
If You Think the School Lunch Battle is New — Go to Philadelphia
One menu had options such as pizza, Caribbean rice salad and fresh apples. Another had grilled cheese, tomato soup and green beans. The third featured creamed beef on toast and creamed salmon with a roll.
That menu — which did prompt a few raised hands — was from 1914, Asal revealed. A century ago, butter and cream were considered as vital as fruits and vegetables are today because the concern was less about what children ate than whether they ate enough at all.
The exhibition that had drawn students from the Octorara Area School District of Atglen, Pa., was 'Lunchtime: The History of Science on the School Food Tray.' It examines how this cornerstone of childhood became deeply intertwined with American politics, culture and scientific progress.
From the earliest school food programs until now, 'what's been interesting for us about this topic is how discourses of nutrition and science have always been present,' said Jesse Smith, the museum's director of curatorial affairs and digital content.
Smith didn't anticipate just how timely the exhibition would be when it opened about a month before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., appointed secretary of health and human services by President Trump, promotes the removal of processed foods from school lunches. History shows that his isn't the first attempt to change what people eat.
'Lunchtime' was developed from the Science History Institute's collection of books and scientific instruments related to food science. Located just down the street from Philadelphia's Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were signed, the small museum and research library teaches the history of how science has shaped our everyday lives.
In 1946, President Harry Truman signed the National School Lunch Act authorizing the creation of the National School Lunch Program. Today, according to the Food Research & Action Center, the program reaches approximately 28 million students. Of those, 23.6 million are in high-poverty districts that qualify for free lunch for all.
'It's a service to students, and something we provide on a daily basis to help the students learn,' said Lisa Norton, executive director of the division of food services for the Philadelphia school district. 'And we know that there are students that this is the only meal they are going to see.'
The exhibition opens with the 1800s, as industrialization brings people to cities, far from the source of their food. Producers would cut corners, mixing wood shavings with cinnamon and chalk into flour.
'Probably the most notorious example was the dairy industry, which routinely added formaldehyde to milk to keep it from spoiling,' Asal said.
And school medical inspections found that children were severely undernourished. Scurvy and rickets were widespread.
The Institute of Child Nutrition, at the University of Mississippi, maintains an archive of photographs, oral histories, books and manuscripts, and Jeffrey Boyce, the institute's coordinator of archival services, provided several photographs for the exhibit. One shows a baby being fed cod liver oil, an old-fashioned remedy for vitamin A and D deficiency, in the age before vitamin-fortified cereal.
Philadelphia became one of the first cities to have a school lunch program and, over the next few decades, local programs spread across the country in a movement led largely by women. A federal response to school lunches would come from the National School Lunch Act.
'The National School Lunch Program is the longest running children's health program in U.S. history, and it has an outsized impact on nutritional health,' said Andrew R. Ruis, author of the book 'Eating to Learn, Learning to Eat: The Origins of School Lunch in the United States,' which Smith used as a resource for the exhibit. 'Research in the '20s and '30s showed overwhelmingly that school lunch programs had a huge impact on student health, on educational attainment, on behavior and attitude.'
As farmers faced ruin in the wake of the Great Depression, the Department of Agriculture purchased surplus crops to distribute to U.S. schools and as foreign aid. This decades-old partnership made headlines in March when the U.S.D.A. announced plans to cut $1 billion in funding to schools and food banks.
School lunch programs have wide public support, but that has never stopped them from being a political football. In the 1960s, the civil rights movement drew attention to the fact that many poor children were still going hungry. The Black Panthers' free breakfast program helped fill the gap and put pressure on politicians.
A table in the exhibition piled with Spam, TV dinners, bagged salad and Cheetos explained how military research into preservation created iconic American foods. These advancements, however, also helped put nutrition back under the microscope and led to the concern that young people were getting too much of the wrong kinds of foods.
The 1973 board game 'Super Sandwich' tried to make nutrition fun, with players competing to collect foods that met recommended dietary allowances. Remember the controversy in the 1980s over whether ketchup qualified as a vegetable? It erupted in a larger battle over school lunch program cuts under the Reagan administration and further inflamed the national debate over school lunch quality.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and the public health campaign for children by the first lady, Michelle Obama, resulted in more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains and less sodium and sugar on lunch trays. But balancing those regulations with what young people will eat is a challenge, said Elizabeth Keegan, the coordinator of dietetic services for the Philadelphia school district who advised on the exhibition. Especially when median lunch prices, according to the School Nutrition Association, hover around $3.
'We always say, for less than what you pay for a latte, schools have to serve a full meal,' said Diane Pratt-Heavner, the association's director of media relations.
Following their tour, the Octorara students reflected on the tales of wood shavings in food. They debated the quality of their own school lunches and what they would prefer: more variety, more vegetarian and vegan options, less junk food.
'It made me feel like we should get better food,' said Malia Maxie, 16. 'When she was talking about 1914, like how they got salmon — we don't get that anymore.'
Those from generations raised on rectangular pizza may see it differently.
'From the days when I was in school, the meal program has totally transformed,' said Aleshia Hall-Campbell, executive director of the Institute of Child Nutrition. 'You have some districts out here that are actually growing produce and incorporating it in the menus. You have edamame at salad bars. They are trying to recreate what kids are eating out in restaurants and fast-food places, incorporating it from a healthier level.'
Everyone has memories of school lunch. Boyce remembers 'the best macaroni and cheese on the planet' and the names of the cafeteria ladies. Smith remembers the Salisbury steak and that distinct cafeteria smell. For Ruis, the best day of the year was when his Bay Area school had IT'S-IT, a local ice-cream sandwich with oatmeal cookies.
'So much has changed, standards have changed, and what is considered healthy has changed,' Keegan said. 'But something that has never changed is that feeding kids a nutritious meal is important.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
11 hours ago
- New York Post
Why many women over age 52 have a higher risk of getting STIs
STIs are on the rise — but it's not just frat bros and free-lovers feeling the burn. While younger people still account for the majority of cases, studies show that some of the steepest spikes are happening in people 55 and up. Experts have offered several explanations for the surge, but research suggests there's a risk factor affecting many midlife and older women that has largely flown under the radar and could be playing a key role. Advertisement 4 More Americans are having sex in their senior years thanks to advancements in medicine. Monkey Business – More than a million American women hit menopause each year — and it's not just hot flashes and mood swings they're facing. The transition, which wraps up around age 52 on average, marks the end of reproductive years and is driven by a drop in estrogen as the ovaries slow hormone production. While vaginal dryness and loss of elasticity are well-known symptoms, research from Ohio State University (OSU) shows that menopause can also weaken the vaginal tissue itself, making it more prone to tearing. Advertisement That vulnerability comes down to changes at the cellular level. The vagina's surface is made up of multiple layers held together by key proteins like desmoglein-1 (DSG1) and desmocollin-1 (DSC1). 'These proteins strengthen the vaginal lining and restrict pathogen access to deeper tissue, reducing the risk of infection,' Dr. Thomas L. Cherpes, associate professor of otolaryngology at OSU, wrote in The Conversation. Advertisement 4 Menopause can bring a host of uncomfortable symptoms, including vaginal changes. – In their research, Cherpes and his colleagues found that postmenopausal women have significantly lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 than women who haven't gone through the transition. To see how this might impact infection risk, the researchers removed the ovaries of mice in a lab to mimic estrogen loss in postmenopausal women. Compared to mice with intact ovaries, those without had far lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 in their vaginal tissue. Advertisement The team also found that these mice were more vulnerable to infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), which causes genital herpes. They were less able to clear chlamydia infections from the lower genital tract as well. The findings help explain why postmenopausal women are more susceptible to STIs than their younger counterparts. Notably, when Cherpes and his colleagues applied estrogen cream to the mice without ovaries, it restored the vaginal lining's integrity and fully protected them from HSV-2 infection. 