School Lunch Programs and the American Diet: Exploring a Contested Food Terrain (original) (raw)

2009

Sign up for access to the world's latest research

checkGet notified about relevant papers

checkSave papers to use in your research

checkJoin the discussion with peers

checkTrack your impact

Abstract

sparkles

AI

This research explores the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and its influence on the dietary health of American children. By analyzing key actors, historical periods, and issues in the policy-making process, it investigates how diverse interests shape the outcomes of federally mandated school lunch policies. The study highlights the complexities and contestations surrounding the program since its inception in 1946, with implications for future policy directions.

The Political Economy of School Lunch and the Welfare State: A Historical and Contemporary Examination of Federal School Food Policy and its Implementation at the Local Level

2017

Author(s): Serrano, Christyna | Advisor(s): Gutierrez, Kris D | Abstract: This dissertation’s overarching and guiding research question was: “How are education policies and schools both reproducing structural inequality and promoting educational equity and social justice?” This dissertation explores this broad question through an exemplary case: The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and its implementation in the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD). Three papers, representing two “planes of analysis” (Rogoff, 1995) – the federal policy formulation and local implementation levels – and structured to focus on the interplay between “policy, people, and place” (Honig, 2006), were used to explore this question. Each paper also interrogates 1) how federal policy-makers use education policy (NLSP) to position public schools as sites of intervention for mitigating broader social inequities (food insecurity), and 2) the efficacy of delivery of social provision (nutritious food) at the l...

From Cafeteria to Community: Amending the National School Lunch Act to Promote Healthy Eating in Children

2020 Policy Memo Competition, 2020

Childhood obesity is a serious health problem in the United States that affects millions of children and adolescents. Obese children are more prone to chronic illnesses, and these risks persist into adulthood. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) sought to promote better nutrition among children, especially those who may otherwise not have access to healthy meals, by providing lunches that meet defined nutritional standards. Despite this effort, obesity rates continue to rise and there is little evidence favoring the effectiveness of the National School Lunch Act in reducing obesity incidence among children. Recently, policymakers proposed expanding nutrition education efforts to the classroom to address the current limitations of the National School Lunch Act (i.e., H.R.5892 and S.3293). However, education efforts alone are insufficient to foster long-lasting healthy eating patterns among children. Therefore, we propose that Congress amend the N...

Analysis of Interest Group Influence on Federal School Meals Regulations 1992 to 1996

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 2004

Regulatory changes proposed by the US Department of Agriculture in 1994 promised to bring progressive changes to school meals. However, lobbying by interest groups resulted in substantial changes to the final rule.This analysis retrospectively examines the federal school meals policymaking process during 1992 to 1996. Key questions address why the policy changed and what the role of interest groups was in affecting the shape, pace, and direction of the policy. The study provides suggestions for using the experiences of 1992 to 1996 to guide future advocacy efforts and for adapting the approach for application to other food and nutrition policies.

Framing Federal School Nutrition Policy: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in the Nation’s News

Journal of Health Communication, 2018

The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) represented a major and controversial overhaul of national nutrition standards for foods served in the United States' nearly 100,000 public schools. To unpack how debate over this far-reaching policy was presented to the public, we examined 152 national print; network, network affiliate, and cable television; and public radio news stories about the policy, all appearing during the window surrounding its scheduled reauthorization (9/1/14-1/31/16). We found that HHFKA opponents were more likely to argue from a smaller set of frames that comprised a concise, clear narrative they frequently repeated, while proponents drew from a broader range of frames, each used less frequently, to present their position. In addition, key voices expected to be prominent in a debate over child health-children and parents-were relatively deemphasized. Overall, the primary frames on either side of this debate argued past one another, leaving largely unanswered critical charges about the role of government in assuring the public's health. This debate reflects deeper arguments at the root of many public health policy decisions, and as such, is an illustrative case example for those planning how to enter and help shape national debate over public health policy. Background The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) represented the first major overhaul in more than 30 years of national nutrition standards for foods served and sold to children in the United States' nearly 100,000 K-12 public schools (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010). The law was an effort to better meet the nutritional requirements of all students, address increasing rates of youth obesity, and increase access to healthy foods for students who might not otherwise have it. It included standards for portion sizes and increased whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean protein, and low-fat dairy, while also limiting sugar, fat, and sodium in the foods served at schools (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017a). Perhaps the law's most visible champion was then-First Lady Michelle Obama, who advocated on its behalf in concert with her Let's Move childhood obesity prevention programming (Obama, n.d.). Originally passed with bipartisan support, HHFKA was the subject of controversy from its earliest days, and was altered through a series of rollbacks and waivers throughout its first five years of implementation (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2017b). Some districts reported greater success than others in adapting to the new standards. For example, some districts required not only investment in new meal preparation practices and recipes but also new storage and cooking equipment to properly accommodate the new foods (Byker, Pinard, Yaroch, & Serrano, 2013

From Policy to Practice: Parent Perceptions of the 2010 Federal School Lunch Mandate

Journal of Child Nutrition Management, 2015

Purpose/Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate parent awareness and perceptions of changes to the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) implemented as a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHKA) of 2010. Methods An online survey of parents of school age (K-12) children in a Midwestern state was conducted (n = 2,189). The survey collected information on the grade of oldest child and child's participation in school lunch, and measured parental awareness and perceptions. Open-ended responses were coded by three coders. Chi-square tests, t-tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine possible differences in parents' perceptions according to child's grade, participation in school lunch, and school district size. Results Most parents (84%) were aware of the school lunch changes, and, of those, 75% reported their child had discussed the changes with them. Parents with an oldest child in grades K-8 had significantly more positive perceptions of school meals than did parents with an oldest child in grades 9-12. Parents reported mixed perceptions about school lunch. Some parents indicated their child ate more fruits (15.7%) and vegetables (11.6%) since the meal changes. Applications to Child Nutrition Professionals Parents' awareness and concern about school meals are high. Future governmental and school efforts to promote school lunch should include communication components that provide parents with accurate information and feedback opportunities. At the local level, district professionals can harness family support for school meals in ways tailored to the unique contexts of their school community.

The National School Lunch Program

2006

The National School Lunch Program' provides thousands of free or reduced-cost meals daily to needy children across the country. Originating during the Depression as an informal arrangement to utilize the nation's schoolchildren 2 as consumers of surplus farm products, 3 the program was designed primarily to dissipate the glut in the agricultural markets. After World War II, selective service investigation of draftee rejections revealed a significant correlation between physical deficiencies and childhood malnutrition, 4 highlighting the program's nutritional benefits. Congress then enacted the National School Lunch Act ' of 1946. Under the Act, the Department of Agriculture continued to administer the program. 6 The Act also retained provisions for the purchase of surplus agricultural commodities and codified and regularized direct

Food Service Perspectives on National School Lunch Program Implementation

Health Behavior and Policy Review, 2015

Objectives-Explore barriers and facilitators to implementation of the new National School Lunch Program (NSLP) policy guidelines. Methods-Interviews with eight food service directors using an interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results-Food service personnel; parents, teachers, school staff; and students were important stakeholders. Characteristics of the new NSLP policy guidelines were reported to create increased demands; resources alleviated some barriers. Directors reported increased food and labor costs, food sourcing challenges, decreased student participation, and organizational constraints as barriers to implementation. Creativity in menu planning facilitated success. Conclusions-Factors within the food service department, characteristics of implementing individuals and the new NSLP policy guidelines, and stakeholder involvement in the implementation process relate to successful implementation.

Ideology Versus Reality in the Lunchroom: A Comparative Study of Three School Nutrition Programs

2006

American children are becoming increasingly overweight and inactive; consequently, the school lunch room is fast becoming an ideological battle ground. Legislators, medical professionals, school districts, parents, and the media are focusing intense scrutiny on school nutrition programs, and sweeping changes to these programs are federally mandated to occur before July, 2006. However, equal scrutiny has not been focused on the actual operations, logistics, or requirements of these programs. Through interviews, on-site visits, and participant observations, this eight week study focuses on current (April through June 2005) conditions in three economically disparate public school nutrition programs in one California county. This study asks if school nutrition programs can implement the numerous changes required under new cultural (informal) and upcoming federal (formal) mandates. The conclusion in this instance is that no, public schools are under too much existent financial, physical plant-related, and personnel-related strain to be able to easily or effectively retool their nutrition programs to match the burgeoning ideology. This study provides recommendations and considerations for schools, parents, and legislators -not from an ideological elevation, but from the actual locations within which our children are being fed.

