By Mark Bishop, Deputy Director
The media's interest in private sector responses to the challenges of school food fascinates me. For the most part it's good because it helps increase understanding of our food systems and highlight the barriers involved with serving healthy food in schools -- something that I believe can ultimately lead to greater support for increased resources and changes to our current system. But on the other hand, the coverage always seems a bit off to me.
USA Today recently ran a story about Revolution Foods, a company that is privatizing healthy food for schools. It's a model that is working in some areas and focuses on local and healthier options:Revolution shuns high-fructose corn syrup, artificial colors and flavors, trans fats and deep-frying. Its meats and milk are hormone- and antibiotic-free, and many of its ingredients are organic and locally sourced.
As I wrote before, I think that it's great that the private industry is getting involved, and we're always glad to see kids being offered (and eating) healthier foods. And the USA Today article offers opposing views by quoting others in the field who ask if Revolution's priorities are right, or if their model is truly scalable.
However, I have another concern. In short, saying that a company can provide a healthier meal for $3 doesn't account for all the costs that a school must cover. Let me break it down a bit. According to the story:The federal government pays, on average, $2.68 per child per meal – and most food advocates say that simply isn't enough. A few insist it can't be done for less than $5.
(For reference, HSC believes that schools need an additional $1 to provide a healthy meal.)What many people forget is what that federal reimbursement has to pay for. Not only does it have to cover food costs, labor, and prep, but it also has to pay for overhead and the facility. For most schools, the overhead and facility costs associated with serving a meal may be close to $1 per meal -- just to have a space and staffing for a kid to sit and eat.
So if you have to purchase a Revolution Foods meal for around $3.00 per meal (only losing $0.32 per meal based on federal reimbursements) you then need to add the cost of the facility, staffing, utilities etc. That means an outsourced $3.00 meal actually costs a school closer to $4.00 per meal by the time it reaches kids at their cafeteria tables. That's not too far off what the "advocates" cited in the story claim that schools need to spend for a more healthful meal.
We're all for creative private solutions, but in order to have meaningful and practical discussions about their impact, we need to come up with a common accounting system to track the true expenses of school food. We need to make sure we're comparing apples to apples when we discuss costs.What we really see is that the solution to providing healthy school food is not based only in tweaking the existing system. Schools need increased funding to invest in healthier food -- and along the way, develop a system that supports children's health.
Good points. However, some public school districts may still opt to outsource weighing the overhead of service staff and facilities vs. the extremely costly overhaul of facilities required to return to scratch cooking, the staff training required, the storage facilities and the demands on central kitchens and intra-district transport. Those costs must be weighed against the potential *savings* of outsourcing for immediate delivery of healthy options for students.
Posted by: Karen | December 16, 2009 at 02:49 PM
Absolutely. I agree that outsourcing can play a very important role in many schools. My point is that by comparing the cost of an outsourced meal to the federal reimbursement doesn't offer a fair apples to apples comparison. But I also agree that one of the huge barriers is the capital expenses needed for upgrading kitchen facilities to be ready for scratch cooking. Thanks for pointing out this missing point.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2009 at 03:30 PM
I think revolution is an interesting business model while though imperfect for sure is a step in the right direction. Take a look at Tom philpotts take on this and my reaction to him. He later acknowledged that his stance was a bit too rigid. Interesting back and forth. Revolution represents the kind of step that will work in the meantime while further work like the kind u set forth gets answered
Posted by: Zachary cohen | December 28, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I read that back and forth and found it interesting. I personally don't find anything wrong with Revolution Foods - it is a great step forward and I do love competition in the market. However we just can't paint outsourced food service as a panacea, because ultimately it has the same limitations - a lack of adequate resources.
Posted by: Mark | December 29, 2009 at 08:09 AM