5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
March, 18 2010, 03:07pm EDT
Contact:
Phone: 202-332-9110
Bipartisan Agreement Likely Means USDA Will Set Nutrition Standards for Vending in Schools
Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan
WASHINGTON
In an otherwise contentious time in Washington, it's good to know
that Republicans and Democrats can come together for the sake of child
nutrition and health. The agreement that Chairman Blanche Lincoln and
Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss have forged, along with the support of industry leaders
and health groups, will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
ensure that the federal investment in healthy school meals isn't
undermined by foods that harm kids' health.
USDA is currently updating the school meal standards;
now Congress is poised to allow USDA to take care of the rest of school
foods. The current national nutrition standards for foods sold out of
school vending machines and a la carte lines in cafeterias are 30 years
out of date and no longer make sense. They don't address key nutrition
problems like calories, fats, salt, and sugar.
USDA needs to update its nutrition standards for school
foods sold outside of meals, and apply those standards to the whole
campus, the whole school day. We're pleased that industry leaders like
Mars, Nestle, Coke, and Pepsi see the need for this as well.
There has been an absolute sea change when it comes to
parents' expectations for the foods that are available in schools. Many
cities, states, and companies have already begun to improve the
nutritional quality of foods they sell in school. However, two-thirds
of states still have weak or no school nutrition standards. When
Congress passes the child nutrition reauthorization bill, it will help get all junk food out of every school once and for all.
Since 1971, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Promised to Lower Energy Prices for Americans. He's Done the Exact Opposite
Electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, more than twice the rate of overall inflation, and cost Americans $123 more on average.
Mar 25, 2026
President Donald Trump ran on promises to cut energy prices "in half" within his first year in office. But according to a report released Wednesday, he's done the exact opposite, and it's expected to get much worse as oil prices soar from his war with Iran.
Electricity prices increased more than twice as fast as overall inflation in 2025, according to a fact sheet by the Groundwork Collaborative.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, compared with an overall consumer price index increase of 2.7%.
In January, a report by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, found that Americans spent an extra $2,120 in 2025 due to inflation across the economy. Electricity cost the average family an additional $123.
Groundwork's report attributed these price increases to Trump's aggressive tariffs, which the group said have raised the costs of building and maintaining electric grids—costs that energy companies pass directly to consumers.
It also noted the Trump administration's support for the swift build-out of artificial intelligence data centers, which have dramatically increased energy demand in places where they've been constructed.
Costs for consumers connected to America's largest power grid, PJM, for example, increased by a collective $9.4 billion last year—more than a 180% increase. Meanwhile, Bloomberg found that in areas near data centers, wholesale electricity costs had jumped by as much as 267% over the past five years.
That pinch is being felt by consumers, 66% of whom said their electricity bills increased over the past year, compared with just 5% who said they decreased, according to a poll earlier this month from Data for Progress.
Groundwork found that "rising energy prices hit working families the hardest," with those earning under $50,000 spending nearly 7% of their annual income on energy, compared with just 1.2% for those earning above $150,000, according to a 2025 report from the Bank of America Institute.
Rising costs have been a growing source of anger among voters who elected Trump to bring them down, but now give him just a 29% approval rating on the economy, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
It's a historic low that Trump hit for the first time this month as gas prices in the US have soared to an average of $3.98 per gallon as a result of oil price hikes caused by Trump's war with Iran, which resulted in Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.
Groundwork noted that the pain of the war goes far beyond the pump: The price of residential heating oil is already up 35% since the war began. Meanwhile, rising diesel costs for trucks and disruptions to the global shipment of fertilizer are expected to jack up food prices.
Short of ending the war altogether, the group pointed out that Trump has options to reduce energy costs by tapping into increasingly cheap and abundant wind and solar energy.
Instead, however, the president has delayed hundreds of solar projects by introducing new review requirements that have slowed construction and backed lawsuits to gut efficiency standards.
Earlier this month, at the Trump administration's urging, a federal judge sided with 15 red states to strike down Biden administration energy standards, which were estimated to reduce costs by more than $950 per year for families living in federally funded housing.
While Trump has taken actions aimed at curbing the global fuel shock, including tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pausing the federal gas tax, a poll from Groundwork and Data for Progress this week found that more than half of Americans, 52%, would prefer to simply see the war end rather than these emergency measures.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Mamdani's Anti-DOGE City Savings Plan Includes Firing McKinsey, Not Hiring Them
"Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do," said the mayor.
Mar 25, 2026
Cutting government "waste" and increasing "efficiency" have long been rallying calls of the right, most recently with President Donald Trump's "slash-and-burn" methods through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—which rapidly cut hundreds of thousands of federal jobs and threatened lives across the Global South by terminating billions in foreign aid—and his cuts to Medicaid and federal food assistance.
But New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday appeared intent on "co-opting" the idea of efficiency, as one organizer said, as the progressive Democrat provided an update on his plan to save more than $1.7 billion in public funds "without compromising essential services."
The targets of Mamdani's savings plan aren't crucial healthcare programs like Medicaid—which even some Democrats like his erstwhile rival, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have attacked as "wasteful"—and education, but major government contracts with companies like consulting firm McKinsey.
Cutting the Department of Social Services IT contract will save the city $9 million per year, said Mamdani. McKinsey has contracted with the New York City government several times, including between 2014-17 when it was paid $27.5 million to reduce violence at the jail complex on Rikers Island—only to report "bogus" numbers as the problem worsened—and in 2022 when it was paid $1.6 million to research garbage disposal.
"The city was paying for a lot of work from outside contractors that was costing us far too much, so we're bringing a lot of that work in-house and saving our budget millions on things like IT services and software," said Mamdani in a video he posted to social media. "A contract with McKinsey at the Department of Social Services: no more. That's $9 million that we won't be spending next year.
Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do.That’s why I directed every agency to cut waste and help close our budget gap.Here’s some of what we found.
[image or embed]
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@mayor.nyc.gov) March 25, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Other savings identified by city agencies, which were directed by Mamdani to find $1.7 billion in public funds that could be saved to fill what city Comptroller Mark Levine called "the biggest budget gap since the Great Recession," include $1.15 million at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which has been "overcharged for lifesaving medicine like naloxone."
"We're renegotiating that contract and saving another million dollars," said Mamdani.
Millions will be saved on leases as the city shrinks its "physical footprint" and stops renting spaces it doesn't need, and an estimated $13 million per year will be saved as officials strengthen its verification process to make sure homeowners are actually living in homes for which they get tax breaks.
Other contracts will be terminated or renegotiated at New York City Public Schools, generating more than $30 million in savings next year; the city's public hospitals system, saving about $40 million over the next two years; and the Department of Corrections, resulting in $4.3 million in savings.
Mamdani emphasized that to confront the city's deficit, "we need to tax the rich and end the drain that's been our relationship with the state for far too long."
"As we pursue that, though, we also have to take a close look at our own spending and cut waste wherever we can," the mayor said. "Because to deliver public goods you have to first deliver public excellence."
Organizer and writer Cole Sandick said Mamdani's "co-opting of efficiency from the right will be seismic for the American socialist project" and expressed hope that the mayor could begin "a national campaign against The Contractor State—neoliberalism's grand, massively inefficient outsourcing of government functions to private contractors."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said it was "really exciting that NYC is generating operational efficiencies by in-sourcing needlessly outsourced public services and functions, building city capacity."
"More of this!" he added.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'This War Is Dumb as Hell': Military Historian Assesses Trump's Disaster in Iran
"Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure."
Mar 25, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump signaled this week that he'd like to quickly wrap up his unconstitutional war with Iran, some experts are warning that the president has put himself in a situation with no easy way out.
Military historian Bret Devereaux, a teaching assistant professor at North Carolina State University, published a lengthy analysis of the war on Wednesday in which he described it as a failed gamble that Iran's regime would simply crumble in the face of a well-executed series of aerial strikes.
Devereaux said that this was highly unlikely given the nature of the Iranian regime, which is structured to maintain itself up and down the chain of command if one or even several of its leaders are killed.
And now that it's very clear that Trump's gamble of overthrowing the regime hasn't paid off, Devereaux wrote, he will be at the mercy of events beyond his control.
"Once started, a major regional war with Iran was always likely to be something of a 'trap,'" he contended, "not in the sense of an ambush laid by Iran—but in the sense of a situation that, once entered, cannot be easily left or reversed."
While Iran's response to the strikes carried out by the US and Israel in June 2025 was relatively tepid, Devereaux said, once Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the goal of their latest operation would be regime change, the Iranian government took the extraordinary step of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy prices skyrocketing.
It has been this threat to shut down the strait, as well as the massive difficulty and cost it would take to occupy a nation of 90 million people, the historian continued, that has kept every US president for the last five decades from launching an invasion of Iran.
At the same time, he continued, Trump cannot now simply walk away while leaving Iran with the ability to take the global economy hostage whenever it pleases.
"The result is a fairly classic escalation trap: Once the conflict starts, it is extremely costly for either side to ever back down, which ensures that the conflict continues long past it being in the interests of either party," he wrote. "Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure but it is very hard for either side to back down because there are huge costs connected to being the party that backs down."
Summing up his argument, Devereaux declared, "This war is dumb as hell."
Devereaux's analysis was echoed by Ilan Goldenberg, senior vice president and chief policy officer at J Street, who wrote in a social media post Wednesday that the US and Iran appear to be caught in an escalation trap, as exemplified by the Trump administration's recent decision to send more military personnel to the Persian Gulf.
"The much more important story right now isn’t diplomacy—it’s the thousands of US troops being mobilized and moving toward the Middle East," he wrote. "That movement strongly suggests preparation for further escalation, with Kharg Island emerging as the most likely target. For any objective observer, the likely Iranian response to a US move on Kharg is obvious: escalation, not capitulation. Tehran would almost certainly respond by expanding attacks on energy infrastructure across the Gulf."
Goldenberg added that "the most plausible off-ramp" will involve Trump simply declaring victory while leaving the regime intact and with vague promises to not produce a nuclear weapon, although he said that likely wouldn't come until after more escalation and destruction.
"Better to accept this likely outcome today rather than six months from now," he advised.
In a Wednesday analysis published at Liberal Currents, University of Illinois political scientist Nicholas Grossman cast doubt on Trump's ability to simply wash his hands of the Iran conflict and walk away.
Part of the issue, said Grossman, is that Iran simply might want to keep inflicting economic damage on Trump to make him think twice before launching a future attack on the regime.
"In hard power dynamics, this is the strongest position the Islamic Republic has ever been in, the most leverage they have over the United States since the 1979-80 hostage crisis," Grossman wrote. "Iran is likely thinking of longer-term security. If they can endure more US-Israeli bombing—and the war so far indicates that they can—then they can increasingly establish their ability to crash the global economy, a deterrent even the United States must respect."
Given that Trump is unlikely to want to be seen as a "loser" for simply accepting Iran's control of the strait, Grossman concluded, "that points to stablemate or escalation, more death and destruction, and a global economic disruption that will be bigger than many currently expect."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular