Orell Fitzsimmons. HISD breakfast entrée on March 5.
In a recent Houston Chronicle op-ed, my colleague and I called on our local members of Congress to focus on obesity prevention as a primary goal of the Child Nutrition Act when it is reauthorized later this year. We base this recommendation on our recent research showing that, at least for young children, receiving subsidized meals at child care or school can help prevent excessive weight gain — preventing obesity problems before they begin. Of course, the nutritional quality of those meals determines how successful school meal programs are in combating (versus fueling) the childhood obesity epidemic. We are not alone in making this point. In fact, the administration has asked Congress to increase the amount paid to schools for each meal, and to require that these additional funds are used to improve the nutritional quality of meals served. Research suggests that this step will further enhance the obesity-prevention power of these programs and will pay big dividends later in the form of reduced health care costs, increased productivity, and overall well-being. So we remain hopeful that federal food assistance programs, such as the School Breakfast and Lunch programs, can be restructured to promote the twin goals of preventing obesity and decreasing hunger and food insecurity.
Yet, we know that substantial barriers stand in the way of efforts to increase the nutritional and health benefits of school meals. In this time of economic crisis, there is already increased demand for food assistance among hungry children and families, and so it will be particularly hard to make the case that we should be spending more for each of the increasing number of meals served. In fact, it is more likely to see policymakers cutting back on food assistance. Just this week, it was reported that the Houston Independent School District (HISD) will cut the wages of cafeteria workers, eliminating some positions all together. HISD Superintendent Terry Grier has attributed the significant budget shortfall to mismanagement, specifically citing the practice of providing “platinum” meals with ingredients such as pricey fresh fruit.
At the same time, critics of the current HISD food program (pre-funding cuts) already question the quality of the food served to our children, such as the inclusion of pop-tarts (albeit whole grain pop-tarts) as one of the primary meals served as part of the First Class Breakfast program. We agree that school meals should be much healthier — and are quite concerned that the budget cuts supported by Superintendent Grier will further undermine the ability of the School Lunch program to serve as a tool in the anti-obesity toolbox.
Adding to the fiscal challenges, federal food policy continues to face basic questions about its legitimacy as an appropriate form of governmental involvement in our lives. This critique was expressed quite clearly by many Houston Chronicle readers who commented on our op-ed. One reader wrote, “What’s needed here is to get government at all level out of the school meal business and turn that responsibility over to parents where it rightly belongs.” While another asked questions including, “So at what point do these ‘future constituents’ learn the skills for life that will help them become self-sufficient?” and “If they learn early on that the government will always pay their way, where is the incentive to better one’s lot in life?”
This reaction is not surprising in response to a government program that involves intervening in the day-to-day activities of young children and their families — a policy space typically fraught with concerns over a “nanny state.” However, we question the assumption that providing meals (particularly healthy meals) to hungry children crosses over into “nanny state” territory. First, as shown by our research and that of others, children who receive school meals are healthier, less hungry and better able to learn — this benefits us all. Second, rather than fostering an unhealthy dependence on government, providing food to hungry school children serves as a critical ingredient in providing children an opportunity to develop as healthy, educated, and self-sufficient citizens. This goal — of an opportunity society — is a long-standing one in the United States. Its ingredients include programs such as food assistance that help families get through hard times, and children thrive in the face of economic insecurity.
Rachel Tolbert Kimbro is an assistant professor of Sociology at Rice University and a Rice Scholar at the Baker Institute. She co-authored this blog post and the March 4, 2010 op-ed, “School lunch programs can reverse child obesity” with Elizabeth Rigby, an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Houston.