Would "Healthy Schools" Mean More Local Food

by: euclidarms

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 07:42:43 AM PST

The proposed payment, supplementing funds provided by the federal government to subsidize school meals, would represent a rare instance of a local government kicking in to raise the quality of school food, especially around the idea of locally produced ingredients.

The provision makes a further distinction that would set the District apart from most jurisdictions that have embraced local foods in school meals: it would require that those fruits and vegetables come from farmers engaged in "sustainable practices."

This last requirement is sure to raise some eyebrows on Capitol Hil, where industrial agriculture-an industry heavily reliant on fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels-enjoys huge support and puts a giant lobbying effort into play. The D.C. "Healthy Schools" proposal, which must ultimately be approved by Congress, defines "sustainable practices" as those that "minimize carbon emissions and other environmental degradation, regenerate soil nutrients through crop rotation or other methods that minimize environmental impact, avoid the use of chemical fertilizers, sythetic pesticides and herbicides,.."

And, in a move that could significantly shift some thinking about how D.C. schools source the meats and dairy products they serve to children-as well as bringing the city more into line with good food advocates-the bill includes under its sustainability umbrella agricultural techniques that "avoid non-therapeutic antibiotics and hormones." Antibiotics and hormones are routinely used to increase production in industrial-scale dairies and feedlot operations, raising concerns and a fierce debate over possible impacts on human health  as well as animal treatment.

Introduced jointly by Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) and Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, the proposal (read more here and here) could have some immediate impact on the way food service providers source their products for D.C. schools. It states that "public schools shall not enter into food service contracts that prohibit the purchase" of locally and sustainably grown farm products. It also requires food service providers to "identify, disclose, and certify the location where fruits and vegetables are grown and processed and whether growers are engaged in sustainable practices."

The proposed legislation represents a huge gift to advocates of locally and sustainably grown farm products. But it may be more carrot than stick. The bill says that public schools-including charter schools-must serve foods grown locally and sustainably "whenever possible," with a preference for foods "grown or processed" in Maryland or Virginia. Tight food budgets as well as a food distribution network not necessarily geared to locally and sustainably grown products could sorely test the meaning of "whenever possible."

The bill contains other suggestions for increasing the use of local products, and boosting the local farm economy. It calls on schools to "collaborate" with the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, community organizations and food service providers "in teaching students and food service staff about the economic, environmental, and nutritional benefits of purchasing and eating" local foods.

The bill would require the state superintendent of education to issue grants toward developing programs that advance a farm-to-school program, but only "when funds are appropriated." It also calls on schools to adopt programs such as a "local flavor week" or a "harvest of the month" that promote local foods.

In the last year, a D.C. Farm to School Network, organized by the Capitol Area Food Bank, has emerged to encourage farm-to-school practices. It's largest event to date was a highly successful "Local Flavor Week" in September that resulted in cooking demonstrations and other food-related activities in dozens of D.C. schools.

Full disclosure: I am a member of the D.C. Farm to School Network's advisory board and had a hand in writing some of the sustainability language that appears in the "Healthy Schools" legislation.

Does "Healthy Schools" Bill Go Far Enough?

by: euclidarms

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 07:38:30 AM PST

The legislation, introduced this week by Councilmember Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) and Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray (D), would prohibit the sale of sodas in D.C. schools and require that students be given a minimum 30 minutes for lunch. But schools would still be free to station vending machines outside cafeterias and sell lots of other dubious foods, including chips, popcorn, doughnuts and cookies.

Trans fats would be prohibited according to nutritional standards scheduled to be phased in over a four-year period.

The bill also steers clear of a gathering movement to eliminate flavored milk from school lunchrooms. Chocolate, strawberry and other flavored milks are being called "soda in drag" because they contain only slightly less sugar than Coca-Cola. Natural fruit juices also would continue to be allowed, even though they are loaded with sugar in the form of fructose.  The legislation permits canned fruit packed in "light syrup."

The bill takes aim at the salt content of school food. For instance, fruit and vegetable servings in school meals would be permitted to contain no more than 230 milligrams of sodium. However, the sodium content could more than double if those servings contain any one of a number of nutrients, such as fiber or Vitamin C.

By comparison, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has lowered the salt content of canned vegetables in its commodities food program to no more than 140 milligrams per serving.

The "Healthy Schools" act sets nutrition standards covering everything from total calories to be served at lunch to weekly portions of vegetables, meats and grains. High schoolers, for instance, would be served a minimum 5 cups of vegetables each week, including at least one-half cup of dark green vegetables, "orange vegetables," and legumes. It's not clear whether french fries will be included in the vegetable category. In the grains category, fully half the servings can be from refined, rather than whole, grains.

As the parent of a nine-year-old daughter, I have to say I would just as soon have all sodas and chips and sugary treats and vending machines removed from the city's public schools. As any parent knows, if those things are available, kids will find a way to get their hands on them. At my daughter's school, kids are rewarded for good deeds with local "dollars." The "dollars" are redeemable at the school "store," which sells an assortment of candy and other junk food.

The "Healthy Schools" bill addresses the availability of sugar and other junk by limiting portion size. "Competetive" foods, meaning those sold outside the federally subsidized breakfast and lunch meals, could contain "no more than 35 percent of its weight from sugars." Does this mean no more candy? The new standards would allow: one and one-quarter ounces for "chips, crackers, popcorn, cereal, trail mix, nuts, seeds, dried fruit, or jerky"; one ounce for cookies; two ounces for "cereal bars, granola bars, pastries, muffins, doughnuts, bagels and other bakery items"; four fluid ounces for "frozen desserts, including, but not limited to low-fat or fat-free ice cream"; eight ounces for non-frozen yogurt.

