School lunch programs and federal government involvment

School lunches are a common thought when thinking about childhood memories. But today, lunch programs aren't like they used to be a decade ago. Today, the federal government has taken too much control of school lunch programs and changed how they work and are funded.







 
       

 

What do most elementary students say are their favorite parts of school? Many would say recess and lunch. School lunch programs have been around for many years. However, there has not always been strict federal regulations. Many smaller schools used to have one or two cooks who would make homemade meals for the students every day. I remember when I was in elementary school, our cook made everything from scratch. It was delicious but most likely not the healthiest option. Overall, school lunch programs have changed. Government involvement has played a big role in the recent changes. However, some aspects of the change have been taken too far. There should be some government regulations, but not to the extent that they are now. 

            One of the biggest changes made by the federal government was published in 2012. It had been pending and discussed for many years. The regulation set new nutrition standards for the foods being served. Schools that are a part of the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Programs have to meet the requirements of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This means an increase in fruits and vegetables served. There is also an emphasis on more whole grains and fat free foods. Besides increases, there is decreases in trans and saturated fats, along with sodium reductions. The overall goal of the new regulation is to help fight childhood obesity and increase the overall health of students.

            The latest regulations have been publicly endorsed by First Lady Michelle Obama. Her campaign, also known as Let’s Move, was released in 2013.  Her overall goal isn’t just to change the nutrition in school lunches; it is getting the nation’s children healthier. She wants the help of many teachers, parents, and volunteers. She was quoted in an interview about the changes done by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Announced rules for vending machines and a la carte lines, helping us get the junk food out of schools and making the healthy choice the easy choice for our kids.” First Lady Michelle Obama must be on to something. In the same interview she stated, “Between 2008 and 2011, obesity among low-income preschoolers declined, meaning that more kids are getting a healthier start to life.”

              A study done by Philip Gleason and Carol Suitor confirmed the positives of the nutrition changes made to the National School Lunch Program. Their experiment confirmed, “First, eating school lunch leads to a large decrease in children’s intake of added sugars.” They said the main cause for this was because of the removal of soft drinks, which contain a large amount of added sugars. Their study also found that students who ate the regulated school lunches, “Were more likely than nonparticipants to consume milk and meat.” Since the students would be drinking milk, instead of soft drinks, their consumed added sugar would decrease.

   Even though the new regulations have shown benefit, there are also negatives to having so much government regulation. One of the obvious negatives is the reaction of the students themselves.  The Washington Post wrote an article about how school kids are blaming Michelle Obama for their new meals. The article shows many tweets from students that are full of pictures and comments about their meals. The article does make a good point that even though children are being served nutritious meals, doesn’t mean they actually eat it. They quote a study by Harvard School of Public Health that proves this statement with statistics. “Some 60% of vegetables and 40% of fresh fruit are thrown away.” Federal regulations can only do so much. They can encourage and present students with nutritious choices, but that doesn’t mean children will choose them. Along with changes to the meals themselves, there needs to be more involvement from the parents and those outside of the lunchroom.

         Even though the National School Lunch Standards have made changes to the nutrition, they still lack a few components that packed lunches from home offer. A study was done by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University found that packed lunches did offer some nutritious benefits. They had more energy, vitamin C, and iron then school lunches. So even though school lunches have successfully added nutrients, they still lack some important ones. Many athletes can be affected by this. If they are getting less energy and iron in their school lunches they may not be able to perform and train at the highest level. The newest regulation is good for the common overweight American child, but not so good for those who need the extra calories. 

       One of the biggest consequences of the regulation is the cost. In a New York Times article, a Republican representative Robert Aderholt said that the rules are too expensive and inflexible. His spokesman, Brian Bell, was also quoted saying, “These new federal regulations should not drive local school lunch programs under water.” Part of the regulation is utilizing USDA commodity foods. A research study by Cora Peterson and Julian Le Grand found school districts had to pay more to get the USDA foods instead of commercial vendors. They also discussed how many school food services are having issues with finances already. Many schools also don’t have the resources or equipment to follow the strict guidelines. They need their money to go to other areas of students’ educations. The need for higher food standards requires more manual labor. Food preparers must put in more hours to prepare all the fruits, vegetables, and check to make sure their program meets the very strict and specific rules. This requires schools to hire more staff, which in turn adds more cost to the lunch program.

        Congress has passed other forms of legislation that accompany the major changes. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act gives schools an extra six cents per student meal if they follow the required guidelines. Some could see this as an incentive, but to others it can be problematic. The author also states how the incentive gives the USDA more power to control what happens in the lunch programs. This is an example of where federal government involvement goes too far. Schools may need the extra pennies for each lunch program, so they will have to find all means necessary to comply with all the standards. There is also the idea that children aren’t just feed healthy foods, but given the encouragement to choose healthy foods on their own. Parents also need to become more involved making sure they too promote a healthy lifestyle outside of school.

        Overall, the national government has made forward progress in the battle with childhood obesity by taking control of school lunch programs. However, there are some aspects of the regulations that have been taken too far and are almost impossible for every school to comply with. There needs to be a continued concern and support for lowering childhood obesity in our country, but the government needs to better learn how to involve parents, teachers, and schools without making them conform to so many standards.