My thing with school lunch is, it's a social justice issue. I'm the Director of Nutrition Services for the Berkeley Unified School District. I have 90 employees and 17 locations, 9,600 kids. I'm doing 7,100 meals a day and I've been doing it for two years, trying to change how we feed kids in America. And that's what I want to talk to you a little bit about today. These are some of my kids with a salad bar. I put salad bars in all of our schools when I got there. Everyone says it couldn't be done. Little kids couldn't eat off the salad bar, big kids would spit in it -- neither happened.
對我而言,學校午餐是關乎社會正義的議題。 我是柏克萊聯合校區的營養膳食主管。 我手下有90名員工, 負責17個地區,共9600名學童的飲食。 平均每天必須供應7100份午餐, 我們已經這樣持續工作了兩年, 目的在於改變我們提供國內學童的飲食方式。 這就是我今天要跟大家談論的內容。 這些是學校孩童享用沙拉吧的照片。 甫上任時,我便在所有學校內設置沙拉吧。 剛開始大家都覺得這樣做是行不通的; 年幼的孩子們不會乖乖地吃沙拉吧、 大一點的孩子則會往裡面吐口水;然而兩種情況都不曾發生。
When I took over this, I tried to really figure out, like, what my vision would be. How do we really change children's relationship to food? And I'll tell you why we need to change it, but we absolutely have to change it. And what I came to understand is, we needed to teach children the symbiotic relationship between a healthy planet, healthy food and healthy kids. And that if we don't do that, the antithesis, although we've heard otherwise, is we're really going to become extinct, because we're feeding our children to death. That's my premise.
剛接管這項職務時,我試著真正去釐清一些問題, 好比說,我對這份工作的願景: 該怎麼做才能真正改變孩子們與食物之間的關係? 我要跟大家分享為什麼我們不僅需要改變, 而是絕對必須改變。 我慢慢地意識到, 我們應該教導孩子們 健康的地球、健康的食物和健康的兒童 三者之間環環相扣的共生關係。 相反地,如果我們不這樣做, 絕非我危言聳聽, 人類真的會走向滅絕之路。 因為我們餵養孩子的方式,正帶著他們逐步逼近死亡。 以上是我的前提。
We're seeing sick kids get sicker and sicker. And the reason this is happening, by and large, is because of our food system and the way the government commodifies food, the way the government oversees our food, the way the USDA puts food on kids' plates that's unhealthy, and allows unhealthy food into schools. And by -- tacitly, all of us send our kids, or grandchildren, or nieces, or nephews, to school and tell them to learn, you know, learn what's in those schools. And when you feed these kids bad food, that's what they're learning. So that's really what this is all about.
我們發現體弱的孩子越來越虛弱, 這種狀況發生的原因,大體而言, 是因為我們的食物體系 和政府商品化食物的方式, 以及政府監控食物的方法, 和美國農業部將食物放進孩子們餐盤裡的流程設定, 種種不健康的方式,最終導致不健康的食物流入了校園。 而我們彼此也都心照不宣地將子女、 孫子、姪女、姪兒送到學校去, 還告訴他們, 學校教啥你就學啥。 因此當學校提供孩子們劣質的食物時, 那也成為他們學習的一部分,這就是問題癥結的所在。
The way we got here is because of big agribusiness. We now live in a country where most of us don't decide, by and large, what we eat. We see big businesses, Monsanto and DuPont, who brought out Agent Orange and stain-resistant carpet. They control 90 percent of the commercially produced seeds in our country. These are -- 10 companies control much of what's in our grocery stores, much of what people eat. And that's really, really a problem.
情況所以演變至此乃是由於大型農業企業所致。 住在這個國家裡的絕大多數人,對自己吃下肚的東西並沒有決定權, 我們都知道研發出脫葉劑和防污地毯的大企業, 如孟山都和杜邦 掌控了美國90%的商用農作物種子。 僅僅10間公司, 就主宰了超市裡絕大多數販售的商品, 以及食品,而這真的構成了嚴重的問題。
So when I started thinking about these issues and how I was going to change what kids ate, I really started focusing on what we would teach them. And the very first thing was about regional food -- trying to eat food from within our region. And clearly, with what's going on with fossil fuel usage, or when -- as the fossil fuel is going away, as oil hits its peak oil, you know, we really have to start thinking about whether or not we should, or could, be moving food 1,500 miles before we eat it. So we talked to kids about that, and we really start to feed kids regional food.
因此當我開始思考這些議題, 以及該如何改變孩子們的飲食, 我決定從教育孩子們這方面開始著手。 首先, 是地區性食物, 也就是嘗試農產品地產地消。 毋庸置疑的, 隨著石油燃料不斷消耗, 和油價不斷飆高, 我們真的該開始好好思考, 將食物從1500哩遠的地方運送過來的做法 是否正確可行? 所以我們跟孩子們一起探討這方面的議題, 並且開始讓孩子們食用本地生產的食物。
And then we talk about organic food. Now, most school districts can't really afford organic food, but we, as a nation, have to start thinking about consuming, growing and feeding our children food that's not chock-full of chemicals. We can't keep feeding our kids pesticides and herbicides and antibiotics and hormones. We can't keep doing that. You know, it doesn't work. And the results of that are kids getting sick.
接下來我們要談到有機食物, 目前,許多校區其實付擔不起有機食品, 然而我們,以一個國家的立場 必須開始思考 與消費、種植和餵養我們的孩子 不含化學物質的食物的相關議題了。 我們不能再讓孩子們繼續吃下殺蟲劑、 除草劑、抗生素及生長激素了。 不能再這樣下去。 這樣做是行不通的。 這樣做的後果就是孩子們身體變得越來越差。
One of my big soapboxes right now is antibiotics. Seventy percent of all antibiotics consumed in America is consumed in animal husbandry. We are feeding our kids antibiotics in beef and other animal protein every day. Seventy percent -- it's unbelievable. And the result of it is, we have diseases. We have things like E. coli that we can't fix, that we can't make kids better when they get sick. And, you know, certainly antibiotics have been over-prescribed, but it's an issue in the food supply. One of my favorite facts is that U.S. agriculture uses 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides every year. That means every one of us, and our children, consumes what would equal a five-pound bag -- those bags you have at home. If I had one here and ripped it open, and that pile I would have on the floor is what we consume and feed our children every year because of what goes into our food supply, because of the way we consume produce in America.
目前我最大聲疾呼的一個主題就是抗生素。 在美國有70%的抗生素 是用於畜牧業。 我們每天都在用充滿抗生素的 牛肉和其他動物性蛋白質餵養我們的小孩。 70%,簡直讓人難以置信。 結果就是導致我們生病。 例如我們無法可治的大腸桿菌, 或是當孩子生病時卻無法改善他們的病況。 抗生素真的被過度濫用了,不僅在醫學上, 也是食物供應上的重大議題。 我最喜歡舉的一個例子是 美國農業每年要使用 60 萬噸(每噸合 2000 磅重)的殺蟲劑。 也就是說我們以及我們的孩子, 每個人平均消耗相當於5磅重(約2.27公斤)的袋裝殺蟲劑, 假設我現在手上就有這麼一袋, 我把它撕開來, 倒在地板上的這一堆 就是每年我們自己消耗和餵小孩吃下的農藥量, 導致這種結果的原因, 是經由食物供應鏈而來的農藥殘留, 以及我們消耗農產品的方式。
The USDA allows these antibiotics, these hormones and these pesticides in our food supply, and the USDA paid for this ad in Time magazine. Okay, we could talk about Rachel Carson and DDT, but we know it wasn't good for you and me. And that is what the USDA allows in our food supply. And that has to change, you know. The USDA cannot be seen as the be-all and end-all of what we feed our kids and what's allowed. We cannot believe that they have our best interests at heart. The antithesis of this whole thing is sustainable food. That's what I really try and get people to understand. I really try and teach it to kids. I think it's the most important. It's consuming food in a way in which we'll still have a planet, in which kids will grow up to be healthy, and which really tries to mitigate all the negative impacts we're seeing. It really is just a new idea. I mean, people toss around sustainability, but we have to figure out what sustainability is.
美國農業部核准抗生素、 生長激素和殺蟲劑成為我們食物供應鏈中的一環。 甚至還幫時代雜誌上的 這則廣告買單。 我們可以來談談瑞秋卡森和DDT殺蟲劑, DDT殺蟲劑危害人體是眾所皆知的事實, 然而美國農業部卻准許它存在於我們的食物供應鏈中。 這種狀況亟須改變。 我們不能再將美國農業部的相關規定當成 規範和准許我們餵養小孩哪些食物的 絕對權威。 我們也不能盲目相信,農業部會將對我們的最大利益謹記在心。 與之全然相反的則是可持續性食物。 而這正是我試圖與大眾分享的觀點。 我非常努力地跟孩童們溝通這個想法 -- 我認為這是最重要的一件事。 這種消耗食物的方式, 讓地球不至於滅亡, 孩童們將得以健康成長, 並能有效緩解 我們正在面臨的一切負面衝擊。 這是一個全新的概念。 我的意思是,大家老是在講可持續性, 然而我們必須真的搞清楚,到底什麼叫做可持續性。
In less than 200 years, you know, just in a few generations, we've gone from being 200 -- being 100 percent, 95 percent farmers to less than 2 percent of farmers. We now live in a country that has more prisoners than farmers -- 2.1 million prisoners, 1.9 million farmers. And we spend 35,000 dollars on average a year keeping a prisoner in prison, and school districts spend 500 dollars a year feeding a child. It's no wonder, you know, we have criminals.
在短短不到200年裡,僅僅不過數代之間, 我們的農民人口比 從100%下降到95% 如今甚至不到2%。 我們現在根本是住在一個囚犯多於農民的國家 -- 210萬個囚犯, 190萬個農民。 每年我們平均花在一名囚犯身上的費用 高達3,5000美元, 而校區用來供應一名學童膳食的費用爲 每年500美元。 也難怪犯罪分子會這麼猖獗了。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And what's happening is, we're getting sick. We're getting sick and our kids are getting sick. It is about what we feed them. What goes in is what we are. We really are what we eat. And if we continue down this path, if we continue to feed kids bad food, if we continue not to teach them what good food is, what's going to happen? You know, what is going to happen? What's going to happen to our whole medical system? What's going to happen is, we're going to have kids that have a life less long than our own. The CDC, the Center for Disease Control, has said, of the children born in the year 2000 -- those seven- and eight-year-olds today -- one out of every three Caucasians, one out of every two African-Americans and Hispanics are going to have diabetes in their lifetime. And if that's not enough, they've gone on to say, most before they graduate high school. This means that 40 or 45 percent of all school-aged children could be insulin-dependent within a decade. Within a decade.
當前的狀況是,我們的身體越變越差 -- 我們自己和我們的孩子變得越來越病懨懨的。 原因就出在我們餵孩子吃的食物。 我們吃了什麼樣的食物就會變成什麼樣子。 食物和我們的健康是息息相關的。 要是我們繼續因襲以往的陳規, 要是我們繼續餵孩子們吃劣質食物, 要是我們還不教孩子們去認識什麼是有益健康的食物, 那後果會是如何呢?想想看,後果會是如何呢? 對於我們整體的醫療制度又將產生什麼樣的後果呢? 後果就是, 我們下一代的壽命 將會遠遠短於我們這一代。 疾病管制中心(CDC)的統計數據顯示, 在西元2000年出生的新生兒當中, 也就是那些今年七、八歲大的小孩, 每三個白種人, 每兩個非洲裔美國人和每兩個拉美裔中, 就有一個會罹患糖尿病。 如果這還不夠駭人聽聞的話,疾病管制中心進一步指出, 糖尿病多數出現在這些孩子們高中畢業之前。 這意味著有40%或45%的 學齡兒童 在未來十年內 將會對胰島素產生依賴。
What's going to happen? Well, the CDC has gone further to say that those children born in the year 2000 could be the first generation in our country's history to die at a younger age than their parents. And it's because of what we feed them. Because eight-year-olds don't get to decide -- and if they do, you should be in therapy. You know, we are responsible for what kids eat. But oops, maybe they're responsible for what kids eat. Big companies spend 20 billion dollars a year marketing non-nutrient foods to kids. 20 billion dollars a year. 10,000 ads most kids see. They spend 500 dollars for every one dollar -- 500 dollars marketing foods that kids shouldn't eat for every one dollar marketing healthy, nutritious food. The result of which is kids think they're going to die if they don't have chicken nuggets.
後果會是如何呢? 好啦,疾病管制中心又說啦 這些西元2000年出生的新生兒們 很可能成為我國歷史上首見 壽命短於他們父母輩的世代。 而這一切都要歸咎於我們餵他們吃下的食物。 因為八歲大的孩子沒有權力做決定, 要是他們有權力做決定的話,你早被送去做心理治療了。 我們有責任去決定 孩子該吃些什麼。 不過,或許現在這變成這些大財團們的事了。 大財團每年要花掉200億美元 做為那些以兒童爲銷售對象的垃圾食品行銷廣告經費。 一年200億美元,創造出大多數孩童都會看見的10,000個垃圾食品廣告。 財團投入500美元 財團對每一美元的垃圾食物 投入500美元做廣告 塑造成健康、營養的食品。 結果搞得孩子們以為 他們不吃雞塊就會活不下去似的。
You know that everybody thinks they should be eating more, and more, and more. This is the USDA portion size, that little, tiny thing. And the one over there, that's bigger than my head, is what McDonald's and Burger King and those big companies think we should eat. And why can they serve that much? Why can we have 29-cent Big Gulps and 99-cent double burgers? It's because of the way the government commodifies food, and the cheap corn and cheap soy that are pushed into our food supply that makes these non-nutrient foods really, really cheap. Which is why I say it's a social justice issue.
大家都認為小孩子就是要盡量多吃點。 這是美國農業部建議的份量,就這麼小小一丁點。 而那邊份量加起來比我頭還大的 則是麥當勞、漢堡王 和那些大財團認為我們該吃下的份量。 而他們為什麼可以供應這麼多的份量呢? 為什麼會有售價29美分的大杯飲料 和99美分的雙層漢堡呢? 那是由於政府在食品商品化過程中採取的方式, 和被傾倒流入我們食品供應鏈中的 廉價玉米和大豆, 種種原因,使得這些垃圾食品 價格如此低廉。 而這就是為什麼我會說,學校午餐是個關乎社會正義的議題了。
Now, I said I'm doing this in Berkeley, and you might think, "Oh, Berkeley. Of course you can do it in Berkeley." Well, this is the food I found 24 months ago. This is not even food. This is the stuff we were feeding our kids: Extremo Burritos, corn dogs, pizza pockets, grilled cheese sandwiches. Everything came in plastic, in cardboard. The only kitchen tools my staff had was a box cutter. The only working piece of equipment in my kitchen was a can crusher, because if it didn't come in a can, it came frozen in a box. The USDA allows this. The USDA allows all of this stuff. In case you can't tell, that's, like, pink Danish and some kind of cupcakes. Chicken nuggets, Tater Tots, chocolate milk with high fructose, canned fruit cocktail -- a reimbursable meal.
當我說我要在柏克萊進行這個計畫的時候,你們很可能會想: 「噢,柏克萊。你當然可以在柏克萊搞這種活動囉。」 好啦,這是我在兩年前看到的食品。 這玩意兒簡直稱不上是食品。 這就是從前我們餵孩子吃的東西,Extremo墨西哥玉米煎餅、 炸熱狗, 披薩口袋餅、焗烤起司三明治。 這些東西全是用塑膠袋包著,裝在紙箱裡送來。 員工僅有的一件廚房用具,是用來割開紙箱的美工刀, 廚房裡唯一的一樣設備 是一台壓罐器,因為食物要不就是用罐頭包裝, 要不就是冷凍著裝在紙箱裡送來。 這是美國農業部核准的。 這些東西全都是美國農業部核准的。 如果你不能全都看出來的話,比方說 那是桃紅色的丹麥麵包和某種杯子蛋糕。 雞塊、薯球、含高果糖的巧克力牛奶、 什錦水果罐頭,一頓免費的餐點。
That's what the government says is okay to feed our kids. It ain't okay. You know what? It is not okay. And we, all of us, have to understand that this is about us, that we can make a difference here. Now I don't know if any of you out there invented chicken nuggets, but I'm sure you're rich if you did. But whoever decided that a chicken should look like a heart, a giraffe, a star? Well, Tyson did, because there's no chicken in the chicken. And that they could figure it out, that we could sell this stuff to kids. You know, what's wrong with teaching kids that chicken looks like chicken? But this is what most schools serve. In fact, this may be what a lot of parents serve, as opposed to -- this is what we try and serve.
這就是政府核准可以餵我們小孩吃的東西。 這樣是不行的,你們知道嗎?這樣做是不行的。 我們,我們每個人, 都必須了解 這是跟我們自己切身相關的事情, 我們可以去改變這樣的狀況。 我不知道在座的是否有哪一位發明了雞塊, 但我可以肯定的是,有的話,您一定很有錢。 但又是誰決定了雞塊該長成 心形,長頸鹿形,或星形呢? 是泰森公司,因為雞塊裡根本沒有雞。 他們算準了 這些東西可以賣給小孩子。 說真的,讓孩子知道雞長什麼樣子 又有什麼不對呢? 但這卻是大部份學校供應給孩童的餐點。 事實上,這也可能是很多父母給自己小孩吃的東西。 我們嘗試和供應的,則與此完全相反。
We really need to change this whole paradigm with kids and food. We really have to teach children that chicken is not a giraffe. You know, that vegetables are actually colorful, that they have flavor, that carrots grow in the ground, that strawberries grow in the ground. There's not a strawberry tree or a carrot bush. You know, we have to change the way we teach kids about these things. There's a lot of stuff we can do. There's a lot of schools doing farm-to-school programs. There's a lot of schools actually getting fresh food into schools.
我們真的必須改變 孩子和食物之間的整個關係模式。 我們真的應該要告訴孩子 雞跟長頸鹿是不一樣的動物。 還有, 蔬菜實際上長得五顏六色,而且滋味豐富, 胡蘿蔔是長在土裡, 草莓是長在地上, 世界上沒有草莓樹或胡蘿蔔灌木叢那種東西。 我們必須改變 我們教導孩子這些知識的方式。 我們可以做的事情有很多。 很多學校正在推行農產品直送學校的計畫。 很多學校確實將新鮮食物運用在學校餐點中。
Now, in Berkeley, we've gone totally fresh. We have no high-fructose corn syrup, no trans fats, no processed foods. We're cooking from scratch every day. We have 25 percent of our -- (Applause) thank you -- 25 percent of our stuff is organic and local. We cook. Those are my hands. I get up at 4 a.m. every day and go cook the food for the kids, because this is what we need to do. We can't keep serving kids processed crap, full of chemicals, and expect these are going to be healthy citizens. You're not going to get the next generation, or the generation after, to be able to think like this if they're not nourished. If they're eating chemicals all the time, they're not going to be able to think. They're not going to be smart. You know what? They're just going to be sick.
目前在柏克萊,學校的營養午餐全都是用新鮮食材做成的。 我們不用高果糖玉米糖漿, 不用反式脂肪,不用加工食品。 我們每天從食材到成品完全親手烹調。 有25%的...... (掌聲) 謝謝,25%食材 是採用當地的有機農產品。我們是真正親力親爲的烹調。 這是我的手。我每天早上四點起床, 出門去為孩子們準備餐點, 因為這是我們必盡的責任。 我們不能再供應那些 加工過的垃圾食物, 充滿化學物質的東西給孩子吃, 然後還期待他們可以健康的長大成人。 你也別想指望你的下一代 或下下一代還有能力像我們這樣思考了, 要是他們不攝取足夠的營養的話。 如果他們還是繼續這樣吃 充滿化學物質的食物, 他們將會喪失思考的能力。 也不可能會有聰明的腦袋。 你知道嗎?這樣下去他們一定會生病。
Now one of the things that -- what happened when I went into Berkeley is I realized that, you know, this was all pretty amazing to people, very, very different, and I needed to market it. I came up with these calendars that I sent home to every parent. And these calendars really started to lay out my program. Now I'm in charge of all the cooking classes and all the gardening classes in our school district. So this is a typical menu. This is what we're serving this week at the schools. And you see these recipes on the side? Those are the recipes that the kids learn in my cooking classes. They do tastings of these ingredients in the gardening classes. They also may be growing them. And we serve them in the cafeterias. If we're going to change children's relationship to food, it's delicious, nutritious food in the cafeterias, hands-on experience -- you're looking in cooking and gardening classes -- and academic curriculum to tie it all together.
到柏克萊之後, 我發覺,人們對我們所做的事情感到十分驚奇, 那跟他們過去的經驗大相徑庭,所以我得設法把這個概念推廣出去。 我設計了這種日曆發送給每一位家長。 而這份日曆也真的為我們的計畫達到了佈局的效果。 目前我負責教導我們校區裡所有的烹飪課程及 園藝課程。 這是一份典型的菜單, 上頭列出了當週我們所供應的餐點內容。 你們注意到旁邊的食譜了沒? 這些就是孩子們在烹飪課裡學到的菜式。 上園藝課時,孩子們會實地品嘗各種食材的原味。 他們也可以親手種植蔬菜。學校餐廳裡也有供應用這些新鮮蔬菜作成的餐點。 如果我們想要改變 孩子和學校餐廳裡這些營養可口的食物之間的關係的話。 就必須將你們剛剛所看到的烹飪課和園藝課實際操作經驗 跟課堂上的學術知識兩者加以結合。
Now you've probably garnered that I don't love the USDA, and I don't have any idea what to do with their pyramid, this upside-down pyramid with a rainbow over the top, I don't know. You know, run up into the end of the rainbow, I don't know what you do with it. So, I came up with my own. This is available on my website in English and Spanish, and it's a visual way to talk to kids about food. The really tiny hamburger, the really big vegetables. We have to start changing this. We have to make kids understand that their food choices make a big difference. We have cooking classes -- we have cooking classrooms in our schools. And why this is so important is that we now have grown a generation, maybe two, of kids where one out of every four meals is eaten in fast food, one of every four meals is eaten in a car and one out of every last four meals is eaten in front of a TV or computer. What are kids learning? Where is the family time? Where is socialization? Where is discussion? Where is learning to talk? You know, we have to change it.
講到現在,你們大概也聽得出來我對美國農業部實在不敢恭維, 他們製定的金字塔更是讓我覺得像是霧裡看花, 我搞不懂為什麼倒金字塔上頭要有一條彩虹。 順著底部一直到彩虹的末端, 我不知道你們是怎麼看的。所以,我自己設計了一個金字塔。 你們可以在我的網站上找到,有英文和西班牙文兩種版本, 這是利用視覺的方式來跟孩子們談論食物。 小份的漢堡和大顆的蔬菜。 我們必須讓這一切開始改變。 我們必須讓孩子們了解到 選擇不同的食物會造成多大的改變。 我們開設了烹飪課程,學校裡還有專用的烹飪教室, 這麼做之所以意義重大的原因在於 我們現在養出了一代, 或是兩代子女,這些孩子每四頓飯就有一頓 是在速食店裡打發的,一頓是在車上吃的, 另外一頓則是坐在電視或電腦前面解決的。 這些孩子們學到了什麼?家人相聚的時光到哪去了? 學習社會化的過程呢?相互商議討論的機會呢? 上哪找練習與人交談溝通的機會呢? 我們必須改變這樣的狀況。
I work with kids a lot. These are kids I work with in Harlem. EATWISE -- Enlightened and Aware Teens Who Inspire Smart Eating. We have to teach kids that Coke and Pop Tarts aren't breakfast. We have to teach kids that if they're on a diet of refined sugar, they go up and down, just like if they're on a diet of crack. And we have to pull it all together. We have composting in all of our schools. We have recycling in all of our schools. You know, the things that we maybe do at home and think are so important, we have to teach kids about in school. It has to be so much a part of them that they really get it. Because, you know what, many of us are sort of at the end of our careers, and we need to be giving these kids -- these young kids, the next generation -- the tools to save themselves and save the planet.
我的工作經常需要接觸到很多孩子。這些孩子是我在哈林工作時遇到的。 EATWISE,意思是「鼓勵聰明飲食的開化覺醒青少年」。 我們得告訴孩子 可口可樂和家樂氏果醬餡餅 都不能算是早餐。 我們得讓孩子明白 如果他們攝取過多的精製砂糖, 就會像吸食快克古柯鹼一樣浮躁,坐立難安。 我們必須把一切都整合起來。校區裡的每所學校都有堆肥機, 也有資源回收系統。 你也知道,就是那些我們在家裡也會做 而且認為十分重要的事情, 我們在學校裡也應該把它教給小孩。 這些事情應該要讓孩子們能夠深切的去體驗, 以便孩子們能夠真的對它瞭然於心。 因為我們在座大部份的人, 目前都差不多將屆退休的年紀了, 我們有責任要交給這些孩子們, 這些年幼的孩子們,我們的下一代, 拯救自己 和拯救地球的工具。
One of the things I do a lot is public-private partnerships. I work with private companies who are willing to do R & D with me, who are willing to do distribution for me, who are really willing to work to go into schools. Schools are underfunded. Most schools in America spend less than 7,500 dollars a year teaching a child. That comes down to under five dollars an hour. Most of you spend 10, 15 dollars an hour for babysitters when you have them. So we're spending less than 5 dollars an hour on the educational system. And if we're going to change it, and change how we feed kids, we really have to rethink that. So, public and private partnerships, advocacy groups, working with foundations. In our school district, the way we afford this is our school district allocates .03 percent of the general fund towards nutrition services. And I think if every school district allocated a half to one percent, we could start to really fix this program.
我的工作還涵括了公民營機構合作計畫。 我常跟民營機構合作, 這些民營機構很樂意與我們合作進行研發計畫, 也很樂意幫我們進行宣傳, 他們更有高度的意願想將事業拓展到校園裡。 許多學校都面臨著資金不足的窘境。 在美國,大部份的學校用在一個孩子身上的年度教育經費 不到7500美元。 折合下來每小時不到5塊美元。 大多數人是依每小時10塊、15塊美元的行情 來支付雇用褓母的鐘點費。 而教育系統投注在學童身上的費用卻每小時不到5塊美元。 如果我們真的想改變現狀, 改變我們餵養小孩的方式, 那我們真的是需要好好的三思了。 因此,透過公民營機構合作計畫, 倡議團體,與基金會合作。 在我們的校區,支持這項計畫的經費來源 是透過校區撥款的方式。 金額僅佔營養膳食部門的一般總務費用0.03%。 我想假設每個校區 都能撥放0.5%-1%的款項, 這項計畫就能得以順利進行。
We really need to change it. It's going to take more money. Of course, it's not all about food; it's also about kids getting exercise. And one of the simple things we can do is put recess before lunch. It's sort of this "duh" thing. You know, if you have kids coming into lunch and all they're going to do when they get out of lunch is go to have recess, you see them just throw away their lunch so they can run outside. And then, at one in the afternoon, they're totally crashing. These are your children and grandchildren that are totally melting down when you pick them up, because they haven't had lunch. So if the only thing they'd have to do after lunch is go to class, believe me, they're going to sit there and eat their lunch.
我們真的必須改變現狀。 這項計畫還需要更多的經費來支持。 當然這不光只是跟食物有關, 其中還涉及到孩童的運動問題。 簡單的解決之道 就是把午休提前到用餐時間之前。 聽起來像廢話一樣。 不過想想看,如果你叫孩子們來吃午餐, 而他們只要想到一吃完午餐就可以出去玩, 你會看到他們把午餐一扔,就直接跑出去了。 到了下午一點,他們就已經累到完全精疲力竭。 等到你來接孩子放學的時候,就看見他們一個個軟趴趴的樣子, 原因就出在他們根本沒吃午餐。 相反的,要是他們吃過午餐後唯一能做的事情就是上課, 相信我,他們絕對會乖乖坐著把午餐吃完。
We need to -- we need to educate. We need to educate the kids. We need to educate the staff. I had 90 employees. Two were supposed to be cooks -- none could. And, you know, I'm not that better off now. But we really have to educate. We have to get academic institutions to start thinking about ways to teach people how to cook again, because, of course, they don't -- because we've had this processed food in schools and institutions for so long. We need 40-minute lunches -- most schools have 20-minute lunches -- and lunches that are time-appropriate. There was just a big study done, and so many schools are starting lunch at nine and 10 in the morning. That is not lunchtime.
我們必須... 我們必須去教育。 我們必須去教育孩子們。 我們必須去教育我們的員工。 我手下有90個工作人員。 其中應該包括兩名廚師,但是員工裡卻沒有半個人會做菜。 而且,到現在狀況也沒有比較改善。 但是我們真的必須去教育。 我們得促使學術機構開始去構思 要怎麼重新教人們學會做菜的方法, 目前他們當然完全沒想到這件事, 因為在學校和一些機關裡, 長期以來供應的都是加工食品。 我們的午餐時間要花40分鐘, 而絕大多數學校的午餐時間卻只有20分鐘, 此外午餐還需要在適當的時間進食。 一項剛完成的大型研究調查顯示, 大部份學校的午餐時間,是訂在早上九點或十點開始, 這根本不是午餐時間。
You know, it's crazy. It's crazy what we're doing. And just remember, at very least tacitly, this is what we're teaching children as what they should be doing. I think if we're going to fix this, one of the things we have to do is really change how we have oversight over the National School Lunch Program. Instead of the National School Lunch Program being under the USDA, I think it should be under CDC. If we started to think about food and how we feed our kids as a health initiative, and we started thinking about food as health, then I think we wouldn't have corn dogs as lunch.
這麼做簡直就是瘋了。 請記住, 至少要默默的謹記在心, 我們就是這樣教在孩子, 讓他們以為這樣做是正確的。 如果我們想要改變現狀, 我們應該做的事情之一, 就是徹底改變我們 對於全國學校午餐計畫的監督方式。 與其把全國學校午餐計畫置於美國農業部的監督之下, 我認為更應該由疾病管制中心來接手這項業務。 如果我們以健康做爲出發點 開始來思考食物 和我們餵養孩子的方式, 並且從食物和健康的關係這個角度,來切入做思考時, 那麼炸熱狗這種東西就不會出現在 我們的午餐桌上了。
Okay, Finance 101 on this, and this -- I'm sort of wrapping it up with this finance piece, because I think this is something we all have to understand. The National School Lunch Program spends 8 billion dollars feeding 30 million children a year. That number probably needs to double. People say, "Oh my God, where are we going to get 8 billion?" In this country, we're spending 110 billion dollars a year on fast food. We spend 100 billion dollars a year on diet aids. We spend 50 billion dollars on vegetables, which is why we need all the diet aids. We spend 200 billion dollars a year on diet-related illness today, with nine percent of our kids having type 2 diabetes. 200 billion.
好啦,接下來進入財務管理入門時間, 我打算把今天的主題跟財務管理加以結合, 因為我認為這是我們每個人都必須了解的事情。 全國學校午餐計畫每年支出80億美元 做為3千萬名學童的午餐費用。 這個金額恐怕得加倍才行。 大家會說:「天啊!是要上哪去找這80億啊?」 在這個國家,我們每年消費速食產品的金額 高達1100億美元。 每年花在減重飲食輔助品的費用 也高達1000億美元。 但我們消費的蔬菜卻只有500億美元, 這就是為什麼我們需要那麼多減重飲食輔助品的原因了。 每年我們用於治療因肥胖所引起的相關疾病 費用高達2000億美元, 有9%的孩子罹患第二型糖尿病, 2000億美元。
So you know what, when we talk about needing 8 billion more, it's not a lot. That 8 billion comes down to two dollars and 49 cents -- that's what the government allocates for lunch. Most school districts spend two thirds of that on payroll and overhead. That means we spend less than a dollar a day on food for kids in schools -- most schools, 80 to 90 cents. In L.A., it's 56 cents. So we're spending less than a dollar, OK, on lunch. Now I don't know about you, but I go to Starbucks and Pete's and places like that, and venti latte in San Francisco is five dollars. One gourmet coffee, one, is more -- we spend more on than we are spending to feed kids for an entire week in our schools.
所以說,當我們提到 還需要再增加80億美元的時候,這個數字其實也不是真的那麼多。 以80億再折算成2美元49美分, 就是政府為每份餐點投注的金額。 大部份的校區還得把其中三分之二用來做為人事和管理費用。 意思就是說學校每天實際運用在 學童飲食的費用根本不到一美元。 大多數的學校是80到90美分,在洛杉磯,數字則是56美分。 我們每天用在學童午餐的花費居然不到一美元耶。 我並不清楚各位是怎麼想的, 不過我會到星巴克和Pete's這一類的地方用餐, 在舊金山,特大杯的拿鐵定價是五美元。 一杯極品咖啡的價格, 一杯, 我們花在一杯咖啡的錢,比一整個禮拜學校 用在學童午餐的費用 還要高。
You know what? We should be ashamed. We, as a country, should be ashamed at that. The richest country. In our country, it's the kids that need it the most, who get this really, really lousy food. It's the kids who have parents and grandparents and uncles and aunts that can't even afford to pay for school lunch that gets this food. And those are the same kids who are going to be getting sick. Those are the same kids who we should be taking care of.
知道嗎?我們應該感到羞愧。 我們,身為一個國家, 應該為此感到羞愧。 這個最富強的國家。 在我們國家, 最需要健康營養午餐的這群孩童, 卻是吃著最劣質的食物。 正是這群有爸爸媽媽、爺爺奶奶、 叔叔阿姨的孩子,甚至負擔不起學校午餐費用 而得吃這種劣質食物。 也同樣是這群孩子 正在邁向罹患疾病的道路。 這就是那群我們有責任去照顧的孩子啊。
We can all make a difference. That every single one of us, whether we have children, whether we care about children, whether we have nieces or nephews, or anything -- that we can make a difference. Whether you sit down and eat a meal with your kids, whether you take your kids, or grandchildren, or nieces and nephews shopping to a farmers' market. Just do tastings with them. Sit down and care. And on the macro level, we're in what seems to be a 19-month presidential campaign, and of all the things we're asking all of these potential leaders, what about asking for the health of our children? Thank you.
我們都有能力去創造不同的局面, 在座的每一位, 無論我們是不是有小孩, 無論我們喜不喜歡小孩,無論我們有沒有姪子或姪女, 不管是怎麼樣, 我們都有能力去創造出不同的局面。 無論您是和孩子一同用餐, 或者是帶著您的孩子、孫子、 或是姪子姪女 去逛農夫市場,請務必陪他們一起嘗嘗食物的滋味吧。 坐下來花一點時間好好去關心。 此外,從宏觀的角度來看, 現在正值 為期十九個月的總統大選期間, 在所有我們想對所有候選人 提出的問題中, 是否不妨也就兒童健康的議題加以關心呢?謝謝。 謝謝大家。