Reminder: Kids' health takes priority in SFUSD
This message is from Dana Woldow,
chair of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.
A reminder to school staffs and parent groups:
As school begins again, please remember that the SFUSD’s federally mandated Wellness Policy prohibits the sale of food at school (beyond the cafeteria) during the school day; this includes all sales by parents, school staff, or students, including student or parent run school stores, bake sales, or classroom food sales. Please do not plan fundraising events around the sale of any kind of food, especially any kind of candy, during the school day. The only exception is the 4 days a year when high school students are allowed to sell food for fundraising for their clubs.
In June 2007, the Board of Education amended the Wellness Policy to include all food sent to school for sharing, such as food for parties, celebrations, or classroom snacks. The Child Development Program is included in the Wellness Policy. For more on food sent to school for sharing, click here.
For a quick and easy guide to finding healthy snacks for sharing at school, click here.
Or choose from this list.
Teachers are reminded that they may not sell food from their classrooms during school hours, including lunchtime, nor may they sell food during lunchtime performances, Brown Bag Theaters, etc.
For more on why such food sales are prohibited, click here.
To read the SFUSD’s Wellness Policy, click here.
For more information on student nutrition or the Wellness policy, click here.
chair of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee.
A reminder to school staffs and parent groups:
As school begins again, please remember that the SFUSD’s federally mandated Wellness Policy prohibits the sale of food at school (beyond the cafeteria) during the school day; this includes all sales by parents, school staff, or students, including student or parent run school stores, bake sales, or classroom food sales. Please do not plan fundraising events around the sale of any kind of food, especially any kind of candy, during the school day. The only exception is the 4 days a year when high school students are allowed to sell food for fundraising for their clubs.
In June 2007, the Board of Education amended the Wellness Policy to include all food sent to school for sharing, such as food for parties, celebrations, or classroom snacks. The Child Development Program is included in the Wellness Policy. For more on food sent to school for sharing, click here.
For a quick and easy guide to finding healthy snacks for sharing at school, click here.
Or choose from this list.
Teachers are reminded that they may not sell food from their classrooms during school hours, including lunchtime, nor may they sell food during lunchtime performances, Brown Bag Theaters, etc.
For more on why such food sales are prohibited, click here.
To read the SFUSD’s Wellness Policy, click here.
For more information on student nutrition or the Wellness policy, click here.
Labels: Enrollment, Nutrition
9 Comments:
Do you have any personal experience with the SFUSD Revolution Food contract?
The information states it is " organic" when possible, but I have no previous experience with this vendor?
Comments?
Thank you.
I know our committee has looked into it, and if I'm recalling right, they are far out of SFUSD's price range and also can't handle the volume we need.
This post has been removed by the author.
A reminder to administration:
Please stop exploiting students by selling them terrible tasting food that they have to buy/eat because there is no other available food to them due to money issues or convenience. As much as students (at least the ones who take the time to think about this) hate to pump money into the school lunch program with its failure to put out good-tasting food and continual disappointment, they have no choice as they have no other options.
All parents know that it is possible to make healthy and delicious food.
The administration should also be reminded that informed students continue to be amused that SFUSD pays patronage to the Coca-cola and Pespi companies despite its celebrated (by both informed students and parents/community) crusade against such companies and their mainstream products. Speaking of bottled water, why are students encouraged to buy such water? Why aren't the water fountains being fixed and maintained so students can drink tap water with the pretense that the water fountains are clean? We live in San Francisco with some of the best tap water in the state (even Facebook groups attest to this); SFUSD definitely should tap (if you would pardon the pun) into this asset and stop condoning the waste plastic bottles produce.
____
This informed student suggests that everyone sitting on Ms. Woldow's esteemed committee, including herself, should eat the students' food (cafeteria [preferred] and beanery) for breakfast and lunch every schoolday for a month. Ms. Woldow and her colleagues should only have a budget of 5 dollars a day. After said month, they should report back to their esteemed committee how they felt and if they would do it for eight more months. Their reports are significant but are only partially reflective (if at all) by students who go through K-12 in SFUSD.
This informed student is also amused by the Parties policy. She challenges SFUSD to keep in mind all the schools that don't have a dedicated lunch period. When would parties be held? [Now parties can't be banned! How else will students socialize during class?] How are teachers to have educational parties at such schools? How can a Chinese teacher set the environment up for Chinese New Year if sweets aren't offered?
If SFUSD want schools to stop fundraising, SFUSD needs to start fundraising so that students do not buy juices that have more grams of sugar than diet soda. Students understand that administration prevents sales of soda in order to not condone the consumption of ANY soda, but by selling student a worse alternative, no one is benefiting but the school lunch program which will continue the never-ending cycle of feeding kids terrible-tasting food.
By the way, if you can ban soda, you definitely can ban Bovine Growth Hormones.
--Lowell senior
Hi, Lowell senior --
You might want to check out some of the materials on the Student Nutrition and Physical Activity website (www.sfusdfood.org), starting with "Why Can't We Have Better Food in Our Schools?"
http://www.sfusdfood.org/pdfs/btfdfaq.pdf
Which of the meals do you find "terrible-tasting"? While I fully agree that our school food needs to improve -- and along with many other unpaid volunteers, such as Dana Woldow, am working to make that happen -- I have found too often that when a student blasts the caf food as "terrible-tasting" and unhealthy, it turns out they actually haven't tried it. But if you're one of those who do eat the food, it's very useful to find out which items you don't like. The Student Nutrition Department does listen to student input and tries to act on it.
While I only rarely get a chance to sample the caf food, I know that Ms. Woldow eats it frequently, and student members of the committee eat it every day at school.
Can you explain what you mean about SFUSD "paying patronage" to Coke and Pepsi? As a longtime member of the SFUSD Student Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee, I'm not aware of any business relationship at all, but if there is such a thing we need to deal with it swiftly and decisively.
The parent volunteer activists who provided the impetus on the SFUSD Wellness Policy had to fight the clout of the mega-powerful soda industry in banning soda from our schools.
I'm proud to say that I was the author of a California state PTA resolution that helped lead to the statewide ban on soda sales in California schools that's now being phased in. But the soda industry has fought such legislation tooth and nail, and still has the schools in most states in its grip. This is a battle between children's health advocates and powerful industry interests.
The bottled water question is a good one, especially now that the environmental issues are seriously on the radar. Basically the answer is that there's consensus that it's worth it to get kids drinking something that contributes to their health rather than harming it, and kids are known to drink much more water when they can carry around a bottle rather than just pausing at a drinking fountain.
While you're correct that 100% fruit juices also contain sugar (and there's a lot of discussion about whether they should be provided in schools for that reason), they also contain nutrients. So for that reason, no nutritionist would view them as a "worse alternative" than soda, and that's why they're sold at schools while soda isn't. Diet soda is a matter of debate, though I have never heard of a food purist who isn't concerned about the chemicals in the artificial sweeteners.
SFUSD is not banning fundraising, of course. There are fundraisers going on every day that don't involve selling unhealthy food. The www.sfusdfood.org website provides information on non-food fundraisers and also on a setup for profit-sharing that allows student clubs to collaborate with SFUSD Student Nutrition.
You'll also be happy to know that the Wellness Policy does ban Bovine Growth Hormone, along with soda.
Dear Caroline,
First, I would like to point out that the list of beverages Ms. Woldow provided says that milk should have preferably no Bovine Growth Hormones, not that the hormone is banned. Perhaps it is mentioned elsewhere that the hormone is banned but I have not seen it.
I have a bottle of Aquafina here and it says on the back in very tiny print "Bottled by the Independent Bottlers Under the Authority of PespiCo, Inc. " I know that Dasani is bottled under the authority of The Coca-Cola Company. Both of these brands of bottled water encouraged by the Beverage list that was found on the Parties.pdf. Lowell sells at least one of these brands in the vending machines (which one, I don't know... it's been a long summer).
I apologize for accusing SFUSD is banning fundraising. It is hard to prove the easiest way to fundraise is to sell "unhealthy" food otherwise, and by forbidding such sales during the best time to sell, SFUSD puts an appearance of discouraging fundraising.
