the politics of school lunch programs sally fallon morell, president the weston a. price foundation...

THE POLITICS OF SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

Sally Fallon Morell, PresidentThe Weston A. Price Foundation

1941 2004

FranceFrance spends 3 times more per lunch than the U.S.

No vending machines allowed in schools.

SCHOOL LUNCHES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Japan


Began as a program to use up surplus wheat and milk from the U.S.

Sweden


Slovakia


Cambodia


Brazil


Finland


India


Russia


Kenya


Haiti


Tanzania


United Kingdom

Sweden



U.S.A.

• From the turn of the century, increasing attention paid to nutrition and nutritional standards among children.

• Schools would help track children's weight and growth rate to ensure they were not suffering from malnutrition or other diseases.

• Early 1920s studies indicated students were more successful during school if they ate "a hot lunch" rather than the usual cold sandwich and fruit.

• Many advocacy groups, local charities began to sponsor lunches and food programs for poor school children.

• However with the Great Depression, this funding proved inadequate and malnutrition among school children reemerged as a serious issue.

THE BEGINNINGS 1900 - 1930

• In the early 1930s, because of the marked improvement shown in poorer students fed school lunches, the federal government began directing money toward such programs.

“The expensive machinery of education is wasted when it operates on a mind listless from hunger or befogged by indigestible food. Whether the cause be poverty, ignorance or carelessness, the child is the sufferer, and the painstaking work of the school lunch supervisors to secure wholesome and adequate noon meals for the school children at a minimum cost not only brings immediate benefit to the children, but exerts a widespread influence upon homes and parents. . .”

Feeding the Family, Mary Swartz Rose, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Nutrition, Columbia University, 1917.

INSPIRING WORDS OF DR. MARY SWARTZ ROSE

Menu served by the School Lunch Committee of the Home and School League, Philadelphia

MONDAY: Baked beans, roll, cocoa or milk, crackers or ice cream

TUESDAY: Vegetable soup, roll, cocoa or milk, crackers or ice cream

WEDNESDAY: Creamed beef on toast, roll, cocoa or milk, crackers or ice cream

THURSDAY: Macaroni with tomato sauce, roll, jam sandwich, cocoa or milk, crackers or ice cream

FRIDAY: Creamed salmon, roll, cocoa or milk, crackers or ice cream.

Feeding the Family, Mary Swartz Rose, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Nutrition, Columbia University, 1917.

UNINSPRING SCHOOL LUNCH SUGGESTIONSOF DR. MARY SWARTZ ROSE

Type A Type B

Milk, whole 1/2 pint 2 pints

Protein-rich food (fresh or processed meat, poultry meat, cheese, cooked or canned fish)

2 ounces 1 ounce

Dry peas, beans or soy beans, cooked 1/2 cup 1/4 cup

Peanut Butter 4 tablespoons 2 tablespoons

Eggs 1 1/2

Bread, muffins or hot bread made of whole grain cereal or enriched flour

1 portion 1 portion

Raw, cooked or canned vegetables or fruits, or both

3/4 cup 1/2 cup

Butter or fortified margarine 2 teaspoons 1 teaspoons

ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE SCHOOL LUNCH MENU to provide 1/3 to 1/2 of daily nutritional requirements

Type A: Schools with preparation facilitiesType B: Schools with less extensive preparation facilitiesType C: Provided milk only

www.fns.usda.gov/CND/Lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm

• As more money came to these programs from donations and private funding, they became a viable way to offer employment to many who had lost their jobs.

• In 1932, as a part of the New Deal, the federal government began lending money to local governments to launch school lunch programs.

• At the same time, the agricultural industry had hit a slump, as poverty was widespread and people were buying less food.

• These two demands led to a system by which surplus commodities were purchased from farmers and provided to school lunch programs. This moderated agricultural prices while at the same time feeding hungry children.

• Schools throughout the country began to sign up for the program and by 1942 the program was feeding more than 5 million students.

CONFLICTING DEMANDS: NOURISH CHILDREN VS. SUPPORT COMMODITY AGRICULTURE

From USDA Archive, 1936. Child Praying

Before School Lunch

Children receiving lunch in a Southern schools

• Since the system was based on which commodities were available, students often got meals that did not provide the complete range of nutrients, or that they would not eat because they were unfamiliar.

• The unpredictability created difficulties in planning the budget and the meals.

• Nevertheless, the school lunch program had become a fixture in schools all across the nation because of jobs created and support of farmers.

• In 1940, the USDA convened the Coordinating Committee on School Lunches with representatives from child nutrition advocates to the different agricultural lobbies, in order to create a system that served the needs of the children as much as it served those of farmers.

• In 1943, when the New Deal central relief effort ceased, federal funding for school lunch programs dried up.

• A campaign on the part of the Coordinating Committee on School Lunches drew widespread support, lobbying Congress for permanent funding for a national school lunch program.

TOWARD A NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

• In 1946 Senator Richard Russell of Georgia drafted the National School Lunch Act and it passed.

• The bill was a compromise between the "New Deal" democrats who supported the program because of the social welfare aspect, and the more conservative southern democrats who wanted less federal control over public schools but wanted more subsidies for their poor, white farmers.

• In the bill, Sen. Russell put the program under the USDA, with no money provided for nutritional education.

• Supporters of the bill claimed it would be what made future generations healthy and prosperous, while its opponents thought it was a blow against democratic individualism and a step toward socialism.

USDA OVERSIGHT OF THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

GOAL OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

• As stated by Congress, the goal of the program was “to

safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other food, by assisting the States, through grants-in-aid and other means, in providing an adequate supply of food and other facilities for the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs.”


• The act specified how much would be allotted to each state for food preparation, equipment, staff, etc.

• The Secretary of Agriculture was responsible for paying each state at least 75 percent of the money they spent on food.

• States received funding according to “the number of school children between the ages of 5 and 17, inclusive, in the State, and the need for assistance in the State as indicated by the relation of the per capita income in the United States to the per capita income of the State."

• In this way, states that had a lower per capita income would receive more money.

• By 1947 the program served 7.1 million children.http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/ProgramHistory_5.htm

HOW IT WORKED

NSLP as CULTURAL HOMOGENIZER

• Before the 1940s, the US had a large number of immigrants who had brought their varying cuisines with them.

• Nutritional scientists at the time were trying help the poor eat in a more healthy way for less money, and the federal government at the same time was trying Americanize all the immigrants.

• With the NSLP, the US government saw an opportunity to do both.

• As the children were open and impressionable, the NSLP gave children a sense of American identity through food, as well as well as “creating a healthy generation, educated in good nutrition.”

Levine, Susan. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America's Favorite Welfare Program (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America) . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. p. 24.

NSLP as NATIONAL DEFENSE

• During the draft for WWII, a large number of eligible men were found unfit for duty due to poor nutrition.

• The Coordinating Committee on School Lunches used the this issue to as a primary motivator in their push for the National School Lunch Program

• According to the head of the New City

school board, George Chatfield, those children who did not have proper nutrition would become "the absentee from school, and later the absentee from essential war production, the drifter, the early incapacitated worker."

NSLP and CHANGING GENDER ROLES

• With the majority of men off fighting, women took jobs in order to support their families and keep the economy functioning.

• Additionally, food shortages left prices higher than normal and less food available.

• Thus the school lunch took 1/3 of the burden of feeding children off of mothers, and was marketed as such by politicians pushing for the school lunch bill.

NSLP and SOCIAL INEQUALITIES• The way Southern policy-makers crafted the bill made the

program easier to implement for schools in predominantly white, rural southern communities, compared to schools in more urban areas around the country.

• In these communities, the ratio between those who could pay and those who could not was more even; those with fewer students who could pay were less likely to raise the money required to offset what the federal government did not provide.

• Civil Rights activists countered this by pushing for an amendment barring funding for school lunch programs in segregated schools; however the amendment came to be worded as anti-discrimination rather than anti-segregation so as to not be discriminating itself, and was in essence ineffectual.

