Districts Say Can’t Afford Vegetables But Leave Billions on their Plates

 

Imagine your teenager tells you the money you gave him isn’t enough to cover a healthy lunch. Upon further inquiry, he reveals the reason, which is that after buying chips, cookies and a drink he couldn’t afford any vegetables. What would your response be? Would you tell him it’s okay then not to buy the vegetables?

 

Well, that’s exactly what House Appropriations Committee just did.

 

Two USDA studies show that school districts typically underprice their snack bar sales known as competitive food programs, to the tune of 29-39%. Not every district does, but the typical district does.

 

So, for example, if a candy bar should be priced at $1.50, students might pay only $1. School foodservice departments have little other revenue beside funds from the National School Lunch Program to balance out that loss, so it is from there that the money is most likely to come. It is highly unlikely this siphoning of funds from healthy meals to snack-bar food has been intentional. Instead, many district foodservice directors simply do not understand how to properly account for their separate programs.

 

But whatever the reason, the reality is that many school districts have been taking federal money, the majority of which is supposed to be used for nutritious foods for low-income kids, and using it to cover losses on cash sale items like chips, cookies and sugary drinks. Equally shocking is that according to USDA, the money involved each year runs in the billions of dollars. But the moral irony is as staggering as the financial one.

 

Well, it’s not just a moral lapse or questionable use of money anymore. It’s illegal. Congress amended the National School Lunch Act (NSLP) in Sec. 206 of the Healthy and Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 to require districts to price their competitive foods high enough to cover the cost of selling those foods on campus. Once fully implemented, USDA estimates nearly 1 million price-sensitive kids will switch from eating competitive foods to eating NSLP meals and over $2 billion a year will be shifted from competitive foods back to the NSLP. Thank goodness. Problem solved, right?

 

Well, apparently not. I was shocked to hear the School Nutrition Association (SNA) and their California chapter have been arguing, and that this week the House Appropriations Committee agreed, that districts do not have enough money to pay for the nutrition improvements in HHFKA, improvements like increasing vegetables and whole grains in breads and pastas. Two billion a year really should be plenty of money to pay for these nutrition upgrades for kids for the schools involved. But—of course—if districts haven’t stopped siphoning money off the NSLP to cover competitive food losses, the money isn’t there to use.

 

So I called USDA and SNA to ask how districts are doing in repricing their competitive foods. I asked what kind of outreach the Department and the Association have been doing to let districts know about Sec. 206 and how to correctly price their competitive foods so that they at least break even. What were the answers?

 

SNA was aware of Sec. 206 but said that, to its knowledge, it hadn’t received any information about it from USDA and SNA could not recall any webinars or training they had done on it. As for USDA, though it did not have time to respond by my deadline, in its press release on May 20 the Agency listed the new money available to districts to help pay for the nutrition improvements the districts are now claiming they can’t afford to implement. The press release didn’t even mention Sec. 206.

 

I know USDA has been very busy simultaneously implementing the HHFKA and fighting a nonstop barrage of attacks from industry and certain members of Congress who want to change the law by thwarting its implementation. And, I know that implementing Sec. 206 is not as easy as waiving a wand. USDA is going to have to help directors who have never tracked revenues and expenses on a program-by-program basis before.

 

But given the moral and financial imperative here, why didn’t USDA prioritize 206 when the Agency has shown over and over that it is truly dedicated to implementing HHKFA and improving nutrition for kids?

 

Foodservice directors care about kids too, and they too want them to have healthy food. So why didn’t SNA ask the Appropriations Committee for money for USDA to provide training and technical assistance to districts to train foodservice directors on Sec. 206 and redirect billions back into the NSLP? Seriously, what is the disconnect?

 

Sec. 206 was written in the Senate. Perhaps, then, the Senate will see its value and legal and moral imperative. Perhaps when the senators are asked to waive requirements for more nutritious foods in schools, they will devise a more clever solution. Perhaps they will find one that helps districts understand how to use the money they already have to finance better food for their kids, so the kids can go on and learn important things, like math and accounting. And accountability.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Comment(required)

Submit

Δ

 

Fake Food Allergies & Intolerances

I am ground zero for questions about fake food allergies and intolerances. I have Celiac Disease. My kids are undiagnosed but on gluten-free, low sugar diets, and they go to nut-free schools. I recently started a company, which makes healthy energy bars that are free of the top eight allergens and gluten, called ZEGO, and frequently do product demos at stores. What I’m typically asked is, “When people who aren’t Celiac claim they need to be gluten free, doesn’t that hurt real Celiacs?” Another is, “Aren’t a lot of these fake allergies? I mean, really, not all these people can have food allergies.”

 

Spoiler alert: the answers are NO and NO, but I understand where they are coming from. Food allergies and intolerances are relatively new to the general public, and they are SO common now that they may be hard to believe.

