[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5038-S5041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Feingold, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 998. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to prohibit 
the donation or service without charge of competitive foods of minimal 
nutritional value in schools participating in Federal meal service 
programs before the end of the last lunch period of the schools; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


            better nutrition for school children act of 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to be joined by Senators 
Jeffords, Harkin, Kohl, and Feingold, and Representative Hinchey in the 
House of Representatives, in introducing the ``Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999.'' This bill seals a loophole undermining 
our children's nutritional health.
  One of the most important lessons we can teach our children is good 
health. Good health includes keeping our children tobacco and drug 
free, and includes nutrition education for healthy living.
  Every day, more than 26 million children participate in the National 
School Lunch Program. One-quarter of those children--approximately 
seven million--also participate in the National School Breakfast 
Program. According to a United States Department of Agriculture study, 
school children may consume between one-third and one-half of their 
daily nutrient intake at school. Knowing how important school meal 
programs are to the nutritional health of children, I am extremely 
concerned by reports of soft drinks being given to children before or 
during lunch.
  Current law prohibits the sale of soft drinks during lunch. This 
prohibition has been around for a long time. However, some schools are 
now getting around this prohibition by giving soda to children for 
free. This is a loophole--big enough to drive a soda truck through--
that hurts our children. The bill which we are introducing today would 
close this loophole so that soft drinks cannot be distributed--for free 
or for sale--during mealtime at schools participating in the National 
School Lunch Program. Also, the bill would prohibit giving away sodas 
before lunch.
  As a parent, I would be outraged to discover that my efforts at 
teaching my child good nutrition were being undermined by free sugar 
and caffeine laden soft drinks at school.
  Studies based on statistics from the USDA Continuing Surveys of Food 
Intakes by Individuals have shown that heavy soft drink consumption 
correlates with a low intake of magnesium, calcium, ascorbic acid, 
riboflavin and vitamin A. The loss of calcium is particularly alarming 
for teenage women, as calcium is crucial for building up bone mass to 
reduce the risk of osteoporosis later in life, and women build 92 
percent of their bone mass by age 18.
  Many sodas also contain caffeine, which is not only an addictive 
stimulant, but which also increases the excretion of calcium.
  In its Food Guide Pyramid for Young Children, which recommends good 
dietary habits for children, the United States Department of 
Agriculture continues to recommend serving children fruits, vegetables, 
grains, meat and dairy, while limiting children's intake of sweets - 
including soft drinks.
  Statistics regarding children's intake of soft drinks are alarming. 
For instance, teenage boys consume an average of 2\1/2\ soft drinks a 
day--which equals approximately 15 teaspoons of sugar--every day.
  While children's consumption of soft drinks has been on the rise, 
their consumption of milk has been on the decline. Statistics from the 
USDA demonstrate that whereas 20 years ago teens drank twice as much 
milk as soda, today they drink twice as much soda as milk. Unlike milk, 
soft drinks have minimal nutritional value and they contribute nothing 
to the health of kids. One need only compare the ingredient and 
nutrition labels on a Coke can versus a milk carton to see what a child 
loses when milk is replaced by a soft drink.
  The consequence of replacing milk with soda is clear: the declining 
nutritional health of our children. In her book Jane Brody's 
Nutritional Book, Jane Brody articulates this point in saying:

       Probably the most insidious undermining of good nutrition 
     in the early years comes

[[Page S5039]]

     from the soft drink industry. Catering to children's innate 
     preferences for a sweet taste, the industry has succeeded in 
     drawing millions of youngsters away from milk and natural 
     fruit juices and hooking them on pop and other artificially 
     flavored drinks that offer nothing of nutritional 
     significance besides calories.

  The Vermont State Board of Education's School Nutrition Policy 
Statement actually touches on this very issue. Among its 
recommendations to school districts for dietary guidelines and 
nutrition, the Board of Education advises:

       Certain foods which contribute little other than calories 
     should not be sold on school campuses. These foods include 
     carbonated beverages, nonfruit soft drinks, candies in which 
     the major ingredient is sugar, frozen nonfruit ice bars, and 
     chewing gum with sugar.

