The Lunchroom Food Fight

…and why it’s worth fighting to keep

If you and I disagree over the wisdom of eating junk food, that is not food politics. If you and your allies organize and take political action to impose (or block) new government regulations on junk food…that is food politics.[i]

The school lunchroom has been the subject of political food fights for decades. Feeding school lunches in America dates to the 19th century. It became official federal legislation following World War II with the passage of the National School Lunch Act that provided subsidized low cost or free lunches to qualified students. Under the new Trump Administration, school lunches have again become a potential target. The following looks at the history of school lunches in America dating back to the 19th century, the current status, and what’s a risk if the school lunch program is eliminated under the new Trump administration. There is a lot of information here but, it helps to understand this 200 year old history in America and why that history is now facing an uncertain future.

History of the U.S. School Lunch Program

Years of experience…in the teaching of underfed children have brought home to our people the fact that we cannot separate mental and bodily welfare…The establishment of the physical health of children has therefore come to be regarded as a most important part of their education. To a very large extent this must depend on right habits of eating. Children must have food in proper quantities and of the right kind and must eat in the right way at right times. There must always be doubt as to the value of the results of a school day for the child who is listless from want of food or from eating large quantities of indigestible or non-nutritious food.[ii] — Louise Stevens, 1914

The United States was slow to develop a government-sanctioned school lunch program compared to other nations. The 19th century school lunch program for starving children relied on charitable organizations with the earliest documented program in 1853 by the Children’s Aid Society of New York City. Free lunches were designed to incentive students to attend class more than to provide adequate nutrition. By 1908, elementary school lunches in New York City were provided through cooperative efforts between the educational authorities and a committee of social workers, physicians, and teachers. While there had not been any state legislation on school lunches by 1914, Massachusetts had crafted a bill through the Committee on Education of the Lower House in the Session of 1912 that would empower local school boards to expend school funds for the support of lunches in elementary school systems.[iii]

Ellen H. Richards, a pioneer in the early 20th century Home Economics movement, revolutionized school lunches through the development of a food lab that focused on nutritional lunches for Boston school students. Her primary concern was the diet of young children arriving to school hungry and often malnourished due to limited available food sources at home. Many janitors would supplement their income by selling food to students with little nutritional value and prepared in unsanitary conditions. Richard argued that professionals should plan menus and prepare healthier food in a sanitary facility. This resulted in an organized protest by janitors who had local businesses place window signs reading, “Don’t Let Anyone Tell You What You Should Eat,” and “I’d Rather Eat What I Want Than What Someone Says I Should.” Richards convinced the Boston School Committee in 1894 to launch a pilot lunch program that she oversaw including its space, equipment, and utilities. The successful program was founded on private donations and expanded to feed 4000 Boston public school students a day. After Richard’s death, the program was run by the Boston’s Women’s Educational and Industrial Union.[iv]

School lunch programs continued expanding across major U.S. cities, including Chicago, which tested a 1910 program in six schools. Another program provided penny lunches in 1911 from a cooperation of Cincinnati teachers and the Civil League and Council of Jewish Women. By the start of World War I, there were twenty-nine cities in thirteen states, plus the District of Columbia, providing some type of organized school food offerings. [v]

School lunch programs during the Great Depression of the 1930s were designed to accomplish two major objectives: the first was an economic solution of disposing of government owned agricultural commodities from farmer agreements and the second was to prevent poor nutrition of school children. Without regulatory guidelines on food nutrition, these meals tended to be higher in fats, sugar, and salt while lower on fiber.[vi]

The federal government’s 1935 Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided work for unemployed people through the Public Works project including the preparation and serving of school lunches. WPA paid workers wages and provided surplus food to local school systems. State assistance allowed a substantial expansion of the school lunch program for the remainder of the 1930s. Menus became more standardized, production more sanitized, and increase in trained food professionals improved in meal quality. The WPA operated school lunches in every state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico by 1941 with nearly two million lunches served daily by more than 64,000 WPA employees. By 1942, the number reached over six million children fed from 92,916 schools resulting in an increase in both attendance and student weight gain. The onset of World War II drastically cut into this success with the war effort competing for employees and food shortages with the need for surplus food to be sent to the troops. The WPA closed shop in 1943 resulting in the number of children served school lunch dropping to five million by April of 1944. School lunch funding began to level out by December of 1945 with the number of children fed increasing to 6.7 million children.[vii]

