School Lunch Reform Takes Two Steps Forward, and Several Steps Back

Public schools in Portland, Oregon wanted to make an effort to source their lunch products from local, sustainable farmers. But they wanted to know if the more costly local beef was worth it.  They asked if would it make a difference to the kids.  To find out, they had Oregon State University conduct a scientific survey on whether grade school students preferred one type of hamburger over another.  One hamburger was made with local, grass-fed beef, while the other was the typical USDA, grain-fed burger that came to most public schools frozen, pre-cooked and full of the ingredients you find in small print on the back of processed foods (like hydrolyzed corn protein, dextrose, salt, flavorings, sodium phosphates, and caramel color).

It turns out that kids can taste the difference between the two burger types, but they are split when it comes to actual preference.  Of the 91 students in the taste test trial, 45 preferred the grass-fed beef and 46 preferred the grain-fed.  And, guess what?  Since there was no clear preference for the grass-fed hamburgers, the administrators decided to throw out their principled search for local, sustainable food and go with the cheap stuff.  Sadly, the reasoning behind this decision makes it sound like they were never actually going to switch:

“For now, since there was not a strong preference for the grass-fed patty, and it is more expensive, we will not be able to afford to serve the grass-fed patty on a regular basis,” said Grether-Sweeney, an assistant director for the school district’s nutrition services department (emphasis added).

Extension.org

So, was the endeavor to source local goods all for show?  If there is no preference one way or another, they could have stuck to their guns and chosen the local beef.  However, Ms. Grether-Sweeney implies that even had there been a strong liking of the grass-fed beef, they would have gone with the grain-fed stuff anyway, or at least served the grass-fed beef very seldom.  What gets me is the fact that if cost were the main obstacle to providing the local food, administrators would have known that well before the taste test took place.  They would have known that they could not afford to always serve the grass-fed.  Were they just hoping and praying that there would not be a strong preference for the grass-fed burgers?  Would they have completely disregarded the study if there had been?  I have a strong suspicion that they would have.

I think it is too bad that they focus on hamburgers.  Surely, there are a ton of different crops local to the state of Oregon that the schools could import.  And, when it comes to eating local, every little bit helps.  (I can’t wait for the taste tests on potatoes and onions.)  Interestingly, the USDA paid for the taste trials.  I’m not sure what to take away from that.  It could be that the government wants schools to spend more of their own money buying food so that they can spend less:   The USDA provides meat to schools all over the country through their entitlement program.  The meats themselves come from all over the country and are not tagged with any sort of identification.  According to Fast Food Nation, the meat given to schools is the surplus of the industry.  In other words, it’s the meat that the restaurants and grocery stores didn’t want.  That book was published in 2005, so things could have changed.  Nonetheless, we all know how slow the government is…

Still, there is more to be learned from this study than the fact that kids don’t care what kind of hamburger you put in front of them.  The greater lesson learned from the study is that if grain-fed beef weren’t so cheap by comparison, many more families and institutions would be choosing to purchase local, organic, and sustainable products.  To put it another way, if the USDA/government were serious about encouraging people and school districts to purchase the greener goods, they should try to reduce the financial burden by stopping subsidies on grain that keep grain-fed meat so cheap by comparison.  The question is put to the American taxpayer: would you rather have your money supporting a system that is detrimental to humans and the environment or a system that promotes sustainable agriculture and healthy children?

 

January 10, 2009  Tags: , , , ,   Posted in: Health, Politics

4 Responses

  1. Bridgette - January 14, 2009

    I would have probably preferred the grass-fed beef. It would have been fresher and not as many additives. Though, in high school, I shied away from getting the hamburgers. By 7th period lunch, they didn’t look to appetizing.

    I do agree that, they should have chosen the local beef if most of the kids perferred either. I think it would have been a little healthier for the kids.

  2. Amber Phillips - June 30, 2010

    Green Health is of course very ideal.

  3. Sofia Singh - September 8, 2010

    green health is always the best because it is organic

  4. Candy - December 13, 2010

    you can say that green health is the best because it is all organic

Leave a Reply