“Copycat” Junk Food in Schools – Why Is Anyone Surprised?

by Bettina Elias Siegel on July 21, 2014

I couldn’t make it to last week’s School Nutrition Association (SNA) annual national conference (ANC) in Boston, but I closely followed reports coming out of the convention via Twitter and other social media. And one common refrain from some food advocates and reporters in attendance was surprise and concern over the glut of junk food promoted by some food manufacturers at the ANC.

These highly processed foods — sometimes referred to as “copycat” junk food by school food reform advocates – bear all the same logos and brand names as their supermarket counterparts, but are nutritionally tweaked to comply with the USDA’s improved school meal standards and/or its new “Smart Snacks in School” rules.

Kiera Butler, writing for Mother Jones, walked the ANC convention floor and found out that “Yes, Cheetos, Funnel Cake, and Domino’s Are Approved School Lunch Items.”  Here’s a flier she took from a PepsiCo vendor:

Photo courtesy of Mother Jones

Photo credit: Kiera Butler for Mother Jones

And here’s a post from Time magazine (“There’s a Lot of Junk at the School Nutrition Conference“) which features photos tweeted from the ANC by Eat Drink Politics‘ Michele Simon, such as this one:

simon smart snacks ANC

But I have to confess that I’ve been surprised by …  well, the surprise … caused by “copycat” junk food.

To be sure, the new federal Smart Snacks and meal standards are a huge improvement in school food, and the passage of those rules is an achievement that shouldn’t be diminished (or rolled back – ahem, SNA).  But as Michael Pollan has observed of all processed food, “You can tweak it, reformulate it and reposition it ad infinitum,” and that includes rejiggering fat, sodium and whole grain levels to meet whatever standards the USDA adopts for school meals and snacks, no matter how stringent those standards may first appear.

And whatever R&D expenditures are required to reformulate their products, food manufactures are willing to make the outlay in exchange for something extremely valuable:  the opportunity to instill on a daily basis lifelong brand loyalties among a highly impressionable population, i.e., school children.

So it should come as no surprise that Big Food will always find a way to get into school cafeterias.  But it also shouldn’t surprise us that many school food service directors embrace these products.  The chronic underfunding of the National School Lunch Program creates ongoing challenges that highly processed, “better for you” school junk food can help meet.  Such food is cheap, easily stored, requires no labor, is guaranteed to meet USDA requirements and, most importantly, it’s instantly popular with kids, thanks to careful food engineering and billions of dollars in kid-directed advertising to create brand trust and familiarity.  If offered on the meal line, it can boost participation, and if offered on the for-cash a la carte (snack bar) line, it generally results in higher sales than healthier offerings.

But, of course, “copycat” school junk food causes two significant problems.  First, it impedes efforts to redirect kids toward the fresh, whole foods that would better serve their longterm health.  Second, children have no clue that the branded foods being served in the cafeteria are somehow “better” than the standard formulation of those foods, so they continue to receive the implicit message that items like Baked Flamin’ Hot Cheetos (whole-grain rich or otherwise) and Domino’s pizza (ditto) are acceptable, daily lunch fare.  And that’s a terribly destructive lesson that may never be unlearned.

So what, if anything, can be done to get “copycat” junk food out of the cafeteria?  In my opinion, not much at the present time, given the incentives that drive Big Food and some food service directors into each other’s arms, as well as the food industry’s influence over the SNA and Congress.

Nonetheless, I was intrigued by one clever idea to keep “copycat” junk food out of schools.  The Public Health Advocacy Institute (“PHAI”) has urged the USDA to put a provision in the agency’s proposed wellness policy rules that would prohibit companies from using brand names, logos, characters, etc. on school product packaging if those same marketing elements are also used on products which don’t meet the Smart Snacks nutritional requirements.

In other words, because unhealthy fried Cheetos are sold elswhere, none of the Cheetos design elements could be used on the packaging of the school-version of Cheetos.  Thus, Big Food’s ability to use school sales as a brand marketing tool would vanish overnight:

It remains to be seen whether PHAI’s proposal makes it into the final version of the wellness policy rules. Given the huge blow this would inflict on the food industry, I think it’s unlikely.  And even if it does show up in the final rule, it would still take serious commitment on the part of local school districts to adopt and enforce such language in actual practice.  More likely, any local community already so committed to student health wouldn’t allow a lot of  “copycat” junk food in the cafeteria in the first place.

But you have to give PHAI credit for trying.  Because as my school food reform colleague Dana Woldow once memorably wrote, cleaned-up junk food products “are ‘better for you’ only in the sense that it is ‘better for you’ to be hit in the head with a brick only twice, rather than three times.”  Ouch.

Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join over 8,600 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page (and then adding it to your news feed or interest lists) to get your Lunch delivered, along with bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, and stimulating discussion with other readers. You can also join almost 5,000 TLT followers on Twitter, see my virtual bulletin boards on Pinterest and find selected TLT posts on The Huffington Post. And be sure to check out my free video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!”

 

 

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Bettina Elias Siegel

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

Lunch Lady July 21, 2014 at 9:32 am

“The chronic underfunding of the National School Lunch Program …” This. A million times THIS.

When I have only $1.36 to spend on food for school lunch ($0.23 for white skim milk, $0.27 for all-you-will-eat salad bar fresh veggies, $0.10 for 1/2 cup steamed veggie, 40.23 for 1/2 cup fresh fruit, $0.10 for 1/2 cup canned in juice fruit … leaving me $0.43 cents for an entrée that has 2oz protein and 2 servings whole grain rich grain), it leaves many of us no choice but to offer other alternatives to stay in the black.

While I am proud to say my district will be still keeping with the time-space restriction of not allowing any other competitive food/beverage sales to occur outside of our food service sales, many districts are not. Under the new SMART SNACK guidelines, SCHOOL based operations (stores, vending, fundraisers, etc), not just food service operations, will be selling all of these crap to students before, during, and after the school day.

I weep for the fact that many districts around me will now be stocking their school stores with sugarfree Red Bull, low carb Monster, Diet Mt Dew, plus all the snacks Kiera highlighted in her story. Food Service almost has to sell it, too, to compete for business with the school.

All of our hard work in new regulations seemed to be tossed out the window with the implementation of SMART SNACKS.

Reply

Bettina Elias Siegel July 21, 2014 at 9:56 am

Lunch Lady: Are you in TX by any chance? I’m right now in the middle of a post about how TX is going to let our schools wiggle out of the time & place rules and I’m so upset about it. If you’re not in TX, would you mind disclosing your state? You can email me directly if you don’t want to do it in a comment. (Bettina at the lunch tray dot com)

Reply

Lunch Lady July 21, 2014 at 10:47 am

Not Texas … I will email you directly.

Reply

Lunch Lady July 21, 2014 at 9:38 am

I know it is easier to highlight the negative, but Kiera also did a fabulous article on the positive stuff that happened at ANC.

There are a few directors out there that get it … I hope I’m one of those, too!

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/pity-poor-school-food-professional

Reply

Bettina Elias Siegel July 21, 2014 at 9:55 am

Lunch Lady: Absolutely right — and I did share that very story on Twitter and FB yesterday. (For those who missed it, it’s about the FSD in Cincinnati who is doing a fantastic job in implementing the new school meal standards.) And I hope by now TLT readers (including you) know how much I sympathize with all FSDs everywhere. I’ve called your job “one of the hardest on the planet!”

Reply

Maggie July 21, 2014 at 2:40 pm

First – I fully appreciate the positive possibilities – yet I noticed a few phrases in the article that bring up the question about reproducing the success elsewhere (something we’ve talked about before as well).

She “worked with her produce distributor to create affordable salad bars” – some districts might not have that clout. Several grants are mentioned on the Cincinnati food service site. Another director commented about “partnerships with nutrition-education nonprofits”…again, good if you have those resources in your area.

Again, I don’t want to imply that I am degrading what these directors have accomplished and it is inspiring to see what can be accomplished – (yet, aren’t the chicken nuggets mentioned at the end of the article simply one of the copy-cats this post is discussing?) – but, usually the devil is in the details – it seems a district needs someone in the department who has the time and knowledge to find funding and support outside the normal income channels.

I was intrigued by the idea of giving teachers free meals if they ate with the children. I can’t decide how we’d come out on that. Would the teachers go for the free food or would even that not be enough to get them to eat in the cafeteria (which then brings up the topic of the cafeteria atmosphere – yet another piece of this puzzle.)

Reply

Stephanie July 21, 2014 at 9:47 am

Yes, I am always surprised (often of my own surprise!) when this happens. Good news for our school district is that principals can dictate the ala carte items in their cafeteria! I wonder if enough said NO, to better-for-you junk food in their ala carte lunch line selections, what would the outcome be??

Reply

Casey July 21, 2014 at 9:57 am

I agree we should not give junk food companies “the opportunity to instill on a daily basis lifelong brand loyalties among a highly impressionable population, i.e., school children.” Love Dana Woldow’s quote!

Reply

Sally Kuzemchak July 21, 2014 at 10:24 am

“That’s a terribly destructive lesson that may never be unlearned.” Exactly! I am not surprised by this either (of course these companies want to make money) but I absolutely hate the idea of this reformulated junk food. Now the new snack standards end up being all about tweaked fat grams and calories instead of the true intention–which was to provide better quality foods to kids in schools. This isn’t better quality food. This is splitting hairs. Frustrating!

Reply

brittany July 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

I think the non-branded copycat junk food would be an EXCELLENT compromise and I agree that it is unlikely this will become a requirement as it would cut into the junk food industry’s bottom line and free marketing to children.

Reply

K. Burgess July 23, 2014 at 9:34 am

Thank you for this informative article! As a small company (whose founder is a former school teacher) that only sources from trusted suppliers and that has an incredible snack that meets the USDA Standards for Smarts Snack in School as well as being Non-GMO Project Verified, 100% Whole Grain with Organic Oats, Vegan, and Made in the USA Certified it is challenging to be up against these Big Brands! Thanks again!!!

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: