Congress pushes back on healthier school lunches
jkleman79
Posts: 706 Member
WASHINGTON (AP) — Who needs leafy greens and carrots when pizza and french fries will do?
In an effort many 9-year-olds will cheer, Congress wants pizza and french fries to stay on school lunch lines and is fighting the Obama administration's efforts to take unhealthy foods out of schools.
The final version of a spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards the Agriculture Department proposed earlier this year. These include limiting the use of potatoes on the lunch line, putting new restrictions on sodium and boosting the use of whole grains. The legislation would block or delay all of those efforts.
The bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. USDA had wanted to only count a half-cup of tomato paste or more as a vegetable, and a serving of pizza has less than that.
Nutritionists say the whole effort is reminiscent of the Reagan administration's much-ridiculed attempt 30 years ago to classify ketchup as a vegetable to cut costs. This time around, food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools, the salt industry and potato growers requested the changes and lobbied Congress.
School meals that are subsidized by the federal government must include a certain amount of vegetables, and USDA's proposal could have pushed pizza-makers and potato growers out of the school lunch business.
Piling on to the companies' opposition, some conservatives argue that the federal government shouldn't tell children what to eat. In a summary of the bill, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee said the changes would "prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and ...provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of meals."
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.
Reacting to that criticism, House Republicans had urged USDA to rewrite the standards in a bill passed in June. The Senate last month voted to block the potato limits in its version, with opposition to the restrictions led by potato-growing states. Neither version of the bill included the latest provisions on tomato paste, sodium or whole grains; House and Senate negotiators added those in the last two weeks as they put finishing touches on the legislation.
The school lunch proposal is based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.
USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe said Tuesday that the department will continue its efforts to make lunches healthier.
"While it's unfortunate that some members of Congress continue to put special interests ahead of the health of America's children, USDA remains committed to practical, science-based standards for school meals," she said in a statement.
Nutrition advocate Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said Congress's proposed changes will keep schools from serving a wider array of vegetables. Children already get enough pizza and potatoes, she says. It also would slow efforts to make pizzas — a longtime standby on school lunch lines — healthier, with whole grain crusts and lower sodium levels.
"They are making sure that two of the biggest problems in the school lunch program, pizza and french fries, are untouched," she said.
A group of retired generals advocating for healthier school lunches also criticized the spending bill. The group, called Mission: Readiness, has called poor nutrition in school lunches a national security issue because obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service.
"We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program," Amy Dawson Taggart, the director of the group, said in a letter to lawmakers before the final bill was released. "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace."
Specifically, the bill would:
— Block the Agriculture Department from limiting starchy vegetables, including corn and peas, to two servings a week. The rule was intended to cut down on french fries, which many schools serve daily.
— Allow USDA to count two tablespoons of tomato paste as a vegetable, as it does now. The department had attempted to require that only a half-cup of tomato paste could be considered a vegetable. Federally subsidized lunches must have a certain number of vegetables to be served.
— Require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines.
— Require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. The USDA rules require schools to use more whole grains.
Food companies who have fought the USDA standards say they were too strict and neglected the nutrients that potatoes, other starchy vegetables and tomato paste do offer.
"This agreement ensures that nutrient-rich vegetables such as potatoes, corn and peas will remain part of a balanced, healthy diet in federally funded school meals and recognizes the significant amounts of potassium, fiber and vitamins A and C provided by tomato paste, ensuring that students may continue to enjoy healthy meals such as pizza and pasta," said Kraig Naasz, president of the American Frozen Food Institute.
The school lunch provisions are part of a final House-Senate compromise on a $182 billion measure that would fund the day-to-day operations of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Both the House and the Senate are expected to vote on the bill this week and send it to President Barack Obama
In an effort many 9-year-olds will cheer, Congress wants pizza and french fries to stay on school lunch lines and is fighting the Obama administration's efforts to take unhealthy foods out of schools.
The final version of a spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards the Agriculture Department proposed earlier this year. These include limiting the use of potatoes on the lunch line, putting new restrictions on sodium and boosting the use of whole grains. The legislation would block or delay all of those efforts.
The bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. USDA had wanted to only count a half-cup of tomato paste or more as a vegetable, and a serving of pizza has less than that.
Nutritionists say the whole effort is reminiscent of the Reagan administration's much-ridiculed attempt 30 years ago to classify ketchup as a vegetable to cut costs. This time around, food companies that produce frozen pizzas for schools, the salt industry and potato growers requested the changes and lobbied Congress.
School meals that are subsidized by the federal government must include a certain amount of vegetables, and USDA's proposal could have pushed pizza-makers and potato growers out of the school lunch business.
Piling on to the companies' opposition, some conservatives argue that the federal government shouldn't tell children what to eat. In a summary of the bill, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee said the changes would "prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and ...provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of meals."
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.
Reacting to that criticism, House Republicans had urged USDA to rewrite the standards in a bill passed in June. The Senate last month voted to block the potato limits in its version, with opposition to the restrictions led by potato-growing states. Neither version of the bill included the latest provisions on tomato paste, sodium or whole grains; House and Senate negotiators added those in the last two weeks as they put finishing touches on the legislation.
The school lunch proposal is based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said they are necessary to reduce childhood obesity and future health care costs.
USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe said Tuesday that the department will continue its efforts to make lunches healthier.
"While it's unfortunate that some members of Congress continue to put special interests ahead of the health of America's children, USDA remains committed to practical, science-based standards for school meals," she said in a statement.
Nutrition advocate Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said Congress's proposed changes will keep schools from serving a wider array of vegetables. Children already get enough pizza and potatoes, she says. It also would slow efforts to make pizzas — a longtime standby on school lunch lines — healthier, with whole grain crusts and lower sodium levels.
"They are making sure that two of the biggest problems in the school lunch program, pizza and french fries, are untouched," she said.
A group of retired generals advocating for healthier school lunches also criticized the spending bill. The group, called Mission: Readiness, has called poor nutrition in school lunches a national security issue because obesity is the leading medical disqualifier for military service.
"We are outraged that Congress is seriously considering language that would effectively categorize pizza as a vegetable in the school lunch program," Amy Dawson Taggart, the director of the group, said in a letter to lawmakers before the final bill was released. "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace."
Specifically, the bill would:
— Block the Agriculture Department from limiting starchy vegetables, including corn and peas, to two servings a week. The rule was intended to cut down on french fries, which many schools serve daily.
— Allow USDA to count two tablespoons of tomato paste as a vegetable, as it does now. The department had attempted to require that only a half-cup of tomato paste could be considered a vegetable. Federally subsidized lunches must have a certain number of vegetables to be served.
— Require further study on long-term sodium reduction requirements set forth by the USDA guidelines.
— Require USDA to define "whole grains" before they regulate them. The USDA rules require schools to use more whole grains.
Food companies who have fought the USDA standards say they were too strict and neglected the nutrients that potatoes, other starchy vegetables and tomato paste do offer.
"This agreement ensures that nutrient-rich vegetables such as potatoes, corn and peas will remain part of a balanced, healthy diet in federally funded school meals and recognizes the significant amounts of potassium, fiber and vitamins A and C provided by tomato paste, ensuring that students may continue to enjoy healthy meals such as pizza and pasta," said Kraig Naasz, president of the American Frozen Food Institute.
The school lunch provisions are part of a final House-Senate compromise on a $182 billion measure that would fund the day-to-day operations of the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Both the House and the Senate are expected to vote on the bill this week and send it to President Barack Obama
0
Replies
-
The Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according to the dictates of the local population.0
-
(Sorry Shaun T) THAT's INSANITY!0
-
The Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according tot he dictates of the local population.
This is true.0 -
The Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according tot he dictates of the local population.
This^^^0 -
Sadly, it's true about 80% of what Congress does.
This is true.The Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according tot he dictates of the local population.0 -
Agree with all the above. Even their "nutrition guidelines" do more harm than good. An entree at our elementary schools here is Nachos and Cheese. That is an entree. The federal government needs to butt out and let the decisions be made by the districts, thus the parents whose children are affected by the decisions.0
-
The sad truth is that a lot of kids - especially the most disadvantaged ones - get a significant proportion of their calories from school lunches (and breakfasts). "Healthy" food does no good if they throw it in the garbage, and lots of studies have shown that kids just won't eat healthier alternatives. For many of these kids, we're talking about whether they get enough calories or not - not about whether they get the right balance of calories. The choice is between malnutrition and actual starvation for the kids most in need.
Of course, it is possible to produce meals that are nutritious and palatable to the kids, but the government simply doesn't give the schools enough money to do that. It's another all-to-common example of government mandating something, but refusing to pay for it. Unless they're willing to increase the subsidy, the schools are doing the best that they can with the money they are given.0 -
Good morning wanted to bump this back up for this morning.0
-
The government just loooooves to help those grain subsidies, doesn't it?0
-
This is an awesome company that is promoting healthy eating in kids.
http://www.produceforkids.org/
They also have a "Let's move salad bars to schools" initiative.
Sadly, it is more costly to provide healthy foods at schools, but beyond worth it. Especially because sometimes lunch is the only good meal kids get.0 -
This makes me sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need to use our vote to change things.0 -
Did anyone watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution? He was trying to educate schools, kids and parents about healthy school dinners, but was constantly being blocked by authorities and even banned from every school in LA - presumably someone somewhere had a financial incentive to ensure pizza and fries stay on the menu...0
-
Did anyone watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution? He was trying to educate schools, kids and parents about healthy school dinners, but was constantly being blocked by authorities and even banned from every school in LA - presumably someone somewhere had a financial incentive to ensure pizza and fries stay on the menu...
Some other doofus in the LA school district was lobbying for the school to utilize his company's sugary flavored "milk" promoting it as healthy calcium for the kids. He was also severely overweight.
"Product" or industrialized foods have considerably more business backing than your average stalk of broccoli.
Your vote doesn't do much anymore but money sure talks
0 -
The Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according to the dictates of the local population.
...and perhaps most importantly, each family... although that seems to be a problem too doesn't it.0 -
It is each family's responsibility -- and potentially problem too. But... that does not make it government's problem. I wonder if we'll ever escape their grasp.
tlyThe Constitution does not grant any power over what kids eat or their education to the federal government. They need to butt out and let each state, and then district, handle it themselves according to the dictates of the local population.
and perhaps most importantly, each family... although that seems to be a problem too doesn't it.0 -
I was going to say we need the Naked Chef-Jamie Oliver0
-
I always brought my lunch as a kid - I'd buy milk in the caf in elementary school to drink with my sandwich from home.
I was a healthy kid. I did not have a weight/nutrition problem. While I think schools should have healthier choices, I also
think parents can make thier childs lunch themselves. Why is it ALWAYS someone else's responsibility......? There have been
crappy school lunches since I can remember.... but not the obesity problem of today. Hmmmmm think something else is the cause?
I certainly do.
Who says your kid HAS to eat the caf food? Healthy food costs more - fact. Public schools are on a budget - fact. Send your kid to school with healthy meals and snacks.0 -
Unbelievable... our 'great' nation's greed at it's finest =/0
-
Our nation remains great. It's our representatives that are a disgrace.Unbelievable... our 'great' nation's greed at it's finest =/
* Great username, by the way!0 -
When I was a substitute teacher, I saw so many kids getting free or reduced price breakfast, lunch, and a snack if they were in the after-school program. That's almost all of their food for the day. Like someone said before me, some kids really would not eat if the schools weren't providing the food. Even though it should be up to the parents to provide nutritious meals for their kids to take to school, this sadly isn't the case with a lot of kids in public school systems.
I know I'm going to get poo-pooed as a crazy liberal, but there has to be something better than pizza and french fries EVERY DAY. When I was in elementary school, we only had pizza on Fridays. It wasn't even that long ago, this was back in the 90s. When I subbed at middle schools about 10 years later (recently), kids could buy all sorts of a la carte crap from corporate sponsors....Red Baron pizzas, Hostess snack cakes, etc. With so many kids that have absent and more or less unfit parents, I think it is up to government to at least TRY to get kids to eat healthier. Think about the long run...how is the health care system going to support all these obese people wtih hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease later in life? If you so desperately want to feed your kids garbage, pack them a Lunchable.0 -
I know I'm going to get poo-pooed as a crazy liberal, but there has to be something better than pizza and french fries EVERY DAY.
Darn lib!
:laugh: I kid. Yes, they should be making better quality food. It can be done, on the dime they have. My kid goes to a publicly-funded charter school, and they are using recipes from parents and making delicious, nutritionally sound meals. We still pack her lunch most of the time though.
Let's not talk about the government (and taxpayers) having to foot the dime for health care, especially when it comes to illness brought on my lifestyle choices. :grumble:With so many kids that have absent and more or less unfit parents, I think it is up to government to at least TRY to get kids to eat healthier. Think about the long run...how is the health care system going to support all these obese people wtih hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease later in life? If you so desperately want to feed your kids garbage, pack them a Lunchable.
I do believe that standards need to be in place for food served in schools, but that it should be handled on a local level.0 -
Ok, since some of us can't or didn't read - here's the constitutional issue put to rest. The key words here are "federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children".<<snip>>
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.
<<snip>>
If I hire a band to play my Halloween party, and I want them to play my favorite Foghat song over and over for 3 hours, they kind'a have to do it. I'm paying the piper, I get to call the tune. Literally.
In this case we're talking about federally subsidized meals,,, that means lunches the gov paid for. One side of the government wants the food we buy for poor kids to be healthier, and the other side is fighting for Sysco Inc's right maximize profits by feeding them a diet of fried cheese and empty starch.
No matter what Rush and Glenn say, nobody is trying to take away your G-d given freedom to turn your kid into a beanbag chair with eyes, and Michelle Obama is not trying to dictate what's in your fridge. This is the gov practicing due diligence to make sure that what they support isn't crap.
As a poor kid who grew up on free school lunches I support this - and as a successful adult taxpayer I'm prepared to help pay for it.0 -
I do believe that standards need to be in place for food served in schools, but that it should be handled on a local level.
I think that would be the best option, if we got parents to actually care what they feed their children. :ohwell: I think the recipes at your kid's school is a great idea. Probably tastes a hell of a lot better than that rubbery stuff most public school kids have to eat!0 -
I know I'm going to get poo-pooed as a crazy liberal, but there has to be something better than pizza and french fries EVERY DAY.Darn lib!
:laugh: I kid. Yes, they should be making better quality food. It can be done, on the dime they have. My kid goes to a publicly-funded charter school, and they are using recipes from parents and making delicious, nutritionally sound meals. We still pack her lunch most of the time though.
Let's not talk about the government (and taxpayers) having to foot the dime for health care, especially when it comes to illness brought on my lifestyle choices. :grumble:
ith so many kids that have absent and more or less unfit parents, I think it is up to government to at least TRY to get kids to eat healthier. Think about the long run...how is the health care system going to support all these obese people wtih hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease later in life? If you so desperately want to feed your kids garbage, pack them a Lunchable.
I do believe that standards need to be in place for food served in schools, but that it should be handled on a local level.
Well, let the locals pay for the cost of obesity. The local governement does not give a damn about the health of the children. Many local governments are cutting funding to Education and other programs that are of benefit. Mississippi being the fattest State in the Nations does not give a damn if pizza was served every day. We want the Federal Government to stay out of local government business. However, as soon as there is a diaster we are looking for federal support. I say do whatever it takes to insure the health of those who are not in a position to control how they eat. Adults can make decisions to do better or not but, a child is dependent upon the adults to make those decisions. To be honest some people should not have children. They can't take care of themselves and are failing their children. IMHO!0 -
Ok, since some of us can't or didn't read - here's the constitutional issue put to rest. The key words here are "federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children".<<snip>>
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.
