Search results: School Nutrition Association

Try as hard as I can, I will never understand why everyone—rich or poor, democrat or republican—isn’t doing everything possibly to make sure that all kids in schools are offered healthy breakfasts and lunches, every day, at no cost.

Children are the future of our country.  We need them to be healthy.

That is why I will never understand how anyone could oppose universal school meals and the strongest nutrition standards possible, let alone the people who produce those meals as represented by the School Nutrition Association (SNA).

OK, the SNA strongly encourages partnerships with food and beverage companies.  The SNA does not list its donors on iany obvious place on its website, but does list the ones that contribute to its annual meeting.   A few years ago, reporters said food companies accounted for half the organization’s revenues.

Perhaps that accounts for the SNA’s long-standing opposition to improving nutrition standards for school meals and the USDA’s latest efforts to do so.

The SNA’s 2023 position paper calls for some useful things: higher reimbursement rates for school meals, universal school meals, reductions in administrative burdens.

But, it also wants: the USDA to drop its new “additional, unachievable rules.”

In February, USDA proposed stricter, long-term nutrition rules. However, 88.8% of school nutrition directors reported challenges
obtaining sufficient menu items (e.g. whole-grain, low-sodium, low-fat options) to meet current standards. Additionally, 97.8% are concerned about the availability of foods to meet the July 2023 transitional sodium limits. To keep students eating healthy school meals, USDA must support school nutrition professionals as they work to maintain current standards.

Briget Huber, writing for FERN, quotes the SNA’s director of media relations.

Additional rules are just not feasible for schools right now…Interim rules cutting sodium more modestly than in the USDA’s new proposal take effect in July, and in a recent survey, SNA members “overwhelmingly” said they were not prepared to meet even those standards…They are very concerned about the availability of foods that meet the targets and are acceptable to students… schools are struggling to staff their kitchens,…They have to compete with local fast-food restaurants and food service establishments that, quite frankly, have a better budget for increasing salaries.

In my experience, schools where personnel believe that healthy meals are important somehow manage to achieve the standards and get the kids to eat the foods.  I think the SNA should be supporting them, not undermining them.

As for evidence contrary to the SNA’s position:

• Center for Science in the Public Interest keeps a scorecard on school meals.  Its data show much compliance with standards.
• Tufts University researchers  find that school meals are healthier than those eaten at home or anywhere else.
• The USDA’s School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study finds most school able to meet the standards and that meals are getting more nutritious.
• Researchers have shown: following passage of the law that improved USDA’s school nutrition standards, its “implementation was associated with a significant decrease in [Body Mass Index] among school-aged youths in the US. The findings suggest that school meal programs represent a key opportunity for interventions to combat the childhood obesity epidemic given the high rates of program participation and the proportion of total calories consumed through school-based meals.

Yes there are financial and logistical difficulties.  And yes, kids in school won’t be eating food that is as junky.  That’s the point!

The SNA should be leading the country on encouraging schools to serve the healthiest meals possible.  That it is not doing so is a disgrace.

Here are the USDA’s infographics (other resources are also available at the USDA’s site):

• Updated Nutrition Standards Posed Challenges but Achieved Underlying Goals
• School Meals Are More Nutritious After Updated Nutrition Standards
• Progress Toward Implementing Updated Nutrition Standards
• The Cost of Producing School Meals Has Increased
• Lunches Consumed From School Are the Most Nutritious

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Will wonders never cease.  You might think that of course the School Nutrition Association, which represents people who cook and staff school meal programs, would be in favor of universal free meals for all school kids, but I was amazed to see its 2023 Position Paper.

This asks Congress to:

• Make permanent the reimbursement rate increases for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program (NSLP/SBP), provided in the bipartisan Keep Kids Fed Act (PL 117-158).
• Expand NSLP/SBP to offer healthy school meals for all students at no charge.
• Ensure USDA maintains current school nutrition standards rather than implement additional, unachievable rules.
• Reduce regulatory and administrative burdens.

I’m surprised because this is the same organization that fought improvements to the rules for school meals, as I have discussed previously.

I think it’s terrific that the SNA is now at the forefront of child nutrition advocacy.

Check out the resources on its website.

