January 4, 2004

As a mom, I can tell you that the customer isn't always right - my kids would eat candy 24/7 if I let them.  So, in my last job, as a senior official at the US Department of Agriculture, I was dumbfounded when representatives of the pear industry unveiled a new product designed for the National School Lunch Program --individual plastic containers of processed pears in cotton-candy flavored syrup.

I rejected the product over the pleas of desperate pear growers who needed a market and food service providers who liked the convenience and anticipated popularity of this proposed "fruit" item.

More than 25 percent of Americans under 19 are overweight or obese; while sugary fruit may count toward the five-a-day recommended servings of fruits and vegetables, it can't possibly help establish healthy eating patterns.  There has to be a better way.

School lunch is served to 27 million children daily, with 57 percent of them receiving the benefit of reduced or no cost.  By all accounts, this program has been phenomenally successful in enhancing children's health and ability to learn.  Bust escalating costs, particularly labor, and the elimination of most full-service kitchens from our schools may be eroding this bedrock of child nutrition.  Almost 20 percent of public school cafeterias, for example, now sell brand-name fast food, such as Taco Bell, to raise revenue and cater to student food demands.

A healthy new school lunch alternative has test run in several states.  It began in 1997 when one Florida county rewrote the rules, sidestepping the school lunch bureaucracy by purchasing collard greens directly at a small farmer cooperative.  The result:  fresh produce for children and economic gain for small farmers struggling to survive.  The effort to buy locally has now been repeated in 325 school districts, less than 1 percent of the national total.  But in that tiny fraction, we have learned that students will increase3 their fruit and vegetable consumption when offered fresh, local options.

"Farm to Cafeteria" programs, as they are called, are not easy to implement.  Relationships have to be built between schools and farmers.  Seasonal menus must be created.  Farmers may need to minimally process their products, such as cutting and washing lettuce prior to sale.  Schools may need to purchase cold storage equipment.  In New England, we face additional challenges because our farm season and academic school year are poorly matched.

But help could be on the way.  Senator Patrick Leahy is spearheading an effort in Washington to help school districts buy from farms in their regions.  His bill, the Farm to Cafeteria Act, and similar legislation in the House cosponsored by Representatives Barney Frank and J8m McGovern among others, may be rolled into the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act early next year. 

The legislation would establish grants of up to $100,000 in matching funds for communities to implement local buying programs for school lunch.  Some of the money would go to basic necessities, like training food service personnel, identifying local food sources, and purchasing equipment such as salad bars.  Schools proposing experiential nutrition education efforts, such as school gardens and field trips to local farms, to complement their buy-local program would receive preference in the national competition for funds.

In Massachusetts, we like to say that we grow everything fro9m asparagus to zucchini.  While an obvious exaggeration, our small farmers - 77 percent of whom have annual sales of less that $50,000 -- offer many healthy products that should be featured in our school lunches.  From the local level on up to USDA where some commodities are centrally purchased, we must seek new ways to link our goals of healthy farms and healthy students.

Kathleen Merrigan, assistant professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition, Science, and Policy at Tufts University, was administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service from 1999-2001.