Schools in the US that offered more healthy meals were surprised to benefit financially, writes JANE BLACK
IT DIDN’T seem like a radical idea at the time. First, Ginger Gray, the food service director for Kenton County, Kentucky schools, took away fried potato crisps, offering students baked versions instead.
Next, she phased out fruit drinks in favour of 100 per cent juices. She considered serving baked French fries but they got soggy and unappetising fast. And there’s one thing that every school food service director knows: you don’t mess with the fries.
It was a calculated effort to encourage students to eat more healthily. A registered dietitian, Gray believes her job isn’t just to feed students but also to teach good eating habits.
But there was a risk: the salty snacks and sugary drinks, sold in cafeteria a la carte lines and vending machines, were reliable money-makers for the 17 schools in Gray’s district, where one-third of students eat subsidised lunches.
But a funny thing happened. When the numbers came in, Gray found she was making more money, not less. With fewer junk foods available, more students opted for the traditional lunch line, where Gray offers items such as salads, submarine sandwiches and make-your-own tacos.
At Simon Kenton High School, revenue rose 61 per cent between 2005 and 2007 without a price increase for school meals.
The results in Kentucky could reverberate in Washington. As Congress moves to reauthorise childhood nutrition programmes this summer, it is again taking up the issue of whether fizzy drinks, crisps and sweets should be allowed in schools.
Legislators have tried to limit junk food in schools since 1994. But each time the measures were blocked by powerful food lobbies, and conventional wisdom has long held that such snacks are a necessary evil because they provide key revenue to supplement the federal school-lunch programme and help pay for sports and arts programmes.
The result: foods sold outside the lunch line currently are required only to have “minimal nutritional value”.
This year could be different. Bills have been introduced in both houses to mandate new standards. President Obama has declared childhood nutrition an integral part of health-care reform.
Even the food industry is supporting tighter standards in the face of reports that obesity rates have tripled in children and adolescents over the past two decades. One study from the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that one-fifth of the increase in teenagers’ average body mass index was attributable to an “increase in availability of junk foods in schools”.
And in a year when the country faces a historic deficit, implementing standards may be an economical way to tackle childhood obesity.
Despite such support, history shows that efforts to establish new standards could fail yet again. The measure is likely to be included in the reauthorisation of federal child-nutrition programmes, which are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. The first step is clearing the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, where 10 Democrats have signed to the bill as co-sponsors.
Kentucky is the seventh-fattest state in the US, but it has been a pioneer in improving school food. In 2005, following the lead of food service directors such as Gray, Kentucky became one of the first states to impose strict standards for foods sold in cafeteria a la carte lines, school stores and vending machines, not just in the main lunch line as federal mandates require. The new regulations banned fizzy drinks with more than 10 grams of sugar per serving. Twinkies (sponge cakes with a creamy filling) and packaged cinnamon rolls were removed in favour of foods with limited fat, sugar and salt.
“Everyone told us, ‘You just can’t do this. Schools won’t survive. We won’t have sports programmes,’” said Anita Courtney, a consultant for child-nutrition programmes who lobbied for the state law. “There was so much fear and, in reality, it didn’t make much difference.”
Kenton County isn’t the only district to benefit financially from cutting out junk food. In Hardin County, south of Louisville, phasing out junk food helped push more students into the school meal programme: 83 per cent of students this year, up from 68 per cent in 2000-2001. Meals are more profitable since the government kicks in money for every school lunch sold.
In California, where nutrition standards for competitive foods went into effect in 2007, a University of California at Berkeley survey of 20 schools found that revenues at 65 per cent of schools increased more than enough to compensate for the loss of sugary and salty snacks.
Washington politics will have much to do with a passage of new standards as new evidence emerges in support of restricting unhealthy snacks. Food and beverage companies including Mars and the American Beverage Association support federal standards, which have not been updated in 30 years. Indeed, the association is implementing voluntary standards that cut calories and portion sizes and ban full-calorie soft drinks.
“We recognise that childhood obesity is a complex problem that will take comprehensive solutions. And our industry is stepping up to do our part,” said Kevin Keane, senior vice-president of public affairs at the beverage group.
If Congress mandates new standards, they might look like Kentucky's. The Agriculture Department official charged with writing new rules would be Undersecretary for Food and Nutrition Services Janey Thornton. Before arriving in Washington, she served as nutrition director for schools in Hardin County, Kentucky. – ( Los Angeles Times, Washington Post)