CAN THE NSLP HELP AMERICAN CHILDREN?
In the past 20 years, the rate of childhood obesity has more than doubled (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel, 250). Childhood obesity often continues into adulthood and can lead to a number of health complications, such as heart disease, type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and some cancers. It is especially common in low-income families, many of which rely on the meals provided for free or at reduced prices by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as sources of economic relief. However, are they adequate sources of nutrition for growing children and young adults? The excess calories children obtain often come from cheap, processed foods that require minimal preparation, much like the meals served to students. School meals are dominated by nutrient-poor, but cheap foods that are high in saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and calories. In looking for ways to fight the growing epidemic, the school lunchroom, a familiar place where children spend much of their time in from primary to high school, is a natural place to initiate changes in children’s perceptions of nutrition and health. It is important to immerse students in an environment that promotes health and fitness so that they feel motivated to make smarter choices and develop better eating habits. NSLP’s decision to implement changes that focus on improving the nutritional quality of its menu is admirable, but it has generated much retaliation from students, parents, and school officials and has received limited acceptance. The updated NSLP has been largely unsuccessful in its goal to improve child nutrition and health, and it will continue to experience limited effectiveness until the menu changes are carried out with an emphasis on educating students on the importance of eating healthy and its impact on long-term health.
School age children and adolescents nowadays eat way more calories than they need and way more of the wrong types of foods, established habits that need to be rectified. Children are predisposed to sweet and salty tastes and umami (McCullen), which are reflected in the common diet of high calorie, high fat, and fried foods. These foods provide children with energy they need, but should be obtained from healthier foods. The environments children eat in are essential in determining what foods they consume and prefer. If cafeterias offer foods that are high in calories, fat, sodium, and simple carbohydrates and low in whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables, then students are more likely to consume and enjoy these types of foods (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel, 253). Pizza, French fries, chicken nuggets, tacos, donuts, and hamburgers are among the top 20 preferred foods for one Ohio school district (Caine-Bish), common preferences for students across the nation. A study looking at Baltimore schools found that “less than 2% of children meet the USDA recommendations for fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption” (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel). With such poor dietary intake, it is no wonder childhood obesity is on the rise. Students eat the same low nutritional quality foods for years; their inability to maintain diverse nutritious diets sets them up for poor eating habits and choices outside of the cafeteria. In order to prevent future health problems, we must change the foods children eat and promote a healthy lifestyle. Established in over 100,000 schools (Food and Nutrition Service [FNS]), the NSLP could be instrumental in establishing lifelong healthy eating habits in students via both reform and education.
Participating public and nonprofit private schools receive cash reimbursements and foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal served, provided that they comply with federal meal requirements (FNS), however, even if these guidelines are followed, the foods served are still not necessarily healthy. Lunches should follow nutrition standards and meal patterns based on Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, advice provided by the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Over a week, “meals must provide one-third of Recommended Daily Allowances for protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and calories” (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel, 251). A maximum of 30% of the calories of a meal can be from fat and 10% from saturated fat. However, national studies conducted in 2003 found that more than 75% of schools do not adhere to appropriate nutrient and calorie levels. Local food authorities have the final say on what specific foods are served (FNS), resulting in meals that have high concentrations of simple carbohydrates and processed meat and lack fresh fruits and vegetables. Considering more than 31 million students are served daily through the NSLP, it is extremely worrisome that growing children are consistently fed foods that foster unhealthy food preferences. Without a change in their food environment and outlook on nutrition, children are unlikely to try and stick with eating healthier.
In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed to increase funding for school meal and nutrition programs so that low-income children could have greater access to healthy food. It prompted the first major examination of and changes in school meal requirements in 15 years (French and Story). This act gives the USDA the power to set nutritional standards for foods, provides additional funding for schools that meet the new standards, grants more children access to the NSLP, and increases program monitoring and integrity (White House). Major changes were made in the NSLP to comply with the goal to improve nutrition: increased servings and variety of fruits and vegetables offered throughout the week; increased servings of whole grains; reduced saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium; restriction of dairy to only low-fat and nonfat; and portion sizes established for each age group based on calorie needs (French and Story). While these provisions appear ideal for addressing and changing one of the major causes of poor child nutrition and childhood obesity, how effective are they in reality?
