SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Grilled cheese sandwiches and tomato soup may not seem like the advance guard of a revolution, but that's exactly what Representative Brian Clem (D-Salem) is hoping for. Along with Rep. Tina Kotek, he's sponsoring House Bill 2800, which would provide up to $19 million in state money for schools that spend some of their federal dollars on Oregon food. What's Oregon food? Anything that was "produced, packaged, packed or processed" in the state. This is where the grilled cheese sandwiches come in.
Portland Public Schools is one of two districts taking part in a Kaiser Permanente-funded pilot program to see what happens when schools are given seven extra cents per meal to spend on local lunches. PPS chose to concentrate those pennies into monthly "local lunches" (grilled Tillamook Cheese sandwiches and Pacific Natural Foods' tomato soup were on offer this week). Gervais Schools decided to spread their grant money around more broadly. According to a recent report, the grant money triggered more in-state spending from the schools' existing coffers: grants of about $66,000 dollars turned into more than $225,000 spent on local products. What's more, argues Clem and other Farm to School supporters, that money in turn will itself have a multiplying effect as it makes its way around the state. The result, they say, will be healthier students, healthier farms, and a healthier economy.
As always — and especially these days — there are questions about finances. The money to pay for this would come from the economic development slice of the lottery pie. But as we've talked about recently, that whole pie is shrinking. If you were going to spend upwards of $22 million dollars for a new school program, would you focus on the food? If you're a parent who normally sends your child to school with a packed lunch, would more local ingredients convince you to go for the hot option? How much is a local lunch worth?
GUESTS:
- Kristy Obbink: Nutrition services director, Portland Public Schools District
- Brian Clem: State Representative (D – Salem), sponsor of HB 2800, a bill to spend about $22.6 million on school food program
- Guy Jager: Child Nutrition Director, Umatilla School District
- Cory Schreiber: Farm to School program manager, Oregon Department of Agriculture
Tagged as: food · locavore · school
Photo credit: bookgrl / Flicker / Creative Commons
-
As the PPS Nutrition Services dietitian who spoke at the Atkinson PTA meeting, I would like to respond. First I applaud the work that Jennifer and parents all over our state are doing to create school gardens, teach children where food comes from and advocate for more local foods in school lunches. I also agree that whole grains, good fats, fresh fruits and vegetables and whole foods are nutritious. We were excited to be able to offer whole grain granola from Bob's Red Mill with Darigold vanilla yogurt and Oregon Marionberries for Wednesday's local lunch in Portland schools. I am grateful that so many partners and advocates have joined the campaign to ask for an investment from the state to support additional local foods in school meals and to help parents like Jennifer start more school gardens throughout Oregon. I believe that we all want the best choices possible to be offered to all of our students. On the question of the benefits of chocolate milk, I do not expect that everyone will agree that it is a healthy choice, but it does provide all the nutrients of unflavored milk. Children are more likely to drink milk when it is flavored which leads to higher calcium intakes (and less wasted milk). A study of 4000 children showed that those who drank flavored milk did not have higher intakes of added sugars in their overall diet.
Thanks to all the moms and others who are working to help children learn about where food comes from and how to make choices that support good health.
Shannon Stember
-
Food is complicated --it has nutritional, cultural, economic, and environmental components. Of great importance is to offer students foods they will eat. Oregonians are blessed/fortunate to have abundant local food that is healthy & tasty. As much as possible local food, sustainably produced, and least processed is what should be offered to the students. Kitchen staffs with good cooking skills is important as is attention to keeping waste to minimum on everyone's part, and spending money wisely. Schools with school gardens provide an excellent learning experience for students to connect to the source of food, obtaining important appreciation that will serve throughout live. Thanks Emily and Think Out Loud for focusing on this important issue.l Emma Steen
-
I am THRILLED that you are covering this topic and so excited that this discussion is finally getting going. I am grateful that we live in an area that is one of the leaders in the slow food and eat local revolution. Nutrition is critically important for overall health, and has been strongly linked to learning challenges and behavioral problems such as hyperactivity. YES, I would agree that school funding should focus on food. Is is a no-brainer, and long overdue. The other huge advantages are benefitting the local community, teaching kids where their food comes from, teaching them to be aware for a lifetime of the source and quality of their food, and re-creating the sense of community we are all longing for.
