You Are What You Eat

A long time friend commented that she was glad that I am putting my American Idol posts on a separate blog. I'm not sure if that was a shot at me or not. After all, what is wrong with American Idol? Wait, don't answer that...

If you saw the profile of local food goddess Alice Waters on 60 Minutes a week ago Sunday you saw that the lunch program at the Berkeley schools that she championed was prominently featured. Waters mentioned in the interview that she wants to use the Berkeley program as a model for schools all across the country to help reduce the rate of obesity among America's youth.

If you are not familiar with the program, Waters through her foundation completely reformed the lunch program in the Berkeley schools. Instead of the processed and frozen foods that haven't changed since either of us were in school the kids in Berkeley get freshly cooked meals made with ingredients harvested either right on campus or at a nearby farm, similar to what Waters uses in her famous restaurant Chez Panisse. The district also has a state-of-the-art kitchen and an executive chef to develop the menus and cook the meals.

This all sounds well and good but there is apparently one big problem, there is not enough money any more to pay for the program. The grant provided by Waters' foundation ran out this year and the foundation has indicated that they are not planning on renewing it. Since there are not enough kids buying these lunches to cover the cost of making them the district kicked in around $275,000 this year to keep the program running. However, now that they are facing budget cuts the district has said that it does not want to subsidize the program to that extent any more.

The executive chef, who is leaving the district in June to take the program to other districts, said in the San Francisco Chronicle that the reason Waters' foundation is no longer funding the program is because the intent was for the program to pay for itself; and that the reason funding is short is because there are not enough kids currently in the program to do this. The Chronicle noted that only 50% of elementary school kids, 35% of middle school kids, and 10% of high school kids regularly buy their lunches at school. The paper also notes that the program costs about $1.40 per student lunch, compared to $0.80 to $0.90 for the frozen, processed stuff that the kids in other districts eat.

So why if this program is so important to Alice Waters and other supporters (including one who claimed that it was a "moral imperative") are they not ponying up the extra money to keep the program going? If this program is so naturally wonderful then why are the majority of students in a politically progressive town like Berkeley not participating in it?

What we have here is a case of people who are blinded by their ideals to the extent that they cannot see the reality through the trees. I sense that Alice Waters thought that parents would naturally be willing to kick in the extra money to pay for a program that is better for their kids, so much so that it may be inconceivable to her that the majority of parents would not. I sense that she also forgot that when given a choice most high school kids would choose cheaper junk food over the healthier fare that she is offering. I know I was guilty of that when I was a teenager and so were most of you. They are not nearly as impressionable as the elementary school kids that were featured in the 60 Minutes piece. Speaking of which, I find it interesting that the money issue was never brought up in the story. Only the positive aspects of the program (and don't get me wrong, I think that there are positive aspects of the program) were featured.

I think it is time for a reality check. If you want to improve the quality of school lunches then you better be prepared to pay for it yourself or find some way to make it more affordable and thus more attractive to the average Joe and Jane who have never set foot in Chez Panisse. To do otherwise is not only a waste of money and effort but it is also insulting to those who don't share these same ideals. You can't sell your product by telling people that they have a moral imperative to spend more money than they can afford or more than what their friends in other districts are being asked to pay. You have to convince them that your product is better, not just assume that because you feel that way they will too. Just ask any American auto maker. It is this arrogance that really bothers me sometimes, so much that I actually spend an hour typing this up and I don't even live in Berkeley.

That's enough of that serious stuff, back to American Idol...