Offering a healthier menu has created many difficulties that have limited the success of the new NSLP standards and the progress in improving child health. One complication is the cost of providing healthier options. Offering a more diverse and nutritious menu is expensive; in order to cover the cost of fresh unprocessed commodities, lunch prices have gone up while portions of meat and carbohydrates have gone down (Yee). An increase in the cost of meals creates a burden on both families and schools. When lower income families are unable to afford the increased price of meals, it hurts both their household food security and school revenues. Families resort to feeding their children affordable, but extremely unhealthy fast and junk food while schools are forced to increase meal prices even further to compensate for decreased student participation (Sifferlin). Schools that are unable to sustain a healthy lunch program because they cannot afford the drop in revenue often drop out of the NSLP and fall back on serving processed foods that families can afford and children like in order to keep revenue up. The expense of offering a more vegetable and fruit heavy menu is not practical enough for school administrators and parents who prioritize money over health, making cost an extremely strong deterrent for lasting successful change on child health.
However, even if families could afford the healthier lunches, it seems unlikely that many students would choose to eat them, as seen by the widespread retaliation for the shift in menu items. Many students are still consuming low amounts of nutrients, despite the healthier options being offered in their cafeteria (Cohen, Richardson, Austin, Economos, and Rimm). The menu changes were met with limited enthusiasm from student participants, who are not happy with the healthier, but smaller and more expensive lunches. Students in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and New Jersey have declared strikes and in Kansas have made a parody video proclaiming how hungry they still are after eating scant helpings of potato puff casserole and chicken nuggets by fainting during school hours (Yee). It is tough to sell these drastic changes to kids when they have an established belief that healthy foods are tasteless, flavorless, and gross. After years of eating pizza, nacho chips, and chicken nuggets, children have grown accustomed to eating and liking unhealthy foods, making it extremely difficult to convince them of the benefits of fruits and vegetables.
Dissatisfaction with the quality of the new school lunches push students to look for other sources of food located on campus, negating any possible positive effects the updated NSLP could have on student health. Many schools have vending machines, a la carte lines, and school stores that allow students to sustain themselves through means other than through school meals. The federal government does not reimburse schools for food items sold through these venues, so nutritional content is not regulated (Hinman). These locations offer students the opportunity to snack on unhealthy foods, which only contributes to the obesity problem. It seems doubtful that students will warm up to the healthier foods when yummier, unhealthier snacks are available to them elsewhere.
The fact that students are generally consuming less than the required levels of nutrients even when adequate nutrients are provided demonstrates simply changing what foods are served is not enough to make children eat them and be healthy. Even when served, many of the healthy components that have been added to the meals, such as carrots and apples, end up in the trash anyway (Yee). About 21.6% of the total food budget was thrown out annually in Boston schools, which “if translated nationally for school lunches, roughly $1,238,846,400 annually is wasted” (Cohen), which is worrisome for a program that costs almost 12 billion (FNS). Neither the providers nor recipients of the program seem to be benefitting much from the changes, so does this mean the NSLP is hopeless and a complete waste of resources? The new NSLP has great intent and potential, however, its methods need to be revised to include a more comprehensive approach in improving child nutrition and health.
Some school administrators are optimistic and believe that in time, acceptance of the new menus will increase as students become used to the healthier foods; time is one of many factors to consider. It is important to realize that food acceptance is not immediate, but a process. William J. McCarthy, a professor of public health and psychology at UCLA, says our familiarity with the food we eat is extremely important: “research shows that children must be exposed to vegetables 10-12 times before they will eat them on their own” (Yee). In general, children are uncomfortable with trying new foods, but small exposures can have a strong effect over time (McCullen). In addition to frequent exposure to the new healthy foods, the environment in which they are tried can be extremely influential on the opinions formed about them. How positive or negative the experience is when a child tries them can be extremely important for how the child perceives the food later on. Healthy foods should be served in an environment that promotes children’s enjoyment of them so that they associate the positive feelings with the food they are eating and are more likely to eat them again. Adults can play large roles in helping children accept the healthier options. New foods should be introduced when there is less competition; for example, do not place them next to cheeseburgers as it gives children no incentive to choose the healthier option (McCullen). Children should also see their parents, teachers, and administrators enjoy the same foods they are expected to eat so that they learn healthy foods can taste good. Pressuring children into eating something they find aversive or scary can create a negative environment that confirms their perception of that food (McCullen). It is more effective to allow children to eat and learn to like healthy foods on their own.
