Readers react to SNA criticism

A while back I wrote a blog about the School Nutrition Association being careful what it asked for. Several readers contacted me regarding the blog. It’s always nice to hear from readers—especially when they disagree with you.

The first email I received was from Sally Spero, child nutrition director for Lakeside Union School District, in California, who wrote:

“I would like to bring to your attention your blog "Be Careful What You Wish For" taking the School Nutrition Association to task for recent lobbying activities regarding the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, stating that the legislation was what SNA had asked for and (presumably) could not now legitimately complain about.

“In fact, SNA has maintained a consistent policy towards the positions referenced in this year's 2014 Position Paper. In 2008 SNA issued a National Nutrition Standards report prior to HHFKA [Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act] that did *not* include the provisions SNA is working to improve at present (too many whole grains, unrealistic sodium targets, etc.) In 2011 SNA submitted 11 pages of comments on the weaknesses of HHFKA to USDA. Re-reading this document it is almost Cassandra-like in it's warnings of higher costs, lower participation, challenges posed to manufacturers, plate waste and other related issues.”

Related:Be careful what you ask for

The second email was from Chris Burkhardt, child nutrition director and wellness coordinator for Lakota Local Schools, in Liberty Township, Ohio, who wrote:

“While I agree with some (but not all) regulations from USDA in regards to the HHFKA, they have come too late, without REAL consultation with directors as well as unrealistic timelines. For example: In the past we asked for a level playing field for competitive foods. Most schools adopted AHG [Alliance for a Healthier Generation] guidelines from the onset. Since USDA did not step up and make national guidelines that states AND manufacturers could follow, states made their own. Now in the eleventh hour USDA comes in and has enacted policies, which contradict many of the state guidelines. The two laws working in concert make the actual practice twice as strict and nearly impossible to follow without bankrupting some districts. Our district has a large a la carte program and we WERE happy to say that all of our products were AHG compliant or were a component for a meal. Now, we will be struggling to find out how to offer those items that students want while meeting the parts of the law, which are arbitrary and capricious. In the end, I read very little of your article that I agreed with.”

It’s always exciting to hear from readers about a piece you’ve written. Those in the child nutrition industry are oftentimes the most proactive in writing emails to us regarding the stories we create. It’s just another way these dedicated individuals share their passion about feeding children.

Hoping to clarify my blog, I wrote the following to Spero and Burkhardt: My point wasn't that SNA was asking for all these detailed points (maximums on the amount of grains that could be served per week, for example), but it was rather asking for a standard definition, if you will, of what constituted a reimbursable meal. The USDA then took that directive, to create a definition, and created the individual mandates that came to make up the new meal pattern. The same thing can be applied to competitive foods.

This industry is a big one—there are more than 45,000 people who receive FoodService Director and that’s just scratching the surface of the non-commercial industry—so it’s often hard to ensure we’re hearing everyone’s voices and sharing their stories. So please contact us whenever you’ve got something new and exciting going on in your operation. Or when you’ve been faced with a new challenge. And especially when you think we’re wrong.

We look forward to hearing from you!