Cuts to school lunch and food bank funding mean less fresh produce for children and families

• The US government recently cut over $1 billion in funding to two programs that helped schools and food banks provide fresh produce to children and families, including Local Food for Schools and the Local Food Purchase Assistance program.
• The cuts will likely lead to less fresh produce being available in school cafeterias, which could negatively impact the nutritional quality of meals served to millions of American children.
• The reduction in funding will also affect local farmers and ranchers who relied on these programs for guaranteed buyers, potentially harming their livelihoods and the local agricultural industry.
• Studies have shown that schools with access to fresh produce through these programs tend to serve healthier meals, which can positively impact children’s diets and overall health.
• The cuts come at a time when chronic disease in children is a growing concern, with poor diet identified as one of the key factors contributing to this issue, highlighting the need for continued support for programs that promote healthy eating habits.

The U.S. government recently cut more than US$1 billion in funding to two long-running programs that helped schools and food banks feed children and families in need. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the reductions are a “return to long-term, fiscally responsible initiatives.” But advocacy groups say the cuts will hurt millions of Americans.

The reductions came just days before the release of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again report, an analysis of the factors causing chronic disease in children. One of those factors, the report says, is poor diet.

Dr. Marlene Schwartz, a professor of human development and family sciences and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health at the University of Connecticut, discusses why cutting the Local Food for Schools and the Local Food Purchase Assistance programs means less fresh food will be available to children and families – and could hurt local farmers and ranchers too.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, edited here for brevity and clarity.

Could you explain the two programs that were cut?

Marlene Schwartz: Most schools were eligible for Local Food for Schools, a $660 million program, which has now been cut. The funds for Local Food for Schools were on top of the reimbursement that schools get for meals and would have allowed them to buy more local, fresh food.

The Local Food Purchase Assistance program was designed primarily for food banks. Again, the idea was to provide federal money, about $500 million, so food banks could buy from local farmers and support local agriculture. But that too was cut.

How will these cuts affect families and schoolchildren?

Schwartz: Many children eat two of their meals, five days a week, at school. During the 2022-2023 school year, about 28 million kids ate lunch at school. More than 14 million had breakfast there.

Having fresh, local produce in the school cafeteria provides the opportunity to introduce children to more fruits and vegetables and teach them about the food grown in their own communities. Think about how powerful a lesson about nutrition and local agriculture can be when you not only hear and read about it but can taste it too.

How will these cuts affect farmers and ranchers?

Schwartz: When the funding was there, the farmers and ranchers knew they had guaranteed buyers for their products. So the loss of these funds, especially so quickly, will have a very negative effect on them. Suddenly, the buyers they counted on don’t have the money to buy from them.

How does nutritious food in schools impact kids?

Schwartz: Both the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are required to comply with the dietary guidelines for Americans, so they’ve always had nutrition standards. These guidelines are updated every five years to reflect the most recent science and public health needs.

The regulations on school meal nutrition were strengthened significantly with the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. We’ve done a number of studies showing that because of these changes, healthier meals are available at schools, and children eat better. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also did a large national study that reported much the same.

Another study looked at the nutritional quality of the food at school, from home and at restaurants. It found that school food was the healthiest of all. Many people were surprised by this, but when you think about it, schools are the only setting required to follow federal and state nutrition regulations – restaurants and grocery stores don’t have to do that.

But getting kids to eat nutritious food can be a challenge.

Schwartz: We’ve known for decades that American children are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. We know they’re eating too much added sugar, saturated fat and sodium.

This is due in part to the millions of dollars food companies spend to entice children to eat more sugary cereals, sweetened beverages and fast food.

I think the best nutrition education happens on your plate. By maximizing the quality of food served in schools, policymakers can influence the diets of millions of children every single day.

How nutritious are the foods at food banks?

Schwartz: Food banks often measure their success in terms of the pounds of food they distribute into a community. But families relying on the charitable food system often have a higher risk of diet-related illness – like high blood pressure or Type 2 diabetes – and many want healthier foods.

In response, food banks, which nationwide serve about 50 million Americans, have made a concerted effort to improve the nutritional quality of their food. There’s now a system to help food banks consistently track the nutritional quality of what they provide.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Marlene B. Schwartz receives funding from the USDA, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Partnership for a Healthier America, and the CT State Department of Education.

link