House advances bill to change school nutrition standards
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Supporters of the bill said federal nutrition guidelines are 'out of date.'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
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As partisan redistricting battles flare, Maine constitutional officers weigh in
Voters cast their ballots at the Quimby School gymnasium in Bingham, Maine on Tuesday, November 5, 2024. (Photo by Michael G. Seamans/ Maine Morning Star) Since President Donald Trump asked Texas to redraw its congressional maps to find five more Republican seats ahead of next year's elections, some Democratic states are considering redistricting to counter the effort. Maine is not, at least according to Gov. Janet Mills, though an anonymous group tried to encourage the Pine Tree State to intervene earlier this month by flying planes over Augusta with banners that read 'Mess with Texas.' The state's constitutional officers, Attorney General Aaron Frey and Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, both Democrats, condemned Texas' move, and Trump instigating it, as a blatant abuse of power. But, they said Democratic states exploring the avenues legally available to them to redistrict outside the regular schedule is understandable. Bellows refrained from any judgement of those counter efforts, while Frey was more critical, particularly due to what he sees as a likely snowball effect. 'I am lamenting what this might mean for how our politics will continue, in terms of people trying to do the one-upsmanship,' Frey said in a sit-down with Maine Morning Star. 'As much as it probably sounds like it's a critique, it really is more of a concern about this being the evolution of where the politics is going.' The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the official party committee dedicated to electing Democrats to statehouses, called on Democrats on Aug. 4 to pursue redistricting opportunities to respond to possible changes to Texas' congressional map. Last week, California was the first state to release a proposal to that aim. Such ideas have also been floated by officials in New York, Maryland, and Illinois — whose governor has already waded into the redistricting battle by welcoming Texas Democrats who fled the state to block a vote on the Republican proposal. They've since returned. But, Republicans control more state legislatures than Democrats and Vice President JD Vance is touring those states to encourage more gerrymandering. Several, including Missouri, Florida and Indiana, are now considering redrawing their maps to counter the Democrats' countering. 'It should be a concern for all of us about what this means for the next time that the next majority is in power,' Frey said. 'I am hoping that I would have just as much concern if California would have been the first state to say that they were going to do this as I have about Texas saying that they're going to do this, even though it may be perfectly appropriate legally.' Redistricting procedures vary state by state but largely happen every ten years following new census data. Under the Maine Constitution, the state Legislature must establish a bipartisan advisory commission to draw its congressional and legislative districts every ten years. These maps are then sent to the Legislature for approval, though lawmakers aren't bound to those recommendations. Approval requires a two-thirds vote, and because neither party has held a supermajority in the last decade, this has typically required bipartisan support. The map is then subject to the governor's approval. Maine last went through this process in 2021. Mills did not respond to multiple requests for comment about whether she supports the actions other Democratic states are considering to redraw their maps in response to Texas Republicans' attempts. A spokesperson told the Portland Press Herald in early August that she was not considering any actions related to redistricting in Maine. If the Legislature is unable to reach the two-thirds threshold, the Maine Supreme Court would draw the maps instead. 'It's understandable that other states are seeking to fight fire with fire,' Bellows said, echoing California Gov. Gavin Newsom, 'but none of what's happening outside of Maine would change unless the Legislature and the people of Maine decided to pursue a constitutional amendment.' A constitutional amendment in Maine requires a two-thirds vote, plus approval by the voters, so such a change, especially before the 2026 midterms, is not likely. When asked if Maine should get involved in the nationwide redistricting fight, Frey said, 'No, not at this point.' As the officer representing the state on legal matters, Frey said he doesn't see an opportunity for legal recourse given that other states drawing congressional districts is a state-level process pertaining to their residents and it doesn't have a direct harm to Maine. However, how these maps ultimately shape Congress will inevitably impact Maine, he said, looking at a list on his desk of lawsuits Maine has filed or joined against the Trump administration. Particularly if Trump gets his way in Texas, Frey said it could result in a continuation of a Congress that doesn't serve as an adequate check to the executive branch. Some politicians are seeking to choose their voters instead of their voters choosing them. – Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows Like other Democrats across the country, Frey and Bellows walked a line to frame their party's use of redistricting differently than Republicans'. 'The Trump administration is trampling all over the norms in our democracy, and it is really important that people stand strong for our values in this moment,' Bellows said. 'What's concerning about what Texas is trying to do is they are basically trying to cheat their way into electoral success in 2026 and 2028, so it's understandable that some of the larger states that are blue states are thinking about how they might respond.' Of those clear political aims, Frey similarly said, 'There's no mask to it,' arguing it would be different if Texas had come to a conclusion that redistricting mid-cycle was needed because its districts were no longer representative due to population shifts or another clear reason. 'Let's say this was Joe Biden who in 2023 was like, 'California, Gavin Newsom, you like us, California does a lot of stuff that supports the administration, I need you to go redistrict and get me five more seats in Congress,'' Frey said. 'What would people say?' But while Frey said Democratic states may be legally within their right to explore counter measures, he doesn't see it as a productive way to resolve political discord nor address the priority issues of everyday Americans, such as the cost of living. 'If anything, it's creating a system that is going to be more unable to meet what it is that, I think, Mainers and the American people are asking for,' Frey said. As Trump eyes election changes, Secretary Bellows warns of fallout Earlier this month Bellows officially responded to the U.S. Department of Justice's request for sweeping voter data, questioning the federal agency's intentions and asking that the request be withdrawn. She sees a throughline with that effort, Trump's executive orders and his push for Texas Republicans to redistrict. 'Some politicians are seeking to choose their voters instead of their voters choosing them,' Bellows said. 'Many of these initiatives seem designed to shrink the population of people who are participating in elections, to spread fear and deter people from participating, or to create artificial barriers to participation.' Frey also sees connections. The day before speaking with Maine Morning Star, Frey had returned from a trip to Washington, D.C., where he saw National Guard troops and FBI agents gathered on the mall. 'They are pushing boundaries to see how far they can get,' Frey said of the administration. Pulling up the president's post on Truth Social ordering the U.S. Commerce Department to start working on a new U.S. Census that does not count people in the country illegally, Frey asked, 'What's the end?' He sees all of these moves as a test of the democratic foundation of the country, the U.S. Constitution. 'If enough citizens out there who are protected by this contract decide that they are unwilling to hold the president to the limitations that the constitution places on government action, I mean, at a certain point that contract by both parties is just going to dissolve,' Frey said. The book 'The Storm Before the Calm' sat on his desk as he added a hopeful nod, explaining the current moment could provide an opportunity to be reminded of the importance of those protections. The book, by geopolitical forecaster George Friedman, views American history through cycles, enduring upheaval and conflict but, ultimately, increasing in strength and stability. With 2026 on the horizon — when Maine's governorship, U.S. Senate seat, two U.S. House seats and Legislature are all up for reelection — Frey said, 'Maybe there will be an opportunity for renewal.' Time will tell how redistricting may play a part in that. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Power grab may energize Newsom and Democrats. But it won't fix their bigger problem
Today we discuss flora, fauna and self-gratification. You've been away. Yes, I was living in a tent for two weeks, communing with the pine trees and black bears of the Sierra. You heard about California's likely special election? I did. It seems Gov. Gavin Newsom will have his way, with help from the Democratic-run Legislature, and voters will be asked in November to approve a partisan gerrymander aimed at offsetting a similar Republican power grab in Texas. As many as five GOP House seats could be erased from the congressional map drawn by California's independent redistricting commission, which voters established more than a decade ago — expressly to take the line-drawing away from a bunch of self-interested politicians. Fighting fire with fire! Could we please retire that phrase. Huh? Also references to knife fights and Democrats showing up with pencils, rubber bands, butter knives and other wimpy implements. The campaign hasn't even started and already those metaphors have grown stale. Fine. At least Democrats are showing some fight. In an impulsive, shortsighted fashion. Look, I get it. Donald Trump truly knows no bottom when it comes to undermining democratic norms, running a familial kleptocracy and, in the felicitous phrase of Gustavo Arellano, my fellow Times columnista, treating the Constitution like a pee pad. Democrats are powerless in Washington, where a pliant Republican-controlled Congress and a supine right-wing Supreme Court have shown all the deference of a maître d' squiring Trump to his favorite table. So the idea of doing something to push back against the president is quite invigorating and, no doubt, gratifying for Democratic partisans. It's also expedient and facile, sparing the party from looking inward and doing the truly hard work it faces. Taking on Republicans over redistricting — a fight among insiders, as far as many voters are concerned — does absolutely nothing to address the larger problem confronting Democrats, which is the absence of any broader message beyond: Trump, bad! We saw how that worked for them in 2024. But this is a 'break-the-glass' moment for our democracy. Gov. Newsom said so! Please. The only thing worse than a grasping and nakedly calculating politician is a politician who wraps his grasping and naked calculation in all sorts of red, white and blue bunting. At bottom, this is all about Newsom's overweening presidential ambitions. How so? The whole episode started when our gallivanting governor went on a left-wing podcast during a Southern campaign swing and huffed and puffed about responding to Trump and Texas by executing a similar gerrymander in California. (He elided the fact that, under the state Constitution, he has no such authority. Hence the need for a special election to seek voter approval of new, slanted political lines.) Soon enough, Newsom's threat took on a life of its own. Normally, redistricting is done once every 10 years, after the latest census. Suddenly, mid-decade redistricting became a new front in the ever-escalating war between red and blue; now several more states are talking about rejiggering their congressional maps for partisan gain. The problem for Newsom and his fellow Democrats is that Republicans have a lot more gerrymandering opportunities than they do. So instead of those five Democratic-held seats in Texas, many more could be at risk for the party in 2026. Golly. Though, it should be said, at this point all that election handicapping is nothing more than speculation. What do you mean? Democrats need to flip three congressional districts to seize control of the House. That's why Trump prodded Texas Republicans to try to nab those five extra seats, to give the GOP some padding. But there's no guarantee Republicans will win all five seats. They're counting on the same strong Latino support Trump received in 2024, and recent polling suggests some of that pro-GOP sentiment may be waning. Beyond that, the ever-insightful Amy Walter, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, makes an important point. 'Even as the possibility of new maps in Texas and California may change the size and the shape of the 2026 playing field,' she wrote in a recent analysis, 'the fate of the Republican-controlled House is ultimately still going to be determined by two fundamental questions: how do voters feel about the state of the economy, and how do independent voters assess the party in power?' It's a long way to November 2026. But at this point, neither of those factors augurs well for Trump and Republicans. Well, they started it, by messing with Texas. True. And none of this is meant to defend Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott or the president's other political henchmen. But effectively disenfranchising millions of California Republicans isn't any better than effectively disenfranchising millions of Texas Democrats. Huh? If Democrats have their way, the GOP would hold just a handful of California's 52 House seats, or even less. How is that possibly fair, or representative, in a state that's home to millions of Republican voters — more, in fact, than any state other than Texas. There are already countless residents, living outside Democrats' city and suburban strongholds, who feel ignored and politically impotent. That's not healthy for California, or democracy. It breeds anger, resentment, cynicism and a kind of political nihilism that, ultimately, helps lead to the election of a middle-finger president like Donald Trump. Of course, Newsom may not care, since at this twilight point of his governorship it's all about his White House hopes and desire to pander to the Democrats' aggrieved political base. By fighting fire with fire! And potentially burning the whole place down.
Axios
25 minutes ago
- Axios
Lawmakers reject Michigan school phone ban
Detroit students are headed back to school Monday with rules banning cell phones during class in place, but that's not the case in all Michigan districts. Why it matters: Cell phones are an obvious distraction for students and teachers, with growing momentum for keeping them out of the classroom. Parents are divided on banning them – in case of an emergency. State of play: Michigan lawmakers of both parties rejected a proposed school cell phone ban last month. The latest: Rep. Mark Tisdel (R-Rochester Hills), who introduced the bill, tells Axios he remains in contact with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's office and other Democrats who support the legislation. He will continue pressing for a ban. "We will have a statewide standard in Michigan, it's just a question of when," Tisdel says, citing growing public support for cell phone bans. "It will happen." The big picture: Phone bans have gained traction across Democratic- and Republican-led states in recent years. Governors in Arizona, Arkansas and New York signed bans into law this year. Zoom in: Tisdel's proposal would have required school boards to implement local policies prohibiting the use of cell phones during instructional time. Middle school and elementary schools would have needed to ban phones during lunch, recess and breaks between classes. It would have exempted medically necessary devices and "dumb" phones — those that can't support third-party apps and are mainly used for phone calls. Detroit public schools' cell phone policy, last revised in 2021, requires students to power off phones and keep them out of sight during class, unless the teacher allows use for instructional purposes. The intrigue: Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, who left the Democratic Party to run for governor as an independent, blamed House Democrats for stonewalling a "good bill" simply to prevent Tisdel, a Republican, from getting credit. Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D-Livonia) sponsored competing legislation that passed in the state Senate and excluded different rules for middle and elementary schools — a distinction with which Tisdel is amenable. Polehanki said more work is needed for common ground.
