Deficit Hysteria and School Lunch

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 13:49:14 PM PDT

Hearing on School Lunch in the House, Part 2

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jul 02, 2010 at 12:42:42 PM PDT

Tom Colicchio, Chef and Restaurateur

Major General Paul D. Monroe, U.S. Army (Ret.), Executive Advisory Council Mission: Readiness

Dr. Eduardo J. Sanchez, Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas

James D. Weill, President Food Research & Action Center (FRAC)

Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow
Welfare and Family Issues The Heritage Foundation

Details below. Also, you can see a press release on the hearing or a blog post by Rep. Woolsey for more info.

Hearing on School Lunch in the House, Part 1

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 18:17:38 PM PDT

Below is my write-up of the first half of this hearing. I'll soon post a diary on the second half.

Sarah Silverman for Healthy School Lunch!

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 18:12:02 PM PDT

"I'm writing to you about something that has shocked and offended me. And trust me when I say it takes a lot to shock and offend me. Some of the foods we're feeding kids in schools are repulsive - and that unhealthy food is feeding the childhood obesity epidemic.
"All kids - vegetarian or not - should have healthy options. I think that we forget the simple fact that what we put in our bodies directly affects our bodies. Many kids aren't able to bring lunches from home - they have to eat what's in the lunch line. Without healthful options in the caf eteria, we're doing our children and the future of our country a great disservice.

She continues:

If we help children develop healthy habits early on, they'll have a lower risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes in the future. And that would mean lower health care costs. See? Only good comes from this. I know you're as serious as I am about helping kids succeed and stay healthy.

Yes, Rep. Miller, believer her when she says it takes a lot to offend her. This is a girl who made herself famous with a comedy routine that begins: "I was licking jelly off of my boyfriend's penis and all of a sudden I'm thinking, 'Oh My God, I'm turning into my mother!'" If Sarah Silverman's offended by the quality of school lunch, it must be time to do something about it.

BREAKING: House School Lunch Bill Introduced at Press Conference Featuring Rachael Ray

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:07:32 AM PDT

It improves food safety for school food in a much needed way. A GAO report found last year that when foods were recalled, the steps to remove those foods from school meals weren't necessarily being taken. So that's good.

It also improves access to free meals to eligible children by allowing direct certification - if a kid gets Medicaid or SCHIP, they automatically qualify for free meals. Also, in high poverty areas, all the kids get free meals no matter what. That's HUGE because there's often a stigma to getting free meals, and sometimes kids who are entitled to them won't actually eat them because they are afraid of being made fun of by peers. Where there's universal access to free meals in high poverty areas, all the kids will eat so nobody has to worry about being uncool.

Unfortunately, the the increase in the school lunch reimbursement rate - the amount spent per kid per meal - only goes up by 6 cents. That's the same as in the Senate bill. It's not enough to make the changes we need in school food. Activists have called for increases between $.35 and $1.00, and I tend to think the amount needed is closer to $1.00.

This is a great bill in many respects and Rep. Miller is a wonderful representative whose intentions I don't doubt at all. I know he wants to help kids and I know he wants to improve lunches. So why do we have so much money for bailouts and wars but only 6 cents for our kids?

Poll: Americans Say Get the Junk Out of School Lunches

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:58:30 AM PDT

• 70% of Americans want pizza served in school lunches once a week or not at all
  
• Over 60% want chicken nuggets and hamburgers served in school lunches once a week or not at all.
  
• 55% of Americans (and 63% of parents of school-age children) describe the nutritional quality of local school food as "poor" or "only fair"

In other words, Americans think that school food is shit and they want it changed. They get it that junk foods like cheeseburgers and chicken nuggets are not foods that children should eat frequently. Yet 90% of school menus include these very same foods that the parents want their children to eat less of. Why?

Why the Soda Lobby Was Happy... They Helped Write the Nutrition Rules

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 22:27:01 PM PDT

U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., today announced a major agreement between the food and beverage industry and public health and education groups on national school nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools.

Why is the junk food lobby at the table to make rules about nutrition? Would you have a criminal at the table to make laws about crime? The American Beverage Association, Coca Cola, Mars, Nestle, and PepsiCo were all included in negotiations for the new school lunch nutrition standards in Lincoln's child nutrition bill. Under the bill, the USDA will set one set of nutrition standards for all food sold in schools during the school day (including vending machines). This is a change from current laws, which forbid the USDA from setting rules over most food sold in schools outside of the federally-reimbursable school lunch (i.e. the meal served to kids who receive free lunch).

So here's the question: What did public health groups give up by negotiating with the junk food lobby? What do public health experts think the school nutrition standards should be, and how far apart is that from the actual language of the bill?  

Why is the Soda Lobby Happy?

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 15:50:32 PM PDT

I realize that much of their spending is related to defeating a soda tax, but some of it is for school lunch and child nutrition programs too. They are scared shitless that Congress will ban vending machines from schools (a great idea!). Thus, they are promoting their own, voluntary, "self-regulation:"

The beverage industry is committed to the health and wellness of its consumers, including America's schoolchildren. Just this month, we announced the remarkable results of the final progress report on the implementation of our School Beverage Guidelines. The report shows that, when it comes to beverages, it's a whole new day in America's schools. In fact, we've removed full-calorie soft drinks and slashed beverage calories available in schools by 88 percent!

They don't mind cutting the calories because the same companies that sell soda (and diet soda) also sell water, juice, and sports drinks. So long as schools have vending machines with ANYTHING in them, these companies make money. Removing the calories doesn't harm the bottom line, but removing the vending machines does.

What I want to know is: what's in the Senate bill that the ABA likes so much? I've emailed the Center for Science in the Public Interest to see if they know anything. Also, I've included more on the ABA's lobbying below.

School Lunch Bill Passes Committee in Senate

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 13:18:04 PM PDT

First, the bill went forward with $40 million for Farm to School. And second, Sherrod Brown is helping school lunch go organic:

An amendment by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was accepted by voice vote with no opposition to authorize an organic food pilot program that would provide competitively-awarded grants to school authorities to create pilot efforts to buy more organic foods for the school meal programs. The measure would still need to be funded by Agricultural Appropriations for the program to get off the ground.

The bill still only provides $4.5 billion in new money over 10 years (less than half of what Obama called for). Here's how they came up with the money:

The child nutrition reauthorization bill as reported out of Committee today also includes three funding cuts to offset the additional $4.5 billion being invested in school meals and nutrition programs. In addition to cuts to SNAP Ed, as the food stamp education program is now known, and the bonus commodity program, the bill cuts $2.8 billion in farm bill mandatory spending budget authority for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) over the next ten years.

It seems that this would only give about $.06 extra to each kid's school lunch, raising the reimbursement rate from $2.68 to $2.74. The School Nutrition Association is asking for an extra $.35, which I believe is what is needed to help schools pay for the current (often crappy) school lunches they now serve. In other words, anything over $.35 goes to improve school lunch quality, and anything less means no improvement at all. We need an extra $1 per lunch to make school lunches really healthy. From everything I've seen about school lunch, I believe that it all REALLY does come down to money. So there are some good bits in the bill, but it's just not acceptable unless we get over $.35 added to the reimbursement rate.

The next step for this bill is the Senate floor. After it passes the full Senate, it will go to the House.  

How To Pay for Better School Lunch? Easy!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:50:12 AM PDT

Unfortunately, when Blanche Lincoln went looking for a way to fund school lunches, she took money from a conservation program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. EQIP certainly isn't the best of our conservation programs because a disproportionate amount of the money goes to factory farms BUT when EQIP money goes to the good guys, they really use it for good.

And this morning, Nebraska Sen. Johanns (R) offered an amendment to put the money back into EQIP and instead take it from a different conservation program, CSP. That would be REALLY bad. CSP is arguably the BEST conservation program we've got, because it pays farmers for implementing conservation practices on land that is under production. (Many of the other programs instead pay farmers to take land out of production entirely, which does nothing to help the way they farm on the land that remains in production.) Fortunately, this measure was defeated.

So where's the money? Well, here's a novel idea. Why don't we make the corporations pay their taxes. I'm not saying increase taxes. I'm saying we should make them pay AT ALL. Because currently, many do not.

Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress. The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period. Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO's estimate.

I got your school lunch money RIGHT HERE. And while we're at it, we could probably pay off the national debt and then fund universal healthcare with all of that money.

13 House Republicans won't express support for school lunch program

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 17:39:21 PM PST

H.Res.362 [...] expresses the House's support for the goals and ideals of the National School Lunch Program and "recognizes that our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school." It passed 403-13, every Democrat and 155 Republicans, including the entire GOP congressional leadership voting in favor.

The roll call reveals the shameful list of 13 Republicans who voted against this resolution: Todd Akin (MO-02), Paul Broun (GA-10), Jason Chaffetz (UT-03), Jeff Flake (AZ-06), Virginia Foxx (NC-05), Scott Garrett (NJ-05), Doug Lamborn (CO-05), Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Ron Paul (TX-14), Ted Poe (TX-02), James Sensenbrenner (WI-05), and John Shadegg (AZ-03).

Usually when a House vote is that lopsided, I can count on Representative Steve King (R, IA-05) to be on the embarrassing end of the roll call. However, I'm happy to report that even the occasionally mean-spirited, uncompassionate, clueless, dare I say cartoon-villain-like King recognizes that "our pupils deserve access to high-quality, safe, and nutritious meals in school."

Today's House Child Nutrition Hearing

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 20:44:24 PM PST

I've written up a summary of the hearing's content below.

My Article on School Lunch

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 21:33:15 PM PST

The commodities the USDA provides to schools make up about 20 percent of food served in lunches. A review of commodities provided to California schools found that a few items comprise the majority of commodities provided: coarse and fine ground raw beef (26 percent), low moisture part skim & light mozzarella (13 percent), small and large chilled chickens (11 percent), and barrels, blocks and slices of yellow or white cheddar cheese (10 percent). In fact, USDA commodities provided for school lunches turn the USDA's own food pyramid on its head. Whereas the food pyramid recommends a diet rich in whole grains, fruits and vegetables, the USDA usually provides schools with meat and dairy products often high in saturated fat. Only 13 percent of commodities provided are fruits and vegetables (including fruit juice and legumes) -- and about half of the vegetables provided are potatoes.

An Ann Cooper School Lunch Makeover

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 23:33:59 PM PST

Part of today's activities focused on bringing together local farmers with the San Diego school lunch staff and talking about how they could work together to bring local produce into the schools. Chef Ann kicked off the meeting with an absolutely brilliant set of props:

What you have here is a pretty standard American school lunch. Chicken nuggets (which serve as the grain and the meat), French fries (the vegetable), and some fruit cocktail (the fruit... and the high fructose corn syrup). Plus a carton of chocolate milk. Pathetic. We make fun of Reagan for making ketchup a vegetable, but calling French fries a vegetable ain't much better.

Now add a piece of whole fruit (maybe even fruit from a local farm):

Okay, the meal still pretty much sucks. It's junk food plus an apple. Yay. A little more fiber, a little less sugar. It's still not a healthy meal. Ann said that step one is replacing the chicken nuggets and the fries:

Ta-da... healthy lunch! Chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice and beans, with an apple. With white milk, not chocolate milk. Now that's a healthy lunch. And if the apple and broccoli are local, that's even better.

Ann deals with seasonality and local food by writing all of her menus with a specific entree plus generic "fresh fruit" and "salad bar." Then she works with local farmers and her distributors to figure out what's local, what's seasonal, what's affordable, etc. And, because supplying large quantities of a single item is often difficult for small or even mid-size local farms, she offers a variety of seasonal veggies in a salad bar. That way she only needs to get a little bit of 24 different items instead of a whole lot of one item.

Chef Ann explained what she did in her current school district in Boulder, CO and it's really quite amazing. When she showed up they had tons of freezer space but not enough refrigerator space. That means they could easily store and serve frozen meals, but not fresh fruits or vegetables. Switching over to healthier, less processed foods required getting not just refrigerator space but also knives and cutting boards. And the staff training so everyone knows what to do with the knives and cutting boards. She gave her staff 12 full days of training this year. As you can see, schools don't just need more money so they can buy better foods. They need the labor, training, and equipment to go with it.

More about the day's other events below...

Obama Proposes Budget, Pushes GMOs, and Falls Short on School Lunch Reform

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:00:00 AM PST

Unlike other nutrition programs (such as food stamps) that are entitlements, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) must have funds appropriated by Congress. For entitlement programs, the government spends as much money as it takes to pay for everyone who is eligible for the program. That's not the case for WIC. And when the economy is down (as it is now), the number of people eligible for WIC goes up. (To be eligible for WIC, you must be a pregnant or breastfeeding mom or a child under age 5 with a household income of less than 185% of the federal poverty level.)

After splitting out part of the extra $1 billion for WIC, according to Kim Severson of the New York Times, the remaining money for school lunch amounts to less than 20 cents per meal. Quite frankly, this is pathetic. The School Nutrition Association asked Congress for an extra 35 cents per meal, and I thought THAT was pathetic. This is far worse. Tom Philpott agrees (and cleverly references the Depression-era hit song "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?"... or two dimes in this case).

In other parts of his proposed budget, Obama gives a record amount to ag & food research (much of which will go to biotech), money to promote agricultural exports, and (the one bright spot) conservation money for Chesapeake Bay.

Among the USDA's goals, he ironically lists "Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, nutritious and balanced meals." (A great idea, if only he would fund it!) And, sadly, he says "Help America to promote agricultural production and biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security." Dumping cheap commodities on other countries to undermine their food sovereignty is bad in itself, but a specific emphasis on biotechnology by the Obama administration is especially upsetting.

See Obama's budget fact sheet below...