nourishing the nation one tray at a time

8/8/2019 Nourishing the Nation One Tray at a Time

1/16

Nourishing the Nation One Tray at a TimeF r Sc Ini i iv s in C i N ri i n R riz

NatIoNal FaRm to SChool NetwoRk

CommuNIty Food SeCuRIty CoalItIoN

SChool Food FOCUS


2/16

My job is to isten to the presi ent, who is the u timateision makerThe ision is, he wants more nutritious foo

in schoo s. In a perfect wor , e erything that was so ,e erything that was purchase an consume , wou be

oca so the economy wou recei e the bene t of that.One thing we can o is work on strategies to make thathappen. It can be grant programs, oan programs, it canbe technica assistance.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom VilsackWashington Post 2.11.09


3/161

School meals are an important way to turnaround our nations burgeoning obesityepidemic. Consider the ollowing:

Obesity rates among children havedoubled in the last 10 years and tripled

or adolescents.

27 percent o U.S. children are overweight.

1 in 3 children born in the year 2000 willdevelop diabetesmake that 1 in 2 i thechild is black or Hispanic.

For the rst time in 200 years, todayschildren are likely to have a shorter li eexpectancy than their parents.

Like school ood services, todays amilyarmer is acing numerous challenges to make

a living o the land. The armers share o every ood dollar has dropped to 19 cents

rom 41 cents in 1950. As a result, manyarmers have a hard time just breaking even.

Three hundred thirty arm operators leave thearm every week, and the average age o armers nationally is 57 years. The U.S., with

only 2.2 million armers, now has moreprisoners than armers.

There is a solution that can help turn around both o these trends: arm to school. Schoolmeals orm a potentially lucrative market,estimated at more than $10 billion per year.Farmers who sell to schools can augmenttheir income and stay on the land. Yet todays

amily armer doesnt have very good accessto this market.

Farm to school programs ensure that ourchildren eat the highest-quality ood available.These programs deliver ood that not onlynourishes childrens bodies immediately, butalso knowledge that enhances their educationalexperience and cultivates long-term healthyeating habits. They are a win-win or kids,

armers, communities, educators, parents,and the environment.

Thanks to the e orts o social entrepreneurs,arm to school programs have blossomed on

their own in thousands o schools across the

country. Think about what they could do withactive support rom USDA.

Restore the Right of A Chi ren to Access Hea thy Foo in Schoo

Sc s r vi p r f r r sp nsibi i ns r n g n r i ns. I pr ving q i f sc s, n ing cc ssib

c i r n, is ss n i r n i ns f r . m r n 30 i i n c i r n scs , 180 s r. ov r p s 60+ rs, sc s v pn i n i pr ssiv s ri s r i pr ving c i n ri i n n r cing c

ng r. y in r c n rs, sc s r c nfr n ing n c ng s. Scs rvic s r g ing n p i b pr vi i s i f . S r

n rg c s s, r f f s f si sc c p s, n nci pr ss rig s b g s n i inis x r v n s s n in f f sb pr vi n ici s s sc c i r n.


4/162

The Chi Nutrition ActEvery our or ve years, an opportunity arises

or all concerned with the health o our nationschildren to evaluate, de end, and improve

ederal Child Nutrition programs. These

programs were born in the post-World War IIera with the goal o improving national securitythrough improving the nutritional status o

uture soldiers. They were expanded in the1960s and 1970s as part o civil rights strugglesto reduce hunger and poverty. Now, in 2009,with our nations health security and thesurvival o amily arming at risk, its theper ect opportunity to revamp Child Nutritionprograms to enable more schoolsand morechildrento bene t rom the healthy meals

and educational opportunities that arm toschool programs can provide. The currentChild Nutrition Act expires in September2009, and Congress is moving quickly to enactthe next version.

In 2004, the National Farm to School Programwas established as part o the Child NutritionAct reauthorization, creating a seed grant und

or schools to set up arm to school programs.This program received a $10 million author-ization, but never was appropriated unds.Following this legislation and the tremendoussubsequent growth and interest in arm toschool programs, the time is ripe to implementpolicies that include locally and regionallygrown oods in national meal programs.

WHAT IS FARM TO SCHOOl? N ris ing i s n c ni

In 40 s s, s n s in v r 2,000 scis ric s r ing f r -fr s f f r scnc r br f s . F r sc n b s v r

c i v cc ss n ri i s f isi n s b n ing c ni n

c f r r b pr vi ing c nsis n , r i br . In i i n s pp ing n ris ing,c gr n f in c f ri r c ssr s,

f r sc pr gr s f n s ff r n ri i nn gric r c i n r g s s s,

sc g r ns, c p s ing pr gr s, n f rrs. S c xp ri nc s p c i r n n rs n

r ir f c s fr n ir fc ic s ff c ir b i s, nvir n n , n

ir c ni i s rg .

Both the food itself and the experiential educations rr n ing i r q ss n i s cc ss

f f r sc pr gr s in c nging ingbi s f r b r. w n sc s v n g s f ing pr c b n ff r i in

s, ir s n s r b ing g n ingbut shown another. Schools need to give students

c nsis n ss g , r inf rc r g n s-

n xp ri nc s s c s gr ing f in scg r n, visi ing f r rs r , s ing npr c s, n v ping c ing s i s is rv ir iv s. t s in g s givs n s vivi n s ing i pr ssi ns f

ig s f gr ing n ing fr s -picpr c , n p n rs n r fcomes from and how it is grownknowledge thatsb n s n riv b r i r c ic s.

If sc f c n i pr v fi s, v p n r ing pp r ni i s f r

f r rs, n s pp r c c n , i s in- in f r v r n .


5/163

1946

Pr si n h rr tr nsigns N i n Scl nc ac (NSla).

1966

t r bi i n sc ss rv 19 i i n c i r n.C ngr ss p ss s C iN ri i n ac (CNa), cr ing

- r pi pr j c f r Sc Br f s Pr gr ,

s b is ing f s rvicq ip n ssis nc pr gr ,n incr sing f n s f r s

s rv n s n s.

1969

a w i h sC nf r nc n h ng r,Pr si n Ric r Nix ns s i s c

n ng r in a ricn s b is s fr n

r c -pric nc s f rn c i r n.

1972

t N i n S f drinass ci i n in r c s n

n n i in ing r s ric i ns n c p i ivf s. V n ing c in s

n r sc s.

1973

J n m r, Nix ns n ri i nvis r, rns Pr si n

f r ning n i npi ic f b si .

HISTORICAl HIGHlIGHTS

1978

t C r r a inis r i ni p n s CNRs s gr g ins,incr sing igibi i , r cing pric s, n incr sing br f sr i b rs n s.

1981

ov r b g c f 28 p rc nff c s ip c i n ri i n pr gr s:ppr xi 2 i i n c i r n rr pp fr N i n Sc

l nc Pr gr , $10 i i n FS rvic eq ip n Pr gr is

i in , n c p n picr is r c r v g b s.

1994

Sc s r q ir nc s c nf r di r G i in s b 1996.

uSda s b is s t N ri i n nnc s h Sc m s

Ini i iv s pp r i pr vn s insc nc n incr s n ri i n

c i n f r c i r n.

2004

t f r g v rn nriz s N i n F r

C f ri Pr gr n cr sSc w n ss P ici s.

lEGISlATIvE HISTORY

2002

l ng g is in r c in F rBi g gr p ic pr f r nc ,

r pr f r nc f r c p rc sing,n v ping bi sp ci c i ns f r

gric r pr c s. t gis ivpr p s s n p ss.

2004

N i n F r Sc Pr gr isriz in s in 2004 C i

N ri i n R riz i n. (a gs b is , pr gr s n

r c iv n f r f n ing.)

2008

F r Bi ng g ing g gr p icpr f r nc b c s s f r fr s fr i s

n v g b s, ggs, i , b gg gr ns,iv s c , n p r . C nv rs i ns c n ini uSda v r nc f c pp r

s ic pr c s s c s s ic pp sn cp c s, br cc i r s, r ic ni ns.

1996

S n m nic uni Sc dis rici p n s f r rs r s b r.In F ri p n n , f r rs in N N r F ri C p s c rgr ns 13 sc s in G s n

C n . B pr gr s r ins cc ssf n s s in b .

2000

uSdas agric r m r ing S rvicrg niz s f r sc r s psr n c n r . In gr n -br ing

ings, f r rs n f s rvicr pr s n iv s c g r f r firs

i isc ss i p n f r sc pr gr s in k n c , I , nor g n. S c pr gr s s bs q nspr in b I n k n c .

2002

Firs r gi n F r C f ri c nf r nc is

rg niz C rnuniv rsi , i ssis ncfr univ rsi f

N h ps ir .

2004

m r n 350 n s n Firs N i n F r C f ri

C nf r nc k n n C g inc n r o i . R s rc p r is

nc : .f r sc . rg.

