Here is who was on the panel (links will give you PDFs of their written testimonies):
Perspectives from Health Professionals and the Food and Beverage Industry
Ms. Karen Ehrens, Public Policy Chair
North Dakota Dietetic Association
Ms. Miriam Erickson Brown, Chief Executive Officer
Anderson Erickson Dairy Company
Mr. Hank Izzo, Vice-President of Research and Development
Mars Snackfood US
Ms. Susan Neely, Chief Executive Office
American Beverage Association
The Testimony
Ehrens (ND Dietetic Association): Ehrens totally rocked. She brought in a picture of 21 5th graders from her daughter's class and explained that 7 of them would develop diabetes during their lifetimes. She asked why we think it's normal to give kids junk and why schools are considered a "marketplace." She said, "Adults are raising money while gambling with children's health."
Then she specifically addressed "competitive foods" - foods sold in schools a la carte, outside of the federally reimbursable school lunch. As she pointed out, the USDA addresses these foods minimally via standards of "foods of minimal nutritional value." Such foods (marshmallows, cotton candy, etc - basically foods that are made of pure sugar and nothing else) are not allowed in the cafeteria during lunch time but they ARE allowed elsewhere in the school and even in the cafeteria during other times in the school day. She asked why they do not address calories, fat, salt, or sugar and then said: "This is a 30 year old policy that doesn't really make sense anymore."
Erickson Brown (Dairy): Erickson Brown argued the same line we've heard from dairy for years, that it's healthy and children and teens need it. I agree that some dairy products are healthy, but I don't agree with her that we need it. (To clarify my own perspective, milk - particularly low fat or non fat milk - can be a healthy source of many nutrients, but it's certainly not the ONLY source of those nutrients.)
However, in one sense, her testimony was helpful and bringing in a representative of dairy alongside the the woman representing soft drinks was a brilliant move. Over the past several decades, soda consumption has gone up among kids and milk consumption has simultaneously gone down so obviously any representative of dairy is going to by my ally in arguing against sodas. For example, Erickson Brown said students should "get nutrients from their calories."
However, I was disappointed in how strongly Erickson Brown was pushing for inclusion of cheese and flavored milks in schools. From her written testimony, she said:
A variety of cheeses are required to meet the needs of food manufacturers who make the pizzas, quesadillas, pasta and many other dishes that are served in schools. The nutritional profile of these dishes must consider its total nutrient package, the serving size and frequency of consumption. The dairy industry has invested in extensive research and development of new ingredients and products that minimize added sugars, sodium, and allow for a variety of fat levels. In fact, a growing number of our cheese varieties have been able to successfully reduce fat and sodium levels while retaining the good taste that everyone expects from cheese.
Cheese tastes great but I think including it in meals and calling it healthy because it has calcium is about as responsible as doing the same with ice cream. Erickson Brown has a point that we can consider the overall nutrition of the entire meal - i.e. if a little bit of cheese is included with a quesadilla made on a whole grain tortilla with lots of vegetables, it might be a very healthy meal - but it honestly sounded to me like an excuse to ignore the high fat content of cheese (kind of like breakfast commercials that show a very sugary cereal alongside milk, fruit, and orange juice that call the cereal a part of a healthy breakfast... sure it is, but it's the unhealthy part of the healthy breakfast!).
As for the flavored milk nonsense, I found it entirely irresponsible and stupid. I'd love to see chocolate milk banned from schools. Her argument for inclusion of favored milks (and advocacy for NOT restricting added sugars or at least restricting them very loosely) reminds me of a great scene in Guys and Dolls when Sky Masterson (a gambler) orders an alcoholic drink (Dulce de Leche) for Sarah, a missionary. She asks "What's in it, besides milk?" When she finally asks "Doesn't Bacardi have alcohol in it?" he replies "Only enough to act as a preservative." She says, "You know... this would be a wonderful way to get children to drink milk!"
Yes, of course it's ridiculous to spike milk with rum to get kids to drink it. Would you argue then that at least they are getting vital nutrients from milk? No. Of course not. And I don't see why that argument holds any water when we are spiking milk with added sugars and chocolate and/or artificial flavors and colors either.
Izzo (Mars): Izzo took the classic industry line of "We're part of the solution." He advocated FOR national school nutrition standards - but he wanted the Senate to use HIS standards. That's because it gave his company a competitive advantage. His company had worked with a group (the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a non-profit organization started by the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association). to develop lax voluntary standards that Mars could abide by and then Mars formulated its own special line of junk that met the guidelines. Clearly, if Mars is the only candy company with candy bars meeting the guidelines, then they have effectively gained a monopoly on all sales within schools - at least until other companies catch up.
The standards Mars advocates are "35-10-35" - Less than 35% of calories from fat; Less than 10% of calories from saturated fat; and Less than 35% sugar by weight. More on this later.
Neely (beverage association): I've seen her testify before hearings more than once now and she essentially always has the same thing to say. Her organization worked with the Clinton Foundation to come to a voluntary agreement in which beverage companies limit which drinks can be sold to which schools. As with the speaker from Mars, my feeling is that when industry is choosing which standards it abides by or formulating those standards itself, there is no proof that the standards have any scientific or nutritional basis and it's obviously in the industry's self interest to set very lax standards.
Question and Answer
Two Senators did the questioning - Harkin (D-IA), the committee char, and Chambliss (R-GA), the ranking Republican.
Harkin began by stating that he's heard resistance to federal regulations on competitive foods in the past on the basis that the small schools will be hurt the most. He said based on what he heard today, that isn't true.
Ehrens agreed. She said the small schools struggle the most and thus need standards the most.
Harkin then asked about the argument he's heard (not from this panel but elsewhere) that if schools restrict junk, the kids will leave school and go buy the same junk at the 7-Eleven. He said that when he and his kids were in school, kids simply weren't allowed to leave campus without a permission slip. He said:
Isn't it up to the local school board whether the children are allowed to leave the campus during the day time?... I just find it odd that because a school board allows kids to go off campus we have to have a policy allowing junk food on campus.
Izzo saw that as a good opportunity to restate that schools are a "unique environment" and that we should make sure they have appropriate choices (like Mars candy bars) available to them.
Harkin then asked about his 35-10-35 standard. Once he clarified what it meant, he said:
So if I have a bar - more than 1/3 can be sugar? I have a problem with that. When I heard that, that means that if I buy something, 1/3 of that could be sugar! Ms. Neely's heard me say many times, a 20 oz has equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar. I just have a problem. If 1/3 of something a child can purchase at school can be sugar - is that really a good nutritional standard? I have trouble with that. I understand the 35% fat, I understand the 10% sat fat... I think we need to work on this.
Hell yeah, Senator Harkin!!! He ended by saying that he wants to make no judgment now but look deeper into this.
Next Harkin went on to discussing milk. He's been drinking milk from the Iowa dairy represented on the panel ever since his own family got rid of their own cows when he was a kid. He said:
You raised the issue... of using non-nutritive sweeteners like Splenda in milk. Is this widespread, is it growing, are their other opportunities to reduce calories in things kids might eat?
Erickson Brown replied that she wants to provide options and flavored milks are a part of that. She said if the restrictions are too low on sugar then "flavored milks just don't taste good."
Harkin replied, "You stressed non-fat and low fat milk in school system.... it's a matter of taste, an acquired taste." He stated his own experience that when he switched from whole milk to non fat, he thought non fat tasted terrible. Now, after drinking non fat for many years, he thinks whole milk "doesn't taste so good." Based on this idea, it's important to have kids switch to non fat or low fat milk early in life. Good call, Senator Harkin!!!
Erickson Brown replied that she's supportive of low fat and non fat choices and added that the most popular milk choice in the grocery store is 2% milk. My hunch is that she fears that 2% milk might be regulated out of the schools - and it probably didn't help her fears that Harkin replied, "It tastes like whole milk to me" about 2%.
Next up was Sen. Chambliss. He asked what Neely's group (beverages) had to do in order to enforce their current standards and what it would mean for them if there were new standards implemented.
She replied that they've had to reformulate products, create new package sizes, train thousands of marketing and sales staff and renegotiate contracts. She added that it cost millions of dollars.
Then Chambliss said he's concerned about forcing non-fat milk only on kids. He personally prefers 2%. Last he asked Izzo about nutrition policies in other countries that they face as a global company but got a non-answer from Izzo.
Harkin went back to the milk debate. He said that people assume 2% milk means it has 2% of the total amount (100%) of fat and therefore they think 2% is pretty good. But whole milk is 3.5% fat so 2% is about 2/3 of that and 1% would be about 1/3 of the fat of whole milk. Then he switched subjects to ask about sodium intake.
Izzo used the sodium question as an opportunity to pat his company on the back for labeling sodium content on their products. Then Erickson Brown stated that she thinks food should have lower sodium (not a difficult position to take when your product is milk and you're interested in putting sugar in it, not salt). And she circled back to the idea of 2% milk saying that 2% milk means it is 2% fat by weight.
Harkin ended on the subject of sodium. He's asked his staff to look into it to come up with better guidelines on sodium because children are suffering from hypertension these days. Again - well done Sen. Harkin!!!
One thing that was not mentioned in the hearing that I think SHOULD be addressed are artificial food dyes. Because they are shown to cause behavioral problems in some children, I'd rather see them made illegal altogether as they are in other countries, but I would CERTAINLY like to see them kept out of schools. |
