Grading the Candidates on Student Nutrition

The following was posted by nestwife to the sfschools list. I'm re-posting them here with her permission.

---

I have just come across the answers to questionnaires posed by the Green Party to the BOE candidates. It looks like only a few candidates bothered to return the questionnaires, but I was happy to see that the Green Party is now apparently making school food one of their issues. Amused, because where the hell were they 4 years ago when parents and healthcare professionals, led by Jill Wynns and Dan Kelly, were rallying around a BOE resolution to get soda and junk food out of the schools by the start of the 03-04 school year? Where were they when the district's student nutrition committee was fighting against bureaucratic logjam to get our healthy nutrition policy approved and implemented? Now that the heavy lifting has been done, now that the crappy garbage which passed for food, and which was being served to some of the most vulnerable kids in the district, has been eliminated, NOW they wake up and start to ask their candidates about this issue... Okay, so I looked at the response from each candidate (which you can check out for yourself here; it is question #19

"What are your views on the schools' dietary offerings for students?"

continue reading...

First up, the Green-endorsed candidates, Jane Kim and Kim Knox.

Jane Kim had this to say:

I think that the current dietary offerings for students are not healthy for their physical or mental development. Studies have shown that students who eat a healthier diet are more prepared to learn. Banning sodas in our schools is a good start, and I support a better school lunch system with freshly prepared meals, rather than reheated canned and frozen offerings. There are some school systems in the country [look up which ones], which have succeeded in creating a healthy and affordable school program and I believe that we can too. We have seen an increase in healthy behavior and academic achievement in Balboa High School after junk food vending machines were banned on school site.

Looks like Jane ignored her own note to herself and failed to "look up which ones" have succeeded in offering healthy and affordable food better than SFUSD. I'll save you the trouble Janie — there are none! SFUSD has the strictest nutrition policy in the country, far stricter than the USDA, which governs school meals. The USDA, to which other districts adhere (as do we) allows the fat and calorie content of food to be averaged over the entire meal, and all of the meals averaged over the entire week. This means that a high fat entrée like chicken nuggets can have their calories and fat content averaged with the fruit, vegetable, bread and milk which make up the rest of the meal, to result in a meal which meets USDA standards. BUT, those nuggets themselves might be way over the USDA limit for fat and calories, and there is no way to ensure that the student who chooses nuggets, fruit, and veg will actually eat anything more than just the high fat nuggets (in fact, caf workers report that many times students do just that, throwing away the fresh fruit and the vegetable.) Same thing if you allow the meals to be averaged out over the course of the week, with a lower fat meal later in the week balancing out a higher fat meal earlier in the week. There is no way to guarantee that the student will eat both the high fat meal and the low fat meal! In the SFUSD, we look at the fat and calories in each entrée, not just each complete meal, and apply the 30% calories from fat and 10% from saturated fat limits to the entrée itself, in addition to applying them to the whole meal. That way, even if the kids don't eat the fruit or veg, they are NOT getting a high fat meal, as they would in another district. And thank you for the kind words about Balboa, but in fact junk food in vending machines has been banned at every school. A list of acceptable products for vending machines is available at www.sfusdfood.org It is up to each site admin to be sure that their vending machines stock only approved products.

Jane's grade: C

Next, Kim Knox:

I like the District's new Grab and Go breakfast. But I would continue to advocate that all students that are hungry should be able to eat. Currently, the district is looking at having students use cards to get lunches. We should instead push for the schools to submit paperwork for every student-to ensure that we get the state funds that we are entitled to for nutrition-but don't brand students who need reduced or free lunch by making them show a card.

Well, Kim, all students who are hungry can eat now, and always have been able to. Some other school districts serve a child who shows up in the lunch line with no money to pay for their food, and no meal application of file, a meal of shame (like a bowl of cereal) along with a sharp reprimand from the lunch lady about "freeloading". Others yank the tray of food out of the child's hands and send them off in disgrace; the mother of a child in Southern California told a friend of mine that when her family was distracted by a crisis and forgot to provide lunch money, their 6th grade daughter was forced to go hungry and actually fainted at school. In the SFUSD, I am happy to say that no child is EVER allowed to go hungry. Kids who show up in line with no money and no meal app on file are given their meal, and the Student Nutrition department absorbs the loss. Unfortunately, such losses, called "cash shortages", can run as high as half a million dollars, and that money has in the past had to come out of the general fund to help SNS balance its budget. The irony is that most of those kids in line with no money and no app on file WOULD qualify for free reimbursable meals if only their families would fill out the form. So this year, an even greater effort is being made to get families to fill out the form, and deal with those cash shortages. But every year, I have gone before the BOE and asked that they continue the policy of never letting a child go hungry, and every year the BOE has been in unanimous support of that position. And you are wrong about the card, Kim. Every student already has a lunch card, and has always had one. They are coded for free, reduced, or paid, but everyone has one and everyone shows one. I think you are referring to the new swipe cards which will debut at Balboa next month. The swipe card (or POS) system will actually use the student's ID card, and again, everyone will have one and everyone will use one. It is not a tool to single out free or reduced kids from paying kids. You do get credit for knowing that there is going to be a new meal card, even if you were unclear on the concept, and of course you get points for liking my pet project, the grab n go.