  It was only a few years ago that, as Chairman of the U.S. Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, that I fought the 
soft drink behemoths--Coca-Cola and Pepsi--over vending machines in 
schools. I felt that schools should be encouraged to close down vending 
machines before and during lunch. I was unprepared for the wealth of 
opposition which ensued.
  However, despite the well-financed opposition by soda companies, the 
Nutrition and Health for Children Act was met with bipartisan support 
in Congress. Former Senator Bob Dole noted that ``too often a student 
gives up his half dollar and his appetite en route to the cafeteria'' 
and criticized the ``so-called plate waste, where young students and 
other students decide it is better to have a candy bar and a soft drink 
rather than eat some meal that is subsidized by the Federal 
Government.''
  Just as the Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act passed with 
bipartisan support in 1994, I am sure that the Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999 will pass with bipartisan support this 
year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Better Nutrition for 
School Children Act of 1999 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 998

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Better Nutrition for School 
     Children Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to close the loophole that allows competitive foods of 
     minimum nutritional value that cannot be sold during meals in 
     schools participating in the school breakfast and lunch 
     programs to instead be donated or served without charge to 
     students during or before breakfast or lunch;
       (2) to protect 1 of the major purposes of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.) and the 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), which is 
     to promote better nutrition among school children 
     participating in the school breakfast and lunch programs; and
       (3) to promote better nutritional habits among school 
     children and improve the health of school children 
     participating in the school breakfast and lunch programs.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DONATION OR SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE OF 
                   COMPETITIVE FOODS OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

       Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1779) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Donation or Service Without Charge of Competitive 
     Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value.--
       ``(1) Sales.--The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Donations or service without charge.--The regulations 
     shall prohibit the donation or service without charge of 
     competitive foods not approved by the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1) in a school participating in a meal service 
     program authorized under this Act or the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) before the end of the last 
     lunch period of the school.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, and Senator Harkin as an original 
cosponsor of the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. This 
issue is so important to the health and well being of our nation's 
school children.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 is about good 
nutrition--and a little about milk. The Vermont and Wisconsin Senators 
at times have a hard time agreeing on federal milk policy, but we all 
agree that good nutrition plays an important role in the health and 
education of our children.
  As chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
I recognize the importance of having a proper and nutritionally 
balanced diet in our school lunch programs. A well nourished child is a 
child more healthy, energized, focused and able to learn.
  When school children receive a large amount of their daily caloric 
intake from sugary soft drinks, they are not receiving the fruits, 
vegetables, vitamins, minerals, and perhaps most importantly--calcium 
that they need.
  Soda and other sugary junk foods squeeze more nutritious foods out of 
their diet. Since many school children may consume between one-third 
and one-half of their daily intake at school, it is important that we 
do not allow them to substitute good nutrition with empty calories.
  Mr. President, teens, in particular, should be drinking milk instead 
of soft drinks. Twenty years ago, teens drank twice as much milk as 
soda. Today, the average teenager drinks twice as much soda as milk.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 helps close the 
empty calorie loophole. Soft drinks, sugar candies, cotton candy and 
the like are already banned from being sold during lunch. This bill 
would simply ban the free distribution of these ``competitive foods not 
approved by the Secretary'' before and during lunch at schools 
participating in the federal school lunch or breakfast programs.
  Mr. President, I commend Senator Leahy for his continued leadership 
in improving the nutrition of America's school children and will work 
with him and others to see that this bill becomes law.
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Leahy, 
Senator Kohl, and Senator Jeffords to introduce this important 
legislation, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. The 
Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999 will make our kid's 
nutrition--not some economic bottom line--the priority when it comes to 
our nation's school meal program.
  Mr. President, some schools in this country, particularly high 
school, are providing school-aged children with free soda as part of 
the school lunch program. This trend is troublesome for a number of 
reasons: One, it is contrary to the intent of the 1946 National School 
Lunch Act; Two, numerous studies have demonstrated that teenagers, 
particularly girls, are not consuming enough calcium to prevent 
osteoporosis in their later years; And, three, as a representative of 
Wisconsin, ``America's Dairyland,'' I am concerned that the increase in 
school time soda consumption will inevitably mean that our children 
drink less milk at school.
  Mr. President, in 1946, Congress first made nutrition for school aged 
children a priority when it passed the National School Lunch Act. This 
measure was designed to provide school children with high quality 
nutritious food during the school day. In 1977, because of concerns 
that our country's nutritional habits had begun to slide, Congress 
directed USDA to take steps to restrict school children's access to 
foods of low nutritional value when at school.
  The legality regulations USDA promulgates under the 1977 law, with 
regard to foods of nutritional value was challenged by the National 
Soft Drink Association. This law banned the sale of soft drink and 
other ``junk foods'' in school cafeterias during the lunch hour.
  Congressional debates on the 1977 law ``convey an unmistakable 
concern that `junk foods,' notably various types of candy bars, chewing 
gum and soft drinks, not be allowed to compete in participating 
schools.'' The Federal judge observed the ``logic and common sense, as 
well as several studies in the [rulemaking] record, suggest that 
irregular eating habits combined with ready access to junk food 
adversely affect federal nutritional objectives.''
  USDA current regulations prohibit the sale of foods of ``minimal 
nutritional value''--which include sodas, water ices, chewing gum, and 
certain candies--in the food service area during the lunch period in 
any school. The current regulations do not mention the distribution of 
free sodas, because, Mr. President, this idea never entered the

[[Page S5040]]

minds of lawmakers during consideration of the measure.
  Mr. President, we have found that in schools all over the country, 
free sodas are being passed out as part of the school lunch program. 
This practice evades the current Federal ban on the sale of sodas as 
part of school lunches. It's bad for kids, bad for farmers who are 
watching milk consumption and prices decline, and bad for teachers and 
school administrators who are left to deal with unruly and fidgety 
children during the day. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, giving 
away free sodas in school doesn't help anybody except soda companies.
  Mr. President, in a report published last year by the Center for 
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) it was documented that one 
quarter of teenage boys who drink soda consume more than two 12-ounce 
cans per day, and that five percent drink five or more cans daily. This 
report was based on survey data from USDA and also indicated that in 
average, girls drink about one-third less--but the risks of soda 
consumption are potentially greater for girls. The report claims that 
doctors say soda has been pushing milk out of teenage diets and making 
girls more likely candidates for osteoporosis when they're older.
  The data indicated that these doctors are right. Choosing a soft 
drink instead of milk means that teens will have a lower level of 
calcium in their diets. Soft drinks provide 0% of a persons recommended 
daily allowance for calcium, while milk provides 30%. Low calcium 
intake contributes to osteoporosis, a disease leading to fragile and 
broken bones. Currently, 10 million Americans have osteoporosis while 
another 18 million have low bone mass and are at increased risk of 
osteoporosis. Women are more frequently affected than men. Considering 
the low calcium intake of today's teenage girls, osteoporosis rates may 
well rise in the near future.
  As I understand it, the risk of osteoporosis depends in part on how 
much bone mass is built early on in life. The CSPI report states that 
girls build 92 percent of their bone mass by age 18, but if they don't 
consume enough calcium in the teenage years, they cannot ``catch up'' 
later. This explains why experts recommend higher calcium intakes for 
youths 9 to 18 than for adults 19 to 50. Currently, teenage girls 
consume only 60 percent of the recommended amount; pop drinkers 
consuming almost one-fifth less calcium than non-consumers.
  The CSPI and a coalition of health advocates reported that 20 years 
ago, teens drank almost twice as much milk as soda pop; today, they 
consume twice as much soda as milk.
  Since 1973, soft drink consumption has risen dramatically. Americans 
now drink twice as much soda per person as they did 25 years ago. 
According to statistics from the Beverage Marketing Corp., annual soda 
consumption was 22.4 per person in 1970; in 1998, it was 56.1 gallons 
per person. Unfortunately, milk consumption has been on a steady 
decline. This trend is likely to continue--however, I do not feel that 
school administrators should encourage it. This country's dairy farmers 
have it hard enough. The recently announced Basic Formula Price (BFP) 
is lower than the cost of production in nearly every region of the 
country. We in dairy states are very concerned about our struggling 
producers. How can we stand by and watch as they struggle to locate and 
enter new markets abroad, while their base market--school meal 
programs--is being taken away?
  And how do the parents feel? Those that limit their children's intake 
of sodas and sweets at home see their efforts undermined when the 
school provides these items for free. This is a losing battle for them 
too!
  Mr. President, I'm not here to ban soda for school-age children--only 
to support a simple, sensible idea that any parent, any nutritionist, 
and any dairy farmer would favor--and that's giving our kids milk while 
they are in school. This bill restores common sense back to one aspect 
of our kids school nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to support 
this Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999. It is supported 
by the National Education Association and the University of Wisconsin-
Milwaukee School of Education. I ask that their letters of support be 
inserted into the Record.
  The material follows:
         University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, School of Education 
           Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
                                                      May 7, 1999.
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 
     1999.''
       My research shows that children are coming under increasing 
     pressure to consume large quantities of soda while in school. 
     For example, exclusive contracts between schools and bottling 
     firms are now popular. These contracts commonly contain 
     provisions that provide financial incentives to school 
     districts that reward them when consumption goals are met. In 
     other words the more of a bottling company's products are 
     purchased the more money the school gets. This places school 
     districts in the ethically dangerous position of promoting 
     the consumption of products that their own health and 
     nutrition curricula discourage students from consuming in 
     large quantities.
       The distribution of free soda as part of a school lunch 
     program, at least in my view, violates the spirit and intent 
     of the Child Nutrition Act of 1996. Such distributions are, 
     no doubt, useful to soda bottlers as means of promoting brand 
     recognition and establishing brand loyalty. And as such they 
     are little different from any number of ``free'' promotions 
     that are a common part of product marketing campaigns. 
     However, none of this has anything to do with promoting 
     children's health.
       I believe that schools must do their utmost to promote 
     healthful eating habits among their students. The ``Better 
     Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999'' is a useful and 
     necessary step to insure that school lunches are the 
     healthful, nutritious meals that legislators have always 
     intended that they be.
           Sincerely,

