National School Food and Beverage Standards: A Historical Perspective

National School Food and Beverage Standards: A Historical Perspective Katie Wilson, PhD, SNS President-elect and Chair, National Nutrition Standards Task Force

The Goal What’s best for children!

What we’ve heard? • Solicited input through: • Nutrition Standards Summit, CNIC 2009 • Nutrition Committee • Industry Patron Members • Mega Issue Discussion at National Leadership Conference • Town Hall Meeting at LAC 2007

SNA members and industry would like… • Science-based standards • Standards that pre-empt state and local standards • Standards that apply to Child Nutrition Programs: • NSLP • SBP • After-school Snacks • Summer Food Service Program

They would also like… • Standards that apply to other foods sold or consumed during the school day, such as: • School Parties • Fundraisers • A la Carte • Vending • No standards for after school and evening activities, such as concessions at games, PTA/PTO meetings, etc.

Process • SNA appointed a task force to draft national standards • Gathered comments from all SNA member segments: • Posted drafted standards on SNA website • Encouraged members to comment on standards • Held a “Nutrition Summit” at CNIC 2008

Outcomes Task Force reviewed: • Existing state and local standards • Standards developed by other organizations, such as the Institute of Medicine and Alliance for a Healthier Generation Task Force drafted: • Guiding Principles • Proposed standards for foods and beverages sold/served within reimbursable meal programs • Proposed standards for foods and beverages outside reimbursable meal programs within the school day

Nutrition Summit Process • Presentations by: • Institute of Medicine • Alliance for a Healthier Generation • SNA

Nutrition Summit A group of approximately 100 SNA state and national leaders and industry participated in Nutrition Summit, specifically examined four key areas (Contentious Content Standards): • Need for sugar standards for milk/dairy products • Need for sodium standards • Definition of whole grain (51%) • Pre-emption

Group Process The three groups examined four key issue areas • Unanimously agree/disagree • Substantial majority (60%) agree/disagree • Split decision (less than 60% consensus)

Contentious Content Standard #1 Sugar levels in milk and dairy products should be quantified. • Comments: • Would like a range for sugar levels • What about establishing calorie range instead of sugar levels?

Contentious Content Standard #2 Sodium levels should be quantified. • Comments: • Suggest quantification over a week for school meals • Suggest quantification for individual food items outside • reimbursable meal and snacks • -Suggest a range

Contentious Content Standard #3 Whole grain definition should mean a minimum of 51% whole grain. • Comments: • Would clear up current discrepancies and confusion • Will require education and training • Should mean that the whole grain ingredients add up to 51% • or that whole grain is the primary ingredient

Contentious Content Standard #4 Federal standards should pre-empt state and local standards. • Comments: • Consistency, ease of training, hard to hit a moving target, • Less costly for industry and schools • Maximum efficiency

Other issues/questions • Will need changes in commodities to meet the standards • Training and education will be critical • 100% juice (concern with not allowing 100% juice + water products) • Concerns with fruit only packed in water or natural juices • Concerns with meeting fruit, vegetable and legume recommendations • What is the position on non-nutritive sweeteners? • Should we be looking at fat in terms of grams instead of %? • Concerns about financial implications • Customer acceptance is key!

Next Steps • Task force to carefully review all comments and outcomes from Nutrition Summit and revise drafted national standards- LAC 2008. • Meet with IOM, AHG, CSPI, ADA to build support. • Present revised draft to SNA Board of Directors for review and approval. • Publicize standards and seek support from key stakeholders. • Seek support of National Nutrition standards as regulations, rather than law.

Revisions • We studied the issue. • We listened to all of you. • We worked through revisions to meet the needs that were expressed by the majority of voices. • We are now ready to take them to the SNA Executive Board in April 2008. • We will publicize after board approval. • We will take them to our PPL committee, Senator Harkin and USDA after board approval.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

National School Food and Beverage Standards: A Historical Perspective