 

Food allergies grew 50% from 1997 to 2011 according the Center for Disease Control, that’s an epidemic proportion, and Celiac Disease diagnoses have grown exponentially during that time as well. But for people born before 1997, there probably weren’t many kids they grew up with who had severe food allergies or gluten intolerances (in 1981, my Tennessee doctors told me only one other person in the entire state had Celiac Disease). Based on their experience, this sudden, dramatic increase in “Bobby can’t have peanuts” and “no bun, please” may seem like a dietary trend of choice, or an overreaction to a condition.

 

Another source of confusion is that sensitivities vary–some people can have a deadly allergic reaction to 1/500^th of a peanut while others can eat up to 4 or 5 whole peanuts and be fine. Gluten sensitivities can vary similarly. But with gluten, the reactions are usually ones people want to keep more private, like digestive trouble or depression. So when one mom seems laid back about her child’s food restrictions and another seems freaked out, it probably has more to do with the child’s sensitivity rather than the mother’s personality. But to many people, it looks like one is over reacting or exaggerating, while the other is giving their child healthy space to make their own decisions and still enjoy being a kid.

 

As a Celiac mom of 3 kids who have food sensitivities and intolerances, I don’t have the deadly allergies to worry about, but I really feel for people dealing with suggestions that they are faking their allergies and intolerances, or the severity of them. I have dozens of examples of people telling me that I was being too restrictive on my kids’ diets or that I was making up symptoms for myself, or my children. Sometimes this came from doctors, sometimes from well-meaning people who love me. The memories go back far, and, honestly, they bring tears to my eyes even still.

 

The first time was when I was a scrawny 12 year-old. I swung my skinny legs from the exam table and cried quietly as an orthopedist told me I was making up my bone pain to get attention. He had no diagnosis for me, so he decided I must have been making it up. That year, I broke 5 bones in a series of very minor falls. My history of broken and painful bones ended at age 15, when I was diagnosed with Celiac Disease and went on a gluten-free diet. I didn’t know my symptoms had a dietary link. I had no intuition about what was happening to me at all, but I did know it was real.

 

But it felt surreal on a sunny fall day 5 years ago when a well-meaning doctor told me in front of my 10 year-old son that it wasn’t fair for me to have him on a gluten-free and sugar-free diet, even though he would get acute stomach pains and headaches if he ate as little as a spoonful of ice cream, and suffered from chronic digestive upset when gluten was in his diet.

 

The problem was, he didn’t test positive for Celiac or Diabetes—no diagnosis, no public validation for my dietary choices for my son. This opened the door for skeptics—doctors, other parents, and friends. We were lucky in a way, his reaction to sugar and gluten were so severe it was a clear to me that we should ignore the doctor and go with my parental instincts and observations. My youngest daughter’s symptoms, however, have been a bit more illusive.

 

My youngest daughter was experiencing hyperactivity and distractibility, problems sleeping, elevated anxiety, and chronic stomach-aches. Many folks suggested ADHD drugs, including some parents and some teachers at her school, but my intuition was that at least some of our answer was in diet. And, maybe a dietary approach would be enough to enable her to manage without the meds. The results have been impressive, though not the slam-dunk that we saw with my son.

 

When we took gluten out of her meals, the stomach-aches went away. Then we took sugar and chocolate out of her diet, and she had less anxiety, slept better and was less hyperactive. And, though I’d like to see even more improvement for her, she is so much better than before that we aren’t even thinking about introducing ADHD meds. I didn’t need a doctor’s diagnosis to validate that she shouldn’t eat these foods. I needed some time for dietary trial and error and to trust my observations and intuition.

 

Almost everyone is more aware of food allergies and intolerances these days, but still there is a lot of skepticism that many people are selectively diagnosing their own issues and imposing that on other people (this is particularly the case with gluten).

 

For me, what it comes down to is this. If someone or their child functions or feels better by not eating certain foods, let them follow that diet without casting suspicion on their choice. They are clearly trying to get better or avoid getting sick, and may not have the time, energy, or desire to share their story with you as to why.

 

If it’s you or your child with food issues, be unapologetic for following diet that maximizes your health and well-being, but recognize that your diet is your responsibility. People and businesses can be very helpful but you can’t expect that always to be the case.

 

Figure out ways to make it easier for others to welcome you to the table, so to speak. I usually eat before going to a party instead of expecting the host to have special food for me. If it’s a sit-down dinner, I will offer to bring a gluten-free dish. I try to remember to call the restaurant before booking a reservation to ask if they can accommodate our family’s restrictions. I have treats in the freezer for my kids to bring to birthday parties, and when they were younger, if their issue was severe enough, I stayed at the party to keep an eye their eating.

 

It’s a challenge to be healthy. It’s a challenge to raise healthy kids. Let’s support each other in meeting these challenges and not engage in debates over whether other people are faking their dietary needs.

 

*I would like to continue to educate skeptics by sharing more of our stories about dealing with the doubts of others when undergoing the difficult task of caring for yourself or your children with food allergies or intolerances. Please share your story with me at colleen@campaignforbetternutrition.org or colleen@zegosnacks.com.

