Bill to reduce childhood hunger and obesity advances to Senate

CC photo: The Children's Alliance, Seattle, Washington

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 passed unanimously by the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday invests $4.5 billion in new funding for child nutrition programs over the next 10 years. While it’s a win for child nutrition advocates, other interest groups worry their projects will be threatened by loss of funding.

A bill that would greatly expand access to free meals at U.S. public schools -- including after school and summer time meals for hungry, low-income children -- and require that schools serve more nutritious foods was passed by the Senate Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry Committee Wednesday. Now it’s headed to the Senate floor. If passed, the $4.5 billion bill will impact the tens of millions of U.S. students that take part in the national school lunch and breakfast programs.

Sponsored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), committee chair, and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the bill marks the first real increase (outside of adjustments for inflation) in the national school meal program budget in four decades.

A major focus of the bill is addressing the childhood obesity epidemic. Lincoln said if childhood obesity can be reduced in her home state of Arkansas it can be done on a national level, too. “This provision replicates the success we have seen in Arkansas, where we have actually stopped the growth of childhood obesity, nurturing healthy eating habits in our children for the rest of their lives,” Lincoln said in a written statement.

The bill requires the agriculture secretary to establish national nutrition standards consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for all foods sold on school campuses. School nutrition standards have not been updated for 30 years.

Nutrition advocates spoke warmly of the bill.

“This represents a very important and positive step forward in the fight to end child hunger," said Vicki Escarra, president and CEO of Feeding America. "We are pleased that the legislation includes several of the priorities needed to increase access to nutritious food for low-income children.”  

Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said “Getting junk food out of schools is important for improving children’s diets and ensuring that those so-called competitive foods don’t undermine the school lunch program.”

“At a time when nearly one of every three American children is overweight or obese, Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s forward-looking action is a significant step toward helping our children eat better and live longer, healthier lives,” according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity.

Not everyone had enthusiastic words for the bill which places Congress in a situation where it robs Peter to pay Paul. In an economy struggling under the weight of two wars, bank bail-outs, and high unemployment, reality dictates that when one issue prevails, another loses.

Fifteen conservation groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have gone on record opposing the funding, not based on its merits but because it endangers funding promised to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners who are sharing in the cost of protecting the environment. Two million of the nutrition program would be shifted from dollars previously designated for the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

"We understand and appreciate the critical need to provide additional funding for the child nutrition school meal programs," according to a letter the groups sent to Lincoln and other members of the agriculture committee. "There are other sources for this funding outside of the Farm Bill conservation programs that could be tapped to pay for these needs without taking away from the programs that support farmers and forest landowners in their efforts to provide conservation benefits in addition to food, forest products, and fiber. However, if Farm Bill resources are determined to be the only resort, then fairness demands that the conservation title should not bear the full burden of providing the solution."