Here’s why. It reduces the administrative burden on schools by authorizing the automatic enrollment of kids who are eligible for free lunch. It will help rid our schools of junk food. It boosts the bare-bones food service budgets that prevail across the country by six cents per meal, so schools can add healthier options. And it provides grant funds for starting “Farm to School” programs, which have been legislatively approved, but denied funding by Congress since 2004.

Take the junk food provision. Long emblematic of the mixed messages that pervade the school food environment, vending machines with junk food first became available in all schools in 1972. “Candy, soft drinks, and snacks are part of real life,” a representative of a Coca Cola bottler from Rhinelander, Wisconsin exclaimed about their push for sodas in vending machines.

In 2002, the Los Angeles Unified School District banned sodas from vending machines, due to a brilliant organizing campaign by school food advocates and youth. Three years later, Los Angeles barred junk food from its schools, too. The new legislation establishes nutritional standards that will get junk food out of schools altogether, not just their cafeterias.

Sure, the six-cent boost is extremely modest and far less than ideal. But it marks the first time in 30 years that schools have been able to spend more on our kids’ lunches. The current rate is $2.72, and the only other increases have been brought on by inflation indexing.

More significantly, the law will bring more sanity to the way school districts price meals. The reimbursements for low-income students will no longer subsidize the price for meals of wealthier students. Simply put, there will be more money available to include healthier meal options on the school menu.

The legislation also makes it easier for school districts to account for students eligible for free and reduced–price lunch and breakfast. That reduces the burden on parents who previously needed to fill out extensive paperwork to qualify.

The Farm to School program now operates in thousands of school districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Farm to School approach enables schools to purchase food from local and regional farmers to provide healthy, local, and tasty offerings in the school cafeteria. It also calls for planting school gardens that give students firsthand experience with growing and tasting food, and understanding where food comes from.

Students, parents, and teachers take the lessons from this simple, compelling, and far-reaching system back into the classroom and the community to push for more local and healthier food in their schools and communities.

The funding for Farm to School programs in the “Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act”–by providing resources directly for infrastructure, education, and systemic changes–has the potential to transform the way food is used in schools.

Although the legislation passed, the trade-offs required were emblematic of the current political climate. In a classic divide-and-rule tactic, Republican opponents siphoned as much as $2.2 billion out of the food stamp allocation to pay for it. Understandably, this cynical ploy fueled a debate among the bill’s supporters, who are greatly concerned about the surging levels of hunger in America. Obama has pledged to restore any cuts to the food stamp program.

Despite that maneuver, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act signals a significant change in how we invest in our children and their health.

Originally published on Other Words

In a surprise move yesterday before heading out for five weeks of recess, the Senate passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act with unanimous consent, which means all 100 senators agreed to pass the bill without an individual vote. The bill allots an additional $4.5 billion dollars over ten years to fund federal child nutrition programs including school lunch.

First Lady Michelle Obama supported the bill as part of her Let’s Move campaign to fight childhood obesity, writing in an op-ed in The Washington Post last week,”This groundbreaking legislation will bring fundamental change to schools and improve the food options available to our children.”

Though providing less than the requested $10 billion suggested by Let’s Move, this marks the first major step towards the most significant increase in funding on the child nutrition programs in 30 years. In a statement yesterday, the First Lady said, “While childhood obesity cannot be solved overnight, with everyone working together, there’s no question that it can be solved. And today’s vote moves us one step closer to reaching that goal.”

According to Jane Black at The Washington Post, the bill includes money for the establishment of school gardens and for sourcing local foods. In addition, the bill “would mandate that the Department of Agriculture develop nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools, not just what is served in the lunch line,” which could mean eliminating “competitive foods” like soda and candy bars in vending machines and a la carte lines. This won’t be so easy for schools to swallow, as the money from these purchases is often used to fund sports and art programs.

The pressure to pass the bill is now on the House, which is officially on August recess, but will be reconvening next week to work on a jobs bill. However, according to Black, the chamber is not expected to take up the bill until after the August recess. In order for the new funding to become law, the House will need to pass its version of the bill, which currently calls for nearly double the funding (and reconcile it with the Senate’s version), in time for President Obama to sign the bill into law before September 30th, when the original funding is set to expire.

The Senate has promised to pay for their version of the bill with monies from other programs at the USDA. On the chopping block, for example, are food stamp benefits, or SNAP. $12 billion in additional SNAP benefits were set to come online in 2013, and have been mentioned as a potential source of funding for the jobs bill, among others. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) claimed that since these funds were already being co-opted, they might as well be used to pay for child nutrition. “I think it’s appropriate if these tax dollars are going to be spent that they’re spent on healthy food for kids,” she said.

Advocates have for the most part thrown their support behind the bill, even though what it offers equals around 6 cents per school meal, which wouldn’t even cover the cost of an apple per child per day. However, the added absurdity of taking food from the mouths of hungry families to give to hungry kids has gotten some groups riled up. The Community Food Security Coalition, made up of around 300 organizations, argues that “programs should not be paid for by cutting food benefits for low-income and disadvantaged Americans, regardless of the merits of those programs. Congress should not be voting to increase hunger.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) agreed more or less with the sentiment in a statement released yesterday:

The legislation rids schools of junk food, issues proper alerts to schools when contaminations occur, guarantees all foster children access to school meals, connects farms to schools to supply them with fresh, local produce, and strengthens nutrition resources for children and young mothers. But if our children are ever going to truly succeed in the classroom and beyond, they need better access to healthy meals in the lunchroom, and this legislation falls short of that goal. Further, I’m disappointed that the bill is paid for in part with future funds from the critically important SNAP program. I will continue to fight for more common sense changes to the program and secure the investments we need to make sure every child can achieve their full potential.

Photo: a la corey

Back in April I attended the White House Childhood Obesity Summit on behalf of the National Farm to School Network as reported here. The purpose of the summit was to gather input from experts to create a roadmap leading to children reaching adulthood at a healthy weight.

On Tuesday, the White House Childhood Obesity Report [PDF] was released. One particular challenge of the taskforce was to create benchmarks of success, leading to the focused goal of returning to a childhood obesity rate of 5% by 2030.

For more detailed summaries of the report, check out Jane Black’s Washington Post piece or Obamafoodorama’s post.  For those specifically interested in linking local food and agriculture to federal nutrition programs, you will be as pleased as I am to see Farm to School is included as recommendation 3.6: “USDA should work to connect school meals programs to local growers, and use farm-to-school programs, where possible, to incorporate more fresh, appealing food in school meals.” Schools gardens are also recommended: “Where possible, use school gardens to educate students about healthy eating.”

It is great to see the Administration embracing proven strategies for healthy children and communities. However, as Michelle Obama said, ”Our work has only just begun.”

Now we need to crank up the heat. Now we turn prose and a host of good ideas into actual policy. Critical questions remain: Is there legislative muscle behind this report? Will the East and West wings put their weight behind passing a strong Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR) this year? CNR is the bill that decides what’s served in your child’s lunch room and much more.

Michelle Obama could test drive the new action plan now and encourage the Senate to pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act as soon as possible.

The Senate child nutrition bill has stalled and delay could mean death to our efforts thus far. Time is short; the Senate must act soon or there won’t be a child nutrition bill this year at all, and that means we lose the possibility of a small increase in reimbursement rates. It would also leave us with junk food in the school halls, scrap new funding for expanding farm to school programs, and eliminate changes enabling schools to serve free meals to all students in low income schools.

The Community Food Security Coalition has an action alert that spells out what you can do to help move this bill along.

Do we want more funding than the proposed $4.5 billion over ten years? Absolutely, but the only way we’re going to get the bill through Congress this year and have the chance of more dollars for child nutrition is by keeping the wheels rolling.

Your voice is critical to turning school food reform dreams into reality. And, it turns out, taking action is one of the taskforce’s key recommendations. As Michelle Obama said, “We are calling upon mayors and governors; and parents and educators; business owners and health care providers. Anyone who has a stake in giving our children the healthy, happy future that we all know they deserve. All we need is the motivation, the opportunity and the willpower to do what needs to be done.”

There are opportunities lurking around every corner, but the opportunity to make significant, national policy changes that will touch the daily lives of children don’t come knocking every day. Child Nutrition Reauthorization is the opportunity to focus and unleash the motivation and willpower we’ve demonstrated through millions of signatures added to petitions, thousands of letters written by children and parents to Congress, hundreds of action alerts sent out, and even very fun spoofs such as Lunch Encounters of a Third Kind…all for the purpose of creating a healthier generation through school meals.

So Michelle Obama and Taskforce, Let’s Move! and let’s do whatever it takes to get the Child Nutrition bill moving through the Senate, through the House, and into the lunch room!

Help children like this 7th Grader from Georgia tell Senators to improve school lunch!

