USDA Permanently Changes School Lunch Rules to Allow More Sugar

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.

     In response to these concerns, FNS issued SP 20-2012 on February 24, 2012 and a revised version on September 11, 2012 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2012/SP20-2012osr.pdf), providing SFAs the flexibility to continue to use frozen fruit products containing added sugar through SY 2013-14. This was later expanded in SP 49-2013 issued on June 25, 2013, to include both lunch and breakfast through SY 2014-15 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SP49-2013os.pdf). In an effort to ease burden on program operators, this flexibility was applicable to all frozen fruit products.

     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!