Part Two: Solutions For The Failing School Lunch System
Part Two: Solutions For The Failing School Lunch System
By Juliana Sweeny
Check out “Part 1: The Problem - School Lunches Are Failing Our Children.”
Highlights from Solutions For The Failing School Lunch System:
“Free and reduced school lunches cannot, and should not, be entirely eliminated from American school systems. Students with sincere food insecurity should continue to receive support, but the deterioration of childhood health markers must be addressed.”
“Americans can..disassociate the relationship between federal funding and politicized nutritional guidelines. Schools should have the freedom to run their kitchens as they see fit..”
“Good food decisions do not start at the kitchen table – consumers cannot make the decision to consume healthy foods that are not made available. In other words, the federal government has massive influence over the goods we are able to buy and sell in the marketplace, let alone the foods that are offered in school cafeterias.”
Key Takeaways:
Schools should prioritize nutritional education. This will enable students to cultivate healthy habits that can be sustained beyond graduation.
The USDA’s bad guidelines for school lunch programs— programs that feed millions of children each day— must change to prioritize whole fruits, vegetables, healthy fats and meats, and allow for schools to tailor their menu to their community culture.
Schools should have the freedom to run their kitchens as they see fit and cafeterias should address the unique nutritional needs of their student populations without fear of federal fund withholding.
School nutritional standards ought to be set at the state or local level.
Solutions for the Failing School Lunch System
By Juliana Sweeny
The Steep Cost of a Free Lunch
Although funding for free and reduced school lunches has skyrocketed over the last 60 years, childhood health markers are still rapidly declining across the United States. This year alone, the United States will spend $28.5 billion tax-payer dollars on school nutrition programs —$2 billion dollars more than last year. The dollars will support 5.2 billion lunches and snacks served across the United States during the 2023-2024 school year. All the while, nearly 20% of America’s children and adolescents are obese.
Free and reduced school lunches cannot, and should not, be entirely eliminated from American school systems. Students with sincere food insecurity should continue to receive support, but the deterioration of childhood health markers must be addressed. Faulty nutrition standards dictate school lunch offerings and are associated with the continued spiral of young people’s health. Serious concerns like the rise in childhood diabetes, obesity and autoimmune diseases are a priority for federal and local lawmakers, but root causes like the USDA’s bad guidelines for school lunch programs— programs that feed millions of children each day— must change.
Turning the Problem Around
Funding from the federal government always comes at a cost. In order for schools to receive funds for free or reduced student lunches, schools must ensure that meals align with the government’s strict nutritional standards. Schools are then reimbursed less than $4 per meal, which presumably covers not only the cost of food but the cost of staff salaries, kitchen appliances and other cafeteria tools.
In short, Americans cannot entirely eliminate federally subsidized school lunches. Lawmakers also cannot toss out all guidelines related to nutrition, nor should they. What Americans can do however, is disassociate the relationship between federal funding and politicized nutritional guidelines. Schools should have the freedom to run their kitchens as they see fit and cafeterias should address the unique nutritional needs of their student populations without fear of federal fund withholding.
There are a few ways lawmakers can address the toxic relationship between funding and nutrition. First, federal funding must not be tied to arbitrary nutrition guidelines. While schools should meet some standard to receive federal assistance, they should be allotted flexibility to address unique nutritional needs. Schools need flexibility. If nutritional standards must be placed, regulations should be set at the state or local level.
Another regulation change is that “free” lunches should be reserved for students with the most need. Students should not go hungry, but the poverty levels in the United States have certainly not grown in tandem with the ever-increasing amount of individuals who receive free or reduced cost lunches. As the great economist Milton Friedman said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Taxpayers are not only paying for the upfront cost of school lunches, but also for the cost of health problems associated with political food guidelines.
Perhaps most importantly, nutritional guidelines need to be addressed in a way that is secluded from the political and monetary whims of our age. This is a problem that is bigger than school lunch programs and has implications for every sector of society. Food is a cultural issue that we must tackle both on an individual level, and on a national scale. Good food decisions do not start at the kitchen table – consumers cannot make the decision to consume healthy foods that are not made available. In other words, the federal government has massive influence over the goods we are able to buy and sell in the marketplace, let alone the foods that are offered in school cafeterias. Restrictions must be lifted if we are to address this issue holistically.
The main point is this: the government needs to step away from restrictive regulations and allow schools, localities and individuals to decide what is best for their population and themselves. What works well in sunny Southern California may not work well in snowy rural Iowa, and everywhere beyond and between.
Juliana Sweeny is a high school teacher, volleyball coach, and athletic director in Loudoun County, Virginia.
Further Reading:
SNAP can improve nutrition, help farmers, and support the environment By Angela Rachidi for Farming Abundance
The Conservative Case for SNAP Restrictions by Angela Rachidi for AEI.
Phony Demand and Underpopulation: Problems Plaguing American Farmers By Matthew Yglesias for Farming Abundance
Call Out Crony Crops by Patricia Patnode for Farming Abundance
“Oh SNAP!” That’s So Not Working by Patricia Patnode for Farming Abundance