Taking School Lunch Concerns to Congress

Nancy Montanez Johner, USDA’s Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, addresses FSDs who had questions about the effectiveness of USDA’s food recall communication efforts.

Mary Ann McCann hiked up Capitol Hill on March 4, the third day of SNA's annual Legislative Action Conference (LAC), to carry her district's meal program concerns to the Congressional offices of her home state of New Mexico. Along the way, she had lots of company — hundreds of other school FSDs-turned-lobbyists were “storming the Hill” for the same reason — and many waved hello to her as they made their own ways to appointments.

Once in the offices of Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, McCann, nutrition director at Taos Municipal Schools, met with staffer Dr. Dan Dierkson, a medical doctor.

School meal reimbursement rates are on the top of McCann's hot button list, and she pressed Dierkson about the need for Senator Bingaman and others in Congress to ensure that reimbursemen rates don't continue to fall behind increases in the cost of providing school meals.

Dierkson “understands the healthy meals-healthy kids issue,” McCann says. Another director, Beth Spinks, RD, of Berea, OH, agrees that many lawmakers and their staffs are receptive to such education efforts. “They're pretty supportive of the case we are making for new standards,” she adds. “The question is, what should the standards look like, and who is going to pick up the cost?”

SNA's conference drew more than 700 school foodservice professionals to the nation's capital. Many were FSDs like McCann and Spinks, but many other represented industry, which has its own interest in making sure national school nutrition policy is realistic as well as effective.

LAC attendees petitioned Congress with several key requests:

A Perfect Storm?

In other LAC programs, directors explored topics ranging from the history of nutrition standards to funding challenges facing child nutrition programs today.

According to Lynn Hoggard, state director of the North Carolina Department of Public Institutions in Raleigh, many factors have converged to create “a perfect storm” that could set child nutrition programs back for years if not addressed.

Hoggard pointed to a variety of challenges: increased operating, food, labor, equipment, storage and indirect costs; decreasing revenues; more demanding national and local nutrition standards; and the impact competitive food sales are having, undermining the program.

She also noted that increasing numbers of needy students are not even able to afford reduced-price meals because of declines in the economic situation faced by their households.

FSDs to USDA: ‘Here's the Beef!’

In the wake of the nation's largest-ever beef recall, directors and other stakeholders were assertive in their complaints during a session in which they spoke face-to-face with top representatives from the USDA.

Why wasn't there a faster response from the USDA when the extent of the recall became known? Why were messages on how directors were to comply with the recall in conflict? What were the real safety risks for students who may have consumed affected product?

Annette Hopgood, one of several attendees who complained that beef recall information reached news media before schools.

While frustration with aspects of the recall was evident from both sides, both USDA representatives and the audience seemed anxious to move forward, and the session ended with a significant amount of constructive dialogue about how procedures could be improved for the future.

Typical of many comments were those by Beth Wallace of San Antonio, TX, who described learning details about the recall from her suppliers and concerned parents before receiving information from the USDA.

“I didn't know how to respond,” Wallace told the panel. “Right now, a lot of people in my area are asking if we are going to be ‘beef-free.’” Other directors relayed similar experiences.

In response, Eric Steiner, Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) Associate Administrator, said the USDA is working on faster response times and an alert system on its web site. “We want to work with the states to make that information flow more quickly,” he said.

Dr. Kenneth E. Petersen, assistant administrator, USDA Office of Field Operations Food Safety and Inspection Service, was on hand to answer what he called “the safety question.”

Petersen said the recall was a “Class II” action, which meant the chance of serious health hazards was very remote. In past recalls, many having to do with E. Coli contamination, the risk has been much greater. This recall was made “out of an abundance of caution,” Petersen said. “Those who have consumed the product in question are at very minimal risk.”

A Perfect Storm?

In other LAC programs, directors explored topics ranging from the history of nutrition standards to funding challenges facing child nutrition programs today.

According to Lynn Hoggard, state director of the North Carolina Department of Public Institutions in Raleigh, many factors have converged to create “a perfect storm” that could set child nutrition programs back for years if not addressed.

Hoggard pointed to a variety of challenges: increased operating, food, labor, equipment, storage and indirect costs; decreasing revenues; more demanding national and local nutrition standards; and the impact competitive food sales are having, undermining the program.

She also noted that increasing numbers of needy students are not even able to afford reduced-price meals because of declines in the economic situation faced by their households.

FSDs to USDA: ‘Here's the Beef!’

In the wake of the nation's largest-ever beef recall, directors and other stakeholders were assertive in their complaints during a session in which they spoke face-to-face with top representatives from the USDA.

Why wasn't there a faster response from the USDA when the extent of the recall became known? Why were messages on how directors were to comply with the recall in conflict? What were the real safety risks for students who may have consumed affected product?

While frustration with aspects of the recall was evident from both sides, both USDA representatives and the audience seemed anxious to move forward, and the session ended with a significant amount of constructive dialogue about how procedures could be improved for the future.

Typical of many comments were those by Beth Wallace of San Antonio, TX, who described learning details about the recall from her suppliers and concerned parents before receiving information from the USDA.

“I didn't know how to respond,” Wallace told the panel. “Right now, a lot of people in my area are asking if we are going to be ‘beef-free.’” Other directors relayed similar experiences.

In response, Eric Steiner, Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) Associate Administrator, said the USDA is working on faster response times and an alert system on its web site. “We want to work with the states to make that information flow more quickly,” he said.

Dr. Kenneth E. Petersen, assistant administrator, USDA Office of Field Operations Food Safety and Inspection Service, was on hand to answer what he called “the safety question.”

Petersen said the recall was a “Class II” action, which meant the chance of serious health hazards was very remote. In past recalls, many having to do with E. Coli contamination, the risk has been much greater. This recall was made “out of an abundance of caution,” Petersen said. “Those who have consumed the product in question are at very minimal risk.”