DEVELOPING A NATIONAL SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAM IN CANADA: A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

Whitney Jakobsen Najla Nureddin

Lauren Chin

GEOG 461: Food Systems & Sustainability

Professor : Steffanie Scott

April 4, 2016

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..1 2.0 BENEFITS………………………………………………………………………………….2

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS………………………………………………..……...2 2.2 HEALTH BENEFITS…………………………………………………………………....3 2.3 LOCAL PROCUREMENT………………………………………………………...…....3

2.3.1 STUDENTS…………………………………………………………………….….4 2.3.2 ECONOMY………………………………………………………………………...4 2.3.3 LOCAL PRODUCERS……………………………………………………………4 2.3.4 FOODSERVICE PROFESSIONALS…………………………………….……..5

2.4 EDUCATION……………………………………………………………………….……5 2.5 SOCIAL…………………………………………………………………………..………6

2.5.1 GENDER EQUALITY.....................................................................................6

2.5.2 BEHAVIOURAL IMPACTS…………………………………………………..6

2.6 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………..7 3.0 CANADIAN SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS……………………………………………7 4.0 FOREIGN SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS……………………………………………..9

4.1 US SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAM………………………………………………...9

4.2 FOOD PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES…………………………...10

4.3 SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS IN THE UK…………………………....................12

4.4 SUMMARY…………………………......................................................................13 5.0 CHALLENGES..........................................................................................................13

5.1 ECONOMIC.....................................................................................................13

5.2 LOCAL PROCUREMENT...............................................................................14

5.3 POLICY...........................................................................................................16

5.4 EDUCATIONAL..............................................................................................16

5.5 SUMMARY..............................................................................................................17 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................17

6.1 HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................17

6.2 LOCAL PROCUREMENT...............................................................................18

6.3 POLICY...........................................................................................................20

6.6 EDUCATION...................................................................................................21

6.7 SUMMARY......................................................................................................21 7.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................22 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................23

1

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION A national school food program can be defined as a federal program that

provides funding and guidelines to ensure all children have access to health food

(Hyslop, K., 2014). These programs are not only an initiative to help poor children’s food

insecurity, but also to provide healthy and nutritious food to all children and to educate

children on nutritional benefits and understanding of food. With childhood obesity on the

rise, it is important to take initiative to reverse this trend. However, while the need for a

national program in Canada is rising, we remain the only G7 nation without one (Hyslop,

K., 2014). School food programs have the potential to be one of the most effective tools

in fighting childhood obesity. They have the ability to reach all students and increase

their health during crucial stages of growth. They also have the power to reduce the risk

of future health complications by establishing healthy habits early on that will resonate

throughout their life (Fitzgerald, A.L. & Veugelers, P.J., 2005).

Although there is no national program currently in place, this does not mean that

there are no programs currently on–going in Canada. There are various initiatives in

schools nationwide to promote healthy, nutritious eating, environmental sustainable

eating and the local economy. These initiatives include school gardens and

greenhouses and purchasing, selling, cooking, preserving and serving local foods (Farm

to Cafeteria Canada, n.d.). Distributed sporadically across Canada, some provinces and

territories having no school food programs at all (Farm to Cafeteria Canada, n.d.).

This report aims to outline the best management practices, from home and

abroad, which may be successfully administered to create a comprehensive and

feasible national food program in Canada. This was completed through an exhaustive

literature review of government documents, academic journal articles, and publications

by non-governmental organizations. In order to adequately address this question, the

report will identify the benefits, motivations and challenges associated with school food

programs, and then will attempt to derive recommendations that may be employed by

the federal government to create a Canadian national school food program.

Throughout the research process, we were able to identify various connections to

course themes. To start off with, nutrition and food security for children was one of the

primary motivators of these programs across the board. In regard to local food

procurement, alternative food networks and sustainable food systems came together in

the motivations of farmers and policy makers in the domain of school food programs.

The emergence of neoliberal policies have shifted the provision of food in schools to be

under the control of large corporate distributors and producers which undermine the

local economies and negatively impact childhood health and eating habits. From a

feminist perspective of food systems, women are increasingly shifting away from being

the main providers of food to children. We will begin by outlining the benefits of a

national school food program, then by moving into current initiatives in Canada, and

exploring some of the successful programs in other countries such as the US, Scotland

and then developing countries. We will then address challenges experienced when

implementing these programs, and will move into recommendations for developing a

successful program in Canada. The following section will examine the benefits to

implementing a national school food program.

2.0 BENEFITS Establishing a national school food program has numerous benefits on a macro

and micro level. The following section will further describe environmental, health,

economic, educational and the social benefits of a school food program.

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

When discussing a federal school food program the many of the environmental benefits

come indirectly. For example raising awareness of healthy food and farms that produce this

food locally supports farmers, and it is their practices which may or may not have environmental

benefits. The US has a Farm to School program which has proven to be very successful in

schools where it is implemented. The largest benefit seems to be with the local producers, this

also benefits the environment because local food is being chosen over well-travelled food. 77%

of districts which participated in the program served locally produced foods in their cafeterias,

which in most cases meant food produced within the state or closer (USDA, 2015). The

program also promoted the construction and use of school gardens which resulted in over 7,000

new gardens around the country (USDA, 2015). These gardens provide new spaces for kids to

learn about where their food comes from and the nature around them. Although there were not

many direct benefits to the environment the building of awareness of healthy food and

implementation of gardens does a lot to help kids from a young age care more about their own

health and the environment.

2.2 HEALTH BENEFITS

When discussing a school food program there are numerous health benefits. The

nutrition dimension of school food programs generally require that food purchased,

provided, or made available is healthy, which is paramount within institutions where

people source a large portion of their daily intake. Healthy food procurement can be

defined as “a process which encompasses not just how public bodies procure food, but

also how they determine what food they want to buy and from whom; receive and store

food; prepare and serve food; dispose of waste food; and monitor costs” (Smith, 2015).

The benefits are especially seen within low dietary-quality or nutritionally

disadvantaged populations.

A broad implementation of this framework can increase the overall demand for

healthy products, thus making them more available to the public in general, and drive

the reformulation of foods by manufacturers. When paired with education, it carries with

it the potential to raise awareness about the importance of healthy diets (Niebylski,

2014).

2.3 LOCAL PROCUREMENT

Local procurement strategies are one of the primary ways in which alternative

food networks can be incorporated into an institutionalized foodservice framework.

Alternative food networks support the food system transition into sustainability,

broadening its impact into social, economic, and environmental domains (Carlsson &

Williams, 2008). Farm-to-School (FTS) programs are a Canadian example that provide

such strategies. Although the specific benefits found to be associated with FTS

programs may be unique to the local context, common themes can be highlighted. Two

major components of an FTS program are [1] the procurement of locally produced

foods, and [2] experience-based activities that educate students about agricultural

systems, culinary practices, and nutritional qualities of local and healthy foods (Conner,

King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012). This section will explore the benefits

local procurement policies such as FTS may bring to each of the actors involved:

students, foodservice professionals, and local food producers.

2.3.1 STUDENTS

Students benefit directly in FTS programs through the increased accessibility of

fresh foods and experience-based education about sustainability. As captive audiences,

students can be learn about the issues and synergies within the food system. They may

be instilled with a sustainable and ethical perspective towards their futures as actors in

the system through education initiatives and a food environment saturated in health.

They are given the tools to make the connection between their individual food choices

and the consequences they have on the food system as a whole, from production to

waste. Direct interaction with farmers, through fieldtrips and workshops, also hold the

potential of establishing a consumer-base with a formal understanding and appreciation

of local food and agricultural ways of life (Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

2.3.2 ECONOMY

The volume of food purchases by schools hold a great potential to positively

impact local economies more so than individual households. Institutionalizing these

efforts can make real advancements in food security and awareness about food

productions. Within Canada, the number of farms have been decreasing substantially

over the past two decades, and Canadian farmers’ share on the domestic food dollar

following the same trend. Because of this persistent development in the industry,

farming is increasingly perceived as an unstable livelihood. FTS programs may help

counter the negative trends in seen in the Canadian agricultural industry. They have the

power to systematically connect growers to school markets, allowing for greater

community exposure and increased demands. This in turn allows farmers stay on their

farms, providing jobs, paying taxes, and retaining farmland (Kalb, 2006).

2.3.3 LOCAL PRODUCERS

Local producers benefit from these programs with access to a new market, as

well as a way in which to diversify their market (Carlsson & Williams, 2008; Conner,

King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012). Schools often provide a market for

unexpected surpluses or slightly blemished produce. Farmers may see a great potential

in securing future customers by establishing relationships with the community and

children through experience-based activities (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba,

& Trubek, 2012). The combination of these motivations, both the diversification of their

market-base and social contributions to the community, lead farmers to persist with their

involvement in FTS programs despite barriers that may make it difficult or less

financially rewarding (Carlsson & Williams, 2008; Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche,

Koliba, & Trubek, 2012).

2.3.4 FOODSERVICE PROFESSIONALS

School foodservice professionals have also been found to benefit from local

procurement policies. Forging a direct relationship with local farmers allows school

foodservices to obtain fresher food than they would normally be able to buy through

large-scale and long-distance suppliers (Izumi, 2008). Through this shortened supply

chain, food does not spoil as quickly after transportation and handling, transportation

costs are reduced, and the variety of food accessible is greater (Carlsson & Williams,

2008; Izumi, 2008). One study in Vermont found that the price of locally grown foods

were competitive with, or even cheaper than, food from large-scale distributors,

countering the common perception that local foods are more costly (Izumi, 2008).

2.4 EDUCATION

School food gardens can be viewed as short-term projects of food system

change as they may build awareness about issues. Research from projects in the U.S.

sustains that gardens positively influence student learning, nutrition knowledge,

willingness to taste, eat, and prefer fruits and vegetables, and engage in physical

activity. They provide opportunities to build community and a sense of belonging in the

school, as well as shift the school food environment (Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

In addition to the direct educational benefits provided by school food programs,

particularly school gardens, students also benefit indirectly from school food programs,

such as a strengthening of the bond between the child and the school, as the students

are more likely to care about how the teachers view them, and will therefore engage in

behaviours which are rewarded by the school (Ozer, E.J., 2007).

2.5 SOCIAL

2.5.1 GENDER EQUALITY

National school food programs can help relieve pressure on women who are in

the workforce. Dual family careers have become the norm in today’s society, and while

it can be beneficial to children’s developmental outcomes, it requires more time away

from house and food work, and increases the reliance of a family on fast food and

takeout (Bauer et al, 2012). An increased reliance on unhealthy fast food reflects poorly

more so on women than on men because in Canada some are responsible for the

majority of food work in Canadian families, and therefore are more responsible for their

loved ones health and nutrition, as Brady et al (2012) suggests. However, as the need

for mothers to head into the workforce increases, and the number of hours they work

each week increases, so does a child’s risk for obesity. This is because the working

mothers tend to preserve the time they have at home, and spend it with their children as

opposed to spending it shopping, cooking and meal planning (Bauer et al, 2012).

Instead of penalizing women for leaving the mundane household work behind and

entering into the world of paid work by blaming them for childhood obesity, a national

school food program would relieve some of the pressures placed on women to provide

healthy meals while their kids are at school, and would help support gender equality.

