Childhood obesity is being addressed in various ways. One of them is small improvements in school lunch provided for free to over 30 million children everyday. This is through a USDA programs for disadvantaged children. The federal government funds these programs and also defines the nutrition criteria, but it is up to the school districts to actually procure, prepare, and serve the food.
When the National School Lunch program began in 1946, it was a win-win-win. USDA helped farmers with surplus commodities offload the fruit of their labor instead of letting it rot. School districts hired cafeteria workers (“lunch ladies”) who would cook and serve the food. Poor kids got at least one hot meal a day.
The government pays school districts about $3 for each meal served to an eligible child. Therefore, there is an incentive to increase the average daily participation (ADP) of students in the meal program.
Today, most of the school lunches are prepared far away from school. The corporations that make them use all the techniques and ingredients of the processed food industry. To make the food appealing to kids (thus increasing the ADP), these companies jack up the sugar and salt content, add unhealthy additives, and produce the lowest common denominator foods such as pizzas and hot dogs.
To make sure kids still get a nutritious meal, the USDA, with blessing from the White House, upped nutrition standards for school meals in the Healthy, Hunger-Free kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA). This has infuriated corporations, because HHFKA implementation has lowered their profit margins (healthier food requires more expensive ingredients). Additionally, during the transition period to healthier lunches, there has been a slight drop in average daily participation.
The School Nutrition Association (SNA) is not-for-profit organization representing 55,000 school cafeteria workers and administrators. It’s mission is advancing the quality of school meal programs through education and advocacy. For most of its existence, the organization has looked out for the interests of children. When improved nutrition standards for school lunches were announced a few years ago, the SNA applauded.
Today, however, the SNA is opposing the HHFKA and is lobbying Congress to delay its implementation. What could be the reason for SNA’s change of mind?
One possible reason is the growing influence of “industry members” on SNA. These are the same companies whose profit margins stand to hurt as nutrition standards improve. Indeed, Coca Cola and Pizza Hut are sponsors of the SNA, along with tens of other food companies.
We asked chef Ann Cooper, an activist involved in school lunches in Colorado, for her opinion on the SNA’s about-face:
“I believe that it is our inherent responsibility to assure that all kids get healthy/delicious/nutritious food in school. For me that means that we all must work to support and enhance the USDA’s HHFKA. The SNA’s decision to try and “roll-back” the guidelines flies in the face of that kind of support. As the “voice” of school food service professionals all over the country, their decision to reverse their support of the HHFKA is nothing short of deciding that money is more important than the health of our children.
Instead of requesting a “roll-back” of the guidelines, I suggest that they request support from Congress and the USDA for student and staff education so that we can see an increase in average daily participation as we see an increase in the education and awareness of healthy/delicious school food for all of our children.”
Cooper’s recommendation makes sense; after all, the SNA’s mission is “advancing the quality of school meal programs through education and advocacy”.