There’s Hot Competition in the School Lunchroom

To anyone over 30, the words “school lunch” are likely to bring to mind images of mashed potatoes and gravy, mystery meat and canned peas, piled on a tray with a carton of milk.

Public school lunches 15 years ago were starchy but nutritious and, like it or not, they were the only alternative to a brown-bag lunch from home.

Today’s kids, many of them weaned on fast food served in the back seat of a car or in front of a television, expect more glitz from their school cafeterias, child nutrition experts at the State Department of Education say.

School lunch vendors, once faced only with creating menus that met federal and state nutrition guidelines, now must compete for student patrons.

Particularly at high schools with “open campus” policies, students are just as likely to spend their lunch money at the neighborhood McDonald’s or at on-campus soda pop machines and snack counters as they are to buy a balanced meal at the school cafeteria.

May Lead Children Astray

Nutritionists worry that the availability of “junk food” at school snack counters, the presence of soda machines on school grounds and the post-Proposition 13 proliferation of benefit cake and candy sales are leading schoolchildren far astray from the four basic food groups.

As a result, school nutrition policy-makers have adopted a “can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” approach to cafeteria fare.

The Department of Education’s Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Division encourages school district food vendors to actively compete with fast-food restaurants, in hopes of luring students to less expensive, more nutritious meals.

“Some parents want school lunches to be just like they remembered them to be,” said Maria Balakshin, director of the division. “What we’re trying to help people see is (school lunch providers) have to compete.”

Some school cafeterias have salad bars, taco bars and potato bars. Some offer lunches “disguised” as fast food, with burgers that are low in salt and fat, on whole grain buns with accompanying oven-baked potatoes that imitate french fries without the grease.

School districts have even resorted to packaging gimmicks, said Caroline Roberts, child nutrition consultant to the Education Department.

‘Real Gimmicky Things’ Used

“A lot of the districts have gone a long way in merchandising, using paper goods that are decorated and colorful, promotional activities like giving away stickers on certain days, or maybe putting on every 20th tray a sticker that can be turned in for a prize or a treat,” Roberts said. “Just real gimmicky things.”

Because school food services administering federally subsidized school lunches are required to be self-supporting, such gimmicks are designed mostly for survival.

School districts’ food service authorities have been faced with a crisis in competition since May 17, 1985, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was forced by court ruling to lift restrictions on the time and location of sales of snacks and soft drinks on school campuses by competing organizations.

The USDA had previously limited sales of snack items competing with the federal school lunch program to after the final lunch period in school cafeterias. The National Soft Drink Assn. took the USDA to court over the issue and, after a five-year legal battle, won a federal court decision.

The new ruling says competing snack foods and beverages may be served at any time on school grounds, but that they may not be served in the same area as federal school lunches. As a result, students may choose a hot dog and Coke or chips and cookies for lunch instead of cafeteria meals.

“We’re concerned about the nutritional well-being of the child in all of this, as well as the school lunch program’s survival,” Balakshin said.

The school lunch program is eligible for surplus commodities such as beef, butter, cheese and grains. “For every meal served, the greater the volume, it can do a better job,” Balakshin said. “If (the program) keeps having this participation ripped off, pretty soon they won’t even be able to serve the needy child.”

About 65% of the total meals served to California schoolchildren under the state-administered $332-million program went to needy children, Balakshin said.

As a result, she said, “we’re finding that poor nutrition does not go hand-in-hand with lower incomes. The yuppie kids have money in their pockets and stop for doughnuts on their way to school.”

“Believe it or not, we heard stories of elementary school districts where parents’ groups are selling candy bars before school starts,” Roberts said.

“At fund-raisers they’re selling candy bars at $1 each, and if that’s all a kid’s brought to school with him, it’s gone,” she added. “Soda machines are a tremendous revenue producer for school activities, but if a child puts 60 cents into a soda machine and has 40 cents left, what kind of lunch is he going to have?”

Concerned about school lunch competition, the state’s Child Nutrition Advisory Council held hearings statewide early this year to solicit public testimony on whether California should adopt stricter regulations on campus food sales.

‘Some parents want school lunches to be just like they remembered them to be. What we’re trying to help people see is (school lunch providers) have to compete.’--Maria Balakshin