School Food Reform: It's About Priorities

by Mark Bishop, Deputy Director

We've been hearing the scuttlebutt from DC that there's no more money to go around for Child Nutrition reauthorization, that the six cents per meal funding increase that's currently proposed is simply all that's possible. We're hearing that school food advocates should be happy with the bill that's now moving through the Senate because it includes some good policy changes, because we should be happy for any funding increase at all in a time when "there's just no more money" anywhere.

But I don't completely buy it. Why? Because it's not about money. It's about priorities. As a nation, we find the money for things that we prioritize.

First I should point out that, yes, most of the bill is very good. It gives the USDA the authority to set improved national nutrition standards for school meals and to regulate the sale of junk food in schools, allows for universal meals, and even sets up pilot projects for farm to school programs. But if we want these good changes to be implemented effectively, we need to be realistic about the fact that they will cost money. As HSC founding executive director Rochelle Davis explains in a recent New York Times article:

All the new nutritional nutritional requirements mean nothing if school districts cannot pay for them. Accepting the small increase in school food financing and calling it a victory lets Congress off the hook.

So why, then, are we hearing so frequently that this funding is all we should hope for? The answer lies in the funding structure for the bill. Current budget rules require "pay as you go" funding, so legislators need to find money in one program to give it to another. No net increases are allowed. So where did the funding come from for the currently proposed increase? The largest sources were conservation programs. As explained in this San Francisco Chronicle article:

To pay for the increase, the committee targeted for cuts a farm conservation program called the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, that goes to farmers of all crops, many of them small.

Where did legislators choose not to find funding? The article continues:

Left untouched were the much larger crop subsidies that go to big corn and other grain and cotton growers. . . . Grain subsidies have long been heavily skewed to large producers and have contributed to the rapid consolidation of farming. The federal government last year paid $4.8 billion in these direct payments, more than it spent on all farm conservation programs, according to Environmental Working Group.This leaves us with a bill that under-funds child nutrition; the small increase in funding for children's health comes at the expense of conservation without touching the large and well-funded crop subsidies.

Does this reflect your priorities? I know it doesn't represent mine.

Now is the time to urge Congress to fund child nutrition in a way that prioritizes kids' health and our environment: click here to raise your voice.

Comments

[Tim Magner]

Reminds me of two great quotes:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." —from a Patagonia catalogue.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead