Vermont school nutrition directors urge investing in scratch cooking, not an unfunded ban in S.26
Loading...
Summary
Two Vermont school nutrition directors told the Health & Welfare committee that S.26 — which would prohibit certain artificial dyes and additives in foods sold in schools — risks creating an unfunded compliance burden and urged investments in kitchen infrastructure, training and centralized monitoring instead.
Caroline, the committee chair, opened a Health & Welfare hearing Feb. 17 on S.26, a bill that would prohibit certain artificial dyes and additives in foods and beverages sold in Vermont schools.
Scott Fay, school nutrition director for the Essex Westford School District, said he supports the bill’s goal of healthier school meals but urged the committee "not to move forward with S.26 as written," arguing that the proposal would act as an unfunded mandate that adds significant monitoring and documentation burdens to programs already subject to extensive federal and state requirements.
"When the market forces are already driving reformulation, it may be worth considering whether additional regulation targeted only at schools is the most efficient approach," Fay said, noting that national manufacturers have begun reformulating products and that many school programs follow strict federal meal-pattern standards.
Laura Lavaca, school nutrition director for the Burlington School District and cochair of the Vermont School Purchasing Group, testified she also opposes the bill as drafted. She highlighted Vermont’s farm-to-school work and cited the Agency of Education’s legislative report, saying: "These items account for approximately $219,000 of nearly $20,000,000 in food purchases in Vermont so far this year," roughly one-tenth of a percent of statewide purchases.
Lavaca recommended policy alternatives that focus on capacity-building: centralizing monitoring and guidance through the Agency of Education and statewide associations, expanding local-food incentives, investing in kitchen equipment and infrastructure, offering grants to support transitions from processed to scratch-cooked meals, and increasing culinary training for school food staff.
Both witnesses said centralized education and procurement strategies — not school-level prohibitions alone — would better reduce additives in school meals. Fay described the existing compliance workload for administrative reviews, procurement and reporting and said smaller or rural districts that rely on packaged foods because of facility constraints would face particular challenges under a school-only prohibition.
Committee members pressed witnesses on whether the administrative burden could be shifted to the Agency of Education. Fay and Lavaca said a shared approach, with centralized monitoring and technical assistance, would reduce the burden on individual operators; Lavaca said Burlington’s experience could be shared as a model but acknowledged that rural geography and schools without kitchens present real logistical hurdles.
Neither witness presented a proposed amendment for S.26; no formal motions or votes were recorded during the session. Chair Caroline said the committee would take a break and continue discussion on the bill after hearing additional testimony.
The committee took no formal action on S.26 during this hearing; members signaled interest in exploring whether compliance responsibilities and implementation supports could be centralized through the Agency of Education or addressed by manufacturers under existing law.
