Lloyd
Olivia Lloyd
History 387 – Professor Ross
May 8, 2014
Lunchbox Liberalism:
How the United States Government Found a Place in Popular Culture
In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more
prosperous than its farmers; and in the National School Lunch Act, the
Congress has contributed immeasurably both to the welfare to our farmers
and the health of our children.1
On June 4, 1946, President Truman announced the implementation of a
permanent National School Lunch Program, just a year after President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) death. Truman touted the program as sign of Congress’
“great wisdom” and success in helping American boys and girls.2 Ultimately,
however, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) allowed the government to
regulate the contents of children’s lunchboxes in the interest of bolstering the
agricultural industry rather than serving the health interests of the children it fed.
During FDR’s presidency, the central question of U.S. politics was not if the
government should aid people, but how to do so. Ideally, FDR wanted to kill two
birds with one stone using school lunches: pay poor farmers and feed hungry
children. Under FDR, the school lunch program never pursued a clear goal because
there was no simple way to satisfy the divergent interests of each group.
Impoverished American farmers sought an outlet for the surplus goods they had
produced during the Great Depression (1929-1940s). Meanwhile, fueled by the
novel findings of nutrition scientists, parents and educators wanted to furnish
1
2
“Truman Approves School Lunch Bill,” New York Times, June 5, 1946, 17.
“Truman Approves School Lunch Bill.”
1
Lloyd
2
wholesome lunches for American schoolchildren who could not afford to eat or did
not know the proper things to eat.
The Grassroots Movements of School Feeding
Women who had grown up in the Progressive Era (1880-1930) drove the
initial development of a school lunch program. As Susan Levine argues, children
became part of an ideological project for American women looking to propagate the
knowledge they acquired from cooking, cleaning, and raising children.3 Through
their involvement in social work and the promotion of school lunches, women drew
attention to the demand for welfare programs, specifically those that benefitted
young children. These women played an integral role in creating a new definition of
liberalism. As part of “their belief in the interconnectedness of society, and thus in
the need to protect individuals,”4 Progressive-era women were compelled to
provide lunches not only for their own children, but also for the children in their
communities who could not afford lunches. The growth of home economics in
conjunction with the burgeoning field of nutrition science provided women a clear
purpose: to feed hungry American schoolchildren.
However, when federal laws were established to necessitate children’s
attendance in schools, an influx of “a cosmopolitan group” of students complicated
the motivations behind school feeding.5 Women’s groups, religious organizations,
Susan Levine, School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America’s Favorite Welfare Program
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 18.
4 Alan Brinkley, The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War (New York: Random
House, Inc., 1995), 9.
5 Committee A. Growth and Development, Nutrition, Preliminary Report of Division III, White House
Conference on Child Health and Protection (Washington, D.C., 1930), 387.
3
Lloyd
3
and teachers often worked together to feed children who came from poor families,
but “nutrition science fed the notion that social inequality was due to cultural habit
rather than economic condition.”6 Home economists believed that their duty went
beyond providing nutritious meals; their responsibility also included assimilating
children who came from diverse backgrounds. Children from immigrant families
might prefer different food types, or have a hard time understanding how to prepare
meals.7 Some women even went so far as to transform school cafeterias into
kitchens where they could foster positive nutrition habits by teaching young girls to
cook nutrient-rich meals. These original lunch-ladies hoped they could have a ripple
effect: unbalanced diets would be ameliorated, children would learn good manners,
perform better in school, and bring valuable lessons about what to eat and how to
eat it, home to their families.8
While mid-day meals could help unify students in the lunchroom, the start of
World War I (1914-1918) demanded cooperation on a larger front. It was not
uncommon to hear that unemployment and skyrocketing food prices forced
mothers to find manual labor jobs even after recent childbirth.9 Social workers
surveying homes were dismayed to find that “the weight of the young children was
ten or fifteen pounds under normal because of the lack of milk… the family has been
Levine, School Lunch Politics, 17.
