912638199

Alicia Jackson

DFM 353G (01)

Ms. Walsh

03/ 09/ 16

How our Government and Schools are Handling Childhood Obesity

With Childhood Obesity being one of the top problems affecting American Families

today, in the past 5 years, our Public School Systems have made many changes to try and create

a healthier generation. In 2010, President Barack Obama created our countrys first-ever Task

Force on Childhood Obesity. The purpose of this Task Force is to develop and implement an

action plan to tackle childhood obesity within a generation. Their main goal is to reduce the

childhood obesity rate to 5% by 2030, the rate before childhood obesity became a major problem

in the late 1970s (Childhood Obesity Task,2010) . Today about 17% of children and adolescents

2-19 years are obese, and this has been relatively consistent for the past decade, with about 1/3 of

children and adolescents 6-19 years being overweight (Childhood Obesity Facts, 2015). In

addition to starting the Task Force, President Obama also passed the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids

Act (HHFKA) in 2010. This bill is aimed at updating "Federal nutritional standards for school

meals and improving nutritional quality of USDA commodities provided to schools (Solving the

Problem ,2010, p. 39). Upset by many of the new strict guidelines, aligned with the School

Nutrition Association, many school officials are pushing back and want the option to opt out of

the HHFKA. While on paper the HHKFA is great, the real issues lie in the

realistic implementation of these nutrition guidelines into the school lunches, and getting the

children and parents to accept them.

1
 912638199

One of the first large steps against childhood obesity, the HHFKAs main goal is

enhancing school nutrition quality by aligning the National School Lunch and School Breakfast

Programs with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Not only do these guidelines apply to

the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs but also to all competitive foods sold

a la carte in the school stores and vending machines on campus. The HHFKA not only controls

the foods served but also how those foods arrive on student plates. It gives the Secretary of

Agriculture the "authority to establish national nutrition standards for all foods sold on the school

campus throughout the school day. [As well as] directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) to develop model product specifications for USDA commodity foods used in school

meals (FRAC, n.d.). Schools who meet the updated nutrition standards will receive an increase

in federal reimbursement rate for school lunches by six cents per meal. This is an incentive for

schools to change their menus and offer students healthier choices.

To accommodate these changes, schools Food Service Managements will have to make

some large changes. Before the HHFKA most school lunches were heat and serve, and

foodservice operations were created around that. To produce healthier lunches, foodservice

operators will need knowledge in menu planning, scratch cooking training, fresh sourcing, along

with updated equipment that goes past steam-jacketed kettles and tilted braising pans (Smythe,

2013). While all these changes sound good for the schools and the children, the issue lies in the

logistic and financial implications of these guidelines. The School Nutrition Association

(SNA) has aligned with many school officials and food-industry advocates to challenge the

problems these guidelines pose. The SNA is a professional organization representing school-

lunch programs. Members include school cafeteria workers, directors, and companies that

2
 912638199

manufacture and supply food and equipment to districts (Sandhu, Simsek, Manthey, 2015). The

main problems the SNA has raised concerns about are the increase in operating costs, food

waste, a decrease in school-lunch participation, and a difficulty meeting some of nutrition

requirements in the HHFKA. With school district budgets already tight, many schools do not see

these requirements from the HHFKA to be possible in application. Therefore, the SNA is pushing

congress for more funding and flexibility of the school meals. They are also pushing for the

option for schools to opt out of providing the healthier meals required by the HHFKA if these

schools experienced a 6-month net loss of revenue (Sandhu, Simsek, Manthey, 2015). Overall,

the SNA is pushing for leniency in funding and meal plans, but if not offered they want schools

to have the option of not participating in the HHFKA.

With the guidelines to receive federal funding under the HHFKA being very strict, many

schools loose money. Any school that accepts federal funding for the National School Lunch

Program must comply with the guidelines, but realistically this is proving to be difficult. The

USDA only pays schools back $2.98 for each lunch that is served to a child eligible for free

meals. This means the rest of the money for healthier, more expensive meals comes out of the

schools budget (Leonard, 2015). Many schools face significant financial challenges since the

new mandates went into effect, and the increase in six cents per lunch is proving to be

inadequate. We lost 15 percent of our revenue when we started putting the Healthy, Hunger-

Free Kids Act into place, said Chris Burkhardt, director of child nutrition and wellness at the

Lakota Local School District in southwestern Ohio (Hoffman, 2015). Mr. Burkhardt is one of

many administrators who's school experienced significant financial losses. The executive

director of Detroit Public Schools Office of Nutrition, Betti Wiggins, explained that her program

lost a million dollars the first year the regulations took place (Hoffman, 2015). These financial

3
 912638199

losses are not only coming from the cost of the food, but the cost of labor and infrastructure to

produce different foods. While the schools are on board with cutting highly processed, heat and

serve foods that are contributing to the childhood obesity problem, the costs of labor and

infrastructure to cook from scratch is higher. Implementing the new nutrition requirements

requires up to date cold storage and food preparation facilities, as well as trained workers. For

schools that already have these equipment in place, this may not be as large of an issue, but

lower-income schools are finding these changes harder to handle. The federal government has

provided around $200 million for school kitchen improvements, since 2009, but projected needs

for these improvements nation wide is significantly higher (Siegel, 2016). To cover all of these

costs the SNA is pushing congress to increase the amount of money refunded per meal from 6

cents to 35 cents (Leonard, 2015).