It is difficult to convince children that the foods they are being served in the cafeteria are worth eating when they do not match the foods they eat outside of school meals; this inconsistency reveals the significance of instructing students on living healthy so that they can transfer the information they gain in school about nutrition to life outside of school. Michael Smith, a superintendent at a school district in Tuscola, Illinois supports the new NSLP standards health-wise, but believes “the truth is most students don’t want to eat healthier… what is being served at school in many cases doesn’t look like what they eat at home…it is another example of how all these issues are dumped on schools. I wish they would also be addressed in other places where students eat, like fast-food [restaurants] and gas stations” (Sifferlin). Low-income families are driven by economic necessity to eat cheap food and snacks obtained from locations that are not concerned about nutritional quality. Though it would be helpful for restaurants and stores to contribute to health education as Smith suggests, schools still have the potential to have the greatest impact on children’s perspective on health if they tried. The lunchroom and classroom are great starting points that can be the impetus for change in other areas of students’ lives.
In order to make the changes implemented in school menus more effective and increase acceptance of them, there should be a focus on educating students on what healthy is, what it means to make healthy choices, and how to develop healthy habits rather than just presenting them with foods authorities say are good and hoping the students will act on their word. The NSLP was created on the assumption that students will welcome and eat the healthier options. Serving them new, unfamiliar foods without providing adequate justifications as to why schools are doing so will naturally engender resistance. Until students understand why being healthy should be a priority, they will not want to make decisions that will improve their long-term health.
Health education should be taught and emphasized within the classroom so that students can make smarter choices concerning their diet and health. Nutrition should be integral parts of many different courses as it affects health and lifestyle in a multitude of ways. Ridgewood public schools in Bergen County, New Jersey have taken a comprehensive approach in teaching health. Students are required to attend 2.5 hours per week of health and physical education classes for grades 1-12; unlike traditional P.E. programs that are sports and competition based, this program is health-based. Children are exposed to the fitness center and taught how to make smart health-related decisions outside of school (Coutros). Sandra Ford, president of the School Nutrition Association, offers a number of strategies to help students embrace the new menus, including “asking teachers to talk about healthy food in class, conducting taste tests, handing out free samples, and educating students about how their food is grown and made” (Yee). Schools in a Tampa, Florida district have tried teaching about eating healthy in the classroom by incorporating snacks into lessons and encouraging schools to plant gardens for students to help out in. Success has been observed with these students who are now more willing try new foods, choosing more fruits and vegetables at lunch, and asking parents to buy certain produce (Ackerman). The benefit of a health education on students’ actions may take time to manifest, but it is very possible.
The NSLP and schools are eager to observe the positive effects of the changes, so eager that many of the changes have been implemented drastically and suddenly, which in the long run may be impairing the program’s objective. Teens in particular have established eating habits that are difficult to break, and it appears “the bigger the difference between what [the students] were accustomed to seeing on their serving lining in 2011-2012 versus what they saw in 2012-2013, the more difficult it was for the school food-service director to address the needs and concerns of the students” (Sifferlin). An important factor to consider when implementing these changes is how quickly they are being introduced to the students. The high levels of rejection among children across the nation may be a result of schools introducing its new foods too quickly, which can be overwhelming. Success is more probable if smaller, more gradual changes are made so that students have the chance to adjust to the healthier foods. Janet Miller, a food service manager in Illinois who started introducing changes in her district in 2010, and her staff have been making slow changes through trial and error based on student responses (Godfrey). For example, offering pizza with whole-wheat crust, low-fat cheese, and low-sodium sauce, a familiar food, instead of an unfamiliar exotic dish, may be more effective in getting students to respond positively to the healthier options as the changes are not as noticeable. The discontent we currently see in students suggests it may take awhile for the new menus to be accepted and even longer for the effects to be seen in children’s eating habits and health, but with patience and dedicated effort from children, parents, teachers, school officials, and policymakers, children can lead healthier lives.
Given the large percentage of American children who rely on school meals and the amount of time they spend in classrooms, schools have the tremendous “opportunity to model, support, and reinforce healthy eating habits among children and adolescents in all grades” (French and Story). It is not enough to hope that handing children healthy food will make them healthy; it is essential that more attention and efforts be put towards actions that prevent the development of chronic diseases that result from poor nutrition. While the updated NSLP meal guidelines are logical and necessary, improving school menus is only one step towards improving student health and it is not enough on its own. Adults and children alike should take proactive measures to eliminate poor health-related practices and to ensure health futures. Teaching children how to eat and live healthily, rather than working reactively to treat health problems created by unhealthy choices is a more comprehensive approach to fighting obesity and its associated problems. Health is much more than just the foods we eat; it is just as much about our understanding of healthy choices and the environmental factors that influence our eating habits. Revising the NSLP so that it prioritizes food environment and education over simply access to healthy foods would be a more effective way of changing student health.
School age children and adolescents nowadays eat way more calories than they need and way more of the wrong types of foods, established habits that need to be rectified. Children are predisposed to sweet and salty tastes and umami (McCullen), which are reflected in the common diet of high calorie, high fat, and fried foods. These foods provide children with energy they need, but should be obtained from healthier foods. The environments children eat in are essential in determining what foods they consume and prefer. If cafeterias offer foods that are high in calories, fat, sodium, and simple carbohydrates and low in whole grains, fresh fruits, and vegetables, then students are more likely to consume and enjoy these types of foods (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel, 253). Pizza, French fries, chicken nuggets, tacos, donuts, and hamburgers are among the top 20 preferred foods for one Ohio school district (Caine-Bish), common preferences for students across the nation. A study looking at Baltimore schools found that “less than 2% of children meet the USDA recommendations for fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption” (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel). With such poor dietary intake, it is no wonder childhood obesity is on the rise. Students eat the same low nutritional quality foods for years; their inability to maintain diverse nutritious diets sets them up for poor eating habits and choices outside of the cafeteria. In order to prevent future health problems, we must change the foods children eat and promote a healthy lifestyle. Established in over 100,000 schools (Food and Nutrition Service [FNS]), the NSLP could be instrumental in establishing lifelong healthy eating habits in students via both reform and education.
Participating public and nonprofit private schools receive cash reimbursements and foods from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for each meal served, provided that they comply with federal meal requirements (FNS), however, even if these guidelines are followed, the foods served are still not necessarily healthy. Lunches should follow nutrition standards and meal patterns based on Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, advice provided by the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Over a week, “meals must provide one-third of Recommended Daily Allowances for protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and calories” (Demas, Kindermann, and Pimentel, 251). A maximum of 30% of the calories of a meal can be from fat and 10% from saturated fat. However, national studies conducted in 2003 found that more than 75% of schools do not adhere to appropriate nutrient and calorie levels. Local food authorities have the final say on what specific foods are served (FNS), resulting in meals that have high concentrations of simple carbohydrates and processed meat and lack fresh fruits and vegetables. Considering more than 31 million students are served daily through the NSLP, it is extremely worrisome that growing children are consistently fed foods that foster unhealthy food preferences. Without a change in their food environment and outlook on nutrition, children are unlikely to try and stick with eating healthier.
In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed to increase funding for school meal and nutrition programs so that low-income children could have greater access to healthy food. It prompted the first major examination of and changes in school meal requirements in 15 years (French and Story). This act gives the USDA the power to set nutritional standards for foods, provides additional funding for schools that meet the new standards, grants more children access to the NSLP, and increases program monitoring and integrity (White House). Major changes were made in the NSLP to comply with the goal to improve nutrition: increased servings and variety of fruits and vegetables offered throughout the week; increased servings of whole grains; reduced saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium; restriction of dairy to only low-fat and nonfat; and portion sizes established for each age group based on calorie needs (French and Story). While these provisions appear ideal for addressing and changing one of the major causes of poor child nutrition and childhood obesity, how effective are they in reality?
Offering a healthier menu has created many difficulties that have limited the success of the new NSLP standards and the progress in improving child health. One complication is the cost of providing healthier options. Offering a more diverse and nutritious menu is expensive; in order to cover the cost of fresh unprocessed commodities, lunch prices have gone up while portions of meat and carbohydrates have gone down (Yee). An increase in the cost of meals creates a burden on both families and schools. When lower income families are unable to afford the increased price of meals, it hurts both their household food security and school revenues. Families resort to feeding their children affordable, but extremely unhealthy fast and junk food while schools are forced to increase meal prices even further to compensate for decreased student participation (Sifferlin). Schools that are unable to sustain a healthy lunch program because they cannot afford the drop in revenue often drop out of the NSLP and fall back on serving processed foods that families can afford and children like in order to keep revenue up. The expense of offering a more vegetable and fruit heavy menu is not practical enough for school administrators and parents who prioritize money over health, making cost an extremely strong deterrent for lasting successful change on child health.
