Catering trucks: Why they're a problem
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is considering legislation to limit catering trucks to a 1500-foot distance from schools.
Why is it a problem when catering trucks sell food to students right outside schools?
A Q&A for students (and adults too)
This is a brief overview. For complete information on school food in the San Francisco Unified School District, go to the website of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.
Catering trucks compete with the school meals program and the district-run a la carte food sales (called Beaneries in SFUSD). “Competitive food sales” at schools are a nationwide concern because they mean more unhealthy food and drinks sold to students, contributing to the national obesity crisis and its related harmful effects. Competitive sales also drain money away from school meal programs. That means the quality of the food in the lunch line suffers. And that impacts the most vulnerable students: the youngest, the poorest, and many disabled students. Those are the students who have no options besides the lunch-line meals (which must meet federal nutrition standards, and in SFUSD must meet the district’s higher nutrition standards). K-5 students' only options are the lunch line or bringing food from home, while low-income and some disabled students' options are limited by money and accessibility.
In SFUSD, when competitive sales cause budget shortfalls in Student Nutrition, that comes out of the school district budget — in other words, the needs of schools, classrooms and students. So competitive sales hurt students and schools in various ways, and hurt the most vulnerable students the most.
But shouldn’t students have choices?
Students with money to spend want choices, but they may not understand the harmful impact on students who don’t have money to spend. Students with money to spend already have the luxury of choosing food options in most middle and high schools. To help cover the cost of running the school meal program, Student Nutrition Services operates the Beaneries, which offer choices like sandwiches, burgers, and salads in addition to the regular school lunch. The wealthier students may buy food from the Beaneries or vending machines, or can bring food from home — and may patronize “profit-sharing” food sales (which are student fundraising sales of restaurant-style foods held in conjunction with the district’s Student Nutrition department).
Many students share a commitment to being mindful of the greater impact of their actions — even minor actions such as purchasing an item made by sweatshop labor. In the case of competitive foods, few students realize that the impact hits our own community, harming the most vulnerable students — the youngest, the poorest and often disabled students. And when sales drop, cafeteria workers can lose their jobs.
If restricting competitive sales results in more money coming in to the Student Nutrition department, the food choices at school will improve. Nearly 60% of SFUSD students qualify for free or reduced-priced meals, and over 21,000 students eat those meals every day. For many of them, the school breakfast and lunch are the only meals they get all day. Should they have to eat poorer-quality food, or smaller servings, because wealthier students want more choices?
What if the catering trucks only sell healthy food?
Even if the trucks sold nothing but organic tofu and sprouts, they would still compete with the school meal programs, draining away money needed to provide meals to needy students and improve the school food for all students.
Additionally, there is no way schools can monitor what catering trucks sell. Some already claim that their offerings are “healthy”, but they sell donuts, Twinkies and snack cakes, drinks that are mostly high fructose corn syrup and water, and hot entrees which are far higher in fat than cafeteria offerings, along with their yogurt and fruit.
My school barely has a lunch program, so we need catering trucks.
Schools wishing to provide more lunch offerings should have the principal request that SFUSD Student Nutrition Services expand the lunch service, rather than assuming that outside vendors should be brought in.
Why call for a 1500-foot distance from schools? That’s a long way.
Some SFUSD high school sites are so large that a shorter distance — measured from the front door — would still allow trucks alongside the building. And trucks that move across the street or down the block, close enough to attract a rush of students, may pose a neighborhood nuisance and a traffic hazard. Catering trucks that are in view of the school are likely to lure students — which is also a problem at closed campuses where students aren’t supposed to leave.
But this would hurt the vendors, and they’re small-business people.
The school district’s priority must be what’s in the best interests of students — especially the most vulnerable students — not the cash flow of an unrelated business enterprise (often one from outside the city).
What about vending machines and corner markets? Don’t they sell junk and compete with the meal program too?
