Spokane7
65°
April 14, 2011 in City
Students, officials protest USDA tater-tossing plan
Sacajawea Middle School eighth-grader Scott Wolfe, 14, munches on french fries at the end of his lunch period on Wednesday.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
Potatoes are being blacklisted.
A proposal by federal nutrition officials to all but rid school meal programs of potatoes in favor of other vegetables and fruits has earned scorn from regional farmers, bewilderment from school officials and a big thumbs down from many students.
“If they don’t have fries or tater tots with lunch, a lot of kids won’t eat it,” said Scott Wolfe, an eighth-grade student at Sacajawea Middle School in Spokane.
Wednesday was the last day for public comment on the plan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is attempting to make changes to fight the childhood obesity epidemic.
Doug Wardell, nutrition services director for Spokane Public Schools, said banning or restricting the most commonly served vegetable in school lunches and breakfast may backfire.
Potatoes are a good source of potassium and vitamin C and should not be labeled as junk food, he said.
“You’ve heard this before,” Wardell said: “It’s not the potatoes that are bad, it’s what we do to them.”
The potatoes served in public schools are oven-baked, not fried, he said. He acknowledged that they are processed with oils and salt for flavoring, but said casting fries and tater tots served at schools as the obesity culprit is missing the point.
“Kids are not getting fat off of school meals,” he said.
School lunches are a ripe target for parents and others who want more wholesome, nutritious food served. Lunch choices resemble fast-food: hamburgers with fries. Popcorn chicken with fries. Pizza. Nachos. Tater tots. Prepackaged peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with chips.
There are plenty of other choices, too, including salads, grilled chicken wraps and fruit, but students line up for burgers and fries.
Sacajawea lunch worker Pam Ward said about 70 pounds of french fries are served with the 325 lunches provided students each day.
The changes trickling down to the schools began with a rule that erased any potato products from the approved list of foods in the federal Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. The changes followed the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Potatoes are the only vegetable left off the approved list for WIC, which in 2009 served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women who were in danger of malnutrition.
The institute determined that many WIC participants already ate plenty of potatoes and wanted to encourage them to eat a wider variety of fruits and vegetables.
Chris Voigt, executive director of the Washington State Potato Commission, said it wasn’t long before the recommendations washed into the school lunch programs, which subsidize breakfast and lunch for about 32 million children every year in public and private schools.
The issue hits more than just nutrition, Voigt said. Washington’s potato crop is a $4-billion-a-year economic engine in the middle section of the state. About 87 percent of the potatoes grown in Washington are processed into french fries, tater tots, hash browns and other processed foods.
Upset by the changes, Voigt last year embarked on a 60-day potato-only diet that garnered national attention and highlighted the nutritional benefits of the potato as well as the drudgery of eating the tubers day after day.
The school lunch program cutbacks would be the latest salvo against potatoes. Low-carb diets and obesity have made potatoes and especially french fries a symbol of the problem.
Sacajawea eighth-grader Laura Reese, holding a mound of nachos with a side of fries and apple juice, will be disappointed if fries are pulled from the offerings.
“I don’t get to have this at home,” she said.
Her friend Sydney Cathcart said restricting fries and trying to get students to eat other vegetables and fruit might be a good idea.
“Maybe people won’t be as fat and stuff,” she said before eating her lunch of Sun Chips, chocolate chip cookies and chewy fruit snacks.
Under the proposed changes, potatoes would be banned from school breakfasts. At lunch, schools would be able to offer one cup of starchy vegetables per week to students. These starchy vegetables could include potatoes, lima beans, corn and green peas.
“The justification is that by taking potatoes off the plate it will force school districts to put other choices on the plate,” Voigt said. “It will be expensive, too. Potatoes are a cost-effective way of delivering nutrients and here we have the USDA saying, ‘Let’s have kids eat spinach.’ It won’t happen.”
Said Wardell, “There’s so much that would end up in the garbage.”
He likened the proposal to a cudgel when perhaps more subtle encouragements would be effective.
“Why get rid of the vegetable that the students are eating?” he asked. “You can’t force somebody to eat something they don’t want to.”
Parishes giving $1.5 million toward settling sex cases 
oneanddone on April 14 at 4:35 a.m.
This very likely has more to do with one gov’t lobby outbidding another gov’t lobby. And, oh by the way, why are the Feds telling states and local school districts how our kids should be fed? Locals are responsible to the people who actually care about these children, the parents. All the Feds care about is telling us when to take the next breath.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on April 14 at 5:10 a.m.
The “Feds” actually provide a lot of the big boxes of food that those of us in commercial food service get at no cost from Second Harvest. The aforementioned french fries, even when “oven baked” and not deep fat fried have a high percentage of caloric value dispensed in the form of not so good types of fat… palm oil is often the biggest culprit ( a “vegetable oil” that is hard fat at room temp). The high salt content is not a good thing either. I’ll get some more facts when I go to the Shalom Kitchen this morning and bring em back later today. best ChefGus
ManleyPointer on April 14 at 7:00 a.m.
I’m so glad the federal government has nothing more urgent to attend to than this.
Your tax dollars at work, folks!!
maria on April 14 at 7:36 a.m.
Kids will always find other ways to get their fried spuds. Are they going to ban potato chips in lunchboxes brought from home. Arghhhhhhh…What’s next??? Banning salt???
maria on April 14 at 7:38 a.m.
My mother thought she could control my intake of fried potatoes. I snuck them on the side and became even fatter.
detroitdude on April 14 at 8:08 a.m.
It’s not so much what the schools are serving that is the problem. Yes, it isn’t healthy, yes a recommendation coming down from nutritionists saying “don’t eat a lot of fried food, it’s not healthy” isn’t rocket science either, it’s …whats the words…common sense.
But no, it isn’t the schools that are making these kids morbidly obese with bad eating habits. It’s a combination of lazy parents, giving in to their kid who demands a happy meal over a home cooked balanced meal, and it’s the evolution of our society over the last 20 years or so. Kids aren’t active like they were back then, sure, some participate in sports, some you will see out playing on a nice day. But how many of those kids that could be outside playing are inside, playing xbox, sitting on the internet all day? Many more than 20 years ago that is for sure.
I’m not so quick to blame school lunch programs on this matter. Elementary through high school when I went, the food was not exactly delicious, and nor was it healthy, but I was very active, it was essentially just fuel, easily burned off due to a high metabolism and being active, didn’t even matter how many calories and how much grease was in it. When you spend your time playing sports, riding bikes, etc. that kind of thing takes care of itself.
Ninch on April 14 at 8:27 a.m.
Potatoes do not make you fat (ask the Irish). OVEREATING and no exercise makes you fat.
Lots of good oils out there which makes baked fries very healthy. A little salt is not bad… processed foods have the most salt.
A restriction to one cup of “starchy” vegetables per week is CRAZY!!! Starchy foods include potatoes, lima beans, corn and green peas… as well as carrots, squash, beets and other beans (black, navy, garbanzo, etc. which all supply needed protein).
And the purpose is so that kids will eat other vegetables? …i.e. more expensive vegetables (avocado, asparagus, cucumbers, bok choy, greens/lettuce, arugula, etc.) that also must be shipped miles and miles in the winter season (and increases CO2 emissions).
Note: In addition to being very nutritious, starchy vegetables have a longer shelf life and can be stored during winter months. I am now waiting for the feds to propose cutting the use of canned tomatoes for some erroneous dietary reason.
Finally, kids (and adults) get fat because they overeat and do not get enough exercise. Starchy vegetables are not the culprit.
Keep the potatoes, and if worried about obesity among kids… make sure they get an hour of exercise each day (recess, PE)… which also makes them more ready to sit still in class and pay attention.
detroitdude on April 14 at 8:44 a.m.
Well said, Ninch. When you’re a growing kid it really doesn’t matter what you eat as long as you are active. Ok maybe a steady diet of cupcakes and candy bars isn’t a good idea, but we’re talking potatoes here lol. And Ninch is also correct in saying potatoes do not make people fat even when you do factor in the oil and salt. When I was putting myself through college on a shoestring budget, my main staple was roasted potatoes and onions, and in all honesty, I LOST weight. Another helpful tip, eliminate pop from your diet totally, replace with water, juice, or even tea and you will be surprised at how many pounds you shed over the course of 3 months, and that’s just from not drinking pop, no extra exercise required!
Ninch on April 14 at 9:10 a.m.
The latest movement by some schools is to eliminate chocolate milk because it has higher fat calories (2%) instead of nonfat milk. The difference in the amount of fat/calories is negligible especially when considering that kids will more likely drink milk if chocolate flavored… and chocolate is actually good for one’s health.
This food policing has really gone to the extreme in the name of fighting obesity. Another example is measuring BMI (weight to height) of kids and not taking into account that muscle weighs more than fat, ergo very fit kids (and their parents) are receiving written reports on the need to lose weight.
detroitdude on April 14 at 9:17 a.m.
I think what worked for so many years in the past is tried and true on this subject matter. I don’t think chocolate milk or regular milk makes a big difference, besides the fact that kids will be more willing to drink chocolate milk. Physical education is important at every school level, and it needs to increase as the kids get older, as in more strenuous.
Another factor is portion control. It’s not really a good idea to send your kids to school with double the lunch money so they can have double the amount of food they normally get, even if they claim that by lunch they are “starving”. A good breakfast curtails that as well. People just have to sensible, don’t sit down and inhale a plate of food in 4 minutes, give your stomach some time to catch up and say “I’m full”. All this, common sense really.
johnclarke on April 14 at 9:47 a.m.
um, I dunno. People that are too stupid to raise kids are a problem, so with the best intentions The Man has to step in I suppose. I’m afraid common sense can be in short supply Detroit. There are still people that swear motorcycle helmets will kill you. OK, off topic.
detroitdude on April 14 at 10:58 a.m.
LOL john, must be those same people who say a seat belt will kill you too. Yeah, there’s like a 1% chance it could, but then a 99% chance it will save your life. Great logic!
mpetersen on April 14 at 12:22 p.m.
For those that are saying that the government needs to stay out of the school cafeteria, you need to look at a lot of the funding streams for school lunches. Typically, all schools are eligible for commodities from the fed. This can include just about anything; canned fruit, bulk hamburger, some fresh fruits, oatmeal, cheese, etc. This comes to the school at no cost to help keep other costs down. Additionally, most lunches are reimbursed by the federal government. This is why school lunches typically cost in the 1 to 2 dollar range. Do you really think that a nutritious lunch or breakfast only costs a buck or two to prepare and serve? However, to be reimbursed, the lunches must meet criteria (fat content, calories, sodium, portion size). This is why the government can and does dictate what is in school lunches.
I
Thoreau on April 14 at 1:13 p.m.
detroit has it right. True, school lunches are less healthy than in the past, but we are in an age of push-button adolescent entertainment.
Kids have replaced much (or all) of their time that would have been spent outdoors with internet, texting, video games, etc. Often, these activities coincide with snacking on junkfood.
It’s hard to munch on a bag of greasy chips while playing ball outside, if you know what I mean…
johnclarke on April 14 at 1:37 p.m.
Way too many kids get their only good meal at school. I’m cool with someone making it healthier. I will say that my kid’s school does not do a good job with lactose intolerance. Essentially, she can’t eat school lunch.
DemoDriver on April 14 at 2:52 p.m.
Got a good laugh over how the phrase “offering students other choices” was so euphemistically deployed to put a happy face on such a blatant act of micromanagement.
Granted, this is no worse than that Chicago area school which made national news for no longer allowing students to bring sack lunches from home, but does any given series of wrongs ever make things right?
jmowreader on April 14 at 4:01 p.m.
It occurs to me that a story about the apparent atrocity of removing french fries from hot lunch shouldn’t be illustrated with a picture of a kid who demonstrates why it’s a good idea to do that.
ZagChuck on April 14 at 10:48 p.m.
This isn’t about nutrition or about obesity, this is about control. If the federal Govt., really wanted to control obesity, there are more efficient and logical ways to do so. This is especially true for the USDA, who controls the funding for food stamps.
Long story short, they could easily place restrictions on the food-stamp/ebt/quest card that limits the amount of “junk” food that can be acquired. It’s really quite simple, only 5% of your purchases with the food-stamp/ebt/quest card can be for “junk” food. Additionally only 5-7% can be for fast food restaurants. This will help prevent obesity and also help reduce the costs of taxpayer funded healthcare costs related to obesity.
We already know the impoverished suffer more from obesity than those who do not, and we know the costs of healthcare for the obese are rising fast, and there are more of them. We also know there are over 42 million people collecting the food-stamp subsidy nationally, and about 1 million here in Washington State. This seems like a logical and simple solution that doesn’t require boycotting farmers.
That’s just one of many ways to address the obesity rate by the government. But it will never happen, because this isn’t about nutrition, this is about control.