[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION TO
FEDERAL CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
October 7, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
90-141 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 7, 2003.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Boehner, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington, prepared statement of................. 69
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 4
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 68
Statement of Witnesses:
Bost, Hon. Eric M., Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture.......... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 69
Cockwell, Paula, Manager of Nutrition Services, Adams County
School District #14, and Food Service Director, Mapleton
Public School District..................................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Heaney, Dr. Robert P., John A. Creighton University
Professor, Professor of Medicine, Creighton University..... 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Joslin, Robinson W., President, Ohio Soybean Association..... 51
Prepared statement of.................................... 53
Slavin, Dr. Joanne L., Professor of Nutrition, University of
Minnesota.................................................. 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Stenzel, Thomas E., President and CEO, United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association...................................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Yates, A.J., Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture............................. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Additional materials supplied:
American Commodity Distribution Association, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 71
Barnard, Dr. Neal D., President, Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine, Statement submitted for the record... 73
Additional statement submitted for the record............ 75
Foster, Nancy E., President and CEO, U.S. Apple Association,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 76
The Humane Society of the Unted States, Statement submitted
for the record............................................. 78
Keith, Dr. Jeanette Newton, Assistant Professor of Medicine,
Attending Physician, Nutrition Support Service, The
University of Chicago Hospitals, Section Gastroenterology/
Clinical Nutrition, Statement submitted for the record..... 79
Savaiano, Dr. Dennis A., Professor of Foods & Nutrition, Dean
of Consumer and Family Sciences, Purdue University......... 81
Wittrock, Donna, President, American School Food Service
Association................................................ 82
IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION TO
FEDERAL CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
----------
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Boehner
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Boehner, Petri, McKeon, Norwood,
Biggert, Tiberi, Keller, Osborne, Wilson, Kline, Carter,
Kildee, Payne, Holt, McCollum, Grijalva, and Majette.
Staff Present: Julian Baer, Legislative Assistant; Kevin
Frank, Professional Staff Member; Parker Hamilton,
Communications Coordinator; Kate Houston, Professional Staff
Member; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Stephanie Milburn, Professional Staff Member;
Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Denise
Forte, Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Alex Nock,
Minority Legislative Associate/Education; Joe Novotny, Minority
Legislative Assistant/Education; and Lynda Theil, Minority
Legislative Associate/Education.
Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on Improving the
Quality and Efficiency of Commodity Distribution to the Federal
Child Nutrition Programs.
Under Committee rules, opening statements are limited to
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.
Therefore, if other members have statements, they may be
included in the hearing record. And with that, I ask unanimous
consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to
allow members' statements and other extraneous material
referenced during today's hearing to be submitted in the
official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOEHNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Good afternoon. Let me thank all of you for coming today,
especially those of you who will serve on your panels today.
This is an important hearing on Improving the Quality and
Efficiency of the Commodity Distribution Program to the Federal
Child Nutrition Programs. These programs are central to
providing the Nation's needy children with access to safe,
affordable, and nutritious food.
This marks the first Full Committee hearing to help prepare
members of this Committee for the upcoming reauthorization of
the Child Nutrition Act and the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act. There is general agreement on the importance
of good nutrition for everyone, especially growing children.
And while parents obviously bear the first responsibility for
ensuring their children eat well and exercise regularly,
programs authorized under the Child Nutrition Act and the
National School Lunch Act play a positive role as well, helping
to provide disadvantaged children with access to nutritious
meals and snacks.
Programs such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast
Programs, WIC, the Summer Food Service Program, and the Child
and Adult Care Food Program are helping many of these children
achieve full physical development and success in school. The
Federal child nutrition programs were conceived to offer
wholesome meals and snacks to children in need and to support
the health of lower-income pregnant women, breastfeeding
mothers, and their young children.
These programs represent a huge national investment
totaling more than $12 billion per year. And while these
programs have been generally heralded as successful, this
Committee is seeking new ways to improve access to safe,
healthy, and affordable meals and to better serve all program
participants.
Today's hearing will focus on a critical component of many
Federally funded child nutrition programs: commodity
distribution. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides
commodity support for the School Lunch Program, the Child and
Adult Care Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program as
well.
Last year, the United States Department of Agriculture
provided commodities to these programs valued at more than $700
million. The Department of Agriculture has two major objectives
in its mission to provide food products to schools. One
objective is to purchase products as part of the Department's
price support and surplus removal program. The second is to
provide schools with high-quality nutritious foods so that
children have access to meals that are both healthful and
appealing.
Now, these objectives are frequently at odds, which poses
an ongoing challenge for the Department. And because the
Department is charged with stabilizing agricultural markets and
children's preferences, food quality and nutrition must
frequently compete with economic factors when the Department
decides which commodities to purchase and supply.
In 1999 the USDA undertook a broad evaluation of its
commodity procurement and distribution systems to improve food
distribution to schools and other beneficiaries. The
Department's ultimate goal was to better serve producers and
consumers by improving both the efficiency of the distribution
process and the quality of the foods delivered.
USDA convened a blue ribbon panel, Food Distribution 2000,
which included representatives from industry, schools, and
State commodity distribution agencies as well. The result was a
report that made many valuable recommendations for improving
USDA's food distribution systems. Since that time the
Department has created a number of pilot programs and other
initiatives to improve upon the current system. However,
additional efforts are needed and several recommendations have
yet to be implemented.
Last month I sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann
Veneman requesting information about the Department's efforts
to implement the recommendations of the Food Distribution 2000
panel. I look forward to working with the Secretary, Under
Secretary for Food and Nutrition, Eric Bost, Ag Marketing
Services Administrator, A. J. Yates, and our partners in the
food industry and school food service providers to continue the
good work that has been started to make meaningful reforms in
the commodity distribution system.
Today we will hear from experts who will help us shed light
on the commodity distribution to child nutrition programs, what
works well, what needs improvement. Several of today's
witnesses will tell us about progress made by the Department to
act upon the recommendations of the Food Distribution 2000
report and how Congress can help.
I am certain all of our witnesses today will offer unique
perspectives on child nutrition and program operations that
will be helpful to the Members of this Committee as we work to
improve these programs, and we look forward to all of your
comments.
Now, I would yield to our Ranking Member today, my good
friend from the State of Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]
Statement of the Honorable John A. Boehner, Chairman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce
Good Afternoon. Thank you for joining us today for this important
hearing on improving the quality and efficiency of commodity
distribution to federal child nutrition programs. These programs are
central to providing the nation's needy children with access to safe,
affordable, and nutritious food. This marks the first Full Committee
hearing to help prepare Members of this Committee for the upcoming
reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act and the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act.
There is general agreement on the importance of good nutrition for
everyone, especially growing children. While parents obviously bear
first responsibility for ensuring their children eat well and exercise
regularly, programs authorized under the Child Nutrition Act and
National School Lunch Act play a positive role as well, helping to
provide disadvantaged children access to nutritious meals and snacks.
Programs such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, WIC,
the Summer Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food
Program are helping many of these children achieve full physical
development and success in school.
The federal child nutrition programs were conceived to offer
wholesome meals and snacks to children in need, and to support the
health of lower-income pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and their
young children. These programs represent a huge national investment
totaling more than $15 billion per year. While these programs have been
generally heralded as successful, this Committee is seeking new ways to
improve access to safe, healthy, and affordable meals and to better
serve all program participants.
Today's hearing will focus on a critical component of many
federally-funded child nutrition programs--commodity distribution. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture provides commodity support for the
National School Lunch, the Child and Adult Care Food, and the Summer
Food Service program. Last year, the United States Department of
Agriculture provided commodities to these programs valued at more than
$700 million.
The Department of Agriculture has two major objectives in its
mission to provide food products to schools. One objective is to
purchase products as part of the Department's price-support and
surplus-removal programs. The second is to provide schools with high
quality, nutritious foods so that children have access to meals that
are both healthful and appealing. These objectives are frequently at
odds, which poses an ongoing challenge for the Department. Because the
Department is charged with stabilizing agriculture markets, children's
preferences, food quality and nutrition must frequently compete with
economic factors when the Department decides which commodities to
purchase and supply.
In 1999, USDA undertook a broad evaluation of its commodity
procurement and distribution systems to improve food distribution to
schools and other beneficiaries. The Department's ultimate goal was to
better serve producers and consumers by improving both the efficiency
of the distribution process and the quality of foods delivered. USDA
convened a blue ribbon panel, Food Distribution 2000, which included
representatives from industry, schools, and State commodity
distribution agencies. The result was a report that made many valuable
recommendations for improving USDA's food distribution system.
Since that time, the Department has created a number of pilot
programs and other initiatives to improve upon the current system.
However, additional efforts are needed and several recommendations have
yet to be implemented. Last month, I sent a letter to Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman requesting information about the Department's
efforts to implement the recommendations of the Food Distribution 2000
panel. I look forward to working with Secretary Veneman, Under
Secretary for Food and Nutrition, Eric Bost, Agriculture Marketing
Service Administrator, A.J. Yates, our partners in the food industry,
and school food service providers to continue the good work that has
been started in making meaningful reforms to the commodity distribution
system.
Today, we will hear from experts who will help shed light on
commodity distribution to child nutrition programs--what works well and
what needs improvement. Several of today's witnesses will tell us about
progress made by the Department to act upon the recommendations of the
Food Distribution 2000 report and how Congress can help. I am certain
all of today's witnesses will offer unique perspectives on child
nutrition and program operations that will be tremendously helpful to
the Members of this Committee as we work to improve these programs. We
look forward to their comments.
With that, I would like to recognize the Committee's distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Miller.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for having this very important hearing. I have been involved
with child nutrition since about 1954, when I became a teacher.
I see people are there in the background that I have known
since I have been here in Congress, 27 years. It is certainly a
very, very important program.
Some people forget that the program really began after
World War II when it was discovered that many people entering
the military in the draft at that time were physically unable
to enter the military because of poor nutrition. Of course,
many of them had grown up during the 1930's, when we had the
Great Depression. So it really became apparent to the Federal
Government, Franklin Roosevelt, and before him, Harry Truman,
that nutrition was very, very important for the long-term
health of young people and for the long-term health of this
Nation.
I have been through every permutation that this program has
gone under, cash in lieu of commodities, everything, every
permutation of that. But generally speaking, the Federal
Government has kept its commitment. There are times when we had
some problems with trying to call ketchup a vegetable and
things like that, which we do muse about from time to time. But
generally, all of the Administrations have been aware of the
fact that this is a very, very important program.
One of the programs I visited recently in my district--
Congress established a vegetable pilot program in four
different States and one Indian reservation. That was very
important. One of the States happened to be Ohio, the other was
Michigan. I am not sure how we got in there. But I visited the
program in Linden, Michigan and was very, very much impressed.
I know we always have to go through changes and new ideas.
But this program is really one of the great programs, and I
would hope that that pilot program would be expanded and that
the Department look at that. When Secretary Veneman announced
the award of that $6 million, and that Michigan was one of
those, I was determined to go out and visit the programs. You
have done a very, very good job in that program and I commend
you for it.
When I taught school, we had no such thing as a formal
breakfast program for students. As a matter of fact, there was
a great deal of controversy when the breakfast programs
started, the idea that that might weaken the family. But the
breakfast program has been very, very important.
Having taught school, I could recognize the students who
arrived at school not having had breakfast and how that did
affect their learning. I started the first breakfast program
for one student, at--you have heard me tell that story many
times--at Flint Central High School. I had noted that every day
in my homeroom, someone's lunch was being stolen. Very often
students packed their lunch and brought it to school. It was
being stolen. And I was raised in a family where stealing was a
very, very--.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Kildee, nobody attempted to ever
steal my lunch.
Mr. Kildee. Very good. Well, you probably kept a very
watchful eye on it.
Chairman Boehner. I would have gladly given it to them.
Mr. Kildee. It was the quality then, right?
But I finally caught the young man who was stealing the
lunch. And stealing was not only considered a very serious
crime in my family, but a sin. So I was going to turn him into
the principal who would have suspended him for several weeks.
But I found out that his mother was in no position to get him a
breakfast in the morning. And whenever he got to school, his
first task was to find something to eat.
But then he said to me, he said, Mr. Kildee, I never steal
the same lunch from the same person in the same week. And I
figured, this kid has ethics. So I took him down to the
cafeteria where we had no breakfast program, and said to Mrs.
Pelkey, who was in charge of the cafeteria, ``Mrs. Pelkey,
Robert will be coming down here every morning for breakfast,
and you get him something for breakfast and then send me a
bill.'' Well, he got breakfast for 3 years, and I never got a
bill. But since then, of course, we have established breakfast
programs in many schools.
So I look forward to your hearing today. You are involved
in something so important. Nutrition is so important. And the
Federal Government has a great responsibility in this area. I
look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
I want to introduce our first panel of witnesses today. Our
first witness will be the Honorable Eric M. Bost, who is the
Department of Agriculture's Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services. As Under Secretary, he is
responsible for the administration of the Department's 15
nutrition assistance programs, including the Food Stamp
Program, the National School Lunch Program, the School
Breakfast Programs, and WIC. Before his appointment, Mr. Bost
served as Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer of the Texas
Department of Human Services.
Our next witness will be Mr. A. J. Yates, who is the
current administrator of USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service.
Mr. Yates oversees more than 50 programs designed to maintain a
stable marketing environment for the benefit of America's
farmers, ranchers and consumers. Prior to his appointment, he
served as both the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary for
the California Department of Food and Agriculture. He has been
actively involved in providing leadership to a variety of
organizations supporting agriculture and education.
For those of you that may not be aware, in addition to
chairing this Committee, I am also the Vice Chairman of the
House Committee on Agriculture. So I am glad to have both of
these gentlemen here.
Mr. Bost, with that you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ERIC M. BOST, UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD, NUTRITION,
AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bost. Good afternoon, and thank you so very much, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Eric Bost, the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services at
the United States Department of Agriculture. I appreciate this
opportunity to review the Department's Commodity Nutrition
Assistance Program and consider how this vital program can be
enhanced as it relates to the National School Lunch Program.
As you know, the Child Nutrition reauthorization process
gives the Administration and Congress the opportunity to
support local schools, parents, and communities to move toward
an environment that values and fosters the health of our
children. The commodities are used in school meals in over
98,000 schools nationwide. Over 28 million lunches are served
each day in the National School Lunch Program. In fiscal year
2003, USDA provided schools with over 705 million in
entitlement commodities and $75 million in bonus commodities
for their school meal programs.
Of course, the commodity programs are equally important to
American farms and ranchers because they provide the Department
with a means to stabilize agricultural markets.
There has been considerable attention paid to the fat,
sodium, and sugar content of school meals. I would like to
ensure the Committee of our continuing and abiding concern in
this area and share a few of the things that we have done to
address this.
The Department has, one, reviewed and modified recipes,
commodity specifications, and other materials that support
compliance with the dietary guidelines. We have also worked
with schools to more closely align the meals they serve with
the dietary guidelines. We are working hard to improve the
quality, variety, and nutritional content of commodities we
provide the schools, including offering reduced-fat meat and
cheese products, reducing the salt content of canned
vegetables, and reducing the sugar added to canned fruit.
We have also strongly encouraged schools to offer more
nutritious choices to students and provide food service workers
with the training and technical assistance to help them prepare
more nutritious and appealing meals. Today, over 80 percent of
these National School Lunch Program schools, we believe, offer
meals that are consistent with good health.
We have also asked our partners in industry and State and
local agencies for their suggestions in order to identify how
we can improve the delivery of the commodity programs to States
and schools. Earlier the Chairman made reference to the Food
Distribution 2000 report that we use as a blueprint for change.
There are a couple of things I would like to say about what
we have done to address many of the recommendations, we
believe, all of the recommendations that were noted in that
report. We have implemented an Internet-based, commodity-based
ordering system called the electronic commodity ordering
system. This new system provides greater access and speed in
food distribution processes at the Federal, State and recipient
agency levels. States can now place, cancel, or modify food
orders online that previously were handled through paper
transactions. We plan to roll the system out in schools, at the
State's option, beginning next year.
We have also done some things to align the commodity
programs with commercial practices. To bring our commodity
programs more in line with commercial practices, we have now
allowed vendors to use commercial labels on USDA commodities in
lieu of USDA labels; permitted recipient agencies to maintain
single inventory records, instead of requiring separate
accounting for USDA commodities and commercial products; and
reviewed all USDA commodity specifications and improving or
modifying them when feasible, to better align them with
commercial specifications.
In addition to that, we have also revised regulations that
allow for full substitution of all commodities with the
exception of beef and pork, and with limited substitution for
poultry products, which allows processors more flexibility in
scheduling their production.
In addition to that, we have also initiated a long-term
contract for certain commodities, including cheese, some
fruits, frozen chicken and turkey products, bringing
consistency and predictability to the commodity program.
``Best value'' as opposed to ``lowest cost'' contracts are
also being tested to focus on overall product quality and
service. There is also a concern to ensure that the food that
we serve as a part of this program is also safe. So we have
worked very closely with the Department's Food Safety and
Inspection Service to ensure that that occurs. We have
established and implemented written procedures and timeframes
to address commodity holds and/or recalls resulting from safety
concerns. This initiative reduces the hold time on commodities,
removes products quickly from schools and other outlets, and
expedites product replacement and/or reimbursements.
As with other Distribution 2000 initiatives, this was a
joint effort by us, the Food and Nutrition Service, the
Agricultural Marketing Service, the Farm Service Agency, and
the Food Safety Inspection Service. In keeping with the dietary
guidelines, we have established helpful standards for canned
fruit and vegetables offered in our nutrition programs. We have
also worked to ensure that we increase and encourage the
purchase and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables for our
School Lunch Program.
We have successfully teamed with the Department of Defense
Supply Center of Philadelphia to deliver high-quality fresh
produce to school children and Indian tribes. Under this
program, participating schools nationwide order fresh produce
directly from DOD prime vendors. In fiscal year 2003, USDA
purchased $50 million worth of fresh fruit produce for schools,
and the program has proven to be very popular and is currently
in about 41 States.
With Food Distribution 2000, we have worked cooperatively,
as I noted, with all four of the agencies, and I am very
pleased to announce that today, later on this afternoon, we
will go live with a USDA commodity food network Web site, which
allows customers to go to a single portal for all USDA
commodity program needs. It is an E-government resource
designed to provide a wealth of information about the purchase
and distribution of USDA's commodities. This portal combines
the resources and information from all four agencies and other
partners in the commodity distribution network into a one-stop
shopping for our customers. It is no longer necessary to
understand the roles of each of the agencies individually, but
you are able to go to one place and receive information about
how the commodity program works.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, USDA would be pleased to work
with you and this Committee as we embark on reauthorizing the
child nutrition programs to ensure the continued improvement
and success of our nutrition programs for the Nation's children
and the continued success of our commodity programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Of course, I am
happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee Members
may have.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Bost, thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost follows:]
Statement of Eric M. Bost, Under Secretary of Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
Eric M. Bost, Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
(FNCS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). I appreciate this
opportunity to join you once again as you review the Department's
commodity nutrition assistance program and consider how this vital
program can be enhanced as it relates to the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP). As you know, the Child Nutrition reauthorization
process gives the Administration and Congress the opportunity to
support local schools, parents, and communities to move toward a
nutrition environment that values and fosters the health of our
children.
The Department of Agriculture is very proud of its commodity
programs and the role they play in supplementing and supporting our
other nutrition assistance programs. USDA commodities are used in
school meals in over 98,000 schools nationwide. In Fiscal Year 2003,
USDA provided schools with over $705 million in entitlement commodities
and $79 million in bonus commodities for their school meals programs.
Nationwide, over 28 million lunches are served each day in the National
School Lunch Program. Of course, the commodity programs are equally
important to American farms and ranches because they provide the
Department with a means to stabilize agricultural markets.
I would like to begin today by saying a few words about the
nutritional aspects of our school meal programs. There has been
considerable attention paid to the fat, sodium, and sugar content of
these meals. I would like to assure the Committee of our continuing and
abiding concern in this area. The Department has reviewed and modified
the recipes, commodity specifications and other materials that support
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
USDA has worked with schools to more closely align the meals they
serve with the Dietary Guidelines. Today, over 80 percent of NSLP
schools offer meals that are consistent with good health. We have
worked hard to improve the quality, variety, and nutritional content of
the commodities we provide to schools and will continue to make
improvements in the future. At the same time, we are strongly
encouraging schools to offer more nutritious choices to students and we
are providing food service workers with the training and technical
assistance to help them prepare more nutritious and appealing meals.
As many of you recall, back in the 1990's, the Department became
aware of a growing gap between the way we were delivering our commodity
support to schools and the way States, schools and industry could most
efficiently and safely produce, deliver, store and serve a quality
product. We asked our partners in industry, the State, and local
agencies for their suggestions in order to identify how we could close
this gap, and we incorporated these recommendations, along with our
own, into a report entitled, ``Food Distribution 2000,'' and used it as
a blueprint for change.
