School Lunches and Nutritional Education

Written by Jennifer Clark

April, 13 2011

School lunch programs began in the US around 1890 after educators noticed that their students were too hungry to concentrate on learning half way through the day (Poppendieck, 2010). Food was donated to the schools by charity groups and women’s organizations. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, food became scarce and school lunches programs no longer had food to give to the students. Students began having troubles finding food in their homes as well as at school, leaving them to starve. In 1934, the Chicago Board of Education reintroduced school lunches in the city in an attempt to end the child hunger of the Depression (Levine, 2008). The programs were run by volunteers and food was donated by various farmers and companies. Many States saw the progress being made in Chicago and decided to ask legislators to authorize a portion of tax funds to go towards newly established school lunch programs (Poppendieck, 2010). However, when this happened, the schools were receiving surpluses of food, so much that there was no program to regulate which foods were to be distributed to certain schools. The government stepped in to help regulate the amount of food being put towards school lunches, and was eventually handed over to the USDA. By 1946, the National School Lunch Act was passed by congress which required States to grant aid to the school lunch program to ensure the health and well-being of the nation’s children, as well as donate the surplus of any agricultural commodities to continue the success of the school lunch programs ((Poppendieck, 2010). Ever since then, the school lunch system has been trying to establish a healthy food system for children regardless of their economic background, while balancing the amount of food contributed to each of the schools.

As of today, nearly 101,000 schools in the US have lunch programs ran by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (NSLP, 2011). On average, the NSLP serves approximately 60% of the entire student population (31.3 million students) per day. Also, approximately 87,000 schools participate in the School Breakfast Program, a partner federal-run program with the NSLP, which serves nearly 11 million children each day (NSBP, 2011). The federal programs began implementing nutritional standards in government-supported schools, whereby schools were contracted to supply a specific number of servings per food group for each student that receives free or reduced lunch prices (Poppendieck, 2010). The goal of these nutritional standards was to make sure that each child was getting at least a third of the recommended nutrients per day as well as a well-balanced meal. However, there have been many controversies regarding the effectiveness of theses programs and the nutritional benefits on the health of the children.

Firstly, if schools do not follow this policy with children that get free or reduced lunch prices, the schools will not get reimbursed from the government to pay for the meals (Poppendieck, 2010). To avoid not getting reimbursed, schools began modifying the menus to fit the preferences of the children, while continuing to satisfy each of the food groups required. For many of these changes, the new foods would be of less nutritional value than the original, but would follow the required food groups set by the government program. For example, instead of supplying cooked carrots as a vegetable serving, they began serving French fries because children showed more interest in them. Also, instead of serving whole milk for the children to drink, the schools began overstocking with chocolate milk. Since the government had no regulations on specific types of foods, French fries were considered as an appropriate vegetable choice and chocolate milk was considered an appropriate dairy choice. Furthermore, since the children were more likely to eat the French fries and chocolate than the alternatives, the schools were happier supplying them because they knew that they would be reimbursed.

Parents are also concerned with the prices of school lunches. Therefore, the school food programs alter the food choices in the menu to allow prices to reduce. However, school food programs struggle to make profit or even break even (Poppendieck, 2010). There are many reasons for this. One reason is because parents of the students demand that school lunch prices decrease. In order to do that, schools adjust their menu to serve cheaper food options to keep the prices of the meals at minimal charges. At the same time, the schools no longer have the flexibility to adjust the prices to make any profit, leaving them in a budget-tight situation. Another reason schools are struggling to balance their budget is because the demand for school lunches is unpredictable and unreliable. Since buying school lunch is not mandatory in all schools, the food staff have to estimate their budget. If they make too much food and not many students buy the food, then the kitchen looses money. Lastly, schools also have to budget for the amount of labour that goes into the food preparation and serving. Not only do the schools need to pay for the food, they also need to pay the staff that prepares and serves the food. With the already lowered prices, the strict regulations for reimbursement on meals, and not knowing the exact amount of students that will participate in the program each day, it makes it difficult for the school to prepare a budget for the lunch program. Therefore, schools buy mostly processed food because it costs less than fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats, it cuts down preparation costs because they no longer have to hire trained chefs to cook the food, and the foods have more appeal for the children.

In addition, schools want to sell as much food as possible to make some profit (Poppendieck, 2010). The best way, and the only way without making school lunch mandatory, is to sell foods that the students like and want. Since the schools only have policies to follow with the lunch program, many schools have added vending machines and a la carte stations in their schools, filled with all the foods not available in the lunch program. In fact, according to the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III, 80% of middle schools and 97% of high schools in the US had at least one vending machine on school property during the 2004-2005 school year (Gordon, et al., 2007). The a la carte stations included pieces of fruits and vegetables but the majority of the food included chips, crackers, ice cream, cookies, candy/candy bars, French fries, nachos, bagels, pizza, and pretzels (French, et al., 2003).

Also, processed food companies create contracts with the schools that give them benefits. For example, with soda machines, Coca-Cola made a 10-year contract with the Colorado Springs school district worth between $8-11 million, that included cash bonuses and incentives for exceeding the sale target (Jacobson, 2005; Nestle, 2007). These incentives included giving a brand new car to a superior senior who attended class everyday and had high grades, scholarships for college, and assisted with volunteer and fundraising programs at local schools. All in all, it appears to be a win-win situation for the schools, the parents, the government, and the children. However, the health and well-being of the children are being ignored.

Luckily, many changes are being made in schools to make it more nutritious for the students. In December 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Heathy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 which allocated $4.5 billion in new funding to make school lunches more affordable and more nutritious for students. The Act will take effect beginning in July 2011 (Child Nutrition Reauthorization: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kinds Act of 2010). This act gives the USDA the authority to enforce nutritional standards to all the foods sold in schools, including the vending machines and the á la carte stations. It will also allow the USDA to redesign the nutritional standards to improve the nutritional quality of the food. Also, the funding will help schools build a working relationship with local farms and helps design school gardens which will allow schools to offer local and organic produce. It will promote nutritional education policies in schools that will inform children on the importance of eating healthily and participating in regular exercise. Lastly, it will increase the access of drinking water to school. With the help of this bill, the US is on its way to reducing obesity and improving the health of children all around the country.

References:

Child Nutrition Reauthorization: Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010. (2010). The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Child_Nutrition_Fact_Sheet_12_10_10.pdf

French, S. A., Story, M., Fulkers, J. A., and Gerlach, A. F. (2003). Food environment in secondary schools: á la carte, vending machines, and food policies and practices. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (7), 1161-1168.

Gordon, A., Crepinsek, M. K., Nogales, Condon, E. (2007). School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III: Volume I: School Foodservice, School Food Environment, and Meals Offered and Served: Executive Summary. USDA: Food and Nutrition Service Office Report. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/published/cnp/files/sndaiii-vol1execsum.pdf

Jacobson, M. F. (2005). Liquid candy: how soft drinks are harming Americans’ health. Second Edition. Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Levine, S. (2008). School Lunch Politics: The surprising history of America’s Favorite Welfare Program. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

NSBP (2011). Fact Sheet: The School Lunch Plan. The USDA: Food and Nutrition Service. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/breakfast/AboutBFast/SBPFactSheet.pdf

NSLP (2011). Fact Sheet: National School Lunch Program. The USDA: Food and Nutrition Service. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf

Nestle, M. Food Politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkley: University of California Press, 2007.

Poppendieck, J. (2010). Free for all: fixing school food in America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Ltd.