Following World War II, Congress passed The National School Lunch Act creating the National School Lunch Program to provide subsidized low cost or free lunches to qualified students. Senator Richard Russell (D-GA) was interested in passing the bill to reduce food surpluses that were suppressing the farm food prices in addition to feeding poor children across the country. This official act provided the first “permanent” federally funded school lunch program. Passage followed with a total of 23 amendments from the House and compromises in the Senate. The greatest controversy was presented by Representative Adam Powell (D-NY) who demanded racial equality in the provisions for qualified students in states with segregated schools. The bill passed by a voice vote in both the House and Senate.[viii]

More than three decades later, a national standard was established in 1979 that required snacks and drinks to have a minimum of 10% of the Recommended Daily Allowances of key vitamins, minerals, or protein. Although established with good intentions, the problem of lacking school nutritional standards was identified as early as the 1990s. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment for the school year 1991 to 1992 revealed USDA existing requirements for vitamins, minerals, and protein were too high in saturated fat and sodium, producing a red flag in the school lunch program.[ix]

Soon after this new standard was enacted, child nutrition programs took a heavy hit with its first funding decrease since 1966 under President Ronald Reagan’s early 1980s budget cuts. The lunch meal cost to students increased resulting in decreased student participation. At the same time, the need for school lunches increased due to high unemployment and a weak economy. Decreased participation also resulted from the new parental requirement to provide an application with their social security number.[x] The Reagan administration released new USDA proposals on the classification of food calling ketchup a vegetable so it could replace less popular healthy vegetables. The nutrition proposal was rejected by 1981. Congress slashed the school lunch program reimbursement by a third impacting the supply of equipment and food driving schools to look for commercial vendors to close the financial gap. Unregulated and less healthy ala carte items became available for sale including fries, nachos, and pizza. Food revenue was supplemented by snack foods, candy, and soda sold in vending machines.[xi]

Legal loopholes allowed corporations to begin taking over school lunch programs under President Bill Clinton. The corporate attraction was direct marketing to children and high profit item promotion including soda vending machine placement and less nutritional food bundled with other food. By 1994–1995, 8% of school lunches were provided by major corporations (e.g. Marriott, Aramark, and Daka).[xii] President Clinton appointed Ellen Haas as Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in charge of Food and Consumer Affairs to oversee the school lunch program. Because nutrition standards were not being met, Haas did research and proposed changes to the 1946 School Lunch Act for the first time. Her final proposal for the USDA School Meal Initiative for Healthy Kids became a federal mandate and included a school requirement to:

· serve meals with no more than 30 percent of calories from fat and no more than 10 percent saturated fat by 1998,

· offer a flexible and easy-to-use menu planning system to assure children’s meals provided the needed vitamins, minerals, and food energy,

· provide technical support for school food services staff to comply with the changes,

· educate children on nutritional food choices, and

· reduce bureaucratic red tape for meal administration.

Unfortunately, the USDA School Meal Initiative for Healthy Kids objectives were not met, and the nutrition value of the meals remained substandard.[xiii] The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment survey looked at 2005 data and the impact of school meals and nutrient intake of children in food-secure, marginally secure, and food-insecure households. The study revealed that children from both food-insecure and marginally secure households relied primarily on school meal programs at a higher rate than children from highly secure households reflecting the higher participation of lower secured household children. [xiv]

The interest in healthier foods continued over the next decade and culminated in the passing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) that improved the healthiness of school lunches in more than 98% of school districts. The act also addressed the gap in access to healthy food for lower income children compared with students from wealthier communities. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, a coalition cofounded by CSPI, played a key role in laying the groundwork for national school food reform and the passing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

HHKFA was met with strong support and opposition that attracted a lot of media attention. Supporters drafted literature for the public and online petitions for government action to end child hunger and food insecurity while reducing childhood obesity and benefiting regional farms, the environment, and the economy. Supporters consisting of legislatures, experts, and celebrities testified before Congress on July 1, 2010. The opposition testimony included Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation who called the $8 billion bill “irresponsible” with inadequate spending monitoring. The Obamas took their case to the television show, “The View” with Barbara Walters, claiming since the government already regulated school food, they were responsible for changing it. On the opposing side, a study paid for by the National Soft Drink Association, argued childhood obesity was not a major health issue caused by soft drink consumption. Harvard researchers came to a different conclusion stating that 12-year-olds who regularly consumed soft drinks were 1.6 time per daily serving to be more likely overweight than children who didn’t consume them.[xv]