Recognizing and Responding to a Challenge
The Food Distribution 2000 Report identified numerous ways in which
USDA's commodity program for schools was overly cumbersome and burdened
with red tape. Commodity ordering was handled by seven different
regional offices, rather than centrally at USDA's Food and Nutrition
Service headquarters. Orders were submitted on paper, not
electronically.
The Department's program was significantly out of step with
commercial practices. Vendors were required to use USDA labels on
commodities, which entailed running separate production lines and no
interchangeable products. The Department required States and recipient
agencies to maintain separate inventories for USDA products and account
for them aside from commercial products. Specifications for USDA
commodities often deviated from the specifications commonly used for
commercial products. The vendor contracting process--short-term lowest
cost contract awards--made USDA the customer of last resort and created
inconsistent and unpredictable product quality and service.
Other key issues the report addressed were how USDA agencies could
better coordinate their efforts, improve food safety protocols, and
promote fresh fruits and vegetables.
I am pleased to report that USDA has addressed each of the issues
raised by the Food Distribution 2000 Report, took action, and has now
implemented most of the Report's recommendations, some of which I would
like to share with you this afternoon.
Making Commodity Programs More Responsive to Customer Needs
To make our commodity programs more responsive to our customers,
USDA has implemented an Internet-based commodity ordering system called
the Electronic Commodity Ordering System (ECOS). This new system
provides greater access, speed and transparency to the food
distribution process at the Federal, State, and recipient agency
levels. States can now place, cancel, or modify food orders online that
previously were handled by paper transactions. We plan to roll the
system out to schools, at the State's option, beginning next year.
Aligning Commodity Programs with Commercial Practices
To bring our commodity programs more in line with commercial
practices, USDA now:
Allows vendors to use commercial labels on USDA
commodities in lieu of USDA labels;
Permits recipient agencies to maintain single inventory
records, instead of requiring separate accounting for USDA commodities
and commercial products; and
Reviews all USDA commodity specifications, and improves/
modifies them when feasible, to better align them with commercial
specifications.
We have revised regulations to allow for full substitution of all
commodities, with the exception of beef and pork, and with limited
substitution for poultry products. Substitution allows processors more
flexibility in scheduling production. Through the use of the Standard
Yield Program, schools can now obtain seamless distribution of
commodities and commercial purchases.
We have also initiated long-term contracts for certain commodities,
including cheese, some fruits, frozen chicken and turkey products. This
procurement method brings consistency and predictability to the
commodity program. ``Best value'', as opposed to ``lowest cost''
contracts are also being tested to focus on overall product quality and
service.
Improving Food Safety Protocols
To ensure that the commodities we offer to schools are safe as well
as nutritious, all meat and poultry product specifications are reviewed
and/or amended in consultation with the Department's Food Safety
Inspection Service (FSIS).
Ground beef suppliers must operate under new process control
protocols similar to those required by large volume commercial buyers
of ground beef.
USDA has also established and implemented written procedures and
time frames to address commodity holds and/or recalls resulting from
safety concerns. This initiative reduces the hold time on commodities,
removes product quickly from schools and other outlets, and expedites
product replacement/reimbursement. As with other Food Distribution 2000
initiatives, this was a joint effort by FNS, the Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and FSIS.
Promoting Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
As many of us here today recall from our own school days, the
National School Lunch Program of the 1950's and 60's served canned
fruits and vegetables almost exclusively, and in keeping with the
tastes and nutrition knowledge of the times, they were often flavored
with plenty of salt and heavy syrup. Since those days, and in keeping
with our Dietary Guidelines, we have established much more healthful
standards for canned fruits and vegetables offered in our nutrition
programs. The sodium specifications for the vegetables we offer to
schools are the minimum amount possible that still assures palatability
of the products. Canned fruit is packed only in natural juice or light
syrup.
Recently, the Department has embarked on a major effort to increase
and encourage the purchase and consumption of fresh fruits and
vegetables for the school lunch program.
USDA has successfully teamed up with the Department of Defense
(DoD) Supply Center of Philadelphia to deliver high quality fresh
produce to school children and Indian tribes. Under this program,
participating schools nationwide order fresh produce directly from DoD
prime vendors. In fiscal year 2003, USDA purchased $50 million worth of
fresh produce for schools and the program has proven to be very popular
in the 41 States that took part in it last year.
Improving USDA Inter-Agency Coordination
Food Distribution 2000 has been a collective and unprecedented
effort of four USDA agencies. Together, FNS, AMS, FSA, and FSIS have
forged a partnership to eliminate inter-agency barriers and work
together to bring about major structural changes to the commodity
programs our Department administers. The success of these commodity
improvement initiatives is due to the commitment, support, and
considerable effort put forth by each agency at every level.
I am proud to announce today that one of our inter-agency
partnering goals has resulted in the creation of a one-stop USDA
Commodity Food Network (CFN) website. This website--which goes ``live''
this afternoon--allows our customers to go to a single portal for all
USDA Commodity Program needs. It is an e-government resource designed
to provide a wealth of information about the purchase and distribution
of USDA commodities. This portal combines the resources and information
from all four agencies, and other partners in the commodity
distribution network, into ``one-stop shopping'' for our customers. It
is no longer necessary to understand the role of an individual USDA
agency in order to obtain commodity information.
The website enables schools, community feeding sites, State
agencies, Native American Tribal Organizations and others to have
instant access to information about USDA's commodities and distribution
programs. CFN also provides direct links to other commodity
distribution partner websites, such as the American Commodity
Distribution Association and the American School Food Service
Association.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, USDA would be pleased to work with you and this
Committee as we embark on reauthorizing the Child Nutrition programs to
ensure the continued improvement and success of our nutrition programs
for the nation's children and the continued success of our commodity
programs.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
______
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Yates, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF A. J. YATES, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss
the role of the Agricultural Marketing Service, AMS, in the
National School Lunch Program.
I am A. J. Yates, Administrator of AMS, and I am pleased to
be here with Under Secretary Bost. While USDA's Food and
Nutrition Service administers the National School Lunch
Program, AMS is responsible for purchasing many of the
commodities for this and other domestic food assistance
programs. We support the National School Lunch Program,
providing nutritious, high-quality food to school children
through our purchases of red meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruit
and vegetable products. USDA's Farm Service Agency purchases
flours, grains, peanut products, dairy products, oils and
shortening. All of these purchases help to stabilize the
agricultural market by balancing supply and demand, thus
helping domestic farmers and ranchers.
Let me briefly describe the purchase process and AMS's role
in it. The process begins long before AMS announces that it
plans to purchase particular food items. AMS specialists
knowledgeable in food processing work with potential vendors,
Food Nutrition Service, and food safety officers in developing
specifications for each item that will be purchased. Many of
these items are similar to the popular commercial items.
Other items are developed specifically to meet the special
nutritional needs of our recipients. The specification provides
details on product formulation, manufacturing, packaging,
sampling and testing requirements and quality assurance
provisions. By coordinating the development of specifications
with specialists from all aspects of food processing, AMS
ensures the purchase of high-quality, wholesome, appealing
products that meet recipients' needs and Federal standards for
nutrition.
