Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Congress pushes back on healthier school lunches
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.
Marry Me
Comments
JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago
Can't parents and local school boards work to make school lunches more healthy? Does it really take an act of congress to serve more veggies and fruits and whole grains in student lunches?
I'd rather have Congress be working on cutting all this deficit spending and securing our borders than to be wasting time working on student lunches. This is crazy.
Sequoia 1 year, 6 months ago
No, actually, it does not take an act of Congress to serve more fruits and veggies. Read the article again. You're confused about who is doing what.
The regulations requiring more fruits and veggies were proposed by an executive agency, the Dept. of Agriculture. They would have gone into effect through an agency rulemaking procedure. All Congress needed to do was what it does best: nothing.
The act of Congress in this case was to STOP serving more veggies and fruits and whole grains, at the request of lobbyists from food processors, salt producers and potato growers.
JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago
I am not confused at all. I see the federal government stomping all over things it has no business in getting its nose in, but it ignores or fails in the very few things that it is supposed to take care of.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
It's an existing federal program. The dispute is between the nutritionists in the Department of Agriculture and the lobbyists who want congress to keep their frozen pizzas and frozen french fries on school lunch menus.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
Sequoia, do you believe in a limited Federal government? Even a little bit?
Sequoia 1 year, 6 months ago
Do I believe in limited Federal government? Sure. But, let's face it: the federal legislative powers in the Constitution are quite broad: tax and spend for the common defense and general welfare, and to regulate interstate commerce. Usually, when people talk about "limited government," they mean that the government should not do things they don't like, and I guess I'm the same way. There are a lot of things I don't think the government OUGHT to do, but that is different than saying it doesn't have the power to them.
In this case, I'm actually arguing for limited government. I don't think Congress should have taken action here. The issue is separation of powers. The premise of executive agencies is that they have the expertise to make nuanced policy decisions that Congress shouldn't micromanage. In this case, the USDA made policy recommendations based on a rulemaking procedure (where, I might add, the industries had plenty of opportunity to make their case). Congress over-ruled the agency simply because of lobbyist pressure.
Now, you can argue that the USDA should not be making school lunch menus. You can argue that the USDA should not exist at all. You can argue that the whole idea of government agencies is doomed to failure. But those arguments have already taken place (at great expense) and have already been decided. Congress decided to create the USDA, and give the agency certain powers. It is an executive agency under the White House, so it certainly does not surprise me that a Democratic administration with a professed interest in childhood obesity to do something about school lunches. There is a political process to decide these kinds of things. There are political candidates out there right now who would do the opposite. Again, I just find it ridiculous that THIS is the issue that gets Congress off its duff.
Overall, I favor more local control for schools, and for a host of other government things. But that includes a whole debate about funding and taxes on which I'm sure you're dying to hear my thoughts.
As a philisophical or Constitutional matter, I don't really have a problem with tax dollars going to healthy lunches for low-income kids. That would seem to pass a cost-benefit analysis in my mind.
I think JCLifer makes a good point. I find it painful that Congress cannot rally itself to address 9 percent unemployment in any serious way, but it can spring into action when a few special interests throw money at them.
Sequoia 1 year, 6 months ago
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..."
How is that not conservative? It's in the Constitution! Isn't that what we're trying to conserve? You prattle about "limited government," but do you understand what that means?
The phrase "limited government" means that the Constitution grants specific powers to the federal government. The government has ONLY the powers granted by the Constitution, and therefore the federal government is "limited" to the enumerated powers. This is basic civics, people.
When you see government you don't like, you can't just say "limited government!" That's not what it means. You actually have to get in there and make the cost-benefit argument.
I am conservative. I'm on the side of the likes of Andrew Sullivan and David Frum, who have been trying to take conservatism back from the dogma and know-nothing of "movement" conservatism.
Read your Constitution for yourself. Be suspicious of "movements."
Sequoia 1 year, 6 months ago
What limitations? I'm not ignoring the 10th A. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare is a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. What limitations am I ignoring? Cite chapter and verse, please.
We can argue about whether a particular tax or spending actually provides for the general welfare. But you can't argue the federal government doesn't have the power that the Constution plainly delegates to it.
Keep it coming. I know my Constitution. You're out of your league here.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
hkchas, I believe in personal responsibility. Personal responsibility makes our country stronger and healthier and free-er. How about you?
John 1 year, 6 months ago
Interesting; of all the things presidential we can legitimately attack, we argue against healthStrongier lunch offerings?
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
Really hkchas? Really? Do 6 year olds have parents or guardians? Or are 6 year olds living independent lives, fully emancipated from parental control? Do you really have difficulty seeing that parents are personally responsible for what their child eats? Ever heard of a sack lunch? If a responsible parent thinks that school food is garbage, then the responsible parent sends their tykes to school with a healthy sack lunch. Personal responsibility in action!
This is a Federal government concern? Gee, I wonder why we've racked up $15 Trillion in debt? (And much, much more to come.) Honestly, hckas, this isn't working. The Federal government is broke and our nation is sprinting towards a leap off a cliff. There is no soft landing ahead. We either change direction or we crash. The weak, the indigent, the middle class, everyone, will crash.
The Federal government controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.
As Mark Steyn writes: "America has a looming rendezvous with destiny. You can’t tax your way out of it, you can’t inflate your way out of it, you can’t quantitively ease your way out of it. The only door that leads anywhere is the one marked “Massive Government Cuts.” There is not enough money on the planet for what the Permanent Governing Class is doing. If Americans decline to grasp that central truth, this country will die."
Don't give me the song and dance about raising taxes. That dog don't hunt. Take a pencil and a piece of paper and do the math. Google: number of households earning +$250,000. I did the math and here it is: The Federal government is outspending revenues by about $1.6 Trilllion (the yearly deficit). There are about 400,000 households earning +250,000. In order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning +$250,000 a year by $400,000 a year. Only a zealot would think that is feasible. Come on hkchas. I'm treating you like a grown-up and like a real 3 dimensional person. Do me the favor of thinking this one out.
bluesfan13 1 year, 6 months ago
How does personal responsibility have anything to do with this? The federal government gives money to schools to provide lunches. Shouldn't they (the schools) have to abide by some type of health standard in providing those meals? Your average daycare, preschool, retirement home, etc. is required to abide by similar rules, and they may not even get federal funding. If you're wanting to take a stand or make an argument here against taxation, make one for privitization of schools, NOT for reducing health standards for lunch programs.
Frankenstein27 1 year, 6 months ago
Excellent post. The real problem here school districts accepting conditional spending, then complaining about the conditions.
Frankenstein27 1 year, 6 months ago
I wasn't being rhetorical. The federal government shouldn't be indiscriminatley funding lunch programs. If the school districts don't like the federal government's conditions, they should quit taking federal tax dollars for them. If the lunches were funded entirely by state and local taxes, the federal government has no say.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
Sorry, hkchas, I mis-typed. There are 4 million households earning +$250,000 a year. The remainder of my math is correct.
JMO 1 year, 6 months ago
Like it or not, the federal govenment funds the schools and school lunch programs. If they pay for it, they have a say in what's served. Although it sounds to me like congress should have stayed the heck out of it and let the Dept. of Ag. do the right thing.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
JMO, you just added another compelling reason to get rid of the Department of Education.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
What's the problem with the Department of Education? It's the Department of Agriculture that sponsors the school lunch program and published those regulations. Do you want school lunches simplified to three food groups? Grease, salt, and starch? You don't want kids to have more nutrition and fewer empty calories?
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
hkchas, though my expectations were exceedingly low, I see that I over estimated you.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
tonto_goldberg, if the 5 paragraphs that I wrote earlier isn't enough for you to understand my position then I fail to see how more words from me can bring any greater comprehension to you. My best hope is that you are feigning ignorance.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
evenkeel, your positions were never in doubt. You've simply missed the main point. This is not a question of personal resonsibility or freedom or education. It's a question of whether the Department of Agriculture should direct its school lunch funding to provide better nutrition for kids, or to provide more profits for the food processing industry. There's a secondary question of how much detailed supervision Congress should provide over executive branch agencies.
Frankenstein27 1 year, 6 months ago
Quit calling yourself a conservative. You are a neo-conservative. I am not calling names, I am just trying to make this a more reasonable discussion by properly applying terms.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
Seriously? Those are your priorities? Corporate profits are more important than kids health?
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
No, it is a topic of Federal government nannyism. I do not care one wit if Congress is pushing or the Federal bureaucrats are pulling. It is nannyism. It is the parents responsibility to ensure their child eats healthy. When did you cede your responsibility? I will not.
We have a behemoth government intruding everywhere. There is never any pullback. The ratchet of government only turns one way. Very few people even question it (unless it is about Strip Club restrictions, more on that later). That would take thought. Our citizenry have become statists -- people who accept that their life and work belong to the state. That is anti-liberty. I have no desire to live as a pet. Do you? I think I know the answer so I will ask that you respond this way: One bark if you agree with me or two barks if you do not.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
It's pretty simple but you choose to avoid the issue. I would rather see tax money spent on fruits and vegetables for kids than on tomato paste and salt. You've chosen the tomato paste and salt.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
hkchas, you have expressed many opinions about how businesses should operate, though I strongly suspect you do not have any experience being a businessman and that the prospect frightens you. Are your opinions about parenting and personal responsibility any better informed with real life experience? If so, which Federal department did you call when trying to decide whether to send a PB&J or a ham sandwich with your kids? Surely that is not something you could do without assistance.
bluesfan13 1 year, 6 months ago
So are you fine with schools feeding Cracker Jacks for lunch?
