The Battle Over Chocolate Milk

I'm sure that you're aware of the great chocolate milk debate that's taking place in school districts across the country. It's also being debated at a national level, as lawmakers decide whether chocolate milk should be removed from the National School Lunch Program. We appreciated how clearly Donald F. Kettl, a columnist for GOVERNING, explains the debate in the article below. Organic Fresh Fingers is pleased to say that none of our schools or childcare facilities serve chocolate milk!

One of my fondest memories from kindergarten was the treat of a couple of graham crackers and chocolate milk served in a waxy paperboard container. In those days, primary school was mostly about helping kids learn how to spend half a day away from mom. Milk was an important bait, luring us into the world of education.

A lot’s changed since then. Kindergarten is now a serious educational venture. Kids make big steps in reading instead of having See Spot Run read to them, and they learn how to write instead of coloring elephants with giant crayons. Chocolate milk too, has changed. It’s now at the center of an enormous policy battle regarding school lunches.

Some school districts have banned flavored milk completely. In Florida, the battle has become white-hot. The State Board of Education campaigned to pull chocolate milk out of lunchrooms, as part of its ongoing effort to eliminate sugared sodas and high-calorie desserts. When the board turned to flavored milk, opposition from the dairy industry flared. Big business was at stake -- in 2010, the state’s four largest school districts spent $13 million on flavored milk, and students downed 49 million half-pints of the chocolate version.

State Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam countered the board’s efforts by trying to pull decisions about cafeteria food into his office. But Board of Education member Roberto Martinez fired back, “We have to put the kids first, not the agriculture industry first -- period. End of story.”

So how does taking much-loved chocolate milk out of school cafeterias put kids first? Two words: fat and calories. The standard half-pint serving of low-fat milk has 102 calories, of which 21 come from fat. Chocolate milk has more than twice the calories (226) and almost four times as many calories from fat (78). With childhood obesity reaching epidemic levels, public health groups have pressed school districts to switch to lower-calorie options.

Following on the heels of the wildly popular “Got Milk?” ads, the dairy industry promoted a “Raise your hands for chocolate milk” campaign. In Boulder, Colo., chef Ann Cooper, a self-styled “renegade lunch lady,” says the campaign has more to do with selling milk than promoting nutrition.

In April, Fairfax County, Va., schools reversed their chocolate milk ban after an avalanche of protests from disappointed students -- and concerned nutritionists, who argued that chocolate milk is an important way to get vitamin D and calcium into the diets of nutritionally challenged children. Interestingly, Fairfax’s new chocolate milk is low-fat and contains sucrose instead of high-fructose corn syrup. Some critics of the old chocolate milk say the switch is healthier because sucrose is less heavily processed. Others say that sugar is sugar and it doesn’t make much difference how it comes into the diet. The Corn Refiners Association shares that opinion -- and a concern that it not lose the big chocolate milk market.

The feds have found themselves squarely in the middle of this intense battle. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, along with the Department of Health and Human Services, reinvented the food pyramid to help Americans make healthier choices, and especially to help reduce the fat and calories in the diets of youngsters. Meanwhile, the National Milk Processor Board, which created the “Got Milk?” campaign, works under the USDA’s umbrella as part of its mission to promote dairy products. The department’s National School Lunch Program provides subsidized meals and snacks for less-affluent children. It calls for schools to serve milk, and chocolate is OK.

Is it the USDA’s policy to promote good nutrition, low-fat milk, chocolate milk or milk production in general, regardless of flavor? One way or another, the answer is yes, to all four. Then there’s first lady Michelle Obama’s campaign for child nutrition, and Rep. Michele Bachmann’s charge that the first lady is trying to roll out a “nanny state.” Bachmann castigated the nutrition campaign in telling talk radio host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham that “For them, government is the answer to every problem.”

One blogger at the San Francisco Chronicle simply told other readers, “You couldn’t get me to drink school milk as a child. If it was chocolate, I’m sure it would have been different! It’s like an adult at Starbucks ... even kids need a little vice!”

But this little vice, if that’s what it is, has become a very big battle. Fairfax’s Penny McConnell, who directs the district’s food and nutrition services, says that before the district reversed its decision she received 10 to 20 e-mails a day contending that students liked the drink and it supplied essential nutrients to help growing kids grow strong bones. “It was a lot of pressure.”

Since 1946, milk has been a cornerstone of the federal school lunch program. Little did its sponsors back in the Truman administration realize that their plan to bring better nutrition to the nation’s children would erupt into such a deep moral, scientific, economic and political battle, involving everyone from renegade lunch ladies to first ladies. It makes me long for a few sips of soothing snacks and a nap on the blanket I used to store in my kindergarten cubby.

