House advances bill to change school nutrition standards
The Iowa House of Representatives voted to modify school nutrition standards. (Photo by Hakim Fobia/USDA)
A bill passed the Iowa House Wednesday that would require schools to forgo federal nutrition standards to instead prioritize Iowa-specific guidelines.
House Democrats, who opposed the bill, said in floor debate it makes Iowa students 'guinea pigs' for unproven nutrition practices, while failing to address the number of students in the state who can't afford lunch.
House File 851 would have the Iowa Department of Education apply for a waiver from federal nutrition guidelines to exempt Iowa school districts from grain and produce variation requirements and sodium limits in favor of nutritional standards that 'align with Iowa's dietary recommendations or cultural food practices.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Supporters of the bill said federal nutrition guidelines are 'out of date.'
Rep. Derek Wulf, R-Hudson, critiqued the past administration's nutrition decisions and implementation of initiatives like 'meatless Mondays.'
'We're not making the kids of Iowa guinea pigs; D.C. has been making the kids of Iowa guinea pigs,' Wulf said. 'Nobody knows nutrition and food better than us here. We're the bread basket of America.'
Wulf said the bill puts 'common sense nutrition knowledge' in place.
'Our kids are obviously not getting healthier in the past few years, so it's time to do something drastically different,' he said.
Rep. Elinor Levin, D-Iowa City, said the bill tries to 'redefine' local food by prioritizing 'multinational corporations.'
'This bill is not about supporting Iowa's small and independent farmers,' Levin said. 'Instead, it serves the interests of powerful industry players, which are using this legislation to increase sales under the guise of promoting local agriculture, while actually perverting that definition.'
Iowa lawmakers move to prioritize corn, pork and dairy in school lunches
The bill notes specifically that Iowa students would be 'better served' by regional nutrition guidelines, because federal guidelines do not 'adequately address' Iowa's 'unique regional food sources' like corn, pork and dairy.
The bill would also prioritize animal-based proteins and dairy ahead of fruits and vegetables, which Rep. Austin Baeth, D-Des Moines, said is 'flipping this evidence-based food pyramid on its head.'
'I'm very proud Iowan, but I believe that we should benefit from the science, the medical expertise, that has been gained over the decades of national and international studies as to what is the healthiest diet for kids, and not just give that all up for the sake of helping out part of the food industry,' Baeth, a physician, said.
Rep. Sami Scheetz, D-Cedar Rapids, said he worried the waiver would jeopardize federal funding for schools.
Scheetz cited part of federal code that states the U.S. secretary of agriculture cannot grant a waiver if it relates to 'the nutritional content of meals served.'
Rep. Jeff Shipley, R-Fairfield, said the bill would benefit school nutrition staff who he said are 'very frustrated' at having to 'conform every single thing on their school menu to the whims of the bureaucracy.'
Shipley said the bill allows Iowans to step out from the 'federal bureaucrats' that hold tax money 'hostage.'
'The USDA is a big problem when it comes to school nutrition,' Shipley said. 'And yeah, we appreciate their money, but the rules just don't make sense, and they're out of date and they're obsolete … The people of Iowa deserve to set our own nutritional guidelines.'
Scheetz said it was 'fundamentally wrong' to risk losing that funding for school lunches when many students cannot afford to eat lunch.
'If we want to have the discussion about school lunches in our state, let's start by feeding our kids first,' Scheetz said.
Scheetz introduced two amendments to the bill, which were defeated.
One amendment would have conditioned the bill's implementation until Iowa had universal free lunch for its students.
'I think it's critically important that we first ensure that every kid in this state will be eating a lunch before we start messing with what's inside of it,' Scheetz said.
The other amendment called for a $3 million appropriation to fund a purchasing program for schools and food banks to buy from Iowa producers via the Choose Iowa program.
Choose Iowa, headed by the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, has a pilot program with this purpose underway, but the amendment would have significantly grown the local food purchasing program.
Scheetz said it was especially important following an announcement in March that canceled the federal Local Food for Schools program, from which Iowa schools and food banks would have received an estimated $11.3 million over the next three years.
Wulf proposed an amendment to delay implementation of the nutrition guidelines until July 2026, which was adopted.
The bill passed with the one amendment on a vote of 60-36.
The Senate version of the bill has not yet been debated.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NC doctors, legislators, and cancer survivors push for prostate cancer screening money
New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor speaks about his prostate cancer treatment at a news conference on a proposal to establish a statewide screening program for uninsured and underinsured men. (Photo: Lynn Bonner/NC Newsline) Offering prostate cancer screening to men who are uninsured or underinsured will save lives, legislators, doctors, advocates, and cancer survivors said at a news conference Tuesday. 'Prostate cancer is one of the most curable cancers if it is detected early,' said Rep. Rodney Pierce (D-Halifax), the bill's lead sponsor. But, too many North Carolinians are diagnosed too late. 'This legislation is about saving lives, about a higher quality of life, and giving our fathers, uncles, brothers, nephews and sons the fighting chance they deserve,' he said. House bill 128 would appropriate $2 million to establish a prostate cancer screening program modeled after the state's breast and cervical cancer screening program. Money for prostate screening is not in the House or Senate budget proposals, but Pierce hopes it will be funded. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the state, according to the UNC Men's Health Program. The issue has gained increased attention in the last few weeks after former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with 'a more aggressive form' of prostate cancer. Men in North Carolina are diagnosed with prostate cancer at higher rates than men nationally, according to the National Cancer Institute, and North Carolina's mortality rate is higher, at 20.2 per 100,000 men. Black men are more likely to develop prostate cancer and more likely to die from it, according to the American Cancer Society. Legislators at the Tuesday news conference made direct appeals to Black men to be screened. A blood test is used to screen for and monitor prostate cancer. Rep. Abe Jones (D-Wake) said he's tested twice a year because his father had prostate cancer. 'It is a sneaky, nasty, tricky disease,' Jones said. 'It's ugly and it kills Black men at a higher rate.' 'It doesn't give you a warning, it just comes on you,' Jones said. 'I just encourage all my brothers out there to please get tested.' New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor, a prostate cancer survivor, said the screening bill would help men in rural areas. It's vital for men to talk about prostate cancer, he said. 'It's so important to talk, talk, talk and share,' he said. 'You don't know how many lives you've saved by talking and sharing.' The bill proposes free or low-cost testing for uninsured or underinsured men ages 40 to 70 who have a family history of prostate cancer. Men without a family history would be eligible for screening at ages 50 to 70. Recommendations for screening have a cloudy history. In 2012, the US Preventative Service Task Force, a group of independent experts, recommended against routine screening. The recommendation changed in 2018, with the group suggesting men 55- to 69-years old talk with their doctors about regular screening. The task force is in the process of updating its recommendation. Dr. Dan George, a member of the Duke Cancer Institute who specializes in prostate cancers, said there's a concern that prostate cancer is going under-treated. 'It's so vitally important for people to recognize that knowledge is power,' George said. 'Understanding your cancer status is an opportunity for you to prevent a leading cause of death in this state.' Rural residents would benefit from routine testing that residents with access to medical specialists can more easily obtain, he said. Former state Sen. Eddie Goodall, a Union County Republican, talked about his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Goodall said he was diagnosed in 2005, just as his first term in the legislature was beginning. 'I was excited about being a freshman senator and being able to change the world,' Goodall said. Instead, he received a diagnosis that he kept secret from his mother because he didn't want her to worry about another son dying. Goodall said that five years before he was diagnosed, his brother died of cancer. Goodall said he talked and compared notes with another former senator who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same time. Goodall decided against surgery. The cancer spread to his bones. Goodall said he started hormone therapy in 2018 and was told he had 18 months to two years to live. 'But it's been seven years, and I'm still here. So I'm very grateful for that.'
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
President Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: Year: 2008 The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but Trump's administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Dollars: $295 billion Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. Ages: 7 and 55-64 To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. Percentages: 5%-25% The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. Margin: 1 House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans dedicate some funding to courts, workforce agency, ag, but Democrats say it isn't enough
'The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing disease from spreading,' Sen. Howard Marklein said at a press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Republicans and Democrats on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee were divided Tuesday about the amount of money the state should invest in several state agencies including the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. Republicans on the committee said they were making strategic and realistic investments in priority areas, while Democrats said Republicans' investments wouldn't make enough of an impact. The first divisive issue came up when the committee considered the budgets for Wisconsin's courts. Democrats proposed that the state provide an additional $2 million and 8 new positions for the creation of an Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court that would provide security for the Court. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) and Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the need for the office has increased recently due to the number of threats the judges and justices are facing. 'Given the role that they play in our judiciary in order to be impartial, we shouldn't want them to be in danger or to fear for their safety or to have any outward pressures on them that would influence the case,' McGuire said. 'I believe it's important for the cause of justice. I believe it's important for the cause of safety.' Roys noted the inflammatory language that members of the Trump administration have used when talking about judges and justices, noting that Republicans have passed legislation before to help protect judges. She also noted that former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer was targeted and murdered at his home in 2022. 'It is really frightening… and the Supreme Court has made this request over numerous years because they understand better than any of us do what it's like to try to serve the public in this critically important but increasingly dangerous role,' Roys said. 'I am much less interested in putting people in prison after they have murdered a judge than I am in preventing our judges from being attacked or killed, so, this seems to me a tiny amount of money to do a really important task to protect the third branch of government and particularly our Supreme Court.' Republicans rejected Democrats' motion. Committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that the Wisconsin Capitol Police are tasked with protecting visitors, employees, legislators, the Court and anyone else in the building. 'They do a good job and continue to provide top-notch work here at the Capitol as part of security for everyone who works here,' Born said. The committee also voted 13-3 with Andraca joining Republicans to allocate an additional $10 million each year to counties for circuit court costs. The committee took action on portions of the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), giving a boost to he agency's Meat Inspection Program and Division of Animal Health. 'The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing the disease from spreading,' committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said. The Meat Inspection Program got an additional $2.7 million and two additional positions under the proposal approved by the committee. The program works to ensure the safety and purity of meat products sold in Wisconsin, including by inspecting the livestock and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities that are not already inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Division of Animal Health would get three additional employees that would be funded with about $500,000. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin has 233 official meat establishments and 70 custom meat establishments that require state inspection. Roys said the proposal 'falls far short of what is needed,' noting that agriculture is a major economic driver in Wisconsin and the industry is under pressure due to actions being taken by the Trump administration. The USDA recently terminated its National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, which had been in place since 1971, and the administration has considered ending most of its routine food safety inspections work. 'That kind of uncertainty is exactly why we need to step up our work at the state level,' Roys said, adding that she hopes that Republicans 'consider funding at the appropriate level what our farmers…deserve.' Marklein noted that the committee's work on DATCP's part of the budget is not completed yet. 'This is a program that's had a shortfall year over year,' Andraca said, adding that she hopes 'members of this committee are vegetarians.' 'If there's one place that I wouldn't cut, it would probably be in meat inspection. If we're looking at places to take a little off the edge, food safety is not one of them, particularly in a time where we have avian flu and other diseases breaking out,' Andraca said. The committee also voted along party lines to invest additional funds in programs administered by the Department of Workforce Development, including $6 million in youth apprenticeship grants, $570,000 in early college credit program grants, $250,000 for the agency's commercial driver training grant program and $250,000 for the workforce training grants. Democrats had suggested that the committee dedicate $11 million for the youth apprenticeship program, which provides an opportunity for juniors and seniors in high school to get hands-on experience in a field alongside classroom instruction, but Republicans rejected it opting to put a little more than half of that towards the program. Andraca said the program is important for allowing youth to 'try out new skills and new jobs' and train to fill positions in Wisconsin and that the $6 million investment makes it seem like the program is 'pretty much getting gutted.' The program has steadily grown annually over the last several years at an estimated rate of 16%, although, according to the LFB, the number of additional students each year has declined going from a high of 1,923 additional students in 2022-23, to 1,703 more in 2023-24, and 1,430 in 2024-25. Andraca noted that the program currently operates on a sum certain model, meaning that there is a specific amount of money available and the size of a grant could vary depending on participation and available funds. If there is continued growth of 16% then the grant sizes could shrink. A sum sufficient model (which Democrats wanted) would mean that the agency's spending on the program isn't capped by a specific dollar amount. Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) noted that the grants for students would likely grow from an average of about $900 currently to about $1,000 under the Republican proposal. 'This motion [is] at $6 million and $100 per award over the last budget, but we're supposed to believe it's gutting the program,' Quinn said. 'Welcome to the People's Republic of Madison where stuff like that happens a lot; $6 million in new money is a lot of money to most people but obviously the other side, it's gutting the program,' Born said, responding to Quinn. 'At some point when you're building a budget, you have to figure out a way to afford it, be reasonable in your investments, so maybe that's why we don't view a $6 million investment as gutting because we're trying to live within our means.' The committee approved $2.3 million to support the new Wisconsin History Center in downtown Madison for 2025-26 and $540,800 and six positions annually starting in 2026-27. Construction on the museum, which will be operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society, started in April and its opening is set for 2027. The Historical Society had requested the one-time funding of $2.3 million in 2025-26 as well as ongoing funding of $1.7 million annually — more than double the amount the committee approved — starting in 2026-27 to help with operational costs, including security, janitorial and maintenance services. It said without ongoing funding from the state it wouldn't be able to open and maintain the museum. It also said that it was not anticipating needing to request additional funding for the museum operations in future budget cycles if the request is funded. The committee also approved an additional $562,000 in one-time funding across the biennium for security and facilities improvements for the Historical Society's facilities and collections and $157,000 to cover estimated future increases in services costs. But the committee decreased funding for the Historical Society by $214,000 for estimated fuel and utilities costs. A law, 2023 Wisconsin Act 73, overhauled alcohol regulation in Wisconsin and created a new Division of Alcohol Beverages under the Department of Regulation tasked with preventing violations of the new laws. Republicans on the committee approved a motion to recategorize nine general DOR positions and over $900,000 to the Division of Alcohol Beverages to help with enforcement. It also transferred an attorney to the division and added $456,000 in funding for two more positions in the Division of Alcohol Beverages. Democrats said that Republicans on the committee were 'nickel and diming' the Department of Revenue with its proposal given that it recategorizes already existing positions rather than creating new ones. 'I do appreciate some of the efforts involved in this motion,' McGuire said, adding that he noticed there were 10 positions that were moved around. 'That seemed odd to me,' McGuire said. 'Were their feet up on their desk? They weren't collecting taxes at school time, or what were they doing? We want to be able to give the Department of Revenue tools they need to succeed, and frankly, the tools they need to provide resources to the state to make sure that everyone's on an even playing field so we can fund the priorities' of the state. The GOP proposal passed on a party-line vote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