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
There should be no lobbyists for tomato growers. Government overreach begat tomato grower lobbyists.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
Government over-reach? Would you say the same about the lobbyists for the salt, frozen pizza, and frozen french fry companies? It's a shame the vegetable and fruit people don't have more lobbyists.
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
Which Federal department did you call when trying to decide whether to send a PB&J or a ham sandwich with your kids? Did you have it on speed dial?
evenkeel 1 year, 6 months ago
If you could handle the difficult and bewildering job of making a sack lunch for your child, why are you so certain the rest of the population of parents can not? If parents CAN handle it, let's dismantle the bureaucracy and save some tax money. What is it about nannyism that is so attractive?
bluesfan13 1 year, 6 months ago
Then do away with school provided lunches entirely, and the problem is solved. What's so hard to grasp that if you're going to serve "lunch", then it had better be "lunch", not candy?
JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago
Lunches should be a local issue. Get the feds out of our kids' lunch trays.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
It's one of the largest federal aid programs to local schools. Replacement funding would increase your property taxes significantly.
JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago
It is so large and expensive because the federal government is involved in it. If local parents and school boards took care of it, the costs would be minimal. I know my healthy lunch doesn't cost millions of dollars and have all these federal restrictions and regulations on it. Parents could easily make a lunch for their children and we could do away with school lunches if needed. Also, a local church group could step in and provide lunches at a reasonable cost. Not everything in this world needs the might and power of the federal government meddling in people's personal lives and spending so many trillions of tax dollars to get done. The feds have plenty on their plate to take care of. Let parents and folks on the local level worry about feeding their children.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 6 months ago
It's true, one lunch doesn't cost much. In 2009, there were over five billion meals provided for about $12 billion dollars. Those are hot, nutritious lunches with meat, bread, fruit, vegetables, and milk. It's pretty difficult to send that kind of lunch in a sack, and for $2.40. You could send a PBJ and a thermos of soup, but include some veggies and a piece of fruit and then add up the cost.
asb 1 year, 6 months ago
Here's your lunch dearie, now let's pray. Crup! Yes Lifer, each level of government is more expensive than those below it, but also assures a more equitable distribution of resources, a good thing. Example, for Cole county to fund it's public schools' construction, administration, teachers, lunches, extra curricular activities and transportation, your property tax would quadruple, or more. Some counties could do that, Cole could not. Yes, there'd be a savings by handling it all locally, but it wouldn't offset the horrendous costs needed for globally competitive schools. More control = lower quality, except for Ladue, northern Boone, Jackson, parts of Greene, and other counties with wealth. Good teachers would run away. Look at what it costs for Helias, and then imagine adding K-12 and adult education. Sorry, we can't each neighborhood tax themselves to build their streets, it takes the city. What you're really promoting, on purpose or not, is a relentless attack on public education that, while always needing improvement and your direct participation, is the backbone of the middle class. You support dumb and dumber because you listen to the propaganda that says education is the source of the left's strength. Burn the books. Let the poor and middle class be ignorant so the top few can rule with useful knowledge. Very old song, and you're singing it for somebody else against your own best interests.
JCLifer 1 year, 6 months ago
You must have gone to Hogwarts to be able to read my mind and know exactly what I think and why I think it. I don't see much use discussing something with someone who already knows everything.
asb 1 year, 6 months ago
The federal school lunch program was established because poor states, counties and local school districts couldn't afford them and so couldn't compete with wealthier districts. Government lunches are needed to assure a minimum level of nutrition for poor children. Big Ag stepped in and got subsidies and preferential purchase protocols for their cheapest to produce and most profitable commodities, fat, salt and starch - the very things the little monkeys like best - perfect. They now use the typical corporate tack that mandating actual nutrition in lunches is socialist interloping, and get the sad likes of Lifer, Grace and Keel to sing their song. The very first things given as aid to third world countries are healthcare, schools, and food for children. But the hate-the-government-bandwagon, funded by the wealthiest Americans, sings a tune of Let Them Die, Let Them Be Dumb, Let Them Eat Air, Our Kids Get it All, the Poor Can Eat Air, Life it Tough, We Win. Work For a Dime, Everything's Fine, Eat Your Dirt Floor, Here - Have Some More.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID