WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez keeps talking about fruit.
Since 2024, the Democrat from Washougal, Clark County, has introduced iterations of the colloquially dubbed “banana bill,” most recently securing its inclusion as an amendment in the sweeping Farm Bill this spring. She calls it a commonsense effort to make it easier to serve fresh produce in childcare centers across the nation, routinely recalling the story of a Southwest Washington state daycare worker who told the lawmaker that regulations barred her from peeling a banana for a child.
At its core, the banana bill — or the banana amendment — strives to reduce what Gluesenkamp Perez says are unnecessary regulatory barriers. She argues that out-of-touch state statutes, like Washington state’s requirement that childcare centers have multiple sinks for food preparation, which includes simple produce, have tied the hands of childcare providers, hindering their ability to serve fresh fruit and vegetables to children. “When we have policies that wittingly or unwittingly make Cheetos more accessible to a toddler than fresh fruit, we have a crisis brewing,” Gluesenkamp Perez recently said on social media.
But the reception is muddled among childcare providers in Washington state — the source of inspiration for the federal bill — and childcare and family policy experts nationwide.
Some providers recounted onerous state requirements that created hurdles to serving produce to kids in daycare centers, and applauded the effort to ease regulations. Many others, however, said they had never encountered the issue until Gluesenkamp Perez began pushing the banana bill. Most appreciated the sentiment, acknowledging that streamlining bureaucracy and supporting fresh produce for kids are worthwhile goals, but questioned how critical this particular problem is amid the nation’s wider childcare crisis.
For skeptics, the effort represents a convenient talking point for Gluesenkamp Perez, one that lambastes overregulation but misses the more foundational cracks plaguing childcare across the country.
“It is a symbolic example of how regulation can sometimes get a little bit overzealous or a little bit misinterpreted, and so there’s no harm in a vacuum in addressing it,” said Elliot Haspel, a senior fellow with Capita, a family policy research organization. “But it is not actually addressing the core problems facing the childcare sector, facing America’s families.”
Haspel said the inability to peel fresh fruit is not among the sector’s most pressing challenges, pointing instead to high costs for families, low wages for educators and a shortage of providers. “It’s trying to be an avatar, or a stand-in, for a broader concept around overregulation, but the fact is, it may not actually have a particularly robust basis in reality.”
Gluesenkamp Perez in a statement said the legislation would provide clarity to businesses and respect the work of childcare providers.
“This legislation was the product of conversations I had with local childcare providers in my district about the real experiences they faced when trying to provide healthy food to kids — and the web of bureaucracy that could be unleashed by simply peeling a banana or cutting a choking-hazard sized-grape in half,” she said.
The banana bill came to fruition during Gluesenkamp Perez’s first term, after she said a daycare worker in her district made her aware of the issue.
The two-term member of Congress introduced the Cutting Red Tape on Child Care Providers Act in 2024, and again in 2025. That brief bill directs states to “not create any barriers on the simple preparation of fresh fruits and vegetables for facilities, licensed or licensed exempt.” Violating states would lose federal funds. Neither bill advanced in Congress.
This year, her effort advanced further. Gluesenkamp Perez secured an amendment in the Farm Bill, a broader agriculture package that cements significant reductions to SNAP food-assistance funding. The bill passed the House but remains stalled in the Senate. The amendment directs the secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to develop “a low-risk classification” for produce, and to update nutrition, food safety and preparation regulations and guidelines for childcare providers accordingly. States that fail to comply may have federal funds withheld.
At issue in Washington state, Gluesenkamp Perez has said, is a statute that requires multiple sinks for childcare providers to prepare and serve fresh produce. She argues this can be confusing, expensive and, ultimately, stymie providers from serving healthier foods rather than packaged snacks. The amendment, she argues, will cut the red tape requiring various sinks if providers want to peel a banana or slice an apple.
Her office also contends similar hurdles exist elsewhere in the country. It pointed to a 2015 study in Texas finding that 10 childcare centers reported serving less nutritious food to comply with similar local regulations.
The Washington state law requires licensed childcare centers to have designated sinks for different purposes if they will be preparing food, including serving fruits and vegetables. Centers must have a sink designated for hand-washing, another for food preparation and a separate dishwashing setup, which can include a two-compartment sink and a dishwasher, or a three-compartment sink.
Dana Christiansen, owner of Tree Hill Learning Centers in Southwest Washington, told The Seattle Times this presents a critical squeeze on space: Childcare centers are licensed for a certain capacity of kids based on square footage and state licensers deduct the space occupied by sinks, Christiansen said. Less usable space means fewer children can be enrolled — and less money coming in.
“You cannot afford to lose your licensed capacity in any way, shape, or form,” she said. When her newest center was under construction, she said she was often at the site, measuring. “I would come out on the weekends, and just like I was constantly making sure that the builder didn’t throw in some sort of bump out for some piping or whatever, because it would absolutely change my bottom line for the worst.”
Tiffany Pearsall, who founded a nonprofit childcare center in rural Skamania County, said the requirement is overly costly and unrealistic. “If I wanted to cut an apple, I have to have access to a commercial kitchen,” Pearsall said. “If I want to cut an apple with the kids as part of my curriculum, I have to have a commercial kitchen in my classroom, which is just absurd.”
Pearsall said she reached out to Gluesenkamp Perez about the problem in 2022, and commends the lawmaker’s work to address it. For Pearsall, it could make a significant difference. “We cut our food program until we could build a commercial kitchen. We had to write a second round of grants. We still don’t have one,” she said.
Exactly how much it would change the state’s rules remain unclear. Nancy Gutierrez, a spokesperson for the Department of Children, Youth and Families, which regulates childcare, said the agency has not identified any state statutes that would be affected by the provision.
“Our rules point to USDA standards,” Gutierrez said, “If this bill ultimately changes USDA standards, we would make updates or changes to rules.”
The U.S. departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services declined to comment on how the amendment may change their guidance.
According to Gutierrez, DCYF has never penalized a childcare provider for incorrectly serving fruit and she underscored that Washington state providers can, and are encouraged to, serve fresh fruits and vegetables to kids.
Jordan Crawley, director of policy and operations at a childcare center in West Seattle, said he hadn’t encountered the issue in childcare circles in the Seattle area. His program, Alki Beach Academy, already has separate designated sinks, along with a commercial dishwasher.
“That’s not the main barrier to childcare accessibility,” Crawley said. The bigger challenges, he said, include finding sites that meet state licensing requirements, having a well-trained and well-compensated workforce and expanding subsidies so more families can afford care.
“I’m hoping that maybe a lot of this energy around this banana bill can continue its momentum and actually work to solve the broader problem,” he said.
Nationally, it’s also unclear how widespread the issue is — or how much impact the proposal would ultimately have.
The Food Research and Action Center said the issue has not been a focus for the national organization and rarely arises in connection with the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the federal nutrition program it works on extensively.
The National Association for Family Child Care likewise said it is not a primary concern raised by home-based childcare providers.
“Streamlining regulations can be positive,” said Erica Phillips, the association’s executive director, “but only if it’s paired with robust investments in the early care and education system.”
Child Care Aware of America, a major organization focused on childcare issues, said it does not track how often food preparation regulations limit providers from serving produce. “We’re going to keep an eye on where the final (amendment) language lands and what that means for states,” said Anne Hedgepeth, the group’s senior vice president of policy and research.
The proposal reflects a broader theme in Gluesenkamp Perez’s politics. She frequently argues that governance is too often disconnected from working-class Americans, and has previously highlighted barriers facing rural childcare providers on septic tanks.
Haspel, the childcare expert at Capita, worries her approach misdiagnoses the childcare sector’s problems.
“Absolutely, we should be moving toward streamlining childcare regulation whenever we can. I do worry on some level it sends a signal that’s the issue in childcare, that the issue is regulation, and it’s not,” he said. “You can fix every problematic regulation in the book and you will have not made a dent in America’s childcare challenges.”
During a debate on the provision, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., argued it could ultimately do more harm than good.
“Childcare has been underfunded for decades,” Scott said. “This amendment provides broad discretion for the secretaries to usurp state and local food safety guidelines.”
“The problem is, if you don’t actually comply, you could lose your funding,” he added. “I think that would be a step backward.”