The bipartisan school lunch act passed with support from a collaboration of coalitions focused on child-focused nutrition, hunger, and public health in addition to support from private industry and retired military leaders. Military leaders believed better nourished children led to healthier military recruits. Having a Democratic president working with a Democratic majority Congress helped the bill’s passage.[xvi] The road to the HHFKA passage was not a quick or direct line. Although the NSLP and School Breakfast Program (SBP) are permanently authorized, there is an opportunity to review the programs and consider improving them every five years during the Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR) process.

The federal guidelines for eligibility under the National School Lunch Program are defined in HHKFA and administered by the USDA. The USDA reimburses schools and residential childcare programs with any student at a participating site is eligible for the program.

Malnutrition and hunger of school children has been a part of American history since the 19th century. The passage of HHFKA was a trajectory that began with the 1946 passage of National School Lunch Act and most likely only happened when it did because of the Democratic control of Congress under Obama.

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Impact

A 2021 study published by the Journal of American Medicine Association (JAMA) reveals the substantial impact on school children from the passage of the 2010 HHFKA. Prior to the act passing, the study shows there was unchanged diet quality for school children for many years. During the time of the study from 2003–2018, the proportion of school children consumption of a poor-quality diet decreased from 37.9% to 13.3%. These improvements were attributed to increased greens, salads, fruits, vegetables and whole grains and less saturated fat, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), sugar, refined grains, and sodium in school lunches after 2010. Equitable school lunch improvements from post-2010 were reflected in the decrease in poor-quality school food diets from 54.4% to 27.0% among non-Hispanic white children, from 54.9% to 21.1% among Hispanic children, and from 53.1% to 23.9% among non-Hispanic Black children. Although older children had a worse quality of food diet prior to 2010, diet quality equalized expediently with improvement after 2010 with the poor diet number of children dropping from 55.6% to 24.4%. The study concluded that the 2010 passage of KKFKA resulted in major improvements in the nutritional quality in the National School Lunch Program.[xvii]

The following USDA Economic Research Service chart reflects the National School Lunch Program lunches served and percent free or reduced-price, fiscal years 1971–2023:[xviii]

In fiscal year 2022, The USDA’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP) served 4.9 billion lunches. They have served 228.9 billion lunches since 1971.[xix] The USDA reports that household food insecurity increased from 2021–2022 for almost all subgroups of households included in the study. Highlights of the report for 2022 include an estimated 12.8 percent (17.0 million) of households were food insecure at least some time during 2022, a total of 5.1 percent of all households (6.8 million) had very low food security, and on average, households classified as having very low food security experienced the condition for 1 to 7 days per month over 7 months of the year. Rates of food insecurity increased for households with children under age 18 to 17.3 percent in 6.4 million households. In 1.0 percent of 381,000 households with children, “caregivers reported that children were hungry, skipped a meal, or did not eat for a whole day at some point during the year because there was not enough money for food.”[xx]

A federal waiver that allowed schools to serve meals for free to all students, regardless of income, expired just after the COVID pandemic in June 2022. The price reintroduction after the expired waiver increased hardship when many households were still struggling with the economic consequences of the pandemic, including inflation. A USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) report reflected this financial hardship that redirected money needed for other expenses in nearly a third of households with school-age children that paid for school meals in December 2022.[xxi]

According to the USDA, the 2024 regulations for states set the minimum guidelines but states have the flexibility of increasing the participation level. Many states did increase participation during Covid including offering “universal free meals” regardless of income:

State Universal Free School Meal Policies Federal guidelines require that students in schools operating the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program be served meals for free if their household’s income is 130 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL) or lower, at a reduced price if their household’s income is greater than 130 percent to 185 percent of the FPL, and at full-price if their household’s income is greater than 185 percent of the FPL.[xxii]

Documented participation benefits of the NSLP through HHFKA include:

· aiding in obesity prevention and improving overall student health through diets and combatting food insecurity,

· providing fewer empty calories and more milk, fruit, vegetables and fiber promoting more likely appropriate intakes of calcium, vitamin A and zinc,

· offering healthier alternatives with fewer calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar compared with typical home packed lunches,

· associated with a lower body mass index helping children maintain a healthy weight.