Food For Your Mood

Whether you are taking antidepressants or not and whether your depression is inherited or a circumstantial, making these adaptations to your diet can make a big difference in helping you feel happy again.

Make a commitment for the next three months and see how you feel.

1. Omega 3s—Omega 3s oils are very important to maintaining normal brain functioning. Low Omega 3 levels are associated with psychiatric disorders. On a mega-scale, depression across countries can be predicted by Omega 3 (fish) consumption. We also know that depressed brains have fewer Omega 3 and more Omega 6 than non-depressed. Omega 3s facilitate transmission of nervous system signals, control electrical activity in the brain, and activate receptors for neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin. Older women who eat more low-mercury fish have sharper minds and better memory than women who do not.

· Eat low-mercury fish like tilapia, sole, small tuna, etc. Avoid large fish that live a long time, like halibut and large tuna. When choosing tuna fish, choose “light” tuna (which is actually dark), not Albacore, which has three times the mercury levels of “light.” If eating fish is problematic, take Omega 3 supplements (must be 3rd party tested for toxic metals).

· Drink organic whole milk has 70% more omega 3s than nonorganic whole milk. Skim milk does not have Omega 3s and low-fat milk has fewer Omega 3s than whole. Avoid non-organic dairy fat as the toxins in the animals’ diets tend to accumulate in their fat cells.

· Swiss cheese from Switzerland is also high in Omega 3s because the cows graze on healthy clover.

2. Sunflower Seeds–These little nutrition wonders actually have the perfect combination of carbohydrates and tryptophan to boost serotonin and provide you the mellowness that Prozac and other similar drugs affect.

·  Have sunflower seeds or sunflower seed-based foods for snack.

·  Add sunflower seeds to stir fry and salads, even meatloaf and burgers.

·  Have sunflower seed butter with pancakes or toast or add into a whole grain pancake recipe.

3.  Whole Grain Carbs—We already know that refined carbohydrates make us fat (see my Tweets at http://twitter.com/#!/betterfoody for the story on the link between carbs, insulin, and fat). And, we know that having unwanted fat is enough to depress us. But to compound this, the consumption of refined carbs, sugar and juice also increase the likelihood of insulin resistance and inflammation, which are linked to depression. Insulin resistance can cause inflammation, which can lead to an imbalance in hormones and neurotransmitters, like serotonin, that regulate mood.

· Avoid sugar, juice, and refined flours but do eat slow release carbs, like whole grain bread or pancakes or beans.

4. Breakfast—Having slow-release carbs and protein at breakfast can help boost mood throughout the day.

· Try whole grain pancakes with blueberries and organic butter on top (no sugary syrup, please) for extra antioxidants. Substitute sunflower seed butter for some of the liquid and fat in the recipe.  Include a glass of whole milk, cup of whole milk, organic Greek yogurt (which has a far higher protein content than milk) or nut butter to boost protein levels.

5. Dark chocolate—Here is what you’ve been waiting to hear, chocolate contains theobromine, which causes sense of happiness similar to marijuana (not that I would know).

· Choose dark chocolate to lower the sugar content and amp up the theobromine. Milk chocolate is very high in sugar and often overly processed.

6. Potatoes—Cold, small, waxy potatoes increase the production of serotonin, our feel-good hormone.

· To lower their glycemic levels (lessening the negative effects of their carb content), you should boil them, add salt and organic butter, and then chill. They need to be chilled, even if you choose to reheated them later. Eat them as a snack on a regular basis or when you feel down and need a boost. Be sure to eat them on their own because when combined with protein, the serotonin effect may be blocked.  Eating a couple of these enablers before bed can increase serotonin production overnight, which will help you wake up to a better day!

7. Coffee and tea—Here, there is good news and bad news on the caffeine in these drinks—black tea is good, green tea is better, coffee is neither.

· Drink black or green tea daily (2-3 cups is recommended but start with one–try adding it before you have an afternoon or mid-morning treat as it may stave off your food craving), be sure to increase your water for the first few days so you don’t get dehydrated.  You may find increasing tea will crowd out your cuppa Joe, which can be helpful to some.

8. Exercise and Get Outside—Exercise and vitamin D, which we metabolize from sunshine, do wonders to improve your  serotonin levels and your mood.

· Aim for 30-60 minutes of exercise almost every day, outside as much as you can.

·  Add in walks to the store, park far away from the entrance if driving, etc. to get your heart rate and vitamin D levels up in small doses if you have a busy day that crowds out longer exercise periods and sunshine exposure.

·  Maximize your exercise mood benefit.  Cardio + weight training as well as yoga are more effective that cardio alone for boosting serotonin.

·  If you can’t get outside, take Vitamin D supplements (clinical trials have shown these supplements do help, unlike some other vitamin supplements studied in the past that did not show long-term benefits).

