EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Give Higher Priority to Farm to School Programs
The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, held a conference call last week with about a thousand of his closest friends to talk about the Obama administration’s initiatives on child nutrition and physical activity. He started by describing the twin problems that make this a high priority for the administration: obesity and hunger. A third of the nation’s children are overweight, and 16.5 million children live in food-insecure households — those with hunger or fear of starvation.
For decades, the federal government has sought to address child hunger through programs such as the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Snack Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Program. These programs are coming up for review as part of the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, which will occur this year, and attention will also be given to how they reduce obesity. Vilsack says the Obama administration is committing an additional $1 billion to this effort.
However, I was disappointed not to hear from Secretary Vilsack or see in the Obama budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011 a clear commitment to fund Farm to School programs, which aim to get locally grown food served to children in school cafeterias. Among the groups working to do so are the National Farm to School Network and the Community Food Security Coalition.
Yes, Vilsack did say that it makes sense to have local farmers selling produce to schools, he likes the teaching as well as nutritional opportunities of school gardens, and he wants to see such initiatives continue. But he didn’t commit funding needed to make it happen. The $50 million that Farm to School initiatives require is minuscule compared to the overall costs of most child nutrition programs. Such seed money is needed to find ways to offer longer-term structural improvements in school food preparation kitchens and the distribution system. In the meantime, it helps children gain better eating habits and builds new markets for farmers and stronger rural economies today.
Farm to School initiatives are moving forward in many states, and Wisconsin is one of them. Bills in both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature would create technical assistance and other support for schools to purchase local foods, start school gardens, conduct creative nutrition education, and implement other Farm to School initiatives. Happily, at a time when so few things are bipartisan, the obvious good sense of Farm to School’s approach has drawn support from both parties. And it’s no surprise that in the Assembly, the bill’s lead sponsor is the Agriculture chair, Amy Sue Vruwink, who sees the economic opportunities the legislation offers farmers and rural communities as well as its health benefits for children.
First lady Michelle Obama recently launched an initiative aiming to tackle obesity through physical fitness, the Let’s Move! Program. It got and deserves a lot of press because, like Farm to School, it applies practical good sense to the way schools treat two of the building blocks of healthy children: healthy food and plenty of exercise. And if we’re really smart, as we build healthier children, we’ll also be building healthier communities and healthier economies. Farm to School initiatives at the state and federal level are smart economics and deserve support.
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...

4 Comments so far
Show AllWill this be on the test?
Just kidding - it is a great idea. We visited a friend whose town had allocated a large plot for kids to farm, organically. The culture of the farm is part of a rigorous science curriculum. This has been going on for a decade. Unfortunately, the town is in southern France. People there are worried that the encroachment of McDonalds etc. will have a negative impact on food quality, body build and personal appearance. (Three things dear to the French!).
Joe
I like the idea of schoolkids growing their own food, but also the surplus could go for sale to help fund extra-curriculum activities. Our local high school has a greenhouse that produces plants for local farmers and gardeners. This could work in urban areas as well. Perhaps setting up a coop of a number of these to teach collective behavior.
"Nutrition" programs in schools presently suck, with junk food and too much meat, and too few veggies. They need a major overhaul. But budgets are so tight now, cheap food is almost mandatory, and that is usually fattening. So some SERIOUS bucks need to be ponied up.
Gary
"The Harvard Law states: Under controlled conditions of light, temperature, humidity, and nutrition, the organism will do as it damn well pleases.”
-- Larry Wall
I am happy to see the local initiatives mentioned in the comments here. I think that is the only practical way to go right now. Children grow up fast and the government in Washington DC has their heads somewhere else. Change for this generation will come from parents' committees pressuring school boards and state legislatures (if there are any who are a bit more alert than our self-seeking deadheads here in Albany).
School nutrition is tied to general levels of funding for schools. Local initiatives have more prospects of success in prosperous communities because the programs may cost a bit more than ordering bulk prepared "foods" from favored contractors. Poor communities are always potential prey for hucksters.
I see no evidence that the executive or Congress will do much to promote local or organic or fresh or vegetarian food in school lunches. They are all about Monsanto and Cargill and high fructose corn syrup and hormone laden beef for our kids. These interests give a lot more money to them than little Mikey or Emily have in their piggy banks.
Education, exercise programs and nutrition in schools are all suffering as tax revenue is siezed by the Federal government to support wars and the totally unproductive financial sector. It makes me cringe when Michelle Obama puts the whole burden for childhood obesity on families, many of whom are now experiencing homelessness and extended unemployment.
Meanwhile, here in New York, exercise and sports programs are diminishing and often laughable as children sit at their desks and learn to fill in bubble sheets. New schools are not built with gyms, swimming pools and sports fields (or auditoriums or art labs or decent scienc labs). New school spaces are, I believe, mostly in jerry-renovated buildings with 8 foot ceilings, which are not conducive to many sports. The buildings were abandoned by light industry leaving white elephants owned by connected landlords. They are not well-designed to be educational plants and would not be acceptable in Chappequa.
This last decade has been characterized by bubbles and bursts and unhealthy bloat - in finance, in weaponry, in cars, in house size, in the school testing industry and in the shapes of our bodies.
Joe