Editor’s note: Dr. Hasan Merali He is an associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at McMaster University. His first book “Sleep better, take risks, and crush peas: Secrets from toddler science for a happier, more successful way of life” was published in March 2024. The opinions expressed in this article are his own.read more opinions on CNN.
CNN
—
When I was 10 years old, I happily opened Lunchables and enjoyed making mini sandwiches with crackers, cheese slices, and deli meats. It was delicious. But what I (and my mom) didn’t know at the time was that eating ultra-processed foods (UPF) was bad for my body.
That was in the mid-1990s, and nutrition research has come a long way since then. So why are we now feeding our kids lunch menu items as part of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)? To make matters worse, Consumer Reports found that two lunchable kits available in schools: We evaluated the nutrition and found that it had a higher salt concentration than Lunchables kits sold at grocery stores.
Now, you can’t be fooled by the “good source of protein” stamp on these lunch kits, right? This doesn’t mean these lunch kits are healthy. It is true that there is a “100% freshness guarantee”, but that is because it contains preservatives such as sodium nitrite.
Lunchables maker Kraft Heinz said in a statement to CNN that the company is partnering with Fresh Del Monte to make Lunchables with fresh fruit and to “reduce the sodium in all Lunchables.” “We have taken steps to improve Lunchable’s nutritional profile, including: Crackers decreased by 26%. ”
“All of our food meets strict safety standards and we happily feed our families. We are proud of Lunchables and the integrity that goes into its quality and manufacturing. ,” Kraft-Heinz said.
Let’s be clear: Providing free or low-cost meals to millions of children is important, and the Department of Agriculture should be commended for the way it runs its programs. His NSLP, launched in 1946, currently reaches more than 30 million children. This is critical because more than one in five of her children live in food-insecure households. And not all countries are blessed with such programs. For example, Canada, a country that often outperforms the United States in public health measures such as vaccination rates, has no national food program for children. The investment to start this program was just announced this month.
But the United States could do better when it comes to the types of meals it provides to children. The decision to allow Lunchables to be offered as part of NSLP is not a step in the right direction.
Would you like to try one?
Lunchables are a type of UPF and are foods that contain chemical additives such as artificial flavors. The turkey and cheddar lunchables offered as part of the NSLP “have added smoke flavor.”
A study published in February in the British Medical Journal found that consuming more UPF increases the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, and several other negative health effects. Eating these types of foods is also associated with cognitive decline in adults. Conversely, reducing a child’s UPF consumption can significantly reduce obesity.
One of the challenges facing USDA is bringing the NSLP into compliance with the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), but progress is being made. In a study published last year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the authors compared the current school lunch standards from 2010 to the updated 2020-2025 DGA. They found that implementing DGA criteria significantly reduced body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure. Even if implementation of the standards is incomplete, over 9,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer could be prevented in the long term. The study also demonstrated that if partially implemented, health care costs would be saved by $15.9 billion, and if fully implemented, $19.3 billion would be saved.
Providing children with more nutritious meals has both health and medical cost savings benefits. It also reduces dietary disparities based on income and race.
We’ve done this in the past, so we can do it again. The quality of nutrition has improved since the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed in 2010. This is especially important because school lunches are often the highest quality meals children will receive during the day. According to a 2015 study published in the journal Childhood Obesity, meals that adhered to higher nutritional standards were also wasted less.
And while the Department of Agriculture should be applauded for announcing recent changes to school nutrition standards, we can all do more to align the meals we serve our children with current guidelines. . Current plans focus on reducing added sugar and sodium and increasing consumption of whole grains. But what about UPF?
What we need to do is start explicitly incorporating UPF language into national dietary guidelines, as other countries are doing. This is important not only for children, but for all of us.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Some countries, particularly in Latin America, are taking this issue seriously. For example, Colombia introduced a tax on her UPF in 2023. And the tax works. A modeling study published in Public Health Nutrition in 2022 estimated that a 20% tax would reduce his UPF purchases by 24%. (Notably, a World Food Program report says that despite steps being taken to address food insecurity in Colombia, half of Colombian households are barely food secure.)
And when it comes to protecting children, Chile stands out. For the past decade, Chile has banned the sale and distribution of all her UPFs in schools. Recognizing that children are highly vulnerable to food advertising, Chile went a step further and banned advertising of these products to children. Regarding UPF, cartoon characters and mascots were also banned. Tony the Tiger will no longer appear on domestic Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. This is what child advocacy work looks like.
And while it may be years before taxes, school cafeteria bans, and UPF advertising regulations end, we have to start somewhere. First, language regarding the UPF, which so far is largely absent, needs to be incorporated into policy documents. Once you’ve identified your problem, you can start setting goals. You can’t do everything at once. But you can follow the USDA and set goals to reduce your sugar and salt intake. France has set her a 20% reduction target in her UPF consumption over three years and provides an excellent model to follow.
Thirty years later, that appetizing lunch menu is no longer appetizing. Instead of crunchy crackers, delicious cheese, and flavorful slices of meat, you’re faced with salt and additives. Children need stronger policies. They should be given better food.