FARM TO SCHOOl HIGHlIGHTS | MOvEMENT HISTORY

2008

Sc F FoCuS nc , s i s pp r f w.k. k gg F n i n, p

rb n sc is ric s i 40,000 r rs n s s rv r f , s s in bpr c , n r gi n s rc f .

2009

ov r 2,000 f r sc pr gr sr c iv in 40 s s, c p r i

j s n f in 1997.

2007

t N i n F r Sc N r , c b r i n f C ni F

S c ri C i i n n C n r f rF & J s ic occi n C g ,is s b is i f n ing fr w.k. k gg F n i n.


6/164

Chi renExisting research shows that arm to schoolprograms infuence students on many levels,increasing their knowledge and awarenessabout ood sources, nutrition, and eating behaviors and li estyles. Eating locally sourcedproducts becomes part o the educational

ramework that turns kids on to healthier oodoptions. A connection with the source o their

ood also deepens students appreciation orood and agriculture. The major impacts o arm to school programs on children, collatedrom various programs, are:

The choice o healthier options in theca eteria through arm to school mealsresults in consumption o more ruits and

vegetables (+0.99 to +1.3 servings/day)and at home. For example, studies inPortland, OR, and Riverside, CA, have

ound that students eating a arm- reshsalad bar consume roughly one additionalserving o ruits and vegetables per day.

Better knowledge and awareness aboutgardening, agriculture, healthy eating,local oods and seasonality. In Philadelphia,the percentage o kindergartners who

knew where their ood came rom increasedrom 33 percent to 88 percent a terparticipation in a arm to school program.

Demonstrated willingness to try out newoods and healthier options. In one school

in Ventura, CA, on days in which there wasa choice between a armers market salad

bar and a hot lunch, students and adultschose the salad bar by a 14 to 1 ratio.

Reduced consumption o unhealthy oodsand sodas; reduced television watching

time; positive li estyle modi cations suchas a daily exercise routine.

d r S c B r , w I r ng cr nc nc n 2 s f .h xp c s s ? h

xp c s iv i fw , I p s ing.

Letter rom a student at Davis JointUnifed School District (CA) to the

School Board supporting theDavis Farm to School Salad Bar Program

Bene ts of Farm to Schoo

t j r i s f f r sc ppr c r c i r n, c ni i s. F r sc pr gr s r b s n pr is s

c s i r f s, inc ing r fr i s n v g b s, if pr c s r fr

gr n, n pic p f ir v r n if s c ic s r r inf rc i n c ivi i s. F r sc pr j c s pr vi b n s n ir

c i r n, f r rs, f s rvic s ff, p r n s, n c rs.

t gr r xp s r f r -fr s fr i sn v g b s, gr r i i c i i . In is miss ri s

83 p rc n gr n pr c s i s

r s s. April, 2007 issue o the Journal o

the American Dietetic Association


7/165

FarmersHistorically, local armers have ound itdi cult to access school- ood markets, giventhe complexities o the procurement process.Farm to school programs open up that multi-

billion-dollar market to amily armers. Datarom arm to school programs suggests thatwhen schools dedicate a signi cant percentageo their purchases to local producers, local

armers gain a signi cant and steady market.

w r c iv ing r n j s fr . t is is b c ni ; is is b

r i ns ips.

Iowa Farmer: Michel Nash

For example, the New York City school districtsigned a $4.2 million contract with armers inupstate NY to provide apples or NYC schoolsover a three-year period. The 60 arms providingproducts to local schools in Massachusetts,meanwhile, are generating more than $700,000in additional revenue each year. For mostparticipating armers, school sales represent 5to 10 percent o their total sales.

Some o the bene ts reported by participatingarmers are:

Diversi cation o market;

Positive relationships with the schooldistrict, students, parents, and community;

Opportunities to explore processing andpreservation methods or institutionalmarkets;

Establishment o grower collaboratives or

cooperatives to supply institutional markets.

Foo Ser icesWith high overhead costs, the nancial viabilityo school ood services o ten depends on theirability to increase the participation o payingstudents and adults. Farm to school programstypically increase the participation rates in schoolmeal programs, enhancing the overall nancialviability o participating school ood services.

The Massachusetts Farm to School projectnoted that Worcester Public Schools have seena 15 percent increase in school lunch purchasessince the district began buying locally. Studentlunch participation in one school in SouthernCali ornia increased by over 50 percent in the

rst two years the arm to school program wasin place. Overall, schools report a 3 to 16percent increase in participation in schoolmeals when arm- resh ood is served.

lOCAl FARMERS HAvETWO AdvANTAGES

PrOCedUre w c n g fr s , igq i , n s f pr c ins i i ns

i in 24 rs f r rv s , inc ing p s - n ing pr c r s.

relatiOnShiP t b r n gr rv r , f c - -f c n g f n

n r, ic pr s r nsp r nc n r s .

ap r fr n s b n s f ingfr s , c f , m r ann l p z, S win s rsSc N ri i n Sp ci is n F S rvicdir c r, s s i s g f r r b g : F r rs s

pric b ginning f s s n n s s p s s s n. In c n r s , ring

in r, n s b s fr n i n is rib rs,r pric c s b c s ir f c s

fr iff r n v n rs cr ss c n r .

F r six r ig s I g s,I g f r s pric , ic pss bi iz b g , l p z s s. F r s, i s

in- in si i n. w g s pp r f r rsin r c r : w r s n c n

p n n. In rn r i s r s ing, wr i is.


8/166

Increased participation can cover the additionallabor costs associated with ood preparation o

arm to school programs. Through a detailedcost analysis o 2006-07 purchases, MissoulaCounty Public School District ound that

buying some local oods in season (apples,cantaloupe, carrot coins and shredded carrot,potatoes, and salad mix) was either lessexpensive or no more expensive than what itwould have cost to purchase comparable oodsthrough mainstream suppliers.

Food service sta participating in arm toschool programs show increased:

Knowledge and interest in local oodpreparation;

Knowledge regarding seasonal recipes;

Interest in interacting with teachers tostrengthen classroom-ca eteria connections.

ParentsIncorporation o a parent-education componentthrough a arm to school program can ensurethat messages about health and local oods arecarried into homes and rein orced there byparents and caregivers. Farm to school education

inspires parents to incorporate healthier oodsinto their childrens and their amilys diets and better equips them to do so through bothshopping and cooking tips. In a project inVermont, 32 percent o parents with partici-pating children believed that their amily diethad improved since their childs participationin the program. In another project in Philadelphia,78 percent o parents with participatingchildren reported that their children ate more

ruits and vegetables.

Many parents have exhibited:

Gains in ability and interest in incorporatinghealthier oods in amily diets;

Greater interest in guiding children to

make healthier choices; Positive changes in shopping patterns to

incorporate healthy and local oods.

TeachersFarm to school programs also a ect teachersin positive waysa very important and o tenoverlooked outcome, as teachers are rolemodels or students in all areas, especiallyregarding healthy li estyles and eating.Some e ects:

Demonstrated positive attitude andeagerness about integrating arm to schoolrelated in ormation in curriculum;

Positive changes in personal diets andli estyles, including but not limited topurchasing arm to school meals in theschool ca eteria.

In u.S., i s pic f i 1,500 2,400 i s r v fr f r p .

a f C if rni c s ipp w s ing n, dC, r q ir s 36 i s r f

n rg j s r nsp r n c ric fn rg i pr vi s.


9/167

Chicago Pub ic Schoo sEach school day, the 600-plus schools in theChicago Public School (CPS) district serveabout 385,000 lunches and break asts, 83percent o which are ree or discounted. Amore health ul school meal program meanshealthier kids both now and in the uture.Chicago Public School district is working with

armers and processors located within 150miles o the city, including in Michigan,Wisconsin, Iowa, and Indiana, to serve reshlocal ruit and vegetables to more than 300,000students all year long. By doing this, Chicagohas ound a cost-e ective way to make reshlocal produceincluding apples romMichigan, as well as corn, peas, carrots, andgreen beans rozen within 48 hours o harvest accessible and available to studentsyear-round, not just in the summer.

In 2007, the district took a bigger step toproviding resh and more health ul ood or itsstudents. Partnering with its main ood servicecompany, Chartwells Thompson Hospitality,it decided to put resh ruits and vegetables onthe menu twice a week. The change in oodprocurement creates a healthier meal orstudents, since the nutritional content o resh

ood is ar greater than canned ood and especiallymore than highly processed or ried ood. Theswitch to local produce also makes economicsense, thanks to rising shipping costs.

However, the districts changed procurementplan has created so much more regionaldemand or arm- resh ood that it strains thelocal supply, as many armers have priorcommitments to other large institutions.Another issue acing the district is nancial:

the ederal reimbursement rate has not keptup with infation and the rising costs o oodand labor. In 2007, CPS ran a $23 millionde cit in its ood service program.

For Chicago Public Schools to continueimproving the diets o its students, reimburse-ment rates or school meals need to be raised sothat they are in step with current costs. The nowoutdated procurement model or school mealshas not refected a demand or resh, morehealth ul ood. This model needs to change, andschools and districts need support as they workto improve procurement systems.

Increased supply o resh oods rom the regionsurrounding Chicago is one clear exampleo the need targeted in our call orincreased

unding or scaling up ood procurementbyaddressing gaps in ood handling and in ra-

structure, and orincreased technical supportbyUSDA in partnership with city and stateagencies as well as community based non-pro tand armers organizations.

Ri ersi e, CA Uni e Schoo districtIn March 2005 the Riverside Uni ed SchoolDistrict (RUSD) in Riverside, Cali ornialaunched its Farm to School Salad Bar Programin Je erson Elementary School with support

rom the Cali ornia Endowment and in

partnership with the Center or Food & Justice. Since the implementation o the Je erson salad bar, the program has expandedto 22 schools. The success o the Riversideprogram is due in large part to RUSDsNutrition Services Director Rodney Taylor.Mr. Taylor was previously the ood servicedirector at the Santa Monica-Malibu Uni ed

Farm to Schoo Case Stu ies

h r r s x p s f f r sc s r f r r sc is rin f r rs c p r iv . t s s ri s s i s r c ng s

v f c , ic c n b r ss b f r p ic c ng s.


10/168

School District, where he implemented one o the countrys rst arm to school programs.

Riverside County is a historic agriculturalcounty in Southern Cali ornia. Once abundantwith citrus groves and apples orchards, thecounty now has one o the astest growingpopulations in the nation, and agricultural landis rapidly being lost to housing developments.For these reasons, Taylor saw arm to school asparticularly important or Riverside andsought to make the program as locally- ocusedas possible. Through local armers markets heidenti ed two small amily armers locatedwithin 30 miles o the City o Riverside whowere willing to make weekly deliveries to thedistrict. When produce isnt available rom thetwo growers arms, they look to otherindependent growers in the area to providethe needed items. Taylor spends about$250,000 per year in ood purchases romlocal arms.

The main component o the Riverside Farm toSchool program is a daily salad bar o ered tostudents as an alternative to the hot lunchmeal. The salad bar is stocked with as muchlocal produce as the district is able to purchase.

In the peak growing seasons nearly all o theruits and vegetables served are rom local

sources, in slower months the salad remainsabout 50% local, owing to the year-roundgrowing season in Southern Cali ornia.Approximately one quarter o students choosethe salad bar on any given day. An unexpectedresult o the program at Je erson has been anearly 9% increase in overall school mealparticipation, including exponential growth inthe number o teacher meals served.

Grant unding has allowed Taylor to hire anutrition specialist/ salad bar coordinator tooversee the program. This person has becomekey to the programs success and sustainability.The coordinator serves as a liaison betweenthe district and the armers, placing produceorders with the local armers each week. This

kind o start up unding has been essential toRiverside and many other schools to implement

arm to school programs. Yet, ew schools haveaccess to the private oundation dollars thatRodney Taylor, because o his history and

connections with community groups, has had.For arm to school programs to become thenorm across the country, ederal seed grant undsneed to become availableto help schools makethe transition to healthier oods.

New York City Pub ic Schoo sBecause o the sheer size o the New York Cityschool systemit serves 850,000 meals everyday o the school yearchanges in its school

ood procurement have a huge opportunity to

have a positive impact on childrens health.Successes in several o the school systems

arm to school partnerships over the past ewyears can shine light on new ways to get reshand more health ul ood to kids in publicschools. Jerry Dygert o Champlain ValleySpecialty has teamed up with the schools tosell Grab Apples. Millions o New York stategrown apples, pre-sliced and -bagged, have been purchased by New York schoolchildren.NewYork Citys ood service division estimatesthat kids are eating our times as many applesas they used to. To make the partnershippossible, Champlain Valley Specialty had toinvest in in rastructure changes in order to beable to cut and bag the applesa presentationthat was attractive to kidsin the quantitiesneeded by NYCs schools.

The districts struggles to expand to otherproducts point to the kinds o support andresources school districts will need to turn the

tide o ill health o American children. Locallygrown sliced and bagged carrots have not yetenjoyed the success o apples, even though thedistrict has been working with producers ormore than two years to try to get resh carrotsto New Yorks schoolchildren. As the districtserves 285,000 pounds o baby carrots truckedin rom araway states, it seemed like it should


11/169

be an easy, not to mention cost-e ective switchto use carrots grown close to the city. Thedistrict wanted to serve carrots in the sameway they serve pre-sliced, pre-bagged apples because it is too labor-intensive to hand-cut as

many carrots daily as they would need. Butarmers and producers would have to invest ina di erent in rastructure to cut carrots. Thismight initially drive costs up and out o thepurchasing price range: current ederal andlocal laws require distributors to purchase theleast expensive product, meaning schools havenot been able to give pre erential treatment tolocal products.

