Homestead mailing list

[bobf <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

Most on this list probably are familiar with Alice Waters.  I'm not posting 
this because of the 'free lunch" part or the bail-out part, etc.  What  she 
and her co-author say about the nutritional value of school lunches and the 
profitability for big ag in sending the school system "junk" is the reason I 
am posting this from this am NYT

------------------------------------------------------------------------


No Lunch Left Behind 


By ALICE WATERS and 

KATRINA HERON

Published: February 19, 2009 
Berkeley, Calif. 

 Alice Waters

THIS new era of government bailouts and widespread concern over wasteful 
spending offers an opportunity to take a hard look at the National School 
Lunch Program. Launched in 1946 as a public safety net, it has turned out to 
be a poor investment. It should be redesigned to make our children healthier. 

Under the program, the United States Department of Agriculture gives public 
schools cash for every meal they serve — $2.57 for a free lunch, $2.17 for a 
reduced-price lunch and 24 cents for a paid lunch. In 2007, the program cost 
around $9 billion, a figure widely acknowledged as inadequate to cover food 
costs. But what most people don’t realize is that very little of this money 
even goes toward food. Schools have to use it to pay for everything from 
custodial services to heating in the cafeteria. 

On top of these reimbursements, schools are entitled to receive commodity 
foods that are valued at a little over 20 cents per meal. The long list of 
options includes high-fat, low-grade meats and cheeses and processed foods 
like chicken nuggets and pizza. Many of the items selected are ready to be 
thawed, heated or just unwrapped — a necessity for schools without kitchens. 
Schools also get periodic, additional “bonus” commodities from the U.S.D.A., 
which pays good money for what are essentially leftovers from big American 
food producers. 

When school districts allow fast-food snacks in the lunchroom they provoke 
widespread ire, and rightfully so. But food distributed by the National 
School Lunch Program contains some of the same ingredients found in fast 
food, and the resulting meals routinely fail to meet basic nutritional 
standards. Yet this is how the government continues to “help” feed millions 
of American schoolchildren, a great many of them from low-income households. 

Some Americans are demanding better. Parent advocacy groups like Better 
School Food have rejected the National School Lunch Program and have turned 
instead to local farmers for fresh alternatives. Amid steep budgetary 
challenges, these community-supported coalitions are demonstrating that 
schools can be the masters of their own menus. Schools here in Berkeley, for 
example, continue to use U.S.D.A. commodities, but cook food from scratch and 
have added organic fruits and vegetables from area farms. They have cut costs 
by adopting more efficient accounting software and smart-bulk policies (like 
choosing milk dispensers over individual cartons), and by working with 
farmers to identify crops that they can grow in volume and sell for 
reasonable prices. 

Many nutrition experts believe that it is possible to fix the National School 
Lunch Program by throwing a little more money at it. But without healthy food 
(and cooks and kitchens to prepare it), increased financing will only create 
a larger junk-food distribution system. We need to scrap the current system 
and start from scratch. Washington needs to give schools enough money to cook 
and serve unprocessed foods that are produced without pesticides or chemical 
fertilizers. When possible, these foods should be locally grown. 

How much would it cost to feed 30 million American schoolchildren a wholesome 
meal? It could be done for about $5 per child, or roughly $27 billion a year, 
plus a one-time investment in real kitchens. Yes, that sounds expensive. But 
a healthy school lunch program would bring long-term savings and benefits in 
the areas of hunger, children’s health and dietary habits, food safety 
(contaminated peanuts have recently found their way into school lunches), 
environmental preservation and energy conservation.

The Agriculture Department will have to do its part, by making good on its 
fledgling commitment to back environmentally sound farming practices and by 
realizing a separate program to deliver food, especially fresh fruits and 
vegetables, from farms to schools. It will also need to provide adequate 
support for kitchens and healthy meal planning. Congress has an opportunity 
to accomplish some of these goals when it takes up the Child Nutrition and 
Women Infants and Children Reauthorization Act, which is set to expire in 
September. 

But the Department of Education should take some initiative, too. After all, 
eating well requires education. We can teach students to choose good food and 
to understand how their choices affect their health and the environment. The 
new school lunch program should be partly financed by the Department of 
Education, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, should oversee it. 
Vice President Joseph Biden should also come to the table by making school 
lunch a priority of his White House Task Force on Middle Class Working 
Families.

Every public school child in America deserves a healthful and delicious lunch 
that is prepared with fresh ingredients. Cash-strapped parents should be able 
to rely on the government to contribute to their children’s physical 
well-being, not to the continued spread of youth obesity, Type 2 diabetes and 
other diet-related problems. Let’s prove that there is such a thing as a 
good, free lunch. 

Alice Waters is the president of The Chez Panisse Foundation. Katrina Heron 
is a director of the foundation and a co-producer of civileats.com.