DONT WAIT ORGANIZE AND ADVOCATE! 10 TH BIENNIAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Nov 07, 2022 377 likes •808 views

DONT WAIT ORGANIZE AND ADVOCATE! 10 TH BIENNIAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY CONFERENCE ANAHEIM, CA JULY 17, 2019 Colin Schwartz, MPP Deputy Director, Legislative Affairs Center for Science in the Public Interest Center for Science in the Public

SLIDE 1

DON’T WAIT – ORGANIZE AND ADVOCATE!

10TH BIENNIAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY CONFERENCE ANAHEIM, CA JULY 17, 2019

Colin Schwartz, MPP Deputy Director, Legislative Affairs Center for Science in the Public Interest

SLIDE 2

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

Since 1971, CSPI has worked to: Make it easier to eat healthfully Prevent and mitigate diet- and obesity-related diseases Our Strategies: National, state, local policy Education (newsletter, social media) Advocacy (regulatory, legislative) Litigation

SLIDE 3

CSPI Accomplishments

Nutrition Facts labels on packaged foods Added trans fat to labels Remove trans fat from food supply Menu labeling at chain restaurants, supermarkets, movie theaters Warning labels on alcoholic beverages Litigation—ads, labels, trans fat, marketing to children Reduce junk food marketing to kids Funding for food safety and CDC's nutrition, physical activity, and

besity program

Food Safety Modernization Act Passage of Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

Soda and junk food out of school vending, a la carte, school stores, etc. & improve school meals

SLIDE 4

What are the school meals programs?

 National School Lunch Program:

nearly half of all children in the U.S. (more than 30 million).

 School Breakfast Program: more than

14 million children.

 Taxpayer investment in both

programs over $16 billion in FY2019.

 Meals, snacks, beverages must meet

nutrition standards

 Every 5 years Congress takes up

Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR)

SLIDE 5

Importance of strong school nutrition standards for low-income children

 Helps close the gap in healthier food

access between higher and lower- income schools

 Helps reduce stigma  Decreases obesity among low-income

students

SLIDE 6

 The majority of

participants are low- income

 School lunch: 73%  School breakfast: 85%  Participation is increasing

among low-income children

 School lunch: 15.5m in

2000 to 22m in 2017

 School breakfast: 7.5m

in 2000 to 12.4m in 2017

SLIDE 7

School lunch participation trends

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Free Paid RP

Great Recession (Dec., 2007) Updated Nutrition Standards (Sept., 2012) Source: USDA Child Nutrition Tables

SLIDE 8

How are things going? Virtually all school districts serving healthier lunches with more whole grains, fruits and vegetables, less salt and trans fat.

SLIDE 9

IMPORTANCE OF HHFKA

SLIDE 10

IMPORTANCE OF HHFKA

SLIDE 11

Impact of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

Updated school meal and snack standards: prevent more than 2 million cases of childhood obesity and save $792 million over ten years. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is “one of the most important national obesity prevention policy achievements in recent decades.”

Harvard School of Public Health, 2015

SLIDE 12

Impact of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

Recent USDA study found:

 23.6 percent increase of nutritional quality for lunches; 21.7 percent

increase for breakfast.

 The vast majority of schools (85 percent) met or were close to meeting

the first sodium-reduction target in SY 2014-2015.

 The majority of school meals met daily requirements for fruits (95 percent)

and vegetables (81 percent).

 Same amount of plate waste from before and after the updated standards.  School meal participation was highest in schools that had the healthiest

meals.

SLIDE 13

SO HOW DID ADVOCATES DO IT?

SLIDE 14

CSPI case study on HHFKA

 Provide an in-depth look into how

HHFKA came to pass to inform other nutrition and public health policy advocacy initiatives

 Case study covers 2003 to 2015  Focus on nutrition standards

https://cspinet.org/schoolfoodcasestudy

SLIDE 15

SLIDE 16

1990s: First identify the problem and the solution

 Research

 Childhood obesity increasing  Unhealthy school foods

 Policy cost-effective, sustainable  Early advocacy success: 1994 CNR meals based on Dietary Guidelines for

Americans

SLIDE 17

2000s: Tactics used leading up to HHFKA

 Build consensus and coordinate action  Build momentum at national, state, and

local level

 CSPI cultivated interest and technical

assistance to pass policies  Use the research for advocacy  Bring industry to the table  Diffuse opposition

SLIDE 18

2000s: Leading up to HHFKA

 Competitive foods (snacks and beverages)  Congressional legislation (2005-2010)  Institute of Medicine report (2007)  USDA and CDC case studies, CSPI state report cards  Bipartisan and industry support by 2006  Amendment to 2007 farm bill  School meals  Bush Administration contracted Institute of Medicine

report on school meals (released in 2009)

SLIDE 19

Moment of opportunity

 Perfect storm  Nontraditional and new partners  Use of research  Funders  Communications

SLIDE 20

Getting HHFKA to the finish line

 Challenges  Anti-hunger groups preferred House CNR bill  Senate CNR bill SNAP offset  How challenges have been resolved  Bridge organizations

SLIDE 21

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act passes!

SLIDE 22

After the law passes: regulations and defense

SLIDE 23

Implementation and defense of HHFKA

 Implementation  Comment on regulations

135,000 of the 138,000 comments on meal standards 240,000 of the 247,800 comments on competitive foods

SLIDE 24

Defense of HHFKA

 Opposition  First came pizza as a vegetable

SLIDE 25

SLIDE 26

Defense of HHFKA

 Additional opposition  Limits on french fries  Whole-grain rich requirement  Sodium reduction targets  Countering the opposition  Work with USDA and White House

SLIDE 27

Key takeaways

SLIDE 28

Key takeaways: Policy

 National policy change often takes time  20 years leading up to HHFKA  State and local momentum  Passing legislation first step of the process: implementation and defense

essential

 Timing (and luck) plays a role: “All the stars aligning”

SLIDE 29

Key takeaways: Advocacy

 Parents, concerned citizens, health professionals,

and local leaders have power, but do not always realize it

 Grassroots involvement essential  Mix of research and real-life success stories  Make up for limited resources through coalitions  Differences of opinion between allies as much of a

barrier as opposition from legislators or industry

SLIDE 30

Key takeaways: Industry

 Food industry not monolithic  Public health organizations can have different motives than industry, yet

still work together

 Advantage of national nutrition policy easier and less expensive for

industry than different policies in states and localities

 Industry can respond to changing demand

SLIDE 31

Company innovation: lowering sodium

 Aramark  ConAgra Foods  Domino’s Pizza (Smart

Slice)

 General Mills  Kellogg’s  Kraft Foods  Mars  Nestlé  PepsiCo  Revolution Foods  Schwan’s Company  Unilever  And many more!

SLIDE 32

School innovation: lowering sodium

SLIDE 33

Recent USDA study

USDA released the Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium in School Meals Study in June, 2019

 A large variety of products that meet current sodium standards are available for use in school

meals

 Range of effective school strategies  Additional communication and guidance to support implementation of the sodium standards

were the most frequently requested technical assistance resources:

 Dissemination of research on the health impacts of sodium and sodium substitutes  Enhanced planning and communication with all stakeholders for implementing future targets  Communication materials for diverse audiences, including schools, cooks, and FSMCs  Targeted resources for food preparation, infrastructure, and trainings

SLIDE 34

WHOLE GRAIN INNOVATION

SLIDE 35

Where we are now?

USDA’s final rule:

 Delayed the second sodium reduction targets from SY17-18 to SY24-25 (initially

delayed to SY20-21) and eliminated target 3

 Weakened the whole grain-rich requirement from 100% to 50% (initially proposed only

extending waivers)

 Allows 1% flavored milk (without calorie or sugar limits)

The final rule violates the law and is based on:

 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly, Institute of

Medicine) 2009 report: School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children

 2010-2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (adopted the NAM recommendations)  The 2015-2020 DGAs reinforced the same recommendations

SLIDE 36

SODIUM TOLERABLE UPPER LIMIT: 1,900MG/2,200MG/ 2,300MG

SLIDE 37

SODIUM DRI REPORT

SLIDE 38

WHOLE GRAINS: WHOLE GRAINS AT LEAST ½ TOTAL GRAIN CONSUMPTION

SLIDE 39

HOW ARE WE USING THESE BEST PRACTICES TO COUNTER THE ROLLBACKS?

SLIDE 40

How are we using these best practices to counter the rollbacks?

 Litigation  Child Nutrition Reauthorization

 Raising awareness: ads, Congressional briefing  Lobbying  Sharing research  Grassroots mobilization

SLIDE 41

What can you do?

 Take action: www.CSPInet.org/actionalerts  Pass state/local policy  Pass school district policy  Governor issue executive order  State agency guidance, memo, or formal communication

If you work with schools and/or companies:

 Provide technical assistance, best practices for meeting sodium and whole

grain-rich standards

SLIDE 42