Public Health in Oregon - Join The Conversation

It is unfortunate that there is such a dramatic mismatch between what we know about nutrition and what we’re serving our kids in school.  We also know that we develop many of our lifelong nutritional habits when we are young.  What are we teaching our kids?  With significant cuts in physical education nationwide coupled with substandard nutrition in schools, it is no surprise that childhood obesity is on the rise.  This is a recipe for disaster.  We’re creating a generation of kids who will live shorter lives than their parents.

Politics should not get in the way of the health of our children.  The USDA continues to choose agribusiness food lobbyists over the health of the future of our country.  While we continue to fight to change the direction of agricultural subsidies, we need to do the right thing to end this obesity epidemic by creating real change in our schools and our communities that will encourage healthy eating and healthy behaviors.

On a local level, funding continues to be a major obstacle for schools throughout our state.  There are many things we can do to provide a healthier environment for our kids but we need to make a real commitment to funding our schools and emphasizing healthy behaviors starting at a young age.  Mandating and funding physical education in schools; connecting schools to local agriculture through farm-to-school programs; prohibiting the sale of junk food and fast food in schools; strengthening nutrition education and backing it up with healthy options in cafeterias; involving parents and families in school-based nutrition and physical activity programs; making healthy foods more accessible in every neighborhood; and improving the built environment to encourage outdoor physical activity are some strategies that we can use to tackle this issue from all directions in an effort to create an overall healthier environment for children and their families.  However, these strategies require a significant commitment from the legislature and from taxpayers to provide adequate funding for schools statewide. 

The IOM’s report is important in bringing awareness to the need for an overhaul of the nutrition standards for school meals.  However, until agricultural subsidies promote the consumption of fruits and vegetables, little can be done without a long-term fiscal commitment to help schools make the switch from cheap, processed foods to more expensive fruits and vegetables in our cash-strapped school systems.

The IOM report addresses many issues regarding nutrition, like reducing fat and sodium and increasing fruits and vegetables. Since the USDA was a partner in creating the most current 2005 Dietary Guidelines, they should be well aware of these recommendations. What the IOM report did not address were other recommendations that need to be considered to improve the school lunch program; simply changing what foods schools offer is only part of the solution.

The current guidelines for the school lunch program is that food meeting the nutritional guidelines only has to be offered to students, not that it students need to take it. If a cafeteria is serving pizza with fruit/salad and milk and also offering fries, candies, chips, and other foods that compete with the sales of the school lunch program foods, there is nothing to say that students will choose salad over fries. However, there are 18 states that have regulations surrounding what competitive foods can be sold and when. For example, in New York, no competitive foods can be sold from the beginning of the school day until ½ hour after the last lunch period and in many of the other 18 states students are only allowed to purchase individual items if they are also purchasing a full meal. The USDA should consider making some of these regulations federal rather than state-by-state. 

Educating students about healthy choices, encouraging children to try new foods and choose those foods at school is also a vital part of improving the program.  If students learn early on in elementary school to choose fruits and vegetables that is going to carry on with them into high school and beyond.

In addition, the USDA, only reimburses schools $2.68 for each free meal served, in order to increase the amount of fruits and vegetables the costs per meal would be increased. Unless the USDA can find a way to increase reimbursement amounts or to start subsidizing fruits and vegetables the way they subsidize soybeans and corn it will be hard for schools that are already low on funds to be able to re-do menus.

Hopefully future recommendations and regulations of the school lunch program begin to address other issues beyond changing the foods that are offered to create a better program for providing nutritious meals to school children.

The National School Lunch and Breakfast programs undoubtedly have a huge impact on the health and nutritional status of the school children in the United States. Now the Institute of Medicine, as requested by the U.S Department of Agriculture, has given recommendations for a dietary makeover, cutting down sodium , moderating calories and increasing the amount of whole grains , fruits and vegetables on the school lunch and breakfast menus.
This overhaul in the school lunch and breakfast programs appears to be necessary. Government research shows that since 1970’s , the childhood obesity rates have been tripled in the age group 6-19 years and today 17% of the school kids are obese. A major factor contributing to this is the low in nutrition but high in calories, carbohydrate and fat rich diet, provided as school meals.
Although at present, government is spending $ 9 billion each year on school lunch programs, but that still may not be enough to ensure that school children are eating a balanced and nutritious diet.  No doubt, USDA is empowered to decide what kind of food should be provided to the school children as it has got all the funds to administer the school lunch programs but doesn’t that power increases the responsibility of USDA to undertake every step to ensure the provision of healthy food to the school children?
I think it’s high time that the legislative institutions and USDA reset their priorities in favor of public interest. The strong influences of the powerful agribusiness industry to get subsidies for the crops which act as precursors to cheaper but less nutritious processed food, can be countered by mobilizing the whole community to demand legislation and funds to ensure easy availability of nutritious food at low cost, not only to the school children but to everyone in the community. At the same time, the children should be taught to make healthful food choices. To ensure this, the parents at home should make time for food, preparing and eating healthy food with their children. What parents do at home helps to reinforce that at school.
I hope that the USDA will take the IOM’s recommendation into consideration and will take all the necessary steps to provide healthier and balanced school meals at reasonable cost, not only to improve the school children’s nutritional status but also to develop good eating habits which will stay with them all their lives.

It seems to me that a mass media campaign would be very effective here. If this issue is brought to the forefront of public discussion, it would be very politically difficult for Congress to pass amendments to this year’s re-authorization of the Child Nutrition Act that would enable federal dollars to continue going to tater-tots.

I whole-heartedly agree that farm subsidies need to be re-organized to promote healthier foods, but this is a long process that cannot happen over night. Right now, the Congress is debating the bill that will either solve or prolong this problem.

Last week, President Obama released his legislative priorities for child nutrition through Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. It has been made clear that the top priority is to improve child nutrition programs, and the President has proposed spending a billion dollars annually for 10 years to ensure it happens. For details on the priorities set forth, listen to Secretary Vilsack’s speech here: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/10/0525.xml

A wide range of issues are covered, including regulation of all foods sold in schools (i.e. vending machine options), what is and is not considered healthy eating (i.e no more tater tots), access to food (i.e. automatic enrollment of children for free school lunches who are already in programs such as Medicaid).

The important thing right now is to make sure that these ideas that are said to be priorities make it into law, undiluted by special interests lobbying Congress. The IOM has teeth, as this very study was cited by the administration as being a driver for this policy shift. However, agribusiness is a very powerful industry with a lot of money. It will take a lot of public support for this issue to make sure that Mr. Obama gets to sign a bill that still has its teeth.

Does the IOM have teeth to influence school lunches?  Alone no, but along with public health, nutrition, and parent advocates, the IOM report can hopefully have a more influential impact on the policies and priorities of the USDA.

As Maya said, school meals are sometimes the only food access children have.  If the meals in our schools are not balanced, and children are not eating adequately at home, then where and when are they getting their nutrition?

We must demand a better food environment for our kids, starting with our schools.  As an undergraduate student, I worked on building a green house for a Portland area middle school.  This is one of the many ways we can create a healthier food environment for our children, especially in low-income school districts.  Another option, which is being advocated in Portland and around the US, is farm to school programming which brings local agriculture from local farmers to nearby schools.  Not only does this option bring fruits and vegetables to our children, it also stimulates the local economy.  It also promotes sustainability by shortening food travel and moving money away from agribusiness to smaller local farmers.  According the Farm to School website (http://www.farmtoschool.org/), there are 42 states with operational farm to school programs and over 2000 school districts involved.

There also needs to be reform in the priorities of the USDA.  Who decides what is subsidized and why aren’t fruit and vegetables subsidized?  Along with advocating for nutritionally sound meals in our schools, we need to be advocating for nutritionally sound national food policies.

When we address current food policy and what foods are subsidized, we can simultaneously address rates of obesity in the US.  If the USDA were to reallocate food subsidies to fruits and vegetables, food grown for processing and feeding meat (corn, wheat, and soy beans) would become more expensive, hopefully making fruits and vegetables the new cheap and easy fast food.

I wish I could post a picture here.  My daughter recently took a very nice camera to school to dabble with a photography project.  She was excited to come home and show me the photos she took.  Well, I was shocked to see the photo of her hot lunch from school!!  It was a plate loaded with tater tots, ranch dressing, and pizza!  I asked her why she didn’t pick either the tater tots or the pizza and then at least get a salad on the side (she does love veggies and salad).  She said the plates were already made-up, there was not a salad option, and the tater tots were the vegetable. 

I find that most people in Portland and the vicinity are somewhat health conscious.  It is inconceivable to me why the school lunch program does not outrage parents in the Portland School District.  Is it because the wealthy can afford healthy outside of school lunches and the low-income take the free lunch option and don’t want to question what is provided for them because they are just so thankful their kids are provided food?

Over the years we have seen an increase in diagnosis of ADHD and obesity in children.  We have seen the school lunches deteriorate in nutrition standards.  A diet high in junk food, calories, and fat has been linked with increased aggression in teens, ADHD, and lack of concentration. Also studied, people with a healthy, well balanced diet are more likely to have increased energy levels and concentration.  Why should there even be a debate about improving school lunches? Shouldn’t healthy food be something we just naturally want to provide for children?

Schools can help facilitate healthy eating patterns in children, which will in turn lead to healthier adults.  There have been several schools that have started either growing their own produce for school lunches or investing in produce from local farmers.  It has been shown that these practices have been very similar in cost as buying pre-made or processed foods. 

In the end, promoting healthy eating in our children will promote academic performance, healthier living as an adult and a healthier society as a whole.  By nutritious lunches facilitating healthier children, it can assist in decreasing health care costs in chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.  I hope in a year or two my daughter can come home with a school lunch photo that includes some greens!

School meals are a very important issue for our nation’s families. Many children rely on school breakfast, lunch, and sometimes dinner as a much needed source of nutrition. Studies have shown that healthful and nutritious meals make huge impacts in the short and long term of an individual’s life. For children in school, being well fed improves attention span, mood, and energy level. Eating a diet high in fat and sugar has been shown to lead to increased rates of illness, which means more sick days.  A sick child can have many impacts. In addition to missing class, a parent must take the time off of work, which may result in a loss of income.  All of these factors can dramatically influence a young person’s academic record, which limits their options as an adult.

In addition to the loss of nutrition in school meals, we should consider the habits instilled in our nation’s children. Imagine the confusion for a student who is told repeatedly in class that they need to eat fruits and vegetables and are then fed fats and sugars in the school cafeteria. This is hardly leading by example. How can we ask families to choose healthier options when our own schools won’t do the same?

This post makes the valid point that the USDA has more impact on what food is promoted as healthful than the Institute of Medicine. The USDA has the money and time to lobby congress and get subsidy laws passed that promote the production or corn and soy. Those over produced crops are put in everything by food industry, leading to our nation’s abundance of cheap, over processed and high calorie foods. Most families or institutions on a limited budget will choose the cheaper high-calorie foods over expensive fresh produce. While it is great that the Institute of Medicine is calling the USDA to the floor on this issue, they need to be available to create solutions.  As Robert Guenther alluded to in this post, it isn’t fair to blame school system for failing to properly feed our nation’s children without offering some way to create changes.

In my opinion, this is an issue that needs to be solved from both a grassroots level and a national level. Organizations like the Institute of Medicine need to be lobbying in the capital to get USDA policies changed and the parents and school system employees need to demand change. Schools and parents could work together to receive grants for farm to school programs and community gardens. The USDA won’t change its position until consumers demand it. If schools take food into their own hands, and limit the amount of money they give to the corn and soybean companies, those industries will be forced into responding with healthier options in order to keep their income. So yes, the Institute of Medicine alone may not have the power to change the food we feed our children, but if communities vote with their dollars and reject the unhealthy options, we can give our children the nutrition and futures they deserve.