Obesity Discussion Forums - View Single Post - Cassidy: Altering school menus would reduce child obesity

Obesity Discussion · 08-26-06, 12:10 PM

Cassidy: Altering school menus would reduce child obesity
By Gene Cassidy
Saturday, August 26, 2006

Ever since Morgan Spurlock lined up huge bowls of sugar in his movie "Supersize Me" to demonstrate Americans' sugar consumption, and Michael Pollan wrote an essay (now part of a book, "Omnivore's Dilemma") on how federal corn subsidies drive down the prices and lead to the proliferation of sweetened, fatty, empty-calorie foods, I had mixed feelings about working in the Booster Room at Framingham High School.

I loved seeing the kids, working with the other parents, and I liked helping to make money for student activities. But the Booster Room's awesome display of candy and soda started to look more and more like a threat.

This fall, for a couple of reasons, things will be different. One is former President Clinton, whose Clinton Foundation last year negotiated with soda companies and convinced them it is in their own interest to stop selling nondiet soda in middle and high schools.

The other is a health grant awarded to Framingham High School on the condition it no longer sells candy in the Booster Room.

Both of these are positive steps on the nutritional landscape. A third, that it's time MetroWest towns start putting in place, is to change school menus. Writer Lisa Belkin makes the simple observation in the Aug. 20 New York Times Magazine that schools are in the restaurant business. What's obvious to us all has never been so well put.

Belkin traces the origin of school cafeterias to post-World War II, when federal policy demanded lunch in schools because so many military volunteers had been turned away during the war because they were undernourished. During Lyndon Johnson's presidency, the school lunch policy became the school lunch and breakfast policy.

But there has never been a shift in that policy from simply filling children's empty stomachs to meeting children's nutritional needs. In fact, Belkin points out, it's impossible to meet federal school breakfast requirements of 550 calories without feeding children empty calories.

School food supplies for the 2006-07 school year were purchased long ago and can't be changed this year. What can be done is that parents, school committees, politicians and the general citizenry concerned about rising health-care costs and insurance rates can push for healthful school food.

This is best done at the elementary level before children have gone through years of bad eating habits. As Belkin shows in her profile of a school district in Florida, there also has to be active encouragement for students to eat foods they aren't used to. That means a nutritionist or qualified cafeteria worker walking among the children during eating times and getting them to try new foods.

When the program was introduced at the Florida school district, a lot of kids started bringing their lunches. Fine. At least they had the choice to eat well.

This will be a difficult year at Framingham High School for some kids who won't be able to get their after-school sugar fix so easily. Any changes in school nutritional policies will be most problematic during the first couple of years they are introduced.

Another difficulty to introducing good eating to schools is that it hasn't been shown to work. This is the main point of Belkin's article. But it presents an opportunity, too.

For all the talk about an obesity problem in the United States, very few studies have been done on the effect of school nutrition on children. Any town or school district willing to offer itself for study would be sure to get a great deal on a good-food program.

And for those seeing cost increases in every suggestion to make civic improvements, talk to your friends who eat healthy. It doesn't cost any more, and for me at least it costs even less, than eating empty calories.

Following in the footsteps of the Framingham Heart Study, which has reverberated throughout the medical world with the wealth of knowledge it has gained on cardiovascular fitness, a Framingham school nutrition study, or one in Marlborough, Ashland, or any MetroWest community, would not only give local children a chance at developing better lifetime eating habits, it might make MetroWest a leader in the development of better school food programs across the country.

What have we got to lose, except a few pounds?

08-26-06, 12:10 PM	#1 (permalink)
Obesity Discussion Administrator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,874 Weight Statistics 8/1/2006 Start Date: 185 lb Start Weight: 152 lb Current Weight: 155 lb Goal Weight: -33 lb Weight Loss: 5/1/2007 Goal Date:	Cassidy: Altering school menus would reduce child obesity Cassidy: Altering school menus would reduce child obesity By Gene Cassidy Saturday, August 26, 2006 Ever since Morgan Spurlock lined up huge bowls of sugar in his movie "Supersize Me" to demonstrate Americans' sugar consumption, and Michael Pollan wrote an essay (now part of a book, "Omnivore's Dilemma") on how federal corn subsidies drive down the prices and lead to the proliferation of sweetened, fatty, empty-calorie foods, I had mixed feelings about working in the Booster Room at Framingham High School. I loved seeing the kids, working with the other parents, and I liked helping to make money for student activities. But the Booster Room's awesome display of candy and soda started to look more and more like a threat. This fall, for a couple of reasons, things will be different. One is former President Clinton, whose Clinton Foundation last year negotiated with soda companies and convinced them it is in their own interest to stop selling nondiet soda in middle and high schools. The other is a health grant awarded to Framingham High School on the condition it no longer sells candy in the Booster Room. Both of these are positive steps on the nutritional landscape. A third, that it's time MetroWest towns start putting in place, is to change school menus. Writer Lisa Belkin makes the simple observation in the Aug. 20 New York Times Magazine that schools are in the restaurant business. What's obvious to us all has never been so well put. Belkin traces the origin of school cafeterias to post-World War II, when federal policy demanded lunch in schools because so many military volunteers had been turned away during the war because they were undernourished. During Lyndon Johnson's presidency, the school lunch policy became the school lunch and breakfast policy. But there has never been a shift in that policy from simply filling children's empty stomachs to meeting children's nutritional needs. In fact, Belkin points out, it's impossible to meet federal school breakfast requirements of 550 calories without feeding children empty calories. School food supplies for the 2006-07 school year were purchased long ago and can't be changed this year. What can be done is that parents, school committees, politicians and the general citizenry concerned about rising health-care costs and insurance rates can push for healthful school food. This is best done at the elementary level before children have gone through years of bad eating habits. As Belkin shows in her profile of a school district in Florida, there also has to be active encouragement for students to eat foods they aren't used to. That means a nutritionist or qualified cafeteria worker walking among the children during eating times and getting them to try new foods. When the program was introduced at the Florida school district, a lot of kids started bringing their lunches. Fine. At least they had the choice to eat well. This will be a difficult year at Framingham High School for some kids who won't be able to get their after-school sugar fix so easily. Any changes in school nutritional policies will be most problematic during the first couple of years they are introduced. Another difficulty to introducing good eating to schools is that it hasn't been shown to work. This is the main point of Belkin's article. But it presents an opportunity, too. For all the talk about an obesity problem in the United States, very few studies have been done on the effect of school nutrition on children. Any town or school district willing to offer itself for study would be sure to get a great deal on a good-food program. And for those seeing cost increases in every suggestion to make civic improvements, talk to your friends who eat healthy. It doesn't cost any more, and for me at least it costs even less, than eating empty calories. Following in the footsteps of the Framingham Heart Study, which has reverberated throughout the medical world with the wealth of knowledge it has gained on cardiovascular fitness, a Framingham school nutrition study, or one in Marlborough, Ashland, or any MetroWest community, would not only give local children a chance at developing better lifetime eating habits, it might make MetroWest a leader in the development of better school food programs across the country. What have we got to lose, except a few pounds? __________________