Industry Article Reflection
Article summary
The writer of the New York Sunday Review critiques the increasing privatization of school food program through the hiring of food service management giant companies among them Aramark, Sodexo and Chartwells. Lucy (2011) points out that the food service management companies have a “cozy alliance” and work in collaboration with the major manufacturers of processed food such as Pilgrim’s, Tyson and ConAgra whereby whole healthy food that is offered at free of charge by the federal government is highly processed by the aforementioned companies and despite the fact that it becomes less nutritious, the companies charges these districts (Lucy, 2011). As the writer explains, a large number of the food service management companies get financial reimbursements from the processing companies which are “discounts for payments that are often not prompt at all, are really rebates under another.” Describing a two 2008 studies, upon reaching the students, the once healthier foods are reduced to “junk foods”; the food service management companies save the schools lots of money when they rely on processed foods. Yet, in real sense, the schools have no economic savings as there are extra costs that the school has to settle among them supplies, food costs, labor and the transportation. These foods also have an impact on the third of the school children aged 6-19 with severe consequences such as short life expectancies, life-threatening diseases among them diabetes, obesity, cancer, heart diseases and health in general. As the writer concludes, those school children will have court those threats until their parents lobby for the school lunch system reforms.
Major facts
• Privatization of school food program via food service management companies has increased.
• Food service management companies have an alliance with major food processors.
• Food that’s healthy and nutritious and is offered free of charge by the federal government is processed and the districts are charged.
• The processed food is unhealthy and less nutritious.
• Many food service management companies get rebates from the food processing companies.
• Distributed when unprocessed by the federal government as healthy food, the processing companies redistribute it as “junk foods”.

• Studies reveal that by relying on the processed foods, the schools think the food service management companies saves it lots of money, however, they indeed pay more as they have costs to settle among them transportation, labor, supplies and food costs.
• The processed foods have health implications on a third of school children aged 6-19 years such as shortening life expectancies, causing diabetes, obesity, cancer and heart diseases.
• The food service management companies value profit more than health.
• Until the parents engage the parents engage the school lunch system in reforms, the school children will continue facing the impacts.
Impact to the hotel industry
The Agriculture Department intervened and set up new regulations in 2011, measures that were a mighty blow to the food companies. The regulations impacting on the hotel industry were setting up maximum calories for the school meals, requirement of more fruits, vegetables, grains and a limitation to the trans fats. The food service management companies have accused of working in cohorts with the school nutrition program and that they get profit after good food becomes bad. According to Roland Zullo’s study, the food companies have been found to have high-fat and high-sugar foods leading to privatization that was linked to lower test scores. Have been blamed of processing healthy and nutritious food into unhealthy and less nutritious foods equal to “junk foods.” Because of the rebates crackdown, the food service companies been blamed of coming up with tricks such as substituting the name “prompt payment discounts” for the rebates. The food service companies’ rebates deals have been blamed for locking out “local farmers and small producers” who provide “fresh, healthy food” and boost the local economy. A former New York State attorney general, won settlement of $20 million because of Sodexo’s cashing in of rebates. The food service companies have been blamed that they value profit more than health as their food supplies are affect the health and the lives of a third of the school children aged 6-19.
Hotel Industry’s response
One food service management company spokeswoman quipped that considerable changes have been made and that that her company was supporting nutrition education in encouraging the learners to eat excess fruits and vegetables. Another food service company quipped in that their aim was to endorse “scratch cooking” where necessary, endorse various and foods that are balanced nutritionally and use as strives to use as minimum processed foods as they can. The major food processing companies sent letters with an argument that the school children may refuse to eat healthier food. Specifically one food company quipped that an increment of fruits and vegetables was likely to lead to “plate waste”. Another food company argued that breakfast with protein requirements was likely to deter efforts of supplying “popular breakfast items.” The hotel industry lobbied and convinced the Congress members of blocking a weekly starchy vegetables limit and their continued accepting of several pizza tomato sauce tablespoons in form of a vegetable serving.
My take on the issue
It beats logic that the lawmakers were convinced what to do and what not to do by the food service companies through their lobbying and in the long run, gave a blind eye to the health and life threat that the school children faced. I concur with the writer’s opinion that the elected officials work in alliance with the food processors and together with the food service management companies, value profit more than health. The fact that one third of the school children between 6-19 years are in health or life threatening situations, should serve as an eye opener for their parents and united, they should lobby for the reforms of the school lunch system for the welfare of their children. Since the food service companies found an Agriculture Department weak point so as to change the name of the rebates, the Agriculture Department should revise its terms and regulations. The writer aptly puts it that the school administrators were seduced with ways that they saw as cost-effective, thus, since the children’s health is more important than profits or discounts being tricked not to employ skilled kitchen workers, the Agriculture Department should direct a mandatory requirement of all schools having kitchen workers. Since there are already new rules proposed by the Agriculture Department, yet, they aren’t evenly enforced, unless stringent measures are used put in place, enforcement of those laws will be a mile wide but an inch deep. Even if the parents lobby for reforms of the school lunch system, without the will of the Congress members to pass the reforms, lobbying will just be futile.

Work cited
Komisar, L. “How the Food Industry Eats Your Kid’s Lunch.” The New York Times. [New York] December 3, 2011. Accessed March 17, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/school-lunches-and-the-food-industry.html?pagewanted=all