After this, we can turn our attention to recycling in schools. The waste is abominable!!
Leslie O'Neill
Lake Oswego
-
As a biodynamic farmer and strong supporter of the local food network I strongly support the intentions here, but this enters into some gray constitutional areas. You can freely mandate local requirements, but if you limit it to oregon than you violate the inter-state commerce clause of the constitution and thereby offer an achiles heal to the industrial food network.
-
It is not simply a question of spending an additional $22 Million, we also need to look at how much we will increase the revenue for the State by buying locally. Additionally, we just received an update from the Northwest Food Processors Association indicating that Food Manufacturing was the ONLY business sector to increase jobs in 2008. This seems like a win, win, win - fresh, local, natural and organic foods can decrease the health care costs, increase a child's ability to perform academically, increase the States agricultural revenue, increase jobs and decrease pollution. That is why I have made this my life's work!
Evann Remington, President/CEO - Organic Fresh Fingers, Inc. providing fresh, local, natural & organic foods to schools and childcare facilities in Oregon.
-
I see your point, but is now a good time to dedicate additional state funds, we have a forecasted a shortfall already.
Counting on lottery proceeds to fund it is, in my opinion, reckless. This money is money Being SUCKED from the local economy from people with a gambling addiction, and is not a dependable source of revenue.
It seems to me everyone who strongly supports this have a financial interest in it, like yourself. I do applaud you for not trying to hide your lobbyist like interest in this subject
-
I am anxious to hear the report from Cory Schreiber, later in the program to indicate exactly what the increase in revenue will be to the State to assist schools to buy locally. Of course, I have a personal interest in the industry, but as an Oregonian and a mother, I also have a very strong interest in the State making fiscally sound moves that better then health of our children. If this program could increase jobs, thereby decreasing our 11% unemployment rate and actually help the State to make money - I will absolutely support it.
-
If this does pass I hope it will be managed by the school districs or the state, and not just a no bid contract system to companies like yours.
Would you still support if in fact the schools become a large competitor to you and ultimatley put you out of business?
-
Absolutely! My personal goal is to provide ALL children with fresh, healthy food. It is our job as business people to be innovative and flexible. If this is not where the money is, then we need to shift our business model.
-
I am not an attorney and am relying on a high-school understanding of civics. However, I can't see how this proposed legislation can survive a constitutional challenge based on the Commerce Clause. How do proponents of the bill respond to this issue?
-
I'm a parent of a toddler.... I would seek out a school that had a program such as this, and be willing to pay extra for my child's lunch in order for all the kids to have this available. It is so important for kids to have healthy fresh food, and there are many testemonials on how much of a difference this makes in just the attitude, behavior, and awareness of children, let alone the health benefits. On top of that is an educational and civic involvement experience for the children, and the educators and staff.
Of course this is going to start out more expensive than the conventional supplier programs, and staff will have to work differently. But those costs will even out after a few years as the programs evolve and stabilize. This invests in Oregon/local businesses, which is a great use of public/personal money. Kids will learn to eat more variety of foods as well. This is a commitment and investment, and it might not seem perfect overnight, but it is definitely the best thing for everyone, and sooooo good for the kids!
-
I'm a parent on the Wellness Committee at Sabin, and a neuroscientist, and I'm concerned about the "commodity beef" that PPS continues to serve our kids.
This beef actually comes from cows fed ground up pig, chicken and other meat products (from pigs and chicken themselves fed ground up cow), and thus there is a risk of transmitting "mad cow" disease. The scary aspect of such "prion" diseases in humans is that it can take decades before symptoms are manifest...
I know the federal government to some extent forces PPS to accept this awful beef from huge agricultural corporations with strong ties to Congress - but until there are changes in the beef, I'd avoid it. Local, grass-fed beef should be on the menu to protect our kids.
-
If this is true, this is a really terrible practice. Think how much this will cost the health care system later if these nutrition practices lead to terminal disease in our population later. Poor nutrition for kids can have a snowball effect on the system, child diabetes, mad cow disease decades later..