NSLP and the WAR ON POVERTY• In the early 1960s, there was an increasing awareness on the part

of politicians about the level of poverty in the US.

• This helped bring to light how ineffective the NSLP was at feeding the broad majority of poor school children.

• In 1962, Congress amended the National School Lunch Act requiring free lunches for all poor children, no matter what school they were in. . . but they failed to add any additional funding to the program.

• In 1966, the Child Nutrition Act stipulated federal money in addition to commodities for school lunch programs.

• However, none of this new money could be used to purchase equipment, build larger preparation facilities or pay salaries in order to feed all of the extra children these schools would have to feed.

• While this new act theoretically solved the problem—namely, the lack of standard for defining poverty--states had freedom on how to appropriate the money. This led to extremely inconsistent policies varying from region to region.

• To add to this inconsistency, states received money based on how many children had previously been enrolled in the program, causing the previous inequalities to show up in the new system.

• The confluence of all of these factors sparked a search for an objective definition of poverty in order to determine which students should be fed for free and which were not.

THE 1966 CHILD NUTRITION ACT

THE SHIFT• Between the late 1960s and early 1970s, the stated purpose of

the program changed from disposal of agricultural commodities to a serious welfare program aimed at providing not only the poor with lunches, but feeding every student.

• With the increasing scope of the program, the schools were forced to purchase cheaper and less nutritious foods.

• This meant a shift toward private food suppliers, with schools picking the lowest bidder to provide them with food.

• As the program continued to grow, the schools continued to increase the number of people they were serving while sacrificing the quality of the food.

• As the quality of the food declined, the perception of the lunches as a poverty program led middle class students, who normally would have paid either full or reduced price, to stop buying lunch altogether.

• As this was one of the few ways the schools themselves made money to finance the program, schools were forced to raise the price of their lunches.

• More and more full-paying students continued to drop, adding to the rising food prices of the 1970s and causing the students who still continued to pay to shoulder the burden.

• As a solution the government raised the income eligibility level.

• In spite of the crisis the school lunch program was going through, the federal bureaucracy responsible for it continued to grow.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

THE PRIVITIZATION of the NSLP• Since the federal money could be used solely for the purchase

of food, many schools lacked kitchen facilities, as well as the staff needed to prepare food.

• Added to this, the increasing food prices and lowering paid participation forced schools to look for private contractors in order to provide cheap food, that would not require extensive preparation.

• As this system grew in popularity, conflict emerged between the private suppliers who wanted to maximize profit and those who wanted to insure their nutritional standards were being followed.

• A compromise was found in the use of vending machines, which were not allowed in the cafeteria, but rather in other designated areas of the school.

• Specifically in poorer schools vending machines became an attractive way for schools to make additional money to supplement their meager budget.

• With these vending machine contracts came scoreboard and athletic equipment sponsorships on the part of soft drink and snack companies.

ATTACK OF THE VENDING

MACHINES

• In 1970 the USDA discarded the Type A, B and C nutritional standards saying the government would only provide reimbursement for Type A meals.

• This created the "a la carte" system, by which the suppliers would provided individual main dishes and sides allowing students to choose what they wanted to eat.

• In 1979, the USDA allowed "foods of minimal nutritional value" to be sold in cafeterias, if a 100-calorie serving provided 5 percent RDA of a single required nutrient.

• This led to snack and candy producers fortifying their products in order to make them saleable in cafeterias.

• Fortification spread to the general food suppliers, enabling them to sell traditionally unhealthy food such as pizza as foods containing all the necessary nutrients.

FOOD “FORTIFICATION”

With fortification, chicken nuggets and French fries entered the school lunches.

Brownies can be given the same nutritional value as a slice of whole wheat bread!

FAST FOOD and the NSLP• While food companies were claiming their foods provided

"proper nutrition," with children getting no more than 30 percent of their calories from fat, in fact, the foods were actually much higher in fat—the wrong kinds of fat.

• The government bolstered claims that the food was healthy, with their own assurances, claiming the program could function on a smaller budget and also support the “free-market system.”

• To this day schools are caught between campaigning for healthy food choices among their students while at the same time maintaining a financially viable system by providing students with the junk/fast food they want and will buy.

NSLP and the FOOD INDUSTRY

• After the National School Lunch Act passed, any sector of the food industry with declining profit margins demanded that the Secretary of Agriculture declare their product a commodity.

• The NSLP is run out of the USDA Consumer Marketing Service, a section of the USDA little concerned with nutrition, but with efficient dispersal of agricultural products.

The NSLP and the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION

• Under Reagan, large cutbacks to the program led to a stricter set of rules than the previous system of RDAs.

• In 1980, the USDA created the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and dictated that the school lunch program must adhere to them.

• The guidelines called for lower fat and salt content of foods and raised the requirement for vegetables and fruits.

• A small, underhanded loophole allowed a packet of Ketchup to be counted as a serving of vegetables.

• With decreased funding for the program, and as children were no longer suffering from "starvation," the USDA lowered the RDA content of meals from 1/3 to 1/4 of daily requirements.

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1916-1929FIVE FOOD GROUPS

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/E-Appendix-E-4-History.pdfwww.pcrm.org/magazine/GM97Autumn/GM97Autumn2.html

FOOD GROUP DAILY AMOUNT

Meat and Milk 1 cup milk, 2-3 servings meatCereals, Starchy Foods 9 1-ounce servings or 20% of caloriesVegetables and Fruit 5 8-ounce servings or 30% of caloriesFatty Foods 9 tablespoons or 20% of calories*Sugars 10 tablespoons or 10% of calories

* 9 tablespoons fat is actually about 50% of calories in a 2400-calorie meal.

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1930sTWELVE FOOD GROUPS


FOOD GROUP AMOUNT

Milk and Milk Products 2 cups per day

Lean Meat, Poultry, Fish 9-10 times per week

Beans, Peas, Nuts 1 time per week

Eggs 1 per day

Flours, Cereals As desired

Leafy Green, Yellow Vegetables 11-12 times per week

Potatoes, Sweet Potatoes 1 per day

Other Vegetables, Fruit 3 times per week

Citrus, Tomatoes 1 per day

Butter No recommendation

Other Fats No recommendation

Sugars No recommendation

DR. WESTON A. PRICE• Began his research during this period,

the 1930s

• To answer the same question, what is a healthy diet?

• The genius of Dr. Price—he looked at nutrient levels, noting that they could be satisfied by many different foods; many cultures had no grains, vegetables or fruits, yet were healthy.

• Not trying to please the commodity markets

• Emphasis on nutrient-dense foods such as organ meats, butter, cheese, seafood

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1940sSEVEN FOOD GROUPS



Milk, Cheese 2 servingsMeat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs, Dried Beans, Peas, Nuts

1-2 servings

Bread, Flour, Cereal Every DayLeafy Green, Yellow Veg 1 or more servingsPotatoes & other fruits and vegetables 1 or moreCitrus, Tomato, Cabbage, Salad Greens 1 or moreButter-Fortified Margarine Some daily

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1956-1978FOUR FOOD GROUPS


FOOD GROUP DAILY AMOUNTMilk Group 2 cups or moreMeat, Poultry, Fish, Beans

2 servings

Bread, Cereals 4 servingsVegetables and Fruit 4 or more

Note: Eggs not included; No recommendations for fats or sugars

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1979-1983FIVE FOOD GROUPS



Milk, Cheese 2 servingsMeat, Poultry, Fish and Beans 2 servingsBread, Flour, Cereal 4 servingsVegetables, Fruits 4 servingsFats, Sweets, Alcohol Use dependent on

calorie needs

Note: Eggs not included

USDA DIETARY GUIDELINES: 1984 to PresentSIX FOOD GROUPS



Milk, Yogurt, Cheese (low-fat) 2-3 servingsLean Meat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs, Dry Beans, Nuts 2-3 servingsBread, Flour, Cereal (whole grain or enriched) 6-11 servingsVegetables, Fruits 3-5 servingsFruits 2-4 servingsFats, Oils, Sweets Total fat not to

exceed 30% of calories; sweets vary according to caloric needs.