Outdated procurement regulations are amongthe systems that must change or school mealsto o er the more health ul ood they wereoriginally intended to include. Growers o other resh ruit and vegetables, as well as NewYork dairy and meat producers, haveexperienced similar rustrations in getting armproducts into schools. Well-intentioned schoolshave also had a hard time navigating the oodpurchasing bureaucracy. A May 2008 piece o New York State legislation called the HealthyFoods Act sought to improve such regulations

by giving armers greater access to selling totheir local schools, making it easier or bothgroups to serve healthier oods to kids.

Reauthorization o child nutrition programsin 2009 can help re orm and streamline state procurement regulationsollowing the 2008 FarmBill, where the geographic pre erences havenow been allowed or school districts. Theneed ormore technical and fnancial supporttoaccomplish the goals o bringing more health ul

local oods to New York City school meals isrefected in the call or evaluating and modeling best practices in more complex and largerscale procurement systems.

New North F ori a Cooperati eOne o the pioneers o the arm to schoolapproach, the New North Florida CooperativeAssociation, Inc. (NNFC), has been workingwith school districts since 1995 to provide

resh produce or school meals. This group o innovative A rican-American armers60 to100 armers based in Florida, Georgia, Alabama,Mississippi, and Arkansashas served morethan a million students in 72 school districts.

NNFC began selling to Gadsden County schoolsduring the 1996-1997 school year, and since thattime has rapidly expanded, selling to a total o 15 school districts. The association initiallyreceived fnancial assistance, mainly or the purchaseo in rastructure and equipment to expand processingand distribution, along with a $40,000 grant romthe USDA Agriculture Marketing Service.Although grant monies were used in the initialstage o this program, approximately 90 percento the unding or the NNFCs marketing e ortsnow comes rom direct marketing sales, whichcontributes to the sustainability o the arm toschool program today.

North Florida, where the program initially began, is an economically depressed area with

high unemployment rates. Farm to school wasa boon or all sides o the equation: armers,land use, children, schools, community, and thelocal economy. Farmers saw that sourcing toschools would create a new market that could bring stability, pro tability, and organization tosmall operations that could not survive on theirown. From the ood service perspective,integrating resh local produce into schoolmeals was a nutritionally sound decision that bene ted children, the local economy, and

community. Its a win-win-win situation.


12/16

POlICY SOlUTIONS

WHY AMERICAN CHIldREN NEEd US TO CHANGE FEdERAl PROGRAMS

ev r c i s rv s pp r ni f in sc ns r s ir n b in ris n f r c i r n is princip s r b c b r i n f rg b N i n F r N r , C ni F S c ri C i i n, n Sc F FoCuS. e c rg niz i n r pr s n s cci iz ns, c ni i s, n p b ic ins i i ns cr ss uni S s r ing in inn v iv s i pf s rv in sc s. t N i n F r Sc N r r s i sc s, f r rs, f s rc i r n, p r n s, n c ni i s pr vi ing ir c c nic ssis nc g f r sc pr grgr n . t C ni F S c ri C i i n b i s s r ng c n r gi n f s s s, spp c s r p r cc ss f is pr v n . Sc F FoCuS r s i rg rb n s

is ric s bring r r gi n s rc n s s in b pr c f sc s vi cpr c r n p ici s.

t g r, r pr s n i i ns f a ric ns s pp r ing p ic s i ns : r s r rig f c i r n cc ss g f in sc ; c n inf r c ni i s b f n i s i p c n

b ing f c i r n; n c nn c f r rs, sc is ric s, f s rvic c p ni s, n gr i s

f s s iv ring sc nc .