To Read the Original Article, please visit GOVERNING.com.

Higher Prices for School Lunch?

With the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, you may have noticed quite a few news articles about the price of lunch increasing. That is because the bill mandates that the price of student lunches gradually be brought up to the National School Lunch Program's reimbursement rate for free lunches - which is currently $2.72.

Effective July 1, 2011, Section 205 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 requires school food authorities participating in the National School Lunch Program to gradually increase paid meal prices to equal the USDA reimbursement for a free student meal or provide non-federal funding to cover the difference. The USDA requires a minimum increase of 5 cents for the 2011-2012 school year.

This will be a big change. Most schools are still charging $1.50 - $2.00 per lunch. Parents will have to get used to the idea of school lunch costing more. Over the next five years, schools will be continually raising lunch prices until they reach the reimbursement rate.

The idea behind raising the reimbursement rate is to allow for higher quality, healthier foods to be served in schools. The bill also mandates that school lunch programs be non-profit. Hopefully, as schools increase the revenue brought in from lunch, they will also increase the quality of lunches.

Organic Fresh Fingers is ahead of the curve. Although our lunches cost more per meal than most schools currently charge, we use that extra money to provide fresh, local, natural and organic food to children. One of our biggest barriers is convincing school officials that parents will pay more for lunch if the quality of the lunch improves. As schools around the country raise their rates, we hope that more schools will consider Organic Fresh Fingers as an option.

Oregon Farm to School Act Could Bring More Local Food to Schools

As farms continue to pump out locally produced and processed goods and school children continue to wolf down cafeteria lunches, it’s a curious conundrum that more food doesn’t pass directly from local producers into the school systems. In Lane County, the Willamette Farm and Food Coalition and other local organizations have been addressing this issue for the past several years. With a mission to strengthen the local economy, benefit public health and support local food producers, WFFC has been promoting farm to school connections, becoming a leader in the region and the National Farm to School Network‘s State Lead Agency for Oregon. Now, with a current bill pending review by Oregon’s House of Representatives, the potential exists to strengthen that connection even more.

House Bill 2800, known as the Oregon Farm to School Act, is sponsored by Rep. Brian Clem (D-Sa lem) and Tina Kotek (D-Portland). Clem has been pushing Farm to School connections since 2007, and his proposals have resulted in the creation of two positions: one in the Department of Agriculture and one in the Department of Education, both devoted to working with schools to incorporate more locally grown food into their nutrition programs.

The current bill would use grant money to reimburse school districts up to 15 cents per meal for food produced or processed in Oregon. Current funding for Oregon school lunches comes from the National School Lunch Program, with Oregon being one of the few states that doesn’t help pay for meals. Reimbursements must also be spent on Oregon food, thus continuing the cycle. Grants will also be made available to assist in school garden programs, with the potential for incorporating school produce into the lunch program as well.

The original draft of HB 2800 demanded $22 million in state funding, but has since been dramatically reduced. HB 2800 is now vying for $2 million from state Economic Development Funds. In part, the reduction means that grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to qualifying schools throughout Oregon. Originally, the measure was introduced to assist all school districts in the state, but with the budget shortfall these funds will only be available to a select few. Eligibility will likely depend on several factors: schools may be required to have a certain percentage of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch, and districts that receive grant money may also need to show that they will be able to integrate the local foods offered with an educational component for students.

Megan Kemple of Willamette Farm and Food Coalition believes that the three districts currently working with WFFC are well poised to take advantage of these funds. WFFC has already created an active Farm to School Program within the Bethel, Eugene 4J, and Springfield school districts, and has established connections with many growers and food producers in the region, providing the framework to make further improvements to the school lunch program. In addition, a high percentage of students in these districts qualify for free or reduced lunch. The educational component of the program should also count as big points for these districts. WFFC has created a comprehensive educational program that includes lessons about where our food comes from, farm field trips, harvest meals where students prepare freshly harvested farm foods, school garden sessions, nutrition lessons, and tasting tables offering fresh produce from recently visited farms. The school garden sessions are done in collaboration with the School Garden Project of Lane County, and “garden-based nutrition education” is implemented with the help of Oregon State University’s Nutrition Education Program.

...

Randy Henderson of Thistledown Farm says his farm could feed every child in Eugene if the schools had the funds to pay for it. With 500 acres in production, it’s not a matter of supply; the problem is that produce is often cheaper to buy from Mexico than it is from local farms. Another issue is the lack of local processors since AgriPac left town, which happened in part because the row crops (corns, beans, beets, carrots, etc) of the Willamette Valley have all gone to grass seed production. Much local produce is grown during the summer months when children aren’t in school. Thistledown, however, has been able to sell products such as frozen strawberries to schools during the winter and spring months. For Henderson, nutrition is still one of the biggest factors in supporting Farm to School programs. If schools were able to buy more produce, his farm would be able to keep up with demand.

For Roger Detering of Detering Orchards, supplying schools with produce is “part of doing good business, and provides a good outlet for smaller apples that the kids enjoy.” He also says that if schools were able to purchase more local foods, he would be able to supply them with more produce. Both farmers support the program, but worry that timing is unfortunate for such a bill to pass.

The Farm to School bill has received vast local support. It passed unanimously through its last phase in the legislative process, and is favored by local farmers, food producers, schools, and organizations like WFFC and the School Garden Project. It is also predicted to be an economic boon as well. Agricultural economist Bruce Sorte with Oregon State University estimates the $2 million would create 24 jobs in the first year as the demand for local food products goes up. Kemple points out that is not so much a matter of opposition to the bill as it is simply finding the funds in Oregon’s dwindling budget to support the program.

According to a progress report from the Oregon Farm to School and School Garden Policy Workgroup, the bill has passed unanimously out of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and will go to the Ways and Means Committee before it reaches the House floor. It will be assigned to a sub-committee (most likely Natural Resources) before moving into the full Ways and Means and then out onto the House floor. Because of other budget decision-making, HB 2800 will probably not be addressed for a couple more weeks. Kemple is hopeful that the bill will pass, but concerned that the state’s budget is so limited. -eugenedailynews.com

To read more, please visit Eugenedailynews.com.

"Lunch Line" Documentary Trailer

Six high-school kids from one of Chicago’s toughest neighborhoods set out to fix the federal school lunch program and end up at the White House in “Lunch Line,” a documentary film examining the program’s past, present and possible future.

Begun in 1946, the National School Lunch Program today feeds more than 31 million children daily. It is a huge, complex and slow to change bureaucracy, with nutritional choices increasingly under attack. “Lunch Line” depicts leaders from all sides of the school-food debate, including government officials, school food service experts, activists and students, discussing the program and ways of nourishing America’s children.
-diningchicago.com

DVD's are now available at http://lunchlinefilm.com/.

Lobbyists, myths and outdated thinking hold back lunch programs

We really appreciated this Op-Ed from USA Today. One challenge Organic Fresh Fingers faces when we talk to schools about healthier lunch is the myth that it is impossible to provide healthier foods without losing money. School administrators are constantly telling us that kids won't eat healthier foods and that parents won't pay more for school lunch. Both of these statements are totally untrue. Children will eat food that is good tasting and good for them. And parents will pay more if the food is worth the price.

USA Today Editorial:

A typical lunch last year in the Adams 14 school district outside Denver featured chicken nuggets or a breaded chicken sandwich on a white-bread bun, french fries or Tater Tots, and a salad of iceberg lettuce and carrot shavings that came out of a bag. Parents and students across the country will recognize the menu from their own school cafeterias.

This week, though, Adams 14 is serving "turkey American subs" on whole wheat, roasted cauliflower, herb roasted potatoes, a fresh tossed salad and fresh fruit. Chocolate milk and fried potatoes have been banished. Most remarkably, the district, in a low-income industrial suburb, is feeding its 7,630 students for about the same money it spent last year.

While Adams and scores of other districts across the nation are proving that innovative thinking and strategies can improve school menus, the powers that be in Washington are waging food fights.

Last year, Congress took a big step toward combating child obesity and improving children's health when it passed new mandates for the federal school lunch and breakfast program. (Under the $11.5 billion program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reimburses local districts for free and reduced-price meals at 100,000 schools. Students who don't qualify for subsidized meals pay rates set locally.)

Now, USDA is writing the program's new rules, and interests on all sides are pushing their agendas, some attempting to undo what Congress intended. For example, the National Potato Council wants — surprise! — more potatoes in school meals, while the proposed rules call for far less. The School Nutrition Association, which represents school food directors, argues that the districts can't meet some of the new standards without more money and more time. This ignores the fact that there is no more money, and delay is the enemy when it comes to childhood nutrition.

All the players would do better keeping Congress' mandates in place and looking to the schools that are already doing it right. ...

In Burlington, Vt., food director Doug Davis runs his program "like a business." The district charges paying high school students $2.50 for lunch, close to the federal reimbursement rate for free lunches. Many districts give discounted meals to students who can afford to pay more, undermining the program's goals. ...

It's true that school districts, especially in poor communities, face daunting challenges in providing nutritious food. But often, myths and outdated thinking hold them back more than lack of money or time.

Cynthia Veney, the food director at Adams 14, says everybody told her if she got rid of chicken nuggets, the students would revolt. It didn't happen.