Dear Senator Saxby Chambliss:

I wish to commend you on your job of representing our state at the caliber that you do.  Not many people are capable, or willing, to put themselves into your position. However, I feel that something is amiss at our public schools.  Almost every day, I walk through the lunch line, eyeing up the different choices for my meal.  Looking down at my tray, I see that each part of my meal (an entrée and two sides, accompanied by a half-pint of milk) is roughly the same shade of unappetizing brown.  The average daily lunch consists of pizza, fries, and chips, all of which are filled with carbohydrates and salt. This produces both an un-healthy lunch, as well as an unappetizing one.

37% of children in Georgia are obese, one of the highest percentages in the nation.  This high percentage of overweight children eventually leads to overweight adults, on which the future of our country rests. This obesity is a national crisis, as almost 27% of all military age men are too overweight to keep up with the strict regime of the army. I urge you to help those of us in public school obtain a healthier, not to mention better tasting, lunch. If you could help support the development of more Farm to School programs in the area, as well as advocate a change toward better food through the Child Nutrition Act, the public schools and the children within them would be better off for it. Please make your best attempt to pass this act to and to forward the progress of the Farm to School programs.

Gowan M, 7th Grader, Georgia

Kids get it, will Congress?

The Committee wants to rob Peter to pay Paul and few people seeking healthy food and agriculture have cried foul. This is a mistake. It is the reason why two weeks ago Roots of Change launched an online petition to the House leadership that could stop such a move. We are encouraged by the announcement last week by Colin Peterson, Chairman of the House Ag Committee, that he will protect those Farm Bill programs with backing from many House members. But the fight is not over.

Creating better health in this nation requires a holistic approach. We need to work at the farm and ranch level as well as on the distribution and food manufacturing systems. Piece meal approaches will not cut the mustard.

The Senate Committee proposes to cut the Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP). This provides farmers and ranchers with matching funds to do work on their lands to protect environmental quality. Funded projects help to maintain clean water, free of pollutants. Some critics of industrial meat operations complain that factory hog farms use EQIP funds. This is true. But small and mid-sized family farmers who want to be good stewards also use these same funds. As with any fair government program, it is open to all who apply and fit the criteria. If we want to stop mega hog farming, let’s not destroy a program that has environmental benefits. It would be better to change the language in the next Farm Bill.

The Senate also seeks to cut outreach money to public and private agencies that are working in low-income communities to ensure that people know they can receive supplemental nutrition assistance in the form of an electronic balance transfer (EBT) card to help them purchase food, the modern version of food stamps. As a result of the Great Recession, hunger in America is worse. Almost half the people eligible to receive an EBT card don’t know it. In California, the food and farming sector losses nearly $4 billion per year because eligible people don’t have cards. This huge revenue loss could be fixed with better outreach.

So the Senate proposal will make farms less environmentally sound and contribute to hunger in America. Clearly the Senate Agriculture Committee did not consider a holistic approach to the people’s health.

My real concern is that those who seek a healthy food and agriculture have once again split over the funding of good policy. Many of those who want the money to improve school food are afraid to speak up about the cuts because funds will not be found. Let’s not let fear lead to bad decisions.

There has never been a more opportune time to stand firm and seek real solutions to complex problems. The evidence is overwhelming that change is needed and the conditions are right for making that change. Along with the President and First Lady, the US departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services have good leadership that understands the links between farms, food and human health. The good food movement across the nation is growing larger and more influential every day. There are even signs, despite angry rhetoric regarding change, that many conventional agricultural leaders are beginning to see opportunities to improve the plight of farmers and ranchers by aligning on key issues with the good food movement.

Now is the moment to cut a Gordian knot that has long existed and impeded the move to a healthier nation. For over a decade there has been an alliance between those who seek to increase the supply of food to the hungry and the agro-industrial complex (mega food manufactures and factory farms). They have joined hands to shape the Farm Bill and other food legislation. As long as more food was made available to feeding programs, the food access advocates would accept the agro-industrial complex’s efforts to limit needed change. The links between healthy farms and healthier food, and healthy food and healthier people were downplayed. We know this because the food banks increasingly received highly processed food laden with fat, sugar and salt. This dynamic contributed to much higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease for low-income people who receive this food.

To their great credit, many food bank leaders are now focusing on real nutrition rather than calories by increasing delivery of fresh, whole food. This is better for the recipients of food assistance and for the farmers. It also indicates a potential shift in a power alliance that has shaped farm and food policy.

It is my hope that moving forward toward passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act we will get full funding, but the money will come from sources other than the Farm Bill. I propose that we take 1% of the $531 billion base 2010 Department of Defense budget. The rationale is that obese kids today will not make healthy members of the armed forces tomorrow. The US Department of Defense is a stakeholder in the nutrition programs of this nation.

To get it done, the Congress needs to see unity among those seeking a healthy food and agriculture. The food access, nutrition, healthcare, organic, environmental and sustainable agriculture advocates and their public supporters need to come together and demand a holistic strategy underpinning the nation’s food and agriculture policy. All the ducks are in a row. So let’s act. Helping Roots of Change with its campaign is one way.

Like victory gardens, home canning, and depression-era resource conservation, Slow Food USA’s Gordon Jenkins believes the idea of healthy school lunches is one worth revisiting.

“The school lunch program was created in 1946 as a measure of national security,” says Jenkins. “The goal was to make sure that our nation’s children were healthy, because only then would the whole nation be productive.”

Four decades later, most of us take for granted the fact that schools serve lunch, and that the federal government subsidizes many of them. Whether they have anything to do with students’ health is another story. “A lot of today’s adults remember school lunch when it was institutional Salisbury steak and mashed potatoes,” says Jenkins. “It wasn’t delicious, but no one expected it to be. Now, the cheapest fast food and junk food is in our cafeterias and it’s fueling the obesity epidemic.”

Jenkins and his colleagues at Slow Food USA have spent the summer organizing Time for Lunch, Slow Food’s first nationwide grassroots advocacy campaign focused on getting real meals in front of the 30 million children who eat in today’s cafeterias. At the core of the effort is the Child Nutrition Act, a bundle of legislation including the National School Lunch Program that is up for reauthorization by Congress at the end of this year.

To draw attention to the issue, Slow Food chapters in 49 states have planned a national Day of Action by staging 295 Eat-Ins — or potluck gatherings in parks, civic centers and backyards — as a way to engage communities, build bridges, and show Congress that school lunch is a priority.

“Lunch” might be a stretch

The biggest myth about school lunch, says Deborah Lehmann of the school food policy blog School Lunch Talk, is that kids are eating square meals in the middle of the day. Lehmann has spent the last 8 months visiting school cafeterias around the U.S. and interviewing the people who work there. In addition to kids who bring lunch from home and those who opt for the official lunch option, many of the students she observes piece together a mid-day meal entirely of snacks and so called “a la carte” foods. In one school she visited recently in the Santa Cruz area, Lehmann sat down with an administrator to look through records of what the students were eating and the results were astounding. “There were a number of kids eating a lunch of corn nuts, hot chocolate, Gatorade, and baked Cheetos.”

Because school cafeterias essentially function as stand-alone businesses that get no funding from school districts, they rely solely on the reimbursements they receive for free and reduced meals and the income they generate when students buy what they serve. It’s not hard to see why many have resorted to serving what students will buy. And the drive to create novel, kid-friendly products like bubble gum flavored apples and rootbeer flavored milk means kids don’t have much reason to make healthy choices.

“School lunches have always been a reflection of what people are eating in America,” says Lehmann. “Back when we served casseroles and spaghetti with meat sauce, that’s what kids were eating at home. Today they’re used to eating fast food and frozen food and processed food and restaurant food. So that’s what gets served.”

Fast School Food Nation

Of course, it’s the same forces that have shaped children’s diets outside schools that shape what they eat between classes. The problem dates back to the 1980s, when Congress opened the doors to private food service companies.

When schools are given commodities from the USDA, most send them straight to companies to be processed. Over the years it has become much more cost-effective for schools to send their chicken, for example, to Tyson and to get it back in the form of chicken nuggets, than to prepare it in their own, often under-funded, low-function facilities.

Many of these companies, says Jenkins, have been perfectly happy to sell highly processed foods back to schools “at a below-market price because it meant that they were going to get their brands and products into the lunch room and potentially get customers for life.”

The solution? For starters, Slow Food is asking for one dollar more per student –- an increase that may seem large in light of the current $2.68 the government currently pays for school lunch reimbursements. But because students who pay for lunch would continue doing so, the total increase for reimbursements for free and reduced meals would only be around 18 million dollars, says Jenkins. It’s a modest request that would “give nutrition directors and food service directors the baseline level of support they need to start bringing healthier options into the lunch room.” More funding, combined with education about growing and cooking food, could as Slow Food President Josh Veirtel wrote in a recent letter to the New York Times, represent a “turning point in the food movement” and “signal the rise of a national movement driven by the passion of ordinary citizens.”

Want to show your support for healthy school lunches? Attend an Eat-In this Labor Day: Find one in your neighborhood.

Can’t make it to an Eat-In? Visit the Slow Food USA site to sign the petition.