Competitive foods could contain no more than 230 milligrams of sodium per serving, except "low-fat and fat-free dairy products," which would be allowed 480 milligrams.

None of these requirements would apply to food available to school staff. or provided free by parents or sold or provided at sporting events. Foods that fall short of the requirements could not be used as "incentives, prizes or awards" in public schools.

Apparently none of this is written in stone, however. The plan, sources tell me, is to hold roundtable discussions on the bill with a variety of interest groups before the legislation even comes up for public hearing.

New D.C. Law Would Embrace Healthy, Sustainable School Food

by: euclidarms

Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 07:34:37 AM PST

I haven't had a chance to digest everything in this 24-page bill, but it places heavy emphasis on schools making meals "whenever possible" with local products grown without artificial fertilizers, pesticides or non-therapeutic antibiotics or growth hormones. It also would phase out styrofoam trays and non-reclycable eating utensils in favor of "sustainable products." It bans from schools all sports drinks, sodas, iced teas and "juices" with minimal actual fruit, except when provided free by parents or sold at sporting and other extra-curricular events. More stringent nutrition standards would be phased in over a four-year period.

The law, which would go into effect in August 2010, would require schools to work with other city agencies to establish school gardens-including taking out asphalt when necessary-and work gardening and good nutrition practices into school curricula.

I could quibble with the legislation's fixation on fat in school meals while still allowing chips, popcorn, doughnuts, cookies and other junk food. School foods would not be permitted to contain more than 35 percent added sugar by weight. I'm not exactly sure if that covers all the candy currently available in school "stores." It also would allow schools to continue serving chocolate and other flavored milk with added sugar. Otherwise, this bill appears to be a wish list for advocates of local, minimally-processed and sustainably grown farm products, of which I am certainly one, and would bring the District of Columbia into the 21st Century where the good food movement is concerned.

In fact, I can say that I played a small hand in recommending some of the standards for what constitutes "local" and "sustainable," and I'm glad that Mary Cheh and Vincent Gray have gone out on a limb to press for foods grown without artificial fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones, antibiotics. The bill would even require the school system to chip in an extra five cents for school meals built around such products, in addition to the federal subsidies received through the the national school lunch plan. The federal government currently provides $2.68 for school lunches that are fully subsidized.

Schools would still be allowed to serve canned fruits and vegetables, but the legislation sets a limit on the amount of sodium those food may contain. School would not be allowed to offer junk foods as incentives or prizes.

The proposed legislation also deals with standards for making schools more environmentally sound, right down to setting a maximum time limit (one minute) that school buses can be left idling.

I can't wait for the public hearings. Meanwhile, I'll be mining these pages for more details.

Sodas & Advertising in Schools

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 12:35:50 PM PDT

...in May 2006, the American Beverage Association, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes (now the Dr Pepper/Snapple Group) teamed up with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (a joint initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association) to develop new School Beverage Guidelines that significantly reduce the calories available from beverages during the school day...

In just two years since we began implementing the national School Beverage Guidelines, there has been a 58 percent decrease in beverage calories shipped to schools and nearly 80 percent of schools under contract with bottlers are in full compliance - exceeding the 75 percent two-year standard called for in the MOU.

Is that better? Is that good enough? There are two questions that I think we need to address here: 1) Are their standards good enough based on the most up to date knowledge of nutrition and 2) What about the issue of commercialism and marketing within schools, which is entirely ignored by the agreement. (Perhaps three - the third being that there is no independent review of the ABA's own estimation of the job they are doing, nor any enforcement mechanism if they don't do what they have promised.)
 

Action needed: Testify in support of vegetarian & vegan meals in Hawai`i's schools

by: raatz

Tue Mar 24, 2009 at 12:55:25 PM PDT

Here's the hearing notice:

http://capitol.hawaii.gov/sess...

The resolution numbers are HR 47 and HCR 59.

Monday Evening Sampler Platter

by: JayinPhiladelphia

Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 16:00:00 PM PDT

• A new restaurant near the University of Texas at Arlington, which uses locally grown, organic ingredients as much as possible, has a no-set-price policy, and asks customers to discreetly pay (in an envelope) afterwards for what they thought the meal was worth.  The idea is based upon an existing Salt Lake City non-profit community kitchen's model.  Can it work for a commercial establishment?  So far, the restaurant is coming up just short, although it's only two months old and the business itself is always a rough one.

• The City of Berkeley, CA may soon transform all of its parks and open spaces into habitats for bees, in an effort to reverse the recent global decline of pollinators.

• If you're in Kansas, you can vote for the best food in the state from now until March 31.  Unfortunately, restaurants must be at least a decade old in order to be considered, so that rules out Lawrence's Local Burger for at least the next 7 years.  I'm sure there's something else worth considering in Lawrence, though...

• USDA will update its Plant Hardiness Zone Map later this year, for the first time since 1990, to reflect the climate-change induced shifts of planting zones northward.

More below the fold...

Iowa Considers Junk Food Ban in Schools

by: JayinPhiladelphia

Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 14:57:13 PM PST

DES MOINES, Iowa - State education officials want to ban junk food from the state's schools, and give students a nudge when it comes to nutrition.

The Iowa Board of Education is considering new rules that target the vending machine and snack bars that have become popular options to traditional school lunches. They also have become money makers, accounting for about half of food sales in schools.

Unfortunately, from there that article goes on to largely focus on costs to the school system and just barely skims over the health issues.  Nor does it mention the fact that schools should be places where children are sent to learn and prepare for life, not a place for PepsiCo or Kraft Foods to instill 'brand loyalty' in our children...