School Lunch Or; How to Make Government Work
One of the craziest stories I heard while I was in Finland was the shocking tale of the 1999 school lunch reform. The way this worked is that in 1999, parliament passed some legislation guaranteeing a nutritionally balanced school lunch. So the National Nutrition Council wrote some guidelines dictating that a properly balanced lunch would feature fresh or cooked vegetables covering half the plate, a starch (potatoes, rice, or pasta) covering a quarter of the plate, and meat or fish or a vegetarian protein alternative covering the remaining quarter. A desert of berries or fruit is served “if the nutrient content of the main course is not adequately diverse or if it contains little energy” along with skimmed or semi-skimmed milk and bread.
It was a crazy story not because the nutritional guidelines are crazy. Nor because the nutritional guidelines are perfect. This still actually leaves a lot of variance depending on exactly what’s served. But what’s crazy about it is the way it happened. Parliament felt children should eat a well-balanced meal, and so guidelines were written by a government agency and then implemented. Like magic!
It’s very hard to imagine anything like that happening in the United States, where something as basic as the food pyramid winds up being a locus for interest-group politics. Michael Pollan talks to Mother Jones about the way of the world:
MJ: Does WIC still specify that you buy dairy?
MP: Yes. We had a huge fight to get a little more produce in the WIC basket, which is heavy on cheese and milk because the dairy lobby is very powerful. So they fought and they fought and they fought, and they got a bunch of carrots in there. [Laughs.]
MJ: Specifically? Who knew: the carrot lobby?
MP: Specifically carrots. The next big lobby. But there is also money in this farm bill for fresh produce in school lunch. The price of getting the subsidies was getting the California delegation on board, and their price was $2 billon for what are called specialty crops—fresh fruit and produce grown largely in California.
Or watch this video:
Democracy is democracy, politics is politics, and life is what it is. But still, it seems to me that Americans have a deplorable tendency to take pride in the dysfunctional nature of our political system, and actually revel in it. It makes, after all, for a fascinating game in a way that a simple outsourcing of nutritional guidelines to apolitical experts wouldn’t. But I think there’s a big challenge for progressives here. And not just with regard to school lunch, but with regard to the whole thing. There are certain ends that can only be accomplished by state action. But state action is only really tolerable if you can actually make the government work well and an awful lot of our basic institutions just don’t work very well. At the same time, the medium-term policy frontiers increasingly focus on questions of public health and environmental security that have a hefty technical element. A lot of the argument for universal health care hinges on the fact that, in principle, comprehensive reform could deliver a much more efficient system. But will it actually deliver such a system, or will it just deliver whatever happens to get lobbied for? Care that benefits patients, or care that benefits health care providers of various kinds? Those ultimately aren’t questions about the design of any particular plan; instead, they’re questions of whether or not progressive governance can manage to somehow deliver better overall governance.
UPDATE: On a related note, Ezra Klein observes:
CBO occupies a weird space in Washington. They decide what legislation costs. They may get it right or they may get it wrong, but the number they settle on is the number legislators agree to use. And so this morning’s hearings featured powerful senators begging a small, bearded budget geek for favorable judgments as if he were the Oracle at Delphi.
And the thing of it is that while the CBO’s methods aren’t perfect and its conclusions aren’t incontestable, it really does do a pretty good job—good enough that it can continue to be widely respected. And having an expert agency be widely respected and do a pretty good job, thus providing a convergence point for congressional consideration of legislation, is much better than having our legislative debates just proceed with everyone inventing their own cost estimates.
35 Responses to “School Lunch Or; How to Make Government Work”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
When I was in high school, the kids from lower-income families got lunches with their free lunch cards, while kids from non-poor families brought bagged lunches. Hardly anyone at all actually paid money for lunch.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Well, what we have to hope is that enough Democrats are finally smart enough to understand what will keep them in power for a generation: NOT yet more whoring after corporate campaign cash, but delivering what the voters asked for. If they still can’t learn that lesson, they’ll be out on their asses again a lot sooner than they think.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
As I noted to Fred in an earlier thread, the US Postal Service has worked reliably for decades — and a hell of a lot better than the “private sector” banking system. My mail carrier isn’t demanding that I buy a $40,000 stamp or the country will collapse because we won’t be able to send mail no more.
But then, my mail carrier is not a $300,000/year Harvard MBA — he’s just a guy who does his job.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
But even fools know that child nutrition is a lot more important in small countries! Sheesh, Matt.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“As I noted to Fred in an earlier thread, the US Postal Service has worked reliably for decades — and a hell of a lot better than the “private sector” banking system.”
As I noted to you in the same thread, this is an awful comparison. The Postal Service can’t politicize mail delivery because it is required to deliver all mail with the appropriate postage. Banks, on the other hand, aren’t required to give loans to everyone who asks for one, and in fact can’t. So there is plenty of room to politicize the decisions about who gets credit. That’s why your idea to have one giant national bank dominating retail lending is bad and no one serious is suggesting it.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Regarding the example of Finland,
The lesson seems to be that small countries with homogeneous, high-IQ populations are capable of better government.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
“The lesson seems to be that small countries with homogeneous, high-IQ populations are capable of better government.”
That’s the lesson you took from this post specifically? Passing a bill that would have an unbiased body create and enact sensible nutrition standards on children’s school lunches has absolutely *nothing* to do with the average IQ or the homogeneity of our country, and everything to do with the lobbying and corruption that affects every part of the political process. Not that you’d miss a chance to blame minorities for, well, everything.
Also, how quickly you forget your hero Reagan and his “ketchup counts as a vegetable for school lunches” hilarity.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Oops, they’d have to keep Fred out, then.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Adam,
The sort of government Matt prefers is the Scandinavian model — one with high taxes, high government spending, and generous welfare benefits. Has this model worked successfully in more diverse countries, or are there certain attributes of Scandinavians that make it more suitable to them (high average IQs, small families, solid work ethic, lack of a need for an ethnic spoils system, lack of corruption, etc.)?
February 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If Obama can bypass the media, we might git ‘er done.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Public Funding of All Election Campaigns.
Zero Outside Expenditures Allowed.
Period.
It’s the only solution to the horrendous lobbying problem that we have in this country. We all know that we have what the media likes to call “the best government money can buy,” and until we really cut off the corporate money completely, that’s what we’ll continue to have in the future.
And before the right-wingers out there start talking about Free Speech, Corporate Rights and the 1st amendment (which they only care about in terms of political access), those were two of the worst-decided cases in Supreme Court history. Money does NOT equal speech, and reifications like Corporations are NOT citizens–only actual people should qualify for that high honor.
Real Campaign Finance and Ethics Reform NOW!
February 25th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“Public Funding of All Election Campaigns.
Zero Outside Expenditures Allowed.
Period.”
So who decides who gets the public funding?
Do you see a huge potential for corruption here, and another means of the incumbent political class stacking the table in its favor?
Question mark.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Isn’t the problem with what Matt wants is that it is basically un-American?
I don’t mean that in a silly-Fred way; I mean that Finland is a unitary parliamentary democracy, and the United States is a federal constitutional republic. The very nature of our polity is based on balancing various sectional interests (Dairy = Wisconsin, California, New England and upstate N. York, etc.) against others. It’s all in Federalist 10. I agree that it’s frequently ugly and absurd; and it can be tamped down upon. But ultimately unless we reconvene a new constitutional convention (which we won’t, the Constitution forms one our central national traditions), this is a problem that seems endemic to our constitutional order to me.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
That is a great idea: show kids what a balanced plate of food looks like!
One simple principle for “good food” is the amount of processing. Frozen is more processed than fresh. Canned more processed than frozen.
If we provide processing scores for each item to supplement the nutritional content we might get more fresh food, more local preparation, and thus greater variety.
Suggestion of balance:
50% fresh (including fresh eggs), locally prepared (at the school).
25% minimum-processed (milk, dairy, frozen foods, first press olive oil)
25% or less highly processed: (oils, canned foods, packaged foods, branded foods)
If schools offer pick-n-choose options for students, the same proportions should apply, but require processed foods must be sold at a profit to help subsidize the other categories.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I lived in a comfortable suburb all my youth but 3-5 grade I attended a Milwaukee PS. The food service contrast was striking.
In the burbs we barely had food service. Elementary school was limited to Campbell’s soup vending machines and HS had the remnants of a kitchen, but it hadn’t been used in ages. One corner of the cafeteria had a handful of people running frozen pizza ovens. Everyone packed a lunch. Middle school, for some reason, actually had hot lunches of dubious quality.
Meanwhile, at MPS in the mid 80’s the school had a hot lunch program AND a breakfast program. Lunch was insanely cheap — $0.55 IIRC — and was free to qualified students. I think the breakfast was free. Milk was $0.05. Being a picky eater, I brown-bagged it at least 1/2 the time. But I was stunned by the existence of a free lunch program. Even in 1985 dollars, 50 cents wasn’t much. And if you couldn’t swing that, what’s the cost of a PBJ and a couple of apples every day? Breakfast, too — a bowl of generic Cheerios and a glass of apple juice can’t be that pricey.
Obviously there are a lot more destitute folks in Milwaukee than my leafy burb*, so there’s some need to make sure that kids aren’t fighting hunger pangs during class. But something tells me that a direct cash transfer would be much more efficient than running lunch and breakfast programs. Just my 0.02.
*even in the sticks, milk was heavily subsidized, though.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
As opposed to the lack of corruption and the fairly stacked deck we have now? Huh?
February 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
But ultimately unless we reconvene a new constitutional convention (which we won’t, the Constitution forms one our central national traditions)
According to a strict reading of the constitution and the acts of the state legislators, such a convention has already been called. Google “Article V Convention”.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Let IKEA take over food service at America’s schools. That 50/25/25 ratio (and b&w pic above) looks like many of their entree plate specials they serve in their warehouse stores! Swedish meatballs/salmon fillet, new potatoes, steamed veggie, lingonberry sauce/juice…
February 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“As opposed to the lack of corruption and the fairly stacked deck we have now? Huh?”
I’m convinced democracy would cease to exist if we had to depend on clear thinking from lefties. Which sounds more democratic to you, one government agency deciding which political campaigns get funded, or a hundred million Americans making their own individual decisions?
February 25th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Great post, this is a serious issue. I ran into this ~10 years ago when I was a public school teacher, (in Milwaukee as well) and they were contemplating banning soda machines in schools. This is a no-brainer to me. There is no reason kids need to have constant access to sugar-heavy caffeinated beverages. None. To make matters worse, the school I worked in had a non-trivial population of overweight and obese kids.
Of course, right wing radio began screaming and name-calling began right away. And it manifested just as you said, where the pro-soda folks took pride in the fact that we let Coke and Pepsi benefit at the expense of children’s life-long health problems.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Fred has a point w/ his remark about IQs & ethnicity, but not the kind he intended. Much of the conflict in the US about these type of things boils down to ignorant hillbillies and their mortal fear of Illegal Messikins ‘n’ Lazy N*ggers living high on the government hog — in total ignorance of how the handouts for the rich FAR outweigh what the poor get. Over there, they see everyone as part of the same tribe, so there’s no one to scapegoat even if they wanted to.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Re Fred’s comment “I’m convinced democracy would cease to exist if we had to depend on clear thinking from lefties. Which sounds more democratic to you, one government agency deciding which political campaigns get funded, or a hundred million Americans making their own individual decisions?”
————-
And I think right wingers are either morons , hypocrites or both.
Because the USA doesn’t have a hundred million billionaires — it only has around 400. And those are who Congresses takes direction from.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
If it’s anything like those delicious meatballs, potatoes, and lingonberry goo at the ikea the kids should be happy.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
There are ways of taking the decisions of publicly funded elections out of the hands of entrenched bureaucracy. You could base it on voter registrations, primary votes, or some combination thereof. You could average the criteria of the top two recipients to set their cash to equal levels. Then, establish a threshhold for receipt of funding for additional parties. The cash the additional parties receive should be a nonlinear function of the percent of the criteria they captured.
For example, assume that the top two parties, D and R,received 90% of primary votes. Party X received 9%, while party Y got 1%. Party Y should get nothing. Party x should get some amount greater than 9% of available funding, while D and R receive a little less than 45%. The function should asymtotically approach the levels of the 2 top parties.
I don’t really like such a system, but I don’t like what we have now. As it is, we should plaster the candidates with their sponsors’ logos like they do in NASCAR. Then, at least, we’d know who we’re really voting for.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Not true. They also take direction from consortia of corporate executives who bundle their oh so legal and uncoerced donations which are not matched by compensating additions to their annual bonusses. Many of these people are merely multimillionaires.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Fred,
It’s simple, really. You give the public funding to anyone who meets the test for being a serious candidate. In our current system that would mean that the two major parties’ candidates get what would, in practice, amount to an automatic bid, and you would write the legislation mandating public financing so that it included a signature-gathering process by which third-party/independents gain access to the same public finance. It would be no different from the process by which presidential candidates gain ballot access in most states, and it most emphatically is not run by “one government agency deciding which political campaigns get funded.”
Is it perfect? No, but it’s a helluva lot better than the broken Corporatocracy we have now.
It’s really not a hard idea to get your head around. I lived for in Austria during an election year while I was in college and their public finance system worked beautifully. (Now, their particular parliamentary system wouldn’t be my first choice [Haider was scary!], but we could do much worse than emulating their system of campaign finance.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Maybe they have different food on offer in the US, but over here in Europe almost everyone thinks it’s pretty disgusting.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
oops, I was referring to Ikea food
February 25th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“Not true. They also take direction from consortia of corporate executives who bundle their oh so legal and uncoerced donations which are not matched by compensating additions to their annual bonusses. Many of these people are merely multimillionaires.”
Not to mention busboys at Chinese restaurants who donated the max to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Look, there’s an easy way to get rid of bundling and most of the corruption: let people donate as much as they want to their favored candidates, provided there’s full disclosure online. What’s the downside, that some conservative billionaire might fund a candidate you don’t like? So what, you’ve got plenty of liberal billionaire’s to counter him (Buffett, Turner, Soros etc.). Let ‘em duke it out, let everyone know who’s paying, and let the chips fall where they may.
Here’s an added benefit of this: think of all the talented people who would like to go into politics but don’t want to spend half their time begging people for money in $5k increments?
February 25th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
But ultimately unless we reconvene a new constitutional convention (which we won’t, the Constitution forms one our central national traditions)
It forms one of our central national traditions until it doesn’t. The Bourbon monarchy, et al, formed France’s central national traditions until it stopped doing so. Having a hereditary House of Lords as a coequal branch of the legislature formed one of Britain’s central national traditions until it stopped doing so.
Right now, certainly, the Constitution looks pretty untouchable, and I personally wouldn’t put any money on the prospect of a new constitution any time in my lifetime.
But if I were a Frenchman 225 years ago I wouldn’t have put any money on the Bourbon monarchy and virtually every other existing political institution in the country being abolished within ten years, either.
Basically – things don’t change, until they do, and it’s incredibly difficult to predict when they will do so. I wouldn’t expect any serious upheaval in the American system in the short to medium term – but I won’t be so complacent as to assume that such changes are impossible.
Getting back to the broader point, I think one of the big issues here is that in Europe, there’s a great deal more respect for an apolitical professional civil service than there is here. This probably goes back to the creation of non-democratic bureaucratic states in the 19th century – basically, in Europe, the bureaucracy developed first, and then democracy came afterwards and took over what were basically already developed state structures without actually changing them all that much. In the US, we had the democratic political system first, and then gradually developed a bureaucracy within that system. It’s unsurprising, then, that our bureaucracy tends to be weaker, and more subject to political pressures, than those in European countries.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
That’s the lesson you took from this post specifically?
Remember, Adam, that the lesson Fred takes from everything is “blacks and Hispanics are just plain dumb.”
February 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Let IKEA take over food service at America’s schools. That 50/25/25 ratio (and b&w pic above) looks like many of their entree plate specials they serve in their warehouse stores! Swedish meatballs/salmon fillet, new potatoes, steamed veggie, lingonberry sauce/juice…
Have you ever actually eaten at IKEA? It’s delicious, but about 2/3 of the plate is meatballs and the rest is potatoes. Unless you’re getting a hell of a lot more lingonberry sauce than I am, it would be a stretch to say that it complies with the model outlined in this post (and that sauce contains a ton of sugar, anyway).
March 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It just shows the power of internet in making connections and ‘reaching out’ to people. I never cease to amaze me the power of internet marketing and promoting brands online.
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Wicked blog – the guys commenting here are full of it! I’ll be keeping up with your posts
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:38 am
hey excellent post, really enjoyed it. I’ve added your blog to my netvibes account – will be keeping up with your posts!