Is school nutritional lunch really toxic? New News collaborative special report, Part 1

Editor's note: Prompted by concern over the school lunch issue, the special report "School Nutrition Lunch So Toxic?!" is jointly published by The Journalist magazine and the上下游News&Market, with both parties cooperating; this series contains three reports in total, and this article is one of them.

Introduction: At the start of the new spring, elementary and junior high schools across Taiwan, China have been reopening one after another, and the nutrition lunch supply contracts for some schools have long been settled. Whether campus nutrition lunches in the new school year can move past the shadow of the earlier this year indictment of some elementary and junior high school principals in New Taipei City for accepting kickbacks from contractors, and whether they can pragmatically launch the century-long plan of "dietary education," depends entirely on whether the new cabinet can squarely face the food safety, nutrition education, and community agriculture issues embedded behind nutrition lunches, and actively take reform action.

Students are the biggest victims of food poisoning

Last year could be called a troubled year for elementary and junior high school nutrition lunches. After the Banqiao District Prosecutors Office began actively investigating the bad practice of some elementary and junior high school principals in New Taipei City accepting kickbacks from group meal contractors at the end of October, the Consumer Protection Committee of the Executive Yuan (now reorganized as the "Consumer Protection Office of the Executive Yuan") also announced in early November the results of random sampling of campus lunch ingredient suppliers and group meal companies in northern, central, southern, and eastern regions, finding that 4 processed meat products tested positive for illegal residues of chloramphenicol, enrofloxacin, or florfenicol, and 6 vegetable items tested with pesticide residues exceeding standards, for a failure rate as high as 17.5%. Among the non-compliant operators were not a few well-known food companies and farmers' associations, even including CAS-certified manufacturers.

The actions of prosecutors and consumer protection officials were by no means the starting point that highlighted the campus lunch problem. According to statistics from the Food and Drug Administration of the Department of Health (TFDA) on food poisoning cases across Taiwan, China in ROC year 99, there were 116 cases on campuses, accounting for 23.1% of all cases, with an incidence rate second only to food service venues such as restaurants. But the number of campus food poisoning patients was as high as 3,655, accounting for 53.1% of all patients, far exceeding other locations.

In other words, on average, for every two food poisoning patients nationwide, one victim is a student.

Source: Food and Drug Research Annual Report 2: 83-89 2011

The statistics for ROC year 99 were not an exception. According to the Control Yuan's investigation report, analyzing food poisoning cases that occurred from ROC year 96 to June of ROC year 99, the proportion occurring at schools was also close to two-tenths, and among the victims, students numbered as many as 6,730, likewise accounting for nearly five-tenths. This highlights that the food safety problem of campus lunches has been lingering for a long time, and although the education, health, and agriculture authorities have each held multiple inter-ministerial coordination meetings to make improvements on matters under their jurisdiction, the problems still keep emerging.

If we analyze the TFDA statistics for ROC year 99 in depth, we find that the frequency of campus food poisoning cases, apart from 1 case in February during winter vacation and 2 cases in August during summer vacation, averaged 8 cases per month from March to June in the first semester; in the second semester from September to December, an average of 16 cases occurred each month. Of these, 8 out of 10 were related to campus lunches, and more than half were caused by externally ordered meal boxes.

The analysis report pointed out that meal box factories often use ingredients that can be eaten without heating, or overproduce meal boxes for supply, causing quality to decline, advance the operating schedule, or take too long in transport and store improperly, all of which increase the possibility of campus lunch food poisoning.

Source: Food and Drug Research Annual Report 2: 83-89 2011

Privately run campus lunches draw the most controversy

Coincidentally, in this case in which the Banqiao District Prosecutors Office investigated elementary and junior high school principals in New Taipei City for accepting kickbacks from contractors, the nutrition lunches at the schools in question all belonged to the "privately run" form of externally ordered meal boxes (or bucket meals). Because this type of lunch is contracted out to operators from ingredient procurement to cooking, and because the school bidding and evaluation process is not open and transparent enough, unscrupulous education personnel, group meal operators, and elected representatives easily have room to maneuver.

At present, the forms of handling nutrition lunches in public elementary and junior high schools are mainly divided into three types: public operation by public institutions, public institutions contracting to private operators, and private operation commonly known as "boxed meals" or "bucket meals." Both public operation by public institutions and public institutions contracting to private operators involve schools having their own kitchens, with the only difference being whether the management of kitchen workers and kitchen equipment is the responsibility of the school or the winning manufacturer. As for boxed meals or bucket meals, the winning manufacturer cooks them in a central kitchen and delivers them to each school.

According to a rough estimate by the Sports Administration of the Ministry of Education, about 7 out of 10 elementary and junior high schools nationwide have their own kitchens; among the remaining 3 out of 10, about 2 out of 10 rely on boxed meals or bucket meals, and 1 out of 10 depends on other schools' kitchens for meal supply. But in metropolitan areas, because schools have large numbers of people and campus space is limited, taking New Taipei City as an example, 7 out of 10 elementary and junior high school nutrition lunches are supplied by boxed meals or bucket meals, and only 3 out of 10 have their own kitchens.

↑Schools with their own kitchens can better control ingredient quality, and the meals are fresher.

At present, the charge for campus nutrition lunches averages from 35 to 37 yuan per person per meal, varying by region. Taking the Greater Taipei metropolitan area as an example, because the price level is higher, the distance from agricultural production areas is greater, and logistics costs are higher, the amount per meal ranges from 40 to 50 yuan; but in rural central and southern areas, besides lower prices and proximity to production areas, most campuses have their own kitchens, and the salaries of kitchen workers in remote schools even receive funding subsidies from local governments or private groups, so students need only bear ingredient procurement costs ranging from 15 to 17 yuan per meal.

Lunch quality is not necessarily equated with the urban-rural gap

Does a higher charge for nutrition lunches mean better and fresher ingredients? Are lunches in urban schools tastier than those in remote schools? The answer is probably not necessarily. Chen Qingzhen, principal of Huanan Elementary School, who teaches in a remote area of Gukeng, Yunlin, compared the nutrition lunch contents across three periods of his life: when he taught in Taipei City, when he was transferred back to teach in Dounan, Yunlin, and now when he serves as principal of a remote elementary school, and found that the urban-rural gap has no necessary relationship with campus lunch quality.

Chen Qingzhen said that when he taught in Taipei, the cost per meal was about 40 yuan, and operators packed the meal boxes and delivered them to the school; every time he received the meal box, the rice and dishes were cold. When he was first transferred back to Yunlin more than ten years ago, he once thought Yunlin was more closed and conservative than Taipei, and that lunches should be worse than in Taipei. Unexpectedly, Yunlin's campus lunch dishes were rich and varied, and the rice and dishes were piping hot, because the school had a kitchen, the ingredients were very fresh, and the meal cost was even half cheaper than in Taipei.

By the time he was transferred five years ago to serve as principal of Gukeng Huanan Elementary School, Chen Qingzhen said that although the whole school had only more than 70 students, because it had its own kitchen and was located in a farming village, the rice and dishes were not only piping hot and very fresh, but farming community parents would also send vegetables they grew themselves to the school at any time. What was even more special was that all teachers and students gathered around round tables to enjoy lunch together, making mealtime a good time for interaction and exchange among teachers, students, and classmates.

↑Teachers and students at Huanan Elementary School sit at round tables for lunch, enjoying freshly made dishes; it is the most relaxed time of the day.

Parents in Greater Taipei, living in the foremost capital, pay higher campus lunch fees for their children; why do their children eat worse than at some remote schools in central and southern areas? The unreasonable and non-transparent procurement and bidding system is a major key. (To be continued)

For the full series of reports, please see the February 2, 2012 issue of The Journalist issue 1300

Recommended reading

Child, is your lunch nutritious? The future in the bowl: special report guide

Analysis of food poisoning cases in Taiwan, China in ROC year 99