October 14, 2013

Catherine Digilio Grimes

Director of School Nutrition Programs

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 2120

Richmond, VA 23218-2120

Dear Ms. Grimes:

The Virginia State Dairymen’s Association (VSDA) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on proposed 8VAC20-740, Regulations Governing Nutritional Guidelines for Competitive Foods Sold in the Public Schools (adding 8VAC20-740-10 through 8VAC20-740-40).  This proposed regulation is required by Sec. 22.1-207.4 of the Code of Virginia.

About VSDA

The VSDA was founded in 1907. The goal of our organization is to represent and promote the dairy industry in Virginia. The VSDA is a member-organization that spans the state of Virginia and represents its members’ views on a state and federal level.  We are committed to ensuring a profitable and sustainable dairy industry in Virginia.

In general, VSDA shares the goals behind the proposed regulations.  We are proud to produce healthy, delicious dairy products that form a solid nutritional basis for promoting the health of all Virginians, especially our young people.   As farmers, we are part of an almost century-old tradition of funding programs to promote nutrition in public schools, through the National Dairy Council and regional dairy councils.

Reasons to Promote Dairy Consumption in Schools

We believe that any regulations which aim at improving students’ nutrient intake should promote dairy consumption.  In addition to their beneficial role in the diets of all Americans, milk and other dairy products are the #1 source of nine critical nutrients in children’s diets – protein, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, riboflavin and vitamins A, B12 and D.  If more children consumed recommended amounts of dairy, their intakes of these nutrients would improve even further.

All dairy foods make a contribution to intakes of important nutrients.  For example, while milk is the #1 food source of calcium, cheese is #2.  For this reason, it is sound nutrition policy to encourage the consumption of fluid milk, cheese and yogurt in schools.  There are several reasons to promote a variety of dairy products; for example, students – including members of minority communities -- who have difficulty digesting lactose often find cheese or yogurt easier to consume than fluid milk.

One of the main reasons to encourage dairy consumption in Virginia schools is that most students are not getting recommended amounts of dairy in their diets.  Except for 2-3-year-olds, no age group of Americans meets recommended amounts on average.  The U.S. population as a whole consumes only 1.7 servings of dairy each day, on average, compared to the 3 servings that are recommended for most age groups.  As children get older, the gap between recommended and actual intakes tends to increase.  Intake of dairy is lower for females than for males, and lower among African Americans and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites.

We believe that the Department of Education shares our view that regulations should promote milk and other dairy products.  However, two aspects of the proposed regulations would, in fact, discourage dairy consumption, and we strongly urge the Department to revise these provisions.

Fluid Milk Should be Excluded from Regulation

The proposed rule appears to be internally inconsistent in its treatment of fluid milk, as well as inconsistent with the statute, which says that regulations are to apply to competitive foods “excluding beverages.” Since milk is a beverage, it should not be covered by competitive foods rules.  In fact, the regulation itself also says in two different places that it does not apply to beverages.  Proposed 8VAC20-740-10 (Definitions) defines “competitive food” as “excluding beverages.”  Proposed 8VAC20-740-20 (Applicability) also states clearly that the entire regulation “shall not apply to beverages.”

However, proposed 8VAC20-740-30 (Nutrition Standards) creates a general rule that “snacks and food items” may have no more than 35% of calories from total sugars.  It then provides exemptions for several beverages, including flavored milk with 22 grams of sugars or less.  The obvious question is:  If beverages are exempt from competitive foods standards, why is it necessary to exempt certain flavored milk from one of the competitive foods standards (i.e., the sugar limit)?  Moreover, does this imply that flavored milk with more than 22 grams of sugar is not exempt and is therefore subject to the 35%-of-calories standard?

Fluid milk processors have made substantial reductions in the amount of added sugars in school milk. As a practical matter, a large portion of the milk in Virginia schools does, in fact, meet or fall below the 22-gram limit, although some is marginally above this level.  Regardless, the reductions in sugar content have already occurred without the need for a regulation (in fact, they have occurred without any federal or state mandate as schools and their processors responded to previous concerns about sugar content and calorie levels).

Since standards recommended by the Institute of Medicine informed the Board of Education’s development of the regulations, and since the IOM did recommend a 22-gram limit, we assume that this limit’s inclusion in the proposed regulation is simply an accidental artifact of reliance on the IOM standards. 

Recommendation:  Language excluding beverages from the entire regulation should be retained in the final rule, and language exempting milk of any type from the sugar standard should be stricken.

Cheese Should be Treated Consistent with the Federal Standard

Cheese can be a popular snack, often in the form of string cheese or cheese and crackers.  Although cheese contains saturated fat, its other valuable nutrients make it the kind of nutrient-dense food that should be encouraged in schools, compared to more energy-dense foods that are often a source of empty calories.

With respect to the proposed regulations’ treatment of cheese, we would simply urge the Department to conform its regulations to federal standards.  In fairness to the writers of the regulations, the federal competitive food rules had not been written when the General Assembly enacted the statute behind the regulations, and federal rules had not been finalized at the time the Department was putting the proposed regulation together.  Now, however, there is an interim final federal rule, which we commend to the Department’s attention.

The federal regulations (7 CFR 210.11) set up a general standard for total fat and saturated fat content, and then exempt certain foods that are nutrient-dense. The general standard is the same as in the proposed Virginia regulation:  no more than 35% of calories from fat, and less than 10% of calories from saturated fat.  (The federal standard also calls for zero trans fat, but provides no exemption from this criterion.)  However, the federal standard exempts “reduced-fat cheese and part-skim mozzarella cheese” from the total and saturated fat limits. (Similarly exempted products include nuts, seeds, nut/seed butters and certain foods containing nuts and seeds.)

The federal exemption recognizes the important nutrient contribution that cheese makes as a healthy snack, while also encouraging greater use of reduced-fat and low-fat cheeses by specifically exempting them, but not exempting full-fat cheese.  The VSDA believes the federal standard is a good template for the Department to use.

Recommendation:  The proposed regulation should be modified to include an exemption from fat standards for reduced-fat cheese and part-skim mozzarella cheese identical to the corresponding exemption in the federal interim final rule for competitive foods.

VSDA appreciates the Department’s consideration of our views, and looks forward to working together in support of children’s nutrition and health.

Sincerely,

Eric Paulson

Executive Secretary

Virginia State Dairymen's Association

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in schools.  I am the director for School Nutrition Programs in Alexandria City.  We are a nationally recognized program, a district of excellence in school nutrition and have schools who have been designated Healthier US School Challenge winners.  We have 13,600 students, approximately 60% qualifying for free and reduced price meals.    School nutrition has always had at its core the mission of providing healthy meals to students, and research continues to support that school meals are healthier than meals brought from home, and that students who eat school meals have healthier weights than those who do not.

There is a business side to school nutrition as well that must be recognized.  Our programs are expected to be self-sustaining, receving no school board operating funds.  We earn our way, paying for salaries, benefits, food, supplies, etc.  Some divisions pay indirect costs to support the general operating funds.  My program generates 69% of its revenue from federal funds, 3-4% from state funds (mandated federal match and breakfast incentive) and the remainder from contracts and cash sales.  Eleven (11%) percent of my revenue comes from a la carte sales. 

When the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) passed in December 2010, our programs encountered stringent new regulations that are still being implemented and some rules have not yet been released.  These regulations have increased the cost of doing business, and adding layers of complexity to an already complex program.  Food cost in Alexandria City rose to 43% of revenue, an increase of 4% over the prior three (3) years.   Labor and benefit costs (over which we have little control) also increased. 

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014.  These rules mandate nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes.  There are also local wellness policies as mandated since 2006, that cover competitive food sales in schools.  If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by 3 sets of standards for the same food and beverage items!  Imagine running a business in this manner. It is not a rational or finanically feasible option and does not help children.  I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs.

The committee can and should take great pride in the nutrition programs offered to Virginia's children.  There are thousands of dedicated, caring people working in our profession who care deeply and passionately about helping children be ready to learn and achieve, and who run efficient businesses that take no funds from the classroom.  Separate state standards are  not needed.  Thank you for this opportunity.

