boycott would be financially damaging. Gibbons oversees the District 202 kitchen at Evanston Township High School, which also produces the meals for District 65's elementary schools.
The brunch lunch is the schools' most popular, and any sudden drop in sales would mean smaller reimbursements from the federal government. Gibbons suggested that parents discuss objectionable lunches with the food service provider.
"If there is something on the menu ... that our parents don't like, we can look at it," said District 65 Superintendent Hardy Murphy, prompting Hays to note that she already has protested the brunch lunch for some time.
The mother of a third-grader, Hays said she packs a lunch most days but sends her son with lunch money when the district is serving "meals like bean burritos that we want to support."
Both Gibbons and District 65 food service director Christine Frole say they are frustrated with the paltry sum -- roughly $1 -- they can spend on food for each lunch.
As Congress prepares to discuss the Child Nutrition Act, President Barack Obama has asked for an additional $1 billion in funding for school lunches, which would mean about 30 cents more per lunch. Other observers are lobbying for money to fund a $1 increase.
Money aside, Hays thinks it's a mistake to let children wield so much power over the menu. District food directors won't even consider dishes that score lower than 80 percent approval ratings from student tasting panels.
Gibbons countered that she must please many different constituencies. "We have some parents who are particularly interested in reducing sugar. Some particularly interested in whole grains. Some who are particularly interested in reducing high-fructose corn syrup. Then we have federal and state requirements, so in order to appease all groups ..."
"It's not just appeasing but rather following an empirical health standard," Schakowsky interjected. "Also I think kids can learn to like healthier things. Their preferences are not static. ... One of the goals we have as a nation is to change and improve their eating habits."
Echoing the concerns of many health advocates and parents, Hays said: "I'm afraid that if we are not educating their palates now -- rather than reinforcing their unhealthy preferences -- we are educating them to make bad decisions."
When Hays suggested that hummus might offer a popular, inexpensive and protein-rich way to feed the students, Gibbons replied that many of the kids were not familiar with the chickpea dip, that tahini (sesame seed paste, an ingredient in the dish) costs too much, and the serving size would need to be very large to meet protein requirements set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Still, hummus and fresh vegetables are served daily as a side dish at Naperville Central High School, showing it could be used as a healthful accompaniment to meals if not the students' entire protein serving.
Schakowsky acknowledged that changing kids' tastes "is a lot to ask of a school system. And [meals served today] sound much better than they used to be."
One of the central obstacles to serving healthy food is the fact that the system discourages experimentation. Any drop in lunch participation results in financial penalties for the caterer.
When it was suggested that the new lunch rules could reduce that risk -- perhaps by guaranteeing a minimum reimbursement that could keep districts afloat while they try healthier options -- Gibbons said, "I think that sounds wonderful. Now will Uncle Sam go for it?"
To that Schakowsky replied, "Well, I think getting kids to try new things is going to take some sort of creative strategy."
After the meeting, Hays said she was impressed with her tour of the King Lab Magnet School's lunchroom, which serves more fresh produce and less lunch brunch than the rest of the district. Still, she suspected that even this high-level meeting may have minimal impact on the juggernaut that is the National School Lunch Program.
"One thing that I think is important for parents to remember is that there are limits to how much school lunch can change," Hays said. "It will never be all organic; there will never be all fresh cooked foods. But hopefully we will get that extra dollar per lunch."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllThe photo above represents what the Republicans and Democrats would look like if they were "food".
If the parents don't take control of their school district, its their fault. Its their responsibility after all.
How about a healthier education?
Stop producing generations of mindless "patriots" who cannot find their own ass on a map
These are free lunches. Stop whining.
Here's a good idea somewhere half into the article:
"She asked what might happen if parents organized a boycott of objectionable meals and, for example, sent all their kids to school with a sack lunch on the day "Brunch for Lunch" was served."
Yeah, whatever happened to packing a sandwich and an apple?
Interesting article. The parents are upset with what the kids are eating and demanding. Well, they need to take a long look in the mirror. Many of these kids do not get fresh fruit or vegetables at home. They do not get a pot roast with vegetables, a salad, yogurt, real cheese or even milk. No they get fast food from McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King or Taco Bell. They drink soda, bottled water, juice beverages that have very little juice, Kool-aid instead of healthier choices; but then again, this is what the parents bring home from the grocery store. This is what a lot of kids are fed meal after meal and day after day; this is what they have come to like - so parents you are really to blame for your kids poor eating habits at school and in the home.
The School Lunch Program was originally designed to help poor children have at least one healthy meal per day as fuller stomaches lead to the child doing better in school. All fine and dandy. . .but since the advent of Ronald Reagen and the "catsup as a vegetable" incident, funding for the School Lunch Program has decreased/child. To serve the types of foods demanded by some parents, would only over run the budgets. I mean, the School Lunch Program is NOT the Defense Department; they actually have to live within the budget.
If parents want their kids to have better food at school, then they need to pack a lunch with the foods they kids will eat. It isn't so hard, it is just not convenient for these "busy parents".
You make much sense. This has to start and end with parents. It is unfair to blame the schools. And you are also right that the purpose of school lunch was to assure poor children one healthy meal, not to mass feed everyone.
Let me add another dimension here. About 20 years ago I was at a luncheon meeting of the local food broker's association. The speaker was the FSD (or procurement officer) for the Chicago Public Schools. Someone asked what effect the requirement for minority business inclusion had on costs. The response was that costs increased 10%.
I've also mentioned this before here, but, in 1993 I interviewed for a job in school food service management. I did not get the job for one reason. They thought I was "too against sugar". However, no one asked me what changes I might make or how I might make them. It almost always comes down to the same thing. People are afraid of change. Those who want change have to know how to diminish fear of change.
It is not a coincidence that school lunch programs are under USDA. The main concern quickly shifted from assuring poor children a nutritious meal to using up commodities.
The partner of food costs is labor costs. Parents who want healthier school food should pack lunches or prepare to volunteer.
Actually commodies are good quality products; milk, cheese, corn, wheat flour, rice, soybeans, etc. These are whole foods that provide good nutrition when prepared from scratch; that however, means hiring cooks who know how to cook and buying the non-commodity food stuffs to make the rest of the meal.
Packing lunch is a great idea; I spent 12 years of my life carrying lunch to school and didn't suffer too much. What I had what way better than most of the stuff the other kids had.
"I'm afraid that if we are not educating their palates now -- rather than reinforcing their unhealthy preferences -- we are educating them to make bad decisions."
How else are you going to get these kids to join the military?
Schools usually have football fields. I say plow them under and teach kids how to grow their own food. In the long run it's a more valuable skill.
what a wonderful idea.
The idea is great, except I believe more production would come from building a green house that could produce the entire year, not just summer months when school is out...
I almost wrote that, but thought the expense involved might be off-putting to some readers here. In fact one of the schools in this county has done that: the shop class built the greenhouse, and the students are growing food for the cafeteria.
Your mention of summer vacation brings to mind another remark. This business of a 3-month long break is no good. There are things children can be taught during the summer--gardening is just one example--they can't be taught any other time of year. I think it would be more appropriate for public schools to educate our children year-round with a two-week break each season. I think it's crucial we get some of these young people away from computers, the TV, cell phones and the mall and into the natural world. In the future any survivors are going to need certain skills. Unfortunately, Mom and Dad probably don't possess those skills themselves, so it's up to the teachers to provide them with the information they need.
The High Fructose Corn Syrup must go ASAP. There is mercury in it from the way it is processed. It is literally dumbing down the kids by giving them mercury poisoning. It should, in fact, be banned entirely.
I agree that parents need to step up their game, but the fact is that some just won't, and their kids will still need lunch.
Much as he irritates me, a few years ago Jamie Oliver did a series highlighting a very similar problem with the quality of school lunches in the UK and has taken it on as something of a mission. If you take a look on his site (under "About Me > School Dinners") there is a manifesto, details and whatnot, I think schools here could take on some of his ideas if they really wanted to change.
If you look at the School Food Trust website too, you can see .pdf menus of what the kids at participating schools are getting. These meals are affordable for kids to buy (at the moment some schools are pricing them at £1)and include things like risotto, casseroles, curry, apple crumble. The meal is a main course, sides (such as mashed potato, bread, salad, rice), vegetables, dessert and usually water or milk to drink. It's a full meal, designed to feel like something home-cooked.
Oliver may be an annoying TV chef, but his manifesto addresses all aspects of what needs to happen to improve the school lunch: funding, education of children, parents and teachers, training of those cooking the food, responsibility, and a proper plan.
The Jamie Oliver (JO) campaign had a big effect here in Queensland Australia (Qld) too. Schools in Qld are no longer allowed to sell soft drinks, chocolates, cakes, sausage rolls etc. It is now enforced by law. It is all healthy food now in our schools. We can thank the state government, and we can thank JO too.
What the USA needs is a celebrity food expert like JO. The UK and Australia have proved that this is do-able :- because it is not against the MIC war interests or AIPAC or big oil and McDonald's and Hungry Jack's never had shops in the school anyway.
P.S. If everyone agreed that JO was annoying, he would never have been popular enough to achieve what he did.
We know a professional nutritionist who ran a school district's food programs. He showed how nutritious meals could be done healthily with the monies available. He was let go after lobbying of district directors by junk food corp owners. The last straw was removing sodas as well as juices containing fructose.
No amount of parent lobbying got him back.
What exactly is that a picture of? It looks like some kind of sweet and sour sauce on a bun, laden with sugar and chemicals. There's probably a low grade, nitrate and nitrite filled, sausage in there, too, given it's the Chicago area. What is really mind boggling is the fact that many school staff members regularly purchase school lunch even though it is comprised of the cheapest, worst tasting, foodstuffs money can buy, thanks to the economics of the Federal free lunch program. How these people eat this crap is impossible to comprehend! This fast food nation is what happened to a sandwich and an apple; after all, you actually have to MAKE the sandwich and go shopping and BUY the apple, and that takes time that a life in the fast lane does not afford.