See what it’s doing to advocate.

Support these calls!

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Nancy Huehnergarth and Bettina Siegel (the Lunch Tray) forwarded the latest information about the hard-to-believe efforts of the School Nutrition Association (SNA) to roll back USDA’s nutrition standards, in particular those requiring school meals to serve fruits and vegetables.  Not everyone at SNA agrees with the leadership’s retrogressive position on encouraging kids to eat their veggies:

You may be interested in this open letter, signed by 86 members of the School Nutrition Association (SNA) that was just forwarded to SNA’s CEO and President…These 86 SNA members were courageous enough to sign the open letter even after SNA leaders sent an urgent email to all members urging them not to sign.

As you know, the SNA continues to work towards rolling back the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act nutrition standards, now through the upcoming Child Nutrition Reauthorization, as evidenced by their recently released 2015 position paper:

As to what all this is about, see Dana Woldow’s explanation in Beyond Chron.  As she bluntly puts the matter,

It would be comforting to think that SNA members are making those decisions based on what is most nutritious and healthy for growing kids, but unfortunately they are just as likely to be influenced by the recommendations of Big Food companies peddling processed crap.

Dana also takes on the SNA’s claim that the majority of its members want the nutrition standards rolled back.  She does the math and comes to quite a different result.

I continue to find it incredible that an organization of people whose job it is to feed school kids would do everything it can to make sure those kids are deprived of fresh, healthier foods, which is what the nutrition standards require.

SNA members: it’s time to recall your leaders and install some who put kids’ interests first.

The School Nutrition Association (SNA) is the organization that ostensibly represents the interests of school food service personnel.

I say ostensibly because the SNA has moved in a quite different direction.  It now fully represents the interests of its corporate food industry donors.

In the recent past, it supported federal efforts to improve the nutritional quality of school meals.  Now it fights all efforts to do so.

Recent events illustrate these points.

1.  Nancy Huehnergarth reports on the SNA meeting in Phoenix:

The annual conference, which this year ran from January 11 through 13, is “where school nutrition directors and industry representatives [came] together to build successful partnerships to better serve the nation’s children,” according to the SNA’s website. But a review of the conference agenda, speakers, educational sessions and sponsors paint a far different picture — one of an overwhelmingly industry-driven event heavy on the promotion of food and beverage offerings from major processed food corporations.

2.  The SNA has just issued a Position Paper on school meals.

It calls for more funding for school meals (good idea).

But then it insists on some very bad ideas:

• Stop requiring fruits and vegetables to be served with every meal.
• Don’t require so much whole grain.
• Back off on lower sodium.
• Allow any junk food to be part of the reimbursable meal.
• Allow any junk food to be sold in competition with school meals.

In other words, return to the junk food school environment that flourished before the Institute of Medicine wrote two reports on improving the nutritional quality of school meals, Michelle Obama instituted Let’s Move!, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 authorizing USDA to set nutritional standards, USDA wrote those standards, and most schools in the United States went right ahead and implemented them.

The ostensible reason for the pushback?  Prevent waste.

3.  The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) did an analysis of trends in student participation in school meals.

This  research firmly counters the idea that students are turning away from school meals in droves in order to avoid having to eat fruits and vegetables.  It cites the recession and the increased price of the lunches as the reasons for the decline in participation.

Writing in Politico, Helena Bottemiller Evich points to the politics:

Student rejection of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products and declining participation has been a key part of the political debate over the push to relax some of the new standards. The move has sparked a battle that is expected to intensify this year as Congress looks to reauthorize the law governing school nutrition programs.

4.  Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of United Fresh Produce Association issued a response to SNA.

While we agree with many recommendations in the School Nutrition Association’s (SNA) 2015 Position Paper, we are deeply disappointed that SNA has chosen to continue its ill-advised fight against serving kids more fruits and vegetables in schools. The requirement that kids receive one-half cup of fruits or vegetables in school meals is being successfully met by tens of thousands of schools across the country. This is a modest step for the health of our children, especially in these critical learning years. When health classes teach students to make Half Their Plate consist of fruits and vegetables, it would be unconscionable for the school cafeteria to undercut that message by not serving at least one-half cup in school meals.

With friends like the SNA, school food advocates don’t need enemies.

Chalk this one up to food industry divide-and-conquer strategies.  Food companies pay SNA’s bills.  They get what they pay for.

The SNA ought to be the strongest advocate for healthier school meals.  It’s a tragedy that this organization has become the leading defender of junk food.

Mission: Readiness, the organization of former high-ranking military officials concerned about obesity and other health problems in military recruits and personnel, has just released “Retreat Is Not An Option: Healthier School Meals Protect our Children and our Country.”

• Currently, 12 percent of active duty service members are obese based on height and weight—an increase of 61 percent since 2002—which is resulting in serious problems with injuries and dismissals.
• The obese service members in the brigade in Afghanistan were 40 percent more likely to experience an injury than those with a healthy weight, and slower runners were 49 percent more likely to be injured.
• The military spends more than $1.5 billion annually treating obesity-related health conditions and replacing those discharged because they are unfit.
• 70% of young Americans are ineligible for military service because of overweight, lack of education, or criminal records.  The ineligibility percentages range from a low of 62% in Hawaii to 78% in Mississippi.

The report concludes:

We understand that some schools need additional support to help meet the updated standards, such as better equipment and more staff training, and that support should be provided. At the same time, moving forward with implementation of the standards for all schools is paramount. Students depend on schools to reinforce efforts by parents and communities to put them on track for healthy and productive lives. Healthy school meals and snacks are a vital part of that effort. When it comes to children’s health and our national security, retreat is not an option.

This is a direct criticism of the School Nutrition Association (SNA), which has called for such a retreat.  In response, SNA said:

Recent reports by Mission: Readiness and other organizations have mischaracterized both the impact of the new standards on school meal programs and the scope of the regulatory relief requested by School Nutrition Association and other groups. SNA’s Myth vs Fact sheet on the new standards addresses how the new rules have contributed to a decline in student lunch participation, increases in food waste and financial instability in many school meal programs.

USDA’s data, however, argue otherwise.

The SNA, which receives nearly half its income from companies that sell food products to schools, now finds itself in opposition to the military as well as to USDA and consumer school food advocates.

If anything needs to retreat, it’s SNA.

As for why the military is concerned, take a look at this photo taken at the Las Vegas airport, sent to me yesterday by Andy Bellatti.

Politico ProAg’s Helena Bottemiller Evich has been reporting on the School Nutrition Association (SNA) meeting in Boston this week (and see the video conversation with her editor, Jason Huffman, about the meeting).

One of her points: from the kinds of junk-food products exhibited, you would never know that the SNA was at war with the White House over USDA’s nutrition standards for school meals (see my previous posts).

As she explains, food companies have had no problem coming up with look-alike products that meet USDA standards:

More than 400 exhibitors showed off their innovations designed to meet the Department of Agriculture’s new regulations…PepsiCo, which owns Tropicana, Quaker and Lays, has a long list of products that meet the new rules, including Reduced Fat Doritos and Cheetos, Stacy’s Pita Chips and Munchies. Windsor Foods, which specializes in food service, has come up with whole grain-rich egg rolls that the company says kids love.

General Mills displayed a modified version of Chex Mix, a whole grain Betty Crocker cookie and a Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal bar: “Snacks so good, kids won’t know they’re nutritious,” according to the marketing flyers.

…while the changes to lunch standards may be giving many school nutrition professionals fits, the food manufacturing industry is drooling over the opportunity to gain more sales inside what has been described as the nation’s largest restaurant: The school lunch program serves 30 million kids each day and represents a $30 billion per year market for the food industry, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

…SNA benefits from the food industry’s enthusiasm in school lunches. The largest chunk of the group’s revenue is generated at its annual conference, which brought in $4.7 million in 2012. The association charges $15,000 to sponsor an education session track featuring a company representative and $20,000 to put company logos on hotel key cards.

Evich quotes Michele Simon, who also attended the meeting.

Walking through that hall, it’s very hard to see where the changes are,” she said. “It’s still pretty appalling to see the types of junk food that can pass as acceptable food for school meals. It seems like there’s a disconnect between the uproar over the improved guidelines and all these vendors who seem to have no problem meeting them.”

