Currently browsing posts about: School-food

My email inbox last week was full of notes from people  who did not want me to miss the latest school food news: Lunchables—the prototypical ultra-processed meals, some made for kids—can now be sold and fed in schools (thanks Will Rosenzweig).

Starting this year, school administrators will be able to buy two different Lunchables offerings for the 2023-2024 school year: Turkey and Cheddar Cracker Stacker and Extra Cheesy Pizza, Kraft Heinz spokesperson Jenna Thornton told NBC News…the two Lunchables now meet National School Lunch Program guidelines and “have a specialized recipe that incorporates more protein and whole grains,” “reduced saturated fat and sodium, and an increased serving size.”

Supposedly, the meals have been modified—heIngredient list regular Lunchables cheese pizzare’s what Lunchables Turkey & Cheddar looks like—to meet USDA standards for school meals.

According to the accountof this  in The Guardian,

Kraft Heinz executive vice-president Carlos Abrams-Rivera said the company has produced two new varieties of specially formulated Lunchables containing “improved nutrition” so that they can become part of the National School Lunch program, which provides lunch daily to nearly 30 million students across the US.

I wanted to see an ingredient list.  Do they meet the NEW nutrition standards recently proposed by the USDA?

• I searched for Nutrition Facts and ingredient lists for these products but could not find them online.
• I called the consumer hotline at Kraft/Heinz.  After about 20 minutes of searching, the representative told me she did not have that information and I would have to get it from a school food salesperson.
• Calls to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service also did not turn up the basic nutition information (thanks Jerry Mande).
• Neither did calls to New York City’s school food people (thanks Pam Koch).

But then a reader sent me the Kraft/Heinz “sell sheet” (thanks Alexina Cather):

She then followed up by sending me these documents (thanks Alexina)

• Ingredient list regular Lunchables cheese pizza
• Product reformulation for the school lunch cheese pizza
• Ingredient list regular Lunchables turkey & cheddar
• Product reformulation for the school lunch turkey & cheddar

That reader also sent Nutrition Facts panels for the school lunch cheese pizza (330 calories) and the school lunch turkey & cheddar (270 calories).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gulp.  Nutritionism in action: if it meets standards for salt and sugar, it’s OK?  I don’t think so.

It’s still ultra-processed.  How about serving kids real food?

School-based Lunchables raise the question: is a slightly better-for-you product necessarily a good choice?

Not in this case.

The entire idea of reformulated branded products is just plain wrong.

Why?  Because these products are advertisements for the brand’s regular offerings.  Nobody explains this better than Michael Moss in this short video.

 

 

Thanks again to Will Rosenzweig, Jerry Mande, Alexina Cather, Pam Koch, and Michael Moss for all the help with this.

*******

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

The USDA is trying to improve nutrition standards for school meals.  I wish it the best of luck.

It is proposing over the next several years to:

• Limit added sugars in certain high-sugar products and, later, across the weekly menu;
• Allow flavored milk in certain circumstances and with reasonable limits on added sugars;
• Incrementally reduce weekly sodium limits over many school years; and
• Emphasize products that are primarily whole grain, with the option for occasional non-whole grain products.

This does not make it sound as if USDA is in much of a hurry.  Or that it is doing anything particularly radical.

Take the sugar proposals, for example.  Currently, the re are no limits on sugars in school meals, which means that any limits ought to be an improvement.  The USDA proposal sugar limits in two phases:

1. Product-based limits: Beginning in school year (SY) 2025-26, the rule proposes limits on products that are the leading sources of added sugars in school meals:
   1. Grain-based desserts (cereal bars, doughnuts, sweet rolls, toaster pastries, coffee cakes, and fruit turnovers) would be limited to no more than 2 ounce equivalents per week in school breakfast, consistent with the current limit for school lunch.
   2. Breakfast cereals would be limited to no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce. This would apply to CACFP [Child and Adult Care Food Program] as well, replacing the current total sugars limit.
   3. Yogurts would be limited to no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces.
   4. Flavored milks would be limited to no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces for milk served with school lunch or breakfast. For flavored milk sold outside of the meal (as a competitive beverage for middle and high school students), the limit would be 15 grams of added sugars per 12 fluid ounces.
2. Overall weekly limit: Beginning in SY 2027-28, this rule proposes limiting added sugars to an average of less than 10% of calories per meal, for both school breakfasts and lunches. This weekly limit would be in addition to the product-based limits described above.

Sugary products will still be allowed.  And schools have 4-5 years to comply (by that time, today’s elementary school children will be in high school).

Why the pussy-footing?  The USDA must be expecting ferocious pushback, and for good reason.  Anything, no matter how small, that threatens sales of foods commonly sold in schools will incite fights to the death.

• The dairy industry is gearing up to complain about restrictions on chocolate milk, which accounts for substantial revenues.
• The industry-funded School Nutrition Association, which represents school food serrvice personnel, strongly opposes the proposals, deeming them “unachievable.”

This, of course, was  precisely the reaction to Obama Administration immprovements to school meals, most of which were implemented with little difficulty.  Even so, Congress yielded to lobbying pressure and caved in on rules about potatoes, ketchup (a vegetable!), and whole grains.

I will never understand why everyone isn’t behind healthier foods for kids, but I’m not trying to get them to eat junk food.

As for why school meals matter so much to kids’ health, see Healthy Eating Research: Rapid Health Impact Assessment on Changes to School Nutrition Standards to Align with 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

• Download the full report here.
• Download the executive summary here.
• Read the Press Release.

As for the gory details of the USDA’s proposals, see:

• Details of the proposed standards
• Comparison Chart: Current Standards vs. Proposed Standards
• Infographic: Proposed Rule for School Meal Standards
• Infographic: Proposed Timeline for Implementation
• Infographic: The Road Ahead – Building Back Better with School Meals
• Media Toolkit

Care to say something about this? FNS encourages all interested parties to comment on the proposed school meal standards rule during the 60-day comment period that begins February 7, 2023.

*******

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.

TODAY: 3:30 pm, lecture followed by a reception.  Robertson Auditorium, Mission Bay Conference Center, 1675Owens Street Unit 251.  Register here.

**********

FRAC, the Food Research & Action Center, emailed this press announcement:   FRAC and More Than 30 National Organizations Urge Senators to Include Provisions to Expand Community Eligibility in Child Nutrition Reauthorization

The groups signed a letter calling for:

• Lowering the eligibility threshold for community eligibility (making school meals universal) from 40 percent identified students to 25 percent
• Raising the federal reimbursement so participating schools can serve students
• Creating a statewide community eligibility option, which would make universal school meals statewide.

Yes!

Here’s what FRAC says about community eligibility:

Community eligibility allows high-need schools to offer free meals to all students at no charge. It reduces administrative work for school districts; allows them to focus on providing healthy and appealing meals to students; supports working families who don’t qualify for free school meals; ensures that all students have the nutrition they need to learn and thrive; and eliminates unpaid school meal fees…Studies have shown participation in school meals improves students’ attendance, behavior, and academic achievement, and reduces tardiness. Students who eat breakfast at school perform better on standardized tests than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at home, and have improved scores in spelling, reading, and math.

We had universal school meals during the pandemic.  This was:

• Good for students and their families; kids were fed decently
• Good for schools; the didn’t have to police and stigmatize kids whose families couldn’t pay for meals

Universal school meals would save administrative costs.  Yes, they would cost more, but not that much more.

And the payoff in kids’ health would be terrific.

This one is a no brainer.

Do it, please.

***********

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

 

 

 

TODAY: San Francisco, Omnivore Books on Food, 3885 Cesar Chavez at Church.  Information is here.

*********

I was happy to see this press release from the USDA: Biden-Harris Administration Invests $80 Million to Improve Nutrition in School.

School districts can use the funds to purchase upgraded equipment that will support:

• Serving healthier meals, including those sourced from local foods;
• Implementing scratch cooking;
• Establishing or expanding school breakfast;
• Storing fresh food;
• Improving food safety.

This adds to what this administration is already doing for school meals.  It’s an impressive list.

What’s next?  Universal school meals, please.

***********

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

 

 

 

At the request of Congress, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has just released “Added Sugars in School Meals and Competitive Foods.”  The report itself is at this link.

The idea was to find out whether schools were meeting the 10% standard: meals and snacks were not to exceed 10% of calories from added sugars.

Note: the 10% is meant to be a ceiling, not a floor.

The report’s Key Findings

• Practically all—92%—of school breakfasts had 10% or more of calories from added sugars.
• The majority of schools—69%—served lunches with 10% percent or more calories from added sugars.
• The main source of added sugars in school meals is flavored (e.g., chocolate) fat-free milk; this contributed 29% of the added sugars in breakfasts and 47% in lunches.
• Of the 10 most popular a la carte food items available at breakfast, 6 exceeded the 10% maximum for added sugars.
• Of the 10 most popular a la carte food items available at lunch, four exceeded the 10% maximum.

Mind you, this says nothing about sweet snacks and candy used as rewards, treats, snacks, or celebrations in classrooms.

But if you want to know why nutritionists like me would like to see chocolate milk mostly kept out of schools, here’s why.

Marcus B. Weaver-Hightower.  Unpacking School Lunch: Understanding the Hidden Politics of School Food.   Palgrave Macmillan 2022.

I did a back-cover blurb for this one:

Unpacking School Lunch is a wonderfully written, fresh, original, and utterly compelling account of what advocates are up against in getting schools to serve healthier, more sustainable meals to kids.  This book is an absolute must-read for anyone who cares about what kids eat, not least for Weaver-Hightower’s remarkably astute analysis (“unpacking!”) of conservative opposition to improving school food.

And while I was reading it, I collected a few choice excerpts.

Why school food matters:

[S]chool food broadly touches society in ways few other policy realms do, so school food should enjoy wide civil debate…School food (a) affects students’ health, 9b) affects student attainment and achievement, (c) affects teaching and administration, (d) teaches children about food, (e) implicates identify and culture, (f) affects the environment and animals, (g) represents big business, (h) provides a window into educational politics and policy, and (i) impacts social justice.

The key questions:

• I argue, principally, that school food remains so controversial nearly 75 years after becoming federal policy, because the policy’s fundamental political tensions have never been resolved.  The United States still struggles with key debates: whether the government should provide nutritional aid to individuals; whether such aid robs individuals of drive and self-direction; whether federal aid infringes on basic, often religious beliefs about culture, gender, race, and class; whether the government can tell us what to eat; whether support for this program benefits children or corporations.
• We lack, though, a progressive vision within national-level politics to fundamentally rethink and improve school food.
• Why is feeding children different [from everything else in school that is free]?  Why is food somehow seen as a welfare giveaway with moral ramifications and worthy of recriminations?  In a progressive vision of school meals, feeding is part of the infrastructure of schooling and should be as free as the rest of the facility.

This is another terrific book about school food, and it could not be more timely.