Banning Junk Food at Schools Works

According to the first nationwide study on the effects of banning junk food sales at schools, recently published in the journal Pediatrics, there is a correlation between such bans and declining weight gain in children, Good Education reports.

Researchers studied data from 6,300 students in 40 states, measuring each student's weight and height in 2004, upon entering middle school, and again in 2007. They also looked at which children lived in states with anti-junk food laws. Children that lived in states with strong laws banning junk food sales at school gained less weight between fifth and eighth grades than those living in states with weak or nonexistent junk food laws. Furthermore, overweight and obese children were more likely to reach a healthy weight by eighth grade if they lived in anti-junk food states.

According to Good, the differences were not terribly dramatic. They also did not discuss how or if such laws affected younger children or older teens or whether there were other variables that may have been in play. Some states, for example, have much higher obesity rates than others. Since obesity tends to be higher in lower income communities, the results of the study might have been skewed or influenced by the poverty differential between states.

Americans Too Fat To Fight “War On Terror”

Little Boy (left) and Fat Man (right)--(Image from Flickr, by Marcin Wichary)

Obesity or Jingoism Problem?

According to the Harper’s Index, 75% of Americans aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to join the military. The most common reasons, in order, are obesity, drug or alcohol problems, and low “aptitude.”

Since obesity is more common among the poor, one might wonder if the days of the “economic draft” are coming to an end.

Schools and Communities Lose By Outsourcing Lunch Services

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

Public schools get about $1 billion worth of free surplus fruits, vegetables, meat and cheese from the USDA each year which, instead of preparing into healthy fresh meals, they outsource to large corporate food processors like Aramark and Sodexo. The “logic” of this system is that it is supposed to save schools money on labor costs and economies of scale. In reality, schools do not save money in this scam, according to Lucy Komisar, when the fees charged by the food processors and supply costs are factored in.

Komisar notes that roughly one-fourth of the school nutrition program has been privatized and outsourced, primarily to just a few food giants, like Sodexo, Aramark, Chartwells, Tyson and Pilgrim’s. Of the $1 billion in free surplus foods given to schools each year, close to half is sent out for processing (a 50% increase since 2006) to make things like chicken nuggets, tater tots and pizza. Yet, instead of saving money, schools are paying kickbacks and other fees to these companies and getting little more than junk food in return.

Komisar points to research by Roland Zulio, from the University of Michigan, who found that the amount of money Michigan schools spent on fees and supplies for this service was roughly equal to the amount they saved on labor and food costs, yielding no net savings for the schools. If one adds in the “external” costs, like the particulate air pollution and extra carbon added to the atmosphere caused by trucking these foods long distances, or the unionized local chef jobs lost to outsourced non-union corporate assembly lines, school lunches are a serious rip-off.

In his research, Zulio specifically noted that Chartwells (though this is likely true for the other processors, as well) was able to cut costs by slashing benefits for workers, but that these savings were not passed on to schools. He also discovered a correlation between low test scores and the degree to which school lunches were privatized, speculating that perhaps the excess fat, salt and sugar were impairing student achievement. However, it is also possible that low income schools are relying more heavily on food outsourcing than affluent schools and that the low test scores are due more to students’ socioeconomic backgrounds than their school lunches.

By outsourcing their food, fresh and wholesome ingredients are transformed into foods with the “same nutritional value as junk foods,” according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWF). The RWJ report found that over 50% of commodity foods are sent to processors first, where fat, sugar and sodium are added before being sent back to schools. In California, the report notes, over 82% of commodity food funds are spent on meat and cheese whereas only 13% is spent on fruits and vegetables.

While the RWJ report is a little old (2008) and things may have changed slightly in California and the nation as a whole, the fact remains that the bulk of school lunches do get heavily processed and outsourced to food giants like Aramark and Sodexo, making the foods less healthy while providing schools with no economic benefit.

Starving in the Land of Plenty

Recent data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that 25% of California households with children are experiencing food hardship (from New America Media).

Latinos and rural residents were most affected. In agricultural Fresno County, for example, 68.6% of public school students were receiving free or reduced lunches, which means their families were suffering from material (and likely food) insecurity. The county is also 59% Latino. In Los Angeles County, which is over 63% Latino, 65.6% of students were receiving free or reduced lunches.

California also has four of the nation’s 20 metropolitan areas with the worst food hardship.  Fresno was fifth in the nation, with 32.6% of its residents facing food insecurity. The Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area ranked eighth (30.4%), the Bakersfield area ranked 11th (29.5%) and the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area ranked 18th (28.3%).

Starving In Front of Gratuitous Wealth

With over 15 million people, at a rate of 28.3% the LA area alone has over 4,300,000 residents suffering food insecurity. This statistic is particularly stark when juxtaposed with the phenomenal wealth found in Los Angeles. Here is a list of just its billionaires (all 34 of them), from the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people on the planet:

19. Kirk Kerkorian, $10 billion

25. Sumner Redstone, $8.4 billion

38. Donald Bren, $5.7 billion

39. Eli Broad, $5.5 billion

45. David Geffen, $4.5 billion

52. Barbara Davis, and Family, $4 billion

52. David Murdock, $4 billion

70. Bradley Wayne Hughes, $3.2 billion

78. Haim Saban, $2.8 billion

83. Stephen Spielberg, $2.7 billion

89. Jerold Perenchio, $2.6 billion

112. Ronald Burkle, $2.3 billion

116. Patrick Soon-Shiong, $2.2 billion

125. Alfred Mann, $2.1 billion

125. Steven Udvar-Hazy, $2.1 billion

133. Michael Milken, $2 billion

153. David Hearst, $1.9 billion

153. George Hearst, $1.9 billion

181. Franklin Booth, $1.7 billion

181. Louis Gonda, $1.7 billion

181. Anthony Pritzker, $1.7 billion

181. Tom Gores, $1.7 billion

198. Ming Hsieh, $1.6 billion

235. John Anderson, $1.4 billion

235. Charles Munger, $1.4 billion

258. Gary Michelson, $1.3 billion

283. Alan Casden, $1.2 billion

283. Robert Day, $1.2 billion

283. Roy Disney, $1.2 billion

283. Leslie Gonda, $1.2 billion

283. Alec Gores, $1.2 billion

283. George Joseph, $1.2 billion

320. Edward Roski, $1.1 billion

346. William Hilton, $1 billion

Insult to Injury
As terrible as it is to have so many hungry children, the problem is exacerbated by the draconian eligibility requirements for CalFresh, the California version of the federal food program. Many are no doubt discouraged from participating because of the finger-imaging requirement, particularly those concerned about being deported.

The New America Media article also suggested that the new federal Super Committee that is set to propose solutions to the federal deficit will slash federal food programs. Considering that state governments have been gutting programs for children, seniors and the poor in order to close their deficits, this fear is not at all unrealistic. In fact, it could be argued that the Super Committee’s mandate is precisely to impose austerity on the most vulnerable and politically least powerful members of society so that the wealthiest can continue to enjoy their privilege and luxury.

Health and Education Implications
Under- and malnourished mothers are much more likely to have babies born prematurely, with low birth weights or with significant health problems. Children who are not receiving adequate nutrition can suffer from iron deficiency anemia and are at risk for a host of developmental and cognitive impairments. Any of these can have a large impact on school-readiness and academic achievement.

However, it is not just hunger and lack of calories that places children at risk. Families that cannot afford to eat nutritious foods will often compensate with food that is cheaper but less nutritious, particularly junk foods, increasing the risks for obesity and diabetes. Such diets tend to be rich in sweets, particularly sugary drinks, and increase the risk of cavities and dental problems. This, too, can hinder academic achievement as students without insurance may be missing class and have trouble concentrating due to pain.

Dairy Industry Lies to Fatten Profits (and Children)

"Bubbles" by John Isaac, 2003 (photographed by Grahamc99)

A report by the Associated Press last week said that a number of professional and medical groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), had issued a “joint statement” favoring flavored milk in the schools. Their statement supposedly asserted that “the nutritional value of flavored low-fat or skim milk outweighs the harm of the added sugar.” (See OB Rag)

In reality, no such “joint statement” was ever made. The AP was scammed by dairy industry propaganda designed to keep chocolate milk in the schools. In fact, many medical groups have come out against the practice of feeding kids sugared milk drinks precisely because the added sugar contributes to obesity and tooth decay. AHA and AAP both denied signing the joint statement.

Two of the organizations cited in the AP story (the School Nutrition Association and the American Dietetic Association) have financial links to the dairy industry and have been key players in the effort to keep chocolate milk in the schools. The School Nutrition Association includes dues-paying members from the dairy lobby, including The National Dairy Council and the Milk Processors Education Program, according to the OB Rag story.

The School Nutrition Association worked with the dairy lobby to promote a biased “study” that supposedly showed that kids would not drink milk if it wasn’t flavored. This tactic is highly reminiscent of attempts by the Tobacco industry to sow doubt about the dangers of cigarettes by co-opting scientists and producing their own “scientific” studies to counter the legitimate ones linking smoking to cancer and heart disease. Petroleum and coal companies have done the same to sow doubt about climate change. (See Merchants of Doubt, numerous articles by Robert Procter, The Republican War on Science, among other sources).

Big Brother Is Watching What Your Kids Eat (But Doing Little About It)

There was an article today in the Bay Citizen (taken from a Reuters news report)  about a program placing surveillance cameras in San Antonio public schools to document what students choose in the cafeteria lunch line and what they throw away. My first reaction was outrage at the invasion of privacy. Then, when I considered the scientific data that could be obtained from the setup, I became intrigued. They will not only be able to document what is eaten and what is thrown away, but they will be able to connect this information with individual students and compare it with socioeconomic data. Thus, they will be able to identify any potential correlations between food choices and the socioeconomic backgrounds of students, as well as food preferences that could be used to plan healthier alternatives.

Then I got creeped out again. Why does the San Antonio school system need to spend $2 million on this experiment? (Granted, the money came from a federal grant, so it would be more accurate to ask why the feds need to spend this kind of dough). However, we already know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods, so why not use that money to help reconfigure the food services of the district to provide healthier foods? Sure, it could be argued that the adults don’t really know what this particular population of kids really wants to eat, so maybe their healthy choices would just end up in the waste bin anyway. But that brings up several other issues. If San Antonio starts producing healthy facsimiles of the foods their students enjoy, maybe their students will stop enjoying them and will toss them, too. A baked potato chip devoid of salt and fat is hardly worth the trouble to chew. Furthermore, the “healthy” choices might end up being healthy only in name, as is often the case, remaining mass produced industrial swill.

There is also the bigger question of whether or not school meals can really mitigate all the other factors that contribute to obesity. People develop their food preferences at a young age and have those preferences reinforced at home and in their communities. What can the schools do to change eating and shopping habits at home? Poor families are still limited in terms of what they can afford to buy to eat and children will continue to eat what gives them comfort and familiarity outside of school so long as it is available or encouraged. Furthermore, overworked, stressed out families have less time and energy to cook wholesome meals at home. After a ten-hour day of being yelled at by 3 different bosses, Hack in the Sack’s promise of a no cooking, no clean-up, low cost dinner, may seem like perfection.

There are other issues, too, like the lack of funding and time provided for exercise and the further encroachment on PE classes by the demands of NCLB. If we really want to make a difference in children’s health, then we should have mandatory physical exercise daily for students, whether that comes in the form of traditional PE classes, or dance, yoga, or other alternatives.