2.5.2 BEHAVIOURAL IMPACTS

An inadequate consumption of vegetables in children has all sorts of negative

ramifications such as lower academic performance, an increase in alcohol and drug

use, as well as negative correlations with body weight and image (Ozer, E.J., 2007).

School gardens, as part of a national school food program, can provide a community for

students to feel a part of, build relationships and increase their bond with their school.

Students who experience this social and emotional stability, facilitated specifically by

school gardens showed a higher emotional attachment to their teachers and exhibited

lower emotional distress levels and lower levels of risk behaviour and aggression (Ozer,

E.J., 2007). School gardens also had long term effects on substance use, delinquency,

violence, academic problems and a lower prevalence of sexual promiscuity in young

adulthood (Ozer, E.J., 2007).

2.6 SUMMARY

The benefits of a national school food program demonstrate the wide implications

that the establishment of such a program could have. Environmentally they support

more sustainable methods of food procurement and raise environmental awareness.

From a health perspective they increase nutrient availability for nutritionally

disadvantaged populations and diversity to all students. School food programs create

more demand for healthy food and boost that sector of the economy through local

procurement procedures which educate the public, support local farmers and producers.

Benefits extend to foodservice professionals by creating jobs, new markets and

shortens the supply chain. Finally, the encouragement of gender equality and improved

student behavioral impacts provide social benefits.

The following sections will now look at existing food programs in both Canada

and abroad and the challenges and opportunities they have created.

3.0 CANADIAN SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS Currently, food programs across Canada make up an extensive patchwork of

local initiatives and provincial policies. Because education falls under provincial

government jurisdiction, response to school food initiatives nationally have been limited

in terms of concrete legislation. Children’s food needs within schools have been

addressed only in part by grants or privately funded initiatives (Carlsson & Williams,

2008). The weaknesses associated with this include non-enforceable guidelines,

differing standards of nutritional quality, lack of public information about schools’

compliance with guidelines, inattention to student food preferences, and ignorance

towards food environments adjacent to schools (Winson, 2008).

As of 2014, all provinces have a school food policy of some kind, and a few have

a provincially funded school food programs. Nunavut is developing a policy, and the

Northwest Territory funds school food programs, but the Yukon has neither a policy nor

a program. Nearly all provincial and territorial governments have some kind of funding

going to external organizations that provide a school food program (Hyslop, 2014). As a

result of this highly variable legislation, the Canadian school food environment is fairly

saturated with products of minimal nutritional value. One third of public schools in

Manitoba reported having sponsorships from large multinational corporations, such as

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola (Winson, 2008).

In Nova Scotia, Food and Nutrition Policy does require, however, that the

majority of food and beverages served be classified as maximum nutrition, eliminating

all poor-nutrient beverages, and bands on deep-fryers in food preparation as well as the

sale of junk food in school fundraising (Winson, 2008). As well, British Columbia has

employed a widely successful school food policy that has had 50% of schools eliminate

unhealthy foods since its implementation in 2005 (Niebylski, 2014).

At the Sandy Lake School Board in Northern Ontario, a culturally appropriate and

diabetes prevention food program engaged Ojibway-Cree First Nations students from

3rd to 5th grade through banning high fat and sugar snack foods, providing healthy

lunches, and included education on diet and physical education. Within a year, intake of

energy from total fat decreased significantly by 2%, and benefits such as improved

dietary knowledge, dietary self-efficacy, and understanding of psychosocial factors

related to a healthy lifestyle were reported. This is just one example of the feasibility and

success of implementing a school food program in both remote and northern

communities (Niebylski, 2014).

Some provinces either directly fund programs or indirectly provide financial

support through organizations, such as Breakfast for Learning (BFL). BFL is the leading

organization that provides funding, educational, and organizational resources for

program start-up and maintenance. They require that programs be universal, that is,

offered to all students, and operate during regular school hours at least three days a

week (Russell, Evers, Dwyer, & Macaskill, 2007). Alongside these organizational and

government initiatives, there has been a great movement in informal, localized projects

to promote healthy eating in schools, such as those registered with Farm to Cafeteria

Canada (FTCC) (Winson, 2008). FTCC is a pan-Canadian organization that works with

partners across the country to “educate, build capacity, strengthen partnerships, and

influence policy to bring local, healthy, and sustainable foods into all public institutions.”

They cite more than 650 registered schools that engage their students in some kind of

hands-on or comprehensive education programs about the food system. Notably,

Quebec, B.C., and Manitoba each have over 100 schools involved (Farm to Cafeteria

Canada, n.d.).

It has been noted in the literature that community-based programs threaten to

mask the necessity of federally funded poverty reduction strategies (Carlsson &

Williams, 2008). Schools hold a powerful potential for a systematic and comprehensive

approach that considers environmental, social, and economic aspects of the dominant

food system in Canada (Carlsson & Williams, 2008). One of the most broad-reaching

proposals for a national school food program comes from Food Secure Canada’s

Coalition for Healthy School Food. Their primary objective is to establish a $5 billion

investment from the federal government over a 5-year period in a national school food

program that provides healthy meals to all children, every day. They envision this

national initiative building on existing programs and projects across the country,

including an educational dimension while providing culturally appropriate, local, and

sustainable food to the fullest extent possible (Food Secure Canada, n.d.).

4.0 FOREIGN SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS

4.1 US SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAM

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) was established in the US in 1971

and is constantly being updated and reviewed to this day. Prior to the national program

there were smaller localized initiatives in most of the major cities in the US which

eventually grew in popularity and were united to become a national program. The

program operates in public, private non-profit and residential child care institutions and

includes lunches and snacks. Not all institutions have to use the NSLP but they can get

cash subsidies for the meals they serve which meet federal requirements. The meals

are also available to students at a free or reduced price if they fall within certain poverty

levels. In 2012 they were able to reach 31 million children across the nation and in 2014

were in 99,000 schools (USDA, 2016). 92% of all American students have access to the

program which is managed at the federal and state level who work with school food

authorities.

The nutrition standards for the NSLP are based on the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans which is the American equivalent to Canada’s Food Guide. The main focus

in recent years has been to increase fruit, vegetable and whole grain consumption. This

was determined after researched showed ¾ of the American population was having less

than the recommended amount of vegetables, fruit, dairy and oils. More than half of the

population was exceeding the recommended limit for grains, protein, sugars, saturated

fats and sodium. Overall there was also seen to be an overconsumption of calories.

The impact of the NSLP varies depending on the group being studied but it has

overall made a large impact in helping students have reliable access to food. The

largest benefits are seen in groups of students with low dietary-quality outside of school

(Smith, 2015). Some of the challenges they face involve the choices of the students. For

example schools can offer healthy choices but unless the students choose them they

are not effective.

4.2 FOOD PROGRAMS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Around the world there are many other models of food programs, with different

results and different challenges. A broad study done by Jomaa et. al. showed that

having a food system in place helps encourage attendance, closes the gender gap and

lowers the drop-out rate in developing countries (2011). However these countries can

also face challenges With maintaining programs due to food price fluctuations and

environmental changes (Jomaa, 2011). We will examine some of these benefits and

challenges in the countries of South Africa, Jamaica and Vietnam.

In 1994 South Africa introduced the Integrated Nutrition Program of South Africa.

annually it is found in 15,000 schools and feeds approximately 5 million kids in high-

poverty areas, rural and farm schools and informal settlements. Each province has the

power to design their own plans but they must meet a framework of national nutrition

which includes meeting 20 to 25% of recommended dietary allowance. The goal of the

program was to enhance education end short-term hunger, increase attendance, and

address micronutrient deficiencies. However in many cases the framework is not kept,

children are fed well into the school day and therefore feel hungry in class, there's

inconsistency in feeding days, infrastructure challenges, poor food safety and poor

water availability. There are also challenges with target areas being influenced by

political players and financial motives instead of the needs of the students. There was

also a lot of work being done to address micronutrient deficiencies such as Vitamin A,

iron and iodine. A fortified biscuit was created which help increase levels of

micronutrients in students however in times when there was no school such as holidays

or school breaks, levels went down again. Efforts are being made to increase availability

of other nutrient dense sources such as red palm oil, bread spread, soups and sweet

potato to students (Stuijvenberg, 2005). Overall the aims of the programs are well

placed and can have a direct significant impact on the health of the students but there

are infrastructure and resources challenges which keep it from reaching its full potential.

Jamaican is another developing country which has faced some challenges with

establishing a food program. For example they often have heavy political implications

and are used as a tool by politicians to gain popularity from parents (Grantham-

McGregor, 1998). They would provide opportunities for farmers and cooks and reduce

the costs of sending children to school. They also found that having breakfast was key

for cognitive function among undernourished children, suggesting that such school

programs would be most beneficial to developing countries.

Of these three examples the Vietnam system appears to have been the most

successful. A program was established in 1977-1980 by the Department of Education

and reaches 100% of kindergarten students and 90% of elementary students in one of

their largest cities of Ho Chi Minh City (Le, 2012). Due to the large amount of time that

kids spend in school while parents work it is a popular program which had an early start

around the country. It works by parents paying monthly up front for meals which the kids

receive in school. The fees of low income families can be supported the government or

children are allowed to return home for lunch and then come back. At one time the aim

of the program was to only provide food however today there are more efforts being

made to improve nutrition and health. The same meal and snack is served to all

students and consists of a staple carbohydrate (rice, noodles), an entree with protein or

fat (pork, chicken, tofu), soup with fiber (vegetable), fruit and milk . Some of the

challenges they face include nutrition information and training to staff, lack of safety

inspections and development of governmental regulations. The country is overall

working hard to establish a more comprehensive national program as outlined in the

National Nutrition Strategy 2012-2020 to improve nutrition and physical education to

children from kindergarten through university (2012).

4.3 SCHOOL FOOD PROGRAMS IN THE UK

To outline the benefits of school food programs on the local economy a school

food program in Scotland was examined. In the early 2000’s the UK underwent a school

food reform in response to concerns about childhood obesity (Sonnino, R., 2010). In

East Ayrshire, Scotland employment levels, average earnings and qualifications were all

below the national average, having a significant impact on the obesity rate of school

children (Sonnino, R., 2010). School food programs were explored as a solution to

combat these issues. Starting in one primary school the East Ayrshire Council trialed

fresh, organic and locally sourced food. This trial had such a positive impact that the

program was then piloted in ten schools (Sonnino, R., 2010).

One of the main concerns from local farmers when implementing the program

was whether or not they would be chosen over large scale farmers because of price

point differences (Sonnino, R., 2010). In order to address the farmers concerns, the

council came up with a unique method to ensure the involvement of small, organic

suppliers. The method included reducing the strictness of the guidelines for organic

foods, dividing the contract into smaller lots, and then basing the assessment criteria

half on quality, as well as half on price (Sonnino, R., 2010).

The results of this program were successful in that currently, 50% of ingredients

from school meals are organic, 70% are locally sourced, and 90% of the menu items

are unprocessed (Sonnino, R., 2010).

A major concern when discussing school food programs is cost, especially with

locally sourced products. While this was also a concern for the East Ayrshire council,

they found that although the food products were 75% more expensive, it had minimal

impact on the cost per meal, and any increase in price was not felt by the parents as it

was absorbed by government subsidy (Sonnino, R., 2010).

In addition to improving the quality of food for the children, the program was also

environmentally sustainable and beneficial for the local economy. Food miles were

reduced by 70%, and the local economy say a return of 160,000 pounds (Sonnino, R.,

2010). After the success of the pilot became clear, the program was then expanded to

42 schools and the return to the local economy increased to 250,000 pounds (Sonnino,

R., 2010).

4.4 SUMMARY

These initiatives from around the world are evidence that national school food

programs each have their own benefits and challenges as well. As each system is

tailored to meet the needs of their country, Canada has the opportunity to learn from

these countries and also evaluate their own needs, opportunities, and obstacles. From

the US model, we see that a national program can be successful across a large

geographical area and have a great influence on nutritionally disadvantaged or low

income families. In developing countries we see the limitations of political and economic

resources but also the pursuit of new innovative ideas to provide nutritional food. Finally

from the UK example we see that the program benefits the local economy and can be

implemented across the country as well. There is a great amount of knowledge that can

be utilized for a Canadian equivalent, connecting best management practices from

across the globe to tailor-fit a national school food program for the Canadian context.

5.0 CHALLENGES In light of the benefits of national school food programs, there are also

challenges associated with implementing these initiatives that need to be accounted for

when establishing best management practices. The challenges associated with these

programs will be discussed in the following section.

5.1 ECONOMIC

Schools have increasingly been the subjects of funding cutbacks associated with

new neoliberal governmental economic policies. Perhaps unexpectedly, the school food

environment has degraded immensely as a result. Selling nutrient poor products have

been one of the primary methods schools have employed to relieve financial

constraints. In particular, multinational food corporations have been especially driven to

provide money to schools while given the opportunity to establish position in the public

domain, securing a hold on the lucrative youth market (Winson, 2008).

The prominence of processed nutrient-poor foods in schools and the

manifestation of the fast-food industry throughout the food environment may make the

transition to a healthy menu difficult, especially for older students. Coupled with

pressure to generate revenue, changes that may negatively impact sales are unlikely to

be adopted (Carlsson & Williams, 2008; Izumi, 2008). As well, the higher costs

associated with healthy foods come from the processing and preparation required for

food in whole forms, increasing the financial pressure felt by school foodservice

professionals to stay within their purchasing budget (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche,

Koliba, & Trubek, 2012). This is further compounded by limited federal reimbursements.

5.2 LOCAL PROCUREMENT

Studies have identified an array of political, financial, and distribution barriers that

limit the applicability of FTS programs, especially when approached with the intention of

nation-wide standardization. These programs are often characterized as unique

contextually, and involve innovative practices that reflect the conditions of the particular

school and local environment (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek,

2012).

Most notably, the lack of governmental support for FTS programs is a substantial

challenge. In some provinces, FTS efforts are headed by networks of teachers,

dietitians, students and NGOs, such as FTCC. This can be seen as a symbol of the

decentralization of responsibility of quality food provision in schools from the federal

government to local institutions or volunteers, another example of neoliberal policies

(Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

From the production side, farmers are often not setup for light processing to

supply to schools which are drawn to food that requires minimal preparation, for

example, shucking corn (Carlsson & Williams, 2008). This is a strong disincentive for

farmers who already see the school as a charity rather than a realistic market. One

study established that farmers are not often motivated economically to participate in

FTS programs because they receive low prices from school foodservice customers and

the local distribution infrastructure does not support wholesale delivery for small- and

medium-sized farms (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012).

Distribution-related factors also contribute a substantial barrier to local

procurement. There are challenges faced through organizing the distribution of

numerous small-scale orders, often bringing about significant transaction costs for both

the school and the farmer (Carlsson & Williams, 2008; Conner, King, Kolodinsky,

Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012). Most notably, the mismatch between the growing

season and the school year severely limits the potential to source local produce and

other perishable agricultural products (Carlsson & Williams, 2008). School foodservice

professionals often mention the high costs and difficulty involved in managing multiple

accounts with a number of farmers (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek,

2012). Limited knowledge of local sources and computerized billing and ordering also

prove to be a challenge. Consistent product quality and accountability, such as labelling

that outlines nutrition and allergy information, challenge the feasibility of incorporating

sustainable products into school food provisions (Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

Food distributors play a pivotal role in supporting sustainable food procurement

programs, as they can create, or make more convenient, school markets for farmers.

Large-scale producers, such as SYSCO, have identified a main challenge in supplying

locally grown products as being the lack of personal relationships with the regional

farming community. The size and scope of these kinds of distributors make it difficult to

develop networks across their customer base (Izumi, 2008). In addition, trust throughout

the food system supply chain is vitally important across actors (farmers, foodservice

professionals and distributors). If FTS program are to be institutionalized, federal

support is needed.

Another challenge to local procurement is the narrative of the “local-trap”, which

argues that local procurement does not necessarily equate to sustainable development

practices (Sonnino, R., 2010). If economic interest shifts towards local procurement,

powerful stakeholders within the existing food system may reduce the transformative

power of sustainable programs. This may be accomplished through commodifying local

food. Appropriating the symbolic meaning of local, such as was done in the organic and

fair trade movements, serves as a substantial challenge to safeguard for (Izumi, 2008).

5.3 POLICY

One of the primary challenges regarding policy is the issue of assigning the

responsibility of legislation over school food programs. Under a national school food

program, it is required that the federal government provide regulation and funding

across the country; however, the characteristics attributed to the provincial and regional

contexts can only be reasonably expected to cater to specific conditions under a smaller

governing body. The difficulty lies in creating a hierarchical policy structure that, while

allowing for broad control over all schools, makes possible the vertical integration of

knowledge and information between the levels of legislation (Stitzel, K., 2003).