<<snip>>
If I hire a band to play my Halloween party, and I want them to play my favorite Foghat song over and over for 3 hours, they kind'a have to do it. I'm paying the piper, I get to call the tune. Literally.
In this case we're talking about federally subsidized meals,,, that means lunches the gov paid for. One side of the government wants the food we buy for poor kids to be healthier, and the other side is fighting for Sysco Inc's right maximize profits by feeding them a diet of fried cheese and empty starch.
No matter what Rush and Glenn say, nobody is trying to take away your G-d given freedom to turn your kid into a beanbag chair with eyes, and Michelle Obama is not trying to dictate what's in your fridge. This is the gov practicing due diligence to make sure that what they support isn't crap.
As a poor kid who grew up on free school lunches I support this - and as a successful adult taxpayer I'm prepared to help pay for it.
^5 I totally agree!0 -
This.
Ok, since some of us can't or didn't read - here's the constitutional issue put to rest. The key words here are "federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children".<<snip>>
School districts have said some of the USDA proposals go too far and cost too much when budgets are extremely tight. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in the federally subsidized meals that are given free or at reduced price to low-income children. But some schools have balked at government attempts to tell them exactly what foods they can't serve.
<<snip>>
If I hire a band to play my Halloween party, and I want them to play my favorite Foghat song over and over for 3 hours, they kind'a have to do it. I'm paying the piper, I get to call the tune. Literally.
In this case we're talking about federally subsidized meals,,, that means lunches the gov paid for. One side of the government wants the food we buy for poor kids to be healthier, and the other side is fighting for Sysco Inc's right maximize profits by feeding them a diet of fried cheese and empty starch.
No matter what Rush and Glenn say, nobody is trying to take away your G-d given freedom to turn your kid into a beanbag chair with eyes, and Michelle Obama is not trying to dictate what's in your fridge. This is the gov practicing due diligence to make sure that what they support isn't crap.
As a poor kid who grew up on free school lunches I support this - and as a successful adult taxpayer I'm prepared to help pay for it.0 -
I would think most of us here at MFP have found how pizza can be a pretty healthy entree when made well, and potatoes are a whole food with fiber and vitamins and minerals. What's so bad about pizza with a whole grain crust, natural tomato paste, real part-skim mozarella cheese and something yummy like olives, green peppers, onions, etc and those baked crinkly french fries with ketchup containing lycopene? Protein, fiber, whole foods.... pizza and potatoes shouldn't be bad words.0
-
The government already controls too much of our lives. They shouldn't dictate what a child eats, that's what parents are for. If parents don't want them to eat the school-prepared meals then they should pack their own lunch. Simple. We all know it costs more to eat healthy and I for one don't want to pay more in taxes to support the increase in costs the schools would incur. Again, parents should bear this burden.0
-
The government already controls too much of our lives. They shouldn't dictate what a child eats, that's what parents are for. If parents don't want them to eat the school-prepared meals then they should pack their own lunch. Simple. We all know it costs more to eat healthy and I for one don't want to pay more in taxes to support the increase in costs the schools would incur. Again, parents should bear this burden.
Wow! You just contradicted the common belief on MFP that it doesn't cost more to eat healthier. You would rather spend more on health cost for these kids then to do a little preventive. The government doesn't control our lives! I have yet to see the government tell me that I had to attend college, I have to have a child, or I have to be heterosexual. Now, I have seen the "People" trying to force a woman to have a child. But that didn't pass in Mississippi. You don't want the government in our lives but these crazy people can march/protest a woman right. Go Figure!0 -
Please reference where, in the Constitution, it is the federal government's responsibility to provide health care for anyone.You would rather spend more on health cost for these kids then to do a little preventive.
They may not control all aspects of our lives, but they do control things that affect our lives from taxation to ridiculous regulations. If you're interested, I could provide you with some info. Here's one link, for now, with some great info: http://truthisscary.com/2010/11/8-examples-of-how-the-government-is-trying-to-take-total-control-of-our-food-health-money-and-even-our-dignity/The government doesn't control our lives! I have yet to see the government tell me that I had to attend college, I have to have a child, or I have to be heterosexual.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions