Foods Sold in Competition with USDA School Meal Programs
A Report to Congress
January 12, 2001
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Chairman
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
United States Senate
328A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to provide the enclosed report, Foods Sold in Competition with
USDA School Meal Programs. This report fulfills the request in the House
Appropriations Committee Report (House Report 106-619) which accompanied the
Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. It directed the Department
to prepare a report reviewing the effect that competitive foods may have on the
school meal programs, including information on statutory limits or judicial
rulings that may restrict the ability of the Department to regulate these
competitive foods.
This report makes it clear that the availability of foods sold in competition
with school meals jeopardizes the nutritional effectiveness of the programs and
may be a contributor to the trend of unhealthy eating practices among children
and subsequent health risks. The consumption of competitive foods is of special
concern to those who support the school meal programs since children who
purchase these foods are less likely to eat a reimbursable school meal. This
undermines the ability of the school meal programs to contribute to children’s
health, well-being and academic achievement.
The report includes the positions and/or actions of several professional
nutrition and health organizations, national education organizations and
government agencies that have expressed concern about the prevalence of
competitive foods in schools. Included in the report are the Department’s
recent initiatives to develop healthy school nutrition environments to reinforce
nutrition education messages for children, their families and the community at
large. The report also outlines the statutory and regulatory requirements
related to competitive foods, and describes significant judicial action which
limit the ability of the Department to regulate the sale of these competitive
foods. The report concludes with possible Congressional actions that would
strengthen the ability of
the Department, the States and local schools to develop meaningful competitive
foods policies.
The Department welcomes the opportunity to work with the Congress on these
issues.
Sincerely,
Shirley R. Watkins
Under Secretary
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
Enclosure
Same letter sent to:
The Honorable Richard Lugar, Ranking Republican member
The Honorable Peter Fitzgerald, Ranking Republican Member
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman
The Honorable Thad Cochran, Ranking Republican Member
The Honorable Herbert Kohl, Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens, Ranking Republican Member
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman
The Honorable John Boehner, Chairman
The Honorable George Miller, Ranking Democratic Member
The Honorable Michael N. Castle, Chairman
The Honorable Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Democratic Member
The Honorable C.W. Young, Chairman
The Honorable David Obey, Ranking Democratic Member
The Honorable Henry Bonilla, Chairman
The Honorable Marcy Kaptur, Ranking Democratic Member
The Honorable Larry Combest, Chairman
The Honorable Charles Stenholm, Ranking Democratic Member
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte, Chairman
The Honorable Eva Clayton, Ranking Democratic Member
Foods Sold in Competition with
USDA School Meal Programs
Introduction
This report fulfills the request from Congress in the
House Appropriations Committee Report (House Report 106-619), which accompanied
the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. The conference report
included the following statement:
"The USDA invests a significant amount of money in the
school nutrition programs. The Committee is concerned about the effect foods
sold in competition with the school meal programs may be having on the integrity
of the programs. Specifically, the USDA should review, and include in a report
information on any statutory limits or judicial rulings that restrict the
ability of the USDA to regulate these competitive foods. The Committee urges the
USDA to review the effect that competitive foods may have on the school meal
programs and to report back to the Committee on this subject."
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) shares the Committee’s concern about
the effect competitive foods are having on the nutrition integrity of and
student participation in the school meal programs, and is pleased to have the
opportunity to submit this report.
Definition of Competitive Foods
USDA defines competitive foods as foods offered at school, other than meals
served through USDA's school meal programs—school lunch, school breakfast, and
after-school snack programs.
For purposes of this discussion, USDA will define two categories of
competitive foods:
-
Foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV). These foods belong to
specific categories that are described in Appendix B of the regulations for
the National School Lunch Program. Current program regulations prohibit the
sale of FMNV in the food service areas during the school meal periods [7 C.F.R.
210.11(b)]. The regulations do not prohibit their sale outside the food
service area at any time during the school day. States and local school food
authorities may impose additional restrictions.
