Ah, technology. School buses started rolling again in mid-August in our area, and this year I have not one but two apps on my smartphone that keep me up to date with what’s happening at my son’s middle school—the district’s own mobile app and a school-lunch app that lets me reload funds into his account. On the latter, I also can see what he eats for lunch every day.
While he’s over the novelty of being able to make his own decisions at mealtime, it is one of the few choices he gets to make truly on his own. I can only hope that the wholesome-ish snacks he eats at home will be the same items he chooses when left to his own devices. But they’re not. As the app reveals, his purchase history reads like the receipt of a kid in a sweets store: cookie, ice cream, etc. He’s part of Gen Z; isn’t that supposed to be the plant-loving, transparency-seeking, meatless-musing generation?
As school foodservice directors know all too well, offering healthier options and getting kids to eat them are two very different things. It’s why operators have such a compelling argument against the strict nutrition standards of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the reauthorization of which, at press time, still was lingering in Congress’ halls.
Yet right or wrong, it remains a hard argument to sell. Sure, parents should be moved by the School Nutrition Association’s numbers that say requiring that students grab a fruit or vegetable with their lunch results in $684 million being thrown away every year and that 92 percent of school nutrition operators report serious or moderate challenges due to rising costs.
But a poll released last month by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation finds that 86 percent of Americans support the national standards required by the law, The New York Times reports. And 93 percent say it’s very important to serve nutritious foods in schools to support children’s health and capacity to learn. Is it a matter of how the researchers posed the question? Perhaps. What American would admit they don’t want kids to eat healthy to be smart?
That is the problem. The argument against the regulations is a nearly impossible sell. People care less about the costs to operators than they do about the feel-good nature of what the standards promise. And when the dollars being debated are in the millions, it’s an argument that sails above the heads of many families struggling to make their own ends meet. Just ask any fast-food exec licking his wounds from the recent fights over minimum wage or sodium-labeling requirements in New York City.
Are many school operators voluntarily embracing healthier standards and finding ways to get kids to enjoy more fruits and veggies? Of course. But if the only chorus parents hear is one of resistance, operators may win the battle but risk losing the war.