Sunday, October 19, 2014

These 3 Players Have a Lot to Lose if School Lunch Reform Takes Effect

For many young professionals far from their schools days and a ways away from having children of their own, the battle over healthier school lunches seems of little relevance. But in Washington, D.C., the policy debate has become an all encompassing issue highlighting the intricate network of lobbyists, corporations and associations all with a financial stake in a policy that was otherwise born of good intentions. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed in 2010, offering $4.5 billion in new funding over 10 years. However, the details of the new program have yet to be implemented due to a growing chorus of criticism from stakeholders in various industries, combined with the fear that a new Republican Senate could gut the program all together. No one is doubting that healthy school lunches are a critical part of building a healthy society. The federal government first began subsidizing school lunches in 1945 as a national security effort after receiving testimony that many potential army recruits were being turned away due to poor nutrition. In 2009, the Department of Defense announced that obesity was the number one medical reason for turning away potential soldiers. However, the financial stakes involved are hard to ignore. In the 2009-10 school year, $20 billion was spent on food and operating costs in America's school cafeterias. Much of this profit is going to the large food companies that supply these schools with cheap meals in bulk, whereas schools themselves are hoping to turn a profit on sales from snacks and vending machines. As the debate wages on, schools are arguing that nutrition requirements are preventing them from making money off of unhealthy snacks. They are also struggling to break even with less students choosing to buy the newer, healthier lunches. As a result, food companies are making less profits, and are unable to now sell certain products due to nutrition requirements. To break this down, here's a look at the three biggest special interest actors with the highest stakes in this debate...more

No comments: