|
Written Testimony
of
Renee L. Giachino
General Counsel and Senior Vice President,
Center for Individual Freedom
before the
Texas Joint Interim Committee on
Nutrition and Health in Public Schools
June 29, 2004
Chairman Lucio,
Vice Chair Laubenberg, and Members of the Committee:
I am extremely
pleased to provide written testimony as you consider issues of nutrition
and health in Texas public schools. As a mother of three young children,
the spouse of a physician, a parent volunteer at an elementary school
and former school advisory council member, as well as an attorney
who has provided frequent commentary on school related issues, my
reasons for presenting this testimony are varied. My goal, however,
is singular to highlight the devastating consequences that
will befall Texas public schools under the revised Texas Public
School Nutrition Policy.
Texas public
health crusader Susan Combs, Commissioner of the Texas Department
of Agriculture, issued the revised policy on March 1, 2004, with
further revisions issued June 1, 2004, touting it as an "attempt
to promote a healthier environment in schools" and to counter
the childhood obesity crisis in our nation. Scheduled to take effect
August 1, 2004, when most, if not all, of Texas public school students
and their parents are focused on summer vacation plans rather than
school menus, the new policy significantly restricts the foods available
on school premises and especially in cafeterias.
Unfortunately,
the policy is really one more frightening attempt by a government
bureaucrat to usurp the power of state and local legislators, school
districts, teachers and parents to make decisions about how best
to educate their children.
Under the new
policy, gone are the days of pizza parties and birthday cakes in
elementary school classrooms, unless it is one of three rationed
annual events allowed per school year (and then, only if approved
by school officials). Festive sprinkles, candy hearts and jelly
beans can no longer garnish cupcakes or cookies, assuming those
latter sweet treats can even be offered at all under the limitations
on foods containing refined or added sugar and trans fats. "Foods
of Minimal Nutritional Value" (FMNVs), which include soda water,
water ices (any "
sicles"), chewing gum and most
candies, are outlawed by the policy. Even elementary school fundraising
projects that involve food are on the chopping block, while middle/junior
high and high school food fundraisers must meet stringent nutrition
standards and narrow time and place restrictions.
While some foods
are banned under the policy, others are severely restricted in both
serving size and how often they may be offered. For example, at
the elementary school level, French fries may not exceed 3 ounces
per serving, may not be offered more than once per week, and students
may only purchase one serving at a time. By the beginning of the
2005-06 school year, frying, itself, will be banned altogether as
an on-site cooking method in all Texas public schools that do not
need to make an equipment change. A transition period until the
2009-10 school year exists for schools that do need to make an equipment
change or facility modification to eliminate frying.
No food is safe
from scrutiny under the policy. Schools are limited to offering
only 8 ounces of whole or flavored milk, and then only if it contains
no more than 30 grams total sugar per 8 ounce serving, and only
16 ounces of 2 percent, 1 percent or skim milk. If fresh fruits
are not available, frozen or canned may be offered, but only if
they are packed in natural juice, water or light syrup. The new
rules say schools may not serve items that contain more than 28
grams of fat per serving more than twice a week, further slashing
the fat ceiling to 23 grams per serving for the 2006-07 school year.
Cafeteria supervisors have indicated that menus will have to be
significantly revamped and existing vendor relationships reevaluated.
Indeed, cafeteria workers, themselves, will be sent back to school
to learn, read, and decipher complicated food labels before developing
new menus.
For the moment,
the restrictions only apply to food offered by the schools
official food service programs. But ultimately, the restrictions
may make lunch boxes the hottest commodity on back-to-school shopping
lists as more students opt to bring their own lunches (and make
their own choices about what to eat) instead of being subjected
to state government mandated regulation and restriction of their
lunches.
Moreover, on
high school campuses with open-door lunch policies, more students
will likely decide to eat off-campus, quickly dashing to their favorite
restaurant or convenience store, putting these students at increased
risk for personal injury. Most parents would prefer that their child
find attractive choices on high school campuses instead of longing
to get behind the wheel or in the passenger seat of a teenagers
car in order to find their preferred lunch.
The revised
policy is wrong for several reasons. First, it takes control away
from state and local legislative bodies, school districts, teachers
and parents who ought to making decisions about what our children
eat and drink in schools. What our children eat during and between
meals should be a parental choice, not a decision requiring a stamp
of approval from the government.
Second, the
policy is arbitrary. There is no evidence that banning sodas, chips
and candy from schools will do anything to reduce the number of
overweight children. Kids will still be able to buy sodas off-campus,
bring them to school in their lunchboxes, or drink them at home.
A ban does nothing to teach children about enjoying food in moderation;
it only labels banned foods as contraband and, therefore, makes
them more desirable for some.
Our schools
should not shelter our children from reality. Schools should be
educating our children about nutrition and how to make healthy food
choices while employing self control. We do not live in a society
that is always black and white, and if we dont arm our children
with the skills to make their own choices in the gray zone, we will
only make our obesity problem worse in the long run. Indeed, we
will be left with a new generation of high school graduates who
have learned how to point the finger at others instead of taking
personal responsibility.
Moreover, it
appears that in some instances food restrictions will exacerbate
eating problems. A recent study of teenage girls found that restricting
access to foods only makes those foods more desirable and increases
the likelihood that the girl will eat it to indulge a desire even
if shes not hungry. This leads to overeating. The study found
a definitive link between restrictive feeding practices and overeating,
especially in girls who are already overweight. In these cases,
the cycle of overeating that leads to obesity is worsened by limiting
access to certain types of foods. (See Birch, Leann L., et
al., "Learning to overeat: maternal use of restrictive
feeding practices promotes girls eating in the absence of
hunger." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. American
Society for Clinical Nutrition. 2003; 78: 215-20).
