Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1147, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.

School meals are critical to reducing child hunger and providing children with the healthy food they need. Milk, offered as part of these meals, can help deliver essential nutrients that are vital to a child's development. That is why it is so important that we provide students with the most nutritious milk options.

Child nutrition standards for school meals, including milk options, are guided by the science-based Dietary Guidelines for Americans, or the DGAs, which are periodically updated based on recommendations from child nutrition experts and input from the public.

The latest DGAs, along with the American Heart Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and over a dozen other public health advocates, agree that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children.

Regrettably, H.R. 1147 attempts to legislate nutrition standards and disregard the evidence-based recommendations made by the DGAs. Furthermore, the bill would undermine the Biden administration's ongoing rulemaking to better align school nutrition standards with the latest science.

This bill would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to offer whole milk and reduced-fat milk, violating the current science-based standards that protect children's health.

Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. Conversely, fat-free and low-fat milk options offer the same vital nutrients, including calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein, and potassium, as whole milk.

Nutrition standards must be guided by scientists, not politicians. If someone wants to offer one study or another to be considered, use the DGA process, not the political process. This bill needlessly inserts politics into a science-based process.

Lastly, I am disappointed by the majority's decision to depart from precedent by moving a child nutrition bill outside of a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization. Rather than improve our Nation's child nutrition programs holistically, the majority has decided to prioritize interfering with evidence-based nutrition standards for our children's school meals.

For that reason, Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, which says in part that the passing of H.R. 1147 ``would be a departure from the longstanding tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for Federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are evidenced-based strategies to increase school meal consumption--and, by extension, potentially school milk consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve no less.''

It is signed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America, Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation, National WIC Association, and Public Health Institute.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity. National Alliance for Nutrition & Activity, December 11, 2023. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives. Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: The undersigned members of the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, the nation's largest nutrition advocacy coalition, strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 1147/S. 1957, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. H.R. 1147/S. 1957 would allow school meals to offer full-fat (whole) and reduced-fat flavored and unflavored milk, and arbitrarily exempt full-fat and reduced-fat milk from current saturated fat limits in school meals, both of which are inconsistent with the recommendations of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).

School meal standards, by law, must be aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are reviewed and revised every five years. The DGAs recommend full-fat (whole) milk only for children under the age of two, and fat-free and low-fat milk after that. In addition, the DGAs recommend saturated fat should account for less than 10 percent of calories per day. As such, both the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meal patterns allow only fat-free and low-fat milk and require that less than 10 percent of calories in the meal come from saturated fat over the week. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed updates to the school nutrition standards to more closely align with the 2020-2025 DGAs, which did not change the saturated fat limit nor increase the milkfat allowed to be served in school meals. Singling out milk--in this case, whole and reduced-fat milk--to be exempt from the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines is a slippery slope for allowing--special interests to carve out exemptions in school meal program rules. Allowing the change in the service of whole and reduced-fat milk will negate the progress that has been made in the planning and service of healthier foods to children in schools.

Milk is an important part of a well-balanced diet. Milk contains nutrients of concern, such as vitamin D and calcium. However, unlike fat-free and low-fat milk, full-fat milk contains too much saturated fat to be part of a healthy food pattern. According to USDA data, one cup of whole milk contains around 4.5 grams of saturated fat. Full fat milk is so high in saturated fat that the government prohibits its labels from claiming that calcium can reduce the risk of osteoporosis; fat-free and low-fat milk, however, can make these claims. By allowing full-fat milk in lunch and adjusting saturated fat allowances accordingly, H.R. 1147/S. 1957 would allow an additional 4.5 grams of saturated fat daily in school meals beyond the science-based limit that is currently in place.

School meal nutrition standards were strengthened significantly in 2012. These updates were an overwhelming success, particularly for children in who are part of households with fewer financial resources. A 2021 study found that school meals are the single most healthy source of nutrition for children--more nutritious than grocery stores, restaurants, worksites, and others. Yet even with the current nutrition standards that limit saturated fat in school meals, most children, on average, still consume more saturated fat than is recommended. According to the DGA, more than 80 percent of children ages 5-8 years, more than 85 percent of youth ages 9-13, and over 75 percent of youth ages 14-18 consume too much saturated fat. Allowing full-fat milk in schools would only worsen this problem.

The fat content of school milk is neither the cause nor the solution to the decades-long decline in fluid milk consumption in the United States and the struggles of the dairy industry. According to a 2013 Economic Research Service (ERS) report, younger generations consume less milk than preceding generations, but this trend is not exclusive to schoolchildren. According to the ERS economists, ``individuals born in the 1970s, for example, drank less milk in their teens, 20s, and 30s than individuals born in the 1960s did at the same age points. Those born in the 1980s and 1990s, in turn, appear likely to consume even less fluid milk in their adulthood than those born in the 1970s.'' Rather than acknowledging the fact that 36 percent of Americans experience lactose malabsorption, (with African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos experiencing at higher rates than non-Hispanic White Americans), H.R. 1147 perpetuates the cumbersome requirement that students must obtain a doctor's note documenting a disability to receive a substitute for fluid milk, while arbitrarily increasing access to the less-healthy full-fat milk.

We thank you for your attention to this matter. Passing H.R. 1147/S. 1957 would be a departure from the long-standing tradition of establishing food and nutrition standards for federal child nutrition programs based upon the findings of independent reviewers and the scientific community. There are evidence-based strategies to increase school meal consumption--and by extension, potentially school milk consumption--that do not involve weakening nutrition standards. Changes to school nutrition standards should be guided by the Dietary Guidelines, not special interests, and as such, we strongly urge you to put children's interests first and uphold the science-based process and oppose the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2023. Our children deserve no less. Signed, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Advocates for Better Children's Diets, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Balanced, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Chef Ann Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Healthy Food America, Healthy Schools Campaign, Life Time Foundation, National WIC Association, Public Health Institute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and I have enjoyed working together on many different bills, but on this bill, we happen to disagree. He has presented evidence on the floor that, instead of being considered by Members of Congress, really ought to be considered by the experts in the normal scientific process.

If the schoolchildren get the benefit of his studies, then tell it to the experts and not the politicians. I would hope that we would stick with the scientific process, as we are doing. Let's stick with the DGAs and not the political process in changing the process by trying to convince Members of Congress who are subject to political pressures on one side or another. So I would hope that we would stick to that process and not the political process.

If we have studies, then show it to the experts and not the politicians.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues are attempting to make school meals less healthy by ignoring the latest science and undermining President Biden's work to strengthen school meal nutrition.

The latest DGAs have already made clear that fat-free milk and low- fat milk are the healthiest options for children. If anybody has studies or research to the contrary, they should submit it to the experts in the normal process rather than politicians.

This bill goes against the dairy industry's recent commitment to ensuring students have access to the healthiest dairy options consistent with the DGAs.

Mr. Chairman, we should be committed to ensuring that students have access to the healthiest dairy options in accordance with science-based guidelines, but H.R. 1147 contradicts this commitment by interfering with the independent process that aligns child nutrition standards with the latest science.

I am also disappointed that we are considering a bill that does nothing to meaningfully address child nutrition or hunger. This is in stark contrast to the comprehensive science-based reauthorization of the Federal child nutrition programs that committee Democrats advanced last Congress to, among other things, strengthen evidence-based nutrition standards for school meals beyond just milk.

The bottom line is that Congress should not inject politics into child nutrition standards at the expense of nutritious meals that our children need to grow healthy.

Mr. Chair, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1147, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, nothing in this bill prevents schools from offering organic milk under current law. As the main barrier for schools offering organic milk is cost, nothing in this amendment provides additional funding or support to help schools offer organic milk, if they prefer.

Fundamentally, this amendment does not fix the flaws of the underlying bill. It invites Congress to legislate on specific foods served in school meals at the expense of evidence-based recommendations from experts.

According to those experts, milk is the top source of saturated fat in American diets. Whole and 2 percent milk can raise bad cholesterol, the cause of heart disease, and contains more fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than 1 percent and fat-free milk.

This has led to organizations such as the CDC to recommend nutrient- rich 1 percent or fat-free milk instead of 2 percent or whole milk.

For children aged 2 and up, the inclusion of whole milk in the bill disregards the healthy dietary patterns backed by the dietary guidelines for Americans, the scientific, evidence-based comprehensive set of nutrition recommendations.

Over 60 organizations have expressed concerns over attempts to bring whole milk back into school meal programs. Regardless of whether milk is organic, inclusion of whole milk in this bill is detrimental to American youths' health and well-being, and the amendment fails to alter that fact.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, nobody disputes that the dairy industry is a crucial part of domestic supply chains and provides an important economic benefit to the tune of over $753 billion to the U.S. economy.

In 2022, just five States--California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas, and New York--collectively produced more than 50 percent of the U.S. annual milk supply.

School breakfast and school lunch programs are already required to purchase domestic agricultural commodities and food products. Although exemptions exist, milk is produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. and at competitive prices to severely restrict the ability of any school to purchase foreign-produced milk.

To this end, the amendment does not fix the flaws in the underlying bill and makes no meaningful improvements to buy-American policies.

We can make sure that Chinese milk is not breaching our supply chain with continued monitoring and enforcement of present law. A recent report found that Chinese seafood has been served in schools, highlighting the need for additional diligence in enforcing present law.

I do not support the underlying legislation, and I oppose the amendment as being unnecessary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I just reiterate that present law requires domestic purchase, and so this is unnecessary. If Chinese milk has gotten into the supply, we need to monitor that. It violates present law. To suggest that we are ignoring science, the underlying bill ignores science. That is the purpose of the underlying bill.

I hope that we reject this amendment and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, current law requires that school meals and beverages offered under the school meal programs be consistent with the dietary guidelines for Americans, the DGAs, which are drafted by an advisory committee of experts. These are evidence-based recommendations set to provide nutritional guidance to ensure children receive the most nutritious meals possible.

This amendment would effectively undermine the unbiased evidence- based guidelines of DGAs by prohibiting USDA from doing its work and replacing that process with a process where evidence will be presented to politicians and we get to decide the science. It is critical that actual scientists and experts make the recommendations and guide the process in determining options in schools and that regulations are updated to align with current DGAs.

Experts, not Members of Congress, should be the ones determining the nutrition standards to ensure that our children get the healthiest meals possible.

This amendment, like the underlying bill, reinforces the precedent for Congress to legislate on specific foods, at the behest of one industry or another, that would be served in schools.

There is a reason that the school lunch program does not contain specific nutrition standards for foods and beverages, and that is to ensure that nutrition standards can adapt to the latest science and expert recommendations. Both this amendment and the underlying bill upset this policy and open the program to politicization in favor of district interests and single-food lobbies over the health and well- being of our children.

Dozens of organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association, and a lot of others have urged Congress not to interfere with that process and to respect the science-based process.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I include in the Record a letter signed by dozens of organizations opposing this changing the science and the process. March 20, 2023. Hon. Patty Murray, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Martin Heinrich, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Susan Collins, Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. John Hoeven, Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kay Granger, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Andy Harris, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Rosa DeLauro, Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Sanford Bishop Jr., Ranking, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairs Murray, Heinrich, Granger, and Harris, and Ranking Members Collins, Hoeven, DeLauro, and Bishop: As you craft the fiscal year (FY) 2024 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies spending bill, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose any policy riders blocking implementation of stronger nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs.

We strongly support the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s proposed rule to strengthen nutrition standards consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (``Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans''). We must preserve and build on the progress schools and the food industry have made over the past decade to meet science- based nutrition standards. These improvements are an amazing success story and one of the most important public health achievements in a generation. For children in poverty, the risk of obesity declined substantially each year after implementation of stronger nutrition standards in 2012 such that obesity prevalence would have been 47 percent higher in 2018 if the nutrition standards had not been updated. Additionally, a 2021 study found that school meals are the single most healthy source of nutrition for children--more nutritious than grocery stores, restaurants, worksites, and others. Research shows that children like the healthier school meals and while food waste remains a problem in this country, the amount of food wasted in schools has not changed since the standards were updated in 2012, according to the USDA's largest and nationally representative study of school meals. For many children participating in the program, school breakfast and lunch are the only meals they receive that day.

Despite the overwhelming success of the nutrition standards, improvements are still needed to align school meals with the Dietary Guidelines, which the current proposed rule aims to do. The USDA issued a proposal that is pragmatic, flexible, gradual, and most important--achievable. The rule proposes, for the first time, to reduce added sugars, with product-based limits for the top sources of added sugars beginning School Year 2025-2026, and to phase into a limit of added sugars averaged over the week beginning School Year 2027-2028. These standards are critical: among children, excessive intake of added sugars has been associated with poor diet quality, cavities, and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, yet more than 92 percent of schools exceed the Dietary Guidelines limit for added sugars for breakfast and 69 percent exceed it for lunch.

Further, sodium reduction is paramount to protect children's health: nine out of ten children consume too much sodium, putting them at risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease into adulthood. The USDA proposes new, gradual 10-percent sodium reduction levels every two school years for breakfast (through School Year 2027-2028) and lunch (through School Year 2029-2030). The USDA also maintains at least 80 percent of the weekly grains offered are whole grain-rich.

The rule aims to align dietary patterns for sodium and whole grains with the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines, but the USDA recognized that a gradual, incremental approach to meeting those recommendations is more feasible for schools and the food industry to implement. For instance, children up to age 8 would still consume close to their day's worth of sodium (83 percent) from just breakfast and lunch combined. Sodium and whole grain-rich standards have been the subject of many riders over the past decade, causing confusion and stymying industry innovation and improvements to children's health. The USDA has listened to Congress; the proposals in this rule on sodium and whole grains are within the spirit of those previous riders.

This gradual, incremental approach was crafted by the USDA to be feasible for schools and the food industry. And these standards are feasible. The largest food companies have many K-12 products that meet the USDA's proposed added sugars, sodium, and whole grain- rich standards. Further, schools have been able to meet, and in some cases, exceed the current nutrition standards during the pandemic. In the first-of-its-kind study, a nationally representative study of elementary schools found that meals were meeting existing nutrition standards in 2022, and for sodium, average sodium decreased and the vast majority of schools were close to or already meeting future sodium- reduction levels on par with this rule. There are plenty of examples where schools have reduced sodium beyond the USDA's requirements or provided more whole grains and still been able to serve healthy, delicious, and culturally-relevant foods to their students.

Opponents of the rule claim that the meal nutrition standards cannot be strengthened due to labor shortages, supply chain disruptions, and other issues facing school food service programs. These are real challenges but require different solutions than stalling progress for healthier school meals. Over the past decade, the USDA and Congress have learned that schools need the additional assistance to meet stronger standards and they have also recognized current pandemic-related constraints, and therefore have committed millions of dollars to helping schools provide healthier meals while weathering these challenges. In September 2022, the USDA launched its $100 million Healthy Meals Incentive Initiative with the stated goal of improving the nutritional quality of school meals. Of that, $30 million is available for small and rural schools and $50 million will go toward working with food manufacturers on innovative solutions to increase the availability of nutritious school foods. Congress has also increased technical assistance funding each year for the past three fiscal years (FY) ($1 million in FY 2021; $2 million in FY 2022 and 2023), with $1 million of that funding being directed to assist with sodium reduction efforts in FY 2022-2023. These investments will be transformational, but the impact of inflation on school nutrition programs means schools still struggle to make ends meet. Therefore, increased meal reimbursement rates will be critical to the future success of school meals programs.

Beyond riders blocking implementation of the new proposed standards, there are other ongoing attempts to undermine evidence-based nutrition standards. For instance, the proposed rule allows for potatoes to be served in breakfast up to four out of the five school days, if a school chose to serve vegetables in place of fruit in breakfast. Therefore the existing breakfast potato rider--which allows schools to serve potatoes before other vegetables at breakfast--does not need to be included in the spending bill. Further, we are similarly concerned about attempts to bring whole milk into the school meals program. The Dietary Guidelines is explicit in its recommendation that everyone 2 years and older should limit their intake of saturated fat and choose fat-free or 1- percent low-fat milk instead of 2-percent reduced-fat or whole milk. The proposed rule reiterates this, while providing flexibilities for flavored 1-percent milk. Yet continued industry attempts to circumvent the science persist.

Finally, there are evidence-based strategies to increase school meal consumption that do not involve weakening nutrition standards, for instance, enabling students to have sufficient time to eat (at least 20 minutes of seat time) with longer lunch periods, having recess before lunch, serving lunch at an appropriate time of day, presenting food in an appetizing and easily eaten way, making the cafeteria inviting, and limiting competitive foods (snacks and beverages sold in vending machines and a la carte) during the school day. While some of these strategies cannot be addressed at the federal level, we encourage you to support these efforts.

In conclusion we urge you to oppose any riders that block or weaken stronger nutrition standards for children. Sincerely,

Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics; Advocates for Better Children's Diets; Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc.; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; American Heart Association; American Institute for Cancer Research; American Public Health Association; Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago; Association of State Public Health Nutritionists; Balanced; California Association of Food Banks; Center for Digital Democracy; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Chef Ann Foundation; Chilis on Wheels; Coalition for Healthy School Food; Colorado Children's Campaign; Community Food Advocates; Council on Black Health, Inc.; Cultiva la Salud; DC Greens.

Dolores Huerta Foundation; Environmental Working Group; FARE (Food Allergy Research and Education); Farm to Table-New Mexico; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); FoodCorps; Friends of the Earth; From Now On Fund; Healthy Food America; Healthy School Food Maryland; Healthy Schools Campaign; Hope Community Services Youngstown; Illinois Public Health Institute; Independent Restaurant Coalition; Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR); Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future; Latino Farmers of the Southeast; National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; National Association of School Nurses; National Education Association; National Farm to School Network; National League for Nursing; National PTA; National WIC Association.

Nebraska Appleseed; North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition; Northeast Ohio Black Health Coalition; Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment; Office of Kat Taylor; Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project, Inc.; Public Health Advocates; Public Health Institute; Redstone Global Center for Prevention and Wellness; Roots of Change; Rural Advancement Fund of the National Sharecroppers Fund, Inc; Rural Coalition; Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition; Sisters of Charity of Saint Elizabeth; Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia; Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior; Society of Behavioral Medicine; Springfield Food Policy Council; Stanford Medicine Children's Health; The Laurie M. TIsch Center for Food, Education and Policy, Teachers College, Columbia University; The Praxis Project; Trust for America's Health; UnidosUS; Union of Concerned Scientists; Urban School Food Alliance.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it impossible to update the science based on new evidence. We should be basing our decisions on science, not what somebody tells us at the gas station. I hope that we defeat the amendment and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source