The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
(HHFKA) has had a major impact on participation in the National School Lunch
Program. The new requirements phased in since
the 2010 enactment have resulted in a decreased number of students choosing
reimbursable meals, increased food waste and an increased paperwork burden. These changes have adversely affected the
economic efficiency of school cafeterias.
It goes without saying that Boards
of Education care about the health and well-being of students in their
communities. Concerns about the regulation’s
focus on the burdens created by the Act that have little to no benefit in the
effort to promote good nutrition. These raised
concerns, resulted in Congress directing the USDA to relax requirements to make
meals more appealing to students. The NJDA
responded by granting waivers for the 100% whole grain rich requirements for
the 2015-2016 school year. At the same time, they implemented additional paperwork
burdens, further increasing the cost for feeding children, with no nutritional
benefit.
A Call to Action
Congress is considering actions
that will affect these regulations as they prepare for Child Nutrition
Reauthorization. The Senate Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Committee unanimously approved a compromise providing
more flexibility in the standards and elimination of a portion of the onerous
paperwork. Unfortunately, the relaxed
requirement to 80% whole grain rich is tougher than the 50% permitted in the
waivers for 2015-2016. (Many other
states did not grant waivers and maintained the 100%). Simply stated, 100% of grains/breads offered with
the whole grain rich requirement must be whole grain rich. Students did not respond well to this
requirement, with all sandwiches, pasta, and pizza served being whole grain rich. This contributed to the “mystery food”
reputation of cafeteria food.
Congress should…
·
Relax Whole Grain standard to the 50% currently
permitted in New Jersey.
·
Omit the new Non-Program Revenue Tool that
changes the audit and requires all costs to be separated. This is expensive and produces no
benefit. It is designed to prove that a
district is not subsidizing a la carte sales with surpluses generated by the
sale of reimbursable meals (no one does this)!
·