The majority of school nutrition programs in Virginia serve meals through the National School Lunch Program and are already operating under strict federal nutrition standards, including recently revised meal pattern requirements.  Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014.  These rules mandate nutrition requirements for competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes.  These rules apply not only to a la carte foods sold by school nutrition programs, but to all foods sold during the school day.  The federal standards are based on sound science and will be consistent across the country.  This allows vendors to develop products that meet requirements of all school divisions.  Can you imagine needing to develop one product for Virginia, one for North Carolina, etc.?  If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by two different sets of standards for the same food and beverage items.  My recommendation is that the committee make a decision to withdraw the state level requirements knowing that federal rules which will effectively meet the objectives of the committee are forthcoming. 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to those of us who regard healthy nutrition as one of our most important aspects of our profession in the area of school nutrition.  I think that anyone in our business will agree that providing our youth with healthy options during the school day is essential.  It is only logical that we follow one set of regulations as opposed to one set by federal, one by state and an additional one set by the local wellness policies, which in many cases will have to be rewritten after the federal mandates are released.  In addition trying to find products to meet all three will be increasingly difficult not to mention the increased cost to these products due to the fact that manufacturers will have to develop several different options for the same product to meet different regulations. 

Another concern of many School Food Service departments is the “enforcing the new mandates” in other areas of the school campus.  Trying to monitor these products if there are more than one rule to follow will become an arduous task, especially for those responsible for monitoring these products who may know little about the regulations that is such a huge part of the school food service program.

The last point to be made, which is in agreement with SNA is that any products that are approved to be sold as a part of the national school breakfast or lunch should have no further restrictions when sold as an ala carte product.  A food that is healthy enough to be part of the lunch program should be healthy enough for a product that is served as a competitive food.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in schools.  I am the Director of Food & Nutrition Service in Rockingham County Public Schools and I served on the DOE competitive food task force, assisting in the development of the standards as the Public Policy Chair of the School Nutrition Association of Virginia at the time of the drafting (2011). 

In Rockingham, we have 11,700 students and approximately 13% of our program revenue comes from a la carte sales.  Our program is self-supporting, in that our department receives no local financial assistance, just the paying customer and the federal reimbursement.  OK, we do receive just $.045 per lunch of state assistance, but this doesn’t even pay for a pack of crackers.  Thirteen (13%) percent of our revenue comes from a la carte sales.  Any state restriction of a la carte items that can or can’t be sold in cafeterias (more stringent than the federal standards) are not acceptable and would result in further financial losses for our program.

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014.  These rules mandate nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes.  I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs.  My remembrance of the conversations of the stake holders involved in the task force was that there was a strong desire to have the Virginia standards be aligned with the Federal standards.  Beginning in July 2014, my belief is that the following three outcomes can be satisfied:

1.      Districts who receive federal reimbursement will need to comply with strict federal standards (very similar to proposed state standards, but different, none the less).

2.     State legislators should recognize that the intent of the state regulations are being met by federal standards.

3.     Students in many schools will be limited in their access to “junk food”.

The most efficient, common sense way to achieve this is to have the Virginia standards aligned with the federal standards.

Gerald Lehman, MS, RD, Director, Food & Nutrition Service, RCPS

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed by Congress and became law in 2010.  It was implemented in 2012 by the USDA.  Because of this new law, in the first month alone, 18,000 students did not participate in lunch causing a substantial loss in revenues for the Henrico School Nutrition Program.  With the Virginia Board of Education implementing additional regulations on food sold in our schools, there is a concern that these regulations could have a major impact on the ability of our schools to stay solvent.

Our programs are expected to be self-sustaining with no assistance from our local School Board operating funds.  We pay for salaries, benefits, supplies, food, and equipment for our kitchens.  Henrico has 39.4 percent “free and reduced” students which generates 55 percent of our revenues from the federal government.  Only 4.5 cents comes from the state for every lunch served.  Today, that 4.5 cents cannot even purchase a package of whole grain crackers. Sixteen percent of our revenues are generated from “a la carte” sales which are vital to the operation of our food service program. 

Virginia School Nutrition Programs must follow the USDA and the State Department of Education mandates on competitive foods.  In July of 2014, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented with additional mandates on calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium along with portion size.    To add another complex set of regulations on foods sold is not going to improve what is already in place. That could also prevent our programs from being self-sustaining which then could result in a financial burden on our local School Boards.

I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the concerns of competitive foods in Virginia schools and the State Board of Education should take great pride in the nutrition programs that are offered to our students.  

The School Nutrition Association of Virginia would like to express our support for these proposed regulations and also address a few of our concerns.

The School Nutrition Association of Virginia represents over 1,700 members who provide high-quality, affordable, nutritious meals to students across the Commonwealth. We were one of the stakeholder groups who worked on the “Healthy Snacks” legislation in 2010 and served on the advisory group that helped craft these regulations. We appreciate being included in this process and strongly support the purpose of the proposed regulations.

The federal government has issued proposed regulations for competitive foods that are set to become effective July 1, 2014. Therefore, the School Nutrition Association of Virginia urges you to conform the Virginia proposed regulations to match the federal regulations. It would be burdensome and illogical for us to operate under two different sets of regulations- federal and state- for competitive foods. If implementation of the federal regulations is delayed, it would still be prudent for us to conform the Virginia regulations to the federal regulations so that we will be ready and prepared when the new federal rules are implemented. It would be extremely onerous to adjust our programs to meet one set of regulations, only to have to change once again when the federal regulations take effect.

As you review the regulations and consider making changes- we ask that you consider the following perspectives.

·       We would like to reiterate the need for flexible and simple regulations that are consistent with national meal pattern guidelines in order to limit any additional burden with regard to implementation and the purchasing of food.

·       The SNA believes school nutrition programs should be the primary food provider within the school buildings and throughout the campus.

·       We firmly believe that any product that can be used as part of the reimbursable lunch should also be able to be sold as a competitive food without any further restriction.

In addition, we do have concerns with a few components of the proposed federal regulations. Many groups, including the national School Nutrition Association, are working at the national level to address these concerns and we are hopeful that the final regulations will be revised to reflect such changes. We have included some of those concerns below.

In conclusion, we are working at the federal level to address these concerns and hope to fully support the final version of the federal regulations. We would then urge you to revise the Virginia regulations to be in line with the new federal rules.  Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments.

_____________

The national School Nutrition Association has submitted comments in regards to the proposed federal regulations for competitive foods. We would like to reiterate the following:

1.The proposed federal regulations require that an allowable competitive food includes a “combination food that contains ¼ cup of fruit or vegetable.”

SNA Recommendation: The SNA would like to reiterate that the current meal requirements for lunches and requirements for afterschool snacks provide that a minimum creditable serving is a 1/8 cup. In order to maintain consistency with the existing rule, SNA recommends that the fruit or vegetable requirement for a competitive combination food be reduced to 1/8 cup.

2.     The federal regulations adopt an exemption for National School Lunch Program/School Breakfast Program (NSLP/SBP) entrée items only. Side dishes served à la carte would be required to meet all applicable competitive food standards. The exemption for the entrée items is available on the day the entrée item is served in the NSLP/SBP and the following school day.

SNA Recommendation: School Nutrition Professionals are charged by their local Boards of Education (BOE) or other governing bodies to operate the programs entrusted to them with nutritional, operational, and fiscal integrity and fidelity. Achieving these expectations requires School Nutrition Professionals to have the latitude to make menu decisions, many of which are precluded by the proposed regulations. The expectation of most local governing boards is for the school nutrition program to generate the revenues necessary to be financially self-supporting. As a result, school nutrition programs are expected to generate revenues beyond the Federal reimbursement in order to meet routine financial obligations such as salaries/benefits, food, equipment, and accountability-related technologies.

Extreme limitations on à la carte menu items, like entrées and side dishes that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines, prevents school nutrition programs from making menu decisions that may impact student participation and subsequently, revenues. When our programs are unable to generate the revenues needed to support program operations, local governing boards are required to provide financial support by contributing funds that are typically earmarked for classroom or other academic purposes to the program’s non-profit school nutrition account. This situation often places our programs and the local governing board at cross purposes. While nutrition is the cornerstone of the school nutrition program, the elements of operating the “business” of school meals must be considered when making the decision to severely limit the program’s ability to generate revenues required to sustain and operate the program in a fiscally-responsible manner. Therefore, we respectfully request USDA consider the nutritional, operational, and financial consequences of limiting à la carte items that meet the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines before issuing food and beverage specific limitations.

3.The proposed final regulations adopt an exemption for NSLP/SBP entrée items only. Side dishes served à la carte would be required to meet all applicable competitive food standards.

SNA Recommendation: As previously stated, SNA would like to emphasize that once an item, any item, is served that meets current meal pattern guidelines, it should be available for service without frequency restrictions. The proposed rule adds unnecessary and burdensome complexity for operators; it also poses significant financial challenges to many school districts that rely upon the sale of à la carte food and beverages to meet operating expenses. School nutrition personnel should not be restricted as to the frequency of serving specific items as long as those items adhere to the meal pattern guidelines and are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

4.The proposed final regulations implement a phased-in approach to identifying allowable competitive food under the general standard. This approach will allow three years for product manufacturers to reformulate their products, if desired, to qualify under the other criteria of the general standards. However, should the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans identify additional nutrients of concern applicable to school-age children, the Department anticipates allowing these additional nutrients to qualify products until that criterion is removed on July 1, 2016.

SNA Recommendation: SNA would like to point out the cost and challenges for industry to reformulate. The way the interim final rule is written, these standards may only last for a few years. We would encourage waiting for the publication of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines to be finalized before assessing which nutrients of concern would qualify. Otherwise, this poses undue burden to industry to reformulate products multiple times.

5.The proposed final regulations adopt the standard as proposed which measures whole grains by weight or as the first ingredient.

SNA Recommendation: As stated throughout our comments, the competitive foods rule needs to remain consistent with the standards set forth for the meal pattern. SNA still supports modifying the whole grain requirement to be consistent with current guidance provided in Memo SP10-2012ar6 Revised January 25, 2013. This guidance states:

“1. How will schools identify whole grain-rich products?” “Element #2 Food must meet at least one of the following: The whole grains per serving (based on minimum serving sizes specified for grains/breads in FNS guidance) must be ≥ 8 grams. This may be determined from information provided on the product packaging or by the manufacturer, if available.”

Again, given that food items may often appear on both the reimbursable meal menu as well as the à la carte menu, they should meet the same standard.

6.USDA extends an exemption to the total fat and saturated fat standards for part-skim mozzarella cheese as appropriate, as there is an FDA standard of identity for part-skim mozzarella cheese. The reduced-fat cheese (and now part-skim mozzarella) exemptions do not apply to combination foods.

SNA Recommendation: SNA would like to reiterate that cheese is a good protein source and portion control would already be in place if meeting the meal pattern standards. Singling out this nutrient dense product regarding combination foods limits menu creativity and is inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines. We want to restate the importance of maintaining consistency between competitive food standards and the requirements set forth for the operation of the National School Lunch Program to ease the burden of evaluating labels, menu design, training staff, and overall consistency in operations.

7.Sodium content in snacks is limited to 230 mg per item as packaged or served. Entrée items must have no more than 480 mg of sodium per item as packaged or served, unless they meet the exemption for NSLP/SBP entrée items.

SNA Recommendation: We urge USDA to not issue any sodium standard inconsistent with that required for the NSLP. Again, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to manage a different standard when some of the same food items may be served as either à la carte or among reimbursable meal selections.

8.The proposed federal regulations retain the proposed calorie limits for snacks and side dishes as 200 calories per item as packaged or served and 350 for entrée items.

SNA Recommendation: SNA does not support the 350 calorie limit for à la carte entrées as such limits are not consistent with standard procedures from HUSSC and IOM, and are not required if served as part of the reimbursable meal. SNA proposes an allowable calorie range for à la carte entrée items of 350-500 for Middle School and High School students with a weekly average of 450. School nutrition operators are in the business of feeding healthy foods to children. Many times kids come through the lunch line and are not interested in a reimbursable meal. In some situations, shortened lunch periods make it impossible for students to select and consume their meal in the time allotted and return to class. In these situations, students need the flexibility offered by nutritious à la carte foods and beverages. It is important that healthy offerings are available that keep kids coming to the school cafeteria. Student participation in the school nutrition programs is a critical measure of success. According to the School Nutrition Association’s 2013 Back to School Trends Report, declines in student participation are generally consistent across most district sizes and locations. Half of the School Nutrition Directors that responded to the survey reported smaller portions and calorie limits as a factor for this decline. The decline in participation was seen among all age groups, but most affecting high schools. Operators need flexibility in menu options that keep students satiated throughout the afternoon who may not choose the reimbursable meal.

9.USDA believes the most appropriate approach to specifying the standards for exempt fundraisers is to allow State agencies to set the allowed frequency. It is important to note that school districts may implement more restrictive competitive food standards, including those related to the frequency with which exempt fundraisers may be held in their schools, and further restrictions on the areas and times when exempt fundraisers may occur.

SNA Recommendation: We urge USDA to provide guidance with respect to allowable “frequency.” We also suggest the definition require an official approval of fundraisers by a school authority as a part of a local wellness policy. Even though it is addressed by USDA, SNA is gravely concerned with the onus of monitoring and tracking fundraisers falling upon school nutrition departments. Many states have guidelines in place around fundraisers. SNA would prefer that this policy be managed through wellness policies and best practices as operationally, states and localities are more equipped to manage the fundraising process.

The comments submitted by the national School Nutrition Association can be read in their entirety here: http://www.schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/FINAL%20DRAFT%20Interim%20Final%20Rule%20Comments%209.24(2).pdf

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in schools. I am the executive director for Child Nutrition Programs in Newport News. We have 29,000 students, approximately 61% qualifying for free and reduced price meals. School nutrition has always had at its core the mission of providing healthy meals to students, and research continues to support that school meals are healthier than meals brought from home, and that students who eat school meals have healthier weights than those who do not.

There is a business side to school nutrition as well that must be recognized. Our programs are expected to be self-sustaining, receiving no school board operating funds. We earn our way, paying for salaries, benefits, food, supplies, etc. I also pay indirect costs to support the general operating funds.

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014. These rules mandate nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes. There are also local wellness policies as mandated since 2006, that cover competitive food sales in schools. If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by 3 sets of standards for the same food and beverage items! Imagine running a business in this manner. This will drive up our food costs as manufacturers will have to make different products that meet Virginia’s standards and no other states. I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs. Separate state standards are not needed. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Regulations Governing Nutritional Guidelines for Competitive Foods Sold in Virginia; 8 VAC 20-740.  I am April Plummer, Director of the School Nutrition Program in Fauquier County Public Schools.  Fauquier County is home to approximately 11,300 public school students; demographics dictate one of the lowest free and reduced eligibility rates in the state.  Our program must function as an enterprise fund and remain a financially healthy program primarily from the exchange of money from food sales and not federal funding.  Regulations governing school meal programs have been costly and have jeopardized program sustainability.  I believe I speak for my colleges across the state when I say that nutritionally balanced meals are the focal point of our programs, however, reasonable a la carte sales are vital to our financial independence.  Rising food costs, quality labor and benefit costs, training expenses, equipment replacement, and indirect costs are choking our programs.  And it will be arduous and costly for Virginia school nutrition programs to operate under a separate set of regulations concerning a la carte sales.       

I am proud to be a Virginian; I have always taken pride in being part of a program in a state that holds itself to a standard of excellence.  I support and ask you to support, the School Nutrition Association of Virginia stance that Virginia proposed regulations for competitive foods sold match the federal regulations.  I ask that you, with great care, consider what is reasonable for “Virginia” and the children that school programs serve. 

Thank you for this opportunity to make my comments on the proposed Regulations Governing Nutritional Guidelines for Competitive Foods Sold in Virginia Public Schools. [8 VAC 20 - 740]

          In Culpeper, we have 8084 students and approximately 20% of our program revenue comes from a la carte sales.  Any state restrictions of a la carte items that can or can’t be sold in cafeterias are not acceptable and will result in a negative impact to my program. 

          The federal competitive foods regulation starts in July 2014 from the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) that was passed in 2010.  These rules mandate nutrition requirements for competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, sodium, and portion sizes.  These rules apply not only to a la carte foods sold by school nutrition programs, but to all foods sold during the school day.  Having multiple standards to follow for the same agenda is confusing and redundant in my opinion.  My recommendation is to have one standard from the federal level for our competitive foods sold in our schools.  Thank you.

 Greg Beamer, Food Service Director, CCPS

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments in regards to the issue of competitive foods in schools.  My name is Karen Arthur and I am the School Nutrition Supervisor for Bedford County Public Schools in Bedford, VA.  We have approximately 10,330 students in our division with the  majority of those students paying full price for school meals.  We have only 37% of our students who qualify for free or reduced priced meals.  So, alacarte sales are very important to our division in order to "pay our own way" which is what the division expects us to do. 

We, like most other school divisions in the state of Virginia receive  no local funding from our counties or school divisions.  We are expected to pay all of our own bills, employee salaries, employee benefits and any other expenses that we incur.  We do this only from the funds that we collect in our school cafeterias each day, federal reimbursement and the small amount of state reimbursement that we receive.  The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of December 2010 imposed stringent changes to School Nutrition Programs.  The changes that were made to our school meals in order to meet the required regulations resulted in a 6% decrease in lunch participation for my division.  A decrease in participation results in a decrease in funds generated for the program. 

I ask you to consider how imposing further restrictions on competitive foods will affect school nutrition programs and their ability to "keep their head above water".  The focus of school nutrition programs is and should continue to be providing healthy choices to students not trying to ensure that three different sets of regulations are being met for competitive food sales.  I support the School Nutrition Associations position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs.  Thank you for your time. 

Good Day and thank you for the opportunity to coment .  I represent Stafford County School Nutrition .  Our program offers breakfast and lunch to 27,500 students feeding approximately 20,000 meals per day. Our population is 26% free and reduce price students.  Our meal offerings meet the new meal pattern and our menu's are certified under this program.  Meeting the new meal guidelines resulted in a significant increase in food  cost and a 7 % reduction in student participation. Offering the required foods is expensive and for students it appears not as popular.  The new Competitive Food Guidelines are welcome and hopefully will complement the new meal standards.  It is critical that the Competitive Food Guidelines for our state be the same as the Federal Guidelines.  Following all the requirements, communicating them and finding approved products would be extremely difficult and confusing if the State of Va developes different standards than the Federal Guidelines.  I do strongly recommend that the responsibility of implementation and monitoring compliance of these guidelines be the responsibility of the district Superintendent not a requirement run through the meal programs.  I hope moneytary incentives for compliance or fiscal penalties for non compliance for a division will be considered to improve success. Utilizing the Sch Health Advisory Committee including  high school students as part of the monitoring team will increase buy in and success. I also encourage the State of Va to continue to require that no competitive food or beverages be sold to during the meal periods anywhere accessable to students other than the NSLunch and Breakfast Programs.   Thank you,  C.E.Slye         

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in the schools. I am the Program Administrator for The Child Nutrition Program in Newport News. With an enrollment of 29,000 we have approximately 61% of our students qualifying for free or reduced priced meals.  Our goal has always been to provide healthy meals to our students. Research has shown the school meals are healthier than meals brought from home and the students who eat school meals have healthier weights than those who don’t.

On the business side, our programs must remain financially healthy. Our programs are expected to pay salaries, benefits, food, equipment, supplies, etc. In our district we also pay indirect costs to support the general operating funds.

When the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) passed in December 2010, our programs encountered stringent new regulations that are still being implemented and some rules have not yet been released. These regulations have increased the cost of doing business in our programs.

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014 which will mandate the nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium along with portion sizes. These rules apply not only to a la carte foods sold by the school nutrition programs, but to all foods sold during the school day. If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by 3 sets of standard for the same food and beverage items. This will drive up our food costs as manufactures will have to make different products that meet Virginia’s standard but not necessarily other states standards.  

I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia’s position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs. Separate states standards are not needed. Thank you for this opportunity   

Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns on the regulations governing Nutritional Guidelines for Competitive Foods sold in Virginia Public Schools.  I am a cafeteria manager in Isle of Wight County Schools.  Our goal has always been to continually increase the number of healthy meals we provide to our students.

I support the School Nutritional Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulation should govern school nutritional programs.

In our division (as like many others), we have observed an increase in food cost and a decrease in participation since the enactment of the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act passed in December 2010. It is my opinion that following another set of guidelines set by the state for the same foods and beverages would devastate our school lunch programs.

I thank you again and ask for your support to have Virginia standards align with federal regulations.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to those of us who regard healthy nutrition as one of our most important aspects of our profession in the area of school nutrition.

Thank you for listening to the school districts that are most effected by the proposed new Federal Competitive Foods Regulation; low free and reduced districts.  I am the Supervisor of School Nutrition Services in Roanoke County Public Schools, we have 14,300 students and our free and reduced population is 25%. Being a self-supporting enterprise in a very regulated environment is in itself a challenge. We have always provided healthy meals for our students, but due to our demographic, 3 out of 4 students must pay for thier meals. Due to our lower free and reduced population, we must augment our reimbursable meals a la carte sales to remain profitable. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 has come with its own set of challenges, especially in regard to maintaining participation. There needs to be one set of regulations on school meals and competitive foods that we can understand and learn how to implement.  We need to re-educate the public and move forward.  We have had local wellness policies in effect since 2006.  Virginia has their own regulations and now the Federal government is proposing additional regulations.  We would like one set of rules/regulations to go by, so we support Virginia in adopting the Federal regulations for competitive foods. 

Thank you for allowing me to express a concern regarding the guidelines for competitive foods sold in Virginia.  One set rule needed.  Please make state regulations consistence with federal regulations.  Thank you, Edwina 

Thank you for the opportunuity to comment on the issue of competitive foods in schools.

I implore you to consider aligning the Virginia standards to Federal standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in schools. I am the Supervisor of Child Nutrition Services for Williamsburg-James City County Schools.  School nutrition has always had at its core the mission of providing healthy meals to students, and research continues to support that school meals are healthier than meals brought from home, and that students who eat school meals have healthier weights than those who do not.

There is a business side to school nutrition as well that must be recognized. Our programs are expected to be self-sustaining, receiving no school board operating funds. We earn our way, paying for salaries, benefits, food, supplies, etc.

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014. These rules mandate nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes. There are also local wellness policies as mandated since 2006, that cover competitive food sales in schools. If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by 3 sets of standards for the same food and beverage items! Imagine running a business in this manner. This will drive up our food costs as manufacturers will have to make different products that meet Virginia’s standards and no other states. I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs. Separate state standards are not needed.

For the success of our programs, we also need to maintain the state regulations regarding time and place.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the committee on the issue of competitive foods in schools. I am the Director of School Nutrition Services for Louisa County Schools.  School nutrition has always had at its core the mission of providing healthy meals to students, and research continues to support that school meals are healthier than meals brought from home, and that students who eat school meals have healthier weights than those who do not.

There is a business side to school nutrition as well that must be recognized. Our programs are expected to be self-sustaining, receiving no school board operating funds. We earn our way, paying for salaries, benefits, food, supplies, etc.

Currently, the federal competitive foods regulations are set to be implemented in July 2014. These rules mandate nutrition requirements of competitive foods and beverages for calories, fat and saturated fat, sugar and sodium and portion sizes. There are also local wellness policies as mandated since 2006, that cover competitive food sales in schools. If Virginia implements separate standards, our programs will potentially be regulated by 3 sets of standards for the same food and beverage items! Imagine running a business in this manner. This will drive up our food costs as manufacturers will have to make different products that meet Virginia’s standards and no other states. I support the School Nutrition Association of Virginia's position that federal competitive foods regulations should govern school nutrition programs. Separate state standards are not needed.

For the success of our programs, we also need to maintain the state regulations regarding time and place.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you for the opportunity for letting me comment on the Competitive Food Rule. As a food broker representing the manufacture as the liason between the distributor,and the school.I am asking that you consider a one set rule. Having multiple rules would drive up cost of food products, therefor the school would incur those higher cost . Please keep state rules inline with federal rules.

Thank you,

Nina

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Competitive Food Rule. Being the Broker representing the manufacture and the liason to school food service in Virginia. Implementing three separate standards would drive up food cost for the manufactures and then the schools would incur those cost.one set rule is needed. Please make state regulations the same as Federal regulations.

Thank you,

Nina