Finally, the
policy will drain much needed financial resources from the schools,
ultimately hurting the very students it is intended to help. Many
secondary schools will have to make costly equipment changes. With
greater numbers of students opting to brown-bag-it or leave campus,
already suffering school lunch programs stand to lose a lot more.
Reports indicate that schools lose $3.25 per student per day in
federal money each time a student doesn't eat from the lunch line.
The state's total deficit in 2001 was $23.7 million, and more recent
estimates from the Comptrollers Office put the losses more
at $60 million.
Under the new
policy most schools wont be able to make up these shortfalls
with vending machine contracts, whose revenue many schools currently
depend on to pay for instructional programs and materials to support
extracurricular activities. Ms. Combs own records request
resulted in reports from 932 of Texas 1256 public schools,
showing that these contracts generate about $54 million a year for
Texas schools. It is unclear how these critical lost revenues will
be replaced after vending machines are removed from school cafeterias.
The Joint Committee on Public School Finance in Texas is already
working on finding "innovative ways that the Legislature might
fulfill its obligation to public education, while reducing the reliance
on local property taxes." The forced funding cuts resulting
from the new nutrition policy only makes the Committees search
for solutions more difficult.
Numerous articles
in Texas newspapers already report that school districts will have
to consider increasing the cost of school lunches to pay for the
program changes and to make up for an expected shortfall in lunchroom
sales. One Texas school district spokeswoman accurately said, "Let's
be honest, kids aren't going to eat what they don't like to eat."
Another school official cautioned that "I think we will have
some kids that will just skip lunch and others that will start bringing
their own lunches from home."
Undoubtedly,
there are limited steps that the Texas legislature can take in a
general campaign against obesity. For example, it could enhance
efforts to encourage responsible decision-making, promote increased
exercise, and issue balanced dietary recommendations based on careful,
unbiased science.
But the operative
word in the preceding paragraph is "limited." The Texas government
cannot and should not embark on a massive new regulatory scheme
designed to make its students slimmer and trimmer.
First, there
are countless practical problems. Texas legislators and regulators
cannot possibly be expected to effectively legislate and regulate
against obesity. There are too many causes and too many problems
for an omnibus solution. Nor is it feasible to fight obesity through
rule-making. Further, scientific understanding of human nutrition,
diet needs, and the causes of obesity improves constantly. The government
is ill-equipped to quickly understand and integrate these advances
into its legislative and regulatory regime.
Second, and
more importantly, the state government shouldnt be in the
business of telling Texans in general, and the schoolchildren in
particular, what they can and cannot eat and drink. Our democracy
is founded on the idea that individuals have basic freedoms. Among
these, certainly, is the right to choose what we put on our plates
and in our lunchroom trays.
Childhood obesity
has been labeled a crisis in America. And such labels all too frequently
spur a government impulse to "not just sit there, but do something."
In this case, its incumbent on Texas to resist this impulse.
Let Texas schoolchildren, their parents and educators continue to
make free choices about what to eat and drink.
Certainly, the
government can and should continue to encourage us to make informed
choices. Certainly, the government can and should help us understand
what constitutes a balanced diet. And certainly, the government
can and should help us sift through the myriad of scientific (and
unscientific) information about the right combinations of diet and
exercise.
But Texas cannot
and should not start down the road of food regulation and restriction.
I recognize that there is no simple answer to solving childhood
obesity. What our children need is a common sense approach that
calls for more physical activity and better nutrition education.
What they do not need is a policy that is inflexible, constituting
a one-size-fits-all solution.
Texas schoolchildren
should receive more education to help them make wiser food choices
before, during, and after the school day, rather than a set of strict
nutritional guidelines that simply teach them that they cannot make
choices at all.
Students must
also be given more opportunities for physical activity. That means
more recess and required physical education. Some studies suggest
that these steps may additionally help solve some of the attention
deficit problems that have been on the increase in schools.
A recent study
published by the University of North Carolina concludes that it
is the lack of physical activity, not a surplus of "junk food"
that is causing children to be overweight. (See Sutherland,
Lisa A., "Health Trends in US Adolescents Over the Past 20
Years." University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. 2003.)
A study by the Presidents Council on Fitness found that enrollment
in physical education is on the decline, noting that among high
school students, 80% of 9th grade boys and girls are
enrolled in P.E. classes; by 12th grade, only 45% and
39% of boys and girls, respectively, are in P.E.
We must all
recognize that there is no single cure-all for obesity. There are
literally hundreds of causes of obesity, and there are as many solutions
as there are causes. However, its important to note that,
in and of themselves, hamburgers, hotdogs, sodas, candy, white bread,
rice, potatoes, pasta, and even apple pie dont cause obesity.
Instead, with the exception of medical conditions, obesity most
often results from individuals eating too much while exercising
too little. I encourage all members of the committee, as you consider
what role the Texas government should have in combating obesity,
to closely examine the abundance of questionable studies and unsupported
assertions presented in the "junk science on junk food."
Given the recent
report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrating
that obesity and diseases caused by obesity are now leading killers
in the United States, there can be no question that obesity is and
ought to be a major health concern for all Americans, and Texans
are no exception. The central questions are now: whether and if
so, how our governments should respond.
I urge the committee
to respond responsibly, after considering both sides of the issue,
and demanding that claims be supported by facts and evidence and
not just a good cause lacking scientific merit. And, I urge you
to take legislative action to delay the implementation of the policy
in order to hold hearings to address the concerns of the school
administrators, cafeteria workers, teachers, parents and students.
Texas needs a serious debate about such a complex issue as childhood
obesity.
Thank you for
your time and consideration.
|