One common critique of current programs in Canada is surrounding their

objectives. First, it is argued that they simply address hunger and dismiss the underlying

problem of income insecurity (Hay, D., 2000). These programs are regarded as

ineffective for reducing hunger among poor children because families are likely to find

other means to alleviate their hunger and avoid social stigma in the school community

(Hay, D., 2000). Another criticism regarding the objectives of these programs is that

administrators often lose sight of the original goal, and instead the focus becomes about

the continuation of the program as a result of sunk costs (Hay, D., 2000).

5.4 EDUCATIONAL

While school gardens as a supplementation to school food programs provide

valuable educational experiences, there are challenges associated with their integration

into the school systems. School gardens lack efficacy in providing a educational

experiences if they are not integrated cohesively with the school curriculum, and are not

valued as a teaching tool due to the increased accountability of teachers for students

achievements (Ozer, E.J., 2007). Additionally, Informal school practices undermine the

goal of improving health of children by providing them with healthy and nutritious food.

These practices include rewarding good behaviour in class with candy or other sweet

treats, and school fundraisers through candy bar or bake sales (Ozer, E.J., 2007).

5.5 SUMMARY

In summary, when implementing school food programs there are multiple

obstacles that need to be accounted for. Schools are often subjected to cutbacks when

it comes to funding and are forced to make sacrifices as well as find methods of

generating income, and foodservice is often significantly impacted by this. Lack of

funding also has negative ramifications for local procurement. When ensuring local

procurement, seasonal availability of fresh produce presents a major challenge to the

success of these initiatives. In addition to seasonal pressures, farmers are skeptical

about entering into foodservice contracts because of concerns regarding price and their

capacity to fulfil distributional and packaging/processing requirements. The lack of

initiative taken by government to legislate these programs is another major challenge to

these programs. Finally, while having the potential to provide educational experiences,

the current programs and practices fail to harness their educational power.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS In the subsequent section we have presented a range of recommendations

across the domains of health, procurement, policy, and education which may be

employed or considered in creating a national food school in Canada.

6.1 HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS

In our society there appears limitless possibilities, especially in terms of lifestyle

and diet. Establishing regulations in school systems may not be a popular decision but

they are clearly needed. In a study by Roberts (2012) 31.5% of Canadians age 5-17

were classified as overweight or obese from 2009-2011. US evaluation of the NSLP

showed an increase in the intake of key vitamins and minerals and dietary fat with a

decrease in added sugars. These included calcium, phosphorous, magnesium and zinc

(Gleason, 2001). Further studies in the US showed that health standards were better

met when school districts had bans or restrictions on sweetened beverages (USDA,

2012), choose foods that were more appealing to students for appropriate nutrients and

prepared foods from whole foods as opposed to pre-made meals (Crepinsek, 2009).

Common trouble areas included high levels of sugar, sodium and fat which could come

from soft drinks, salt in commercially prepared items and whole milk. We recommend

that these foods we particularly regulated by a national school food programs.

Canada’s Food Guide is overall similar to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

A sample meal for a male child would include a hamburger with a whole wheat

hamburger bun, lettuce, tomato, milk and fruit salad. This meal includes 1 ¼ meat

serving, 1 ½ grain serving, 1 ½ fruit and vegetable serving, and 1 serving milk (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of Canada Food Guide Recommendations for dietary intake.

Recommendations (servings per day)

F and V Grains Milk+Alt. Meat+ Alt. Calories

Children 9-13 6 6 3-4 1-2 1400-2600*

Teens 14-18 7-8 6-7 3-4 2-3 1750-3300*

*Wide variance due to sex and activity level

It is also important to be aware of the school policies and food environments

around local schools. For example in the US many schools do not allow their students

to leave for lunch or have restaurants nearby schools but in Canada that is very

common. Most US schools have full cafeterias and/or kitchens while a lot of Canadian

schools do not, making the implementation of a program more challenging. Allocating

funding for school foodservice preparation equipment would be a vital step in securing

an in-school food environment as the primary source of food for children.

6.2 LOCAL PROCUREMENT

For success in FTS programs, local food supply chains must be mobilized

through supporting policy, pupil involvement utilized, and dedifferentiating the grounds

between small producers and multinational corporations (Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

To protect against the commercial appropriation of the “buy local” movement, the goals

of sustainable local procurement programs should be established clearly in school food

policies from their conception (Izumi, 2008).

In terms of school foodservice budgeting, successful efforts have found that to

best incorporate a sustainable food procurement policy, orders should be separated by

food type (e.g. produce, bread, meat, etc.). In this way, food which may be sourced

locally through the winter, such as meat, honey, or jam, may be organized accordingly

(Herron, 2013). Practices that have been successfully employed in local food

procurement include facilitating direct purchases between food service and farmers;

using a “forager” to facilitate purchasing; arranging purchasing through the local

farmer’s market; entering into growing contracts with farmers; or sourcing local food

through a regional distributor (Carlsson & Williams, 2008; Thompson, 2014).

A fundamental component of FTS programs are the farmers involved, and so

their motivations for involvement must be a pivotal consideration in institutionalizing a

sustainable school food program. Identifying market-oriented farmers, that is, farmers

who consider schools as customers rather than charities, may be the best targets for

resource allocation for technical assistance. These are the producers who are more

likely and willing to adapt or change to meet the requirements of schools. Distinguishing

between farmers’ motivations and distribution concerns would help FTS program

practitioners on a national scale better determine the local procurement strategies that

are most appropriate (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012; Izumi,

2008). Growing contracts with school food services may be especially important for

establishing a feasible relationship within a sustainable food system (Thompson, 2014;

Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012; Carlsson & Williams, 2008).

This would simultaneously create a predictable source of supply for school foodservices

as well as an increasing market demand for local producers (Conner, King, Kolodinsky,

Roche, Koliba, & Trubek, 2012).

To overcome concerns over the feasibility of local procurement in northern

climates, one solution may be offered through managing procurement according to food

that are plentiful to each locality, such as fish, milk, or game, rather than strictly fruits

and vegetables. Products such as honey, jam, and bread should also be considered as

a part of the local food supply. Techniques to extend the growing season, such as

freezing harvested foods and increasing storage capacity, may be employed to further

overcome the disconnect between the growing season and school year. FTS programs

can be feasibly achieved in northern territories and provincial communities if local and

regional barriers and strengths are understood and considered (Herron, 2013).

Technical assistance provided in institutionalizing local procurement should be

expanded to include social networking and social media under the umbrella of policy

and community building, allowing for local procurement practices to become socially

embedded in the regional context (Conner, King, Kolodinsky, Roche, Koliba, & Trubek,

2012). Creating platforms through which personal relationships of trust maybe be

fostered between food producers, distributors, and foodservice professionals on both

national and regional scales appear imperative in integrated sustainability into a

Canadian school food system. School foodservice professionals must be made aware

of the advantages and disadvantages associated with food procurement from a variety

of intermediaries, as well as develop their own motivations in local or sustainable food

procurement (Izumi, 2008).

6.3 POLICY

Considering the current power held over the school food environment by

multinational food corporations, federally funded meal programs would provide

authorities some control over nutritional standards and allow the enforcement of

mandatory food provision guidelines (Winson, 2008). Building off of existing initiatives

and organizations can provide a knowledge and structural base from which to

institutionalize a healthy food system across the country (Food Secure Canada, n.d.).

The allocation of federal investments in resources, technical assistance, and funding

can be established through deliberations with directors of pan-Canadian food program

organizations, such as Food Secure Canada’s Coalition of Healthy School Food.

However, for a policy that supports all actors involved, a network must be established to

foster vertical knowledge integration involving farmers, farming cooperatives, school

boards, school foodservice professionals, and regional food distributors.

Policy should redefine the objectives of a national school food program towards

providing healthy and nutritious food for all children, rather than strictly as a program

that provides food to hungry children. This would eliminate the critique that these

programs only address hunger and ignore underlying problems such as income

insecurity (Hay, D., 2000). By redefining the objectives, the program then addresses the

overall health of children and an additional benefit will be that it provides food for poor

children. The programs could also indirectly address income insecurity by being locally

sourced, as it provides a large return to the local economy as was seen in Scotland

(Sonnino, R., 2010).

6.4 EDUCATION

While a school garden may not be able to feed a whole school, there are many

benefits associated with them and their integration into a national school food program

could only help bolster the results. When integrated into the school curriculum, they can

be used in a more hands on way to demonstrate nutritional and energy needs, how to

read nutritional labeling, appropriate portion sizes and the benefits of eating

unprocessed foods (Ozer, E.J., 2007). School gardens can enhance the success of a

school food program by promoting positive attitudes toward fresh produce, which would

help to reduce any resistance that might be experienced when implementing these

programs. Additionally, the food produced by these gardens may potentially serve as an

alternative fundraising initiative that could help replace the existing ones that undermine

the goal of providing health and nutritious food to children.

6.5 SUMMARY

We have offered a number of recommendations which should be considered

through the establishment of a national school food program in Canada. In terms of

health, strict regulations should outline the availability of soft drinks, commercially

prepared items, and whole milk. The food environment surrounding the school should

also be held under consideration for whether students are permitted off-campus for

lunch breaks. One of the main areas in which funding should be invested is in equipping

schools with kitchen facilities and food storage capacities. This would allow for

increased control over the foods served to students, as well as for the integration of

local whole foods in meal preparation. To protect against the “buy local” trap, the

structure of local food procurement initiatives should be explicitly outlined in school food

policy. Funding in the domain of local procurement should concentrate on market-

oriented farmers and providing the technical or infrastructure support they require.

Growing contracts that cater to the needs of both farmers and school foodservice

professionals would solidify their relationship. FTS programs employed should consider

the food products that are regionally available year-round, not restricting local products

to fruits and vegetables. A national school food policy has a great potential to build off of

existing initiatives and organizations with the knowledge and structural base from which

universal healthy food access in schools can be made possible.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS There is a great opportunity for the Canadian government to employ a ground

breaking school food program built upon our current understanding of sustainable food

systems. From its conception, a national program in Canada can immediately establish

a structure and dynamic of relationships between consumers, producers, and

distributors, minimizing the influence of multinational corporations and unhealthy food

options. Moving towards sustainable alternative food networks in captive markets such

as schools provides the chance to improve the viability of farming and re-stabilize the

farming industry in Canada, as well as promote an experiential education with healthy

food choices that benefit individuals, local communities, and the environment in the

long-term.

REFERENCES

Bauer, K., Berge, J., Escoto, K., Hearst, M., Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2012) Parental employment and work family stress: Associations with family food environments. Social Science & Medicine, 75(3), 496-504, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.026

Brady, J., Gingras, J., Power, E. (2012). Still Hungry: A Feminist Perspective on Food, Foodwork, the Body and Food Studies. In Koc, M, Sumner, J., Winson, A. (eds), Critical Perspectives in Food Studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 122-135.

Carlsson, L. & Williams, P.L. 2008. New approaches to the health promoting school: Participation in sustainable food systems. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3(4). doi: 10.1080/19320240802529243

Crepinsek, M.K., Gordon, A.R., McKinney, P.M, Condon, E.M, Wilson, A. (2009) Meals

offered and Served in US Public Schools: Do They Meet Nutrient Standards?

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(2), S31-S43, doi

10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.061

Conner, D., King, B., Kolodinsky, J., Roche, E., Koliba, C., & Trubek, A. (2012). “You

can know your school and feed it too: Vermont farmers’ motivations and

distribution practices in direct sales to school food services.” Agriculture and

Human Values, 29, 321-332. doi: 10.1007/s10460-012-9357-y

Farm to Cafeteria Canada. (n.d.). Canadian Schools Step Up to the Plate to Help

Create a National School Food Map. Retrieved from

http://www.farmtocafeteriacanada.ca/school-food-map/

Fitzgerald, A.L., Veugelers, P.J. (2005) Effectiveness of School Programs in Preventing

Childhood Obesity: A Multilevel Comparison. American Journal of Public Health,

95(3), 432-435.

Food Secure Canada. (n.d.). For a Universal Healthy School Food Program. Coalition

for Healthy School Food. Retrieved from

http://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/default/files/coalitionforhealthyschoolfood.sm_.p

df

Gleason, P.M., Suitor, C.W., (2001) Eating at School: How the National School Lunch

Program Affects Children’s Diets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,

85(4), 1047-1061. Doi 10.1111/1467-8276.00507

Grantham-McGregor, S.M., Chang, S., Walker, S.P. (1998) Evaluation of school feeding

programs: some Jamaican examples. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,

67, 4, 785S-789S, retrieved from http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/4/785S.short

Hay, D. (2000). School-Based Feeding Programs: A Good Choice for Children?

Childhood and Youth Division, Health Promotion and Programs Branch: Health

Canada. Retrieved from http://foodsecurecanada.org/resources-news/resources-

research/school-based-Feeding-programs-good-choice-children

Health Canada (2011) Canada’s Food Guide. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-

an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/food-guide-aliment/view_eatwell_vue_bienmang-

eng.pdf

Herron, J.R. (2013). Feasibility of farm-to-school in Alaska: A state-wide investigation of

perspective from school food service professionals. (Master’s thesis, University of

Alaska Fairbanks).

Hyslop, K. (2014). Does Canada Need a National School Food Program? Tyee

Solutions Society. Retrieved from http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/10/13/Canada-

School-Food-Program/

Izumi, B.T. (2008). Farm to school programs in public K-12 schools in the United States:

Perspectives of farmers, food service professionals, and food distributors (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from Scholars Portal. (UMI Access Number: 3331933)

Jomaa, L.H., McDonnell, E., Probart, C. (2011) School feeding programs in developing

countries: impacts of children’s health and educational outcomes, Nutrition

Reviews, 69, 83-98, retrieved from

https://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/2/83

Kalb, M. (2006). Getting fresh with Farm-to-School programs. Green Teacher, 80, 22-

27.

Le, D. (2012). School meal program in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Reality and future

plan. Asian Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 21(1).

Medical Publishing House, (2012) National Nutrition Strategy for 2012-2020, with a

vision toward 2030. Retrieved from

https://extranet.who.int/nutrition/gina/sites/default/files/VNM%202011%202.%20Na

tional%20Nutrition%20%20Strategy%202011-2020.pdf

Niebylski, M.L., et al. (2014). “Healthy food procurement policies and their impact.”

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 2608-

2627. doi: 10.3390/ijerphRussell, J.A., Evers, S., Dwyer, J.M., & Macaskill, L. “Best

practices among child nutrition programs in Ontario: Evaluation findings.” (2007).

Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 2(2-3), 111-127. doi:

10.1080/19320240801891511110302608

Ozer, E.J. (2007) The effects of school gardens on students and schools:

conceptualizations and considerations for maximizing healthy development.

Health, Education & Behaviour, 34(6), DOI: 10.1177/1090198106289002

Roberts, K.C., Shields, M., de Groh, M., Aziz, A., Gilbert, J.,(2012) Overweight and

obesity in children and adolescents: Results from the 2009 to 2011 Canadian

Health Measures Survey. Statistics Canada, Health Reports, 23(3), 37-41

Smith, T.A. (2015) Do School Food Programs Improve Child Dietary Quality? University

of Georgia. Retrieved from

https://www.arec.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_docs/events/Travis%20Smith-

Do%20School%20Food%20Programs%20Improve%20Child%20Dietary%20Qualit

y.pdf

Sonnino, R. (2010) Escaping the Local Trap: Re-localization from School Food Reform.

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(1), 23-40, DOI:

10.1080/15239080903220120

Stitzel, K. (2003) School Nutrition Programs: A legislative perspective. Journal of the

American Dietetic Association, 103(4), 439-440, DOI: 10.1016/S0002-

8223(03)00165-2

Stuijvenberg, M.E. (2005) Using the School Feeding System as a Vehicle for

Micronutrient Fortification: Experience from South Africa, Food and Nutrition

Bulletin, 26, S2130S219. Doi: 10.1177/15648265050262S212

Thompson, O.M., Twomey, M.P., Hemphill M.A., Keene, K., Seibert, N., Harrison, D.J.,

& Stewart, K.B. (2014). “Farm to school program participation: An emerging market

for small or limited-resource farmers?” Journal of Hunger and Environmental

Nutrition, 9, 33-47. doi: 10.1080/19320248.2013.873008

USDA (2012) School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-IV. Office of Research and

Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNDA-

IV_Findings_0.pdf

USDA, (2015) 2015 Farm to School Census, Retrieved from

https://farmtoschoolcensus.fns.usda.gov/overview-farm-school-census-2015

USDA, (2016), National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp

Winson, A. (2008). “School food environments and the obesity issue: content, structural

determinants, and agency in Canadian high schools.” Agriculture and Human

Values, 25, 499-511. doi: 10.1007/s10460-008-9139-8