                                            Alex Molnar, Ph.D.

                                 Director, Center for the Analysis
     of Commercialism in Education.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1999.
     Senator Patrick Leahy
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Leahy and Feingold: On behalf of the National 
     Education Association's (NEA) 2.4 million members, we would 
     like to express our strong support for the Better Nutrition 
     for School Children Act of 1999, which would bar the 
     distribution of free soda in the School Lunch Program. NEA 
     believes that providing free soda to students contradicts the 
     nutritional goals of the School Program and can impede 
     academic success.
       Research clearly demonstrates the link between good 
     nutrition and learning. Children who are hungry or improperly 
     nourished face cognitive limitations which may impair their 
     ability to concentrate and learn. Preserving the nutritional 
     integrity of school meals, therefore, is critical ensuring 
     student achievement. This is particularly true for poor 
     children, who often rely on school lunch for one-third to 
     one-half of their daily nutritional intake.
       Providing free soda in the School Lunch Program is clearly 
     at odds with congressional intent to restrict access by 
     school children to foods of low nutritional integrity of the 
     School Lunch Program.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
                         Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the ``Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 1999.'' This 
legislation will stop the practice of giving students free sodas at 
lunch--sugar and caffeine filled drinks that are replacing the healthy 
milk and juices these kids should be drinking. A soda may keep a child 
awake through fifth period physics, but it will do nothing to fuel 
their growth into a healthy adult. We've been talking quite a bit 
lately about keeping our children safe during the school day. We must 
not forget we also have an obligation to keep them healthy, growing, 
and alert--an obligation met in great part with the national school 
lunch and breakfast programs.
  The vast majority of schools in Wisconsin and across the nation are 
our partners in ensuring that children learn to eat healthy, and they 
are proud to abide by current laws--and the spirit behind those laws-- 
prohibiting the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in our 
schools. But while there is a ban on the sale of these sorts of foods 
during the school lunch period, there is no ban on giving them away for 
free. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently cited 
several schools that are giving away donated sodas to students. This 
defies common sense. Kids should be drinking milk, water, and natural 
fruit juices--not sodas and other artificial drinks--as part of the 
school lunch program.
  Statistics from the Department of Agriculture show that 20 years ago,

[[Page S5041]]

teens drank twice as much milk as soft drinks; today, that trend has 
reversed. Teens are drinking 40 percent less milk than they drank 22 
years ago. Soft drinks contain a large amount of caffeine and sugar, 
and the American Medical Association has found that these sweetened 
drinks squeeze healthier foods out of childrens diets.
  The Better Nutrition for School Children Act will simply prohibit the 
donation of competitive foods of minimal nutritional value, including 
sodas, before the end of the last lunch period of school. Let me be 
clear: we are not banning sodas in schools. Students will still be able 
to purchase sodas, or receive free ones, once the school lunch period 
is over. But this bill assures that at least during mealtimes, school 
children will have access to healthy foods and drinks, like milk.
  This bill does not address the exclusive marketing contracts between 
schools and soft drink companies, but I do have concern over these as 
well. These contracts specify that a school will sell only a certain 
brand of sodas, and in return, the soda companies give the schools a 
share of the proceeds. I realize that school districts' budgets are 
stretched thin, but there has to be a better way of raising funds.
  Mr. President, the Better Nutrition for School Children Act will 
close the current loophole that allows the donation of sodas in our 
nation's schools. It will ensure that tax dollars invested in the 
school lunch program are spent wisely on nutritious foods and drinks 
that children actually consume--rather than throw away to make room for 
a free soda. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this simple, 
yet vitally important legislation.
                                 ______