The school district is looking at giving up $900,000 in federal funds, and providing the free/reduced price meals on its own dime, while at the same time trying to revamp its cafeterias in general to make the food more appealing to students — healthy, too, but with an eye toward increasing the number of students eating cafeteria food, up from a current 14%, and doing so at a profit to subsidize the free/reduced meals. (Oddly, the article says that 28% of students are eligible for free/reduced meals, but only 14% of students eat in the cafeteria, so that means that half or more of students eligible for the free/reduced meals don’t eat them. Maybe this means that the meals are mostly reduced-price rather than free, and even at the reduced price, students would rather bring food in from home? — in which case, of course, good for them!)
The issue? The nutrition requirements, about which we’ve heard so much already (and I linked the other day to an article in which “experts” said that they were OK with massive amounts of food waste in support of a goal of, ultimately, maybe, a small percentage of kids being nudged to healthy eating because one day they’re hungry enough to try the edamame) get ratcheted up in July, to the point of dictating “what can be sold for fundraisers, in vending machines and in on-campus stores to students during the school day — defined as from midnight to 30 minutes after classes end.” And the requirements are so strict that “Hummus is considered too high in fat. Pretzels are too high in sodium. A hard-boiled egg is too high in fat. Non-fat milk over 12 ounces will not be allowed to be served.”
Beyond the issues with trying to meet these guidelines and still serve appetizing food (have the feds never heard that a balanced diet does not mean that every single item you eat should meet these low-fat, low-calorie, low-sodium requirements, but that your long-term intake should be balanced?), there’s another issue:
Many sports teams and extracurricular clubs depend on bake sales and cookie fundraisers to fund their activities, officials said, although the district does not track how much money could be at risk.
“We can sell candles and we can sell wrapping paper, but it doesn’t generate the same revenue,” said Cathy Johnson, associate superintendent for finance and operations.
How extreme are the limits? Here’s the official website: snacks must have less than 200 calories per package, or less than 350 for an a la carte entree, must have less than 35% sugar by weight (except for dried fruits), less than 230 mg sodium (until 2016, 200 mg therafter) for snacks and 480 mg for a la carte entrees, fat less than 35% (saturated fat less than 10%) of calories, except for nuts, and the following rules for beverages:
Beverage limits differ based on grade level.
Allowable beverages for all students are limited to plain water (carbonated or uncarbonated), lowfat milk (unflavored) and nonfat milk (including flavored), nutritionally equivalent milk alternatives (as permitted by the school meal requirements), and full strength fruit or vegetable juices and full strength fruit and vegetable juice diluted with water or carbonated water.
Beverage portion limits are as follows:
• 8 fluid ounces for elementary schools
• 12 fluid ounces for middle schools and high schools.
With the exception of trace naturally occurring caffeine, beverages must be caffeine-free for elementary and middle schools.
And what strikes me is that these limits seem to be coming from adults who are constantly on a diet. It’s the same impulse as the 100-calorie packs, which themselves are a scam, with food manufactures happily selling smaller portions for greater prices, in which the consumer pays more for the “100 calorie” packaging.
But kids need foods that are filling. A small bag of “healthy” chips or a fruit cup isn’t going to be filling. And all kids are not the same — my middle son is too thin, and needs to eat more!
On top of this, if you click on a link that says, “Click Here to learn how we can make this transition as effortless as possible for you,” you end up at a website for a vending machine company called “H.U.M.A.N.” (have I told you how much I hate acronyms that are constructed with an end goal of spelling something, regardless of whether the spelled-out name means anything?), which calls itself “he #1 Healthy Vending Franchise.” Does this mean that this company just had politically-placed people and managed to become the “official vendor” for the “Smart Snacks” program? When I click on this link, I don’t get what I expected — no sample “acceptable” snacks, just more promotion on how you can get your new vending contract. What’s even odder is that there’s no actual information on this website — it’s basically targeted at future franchisees, not future customers. How much did HUMAN pay for this, or was this the payoff for generous campaign donations? This makes vending machine politics sound an awful lot like machine politics.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In