To read more, please visit USAToday.com

New USDA School Lunch Changes

As most of you are aware, the recently passed Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 included a mandate for healthier regulations on food being served under the National School Lunch Program. The USDA just came out with their proposed changes, and will be seeking public comment once they release the official policy. Below are some of the proposed changes:

Highlighted USDA School Lunch Changes From the Federal Register

• Fruit requirements will go from ½ cup to 1 cup at breakfast.
• Fruit and vegetable requirements will go from 1 to 1 ½ cups together to ¾ to 1 cup fruits and ½ to 1 cup vegetables at lunch.
• Grain requirements will double and whole grains will be emphasized.
• New requirements will include specific vegetables like dark leafy greens, orange vegetables, and legumes as well as a limit on starchy vegetables.
• Full fat and low fat milk will no longer be offered.
• Whole grains will be implemented in a staged manner as to adjust to the taste buds of students.
• Meat alternatives will also be offered as main dishes including tofu.
• Calorie levels for lunch will be limited to 550 to 650 for grades K through 5, 600 to 700 for grades 6 through 8, and 750 to 850 for grades 9 through 12.
  - planetgreen.com
  

The good news is that Organic Fresh Fingers' Fresh n' Local meal program already meets most if not all of these new requirements. And with the extra six cent per meal increase that was included in the bill, our meal program will be more affordable for public school districts, head starts, and other publicly funded programs.

Response to Mandated Lunches at Chicago School

The article from the Chicago Tribune on schools banning lunches from home had made quite a splash on the national school lunch scene, and rightly so. Below is a response from the The Washington Times.

By Marybeth Hicks -The Washington Times

"The school lunch debate took center stage this week with a Chicago Tribune story about a public chool on the city's West Side that prohibits children from bringing lunches from home.

Little Village Academy banned sack lunches six years ago in a supposed effort to improve the nutritional quality of the food its students consume.

According to the report, Chicago Public Schools permits its principals to use their discretion to decide whether their student population needs stringent rules about food choices. Several of the schools apparently have banned sack lunches, while others permit them but confiscate certain foods that administrators deem unhealthy (think Doritos, soda, candy).

Problem: The Little Village students hate much of the school's cafeteria food. Lunches routinely are thrown away uneaten, leaving children hungry until they get home at the end of the day.

Bigger problem: It's not the role of a public school principal to decree what her students may and may not eat. In fact, even the less-stringent policies convey a growing and disturbing trend among educators and others toward meddling in parents' decisions.

I'm not arguing the merits of a healthier school lunch. As the mother of four children, I've already packed thousands of lunches for the very purpose of ensuring the nutritional value of my children's midday meals, and I have about 900 to go, give or take. (Note to self: We're out of turkey.)

But the children profiled in the Chicago Tribune story say they would rather bring a sandwich and a banana from home than eat the glop that passes for "healthy" enchiladas on their lunch trays. However, Little Village parents who want to pack lunches that are even healthier than those prepared in the school cafeteria are unable to do so. (The school makes exceptions for children with allergies or special dietary needs.)

More troubling is the underlying belief that prompts such policies — that some parents simply are incapable of making wise decisions on behalf of their children, even about what to feed them for lunch.

It's a dicey issue. I've been writing for years about the general lack of parenting skills in our nation, including inconsistent discipline, "buddy parenting" and more serious shortcomings, such as letting the culture raise their children without a moral compass or a value system to direct their behavior.

Our national parenting crisis is resulting in a generation that is generally undereducated, hypersexualized, inadequately supervised, media-saturated and poorly fed. Heck, children don't even get enough sleep at night thanks to TVs in their bedrooms.

So let's assume the folks at Little Village Academy and other schools simply are responding to the lack of solid parenting they see exhibited as junk food in sack lunches with a well-intentioned and convenient solution. (Plus, it's lucrative for the company that provides school lunches and the union cafeteria workers they employ. But I digress.)

Ah, but the road to tyranny is paved with good intentions.

The folks who advocate such mandated programs always pitch what sounds like an irrefutable argument: The school (read: government) must step in for our children's health and wellness.

Today, it's required school lunches and body-fat analyses in countless school districts. Tomorrow, who knows what parental rights will be usurped in the name of healthy children?

In a free society, the most we can do is teach and encourage parents to make healthy and wise choices on behalf of their children. Information, "peer pressure" and a healthy school community will do far more to influence parents' behavior than forced solutions from the powers that be.

Anyway, disempowering parents simply won't work. As the students at Little Village Academy know too well, when it comes to feeding our nation's children, the "Nanny Cafe" doesn't come close to homemade.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.