| The hearing started with an opening statement by Chairman Miller, who is one of the best progressives in Congress. It was exactly what you'd expect: a call to action to improve child nutrition. He said, "The health of our children should be a top national priority."
Then the ranking Republican, John Kline (R-MN), made an opening statement. His #1 issue is preventing the government from making any rules about school nutrition. It's a good thing the Republicans aren't in power and that there's no filibuster in the House. He spoke about the need for local control to respond to local needs, but in this case that is ridiculous. I agree that in some districts, high concentrations of ethnic minorities or children's likes and dislikes will require variations in school food. However, basic nutrition is the same from state to state and from kid to kid. It's not as if one district's kids need orange veggies, but another one's need green veggies, and a third district's kids do fine on just french fries. The areas where I think the government SHOULD be sensitive is with regard to lactose intolerance, vegetarianism, religious diets, and allergies. However, this can and should be done at a federal level by giving the states the room they need to meet those special needs in the federal nutrition guidelines.
The first speaker was Dora Rivas of the School Nutrition Association, whose written testimony is available at the link. She called on Congress to expand access and improve nutrition. She called for the passage of several bills:
H.R. 4148: The Hunger Free Schools Act, which provides for direct certification for free breakfast and lunch.
H.R. 4638: The Healthy Start Act, which gives $.05 in commodities to school breakfasts.
H.R. 3705: The Expand School Meals Act, which increases the number of kids eligible for free lunch.
She also asked Congress to expand summer and after school meals programs and to close the loophole that allows schools to take school meal money that is unrelated to meals. (This is a big one, in my opinion. I've heard several school lunch directors complain that the schools are stealing their lunch money.)
Last, she said that the government - specifically the Secretary of Agriculture - should establish national rules for all school meals that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. She wants the USDA to regulate all food and beverages sold on campus during the school day, thus eliminating the so-called "time and place" rule. She says that in addition to other benefits, this will reduce costs for everybody because when every state or district has different rules, vendors need to meet each different set of rules and that makes their costs (and thus, the schools' costs) go up. She also asked for a nutrition education program in schools. Later during Q&A she was asked about this and said in the past nutrition education was funded at a rate of $.50 per child and now it is not. She wants that money put back into nutrition education.
Next came Carolyn Morrison, President of the National Child and Adult Care Food Program Forum. She spoke about meal programs in child care settings. She wants to see the government improve meal quality (which requires more money). She also says that the administration costs of the program are too high compared to the amount of money provided to cover them, and this is making many child care facilities drop out of the program. The result of that is that kids do not get fed. Last, she said that reimbursement rates needs to cover not just the food but also transportation in rural areas, as well as literacy & language gaps. She asks that Congerss pass H.R. 4402: The Nutritious Meals for Young Children Act, which covers her recommendations. H.R. 4402 has also been introduced into the Senate as S. 2749.
Next up was Kiran Saluja of Public Health Foundation Enterprises, Inc. She was fantastic. She spoke about WIC and focused solely on breastfeeding. Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a child's life plays an important role in setting a child up for a lifetime of health. She calls it a "magic pill to prevent much obesity" and asks "Why haven't we embraced it?" Saluja had 5 requests for Congress, but she only got through three of them during her time speaking. The other 2 are in her written statement (PDF). She commended the recent changes in WIC but said that breastfeeding rates were not rising fast enough. She asks that Congress reinstate the $2 extra in fruits and vegetables that breastfeeding WIC moms get over non-breastfeeding WIC moms because that was a useful incentive. Second, she wants to extend WIC certification for children to one year, so that the time spent my new moms re-certifying their children for the program could instead be spent talking about breastfeeding.
Then she began speaking about changes needed outside of WIC, particularly in workplaces and hospitals. When asked later about what she needed, this was what she focused on. She said that unsupportive infant feeding porgrams in healthcare systems as well as marketing of infant formula in healthcare settings are very destructive to any efforts to improve breastfeeding rates. She wants to keep hospitals from giving infants formula and from separating moms and babies. Also, workplace settings need to be supportive of breastfeeding mothers. Last, she said that moms get very confused by infant formula marketing.
Last was Lucy Gettman who wasn't even worth listening to. She was from the National School Board Association and from what I've heard, they just want the government to leave them the @#$% alone no matter what. Her entire message was that the government should have no regulation on nutrition for school meals. Just give them the money and don't make any rules. And feel free to provide incentives or grants to schools going the extra mile to make meals healthy.
Question & Answer
Miller kicked off the Q&A by asking Morrison why various agencies stopped participating in child care food programs. She replied that it was entirely due to the administrative costs of the program, which recently went up (because the admin requirements went up) while the admin reimbursements (which are tied to the Consumer Price Index) went down.
Then he asked Rivas about her statement on having the lunch program meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. She replied that she wants the Secretary of Agriculture to have the authority to define how the Guidelines apply to school meals and she also wants the reimbursement rate increased so that schools can afford to meet the Dietary Guidelines.
Miller replied that he was "delighted" about the School Nutrition Association's partnership with Michelle Obama and their plan to use lunch as a "teachable moment." He said he is for using meals and gardens as an extension of classroom learning. He noted that diabetes is a huge problem and educating children can conceivably have a lifetime of benefits for those individuals.
Then came Kline, who was out to make a point. He noted that every witness asked for more money and said that he got the message. He doesn't have the money, but he has the message. Then he decided to make his point that federal guidelines should not ban school bake sales by enforcing federal nutrition standards. Here he was alluding to an example from his opening statement (which I believe was hypothetical) of nutrition standards that ban banana bread at a bake sale but allow a bag of potato chips. He kept trying to trap Rivas into saying this but she didn't provide him with the soundbyte he was looking for.
Rivas said she supports local menu planning but with sound science, so yes, she wants the federal government to regulate competitive foods (that is, foods sold outside of the school lunch like those sold a la carte or in vending machines).
Kline pressed her again, "So you want to regulate the bake sale?"
Rivas replied that she wants the Secretary of Agriculture to determine what those guidelines should be. She want students to participate in the school lunch program, and therefore she doesn't want them tempted by junk outside the program. She noted that with the current prevalence of less nutritious beverage choices (like soda or energy drinks), kids aren't drinking their milk.
Kline retorted, "I think I understand your position. You want to regulate the bake sale."
Next up was Rep. McCarthy, who noted that she spent 30 years as a nurse. She said that on OB/GYN floors, the nurses and doctors should be trained in the benefits of breastfeeding. She's looking for ways to utilize volunteers (such as Americorps participants) and asked if they would have any role in promoting breastfeeding.
Saluja answered that until we fix the institutions that don't make breastfeeding happen right, anything we do would be throwing more money at the problem and hoping it goes away. She said that peer to peer support and money are great, but when moms go to deliver, there are human-made issues that happen when the baby is crying and doesn't take their breast. She was open to the role of volunteers in solving the problem but was adamant that this is step one.
McCarthy finished by noting data that kids get higher grades when they have good nutrition and exercise.
Next up was Rep. David Roe (R-TN). He said he birthed babies for a living and there was an issue for moms who went back to work and therefore could not breastfeed. He said, "I pitch that out with no solutions." Then he added that it's extremely important to start in schools. He noted an example from Tennessee, saying that the schools get $2.68 per meal but they spend $3.03 per meal and they "can't continue to do that." He also said that school cafeterias are forced to pay for a lot that doesn't have to do with food. In his state, some schools did energy audits and found that old, inefficient ovens wasted so much energy that replacing them with newer equipment paid for itself in energy savings. Last, he asked if there was any reason to do a 2 year budget for schools like the VA now does.
Saluja first replied saying that it's a "very common misconception" that breastfeeding & work doesn't work. WIC has money for breastpumps. She's seen success when her organization puts the pumps out in work sites. In Los Angeles, they woudl call the employer and offer a pump that is returned when the new mom is done using it. For their part, the work site has to provide the new mom with a place to pump during the months that she is breastfeeding. This results (on average) in an additional 120 days of breastfeeding. She noted legislation in 36 states that provides lactation accommodation at the work site. She called for extra money for pumps as well as tax credits to workplaces that provide facilities for breastfeeding mothers.
Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA) then spoke. He was entirely focused on farm to school programs. Rivas responded enthusiastically, saying there are a number of successful farm to school programs around the country.
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) interrupted, plugging his bill, HR 4710, which creates a grant program for farm to school.
Scott went on asking if it's more expensive to provide healthy vs. unhealthy meals. Rivas said yes. It's significantly more to offer more whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables.
Then Scott asked if it made sense that the reimbursement rate is the same across the U.S. despite differences in cost of living everywhere. Rivas replied that everyone across the entire U.S. is underfunded.
Scott then suggested that "in some schools where virtually everyone is eligible [for free lunch] you could save money by not fooling with" administrative paperwork and instead just giving all of the kids free lunch. Rivas agreed.
Last he asked about the importance of breakfast, noting that schools in Virginia might eliminate this. She replied that teachers are the best advocates for school breafkast because students are more attentive, less kids go to the nurse because they are hungry, and research shows that esp when it comes to analytical skills like math and science, kids are better able to learn if they've had breakfast.
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) came next. She said because of the costs due to obesity, we can't afford to sell junk food in schools. She asked if Rivas wanted to regulate competitive foods. Rivas gave her an emphatic "YES."
Then Fudge REALLY stuck it to Gettman. She noted that only 30% of schools actually ban junk and gave a few other stats. If that's the case, then why would Gettman assume that leaving the matter to the local level was a good idea? Gettman gave a rather nonsensical answer that schools are moving in the right direction.
Next came Jared Polis (D-CO), who noted several health organizations that called for a low fat, high fiber plant based diet. He wants to see more non-dairy vegetarian foods in schools (hallelujah!!!!). He said, "We could make tremendous progress by expanding access to vegetarian choices. should we encourage vegetarian items by making them more affordable and providing incentives and should schools provide nondairy milk alternatives?"
Rivas noted that the majority (~90%) of schools offer vegetarian options. Many are unpopular and thus more expensive. She said we offer a variety of milk and schools can choose to offer substitutes but it costs about four to five times the price of milk.
Rep. Chu (D-CA) spoke next. She asked how we might go about standardizing administrative costs. Rivas answered that there are no guidelines to determine which indirect admin costs a school can charge to the lunch program. As a result (these are my words not hers) a school can basically steal money from the lunch program by charging them for costs they are not actually incurring. She wants the Secretary of Agriculture to define which costs a lunch program can be asked to pay for by the school.
Chu then asked how to streamline verification and about the benefit of charging a reduced fee to some kids instead of giving them free lunch. (These are kids whose families are between 130-185% of the poverty level and they pay $.40 for lunch.) Rivas replied that her organization wants to see the reduced cost kids get free lunch. In cases where a family has several kids and they need to pay $.40 apiece, the lunch bill adds up and sometimes they can't afford it.
Next up was Kildee, who wanted to know about the fresh fruit and vegetable program. Rivas called it "wonderful." Kildee noted that it cuts across socioeconomic lines because all of the kids get to receive it. Rivas replied that it also serves as nutritional education. Kildee finished by asking about the impact of breakfast on attendance. Rivas said yes, serving breakfast improves attendance (because the kids come to school so they can eat) and it improves attention and behavior too.
Then Rush Holt was up. He spoke in favor of Farm to School and giving it mandatory funding. He also asked about the First Lady's goal of doubling participation in the HealthierUS program.
Last up came Rep. Shea-Porter (D-NH). She asked about the barriers that prevent kids from participating in the free lunch program if they are eligible. Rivas answered by noting the social stigma attached to it receiving free lunch.
That pretty much sums up the entire hearing. As you can see, it covers a LOT of different areas, although it mostly focused on school lunch. I hope that any bill that results from this will improve breakfast access (preferably by promoting universal classroom breakfast) and will specify that districts with a high percent of kids under the poverty rate can feed everyone instead of spending their money on paperwork. |
