Read School Lunch Politics for Free Online Page A

Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens.
    54. Groups endorsing the National School Lunch Program included the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, American Association of University Women, League of Women Voters, League of Women Shoppers, National Consumers League, National Parent Teacher Association, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Negro Women, the United Auto Workers Union Women’s Auxiliary, and the Congress of Industrial Organizations Women’s Auxiliary.
    55. “Has Your Child Half a Hog’s Chance?” Ladies’ Home Journal, October 1944.
    56. House Hearings, 1945, p. 53. Also see Senate Hearings 1944, p. 110, for PTA statement.
    57. “Public’s Aid Asked on School Lunches,” NYT, April 17, 1944.
    58. Congressional Record,79 th Cong., 2 nd Sess., 92:2, February 19, 1946 p. 1460.
    59. Ibid., 1453.
    60. See, e.g., Sheingate, The Rise ofthe Agricultural Welfare State, 118–19.
    61. Virgil W. Dean, An Opportunity Lost: The Truman Administration and the Farm Policy Debate (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2006). Dean says that within eighteen months of the war’s end “the USDA was completely reconstituted” and had regained authority over food programs including school lunches (23).
    62. Senate Hearings, 1944, pp. 7 and 25.
    C HAPTER 3. N UTRITION S TANDARDS AND S TANDARD D IETS

    1. M. L. Wilson, “Nutritional Science and Agricultural Policy,” Journal of Farm Economics 24:1, no. 1, Proceedings Number (February 1942): 188–205 189.
    2. British social planners also adopted the school lunch. In 1944 parliament passed an Education Act that included lunch as “a full part of the school program.” Meals were free to all children. Unlike in the United States, however, British school meals were part of state welfare policy and were not tied to agricultural policy. James Vernon, “The Ethics of Hunger and the Assembly of Society: The Techno-Politics of the School Meal in Modern Britain,” American Historical Review 110, no. 3 (June 2005): 693–725; and Katharine Curry Bartley and Nancy S. Wellman, “School Lunch: A Comparison of Its Development in the United States and England,” School Food Service Research Review 10, no. 1 (1986): 8.
    3. United States Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Forestry, Hearings on Bills to Assist the States to Establish and Maintain School-Lunch Programs, May 2–5, 1944, 78th Cong., 2nd Sess. (hereafter Senate Hearings 1944), 62.
    4. Ibid., p. 84.
    5. George Chatfield to Allen J. Ellender, May 2, 1944, in ibid., p. 86.
    6. United States Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Hearings on the School Lunch Program, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., March 23–May 24,1945 (hereafter House Hearings, 1945), 19. Andresen also had an interesting exchange with Joseph Meegan. When Meegan suggested that one reason families in his neighborhood could not afford to pay for lunch even though both mother and father were working was the large size of families, Andresen commented, “That is a penalty, I suppose, for having big families.” Meegan replied, “Not a penalty sir: it is a blessing” (161).
    7. Press release, October 19, 1943, USDA History, Series 1.2/20, Documentary Files, Section iv, Distribution of Products, Box 1.2/9, Nutrition Standards and Civilian Food Supply, 1943–16, Office of War Information, Department of Agriculture, Special Collections, National Agricultural Library.
    8. Federal Security Agency, “Proceedings of the National Nutrition Conference for Defense,” May 26–28, 1941 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1942), 230.
    9. Ibid., viii.
    10. Ibid., 231–32.
    11. Senate Hearings, 1944, p. 60.
    12. Federal Security Agency, “Proceedings of the National Nutrition Conference,” 34–37. Also see Hershey’s statement, House Hearings, 1945, p. 48.
    13. Senate