Market

Market
Showing posts with label school lunch program. Show all posts
Showing posts with label school lunch program. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Food quality for children to be come more and more diluted! Disturbing developments

If what is happening in the US legislative bodies is any indication, the citizens have decided to move on a suicidal path after electing representatives during the recent elections most of whom are retrograde politicians and who are captives of powerful vested interests and lobbyists having no regard or sensitivity to their well being.  How else one can explain the recent clearance of a gigantic spending Bill which has several anti-citizen and pro-vested interest riders harming the health of the population there. A classical example is a provision barring the American government in mandating lower salt levels and insisting on use of whole grains in school lunch programs! What a pity! Read further below to realize how far the industry lobby can go in preserving their profits at the expense of the health of the consumers they are supposed to serve.

"Health insurance companies preserved their tax breaks. Farmers and ranchers were spared having to report on pollution from manure. Tourist destinations like Las Vegas benefited from a travel promotion program. Also buried in the giant spending bill that cleared the Senate on Saturday and is headed to President Obama for his signature were provisions that prohibit the federal government from requiring less salt in school lunches and allow schools to obtain exemptions from whole-grain requirements for pasta and tortillas. The watered-down standards for school meals were a setback for the first lady, Michelle Obama, who had vowed to fight "until the bitter end" for tougher nutrition standards. But they were a victory for food companies and some local school officials, who had sought changes in regulations that are taking effect over several years. When an omnibus spending bill pops onto the floor of the House or the Senate in the waning days of a congressional session, some lawmakers invariably express surprise and outrage at special-interest provisions stuffed into the package. Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio and a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, criticized the $1.1 trillion spending measure as "a Christmas tree bill," decorated with "dangerous and unwelcome, nongermane riders." Such favors often have a long lineage. Lobbyists and lawmakers have, in many cases, been working on them for months or years. Some of this year's provisions originated as free-standing bills, languished on their own and were then revived in the spending package. Others block regulations that have been proposed, adopted and sometimes upheld in court. The School Nutrition Association, representing cafeteria directors, welcomed the bill's language on sodium and whole grains. The lower sodium standards would have been "extremely difficult to achieve," and the government needs more research before compelling schools to make such costly changes, said the association, which receives financial support from food companies. Republicans like Representative Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the committee chairman, said the riders were needed to halt wasteful spending and "overreach" by agencies that generate rules harmful to the economy." 

Implication of salt in blood pressure and other diseases like CVD and kidney disorders are well documented and has been proved beyond doubt through exhaustive scientific studies. It is well known that a major causative factor for ill health in the US is the tendency of the people to eat high fat, high salt, high sugar, high meat diets and though each citizen has liberty to eat what he wants, the government cannot shirk its responsibility to prevent social break down and growth of a population morbid and zombies in their living style which can ruin the country in the long run affecting productivity and entailing huge expenditure for treating such diseases.  If this is the attitude and mindset of the law makers in that country, even the God cannot help that country from committing hara-kiri!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

THE POTATO "PROTEST"- REPURCUSSIONS OF POLICY CHANGES

Potato consumption in the world has remained steady more or less during the last 5 decades, though it is a staple commodity for some population in some parts of the world. Global average per capita annual consumption of 33 kg does not qualify potato to be a staple food commodity and nutritionally it cannot be termed superior to staple grains like wheat, rice, maize etc. It is considered more as a vegetable, though its high starch content of about 50% (fresh weight basis) may be an anachronism. But Potato is indeed a cheap vegetable preferred for feeding programs in the schools in the US and school lunch program covers more beneficiaries for the limited funds provided. It appears that the US government wants to restrict the quantity of potato in such programs for reasons not very clear. While nutritionally such a policy change may not have any significance, the potato growers are apprehensive about the economic impact such a decision will have on the industry. USA hardly accounts for about 7% of global production which is dominated by China with a production of more than 70 million tons and surplus potato from the US cannot find a place in the international market because of cost constraints. Here is case which amplifies the close nexus that exists among farmers, industry and the government and any one of these stake holders upsetting the equilibrium that exists now can have snow balling effect on the domestic front. Here is a take on this issue.

"As of 2008 there were an estimated 76 million students in U.S. schools. Potato farmers have to be looking at this proposed change as a meaningful threat to consumption. The ripple through agriculture will be significant. The decision will impact acres and affect farmers, potato processing companies and food service companies. Not to mention school lunch programs and school district budgets. School districts are running the numbers, knowing that potatoes are a relatively inexpensive vegetable source. Results show that replacing potatoes in school lunch programs will further run up costs on meal programs that are already under-funded. The districts see the USDA change as an unfunded government mandate that puts added budget pressure on a system that can ill afford it. But the case isn't closed yet. The National Potato Council and other industry groups have been providing information about the nutritional profile of potatoes when they are correctly prepared, and apparently the message is starting to get through. The USDA has agreed to take another look at their proposed rule change. There's no question what potato farmers across the U.S. are feeling about the USDA's proposed changes to school lunch guidelines. It will have an unprecedented impact on the entire potato industry. What's most difficult about a situation such as this is the fact that so much is out of the farmers' control. One federal policy change to one federal program would impact millions of Americans and cost untold millions of dollars in lost production and increased school lunch costs. The nutritional impact of a change limiting potato consumption in schools is arguable and negligible. Potato industry groups have done a good job of proving that. However, the economic impact of such a change would be significant. Situations like this show just how far reaching our federal farm and food policy really is".

In one way the US government must be lauded for linking the growth of agriculture to the market and providing assured outlet for the produce from the farms. Potato is a good food though there is nothing in it that can qualify this tuber as a nutritiously superior food. As a calorie provider Potato can be a component of any diet which needs supplementation with other nutrients adequately. Restricting its level to 100 gm does not make much sense because this small quantity can provide less than 100 calories while a school meal program requires about 300-400 calories. How the "potato war" as being enacted now will end remains to be seen.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com