However, even if families could afford the healthier lunches, it seems unlikely that many students would choose to eat them, as seen by the widespread retaliation for the shift in menu items. Many students are still consuming low amounts of nutrients, despite the healthier options being offered in their cafeteria (Cohen, Richardson, Austin, Economos, and Rimm). The menu changes were met with limited enthusiasm from student participants, who are not happy with the healthier, but smaller and more expensive lunches. Students in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and New Jersey have declared strikes and in Kansas have made a parody video proclaiming how hungry they still are after eating scant helpings of potato puff casserole and chicken nuggets by fainting during school hours (Yee). It is tough to sell these drastic changes to kids when they have an established belief that healthy foods are tasteless, flavorless, and gross. After years of eating pizza, nacho chips, and chicken nuggets, children have grown accustomed to eating and liking unhealthy foods, making it extremely difficult to convince them of the benefits of fruits and vegetables.
Dissatisfaction with the quality of the new school lunches push students to look for other sources of food located on campus, negating any possible positive effects the updated NSLP could have on student health. Many schools have vending machines, a la carte lines, and school stores that allow students to sustain themselves through means other than through school meals. The federal government does not reimburse schools for food items sold through these venues, so nutritional content is not regulated (Hinman). These locations offer students the opportunity to snack on unhealthy foods, which only contributes to the obesity problem. It seems doubtful that students will warm up to the healthier foods when yummier, unhealthier snacks are available to them elsewhere.
The fact that students are generally consuming less than the required levels of nutrients even when adequate nutrients are provided demonstrates simply changing what foods are served is not enough to make children eat them and be healthy. Even when served, many of the healthy components that have been added to the meals, such as carrots and apples, end up in the trash anyway (Yee). About 21.6% of the total food budget was thrown out annually in Boston schools, which “if translated nationally for school lunches, roughly $1,238,846,400 annually is wasted” (Cohen), which is worrisome for a program that costs almost 12 billion (FNS). Neither the providers nor recipients of the program seem to be benefitting much from the changes, so does this mean the NSLP is hopeless and a complete waste of resources? The new NSLP has great intent and potential, however, its methods need to be revised to include a more comprehensive approach in improving child nutrition and health.
Some school administrators are optimistic and believe that in time, acceptance of the new menus will increase as students become used to the healthier foods; time is one of many factors to consider. It is important to realize that food acceptance is not immediate, but a process. William J. McCarthy, a professor of public health and psychology at UCLA, says our familiarity with the food we eat is extremely important: “research shows that children must be exposed to vegetables 10-12 times before they will eat them on their own” (Yee). In general, children are uncomfortable with trying new foods, but small exposures can have a strong effect over time (McCullen). In addition to frequent exposure to the new healthy foods, the environment in which they are tried can be extremely influential on the opinions formed about them. How positive or negative the experience is when a child tries them can be extremely important for how the child perceives the food later on. Healthy foods should be served in an environment that promotes children’s enjoyment of them so that they associate the positive feelings with the food they are eating and are more likely to eat them again. Adults can play large roles in helping children accept the healthier options. New foods should be introduced when there is less competition; for example, do not place them next to cheeseburgers as it gives children no incentive to choose the healthier option (McCullen). Children should also see their parents, teachers, and administrators enjoy the same foods they are expected to eat so that they learn healthy foods can taste good. Pressuring children into eating something they find aversive or scary can create a negative environment that confirms their perception of that food (McCullen). It is more effective to allow children to eat and learn to like healthy foods on their own.
It is difficult to convince children that the foods they are being served in the cafeteria are worth eating when they do not match the foods they eat outside of school meals; this inconsistency reveals the significance of instructing students on living healthy so that they can transfer the information they gain in school about nutrition to life outside of school. Michael Smith, a superintendent at a school district in Tuscola, Illinois supports the new NSLP standards health-wise, but believes “the truth is most students don’t want to eat healthier… what is being served at school in many cases doesn’t look like what they eat at home…it is another example of how all these issues are dumped on schools. I wish they would also be addressed in other places where students eat, like fast-food [restaurants] and gas stations” (Sifferlin). Low-income families are driven by economic necessity to eat cheap food and snacks obtained from locations that are not concerned about nutritional quality. Though it would be helpful for restaurants and stores to contribute to health education as Smith suggests, schools still have the potential to have the greatest impact on children’s perspective on health if they tried. The lunchroom and classroom are great starting points that can be the impetus for change in other areas of students’ lives.
In order to make the changes implemented in school menus more effective and increase acceptance of them, there should be a focus on educating students on what healthy is, what it means to make healthy choices, and how to develop healthy habits rather than just presenting them with foods authorities say are good and hoping the students will act on their word. The NSLP was created on the assumption that students will welcome and eat the healthier options. Serving them new, unfamiliar foods without providing adequate justifications as to why schools are doing so will naturally engender resistance. Until students understand why being healthy should be a priority, they will not want to make decisions that will improve their long-term health.
Health education should be taught and emphasized within the classroom so that students can make smarter choices concerning their diet and health. Nutrition should be integral parts of many different courses as it affects health and lifestyle in a multitude of ways. Ridgewood public schools in Bergen County, New Jersey have taken a comprehensive approach in teaching health. Students are required to attend 2.5 hours per week of health and physical education classes for grades 1-12; unlike traditional P.E. programs that are sports and competition based, this program is health-based. Children are exposed to the fitness center and taught how to make smart health-related decisions outside of school (Coutros). Sandra Ford, president of the School Nutrition Association, offers a number of strategies to help students embrace the new menus, including “asking teachers to talk about healthy food in class, conducting taste tests, handing out free samples, and educating students about how their food is grown and made” (Yee). Schools in a Tampa, Florida district have tried teaching about eating healthy in the classroom by incorporating snacks into lessons and encouraging schools to plant gardens for students to help out in. Success has been observed with these students who are now more willing try new foods, choosing more fruits and vegetables at lunch, and asking parents to buy certain produce (Ackerman). The benefit of a health education on students’ actions may take time to manifest, but it is very possible.
The NSLP and schools are eager to observe the positive effects of the changes, so eager that many of the changes have been implemented drastically and suddenly, which in the long run may be impairing the program’s objective. Teens in particular have established eating habits that are difficult to break, and it appears “the bigger the difference between what [the students] were accustomed to seeing on their serving lining in 2011-2012 versus what they saw in 2012-2013, the more difficult it was for the school food-service director to address the needs and concerns of the students” (Sifferlin). An important factor to consider when implementing these changes is how quickly they are being introduced to the students. The high levels of rejection among children across the nation may be a result of schools introducing its new foods too quickly, which can be overwhelming. Success is more probable if smaller, more gradual changes are made so that students have the chance to adjust to the healthier foods. Janet Miller, a food service manager in Illinois who started introducing changes in her district in 2010, and her staff have been making slow changes through trial and error based on student responses (Godfrey). For example, offering pizza with whole-wheat crust, low-fat cheese, and low-sodium sauce, a familiar food, instead of an unfamiliar exotic dish, may be more effective in getting students to respond positively to the healthier options as the changes are not as noticeable. The discontent we currently see in students suggests it may take awhile for the new menus to be accepted and even longer for the effects to be seen in children’s eating habits and health, but with patience and dedicated effort from children, parents, teachers, school officials, and policymakers, children can lead healthier lives.
Given the large percentage of American children who rely on school meals and the amount of time they spend in classrooms, schools have the tremendous “opportunity to model, support, and reinforce healthy eating habits among children and adolescents in all grades” (French and Story). It is not enough to hope that handing children healthy food will make them healthy; it is essential that more attention and efforts be put towards actions that prevent the development of chronic diseases that result from poor nutrition. While the updated NSLP meal guidelines are logical and necessary, improving school menus is only one step towards improving student health and it is not enough on its own. Adults and children alike should take proactive measures to eliminate poor health-related practices and to ensure health futures. Teaching children how to eat and live healthily, rather than working reactively to treat health problems created by unhealthy choices is a more comprehensive approach to fighting obesity and its associated problems. Health is much more than just the foods we eat; it is just as much about our understanding of healthy choices and the environmental factors that influence our eating habits. Revising the NSLP so that it prioritizes food environment and education over simply access to healthy foods would be a more effective way of changing student health.