Kim's grade: B

Next, Dr. Dan Kelly:

They are better than they were a few years ago, since we have established a Nutrition and Fitness Advisory Committee and have banned 'junk food' sales. However, cafeterias still generally rely upon processed foods that are high in salt and fat. No large district has been able to implement a fresh food, locally prepared menu yet, but SFUSD should become the first.

Actually, Dan, the food we serve is not really high in fat (see response to Jane Kim, above) and certainly not as high as what is served in other districts. Sodium content has been a thorny issue for the nutrition committee and one with which we continue to grapple. There are few districts which set limits on sodium (the USDA sets none) and those that do vary from about 600mg per serving to over 1600 mg per serving. Until the USDA sets a limit, it is going to be hard to get food manufacturers to reduce the sodium in their products. And I think what Dan meant to say was that no large district has been able to implement a menu of fresh, locally prepared food UNLESS they had a boatload of outside funding to help underwrite the far higher cost (as in Berkeley, for example.)

Dan's grade: A-

From Kim-Shree Maufas:

I am deeply concerned with the food selections offered to our student population. The amount of processed, packaged, empty- caloried, choices is atrocious! And I believe we are serving better food that many school districts. I recently heard at an UESF/ACORN meeting that a large portion of the food served to our children is packaged in another state, frozen and then sent here for use to re- heat and serve. That is so upsetting. I'm truly sorry that we don't have kitchens that are up to code so that real cooking in our cafeterias can begin again. I'd love to see salads that have lettuce that isn't a clump of wilted yellow iceberg with one-lone tomato for our children as their "healthy choice". I am thankful that we have admitted to recognizing the problem and have removed sodas from out school sites, however, the food selection for "San Francisco's" Public Schools is criminal considering what everyone else eats in the city where they are located.

Oh dear — I thought Jane Kim was uninformed, but at least she has the excuse of not being a SFUSD parent and not really ever going into the schools, let alone the cafeterias. But Kim-Shree has no such excuse. In any event, there are no "empty calories" in the current school food. In fact, "No Empty Calories" is the motto of our nutrition policy, so the fact that she is claiming that the food is full of empty calories just proves to me she has no idea what she is talking about, and is just parroting something someone told her. I too am truly sorry that we don't have the facilities to do scratch cooking here, but even if we did have a state of the art central kitchen (estimated cost 3 years ago - $20 million), there is no way that this district could afford the additional staff required to operate such an enterprise (estimated additional labor cost, BEFORE the most recent SEIU raises — $4-5 million per year, every year) The fact is that SFUSD has by far the highest labor costs in California, and that is a large part of why we are not going to ever be able to afford to do the kind of scratch cooking at every school which we would all prefer. And the several awards that the district has won for their new healthier food, including the recent Victory Against Hunger award from the Congressional Hunger Center in Washington D.C., would contradict her opinion that the food served is "criminal."

Kim-Shree's grade: D-

Finally, [sfschools member] Boots Whitmer:

I support the efforts that Dana Woldow and others have made to improve the quality of food our students eat. I fear it is at times a bit draconian, but otherwise I have few complaints.

Flattery will get you everywhere, Boots. All of us who have worked so hard (as UNPAID VOLUNTEERS) to get rid of soda and junk food in our schools, to improve the quality of food sold in the a la carte lines as well as what is served in the regular lunch lines, appreciate your support. We will continue to work to get rid of trans fat, high fructose corn syrup, too much sodium, and other evils of the food industry, but we can only move as quickly as our limited funding will allow. If money were no object, we could "fix" everything about school food tomorrow, but we are limited by an inadequate government reimbursement system. If the Green Party or anyone else really wants to see major improvements to school food, then they need to be sure to elect Congresspeople who will substantially increase the federal reimbursement for free and reduced price meals the next time the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act comes up for renewal in 2009 (work will begin on this in 2008, so the time to be electing supportive legislators is right now.)

Boots' grade: A