I believe that we are also seeing a cycle of obesity in this country. Many parents are unaware of the dangerous eating habits that they were raised with, and as a consequence, are passing those bad habits to their children. People like me were victims of the industrial food complex for so long, that we just didn't know any better. I raised my kids with poor eating choices, as I was taught. My adult children, thankfully, figured out only recently that they needed to change their diet to be more healthy.
Schools should be a safe place for our children, free from bullies, crime, and free from dangerous food-like substances (phrase borrowed from Michael Pollan). We should not rely totally on the judgment of parents, despite how well intentioned they may be.
We have a health crisis in our nation (obesity), and our children are developing type II diabetes. How is this any different than any other national health crisis? Maybe because the "virus" behind this disease is making lots of money!
The answers are the same as every other financial issue facing education.
1. Cut waste in the administrative section of school districts.
2. Cut the salaries of the administrative staff which are, in most cases, over paid.
3. Forbid "double-dipping" by school administrators who take their pension and then take a full time job.
The money saved from these measures will fund healthy, organic alternatives to big corporate poisoning of the nations children.
"Conservative Republicans" are opposed to free and reduced priced meals. For the past decade, they have had the opportunity to kill the program by simply ruining it as an effective program that meets the needs of children and provides good and wholesome food. Under the George W. Bush "No Child Left Behind Act," the same strategies have been used to chip away at public education in general.
The food we got in school wasn't so much junk food (in high school we had a vending machine), it was garbage. Undercooked chicken, greasy sloppy joes, rubbery veggies, and they used to wonder why kids played with their food or preferred cookies and chips. The food was marginally better in high school, but ugh. I used to skip lunch so many times because the food was awful. You couldn't tell me the slop they served us was anywhere near nutritious. Maybe things have changed in the 17 years since I finished public school.
As an Illinoisan, I take note and commend Rep. Jan Schakowsky for her willingness to use her office and work toward solving the public school lunch quality issue. If only all politicians worked for solutions that serve the people verses their political parties and the lobbyists.
FrankfromPA is correct; there is a correlation between diseases, prevalent today, and which our ancestors rarely heard of, and our food. His observation that we are fatter than ever before is also correct.
While pictures of farms, with white fences and red barns, adorn our food packages, the reality is that machine farming, or the development of “agri-business,” has diminished the quality of the American diet. American consumers, who refuse to pay the real costs of food production, intensify the problem. They accept chemical concoctions sold as “food,” laden with salt, sugar and who knows what, then wonder why they are fat and spend millions on diet programs. They do not realize these concoctions are formulated specifically to defeat any attempt they might make to limit their consumption.
In order to buy food cheap, consumers support inhumane meat production, genetic modification of their foods, and use of pesticides and herbicides at toxic levels. In addition, the USDA, which oversees school lunches, meant to offer nutrition to the poor within the public school system, fails, as they do across the entire food delivery spectrum. They fail to safeguard the public because they are under extreme pressure by argi-business lobbyists to look the other way. This combination, desire for lots of food, at cheap prices, and a lack of government oversight, combines to create America’s deteriorating health conditions. This perfect storm has created our newborns born with toxins in their blood streams, grade school students with diabetes, severe allergies and autism, and fat, diabetic adults with high blood pressure and heart disease. Is it time for change? You betcha!
Cassandra is correct, when she spoke to the issue that public school lunches were intended to feed poor student and not to fill in for parents who can afford, but do not make time, to prepare healthy brown-bag lunches for their children. If those parents took responsibility for their own children’s healthy lunches, the schools might have more to spend on food for the disadvantaged.
If Michelle Hays wants to make change happen, she cannot accept that parents need to believe, “there are limits to how much school lunch can change” and “it will never be organic; there will never be all fresh cooked foods.” Such thinking limits one to mediocrity. Change is happening. There are schools serving organic, fresh cooked. Are they rare? Yes, but they signal that change has begun. That is what American’s do. That is what parents do. We find a way to make a difference.
Changing school lunches will not happen overnight. Reaching consensus takes time and education. Educated to understand why change is necessary, because the quality and length of our lives depend upon it, and consensus to make it will happen.
Now there is a novel idea, schools could educate children and parents on the value of slow food, healthy eating habits, sustainable farming, paying farmers fair prices for wholesome food and using the power of their consumerism to make a difference.
Peanut Butter on whole grain bread
Granola
Banana
100% fruit juice
It's not expensive!
I don't remember that much about the food when I was in school.
I'm 52 now. That was a LONG time ago.
But I do remember ONE THING.
In 3rd grade, we got TEN WHOLE MINUTES to WOLF down our lunches at TOP SPEED and we were DASHED IN and OUT by the school to cope with the size of us versus the cafeteria size.
I remember my mother being SHOCKED that we had 10 minutes.
I remember mama fixing lots of lunches, brown paper bags. No wonder I don't remember the school food that much - she chose to fix my lunches most of the time, herself.