2
Highlights from the Senate Child Nutrition Hearing
By Deborah Lehmann —
I have mixed feelings about what I heard this morning at a Senate hearing on improving child nutrition during tough economic times.
First the good news: Senator Tom Harkin, who chairs the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, has really connected the dots between school meals, obesity and child health. His opening statement at this morning’s hearing stressed that the National School Lunch Program “is perhaps our best opportunity to improve child health and nutrition” and that a significant investment in child nutrition programs would be “a down payment on comprehensive health care reform.”
That’s promising, and I think we’ll see some increased funding for school meal programs when Congress reauthorizes the federal child nutrition programs later this year.
The bulk of the hearing focused on the adequacy of reimbursement rates and the role of competitive foods in the financial success of school meal programs. But I thought the most interesting part was the brief discussion of local wellness policies toward the end of the hour.
Instead of regulating competitive foods, the 2004 reauthorization required school districts to draft wellness policies that would address nutrition and health in the school environment. The School Nutrition Association supported that legislation, but is now calling for Congress to replace wellness policies with one national set of nutrition guidelines that would regulate competitive foods as well as school meals.
The SNA is absolutely right that the Secretary of Agriculture should have the authority to regulate all foods sold at school, not just those eligible for reimbursement. But the language used in the discussion of wellness policies at the hearing illustrated the resistance to meaningful change for school meal programs. There’s a general consensus now that school meals are in need of a nutritional overhaul. But there’s no discussion of making the National School Lunch Program into an educational tool, and not just a hot meal.
Katie Wilson, a school nutrition director in Wisconsin and the president of the SNA, told the Committee that local wellness policies were often poorly crafted. She said that many of the policies “are not dealing with the science of nutrition, they’re dealing with the philosophy of food or eating.”
That’s exactly what’s missing from school lunch programs: a philosophy of food and eating. With the technology we have today, it’s not that hard to reformulate frozen chicken nuggets to meet fat and calorie requirements. Yes, a healthy chicken nugget is better than a full-fat one. But even if they meet some nutritional guidelines, those nuggets aren’t going to teach children how to eat right.
Instead of doing away with wellness policies because they’re heavy on values, Congress should require all districts to draft a philosophy of food and eating and implement it in the classroom and in the cafeteria. That’s how the National School Lunch Program can truly become a positive force in improving child health and nutrition.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Katie, the SNA president says “Wellness policies are not dealing with the science of nutrition, they’re dealing with the philosophy of food or eating.” The “science” of nutrition has been co-opted by the agribusiness and junk food industry that funds her organization! We’ve lost touch with common sense in the decades of low fat and calorie counting. Sorry but a low fat chicken nugget isn’t better than a full fat one. After all, a low tar cigarette is still a cigarette! Building a better nugget is not the answer to declining children’s health.
Building Food IQ in schools thru food based education and feeding kids real food that was made from fresh ingredients that actually taste good is the direction we need to take.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
In Scotland the devolved government has put into legislation the ‘Schools Nutrition and Health Promotion act. It places a duty on all district councils to supply school food that is not only healthy but that meets nutritional standards.
The implementation of this act has not been without difficulty. It has meant the banning of junk food and drinks for school canteens across the country. Young people in secondary schools (aged 12 to 18 years) initially voted with their feet and bought food outside the school gates. In our primary schools (aged 5 years to 11 years) The change has been more accepted and eating habits are changing for the better. Our government has been brave and is working with the major food providers to improve food not just to schools but to hospitals and prisons as well. If the USA is to really see a culture shift then it will take your politicians to make that change a reality. Not only will our councils be providing quality school food that is inspected for standards but they will shortly be providing those meals free of charge to primary aged pupils. Ours a small country but we are really grasping the problem with both hands perhaps their is learning to be shared from across the oceans?