The Invisible Hand that Improves School Lunch Nutrition

Background: How can increasingly scrutinized school lunch programs encourage children to make better food choices without being charged as "food police?" Placing restrictions on the use of prepaid lunch accounts use may influence nutritious food selection without eliminating free choice or reducing profitability.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (93)

  1. Allen, P. and J. Guthman. 2007. "From old school to farm-to-school: Neoliberalism from the ground up." Agriculture and Human Values 23:401-415.
  2. Arts, B. and J.V. Tatenhove. 2004. "Policy and Power: A Conceptual Framework Between the 'Old' and 'New' Policy Idioms." Policy Sciences 37:339-356.
  3. Bagdonis, J.M., C.C. Hinrichs, and K.A. Schafft. 2009. "The Emergence and Framing of Farm to School Initiatives: Civic Engagement, Health, and Local Agriculture." Agriculture and Human Values 26: 1-13.
  4. Black, J. 2009. "The Next Course: Why Children are Key Players in Michelle Obama's Food Policy Moves." The Washington Post, July 15. Retrieved August 14, 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071400669.html?sub=AR)
  5. Burstein, P. 1991. "Policy Domains: Organization, Culture, and Policy Outcomes." Annual Review of Sociology 17:327-350.
  6. Busch, L. and C. Bain. 2004. "New! Improved? The Transformation of the Global Agrofood System." Rural Sociology 69:321-346.
  7. Clegg, S. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.
  8. Crooks, D. 2003. "Trading Nutrition for Education: Nutritional Status and the Sale of Snack Foods in an Eastern Kentucky School." Medical Anthropological Quarterly 17:182-199.
  9. Dietz, W.H. and S.L. Gortmaker. 2001. "Preventing Obesity in Children and Adolescents." Annual Review of Public Health 22:337-353.
  10. Ennis, T.W. July 26, 1971. "Vending Industry Is Widening Its Horizons." New York Times, July 26, p. 35.
  11. Food Research Action Council. 2006. "School Wellness Policy and Practice: Meeting the Needs of Low-Income Students." Retrieved April 27, 2009 (http://www.frac.org/pdf/wellness\_guide2006.pdf).
  12. Food Research and Action Council. 2008. "National School Lunch Program." Retrieved April 27, 2009 (http://www.frac.org/html/federal\_food\_programs/programs/nslp.html).
  13. Fullerton Jr, H.N. 1999. "Labor Force Participation: 75 Years of Change, 1950-98 and 1998-2025." Monthly Labor Review 122(12). Retrieved July 13, 2009 (http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf December).
  14. Gable, S., J. Britt-Rankin, and J.L. Krull. 2008. Ecological Predictors and Developmental Outcomes of Persistent Childhood Overweight. USDA. Retrieved June 15, 2008 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ccr42/ccr42.pdf).
  15. Gunderson, G. 1971. The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
  16. Hamilton, J.A. 1969. "Malnutrition: 'The Morbid Chain Must Be Broken'." New York Times, February 2, p. E5.
  17. Haugaard, M., ed. 2002. Power: A Reader. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  18. Heffernan, W., M. Hendrickson, and R. Gronski. 1999. "Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System." Report to the National Farmers' Union.
  19. Hendrickson, M. and W. Heffernan. 2007. Concentration of Agricultural Markets. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Retrieved June 13, 2000 (http://www.nfu.org/wp-content/2007-heffernanreport.pdf).
  20. Hendrickson, M., W. Heffernan, P. Howard, and J. Heffernan. 2001. "Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy." British Food Journal 103:715-728.
  21. Hollie, P.G. 1978. "Lunch Becomes Big Business." New York Times, May 29, p. D1. Institute of Medicine. 2009. "Homepage.." Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, Retrieved September 11, 2009 (http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3239.aspx).
  22. James, W.P.T. 2002. "The Nutritional Crisis to Come." In Critical Issues in Global Health, edited by C. E. Koop and M. R. Schwartz. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
  23. King, S.S. 1979. "Agriculture Department Proposes New Limits on 'Junk' Food in School." New York Times, July 6, p. A12.
  24. Kloppenburg, J. and N. Hassanein. 2006. "From old school to reform school?" Agriculture and Human Values 23:417-421.
  25. Lang, T. and G. Rayner. 2002. Why Health is the Key to the Future of Food and Farming. Retrieved February 22, 2009. (www.agobservatory.org).
  26. Lautenschlager, J.L. 2006. Food Fight!: The Battle Over the American Lunch in Schools and the Workplace. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company.
  27. Levenstein, H. 2003. Paradox of Plenty: A Social History of Eating in Modern America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  28. Levine, S. 2008. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America's Favorite Welfare Program. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  29. Lin, B.-H. 2008. "Diet Quality and Food Consumption: Food Away From Home." Retrieved June 3, 2009 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/DietQuality/fafh.htm).
  30. Lissner, W. 1958. "Two Viewpoints on School Lunches." American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc 17:143-144.
  31. Lyons, R.D. 1973. "School Lunches Facing Wide Cuts." New York Times, September 13, p. 97.
  32. Lyson, T. 2004. Civic Agriculture: Reconnecting Farm, Food, and Community. Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press.
  33. Marshall, J.A. 1980. "Unscrambling the 'Junk Food' Garble." New York Times, August 3, p. F16.
  34. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 2009. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc, Retrieved September 11, 2009 (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/nutrition/schoolmealsstudy.asp).
  35. Morton, L.W., E.A. Bitto, M.J. Oakland, and M. Sand. 2005. "Solving the Problems of Iowa Food Desserts: Food Insecurity and Civic Structure." Rural Sociology 70:94-112.
  36. Miller, E.L. 1905. "The Lunch-Room at the Englewood High School." The School Review 13:201-212.
  37. Miller, P. 2009. "District, Chef Create Nutrition Pilot Program." The Edmond Sun, July 8. Retrieved July 14, 2009 (http://www.edmondsun.com/archivesearch/local\_story\_189013340.html)
  38. Morgan, K. and R. Sonnino. 2008. The School Food Revolution. London: Earthscan Publications.
  39. Morris, J.D. 1966. "House Panel Rebuffs Johnson On Cuts in School Lunch Aid." New York Times, April 23, p 12.
  40. National Center for Health Statistics. 2006. Prevalence of Overweight Among Children and Adolescents: United States, 2003-2004. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Retrieved April 25, 2009 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/overweight/overwght\_child _03.htm) National School Lunch Act of 1946 § Pub. L. No. 396, § 60 Stat. 230 (1946)
  41. Nelson, P.E. 1950. "Market Support Given Certain Commodities by the Iowa School Lunch Program." Journal of Farm Economics 32:313-317.
  42. Nestle, M. 2000. ""Pouring Rights": Marketing Empty Calories to Children." Public Health Reports 115:308-319.
  43. -. 2003. Food Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  44. Newman, Constance, Katherine Ralston, and Annette Clauson. 2008. "Balancing Nutrition, Participation, and Cost in the NSLP." Amber Waves 6(4) USDA, ERS, Retrieved August 31, 2009 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September08/Features/BalancingNSLP.ht
  45. New York Times. 1944. "Need for School Luncheons Is Stressed As Part of Education- Nutrition Program." New York Times, March 2, p 14.
  46. -. 1945. "Hershey Decries Low Nutrition." New York Times, March 28, p. 20.
  47. -. 1946. "School Lunch Plan Near Congress Test." New York Times, February 17, p. 16.
  48. -. 1966. "Johnson Signs Bill To Provide Meals for Needy Pupils." New York Times, October 12, p. 86.
  49. -. 1968. "Free Lunch--For Some." New York Times, May 6, p. 46.
  50. -. 1969a. "Pupil Lunch Program Held Deficient in Aiding the Poor." New York Times, November 28, p. 94.
  51. -. 1969b. "New Plan for School Lunches." New York Times, December 26, p. 28.
  52. -. 1972a. "Nixon Signs Bill Expanding Food Aid for School Needy." New York Times, September 27, p. 36.
  53. -. 1973a. "'Alternate Foods' in School Lunches Opposed by Group of Nutritionists." New York Times, May 15, p 12.
  54. -. 1973b. "School Vending Machines Assailed for 'Junk Food'." New York Times, April 18, p 12.
  55. -. 1973c. "Senate Passes Compromise On the School Lunch Bill." New York Times, October 17, p. 71.
  56. -. 1980. "U.S. Sets a Deadline for Schools To Comply With 'Junk Food' Rule." New York Times, January 26, p 19.
  57. Pears, R. 1982. "3.2 Million Students and 2,700 Schools Drop Out of National Lunch Program in Year." New York Times, November 1, p. A12.
  58. Pollan, Michael. 2009. "Big Food vs. Big Insurance." New York Times,, September 10, p. 43.
  59. Popkin, B. and P. Gordon-Larsen. 2004. "The Nutrition Transition." International Journal of Obesity 28:S2-S9.
  60. Poppendieck, J. 1999. Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. New York: Penguin Press.
  61. Forthcoming. Free for All: Fixing School Food in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  62. Price, C. and B. Kuhn 1996. "Public and Private Efforts for the National School Lunch Program." Food Review, May-August. Retrieved June 2, 2009 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi\_m3765/is\_n2\_v18/ai\_19421080/)
  63. Ralston, K., C. Newman, A. Clauson, J. Guthrie, and J. Buzby. 2008. The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report. Retrieved July 7, 2009 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR61/)
  64. Ratcliff, J.D. 1941. "Eating Their Way to Health and Learning." The Reader's Digest, February p. 3.
  65. Richardson, D. 2009. "School Lunch Brings Home the Bacon." Miller-McCune, July 14. Retrieved July 21, 2009 (http://www.miller- mccune.com/business_economics/school-lunch-brings-home-the-bacon-1335)
  66. Robin, Florence. 1968. Their Daily Bread. Atlanta, GA: McNelley-Rudd Printing Service Inc. Scheele, L. 1948. "The School and National Health." Journal of Educational Sociology 22:31-36.
