First it was the 2008 (nee 2007) Farm Bill. Then it was Obama’s choices for the top USDA posts. Now it’s the National School Lunch Program.
Food issues once lived at the margins of U.S. political discourse, where agribusiness and food-industry interests could control them. Now they’re inching toward the center. A new era has dawned: U.S. politicians can no longer grin, take the cash, and do the bidding of agribiz while mouthing platitudes about farmers as the “backbone of our country” and school lunches as “critical to our nation’s most important resource, our children.”
The latest manifestation of the new age: a group of young, highly specialized DC-area policy writers—the kind of folks who usually drill down into the details of, say, healthcare legislation—have launched a fun and increasingly famous food blog called The Internet Food Association. In it, they share cooking experiences, obsess about a cooking show, and dabble in food-policy analysis.
As Congress gears up to reauthorize the Chid Nutrition and WIC Act, which encompasses the School Lunch program, several of them have trained their analytical skills on the school-lunch debate. When I take them to task below the fold, it’s very much in the spirit of, welcome aboard!
What set the IFAers on their school-lunch tangent was a recent Op-ed by Alice Waters in the New York Times, calling for a tripling of federal expenditures devoted to food. In Waters’ proposal, the federal government would begin paying $5 per lunch per day, a significant increase over current levels. (I wrote about it here).
Uber-blogger Ezra Klein started things off. He expressed skepticism that a more robust school-lunch program would deliver many knock-on benefits, like giving future adults healthier eating habits; but he supported the Waters proposal anyway.
There are things we should do because they should be done. We’re the richest nation in the world. We can do better than feeding our children inventively presented corn syrup fresh from the microwave.
Fellow blogger Tom Lee protested. Yes, we need to feed kids healthier food, but Waters’ proposal is way too extravagant, he contends. For one, there’s no compelling reason to move away from the model of preparing meals in vast canteens, to be distributed for reheating to the schools. Here’s the nut:
There’s really no good reason to dismiss frozen foods or centralized production. I understand that Waters isn’t a fan of those things; that’s understandable given her credentials and background. But the goal here is to wind up with healthier kids, not to train itty bitty aesthetes. I like eating sophisticated food, too, but it’s a luxury good—and one that would be wasted on most kids, anyway. There’s simply no compelling case for favoring a casserole or soup produced on-site in a school over a frozen one if they’re both using the same recipe and same quality of ingredients. Yes, factory-produced food is frequently unhealthy. But the idea that there’s some inherent health disadvantage to food produced through economies of scale is just a lazy heuristic.
Nor does he care much for Waters’ emphasis on local and organic ingredients, which he dismisses as “foodie pretension.” “[D]icking around with that nonsense while middle schoolers are contracting diabetes,” he opines,” is frankly inexcusable.” IFAer Sara Mead weighed in to support Lee.
Lee’s critique has proven compelling. The food savant Mark Bittman highlighted it on his NYT blog, calling it “the core of the real argument about the future of food in the United States.”
Really? I hope not. I like the IFA blog, but I feel as though their policy discussions often suffer from the technocrat’s disease: too narrow by half. You define a problem (unhealthy school lunches) and prescribe a cure (say, less high-fructose corn syrup in the pre-fab lasagna).
Lee’s critique is spot on, if you believe that our food system just needs a tweak or three to get on a healthy track. Let them eat pre-fab lasagna—say, with a bit more industrial-grown spinach, and a bit less industrial-grown meat and processed sweeteners. As for “sophisticated food,” that’s a luxury good for those of us who can appreciate—and afford—it. (Who’s being elitist, again?)
I fear that Lee has lapsed here into what Michael Pollan has called “nutritionism”—the idea that human nourishment can be broken down into discrete elements, which can effectively be manipulated for good or ill by the food industry.
The case for Waters’ approach requires a broader critique. The food system has lapsed into near self-parody—a steady stream of public-health disasters (from long-term maladies like diabetes to immediate complaints like salmonella), an exploited workforce (from enslaved Florida tomato pickers to scraping-by Wal-Mart clerks), and ecological damage writ large. And incentives remain in place to keep the beast lurching along. Over the past year, McDonald’s shares have outperformed the overall Dow by more than 40 percentage points. In hard times, cheap food becomes a hot commodity.
While Lee proffers a solution to the school-lunch dilemma that targets (effectively or not) nutrition, Waters offers a robust model that offers synergies in many directions. Lee would preserve the model of cafeteria workers as deskilled clerks with a specialty in reheating; Waters’ way would require trained cooks—who could then pass their skills onto students.
Lee’s model would continue to funnel federal cash into a globalized food system that relies on cheap labor and mined and synthesized inputs, many of them highly toxic and greenhouse-gas-intensive (see oxide, nitrous). Waters wants federal cash to bolster the foodsheds that surround schools, incentivizing (that one’s for you, wonks) ecological-minded farming.
Lee’s model sees food as an educational input, a way to boost academic performance. It’s the food-as-energy-and-nothing-more model that has dominated U.S. food culture for decades. Waters sees food as a resource and opportunity—a way to teach kids about ecology, biology, chemistry, and gastronomy in a visceral way.
