School Lunch Politics by Susan Levine Page B

Barbara Miller Solomon, In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven: Yale University Press: 1985).
    34. Senate Select Committee, Part 1, p. 21.
    35. Ibid., Part 1, p. 176. Mead’s example was the fact that no public objections were raised when an orange juice substitute with no nutritional value was introduced on the market.
    36. Patricia L. Fitzgerald, “Decades of Dedication: The Formative Fifties,” School Foodservice and Nutrition, December 1995, p. 36.
    37. Ibid., 40.
    38. Ibid.; and Don Paarlberg, American Farm Policy: A Case Study of Centralized Decision Making (New York: John Wiley, 1964), 277.
    39. Fox et al., eds., Farming, Farmers, and Markets, 130.
    40. United States Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Hearings, School Milk and Breakfast Programs, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 21, 1966, (hereafter, Senate Agriculture Committee, 1966), 16.
    41. Jean Mayer, Final Report, White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, 1969, p. 236; and Peter H. Rossi, Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1998), 79.
    42. Senate Select Committee, Part 5A, 1770.
    43. Ibid., Part 5A, 1771.
    44. United States Congress, House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Hearings, to amend the District of Columbia Public School Food Services Act, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 19, 1968 (hereafter, House Subcommittee on D.C.), 8.
    45. Ibid., 30.
    46. House Committee on Education and Labor, 1968, p. 352.
    47. Senate Agriculture Committee, 1969, p. 185.
    48. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee, 1962, p. 18. Senate, Agriculture Committee, 1969, p. 78–79; United States Congress, House Select Committee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings, National School Lunch Act, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 21, 1966 (hereafter, House Select Committee, 1966), 6. Where, for example, in 1949 the federal contribution to the program totaled about 30% of the food expenses, by 1960 only 22% of the program expenses came from federal sources.
    49. Committee on School Lunch Participation, Their Daily Bread, chart on pages 38–39.
    50. “Fall in Surpluses Hits Pupil Lunches,” NYT, May 16, 1952. Also Senate Agriculture Committee, 1969, p. 223. Also see testimony of Howard Davis, Senate Agriculture Subcommittee, 1962, p. 11–12; and Senate Agriculture Committee, 1966, 14–16. As late as 1980 children’s fees accounted for 32% of the total NSLP budget, while state and local contributions only accounted for 20%. Paarlberg, Farm and Food Policy, 104.
    51. Between 1947 and 1960 the number of children served increased from 7 to 14 million, and the number of schools participating increased from 34,000 to 64,000. Accurate statistics on the National School Lunch Program are difficult to compile. Districts and states had widely differing measures of participation rates and different financial structures, so the reported numbers often are not comparable. I have used a variety of sources to estimate trends and approximate rates of participation and funding. Paarlberg, American Farm Policy, 278; Senate Agriculture Subcommittee, 1962, 18; Senate Agriculture Committee, 1966, p. 12; House Select Committee, 1966, 6; and Mayer, Final Report, White House Conference 260–63.
    52. The Georgia Attorney General ruled in 1932 that state funds could not be used to support school lunches. See Josephine Martin to William F. Griffeth, March 1,1967, Richard Russell Collection, Series IX B Box 10, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens. Also see Committee on School Lunch Participation, Their Daily Bread, 38–39.
    53. Senate Agriculture Committee, 1966, pp. 13–14.
    54. Senate Agriculture Subcommittee, 1962, p. 25. The report noted that some areas ran lunch programs outside the federal program. Cleveland, for example, ran its own lunch program in 34 out of its 130