Currently browsing posts about: School-food

FDA has announced a joint research initiative with NIH

Under the new Nutrition Regulatory Science Program, the FDA and NIH will implement and accelerate a comprehensive nutrition research agenda that will provide critical information to inform effective food and nutrition policy actions to help make Americans’ food and diets healthier. The initiative will aim to answer questions such as:

• How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?
• How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?
• What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?

This sounds terrific —and I’m all for all of this.

An article about it in JAMA, of all places, raises some concerns.  It quotes Jerry Mande,

The bad news, he noted, is that the announcement may follow a recent pattern within the federal government of unveiling an initiative but providing few details on how it will be executed. The April press conference held by the HHS and the FDA on eliminating synthetic food dyes is one such example, in his view.

It also quotes me as noting that the announcement is short on detail and even shorter on timeline.

The food industry is in a difficult position…Ultraprocessed foods are among their most profitable, and food companies consider the ability to market to children to be essential to their business models. They could voluntarily start making and marketing healthier products and reducing unhealthy ingredients, but experience tells us that they won’t do this unless forced.

MAHA has now issued requests for proposals on two initiatives.

I.  A Research Study of Contaminants in School Meals

This pilot study supports a comprehensive, FDA-led initiative aimed at evaluating the toxicological safety and nutritional quality of meals served in all schools that actively participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), including both public and nonprofit private schools…Schools must be equipped to engage in structure intervention activities and collaborate with a partner to support the transition to minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed.

The goals of this funding opportunity

1. Identify contaminants (e.g., heavy metals) present in school meals.
2. Promote whole food offerings and minimize the use of foods commonly considered ultra-processed,
3. Measure potential changes in contaminant levels and nutritional content pre- and post-intervention.

Yes, let’s give kids real foods in school, preferably and whenever possible cooked from scratch.  But,

• Are heavy metals a problem in school meals?  What other contaminants are of concern?  Why?
• How are schools to increase whole food offerings when the administration has cancelled the farm-to-school program?
• Will schools be given the additional funds needed to pay for whole foods and the staff to cook them?

The offer is for grants of about $2 million each.  The timeline for submission is short (check the links for how to submit and by when).

The FDA sent further information to applicants.

It also sent an FAQ.

Comment: I have a nagging suspicion that what this is really about is a push to substitute “cleaner” products for current products used in schools.  This is a concern because so many of the people now associated with HHS sell “clean” products and, no doubt, would love to sell them in schools.  Substituting one product for another will not solve the single major problem faced by school meal programs: lack of adequate funding for personnel, equipment, and fresh food.

II.  Take Back Your Health Campaign

Purpose:  The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes.

Scope: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will launch a series of bold, edgy national campaigns with innovative messaging to inspire and empower Americans to reclaim control over their health. This initiative will challenge individuals to adopt disciplined, lifelong habits—centered on eating real food, physical fitness, and spiritual growth—to build a healthier, stronger nation.

As Stat News puts it, HHS plans ‘bold, edgy’ campaign on ultra-processed foods and diabetes. 

The campaign, estimated to cost between $10-20 million, will urge Americans to shift their behaviors and see health wearables as ‘cool’.  The call for pitches was posted on the evening of June 12, with a swift deadline of June 26. It asks not only for “daring, viral messaging to motivate behavior change” but for campaigns that specifically “popularize technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your health.” Surgeon general nominee Casey Means’ health tech company, Levels, uses continuous glucose monitors and lab testing to help people track their health.

Comment: Oh dear.  Personal responsibility.  Never mind that the MAHA Commission report clearly identified environmental factors as responsible for epidemic chronic disease.  Neither of these initiatives gets at changing the “toxic” food environment.  To really do that, MAHA would need to stop food industry marketing of ultra-processed foods, especially to children.  And to get at other environmental causes of poor health, especially for children, it would need to take on the cigarette industry, the gun lobby (guns are a leading cause of kids’ deaths), and the industries that dump chemicals into the water and food supplies.

I’m totally for educating people about healthy diets, eating real food, and physical fitness.  But education is not enough to change behavior.  Education has to be backed up by policy.

Where’s the policy?  For that, we must wait for the next MAHA Commission report, due out in August.  Stay tuned.

The Chef Ann [Cooper] Foundation has issued This report.

The report, while recognizing obstacles, explains why scratch cooking matters so much.

To protect and improve children’s health — and to access cascading academic, environmental, and economic benefits — schools must serve students more minimally processed meals cooked from scratch. While most schools want to serve their students more scratch-made meals, their ability to do so is significantly limited by systemic labor, financial, and infrastructure barriers, as well as public perceptions that devalue the critical role school food professionals play in suppporting the well-being of our nation’s children.

Its food policy priorities are well worth attention, especially now when the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is focusing on schools.

Let’s hope the MAHA leadership takes a good look at this report.  Thanks Chef Ann!

________________

Published this week!  Information is here.  Get 15% off with this code: FSGPIC15

The California Assembly has passed a bipartisan bill banning harmful ultra-processed food in schools

California is one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to ban unhealthy ultra-processed foods in public schools under bipartisan legislation approved today by the state Assembly. AB 1264, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, directs the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to define ultra-processed foods and identify particularly harmful ones to be phased out of schools by 2032. The legislation is co-sponsored by Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group.

Whether this will go any further remains to be seen.  The bill sets an ambitious agenda:

The bill defines ultra-processed foods as those that contain one or more certain functional ingredients, including colors, flavors, sweeteners, emulsifiers, and thickening agents. OEHHA would be required to identify ultra-processed foods considered particularly harmful based on whether peer-reviewed evidence has linked the substance to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, developmental harms, reproductive harms, obesity, Type 2 diabetes; whether the substance is hyper-palatable or may contribute to food addiction; and whether the food has been modified to be high in fat, sugar and salt.

I assume this has to go to the Senate and be signed by the governor, so at the moment this is still wishful thinking.

I hope it passes, not least because I can’t wait to find out how its authors think the state will go about identifying the specific foods blocked from schools.

In the meantime, it will be fun to watch the lobbying.

________________

Published this week!  Information is here.

Here is one of the most wrong-headed reports I’ve read in a long time. Cutting School Food Subsidies

The US Department of Agriculture runs a large array of farm and food subsidy programs. The school lunch and breakfast programs are two of the largest, which together with related school food programs will cost federal taxpayers an estimated $35 billion in 2025. Thirty million children, about 58 percent of students in public schools, receive school food benefits. The original goal of the school lunch and breakfast programs was to tackle hunger, but the main nutrition problem for children today is not inadequate calories but excessive consumption of unhealthy foods and obesity. Hence, subsidizing school food is an outdated use of federal dollars. Congress should repeal school food programs to reduce budget deficits and hand power back to the states. State and local governments should decide what sort of school food policies to adopt for their own residents.

Oh great.

I have a completely different take on this.

School meals are demonstrably healthier that a lot of food offered to kids these days.  The biggest problem with school meals is that they don’t serve enough children.  During the pandemic, when school meals were universal, kids and their families did better.

If the problem with school meals is too much unhealty food, the remedy is straightforward: make the meals healthier and give schools enough money to do that.

Fortunately, some states require universal school meals.  They all should do that.

The Cato report should be understood for what it is: an attempt to cut budget for social programs.

Kevin Morgan.  Serving the public: The good food revolution in schools, hospitals and prisons.  University of Manchester Press, 2025.  

I did a blurb for this book:

In Serving the Public, Kevin Morgan describes the political, economic, and social causes of appallingly unhealthful and disrespectful institutional feeding programs in schools, hospitals and prisons, and the human and societal consequences of such programs, in both theory and practice.  His book provides compelling examples and arguments for why and how we can–and must–do better.

Much of the book describes situations in the UK—Morgan is a professor at the University of Cardiff in Wales—but he also draws on U.S. examples (and cites my work).  Here is why he thinks public nutrition matters.

But perhaps the main danger of personalised nutrition apps…is that they fuel the neoliberal belief that access to a healthy diet is a personal and private matter at a time when it is more imperative than ever to affirm the public duty of care that governments owe their citizens, especially poor and vulnerable citizens. Why is it more imperative than ever to affirm this public duty? Because the multiple crises of food insecurity, hunger and a host of diet-related diseases, to say nothing of the existential threats from climate change, are becoming more pronounced in the low-income countries of the Global South as well as in the high-income countries of the Global North.

And here’s another major point:

It is hard to exaggerate the significance of food in prisons. Our diet affects our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing whoever we are and wherever we live. But eating assumes even more importance for prisoners as they may be confined to a cell for twenty odd hours a day – even during mealtimes – and meals help to punctuate a day that otherwise consists of hours of mind-numbing tedium. Eating in prison is a unique experience because prisoners have limited capacity to choose what, where and when they eat, with the result that they lose control over key aspects of their health, their self-esteem and even their sense of identity.

I don’t usually think about these issues, remote as they are from my daily experience.  It’s good to be reminded of the importance of institutional food and why we should do all we can to make it better.

Jennifer E. Gaddis and Sarah A. Robert.  Transforming School Food Politics Around the World.  MIT Press, 2024 (322 pages)

This is an edited volume describing programs and policies to improve school food in the United Sttates, but also Japan, Canada, Peru, Finland, India, Brazil, and South Korea.

Every country does school food its own way.  Only three countries—India, Brazil, and South Korea—have universal school meals, although some U.S. states do too (one chapter explains how states managed it).

Overall, the chapters explain what school food advocates are doing and what works.

If you are interested in school food advocacy, this book is your Bible.

It is especially so because it is Open Access.  You don’t believe this?  Here is a link to a pdf of the entire book.

Even more, the authors wrote a guide to the book with chapter-by-chapter discussion questions, activities, and other resources useful for college classes and practitioner book clubs.  This too is Open Access: here is the link to the study guide.

Enjoy!  And use!

Last week, the USDA issued new rules for the nutrient content of school meals and also child care programs.

These apply to sugar and sodium (nutrients), whole grains (ingredient or food),  and milk (food).

The New York Times report on this cut right to the chase

The Agriculture Department announced on Wednesday that it had finalized the regulation it had first proposed in February 2023, having weakened several provisions after feedback from food companies, school nutrition professionals and over 136,000 public comments.

The Update to the standards describes the changes and compares them to USDA’s original proposals.

• Sugars: For the first time (I’m not kidding), the USDA set limits on sugars, starting with breakfast cereals (6 grams per ounce), yogurt (12 grams per 6-ounce serving), and milk (10 grams per 8-ounce serving).  This allows chocolate and other flavored milks if companies get the sugar down to 10 grams.
• Sodium: beginning July 2027, sodium will be reduced by 15% for lunch and 10% for breakfast from current limits (USDA proposed 3 consecutive reductions of 10% over the next five years.
• Whole grains: no change from current standard (USDA proposed that 80% of grains be whole).
• Milk: Allows flavored fat-free and low-fat.

Comment: The sugar rule is an improvement, even though products still are sweetened.  The weakening of the sodium proposal is troubling.  We badly need to reduce sodium in processed and restaurant foods and need federal leadership for doing so.  USDA caved to political pressure here.  The USDA has a long history of captivity by Big Ag.  Now it looks captured by Big Food.

The food industry complaint is that its products won’t meet these standards.  The school food complaint is that the standards are too hard to meet, the kids won’t eat the food, and it will be wasted.

I have a lot of sympathy for school foodservice.  It’s the only thing going on in schools that has to be self-supporting, and school food programs are hugely underfunded.  And lots of schools don’t have kitchens to must rely on food products rather than real food.

But from what I’ve observed, two kinds of skills are needed for successful school meal programs: the ability (1) to prepare and serve edible healthy food, and (2) to get the kids to eat it.  I’ve seen every permutation.

1. Good food, kids eat it
2. Good food, kids won’t eat it
3. So-so food, kids eat it
4. So-so food, kids won’t eat it

Whenever I hear “the kids won’t eat it,” I wonder where the adults are. From what I’ve seen, if adults care that kids are fed, the kids will eat the food—not all, necessarily, but most.

School food is not just about the food.  It’s about the interactions of school food personnel, teachers, and the principal with the kids.  If the adults think it important and necessary to feed kids healthy food, the program has a good chance of success.  The new USDA standards are a step in the right direction but still have a way to go.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had food standards rather than nutrition standards?  How about mandating numbers of servings of real foods instead of worrying about grams of sugar and milligrams of sodium.

A thought,

Additional Resources

• Comparison Chart: 2023 Proposed Standards vs. 2024 Final Standards
• Implementation Timeline – School Meals
• Implementation Timeline – CACFP & SFSP
• Media Toolkit
  • Infographic: Final Rule for School Meal Standards
  • Infographic: Implementation Timeline
  • Infographic: How We Got Here
  • Video: Rule Overview
  • Video: Added Sugars
• Federal Register notice 

José Tenorio.  School Food Politics in Mexico: The Corporatization of Obesity and Healthy Eating Policies.  Routledge, 2023.  

I was asked for a blurb for this one:

From first-hand observations and deep research, José Tenorio makes it clear that school food in Mexico is about much more than feeding hungry kids; it’s about how food corporations have taken advantage of social inequalities to replace native food traditions with less healthful but profitable products.  School food politics, indeed!

This book may seem specialized, but it is a useful case study in the politics of school food—not confined to the United States, apparently.

Mexico leads the way in efforts to promote healthier diets.  It has  excellent dietary guidelines.   It also has warning labels on food products (see my post on these), soda taxes, a ban on trans fats, and other measures.

Mexico’s schools do not provide meals for kids in schools.  They sell foods at canteens.

The country set nutrition standards for foods sold in schools in 2011, but compliance is not great.

Public health and food advocacy groups support laws to ban unhealthy foods and drinks from schools.  Despite formidible industry opposition, this may actually happen.

This book provides evidence for why it should.