Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Justin Tang
564 0478
Introduction
The increasing prevalence of obesity in Europe and North America has become a cause
for much concern at the policy level. Primary and secondary schools and their lunch halls have
become sites of struggle in the battle to revitalize public health. The responses towards this
looming issue have varied from region to region. The UK government has responded at the
public level by reforming and regulating school lunches while bans on food items and unhealthy
ingredients have been the norm in the United States. This essay will compare and contrast the
respective food movements in Britain and North America and explore the role of culture and
economics on government policy towards food. Since efforts are occurring and intersecting at
various scales, the school has become a useful tool to understand public health through a
geographic lens. I will argue that government attention on the school setting is appropriate and
necessary, though further efforts are needed to counter the multi-dimensional crisis of obesity.
Discussion and concern over obesity has grown intensely among medical professionals,
the media, and the public over the last decade as rates of obesity have steadily climbed
throughout the global north. In the United Kingdom, two-thirds of the population are overweight
or obese, a staggering 400% rise over the last quarter-decade (House of Commons, 2004). A
1999 study found 19% of 5-year olds were be overweight and 7% were obese (Morgan &
Sonnino, 2007). The 2002 Health Survey for England revealed that 21.8% of boys and 27.5% of
girls were overweight or obese; specifically 5.5% of boys and 7.2% of girls aged 2-15 were
obese (House of Commons, 2004). In the United States, the figures are equally dire: the 2007-
2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that 16.9% of children and youth
aged 2-19 were obese (CDC, 2011). Rates for children aged 6-11 quadrupled between 1963 and
2
2004 and tripled for those aged 12-19. One third of American children–approximately 9 million
children–were obese or at risk of becoming obese in 2006 (Fried & Simon, 2007).
Obesity: definition
Obesity and overweight are two commonly used terms that need to be clearly defined in
order to proceed with any analysis. Obesity, most simply, can result when an individual overeats
more than their relative energy needs. The UK Faculty of Public Health defines obesity as “an
excess of body fat frequently resulting in a significant impairment of health and longevity”
(House of Commons, 2004). The US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
simply states that obesity and overweight are labels for weight ranges that are greater than what
can be considered healthy for a given height. The BMI, which measures these two parameters,
has become prominent as the standard method around the world for determining body fatness.
For adults, a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9 is considered overweight while a BMI of 30 is considered
obese. The standards for children are different, however, since boys and girls have different
levels of appropriate body fat at different ages. For children under 19, overweight is indicated by
a BMI at or above the 85th percentile while obesity begins at or above the 95th percentile for
al (1997, cited in CDC, 2011) found that 80% of obese 10-15 year olds were obese adults by the
time they were 25 years old. Being overweight before the age of eight was found to make adult
obesity significantly more likely (CDC, 2011). Ludwig and his colleagues (as cited in Fried and
Simon, 2007) suggested that one additional sugary beverage per day increased a child’s risk of
obesity by 60%. Furthermore, food choices and exposure to food marketing in childhood have
the potential to affect adult consumption patterns (Fried and Simon, 2007).
3
These figures have become worrying from a public health point of view because of the
enormous social and financial costs associated with disease. Obesity costs £3.3-3.7 billion per
year in Britain and is responsible for around 30 000 premature deaths, putting a sizeable strain on
health services and possibly causing a reduction in life expectancy (Lake & Townshend, 2006).
resistance, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes, even in children. The risk of coronary heart disease,
hypertension, osteoarthritis, and gout are moderately increased as well (House of Commons,
2004). In the United States, obesity is claimed to have reached epidemic levels (Millimet,
have criticized the use of medical terminology for being overly linear. Proponents claim this
view promotes a notion of a body that is mechanical; a container that can be defined by health
status, counted and, mapped (Evans, 2006). This argument purports that this approach towards
obesity has led to the marking of morality and immorality upon bodies. For example, daily
reportage by the media and health professionals create assumptions that the obese are
irresponsible and blameworthy. These notions have impact on policy in the form of arguably
discriminatory responses that have been considered, such as the removal of a child from his
mother’s (who was obese) care, charging extra for National Health Service healthcare, banning
obese women from IVF therapy, and claiming that obese people are a detriment to the planet via
climate change (Colls & Evans, 2009). Evans suggests that more holistic understandings of
health have emerged that place experience, identity, and impairment as primary concerns (Evans,
2006). While criticisms regarding positivist approaches are valid, scientific understandings have
contributed to understanding obesity and weight in tangible forms. Government policy based on
4
this knowledge appears to be the most effective method of ameliorating the health of citizens
while addressing issues of social justice and sustainable development (Morgan, 2006).
The emergence of the school setting as a site of struggle for governments aiming to
reduce health deficits is not new but worth explanation. The amounts of time students spend
every day at school make this setting a logical target; it is estimated that a third of children’s
daily caloric intake occurs while at school (Schwart, Novak, & Fiore, 2009). The potential for
diet to play a role in education is also addressed. Poor diet may result in deficiencies in cognitive
development if children do not consume key nutrients during critical periods of growth (Belot &
James, 2010). With the risks of obesity beginning in childhood and converse benefits of early
intervention being high, the school has become an important mechanism in addressing health
inequalities. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that school meals were “central to the
Historical Background
The history of school food in the United Kingdom traces back to the welfare movements
of the 1800s. Inadequate diets among children became apparent with the advent of compulsory
education, when students were unable to learn. The Boer War showed another concrete effect of
poor diet, as the health of recruits negatively impacted the campaign (Pike & Colquhoun, 2009).
The Education Act of 1906 made it possible for local educators to provide free meals for children
of need and at cost to all other students. The Butler Act of 1944 solidified Britain’s commitment
to school meals by mandating that nutritious meals, including milk, should be provided for free
as a part of the education system. This “golden vision” for UK school food soon fell short, as
5
free meals never became a reality and nutritional guidelines were never standardized (Morgan,
2006).
By the 1970s, the neoliberal movement had planted itself evenly across the UK, and
schools were no exception. Welfare policies had become increasingly unpopular and were often
criticized as state interference on the home and private life (Pike & Colquhoun, 2009). Changing
tastes among children, a result of broadening consumer culture, as well as the aim of reducing
public expenditure led to the demise of standard school lunches via privatization. The 1980
Education Act eroded the work done by the Butler Act, eliminating mandatory school lunches
(excluding children who were entitled), free milk, fixed pricing, and nutritional requirements.
Catering was opened to market forces with the 1988 Local Government Act, which forced school
boards to allow competition, resulting in a legacy of unskilled dining room workers and a
reduction in functional kitchen appliances. Furthermore, the notion that school meals should be
The history of school food in the United States features similar themes as that of the
United Kingdom but with some significant differences. American schools are no strangers to
nationally sanctioned food programs. The National School Lunch Program (NLSP) was initiated
in 1946 to combat malnutrition caused by the Great Depression while the School Breakfast
Program (SBL) was initiated in 1975. Currently, some 30 million children depend on these two
programs every day. Nutritional standards were established under the 1995 School Meals
Initiative for Healthy Children, precluding schools that violated the requirements from federal
funding. The health benefits of the NSLP and SBL is debated by several authors, despite strict
guidelines from the School Meals Initiative restricting Recommended Dietary Allowances,
6
percent-calories from fat, and calories per age. What is clear is that school meal programs do
have a significant impact on student diets and do provide adequate nutritional benefits for
children who might otherwise go hungry during the day (Millimet et al., 2009).
The term “competitive foods” has emerged to classify foods sold outside federal
programs such as the NLSP and the SBL. These include food sold from vending machines, snack
bars, tuck shops, and a la carte cafeterias (Delva, Malley, & Johnston, 2007). Foods include soft
drinks, sports drinks, snacks high in fat and salt content, and juices. A restriction exists on food
of minimal nutritional value (FMNV), such as soft drinks, chewing gum, and candies. FMNV
foods are not permitted to be sold in the food service areas during meals, however there is little
to prevent students from purchasing them from other locations and throughout the day. However,
many foods considered as junk foods are not classified as FMNV and can be purchased for
consumption in conjunction with food program meals (Dority, McGarvey, & Kennedy, 2010).
Competitive foods provide a telling story of the nature of food in American schools. The
role of private enterprise and corporations is much more prominent than in the United Kingdom.
The motivation for schools to sign contracts with providers of competitive foods is high since
these agreements allow administrators to combat underfunding and balance budgets (Delva et al.,
2007). Beverage exclusivity funds that guarantee “pouring rights” in exchanging for cash are
commonplace. The relationship between the consumers and providers of these goods is
significant: 83% of elementary schools, 97% of middle schools, and 99% of high schools sell
competitive foods and student access to purchasing is universal. As a result, corporations have a
vested interest in funneling their products into schools (Fried & Simon, 2007).
7
The general concern over health and obesity has led to considerable reforms of British
school food programs. Morgan describes the new movement as the “tipping point” following a
rising tide of “moral panic” about obesity, especially among children. Popular TV personality
and chef Jamie Oliver’s “Jamie’s School Dinners” campaign, which focused on improving
nutritional standards in schools, also contributed to public awareness and outcry over what
children were being fed. Morgan is quick to suggest that Oliver’s movement is only one part of
the puzzle as rather than its instigator, suggesting that the climate at the time of the show’s airing
helped make it and further political movements garner attention (Morgan, 2006).
Morgan refers to the reemergence of public and policy interest regarding modern school
food as the “ecological era,” due to the interest in both human and environmental sustainability.
The movement began in Scotland, with a 2003 working paper entitled “Hungry for Success,” that
within dining halls; provide high nutrient, high quality meals; and be considered a health service,
as opposed to commercial (Morgan, 2006). The corresponding 2006 English report, “Turning the
recommendations on food procurement. The holistic nature of this movement suggests that the
ecological era will affect more than parents and children, but also procurement managers and
Morgan and Sonnino argue that food procurement can be intrinsically linked to the
healthy diets for children. The authors compare UK school food procurement to methods
conducted in Italy, where a powerful food culture ensures that local, traditional, and organic
foods are sourced as part of a commitment to the citizen’s right to education and health. As a
result, Italian policies stand in contrast to British methods, especially since Italian contractors are
given the power to modify the services they deliver. Procurement managers are permitted to
discriminate by restricting public competition and favouring local producers in accordance with
the Italian view that the best value includes hygienic, nutritional, and educational aspects of food
UK food procurement is unique in that local, regional, and fresh products are part of a
resurgence phase, following deteriorations in food quality due to the deregulation encouraged by
Conservative governments. These historical processes placed economic considerations first and
foremost, ignoring quality and value in favour of the lowest possible cost. Fresh foods were
exchanged for pre-prepared and processed food; kitchen appliances and culinary skilled staff
were no longer needed and removed. Today, procurement managers are learning to reconsider
quality and local ingredients and not simply cost in sourcing food. This change in tactic has
forced food service corporations to react. Canterbury Foods complained to school administrators
that it was unable to keep up with new demands, since it mostly produced “a lot of fatty foods
and salty foods.” This switch in focus has presented an opportunity for food companies that offer
healthy options to grow at a time when less health-conscious companies are struggling (Morgan
Notable Campaigns
Two campaigns are worth mentioning in a discussion of UK school meals. The 2004
student in the city of Kingston-upon-Hull at no cost. Breakfast, lunch, and a piece of fruit would
be included; additionally, the three-year long program would utilize guidelines more stringent
than national standards. Pike and Colquhoun (2009) argue that the Hull Campaign has the
capacity to reduce the “health gradient,” that is, to minimize the deficits in health as a result of
socioeconomic status. The authors argue that by universalizing food provision, multiple social
groups can be influenced, since the program removes structural barriers to nutritious food. The
“intermediate” classes, who are not eligible for free meal entitlement through state-run policies
may likely see significant benefits due to better nutrition and household income (Pike &
Colquhoun, 2009).
Jamie Oliver’s “Feed me Better” campaign bears mentioning as well. Oliver was able to
change school menus at various schools in Greenwich despite contractual agreements with
catering companies that are typically stringent and long-term. The new menus would replace
junk food and low-budget processed food with wholesome alternatives. Local council funding
was injected into schools as part of the experiment since new equipment had to be purchased and
kitchen staff had to be retrained and compensated for extra hours. Belot and James (2010)
examined the validity of one key reason for targeting food in schools: whether or not improved
meal programs provide positive learning and educational outcomes for students. The authors are
hesitant to solely attribute benefits to Oliver’s movement, due to numerous variables such as a
possible Hawthrone effect (subjects modify their behavior in response to being observed) and
The responses to the “moral fear” caused by reports of rising obesity rates have mostly
been seen as a movement against corporations responsible for the “competitive foods” that can
be easily accessed in schools throughout the country. An overarching view holds that schools
should carry the burden of responsibility in addressing obesity (Fried & Simon, 2007). This has
had a major impact in encouraging government regulation over food that is sold in schools.
Fried and Simon argue that progress has been minimal due to barriers. Congressional grants have
been employed to reduce junk food sales, yet are rendered useless due to political pressure.
Grants that download responsibility to school districts also fail due to financial pressures,
Efforts at the state and local level have been mostly unproductive. Between 2003 and
2005, 45 legislatures considered regulation over junk food and drinks for public schools with
questionable success, mostly due to inconsistent directives. The results have been referred to as
“nutritional chaos” by some authors. Language was often weak or inconsistent between
The Child Nutritional Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 sought to
establish national nutritional standards for competitive foods sold in schools. Although the bill
was introduced following more than ten federal efforts since 1966 to regulate the sale of
competitive foods in schools, it is arguably the most comprehensive. The act recommends that
the USDA update the definition of FMNV foods and allow new restrictions on the where these
items can be sold. Although the US Department of Agriculture cannot ban the sale of food or
drink during non-meal hours, this governing body can regulate nutritional standards for foods
11
sold in schools. Making the definition of FMNV foods more stringent could bypass this barrier
and stop foods from entering schools (Fried & Simon, 2007).
Despite efforts to combat competitive foods in the school environment, the School
Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program remain as methods of addressing
inequalities in the diets of schoolchildren. Their abilities as obesity prevention programs have
been called to question by authors such as Millimet and his colleagues, who found that NSLP
contributed to rising obesity while the SBP participation did not. The authors found that the
health impacts of SBP were highly linked to selection processes and could therefore be used to
Diverse Procurement
bureaucracy and corporations. As discussed above, American school food has been greatly
affected by commercialization, which favours cost and is opposed to nutrition and quality. The
effect of fast food must be considered when examining procurement since many students head
off campus during lunch hours. The number of students consuming these foods is unsurprising
when one considers the industry’s multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns and the strategic
placement of restaurants around schools (Morgan & Sonnino, 2008). School food authorities
procure foods from national distributors, which often feature limited and inflexible product
ranges. Procurement is also facilitated by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, which
provides funding to states based on the number of students enrolled in school food programs.
The USDA also provides $16.75 in “entitlement foods” per meal served under school food
programs. Additionally, surplus agricultural stocks are sometimes provided directly from the
12
federal government and are donated or sourced from surplus commodities (Morgan & Sonnino,
2008).
With the ecological movement still in relative infancy, it is difficult to tell if the revived
interest in healthy school meals will persist. Several factors pose major obstacles to the
perpetuation of the current school food reforms. Resources are a key concern: the £220 million
invested for three years will likely be insufficient to sustain an ambitious project that requires
expensive food ingredients, new kitchen infrastructure, and extra hours of labour. Inadequate
skill sets by kitchen staff, many whom are unfamiliar with healthy cooking techniques, will need
to be retrained. Farmers and producers must be included as well, in order to facilitate the supply
of local products that are both healthy and fresh (Morgan, 2006). Social participation is another
crucial factor that is needed and has already been problematic. The involvement of both children
and parents is needed; healthy eating campaigns require active participation in order for target
individuals to learn to appreciate food differently. Little input from students had been sought
with regards to their meals: one Sodexho survey (2002, as cited in Morgan & Sonnino, 2007)
found that only 27% of children in one school had been asked their views. As a result, children
were often been unable to provide their parents with adequate information about their school
meals.