Prior to conducting any purchase, AMS economists assess
market conditions and determine the availability for
commodities the agency is considering buying. During this time,
AMS also works closely with Food Nutrition Service to determine
recipient preferences. Orders are taken by FNS and provided to
AMS so that purchases can be made.
Although weekly meal patterns must meet Federal standards,
local school authorities make the decisions about what specific
foods to serve and how they are prepared. Moreover, USDA's
commodities comprise less than 20 percent of the food products
put on school childrens' plates. AMS and FSA are responsible
for issuing and accepting bids and awarding and administering
contracts.
FNS is responsible for taking commodity orders from States,
monitoring purchases and entitlements throughout the year, and
the overall administration of the commodity nutrition programs.
Actual purchasing begins with AMS and Farm Service Agency
notifying specific industries, through press releases and other
means, of their intent to purchase particular food products.
These agencies invite bids under a formal advertised
competitive bid program. These invitations give specific
details on when bids are due for a particular purchase. All
products must be US-produced and of domestic origin. Under
Federal acquisition regulations, vendors must be deemed
responsible prior to participating in the program. For
instance, they must have a satisfactory performance record and
adequate financial resources to demonstrate their ability to
produce and deliver the product within designated timeframes.
It is essential that USDA-purchased food products arrive on
time, as recipients depend on it. Bids are received from
responsible vendors, analyzed, and contracts are awarded by AMS
or Farm Service Agency. Contracts are then administered by the
agencies to make sure that the terms and conditions are
followed.
All products purchased by USDA are produced in compliance
with applicable food safety--Federal food safety laws and
regulations. Red meat, poultry, and egg products must be
processed under USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
regulations. And all fruit, vegetable and fish products are
subject to Food and Drug Administration regulations.
FSIS and FDA ensure that such products are wholesome and
that processing plants operate under sanitary conditions. In
addition to FSIS inspection, AMS inspectors are present during
production and shipping of all red meat and poultry items to
ensure compliance with all specification requirements,
including those for raw material processing, packaging, and
testing.
Plants supplying processed fruit and vegetable products
undergo a survey by AMS inspectors to ensure compliance with
FDA requirements, including that agency's good manufacturing
practices. Additionally, fish products are produced in
facilities operating under the National Marine Fisheries
Service voluntary seafood inspection program. For certain types
of products, such as ground beef, egg products and fruit
juices, additional product handling and testing protocols are
required.
AMS also works with FSIS to distribute educational
materials for food service professionals about proper handling
and cooking techniques. These materials are available both in
Spanish and English, and are designed to assist food service
professionals in every school participating in the National
School Lunch Program.
As you know, in 1998, USDA policy officials met with
representatives of the American School Food Service Association
and the American Commodity Distribution Association, with the
aim of improving the commodity procurement and distribution
process. AMS played a key role in developing and implementing
the initiatives contained in the ``Food Distribution 2000--
USDA's Reinvention Plan for Change'' report.
Some of the key initiatives contained in this report that
AMS has implemented include the expanded use of long-term
contracts with proven suppliers; expanded use of best-value
contracting; revised product specifications to align them with
commercially available products; purchase of commercially
labeled products; use of commercial and commodity products
interchangeably by further processors in the manufacture of
fruit and vegetables products, and, on a more limited basis,
poultry products; implemented formal commodity product hold and
recall procedures for use by State and local authorities; and
relaxed truckload delivery requirements allowing multiple stops
within a State or city.
Mr. Chairman, AMS is proud of the role it plays in
providing food products to this Nation's school children. We
are proud of the relationship we have built with other Federal
agencies, State agencies, and the school food community to
carry out this most important responsibility. We look forward
to working with you in any way that we can as the Child
Nutrition Act and Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
reauthorization process continues.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Yates, thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yates follows:]
Statement of A. J. Yates, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today to discuss the role of the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in the National School Lunch
Program. I am A. J. Yates, Administrator of AMS, and I am pleased to be
here with Under Secretary Bost.
In 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act, providing a
healthy lunch to millions of schoolchildren. Over 55 years later, the
program continues to help improve the health of children, especially
those at nutritional risk.
While USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the
National School Lunch Program (NSLP), AMS is responsible for purchasing
many of the commodities for this and other domestic food assistance
programs. We support the NSLP by providing nutritious, high quality
food to schoolchildren through our purchases of red meat, fish,
poultry, egg, fruit, and vegetable products. USDA's Farm Services
Agency (FSA) purchases flours, grains, peanut products, dairy products,
oils, and shortenings. All of these purchases help to stabilize prices
in agricultural markets by balancing supply and demand, thus helping
domestic farmers and ranchers. Let me briefly describe the purchase
process and AMS' roll in it.
The process begins long before AMS announces that it plans to
purchase particular food items. AMS specialists knowledgeable in food
processing work with potential venders, FNS, and food safety officials
to develop a specification for each item that will be purchased. Many
of these items are similar to popular commercial items. Other items are
developed specifically to meet the special nutritional needs of our
recipients. The specification provides details on product formulations;
manufacturing, packaging, sampling, and testing requirements; and
quality assurance provisions. By coordinating the development of
specifications with specialists from all aspects of food processing,
AMS ensures the purchase of high-quality, wholesome, appealing products
that meet recipients' needs and Federal standards for nutrition.
Prior to conducting any purchase, AMS economists assess market
conditions and determine the availability for commodities the Agency is
considering buying. During this time AMS also works closely with FNS to
determine recipient preferences. Orders are taken by FNS and provided
to AMS so that purchases can be made. Although weekly meal patterns
must meet Federal standards, local school authorities make the
decisions about what specific foods to serve and how they are prepared.
Moreover, USDA commodities comprise less than 20 percent of the food
products put on schoolchildrens plates.
AMS and FSA are responsible for issuing and accepting bids and
awarding and administering contracts. FNS is responsible for taking
commodity orders from States, monitoring purchases and entitlements
throughout the year, and the overall administration of the commodity
nutrition programs.
Actual purchasing begins with AMS and FSA notifying specific
industries through press releases and other means of their intent to
purchase particular food products. The agencies invite bids under a
formally advertised competitive bid program. These ``invitations'' give
specific details on when bids are due for a particular purchase. All
products must be U.S.-produced and of domestic origin.
Under Federal Acquisition Regulations, vendors must be deemed
``responsible'' prior to participating in the program. For instance,
they must have a satisfactory performance record and adequate financial
resources to demonstrate their ability to produce and deliver the
product within designated timeframes. It is essential that USDA
purchased food products arrive on time as recipients depend on it.
Bids are received from responsible vendors, analyzed, and contracts
are awarded by AMS and FSA. Contracts are then administered by the
agencies to make sure that terms and conditions are followed.
All products purchased by USDA are produced in compliance with
applicable Federal food safety laws and regulations. Red meat, poultry,
and egg products must be processed under USDAs Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) regulations, and all fruit, vegetable, and
fish products are subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulation. FSIS and FDA assure that such products are wholesome and
that processing plants operate under sanitary conditions.
In addition to FSIS inspection, AMS inspectors are present during
production and shipping of all red meat and poultry items to ensure
compliance with all specification requirements--including those for raw
materials, processing, packaging, and testing. Plants supplying
processed fruit and vegetable products undergo a survey by AMS
inspectors to assure compliance with FDA requirements, including that
Agency's Good Manufacturing Practices. Additionally, fish products are
produced in facilities operating under the National Marine Fisheries
Service voluntary seafood inspection program. For certain types of
products, such as ground beef, egg products, and fruit juices,
additional product handling and testing protocols are required.
AMS also works with FSIS to distribute educational materials for
food service professionals about proper handling and cooking
techniques. These materials, available in both Spanish and English, are
designed to assist food service professionals in every school
participating in the NSLP.
As you know, in 1998, USDA policy officials met with
representatives of the American School Food Service Association and the
American Commodity Distribution Association with the aim of improving
the commodity procurement and distribution process. AMS played a key
role in developing and implementing the initiatives contained in the
``Food Distribution 2000--USDA's Reinvention Plan for Change'' report.
Some of the key initiatives contained in this report that AMS has
implemented include:
Expanded use of long-term contracts with proven
suppliers;
Expanded use of best-value contracting;
Revised product specifications to align them with
commercially available products;
Purchase of commercially labeled products;
Use of commercial and commodity products interchangeably
by further processors in the manufacture of fruit and vegetable
products and, on a more limited basis, poultry products;
Implemented formal commodity product hold and recall
procedures for use by State and local authorities; and
Relaxed truckload delivery requirements allowing multiple
stops within a State or city.
Mr. Chairman, AMS is proud of the role it plays in providing food
products to this Nations schoolchildren. We are proud of the
relationships we have built with other Federal agencies, State
agencies, and the school food community to carry out this most
important responsibility. We look forward to working with you any way
we can as the Child Nutrition Act and Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act reauthorization process continues.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to
respond to questions from the Committee.
______
Chairman Boehner. USDA's commodity distribution program
really has two objectives. One is to stabilize the agricultural
marketplace, and, second, to provide high-quality nutritious
foods to Federal nutrition programs. And I am trying to--
wearing both of my hats of interest--trying to understand what
really drives this process: what is good for the nutrition
programs in terms of what the schools want; or is it the
economics of the marketplace in terms of the stabilization of
certain commodity markets?
So I would like to ask both of you, just help me understand
which objective wins when it is all said and done.
Mr. Bost. Mr. Chairman, let me take a stab at it. I don't
know if it is a question of which objective wins. I think what
we have attempted to do in the Department is to ensure that
there is a balance, and that essentially they balance one or
the other out in terms of us making some decisions that are
going to address both entities.
On the one side, of course, what the farmers and ranchers
produce and they want us to buy; and on the other hand, a very
important consideration that we have to give--we are interested
in giving to ensure that we provide nutritious, healthy food to
the 29 million children in our schools.
And also the other issue of dealing with the bonus buys
that are out there. So we try to bring all of those to the
table and balance them out in terms of some decisions that we
make.
Interestingly enough, that is why there are essentially two
components of the program. One, of course, is entitlements.
There are 143--145 items on that list that schools are actually
able to order from. The other is bonus buys. The bonus buys
afford the Department a great deal of flexibility in terms of
when and what they buy and how much.
And so that tends to be somewhat of a lever, because it
affords us an opportunity to attempt to balance all of those
things out, a challenge. It is a major challenge for us.
Because there is a great deal of pressure coming, of course,
from one side on occasion, saying ``Well, I want you to buy
X.'' It could be peaches, it could be tree nuts. It could be,
``Well, I want you to buy more beef.'' .
On the other hand, it could be, we are interested in
ensuring that the foods that we do buy, one, that we can afford
to buy them; and, two, that they are going to meet the
nutritional needs of school children. And, most importantly,
that even when we do buy them, that the children are going to
eat them. We have people who come to see us who are interested
in, say, two of my favorites, asparagus and brussel sprouts.
You know, there are not too many second graders that that is at
the top of their list, you know, in terms of interest and
taste.
So we try to ensure that we balance all of those things
out.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman, it is a balancing act. And we at
AMS work very closely with FNS. We will have a number of
different agricultural commodity groups come before us in a
period of time with a statement that our commodity is in
surplus, we are having a difficult time. And the first thing
that we always do, is we go to FNS and we say, here is what the
industry has out there in surplus. Can you use it in any of the
school lunch programs? Are the recipients interested in this
type of product?
It is a very close relationship that we have with FNS in
this regard. And as the Under Secretary said, some of these
commodities are wanted much more than others. And we look for
ways of putting nutritious items together, even if it is a
dried fruit mix, that would allow us to use certain commodities
that by themselves might not be so appealing to an individual,
a young student, but by combining these nutritious dried fruits
together, it provides something that was very popular last year
in the purchases that we made and the deliveries to the
schools.
Chairman Boehner. In Food Distribution 2000, the panel
recommended that specifications be written to resemble, as
close as possible, the specifications used in commercial food
system procurement. I know the Department has reviewed some of
these. But how are we coming in terms of the implementation of
all of those recommendations?
Mr. Yates. Well, I think we have been very successful in
implementing most of those. One of the issues that the Under
Secretary and I both stated in our testimony is the
substitution issue in regards to fruit and vegetables. It is
fairly broad in substitution there. And it is limited when it
comes to poultry and to beef and pork products.
For the poultry products, if our inspectors are in the
facility where we have continuous inspection, the company can
be making either commercial or school product, and actually we
allow them to use their own label on the product. And so if it
has passed under AMS inspection, those products can be
interchanged.
With beef, with the new beef specifications that we put in
place last spring dealing with microbial testing, we allow no
substitution because the health of one of the most at-risk
groups of people we have in the country, the young people in
school, we are going to assure to the best of our ability that
we deliver a product that is safe and healthful.
And so there--our testing begins at the carcass. And it
goes through the boneless beef, on to after-processing. What we
are looking at now in addressing the issue I think that you had
raised is that we would entertain delivering on time to a
processor, chilled, boneless beef for further processing that
has gone through our inspection process and microbial testing.
And I believe that that would provide a product that is more
economical, and also a fresher product for school children.
Chairman Boehner. I can see my time has expired. We will
come back to that after all of the members have had a chance to
ask their questions. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We understand that the
Department has conducted studies to determine how to reduce
overcertification of eligibles. Do you believe that these--that
there are program safeguards built into your proposal to reduce
overcertification that protect children, and to make sure that
we aren't dropping those that should still be in? And what are
these safeguards?
I have in mind, for example, that I have taught at an
inner-city school. We had homeless kids. We had illegal
immigrants. We had migrant workers. We had children in barely
functional families, if not dysfunctional families. We had
really a cross-section. How have you built safeguards in to
make sure that in your zeal to reduce overcertification that
you weren't really dropping those who legitimately need
program?
