Read School Lunch Politics for Free Online Page B

Hearings, 1944, p. 60.
    14. Congressional Record, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., 92:2, February 19, 1946, p 1465.
    15. Ibid., 1454.
    16. Susan M. Hartmann, The Home Front and Beyond: American Women in the 1940s (Boston: Twayne, 1982), 77–78.
    17. House Hearings, 1945, p. 53.
    18. One might imagine that working mothers would be a central factor in public debates about the school lunch program. This was never the case. Proponents usually mentioned the value of school lunches to women in defense industries in passing or as an added benefit. Their main arguments centered around combatting malnutrition and aiding farmers. Opponents occasionally suggested that lunch was rightfully the responsibility of mothers in the home, but they too focused on other issues, most notably, the pitfalls of creating a new federal program.
    19. Senate Hearings, 1945, p. 51.
    20. Ibid., 190–92. A UAW survey indicated that 90% of the women in one war  plant   “signified   their   desire   to   remain   on   their  jobs   after   the war” (192).
    21. U.S. Department of Labor, Children’s Bureau, “Nutrition in the National Defense Program,” September 15, 1940, in Martha May Eliot Papers, Box 17, Folder 236, Schlesinger Library. Also, “Suggestions Regarding the Organization of Personnel in the Government to Prepare Outlines of Alternative Plans forNutrition Activities in the National Advisory Defense Commission,” n.d., in Martha May Eliot Papers, Box 17, Folder 237, Schlesinger Library. On “security” and naitonal social policy, see Jennifer Klein, For All These Rights: Business Labor, and the Shaping of America’s Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2003).
    22. See Memo to Miss Lenroot from Dr. Eliot, June 6, 1940, Martha May Eliot Papers, Box 17, Folder 237. Eliot comments that Louise Stanley, head of the Bureau of Home Economics, “is planning to develop the school lunch program” (4).
    23. “Material for Dr. Eliot’s Committee (School Lunch Phase),” n.d., Martha May Eliot Papers, Box 17, Folder 237.
    24. Gordon W. Gunderson, “The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development,” Food and Nutrition Service, 63, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971, p. 8.
    25. House Hearings, 1945, p. 180.
    26. Lydia J. Roberts, Nutrition Work with Children (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935).
    27. See Alfred E. Harper, “Contributions of Women Scientists in the U.S. to the Development of Recommended Dietary Allowances,” Journal of Nutrition (2003): 3698–702. Also Jacqueline L. Dupont, “Reflections: Hazel Katherine Stiebeling (1896–1989),” Nutrition Reviews, October 2003.
    28. Harper, “Contributions of Women Scientists.”
    29. Ibid., 3699. Stiebeling’s papers on “A Dietary Goal for Agriculture” (1937) and “Better Nutrition as a National Goal” (1939) were particularly influential. See Dupont, “Reflections.”
    30. See Bette Caan and Sheldon Mayrgen, “What Is the Future of the Recommended Dietary Allowances?”; Alfred E. Harper, “Recommended Dietary Allowances: Are They What We Think They Are?”; and Ross Hume Hall, “The RDAs and Public Policy,” all in Joan Dye Gussow and Paul R. Thomas, The Nutrition Debate: Sorting Out Some Answers (Palo Alto, Calif.: Bull Publishing, 1986).
    31. See Richard Osborn Cummings, The American and His Food: A History of Food Habits in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941); and Lydia Roberts, “Beginnings of the Recommended Dietary Allowances,” in Adelia M. Beeuwkes, E. Neige Todhunter, and Emma Seifrit Weigley, eds., Essays on History ofNutrition and Dietitics (Chicago: American Dietetics Association, 1967).
    32. Rebecca L. Spang, “The Cultural Habits of a Food Committee,” Food and Foodways 2 (1988): 359–91,