Michele sent me a photo of one such product.

For photos of other such items, see Michele Simon’s other images on Time Magazine’s site, and Nancy Huehnergarth’s collection of what she calls “The Good, the Bad and The Ugly Food Exhibits.”

To understand what this is about, take a look at the Public Health Advocacy Institute’s report on Copycat Snacks in Schools.  The “better for you” versions are sold in schools, but you can hardly tell the difference between those and the “not so good for you” commercial versions from the nearly identical packages.

How can food and beverage companies get away with this?  This is the result of USDA’s setting nutrient-based, rather than food-based standards for school meals.  Setting nutrient standards allows food companies to tweak the formulas to give the USDA what it requires.

Is a slightly “better for you” option necessarily a good choice?  Surely, schools can do better.

I was not going to bother to say anything about this letter addressed to the Washington Post from the President of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), Laurie Wright, which she sent to all members.  But at least five recipients sent it to me for comment, so here goes.

From: Commission on Dietetic Registration <cdr@eatright.org>
Date: September 29, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM EDT
To: [REDACTED]
Subject: Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post from Academy President Lauri Wright

The September 13 article “The food industry pays ‘influencer’ dietitians to shape your eating habits” does a disservice to the nation’s hundred thousand plus registered dietitian nutritionists by painting broad-stroke misrepresentations about the dietetics profession and its association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Using examples of only seven individuals, the authors imply it is common practice for RDNs to have undisclosed affiliations with food companies and sponsors. This could not be further from the truth. More than 90 percent of registered dietitian nutritionists work in clinical health care, such as hospitals, medical centers and long-term care facilities, as well as in private practice, public and community health, school nutrition and other foodservice operations.

A growing number of practitioners do share their knowledge and expert opinions through social platforms, engaging with online communities and correcting health misinformation (much of which comes from potentially harmful fads promoted by infinitely larger numbers of uncredentialed influencers with much larger followings). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has a strict Code of Ethics — which includes adhering to disclosure rules and guidelines established by the Federal Trade Commission — and has published many articles over the years about the importance of disclosure.

The authors further implied that the Academy is funded by the food and beverage industry, citing a long-since debunked “investigation” conducted by a small group of activists that disbanded six years ago. The truth lies in the facts: The Academy uses an independent advisor to manage our financial investments in all sectors of the S&P 500, and less than 3 percent of the Academy’s and its Foundation’s investments are in the food sector. Further, only 7 percent of the Academy’s revenue comes from sponsorships. This information has always been fully transparent to the public through our annual reports.

All this information was provided to the Post reporters in advance of the story, but unfortunately the writers elected to mislead their readers with a false narrative implying that non-disclosure of sponsorships is rampant in our profession. Speaking for Academy members who abide by our Code of Ethics, we expected the Post to abide by a higher journalistic standard as well.

Oh dear.  The cozy relationship between AND members and food companies is something I’ve written about extensively in my books, Food Politics and, more recently, Unsavory Truth.  

I’ve also written about the Academy’s conflicted interests on this site, most recently here.

And then there is Michele Simon’s deep dive into the Academy’s relationships with sponsors from a decade ago.

Here’s what President Wright’s defensive letter does not say:

• We apologize for the unethical behavior of some of our members and will immediately take steps to make sure no member does this again.
• Non-disclosure of sponsorship is grounds for dismissal from the Academy.
• We will strengthen our policies to make clear that the Academy will not tolerate such non-disclosure.
• We will insist not only of disclosure of paid posts, but also disclosure of the name of the sponsor.
• To make sure members fully understand what is at stake, we are providing guidelines for ethical disclosure and illustrations of what and what is not appropriate.

For your amusement, one reader sent me an Instagram example of full disclosure from Gwyneth Paltrow (who is not, to my knowledge, an AND member)—clearly labeled as a paid partnership with Copperfit.  You have to be logged in to Instagram to open the link.

I’m always surprised when the nutrition community opposes evidence for the association of ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes.

I read an article about such opposition from the British Nutrition Foundation.