Nin n s s cr ss c n r v p ss p ici s s pp r f r sc ini i iv s. S s p s i f r sc pr gr s, i s ff in d p r n s f agric r r e c i n,t v c nic s s pr f r nc f r sc s b c f r g p ic s n

bi ing pr c ic s, r c s pr f r nc s f r in-s pr c s r nging fr 5 25 p rc n . t v p c nn c f r rs n sc f s rvic s r g bsi s n b s s.

t f r g v rn n c n rn fr x p f s s s. t 2004 C i N ri i n ac rinc j s n pr visi n n f r sc : s gr n pr gr i $10 i i n in iscr i n r f

s f i r c iv n ppr pri i n. B f r sc pr j c s r gr ing xp siv , p ic s r gi s r n c p r is n n pr p n x v .

t p ic r c n i ns in is c n r s i ns r f ir a ric n c i r n, sc sf pr c rs, n c ni i s. t f ing is s s ff c iv s w s ing n c n r b nc a ric n c i r n in sc s. w p i j in s in r ff r n ris n i n, n r

10


13/1611

AddITIONAl PRIORITIES

Increase Use of Foo s From RegionaFoo Systems in Schoo Foo Programs

Encourage purchasing o local ruits and vegetablesthrough the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.

The schools selected or this program should be urged to buy rom local arms and sourcesas easible. Buying locally reduces transportationcosts and related environmental impacts, andsupports the local economy. Research showsthat production methods or ood (i.e. organic,less pesticides, etc.) are important to childrens

health. Production standards should be part o the standards set or ood provided to ourchildren similar to nutritional standards.

Increase technical assistance to school ood servicesand coordination among education, health, agri-culture, and procurement agencies or productsourcing, bid specifcations, and menu planning or all child nutrition programs that purchase local oods.

Food preparation using whole oods rather thanhighly processed oods is better or childrenshealth. To implement arm to school programs,

ood service sta may require training in speci careas such as procurement, product handling,and seasonal menu development. Training inthese areas will help to build the skills o oodservice sta and urther institutionalize armto school programs.

Increase Reimbursement Ratesan Impro e Access for ChiNutrition Programs

Increase school ood reimbursement rates by at least35 cents per meal or school districts that achieveexcellence in providing nutritious school meals.

Food services operate under incredible nancialconstraints, especially as the cost o ood hasincreased in the past year. Improvements in thequality o meals require the commitment o

Priorities for Chi Nutrition Reauthorization

TOP PRIORITIESEnact $250 mi ion o er 5 years, with $50 mi ion man atory, for Section 122: Access toloca Foo s an Schoo Gar ens for grants to schoo s. This would und 100-500 projects peryear up to $100,000 to cover start-up costs or arm to school programs. These competitive, one-time grants will allow schools to develop vendor relationships with nearby armers, plan seasonalmenus and promotional materials, start a school garden, and develop hands-on nutrition educationto demonstrate the important interrelationship o nutrition and agriculture.

Estab ish a farm to institution initiati e within the Secretary of Agricu tures Of ce.Thisinitiative will help provide national leadership to a rapidly growing movement, helping toconsolidate and guide the various policies and programs necessary to expand and institutionalize

arm to institution across the country.

Increase fun ing for impro ing an e a uating schoo foo procurement.The challenges o arm to school in large school districts include bridging the many gaps in supply-chain and ood-

handling in rastructure. USDA, together with national and state agencies and non-governmentalorganizations, should collaborate to share and per ect best practices or increasing local and regionalprocurement o school ood, including evaluation o programs across the country.

Community Foo Security Coa itionNationa Farm to Schoo Network

an Schoo Foo FOCUS


14/1612

additional unds. Reimbursement rate increasesshould be made available to school districts onthe condition that they use the unds or oodsthat help them meet dietary guidelines, such as

ruits, vegetables and whole grains.

Eliminate the reduced-price category or school meals and extend ree meal eligibility to householdswith incomes up to 185% o poverty level.

Currently children rom amilies with income between 130-185% o the poverty level are eligible

or reduced price school lunch. The 40 centsper meal charge can be a barrier or participation by low-income amilies, resulting in increasedchildhood hunger during the school day.

Strengthen Operations & Infrastructureof Chi Nutrition Programs

Enhance and und ood service training programs todevelop a skilled work orce that can prepare whole

oods, practice health ul and sa e cooking, procurelocal ood, develop seasonal menus, and promote positive diet behaviors among students.

Based at the University o MS, the NationalFood Service Management Institute provideson-site and remote learning opportunities orstate and ood service leaders on a variety o topics related to child nutrition programs. Toimplement arm to school programs, oodservice directors may require training inspeci c areas, such as procurement, producthandling, and seasonal menu preparation.NFSMI can help to build ood service directorsskills and urther institutionalize arm toschool projects through speci c training inthese areas.

Strengthen Nutrition Stan ar sfor Schoo Mea Programs anCompetiti e Foo s

Require all oods served where Child NutritionPrograms operate to meet or exceed national standardsconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines or Americanson the entire campus throughout the school day.

