The Nutritional Nanny State

Last August, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill into law that establishes public school nutritional guidelines and defines standards that are some of the healthiest in the nation in terms of competitive foods and à la carte food items. The goal of the bill is to combat childhood obesity in Massachusetts, as well as related diseases like type 2 diabetes. 

According to one legislator who pushed for the bill, nearly 30 percent of Massachusetts middle school children are classified as overweight or obese. Based on these types of concerns, this law seems necessary. But what will this really mean to our kids and us?

Before we go on, I believe it is very important to establish a few things. 

• This law, of which phase one requirements must be implemented by August of this year (phase 2 is next year), is not coming from the Attleboro School Committee or the administration. This is Beacon Hill's work, mainly, although the School Committee will have a say on one of the requirements, which I will discuss below. 
• My purpose for writing this blog entry is not to debate the pros and cons of state or federal public school nutritional guidelines. Generally I strongly believe in local control, although I can understand why some state lawmakers would want to set laws that define the standards of nutrition (for the food sold during meals) for a place where our children spend so much of their time.
• I agree wholeheartedly with many of the requirements, including offering fresh fruits and vegetables, more opportunity for physical activity and purchasing more from local farmers, which helps to spur the local economy. All good things in my opinion. 

Normally my concerns with new laws of this nature, including this one, are mainly focused on how these types of mandates are almost always unfunded. Without a doubt, these new requirements will lead to added district costs and the district will not be receiving additional funds.

So last August, when this Bill was first signed into law, the Policy Sub-Committee that I chaired took a look at what this would affect. There is a requirement not to use deep fat fryers, which we were told were not being used in Attleboro. There was a requirement to provide water throughout the day, and we verified that the water fountains in the schools covered this. We even had to deal with some of the middle school administrators making their own policies on what kids can bring from home to drink, which was beyond the scope of this law or the principals' jurisdictions (the School Committee defines school district policies). 

Back in August, Attleboro seemed in pretty good shape meeting the demands of the new state law. But now that we're getting closer to August and further explanation from the state has been provided, things seem to be more difficult than was first thought.

When I first reviewed the new law, I focused on the term "competitive" that was repeatedly used. Competitive, to me, indicated the food service company. Here is the specific section of the law:

Competitive foods and beverages include all foods and beverages sold or provided as à la carte items in school cafeterias, classrooms and hallways, school stores, school snack bars, vending machines, fundraising activities and school-sponsored or school-related events and all other locations in public schools.

But again, the term "competitive" seemed to apply to the vendors and not to parents, parent-teacher organizations or booster clubs. Sure, the items sold in the vending machines may need to change, but hamburgers at the football game, that didn't seem to apply. Well, recently the guidance that has been provided indicated that it is not just the food service provider that is affected by this, but in fact this covers ALL foods within the schools. The ramifications of this are daunting to think about.

Now, as a former PTO president at my children's elementary school and an active member at their middle school, I am very concerned about what this means.

I found it a bit appalling that a state mandate on school nutrition would affect things like snack bars, concession stands and fundraising activities; but would not (it still blows my mind) affect the school meals themselves. The actually wording is as follows:

The standards do not apply to school meals programs, which follow USDA national guidelines.  

At first, I thought "no big deal," since the USDA guidelines must be the same as the state's, but that was absolutely not correct. Trust me when I tell you that the USDA guidelines are much weaker.

So if this doesn't cover the children's breakfast or lunch, what will this affect?

School stores, snack bar and vending machines are covered, which may not be an issue for the elementary or middle school levels, but at the high school things will be changing.

Originally I thought that PTOs and booster groups, because they are independent organizations that are not "controlled" by the district, would be exempt, but now the indication is that they too are covered. Think about what this means.

Any food related fundraisers, even for independent, non-profit organizations like the PTOs and including things like Cookie Dough (a huge profitable item) may not be able to be sold any longer. The one gray area here (and with government mandates you usually want to use every shade of gray possible) is that a tub of cookie dough being sent home with a child is not being consumed at school, so it should not apply.

Those pizza parties that PTOs like to provide for things like collecting the most BoxTop$ or having the most school spirit, or the ice cream sundaes after a hard day of taking MCAS will be a thing of the past. Will ice pops that are given out during field day events meet the guidelines? And the idea of sending in some cup cakes for your child's seventh or eighth birthday is one more thing that our state government will be taking away, all because they care so much.

Here is the one saving grace and where the School Committee will hopefully make the right decision

The standards apply to items sold or provided from 30 minutes before the beginning of the school day until 30 minutes after the school day ends (however vending machines are at all times). The state department encourages school districts to enforce these requirements 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but gives the option to the School Committee. Once again, hopefully this School Committee will vote to do the 30 minutes and nothing more. If so, then much of what may have been affected will not be. 

Concession sales during a sporting event (as long as it is after the 30 minutes) will be OK. Evening school and PTO events (as long as it is after the 30 minutes) will be ok.  I'm sure that everyone can see how this was close to being a very big problem for our schools and our kids, or at least more of a problem than it is. I am hopeful that the School Committee defines its nutritional policies in such a way so that the school's administration cannot interpret the requirements in such a way as to try to limit the types of fundraisers the PTOs and booster groups hold.

I agree that school can play a critical role in the health of children and adolescents.  Our schools can educate students about their eating and being active and can offer healthy food choices, such as whole grains and fruits and vegetables. The School Committee can adopt policies that prohibit unhealthy food practices and provide (or increase) opportunities for daily physical activity (which seems to be continually diminished in Attleboro by the administration).

But at what point should the federal and state mandates stop? Should federal and state mandates come with funding to meet the guidelines? Should our School Committee think about voting to inform the state department that this unfunded mandate should be funded? Should organizations, such as PTOs and booster groups, which are trying to make our children's schools better be controlled in these ways when they are independent 501c3 organizations that are not controlled by the district? 

At what point does the nanny state stop and local control start?