Last week the Massachusetts Public Health Council made news by promulgating, at the direction of the state’s Governor, new statewide guidelines for competitive foods sold in schools. (By way of reminder, “competitive” foods are those foods sold on school campuses outside of the scope of the federal meal program, such as “a la carte” foods sold in the cafeteria or vending machines by a district to raise revenues, as well as foods sold at sporting events, team and PTO/PTA fundraisers, etc.)
Here are the new Massachusetts requirements:
Those standards require that all competitive items, with the exception of a la carte entr es, be limited to 200 calories per item, with less than 35 percent of those calories coming from fat, less than 20 percent from saturated fat, and less than 30 percent from sugars, with exceptions for fruit and low-fat yogurt.
By August 2013, in time for the 2013-2014 school year, schools will also have to make available the nutritional information of some non-prepackaged competitive items.
In issuing these standards for competitive foods, Massachusetts may be trying to get a jump on new federal rules for competitive foods which are supposed to be issued this December, a requirement of last year’s passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
The Massachusetts rules deserve the accolades they’ve received and the rules will certainly improve the food made available to kids on school campuses across the Commonwealth. However, just looking around my own Houston district, I see a lot of items sold “a la carte” in our cafeterias which meet even the relatively stringent Massachusetts rules — but you still wouldn’t want to see a kid make a meal out of them (as many of them do.) Here are just a few (and sorry for the weird layout – technical difficulties):
My fear is that once the new federal competitive food rules are in place across the board, we’re going to see major manufacturers of processed foods simply rejigger their formulas to meet the new nutritional requirements. In this regard, I’m reminded of attending my district’s “Food Show” earlier this year and seeing “veggie stix” and a cheese-coated “lentil chip” designed to help school districts meet the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act’s new vegetable requirements.
The bottom line is that highly processed foods are profitable to school districts, and district contracts are profitable to food manufacturers. Until that relationship is modified, processed junk will still find its way into many school lunch rooms.
One large school district, however, has taken a different approach. My source in San Francisco, school food reformer Dana Woldow, tells me that at the direction of the district’s Student Nutrition Director (a man named Ed Wilkins) San Francisco simply removed all “a la carte foods” from its lunch rooms. The district now offers (mostly at the middle and high school levels) many more options that are part of the federal meal, such as pasta and sandwich stations. Not only does this system mean that kids can no longer make a lunch out of a bag of Cheetos (unless they bring it from home), it also reduces the very real social stigma created when kids with money in their pockets can buy enticing junk food while poorer kids have to eat the comparatively “uncool” school meal. (I addressed the stigma problem in an early Lunch Tray post: “A La Carte – A World Apart?“)
Moreover, for food sold in campus vending machines, starting in the 2003-04 school year San Francisco instituted a “no empty calories” policy, meaning any food sold in a vending machine must not only contain sufficiently low levels of fats, sodium and sugar, it must also provide positive nutrients like protein, Vitamins A and C, iron, etc. In addition, Dana Woldow tells me that the district retains the discretion to reject a food even if it meets the “no empty calories” criteria, so “doctored junk food” can be kept off campuses if the district chooses.
So while the Massachusetts rules are a great first step, I think San Francisco’s policies represent the next move in greatly improving a school’s food environment. Houston’s School Health Advisory Council (on which I serve) is interested in discussing similar policies with Houston ISD during the coming school year. I’ll let you know of our progress.
[Ed Note: This post initially credited Dana Woldow for the abolishment of a la carte foods in San Francisco schools and has been corrected to give credit to student nutriton director Ed Wilkins. Says Dana, “This was his idea, and he and his assistant director Zetta Reiker worked hard to make it happen; all I did was support them.“]
What Do Over 840 Lunch Tray Readers Know? That if you “Like” TLT’s Facebook page or “Follow” on Twitter, you’ll never miss another post. You’ll also get bonus commentary, interesting kid-and-food links, discussion with other readers AND you’ll be showing TLT some love. ♥♥♥ So what are you waiting for?
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Bettina Elias Siegel
Kim says
I think San Francisco’s approach is a much smarter way to go.
I have to shake my head whenever I see veggie stix and the like. People who give those to their kids and pretend they’re feeding them a vegetable are only fooling themselves. Those calories are just as empty as calories from potato chips.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Kim: I know. It’s easy for people to be fooled by marketing, especially when we want to believe that we’re doing something good for our kids.
Barry says
Very good! As yes I agree that having a well offered lunch program and no ala’carte, except only what is being served, is needed. A well ran FS operation has to understand marketing and competition. I hope no one will take offense, but an RD that runs the FS Dept might not have the expertise, and yes a resturanture with Hotel/Rest Mgmt degree/experience can always use a program to evaluate the nutritional info needed for the USDA/NSLP programs such as Nutri-kids or others that does the required nutritional analysis. Using these programs makes it very easy to have nutritional information on EVERY menu item offered and served. Thus this is the balancing act in a self-op school food service program. Offer healthy foods that the kids will buy and eat. Even the “FREE & REDUCED” category students have a choice. They can choose to bring a meal from home or simply choose to NOT eat what is offered. As a FS Director for 16 years this is what I preached to my staff and managers that we have to be THE CHOICE that kids want. Variety, appeal, taste and customer service. Oh yes, it IS CUSTOMER SERVICE FIRST AND FOREMOST.
I printed out Mass. 105CMR 225.000: and the ruling does NOT apply to 30 minutes before or after the “school day” which is also defined in the regs. So sporting events and night functions might still have the unacceptable foods.
I agree with what San Fran schools are doing with making the final decisions on what “is or is not” junk foods.
And finally, I really am glad to see, read and learn that you are on a SHAC (School Health Advisory Council). 20 years of data shows and PROVES that this can and does make a difference in reducing childhood obesity and diabetes. The WHOLE child approach.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Barry: I’m so glad to have you here. I know you and I have tweeted a bit but it’s much easier to communicate with more than 140 characters at our disposal! As you say, the NSLP is very much customer-driven and I think that’s what makes Food Services directors fearful of doing anything to rock the boat, including getting rid of popular a la carte items like the baked Cheetos, etc. And thank you for the info re: sporting events – I’ll go check it out myself. And finally, I’m glas you think that SHAC’s can make meaningful change. I just joined ours this year and feel like I’m just getting my feet wet, but we’ve made competitive food (both the authorized foods sold by HISD but also the unauthorized fast food sold by student and school groups at lunch time to raise money) our number one priority this year. Thanks for commenting and please continue to do so. It’s always great to get the perspective of someone who’s so familiar with these issues.
Barry says
Hello,
Any form of social media as well as main stream media that gets the public talking about obesity (children or adults) is a good start. Our nation did NOT get fat overnight, or even in a year. So it will take time to continue the trend of reducing obesity. Since children are such a captive audience for up to 7 hours a day, making program changes is a great start. For many years the school foodservice operation has been blamed as being THE problem. Now it seems as if FSO are part of the SOLUTION to the problem. It’s a good start. ANY start is good. Yes, more needs to be done. The solution will be a combination of many different aspects all focused on the problem. The school health advisory (aka wellness) councils are a great way to bring all of the key stakeholders together to identify the priorities and leverage assets (make use of limited money in schools).
I enjoy reading the articles as well as the comments. Thank you for your time and posts.