-
I bet some of you who support feedling local beef to the kids, also supported the fencing of oregon in 1998 and drove many of the small local ranchers out of business with ever increasing enviornmental regulations.
The large corporate beef is a direct result of Oregon over regulating ranching. The number of head produced in the last ten years has only gone up 3% in the nation, but the number of ranchers, processors and suppliers has been cut in half. This wasn't caused by corporate greed, it was caused by enviornmental do-gooders forcing the hand of the local rancher, and exporting his job to the wal-marts of the beef industry.
-
Have you said yet what percentage of students bring lunch from home vs. buying in the cafeterias?
-- Brent Geske (pronounced GUESS-key)
-
At my child's school it's about 50% in sw Portland, so nutrition services is barely breaking even. At many schools it's a higher percentage.
-
QUESTION: One of your guests said the "local food" meal was 50 cents more expensive than a similar meal through the "commodity stream" (meaning through the FDA). How much is the "commodity stream" meal subsidized by the federal government? Would the locally-produced meal be more cost-effective if the feds supported local food as much as they do big agribusiness?
-
Brent Geske here (last name prounced GUESS-key)
Have you said yet what percentage of students bring lunch from home vs. buying from the cafeteria? This would inform us as to the portion of students affected [or not] by these ideas.
Thanks!
-
Given the future conflicts that are likely to occur over potable water, food and energy, teaching children to grow and process food, and experience the issues therein, seems essential.
School food should be 'de-capitalized' and based on sustainability whereever possible - this includes teacher's rooms, Corricula should include food production as a basic lesson throughout the school years and demand that teachers (many overweight themselves) stop doing the brithday cake thing and are not allowed to 'excuse' outdoor activity because of apathy.
-
I think the idea of local lunches is great, but unless it is paired with education on why local is better, you are missing an opportunity to make a real difference in the way the next generation thinks.
David Josephs
-
Thank you, Think Out Loud, for focusing on the topic of what and how we feed our children.
I'm glad that while we are talking about the quality and source of the food kids are recieving while at school, people are also raising the issue of price and access. In addition to supporting HB 2800 (the bill you are discussing today about local foods) the Oregon Hunger Task Force is also supporting SB 695, which would make school breakfast free for more low-income students by elimiting the co-pay.
Just as patients shouldn't have to choose between quality and access when seeking medical care, our hope is that ALL students would have the ability to eat, and eat well, while at school.
This happens to be an important time for us to all be talking about this topic, not just in Oregon, but nationwide. This year, all of the federal Child Nutrition programs (School meals, summer and afterschool feeding programs, childcare and WIC) will be Reauthorized, meaning changes can be made to address both the issue of what children are eating and how many low-income and "food insecure" kids are being feed.
If you are interested in some of the proposals for Reauthorization, and how to make your voice heard, I invite you to learn more at www.oregonhunger.org
Annie Kirschner
Oregon Hunger Task Force
-
I'm a parent of a pps child. I love the idea of local food being served to our students. Why don't Oregon schools get state funding already, why is it only federally funded?
If this bill passed, would sustainable pratcices in the cafeteria, such as the styrofoam lunch trays be addressed too? This is an embarassing part of our school lunch program, in fact, almost as bad a practice as serving chocolate milk and non-local food to kids.
-
Just a little reminiscing..I grew up in the "Ketchup is a Vegetable" Ronald Reagan era of school lunches. They were basically awful..I think they just barely counted as sustenance. It's wonderful to see people concerned about what kids are eating. Good discussion..keep up the good work.
-
NO. NO. NO.
We can import all the equipment for our schools from China, but we need local food? What nonsense. I am so tired of hearing about food at large. I like Alice Waters, but really. Are our thinking skills this sub-par? Free-trade? Anyone hear of that? It doesn't apply to food? Why? We can buy our cars from overseas, but we must have local food? Farmers are in business, just like everyone else. They are not heroes, they are not saving the world from evil. They want to make money.Lottery money, gambling? How do we justify this? How is this any different from selling drugs, well I only did it to support my family. What a joke. All this moral subjectivism.
