We recently had a Pumpkins & Poems contest for Halloween and wanted to do a pizza party for the kids who entered the contest. This would have been one of the cheapest and easiest prizes to give the kids. While other groups have done this before and even after us, we were told that due to the new laws, we could not do a pizza party. We cannot compete with the cafeteria. I personally think that these new laws have less to do with nutrition and more to do with keeping these contracted school cafeterias in business. Our district contracts with a company that runs our cafeterias. They of course do not want any competition. We could have done the pizza party if we had bought the pizzas from the cafeteria, but not if we got them donated from Domino's. Does that make any sense to anyone?
This is harder to implement than maybe it seems. An earlier poster suggested that we replace forbidden party foods with fruit snacks, goldfish, and pudding. None of those foods would pass Michigan's restrictions. The fruit snacks are on the USDA's list of foods of minimal nutritional value, goldfish get more than 30% of their calories from fat, and pudding is more than 40% sugar.
Well Michigan is getting on board, too. Senate Bill 91 is pending which sets new regulations about school nutrition, and also restricts the sale of FMNV food, high fat, high sugar, and pseudo-juices. As currently written, the bill would eliminate candy/pizza fundraising, and also events like Ice Cream Social or Donuts with Dad, sweet birthday treats, bagel sales, candy concessions at Movie Night and Carnival. It also goes so far as to regulate any school-sponsored activity whether or not on school grounds.
I have read the posts on this forum and really appreciate the links JHB have provided for Texas. I am much more informed on this subject because of the knowledge shared here. I am going to forward the link to the Texas revisions to my state senator. Maybe Michigan can learn from other states who have already implemented similar policies, and work out kinks before the bill becomes law.
Originally posted by JHB:
Since that's no longer possible, the office announces all birthday's on the intercom and the birthday children get special stickers and pencils.
I like that idea, maybe a mention in the school newsletter would be a nice alternative since we are K-12, lot of info to have ready each day.
Imove...you have more students in your middle school than I had in my home town!! Unreal. But I do agree with the monopoly. Our lunch program even had the nerve to have their own fundraiser!
JHB - first of all - there are over 1700 students in our middle school. Twice a week we would sell outside the cafeteria - each item costs $3.00 (personal pan pizza, chicken sandwich, or sub sandwich) and we make $1.00 of the $3.00. So every week during the school year we would sell roughly 1,000 items. We are not overtaking the lunch system - we are providing an alternative. That's 1,000 items out of 8,500 meals served at lunch time during one school week in one school. Or that's one kid eating two chicken sandwiches, so now we're at 999 out of 8500. We have some pretty large schools around here as far as population goes. It is difficult at best for the cafeterias to get them all through there in the short amount of time they have allotted for lunch - and there are some kids now who do not have enough time to get through the line, sit down, chew, swallow and attempt to digest. (And did I mention when the school needed new cafeteria tables last year simply due to normal wear and tear - that the PTO was asked to - and agreed to - pay for them? If the food service people have a monopoly, which they do, shouldn't they be furnishing the area and not either the PTO or have it come out of the school's budget?)
This is my soapbox until the REAL reason that TDA implemented these reasons surfaces.
I agree with another person who wrote that this is partially the government trying to be in every part of your business. But more than that - I think it is big business - and cafeteria contracts are HUGE business - lining the pockets of politicians to ensure monopolies.
IMovePeople - please believe I have great sympathy for your situation and maybe it's a special circumstance.
But food policies aside, I am puzzled by the idea of a PTO getting into the food service business to the tune of a $25K or $40K profit (which means the total number of $$$ must be - what 3 or 4 times - that amount?).
PTO's having bake sales or selling ice cream and treats is one thing. But I don't understand how a PTO would come to take over a major function like that for the district or the school. Food contracts are usually awarded at the district level and pricing is tied to volume discounts. If one campus finds ways around that contract, then others pay (perhaps only slightly) higher costs due to the lost potential volume.
The other thing is - how does the PTO justify food service on this scale as part of routine non-profit activities? It sounds like the PTO is running a regular business on the side.
I don't mean to be critical - but I just wonder how the situation came to be in the first place.
