Ketchup as a vegetable

Last updated

Ketchup and French fries - two products derived from plant materials, both in the genus Solanum Stammtisch Ruhrgebiet Januar 2007 Oberhausen Pommes.JPG
Ketchup and French fries  –two products derived from plant materials, both in the genus Solanum

The ketchup as a vegetable controversy stemmed from proposed regulations of school lunches by the USDA 's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in 1981, early in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The regulations were intended to provide meal planning flexibility to local school lunch administrators coping with cuts to the National School Lunch Program enacted by the Omnibus Reconciliation Acts of 1980 and 1981. [1] [2] The proposed changes allowed administrators to meet nutritional requirements by crediting food items not explicitly listed. While ketchup was not mentioned in the original regulations, pickle relish was used as an example of an item that could count as a vegetable. [3]

Contents

A similar controversy arose in 2011, when Congress passed a bill prohibiting the USDA from increasing the amount of tomato paste required to constitute a vegetable; the bill allowed pizza with two tablespoons (30 mL) of tomato paste to qualify as a vegetable.

Summary

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, [1] signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, reduced the Federal School Lunch and Child Nutrition Programs budget by approximately eight percent. [3] Building upon these reductions, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 [2] (passed as the Gramm–Latta Budget) slashed the 1982 budget for the Federal School Lunch Program by an additional 25 percent. [3] To administer the requirements made by the acts, the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) was tasked with proposing ways to implement the regulations while maintaining nutritional requirements for school lunches despite the lower funding. [4] Among the recommendations made in September 3, 1981 [3] was a proposal to give local school lunch administrators flexibility in accrediting substitute food items that met FNS nutritional requirements and regulations. The report stated an item could not be counted as a bread that was not enriched or whole-grain, "but could credit a condiment such as pickle relish as a vegetable." [3]

In the Reagan administration’s attempt to slash $1.5 billion from children’s nutrition funding, school lunch program requirements were worded (whether deliberately or not) so as to conceivably allow for designating ketchup as a vegetable, allowing the USDA to eliminate one of the two vegetables required to meet minimum food and nutrition standards, and thus shrink costs. It also offered a group of protein substitutes –yogurt, nuts and sunflower seeds –and suggested that tofu, a soybean cake, be substituted for a hamburger to save money.

Critics demonstrated outrage in Congress and in the media against the Ronald Reagan administration for cutting school lunch budgets and allowing ketchup and other condiments to count as vegetables. According to New York Times reporter Benjamin Weinraub, "the opposition had a Dickensian field day of outrage and mockery that contrasted school children's shrinking meal subsidies with the Pentagon generals' groaning board of budget increases." [5]

Legislative history

The Food and Nutrition Service proposed regulations had roots in four previous pieces of legislation: the National School Lunch Act of 1946, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981.

National School Lunch Act

The National School Lunch Act of 1946 [6] established the nonprofit National School Lunch Program to ensure the health and well-being of American children and increase the domestic consumption of agricultural products and commodities. [6] Under Section II of the National School Lunch Act, eligible students at all participating schools gained access to free or reduced-cost school lunches. [6] Served lunches had to meet minimum nutrition requirements as stated in Section 9a, and as set by the Secretary of Agriculture. [6] As the 1981 Food and Nutrition Service regulations later explained, while no formal requirement existed requiring that school lunches provide a specific percentage of daily nutrients, it had come to be expected that meals would generally provide one third of daily Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). [3]

Child Nutrition Act

The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 [7] further enhanced and strengthened the National School Lunch Program by extending the Special Milk Program, piloting a breakfast program, and adding support for non-food items such as equipment and additional staff. In addition, the act centralized the management and ongoing administration of the School Lunch Program to the US Department of Agriculture.

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980

Within its broad goal to "implement the reconciliation requirements provided for in the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the fiscal year 1981", [1] the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 amended both the National School Lunch Act of 1946 and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 by cutting funding for the School Milk Program, establishing ceiling rates for grants on nutrition, and reducing provisions to specific, qualified institutions. [1] It also made a range of cost-savings provisions—including reducing federal funding for school lunch general reimbursements, commodity, special assistance, and the child care food program-to reduce the Federal School Lunch and Child Nutrition Programs budget by eight percent. [3]

Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981

Title VIII of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 [2] extended the spending cuts enacted by the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980 [1] to include ending federal assistance for food service materials and shrinking appropriations allocated for nutrition education, special assistance, the child care food program, and the School Milk Program. [2] The term "school", as defined in the Child Nutrition Act, [7] now excluded private institutions with annual tuition exceeding specified amounts. The act also revised the income eligibility standards which determined which students received reduced cost or no-cost lunches and introduced stricter checks and balances to prevent income fudging. The previous requirement that a child's family income be at or below $17,560 to receive a reduced cost or no-cost lunch was dropped to $15,630 and the following new income standards were established:

The act established the subsidy cuts of 11 cents on full-price meals, 23 cents on reduced-cost meals, and three cents on free meals. [9] As a result, the cost for a reduced-cost meal doubled to 40 cents over the prior year. [10] [11]

Section 818 of the act required that the Secretary of Agriculture review nutritional requirements of Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act to find opportunities for cost savings at the local level. The act went on to require the USDA to "exhaust all alternatives for lowering local program costs" and ensure that proposals demonstrated a notable fiscal impact to the local community while meeting nutritional requirements. [2] While all alternative plans had to meet the nutritional requirements established by the Secretary of Agriculture, the act did not require meals to deliver one third of RDA. [12]

Other elements of the act included spending reductions in student loan programs; civil service, postal service, and related programs; highway and rail; airport and airway improvements; veterans' programs; small business; Medicare and Medicaid; and Social Security Act Programs. [2]

Food and Nutrition Service proposed regulations

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 required that final regulations be made available by November 11, 1981–90 days after the act's signing into law— and assigned the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service with proposing regulations to carry out the act's requirements. At the time the act became law, over 26 million children in 94,000 schools participated in the National School Lunch Plan. [9] Of the participating students, 38 percent received free meals, 7 percent received reduced-price meals, and over half (55 percent) paid full cost. [9]

As requested in Section 818 of the act, such proposed regulations had to be based on a full review of all potential cost saving opportunities that local school districts could implement. [12] The administrator and staff of the Food and Nutrition Service participated in a countrywide fact-finding mission, interviewing local school lunch administrators to discuss cost-effective options that gave them more flexibility in meal planning. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education on September 17, 1981, FNS Administrator G. William Hoagland described the ongoing frustration expressed by local school lunch administrators in having to adhere to strict guidelines in what foods to serve. "This is not a homogeneous nation. It is a compendium of likes and tastes", he said. [12] Hoagland stated that the resulting proposed regulations reflected the opinions and needs communicated by local school districts. [12]

Overall goals

The Food and Nutrition Service's Proposed Plan was designed around three major goals towards providing more flexibility to local programs:

Section I: removing red tape in record keeping & streamlining administration

Several of the report's recommendations centered on eliminating some of the School Lunch Program record keeping and cost reporting burdens required of local school administrators. The report proposed streamlining procedures for school mid-year announcements and eliminating school biannual estimates of eligible subsidized lunch recipients. In addition, the report proposed removing the Hardship Provision, which had allowed families to file claims for unexpected high costs. [3]

Beyond simplifying school-wide reporting requirements, the report focused on adjusting the number of age/grade patterns and their associated meal plans. Instead of the previous five age-specific groups, the report suggested streamlining meal plans to fall within three, more general groups—preschool, elementary, and secondary students—and made such meal portions consistent within these specified groups. Additionally, school administrators were advised to focus on bulk production rather than per-plate individual quantities and encouraged to develop their own per-plate monitoring systems. [3]

Section II: meal crediting

Designed to give school lunch administrators increased flexibility and broader food choices when planning school lunches, the FNS proposed additional food choices that could be offered. Such additions complied with the overall five food plan that required all school lunches include a meat, milk, bread, and two vegetables or fruit. [3] Alternates were proposed for all five food groups.

School choice in crediting food alternates: pickle relish as a vegetable

Section II of the FNS proposed regulations concluded expounding the benefits of increased menu variety in increasing children's knowledge of different types of foods and in improving overall nutritional education. Because there were a host of viable, alternate food options not specifically mentioned in the report, the FNS gave state agencies authority to explore additional alternates as long as they were reported to the FNS and met the meal crediting requirements. Bread that was not made of enriched flour would not count as a bread alternate, but a state "could credit a condiment such as pickle relish as a vegetable (Section II, 5)". [3]

Quantity reductions

To generate the immediate cost savings required in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, [2] the FNS authors argued that simplifying administrative burdens and introducing choice and flexibility with alternative meal options could only do so much. As a result, the report proposed decreasing food quantities served while still contributing to a student's daily RDA intake. The FNS detailed minimum quantity requirements to receive federal reimbursement—schools could still serve larger portions. In addition, under the FNS' offer versus serve proposal, while children would be offered full-size portions of all five meal items, high school students could choose to take only three. Children would also have the option to request tasting-size portions of each meal component instead of full portions. Under the proposal, minimum quantities of the following food components were reduced:

In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives, G. William Hoagland, administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service, defended these changes and contended that despite reduced quantities, such meals would "continue to be excellent nutrient sources". Hoagland explained that caloric intake would be reduced by four percent (from 21 percent to 17 percent), but certain meal components surpassed existing RDA requirements: protein and niacin met half of RDA; vitamin A, riboflavin, vitamin B-12 exceed one third of RDA; and calcium and vitamin C met the one third requirement. [12]

Reaction

The critical response centered on several key elements of the proposed regulations:

Ketchup

Reporting on the proposed directive, Newsweek magazine illustrated its story with a bottle of ketchup captioned "now a vegetable". [13] The proposal was criticized by nutritionists and Democratic politicians who staged photo ops where they dined on nutrition-poor meals that conformed to the new lax standards. Compounding this outrage, the same day that the USDA announced the cost-cutting proposal for school lunches, the White House purchased $209,508 worth of new china and place settings embossed in gold with the presidential seal. [14] [15]

During her testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education on September 17, 1981, Food Research and Action Center Director Nancy Amidei described a "mini meal" that she stated would meet the proposed FNS standards made up of a 1.5-ounce (43 g) hamburger, half of a roll, nine grapes, six US fluid ounces (180 ml) of milk, and six French fries. She described a second meal that included "a lot of relish and ketchup on a tiny hamburger" as also meeting the full quantity of both meat and vegetables as established by the new regulations. [12] The Food Research and Action Center, among other nutritional advocacy groups, were part of an opposition campaign that, according to proponents of the new FNS regulations, lacked faith in local school lunch administrators to plan healthy school lunches that adhered to the new standards. [16]

Multiple articles in the press voiced conflicting statements on the ketchup controversy. A September 1981 Reuters piece stated "ketchup, which has a high sugar content, was defined under new Government rules as a vegetable", [17] while a December New York Times piece noted that "ketchup, of course was never mentioned in the proposals, which were designed to give local school officials more flexibility in planning their meals." [16] Administrator Hoagland responded to the media generated by the ketchup controversy, stating "it's an insult to me and to school lunchroom officials to say that we would even consider forcing kids to eat ketchup as a vegetable." [18]

While ketchup was not explicitly referenced as a vegetable substitute in the regulations, [3] James Johnson, an aide to Agriculture Secretary John R. Block, later defended such an interpretation. "There was great misunderstanding in the and as to how these regulations are viewed," Johnson told reporters in September 1981. "I think it would be a mistake to say that ketchup per se was classified as a vegetable. ... Ketchup in combination with other things was classified as a vegetable." Asked for examples of such other things, Johnson replied, "French fries or hamburgers." [19]

The condiment became an easy visual for skeptics to cite when criticizing the Reagan Administration and the proposed regulations. Reporter Benjamin Weinraub called the issue "the Emperor's new condiments", [5] and reporter Russell Baker gave President Reagan the tongue-in-cheek "Sore President of the Year Award" writing "it was given to President Reagan on the basis of reports that in spite of the ever-pleasant smile, he is secretly sore on his old botany teacher for telling him that ketchup is a vegetable." [20]

Critics included Republican Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, whose family owned the H.J. Heinz company, said, "Ketchup is a condiment. This is one of the most ridiculous regulations I ever heard of, and I suppose I need not add that I know something about ketchup and relish, or did at one time." [19]

Changes in income eligibility

Under the new standards, "kids who were poor last year aren't anymore", said Edward Cooney, attorney with the Food Research and Action Center and a critic of the regulations. [9] Other advocacy groups including the American School Food Service Association projected that changes in eligibility would drive schools to drop out of the program. Marshall L. Matz, an attorney for the association, stated that less than one third of students would be eligible for subsidized lunches in the majority of school districts. Unless the Federal Government was able to expand assistance, school districts would be unable to serve such higher-priced lunches he hypothesized. [11]

In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, Pennsylvania Representative William F. Goodling countered this opinion stating that schools in the country's highest poverty areas would be the least affected by the subsidy reductions and "will be receiving a greater Federal reimbursement than any of the other schools." [12]

As voiced by FNS Administrator Hoagland, increasing the costs for full-priced meals and reducing portion sizes, as recommended in the regulations, were necessary to ensure the continued participation of schools in the School Lunch Program. Low-income children would be hurt more if schools dropped the program as they would not receive free or subsidized lunches. [12]

Diluting nutrition

Critics of the proposed regulations argued that low-income children would be the most affected by the proposed meal quantity reductions in the plan as they depend upon school lunches for upwards of half of their daily nutrients. [8] Carl D. Perkins, Subcommittee Chairman and US Representative from Kentucky, cited a Washington State study which found the state's low income children received 48 percent of their daily nutrition intake from the meals offered in the School Lunch Program. In the hearing, he voiced the concern of other critics of the regulation, asking, "By watering down the requirements for a school lunch, isn't the department showing it is not concerned with the health of millions of low-income children who cannot supplement their diets with alternative sources of nutrition?" [12]

In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education, FNS Administrator Hoagland countered this statistic citing the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey of 1977–1978 [21] which found that children's eating patterns have evolved from eating three to now five meals a day, and that the previous theory that children receive one third of nutrients at lunch time was no longer true. [12] In addition, Hoagland noted that the recent expansion of the Food Stamp Program (which supported those with an income of 130 percent of the gross income poverty line) and other similar programs that provided food assistance to low-income children now offered an additional safety net to such populations. [12]

Another argument in support of the adjusted meal plans was voiced by Elizabeth Cagan, director of the New York City Bureau of School Lunches at the subcommittee hearing: "Unless food gets inside a kid, it doesn't give him any nutrition", She added that in New York City she has observed much food served to younger children was wasted –especially green beans, peas, carrots, and mixed vegetables. [12]

Results

Nearly 400 participating schools, serving an estimated 2.8 million students, dropped out of the School Lunch Program between September 1980 and September 1981. Specific school districts witnessed large percentages of students choosing to bring their own lunch rather than pay the now higher priced meals. For example, in Clark County, Nevada, nearly half (46 percent) of students dropped out of the program as a result of a 30 percent increase in the cost of subsidized meal costs. [11]

On September 25, 1981, President Reagan withdrew the original regulations proposed by the Food and Nutrition Service due in part to the sharp criticism from the opposition. [5] Afterwards the Food and Nutrition Service submitted revised proposals on November 17, 1981 that removed all mention of condiments counting as vegetables and adhered to the goal of providing one third of all daily nutrients in school lunches. [18]

Despite such revisions, the Reagan Administration's policy was never implemented and FNS Administrator Hoagland was fired at the end of November. [22]

"Mr. Hoagland... was lashed on Capitol Hill and skewered by the White House, which removed him from his job two days before Thanksgiving." [16] Hoagland attributed the strength of hunger lobby groups as the source of the FNS regulations downfall. "I may have let the President down by not carefully orchestrating the groups." [5] According to The Washington Post, "there's a lobby guarding every dish." [22]

Similar efforts

In 2011, Congress passed a bill that barred the USDA from changing its nutritional guidelines for school lunches. The proposed changes [23] would have limited the amount of potatoes allowed in lunches, required more green vegetables, and declared a half-cup (120 ml) of tomato paste to count as a serving of vegetables, rather than the current standard of 2 tablespoons (30 mL). The blocking of these proposed higher standards meant that the smaller amount of tomato paste in pizza could continue to be counted as a vegetable in school lunches. [24] The move resulted in widespread mockery, with headlines saying Congress had declared pizza to be a vegetable. The blocking legislation was criticized heavily, since the change had also been lobbied for by food companies such as ConAgra, and the block was a substantial blow to efforts to make school lunches healthier. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program</span> United States government food assistance program

In the United States, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income persons to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food and Nutrition Service</span> U.S. federal anti-hunger agency

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FNS is the federal agency responsible for administering the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs. The service helps to address the issue of hunger in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National School Lunch Act</span> U.S. federal law passed in 1946

The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act is a 1946 United States federal law that created the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to provide low-cost or free school lunch meals to qualified students through subsidies to schools. The program was established as a way to prop up food prices by absorbing farm surpluses, while at the same time providing food to school-age children. It was named after Richard Russell Jr., signed into law by President Harry S. Truman in 1946, and entered the federal government into schools' dietary programs on June 4, 1946.

The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) is a United States federal law (act) signed on October 11, 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Act was created as a result of the "years of cumulative successful experience under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) to help meet the nutritional needs of children." The National School Lunch Program feeds 30.5 million children per day. NSLP was operated in over 101,000 public and nonprofit private schools in 2007. The Special Milk Program, functioning since 1954, was extended to June 30, 1970 and incorporated into the act. The act also provided Federal funding assistance towards non-food purchases for school equipment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School meal</span> Meal provided to students at school

A school meal is a meal provided to students and sometimes teachers at a school, typically in the middle or beginning of the school day. Countries around the world offer various kinds of school meal programs, and altogether, these are among the world's largest social safety nets. An estimated 380 million school children around the world receive meals at their respective schools. The extent of school feeding coverage varies from country to country, and as of 2020, the aggregate coverage rate worldwide is estimated to be 27%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WIC program</span> U.S. federal government program

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is an American federal assistance program of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and children under the age of five as part of child nutrition programs. Their mission is to be a partner with other services that are key to childhood and family well-being. WIC serves 53% of all infants born in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food policy</span> Area of public policy

Food policy is the area of public policy concerning how food is produced, processed, distributed, purchased, or provided. Food policies are designed to influence the operation of the food and agriculture system balanced with ensuring human health needs. This often includes decision-making around production and processing techniques, marketing, availability, utilization, and consumption of food, in the interest of meeting or furthering social objectives. Food policy can be promulgated on any level, from local to global, and by a government agency, business, or organization. Food policymakers engage in activities such as regulation of food-related industries, establishing eligibility standards for food assistance programs for the poor, ensuring safety of the food supply, food labeling, and even the qualifications of a product to be considered organic.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a type of United States federal assistance provided by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to states in order to provide a daily subsidized food service for an estimated 3.3 million children and 120,000 elderly or mentally or physically impaired adults in non-residential, day-care settings. It is a branch within the Policy and Program Development Division of the Child nutrition programs, along with the School Programs Branch, which runs the National School Lunch Program. The program is commonly referred to as the Child Care, Child Care Food, Adult Care, or Adult Care Food Program, and is often operating in conjunction with other child and adult day-care programs, such as the Head Start. Its federal identification number, or CFDA number, is 10.558. Section 17 of the National School Lunch Act, and USDA issues the program regulations under 7 CFR part 226.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child nutrition programs</span> Programs to combat food insecurity among children

In the United States, the Child Nutrition Programs are a grouping of programs funded by the federal government to support meal and milk service programs for children in schools, residential and day care facilities, family and group day care homes, and summer day camps, and for low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under age 5 in local WIC clinics.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a program that evolved out of surplus commodity donation efforts begun by the USDA in late 1981 to dispose of surplus foods held by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This program was explicitly authorized by the Congress in 1983 when funding was provided to assist states with the costs involved in storing and distributing the commodities. The program originally was entitled the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program when authorized under the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The program was renamed to The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Milk Program</span> U.S. federal aid program

In the United States, the Special Milk Program, sometimes known as the School Milk Program, offers federal reimbursements for milk served to children in an eligible participating outlet, which includes schools, child care institutions, settlement houses, homeless shelters, or summer camps. This federal aid program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School Breakfast Program</span> Federally subsidized US program providing breakfast at K-12 schools

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) is a federally funded meal program that provides free and reduced cost breakfasts to children at public and private schools, and child care facilities in the United States. All children in participating schools and residential institutions are eligible for a federally subsidized meal, regardless of family income. However, free meals must be offered to children from families with incomes below 130% of the federal poverty level, and reduced price meals to those with family incomes between 130% and 185% of the poverty level. Those families over 185% poverty level have to pay full price for their meals which are set by the school. Even though the children have to pay for their own meals, the school is still reimbursed to some extent.

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) allows Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) to operate a food distribution program as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program for those living on or near an Indian reservation. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, administers FDPIR at the Federal level, and is locally operated through ITOs or State agencies(SAs). Eligibility for benefits is similar to the food stamp (SNAP) program, and funds are drawn from food stamp appropriations. Food Distribution Program Nutrition Education (FDPIR) grants are also awarded to participating FDPIR ITOs. These grants are awarded to support nutrition education activities that are culturally relevant, promoting healthy food choices, and promoting physical activity among participants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010</span> Federal statute

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is a federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 13, 2010. The law is part of the reauthorization of funding for child nutrition. It funded child nutrition programs and free lunch programs in schools for 5 years. In addition, the law set new nutrition standards for schools, and allocated $4.5 billion for their implementation. The new nutrition standards were a centerpiece of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative to combat childhood obesity. In FY 2011, federal spending totaled $10.1 billion for the National School Lunch Program. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act allows USDA, for the first time in 30 years, opportunity to make real reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children. Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and Michelle Obama were a step in transforming the food pyramid recommendation, which has been around since the early 1990s, into what is now known as "MyPlate".

Nutrition education is a combination of learning experiences designed to teach individuals or groups about the principles of a balanced diet, the importance of various nutrients, how to make healthy food choices, and how both dietary and exercise habits can affect overall well-being. It includes a combination of educational strategies, accompanied by environmental supports, designed to facilitate voluntary adoption of food choices and other nutrition-related behaviors conducive to well-being. Nutrition education is delivered through multiple venues and involves activities at the individual, community, and policy levels. Nutrition Education also critically looks at issues such as food security, food literacy, and food sustainability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MyPlate</span> US federal nutrition guide since 2011

MyPlate is the current nutrition guide published by the United States Department of Agriculture's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, and serves as a recommendation based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. It replaced the USDA's MyPyramid guide on June 2, 2011, ending 19 years of USDA food pyramid diagrams. MyPlate is displayed on food packaging and used in nutrition education in the United States. The graphic depicts a place setting with a plate and glass divided into five food groups that are recommended parts of a healthy diet. This dietary recommendation combines an organized amount of fruits, vegetables, grains, protein, and dairy. It is designed as a guideline for Americans to base their plate around in order to make educated food choices. ChooseMyPlate.gov shows individuals the variety of these five subgroups based on their activity levels and personal characteristics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School meal programs in the United States</span> Overview of school meal programs in the United States of America

In the United States, school meals are provided either at no cost or at a government-subsidized price, to students from low-income families. These free or subsidized meals have the potential to increase household food security, which can improve children's health and expand their educational opportunities. A study of a free school meal program in the United States found that providing free meals to elementary and middle school children in areas characterized by high food insecurity led to increased school discipline among the students.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summer Food Service Program</span> Federal program reimbursing organizations for childrens meals

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) began in 1968. It was an amendment to the National School Lunch Act. Today, the SFSP is the largest federal resource available for local sponsors who want to combine a child nutrition program with a summer activity program. Sponsors can be public or private groups, such as non-profit organizations, government entities, churches, universities, and camps. The government reimburses sponsors for the food at a set rate. There are still communities that have not created a Summer Food Service Program in their community. For those individuals that want to help ensure children have meals during the summer, they can get more information from the USDA or their state government agencies.

Many public libraries in North America offer summer meal programs to keep kids fed throughout the day. In the summer, low-income children may require nutrition away from home. If parents are at work, and there are limited food sources at home, children have fewer options for healthy, balanced meals. Coupled with programming or interactive activities, library meal programs are providing children with healthy lunches and opportunities for learning.

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) is a federally assisted program created by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help subsidize the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables during non-meal times during school.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "H.R. 7765 – The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980". Congress.gov. December 5, 1980. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 House Committee on The Budget (August 13, 1981). "H.R. 3982, "Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981"". THOMAS . Retrieved October 15, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (September 4, 1981), "National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and Child Care Food Programs; Meal Pattern Requirements", Federal Register 46 FR 44452, Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture
  4. ↑ Hayward, Steven F. (2009). The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution, 1980–1989. Random House. p. 187–188. ISBN   1-4000-5357-9.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Weinraub, Benjamin (September 28, 1981). "Washington Talk; Briefing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 4 "H.R. 3370, "National School Lunch Act of 1946"". June 4, 1946. Archived from the original on November 14, 2012. Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  7. 1 2 Gunderson, Gordon W. (February 2, 2012). "The National School Lunch Program Background and Development". United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Archived from the original on August 13, 2013. Retrieved December 2, 2012.
  8. 1 2 3 "Lunch Cuts Raise Legal Issues". The New York Times. September 17, 1981. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  9. 1 2 3 4 Germani, Clara (November 10, 1981). "US Children Snub High-Cost School Lunches". Christian Science Monitor . Archived from the original on September 22, 2015.
  10. ↑ Harsch, Jonathan (September 17, 1981). "Reagan cuts eat into school lunches". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on December 26, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  11. 1 2 3 Pear, Robert (October 21, 1981). "Many Children Decide Not to Buy More Costly School Lunches". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 24, 2015.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Oversight Hearings on Meal Pattern Changes in the School Lunch Program H341-21; Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education; September 17, 1981
  13. ↑ "Who Deserves a Break Today?". Newsweek. September 21, 1981. p. 43.
  14. ↑ Loizeau, Pierre-Marie (2004). Nancy Reagan: The Woman Behind the Man. Nova Publishers. p. 93–94. ISBN   1-59033-759-X.
  15. ↑ Brown, Patricia Leigh (April 1, 1993). "She May Be Decorating The White House. Shh!". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 14, 2016. Retrieved February 17, 2017.
  16. 1 2 3 Clines, Francis X.; Gailey, Phil (December 24, 1981). "Briefing". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 26, 2018.
  17. ↑ "Cut-Rate School Lunch Scorned by Senators". Reuters . September 25, 1981.
  18. 1 2 Pear, Robert (November 18, 1981). "President Gets Revised Proposals for Standards on School Lunches". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 24, 2015.
  19. 1 2 Thornton, Mary; Schram, Martin (September 26, 1981). "U.S. Holds the Ketchup in Schools". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  20. ↑ Baker, Russell (December 30, 1981). "Pain's Greatest Moments". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2018. Retrieved September 23, 2024.
  21. ↑ "Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 1977–1978: Household Data, Elderly Survey, With Weights". Series: Surveys of Food Consumption, 1965 - 1998. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, and Food Surveys Research Group. Spring 1977. Archived from the original on May 30, 2022. Retrieved December 9, 2012.
  22. 1 2 "Tofu and Turkey". Washington Post. November 26, 1981. p. A26. Archived from the original on May 30, 2022.
  23. ↑ "Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules p.2494 – Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on November 25, 2011. Retrieved December 3, 2011.
  24. ↑ Baertlein, Lisa (November 18, 2011). "House protects pizza as a vegetable". Reuters. Archived from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
  25. ↑ Wartman, Kristin (November 18, 2011). "Pizza is a Vegetable? Congress Defies Logic, Betrays Our Children". HuffPost . Archived from the original on November 20, 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.