Kate Adamick is a firm believer in the old saying, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” A food systems consultant and co-founder of Cook for America, she has put the adage to work in hundreds of school districts nationwide through her Lunch Teachers culinary boot camps. In these weeklong workshops, Adamick teaches food service staff how to most efficiently manage their limited budgets — to the penny — toward providing students with freshly prepared, whole foods-based meals.

Adamick’s new book, Lunch Money: Serving Healthy School Food in a Sick Economy, captures those strategies in print, from capitalizing on commodity food products to generating additional revenue from a breakfast-in-the-classroom program. It’s likely to make a valuable read for school food service directors working to revamp menus in accordance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new school rules and determining how best to utilize an additional subsidy of 6 cents per meal. But Adamick’s clear reiteration of the importance of a better school lunch now also makes the book worthwhile for school food reformers, teachers, parents, and anyone who cares about what kids eat at school.

I spoke with Adamick recently about her new book, the new federal school lunch rules, chocolate milk, and the role of “lunch ladies” in all this. Below is an excerpt of our conversation.

Q. You’ve worked as a corporate attorney, a chef in a four-star French restaurant, and you’ve owned a large wholesale and retail bakery. Why did school lunch become important to you?

A. Obviously, I change careers more often than some people change their clothes. About 10 years ago, I had just sold my bakery business when a friend asked me, “What are you going to do when you grow up this time?” When she asked, I had just finished reading one of the early reports about the rising rates of childhood obesity in America. I decided then and there that I wanted to do something about it. School food turned out to be — at least for me — the clearest route for effecting positive change in the lives of as many children as possible.

Q. What are your thoughts on the USDA’s new federal nutrition standards, i.e. increased servings of fruits, vegetables, and whole grain-rich foods; healthier milk offerings; and sodium and calorie limits?

A. The new USDA regulations are a good start, but only a start. I am disappointed — though, sadly, not surprised — that our government chose the interests of corporate America over the interests of our children by requiring the reduction of sodium in school meals gradually over 10 years (rather than more quickly, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine) because industry needs time for product development and testing. I was also dismayed by the regulations’ failure to limit the sugar content in school meals. On the other hand, for the first time, the regulations place a maximum limit on the number of calories that can be served — a critical step to addressing the childhood obesity issue.

Q. Schools complying with these new standards are eligible for an additional subsidy of 6 cents per meal. Even with this increased funding, food service directors may have little more than $1 to spend on food per meal. Given such tight budgets, many people believe that providing students with fresh, whole foods-based meals prepared from scratch is cost-prohibitive. In your book, you call this belief a myth. Say more.

A. For many years I was no different than every other school food reform activist calling for increased federal funding. When the economy began tanking in 2008, I realized that would be unlikely. It was then that I started looking at the financial operations of school food service departments with a critical eye. I hoped that I would be able to use my own culinary experience, along with all of the knowledge I gained while minoring in accounting, to identify lost revenue and wasted money in the status quo for school food. It turned out not to be difficult; and that’s good news. Nearly every school district can find ways to eliminate unnecessary expenses and/or improve its revenue stream while also serving healthier food to its students. So, while other school food reform advocates are proclaiming the 6-cent increase insufficient, I believe that is not even necessary for most school districts — especially when we can be fairly certain that the manufacturers of the processed junk that passes for food will simply raise their prices to ensure that those 6 cents end up in their pockets.

Q. There appear to be quite a few equations and worksheets in the book. You’re challenging your readers’ mathematical skills too?

A. The worksheets are there so that readers’ math skills don’t have to be challenged. While they may appear intimidating, they are actually quite easy. I like to think that if the IRS tax forms were this simple, H&R Block would be out of business. I put the worksheets in the book for two reasons. One was to demystify the math. The second is because seeing is believing. When you go through the steps you see that thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars can be saved across the district during the school year.

Q. What is the significance of your discussion of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House in the Big Woods in Lunch Money?

A. Little House in the Big Woods is essentially the story of a post-Civil War era family feeding itself over the course of a year in the wilderness. They hunted, foraged, and grew virtually all of their own food, and “store-bought” food was rare.

One of the ways school districts can save money is by no longer serving dessert with school meals. Not only will removing dessert from school menus help improve the overall quality of the meals, but the money saved can be used to help pay for more fresh produce and higher quality protein. Moreover, limiting the number of times a year that dessert is served in school will be a reminder that [dessert], while not forbidden, is to be eaten on special occasions, rather than as daily fare.

Q.  You also encourage schools to offer breakfast in the classroom (BIC), stating that a such a program can provide a “meaningful financial boost” to schools. How so?

A. The benefits of eating before undertaking difficult intellectual challenges haven’t escaped the notice of many educators, who often request that breakfast be served in their classrooms on state aptitude testing days. Of course, if students score higher when they are fed properly before taking a test, they will test higher still if fed when they are learning the materials.

Because federal funding for the school breakfast program in Severe Needs schools [PDF] is considerably higher than the funding in more affluent schools, and due to the relatively low cost of food served at breakfast (when compared to lunch), a BIC program can give a meaningful financial boost to such schools [through federal reimbursement revenue].

The trick, though, is to capture all of the federal reimbursement dollars by serving breakfast to all of the students, which is most easily accomplished by feeding them during the first 10 minutes of the day. I have even had the pleasure of watching a classroom of young students say the pledge of allegiance with their right hands held over their hearts and while their left hands held bananas.

Q. How does the role of “lunch ladies,” cooks, kitchen managers, etc., need to change to improve school lunch?

A. It’s critical that the school food work environment and workforce be professionalized. Sadly, food service workers, who have the opportunity to save our students’ lives, are typically treated as the least important. Foremost among Cook for America’s goals is to build food service workers’ confidence, motivation, culinary skills, and awareness of food systems issues. The graduates of our culinary boot camps are recognized as ambassadors who lead the school food reform movement in their own districts and embrace their essential role in teaching children about the pleasures and benefits of eating real food prepared in a healthful manner.

Q. Food service management companies, such as Aramark and Sodexo, operate the school lunch programs of many districts. Can schools apply the same strategies that you outline in your book while working with these companies?

A. My personal belief is that food service management companies have no place in public schools. I have yet to come across a school food service staff that isn’t capable of preparing affordable and healthy, scratch-cooked meals using fresh, whole foods if given the proper training. All too often, food service management companies come into a school district and slash staff hours and benefits, while reducing the quality of the school food so as to maximize profits for themselves. Better to empower your existing food service workers — who are often your friends and neighbors — to do their jobs better than to bring in outsiders who have a built-in financial incentive to maximize their own profits.

Q. You’ve said, “School food is the solution, not the problem!” Should we be optimistic?

A. Absolutely. Nearly every child in America eats at least one meal a day at school nearly half the days of the year. That gives us a captive audience, not only to feed them in a healthful manner, but to teach them how to feed themselves. Our challenge as a nation is to commit ourselves to take advantage of that opportunity. The good news is that it can be done by the people who are already working in our school cafeterias and within the budget that they currently have at their disposal. All they need is training, and our admiration and support.

It’s a challenge Jon Stewart summed up best recently when the first lady appeared on the Daily Show to promote her book. He asked, “Wouldn’t you have been more successful with, say, colonization of Mars?” She laughed at the question, but, in the book, she makes it clear that she takes this impossible mission very seriously.

American Grown chronicles the development of the White House Kitchen Garden — the first planted on the White House lawn since Eleanor Roosevelt’s World War II victory garden. The story begins in March 2009, when the first lady broke ground with 23 fifth graders, and follows the garden through four seasons of growth and harvest. It also includes garden plans, composting and beekeeping tips, recipes, and of course, many photographs of the first lady surrounded by children, who appear — believe it or not — to be enjoying gardening and eating the fruits (and vegetables) of their labor.

Lest this sound too upbeat, the first lady also makes the problem she’s looking to address very clear. Not only are one in three of our nation’s children obese, she tells readers, but a recent study of 200 overweight children found that more than half were overweight before they turned 2. On the other side of the age spectrum, she writes that obesity in young adults may even impact our national security, as it is becoming one of the most common disqualifiers for military service.

The book includes a short essay by Lt. Gen. Mark Hertlin, who ties poor diet and not enough exercise to rising injuries and health costs for the Army. Regarding new recruits’ fitness levels, he writes:

[W]hile in 2004, only 4 percent of male recruits and 10.5 percent of female recruits failed the Army’s Entry Physical Fitness Test (which requires one minute of push-ups, one minute of sit-ups, and a one-mile run), by 2010 those numbers had exploded: 46.7 percent of males and 54.6 percent of females were failing the exact same test.

Hertlin acknowledges that basic training puts soldiers back in shape, but voices concern for the health of the soldier’s family. He asks, “How do we change our behavior and our culture before it contributes to early onset of diabetes, coronary disease, osteoporosis, and even psychological difficulties? How do we do this before it is truly too late?”

Beyond advocating for simply making healthier personal choices, American Grown points to grassroots community efforts as a solution. Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move Salad Bars 2 Schools initiative is one — a grassroots public health effort that aims to place 6,000 salad bars in schools. The book also profiles five community gardens throughout the United States — from the P-Patch network in Seattle to a community garden in New Jersey. The book also includes contributions from leaders working to provide healthier food with greater community access, such as Growing Power, the urban farming and educational training organization, and Fresh Moves, a mobile produce market.

Outside the grassroots realm, the first lady has less to say. She was an active force behind the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which added more funding and improved food standards of the National School Lunch program for the first time in 30 years. She also applauded when the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched the MyPlate/MiPlato initiative, urging Americans to get half their calories from fruits and vegetables.

And while the first lady began the Let’s Move campaign with a strong critique of the nation’s big processed food makers — telling them it was time to “step it up” and cut sugar, salt, and fat in 2010 — her tone has recently changed.

In fact, near the end of last year, she announced that she would be focusing on promoting exercise instead — a move that has been criticized as a clear choice to back away from food industry lobbying in an election year. A recent Reuters investigation called “How Washington went soft on childhood obesity” described the shift like so:

Kelly D. Brownell, a Yale professor and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, said he believes the First Lady has become too friendly with industry even as she has been a passionate, effective advocate for healthier food and exercise. He pointed to the possible influence of a 2010 Supreme Court decision, criticized by the president, that removed limits on corporate and union campaign spending.

“It does seem that there’s been a shift in priorities in the Let’s Move campaign in an election year,” Brownell said. “And with the Citizens United case and the companies being able to lobby almost without limit, it’s not surprising that the White House is more friendly toward the industry.”

[Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest], had a similar view: “I’d focus more on exercise, too, if my husband was up for re-election.”

American Grown does a similar job of staying away from the hard topics. As you would guess, there are no surprises here. But that doesn’t make the first lady — or the book, for that matter — unlikable. Her description of the lengths she’s willing to go to meet her Let’s Move campaign goals are inspiring, if apolitical. For instance, when she addresses the Let’s Move exercise campaign, she writes:

I’ve hula-hooped and done push-ups on the White House lawn. I’ve jumped Double Dutch and run through an obstacle course of cardboard boxes carrying water jugs. I’ve potato-sack raced with comedian Jimmy Fallon. I’ve even danced “the Dougie” to Beyonce with a bunch of middle schoolers. But there’s a method to my madness … I’m pretty much willing to make a complete fool of myself if that’s what it takes.

And it looks like it’s working; the majority of Americans seem to like the first lady’s hula-hooping, vegetable-peddling ways. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, Michelle Obama enjoys a 69 percent approval rating compared to her husband’s 56 percent.

The other night on his show, Jon Stewart likened the first lady’s popularity with the American public to ice cream, while he said the president’s was “more like astronaut ice cream.” The first lady corrected Stewart, in a subtle endorsement with a double meaning. “He’s vegetables,” she said.

The meat industry has fallen on hard times. After a steady decline in meat consumption in past years, it took a couple of hard hits last month, with the breaking of the pink slime scandal, followed a week later by the publication of a Harvard study linking red meat to a higher mortality risk. If you’re feeling a little less hungry for a burger these days, it’s no wonder.

Pink slime aside, does red meat really deserve such a bad name? Or is it what’s added to red meat that’s to blame? The Harvard study was not the first to suggest that red meat is bad for us, but it was the first to differentiate unprocessed and processed red meat and identify a relatively greater risk involved when eating a processed product than, say, pure, unadulterated steak. What makes processed meat worse? The study authors surmise it’s the additives and preservatives.

You probably noticed the headlines that followed the Harvard study’s publication: “All Red Meat is Risky, a Study finds” and “Eating All Red Meat Increases Death and More Reasons to Never Eat Meat.” And yes, the authors who evaluated the health and diet of over 120,000 health professionals between 1980 and 2006 did find that study participants who ate a daily serving of unprocessed red meat (a three-ounce serving of beef, pork, or lamb as a main dish, mixed dish, or in a sandwich) had a 13 percent greater chance of death during the study.

Part of the issue is quantity. A daily serving of red meat, seven days a week, 365 days a year — not surprising to anyone — is going to be risky. The authors also note that the participants who ate the most red meat were less likely to eat healthier alternatives, such as fish, poultry, and whole grains, which are all foods associated with a reduced risk of death.

“We know that variety is the spice of life,” said Joan Salge Blake, a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietics, who was not involved in the study. “A high intake of red meat is going to displace more nutritious foods in the diet that are correlated to reducing disease.”

The source of the meat may be an issue, as the study did not differentiate between grass-fed and free-range meat from industrially produced meat. “This is still an open question,” study co-author and professor of medicine at Harvard, Frank Hu, said in an email. “It is possible that grass-fed and grain-fed beef have different health and environmental effects, but there is no data at this point whether the grass-fed vs. grain-fed beef would have different effects on long-term chronic diseases and mortality. Certainly, more studies are needed to look at this issue.”

On her blog Summer Tomato, scientist and health writer Darya Pino points out that we can probably assume that the participants were eating industrially produced meat. She writes:

Given the time during which the study took place, it’s unlikely that any of the participants were eating non-industrial, grass-fed and pastured meat. I think this is an important point, particularly when considering cancer mortality, since toxic compounds tend to accumulate in the fat of animals.

Considering all this, a more apt headline may have been: “Eating Industrial Meat with No Moderation is Madness.” So it’s possible that lean, grass-fed beef, which has less saturated fat and more omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidant vitamins, may actually have a place (once in a while) in a “heart-healthy diet.”

This may be the type of red meat that An Pan, the study’s lead author and research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, is eating once or twice a week, a frequency he admitted to the Los Angeles Times. Though he did say that he’s forgoing bacon and other processed meats all together.

Based on the study results, it’s not hard to see why. In addition to finding that a daily serving of unprocessed red meat increased participants’ mortality risk by 13 percent, the authors found that those who ate a daily serving of processed red meat (i.e., two slices of bacon, one hot dog, a piece of sausage, salami, bologna, or other cold cut) had an increased risk of death of 20 percent. Furthermore, the study found that hot dogs and bacon are associated with a higher risk than other processed red meats.

So what does “processed” mean as it applies to meat? According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), meat becomes processed when it undergoes a processing technology (grinding and mixing, heat treatments, drying, etc.) as well as treatment (salting, curing with nitrites, etc.) for taste, texture, and preservation. There are all kinds of processed meats, and the FAO groups them into six broad categories according to processing technology. If you look closely at the categories, it’s apparent that some processed meats are more processed than others.

Sausage, which falls into the category of “fresh, processed meat products,” is less processed since it remains “fresh” or raw throughout processing. A hot dog undergoes more processing, as a “raw, cooked-meat product because it undergoes a heat treatment that gives it its “firm-elastic texture.”

Bacon receives more processing as a “cured cooked meat product.” Unlike sausage or hot dogs, bacon is an entire piece of muscle meat. It’s cured with a nitrite solution and then undergoes a heat treatment to reach “the desired palatability.” The most processed meats of all are products that fall into the “pre-cooked, cooked meat product” category, which undergo two heat treatments and include products such as blood sausage, liver pate, and corned beef in cans. (And don’t ask, because I have no idea where pink slime fits into all this.)

Why does processing make red meat worse for us? The study authors point to additives and preservatives as likely suspects for the “additional harm.”

Suspect No. 1: Nitrites: added for flavor and to preserve meat’s pink color and extend shelf life. The authors cited studies linking blood nitrite levels to a disorder affecting the inner lining of the blood vessels and impaired insulin response. Nitrites can also convert to carcinogens, but the addition of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or ethyorbic acid inhibit their formation. You can find uncured bacon in the grocery store, though these products still contain naturally derived nitrites. And since the carcinogens form during high-temperature cooking, it’s best to avoid charring your hot dogs or eating very well-done or burnt bacon.

Suspect No. 2: Salt (sodium): added to meats as a preservative and as a powerful flavor enhancer. High sodium intake is linked to high blood pressure, which increases the risk for heart disease and stroke. Two slices of bacon can contain as much as 460 milligrams of sodium, 19 percent of the recommended daily intake. A bun-length frank can contain up to 550 milligrams of sodium, amounting to nearly one-quarter of the recommendation. Add a bag of potato chips, and you can easily eat half the sodium you should eat in a day in a single sitting.

With suspects No. 1 and No. 2 operating side-by-side, it’s no wonder they’re exacting a high cost on health. The irony of this bad news about bacon is that sodium and nitrites are industry additives — the meat itself is innocent. (Well, not really: Bacon’s still got ne’er-do-wells saturated fat, cholesterol, and heme iron lurking around.) But what seems clear is that we’re making red meat worse for us by processing it.

So, if you must eat red meat, the latest science says, eat it unprocessed, and in moderation (once or twice a week at most). The healthiest red meat is most likely from the happiest animals — raised outside confined animal feeding operations, and on pasture. And in the mean time: Why not eat more plants?