What is better about local? Someone please tell me. Isn't everything local? What a sham. -
I think local food is different than other products. Local food can be fresh food (it doesn't have to be, but it can be). Food from China (or from any long distance) is generally not fresh - it must be processed in some way to preserve it. that may mean picking it before it is ripe (less nutritious), or processing it in ways that take away good stuff (micronutrients) or adding bad stuff (synthetic preservatives).
Michael Pollin's writing is an excellent resource on this.
-
Hey friend,
There are three primary issues: climate change/carbon emissions; human health; and local econimic vitality.
The farther food travels the more carbon emmissions are produced thus the increase in factors creating climate change. Also the farther food travels the less nutritional value it holds - there are several easily accessibly studies to document the loss of nutrients in produce over time (not to even go into GMO and chemically treated products), and finally when you buy out of state, the money goes, well out of state - not really a rocket science relationship there, huh?
Check out the book "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver. She expresses this issue with great compassion and personal investment.
And, final statement. I would support programs that encourage the purchase of local products in schools of all kinds possible - furniture, food, whatever.
Supporting the local economy is a hugely valuable action on many levels. It is not simply Oregonian/liberal propaganda.
Love it! Thanks to all supporting this process.
-
You could apply the same principles to anything. Food is just an easy target, because it is basic and essential to life. But it is really no different then anything else. If you like fresh food because it tastes better, then perhaps it will need to be local. But we certainly don't need to support local food, because it is simply local. Gosh if I lived in Georgia I could get local peanut products and some salmonella too. Local is relative and isn't always better.
I understand that transportation of food is bad for the environment, but so is transportation of everything else. Transportation of me going around the world to learn more about its beauty is also bad, unless maybe by bike and boat. Even then I would use a bike and a boat probably made elsewhere.Why don't we shut down Amazon.com because books can be bought and written locally? Why don't we shut down all the local restaurants serving local meat and produce, because we can all eat at home? Traveling to a local organic restaurant is also bad. Having a restaurant at all is bad for the environment. That is the reality. It is hard to have moral authority when you own a business that encourages people to get to you and takes up land and resources.
The food issue is just easy and simple and makes people feel cozy and well human. But the interest in it isn't commensurate with the reality of our current world.
There is something odd about the same people that insist on local are the same people that love to travel.
A distinction needs to be made between supporting local because of the environment or because of economics. There is really no ground on the economics side, but for environmental issues there is some leeway. The local movement is a slippery one because sometimes it smacks of nationalism. Why is a business in Oregon better then a business in Iowa? Just because I live here? What weird awkward rubbish.
-
The meal with local chili becomes more expensive because a regulation forces them to add cheese....That is a problem in the regulation, not in buying local. Protein doesn't exist only in meat and cheese.
-
I heard a few comments earlier in the program about "kids don't like it", or they don't "choose" particular items - - I hate to sound like an old fart, but when I was in grade school in the early '70s, lunch was a serving of every item (including vegetables). If you finished all on your plate you were then permitted to get extra of what you "liked".
Kids choices about what they like are influenced by their peers. They often say they don't like things that they have never tried, and choose to not try them because of peer pressure. We owe it to them to expand their horizon by eliminating some choices of what they DO NOT put on their plate. Encourage (force?) them to try everything!
-
This discussion is troubling to me for a reason that is maybe only obvious to an outsider.
We are talking about this because of the "hipness" of the local food movement, which is part of a larger, smug self image that Oregonians have about themselves as being progressive. It's shocking to me that there isn't better support for school nutrition in general in Oregon, given the state's smug self image.
As a parent, this isn't the only shocking thing about our lack of support for kids. We have one of the shortest school years in the nation as well. We compete for that title with some of the lovely states of the SE US.
When it comes to kids, even in Oregon, we suddenly start to poormouth.
-
As a family physician, I believe that this is such an important topic. I want to find ways to promote both local and nutritional food. I do not agree with the school's argument that they can not increase the quality of foods because they are worried that kids will go hungry, -assuming that the children will not pick the more nutritious foods. The school needs to set an example. If someone is hungry they will eat the food in front of them. Children need to be exposed to good food to form good food habits. Once they are adults, these practices are not easily changed.
