Lunches, Vending Machines, Bake Sales-Oh My!

           “Their idea of improved nutrition is a healthier donut,” my mother exclaimed, while we discussed public school nutrition.

            As a graduate of the public school education system, my mother and I know firsthand the horrid food choices that are available for students. Michelle Obama is also aware of the poorly enforced school lunches after she discovered, “mystery meat slathered with syrupy brown sauce, served with a brown whole wheat role and a salad no kids touched, and chocolate milk” was served as a meal considered to be up to “USDA standard” (Julian 50). Not only does this quote describe a repulsive meal but it also unveils how vegetables are not highly valued for many children. I believe that in the US, the educational setting is contributing to childhood obesity through subsidized school lunches, quick sugary snacks and beverages in vending machines, and excessive amounts of bake sales. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to examine the history of school lunch programs in order to understand the current concerns over available meals.

            Subsidized school lunch dates back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s era. Roosevelt developed farm-subsidized programs during the Great Depression to ensure food distribution to those in need (Julian 46). The subsidized food programs eventually passed on to the United States Department of Agriculture. The USDA controls a vast public school food program which in the “2008-09 school year, over 31 million American children ate a federally subsidized school lunch, and more than 19 million of them paid either a reduced price or nothing for their food” (Julian 46). This staggering fact emphasizes the USDA’s crucial role in bringing food to the low-income households.

Although the USDA’s school lunch program is affordable, nutritionists are wary of its health standards. Janice Poppendieck author of, Free For All, explains the politics behind USDA subsidized school lunches:

“The focus was on using the available foods, not on a balanced diet. The USDA staff who developed these regulations did not think they were setting up the parameters for a permanent national school food program. They had commodities; they needed a morally and politically acceptable outlet, and they established rules and procedures that reflected their farm income agenda. In fact, regulations they established set the tone and structure for the program and have endures, in updated form, until the present” (Julian 47).

Poppendieck’s explanation is useful because she highlights the “established rules and procedures that reflected their farm income agenda” as the underlying factor for why the USDA focuses on affordability as opposed to health (Julian 47). She effectively argues that these subsidized food programs were formed originally to distribute produce in response to poverty during the Great Depression. Although poverty is not as prevalent today in comparison to the Great Depression, it is fair to say that public schools do face economic issues.

            In Public School 295 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn the asking price for a cupcake increased from $0.50 to $1.00 (Spencer 1). This sudden change of price set off a controversy among parents of lower income households. It is vital to recognize that a broad range of median household income in areas of public schools such as P.S. 295, which jumped from $34,878 to $64,184 in a matter of ten years (Spencer 1). This leaves “asking price” as a sensitive topic for those who can’t afford it.

Carmen Reyes, P.S./I.S 180 PTA president, is familiar with such cases that involve students who cannot afford certain fundraising activities. Reyes was confronted by students who could not afford to spend $20 on unlimited food and drink bracelets (Spencer 2). The PTA president formulated a compromise, which allowed the students to decorate in exchange for the bracelets. This example is significant because it demonstrates cases in which families are unable to afford fundraiser prices. Fundraisers reveal the financial troubles that many families face. USDA subsidized food programs prove to be of importance to families who rely on it. Despite major budget cuts in the public schools the USDA’s subsidized program remains stable.

To combat city budget cuts, classic forms of fundraising-such as bake sales-have become the quick way to rack in cash. Due to the USDA’s past lack of nutritional value, New York City public schools developed a culture that embraces the enticing appeal of mouthwatering fatty foods. Bake sales are central to the public school education system in two ways; firstly it fits the culture and secondly it generates cash fast. However, with the rise of obesity, these readily available bake sales are only contributing to the disease.

The possibility of banning bake sales would only ignite controversy. Perhaps, outraged parents might express the ban on bake sales as too limiting. Often times, Americans repudiate government intervention because they believe it violates their “freedom”. The Healthy, Hunger-free act calls for more government action to help improve the quality of school lunches (Pear).

Some critics such as Representative Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia and physician greatly disagree with the recently passed act:

“This bill is not about child nutrition. It’s not about healthy kids. It’s about an expansion of the federal government, more and more control from Washington, borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. The federal government has no business setting nutritional standards and telling families what they should and should not eat” (Pear).

Although Mr. Broun does not concede with government influence over nutritional standards, it would be hard for him to avoid alarming facts. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “one in every five children are obese” (Nixon 1). It seems unbelievable that Mr. Broun should be in resistance of nutritional guidance, especially when faced with a national issue of obesity. Federal government control is important when it comes to large-scale change. The idea of families being told, “what they should and should not eat” is not a matter of control but an issue of positive macro scale change (Pear). Although I believe the federal government should induce nutritional change, I also insist that change occur from private companies.

            Consider the study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, which estimated that, “about $2.3 billion worth of snack foods and beverages are sold annually in schools nationwide” in vending machines (Nixon 1). This fact indicates that these goodies sold are popular choices among children, unlike the salad bar. Gary Hirshberg the CEO of Stonyfield Farm sarcastically remarked, “I wasn’t aware Skittles was a food group”, in disgust at the choices in vending machines (Tyre and Sarah). In response, Hirshberg created a healthier vending machine for schools. Such items included were yogurt smoothies, fruit leathers, and whole-wheat pretzels (Tyre and Sarah). Alongside the Stonyfield’s CEO is Christopher Gindlesperger, director of communications for the American Beverage Association, has exercised his power to help schools eliminate sugary drinks and replace them with healthier options (Nixon 2). Despite Hirshberg and Gindlesperger’s efforts, their alternatives do not profit as greatly compared to the old food options. However, their efforts are evidence that big corporations are willing to help fight growing obesity.

Action from big corporations to reduce obesity is certainly necessary. The Journal of The Royal Institute of Public Health conducted a statistical study, which concluded, “Surrounding food outlets could also lower the effectiveness of health education in the classroom by setting a highly visible example that counters educational messages” (Sturm 689). This highlights the threatening effect food businesses can impose on school efforts to induce nutritional change. Moreover, a team of researchers examined the association between food environment and obesity based on walkability in New York City. Their published work in “Environment Health Perspectives” reaches many interesting conclusions such as a link between BMI healthy food outlets and lower average mean BMIs (Rundle et al. 445). This suggests that people who live in areas that have healthier options are more likely to incorporate nutritious foods into their diet. In addition, the study identified neighborhood income and race/ethnicity as prevalent variables. For example, low densities of healthy food outlets were most common in poor and predominantly Black/Hispanic neighborhoods (Rundle et al. 445). Overall, both studies support the argument that surrounding environments can truly impact diet. More importantly, public schools do reside in areas of low volume healthy outlets.

Up to this point, I have unpacked the history of school lunch programs that emulate two vital arguments. On the one hand, the USDA designed the subsidized meals to favor surplus of crops over nutritional value. As a consequence, many public schools have developed fundraisers such as bake sales that have questionable nutritional value. Unfortunately, poor food choices are also reinforced through vending machines. Socioeconomic conditions play a role in obesity as well. McDonalds, home of the over processed hamburger, is an example of private corporations that can reverse the effects of nutritional education taught in schools. In order to combat growing obesity trends, a valid solution would need to be mindful of affordability and promote fun ways to embrace healthy food/snack options.

            Consider The Wellness in Schools organization, which runs the Cook For Kids program. The program teaches both students and teachers the importance of locally and seasonally grown produce. Then, the program branches out into the fundamentals of cooking. To raise funds, Wellness in Schools paired up with over 40 restaurants to help raise funds for the organization. For example, couples could attend a Valentine’s Day cooking class at the Culinary Loft for $150 per person (Fabricant 1). Or others could participate in free seminars at Brooklyn Wine Exchange and enjoy two free drinks (Fabricant 1). At the end of the event each participating restaurant provided a voluntary donation card. There is a range of options available for those willing to spend a lot, a little, or no money at events. This availability of financial choice will be able to involve all income levels. Even further, the suggested donation card alleviates financial pressure. Although I advocate the financial choice supported in Wellness in School’s fundraising, I do not concede with the content of the all of the events. For example, one of the restaurants hosted an all you can eat chicken wing competition (Fabricant 1). The idea of consuming unnecessary amounts of chicken wings is not an ideal healthy choice.

My advocacy for New York City public school fundraisers to maintain affordability and nutrition could be possible if two guidelines are followed. The first, to offer several price options for event charges/admissions which families can choose from. Or, if students receive reduced lunch, this can serve as an indicator for qualification for reduced admission charge. Alongside affordability, fundraising events should embrace an opportunity to creatively incorporate nutritional value.  Perhaps one solution may be to provide several healthy modified international food cooking classes. Parents who want to volunteer their time could run these cooking classes. Then, after the classes are done families can donate as much as they would like to the school. This is a great way for all the families to become involved regardless of economic background. For those who do not want to donate, they can still participate in just teaching the cooking class. Although the end donation is just optional, the families who want to donate can offer an amount they are comfortable with. The international dishes will be required to reflect a balanced diet; the plate should be ½ filled with fruits and vegetables, ¼ of whole grains, and ¼ healthy protein. Overall, New York City public schools should work towards better health for their students while maintaining a mindful attitude of financial variability.

When I envision nutritional changes in public schools I certainly do not believe a “healthier donut” is the answer. This paper has allowed me to explore several contributing factors to obesity. The historical background of the USDA’s school lunch program explains the triumph of crop surplus over nutritional balance. Although this ideal worked well during the early 1900s, Americans are now faced with the issue of obesity. In addition, vending machines stocked with sugary snacks and beverages are easily accessible to many students. Also, depending on the school’s location there may be low densities of healthy food outlets. Even further, the popular bake sale fundraiser is as addictive as sugar. To break this addiction school’s need to creatively reform fundraisers to include all economic classes. However, more importantly a healthy balanced meal should receive the attention it deserves. Hopefully others can realize the contribution of USDA subsidized lunches, vending machines, and bake sales have on obesity in public schools and work towards solutions.

Works Cited

Fabricant, Florence. "Calendar." LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis, 9 Feb. 2011. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

Julian, Liam. "Why School Lunch Is "Nasty!"" Policy Review (2010): 43-53. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.

Neckerman, Kathryn M. "Disparities in the Food Environments of New York City Public Schools." Academic Journal of Preventative Medicine 39.3 (2010): 195-202.SciVerse ScienceDirect. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.

Nixon, Ron. "New Guidelines Planned on School Vending Machines." New York Times 21 Feb. 2012: A11. New York Times. 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <www.newyorktimes.com>.

Pear, Robert. "Congress Approves Child Nutrition Bill." New York Times. 2 Dec. 2010. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/politics/03child.html>.

Perez-Pena, Richard. "Obesity on Rise in New York Public Schools." New York Times. 3 July 2003. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/nyregion/obesity-on-rise-in-new-york-public-schools.html>.

Rundle, Andrew, Kathryn Neckerman, Lance Freeman, Gina S. Lovasi, Marnie Purciel, James Quinn, Catherine Richards, Neelanjan Sircar, and Christopher Weiss. "Neighborhood Food Environment and Walkability Predict Obesity in New York City." JSTOR. JSTOR, 05 June 2012. Web. 6 May 2012. <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25472610?uid=3739832&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56146003023>.

Sanjek, Roger. "Color-Full before Color Blind: The Emergence of Multiracial Neighborhood Politics in Queens." American Anthropologist 102.4 (2000): 762-72. Print.

Spencer, Kyle. "'It's Never Just About The Cupcake'" New York Times 18 Mar. 2012, MB sec. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.

Tygre, Peg, and Sarah Staveley-O'-carroll. "How to Fix School Lunch." Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.wexler.hunter.cuny.edu/ehost/detail?sid=b91097ff-a028-4233-940d-6e3cab6278ab%40sessionmgr110&vid=4&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=17781036>.