Mr. Bost. I think it is real important to note that, first
of all, it is not necessarily just overcertification. We are
interested in ensuring that every eligible child is able to
participate in the program, because we have a significant
number of eligible children, that for whatever reason, are not
participating. So it is just not overcertification, but it is
ensuring that those children that are eligible that are not
participating, that they participate. That is the first point.
The second point that I would like to make is the fact that
we are looking at a system that we have built, hopefully, have
described a system that will address many of those issues and
start with one direct certification. The system now requires
parents to send information back. The system that we have
recommended essentially takes that first step away. Essentially
they are automatically eligible, because we would tie some
eligibility requirements to the food stamp caseloads. So it
reduces the paperwork.
And last but not least, this is a very important point to
make, is the fact that we are motivated, and I have said this
before, and I will try to make this just as clear as I possibly
can--we are motivated by ensuring that every eligible child
participates in this program.
We are not interested, we are not motivated by either
inhibiting or preventing any eligible child from participating
in the program, but we are motivated by ensuring that they do
meet the eligibility requirements, with that in mind, with the
risk program that we are going to recommend.
There will be a follow up for those that we don't think
that we would be able to catch. One, a very assertive and
aggressive follow-up that would be telephones, it would be
letters, would be at the discretion of the teacher or would be
at the discretion of the school system. If a person--you made
reference to the fact yourself, that you had a child in your
class that you knew was not receiving a meal that may be
eligible. We have built into the process a system that would
afford a teacher or the school system the opportunity to enroll
that child.
And so we believe that we have built safeguards in place to
address all of the considerations that you spoke of, because we
are motivated, very clearly we are motivated by ensuring that
every eligible child participates, and that we do not--and I
repeat--that we do not inhibit or prevent eligible children
from participating in the program.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate that. I think it is very important
that you have the same zeal--I am talking about anyone, the
years that I have been here--that you have the same zeal in
excluding the ineligible, and also the same zeal of including
the eligible. And I think it is very, very important, because
that is very often--there are certain people, it depends on who
is in charge. Certain programs have a certain bias. I think
that we have to make sure that we have that same zeal to
include the eligible while you are trying to exclude those who
are ineligible in that program.
Mr. Bost. And we believe that we have put forth a process
that will afford us the opportunity to do that. We are
motivated by ensuring that eligible children participate in the
program. There are people, there are critics who feel
otherwise.
And what I have said to them, and I will offer it today, if
someone can come up with a much better system that is not going
to cost any additional money, we are open.
Mr. Kildee. OK. We hope to work closely with you. I think
we do realize the importance of nutrition. I would like to also
say hello to George Brailey, who I have been working with for
many, many years on nutrition issues. Good to see you again,
George. Take care. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Mrs. Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question,
first of all. I think that, Mr. Under Secretary, you talked
about allowing vendors to use commercial labels on the USDA
commodities. And I think that, Mr. Yates, you referred to that
in your testimony also.
Why is that important? Why is that a change?
Mr. Yates. One of the reasons that it is important, I think
it really holds the processor more accountable. His label is on
the commodity. It also gives us a more seamless process to
where this company is making a product, you know, such as we
are already in there inspecting. They can put their label on
it. But when it gets out there in the schools, the schools know
who the processor was. It just doesn't have a USDA label on
there. So I think the accountability issue is of utmost
importance.
Mrs. Biggert. It is accountability and safety, not that
people would like to know where it came from.
Mr. Yates. That is right.
Mrs. Biggert. Then you also testified about it being
twofold; one is for the agriculture, to stabilize the
commodities; but also to provide, then, for the food substance
for the schools. How does this work? Let's say you suddenly
have an overabundance of chickens and so you are going to
provide these to the schools. Do the schools have--is this a
contract that is way ahead of time so that they know how to
plan to use these foods in combination with their other foods
that are going to the schools?
Mr. Bost. Well, it tends to be a combination of both. As I
said before, the commodity program has two parts. It has an
entitlement and it has bonus buys. The entitlement, there is a
list of 145 items that schools are able to order. And so they
are able to anticipate what their needs may or may not be.
In terms of bonus commodities, essentially, for example,
last week I think it was tree nuts. Especially if they are
interested in buying them, they would usually go to Mr. Yates
and his folks and talk about what the need is, what they have,
and what we are able to buy. Then, essentially, they make the
case, and we talk among ourselves to make a determination if
AMS purchases it, if we are able to use it. And not only are we
able to use it, but is it going to meet the nutritional needs
of children, and are they going to eat it? We are not
interested in spending a significant amount of money on food
that the children aren't going to eat. So it tends to be a
combination of all of those.
Mrs. Biggert. Are there commodities that might be available
that are never requested?
Mr. Bost. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. What happens to those?
Mr. Bost. There are several opportunities in terms of the
State using them for other things. As Mr. Brady is saying to
me, most of time we usually don't buy it if we don't think that
it is going to be needed. Usually the schools make their orders
in advance.
Mrs. Biggert. And then you have put in there that there is
going to be more opportunity for fresh fruits and vegetables
rather than the canned or frozen?
Mr. Bost. Yes. There has been a concerted effort on our
part to ensure that we increase the availability of fresh
fruits and vegetables that are available as a part of our
program. We are interested, of course, in increasing the ways
to meet the nutritional needs of our children. And what better
way to do that? And then also one on the other end, it helps
the market on the other hand. It helps the nutrition and health
of children. It also helps to address some of the issues of
obesity that children in our schools today are experiencing.
And so there has been a concerted effort on our part to
increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables.
And last but not least, as I travel around the country we
find that children, when the fruits and vegetables are fresh,
are much more likely to eat them.
Mrs. Biggert. I think that is true. I think that is a very
good program. But how long does it take you to get these
products to the schools so that they are fresh? Is there any
certain amount of time that you have after they have been
ordered that they will arrive?
Mr. Bost. Well, the Department of Defense, as I said in my
testimony, last year I think they bought $50 million worth. And
they are able to deliver it in a very timely fashion. Also, the
fresh fruit and vegetable pilot, that was in 4 States, 100
schools, and an Indian reservation. And it was shipped directly
to those schools.
And, last but not least, in at least a couple of States
around the country, we have the farm--the local farm-to-school
programs where fruits and vegetables are bought locally. So as
a result, the time in terms of getting them to the schools is
very, very short.
Mrs. Biggert. Does this have anything to do with so many
schools have their produce day where they bring in from their
local farmers, from the families? Which I think has really
gotten a lot of children wanting the fresh produce.
Mr. Bost. Well, I think that is a part of it. In some of
the schools that we have seen around the country, it is also an
opportunity to introduce new fruits and vegetables to students
so that they can acquire different tastes.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Georgia, Ms. Majette.
Ms. Majette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Under Secretary, are there--is it anticipated when the
report will be issued regarding the overcertification? It is my
understanding that report has not been issued.
Mr. Bost. Well, there was not a complete report. I believe
that we had shared some preliminary information with folks on
the staff of this Committee. And so there wasn't a complete
report done, but some preliminary information that we did
receive has already been shared.
Ms. Majette. Are you anticipating that there will be any
action taken with regard to overcertification and
reauthorization? And, if so, wouldn't you agree that it would
be important to have the formal report or the final information
on that?