· reducing food insecurity linked to negative health, development and educational outcomes (e.g. slower academic progress and a higher likelihood of repeating a grade).[xxviii]

School Lunch Politics

School lunches have always been controversial but the 21st century has seen a whole new partisanship level of debate. With the documented need and success of the national school lunch program, why would there be a debate about its value? U.S. politics have become more divisive over the past two decades making the food lunch program an easy target for all sides. Recently, school lunches were highlighted with the elevation of Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota to the democratic vice-presidential ticket and his support for universal (free for all) public school student school meals. Minnesota is one of eight states with democratic governors that implemented this program. The Biden administration expanded access to universal free school meals in September of 2023 based upon a national experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Republican President Trump’s administration.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Trump administration wanted to remove nearly one million children from universal free lunches and reduce the legislated required nutritional guidelines. While Democratic state governments looked to program expansion, thirteen Republican governors refused federal funding for summer feeding of school children. In March of 2024 a Republican Study Committee representing a caucus that makes up about three-fourths of the 2024 House GOP, sought dramatic cutbacks on school lunch programs. The unofficial GOP presidential platform known as Project 2025 looks to cut back further or even eliminate, universal school meals. Many states use draconian methods to shame students relying on school lunches and argue school lunches are a drain on state budgets. Conservatives view universal school meals as a waste of taxpayers’ money by feeding any child, especially if their parents have the financial means to do it themselves. Governor of Mississippi Tate Reeves (R) decried funding for universal lunches claiming it represented “attempts to expand the welfare state.”[xxiii]

A 2023 YouGov (an international online research data and analytics technology group) survey found overwhelming support for school lunch programs from U.S. adult citizens:[xxiv]

Education historian Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower writes about the politics of school lunches. He summarizes conservative opposing viewpoints see the federal school lunch problem as; an extension of a welfare program that enables recipient dependency on the government, placing an unfair regulation burden on states and schools, a huge financial expense for a handout, a source of waste and fraud, unconstitutional as it was not specified by the founders as a constitutional right, and meddling in private family affairs.[xxv]

A 2023 report for a proposed 2024 Congressional House Republican Study Committee federal budget details their opposing views of the federal school lunch program. Their budget recommendation would eliminate universal access to focus on “those who actually need them.” This would include streamlining funding for all nutritional programs for children into a single block grant. The proposal posits block grant funding would provide states with needed flexibility and a phased-in state cost sharing. Cost sharing is presented as an administrative incentive for states to allocate funds to those who need it most while monitoring for fraud and abuse. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) would be eliminated so each child would have to prove poverty eligibility. The committee claims $2.445 billion in improper payments were made from FY2016-FY2021 on school lunch and breakfast programs.[xxvi]

Economist Paul Krugman’s New York Times editorial (August 2024) reports that there are a few conservatives that claim to support some type of subsidized or free lunches for students. Krugman argues these lunch programs provide a social justice service for children born into poverty through no fault of their own. Malnourished children grow up less healthy and are less productive adults, hurting society overall. He contends investing in providing nutritional meals for children is no different than investing in the nation’s infrastructure. Krugman contends that feeding selective children results in greater administrative costs for tracking who is eligible while providing an additional burden on the parents to provide their proof of eligibility. Studies reveal that singling out the poorest kids for school lunches places a social stigma on them which can provide a deterrence to choosing a free meal. Conversely, Project 2025 states “Federal school meals increasingly resemble entitlement programs,” arguing that student meals should not be available outside of the school year even though students are still economically depressed.[xxvii]

HHFKA is considered one of the U.S.’s most significant public health accomplishments. There is no debate about the benefits of the national school lunch program, but its political status is precarious. The primary political focus is on guidelines for eligibility, state flexibility in administration, and funding. Just as the 2010 Affordable Care Act provides health insurance to improve the health of all Americans and reduces the costs of chronic and severe medical outcomes, investing in the future of our country through children should be an easy bipartisan agreement. The documented outcomes of HHKFA reflect that school lunch investment dollars have a positive return on investment and demonstrate how the future of our country depends on what we feed children today. The sustaining of the National School Lunch program is critical for the wellbeing of the children and the country.

[i] Robert L. Paarlberg, Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2013), 2.

[ii] Bryant, Louise Stevens. School Feeding; Its History and Practice at Home and Abroad. (Philadelphia, PA: Library of Congress, 1914), https://www.loc.gov/item/14013549/, iii,9.

[iii] Bryant, 18–20.

[iv] Antonia Demas, “Celebrating the Early History of the School Lunch Program, Part 1,” (Food Studies Institute, December 7, 2023), https://foodstudies.org/celebrating-the-early-history-of-the-school-lunch-program-part-1/, 7–9.

[v] Demas, “Part 1,”19–22.

[vi] Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (Berkley, CA: Credo Reference, University of California Press, 2014), 192.

[vii] Gordon Guderson, “The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development,” (Internet Archive, January 1, 1970, https://archive.org/details/isbn_9791590336396/page/24/mode/2up), 24–25.

[viii] Elise Hynd, “National School Lunch Act of 1946,” The Congress Project, December 16, 2016, https://www.thecongressproject.com/national-school-lunch-act-1946/#Footnotes.

[ix] Colin Schwartz and Margo G Wootan, “How a Public Health Goal Became a National Law: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” (Nutrition Today, Volume 54, Number 2, March/April 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716573/), 72.

[x] Antonia Demas, “Celebrating the History of the School Lunch Program, Part 2,” (Food Studies Institute, December 7, 2023, https://foodstudies.org/celebrating-the-history-of-the-school-lunch-program-part-2/), 15–16.

[xi] Kristen Hinman, “The School Lunch Wars.” (The Wilson Quarterly (1976-) 35, no. 2 (2011): 16–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41484248), 18–19.

[xii] Marion Nestle, Food Politics:, 193.

[xiii] Antonia Demas, “Celebrating the History of the School Lunch Program, Part 3,” (Food Studies Institute, March 14, 2024, https://foodstudies.org/celebrating-the-history-of-the-school-lunch-program-part-3/), 16–18

[xiv] Elizabeth Potamites and Anne Gordon, “Children’s Food Security and Intakes from School Meals: Final Report,” Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2010, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=84339, 1.

[xv] Jeanne Incantalupo Kuhner, “Show ’n’ Tell Nutrition at School.” (The Phi Delta Kappan 93, no. 7 (2012): 16–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23209998), 18–19.

[xvi] Colin Schwartz and Margo G Wootan, 73.

[xvii] J. Liu, R. Micha, Y. Li, D. Mozaffarian, “Trends in Food Sources and Diet Quality Among US Children and Adults, 2003–2018,” (JAMA Netw Open;4(4):e215262. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5262, 2021), 1–16.

[xviii] “National School Lunch Program Lunches Served and Percent Free or Reduced-Price, Fiscal Years 1971–2023,” USDA ERS — Chart Detail of School Lunches, July 31, 2024, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=54595, 2.

[xix] “USDA’s National School Lunch Program Has Served About 229 Billion Meals Since 1971,” USDA ERS — Chart Detail, October 10, 2023, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=107561.

[xx] J. W. Jones and S. Toossi, 14.

[xxi] “National School Lunch Program Lunches,” 3.

[xxii] J. W. Jones and S. Toossi, “The Food and Nutrition Assistance Landscape: Fiscal Year 2023 Annual Report” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report No. EIB-274, 2024, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/109314/eib-274.pdf?v=1037.3 ), 15.

[xxiii] Kim Severson, “Why Are Free School Lunches Becoming a Campaign Issue?,” (The New York Times, August 13, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/dining/free-school-lunch-programs.html), 13.

[xxiv] “YouGov Survey: School Issues,” (School Issues Poll Results, YouGov, 2023, https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/bbecia4684/School%20Subjects_poll_results.pdf) 4.

[xxv] Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower, Unpacking School Lunch: Understanding the Hidden Politics of School Food. (Cham, Switzerland, Palgrave Macmillan, 2022), 79.

[xxvi] Kevin Hern and Ben Cline, “FY24 RSC Budget Print Final,” Protecting America’s Economic Security, June 14, 2023, https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/202306141135_fy24_rsc_budget_print_final_c.pdf, 34.

[xxvii] Paul Krugman, “Tim Walz and The Weird Politics of Free School Lunches,” (The New York Times, August 8, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/opinion/tim-walz-school-lunch.html), Section A, 19.

[xxviii] “The National School Lunch Program,” Schoolnutrition.org, https://schoolnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Lunch-Benefits.pdf, 1.