-
This is all wonderful! I'm 25 and school lunch when I was in school was dismal.
I would just like to add that my mother teaches in Beaverton and her school is starting a garden this year. So far the kids love it.
Go Local!
-
Children who garden at school are more likely to eat fresh fruits and vegetables when offered in school lunches. Given that fruit and vegetable consumption among Oregon's children is far below what is essential for good health, anything the state can do to make both these foods available (and increase the likelihood that children will eat them when served by including food garden education at school) is simply the right thing to do.
Serving other Oregon product- grains, meat, legumes and more- also gives us the opportunity to not only access healthfully processed foods, it allows the opportunity to influence changes by Oregon producers/processors to prepare their foods in more healthful ways. Asking an Oregon chicken processor to make a chicken nugget that is broiled and made without added fats is much more likely to happen than expecting a national/international company to reconfigure their products just because Oregon schools want it that way.
And, given the economic challenges, this infusion of funds manages to improve the revenues for Oregon food and agriculture economy.
It makes sense to make the most of an investment, especially when times are tough. This legislation doesn't only address economics. It doesn't only address freshness and greater local control over foods served in schools. It doesn't only address the multiple benefits of school-based garden education and it's demonstrated positive impacts on academic, health, environmental, and social development for our children.
It is an investment by the people of the state, that has multiple positive outcomes.
Debra Lippoldt
Executive Director, Growing Gardens
-
While aware that school days are shortened, why not ask a local and a mega farmer to give a talk on where food comes from; my son, in the 60's thought it originated in the grocery store.
Gleaning is also an educational way for children to learn and profit from their work. That's how my son first learned about food.
If we cannot educate our children about food growing and eating, they will become the educaters of their children, without the information they need to thrive.
-
Yes, yes, yes, this is such a positive direction - even through the strained optimism I hear in the voices on the air, you have to admit that connecting local agriculture to school food programs is a perfectly wonderful direction for school nutrition (probably a direction backward to wiser times).
I support the voices that speak to whole food nutrition. Whole nutrition may not be synonymous with local but it CAN BE. Nutrition is primarily in the hands of those who purchase the products and design the menues. This is a charge to those decision makers to have the courage to do the right thing and make healthy changes.
I love the post that reminded us that not so long ago (this was the case when I went to grade school anyway) that there was no choice in our meals. Can we all agree that youngsters habituated to processed foods will not necessarily make the best food choice for their long-term health. Can we consider school a learning environment for life as well as for information? Make the meals an opportunity for learning about whole food nutrition.
Include the students (of course the level of engagement depends on the age of student) in the proces of food growing, menue planning and food preparation. It seems sad how disconnected our contemporary culture has become from what forms the cells and tissues of our bodies. Food comes in some amorphous package from goodness knows where. This kind of disconnect does not support life learning.
I encourage school representatives not to consider nutritional planning an economic burden but rather an opportunity to provide valuable live long learning. What a great curriculum - whole nutrition, permaculture, local agriculture, whole foods cooking . . . There is a great opportunity here!
thanks to all!
-
There are a lot of good reasons why individuals chose to buy food locally, but the interjection of government to mandate or subsidize the moral/economic "buy local" ideology is a huge mistake. The logical correlation to "buy local" is "sell local." If Oregonians really want to restrict the ability of "non local" farmers to freely sell their products here, we had better be willing to burden our own farmers and processors with government controls on their ability to access markets that someone decides are not "local" enough.
-
Right accross the river in Vancouver... a area that really is over looked when people talk about OREGON... WE are much closer neighbors than some parts of Oregon,,,that is another disscussion though. right.
I am a Mother that packs a lunch for my children daily. I pack a lunch because the choices that are available are neither nutirtious or appetizing. I pack a lunch because it is an easier option for our family and it is much more cost effective.
I think the point that is being missed in this whole disscussion is...Will the children eat it?
I have been to visit my daughter many times to eat lunch with her. While there I have noticed the children are given very little time to actually eat their lunches due to...time restraints? The thing I found most upsetting was the amount of food that the kids are actually eating.