Velma Phillips and Laura Howell, “Racial and Other Differences in Dietary Customs,” Journal of
Home Economics 12, no. 9 (September 1920): 397.
8 Dora S. Lewis and Phyllis Sprague, “A Survey of School Lunchrooms,” Journal of Home Economics 28,
no. 9 (November 1936): 600–604; Lucy H. Gillett, How Can Our Work in Foods Be Made More Vital to
the Health of the Child! / ([Baltimore,, 1920), 387,
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015076758435.
9 “Find East Side Children Lack Milk: Col. Roosevelt, Leading Party of Charity Workers, Visits Homes
of Poor,” New York Times, January 17, 1918.
6
7
Lloyd
4
able to buy only one quart of milk a day. Three quarts are needed for the children.”10
The strength of the nation suddenly depended on the proper feeding of its
children.11 In wartime, youths often make up the bulk of the fighting force. Though
mothers are especially protective of their children, it makes sense that they would
be particularly interested in their children’s health during a war. Schools rarely had
the resources to provide lunches themselves, but progressives – home economists,
nutrition scientists, and doctors alike – agreed that making sure children were fed
and cared for “from the end of infancy to adolescence” was a responsibility that “in
the interest of the economy, the State cannot afford to neglect.”12 In the effort to
sustain a war overseas, the government invested in nutrition science to learn about
the proper intake of vitamins and nutrients.13 Equipped with data on the vast
numbers of malnourished children, liberals shifted the impetus for nutrition
education once again, spreading the message “that anyone – rich or poor – could
suffer from malnutrition.”14 However, it was not until the Depression that the
government took an interest in school feeding specifically.
New Deal Liberalism and Agricultural Crisis
The Depression catapulted the world into a state of disarray, leaving
Americans exhausted, hungry, poor, and desperate for any intervention that would
Ibid.
Levine, School Lunch Politics, 24.
12 “The School Child,” The British Medical Journal 2, no. 2921 (December 23, 1916): 875.
13 Levine, School Lunch Politics, 24.
14 Ibid.
10
11
Lloyd
5
improve their lives.15 At first, non-profits such as The American Red Cross
promoted community well-being, coordinated hot meals for the increasing number
of children coming to school underfed.16 However, in his inaugural address,
Roosevelt ambitiously promised to secure popular demand “for work and
reasonable security,” assuring that “popular welfare depends on granting what the
great mass of the people want and need.”17 New Deal policies revolved around the
basic tenet that the government should be responsible for regulating capitalism,
protecting the liberties of individuals Americans.18 With the promise of a New Deal,
FDR established the government as a pillar of support. New Deal liberals believed
that reforming the economy required a combination of agricultural reform,
increased employment opportunities, and the expansion of welfare programs.19
FDR oversaw the creation of two federal agencies that sought to address the needs
of hungry students, unemployed people, and farmers. The Surplus Marketing
Administration (SMA) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) eventually
became instrumental in creating a national school lunch program.20
Incidentally, the involvement of the federal government in the agricultural
sector provided a convenient source of food for government-assistance programs.
FDR opposed the idea of trickle down economics, and did not believe that the profits
of industrial monopolies would “leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to
Paul L. Benjamin, “The Family Society and the Depression,” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 160 (March 1, 1932): 135.
16 Herman M. Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal” (The
Bureau of Agricultural Economics - United States Department of Agriculture, October 1941), 14.
17 Arthur Krock, “Pledges Self to ‘New Deal,’” New York Times, July 3, 1932.
18 Brinkley, The End Of Reform, 6–7.
19 Levine, School Lunch Politics, 43.
20 Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 15.
15
Lloyd
6
the small business man.”21 As the Depression left many Americans unemployed and
without money to spend, people could only afford to purchase the bare minimum.
Without a market for farm products, a rapid fall in prices ensued. Within the first
four years of the stock market crash, farm prices fell 51 percent.22 To compensate
for the profits they were losing to low crop prices, farmers increased productivity.
Rather than solving the problem, this resulted in a surplus of crops.
Though farmers resisted decreasing the acreage of their farms as per the
request of government officials, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act
(AAA) in 1933.23 The AAA allowed the government to set a price for commodities.24
The government allotted money to farmers who agreed to production quotas and
devoted less acreage to commodity crops. With the AAA, FDR’s administration
provided farmers some relief, but the act did not immediately solve the problem of
how to remove commodity goods from the market. One aspect of the AAA that
incurred particular hostility from farmers was that to receive government subsidies,
the producers had to limit the quantities of certain commodities on the market.25 To
compensate farmers who had to destroy crops and livestock (namely hogs) that had
already been produced so that they would not reach the market, food processors
Franklin Roosevelt, “Text of Roosevelt’s Acceptance Address,” The Washington Post, July 2, 1932.
Robert J. Samuelson, “Great Depression,” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of
Economics and Liberty, 1993, <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/GreatDepression.html>.
23 Adam D. Sheingate, The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power
in the United States, France, and Japan (Princeton University Press, 2003), 108.
24 Hearing before the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on Agricultural Adjustment Relief Plan,
72nd Cong., 2nd Sess. (Jan. 25-28, 30 - Feb. 4, 6, 1933), H..R. 13991
25 Ibid.
21
22
Lloyd
7
were required to pay a heavy tax.26 However, in 1935, Congress modified the AAA,
freeing up surplus goods to be distributed to needy recipients, like hungry
schoolchildren.
Though FDR hesitated at first to commit fully to massive welfare programs,
he realized that relief and recovery were only temporary measures. As Frances
Perkins announced in one of many Roosevelt administration radio broadcasts, the
U.S. would build on a European model of social insurance that equated liberty with
security: “to maintain a healthy economy and thriving production, we need to
maintain the standard of living of the lower income groups in our population who
constitute 90 per cent of our purchasing power.”27 New Deal policies like social
security and the AAA were premised upon economic inequality. Essentially, the
unveiling of Social Security validated the idea that Americans had a right to be
protected in circumstances out of their control. Though it was the people who had a
collective duty to their fellow citizens to protect everyone, it was the government
that facilitated new programs to level the playing field. Individuals with more
resources had to cede some of their wealth to augment the purchasing power, as
well as the basic rights, of individuals who were less privileged.28
The adjustments made to the AAA in 1935 cemented the government’s role
in mediating between the agricultural industry and school lunch programs. The
Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendments provided the government’s U.S.
“Committee Urges Hog Process Tax - Corn Belt Group Asks for Levy to Discourage Marketing
Heavier Animals,” New York Times, July 26, 1933; See Brinkley, The End Of Reform, 18, who notes that
the AAA was ruled unconstitutional 2 years later.
27 Frances Perkins, “Social Insurance For U.S.,” National Radio Address, February 25, 1935, Social
Security Administration, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/perkinsradio.html.
28 Brinkley, The End Of Reform, 10.
26
Lloyd
8
Department of Agriculture (USDA) more authority over the production and
distribution of commodity farm goods. According to Section 32 of the AAA
Amendments, the Secretary of Agriculture could “encourage the domestic
consumption of such commodities or products by diverting them, by the payments
of such benefits or indemnities or by other means, from the normal channels of
trade and commerce” using “30 per centum of the gross receipts from duties”
collected each fiscal year. The Secretary of Agriculture could use his or her
discretion to allocate surplus farm goods. Diverting subsidized commodities to
malnourished school children unable to afford lunches seemed like the perfect way
to promote consumption outside normal channels.
A caveat to Section 32 of the AAA amendments: only certain foods were
subsidized.29 The need to create a recipient for surplus crops that the government
purchased from farmers drove FDR’s interest in developing school lunches. Schools
could hardly generate meal plans or accommodate the needs of their students when
“what foods are provided at any time and how much of them depend on the current
purchase programs of the [Surplus Marketing Administration], and these programs
are planned primarily to meet farmers’ needs.”30 As a result, school cafeterias
depended on a limited variety of commodities that the agricultural industry was
paid to produce. Schools received the donation of surplus crops with the
understanding that everything they received had to be converted into a free hot
meal for students who qualified, and that the surplus food they received did not
29
30
Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendments, 74nd Cong., 1nd Sess. (August 12, 1935): HR 8492.
Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 19.
Lloyd
9
detract from the amount of food the schools would normally purchase.31 If the
provision of a subsidy did not feed more children than a school was normally
capable of, "a subsidy…must be reflected in lower prices to the children, higher
quality of menus, higher quality of service, or a reduction of funds provided by the
sponsors.”32 In four of the first five years of the program, “butter, dry skim milk,
dried prunes, and wheat flour” comprised the top commodities.33 Problematically,
given the lack of variety of commodities the SMA supplied, lunchroom
administrators found it difficult to craft meals that were nutritious and appealing.
Labor For School Lunches
In the wake of the Depression, home economists proclaimed a greater need
for government to endorse school lunches. The scope of departments and agencies
created in the early stages of emergency relief varied widely, but FDR’s Secretary of
Labor, Frances Perkins, was particularly influential in bringing children’s nutrition
issues to the forefront. She decried the fact that in Manhattan schoolchildren, the
malnutrition rate had increased “from 16 per cent in 1929 to 29 percent in 1932.”34
In a national address, Perkins called for the collaboration of private and government
agencies in upholding elevated standards for child health. She exhorted “the people
of America” to act on behalf of the children, who she did not want to “waste away.”35
Though the Depression revealed glaring inequalities, Perkins was adamant that “the
Ibid., 44.
Herman M. Southworth, “The Economics of Public Measures to Subsidize Food Consumption,”
Journal of Farm Economics 27, no. 1 (February 1, 1945): 58, doi:10.2307/1232262.
33 Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 21.
34 Frances Perkins, “For Child Health: A National Call,” New York Times, October 1, 1933.
35 Ibid.
31
32
Lloyd 10
intelligence, organizing ability, sympathy and driving force of our people will rally to
the call for the child health recovery campaign and see it carried to a successful
conclusion.”36 That driving force would come from largely from the work of
Americans employed by FDR’s Works Progress Administration, created in 1935.37
The WPA gave Americans down on their luck an opportunity to earn a living wage,
working on projects that benefitted the public good.
“School lunch programs offered etiquette and hygiene along with hot meals. Penasco, New
Mexico.” Photo by John Collier. Farm Security Administration, Library of Congress. In Levine,
“School Lunch Politics,” 43.
Though piecemeal state funding aided volunteer efforts throughout the
Depression, FDR’s New Deal formed federal relief agencies aimed directly at feeding
children. American officials committed to providing school lunches as a way to
resolve agricultural crises, but they hoped the gesture would serve as a symbol of
Ibid.
Ellen S. Woodward, “The Works Progress Administration School Lunch Project,” Journal of Home
Economics 28, no. 9 (November 1936): 592.
36
37
Lloyd 11
government strength and authority. Ideally, people would latch on to the concept
that school lunches were just “one way of rescuing children from a misfortune that
has befallen them through no fault of their own, and, at the same time…saving
society the costs of letting them grow up under the handicap that malnutrition
poses.”38 The methods employed to remedy agricultural woes did not always satisfy
the goals of child welfare activists and mothers who valued the health of their
children above all.39 Yet, they had learned from experience that they lacked the
political agency and the funding necessary to provide nutrition education and
healthy, affordable meals on a large scale. New Deal policies secured the support of
women who pioneered school lunches. In the public eye, the federal government
seemed to vindicate the efforts of liberal activists, mobilized funding from “boards
of education, county supervisors, departments of public welfare, or other public, taxsupported agencies” for school lunch programs in almost every state.40 While men
dominated the world of politics, the WPA brought women paychecks, the
opportunity to advise the implementation of new school lunch programs, and to
oversee nutritional standards in existing programs.41
Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 8.
Levine, School Lunch Politics, 72.
40 Ellen S. Woodward, “The Works Progress Administration School Lunch Project,” 592.
41 Levine, School Lunch Politics, 42.
38
39
Lloyd 12
“Every Child Needs a Good School Lunch” poster, NWDNS-44-PA-735, in Levine, School Lunch
Politics, 62.
World War Two and the Emergence of A National School Lunch Program
Though the adjustments to the AAA provided some surplus goods to school
lunch programs, the onset of World War II (1939-1942) precipitated massive
government spending, particularly for school lunch programs. As the country
geared up for a war fought abroad as well as on the home front, nutritionists
continued a narrative they had used during WWI: “We all know that our national
health will one day depend upon the mental and physical health of the boys and girls
of today. The school lunch program is an effective plan which can be an enormously
important contributing factor in achieving that health."42 As surplus was no longer
the problem, the attendees of a National Nutrition Conference recommended
“School Lunch Plan Urged on Senators: Miss Gosselin and Others Say Federal Service Offers Big
Dividends in Health,” New York Times, May 5, 1944.
42
Lloyd 13
improving school lunches, as well as overall dietary habits, “through the united
efforts of agriculture, economics, public health, nutritional science, industry, and
education.”43 The trend was toward more government funding for food programs
and research on the ideal diet. The war effort signaled the end of gradual spending
efforts, and committed the government to massive fiscal projects.
Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 1941, 27
The federal government’s commitment to providing one small meal a day in
schools represented a transition in liberalism that promoted federal intervention in
the economy, but entrusted federal dollars to Americans to do with it as they saw
fit.44 The federal government controlled what food it made available to schools, but
left the actual implementation of school programs “in the hands of local groups, who
“The National Nutrition Conference,” Public Health Reports (1896-1970) 56, no. 24 (June 13, 1941):
1233–55.
44 Brinkley, The End Of Reform, 7.
43
Lloyd 14
are best able to adapt projects to local needs and conditions.”45 People began to
expect their schools to provide food to students. A National Nutrition Conference in
1941 resulted in the coupling of two government agencies, the Federal Surplus
Commodities Corporation and the Farm Marketing Administration. The collective
power of these two federal agencies was able to provide “ingredients in the spring
of 1941 for the school lunches of some 4,411,000 children.”46 Teachers noticed an
immediate improvement in their students, whose focus improved, energy levels
rose, and physical ailments diminished.47 The government poured federal money
into school lunches as part of a broader plan to save agribusiness and command a
firm grasp on the economy. However, the program gained popularity among those
who saw previously starving students thrive with the provision of the right
nutrients.
By the end of World War II, Americans not only supported federal spending
for a national school lunch program, but they proposed providing free lunches to
those born into unfortunate circumstances was a national duty:
The only real solution to low purchasing power is to find some way of
maintaining a high rate of industrial activity, full employment, a high national
income, and a fairly even distribution of income to all groups of the
population…There is a good deal of difference of opinion as to how far the
Government should be responsible for managing the economy in such a way
as to maintain full employment…We can, and should, build upon the pre-war
experience with school lunches, distribution of food to relief families, and the
Food Stamp Plan. These programs accomplished a great deal before the war–
Southworth, “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus Disposal,” 9.
Richard Osborn Cummings, The American and His Food, 2nd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press, 1941).
47 Ellen S. Woodward, “The Works Progress Administration School Lunch Project,” 594.
45
46
Lloyd 15
both as a means of improving diets and as a means of expanding the market
for farm products.48
Just after President Truman took office, Congress passed the National School Lunch
Act, which permanently allocated $75,000,000 annually to the official National
School Lunch Program.49 The NSLP asserted the government’s strength, wealth, and
organization. For the inaugural three years of the program, all federal subsidies had
to be matched by state funds, with the federal contribution declining over time, until
the states paid three dollars for every one federal dollar. The funding would vary
state-by-state, to ensure that states with the least tax-payer dollars and the highest
school enrollment received larger subsidies.50
Finally, a unified plan had come to fruition. The creation of the NSLP in 1946
garnered support from home economists and child-welfare advocates, mostly moms
and teachers who knew that federal aid could feed and educate a nation full of
children who they could only reach on a local level.51 As Brinkley argues, FDR
played an essential role in creating a political climate in which “no dream was too
extravagant, no proposal too outlandish.”52 Farmers, teachers, parents, and
politicians alike could all see the benefit in the NSLP. Like other New Deal
programs, school lunches acted as a salve for many economic, health, and social
Frederick V. Waugh, “What Shall We Do with Surplus Foods?,” Journal of Marketing 10, no. 3
(January 1, 1946): 255, doi:10.2307/1245256.
49 “Truman Approves School Lunch Bill.”
50 Ibid.
51 Levine, School Lunch Politics, 72.
52 Brinkley argues that “New Dealers” were not really one type of liberal, but a group of intellectuals
whose ideas changed over the course of FDR’s two terms. Given that there was no obvious solution to
fixing the economy, FDR was open to an array of different possibilities. The “New Deal” shifted the
idea of liberalism from an old “laissez-fare” model, which is actually more akin to today’s conception
of “conservatism,” to a stance “that government must play an active role in the economy.” Brinkley,
The End Of Reform.
48
Lloyd 16
problems the nation faced in the wake of the Great Depression. Though the
emergence of the NSLP developed ad hoc, the program ultimately favored the
success of agribusiness rather than the provision of nutritious meals and holistic
education to the students it purported to help.
Lloyd 17
Works Cited
Newspapers
The New York Times (1919-1946)
The Washington Post (1932)
Primary Sources
A. Government Documents
Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendments, 1935.
Agricultural Adjustment Relief Plan. Washington, D.C.: United States Government
Printing Office, 1933.
Committee A. Growth and Development. Nutrition, Preliminary Report of Division III.
White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. Washington, D.C.,
1930.
Southworth, Herman M. “The School Lunch Program and Agricultural Surplus
Disposal.” The Bureau of Agricultural Economics - United States Department
of Agriculture, October 1941.
B. Publications
Benjamin, Paul L. “The Family Society and the Depression.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 160 (March 1, 1932): 135–43.
Cummings, Richard Osborn. The American and His Food. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1941.
Gillett, Lucy H. How Can Our Work in Foods Be Made More Vital to the Health of the
Child! (Baltimore, 1920).
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015076758435.
Lewis, Dora S., and Phyllis Sprague. “A Survey of School Lunchrooms.” Journal of
Home Economics 28, no. 9 (November 1936): 600–604.
Perkins, Frances. “Social Insurance For U.S.” National Radio Address, February 25,
1935. Social Security Administration. Accessed April 25, 2014.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/perkinsradio.html.
Phillips, Velma, and Laura Howell. “Racial and Other Differences in Dietary
Customs.” Journal of Home Economics 12, no. 9 (September 1920): 397.
Lloyd 18
Southworth, Herman M. “The Economics of Public Measures to Subsidize Food
Consumption.” Journal of Farm Economics 27, no. 1 (February 1, 1945): 38–
66. Accessed May 6, 2014. doi:10.2307/1232262.
“The National Nutrition Conference.” Public Health Reports (1896-1970) 56, no. 24
(June 13, 1941): 1233–55.
“The School Child.” The British Medical Journal 2, no. 2921 (December 23, 1916):
875–76.
Waugh, Frederick V. “What Shall We Do with Surplus Foods?” Journal of Marketing
10, no. 3 (January 1, 1946): 253–57. Accessed May 4, 2014.
doi:10.2307/1245256.
Woodward, Ellen S. “The Works Progress Administration School Lunch Project.”
Journal of Home Economics 28, no. 9 (November 1936): 592–96.
Secondary Sources
Brinkley, Alan. The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War. New
York: Random House, Inc., 1995.
Levine, Susan. School Lunch Politics: The Surprising History of America’s Favorite
Welfare Program. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Samuelson, Robert J. “Great Depression.” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
Library of Economics and Liberty, 1993. Accessed April 15, 2014.
<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/GreatDepression.html>.
Sheingate, Adam D. The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and
Interest Group Power in the United States, France, and Japan. Princeton
University Press, 2003.