By RICK A. RICHARDS
Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The nation’s food producers and processors have had their say on proposed new school lunch nutrition standards announced by the USDA in January, and now they’re waiting for the final rules; no timetable has been set by the USDA, but it could be months before they are announced and put in place.

The new rules are part of the effort led by First Lady Michelle Obama to combat childhood obesity. On Jan. 13 the USDA announced the proposed changes as part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
 The rules are the first strengthening school lunch standards in 15 years. Producers and processors had until April 13 to comment on the proposed changes.

 “The United States is facing an obesity epidemic and the crisis of poor diets threatens the future of our children – and our nation,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “With many children consuming as many as half their daily calories at school, strengthening nutritional standards is an important step in the Obama administration’s effort to combat childhood obesity and improve the health and well-being of our kids.”

Under the new USDA guidelines, school lunch and breakfast menus would include more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nonfat and low-fat milk and less sodium and trans fats.

“Raising a healthier generation of kids will require hard work and the commitment of a host of partners,” said Vilsack. “We understand that these improved meal standards may present challenges for some school districts, but the new law provides important new resources, technical assistance and flexibility to help schools raise the bar for our kids.”

One of the organizations speaking up about the standards was the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA). Julie Brewer, its chief of policy and program development, said the organization supports the scientific evidence that shows “dietary balance, variety and moderation, coupled with appropriate physical activity, provides the foundation for a healthful life.”

Brewer added that NCBA supports the new fruits, vegetables, whole-grain and non- and low-fat milk proposals, but said lean beef should also be part of the mix.

“A recent study assessed the total dietary intake and beef consumption among a nationally representative sample of children and adolescents (aged 4-18),” said Brewer. “According to the study, beef was an important factor in nutrition adequacy of children’s diets. Specifically, beef contributed at least 14 percent of the B12 intake and at least 13 percent of the zinc intake, while contributing less than 9 percent of the total fat intake and less than 10 percent of the saturated fatty acid intake.”

Kristina Butts, a legislative specialist with NCBA, was talking with members of Congress about the new guidelines. “With an obesity epidemic in the country, we want the USDA to look at any relevant scientific evidence,” she said.
And that evidence, said Butts, shows beef contributes only 5 percent of the calories and more than 5 percent of the nutrients in a single three-ounce serving.

“Obesity is the main driving force of this change,” she said. “That’s why we’re glad there also is a physical activity discussion to go with this.”

Brewer, meanwhile, said the NCBA agrees with proposals to reduce saturated fat and sodium in school lunch menus, but disagrees with the USDA’s effort to discourage the use of processed food.

“Emerging innovation is resulting in processed meats that are lower in fat and sodium,” said Brewer. “These processed meats contribute high quality protein and nutrients to a healthy diet for growing children.”

One target for the USDA is trans fats. The goal is to have zero trans fats per serving, as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but the NCBA said the guidelines don’t differentiate between naturally occurring trans fats and industrial trans fats.

“Meat products contain naturally occurring trans fats and mixed meat dish products may contain both naturally occurring and industrial trans fats,” said Brewer. “We request the USDA allow manufacturers to subtract the naturally occurring trans fat content of products when providing nutrition information to schools.”

Ken Colombini, a spokesman for the National Corn Growers Assoc., said the organization “has not taken a close look at the issue.” Meanwhile, the North American Millers’ Assoc. (NAMA), which includes a variety of grain producing and grain processing organizations, came out in support of the USDA guidelines.
NAMA President Mary Waters said while it supports the concept of healthier school lunches, some proposed changes need to be defined more explicitly.
“The 2005 and 2010 guidelines continue to recommend that Americans make half their daily grain servings with whole grains,” she said. “Yet, under the proposed rule, two years post-implementation, all grains offered during the school week must be ‘whole-grain rich,’ a term that has no official definition.”
In addition, Waters said NAMA has heard from wheat, barley and rye producers that “all products that are voluntarily labeled gluten-free not contain prohibited grains.” Those prohibited grains are wheat, rye and barley.

She said NAMA wants the term changed to “gluten-containing grains” because for those “who have no medical reason for avoiding gluten, the term ‘prohibited grains’ may give these consumers a negative perception of these food products.”

The reason the Child Nutrition Division of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service is strengthening the school lunch requirements is that nearly 32 million children consume school lunches. Depending on enrollment and the allotment set aside for each child, the USDA estimates the program could serve an additional 600,000-950,000 children a year.

To do that, the USDA has announced state allocations to help support local districts implement the new rules. In the Midwest, Illinois would receive $4.75 million; Indiana $3.18 million; Iowa $2.33 million; Kentucky, $2.64 million; Michigan $4.02 million; Ohio $4.43 million; and Tennessee $3.15 million.