I completely support the SFUSD's quest on feeding students nutritional meals but the shaker salads (which remind me of McDonald's discontinued produce), hamburgers, and sandwiches taste terrible. So does the cole slaw, tuna melt, beans and rice, fried rice, and meatloaf and white rice from the cafeteria. (I could probably list more things that I do not like if this was during the school year) I like the fruit cups but there is no way that can be healthy seeing the amount of high fructose corn syrup they appear to use. And as for my background in eating school food, my elementary school participated in a program where everyone was served free lunch and I can't remember any incident when I brought a lunch to school unless it was a field trip. In middle school, I qualified for reduced lunch and continued to eat that. When I got to Lowell, I started with free lunch but by the sophomore year, I had to pay for lunch and I started bringing my own with many incidents of paying for beanery or cafeteria food.
I would also like the point out that stupidity of selling chocolate milk with the free lunch. I don't know if this is SFUSD's policy or just Lowell's policy, but chocolate milk is 35 more cents with the free/reduced meal. When I went to middle school, and I think even freshmen year, we chose between white and chocolate milk with no extra charge. Now, if the extra charge is to discourage students to drink milk that has added high fructose corn syrup then why offer it at all? It seems to be acting against the fact that low-income students are more likely to choose unhealthy food.
Caroline, thank you for sending me the FAQs. I am bothered by the contradiction one answer offers. It is mentioned that Preferred meals offer fresh bread shipped from Chicago. Chicago?! You mean fresh bread from Chicago, Illinois? [pauses for dramatic effect]
Also, is it possible to ask OK Produce to stop sending us what looks like the unsellable parts of their crop? Produce schools receive look puny and ready to be put in the compost. Beggars can't be choosers yes, but we're not beggars, we're the future activists, learners, and thinkers.
The bread served at scratch kitchens are frozen. I read that correctly, no? That's... not fresh.
If we are going to encourage students to eat nutritious meals by only serving them that, then why can't SFUSD do the same with tap water? Sell plastic reusable bottles in the vending machines instead of bottled water. Verbally and visually encourage students to drink tap water. By using the same philosophy as meals we can get students to drink tap water instead of wasting money on bottled water.
--Lowell senior
Hi sfazncitygurl -- Sorry for this long response.
If you read the Wellness Policy itself, its language is clear:
"1% or fat free (skim) milk; enriched rice, nut or soy milk (may be “lowfat”); flavored milk may
contain no more than 40 grams of sugar total per 12 oz. (27 grams of sugar total per 8 oz.), including
both naturally-occurring and added sweetener; NO BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE; maximum size 12 oz.
Rice, soy or nut milks must be enriched with calcium to at least 30% of the RDA per 8 oz. serving, or 40% of the RDA per 11 oz. serving; maximum size 12 oz."
I don't know why the word "preferably" is in the other list, so I can see why it's confusing.
I should be clear that the independent vendors who stock the vending machines are not banned from stocking them with products from any specific companies (including Coke and Pepsi) as long as they meet the Wellness Policy standards (water and 100% juices).
But the idea that the district is making some kind of deals with Pepsi and Coke is not accurate, if you see the distinction -- no exclusive pouring rights contracts, no trades allowing logos on school property -- that stuff was put to a stop in the '90s by the anti-commercialization policy, though it's rampant in other school districts.
Would you also call for banning all products from specific companies if they do meet the wellness policy? Which companies would you ban; where would you draw the line?
It's not the SFUSD administration doing business with those vendors; the vending machines are brought in by various entities within the schools, which contract directly with vendors (those names you see on the stickers on the machines). It could be the English Department of the football team or the school office or who-knows. It's a very random situation and a poor way to do business. The Wellness Policy includes a recommendation that SFUSD bring them all under one contract with the district. Carlos Garcia embraced this idea and wants to push it.
The Wellness Policy puts students' health ahead of money, which I think most enlightened, thoughtful individuals would believe is a radical, populist and morally righteous priority. Did you know that the general belief among health professionals is that your generation will be the first generation in modern history to live shorter average lifespans than your parents' generation -- ENTIRELY because of obesity and related disorders? The devastating impact hits hardest in low-income communities of color.
You also need to appreciate that volunteer activists had to FIGHT the bureaucracy to get much of the policy implemented. So it's not a story of evil heartless bureaucrats forcing a brutal repressive policy on the oppressed masses by depriving them of soda.
There is no high-fructose corn syrup in the fruit cups -- see the Wellness Policy for the nutrition standards!
