Lindsey Parsons, the co-director of Real Foods for Kids — Montgomery, a group which strongly backs the Maryland bill, brings a different analysis to the cost question. “It could cause schools to incur greater costs in the short run, but in the long run, it could save money on behavioral services because there would be fewer disciplinary issues,” says Parsons. “And if it leads to more scratch cooking, schools might see an increase in their revenues, as children start to like the food better, and full-paying families allow their children to eat the school food.”

Unfortunately there are two problems with this logic. First, school food departments are self-supporting, with a budget separate from their districts’, so any theoretical reduction in expenditures related to discipline would not automatically be directed back into the school meals. Second, greater scratch cooking could well increase participation, but most schools would need to invest considerable funds up front for equipment, training, and additional labor before that was possible.

Another group pushing for clean label school food, the Life Time Foundation, is open about the fact that it costs more than processed food—a gap which it estimates as an additional 30-35 cents per child, per meal.  Life Time actually gives school districts participating in its program that extra funding outright for a period of three years, as well as kitchen equipment grants if needed, in exchange for ditching seven chemical ingredients [PDF] in their food.

What happens when the three-year-period expires? “During the grant period, partners are improving their programs and knowledge and collaborating with peers across the country and through our resources and education program, teaching families to eat better at home,” says Life Time spokesperson Amy Henderson. “We aim to link all the challenges so after our grant expires, nutrition staffs are trained, empowered, and equipped to continue.” So far none of the schools have finished out their contracts with the foundation.

Henderson also asserts that “healthier foods are not necessarily more expensive,” which is true to the extent that schools can obtain whole foods like raw meats, grains, and legumes from the USDA’s commodity program at low cost. But the safe preparation of such foods is labor intensive and expensive, as are adequate cooking facilities. These constraints send most districts into the arms of outside processors, which turn commodity foods into heat-n-eat entreés that are decidedly not clean label.

Districts are also attracted by the processor’s guarantee that the foods they make will pass school food audits. As one school food professional wrote on Facebook, districts have become convinced “they will ‘flunk’ reviews” if they don’t use packaged foods with certified nutrition labels.

Finally, there is an issue of supply. Several school food directors commenting on Facebook expressed this sentiment: “Even if we could afford [clean label food], we’d have to wait until our distributor carried it.”

Does this mean that clean label school food is out of reach for all districts?  Justin Gagnon, CEO of ChoiceLunch, a healthy school catering company, says no. “There are districts I know of that have less than 10 percent of students qualifying for [free or reduced price school meals], yet they insist on serving paid meals priced to match the reimbursement,” he says. “This is a big mistake.”

The key, he adds, is to assess how many parents are willing and able to pay that additional cost for a better lunch they don’t have to prepare themselves. “You’d be surprised at how many districts there are that could do this, but don’t,” he adds.

Should public school kids in affluent areas be served clean label food while their counterparts in poorer areas are stuck eating highly processed food? Ann Cooper says no. “We don’t expect our schools to teach sub-standard English, math, or science because they’re not adequately funded, and we don’t expect those domains to be budget-neutral or to raise money for their schools,” she adds, arguing that school food and food literacy need to be seen as part of the academic curriculum. “We need to understand that we can’t close the achievement gap without closing the nutrition gap.”

Sadly, the extra federal funding necessary to provide clean label food in all schools seems to be a pipe dream–at least for now. Congress will soon fund school food programs for the next five years and the School Nutrition Association, an organization of 55,000 professionals, has asked Congress (albeit half-heartedly) for a 35 cent increase in federal school meal reimbursement. Yet even if this increase is granted—a very unlikely outcome—that funding would only help struggling districts meet current nutritional requirements, not a clean-label standard.

That said, districts can and should continue to push their vendors for more clean-label products, if only to demonstrate interest, which can help make these foods more affordable. Along these lines, School Food FOCUS has leveraged the buying power of the nation’s largest districts to pressure suppliers into selling healthier, more sustainable products, such as antibiotic-free chicken.

A recent episode of the Inside School Food podcast posits that some small and mid-sized processors are proving more adept at producing affordable clean label food than their larger counterparts. And districts may be able to at least improve snacks and vending machine foods, which are especially high in chemical ingredients and not subsidized like meals are.

As Karen Devitt, co-director of Real Food for Kids Montgomery, says “The removal of items with chemical additives could even be done in two phases: change out the à la carte snacks and vending, then tackle the entrees and commodities.”

And, finally, it’s important in any discussion of clean label school food to keep a solid sense of perspective.  Chef Ann Cooper notes:  “Most people don’t eat ‘clean’ at home at every meal—so let’s not hold schools to a higher standard than what we hold ourselves to.”