Revisiting My Childhood Favorite: Reflecting on Lunchables Contents
As a former Lunchables enthusiast, Dr. Hasan Merali reminisces about his childhood love for Lunchables. However, with a newfound awareness of the health implications of consuming ultra-processed foods, he advocates for providing children with nourishing and healthier lunch options.
Dr. Hasan Merali, an associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at McMaster University, recently published his first book titled "Sleep Well, Take Risks, Squish the Peas: Secrets from the Science of Toddlers for a Happier, More Successful Way of Life" in March 2024. The opinions shared in this article are his own. Check out more opinions on CNN.
When I was 10 years old, I would excitedly open a Lunchables and create mini sandwiches with crackers, cheese, and deli meat. It tasted delicious. However, what I didn't realize back then, and neither did my mom, was the negative impact that consuming ultra-processed foods (UPFs) had on my body.
Hasan Merali
Hasan Merali
In the mid-1990s, Chris Hartlove conducted nutritional research that has significantly progressed since then. However, today, children are being served Lunchables as part of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). To make things worse, Consumer Reports evaluated the nutrition of two Lunchables kits available in schools and found that they contain higher sodium levels compared to the ones sold in grocery stores.
Can we trust a label that claims these lunch kits are an "excellent source of protein"? Just because it says that doesn't automatically make them healthy. Despite the "100% Freshness Guaranteed" stamp, keep in mind that preservatives like sodium nitrite are used.
According to a statement given to CNN, Kraft Heinz, the company behind Lunchables, has made efforts to improve the nutritional value of their products. They have partnered with Fresh Del Monte to include fresh fruit in some Lunchables varieties and have lowered the sodium content in all Lunchables crackers by 26%.
We are proud to say that all our foods meet strict safety standards, and we happily serve them to our own families. Kraft Heinz stands by the quality and integrity that goes into making Lunchables.
I want to emphasize the importance of providing free or low-cost meals to millions of children, and commend the USDA for how well the program is managed. Since its start in 1946, the National School Lunch Program now reaches over 30 million children. This is crucial because more than one in five children live in households with food insecurity. It's worth noting that not all countries are as fortunate to have a program like this. For instance, in Canada, a country known for its strong public health measures like vaccination rates, there is no national food program for children. It was only this month that an investment was announced to kickstart such a program.
The US has the opportunity to improve the quality of meals for our children. Allowing Lunchables to be included in the National School Lunch Program is not a positive move. Would you choose to eat a Lunchable?
Lunchables are a type of processed food known as UPF, which stands for ultra-processed foods. These foods typically contain chemical additives like artificial flavors. For example, the turkey and cheddar Lunchables served in the National School Lunch Program have "smoke flavor added."
Washington, DC - September 27: Lunchables are pictured for the ShameBlame story. (Photo by Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Washington, DC - September 27: Lunchables are pictured for the ShameBlame story. (Photo by Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Related article
Consumer Reports says Lunchables ‘should not be allowed on menu’ for schools, petitions USDA for removal
Eating more ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has been linked to a higher risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, depression, and other negative health outcomes, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. In adults, consuming these foods has also been associated with cognitive decline. On the other hand, reducing UPF consumption in children can lead to a significant decrease in obesity.
The USDA faces a challenge in aligning the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), but they are making progress. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition compared school meal standards from 2010 to the latest 2020-2025 DGA. The researchers found that following the DGA standards would result in a significant decrease in body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure. Even a partial implementation of the standards could prevent over 9,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer in the long run. Additionally, the study showed that there would be $15.9 billion saved in medical costs with partial implementation and $19.3 billion saved with full implementation.
Providing children with healthier food not only benefits their health but also leads to cost savings in medical expenses. It helps to address disparities in dietary habits based on income and race.
In the past, we have successfully improved the nutrition quality for children. The passing of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act played a significant role in enhancing the nutritional standards. This is crucial because school meals often represent the most nutritious meal a child receives during the day. A study published in Childhood Obesity in 2015 found that meals meeting higher nutritional standards were also wasted less.
The USDA deserves praise for updating school nutrition standards to match current guidelines, focusing on reducing added sugars and sodium, and increasing whole grain consumption. However, there is more we can do. What about UPFs?
It is crucial that we explicitly include language about UPFs in national dietary guidelines, following the example of other countries. This is not only important for children, but for everyone.
Get Our Free Weekly Newsletter
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
In Latin America, some countries are addressing this issue seriously. For instance, Colombia implemented a tax on UPFs in 2023. Research shows that taxes can be effective. A study published in Public Health Nutrition in 2022 suggests that a 20% tax could decrease UPF purchases by 24%. It is worth noting that despite efforts to combat food insecurity in Colombia, half of Colombian households still face marginal food security, as reported by the World Food Programme.
Chile is a standout in protecting children. In the past decade, the country has prohibited the sale and distribution of all UPFs in schools. Going even further, Chile has banned advertising of these products to children, including the use of cartoon characters and mascots. For example, Tony the Tiger no longer appears on Frosted Flakes cereal boxes in Chile. This is a great example of child advocacy.
Although implementing taxes, school cafeteria bans, and advertising restrictions on UPFs may still be years away, we need to take the first step. One important starting point is to include language addressing UPFs in policy documents, which is currently lacking. By identifying the issue, we can begin to set achievable targets. It may not happen all at once, but we can follow the example of the USDA in reducing sugar and salt intake. France, for instance, has set a goal to decrease UPF consumption by 20% over a three-year period, providing a good model to emulate.
Thirty years later, Lunchables no longer look as appetizing as they used to. Instead of tasty crackers, yummy cheese, and flavorful meat slices, all I see now are salt and additives. It's time for stronger policies to ensure that children are getting better quality food. They deserve nothing less.
Editor's P/S:
The article highlights the concerning presence of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), particularly Lunchables. The author, Dr. Hasan Merali, emphasizes the negative health impacts associated with UPF consumption, including increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cognitive decline. While recognizing the importance of providing free or low-cost meals to children, Merali argues that allowing Lunchables in the program undermines efforts to improve the nutritional quality of school meals.
Merali cites research demonstrating the potential benefits of reducing UPF consumption, including decreased obesity and improved health outcomes. He also draws inspiration from countries like Chile, which has implemented comprehensive policies to restrict UPF sales, distribution, and advertising in schools. By advocating for the inclusion of language addressing UPFs in national dietary guidelines and policy documents, Merali aims to raise awareness and initiate steps toward protecting children from the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods.