1992 Food Pyramid

“More Flexible” Food Pyramid

• Eat a variety of foods.• Balance the food you eat with physical activity.• Choose a diet with plenty of grain products, vegetables

and fruits• Choose a diet low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol.• Choose a diet moderate in sugars.• Choose a diet moderate in salt and sodium.• If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.

To be added in 2010• Saturated fat no more than 7 percent of calories• Salt restricted to 3.5 grams per day

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/aib750b.pdf

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/html/G5_History.htm

DIETARY GUIDELINE DETAILS

THE PURITANICAL DIET

The virtuous, low-fat, low-salt, high-fiber, impossible diet. Approved by dietitians!

PORNOGRAPHIC FOOD

HEALTHY 4 LIFEAlternative Dietary Guidelines from

the Weston A. Price Foundation

Healthy 4 Life Booklet with Guidelines and Recipes

Healthy 4 Life Poster

Press Release and PR Campaign

Advertisements in Newspapers

THEN VS NOW

• Food products of the early National School Lunch Program were aimed at alleviating starvation due to the Depression. Thus the foods were very high in fat and calorie content.

• Now, because childhood obesity is such a pressing issue the federal government has been trying lower the fat and calorie content of the foods provided.

• However the food provided often remains high calorie food, only now it is cheap, highly processed food with less nutritive value.

Type A Type B

Milk, whole 1/2 pint 2 pints


2 ounces 1 ounce

Dry peas, beans or soy beans, cooked 1/2 cup 1/4 cup


Eggs 1 1/2


1 portion 1 portion


3/4 cup 1/2 cup

Butter or fortified margarine 2 teaspoons 1 teaspoons


Type A: Schools with preparation facilitiesType B: Schools with less extensive preparation facilitiesType C: Provided milk only


Lunch Only Daily

Milk, whole 1/2 pint 1 1/2 pints (6 cups)


2 ounces 4 ounces

Dry peas, beans or soy beans, cooked 1/2 cup 1 1/2 cups


Eggs 1 3


1 portion 3 portions


3/4 cup 2 1/4 cups

Butter or fortified margarine 2 teaspoons 2 tablespoons



Early 1900s 1984 USDA Recommendations

Milk 6 cups whole 3 cups low-fat


4 ounces

Dry peas, beans or soy beans, cooked 1 1/2 cup Total of 5 1/2 ounces

Peanut Butter 12 tablespoons

Eggs 3 1


3 portions 6-11 portions


2 1/4 cups 2 1/2 cups

Butter or fortified margarine 2 tablespoons 2 teaspoons

THEN VERSUS NOW:PERCEPTION OF NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TODAY

• In 2008, the program served 30.5 million children per day and continues to grow.

• All public and most nonprofit private schools are eligible to participate in the program.

• All products served must meet the current Dietary Guidelines.

• As of 2008, the program costs $9.3 billion per year.

• Free lunches are provided to those families with incomes up to 30 percent higher than the poverty level

• Reduced-price lunches are provided to those with incomes up to 85 percent higher than the poverty level.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs09-10.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

FOODS OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE

• Foods the federal government has deemed of “minimal nutritional value” cannot be sold in the cafeteria. This includes candy, soda, etc.

• The foods are forbidden only in the cafeteria. Vending machines selling such products throughout the school are allowed.

• Anyone can petition to get a food moved on or off the list.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/menu/fmnv.htm

CONFLICTING INTERESTS

DUAL FUNCTION of NSLPProvide nutritious meals to school childrenHelp Big Ag get rid of surplus products

HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED CROPS are most likely to be in surplus: corn, soy, factory farmed meat, conventional dairy products, conventional processed produce.

BETTER AT LOBBYING? Children or Big Ag?

THE TRUE COST• In Washington State, each school has approximately $1 per

child to spend for each meal.• On the state level, foods are purchased on the basis of the

lowest bid, saving money but sacrificing nutrition.• Other cost-cutting measures include minimizing food prep

facilities, leading to more prepackaged, highly processed meals over fresh, whole foods.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/335486_farmtoschool15.html

LOCAL, ORGANIC, A SOLUTION?• The H.R. 5504 Improving Nutrition for Americas Children

Act included amendment that established an organic food pilot program.

• As states and school districts are given some freedom, there has been a move toward more local products in certain areas.

• President Obama has put forth a proposal for a $1 billion increase in school lunch funding, but schools are still restricted to the high-carb, low-fat USDA dietary guidelines.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/26/nation/na-child-nutrition26

THE REALITY OF SCHOOL LUNCHES• No food is “prepared” in school kitchens.• Food is prepared by large food processors, brought in and “fresh

cooked” by heating in steam pans.• Food “preparers” like to add cheese for flavor and because children

will eat food with cheese added, but new 2010 Guidelines demonize cheese.

• Fats are restricted but sugar is not.• Potatoes count as vegetables.• Green and yellow vegetables are served, but children won’t eat

them.• Fruits are usually canned, with HFCS syrup• Choice of reduced fat, skim, chocolate and strawberry milk, children

mostly choose chocolate milk.• Everything served on disposable styrafoam.

Tales from a D.C. school kitchen by Ed Bruske, The Washington Post, Jan-Feb 2010.

SOME TYPICAL SCHOOL LUNCH MEALS• Beef crumbles with soy protein isolate and/or hydrolyzed vegetable

protein and many preservatives.• Heated frozen vegetables mixed with Smart Balance Buttery Spread.• “Whole grain” strawberry-flavored Pop Tarts, Goldfish “Giant

Grahams,” French toast and dry cereal for breakfast. (Children often put chocolate milk on the cereal!)

• Pre-cooked scrambled eggs containing soybean oil, modified corn starch, natural and artificial butter flavor, etc.

• “Beef teriyaki bites,” small patties, pre-cooked with an Asian-flavored glaze, imprinted with false grill marks.

• “Smart pizza” containing many additives, soybean oil and textured vegetable protein.

• For the salad bar, packets of ranch dressing containing modified food starch, MSG, polysorbate 60, calcium disodium EDTA, etc.

SUGAR, SUGAR EVERYWHERE!• Flavored milks – “soda in drag”• Canned fruit• Breakfast pastries and cereals• Cookies• Fruit juice• Prepared foods

Federal rules place a limit on fat in meals, but no limit on sugar.

PROPAGANDA FOR FLAVORED MILK

Is flavored milk as nutritious as white milk?Yes, flavored milk contains the same nine essential nutrients as white milk. Flavored milk provides calcium, protein, vitamin D, vitamin A, vitamin B12, potassium, phosphorus, riboflavin and niacin. In comparison, beverages like soda and fruit drinks provide little more than calories and sugar. Is flavored milk packed with sugar, which is associated with hyperactivity? A soda or fruit drink contains nearly twice as much sugar as flavored milk. Furthermore, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Food and Drug Administration have found no link between sugar and behavioral problems in children. Is flavored milk high in fat and calories?Flavored milk comes in many varieties, including reduced fat, lowfat and fat free. For example, a 1 cup serving of lowfat flavored milk has only 2.5 grams of fat per serving, the exact amount as in white milk. Does flavored milk cause cavities?The ingredients in chocolate milk are much less likely to cause cavities than soft drinks and sticky snack foods. Liquids such as flavored milk clear the mouth faster. Some studies suggest that the cocoa in chocolate milk may actually protect against cavities.

http://www.eatwisconsincheese.com/wisconsin/other_dairy/milk/chocolate_and_flavored_milk.aspx

Product Sugars

MILK:

Plain Milk 1% Lowfat 12g

Horizon Organic Milk Reduced Fat Chocolate 27g

Nestle Nesquik Milk Chocolate Lowfat 30g

Nestle NesQuik Milk Strawberry 31g

Organic Valley Chocolate Lowfat Milk 25g

Hershey’s 2% Chocolate Milk 29g

SODA:

Coca-Cola Classic 27g

Sprite 26g

A & W Root Beer 31g

JUICE:

Capri Sun Juice Drink Red Berry 21 g

Apple & Eve 100% Juice Apple 22g

SUGAR IN FLAVORED MILKper 8 ounces

INGREDIENTS IN FLAVORED MILK

1% Lowfat Chocolate Milk

Lowfat milk, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Chocolate Premix (cocoa processed with Alkali), Food Starch, Salt, Carrageenan, Vanillin (artificial flavor), Skim Milk Powder, Mono & Diglicerides, Polysorbate 80, Propylene Glycol, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Cellulose Gum, Dextrose, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D3.

1 % Lowfat Strawberry Milk

Lowfat milk, Sugar, Natural Flavors, Carrageenan, Red #40, Blue #1, Vitamin A Palmitate, Vitamin D3

LOCAL, ORGANIC?• No way to prepare vegetables in schools, no one to

peel and cook vegetables.• Must be prepared in food processing plants.• Even lettuce must be washed and packaged.• Local apples? Maybe. But children prefer bananas.• Local eggs and meat? No way to prepare these.• Local Cheese? Needs no preparation, seems an

ideal choice.

NO CHEESE PLEASE• Linda Van Horn, head of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines

Committee has specifically singled out cheese as unhealthy because of cholesterol and saturated fat.

• Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI): “. . . slightly concerned with Revolution’s insistence on natural, local ingredients. . . You can have full-fat cheese from a local farmer, but it’s still going to clog your arteries and give you heart disease. Having the food be natural is nice, but a bigger threat to children’s health is making sure that there’s not too much salt and not too much saturated fat.”

“Daiya is a delicious, dairy-free vegan cheese product that can melt & stretch just like ‘real’ cheese. The product comes in cheddar and mozzarella as a shredded cheese perfect for nachos, mac & cheese, pizza, lasagna & more.”

COINCIDENCE?New, more realistic soy imitation cheeses coming to market.

THE TREND TOWARD VEGAN LUNCHES

• March, 2010, Rep Jared Polis (D-Colo) introduced the Healthy School Meals Act, a bill that would create incentives and a pilot program for children to receive a vegetarian meal option at school.

• Supported by the Soyfoods Association of North America

• Push to Meatless Mondays

• UK government advisors mandating less beef and cheese.

ORIGINS OF THE MODERN LOWFAT, HIGH-FIBER VEGETARIAN MOVEMENT

JOHN HARVEY KELLOGG (1852-1943), Seventh Day Adventist who promoted a high-fiber, vegetarian diet to combat the twin evils

of constipation and “natural urges.” Preached against sexual activity, even in marriage!

SYLVESTER GRAHAM (1794-1851) advocated a whole grain, vegetarian diet to promote chastity and curb lust. Preached that excessive sexual desire caused disease.

The Food Puritans!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Harvey_Kellogg_-_aged_about_29_-_Project_Gutenberg_eText_19924.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graham.JPG

SCHOOL LUNCHES: TOO BROKEN TO FIX• Must follow USDA Dietary Guidelines• Influence of Industrial Agriculture• Move towards soy-based vegan food• Low wages for food prep staff• World’s most thankless job• No food preparation in kitchens, only warming.• The fast food culture• Lack of culinary knowledge• Not enough parents insisting on change.

IMPROVING SCHOOL LUNCHES:A RECIPE FOR BURNOUT?

• In Britain, Jamie Oliver received tremendous criticism after he succeeded in banning junk food from school cafeterias. Children were furious.

• “Many parents object to being lectured by Londoners like Mr. Oliver.”

• Efforts in the U.S. failed miserably.