I appreciate that school food has a history of being poor-qualify. But we have done a lot of work since 2003, and while it's not where it should be, it's improving. Also, when you say parents know it's possible to serve healthy, delicious food -- if you tell any parent they have to do that for less than $1 per meal, which is the amount Student Nutrition has to work with, they would immediately declare that it can't be done.
So that's the heart of most of your complaints -- the fact that Student Nutrition has a pathetic amount of money to work with. Student Nutrition is also continually badgered by the money folks at SFUSD to break even, which would require cutting yet MORE corners with the food. I think the school board -- in response to complaints from unpaid volunteer Dana Woldow and the rest of the committee -- has grasped that it needs to tell the money people to LAY OFF and stop telling Student Nutrition to cut corners at kids' expense.
Your earlier comment implies that you think Student Nutrition is profiting, but now that you've read some of the materials you can see that's not the case.
Since I know you're aware and have followed this issue, you surely understand what we've repeatedly emphasized -- that "competitive sales" such as student fundraising harm Student Nutrition's financial situation and force it to cut still MORE corners. When that happens, it's the most vulnerable children who suffer the harm -- the youngest and the poorest, who have no choice but to eat the lunch-line meals.
So is it just for student clubs to push for the right to sell food as fundraisers when that's the collateral effect -- to harm the poorest snd the youngest students? Talk about social injustice. That's not what I want my kids to learn at school!
I saw the Lowell newspaper when Revolution Youth was protesting the new food policy a couple of years ago. You know that my son participates in protests with Revolution Youth, and I support and admire that. But it was SO misguided to come down on the side of those -- led by Big Soda -- who put money ahead of the health of children and youth.
There are a few basic reasons that Student Nutrition has so little money to work with:
1. The reimbursement that the feds and the state provides for the meals for free- and reduced-lunch students is laughably low in a high-cost area like San Francisco. There's a totally antiquated cost- of-living boost in the reimbursement formula for Alaska and Hawaii, but none for any ACTUAL high-cost areas.
2. The threshold for qualifying for free- and reduced-price lunches (set by the USDA as part of the National School Lunch Program) is similarly cruelly low for San Francisco. That's why the cost of the lunches to "paid" students (those who don't qualify for subsidy) has to be kept low.
3. SFUSD has a "no child left hungry" policy, which means a student who goes through the lunch line with no money still gets a meal. Other districts either provide a "meal of shame" such as a bare-bones and publicly humiliating cheese sandwich or bowl of cereal -- or let the child go hungry. I met a parent from Orange County at a PTA convention who told me about this situation that happened to her child: The family had an 8-year-old hospitalized with leukemia, and a middle-schooler. Their school district has a lunch card that you load like a BART card. The middle-schooler didn't tell her parents the card had run out, and they were distracted with the hospitalized child. The middle-schooler fainted from hunger one afternoon, since their district in free-market Republican Orange County has a "no money, no food" policy. (She tried to hide it from her overwhelmed parents.) So this is what SFUSD does not do.
But that policy also costs SFUSD a bundle.
Are there solutions? The true solution would be for the feds and the state to provide realistic reimbursement that covers a decent meal.
The more-realistic immediate solution will be for the city to step and commit to feeding the community's children decently -- otherwise it gets dumped on the school district, which has to take the money from classroom needs if it wants to improve the mails. The city has made that step with the grant that provides the salad bars, and we are going to continue to push for them to take on that responsibility permanently as a community commitment to the community's youth.
But again, I hope you now appreciate that when you come down on the side of fundraising food sales, you are calling for harming the most vulnerable students; and when you attack the volunteer parent activists who have fought (on our own unpaid time) to make our food healthier, you're endorsing putting money ahead of kids' health, and you're supporting Big Soda and the bureaucrats who are in its thrall -- a position the free-market right would love.
Oh, and in that very long answer I neglected to address the water question. It seems worth pursuing the idea of selling reusable water bottles, though the health benefit of drinking ample water means I don't know that I'd call for banning the sales of bottled water completely. That's a valid point to raise and address, though.
the relative "health benefit " of drinking ample water is totally offset by the still unknown health consequences of drinking the chemicals from the plastic along w/ the H20 ; as well as the known global issue of plastics in our trash heap forever.
i go with the old fashioned water fountain or refillable bottle.
thanks for debate!
Post a Comment
<< Home