Marc D'Amico, Principal of Glenville elementary school in Greenwich, Connecticut, was in the news yesterday for taking a stand on child nutrition and upping the ante on setting standards for healthy school lunches. He actually banned the sale of ice cream and cookies in the school cafeteria. Way to go Marc! You are a child nutrition hero.
He and the PTA co-President saw too many kids eating cookies and ice cream instead of the healthy lunches their parents packed for them and decided enough is enough. "They go right for the desserts. It's been my ongoing observation that the lunches that parents pack don't always get eaten by the children," D'Amico said. "(Parents) hold a lot of trust that we make sure kids eat the lunch first, and then go for the cookies."
"I feel it's my responsibility," D'Amico said of upholding healthy eating at the school. D'Amico said he already has received several e-mails from supportive parents glad to hear about the change, which he expects to be permanent.
I had to send him a congratulatory email and just let him know what a great example he has set for other school officials. How many others will ante up?
Showing posts with label school lunch reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school lunch reform. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Harkin Tries Again to Reform School Lunch Via an Amendment to the Farm Bill
You gotta love Senator Tom Harkin (D Iowa, Charman of the Agricultural Committee) if you are a better school food activist. He has been trying for umpteen years to improve the nutritional profile of foods served in school cafeterias across the nation. This time around he worked with the food and beverage manufacturers and CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) to address limiting unhealthy foods other than the standard school lunch and packaged it as an amendment to the farm bill. Here's the NYT article link http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02school.html?em&ex=1196830800&en=ad6345970eafea98&ei=5087%0A. Hot lunch (reimbursable meals in food service lingo) which is governed by the Department of Agriculture, would therefore not be impacted. Too bad.
But some are not lovin' this amendment because it would preclude individual states from passing stricter legislation, although individual districts could. In a pig's eye they would! So we in Connecticut for example would see our stricter legislation superceded by the amendment. What exactly does this mean? Well our current law bans the sale of soda and sports drinks in schools but the amendment provides an exemption for flavored low-fat milk in elementary schools and diet soda and sports drinks in high schools, albeit in smaller serving sizes.
So this is a classic example of how well-intentioned efforts to make sweeping changes for the betterment of society get compromised. There are so many players, each with a finger in the pie, so the pie just can't get smaller without one crying foul. (Gosh, does this conjure an image of pigs feeding at a trough?)
I feel obligated to point out that the fat, sugar, sodium and calorie limits this amendment would impose on so-called a la carte and snack foods is a welcome relief. In Connecticut we have an optional provision to our state law which awards financial incentives to limit fat, calories and sugar in snack foods, but not all districts adopted the new standards. So you still see 300 plus calorie snacks and super-sized snacks in many districts. This would eliminate that ongoing issue, hopefully once and for all.
So, the way I see it, it boils down to a tradeoff between allowing diet soda and Gatorade in high schools and finally eliminating super-sized snacks and excessive fat, sodium, and sugar in a la carte foods across the board. And if you don't like that tradeoff, start lobbying your local board of education to set stricter guidelines. As they say in Spanish, "Cuando el chancho vuela" (When pigs fly).
But some are not lovin' this amendment because it would preclude individual states from passing stricter legislation, although individual districts could. In a pig's eye they would! So we in Connecticut for example would see our stricter legislation superceded by the amendment. What exactly does this mean? Well our current law bans the sale of soda and sports drinks in schools but the amendment provides an exemption for flavored low-fat milk in elementary schools and diet soda and sports drinks in high schools, albeit in smaller serving sizes.
So this is a classic example of how well-intentioned efforts to make sweeping changes for the betterment of society get compromised. There are so many players, each with a finger in the pie, so the pie just can't get smaller without one crying foul. (Gosh, does this conjure an image of pigs feeding at a trough?)
I feel obligated to point out that the fat, sugar, sodium and calorie limits this amendment would impose on so-called a la carte and snack foods is a welcome relief. In Connecticut we have an optional provision to our state law which awards financial incentives to limit fat, calories and sugar in snack foods, but not all districts adopted the new standards. So you still see 300 plus calorie snacks and super-sized snacks in many districts. This would eliminate that ongoing issue, hopefully once and for all.
So, the way I see it, it boils down to a tradeoff between allowing diet soda and Gatorade in high schools and finally eliminating super-sized snacks and excessive fat, sodium, and sugar in a la carte foods across the board. And if you don't like that tradeoff, start lobbying your local board of education to set stricter guidelines. As they say in Spanish, "Cuando el chancho vuela" (When pigs fly).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