In the evergreen school district they are making an effort to bring in local produce. I happened to be at school one day when the children were offered a "farm fresh pear" from a local farm. These little six and seven year olds were given a whole enormous under ripened piece of fruit. Do you know how many of them went straight into the garbage? untouched. unenjoyed. Some of those kids most likely don't even know what a delicous juicy just ripened pear even tastes like. If things were done properly those pears would have waited, been allowed to ripen, and then cut in half, into a portion appropriate for a child. Instead the were thrown on a tray, looked at and then thrown away.
I think this is the piece that is missing in the disscussion. So many pieces are missing. Really. But will the kids eat it?
It is very simple to talk about thing s when they are out there as something we can do, something that needs to change, but it is a system that needs a huge overhaul. School lunch and the lunch lady have gotten really lazy. It is a system based on convenience and which is easiest.
Go to a school sometime...see what the kids are eating or how much. It was a very shocking thing for my the first time, then it happened again and again.
-
I agree with stephanieagable's "farm fresh pear" going to waste because it wasn't served properly.
One limitation of our discussion on TOL is we're forced to quantize complex thoughts into bites. "Local Food" creates a label in the mind. To some it represents "Oregon smugness", to others it represents "we can do things better and smarter".
I remember picking beans near Portland Airport as a youth. You look at the land around the airport now and it's been turned into warehouses, retail and office space. We've paved over productive farm land which could be used to produce local food in preference for non-food commerce. (I like Kerosene exhaust on my strawberries.)
We've de-valued food in preference for stuff. Mega-farmers produce cheaper, lower-quality food so we can spend money on Hummers and 50-inch televisions. That our children aren't eating healthy food is largely the 800-pound Monsantos chicken coming home to roost.
We chose materialism over healthy living. Can we reverse this trend now or should we wait for things to become a tad more calamitous?
It's easy to see yet we make it hard to fix. We become industrially successful. Machines and robots produce widgets more easily than farmers produce food. Farming is "hard work" so we create work which produces better margins with less elbow grease, but we die in our cubicles from coronaries caused by sedentary stress.
Guess it's better to die spinning mindlessly in an Aeron fly swatter chair than falling off a tractor into a thresher.
-
Buying locally makes sense. As a Vancouver resident (who pays Oregon property tax and paid Oregon income tax for almost 30 years) I am disappointed that local is apparently defined in this context as Oregon. Doesn't it make sense to define local based on the number of miles it takes to transport? If you live in Ontario (Oregon) shouldn't the prison or school system buy from Idaho vs the Willamette Valley? Are we really talking about buying local or protecting Oregon farmers and processors? When legislating something which "makes sense", let's be sure, it really does. Linda Tubbs
-
Comments are now closed.
I am a parent at Atkinson school who helped get the food gardens growing and the harvested produce into the cafeteria. It is critical that we get healthy local food into the schools again. It is a tragedy that corporate america reached into our school kitchens in the 80s and 90s and replaced home-cooked meals with processed microwavelable items that passed for food. The school lunches are an abomination, and PPS Nutrition Services will talk circles around you quoting fat, protein and carbohydrate grams, etc...but the truth of the matter is that our kids are eating substandard food(i.e the fact that the school does not sell whole milk which is critical for growing brains). What I find extremely unfair is that the poor kids are fed this unhealthy food twice daily! This is not only unhealthy, but to me is a form of elitism! If the white wealthy and middle class children were eating this EVERDAY, the parents would raise a huge stink about it and the school lunches would be changed, but since poor children's families cannot stand up and fight with the ease that the middle class can, NOTHING CHANGES! The head of PPS Nutrition Services actually showed up at a PTA meeting with a sheet of paper documenting the healthy choice of offering chocolate milk every day!!!!!!!!!!
As a serious nutritionist, who eats like my great grandparents did, (SOAKED whole grains, good fats, fresh fruit and veggies, raw milk and other whole foods), I have been appalled with PPS and their corporate stance on feeding our children. It is time to plant Victory Gardens again, teach children where food comes from, order from LOCAL farmers and get rid of the corporate influence in our schools!
Thanks for FINALLY talking about this seriously. Many of us moms have been working on this issue for years!
Jennifer M. Pultz