My
title isn't the headline I've been seeing on the news and it isn't
what's been played up in press releases.
Thursday,
the USDA permanently changed the meal requirements for the school
lunch program. The USDA's news
release states
that they have, worked
closely with schools and parents during the transition to healthier
breakfasts, lunches and snacks. Based on public feedback, USDA has
made a number of updates to school meal standards, including
additional flexibility in meeting the daily and weekly ranges for
grain and meat/meat alternates, which has been available to schools
on a temporary basis since 2012.
The
School Nutrition Associations (SNA) also posted a press
release on
their webpage which includes: School
Nutrition Association (SNA) members applaud the US Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) new rule to permanently eliminate overly
restrictive weekly limits on the grains and proteins served with
school meals. Securing this reprieve became a primary focus of SNA’s
2013 advocacy efforts following negative impacts of weekly
limits on meal planning and student participation.
Updated
nutrition standards for school meals, implemented in July 2012,
included weekly grain and protein maximums, which inadvertently took
a variety of healthy foods off the menu in school cafeterias.
Many
schools could not offer daily sandwich choices because serving two
slices of whole-grain bread each day exceeded weekly grain limits,
and salads topped with grilled chicken and low fat cheese surpassed
weekly protein limits.
Does
this sound good to you? Something seemed a little off to me... so I
read the much longer, Final Rule on the Federal Register website.
I'll
be honest, I should've paid more attention in those AP History and
Government classes in high school, not too mention the gen ed classes
I was unsuccessful at avoiding in college. Here is a snippet (SFA, by the way, is short for school food authority):
When
conducting administrative reviews, State agencies should consider any
SFA compliant with the weekly ranges for grains and meats if the
weekly minimums are met. SFAs continue to be required to meet the
weekly minimum and maximum range requirements for calories and the
other dietary specifications.
So,
you can go ahead and give kids more of these kinds of foods (grains,
protein), but you still can't go over the maximum calorie range and
and you can't go below the minimum requirements for fruits and
vegetables. Interesting.
But something else is listed here, too. This is another something that was made
flexible and is now permanent. This section discusses the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) requirement that if frozen fruit is
served, it contains no added sugar. Wonder why nobody is discussing
this aspect?
Since
2009, USDA has reduced the amount of added sugars in frozen fruits
offered to States; however most frozen strawberries, peaches and
apricots offered by USDA currently contain added sugar. USDA has
reached out to industry concerning reformulating these frozen fruits
products to eliminate sugar completely, and industry has been working
on this issue since publication of the meal pattern rule.
Reformulating some products has been challenging because sugar
acts as an important ingredient in maintaining fruit flavor,
appearance, texture and storability of certain frozen fruits. In
addition, research on substitute sweeteners has not been successful
in maintaining the color, flavor or texture of the fruit being
tested.
Feedback
on the memoranda has been positive with numerous requests to extend
the flexibility for frozen fruit with added sugar. Thus far, research
performed by several different processors for development of an
acceptable no-sugar frozen fruit has resulted in an unacceptable
product. Processors do not believe a short term solution is feasible
as their research requires long term studies because many of the
problems with frozen fruit do not develop until the products have
been in storage for a reasonable time.
In
addition to the challenges associated with processing frozen fruit
without sugar, allowing SFAs to use frozen fruit with added sugar
will make it less complicated for SFAs to meet meal pattern
requirements, and also expand the types of frozen fruit allowable in
school meals. It is also consistent with canned fruits since some
added sugar is allowed in canned products. Additionally, the calorie
limits for meals help preserve the integrity of the updated nutrition
standards, as schools have to plan menus and select products
carefully, including frozen fruit with added sugar, in order to be in
compliance with the standards.
For
those reasons, FNS is making this flexibility permanent by including
it in this final rule at 7
CFR 210.7(d)(1)(iii)(B).
Because ongoing compliance with the meal patterns is assessed during
administrative reviews, FNS is further extending this flexibility by
including it in the final rule at 7
CFR 210.18(g)(2)(vi).
When conducting administrative reviews, State agencies should
consider any SFA compliant with the meal pattern requirements even if
the SFA serves frozen fruit containing added sugar. This flexibility
is also applicable to fruit offered in the School Breakfast Program.
I've
heard this argument before when it comes to chocolate milk. Adding sugar makes it more appealing and therefore more kids will
drink their milk. But is the trade off worth it? Using sugar to make
something that was once fairly healthy into an appealing, not-so-healthy thing is the slippery slope that leads to bad health and
obesity.
All
of this has given me a headache. To start, my guess is that kids may
not like the new healthier food (and therefore not eat it and call it
too little food) because it is new to them and there is little
nutrition education to support and encourage dietary changes in
schools. No, not all kids require the same amount of calories –
active kids need more, more sedentary children need less, but I don't
think that this is the problem.
And
let's go back to the part where no one is reporting on the added
sugar business. Could it be that those parents that are concerned
about their kids getting enough food at lunch wouldn't sing praises
for more sugar? Yes. Who would be happy about that? The above
referenced food processors.
There
are two senators patting themselves on the back over this. Senator
Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas and Senator John Hoeven (R) of North
Dakota. These two gentleman worked on the Sensible
School Lunch Act,
a bipartisan bill that provides school districts with greater
flexibility in implementing rules for the NSLP and School Breakfast
Program.
North
Dakota? Arkansas? Call me a pessimist if you must. North Dakota's
biggest industry is agriculture, followed closely by food processing.
They are the second largest producer of sugar beets and the state
produces much of the country's grains along with corn and beans.
Arkansas has agriculture as a leading industry as well. They are the
largest producer of turkeys, chicken broilers and rice in the United
States.
Everyone
has something to gain. Maybe they tell themselves its a win/win? The
states can make money selling their agriculture commodities as well
as processing the food and making sure sugar remains an ever-present ingredient. Oh, and they can also make sure the kiddos are getting
enough “healthy food” to eat and aren't going hungry? I'm left feeling like its a step backwards in encouraging kids to eat more fruits and vegetables.
We
can do better than this!