Currently USDA has the ability to regulate thenutritional content o those oods served as parto a ederally- unded child nutrition program.Yet, schools make available other oods duringthe day through vending machines, competitive

meals, student stores, and sales. It is up to theederal government to set nutritional standardsas a foor, and allow states or districts to developmore stringent guidelines as desired.

Support Foo an Nutrition E ucationan A ocacy for Hea thy Foo s

Provide consistent and mandatory unding or TeamNutrition to use proven, e ective and experiential educational programming in child nutrition

programs, such as culinary pro essionals in schools,school gardens, arm to school programming, and cooking with students.

The childhood obesity epidemic, along withincreased rates o chronic diseases in childrenand skyrocketing healthcare costs, demonstratethe need or a more comprehensive nutritioneducation and promotion program, coordinatedwithin and across child nutrition programs.Under the current competitive grant structure,states continue to have minimal or no unding

or nutrition education and promotion. TeamNutrition, USDAs primary method orproviding nutrition education in schools, hasnot received an annual appropriation or thepast our years. The Society or NutritionEducation proposes a one cent per school lunchallocation to this program ($69.8 million/year). This program should be directed todevelop curriculum that includes in ormationon gardening, cooking education, and otherexperiential nutrition education.

Maintain the Integrity of the WIC FMNP

Whereas the Fruit & Vegetable component o the new WIC package allows all types o produce (canned,

rozen, and resh), the FMNP provides access to reshlocal produce exclusively. This distinction needs tobe maintained.


15/16

Community Foo Security Coa itionM g e sPolicy Coordinator Community Foo Security Coa ition

110 m r n av . Ne S i 307w s ing n, dC 20002

: 202.543.8602g n@f s c ri . rg

f x: 202-543-0978.f s c ri . rg.f r sc . rg

Nationa Farm to Schoo Networkd b esc m yOutreach Director Nationa Farm to Schoo NetworkCenter for Foo & Justice, Urban anEn ironmenta Po icyInstitute, Occi enta Co ege

1600 C p s R , mS-m1l s ang s, Ca 90041

sc r@ x .: 419.753.3412.f r sc . rg

Schoo FooFOCUSS d v soPolicy Working Group Manager Schoo Foo FOCUSc/o Pub ic Hea th So utions

220 C rc S , 5 F rN y r Ci , Ny 10013s i @ iq ri n ss ci s.c

:845-339-2824.Sc F FoCuS. rg

COME JOIN US!

Nationa Farm to Schoo Networkt N i n F r Sc N r i pr v s s n b r cing c

b si , s pp r s c ni -b s f s s s, n s r ng ns f i f r s

N r is c b r iv ff r f C n r f r F & J s ic , occi n C C ni F S c ri C i i n (CFSC). wi f n ing fr w.k. k gg F N r c r in s, pr s, n xp n s f r sc v n s

n n i n v s. eig r gi n g nci s n n i n s ff pr vi fr r inissis nc , inf r i n s rvic s, n r ing, n s pp r f r p ic , i , n r ing

Community Foo Security Coa itiont C ni F S c ri C i i n is N r a ric n rg niz i n260 b r gr ps c nc n r n s ci n c n ic j s ic , nvir n nn ri i n, s s in b gric r , c ni v p n , b r, n n i-

n g r r ic b i ing s r ng, s s in b , c n

s s s. CFSC r s ns r p p v cc ss i s n ri i s, n c r ppr pri f . CFSC nc r g s c ni i s b c sb ining ir f n cr s s f gr ing, n f c ring, pr c ssing, n is

f is s s in b , j s , , n cr ic. t c i i n ff rs b n f r ining, n r ing, n v c c s r gi s f r r ff r s f gr ssr s gr pff c iv s i ns fr gr n p.

Schoo Foo FOCUSSc F FoCuS is n i n ini i iv ps rb n sc is ric s i 40,00s n s s rv r f , r s s in b pr c n r gi n s rc f s

p rf r b r in sc n b i r in if . F n b w.k. k gg F n

nc in 2008, FoCuS r s i sc f s rvic ir c rs n r sc c , n z , n s f s s n p r- s r s rc sp r c ng in

s. FoCuS s pp r s n r f xp r s r ng ging ir big-ci sc iss s s c ng n s f ci i s s ring f b s pr c ic s n ss ns rn .

ViSitJ in s in r ff r n ris n i n, n r i . F r s inf r i n on tr c p ign n n rs is p ic p f r , visiwww.o y.o g.

a o s o c ck w y.

COntaCt


16/16

Nourishing the Nation One Tray at a Time

nourishing the nation one tray at a time

Documents