-
All other foods offered for individual sale . Regulations do not
prohibit the sale of these foods at any time during the school day anywhere on the school
campus, including the school food service areas. These foods range from second
servings of foods that are part of the reimbursable school meal to foods that
students purchase in addition to or in place of a reimbursable school meal,
such as a la carte sales and other foods and beverages purchased from vending
machines, school stores, and snack bars.
Background
Trends in Children’s Eating Behaviors
A recent USDA analysis 1,2 of the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of
Food Intakes for Individuals (CSFII) noted these alarming trends in children’s
eating patterns:
-
Only 2 percent of school-aged children meet the Food Guide Pyramid serving
recommendations for all five major food groups.
-
Girls, ages 14 to 18, have especially low intakes of fruits and dairy
products.
-
Overall, the percentages of children meeting the recommended number of
food group servings are 14 percent for fruit, 17 percent for meat, 20
percent for vegetables, 23 percent for grains, and 30 percent for milk.
-
More than two-thirds of females, ages 14 to 18, exceed the recommendations
for intake of total fat and saturated fat, but even greater percentages of
children exceed these recommendations among the other age/gender groups.
-
Children’s diets are high in added sugars. For all children, added
sugars – including sugars used as ingredients in processed foods or added
to foods as they are consumed—contribute an average of 20 percent of total
food energy.
-
Non-Hispanic blacks are at increased risk of low or inadequate intakes of
calcium, phosphorous, and vitamin A and are also more likely to exceed the
dietary recommendations for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium intake.
-
Children are heavy consumers of regular or diet soda. Overall, 56 to 85
percent of children (depending on age and gender) consume soda on any given
day. Teenage males are especially heavy consumers of soda, with over a third
consuming more than three servings a day.
-
All of the age/gender groups experienced a shift from milk products to soda
and fruit drinks. The decrease in milk consumption tended to be larger for
females than for males.
Related Health Issues
These trends have contributed to some serious diet-related health concerns:
-
The prevalence of overweight among youth ages 6-17 years in the U.S. has
more than doubled in the past 30 years; most of the increase has occurred
since the late 1970s. Current evidence suggests that childhood overweight
and obesity continue into adulthood.
-
One of the most serious aspects of overweight and obesity in children is
Type II diabetes. Type II diabetes accounted for 2 to 4 percent of all
childhood diabetes before 1992, but skyrocketed to 16 percent by 1994.
Overweight adolescents are much more likely to become overweight adults, with
increased risk for developing heart disease and stroke, gallbladder disease,
arthritis, and endometrial, breast, prostate and colon cancers. 3
-
Failure to meet calcium requirements in childhood can hinder the
achievement of maximal skeletal growth and bone mineralization. Getting
enough calcium in the diet during childhood, adolescence, and young
adulthood, to reduce the risk for osteoporosis later in life is particularly
important for females. 4
Nutrition Contribution of School Meal Programs
Nutrition clearly has a major impact on children—on their health, their
ability to learn, and on their potential for becoming healthy and productive
adults. School meals make an important contribution to the nutrition of
school-aged children. The recently published School Nutrition Dietary Assessment
Study-II 5 indicates that reimbursable meals selected by students
exceed the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) standard for key nutrients.
According to a recently published USDA analysis 1 of the 1994-96
CSFII data:
-
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) participation is associated with
higher average intakes of many nutrients, both at lunch and over 24 hours.
-
NSLP participants have substantially lower intakes of added sugars than do
nonparticipants.
-
NSLP participants are more likely than nonparticipants to consume
vegetables, milk and milk products, and meat and other protein-rich foods,
both at lunch and over 24 hours; they also consume less soda and/or fruit
drinks.
-
School Breakfast Program participation is associated with higher intakes
of food energy, calcium, phosphorous, and vitamin C.
Impact of Competitive Foods on the NSLP and SBP
While studies indicate that the school meal programs do contribute to better
nutrition and healthier eating behaviors for children who participate,
competitive foods undermine the nutrition integrity of the programs and
discourage participation.
Competitive foods have diet-related health risks. With no regulated
nutrition standards, competitive foods are relatively low in nutrient density
and are relatively high in fat, added sugars and calories. When children replace
school meals with these less nutritious foods and beverages, there is the risk
that their daily dietary intake will be inadequate in key nutrients necessary
for growth and learning. And when competitive foods are purchased in addition to
school meals or in large quantities, there is the likelihood of over consumption
and the risk of unhealthy weight gain.
Competitive foods may stigmatize participation in school meal programs.
When the NSLP was established in 1946, it was recognized as a program for all
children. In fact, there were no Federal funds specifically earmarked for free
meals for students until the 1960s. Over the years that view has shifted in many
schools. Since only children with money can purchase competitive foods, children
may perceive that school meals are primarily for poor children rather than
nutrition programs for all children. Because of this perception, the willingness
of low-income children to accept free or reduced price meals and non-needy
children to purchase school meals may be reduced. In the last 20 years, school
enrollment increased 6.8 percent, yet participation in school meals declined 1.2
percent. It is important to note that States with restrictive competitive food
policies—like Louisiana, West Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi— maintain
rates of participation in school meal programs that are higher than the national
average.
Competitive foods may affect the viability of school meal programs. The
increase in the sale of competitive foods with its attendant decrease in student
participation in the NSLP has implications for the overall viability of the
program. While a la carte sales bring additional revenues to school food service
programs, declining participation results in decreased cash and commodity
support from USDA for school meals. This reduction in Federal funds may also
contribute to less interest on the part of schools in maintaining quality school
meal programs that meet established nutrition standards. This undermines the
substantial Federal investment in the program to provide healthful meals for the
Nation’s children.
Competitive foods convey a mixed message. When children are taught in the
classroom about good nutrition and the value of healthy food choices but are
surrounded by vending machines, snack bars, school stores, and a la carte sales
offering low nutrient density options, they receive the message that good
nutrition is merely an academic exercise that is not supported by the school
administration and is therefore not important to their health or education.
Statute/Judicial Rulings/Regulations
The statute and regulations currently in effect allow schools to offer
competitive foods in ways that can undermine the effectiveness of the school
meal programs and discourage student participation.
Statute
Section 10(a) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA), as amended by P.L.
95-166 in 1977, directs USDA to issue regulations relating to the service of
foods in competition with the NSLP and SBP. The law does not provide specifics
about how competitive foods should be regulated, and there is no specific
authority enabling USDA to regulate beyond the food service area during meal
periods.
Section 10(b) of the CNA permits proceeds from the sale of competitive foods
in food service areas during meal periods to inure to the benefit of schools
or student organizations as well as to the food service account. This
wording inadvertently supports the notion that food sales are an excellent way
to increase funds for the schools or student organizations. This puts schools in
the position of competing with their own school meal programs for revenue,
contributing to decreases in student participation in the school meals programs
with the related loss of revenue to support the viability of the programs.
Court Ruling
On November 15, 1983, a Federal court overturned the regulation in effect at
that time prohibiting the sale of FMNV anywhere in the school from the beginning
of the school day until after the last meal period. The court held that
Congressional intent was to prohibit restricted foods only in the food service
area during meal periods. Following this ruling, USDA amended the regulations to
limit the prohibition to the food service areas during meal periods.
Regulations
The broad directive of the law is implemented in Section 210.11 of the NSLP
regulations and Section 220.12 of the SBP regulations. These regulations require
State agencies and local school food authorities to establish such rules or
regulations as are necessary to control the sale of competitive foods. At a
minimum, these rules or regulations must prohibit the sale of FMNV in the food
service areas during meal periods. State agencies and local school food
authorities are authorized to impose additional restrictions on the sale of
competitive foods. However, the regulations do not specify when it is necessary
for States and local schools to establish regulations. Nor do the regulations
require State agencies to take sanctions when a school’s competitive food
practices are found to violate regulatory requirements.