Special thanks to Dr. Daphne Miller, The Jungle Effect and Nina Planck, Real Food, and Dr. Joel Fuhrman, http://www.drfuhrman.com, who provided much of the research used for this blog. For additional sources of good nutrition information, see www.campaignforbetternutrition.org

Grattan Elementary Loves SFUSD’s New School Lunches

I stopped by Grattan Elementary School yesterday during lunchtime to see how the kids like the San Francisco Unified School District’s (SFUSD’s) new school meal program that was unveiled this week. 

 

Even though the new vendor for the meals, Revolution Foods, had promised healthier, more appealing lunches made from whole grains, fresh vegetables, etc., I know from experience that no matter how good the food is, children LOVE to complain about school food.  It’s like adults and taxes or traffic, we all need something to complain about.  So, I walked onto the campus with my expectations in check. 

 

I was met in the courtyard by Grattan’s beloved computer tech professional, who knows the kids as well as anyone at the school.  He exclaimed, “Have you seen the new lunches?  The kids love them, you’ve got to see!”  I walked with him to the cafeteria and ran into the principal along the way, who taught my own son in 1^st grade. 

 

With a booming smile the principal escorted me into the lunchroom.  A girl, who was probably in 4^th grade, ran up to us, as though on cue, and said, “are you the one responsible for making our school lunches better?  They are AWESOME. Thank you so much!”

 

I then talked to other kids eating the lunches in the cafeteria and they echoed this enthusiasm.  The principal did as well.  He added that he wants to get the word out to the parents of the students who are bringing their lunches from home about how wonderful the new meals are.  If we could get more kids eating these great, new school lunches, he said, the cafeteria would no longer be a place where children can figure out the income differences in their classmates.   A parent who was standing with us added that she would love not to make lunches in the morning, and given the quality of the new lunches, she felt the meals are well worth the reasonable price.

 

Congratulations to Revolution Foods, Student Nutrition Services, Superintendent Carranza and his staff, the Board of Education, SFUSD’s Food and Fitness Committee and the many, many other people who have been working very hard to improve SFUSD’s school meals for a decade now.  We all know we still have work to do to make sure this new program is successful, but we’ve come a long way, baby.  Let’s join with the kids and celebrate!

Farmers Market + Food Stamps + Bonus Bucks = Healthier Eating

The 2012 Alemany Farmers’ Market Bonus Bucks Program in San Francisco offered CalFresh (Food Stamp/EBT) customers an additional $5 in spending power when they spent $10 or more on produce at the market. The program is in its fourth year of operation and ran from September 3 (Labor Day) through September 30, 2012. It was funded through a partnership with the San Francisco Department of Real Estate (DRE), the San Francisco Human Services Agency (HSA) and Campaign for Better Nutrition (CBN).

The goals of the 2012 Bonus Bucks Program were: (1) to increase the number of CalFresh shoppers purchasing the low-­‐cost, fresh produce at the market during the Bonus Bucks period; (2) to increase the total amount of fresh produce CalFresh clients purchased for their households; and (3) to increase the number of CalFresh shoppers at Alemany during non-­‐incentive periods.

For the fourth year in a row, the Bonus Bucks Program has demonstrated that with increased spending power, CalFresh customers buy more fresh produce for their households and remain loyal customers at the Alemany Farmers’ Market. During the first three months of the year, there was an average of 145 CalFresh shoppers at the Alemany Farmers’ Market during a four-­‐week period. During the four-­‐week Bonus Bucks period, however, the number of CalFresh shoppers increased to 342, a 136 percent increase. The majority of CalFresh shoppers (61 percent) said that the Bonus Bucks were a very important reason they shopped at the market, and 83 percent said their households ate more produce because of the Bonus Bucks program.

It is not surprising that when spending power is increased (we all like free money), more people come to shop. What is remarkable about the Bonus Bucks Program is the growing number of new CalFresh shoppers who remain Alemany customers even after the Bonus Bucks period ends. In fact, a comparison of the number of CalFresh customers shopping at Alemany in the months prior to and after the Bonus Bucks period shows a permanent increase each year since 2009. Early data shows this trend likely to continue in 2012, with 200 or more CalFresh shoppers expected each four week period, compared to less than 50 in 2009.

The breakdown of the $8,300 budget for the 2012 program is as follows.

Category	Amount ($)
San Francisco Department of Real Estate (DRE)	$3,500
Bonus Bucks incentive money
In-­‐kind staff support (incentive operation at market)
San Francisco Human Services Agency (HSA)	n/a
In-­‐kind staff support, outreach mailing to CalFresh
recipients in select zip codes
Campaign for Better Nutrition (CBN)	$5,944
Bonus Bucks Incentive Money ($3500)
Administrative Fee ($944)
Marketing Materials & Evaluation ($1500)
Total	$9,444

About half of the funds raised by CBN were from a generous donation from St. Clemens church. The church’s Sunday school children raised the funds by harvesting fruit from parishioners’ back yards, making jam and selling it to friends and family. Other donations were from generous individuals in the San Francisco community.

The Bonus Bucks Program exemplifies San Francisco community values by promoting the purchase of fresh, healthy foods and helping out those in need. Popular among city employees, advocates, donors and beneficiaries, the program continues to be a success by all measures. With increased interest from the Mayor’s office and several members of the Board of Supervisors, this is clearly the time to talk about expanding the program into a permanent, year-­‐round benefit to low-­‐income households and local farmers.

Operating the program each summer for 12 weeks would cost an estimated $7,000-­‐9,000, and a year-­‐round operation $24,000-­‐$30,000 (ranges reflect varying participation levels). Additional financial support would be needed to cover this. For the incentive costs, this should include increasing the DRE contribution and new funding from the Mayor’s office or the Board of Supervisors. In addition, a broadened private donor base should be established with the Combined Charities Campaign for City employees. The HSA has been a strong program partner since the beginning and its continued support linking the market and the CalFresh community is critical to ongoing program success. Also, renewed support and partnership with the nonprofit San Francisco Food Systems and the SF Department of Public Health is important. They instigated the program’s 2009 pilot and provided support at varying levels from 2009-­‐2011. Their ongoing partnership would reinforce to other city partners and donors the program’s value to the health of the city’s low-­‐income residents and the food system that supports them.

USDA TAKES ACTION TO PROTECT LOW-INCOME STUDENTS FROM STIGMATIZATION IN NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Low-income students will be better protected from having their income status revealed to their classmates thanks to recent steps taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

In its newly updated School Meals Manual and Guidance Memorandum [SP 45-2012], the Agency clarifies the scope of the responsibility districts have in keeping confidential which students are eligible to receive free school meals based on their parents’ income. The new guidance is intended to ensure privacy is not lost due to operational decisions that can unintentionally make the student’s income status obvious to other students.

“These new guidelines are a significant step toward ensuring that, at lunchtime, low- income students don’t have to choose between going hungry or enduring the embarrassment and discrimination that comes with being labeled poor by other kids at school,” said Colleen Kavanagh, spokesperson for the Campaign􏰀for Better Nutrition, which advocated for the policy.

At issue are two common, institutionalized cafeteria practices that can segregate, identify and stigmatize students who receive their school meals for free.

Currently, many schools have two lunch lines. In one, mostly low-income students stand to receive a free lunch as part of NSLP. Meanwhile, the other line consists mostly of their peers purchasing more appealing “competitive food” in a different location, effectively segregating the students by income status.

In addition, some schools require low-income students to use an electronic payment method at the cash register while most all of their peers pay in cash. This means low- income students are easily identified by anyone seeing them at the register.

 

Students want to keep the fact that they qualify for free school meals private because, as one student said, “some kids look down on people who don’t have money and think they’re worthless” (Poppendieck, Free for All, p. 192).

When faced with these practices, many students choose to skip lunch and make up stories about why they are not hungry rather than endure the stigma attached to receiving a free one.

But the consequences go deeper. Research shows that skipping lunch interferes with a child’s education. Students who are hungry have trouble paying attention in class and retaining information and have difficulty with executive functioning, which inhibits their ability to plan and prioritize.

Many involved in school nutrition programs assumed overt identification was a vestige of the past. Concerns raised in 2009 by the San Francisco Department of Public Health over these same operational practices in San Francisco Unified School District inspired a 2010 report funded by the San Francisco Foundation entitled, “Flunking Lunch: How Misused Subsidies and Separate Lunch Lines Undermine the NSLP.”

In this report, the Campaign for Better Nutrition and civil rights law firm and advocacy organization Public Advocates Inc. cited survey results in which more than one-in-ten school districts had designed their operation in a way that resulted in mostly low-income students standing in one line for NSLP meals while the vast majority of their peers stood in a separate line or went to a different room to purchase more appealing “competitive foods.” According to the report, not only do these practices run counter to our nation’s values around public education and social justice, they go against the express directive of Congress as written in the National School Lunch Act.

Based on these concerns, Representative George Miller (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and Representative Sam Farr (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, asked USDA to update and clarify its guidance to help schools protect low- income students from identification and stigmatization by their peers.

Rep. Miller lauded the Agency’s action saying, “No child should have to endure any stigmatism imposed by others over their economic background. School nutrition activists and the Department are to be applauded for pursuing this issue.”

Some school districts are already ahead of the curve in conforming to the new guidelines. At the urging of Campaign for Better Nutrition and Public Advocates —with significant support from the San Francisco Department of Public Health — San Francisco Unified School District has eliminated competitive food lunches. The district is working toward eliminating cash payment in the cafeteria altogether by actively encouraging all families who pay cash for lunch to prepay for their children’s meals.

As a result, the district has seen more students eating school meals and has been able to improve meal quality and variety. In addition, the cafeteria staff reports that more students are eating healthy meals instead of some of the less healthy snack options available in the former competitive food program.

“Actions like this are an important step in both ending childhood hunger and closing the achievement gap,” said Tara Kini, a senior staff attorney at Public Advocates. “Low- income children have enough obstacles to getting a good education without them worrying about being hungry.”

###

The Campaign for Better Nutrition aims to improve the nutrition children receive through public programs and at home so they can learn more, be healthier and better achieve their goals. We work on the local level to find where policies in public programs are undermining healthy eating. We advocate improving those policies from the local- to-federal level to leverage improvements in personal nutrition and increase social justice in public programs. See campaignforbetternutrition.org/.

Public Advocates Inc. is a nonprofit civil rights law firm and advocacy organization that challenges the systemic causes of poverty and racial discrimination by strengthening community voices in public policy and achieving tangible legal victories advancing education, housing and transit equity. We spur change through collaboration with grassroots groups representing low-income communities, people of color and immigrants, combined with strategic policy reform, media advocacy and litigation, “making rights real” across California since 1971. See publicadvocates.org.

SFUSD: Time to Lead on Nutrition (sign on letter)

(In a hurry?  Go immediately to our sign on letter.)

If you haven’t seen any of the HBO series “The Weight of the Nation” this week, you are in for an eye-opening experience.  It’s free on HBO On Demand and lays out the biochemistry, epidemiology, emotions, and costs of obesity in our country, particularly focusing on children.  The researchers, doctors, advocates, patients, and teachers interviewed all speak of the positive effect of good nutrition on health, learning, and brain development.  With equal passion, they speak of the cost of poor nutrition in lowered stamina, inability to focus and persevere, and increased chance of disease.

Though there are noted individual exceptions, most decision makers at SFUSD, including the school board, have considered the district’s nutrition program to be a nuisance.  They believe it to be a side restaurant business in which they are forced to participate, something unrelated to their institutional purpose and strategic goals.  Thus, they spend as little time on it as possible.  And, despite the fact that the students and parents complain the school lunch entrees are unappetizing and the salad bar produce tastes of chemicals, the district also requires the Student Nutrition Services Department cut its budget every year.

The good news is, San Francisco, we have only ourselves to motivate to turn this around!  We need to reach out to everyone in the City who cares about improving the nutrition at SFUSD as a critical strategy toward meeting the district’s education goals and supporting the health of our students.  Make your voice heard.

You would be surprised how a handful of emails on one subject can push the issue to the front burner at SFUSD (or at any company or agency for that matter).  So, become a desktop activist!  Here are several ways to do just that, starting today:

• Sign onto our community letter to incoming Superintendent Carranza and the Board of Education by Monday, May 21.
• Send an email to at least 2 members of the Board of Education http://www.sfusd.edu/en/about-sfusd/board-of-education/ asking them to make short-term improvements and long-term plans to revamp the nutrition program to better serve the health and education of students.
• Through your PTA or personal email distribution lists, encourage others to communicate with the Board and Superintendent.
• Every time you are part of a conversation about how the district needs to improve its school meals, email the Superintendent and at least 2 members of the Board of Education and let them know about it.  Who was there, how many people, what were they saying?

Let’s take our frustrated collective energy and use it to motivate the decision makers at SFUSD to fix the situation.  They cannot continue to have one priority level for children’s minds and another for their bodies when we know they are inextricably linked.  Our education program, including the school nutrition program, must support the whole child.

Elephants Missing in New School Lunch Rules

Are we talking elephant burgers?  No, we’re talking about the elephant sitting in the middle of the room—the ones (there are several) that were studiously and collectively ignored or actively lobbied against in the making of the new updated nutrition guidelines for the National School Lunch Program.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  The new rules  (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/comparison.pdf) are miles better than the old ones, which were based on USDA’s misguided food pyramid and its incorrect and damaging assumption that a diet rich in carbohydrates and low in fat would decrease heart disease and obesity.

A lot of good people worked very hard for many years to change these rules, and I applaud their perseverance.  But, unfortunately, the purported science on which the new rules are based is best described as favoring comfortable, familiar scientific thought over accurate science.   Why?  The accurate science would have upset the corporate food system too much and no one was brave enough or powerful enough (and it would have taken a lot of both) to put forward a different set of rules that would fully favor the health of children over corporate profits.  Here is the run-down of the good science, bad science, and ugly lobbying.

The Good Science

1. Fruit and Vegetable servings are doubled for lunch.
2. Whole grains are increased.
3. Portion sizes have a minimum AND maximum.
4. Trans fats are eliminated; sodium decreased.

The Bad Science

1. No maximums on sugars or minimums on fiber, arguably the 2 leading causes of our nation’s expanding waistline.
2. No comment on eliminating damaging, overprocessed oils.
3. No minimums on healthy, essential fatty acids (like Omega 3s).
4. No mention of the general and dramatic decline in nutrient values seen in our food system in the past 40 years, as evidenced in USDA’s own data.  So, though vegetable servings are up, the nutrition in them is down.
5. Eliminates whole milk; allows chocolate milk; does not allow water as substitute.

• Lowfat milk has less fat to slow down digestion of milk sugars (lactose) and chocolate milk has 3 teaspooons of added sugar in it, not a good situation for children with insulin issues—or, really, any child.
• Does not allow schools to offer water instead of milk (meaningful access to water in the cafeteria is a problem in many schools).
• Incorrectly puts obesity and diabetes blame on fat when research scientifically validates the links between these maladies and carbohydrates—not fat.

The Ugly Lobbying

1. Breakfast protein requirement eliminated and lunch protein decreased.  For this, thank the school districts lobbyists concerned over cost.

• Guarantees most school breakfasts will be high in refined carbs and sugars (juice, cereal, nonfat milk).
•  Protein promotes learning while sugar interferes with learning.

1. The small amount of sauce on pizza is counted as a full vegetable serving.  For this, thank the processed food industry concerned over profits.

• Congress forced USDA to allow this instead of requiring a serving of a vegetable with the pizza, as USDA wanted.
• Tomatoes are a fruit, not a vegetable.

1. No limits on serving French fries, or potatoes in general.  For this, thank the  potato farmers and processed food industry.

The Truth About School Lunch

Below is the copy from my interview about school lunch on the Huffington Post Blog http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sloan-barnett/childhood-obesity-school-lunch_b_1071159.html

You see vending machines filled with junk food at your child’s school and you try not to hyperventilate. Then, the school serves french fries and touts it as a “vegetable” and now you know — you’ve got a problem.

Most of us have read the devastating news that childhood diabetes and obesity are occurring in epidemic proportions in the United States. According to the CDC, type 2 diabetes (formerly known as adult-onset diabetes) has been reported among U.S. children with increasing frequency over the last two decades. Obesity rates in children are just as alarming, having more than tripled in the past 30 years.

It is clear that our children need a radical change in their diets, and that change begins at home. But if we’re serious about creating a truly lasting impact, we need to worry about what they are eating at school as well. This is obviously a steep uphill battle: School systems around the country suffer from a serious lack of funding. Many have become so desperate that they have even turned to junk food advertising and sponsorships to make up for the lack of funds.

So how do we make inroads in our schools? How do we protect our kids? I asked my friend and activist, Colleen Kavanagh, executive director of Campaign for Better Nutrition, for her insight on the subject.

Q: For any parent interested in improving their child’s cafeteria lunch, how can they get started, and are there organizations to help them begin this potentially uphill battle?

A: Starting is easy. It takes less than an hour of research:

1. Find out what is already going on. Your district is required by federal law to have a Wellness Policy and a permanent committee that oversees it. Go to your district website, read the policy, put the next meeting on your calendar. While you are on the website, go to the section on school nutrition and find out what they are serving.

2. Brush up on how the school lunch program operates. Just Google the USDA fact sheet on the National School Lunch Program.

3. Email your district PTA/PA to find out what they are doing on school food or if they know of any other parents who are working on it. Put it in your calendar to email those parents to set a coffee date.

4. Start a positive relationship with your food service director; he or she is a key ally. If you don’t have support here, all your work will be much harder. Also find allies on the school board — look up the biographies of your board members and determine who might be a likely champion for improving school food. Send the food service director and board members an email letting them know how important you think the school lunch program is for your child/children.

5. Go to http://www.angrymoms.org and watch their video and access the resources they have compiled in their “Get Started” guide.

Remember that every district is different, so what worked for “two angry moms” or in Berkeley with Alice Waters might not work for your district. After doing your initial hour, spend some time with your new contacts finding out the unique character of your district’s food — how much money do they have, do all the schools have cooking capability, are the staff qualified to cook, etc. Be open-minded, there are many ways to improve school food. If your district has no school kitchens or staff that can cook, starting with a goal of cooking from scratch at each school site might be unrealistic. In that case, you might want to find a better vendor, have higher quality or more variety of produce, offer more entree choices, etc.

Q: School lunches are based on federal nutrition standards and are based in science. When were the federal standards last updated? And according to these standards what does a “nutritious” lunch look like?

A: The standards haven’t been meaningfully updated since 1995 when — and don’t cringe — they were changed to reflect the misfound notion that excess fat consumption was giving us heart disease and making us obese. Carbohydrates were given a larger focus on the plate based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Kids have been getting fatter ever since, not all caused by the school lunch program, but certainly the program has contributed to the problem.

Updated standards were required in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. That bill contained a lot of the recommendations by Michelle Obama’s Obesity Task Force, but the new standards were developed by the Institute of Medicine for the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, which oversees the school nutrition programs. Basically, they call for more produce, at least half of all grains being whole grains, less sugar, less salt and drinking water instead of sugary drinks. A great disappointment is that they still recommend a low-fat diet despite the mounds of evidence we have that this is not good advice, and they do not responsibly distinguish between good and bad fats. They also continue to confuse the issue of foods that contain cholesterol, such as eggs, animal fat, etc., and foods that promote unhealthy cholesterol ratios, which are refined carbohydrates.

So, although the new guidelines are better, they still operate like a living science experiment based on faulty data inputs. The problem is that the experiment has over 30 million participants, so the damage this bad advice could cause is magnified. I hope we don’t have to wait another 17 years before the next update, which will hopefully catch up to the real science instead of the popular science. If you want to know where we should be headed next, check out the Harvard School of Public Health Food Guide Plate. Though Harvard is still having trouble giving up the low-fat message, their guide is better than the federal one.

Q: Do you believe that the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act will be able to accomplish its goal of combatting obesity and hunger?

A: This problem has taken decades to build. We can reverse in a shorter time frame, but not by 2015. The important contribution of Mrs. Obama is the multi-pronged, incredibly inventive steps she has made toward achieving this goal. No administration has ever used the power of the White House to forge agreements with grocers to provide healthier food on their shelves. Other massive federal agencies like the Forest Service and General Services Administration are improving their nutrition guidelines as well. On the private sector side, I just heard that Dr. Alan Greene may have convinced the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend parents never feed infants powdered white rice cereal. All of these measures and so many more are coming together to promote health. We will reach a tipping point, but I guarantee that it won’t happen until the soda companies start showing rapid declines in sales.

For more great tips on improving your school’s food offerings, check out these helpful resources: http://www.thelunchbox.org, http://www.traytalk.com, http://www.schoolnutrition.org and http://www.healthyschoollunches.org .

Follow Sloan Barnett on Twitter and on her Facebook Fan page at https://www.facebook.com/GreenGoesWithEverything.

Robin Hood Reversed in School Lunch

Oct. 10, 2011. If the federal school lunch program had a mission statement, it would be something like this:

To improve the health and ability of school children to learn by providing nutritious, appealing meals in a socially just and fiscally responsible manner.

The USDA is in the process of improving every aspect of this mission statement through its implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was passed into law in December of 2010. Some are arguing that the implementation should be slowed down or stopped, even to the point of repealing important sections of the law. Let me explain their reasoning and why the reverse Robin-Hood scheme they are defending turns social justice and financial integrity on their ears.

The Arguments. To begin, some foodservice directors are blaming the new law for forcing them to increase their lunch prices by 25¢ this school year. They cite valid concerns that those families making just over the limit for receiving free or reduced price meals, $41,000 a year for a family of four, cannot afford the extra $5 a month along with other rising expenses. Still more cite worries that the law’s new, improved nutrition standards will put their school meal program in the red or force further price increases, a bad idea in the second year of a recession.

The Facts. The good news is that if these districts were to comply with the new law instead of fight it, most of them would find that they can balance their books, serve more nutritious food, and run more socially just programs without significant negative impact on families with incomes just above $41,000. Here is the how and why.

USDA data shows the typical school district:

· loses—more accurately, bleeds—money from its snack bar cash sales (“competitive foods”) because under-pricing, and

· loses money on every meal sold to a child paying “full price” for lunches because the misnamed “full price” is set well below the cost of producing the meal, to the tune of $1.50 less in some cases.

The Problem. Virtually the only way for a district to balance out these deficits is to use money out of the federal funds it receives to pay for healthy meals for low-income kids, those whose family income is less than $41,000 a year.

The Numbers. How much are we talking about? USDA data shows the competitive food deficits drain 24¢ on average from every federal school meal, amounting to over $1 billion a year. Though there is not an estimate of the total loses from the under-pricing of the “full-price” meal, it is easily in the hundreds of millions a year.

The Fix. The Healthy Meals for Healthy Kids Act helps shore up district finances in three ways.

1. It requires a “Cliff Note” version of cost accounting to end the financial drain of competitive food programs.

2. It also requires districts to very, very slowly close the financial drain from the under-pricing of “full priced” lunches. If a district chooses to raise meal prices to do this, the law does not require more than the equivalent of a 5¢-10¢ increase per meal in any one year. Hopefully, families at just above $41,000 in income can find $1-$2 a month to ensure they are not taking away money intended for the lunches of kids from families with even lower incomes. If this is a concern, though, the district has other options to close the gap instead of raising prices, like contributing money from its general fund or other sources.

3. It provides an extra 6¢ per meal to pay for the cost of meeting higher nutrition standards it requires.

The Summary. Even with the slow phase-in of the “full price” fix, the new law will result in, on average, 32¢ more than was available last year for every federal school meal by the time the law is fully implemented. For most, that will be enough funds to meet the new nutrition standards, which include important changes like switching from refined to whole grains and adding protein to school breakfasts. Now, this does not change the fact that high-cost areas need more funds to produce appealing and healthy meals but it does help. And, for the typical school district with an average cost of living, 32¢ may just be enough.

There is a preventable obesity and diabetes epidemic besieging our children. The USDA, school districts, and Congress owe it to them to recognize the benefits of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and implement the law as intended.