Today’s Nutrition Environment: Trends in Government Nutrition Policies

1. Today’s Nutrition Environment: Trends in Government Nutrition Policies Lisa Watson Watson Mulhern LLC

2. Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act 2009

3. Federal Nutrition Policy Impacts Sales Dairy example: Total Fluid Milk In Schools: $1.36 Bil/yr FACT: Even subtle changes in government programs can have profound impact on overall dairy consumption. Impact of 5% Drop in Gov’t program Usage = - $350 Mil/yr Total Cheese in Schools: $552 Mil/yr Dairy in WIC, Food Stamps, Other Food Assistance Programs: $5.07 Bil/yr Total: $6.98 Billion

4. Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act • Act authorizes all federal school meal and child nutrition programs • Programs are permanently authorized, but are reviewed by Congress every five years • Current law expires end of September 2009 • Reauthorization amends two existing statutes • National School Lunch Act (created 1946 “as a measure of national security to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s children” • Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (established the School Breakfast Program) • Other programs later added, including the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Program

5. Programs Up For Review • National School Lunch Program • School Breakfast Program • Child and Adult Care Food Program • Summer Food Service Program • Afterschool Snack and Meal Program • Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) • WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program • Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program • Special Milk Program

6. A few slides on process

7. CNR 2009 DG 2005 CNR 2004 • Individual food groups are identified with disease prevention • Recommended increases in whole grains, f/v, and low/ nonfat dairy CNR theoretically should reflect report recommendations Instructs USDA to revise meal standards based on latest dietary guidance IOM How did we get here? • Report due late 2009 • Comments pushing IOM hard to make case for additional funding to meet standards USDA USDA Wait until DG 2005 completed to revise • Meet, meet, meet • No clear consensus • Punt to IOM to recommend standards based on the science

8. CNR 2009 DG 2005 • Individual food groups are identified with disease prevention • Recommended increases in whole grains, f/v, and low/ nonfat dairy CNR 2004 IOM Instructs USDA to revise meal standards based on latest dietary guidance Dietary Guidelines 2010 • Report due late 2009 • Comments pushing IOM hard to make case for additional funding to meet standards • Start all over again . . . ? USDA USDA Wait until DG 2005 completed to revise • Meet, meet, meet • No clear consensus • Punt to IOM

9. The Process • FY 2010 budget submitted to Congress next month • March 2009, SNA and FRAC spring conferences; CNR hearings expected • April 15: Budget Resolution to allocate $ by committee/function • <WINDOW FOR CNR DELIBERATIONS> • October 2009: Appropriations completed

10. Child Nutrition Programs: Major Issues for Congress • SNA is most powerful, but consumer groups on the rise • Historically seen as “SNA’s bill” • But more criticism of school meal programs • Additional funding? • Program quality could improve with more $ • New equipment funding in Senate stimulus bill • Many observers doubt major funding increase • National nutrition standards • Much more likely now than last year • USDA Discretion vs. details in statute • Could accelerate trend to kick out sodas, snack foods • Sugar is “avoidance nutrient” – limits likely on total grams in vended products

11. Key 2009 CNR Issue

12. Potential Factors on 2009 Movement • A variety of advocates likely to seek additional funding -- makes process much more difficult, reducing likelihood of action • IOM report could help make case for more funding • Most Reauthorization items are entitlements; few discretionary dollars • Opportunity for “tradeoffs” limited • House Education and Labor has full docket in 2009 • No items in CNR have to move this year • NSLP, SBP, Special Milk authorized permanently • Others could be extended fairly easily • Lawmakers could use rationale of IOM report not being completed until fall 2009 and DG process not done until 2010, both of which ideally should influence child nutrition program funding and structure

13. Key Player: SNA • Increase funding • Per meal reimbursement • Update Federal reimbursement rates semi-annually • Expand “free” meal category from 130% of poverty to 185% (eliminating reduced price meal) • Provide 10 cents in USDA commodities for each school breakfast served • Improve nutrition standards • Grant Secretary of Ag statutory authority to regulate sale of all foods/beverages on school campus (ending “time and place” rule) • Require USDA to implement a consistent, science-based national interpretation of the DGA for all school meals reimbursed by USDA

14. Key Player: FRAC • Improve access to nutritious foods in schools, child care centers and homes, in afterschool programs, on weekends, during the summer and in the home. • Enhance nutrition environment to promote healthy eating habits for women and children. • Modernize and streamline program operations to improve program integrity and efficiency.

15. Key Player: NANA • Update the national nutrition standards for school foods sold in vending machines, a la carte, school stores, etc., and apply them to the whole campus for the full school day. • Increase reimbursement rates for school meals. • Require employment of qualified nutrition professionals at school food service district level. • Encourage state child nutrition programs and schools to work toward the most recent edition of the DGA. • Require USDA to publish a proposed rule w/in 12 months (and finalize w/in 24) of IOM report. • Provide $1m for IOM study assessing the nutritional quality of school meals and compliance with school meal standards. • Provide $10m/year for non-food assistance grants (equipment purchase, etc.) to make it easier to provide meals consistent w/ DGA and food safety practices.

16. NANA’s Key Positions To Date (continued) • Fund DoD Fresh Program @$100m; encourage purchase of local produce when possible. • Remove requirement specifying that schools have to sell milk at “various fat levels” and allow only lowfat or nonfat. • Change requirement for soymilk to be nutritionally equivalent to lowfat milk only for nutrients of concern for children. • Increase (by $2m) funding to national Food Service Management Institute to improve training and assistance in meeting DGA. • Continue to improve nutritional quality of USDA Foods (commodities). • Strengthen local school wellness policies • Variety of suggestions, mostly related to implementation, as well as increased role for USDA Team Nutrition

17. NANA’s Key Positions To Date (continued) • Strengthen local school wellness policies • Variety of suggestions, mostly related to implementation, as well as increased role for USDA Team Nutrition • Strengthen nutrition education and promotion • Streamline and reform nutrition education and strengthen/provide reliable funding for Team Nutrition • Training and certification in nutrition and food safety for food service directors • Support and strengthen WIC • Preserve nutrition integrity of package • Strengthen nutrition education and breastfeeding support • Support implementation of new packages and technology needed to effectively implement WIC program (infrastructure, MIS) • Update health outcomes research and effectiveness evaluation • Should NOT cap nutrition services funding

18. Major Nutrition Policy Trends • Obesity remains top issue

20. Major Nutrition Policy Trends • Focus on kids’ health • Marketing/advertising • School nutrition/activity

21. Major Nutrition Policy Trends • Corporate change through public pressure • Alliance for Healthier Generation • Self-imposed advertising limits

22. Major Nutrition Policy Trends Greater emphasis on standards

23. IOM focus on Childhood Obesity Nutrition Standards and Meal Requirements for National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs 2004 Kids are getting fat; prevention key 2004 Focus on physical environment 2005 Marketing is making kids fat 2006 Gov’t is not doing enough 2007 Get “junk food” out of schools 2008-9 Align meal standards w/ science

24. IOM Urges Restrictive School Food & Beverage Competitive Food Standards

25. IOM Process for Nutrition Standards and Meal Requirements, NSL&BP • Process appears rigorous and extremely detailed • Hearing on “Phase 1” (basic assumptions and approach) January 28 • Few arguments to recommended approach during oral comments • Primary focus on need to challenge assumptions of static funding

26. Nutrition Standards Can Have Unintended Consequences

27. Sodium – The New Fat? • Clearly a priority of Dietary Guidelines 2010 Committee • One focus of IOM evaluation

28. The Bottom Line • The timing of relevant reports and the economic environment make it difficult to predict whether CNR will move forward in 2009 versus 2010.