If the USDA says it's not junk food...

by Carly Keidel

If you want to be amazed, take this new Junk Food in Schools Quiz, offered by CSPI. If you aren't concerned about cafeteria standards, you soon will be. I'm truly stunned and dismayed that the USDA is so out of touch. Take the quiz and see for yourself!

Comments

[Mara]

Well, some of these foods do not seem so bad to me. Are kids to never have chocolate bars, for instance? Or chocolate chip cookies? I think the additives in such foods are worse than anything. Healthier versions of high fat treats do not, in my opinion, a crisis make.

I do agree that french fries are not such a hot item if offered regularly (once in a while along with salad and fish or chicken is fine). But instead of french fries, they could serve cooked sweet potato sticks or some such alternative choice.

I'm not sure where people are going with school lunches. Are *all* foods high in fat and/or sweet to be *completely* banished? That seems as one-sided to me as Only serving such fare. Surely moderation to some degree can play a role in all this. People do Not have to either binge or these foods or completely abstain.

[cam]

Does this also reflect the lobbiests' work on the FDA? Because, well, cookies and Hi-C, and ice cream bars ARE junk food.

[Shefaly]

Carly, it does not surprise me in the least. Unlike the universal agreement on things like simple/ complex carbs, sugar, sat fats etc, there is no universal consensus on the definition of junk food. Doing a black and white comparison of the kind 'any nutrition' versus 'no nutrition' would indeed lead to the silliness that the CSPI quiz shows.

It is hard enough that adults are still learning about nutrition; we could give children a better start for life.

Not that British schools are any better, mind you, and of course you all at Rudd know everything about Jamie's campaign. It made some difference but his heroine dinner lady Nora just quit her job as she cannot implement everything she learnt with her hands tied behind her back vis-a-vis budgets and freedom.

[Rene]

This wasn't surprising and not out of line with nutritional science. Our bodies don't care where the source of nutrients come from as it breaks down food consumed to the basic elements. Just because it's in a package doesn't make it any less food.

[WG]

I think as Shefaly noted, the definition of “junk food” needs some refinement. The USDA, which I rarely if ever defend, is grappling with this very issue and some of their gains in that regard might need to be highlighted. If you’re interested read the following material which sheds a little light on the quiz above.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Resources/NAPappendices.pdf

The USDA has refined the term “junk food” to be “Foods of minimal nutritional value.” That might not seem like much of a change, but in terms of better defining the kinds of foods which might fall under this heading, and for the purposes of the National School Lunch Program, they appear to be inching ever so slowly toward a global set of guidelines for schools to follow. And with those guidelines, low exposure to those foods which might offer kids minimal nutritional value. A goal we might all agree is something desirable.

If you consider the evolution of this kind of legislation and the lobbying input into the development of this document, you might have more sympathy for what the USDA is trying to accomplish. Defining a food as having minimal nutritional value, in a legal document, might have far-reaching economic consequences. In addition, as Mara points out, I like to eat a Snickers bar or a Hostess Twinkie on occasion and don’t feel the government should ban products of minimal nutritional value. Without question, the government and the USDA are certainly walking a tightrope between condemning certain free market foods and endorsing others, a potentially troubling undertaking.

[Mara]

"The USDA has refined the term “junk food” to be “Foods of minimal nutritional value.”

This is interesting. For myself, junk food is that which is processed with alot of chemicals. This stuff should be seldom consumed but you won't die on the spot or explode if, say, you dare to have the occasional Twinky.
On the other hand, foods that I consider to be "treats" (that is, to be eaten sparingly but with Great enjoyment) are Not junk in my opinion. Cookies made with good milk, eggs and flour are treats, not junk.
I'm worried about how judgemental people have become toward dessert type and other treat-type foods (often either trying to cut such foods completely out of their diets - and often becoming very rigid about it - and/or feeling great guilt for "succumbing" to such treats).
There is a middle path. By all means improve school lunches (Hi-C and soda Are junky but I doubt you'd get kids totally off them). But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Kids will always have access to "bad" foods, however you wish to define them. Pull the leash too tight and they will rebel by eating More of that stuff. Offer them a variety of truly tasty food (not "healthy" stuff that ends up tasting like cardboard) and they will begin to make healthier choices.

[Mara]

I've just read the testimony of Kelly Brownell before the Committe on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate.

His testimony concerns the improvement of school lunches for all children.

It was a very eye-opening read. I must say, I had absolutely no idea that, in Brownell's words, "Between 1994 and 2004, 1,643 new types of candies were introduced and marketed specifically for children, while in that same time period, only 52 fruit and vegetable-related products were introduced."

It's a more aggressive environment than when I went to school (although I remember a lot of junk and fast food then, as well).

Of course, it's really difficult to come up with new products for fruits and veggies w/o making them as unhealthy as snackcakes, say.

I think it's wise to support what Brownell is doing.

That said, I also think that children should be taught that sweet and/or high-fat treats are also options to have occasionally.

It would be nice if schools didn't have to serve soda; I don't really see this happening, myself.

I think allowing children more freedom of movement like playtime and gym is also important.

I wonder if Kelly Brownell is overlooking how computers have changed how much time kids run around and play. Kids now have so much time in front of screens of all types.

Another aspect to factor in: if schools weren't such high-stress environments themselves, with bullying, cliques, boredom and very intense scholastic pressure (and lack of sleep often occuring as kids try to fit in homework + an active life, And activities that look good on college resumes) -

then maybe kids wouldn't turn to junk food so much. Both lack of sleep and high stress play a role in how much or little one will become addicted to bad eating habits.

[Mara]

In the words of Doctor James Hill:

"Here again, I think we could apply our idea of small changes. One idea is: Let's go in and totally uproot everything. Let's change the curriculum, put in P.E. Let's get healthy food in the lunchroom. Let's get vending machines out. I don't see that happening. I think that's going to be hard to do. But I do think what we could do is start doing small changes over time."

"We're in schools trying to get kids to be more active, maybe even during the curriculum. A lot of information now suggests these kids can do active learning. They don't have to sit in a class, in a seat, and learn all the time. They can be up and about. You can find activity breaks, 10 minutes here and there, for the kids. You could look at how you can begin to make small changes in the cafeteria, how you can put better products in the vending machines. I think the whole idea of small changes would work well in schools, and I think schools are willing to do that. I think it would be tough to just tear everything out: whole new food in schools, whole new physical activity curriculum. Yeah, maybe we need to get to that over time, but we've been talking about that for a while and it hasn't happened. So maybe we ought to try the small change approach. ..."