Congress pushes pizza, fries in school lunches

In this Sept. 14, 2011 photo, Peter McDaniel eats some fries during lunch at Gardiner High School in Gardiner, Maine. New guidelines proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture would eliminate potatoes altogether from school breakfasts and drastically reduce the amount of potatoes served in lunches. / AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach

WASHINGTON - Congress is fighting to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, picking apart an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier.

A spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards proposed by the Agriculture Department earlier this year, forcing USDA to pull back an attempt to limit potatoes on the lunch line, delaying limits on sodium and delaying a requirement to boost whole grains.

The spending bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. The department's proposed guidelines would have attempted to prevent that.

The changes had been requested by food companies that produce frozen pizzas, the salt industry and potato growers. Some conservatives in Congress have called the push for healthier foods an overreach, saying the government shouldn't be telling children what to eat.

In a bill summary released Monday, 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."

House Republicans had urged USDA to completely rewrite the standards in their version of the bill passed in June. The Senate last month voted to block the potato limits in their version. Neither version included the language on tomato paste, sodium or whole grains, which was added by House-Senate negotiators on the bill.

School districts had also objected to some of the requirements, saying they go too far. Schools have long taken broad instructions from the government on what they can serve in federally subsidized meals that are served 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.

The school lunch proposal was based on 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. When the guidelines were proposed in January, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the effort was necessary to stem the tide of childhood obesity and reduce future health care costs.

Nutrition advocate Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said the changes proposed by Congress will prevent schools from serving a wider array of vegetables. Children already get enough pizza and potatoes, she says. It would also slow efforts to make pizzas — a longtime standby on school lunch lines — healthier, with whole grain crusts and lower levels of sodium.

"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. 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 members of Congress before the final plan was released. "It doesn't take an advanced degree in nutrition to call this a national disgrace."

The school lunch provisions are part of a final House-Senate compromise on a $182 billion measure 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.

[ericbwoo]

What's up with the guy saying they don't want Obama deciding what kids eat? Pretty sure it's the school deciding what children now, right? So.. it's a question of how healthy the foods be that schools serve. And what is the objection to the healthier foods? Oh.. lobbying for salt industry? Gotcha.. because we should care what they think. They have the best interest of those kids in mind.

[Freepress1111]

Seems pretty simple- elect Democrats, the country moves forward. Elect Republicans, the country moves backwards.

[bckrd1]

My mother was talking to me about this Dr Burzynski yesterday. How he is being discredited by those who don't want his treatment out on the open market. Big pharma is only big if it keeps us sick.

[bckrd1]

Thank God the Republicans care about the kids in this country. They want to make sure every viable fetus makes it to term so they can slowly kill it through poor nutrition. What a plan. What geniuses.

[ericbwoo]

LOL... goodness. Well put. :) I can't stop laughing.

[mom_of_twins]

There is a distinct lack of understanding about food insecurity in children. Foodstamp allotments are designed to provide food for kids each and every day, even if they do not attend school. Subsidized breakfasts and lunches are a bonus for these families. The issue concerning food insecurity is that the parent(s)do not use the food stamps properly to feed their children. Many simply do not provide the food to their children, choosing instead to share their benefits with others in exchange for perks. Some parents are on drugs and don't prepare food. There are any number of reasons parents don't provide the food benefits to their children. None of them are acceptable.

Free school meals fill in the gaps for those children in disfunctional and neglectful home. If the food is not appealing and flavorful, they will most likely toss it and drink the milk/eat the dessert. How many adults are willing to eat the yummy school lunches provided at public schools--especially if you take away the pizza/hamburger/hot dog with fries option. Most schools cannot provide the peanut butter and jelly sandwich to their students because of the peanut allergy accomodation. How about salads without high fat dressing--yummy! Perhaps daily gym class and recess would be another direction we could take. Keeping our children in classes longer with less recess and drugging them to be like zombies may have more impact on their fitness than the food.

[chunkylover54]

Is it not obvious that there is no need to have the federal government involved in school cafeterias? We have local school administrations and state departments of education. Isn't lunch something they can handle just fine on their own? The federal government manages to insert itself into the most minute decisions made by small businesses and local governments through regulations and the dangling of grant money. They are drunk on their own power and obsessed with having control over every activity that takes place in this country.

[ericbwoo]

No. It is obvious the gov't DOES need to be involved because the food industry with the right hook-ups look to make huge profits off these lunches by pushing the cheapest, unhealthiest food possible. If the food industry did show responsibility and care for these kids, then they wouldn't get involved. But as usual, money comes first.

[SeanVerchick]

This is exactly why we made the movie "Lunch Hour: America's School Lunch Program". See the trailer of the upcoming documentary now at www.lunchhourmovie.com

[Jaylah54]

by stm128 November 15, 2011 1:21 PM EST
If parents don't want their kids eating what is being served then they should prepare them a lunch to take to school.

___________________________

And what about the parents who can't afford to prepare their kids a (healthy) lunch, so those kids end up eating a reduced-price or free lunch at school, and that lunch may be the only meal they get.

Don't you think we probably ought to make sure that at least that meal is nutritious and not just filled with junk food?

[Jaylah54]

This reminds me of the whole "ketchup is a vegetable" debate we went through in the Reagan years. Of course, ketchup is made from tomatoes, but it's also about half-sugar.

But the real point is that, when 40%+ of our school-aged children are "food insecure" (meaning being unable to reliably get enough food for healthy living), and thus eligible for either reduced price or free school meals, we don't need to be feeding them empty calories at school. They'll get enough of that at home.

For far too many children, the meals they eat at school are the ONLY meals they get, and they end up going hungry on weekends unless some volunteer organization sets up a weekend meal program for them.

Yes, pizza *can* be a healthy menu item. If it is made with whole grain (thin) crust, not a lot of (sodium laden) meats and cheese on it, but plenty of vegetable toppings. However, that's not the kind of pizza that most kids want to eat. Most schools serve "pan" pizza (the white-flour crust is cheap and filling) and don't top it with anything but cheese.

And French fries ... give me a break! We turn up our noses at all those folks that spend their food stamps on potato/tortilla chips and eat at McDonalds when they manage to scrape a few dollars together, but we're okay with serving kids French fries in school lunches? Really??

Honestly, who are we going to listen to here? The food lobbyists who are only concerned about their bottom line? Or reputable nutritionists with scientific studies to back their claims that diets high in starch, fat, and sodium are health risks for everybody, and children in particular?

I get the whole "government getting involved in too much" idea, but if school districts don't take care of serving healthy meals to students on their own, then *somebody* has got to step in, and who better?

[chunkylover54]

You're a busybody and you don't need to worry about forcing everyone to eat according to your rules. Whom do you think a parent has more of an ability to influence - the local school board or Michelle Obama/Congress/Department of Education? I'll take my chances with the local school district setting policy than the federal government, which can't run anything well.

[foo8259]

It just shows the power of the food lobby which has successfully pushed low-fat, high-sugar and so called "healthy grains" for years. Now we have epidemic obesity and type II diabetes. It's a national tragedy. Food recommendations should be based on current research -- not politics.