Washington Post Letter to the Editor: The most important test for school food policies
The Oct. 27 news article "States move to take ultra-processed foods off the school lunch menu" reported the Santa Ana Unified School District apparently didn't set out to try to eliminate ul-tra-processed foods. The district's nutrition director said he simply wanted to cook more things from scratch.
That is an admirable goal, but it is not the same as banning foods based on how they are manufactured. Even with California's generous funding and the district's access to local agriculture and existing kitchens, the district has needed years to expand its approach. Many districts lack those advantages.
A recent review from the Carver Center for Agriculture & Nutrition, a nonprofit that I lead as chairman, highlights that school lunches are among the most nutritious meals American children eat.
Decades of nutritional improvements have produced measurable gains. We should build on that success, not put it at risk.
A food's processing classification alone cannot tell us its nutritional val-ue. A broad prohibition could exclude affordable, nutrient-dense foods while doing little to address what children actually consume.
The test for any new school food policy should be straightforward: Does it measurably improve nutrition? Can schools afford and deliver the food? And will children eat it?
Andy Curliss, Des Moines