What is the definition of a policy? The set of basic principles and associated guidelines, formulated and enforced by the governing body of an organization, to direct and limit its actions in pursuit of long term goals
After two hours of listening to and discussing Food service issues at the September 10th Upper Dublin School Board meeting, the question still remained, “why isn’t the Wellness Policy being followed?” It seemed that with charts that were not proportioned properly, red boxed items to highlight the newest so called problematic additions to the policy, and the continued attempt to convince the school board that this is unreasonable, everyone was left tired and confused.
Of course the issue that came up the most was the “avoid” ingredient list. (see last blog post for explanation of the history of this list) Even though the policy states that we are trying to eliminate these ingredients, new foods or changed existing foods now contain the “avoid” ingredients. Why? There were reasons given like lack of availability of product, or higher cost, but again no documentation to support this. An example of this was the meatballs. They were changed from last year and unbeknownst to us, now contain an “avoid” ingredient - “partially hydrogenated oils” which is another name for transfats. Transfats have been found to have an adverse effect on cardiovascular health. Here are the specifics: The FDA ruled that a product needs to label the amount of transfat, BUT only if it is more than .5 grams. Having more than 2 grams of transfats a day is not recommended. Here is what the American Heart Association says:
The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of trans fats you eat to less than 1 percent of your total daily calories. That means if you need 2,000 calories a day, no more than 20 of those calories should come from trans fats. That’s less than 2 grams of trans fats a day. Given the amount of naturally occurring trans fats you probably eat every day, this leaves virtually no room at all for industrially manufactured trans fats.
To say that “the meatballs are OK because they have a trace amount of transfats, and it says 0 grams of trans fats on the label” (government requirement) is incomprehensible. If you read the above, you can see the problem with that statement, as nobody knows how much is in the food unless it is over .5 g. If the meatballs have .5 g per serving, 4 servings would give the maximum amount for the day, and as the American Heart Association says, “there are naturally occurring transfats that we consume every day, there is no room for industrial manufactured transfats.”
This was just one of the changed products. It has been discovered that there are other foods that contain “avoid “ ingredients. The worst part about this is that it presents a trust issue. If we have a policy that states these ingredients should be avoided, it is implied that none of the foods on the school menus will have these ingredients. As the definition of policy states, these rules need to be enforced, as what is the benefit of having any policy if it is not going to be followed?
The fact that they continue to lie and deceive parents is just incredulous. To not follow policy, continue to serve foods that contain ingredients from the "avoids lists"...at what point is enough enough? People continue to knock the NIS but do they realize that Food Services is going against mandated Board Policy?
You see, people like to make their own choices and in this case that is exactly what they did: they packed lunch. Or, worse, kids dumped uneaten food into the trash because they don't like it and have gone hungry (which is TRUE and VERIFIABLE, I have inquired with an actual lunch aid). In any case, people don't like what these changes have brought so what rationale is there to continue this program? This is simply wasteful. I'd rather see $151,000 in net losses go toward rennovations to a library or a garden or educational programs than to see it end up in the trash barrel which is where the prepared food that no one is eating is going. Lancer, I think Dr. Pladdus is taking a very rational approach (unlike his support for the turf field) by saying that we need to do what is right by the children but doing so while watching our bottom line.
Thank you very much for your comment. To clarify, I did not say that the change did not result in losses, nor did I say it did, I said that we did not have any documentation to support either position. At the board meeting what was shown, again was not enough of a picture to really make a judgement call. Here is what we found out. The two places that the district lost the most money was in catering (nothing to do with the initiative as Dr. Pladus confirmed) and a la carte sales. To explain, a la carte sales are sales that are not considered reimbursable meals. Reimbursable meals are where most of the changes were made last year. Surprisingly, for the first time in many years reimbursable meals seemed to be relatively steady, where in the past there had been constant declines. A la carte is where we need more information. As discussed, the sushi (part of the nutrition initiative) has done very well, but we only got a total revenue amount, not a profit amount, so still do not know exactly how well it has done. There was no more information on what the dramatic loss was in a la carte items, so the jury is still out on that. The so called waste that you are speaking of, if it is really occuring, would be from the reimbursable meals , and as I said, that figure was relatively the same as last year, so was there really that much waste? As for your comments regarding the relevance or importance, anything that is for the better health of the kids is important.
If we are losing money that could otherwise be going toward more effective, efficient programs I contend we are not doing right by the children. Do you really believe that $151,000 is better spent on a declining nutritional program over new books, computers and other resources that would be appreciated by ALL children? A la carte, as I understand, is the alternative to entrees. Many people are purchsing your entrees (reimburseable meals) because they are on the free or reduced lunch program. A la carte is in decline, according to Ms. Bray, because choice selection dropped from some 90 items to below 25 (I can't specifically recall the numbers). I suspect you'd like to see that drop even more due to your strict standards. If that selection declines further do you think that will add to or subtract from food sales??? Where does this end, Ms. Florin? How much more money do you expect the district to lose before it is cancelled completely? And, I too would like to see that profit margin on the sushi though it's only fitting given the palace the kids have to eat within.
Thanks.
You are upset because I'm using the same argument against you that you use against others who do not support your mission: if you don't agree with my position you must be against children. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps you want to re-read what you accused me and others of in previous blog posts. Ironically, I support your goal of encouraging healthier lifestyles. My contention is with your methods as I've said repeatedly in the past. And, Ms. Applestein, I do intend on helping by offering an honest perspective on this matter you are not getting from your School Board directors who are obviously conflicted between their own emotions on this subject and numbers which are troubling.
The Right to Know Act appears to be fairly straightforward and gives the district five business days to reply with an answer, denial of the request or a 30-day extension to comply... http://www.udsd.org/uploaded/documents/Jason_T/Katie_Braun/rtkcitizensguidefinal.pdf Did you ever receive a response of any kind? This would have to be submitted to the district, not to a committee.
**Media Advisory for September 25, 2012** Junk Food Sold at School Called A National Security Threat New Report Shows Shocking Amount of Junk Food Sold in U.S. Schools, Retired Military Leaders Call for Stronger Federal Nutrition Standards Background: Calling childhood obesity a threat to national security, retired generals and admirals who are members of the national security organization Mission: Readiness will issue a new report showing that a shocking amount of junk food is sold in U.S. schools each year and the availability of so much junk food undermines efforts by parents and schools to teach children to eat healthier meals and snacks. Noting that many children get as much as half their daily calories at school, the report focuses on the need to remove junk foods from schools and urges the federal government to update decades-old standards for foods sold in school vending machines, à la carte lines and snack bars. The new report, Still Too Fat to Fight, reinforces recent recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, which call for making the school environment a focal point for addressing our nation’s obesity crisis. Mission: Readiness leaders also will discuss alarming trends that affect our national security, including that 75 percent of 17- to 24-year olds in the U.S. cannot serve in the military. Being overweight is the number one medical reason why they cannot enlist—1 in 4 young adults is too overweight to join the military.