Whether you voted red, blue or purple in this week’s midterm elections, you and your viewpoints are always welcome on The Lunch Tray.
But there are times when political partisanship directly impacts the kid-and-food issues I cover and, unfortunately, that’s the case for school food reform. As the New York Times reported in a recent Sunday Magazine feature story, “How School Lunch Became the Latest Political Battleground,” the School Nutrition Association has aligned itself with Congressional Republicans to roll back some key nutritional improvements to school food. Now that Republicans have control of both the House and Senate, it seems all the more likely that the SNA will succeed in this effort.
The mechanism for gutting school food reform in the short term likely will be the appropriations process. As Politico‘s Morning Agriculture report observed yesterday:
Now that they’ve secured the Senate, Republicans have a clear avenue for doing away with . . . the USDA’s new school lunch standards: spending legislation.
By 4:30 a.m. EST today, even with many individual contests unknown, it was apparent the GOP had wrested away control of the Senate from the Democrats and gained even more control in the House. Now it’s time for Congress to get back to work, and a top priority, when both chambers open for business again on the Hill next week, will be to address the current short-term spending bill that only funds the government through Dec. 11.
In all four approaches available to Congress for passing spending legislation, the GOP would have an opportunity to attach riders that could sink their least favorite Obama initiatives – either by defunding or otherwise weakening key policies.
Historically, the federal school lunch program has had bipartisan support. This makes sense given that all of us, no matter our political persuasion, have a stake in nourishing the next generation well. But now many powerful forces are aligned against school food reform: the processed food industry, which has a huge financial stake in the program and powerful lobbyists on Capitol Hill; the need of school districts to make their meal programs break even; First Lady Michelle Obama’s vocal support of school food reform, which has politicized the issue for some conservatives hoping to score political points; and conservatives’ general distrust of “big government.” (See also this 2011 TLT post: “Why Is Childhood Obesity a Red State/Blue State Issue?“)
But it might be worth stepping back and remembering that the nutritional standards now at risk — more whole grains, lower sodium, more fruits and vegetables — were not the brainchild of President Obama, Michelle Obama or government bureaucrats. They were science-based recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, recommendations which were referred to at the time of their release as representing the “gold standard for evidence-based health analysis.”
Adhering to these standards is inarguably better for children’s immediate and long-term health. Period. And that’s what’s getting lost in this political fight.
Those of us who support robust school food reform must do our best to have our voices are heard on this issue and I’ll have more to say about that in the weeks ahead. But, in the meantime, it’s all the more important that SNA members who disagree with their organization’s legislative agenda make their feelings known. If you’re a current or former SNA member who supports the healthier school food standards, please sign and share this open letter. The deadline for signatures is November 30th. Thank you.
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join over 9,000 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page, join over 5,000 TLT followers on Twitter, or get your “Lunch” delivered right to your email inbox by subscribing here. And be sure to check out my free video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!”
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Bettina Elias Siegel
Justin Gagnon says
I am a strong advocate for healthy school lunches and ensuring our future generations are well nourished. But the current regulations are not a means to that end. The regulations may be science-based and well-intentioned, but the fundamental premise that you can improve school food through a litany of rules and mandates WITHOUT significant funding increases is just flawed.
There is a fundamental truth that needs to be addressed – real food costs more. Not only does it cost more, but it requires significant investment in infrastructure to build and upfit kitchens and training to equip staff to prepare it.
My problem with the regs is they’ve always comes from a place that assumes Foodservice directors and menu planners are incapable of doing their jobs, and therefore need to be provided an even more defined script of specific rules to make sure they’re kept in line. And as a token of our appreciation, here’s and extra six cents to get it done.
The real issue is I see little hope that the reimbursement will continue to rise as fast as food and wage inflation, particularly in higher cost metropolitan areas. We’re losing ground not because of they might roll the regs back, but because school nutrition departments are being asked to do too much with too little.
Adam Russo says
The regulations are just that- regulations. Like the rules to Monopoly they do not take in to account Food Servive Directors/Menu planners etc. because that is inconsequential. If you do not like the rules to a particular game do not play it. You can always opt out of the National School Lunch Program and sell whatever you want, no?
As it stands; complaining to the USDA about the rules they require you to follow so they will pay you sounds something like slapping the hand that feeds you.
Paul Holcomb says
I agree with Justin, the fundamental issue is the lack of funding. The widely cited figure for the cost of the NSLP is about $1 per child per day. Even with careful management and economies of scale, there is simply no way to feed anyone wholesome, nutritious, minimally-processed food for anywhere near that figure.
Personally, I can’t get excited by the reforms under the Healthy, Hunger-Free kids Act. I am appalled that my kids now drink chocolate or skim milk at school, instead of the whole milk they get at home. How can we ever expect to bring real food back to the lunchroom if whole milk cheddar cheese is banned while Cheetos are allowed? As WBEZ recently reported (http://tinyurl.com/nd9z63z), the anti-fat bias in the NSLP guidelines is based on 20 year-old science.
Fundamental attitude changes are needed across the spectrum. Groups such as CSPI need to drop their antiquated war on fat. And people who call themselves “conservative” need to understand that only thing they are conserving by keeping funding for the NSLP at current per student levels is the excess calories that students pack on from eating cheap, junky high-carb highly-processed foods.
Bottom line: my first directive for any politician who says they are going to fix the NSLP is, “Show me the money!”
Cammy says
Regulations should be thrown out the door – it’s the elephant in the room. Go to countries like France and Italy where it matters about INGREDIENTS. Are they FRESH? Are they COOKED or microwaved? Do the children all sit down and eat slowly with enough time? Are LOCAL meat/vegetables used whenever possible? if CORPORATIONS are people, then we have the WRONG people telling our schools what they must buy and serve to our children. the MONEY IS THERE. But those in power want to dictate HOW it should be spent.
Karen says
So glad you brought up the issue of time! Are others similarly appalled that our young students routinely have all of twenty minutes for lunch, a good portion of which is spent standing in line? That’s the primary reason I packed my kids’ lunches all through elementary and middle school; it gave them an extra few minutes to eat. Not until high school do our district’s students have an actual lunch hour during which to consume a real meal, but by that time the “inhale as many calories as possible in ten minutes” mentality is deeply ensconced.