 
- Spuds win out over kids' health
By Ed Bruske
aka The Slow Cook
In  an unprecedented act of meddling in school lunch rule making, the U.S.  Senate last week approved by unanimous consent a measure that forbids the U.S. Department of  Agriculture from limiting the amount of potatoes in the national school  meals program.
Mainstream media got it wrong: This was not a  defeat for the Obama administration or for first lady Michelle Obama. Rather, it  was a clear case of congressional double-speak, overturning a mandate  Congress itself gave the USDA seven years ago to conform school meals with  the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The Senate action reverses the  work of food science experts at the Institute of Medicine, who had spent  years at the USDA's behest drafting the new guidelines Congress had  ordered.
The problem with potatoes is that kids like them too much  and schools serve them all the time in order to comply with the  vegetable requirement in the school lunch program. The 2005 Dietary  Guidelines for Americans, however, recommended eating a variety of vegetables  daily and throughout the week.
Here's what those guidelines say:
Consume  a sufficient amount of fruits and vegetables while staying within  energy needs. Two cups of fruit and 2½ cups of vegetables per day are  recommended for a reference 2,000-calorie intake, with higher or lower  amounts depending on the calorie level.
Choose a variety  of fruits and vegetables each day. In particular, select from all five  vegetable subgroups (dark green, orange, legumes, starchy vegetables,  and other vegetables) several times a week.
In order to align with those guidelines, the new school meal rules  drafted by the Institute of Medicine, and embraced by the USDA, proposed  limiting potatoes and other starchy vegetables such as corn, peas and  lima beans to no more than 1 cup per week, and increasing the portions  of dark green and orange vegetables and legumes.
That touched off a storm of protest from  the potato industry, as well as numerous congressmen, who wrote the USDA  demanding that the potato restriction be removed in the final rule.  Last week's drubbing of the USDA process came in the form of an amendment to the 2012 agriculture spending measure  jointly proposed by two senators from potato growing states, Susan  Collins, Republican of Maine, and Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado.
Collins  and others argued the nutrition benefits of potatoes, suggesting  schools should simply remove fatty french fries. Proponents of the new  rule repeated the call for more vegetable variety in school meals.  Perhaps they would have gotten further if they'd pointed out that  starchy spuds are not an appropriate food to be feeding children in the  middle of an obesity epidemic. A recent Harvard study,  which looked at the eating habits of more than 120,000 American men and  women over a 20-year period, found that potatoes more than any other  food were associated with excess weight gain, regardless of whether they  are fried, boiled or baked.
In fact, a growing body of scientific  evidence suggests that obesity is not caused solely by a failure to burn  off all the calories consumed, but by the metabolic effects of eating  too many carbohydrates, especially highly glycemic carbs such as  potatoes, refined grains and sugar.
The Senate action represents a  naked display of agricultural interests and political emotion trumping  the science around kids health. So I thought readers might like to see  exactly what was motivating  members of the Institute of Medicine  committee when they wrote their 380-page report, first released in October 2009, proposing the school  meal nutrition guidelines the Senate has not tossed overboard.
Here's what the committee said:
The  overall goal was the development of a set of well-conceived and  practical recommendations for nutrients and Meal Requirements that  reflect current nutrition science, increase the meals’ contents of key  food groups, improve the ability of the school meal programs to meet the  nutritional needs of children, foster healthy eating habits, and  safeguard children’s health.
In recognition of the need to update  and revise the Nutrition Standards and Meal Requirements for the school  meal programs, Congress incorporated requirements in the 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC6 Reauthorization Act  (P.L. 108-265). In particular, the act requires USDA to issue guidance  and regulations to promote the consistency of the standards for school  meal programs with the standards provided in the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans...
Among the changes needed to improve consistency with the 2005 edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans are the following:
- Increasing  the emphasis on food groups to encourage a healthier food consumption  pattern, especially by offering variety and a larger amount of fruits  and vegetables, and by offering whole grains as a substitute for some  refined grains, and
- Limiting the intake of saturated fat, trans  fat, cholesterol, added sugars, and salt by offering foods such as  fat-free (skim) milk or low-fat milk, fewer sweetened foods, and foods  with little added salt.
Charge to the Committee
- Specify  a planning model for school meals (including targets for intake) as it  may relate to nutrients and other dietary components for breakfast and  lunch.
- Recommend revisions to the Nutrition Standards and, in  consideration of the appropriate age-grade groups for schoolchildren,  provide the calculations that quantify the amounts of nutrients and  other dietary components specified in the Nutrition Standards.
- Recommend  the Meal Requirements necessary to implement the Nutrition Standards on  the basis of the two existing types of menu planning approaches (i.e.,  the food-based menu planning [FBMP] approach and the nutrient-based menu  planning [NBMP] approach). The Meal Requirements are to include- standards for a food-based reimbursable meal by identifying- the food components for as offered and as served meals and
- the amounts of food items per reimbursable meal by age-grade groups and
 
 - standards for a nutrient-based reimbursable meal by identifying- the menu items for as offered and as served and
- the 5-day average amounts of nutrients and other dietary components per meal.
 
 
- Illustrate  the practical application of the revised Nutrition Standards and Meal  Requirements by developing 4 weeks of menus that will meet the  recommended standards for the age-grade groups.
 
Critical  Issues for Consideration by the Committee on Nutrition Standards for  National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, as Submitted by the U.S.  Department of Agriculture1
There  are a number of important issues on which USDA particularly seeks  guidance. In the descriptions below, we have raised a number of  questions and concerns, as well as tentative policy concepts for IOM’s  [Institute of Medicine] critical review. These are intended to clarify  the scope of the committee’s charge, but not to constrain or  pre-determine its recommendations. We also ask the committee to consider  such operational factors as market conditions, impacts on student  acceptability of meals, and the decision to participate in the program,  in making recommendations in each of these areas.1
Calorie requirements:
Since  the establishment of the school meal programs, the dietary concerns for  children have shifted from preventing hunger and nutritional  deficiencies to recognizing the increase of childhood overweight/obesity  rates while enhancing cognitive performance and academic achievement.  FNS [USDA's Food and Nutrition Services branch] requests that the  committee provide recommendations for calorie levels in consideration of  the best scientific information available (including the DRIs) that  reflect the diversity of energy needs in today’s school children. FNS  would like the IOM committee to provide minimum calorie requirements,  and consider also recommending maximum calorie levels for reimbursable  meals that take into consideration age-grade groupings.
Age-grade groups:
The  NSLP [National School Lunch Program] nd SBP [School Breakfast Program]  provide meals for children age two and older (generally, under 21). The  meal programs group children according to age-grade and establish meal  patterns with minimum portion sizes and servings to help menu planners  design meals that are age-appropriate and meet the diverse nutritional  needs of school children. Nutrient and calorie requirements are also  determined for each age-grade groups. In light of the childhood obesity  trend, FNS is concerned that school meals provide age-appropriate  portion sizes and promote the development of healthy eating behaviors.  We request that the committee recommend age-grade groups that are  consistent for all menu planning approaches and reflect the stages of  growth and development in children and adolescents.
School grade  structures and meal service operations must be considered to ensure that  age-grade group recommendations can be successfully implemented.  Specifically, in the NSLP, some schools currently use a single age-grade  group to plan meals for children and adolescents. The Department is  concerned that for lunch meals intended to provide ⅓ of the RDAs without  providing excessive calories, this practice may result in meals that  fail to meet the nutritional needs of either group. While the same may  be true for SBP, where the meals are intended to provide ¼ of the RDAs,  FNS recognizes that there are different operational constraints. In the  SBP, children typically participate as they arrive at school, rather  than by grade level or other service schedule that would be common in  lunch. The single age-grade group currently allowed for SBP menu  planning is intended to provide flexibility to meet the needs of the SBP  foodservice operation. Also of note, many schools have implemented  alternative methods of delivering meals to promote student  participation, such as Breakfast in the Classroom or Grab-and-Go  Breakfasts. FNS requests that the committee consider the potential  impacts that age-grade group requirements may have on the unique aspects  of NSLP and SBP meal service, operations, and participation.
Nutrient standards:
FNS  requests that in addition to the current required nutrients, the IOM  committee consider the DGA [Dietary Guidelines for Americans]  recommendations to minimize trans fats, as well as the intake  recommendations for sodium, cholesterol, and fiber, which currently do  not have quantitative standards in the school meal programs. Program  operators are currently required to reduce sodium and cholesterol levels  and to increase fibers levels. Monitoring these nutrients has been  facilitated by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act requirement that  sodium, cholesterol, and fiber amounts be included on food labels and  product specifications. Furthermore, trans fats information is  now required to be included on the Nutrition Facts label and on product  specifications, which would facilitate the ability of Program operators  and administrators to monitor compliance with the trans fats recommendation.
Total fat:
The  DGA recommendation for fat is to keep total fat intake between 30 to 35  percent of calories for children 2 to 3 years of age and between 25 to  35 percent of calories daily for children and adolescents 4 to 18 years  of age. It should be noted that breakfast meals are often relatively low  in fat (below 25 percent). The fat recommendation for each of the  meals, in addition to the total daily fat range, should be considered in  this process.
Available nutrient information:
Program  operators and administrators rely in part on nutrition information  provided by food labels and product specifications to plan and assess  menus that meet the required nutrient levels. FNS is concerned that  establishing requirements for nutrients that are not required to be  listed on food labels and product specifications by the Nutrition  Labeling and Education Act (NLEA, P.L. 101-535), such as the nutrients  of concern for children including potassium, magnesium, and vitamin E,  would be a burden to Program operators and administrators. FNS requests  that nutrient standard recommendations take into consideration the  availability of nutrient information on food labels and product  specifications.
Sodium standard:
It  is well-recognized that the current intake of sodium for most  individuals in the U.S., including school-age children, greatly exceeds  the DGA recommendation to consume less than 2300 milligrams (mg) of  sodium per day. FNS has encouraged schools to reduce sodium in the NSLP  and SBP since the implementation of the School Meals Initiative (SMI) in  1995; however, the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Studies (SNDA  I–III) consistently indicate that the efforts since 1995 have not  resulted in any significant reduction of sodium levels in school meals,  on average.
FNS is concerned that the challenge of reducing sodium  levels in school meals extends beyond the efforts of Program operators  and administrators alone. At present, sodium is a common addition to  processed foods and convenience items which are commonly used in school  meal programs to save time and reduce labor costs. Additionally, the  availability of high so-dium foods at home, at restaurants, and at other  locations in and outside of the school meals programs has resulted in a  taste preference for salty foods which impacts student acceptability of  school meals and Program participation. Furthermore, it takes time to  change children’s taste preferences and for industry to respond to a  need for low-sodium products in schools and the general market.
The  USDA requests that the committee consider student acceptability,  Program participation, and market conditions when making recommendations  for sodium levels in school meals. Additionally, the Department  requests that the committee consider a recommendation that would allow  for a progressive or gradual reduction of sodium levels in school meals,  such as interim targets, to ultimately meet a standard based on the DGA  recommendation over a realistic period of time without adversely  affecting program participation.
Vitamin A standard:
Current  regulations require that school meals meet minimum levels of vitamin A  expressed in Retinol Equivalents (RE), as specified in the 1989 RDAs.  The nutrition facts panel on food products provides vitamin A levels in  International Units (IU). The most recent DRI standards for vitamin A  are quantified in Retinol Activity Equivalents (RAE). FNS is concerned  that there is no direct conversion from the DRI recommendations in RAE  to IU. FNS requests that the committee recommend a vitamin A standard  that addresses the fact that Program operators and administrators rely  both on values in nutrient analysis software (which may be in RAE, RE  and/or IU) and on food labels and product specifications that quantify  vitamin A in IU (i.e., percent of Daily Value in International Units).  FNS recognizes that a conversion from levels expressed in RAE to IU may  need to be based on representation of a mixed diet for school-aged  children.
Menu planning approaches:
FNS  would like the committee to examine the adequacy of the current menu  planning approaches in meeting the applicable DRIs and DGAs. We are  concerned that the structure of the current menu planning approaches,  such as the Traditional FBMP and NSMP, may no longer be adequate to  provide school meals that reflect the 2005 DGAs. Furthermore, FNS would  like recommendations for a single food-based menu planning and a single  nutrient standard menu planning approach. FNS requests that the IOM  recommendations result in age-appropriate meals and reflect the  applicable DRIs and 2005 DGAs under any menu planning approach.
Fruit, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat/fat-free milk products:
The  Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 amended the NSLA to  require increased consumption of foods that are specifically  recommended in the most recent DGAs. FNS is requesting recommendations  to increase the availability of the food groups encouraged by the 2005  DGAs. FNS wishes to apply requirements for these food groups to ensure  that all students in the NSLP and SBP have access to adequate amounts of  these recommended foods, regardless of the menu planning approach used  by their school foodservice authority.
Current NSLP regulations  require that minimum servings of fruits and/or vegetables, fluid milk,  and whole grain or enriched sources of grains/breads be offered daily in  the food-based menu planning approaches. In the nutrient standard menu  planning approaches, fluid milk is the only required food item to be  offered and minimum serving requirements are not established. Under all  menu planning approaches, whole grains are encouraged but not required.  Additionally, all schools must provide a variety of fluid milk types (a  minimum of two); regulations do not place restrictions on offering any  milk-fat or flavored varieties.
In the SBP, meal patterns and menu  structures have been designed to provide schools with flexibility to  provide meals that reflect a typical breakfast meal and avoid  unnecessary burden on school foodservice operations. FNS requests that  the committee consider such differences between NSLP and SBP meal  service operations when making recommendations to increase the food  groups encouraged by the 2005 DGAs in the FBMP breakfast meal pattern  and the NSMP menu structure.
Special considerations for whole grains:
- In  order to incorporate whole grains into the menus, schools must be able  to accurately identify a creditable whole-grain product. An issue for  FNS is helping schools easily identify whole grain products that provide  a significant level of whole grains. At this time, the FDA has not  published a definition of a whole-grain product, or a whole-grain  serving. USDA wishes to establish a consistent definition for all the  FNS Special Nutrition Programs (including NSLP, SBP, Child and Adult  Care Food Program, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), WIC, and the  FNS commodity programs).
Special considerations for fluid milk:
- The  NSLA and program regulations require that lunches include fluid milk  and allow fluid milk in a variety of fat contents and flavors. Fluid  milk may not be substituted by another beverage or dairy product, except  when a disability precludes milk consumption.2  Under the FBMP approaches, a minimum of eight fluid ounces is required  for school-age children and a minimum of six fluid ounces is required  for preschoolers. No minimum quantity is required under the NSMP  approaches. Since calcium is a nutrient of concern for children and milk  is a primary food source of nutrients for children, FNS is seeking  recommendations to implement the recommendations of the DGAs and DRIs.  When considering this, the IOM expert committee should also address  concerns that offering different quantity for the various age-grade  groups in the NSLP and SBP may be operationally difficult to implement  at the local school level due to procurement logistics and economies of  scale.
Meat/Meat Alternate:
The  current meat/meat alternate requirements in the NSLP meal patterns  exceed the recommended quantities in the USDA Food Guide, the food  pattern that illustrates the recommendations of the DGAs. The School  Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) studies show that current meal  patterns require more than adequate amounts of meat/meat alternate to  meet the nutritional (protein and iron) needs of children and  adolescents. There may be adjustments to existing meat/meat alternate  requirements that could help schools limit food costs while still  meeting the nutritional needs of participants. Schools could meet the  meat/meat alternate requirement over the course of the week as long as a  minimum serving of meat/meat alternate is offered daily. Consistent  with the DGAs, schools should offer low-fat, lean meat/meal alternates  to help children limit the intakes of saturated fat, total fat, and  cholesterol. In addition, there is public interest in incorporating  nutrient-dense meat alternatives such as soy-based products in the NSLP.
Offer versus Serve:
The  IOM committee may need to be aware of Offer versus Serve, a statutory  requirement intended to reduce plate waste in the lunch program. The  NSLA requires that high school students be allowed to decline foods they  do not intend to eat. Offer versus Serve may be implemented at lower  grades at the option of the local school district. Program regulations  require that students select at least three of the five food items  offered in a food-based menu. For nutrient-based menus, the regulations  require that students select the entrée. If three items are offered,  students may decline one; if four or more items are offered, students  may decline two.
Attainable recommendations:
The  majority of schools prepare meals on-site with a small staff and  restricted budget. Food purchasing, planning, preparation and service  are often carried out by employees with no formal food service or  management training. Changes to the meal patterns and nutrition  standards must be feasible for school foodservice operators, and should  not jeopardize student and school participation in the meal programs. To  ensure that the combined set of recommendations are attainable, the  Department requests IOM to include in the report separately for NSLP and  SBP a set of four-week cycle menus for each of the recommended age  groups that meet all recommendations, are relatively cost neutral and  would not likely have an adverse effect on program participation.