• Chef Jorge, head of New York City Schools Food Service: “The 2010-2011 school year will allow us to continue developing and reinforcing our nutritional standards and policies in an effort to combat the spread of childhood obesity and the serious diseases associated with it. SchoolFood’s Executive Chef will keep on working closely with manufacturers to develop products that meet our high nutritional and culinary standards.”

IMPROVING SCHOOL LUNCHES:ORGANIC CATERING?

• Revolution Foods delivering “healthy, home style meals and nutrition education” to schools in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver and Washington, DC metropolitan areas.

• Organic, locally produced, rBST-free, prepared daily.

• No high fructose corn syrup, trans fats, artificial preservatives, etc.

• BUT. . . These lunches must still conform to the dietary guidelines, low in fat, reduced fat milk, etc., etc.

• “Nutrition education” will stress lowfat eating.

WHAT A HEALTHY SCHOOL LUNCH COULD LOOK LIKE• Raw whole milk as the basis• Give every student cod liver oil• If food preparation facilities available, use meat cuts that

are inexpensive and nutritiousChicken legs and thighsStew meat for stews, tacos, burritos, sloppy joes, casseroles, etc.Sausage, hotdogs containing organ meatsBones for soupFoods fried in tallow

• Sandwich/Salad bar with Local cheeseLocal hard boiled eggsLocal sourdough breadLocal butterLocal cured meatsLocal salad vegetablesHomemade dressing, olive oil and vinegar

HEALTHY, REALISTIC BAGGED LUNCH• Raw whole milk in thermos or disguised in conventional milk carton• Lunches can’t be too weird – might need to use white bread• Make sure lunch has plenty of fat—butter on bread, etc.• Sandwich choices

Liverwurst, pate Salami CheeseTuna fish salad Meatloaf Natural Nut ButtersChicken Salad Egg Salad Ham, Roast Beef, Turkey

•Soup or broth in a thermos•Pickles•Crispy Nuts•Hard Cheese•Homemade cookies•Fresh Fruit•Fresh vegetables with homemade dip•Hard boiled eggs•Canned coconut juice

PORTENT OF THE FUTURE?Boy, two, left in tears as nursery staff confiscate his 'unhealthy' cheese sandwichBy DAILY MAIL REPORTERLast updated at 9:04 PM on 28th April 2010

City Bans Homemade Desserts at School Bake SalesThe new regulation, designed to combat ever-increasing childhood obesity, limits bake sales to "fresh fruits and vegetables, or one of 27 specific packaged items" that include low-fat Doritos, Nutri-Grain Cereal Bars (blackberry only) and Linden’s Cookies (butter crunch, chocolate chip or fudge chip cookies in two-cookie packs) among other things.

PORTENT OF THE FUTURE?New System Tracks What Kids Eat

Big Mother is Watching You!• School children in Iowa must submit their school lunch

choices to a computer, which matches their selections to a federal database.

• Kids can’t get their lunch until the computer approves!

• Children must memorize a personal pin code before they can eat. Cafeteria staff watch to make sure the child and food match up to what’s in the computer.

PORTENT OF THE FUTURE?We will make you eat vegetables!

• “Chefs in Schools Making Vegetables Cool.” Celebrity chefs and school personal trying to get kids to eat vegetables. Good luck!!

• Latest tactic: Add powdered vegetables to other foods, such as meat mixes, dips, pasta, etc.

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Shills for an atrocious diet!

ROLE OF CHAPTER LEADERS AND WAPF MEMBERS

• First responsibility is to own children – make their lunches• Provide classes and support for those ready to learn• Encourage local grass-based farmers• Teach gently when there is an opening• Stand up for your right to make your child’s lunch

NOT• Changing the school lunch program, it won’t happen in our lifetime.



Thanks to Lynda Smith Cowan and Victoria Bloch Coulter

the politics of school lunch programs sally fallon morell, president the weston a. price foundation...

Documents

worldschool lunches

worldtanzaniaschool

worldhaitischool lunches

worldkenyaschool lunches

worldrussiaschool lunches

worldindiaschool lunches

worldbrazilschool lunches

worldfinlandschool lunches