Vending machines in SFUSD are required to stock only healthy items from a district-approved list. As to competition, it’s a matter of degree. Vending machines do low-volume business that poses minimal competition, and they have the advantage of making food available at off hours, such as after school when many students remain on campus for extracurricular activities. And there’s nothing to be done about corner markets, while it’s feasible to limit the unreasonable competition posed by catering trucks driving right up to the schools.
Why is our meal program so short of funds, anyway?
The government reimburses the school district for meals for low-income students, but school districts nationwide get the same amount (except for Hawaii and Alaska, which get a higher rate because of their high cost of living). But the government funding falls short in San Francisco, because the cost of living and the cost of labor here are the nation’s highest — much higher than even Hawaii and Alaska. SFUSD also has a policy of providing a free meal to hungry students who come to the cafeteria with no money, even if they haven’t qualified for government reimbursement (often because their families haven’t filled out the forms). Few, if any, other school districts have the same “no child left hungry” policy.
If school food were better, students wouldn't buy food from the trucks.
A few years ago, SFUSD meals were largely “carnival-style” food, heavy on corn dogs, French fries and packaged, processed apple turnovers. Today’s school food is tastier, more nutritious and healthier, with less fat, more whole grains and fresh fruit, and better quality meat, as well as a wider variety of entrees. However, better food costs more! Students often wish the meals included organic fruit. Unfortunately, a regular apple costs about 15 cents, while an organic apple costs about 26 cents. The food can continue to improve only if Student Nutrition Services has more money to do it. It’s a step in the wrong direction when students flee to catering trucks, because that diverts money away from Student Nutrition, which means there’s less money to make the food better.
Even students who don’t want to buy food at school might want to consider working to bring more money into SNS so that school food can be improved. Apart from patronizing the cafeteria, here are some ways to help:
San Francisco Unified School District Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee
February 2007
— Caroline
Why is it a problem when catering trucks sell food to students right outside schools?
A Q&A for students (and adults too)
This is a brief overview. For complete information on school food in the San Francisco Unified School District, go to the website of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.
Catering trucks compete with the school meals program and the district-run a la carte food sales (called Beaneries in SFUSD). “Competitive food sales” at schools are a nationwide concern because they mean more unhealthy food and drinks sold to students, contributing to the national obesity crisis and its related harmful effects. Competitive sales also drain money away from school meal programs. That means the quality of the food in the lunch line suffers. And that impacts the most vulnerable students: the youngest, the poorest, and many disabled students. Those are the students who have no options besides the lunch-line meals (which must meet federal nutrition standards, and in SFUSD must meet the district’s higher nutrition standards). K-5 students' only options are the lunch line or bringing food from home, while low-income and some disabled students' options are limited by money and accessibility.
In SFUSD, when competitive sales cause budget shortfalls in Student Nutrition, that comes out of the school district budget — in other words, the needs of schools, classrooms and students. So competitive sales hurt students and schools in various ways, and hurt the most vulnerable students the most.
But shouldn’t students have choices?
Students with money to spend want choices, but they may not understand the harmful impact on students who don’t have money to spend. Students with money to spend already have the luxury of choosing food options in most middle and high schools. To help cover the cost of running the school meal program, Student Nutrition Services operates the Beaneries, which offer choices like sandwiches, burgers, and salads in addition to the regular school lunch. The wealthier students may buy food from the Beaneries or vending machines, or can bring food from home — and may patronize “profit-sharing” food sales (which are student fundraising sales of restaurant-style foods held in conjunction with the district’s Student Nutrition department).
Many students share a commitment to being mindful of the greater impact of their actions — even minor actions such as purchasing an item made by sweatshop labor. In the case of competitive foods, few students realize that the impact hits our own community, harming the most vulnerable students — the youngest, the poorest and often disabled students. And when sales drop, cafeteria workers can lose their jobs.
If restricting competitive sales results in more money coming in to the Student Nutrition department, the food choices at school will improve. Nearly 60% of SFUSD students qualify for free or reduced-priced meals, and over 21,000 students eat those meals every day. For many of them, the school breakfast and lunch are the only meals they get all day. Should they have to eat poorer-quality food, or smaller servings, because wealthier students want more choices?