4 The vaginal tissue is more vulnerable to tearing after menopause, opening the door to infection. megaflopp – 'While additional research is needed, findings from our lab suggest that estrogen-containing compounds used to relieve vaginal irritation and other symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause can also reduce susceptibility to STIs among older adults,' Cherpes wrote. Sex doesn't stop — and neither do the risks Americans might not like to talk about it, but older adults are still very much having sex. A 2018 survey found nearly 40% of people aged 65 to 80 are sexually active, and almost two-thirds remain interested in sex. Advertisement More recent AARP data shows that 26% of 60- to 69-year-olds and 17% of those 70 and older have sex weekly. 'Hormone-replacement therapy, vaginal lubricants and the approval of sildenafil (Viagra) and its relatives have extended people's sex lives,' Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer told the American Medical Association. But while more people are living longer and staying sexually active, more are also paying the price. 4 Sex-crazed seniors are fueling a major spike in STIs nationwide. David – Advertisement 'Rates are highest in the under 25 age group, which accounts for about 50% of STIs, but we're definitely seeing a rise in infections in the older population, particularly in people over 65,' Dr. Angelina Gangestad said in an interview with University Hospitals. Between 2010 and 2023, the number of Americans over 65 diagnosed with chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis rose by roughly three-, five- and sevenfold, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research also suggests women over 50 are at greater risk for HIV than their younger peers. Advertisement In addition to the effects of menopause, experts say several other factors are likely fueling the rise. Condom use is significantly lower among older adults compared to younger people. One study found that just 3% of Americans aged 60 and older have used a condom in the past year. Older adults also tend to have less knowledge about STIs, including how they spread, what symptoms look like and how to prevent them. Advertisement To make matters worse, research suggests that many doctors don't ask older patients about their sex lives — and seniors aren't exactly jumping to bring it up with their family or friends, either. 'No one wants to think about grandma doing this,' Matthew Lee Smith, an associate professor at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, told NBC News. 'You certainly aren't going to ask grandma if she was wearing condoms — and that's part of the problem, because every individual regardless of age has the right to intimacy.'


Scientific American
15 hours ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.


Indianapolis Star
a day ago
- Indianapolis Star
'Eclipse of the century': Lengthy 6-minute solar eclipse is coming Aug. 2, 2027
No, the world will not go dark this weekend. Rumors about a lengthy total solar eclipse may have been circulating online, but the so-called "eclipse of the century" isn't for another two years. A total solar eclipse lasting up to 6 minutes and 23 seconds, at its peak, is expected to occur on Aug. 2, 2027, according to NASA. The total solar eclipse, in which the moon moves perfectly between the sun and Earth and casts a shadow on Earth, will be one of the longest in several decades. For a time comparison, the total solar eclipse that occured on April 8, 2024, lasted 4 minutes and 28 seconds at its peak. The solar eclipse of 1991, however, lasted 6 minutes and 53 seconds. reports the Aug. 2, 2027 eclipse will be the longest eclipse totality until 2114. The eclipse will be visible in parts of Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Unfortunately for American skywatchers, the vast majority of the U.S. won't have a view of it. The Aug. 2, 2027 solar eclipse isn't actually the next total solar eclipse though. That one, on Aug. 12, 2026, will be visible in Greenland, Iceland, Spain, Russia and parts of Portugal, according to NASA. Here's what to know about the solar eclipse on Aug. 2, 2027. The solar eclipse's path of totality will cross over parts of Africa, Europe and the Middle East, according to National Eclipse and NASA. Parts of the following countries are within the path of totality. Other countries in Africa, Europe and the Middle East will have a partial view of the eclipse. A partial solar eclipse will be visible in parts of Maine between 5:14 and 5:19 a.m. ET on Aug. 2, 2027, according to Time and Date.