The Changing School
Environment
In the initial years of the NSLP, reimbursable school lunches were the
primary source of foods for students at schools. Today in middle/junior high and
senior high schools, they represent a smaller part of the school food
environment, and this trend is emerging in elementary schools as well. Many
schools now provide increased food options: foods are for sale in vending
machines, school stores and snack bars; and a la carte foods are for sale in the
cafeteria. In addition, the less nutritious options are now available to
students at younger ages than ever before. Long considered a high school
problem, competitive foods are often seen in middle/junior high schools, where
students are particularly vulnerable to peer pressure, and even in elementary
schools, where food preferences are most easily influenced.
The decisions for schools to provide these alternatives are driven by a
variety of factors.
Students’ preferences. One of the biggest challenges school meal
program managers face is the competition with foods that are marketed to
children through multi-million-dollar, glitzy, and sophisticated advertising
campaigns. Today’s students come to school with established preferences for
fast foods, sweetened beverages and salty snacks. In addition, students often
prefer visiting with friends around vending machines or snack bars to standing
in a long line for a school meal and eating it in a crowded cafeteria.
Increased financial demands and limited resources. With increasing
financial pressures and limited resources, schools often put nutrition at the
bottom of the priority list. School food service programs, which were once
regular line items in local school operating budgets, must often be completely
self-supporting. Many schools are compensating for the loss of funds due to
budget cuts by increasing prices for school meals and/or increasing the sale of
a la carte foods and fast food options in the school dining room.
"Pouring rights" contracts. For many schools, competitive
foods, especially carbonated beverages, represent a source of additional income
that can be spent for discretionary purposes not necessarily related to food
service. There has been a recent trend for school districts to negotiate
exclusive "pouring rights" contracts with soft drink companies.6
Many of these contracts have provisions to increase the percentage of profits
schools receive when sales volume increases. This is a substantial incentive for
schools to promote soft drink consumption by adding vending machines, increasing
the times they are available, and marketing the products to students.
Preparation and serving space limitations. As school populations expand
and budgets shrink, schools give higher priority to building classrooms than to
expanding the food service facilities. Food service facilities are often
inadequate for preparing and serving appealing school meals to all students. The
Food Service Equipment Assistance Program, designed to help financially needy
schools buy the equipment necessary to efficiently prepare and serve school
meals, was eliminated in 1981. In some schools, inadequate seating capacity
requires lunch periods to begin as early as 10:00 a.m. and end as late as 1:30
p.m. With inadequate dining facilities and insufficient time to eat, many
students turn to less nutritious foods that are readily accessible in vending
machines and snack bars.
Inadequate meal periods. Another complicating factor in the competitive
foods issue is the pressure on schools for academic performance. In an attempt
to provide additional classroom time during the existing school day, schools—particularly
high schools— frequently reduce the length of meal periods. Many schools
schedule tutoring, club meetings and other extracurricular activities during
meal periods. Consequently, children choose foods they can get and eat quickly—or
skip meals altogether.
Lack of education standards for school food service directors or managers.
Finally, there are no national standards for school food service directors
or managers. As a result, levels of education vary from advanced degrees to less
than a high school education. In Louisiana, which has the highest level of
school lunch participation in the country, a minimum requirement for State
certification as a Child Nutrition Program Director/Supervisor is a master’s
degree in home economics, institutional management, nutrition or dietetics from
an accredited institution of higher learning and specific course requirements in
nutrition.7 Appropriate standards are necessary to ensure that school
food and nutrition professionals themselves understand the nutrition and health
issues associated with competitive foods. Such standards are also necessary for
the professional to handle the varied
responsibilities of the job—such as dealing with multimillion-dollar budgets,
serving as a spokesperson for children’s nutrition needs to the school
administration and the community, and being included as a full partner in the
education process
Addressing Change: Response by USDA and Other Organizations
USDA Initiatives
The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI). In 1995, USDA
launched the SMI to improve the nutritional quality of meals served under USDA’s
NSLP and SBP. Several events during the early 1990s gave impetus to this
nutrition initiative:
-
Healthy People 2000, with national health objectives including
specific objectives for child nutrition programs;
-
The revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which recommended limiting
total fat to 30 percent of calories and limiting saturated fat to less than
10 percent of calories;
-
The Food Guide Pyramid, developed by USDA, supports the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans; and
-
The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) study of 1993 8,
which indicated that students who purchased a reimbursable school meal
consumed more sodium and a higher percentage of calories from total fat and
saturated fat than recommended.
The SMI required schools to meet the following nutrition standards in meals
provided by the NSLP and SBP:
-
School lunches must provide 1/3 of the RDA for protein, calcium, iron,
vitamin A, and vitamin C to the applicable age or grade groups and must also
provide 1/3 of the calories needed by growing children based on the
appropriate age/grade group; school breakfasts must provide 1/4 of the RDA
for the same five nutrients and 1/4 of the necessary calories appropriate
for the age/grade group.
-
School meals must meet the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines
for limiting calories from total fat to 30 percent or less and saturated fat
to less than 10 percent.
-
In addition, school meals must reduce the level of cholesterol, moderate
the use of salt and sodium, and include more dietary fiber.
These nutrition standards do not apply to a la carte foods sold in the school
cafeteria, nor do they apply to other foods and beverages sold throughout the
school in school stores, snack bars and vending machines.
Team Nutrition. To help with implementing the SMI in 1995, Congress
provided funding to establish Team Nutrition for helping schools meet the new
nutrition standards. The major emphasis was first on training and technical
assistance to ensure that school meals met both the nutrition standards and the
cultural and ethnic preferences of diverse student populations. The second
emphasis was on nutrition education that would encourage students to want to eat
the meals. While Team Nutrition develops behavior-focused materials and messages
for nutrition education and training for States, the loss of Nutrition Education
and Training (NET) funding has hampered the State infrastructure necessary to
train teachers and cafeteria staff and to deliver these nutrition education
messages to local schools across the country.
Team Nutrition Materials. USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has used
Team Nutrition funding to develop a comprehensive package of materials that
encourages children to make healthy eating and physical activity choices to
foster their long-term health and well being. These materials help educate
students about what healthy choices are and why it is important to make healthy
choices—and motivate them to change their behavior.
Prescription for Change. USDA recognized that real change must be
initiated and supported at the local level by a wide variety of interested and
respected groups. In June 1999, USDA convened a forum at which school officials,
educators and health experts from around the country had the opportunity to
discuss the role of the school environment on healthy eating behavior and
suggest ways to foster change. More than one hundred persons from the nutrition,
education, medical, academic and business communities attended this forum and
shared ideas and information with USDA officials. In November 1999, USDA also
hosted a medical association roundtable to address the same issues.
Following the medical association roundtable, the USDA collaborated with five
leading medical and health associations (the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Dietetic Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the
National Medical Association and the National Hispanic Medical Association) to
develop a joint statement and "prescription for change" for improving
the school nutrition environment. This list, called the "Ten Keys to
Promoting Healthy Eating in Schools" was released jointly by USDA and the
medical/health associations in June 2000 and is being used by members of these
associations in promoting a healthy school nutrition environment.
Changing the Scene. A second project, called "Changing the Scene: A
Guide to Local Action" is an action kit that was developed to support the
ideas generated by the participants at the 1999 forum. The kit was developed
with the help of 16 groups, including government agencies and professional
nutrition, health, and education organizations. The components of the kit
include a brochure that describes how States, schools and communities can
promote a healthy school nutrition environment, a video, presentation materials
on a CD ROM, and reproducible materials that can be used by anyone in the
community interested in having their schools promote environments for healthy
eating and physical activity.
Responses of Nutrition, Health, and Education Organizations
In recent years, numerous professional nutrition, health, and education
organizations and government agencies have indicated concerns with the
increasing prevalence of competitive food sales in schools and with the impact
of competitive foods on children’s health and on the nutrition integrity and
viability of the school meal programs.
In the early 1990s, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and
the American School Food Service Association (ASFSA) urged tighter
controls of competitive foods and argued that the current Federal statute
regarding competitive foods is inadequate to restrict the sale of foods of low
nutrient value on school campuses.9,10
In 1990, the ASFSA 11 conceptualized the term nutrition
integrity--a guaranteed level of performance that assures that all foods
available in schools for children are consistent with Recommended Dietary
Allowances and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and, when consumed,
contribute to the development of lifelong, healthy eating habits." ASFSA
developed 11 core concepts of nutrition integrity—known as Keys to
Excellence 12. The organization also developed a document, Creating
Policy for Nutrition Integrity in Schools, to encourage local school
districts to adopt a district-wide nutrition integrity policy.13
In 1997, the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Comprehensive School
Health recognized that school nutrition programs in many communities are
expected to be financially independent with little or no local monetary support.
The Committee recommended that school meal programs should serve as a learning
laboratory for developing healthful eating habits and should not be placed in a
profit-making or competitive situation with other food options in schools.14
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has addressed this problem as
well. In early 2000, ADA declared, "it is the position of ADA that the
school and community have a shared responsibility to provide all students with
access to high-quality foods and nutrition services as an integral part of the
total education program. Educational goals, including the nutrition goals of the
NSLP and SBP should be supported and extended through school district policies
that create an overall school environment with learning experiences that enable
students to develop lifelong healthful eating habits." The ADA’s position
statement 15 stressed the importance of its support of a nutrition
integrity policy, citing the definition of "nutrition integrity"
adopted by ASFSA in 1990.
Healthy People 2010 16 recognizes the role of all meals and
snacks at school in the development of eating patterns that have an impact on
overweight and obesity. Objective 19:15, asks for action "to increase the
proportion of children and adolescents, aged 6 to 19, whose intake of meals and
snacks at schools contributes proportionally to good overall dietary
quality."
The issue is also prominent in guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), which include seven recommendations
for ensuring a quality nutrition program within a comprehensive school health
program. The first and overarching recommendation is to "adopt a
coordinated school nutrition policy that promotes healthy eating through
classroom lessons and a supportive school environment." The guidelines also
recommend policies for all food and nutrition activities in schools, including
nutrition guidelines for food and beverages sold in vending machines, school
stores, snack bars, and a la carte items in the school cafeteria; foods sold at
fund-raising events; classroom food used as rewards by teachers; corporate
sponsored nutrition education materials; in-school advertising of food
products; and product giveaways.17
Education organizations are beginning to focus on this issue as well. In
2000, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) adopted a resolution
denouncing the sale of competitive foods and the sale of foods of minimal
nutritional value as detrimental to students’ consumption of school meals and
the development of sound eating habits. In its March 2000 publication,
"Fit, Healthy, and Ready to Learn: A School Health Policy Guide"18,
the National Association of State Boards of Education stated
"students’ eating habits are greatly influenced by the types of food and
drink that are available to them." The association urged that policies
intended to promote healthy eating address all food and beverages sold or served
to students, including those available outside of the school meal programs.
Next Steps
Nutrition has a major impact on the health and education of America’s
children, and USDA’s school meal programs have made a significant contribution
to students’ diets for more than 50 years. The recently released SNDA-II
report demonstrates that schools are making remarkable
progress in meeting nutrition standards mandated by Congress in the Healthy
Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994. However, the study indicates that
students do not always select these nutritious school meals. Additionally, the
SMI First Year Report 19 indicates that the number of snack
offerings is growing in an increasing number of schools. The unrestricted
availability of competitive foods jeopardizes both the effectiveness of the
programs and children’s motivation to participate.
While USDA has been able to develop valuable educational initiatives and
mobilize influential nutrition and health organizations to promote a healthy
school nutrition environment, its efforts to establish an effective competitive
foods policy has been constrained by current legislation. USDA and the Congress
must work together to forge a national nutrition policy. USDA requests that the
Congress consider the following actions recommended by program operators and
other partners to strengthen USDA’s ability—and the ability of the States
and local schools—to foster a healthier school nutrition environment in
communities across America.
-
Strengthen the statutory language to ensure that all foods sold or served
anywhere in the school during the school day meet nutrition standards.
-
Strengthen the statutory language to ensure that revenue from all
competitive food sales throughout the school inure solely to the school food
service account. This is consistent with a recommendation by the ASFSA.
-
Require States to establish reasonable lengths for meal periods.
Congress addressed this concern in the conference report that accompanied
the 1998 Child Nutrition Program's Reauthorization by encouraging schools to
establish adequate meal periods. However, USDA lacks authority to
mandate standards for meal periods, States have not established such
standards, and eating time remains a low priority for many schools.
-
Provide financial incentives to State agencies to establish specific
education and training standards for local school food service directors and
managers.
-
Authorize financial assistance to schools for the purchase of food service
equipment that is necessary for preparing and serving school meals.
-
Include funding for cafeteria and dining space for school meals in any
Federal school construction legislation. This would result in adequate
facilities for school food service personnel to prepare tasty, appealing, and
nutritious school meals; and for students to eat with their friends in a
comfortable environment and develop healthy eating habits.
-
Amend the current requirements for State revenue matching funds to
increase the level of State funding for local school food services. This would
increase the States vested interest in encouraging local schools to provide
efficient, effective school food service.
USDA recognizes that some of these steps have budgetary implications. USDA is
not submitting these as part of a budgetary proposal, but would like the
opportunity to discuss them in an appropriate forum.
References
1. |
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Final report
submitted to the U.S. USDA of Agriculture. Children’s Diets in the
Mid-1990s. Dietary Intake and Its Relationship with School Meal Participation.
2001. |
2. |
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Final report submitted to the U.S.
USDA of Agriculture. Changes in Children’s Diets: 1989-91 to 1994-96.
2001. |
3. |
Pi-Sunyer FX. Medical hazards of obesity. Ann Intern Med. 1993. |
4. |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for school health
programs to promote lifelong healthy eating. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep.
1996;45.1-37. |
5. |
Fox, M.K., Crepinek, M.K, Connor, P. and
Battaglia, M., School
Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II. Final report submitted to the U.S.
USDA of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Cambridge, MA, Abt Associates,
Inc., January 2001. |
6. |
Nestle M. Soft drink pouring right. Public Health Reports. Vol. 115;
Jul/Aug, 2000: ; pp. 308-317. |
7. |
Louisiana USDA of Education. Bulletin 1196. Food and Nutrition
Programs: Policies of Operation. 1995. |
8. |
Burghardt J, Gordon A, Chapman N, Gleason P and Fraker T. The
School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: School Food Service, Meals Offered,
and Dietary Intakes. Final report submitted to the U.S. USDA of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
October 1993. |
9. |
Citizen Commission on School Nutrition. White Paper on School Lunch.
Washington, D.C.:Center for Science in the Public Interest. 1990. |
10. |
American School Food Service Association. Position Statement:
Nutrition Policy for Food Available at School (Competitive Foods).
Alexandria, VA: American School Food Service Association: 1991. |
11. |
ASFSA: Shaping a Healthy Future 1991-1995, Alexandria, VA:
American School Food Service Association. 1993. |
12. |
Keys to Excellence: Standards of Practice for Nutrition
Integrity: Alexandria, VA: American School Food Service Association. 1995. |
13. |
Creating Policy for Nutrition Integrity in Schools: Alexandria,
VA: American School Food Service Association. 1993. |
14. |
Allensworth D, Lawson E, Nicholson L, Wyche J, eds. Schools and
Health. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press. 1997. |
15. |
American Dietetic Association. Local support for nutrition integrity in
schools – position of ADA. J Amer Diet Assoc. 2000. |
16. |
U.S. USDA of Health and Human Resources. Healthy People 2010. Vol.
II., November 2000. p. 19-40. |
17. |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for school health
programs to promote lifelong healthy eating. Mor Mortal Wkly Rep. 1996. |
18. |
Bogden J. Fit, Healthy, and Ready to Learn: A school health
policy guide. A School Health Policy Guide. National Association of State
Boards of Education. March, 2000. |
19. |
Abraham, S., Chattopadhyay, M., Sullivan, C., Mallory, L. and
Steiger, D.
The School Meals Initiative Implementation Study: First Year Report. Final
report submitted to the U.S. USDA of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Rockville, MD. The Gallup Organization. January 2001. |
Back to the top
|