the federal budget process: effects on child feeding programs
DESCRIPTION
The Federal Budget Process: Effects on Child Feeding Programs. Keith-Thomas Ayoob, EdD, RD, FADA March 2, 2009 School Nutrition Association. Where we came from. NSLA of 1946 General national policy Focus on protecting kids against nutritional deficiencies Outlet for surplus commodities. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Federal Budget Process:Effects on Child Feeding Programs
Keith-Thomas Ayoob, EdD, RD, FADAMarch 2, 2009School Nutrition Association
Where we came from
• NSLA of 1946 General national policy Focus on protecting kids against
nutritional deficiencies Outlet for surplus commodities
Where we came from
• Child Nutrition Act of 1966
School breakfast established To help meet the nutritional needs of
low income families First large-scale entitlement feeding
program for children
Where we came from• Dietary Guidelines for Americans of
1995: Standard established for school meals Goal: to minimize risk of chronic diet-related
diseases Prevention of more than just nutritional
deficiencies Beyond commodities
• And then………………..
Old Problem: “Malnourished Kids”
New Problem:
BRAVE NEW WORLD• Kids have food everywhere• Kids eat food everywhere• Kids got fatter
BRAVE NEW WORLD• “Childhood obesity is the #1 health
problem in children”• “Today’s kids will have shorter lives
than their parents”• “SOMEONE is to blame for this…”
WHERE WE NEED TO BE
• “Optimal nutrition”• Obesity prevention• Disease prevention
but there’s just one thing……....
…the “local wellness policy”
• A festival of individualization at the district level
• Community-driven, parent-focused• Budget can conflict with reality• Often where philosophy trumps the
science
Local policy “wish list” components include…
• Organic food• Organic local food• No sugar• No HFCS• No gluten• No eggs
• No dairy• No peanuts• Nothing that could
possibly cause an allergy
• Low-glycemic foods only
What you need: ONE NATIONAL POLICY
• Meets the needs of MOST children• Supplies the good stuff• Minimizes the bad stuff (excesses,
including LNED foods)
What you need: ONE NATIONAL POLICY
• Keeps up with DGAs without “overachieving”
• National policy means national funding
• Can drive reformulation of foods by industry
Why school meals work• Breakfast & lunch participants:
4 X more likely to drink milk Eat more fruits and vegetables Get more calcium & potassium – nutrients
of concern• Non-participants:
More likely to eat LNED snacks & desserts Drink more junk beverages – 4 X more likely
Gordon, et al, JADA 2009
40% of children 40% of children don’t eat don’t eat breakfast breakfast everydayeveryday11
Do they eat breakfast?•Children who eat breakfast… score higher on tests3
have better school attendance2
have better diets•Iron, Zinc, Vitamin A, B Vitamins, Calcium1
may be less likely to be overweight
1 General Mills Bell Institute of Health & Nutrition Dietary Intake Research2 Wahlstrom et al. Top Clin Nutr 1999
3 Murphy et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998
How it’s working
• Fresh fruit offered (50% of menus vs. 41%) i.e. an increase of 25%
• Whole milk decreased by 40%, flavored skim milk increased by 40% -- a GOOD thing
Where you have problems
• Competitive foods, especially LNED ones
• Compliance with national standards Too much sodium Low fiber Too much fat & saturated fat
How often is it “The only meal for the day?”
How communities “overachieve”
• NY and school milk
February 2, 2006:
“In New York Schools, Whole Milk Is Cast From the Menu”
Also removed (2006):
2% milk1% chocolate milk All other flavored milk
RESULT: Milk consumption drops 10% in 2006
Flavored milk: Friend or foe?
• 2763 children 6-11 years 1125 teens, 12-17 years• 3 groups:
Non-consumers of flavored milk
0-240 g >240 g
Johnson, R et al, 2002, JADA
Flavored milk
• Flavored milk drinkers had: More calcium ~100-150 mg/day No additional intake in added sugars Lower intake of soft drinks/fruit drinks
Johnson, R et al, 2002, JADA
AAP Policy Statement:Prevention of pediatric overweight & obesity
“Dietary practices should be fostered that encourage moderation rather than overconsumption, emphasizing healthful choices rather than restrictive eating patterns.”
What RDs want (and where a national standard could help)
• Update to 2005 DGAs• Age-appropriate portions• Cut fat and sodium where possible• Make participation cool again• Address competitive foods
Follow the 2005 DGAs
• Whole grains• Fruits and vegetables (attn:
legumes)• Low-fat/fat-free milk
Age-appropriate portions and calories
• Base on age and ACTIVITY level• Currently: 1989 REA for active kids
Cut fat & sodium
• More unprocessed entrees Semi-scratch cooking
• Work with vendors to drive reformulation
• Advocate for USDA to lower fat/sodium in commodities
• Ditch the deep-fries
Make it cool again
• Emphasize green aspects of healthier eating Less meat/fat/processed food, more
plant-based food• Fewer competitive foods mean more
participation• Emphasize that “kids who eat school
meals have healthier diets overall”
Communication Research
Journal of the AmericanDietetic Association
June 2003
Implications from Research• Students and parents: common interests
but different information needs Students—“fun,” “cool,” and “not boring” Parents—“quick,” “easy to use,” and
“credible”• Redefine “fitness,” “healthy eating,” and
“health”• Facilitate communication between
students, parents, and school nutrition personnel
Address competitive foods• Participation goes up when they’re not
around• Often a nutritional nightmare• Usually an image problem• Responsible for a day’s worth of
“discretionary calories” just at lunch• Keep vending machines to “better-for-
you” options
WHAT SNA NEEDS MOST
• Legislation for a single national wellness policy
• Ensure all legislation is FUNDED
Address the role of parents
• Necessary partners with SNA• Primary influencers
Family meals Expose kids to a wide range of foods Model good eating behavior
REMEMBER THE GOAL
HEALTHIER CHILDREN
Keith-Thomas Ayoob, EdD, RD, FADA
Associate Clinical Professor of PediatricsAlbert Einstein College of Medicine
718-430-3970 [email protected]