Trump official freezes Michelle Obama’s plan to fight childhood obesity

[Tennis]

After only six days on the job, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue moved to stall one of former first lady Michelle Obama’s signature accomplishments: stricter nutritional standards for school breakfasts and lunches, which feed more than 31 million children.

Speaking at Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg, Va., on Monday with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Patricia Montague of the School Nutrition Association, Perdue announced that his department would be slowing the implementation of aggressive standards on sodium, whole grains and sweetened milks that passed under the Obama administration.

The measure is similar to a policy rider that House Republicans inserted in this week’s appropriations bill. It also echoes a bipartisan compromise made by Senate Republicans and Democrats last year, which did not pass before the end of the session.

“We know meals cannot be nutritious if they're not consumed, if they're thrown out,” Perdue told reporters after eating chicken nuggets and salad with a group of fifth graders. “We have to balance sodium and whole grain content with palatability."

It was the second blow to the Obama administration’s nutritional legacy in less than a week. On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration signaled its intent to rewrite long-delayed menu-labeling rules passed as part of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee also attached several nutrition-related riders to this week’s appropriations bill, including one that targeted voluntary industry sodium reductions.

The changes will likely be cheered by conservatives, who have long cited the previous restrictions as examples of gross federal overreach. They were also welcomed by the School Nutrition Association, a powerful lobbying group which represents school food workers and administrators, and which has said schools need more time and flexibility to meet the stricter rules.

But such rollbacks have been rejected by public health and nutrition advocates, who say the stricter nutrition rules are critical tools in the fight against obesity.

“I feel that we have made such progress in schools meals over the past five years,” said Miriam Nelson, a public health researcher who helped advise Michelle Obama’s nutrition initiatives. “This progress has contributed to reversing the trend in childhood obesity rates nationwide. … We want to continue the progress we have made.”

School lunches have seen a radical makeover in the past five years. Since 2012, when the nutrition rules mandated by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act went into effect, cafeterias have had to slash the amount of calories, trans-fats, sodium and refined grains in their foods, replacing cafeteria staples such as conventional pizza with salt-reduced, whole-grain versions. They are also required to serve fruit, a variety of vegetables and low-fat or fat-free milk. Schools may serve chocolate milk, but it must be skim milk.

Under current rules, all the grains offered in school cafeterias must be 50 percent or more whole grain. Schools also have adopted new sodium limits, which range by grade and were scheduled to continue dropping through 2020. Currently, elementary school lunches may include up to 1,230 milligrams of sodium. That was set to fall to 640 milligrams.

Perdue’s announcement changes that: Schools will not be required to make any changes to the amount of sodium in the meals they serve until after 2020. The Department of Agriculture will also continue granting waivers to schools allowing them to opt out of a requirement to serve only whole-grain enriched foods. They will soon be permitted to serve chocolate and flavored milk, provided it's reduced fat.

“We’re not unwinding or winding back any nutrition standards at all,” Perdue said. “We're giving school food professionals the flexibility they need.”

Under the Obama administration, the nutrition guidelines for schools that participated in the National School Lunch Program shifted, requiring cafeterias to increase their offering of fruits and vegetables, serve only skim or low-fat milk and cut trans-fat from the menu altogether. They also required school cafeterias to cut sodium in the food they were serving.

The changes, championed by the first lady, were unveiled at Parklawn Elementary, a school 30 miles southeast of Catoctin Elementary. Obama said they were an effort to combat the growing problem of childhood obesity -- with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that 1 in 6 children were obese in 2015.

“When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won’t be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home,” Obama said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e66effb68d98

Yeah ok there. So his plan is to make our children less healthy?
I thought the President is supposed to improve the country!?

[Stormdash]

I would hope his plan is that it's not the government's, certainly not the federal government's, job to micromanage what children are fed. Parents, how do they work?

[owbu]

Parents, how do they work?

They (statistlicly) dont. Which is why the goverment had to step in, in the first place.

[Ooid]

“We know meals cannot be nutritious if they're not consumed, if they're thrown out,” Perdue told reporters after eating chicken nuggets and salad with a group of fifth graders. “We have to balance sodium and whole grain content with palatability."

What good is nutritional changes if the students aren't eating the food?

[DarkTZeratul]

I would hope his plan is that it's not the government's, certainly not the federal government's, job to micromanage what children are fed. Parents, how do they work?

And the government isn't micromanaging what children are being fed, and certainly isn't telling parents what to feed their kids. They're dictating what federally-funded public schools are feeding children, which strikes me as being well within their purview.

[Activi-T]

I would hope his plan is that it's not the government's, certainly not the federal government's, job to micromanage what children are fed. Parents, how do they work?

On minimum wage and/or recipients of welfare of some sort usually leading to less money to spend on healthy food, exercise and education. A country's government has a vested interest in the wellbeing of its citizenry a concept recognised by most western nations but lost on some.

[Cybran]

Many of these children in inner cities rely on school food for their whole day. Obama's diet just isn't nutritional enough to sustain them.

[DarkTZeratul]

Many of these children in inner cities rely on school food for their whole day. Obama's diet just isn't nutritional enough to sustain them.

So rather than make them better, the solution is to do away with the nutritional guidelines altogether?

[Edge-]

I would hope his plan is that it's not the government's, certainly not the federal government's, job to micromanage what children are fed. Parents, how do they work?

It never has been. But ensuring that lunches provided at public schools are nutritious should be, rather than just reclassifying "pizza" as a vegetable.

And before anyone makes the comment (unless they already have), yes, I'm perfectly happy to have some of my taxes going to make sure that poor kids get nutritious meals at schools and don't go hungry.

[Kujako]

Also getting rid of the Energy Star program... seems like he's cutting every nickel and dime thing he can to pay for the tax cuts, no mater who it hurts or what it costs (energy star costs a few million and saves consumers billions).

[Edge-]

Also getting rid of the Energy Star program... seems like he's cutting every nickel and dime thing he can to pay for the tax cuts, no mater who it hurts or what it costs (energy star costs a few million and saves consumers billions).

Yeah, this one really pisses me off, was listening to it this morning. Apparently it costs around $50M a year for the federal government, and the savings in years past for consumers/business have been as high as $34B. If your'e asking for bang for your buck for a federal program, those are some pretty incredible results that very positively impact the overall economy by putting money back in the hands of consumers and businesses alike.

The programs they're targeting to cut are such a minuscule part of the overall federal budget, but largely have a pretty big impact on the communities they serve. If nothing else, it seems like these are being targeted out of spite rather than for any meaningful reason/benefit.

[ohiostate124]

The food plan was a disaster. The actual kids that had to eat it thought it was a disaster.

[Wyrt]

The food plan was a disaster. The actual kids that had to eat it thought it was a disaster.

Of course they did. Kids never want to eat healthy food.

[ohiostate124]

Of course they did. Kids never want to eat healthy food.

My brother though vegetables were a disaster. So what? He was an idiot child and obviously my parents ignored him and told him to eat them anyway.

Healthy? Ok. We've all seen pictures of her healthy meals. I could eat healthier at McDonald's.

I feel like we've had this thread here before about how bad it is but oh well. Let's rehash it.

[Tennis]

The food plan was a disaster. The actual kids that had to eat it thought it was a disaster.

They kids. You expect kids to know what's best for them?

[Halicia]

Apparently not well when both parents work 50-60 hour work weeks and still cannot afford any housekeeping.

lol... 50-60 hours a week ? slackers...

my governor says people should be working 80 hours a week.

[Cybran]

So rather than make them better, the solution is to do away with the nutritional guidelines altogether?

This is child abuse.

[Edge-]

Yes, that lunch is a joke.

Again, the goals of the program are fantastic - make sure that kids can get nutritious meals rather than just stuffing them with calories and no actual nutrition. It's extremely important for young/teenage kids to get adequate nutrition because failure to do so can cause a host of problems with their ability to learn and focus in school, as well as other health issues.

The solution should be to re-evaluate the program and identify the reasons for why it's not achieving these goals consistently (because it is achieving them in plenty of places, just as it's failing in plenty of places) and address them.

Not to cut it and leave children to go hungry or simply stuff them full of calories that don't also deliver any real nutrition.

[Draco-Onis]

I mean if you want quality food, you need better kitchens and higher expenses. The project never had proper backing and was executed half-heartedly. It was meant to fail

It was not meant to fail but it was derailed by the food lobby and many of the provisions and funding never made it. There is big profit to be made from kids eating unhealthy food, it is also a good platform for companies to get those kids to buy their products as adults.

[Draco-Onis]

I mean, did Republican ruled states and municipalities not bury the program in its execution?

It was cut at the knees at both federal and state level, I honestly did not think that the food lobby was this powerful.