First ‘State Law Compliant’ Snack Food Launched

Published January 1, 2007

When Clif Bar & Co. was devising its new organic energy bar for kids in early 2004, product developers at the Berkley, California-based health food manufacturer turned to California Senate Bill 19 for direction.

The “Z-Bar,” launched in June 2004, was fashioned to meet the 2001 state law’s recommended limits on calories from fat and sugar for snack food sold outside meals at schools.

Clif Bar stamped an “SB19 compliant” logo on the bar’s wrapper and declared it the first snack to conform to the legislation, among the first state laws of its kind.

The company created, trademarked, and OK’d the logo with state officials.

Now sold in California school vending machines and food stores across the country, the snack bar with logo was a forerunner to the October 6 announcement, by former President Bill Clinton, of an agreement with five leading food manufacturers on voluntary guidelines for healthier school snacks.

Adding Nutrients

Clif Bar’s full-time nutritionist and other experts added calcium, iron, foliates, and whole grains to the Z-Bar and left out hydrogenated oil, high fructose corn syrup, and other additives commonly found in school snacks. Whole grains and natural sweetener mean the Z-Bar has a different effect on kids than candy.

“It’s a great all-around snack and will keep [students] going but isn’t going to give them the spikes and drops of other snacks they’re used to eating,” said Ann Hamilton, brand manager for Clif Kids.

The company is riding the tide of efforts by public health advocates to eliminate fatty snacks and syrupy soda from school grounds. Sales of Z-Bars this year are expected to double last year’s total, Hamilton said.

California has since strengthened SB19, which included a set of advisory guidelines on school food nutrition as part of a statewide pilot project.

No middle or high school that adopted the standards during the pilot lost revenue from selling healthier foods. Buoyed by that success, lawmakers in 2005 passed SB12, which makes the same parameters on calories and sugar mandatory. It goes into effect July 1.

Listening to Feedback

Catherine Gavin, a registered dietician at the Pfeiffer Treatment Center, a Chicago clinic that treats learning and behavior disorders with nutrient and biomedical therapy, applauded the Z-Bar’s tie-in to SB19.

“I think it’s very good that they’re following the legislation–that they’re actually listening,” Gavin said. “It’s a positive that they’re trying to produce better-quality foods for our children.”

Consumer freedom advocates, however, say food produced to government specifications is a step toward a “nanny state.”

“Having a senate bill stamped on a product–now I know it’s not regulated or required and these companies should be able to market products however they want–smacks of a straight-up Orwellian, Big Brother situation,” said J. Justin Wilson, a senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit coalition that seeks to protect consumer choice.

Wilson contends bans on sweet treats can be counterproductive because they position the outlawed snack as a “forbidden fruit.” Reports show a candy “black market” can develop, as it did in some Texas schools when that state instituted a ban, he said.

“It doesn’t take a village of government regulators and bureaucrats to teach our children how to eat by banning substances outright,” Wilson said. “But rather it takes responsible parents teaching children to make responsible decisions about the food they eat. And perhaps that means exposing them to the reality they’ll face in the real world and outside the school system.”

Championing Guidelines

Connecticut Senate President Donald E. Williams (D-Brooklyn), who championed stringent nutrition guidelines similar to California’s SB19 that were enacted this year in his state’s schools, said he would rather see the government, not the food industry, hold sway over what can be offered in schools.

“[The Z-Bar] helps create awareness that legislation can result in moving the private sector, even to the extent where they will create products specifically to meet these healthier standards,” Williams told Stateline.org.

While Connecticut’s new law mandates that schools rid their cafeterias of soda and other “empty-calorie” drinks, it also provides incentives for schools to adopt voluntary healthy snack standards, including increased reimbursement for school lunches.

Half of the state’s schools have agreed to participate in the voluntary elements, Williams said.

Williams scoffs at suggestions students should learn good eating habits through exercising personal choice and said schools assume some responsibility for student health and well-being.

“No parent is going to sit down at dinner time and say, ‘Here’s your choice: a chicken breast with broccoli, or ice cream and a Snickers bar. It’s up to you as my child to exercise your good sense here.’ That’s not how parents operate,” Williams said.

Reversing Trends

The push to regulate school food has found sympathetic ears on the state and federal level.

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation–a joint initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association–announced an agreement in October with Dannon, Kraft Foods, Mars, PepsiCo, and the Campbell Soup Co. to decrease the sugar, sodium, caloric, and fat content of some of their food products sold in schools. In addition, Mars will introduce a new line of healthier snacks.

Activists are pushing a piece of bipartisan legislation (S. 2592/H.R. 5167) pending in both houses of Congress that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to update its nutrition standards for food sold in school vending machines and school stores.

“They realize there has been very little done with the school food systems’ guidelines and legislation since the late 1970s,” said Hamilton of Clif Bar. “We know so much more about nutrition today than we did 30 years ago. And to have these really outdated guidelines for what we’re feeding our children is just very, very sad.”

“Fresh fruit and vegetables are readily available all over the United States, thanks to the free market,” countered John R. Graham, director of health care studies at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. “If government-run schools are unable to feed kids properly, more laws and regulations are not going to change that. Nor will they equip our children to grow into an understanding of responsible liberty.

“Instead, we’re saying that they need the government to tell them what to choose. It’s a sad development,” Graham said.


Joseph Popiolkowski ([email protected]teline.org) is a graduate student at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. An earlier version of this article appeared on October 16 on the Web site Stateline.org.


For more information …

The Pfeiffer Treatment Center, http://www.hriptc.org/

Center for Consumer Freedom, http://consumerfreedom.com/