The lack of parent and student involvement has resulted in a decline in students
participating in school meals. The Local Authorities Caterer’s Association found that
participation dropped by 10%, a figure equaling about 71 million meals. The change was
attributed to media hype and Jamie Oliver’s TV program, which had aired that same year
(Morgan, 2006). Conventional thought might suggest that packed lunches might be a healthier
13
alternative to school food, which had been discredited as nutritionally deficient. Using
longitudinal data collected between 1999 and 2000, Rogers and her colleagues (2007) compared
packed lunches and school meals in order to determine whether nutritional benefits existed in
favour of either option. They concluded that neither packed lunches nor school meals met dietary
guidelines and were both lacking in fibre and key vitamins and minerals. However, packed
lunches exhibited higher levels of sugar and saturated fats, often exceeding the day’s
recommended intake while only providing half the recommended fruits and vegetables. This
combination should raise concern: diets low in potassium and high in sodium have been linked to
elevated blood pressure in children. School meals included worrying levels of processed and
fatty foods, yet still showed a lower atherogenic (increases the thickening of artery walls)
nutrient profiles than their home-packed counterparts (Rogers, Hebditch, Jones, & Emmett,
2007).
Food bans have gained much attention from mainstream media and have been well
researched to determine benefits or costs. Schwartz, Novak, and Fiore (2009) posited the
hypotheses that context provides dietary incentive. That is, since children will eat what is readily
available, providing only healthy snacks that met nutritional standards (MNS foods) would
improve students’ diets. The authors found that students participating in the Connecticut Healthy
Snack Project increased consumption of MNS beverages (fruit juice and water), MNS salty
snacks (baked chips, popcorn, and crackers), and MNS sweet snacks (fruit, yoghurt, granola
bars, and popsicles). At the same time, students in the control group that had normal access to
junk foods consumed more of those foods, eating and drinking greater amounts of soda,
flavoured fruit drinks, and chips. Dority, McGarvey, and Kennedy (2010) found that schools that
14
prohibit junk food sales during meals have fewer obese or overweight students. The study
suggests that schools that currently allowed junk food sales could reduce their number of
Concerns over the emotional and psychological effects of food restrictions on the
students were addressed as well. Schwartz and her colleagues examined the notion of dietary
restraint, which suggests that people are influenced by internal factors. This thesis has roots
based on studies investigating maternal diet restrictions among young girls. The authors suggest
that feelings of deprivation lead to strong desires for the prohibited items. The study also
foods at home, would occur. Neither was found to be valid. The authors suggest that food
restrictions ordained by a government body would not make students feel bad about their bodies
since equal treatment was being applied to all students. There was no evidence to suggest
While school food has been identified as a key target in tackling obesity, there are many
additional factors and confounds that contribute to decreased health and longevity. In their
analysis of the Hull, UK “Eat Well, Do Well” campaign, Pike and Colquhoun (2009) note that
their two comparison schools featured different levels of uptake despite near-identical meal
programs. The authors argue that spatiality–“the interrelationship between the subject and the
spatial”–can account for the difference. Cleveland School, which featured a dining hall with high
ceilings, natural light, and walls decorated with student art, had significantly higher rates of
participation than Crosby School. In comparison, Crosby had a standard dining hall that was
considered uninviting, with closed curtains and plastic chairs. The authors suggest that
15
Cleveland’s welcoming dining hall encourages students to engage in positive interactions with
their peers, teachers, and school staff within that setting. Lunch hours at Cleveland are half an
hour longer than Crosby School lunch hours, where students finish their lunches quickly or leave
while still eating. Cleveland students experienced healthier school meal experiences because of
positive interpersonal interactions: for example, students increased fruit consumption after being
proximity, has also been highly problematic. This issue has been felt in both the United States
and the United Kingdom and has been critiqued by the World Health Organization. The 2003
WHO Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Disease Report commented that marketing
efforts make healthy choices difficult for youth (Lake & Townshend, 2006). Advertisers have
been known for specifically marketing their goods towards children. The UK government places
no restrictions on children’s access to advertising, instead arguing that parents should decide the
amount of exposure their child should receive. Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, have
placed bans on advertising geared towards children (Gustafsson, 2002). Advertising may play a
more direct role in students’ future health as well. Exclusive agreements such as “pouring
contracts” encourage brand loyalty that can increase the consumption of unhealthy foods
Public health officials have also identified falling activity levels as another area within
the school where obesity can be countered. Lake and Townshend (2009) take a geographically
influenced viewpoint by arguing that the built environment can link physical activity and
16
reduced health. Factors such as high population density, areas of mixed zoning (featuring
residences and shops), and the availability of well-maintained paths, all encourage walking or
cycling. Suburbia, which has been derided for its lack of “walkability,” has been linked to
obesity in American and Australian studies. In one study, obesity rose from 30% to 60% between
a “walkable” region and a “low walkable” neighborhood (Saelens et al., 2003, as cited in Lake &
Townshend, 2006).
Conclusion
In both the United States and the United Kingdom, a tacit theme underlying the
movements and responses to obesity has emerged as one of convergence. With support from the
fearful public body and concerned school administrators, national governing bodies have moved
within the school system. As patterns of commercial marketing and consumerism become
increasingly parallel in nature, similarities in government strategies will likely continue to grow.
The efficacy of stringent school food policies has been demonstrated as an effective method of
promoting healthier students and countering childhood obesity. Though findings have shown this
angle of attack to be beneficial, the contributing factors to obesity are many and as a result, a
The lack of agency of children in shaping their own diets and health consequences has
been one overarching failure among school meal programs. Despite their daily involvement in
the consumption of meals at school, children have been relegated to “end of line” decisions, only
being able to chose between the lunch hall offerings, packed lunches, or commercial options.
Governments may need to change their approach to the food industry, placing firm restrictions
Through the current body of research, it is clear that schools are indeed a key facet with
which to understand and tackle childhood health issues. Whether schools should be the sole
gateway to solving the obesity dilemma or a part of a larger solution is yet to be determined.
encourage healthy lifestyles for children and youth. Tightening restrictions and establishing
rigorous standards surrounding food in schools has been shown to be beneficial with few
drawbacks. With such great costs and so much to lose, how can we afford not to?
18
References
Belot, M. & James, J. (2010). Healthy school meals and educational outcomes. Institute for
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/iser/2009-01
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2011). Obesity and Overweight. Retrieved
Colls, R. & Evans, B. (2009).Introduction: Questioning obesity politics. Antipode, 41(5), 1011-
1020.
Delva, J., Malley, M., & Johnston, L. (2007). Availability of more-healthy and less healthy food
239.
Dority, B., McGarvey, M., & Kennedy, P. (2010). Marketing foods and beverages in schools:
The effect of school food policy on students’ overweight measures. Journal of Public
Evans, B. (2006). “Gluttony or sloth”: critical geographies of bodies and morality in (anti)obesity
Fried, E. & Simon, M. (2007). The competitive food conundrum: Can government regulations
Gustafsson, U. (2002). School meals policy: The problem with governing children. Social Policy
House of Commons. (2004). Obesity. Third Report of Session 2003-04, the House of Commons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhealth/23/23.pdf
Lake, A. & Townshend, T. (2006). Obesogenic environments: Exploring the built and food
Millimet, D., Tchernis, R., & Husain, M. (2009). School nutrition programs and the incidence of
Morgan, K. (2006). School food and the public domain: the politics of the public plate. The
Morgan, K. & Sonnino, R. (2007). Empowering consumers: the creative procurement of school
meals in Italy and the UK. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 19-25.
Morgan, K. & Sonnino, R. (2008). The school food revolution: public food and the challenges of
Pike, J. & Colquhoun, D. (2009). The relationship between policy and place: The role of school
Rogers, I., Ness, A., Hebditch, K., Jones, L., & Emmett, P. (2007). Quality of food eaten in
English primary schools: school dinners vs packed lunches. European Journal of Clinical
Schwartz, M., Novak, S., & Fiore, S. (2009). The impact of removing snacks of low nutritional
value from middle schools. Health Education and Behavior, 36(6), 999-1011.