California State Assembly Bill 569 Analysis

Bill Summary:

California State Assembly Bill 569 was introduced by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia (R) of Assembly District 80. This bill will required all companies that provide food on campus, that is not part of the National School Lunch Program, to provide nutritional information available to those purchasing the food. This bill is designed to add to Section 49437 of the Education Code as related to pupil nutrition. This bill will apply to all those commercial vendors that prepare or provide food for sale on elementary, middle school or high school campus. It will not apply to food vendors that provide foods or beverages to school groups to be sold for fundraisers off-campus. This bill will eventually result in the elimination of all foods on campus that do not meet the National School Lunch Program requirements (Official California Legislation Information).

Justification provided in Bill:

This bill declares that the State of California has the second highest rate of overweight children in the nation. Since the early 1970s the rate of childhood obesity has doubled in those children 2 to 5 years of age and tripled in those 6 to 11 years of age. Children who are obese have an increased risk of discrimination, low self-esteem, and poor body image. Adolescent girls who are obese are less likely to be accepted into college, to be married or to be economically sound in adulthood. Fifty percent of overweight and obese children and teens will remain overweight at adults. The incidence of Type 2 diabetes has increased significantly among the child and teen population of the United States (Official California Legislation Information).

Since the USDA rules regarding balanced nutrition available on campus only apply to the National School Lunch Program, it is necessary to provide the nutritional information of all competitive food sold on campus to give students the ability to make healthful decisions. Ninety-four percent of California School Districts have competitive foods available on middle school and high school campuses during school hours. Many of the items sold include chips, pizza, cookies and soda. This bill is to try to make healthful and nutritious food and beverage items available to students during breakfast and lunch periods (Official California Legislation Information).

Background:

The National School Lunch Act was passed shortly after World War II as a response to the significant number of recruits that were malnourished and weak (Davis, 134). It was enacted to provide a meal for students each day that accounted for 1/3 of the US-RDA daily requirement of calories, vitamin C, vitamin A, iron, calcium and protein. It further restricts the fat calories to 30 percent of total calories and the saturated fat must be less than 10 percent of total calories. As part of the act, the National Advisory Council on Child Nutrition was established, consisting of thirteen members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture who serve without pay (Donatelle, 19). In 1966, the Act was expanded to include a school milk program, school breakfast program and a non-cash assistance program (Marion, 2005).

Those items sold on campus that are not part of the school lunch program are termed competitive foods. These foods are allowed to be offered on campus as fund-raisers for the school and school groups. These competitive foods also include beverages sold within vending machines on campus (Boyle, 187-8).

The competitive food sold on campus not only has an effect on those that purchase the food, but also those that eat the school provided lunch. School officials state that "as long as McDonald's and Pizza Hut are available in schools, school food-service(s)...have no choice but to offer cheeseburgers, French fries and pizza (Nestle , 153-156) ." Currently, one fifth of all school in the country offer brand-name fast foods, including Pizza Hut and Taco Bell at least once a week. When competitive foods are available, most children will choose to fill up on the competitive foods which are relatively low in nutrient density and high in fat, added sugars and calories.

Furthermore, the availability of competitive food can effectively segment the population of a school by economic capability. Since only children with money can purchase these foods, other children begin to view the school lunches as the "poor" choice. This can cause those children that need the school lunch program the most to forsake the food in fear of being ostracized by their peers. In addition, ninety-two percent of schools offer a la carte items in addition to their school lunches. This is in response to the large number of students purchasing independent food items during lunch period. This a la carte system diminishes the effectiveness of the school lunch program. Children are able to purchase items without their nutritionally balanced accompaniments, leaving the program deficient.

Previous national legislation has been attempted in this arena. In 1977, the Secretary of Agriculture, who is in charge of the NSLA, regained the authority to limit the sale of soda, water ices, chewing gum and candy on school premises. The Secretary used this ruling to eliminate the sale of these items until after the last school lunch period of the day. However, the Coca-Cola Company brought suit against the Secretary of Agriculture in National Soft Drink Association v. Block, complaining that the Secretary did not have the scope to limit the times in which soda was sold. Though the lower courts upheld the Secretary's ruling, the Appellate circuit court ruled in favor of the National Soft Drink Association (Salisbury, 2004).

Vending machines have become a major issue on school campuses. In the ruling regarding the National Soft Drink Association v. Block, the district court ruled that "a vending machine, no matter where located, can operate as a magnet for any child who inclines toward the non-nutritious. (Sullivan, 2005)" These vending machines provide money for 98 percent of public high schools, 74 percent of middle schools and 43 percent of elementary schools. These lucrative contracts can mean up to one-hundred thousand dollars a year per school. This money can be spent as they wish, without the restrictions that the school lunch reimbursement money has. Of those receiving support from contracts with soda companies, 79% receive a specified percentage of soft drink receipts and 62% receive incentives tied to sales (White, Nitzke, et al, 2004).

Soft drink consumption has been related as a contributing factor to the rising incidence of overweight children. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on School Health has emphasized the need to restrict soft drink access in able to reduce children's nutritional problems risk factors. They state that these measures should be taken to reduce specific problems including dental caries, overweight, and osteoporosis (White, Nitzke, et al, 2004). This position is in agreement with statements by the Society for Nutrition Education (SNE). The SNE's position statement includes encouraging the "expanded authority of the USDA in order to fully coverage all beverage sales and enforce regulations on school campuses throughout the school day for schools that participate in the National School Lunch or School Breakfast program." (2004, Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior) The American Dietetic Association and The American School Food Service Association have called for integrated programs that increase nutrition education along with physical activity and environmental factors. All groups have requested the removal of vending machines and all competitive food from school campuses. The Surgeon General released his report in 2001 entitled, Overweight Children and Adolescents which called for limitations on sugar-sweetened beverages, specifically soft drinks, fruit juice drinks and sports drinks.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) collected data from surveys collected between 1977 and 1998. These one day recalls revealed that the daily intake of soft drinks by 6 to 17 year olds has increased from an average of 5 ounces in 1977 to 12 ounces in 1998. This is over a 200% increase and is greater than those in any other category. While only 3% of the youth surveyed obtained their soft drink on campus, this is over twice as many as 1977 (Kann, Grunbaum, et al, 2005).

Once of the greatest fears with soft drinks is related to their place in the diet instead of nutritious beverages such as milk. "Frequent consumption of soft drinks has been shown to displace milk and reduce overall diet quality." Since calcium intake is most essential during periods of rapid growth, this displacement can cause significant repercussions later in life. It is believed that those teens that are now drinking soft drinks in excessive numbers may have an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures later in life.

Analysis:

This proposed bill was enacted to attempt to combat the high percentage of overweight and obese children within the school system of California. It has been amended nine times and will likely be a bill that features a tremendous amount of controversy. According to Senate Analysis, it is likely to have a fiscal impact of $60,000 to be distributed from the General Fund.

This fund will likely have many protagonists and antagonists. The protagonists include the American Dietetic Association, The California Dietetic Association, The American School Food Service Association, The Society for Nutrition Education, and The American School Food Service Association. These organizations have all previously made position statements regarding the inclusion of competitive foods in the current statutes regarding nutrition information and consistency. The strongest individual protagonists will likely be the parents of coalitions formed to protect the nutritional status of children within schools.

Antagonists of this bill will likely come from that part of the public sector that makes money off of providing these competitive foods and beverages on campus. Per their history of previous lawsuits in relation to legislation, the Coca-Cola Bottling Company will likely fight any legislation. When similar legislation was proposed in Connecticut, Coca-Cola hired Sullivan & LeShane, a government relations lobbying company. They used their lobbying power to create a coalition of school boards, parents, superintendents and other vending interests to redirect legislation. They further enlisted the help of the children within the schools, school officials and athletic organizations to voice their opposition to the bill. The pressure from these organizations resulted in the veto of the bill by Governor Jodi Rell in June of 2005 (Simon, 2005).

Other antagonists of the bill would likely further include those with financial interest in the outcome of the measure. These would include fast food companies that currently sell on campus including Taco Bell, Subway, Pizza Hut and others that are contracted with local school districts (Spears, 79). It is likely that, like the Connecticut bill, local groups of students would fight the legislation. Many athletic booster clubs and Parent Teacher Associations also benefit from the money provided by vending machines and other alternative foods on campus. For these companies to sell on campus, they must donate a percentage of sales to the school or school groups. Many of these groups are concerned that they will lose these funds that compose a significant portion of their yearly budget (Limit students to access to competitive foods).

Furthermore, the school districts have often come in opposition to these forms of legislation. They have voiced concerns that the state laws will interfere with the federal laws governing the school lunch program. They are also concerned that the loss of revenue will be too substantial without any subsidization to make up for the difference.

Recommendation:

It is my recommendation that you vote in favor of this bill. With regard to the legislation itself, it comes from a standpoint of concern among most of California at this time. The worrisome epidemic of childhood obesity has sparked many individuals to push for legislation to limit the availability of nutritionally unbalanced foods.

This bill will amend earlier legislation on this subject. This section of the code states that the districts in California are responsible for maintaining nutritional guidelines on all food served by the school food services as well as all food served on campus. These guidelines include limits on fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. While this regulation is an important step toward protecting our youth's heath, it does not have regulations and enforcement associated with it. This current legislation adds regulations and enforcements at the school district level to the original regulation (State Competitive Foods Policies).

Based on my analysis, it is important to state that it is highly unlikely that this bill will ever reach law without going through extensive court trials. In previous states that have attempted to enact similar bills, the protagonists used the court systems and lobbying associations to prevent the passage of the bill into law.

While this may seem contrary to my recommendation of your vote, it has a lot to do with the perception of your stance on the issue. This legislation is sound and based upon legitimate facts regarding childhood obesity and overweight in the state of California and nationwide. On the grounds that it would benefit the general public and particularly the children of the community, it is imperative that your vote be in the affirmative on California State Assembly Bill 569.

Works Cited

(2002, September). State Competitive Foods Policies. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from National School Lunch Program Web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/CompetitiveFoods/state_policies_2002.htm

(2004).Society for nutrition education's eight child nutrition education priorities. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior. [36(5)], 244.

(2006). Official California Legislation Information. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from Bill Documents Web site: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_569&sess=CUR&house=B&author=garcia

(2006, February 27). Limit students to access to competitive foods. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from Approach 5 Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/nutrition/Making-It-Happen/pdf/approach5.pdf

Boyle, Marie A. (2003). Community Nutrition in Action. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Davis, Jenny B. (2004). Recipe for change. New York, NY: Harcourt Press.

Donatelle, Rebecca J. (2004). Access to Health. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Kann, L, Grunbaum, J., McKenna, M.L., Weschler, H., & Galuska, D.A. (2005).Competitive Foods and Beverages Available for Purchase in Secondary Schools - Selected Sites, United States, 2004.. Journal of School Health. [75(10)], 370-374.

Marion, Rosalie (2005).Helping school-children make the grade in nutrition. Agricultural Research. [53(10)], 4-6.

Nestle, Marion (2002). Food Politics. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

Salisbury, Clint G. (2004).Make an investment in our school children: increase the nutritional value of school lunch programs. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal. [2004(2)], 331-352.

Simon, Michelle (2005, June 15). The Junk Food Lobby Wins Again. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from Alternet Web site: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/22259/

Spears, Marian C., Gregoire Mary B. (2004). Foodservice Organization. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Sullivan, Patrick (2005, July 1). Success Story: School Nutrition Legislation. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from Sullivan & LeShane Web site: http://www.ctlobby.com/new/gov-relations/g-success05.htm

White, Adrienne A. (2004).Are soft drinks getting a bum rap? We don't think so.. Society for Nutrition Education. [36], 266-271.