Another large concern of the SNA and opposers of the HHFKA is food waste, which

leads to financial losses. Currently under the guidelines "created by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, students are required to take half a cup of fruits and vegetables but are allowed to

take up to 2 cups (Leonard, 2015). This is a major concern of administrators and food service

directors, because these forced foods are ending up right in the trash. A study done by the

University of Vermont found that food waste has increased by 35% since the USDA mandates

were put in place in 2012 (Welch, 2015). Schools are having difficulty getting students to accept

the new foods and standards without an understanding of why they were put in place. This is

why schools are pushing for more leniency in the school lunches, as to not waste food and even

further, loose participation in the school lunch program all together. Laura Metzger, the director

of food and nutrition services for Westonka Public Schools believes an improvement in nutrition

education that tells students why they should have fruits and vegetables will be more productive

4
 912638199

than forcing students to take them (Leonard, 2015). An increase in nutrition education may be

exactly the solution to this problem.

Child participation among students who are not eligible for free lunches is the last

problem that the SNA has expressed, but reviews from the public send mixed signals. While

many children have difficulty adjusting to the new menu, others are getting an opportunity for a

meal that they never would have had through the free lunch program. The number of

students, paying full price for school lunch has been decreasing by an average of nearly 5%

annually since the 20072008 school year, while the number of students qualifying for free

meals has been increasing (Sandhu, Simsek, Manthey, 2015). Through the Federal Initiative,

"more than 6.4 million students at nearly 14,000 schools are receiving...free meals, according to

statistics released by the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (Stein, 2014). HHFKA has proven

to be vastly beneficial for low-income schools with students who would have gone hungry, but is

still questionable in its affect on childhood obesity. Some schools show an increase in fruit and

vegetable consumption while others show an increase in food waste. Many parents approve of

the new lunch programs under the HHFKA but send their kids mixed signals with the food they

serve at home. Some parents find it difficult to keep up with the health standards at school due to

various circumstances, but many are blaming it on parent denial of their own child's health. In a

recent study done on Childhood Obesity, researchers found, more than three-quarters of parents

of pre-school-age obese sons and nearly 70 percent of parents of obese daughters described their

children as about the right weight. (Hoffman, 2015). Parents do not want to accept that

anything may be wrong with their child's weight, and do not want to personally make the

changes needed for their children's success. Having children understand the nutrition guidelines

at school requires parent involvement and participation. This lack of participation among parents

5
 912638199

is likely linked to the lack of participation of students paying full price for lunches. If parents

become better involved and informed, this may lead to more student participation as well as

more funding to create a well rounded program that benefits students and schools.

A solution to many of these problems may be giving the students simple nutrition

education. This might help students understand why they need to eat more fruits and vegetables,

and what the fatty foods are actually doing to their bodies. With this understanding, students will

hopefully make the right choices about what they eat and there will be less waste of the fruits and

vegetables student are forced to take. This nutrition education will also help the overweight and

obese children have a deeper desire to change their eating habits at home as well, creating strong

nutritional values for their futures. Children are often weary of trying new things and foods. A

knowledge of food, simple preparations, and a tasting of how healthy foods can be good can also

go long ways in helping children adjust to the new nutrition guidelines.

Reference List:

Baidal, J. A., & Taveras, E. M. (2014). Protecting Progress against Childhood Obesity The
National School Lunch Program. New England Journal of Medicine N Engl J
Med, 371(20), 1862-1865. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://
www.nejm.org.jpllnet.sfsu.edu/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1409353#t=article

Cluss, P. A., Fee, L., Culyba, R. J., Bhat, K. B., & Owen, K. (2014). Effect of Food Service
Nutrition Improvements on Elementary School Cafeteria Lunch Purchase

6
 912638199

Patterns. J School Health Journal of School Health, 84(6), 355-362. Retrieved

February 10, 2016.

Highlights: Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 Food Research & Action Center. (n.d.).
Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://frac.org/highlights-healthy-hunger-free-
kids- act-of-2010/

Hoffman, J. (2015, June 15). Parents Denial Fuels Childhood Obesity Epidemic. Retrieved
February 10, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/health/parents-
denial- fuels-childhood-obesity-epidemic.html?_r=0

Leonard, K. (2015, March 13). Advocates, States Take a Bite Out of School Nutrition Law.
Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/13/ advocates-states-take-a-bite-out-of-
school-nutrition-law

Siegel, B. E. (2016, January 15). The Real Problem With Lunch. Retrieved February 10, 2016,
from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/opinion/the-real-problem-with-
lunch.html

Smythe, M. (2013, January 1). The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and Its Effect on School
FoodserviceSo Far. Foodservice Equipment & Supplies. Retrieved from http://
www.fesmag.com/features/foodservice-perspectives/10448-the-healthy,-
hunger-free-kids- act-and-its-effect-on-school-foodserviceso-far

Stein, L. (2015, February 09). More Students At Poor Schools Getting Free Meals With Federal
Initiative. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/ federal-initiative-free-school-
meals_n_6298408.html

United States., White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. (2010). Solving the problem of
childhood obesity within a generation White House Task Force on Childhood
Obesity report to the President (pp. 37-46). Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of
the President of the United States.

Welch, A. (2015, August 25). School lunch fruits and veggies often tossed in trash, study finds.
Retrieved March 05, 2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/school-lunch-
fruits-and- veggies-often-tossed-in-trash-study-finds/