  67. Schneider, D. 2000. "International Trends in Adolescent Nutrition." Social Science and Medicine 51:955-967.
  68. Sheraton, M. 1978. "Fast Foods Sell School Lunches in Las Vegas." New York Times, January 19, p. B1.
  69. United States Congress (U.S. Congress). 1945. House Committee on Agriculture. School- Lunch Program: Hearing. 79th Cong., 1st Sess.
  70. -. 1966. House Select Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. National School Lunch Act: Hearing. 89th Cong., 2nd Sess.
  71. -. 1969. House Committee on Education and Labor. National School Lunch Programs: Hearing. 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
  72. -. 1971. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. School Lunch Regulations: Hearing. 92nd Cong., 1st Sess.
  73. -. 1973a. House Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor. Hearings on a Bill to Establish a Program of Nutrition Education for Children: Hearing. 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
  74. -. 1973b. Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. School Lunch and Breakfast: Hearing. 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
  75. -. 1988. House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education Committee on Education and Labor. Child Nutrition Programs: Issues for the 101st Congress. 100th Cong., 2nd Sess.
  76. -. 1994a. House Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition of the Committee on Agriculture. Review of the US Department of Agriculture's Proposed Rule: 'Nutrition Objectives for School Meals': Hearing. 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
  77. -. 1994b. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Investigations. S. 1614-Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act of 1993: Hearing. 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
  78. -. 1994c. Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. School Lunch and Breakfast: Hearing. 93rd Cong., 1st Sess.
  79. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Agriculture Fact Book 2001- 2002. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture Office of Communications, Retrieved July 16, 2009 (http://www.usda.gov/factbook/2002factbook.pdf).
  80. United States. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (USDA FNS). 2001. Foods Sold in Competition with USDA School Meal Programs. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services. Retrieved March 12, 2009 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/CND/Lunch/\_private/CompetitiveFoods/report\_congres s.htm).
  81. -. 2009a. "Healthy Schools: Local Wellness Policies." Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Food , Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Retrieved September 11, 2009 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/healthy/wellnesspolicy.html).
  82. -. 2009b. "National School Lunch Program." Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Retrieved July 17, 2009 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/).
  83. Vallianatos, M., R. Gottlieb, and M.A. Haase. 2004. "Strategies for Urban Health, Combating Sprawl, and Establishing a Community Food Systems Approach." Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:414-423.
  84. Vogt, R.A. and L.L. Kaiser. 2006. "Perceived Barriers and Proposed Solutions to Farm to School Programs in California." Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 38:S51.
  85. Weaver, J., Warren. 1969. "Hunger: It Jolts a Senate Coalition." New York Times, February 23, p. E6.
  86. Weber Cullen, K., J. Eagan, T. Baranowski, E. Owens, and C.D. Moor. 2000. "Effect of a la carte and snack bar foods at school on children's lunchtime intake of fruits and vegetables." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 100:1482-1486.
  87. Wechsler, H., N.D. Brener, S. Kuester, and C. Miller. 2001. "Food Service and Food and Beverages Available at School: Results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000." Journal of School Health 71:313-324.
  88. Weiss, R. and J. Smith. 2004. "Legislative Approaches to the Obesity Epidemic." Journal of Public Health Policy 25:379-390.
  89. Wildey, M.B., S.Z. Pampalone, R.L. Pelletier, M.M. Zive, J.P. Elder, and J.F. Sallis. 2000. "Fat and sugar levels are high in snacks purchased from student stores in middle schools." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 100:319-322.
  90. Wilkinson, J. 2002. "The Final Foods Industry and the Changing Face of the Global Agro-Food System." Sociologia Ruralis 42:329-346.
  91. Winson, A. 2008. "School Food Environments and the Obesity Issue: Content, Structural Determinants and Agency in Canadian High Schools." Agriculture and Human Values 25:499-511.
  92. Yeoman, B. 2003. "Unhappy Meals." Mother Jones, January/February. Retrieved March 7, 2009 (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/01/ma\_207\_01.html).
  93. Zernike, K. 2003. "Is Obesity the Responsibility of the Body Politic?" New York Times, November 9, p. WK3.

The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. ERS Report Summary

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is one of the largest food and nutrition assistance programs in the United States, feeding millions of children every day. School meal providers face the task of serving nutritious and appealing school lunches, including free and reduced-price lunches for low-income students, and doing so under budget constraints. This report is intended as a briefing for policymakers and other stakeholders on the history and basic features of the program. It also addresses steps being taken by school food authorities and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in response to challenges faced by program administrators. One of the main goals of NSLP as identified by Congress is to promote the health and well-being of the nation's children. In recent years, questions have been raised about the program's ability to meet this goal, especially as the main nutrition problem has shifted from under-nutrition to overweight and obesity. Public concern for t...

The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues

2008

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the Nation’s second largest food and nutrition assistance program. In 2006, it operated in over 101,000 public and nonprofit private schools and provided over 28 million low-cost or free lunches to children on a typical school day at a Federal cost of $8 billion for the year. This report provides background information on the NSLP, including historical trends and participant characteristics. It also addresses steps being taken to meet challenges facing administrators of the program, including tradeoffs between nutritional quality of foods served, costs, and participation, as well as between program access and program integrity.

The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Economic Research Report Number 61

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is the Nation's second largest food and nutrition assistance program. In 2006, it operated in over 101,000 public and nonprofit private schools and provided over 28 million low-cost or free lunches to children on a typical school day at a Federal cost of $8 billion for the year. This report provides background information on the NSLP, including historical trends and participant characteristics. It also addresses steps being taken to meet challenges facing administrators of the program, including tradeoffs between nutritional quality of foods served, costs, and participation, as well as between program access and program integrity. (Contains 2 tables and 7 figures.)

USDA school meal programs face new challenges

Choices. The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues, 2009

In 2008, the USDA's National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) fed almost 31 million children each school day. On a typical school day, lunch participants obtain more than onethird (35%) of their daily caloric intake at school; for children participating in both breakfast and lunch, the contribution of school food to caloric intake rises to almost one-half (47%) (Story, 2009). The programs promote the food security of low-income households with children by providing meals to those children at free or reduced price. In addition, the programs strive to improve the diets and health of all participating children. When school meal programs began (see timeline, Table 1), their focus was on ensuring that all children had something to eat for lunch. Today, overweight and obesity have become the most common nutrition problems among American children. Children are described as "overweight but undernourished" as they consume diets high in saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium, but low in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lowfat milk. Public concern has risen concerning the quality of foods available to schoolchildren and whether USDA school meal programs contribute to the growing problem of childhood obesity. In response, there is a desire to update and strengthen nutritional requirements for USDA-funded school meals and regulate the nutritional content of other foods and beverages sold at school-often referred to as "competitive foods." At the same time, the economic downturn has brought renewed emphasis on the role of the programs as a nutrition safety net for children, with advocates proposing changes to make more children eligible for free meals. However, there is an important issue related to this. School meal providers find it challenging to cover program costs and encourage student participation while improving the quality of meals served to children. Here, drawing primarily on a review by Ralston et al. (2008), we briefly discuss the history of the national school meal programs, current evidence of their association with children's diet and health, and proposed changes in the programs to meet the changing nutrition problems facing American children. The School Meal Programs: Yesterday and Today The NSLP was founded in 1946, building on smaller, localized efforts to provide school meals to needy children. Over time, federal involvement in providing meals to children and youth expanded, with the creation of the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program (see Table 1). In 2008, combined Federal spending for these programs reached $14.4 billion, second in terms of expenditures only to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) (see Figure 1). USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the child nutrition programs and reimburses participating schools' foodservice departments for the meals served to students. Schools must provide meals for free or at a reduced price to children eligible on the basis of household income and USDA reimburses those meals at a higher level. Children from families with incomes at or below 130% of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130% and 185% of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-priced meals.

Reorganizing School Lunch for a More Just and Sustainable Food System in the US

Public school lunch programs in the United States are contested political terrains shaped by government agencies, civil society activists, and agri-food companies. The particular organization of these programs has consequences for public health, social justice, and ecological sustainability. This contribution draws on political economy, critical food studies, and feminist economics to analyze the US National School Lunch Program, one of the world’s oldest and largest government-sponsored school lunch programs. It makes visible the social and environmental costs of the “heat-and-serve” economy, where widely used metrics consider only the speed and volume of service as productive work. This study demonstrates that such a narrow understanding of the labor of lunch devalues care and undercuts the potential for school food provisioning to promote ecological and feminist goals. Further, it proposes a “high road” alternative and outlines an agenda for reorganizing school food provisioning to maximize care in all its dimensions.

School Lunch before and after Implementation of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act

The Journal of Child Nutrition & Management, 2014

Purpose/Objectives This study compares the mean nutrients selected and consumed in National School Lunch Program (NSLP) meals before and after implementation of the new nutrition standards mandated by the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) in July 2012. Four elementary schools achieving HealthierUS Schools Challenge awards serving second through fifth grade students were selected to participate. Methods In Spring 2012, before implementation of meal standards mandated by the HHFKA, digital photographs of NSLP lunches were taken of second to fifth graders’ lunches in four elementary schools before and after the meals were consumed. In Spring 2013, after implementation of meal standards mandated by the HHFKA, digital photographs of lunch were again taken in the same schools before and after lunches were consumed. The photos were used to visually estimate the amounts of food items on trays and determine nutritional content of meals selected and consumed. The nutrition content ...

Competitive Foods, Discrimination, and Participation in the National School Lunch Program

American Journal of Public Health, 2011

Meals served through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) must meet rigorous nutritional standards; however, barriers to student participation may limit the program's health and social equity benefits. Unsubsidized meals and food offerings competing with the NSLP offerings in school lunch environments may be lowering qualified student participation either directly or via identification of subsidized low-income students or stigmatization of the NSLP. We document a pilot intervention conducted in San Francisco in 2009 and 2010 that demonstrated gains in NSLP participation after removal of separate competitive à la carte lunch meal offerings. Our observations suggest the need for greater attention to the potential discriminatory effects of competitive foods and to the issue of stigma by school nutrition program administrators, researchers, regulators, and policymakers.