While it’s long been known that ultra-processed foods are less healthy and worse for the environment than fresh, local food, the issue is suddenly front and center in national food policy. More than 85 bills related to ultra-processed foods or food dye in school meals have been introduced in states across the country this year, proving there’s a growing appetite for healthier food on our kids’ plates. This push for fresh whole foods in schools, and with it, more scratch cooking, is a welcome one. For years, the Farm to School program at Seven Generations Ahead (SGA) has been committed to this very mission. Every child deserves delicious, healthy food, and supporting a thriving local food system is a smart move for both public health and the environment.
But while the momentum to bring wholesome food into school cafeterias is growing, the support for the very programs that would make this possible is being stripped away. Earlier this year, the USDA announced it would cancel the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program for fiscal year 2025. Coupled with the cancellation of the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) funding, schools will struggle to comply with this wave of ultra-processed food bills, should they pass.
Bringing farm-fresh foods into schools isn’t easy. It requires having the relationships and processes in place to make it happen, and most importantly, it requires the funding. Ultra-processed food is ubiquitous because it’s cheap, and many schools struggle to make healthier options work within their budgets. According to Diane Chapeta, SGA’s Farm to School Senior Program Director, school food programs are already underfunded and food service employees are often underpaid, meaning school cafeterias experience high employee turnover and meals tend to reflect the tight budgets.
“Policy is a great tool, but without any actionable fixes behind it, it’s useless,” said Chapeta. “It could break an already strained system.”
Cassandra Bull, Policy Specialist at the National Farm to School Network said these bills that ban processed foods and dyes are only one way to create change, and don’t approach the problem holistically.
“They do not get to the root of main challenges within school food, which is mainly lack of funding and time, in addition to cumbersome procurement and operational processes,” she said. “National Farm to School Network supports holistic policies that provide child nutrition programs with the resources – mainly through funding for purchasing ingredients, staff time, and equipment – to provide scratch-cooked, locally grown and raised food to our kids. Without additional financial support for child nutrition programs, I question how much these bills alone will create long-lasting systemic change.”
Bull is thrilled that there’s momentum behind ensuring students have access to more high quality, locally produced, and nutrient-dense food at school, in addition to nutrition and agriculture education. But she fears some potential unintended consequences.
“We’ve seen these bills reinforce negative stereotypes that degrade the positive progress we’ve seen in school food,” she says. “These bills work to hurt the morale for already stressed school food service staff, and we fear that this negative rhetoric may also harm school meals for all campaigns (also known as universal meals).”
These bills could present challenges for food manufacturers, as well, she says. If states have their own definitions of ultra-processed food, it creates confusion for manufacturers trying to meet a disparate set of requirements. Additionally, to comply with food dye bills, manufacturers could simply substitute natural dyes, which can make the food more expensive, but doesn’t necessarily make it healthier, nor does it help children learn healthier eating habits.
Because these bills vary widely from state to state, the impact on schools is hard to anticipate. In some cases, it may be relatively simple and affordable to find minimally-processed alternatives. In others, it could be very burdensome, especially for schools that are already under-resourced.
“The hard truth is that schools with adequate funding and support will be able to adapt to these rules,” says Bull. “The ones that don’t have the resources that are already struggling to make it will fall further behind.”
Chapeta also worries about these unintended consequences, especially for schools that are already struggling in an unequal system. Without funding and additional support to help schools comply with the regulations that may be coming, school food programs could be in jeopardy.
“Every school district, every independent food service company, every child who needs to eat lunch at school – all of them are going to lose,” she says.
However, despite the challenges schools have in procuring healthy, local food, Chapeta wants to emphasize that it can be done. In Illinois, independent school food providers like Beyond Green Partners and school districts like Lincoln SD 27 are finding ways to make farm to school work. With training, grant funding, and support from organizations committed to building a sustainable, local food system, schools, farmers, and food providers can get nutritious food into school cafeterias. And this is exactly how the National Farm to School Network wants to see this issue approached.
“National Farm to School Network supports holistic policies that provide child nutrition programs with the resources – mainly through funding for purchasing ingredients, staff time, and equipment – to provide scratch-cooked, locally grown and raised food to our kids,” says Bull. “Without additional financial support for child nutrition programs, I question how much these bills alone will create long-lasting systemic change.”
This is the first in a series of articles about forging ahead with farm to school in Illinois. Stay tuned as we tell the story of a school food provider making farm fresh food accessible to early childcare centers, and a school district that has had tremendous success with farm to school, despite the barriers.
