Taking the Junk Food out of Vending Machines

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has made monumental strides towards changing the nutritional value of food served to children during the school day. Although most of the efforts have been contained to what is being served inside the cafeteria, there is now a new push to change what children are buying outside of it.

Past efforts to “restrict the food that schoolchildren eat outside the lunchroom have long been controversial” – this is because vending machines bring in profit for school districts and this profit is subsequently used to pay for sports, music and arts programs (NY Times).

So would an effort to remove junk food from vending machines result in less music programs in schools? Not exactly.  It’s inevitable that if a child is given a choice between a healthy snack or a bag of potato chips in a vending machine they will likely choose the second; however, if all of the unhealthy options are eliminated from the machines “children could still be persuaded to eat healthy foods and schools could still make a profit”.

The NY Times article I’ve posted below illustrates more in depth about the proposed plan by the Obama administration – if you’re interested in school nutrition and/or  recent efforts on combating the childhood obesity epidemic it’s definitely worth checking out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/us/politics/new-rules-planned-on-school-vending-machines.html?_r=1&ref=health

(On a side note: The University of Michigan has already implemented measures towards making its’ students more aware of the healthier options in their vending machines. All healthy options are designated with an “M” sticker – hopefully this measure has already made it easier for students to make healthier decisions).

Whose hands are in YOUR food?

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post in response to a NY Times article about Congress’s recent decision to oppose new USDA guidelines that would incorporate more fruits and vegetables into the school lunch room. I’m still in awe that the food industry has so much power that it can persuade Congress to consider pizza a “vegetable”.

As I started writing my final research paper about the National School Lunch Program for a class on food studies, I came across another NY Times opinion article about the power of the private food sector on public school lunches.

So each day the National School Lunch Program feeds 32 million children. 21 million of those children eat free or reduced-priced meals – thanks to the USDA paying about $1 billion a year for agricultural surpluses. The USDA provides schools with commodities like fresh apples, sweet potatoes, chicken and turkeys. Instead of cooking the food in the cafeteria kitchens (the logical choice…), schools take the commodities they are given and send them out for processing in order to make a profit.

Example:

School gets free raw chicken ($11.40/case) and sends it for processing into deep fried chicken nuggets ($33.45/case).

$33.45/case (sale) – NO COST TO SCHOOL! = $33.45 to the school in profit!

I’m not arguing against the schools trying to make a profit, or the fact that they are receiving these commodities for free; however, since they are receiving chicken for free they would still be making a profit had they chosen not to send them off to be processed into an unhealthy alternative. Yes, it is definitely less profitable for the school to take the chicken that is valued at $11.40/case and grill it in-house, but shouldn’t the purpose of the National School Lunch Program be more about feeding our kids healthy meals and less about the private food industry making a profit?

Although school boards and local politicians have asked food processors to create healthier alternatives, the argument is that children may not want to eat this healthier food and any increase in fruits and vegetables would result in wasted food. Is this possible? Absolutely. But if the schools aren’t able to influence food processors to create healthier alternatives, and the food processors are convincing Congress to block any measures to provide healthier alternatives, how will we ever be able to solve the growing problem of childhood obesity?

If you’re interested in the topic at all, I’d suggest checking out this NY Times article for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/school-lunches-and-the-food-industry.html?scp=1&sq=lunch&st=Search

Also, in researching for my paper I came across several books on the topic that seem really interesting and worthwhile:

School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America’s Favorite Welfare Program by Susan Levine

Free for All: Fixing School Food in America by Janet Poppendieck

Fed Up With Lunch: How One Anonymous Teacher Revealed the Truth About School Lunches by Mrs. Q

Lunch Wars: How to Start a School Food Revolution and Win the Battle for Our Children’s Health by Amy Kalafa

Aspartame, Saccharin, Tartrazine oh my!

I came across an interesting article this morning from the EatThisNotThat twitter feed on food additives. Proposing that all of the 11 food additives listed are "controversial", this article is definitely worth looking at. As someone who tries actively (and usually has trouble being successful at) avoiding chemical food additives, this article was extremely eye-opening.


Here is what Women's Health Magazine believed to best the 11 Most Controversial Food Additives:


1. Acesulfame Potassium (Acesulfame-K)
2. Artificial Flavoring
3. Aspartame
4. BHA and BHT
5. High Fructose Corn Syrup (...should be considered the worst in my opinion)
6. Interesterified Fat
7. Monosodium Gultamate (MSG)
8. Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil
9. Red #3 (Erythrosine) and Red #40 (Allura Red)
10. Saccharin
11. Yellow #5 (Tartrazine) and Yellow #6 (Sunset Yellow)


With an abundance of links drawn between consumption and cancer, seizures, tumors and weight-gain, it seems like there is no benefit from consuming any of the above listed food additives. But with the way food is prepared, packaged and preserved, it is nearly impossible to buy and consume all foods that are free of any of these chemicals. I'm sure if you look close enough, even those frozen meals you buy at Whole Foods contain at least one of these "controversial" food additives.

Take a look at the article, and take from it what you may - who knows, maybe it'll change the way you buy and consume some of your favorite foods.


http://eatthis.womenshealthmag.com/content/11-most-controversial-food-additives?article=7&page=1

Brain Food

In an effort to reach out to another category of readers, I’ve decided to expand the areas that my blog covers and incorporate another one of my passions: food studies.

So what exactly does food studies mean? Well as defined by Wikipedia (which we know is always extremely reliable), food studies describes the critical examination of food and its context within science, art, history, society and other fields. While I have not had the opportunity to have extensive academic exposure to food studies, I have been lucky enough to have taken some classes and read some books on the topic.

If you’re reading this blog, it means that you have some interest in food. So if you’re even remotely interested in taking this interest to another level, I’d suggest checking out these books and websites. All of these books are extremely eye-opening and will really give you a different perspective the next time you go out to eat or go to the grocery store.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollen

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

Food Politics by Marion Nestle (brilliant woman, leading the modern-day food politics movement)

The Ethics of What We Eat by

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

Chew on This by Michael Pollan

And here are the websites to check out:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/ (Marion Nestle’s website)

http://www.letsmove.gov/

Look out for articles and news stories I’ll be posting in the new few weeks. I’ll be keeping my eye out for one’s that are sure to appeal to readers of all ages.