5 food producers, Clinton back deal on school snacks

NEW YORK — In some schools — ever on the watch for unhealthful junk food — students may have to do some extra walking to find their favorite candy bar, thanks to the latest nutrition deal struck by former President Bill Clinton.

But then again, they may not.

The new deal was lauded by some as a good effort and criticized by others as toothless.

Five big makers of snack foods who agreed to the plan said Friday that they would discourage schools from stocking vending machines with treats that are high in calories, fat, sugar and salt.

The companies, Kraft Foods Inc., Mars Inc., Campbell Soup Co., Dannon and PepsiCo Inc., agreed to instead begin promoting snacks that meet new nutrition guidelines backed by the American Heart Association.

"This is voluntary, they don't have to do it," Clinton acknowledged, speaking of the companies and the schools. "But they recognize the challenge we face and they are helping us take the first step."

For some of the companies — which make everything from M&M's, yogurt and granola bars to Frito-Lay potato chips — that will mean reformulating some products or introducing new lines of more healthful snacks for kids.

For others, it will mean urging schools to buy healthful products, rather than cater to student cravings.

Fatty, calorie-ladden candy bars, extra-salty soups and anything with trans-fatty acids will be out. Low-fat chips (baked, not fried) and low-sugar yogurts will be in.

Announcing the initiative in a high school gymnasium in Harlem, Clinton agreed the plan's success will depend heavily on the participation of schools, which will continue to be free to buy whatever they like.

But he said the nation's childhood obesity epidemic and skyrocketing health-care costs made immediate action essential.

The initiative got mixed reviews from those worried about what kids eat.

Janey Thornton, president of the School Nutrition Association and a child nutrition director in Kentucky, called the program commendable but said it shouldn't be seen as a substitute for federal legislation enacting stronger health standards for school food.

"It has to have some enforcement behind it," she said. "We have some pretty strict regulations here in Kentucky, but some states have none, and that's where I think the problem comes in."