What if the catering trucks only sell healthy food?
Even if the trucks sold nothing but organic tofu and sprouts, they would still compete with the school meal programs, draining away money needed to provide meals to needy students and improve the school food for all students.
Additionally, there is no way schools can monitor what catering trucks sell. Some already claim that their offerings are “healthy”, but they sell donuts, Twinkies and snack cakes, drinks that are mostly high fructose corn syrup and water, and hot entrees which are far higher in fat than cafeteria offerings, along with their yogurt and fruit.
My school barely has a lunch program, so we need catering trucks.
Schools wishing to provide more lunch offerings should have the principal request that SFUSD Student Nutrition Services expand the lunch service, rather than assuming that outside vendors should be brought in.
Why call for a 1500-foot distance from schools? That’s a long way.
Some SFUSD high school sites are so large that a shorter distance — measured from the front door — would still allow trucks alongside the building. And trucks that move across the street or down the block, close enough to attract a rush of students, may pose a neighborhood nuisance and a traffic hazard. Catering trucks that are in view of the school are likely to lure students — which is also a problem at closed campuses where students aren’t supposed to leave.
But this would hurt the vendors, and they’re small-business people.
The school district’s priority must be what’s in the best interests of students — especially the most vulnerable students — not the cash flow of an unrelated business enterprise (often one from outside the city).
What about vending machines and corner markets? Don’t they sell junk and compete with the meal program too?
Vending machines in SFUSD are required to stock only healthy items from a district-approved list. As to competition, it’s a matter of degree. Vending machines do low-volume business that poses minimal competition, and they have the advantage of making food available at off hours, such as after school when many students remain on campus for extracurricular activities. And there’s nothing to be done about corner markets, while it’s feasible to limit the unreasonable competition posed by catering trucks driving right up to the schools.
Why is our meal program so short of funds, anyway?
The government reimburses the school district for meals for low-income students, but school districts nationwide get the same amount (except for Hawaii and Alaska, which get a higher rate because of their high cost of living). But the government funding falls short in San Francisco, because the cost of living and the cost of labor here are the nation’s highest — much higher than even Hawaii and Alaska. SFUSD also has a policy of providing a free meal to hungry students who come to the cafeteria with no money, even if they haven’t qualified for government reimbursement (often because their families haven’t filled out the forms). Few, if any, other school districts have the same “no child left hungry” policy.
If school food were better, students wouldn't buy food from the trucks.
A few years ago, SFUSD meals were largely “carnival-style” food, heavy on corn dogs, French fries and packaged, processed apple turnovers. Today’s school food is tastier, more nutritious and healthier, with less fat, more whole grains and fresh fruit, and better quality meat, as well as a wider variety of entrees. However, better food costs more! Students often wish the meals included organic fruit. Unfortunately, a regular apple costs about 15 cents, while an organic apple costs about 26 cents. The food can continue to improve only if Student Nutrition Services has more money to do it. It’s a step in the wrong direction when students flee to catering trucks, because that diverts money away from Student Nutrition, which means there’s less money to make the food better.
Even students who don’t want to buy food at school might want to consider working to bring more money into SNS so that school food can be improved. Apart from patronizing the cafeteria, here are some ways to help:
- buy bottled water at school. Most Americans don’t drink enough water, and the brain is one of the first organs to be affected by dehydration. Student Nutrition profits from each bottle of water sold in the cafeteria or Beanery. To avoid the line at lunch, buy water before school during breakfast service in the caf.
- write to federal and state legislators, asking that the money the government provides for school meals in San Francisco be increased to reflect the higher cost of labor here,
- contact the Board of Education and the Board of Supervisors to ask that funds from Prop. H be designated for higher-quality school food
- ask the Board of Education to make school nutrition a high priority, including enforcement of the Wellness Policy, and to make sure that better nutrition is a high priority during the search for a new Superintendent.
San Francisco Unified School District Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee
February 2007
— Caroline
Labels: Nutrition
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home