More than 400 students from 10 Columbia public elementary schools participate in this Walking School Bus program, sponsored by the PedNet Coalition. A trained adult walks a set route each morning, picking up kids along the way and guiding them to school.

In addition to cutting costs for buses facing rising fuel expenses, the Walking School Bus is designed to increase physical activity for children in order to combat the country’s growing childhood obesity epidemic.

The difference between the two programs is that the Walking School Bus is grounded in the volunteerism of adults willing to walk with children to school, with the end of incentivizing good habit formation, whereas Farm to School is a government program that encourages the use of local food in school lunches. There are a couple of problems with the latter. As Sarah Brodsky and Caitlin Hartsell have pointed out, it’s incorrect to conflate “local food” with “healthy food”; food produced locally may not always be healthy, and food that is healthy may be imported from outside a given region. Mandating that school food be locally procured is also costly, because price-based competition from a large portion of the potential market for food is left unconsidered, and the increased demand for local food contributes to a rise in its prices.

It can also be a costly mandate for local farmers, who must cope with changes in the types of crops that they grow. A Columbia school district official admitted:

“We’re essentially asking farmers to start to grow what we want them to grow. And that’s a big risk for them.”

It is indeed a risk for Missouri farmers, who must diversify their crops to meet a new form of demand. Modern farmers maintain a delicate balancing act of running up huge debts in acquiring machinery that is geared specifically for the crops they have elected to raise. Mandating that schools provide local food presents an opportunity for local farmers, but also places a burden on them to raise a diversity of crops year-round — for many, a costly and impractical endeavor. Missouri farmers will be taking more than a “big risk” here and now; this involves their whole financial life plans.

Tackling the difficult issue of childhood obesity requires daily diligence in habit formation, because parents ultimately control the health of their children. One or more healthy meals served at school every day can be negated by a pantry full of junk food at home. This is not to say that schools shouldn’t care about serving healthy food — indeed, school lunch programs that focused on meeting nutritional guidelines, whether or not the food is locally procured, would better balance costs with student health.

Similarly, a mandated exercise class during the school day doesn’t affect the inactivity of kids who stay indoors and play video games all day on the weekends and during the summer. Yet initiatives like the Walking School Bus program directly incentivize the most important players on this issue — the parents and children themselves. Children are habituated toward associating activity with involvement with their peers, and parents are given an easy, safe, and inexpensive way of getting their kids to school that may benefit the community (e.g., through reduced traffic congestion near schools) at the same time. Yet again, volunteerism creates a win-win for everyone.

The post Salutary Incentives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I wonder how the counties will use the grant to change residents’ behavior. They have ample public funding, but many of the behaviors they want to alter fall squarely in the private sector. For example, one of the stated goals is reducing the time people spend watching television. Do the counties plan to purchase a set of TV-B-Gone devices and manually turn off televisions? Presumably not, but how else can they get people to change?

Here are a few more things the counties want to accomplish:

Rauter said further efforts will be directed toward providing nutritional information for school lunches and restaurants, and making healthy choices more affordable in grocery stores. The program will promote community gardens, including implementing a Farm-to-School program, encouraging breast-feeding-friendly work sites and promoting overall good nutrition and physical activity.

Again, I’m curious how the counties will go about this. Changing workers’ attitudes toward breastfeeding is going to be harder than writing a check. And to make healthy groceries more affordable, the counties would have to either start their own grocery stores, or go into private grocery stores and tell them what products to carry and how much to charge.

If Missouri has to choose between the two approaches, I would prefer a campaign like Oklahoma City’s that’s financed by voluntary donations. But my first choice would be no campaign at all.

The post Spending on Health appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perhaps their parents are more enthusiastic? From the program coordinator’s description, I don’t think so. She suggests that parents, too, require a lot of education. When asked whether parents are learning about local food, she responds:

Not as much as they could be or should be. […] They need to go to school lunch and share it with their kids […] And then parents and caregivers, if they could purchase, serve and talk about Oregon foods with their family, phenomenal.

She would love it if parents could do those things, meaning that they aren’t doing them already. The parents have to be won over. It’s a far cry from, “They are educating me with their phone calls and petitions begging for more local food” — the reply I would expect if local food preferences really were implemented at the behest of parents.

I don’t blame Oregonians for their indifference. After all, as the program coordinator correctly states, local foods are not necessarily healthier than foods from other places. Parents might be more supportive if schools focused on procuring nutritional meals, without regard to locality.

One policy I especially hope Oregon will abandon is the preference that the program coordinator affirms for canned and frozen foods from local sources. Local canned and frozen foods have no nutritional advantage over canned and frozen foods from far away; you can’t argue that one is fresher than the other.

The post Oregonians Fail to Rally Around Local Food Preferences appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“I think it’s really good because we get healthier here than at my old school, and we get more fruits and vegetables and local meat,” says fourth grader Morgan Jones.

The district bought meat from a local farmer, spending an additional $1 per pound above the price it would normally pay.

As Farm to School expands to include products like meat or cheese, it gets harder for supporters to justify the program as anything but protectionism. The appeal of local fruits and vegetables is easier to relate to. Anyone’s who’s eaten delicious fruit right off the tree can sympathize with activists’ support for local produce. (At least, we can sympathize in the early fall and late spring. Activists still have to explain how local produce is superior during the rest of the school year, when very few fruits or vegetables are harvested. Many will say to preserve the local food in the fall — but is locally preserved food really better than food that was preserved somewhere else, or shipped in fresh?)

Meat, on the other hand, has no local advantage at any time of year. There’s no such thing as a hamburger picked fresh off the cow. Meat has to be preserved and prepared no matter where it comes from. Its quality depends on factors like the health of the animals and how safely the meat was handled.

It would be great if Missouri districts could resist this Farm to School trend and refrain from insisting on local meat. Districts should shop around for the safest meat at the best price — and not settle for whatever meat happens to be raised nearby.

The post Schools Tell Kids That Local Hamburgers Are Best appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Indiana school districts are lagging behind the rest of the country in procuring locally grown fruits and vegetables for students.

It turns out that buying local food just isn’t practical for Indiana districts:

“I don’t know what local farmers could grow that could last through a school year, but it would be nice if they could,” said Joanne Baierwalter, food service director for Muncie schools. “Potatoes, maybe, but where would you store them? Who would deliver them?”

Some local food advocates would respond that districts should buy up every local produce item when it’s harvested, then carefully preserve it to serve when school is in session. I’m left wondering: When did districts get out of the business of educating kids in order to become canneries?

The post Serving Local Food Is a Daunting Task for School Districts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A professor of medicine explains why the USDA’s lax standards matter:

Morris, who used to run the USDA office that investigates food-borne illnesses, says the department’s purchases of meat that doesn’t satisfy higher-end commercial standards are especially worrisome because the meat goes to schools. It’s not just that children are more vulnerable to food-borne illnesses because of their fledgling immune systems; it’s also because there’s less assurance that school cafeteria workers will cook the meat well enough to kill any pathogens that might slip through the USDA’s less stringent safety checks.

There are two lessons to be learned here. First, advocates who focus on the supposed benefits of local vegetables (like the Farm to School supporters in Columbia) have misplaced priorities. It would be better for schools to serve imported produce with safer meat than local produce with lower-quality meat. Schools need to obtain safe food and not allow themselves to be distracted by geographic preferences.

Second, private businesses often hold themselves to stricter standards than the government would like to impose. It follows that a state-licensed day care provider or interior decorator won’t necessarily do a better job than someone without the license.

The post Meat in School Lunches: Good Enough for Government Purposes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The talk was marked by a conspicuous non sequitur: In response to a question about the high cost of local produce — asked by someone other than me, no kidding — Merrigan insisted that we don’t know that local produce is more expensive for districts than food from other sources. But she went on to list what she called “barriers” to buying local: the difficulties of contracting with lots of individual farmers, fluctuations in local farm outputs caused by weather, seasons when crops don’t grow. I think of those “barriers” as “costs” or “expenses.” If a district has to go to extra trouble or deal with additional uncertainty when it purchases local food, it would be better off buying healthy food from somewhere else.

I agree with Merrigan that some districts are in a better position than others. I imagine that buying local is not all that hard for many districts in California. Those districts would choose local food if there were no federal program, because it would be the most advantageous choice for them. The USDA is encouraging them to do what they would have done anyway. At best, Farm to School is superfluous; at worst, it pushes districts to spend more than necessary on food, taking resources away from other uses, such as paying teachers or repairing buildings.

On the subject of teaching nutrition, the suggestions had more to do with promoting a locavore ideology than with conveying information about food. Merrigan proudly displayed trading cards featuring local farmers, and another viewer commented that a school had produced a fruit-and-vegetable memory game with USDA funds. The thing is, there’s no connection between knowing your farmer and choosing healthy foods. If students get the impression that healthy choices are all about personalities and who you know, they’ll be at a loss when they walk into a grocery store and find that the names of farmers aren’t displayed.

Nutrition is not a popularity contest, and students ought to learn about what kinds of foods are healthy without bringing farmers into the picture. And I don’t like the implication that farmers are more worthy of our acquaintance than the people who serve fast food at a chain restaurant. The fact that one food product is healthier than another doesn’t have anything to do with the producers’ intrinsic value as human beings.

Although nutrition facts are more relevant than farmers when it comes to making good choices, I still question the propriety of the federal’s government’s involvement in people’s diets. “Helping people eat healthier food” is not one of the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution. Furthermore, this is not something that the government does effectively. The Deputy Secretary noted that the food pyramid website has had 9 billion hits — yet obesity continues to rise! She concluded that the government hasn’t done enough. I’d say it’s done too much.

The post Farm to School and Nutrition Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.