Bridget Benelam, a BNF spokesperson, explained: For many of us when we get home after a busy day, foods like baked beans, wholemeal toast, fish fingers or ready-made pasta sauces are an affordable way to get a balanced meal on the table quickly. These may be classed as ultra-processed but can still be part of a healthy diet.

I looked up the position statement of the British Nutrition Foundation.

At present, the British Nutrition Foundation believes that due to the lack of agreed definition, the need for better understanding of mechanisms involved and concern about its usefulness as a tool to identify healthier products, the concept of UPF does not warrant inclusion within policy (e.g. national dietary guidelines).

I also looked up its “Why trust us?” statement.

Our funding comes from: membership subscriptions; donations and project grants from food producers and manufacturers, retailers and food service companies; contracts with government departments; conferences, publications and training; overseas projects; funding from grant providing bodies, trusts and other charities.  Our corporate members and committee membership are listed on our website and in our annual reports.

With some diligent searching, I did indeed manage to find the list of corporate members.

Front group anyone?  Take a look.

Aldi Stores Ltd https://www.aldi.co.uk/corporate-responsibility

Associated British Foods www.abf.co.uk

Arla www.arlafoods.co.uk

ASDA Stores Ltd www.asda.com

British Sugar plc www.britishsugar.co.uk

Cargill Inc www.cargill.com/

Coca Cola www.coca-cola.co.uk

Costa Coffee www.costa.co.uk

Danone Ltd www.danone.com/en

Ferrero www.ferrero.co.uk

General Mills www.generalmills.co.uk

Greggs plc www.greggs.co.uk

Innocent Drinks Ltd http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. www.iff.com

J Sainsbury Plc www.sainsburys.co.uk

Kellogg Europe Trading Ltd www.kelloggs.co.uk

Kerry Taste & Nutrition www.kerrygroup.com

KP Snacks Limited www.kpsnacks.com

Lidl GB www.lidl.co.uk

LoSalt www.losalt.com/uk

Marks and Spencer plc www.marksandspencer.com

Mars UK Ltd www.mars.com

McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd www.mcdonalds.co.uk

Mitchells & Butlers www.mbplc.com

Mondelez International www.mondelezinternational.com

National Farmers’ Union Trust Company Ltd www.nfuonline.com/home

Nestlé UK Ltd www.nestle.co.uk

Nestlé Nutrition www.smahcp.co.uk

Nomad Foods Europe www.iglo.com

PepsiCo UK Ltd  www.pepsico.co.uk

Pladis www.pladisglobal.com

Premier Foods www.premierfoods.co.uk

Quorn www.quorn.com

Slimming World www.slimmingworld.co.uk

Sodexo https://uk.sodexo.com

Starbucks www.starbucks.co.uk

Subway UK & Ireland https://www.subway.com/en-GB

Tata Global Beverages Ltd www.tataglobalbeverages.com

Tate & Lyle www.tate&lyle.com

Tesco Plc www.tesco.com

The Co-operative Group Ltd www.co-operative.coop

Uber Eats www.ubereats.com/gb

UK Flour Millers www.ukflourmillers.org

Waitrose & Partners www.waitrose.com

Weetabix www.weetabix.co.uk

Whitbread www.whitbread.co.uk

Wm Morrisons Supermarkets plc www.morrisons.co.uk

Yakult www.yakult.co.uk 

 

Sustaining Members

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board www.ahdb.org.uk

ASDA Stores Ltd www.asda.com

Associated British Foods www.abf.co.uk

Coca-Cola Great Britain and Ireland www.coke.com

Danone UK Ltd www.danone.co.uk www.h4hinitiative.com

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. www.iff.com

J Sainsbury plc www.sainsburys.co.uk

Kellogg Europe www.kelloggs.co.uk

Marks and Spencer plc www.marksandspencer.com

Mondelez International www.mondelezinternational.com

Nestlé UK Ltd www.nestle.com

PepsiCo UK Ltd www.pepsico.com www.walkers.co.uk www.quakeroats.co.uk www.tropicana.co.uk

Tate & Lyle www.tateandlyle.co.uk

Tesco www.tesco.com

Sustaining members agree to provide a donation to the British Nutrition Foundation for at least three years to support our wider charitable work focussing on consumer education, and engagement with the media, government, schools and health professionals.