Is her vision too expensive? First response: why do people suddenly become fiscal conservatives when discussing a key leverage point like school lunches, while more or less blithely accepting that the government spends $5 billion a month on futile foreign adventures, or hands out sweetheart deals to failed but well-connected banks?
Further, we can be creative to hold costs down. As I wrote in a recent column called “Eat the Stimulus”—which may have been painted with too broad a brush to engage the wonk set—I suggested this:
Let’s use the stimulus package as the occasion for a new, major investment in school kitchens. And to help staff the newly outfitted kitchens and teach the clerks to cook, the government should launch a Teach for America-style program to lure in newly minted cooking school graduates. (After all, new chefs may have trouble finding work at fancy restaurants over the next few years.)
Hey, I read somewhere on the IFA blog that 10 percent of chef’s school grads default on their loans—a number that will surely rise as the economy sours. A Cook for America’s Children deal might just be the way forward.
Finally, the French pay up for school lunches—$8 a pop, last I checked—and their economy is certainly doing no worse than ours; and their health metrics are better. In Paris, they’ve got chefs cooking at daycare centers!
Having said all that, I heartily welcome the IFA crew into the food policy debate. I’m ecstatic that we’re having such a debate at all—and their analytical rigor can only raise the overall level.
Comments
View as Threaded
Ted Clayton Posted 5:41 am
27 Feb 2009
Secondly, I doubt the fact we're swimming in High Fructose Corn Syrup can be laid on the school lunch program. These kids come to school strung-out, and all the school is doing is feeding the Roman children what the Romans eat.
I am a fan of local/home food production ... but tying it to a giant federal program and shotgun marrying the farm-base to the school-institution sounds like more of the same thinking that brought us generations of farm-subsidies.
... Ya know, we had arrangements quite similar to this, back when the dairy & beef lobbies basically ran the USDA ... and the school lunch programs ... when the food-pyramid was upside-down from today.
Permalink
SnoDragon Posted 7:58 am
27 Feb 2009
Unlike Waters, I think that the kind of food she's talking about (though maybe lighter on the arugula and grass-fed lamb and heavier on seasonal produce and cheaper but fresher cuts of meat) is certainly obtainable for less than $5 per child per day.
I also really like the idea of using culinary school grads in school kitchens. I've got a lot of friends in the food industry and it is TOUGH to pay off those loans unless you start your own restaurant and are a resounding success at it. Plus, some might like it enough to want to stay!
I agree with Tom on the educational aspects of changing our School Lunch programs and I hope to see school lunch someday mean more than hamburger casserole and tater tots.
As for the Romans eating like Romans? Kids learn about nutrition not so much directly from their parents, these days, as from the advertisements they see on TV and the cheap restaurants (McDonald's, Burger King, etc.) that their underpaid, overworked parents frequent because they don't have the time to cook or the money for better restaurant choices. If school could teach kids (and parents, too!) that good food was more than grease and sugar, we'd really be on to something.
Here's hoping...
Permalink
sbma44 Posted 9:49 am
27 Feb 2009
My post was motivated by pragmatism. I agree that school lunches are a priority that deserves better funding. But I'm not content to leave it at that: I think it's important that we feed our kids better, and I don't want to see the effort die on the vine. So let's be honest about what we can achieve. That means figuring out what we're trying to accomplish, what we can afford, and how to get the most bang for our buck.
Fortunately, human nutrition isn't actually a very difficult problem. Oh sure, there's plenty of room at the margins for a vibrant marketing industry to sell us flavonoids or omega-3 fatty acids or whatever else. But the basic problem of what dietary inputs are necessary for humans to thrive has been solved for quite a while. This isn't "nutritionism" -- a critique, incidentally, that only gets its teeth from the schizophrenic food choices we find ourselves making on an individual level -- it's nutrition science, and there's nothing wrong with it. To the contrary, it's saved many lives, and made many others healthier and longer.
You write:
While Lee proffers a solution to the school-lunch dilemma that targets (effectively or not) nutrition, Waters offers a robust model that offers synergies in many directions. Lee would preserve the model of cafeteria workers as deskilled clerks with a specialty in reheating; Waters' way would require trained cooks -- who could then pass their skills onto students.
Lee's model would continue to funnel federal cash into a globalized food system that relies on cheap labor and mined and synthesized inputs, many of them highly toxic and greenhouse-gas-intensive (see oxide, nitrous). Waters wants federal cash to bolster the foodsheds that surround schools, incentivizing (that one's for you, wonks) ecological-minded farming.
These seem like apple-to-oranges comparisons to me. Not to be crass, but what are we getting for our money? It's not unreasonable to demand that a federal program define goals that are less amorphous and more verifiable than "synergies", vaguely-defined economic and environmental benefits and a break from the hated status quo.
I appreciate that there are many things wrong with our current food regime. But many of the most passionate responses I've received to my post seem to suffer from a double standard: Waters' vision is seen as an idyll in which children cook for one another and schools can spare infinite resources and class time to foodie pursuits. Meanwhile the existing system -- already built, honed and ready for improvement! -- is subjected to withering scrutiny that the Watersian vision is not asked to bear (do you really think salmonella is a problem for factory production but not for food cooked on site by children?).
Finally, on the point about elitism: I hope everyone can and will afford to enjoy thoughtfully-prepared, flavorful and healthful food (but if I have to settle for one of the three, I'll choose the last). If you think that it's elitist to suggest that such food is sometimes wasted on children, so be it, but I think you may need to spend some more time around kids. Foodieism is fun -- I participate in it, and have done so for years. But it's important that we all realize that ours is not the only way to eat, and that we retain a sense of humility when our good intentions tempt us to force our lifestyle on others before considering whether the resources required could be better spent elsewhere.
Permalink
meadows Posted 12:04 pm
27 Feb 2009
Permalink
Ariane Lotti Posted 5:55 am
02 Mar 2009
The 'this-is-not-possible' critique of Waters ignores the fact that there are a lot of projects across the country that are doing just what she is talking about.
The 'this doesn't make sense in national policy' side uncovers some of the reality of what policy-making is in DC, like it or not. The policies we're talking about were created at a time when things were simpler, and the system of policy-making we have doesn't know how to deal with complex, multi-issue problems or whole-systems solutions to those problems.
Here's my kumbayah moment: how about the policy wonks have an open mind about what is possible through good policy and how about the foodie folks come down from their high horses to work with the wonks on better policy, which will not be ideal, but can help chip away at some of the ridiculous inequalities and injustices in the current system.
Permalink
dlehmann Posted 8:52 am
02 Mar 2009
The NSLP nutrition regulations are in sore need of revision, and food service operations clearly need more money. But even with increased funding and limits on fat and sodium, cafeteria trays aren't going to change much. Most of the talk at the conference has been about ways to get kids to eat healthy foods without knowing it.
That's really too bad. The nutrition advocates who brought the NSLP into reality saw the school lunchroom not only as a venue for feeding kids wholesome food, but also as a place where they would learn about how to eat. I'd love to see that happen, but it looks like we're getting farther and farther away from that ideal.
I invite you to take a look at my posts about the conference. They should be up soon at http://www.schoolfoodpolicy.com.
Permalink
Farmer Deb Posted 4:25 am
03 Mar 2009
As a farm to school advocate and a beginning farmer that just went to the Midwest organic farming conference with 2,600 attendees to the SNA/FRAC Anti-hunger conference in DC, I have been privy to the silos that exist between those that grow the good food to those that focus on filling bellies. Our mission should be one and the same: feed healthy, fair, good, and real food to all.
Dr. Alan Greene gave the keynote at the farming conference and stated that he would rather tell a child she has cancer, than diabetes. You want to know why?
Diabetes takes 10-20 years off of your life, on average. It costs $3 million to care for in a lifetime. If we spent $100 million for good, fresh, local food in school lunch, we would just need to prevent 33 kids from becoming diabetic. Sounds like a great investment to me. 1 in 3 kids will be diabetic, make that 1 in 2 if hispanic or black. That is a crime. Diabetes is preventable.
Here's our common sense request:
School meals are a vital part of our responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of future generations. Improving the quality of school meals, and making them accessible to all children, is essential to our nation's future. Farm to school programs ensure that our children eat the freshest, highest-quality food available. These programs deliver food that not only nourishes children's bodies immediately, but also knowledge that enhances their educational experience and cultivates long-term healthy eating habits. They are a win-win for kids, farmers, communities, educators, parents, and the environment.
Thanks to the efforts of social entrepreneurs, farm to school programs have bloomed on their own in thousands of schools across the country. The Child Nutrition Act reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to enable more schools--and more children--to benefit from the healthy meals and educational opportunities that farm to school programs can provide.
The two most effective ways Washington can rebalance the way American children eat in schools include:
* Enact $250 million over 5 years, with $50 million mandatory, for Section 122: Access to Local Foods and School Gardens for grants to schools. This would fund 100-500 projects per year up to $100,000 to cover start-up costs for farm to school programs. These competitive, one-time grants will allow schools to develop vendor relationships with nearby farmers, plan seasonal menus and promotional materials, start a school garden, and develop hands-on nutrition education to demonstrate the important interrelationship of nutrition and agriculture.
* Establish a farm to school initiative within the Secretary of Agriculture's Office. This initiative will help provide national leadership to a rapidly growing movement, helping to consolidate and guide the various policies and programs important to expand and institutionalize farm to school across the U.S.
If you want to know more, go to http://www.farmtoschool.org
Permalink
msk Posted 1:38 am
04 Mar 2009
We do have to be pragmatic, but we are talking about our kids. What can we achieve? A lot, over time. Eating is pretty basic and fundamental, so I don't consider it a foodie pursuit for kids to learn the basics about fresh food, how to prepare it, and enjoy eating it. It doesn't have to dominate the entire school day.
In the end, you spend 5 bucks now are who knows how much later.
Permalink
VCF Posted 10:01 pm
05 Mar 2009
Permalink
splashy Posted 11:46 pm
22 Apr 2009
We need to keep that in mind. The more we can teach children about great food, the more they will eat well as adults. It's not just about feeding them, because there are a lot of children that never really get decent meals if they don't get them at school.
Permalink