Mr. Bost. Well, I think based on the information that we
have been able to gather not only from that report but also
from the data that has been collected before I became Under
Secretary, we have put forth, we believe, some provisions that
will address some of the concerns that I spoke of earlier.
And like I said, it is not just those children that are not
eligible that are participating in the program. We are also
concerned about those--we are concerned about both. What I
consider the over- and the under-, those that are eligible and
those that are not eligible.
We have put forth, we believe, a proposal that will address
those and also improve the integrity of the program.
Ms. Majette. And in your testimony you indicated that today
over 80 percent of the NSLP schools offer meals that are
consistent with good health. Is there a period during which you
expect that it will get to closer to 100 percent? What kind of
efforts are being made to improve that percentage?
Mr. Bost. Well, of course, we work very diligently with the
schools to ensure that they not only provide healthier--healthy
and healthier foods in their schools to children, and we work
very closely with some of the associations that you are going
to hear from after I finish testifying today. And so we are
working very diligently to increase that number, I think every
day. But part of the challenge, of course, for us is what is
served as opposed to what is consumed and eaten.
If you look at children that participate in the National
School Lunch Program, the data would indicate that those
children consume more vegetables than those who don't
participate. If you look at those children who participate in
the National School Breakfast Program, the data indicates that
those children consume more fruits than those who don't
participate.
But there is a challenge in terms of offering healthy and
healthier foods and the challenges of children being able to go
through the a la carte line and choose what they want to eat,
which in some instances is not as healthy as what is offered in
the National School Lunch Program.
Ms. Majette. What kind of things do you think can be done,
within the context of helping children make these decisions,
what kinds of things do you think can be done to get the
children to move toward making better choices? And I am asking
that question because I think, perhaps to a certain extent, we
as adults play into what the children say they want or what
they see marketed.
I represent Georgia's Fourth Congressional District,
suburban Atlanta. In some of our new high schools, there is a
food line that looks like the fast food row when you drive
down--you can get pizza and Burger King and all of these
various things that we already know, taken in large and regular
quantities, are not good for our children.
So certainly I can appreciate the average child not liking
brussel sprouts, but what do you think that we can do to create
the atmosphere that will allow them to make healthier choices
as opposed to accommodating what we already know is not
probably the best choice to make?
Mr. Bost. Well, there are several things that we have done
in terms of providing education and educational opportunities
to teachers, administrators and parents. We have also provided
education to children so that they are able to make better
informed decisions about the choices the make and about the
types of foods that are offered.
And last but not least, I think it is also very important
that we look at improving the quality and the types of foods
that are also provided to our children in schools, so that we
can make it appetizing and that it looks good and that it
tastes good, so that they will actually choose it.
I think one of the rules of thumb that I go by is that one
of my colleagues in the Department has some young boys in
school, and they had a real description of some food, and it
was not very pleasant. So it tells us every day that we need to
look at working with the schools. I think that they are trying
as hard as they can to address some of those concerns in terms
of educating the people so that they are able to make wise
decisions and choices, also making the foods appealing.
Also part of the things that we are doing, too, that I
failed to mention is increasing--or ensuring that we add fresh
fruits and vegetables to the menus, changing the way foods are
prepared, the way they look. And let me give you a real
specific example of something that occurred to me as I saw a
school in Florida. Pizza was delivered initially in boxes that
had one of the large pizza restaurants, and the kids loved it,
and they ate it every day. And the food service workers, what
they did was that they made the same pizza and put it out and
the kids didn't eat it. And it was healthier. It was lower fat,
more vegetables, a whole grain crust. So what they did was they
started slipping some of the pizzas that they made in the
commercial box and the kids ate it.
Ms. Majette. So it is all about marketing?
Mr. Bost. It is all about marketing. Because they didn't
eat it the day before and it was the same pizza. And then they
ate it the next day. That was another example.
The other thing is I went up and looked at a school system
in Bellingham, Washington, where the food service person is
doing an outstanding job in terms of providing some very
healthy choices and alternatives to school kids. And she makes
it look really attractive, and it tastes good. And I was able
to go through the line. And she did some other things that were
also very interesting. And it was just the dynamics of how she
had set up the line.
Initially she had the salad bar as the kids went through
the line, she had the salad bar at the beginning of the line.
Kids were bypassing it and going to other items. She put the
salad bar at the end of the line, so that when the kids were
standing in line to pay, they were standing right next to the
salad bar. And the kids were much more likely to take some
additional items from it, because they were standing there
waiting. So we found some of the school systems that are being
very creative in terms of addressing that issue.
And last but not least, parents have got to take some
responsibility in terms of helping their children make some
wise decisions and choices about what they eat, because for
young kids, young kids don't buy junk food or the foods that
are not healthy for them, their parents do. And the parents
give them money to buy foods, too. So parents have a very
important role to play in terms of helping guide their children
and making some wise decisions about the types foods that they
eat.
Ms. Majette. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Under Secretary, let me make a comment. As we sit
here in the sterile atmosphere of a congressional hearing, it
sounds very good, admittedly, that we have food that is 100
percent nutritious 100 percent of the time for our school
children.
But as a Member of Congress who is only in his thirties, I
am not that far removed from high school. And in my high
school, we had pizza day every Wednesday, and I loved it. And I
don't want to be known as the jerk who killed pizza day. So are
we going to have our local schools still have the flexibility
to once in a while serve some food that may not win the award
as the most nutritious, but gives them the chance to serve some
normal food without fearing losing dollars from the government?
Mr. Bost. Absolutely. They are able to do that now. The
issue is those are not reimbursable meals, and so they can
continue to serve it as much or as frequently as they like to.
But the challenge of that is the fact that parents go into
it, into a school, and they see the pizzas, the hamburgers, the
hot dogs, the french fries, the honey buns, and the donuts, the
other things. Then they call me and say, why is it that my
child is eating that food that is high in fat and high in sugar
and high in sodium? And that is a decision that the school has
made, not that we have made.
So what we are saying is that we are interested in them
providing healthier choices. But it is a local decision that is
left to their discretion. But I think, given the rate of
obesity that we are experiencing in this country, that we are
going to have to look at making some very difficult decisions
that we might not be interested in making.
Mr. Keller. And whatever we do, let me tell you those kids,
even elementary school kids, are pretty sophisticated about
trading. You try to trade a banana for a Jello snack pack
pudding, you aren't going to have any offers on the table
there, as I recall.
But let me ask you, how often are the dietary guidelines
for Americans changed?
Mr. Bost. They are reviewed every 5 years. We just swore in
and gave the Committee their charge, I think, 2 weeks ago. So
they are in the process of reviewing the dietary guidelines as
we speak.
Mr. Keller. It seems like we are in a state of flux when we
are trying to determine what is healthy. For example, take the
Atkins diet. For many years that was considered quite
controversial by traditional physicians, and now even the most
established journals such as New England Journal of Medicine
say that this actually works. As you know, this diet advocates
the more low-carb things, so the green vegetables as opposed to
the more starchy vegetables like corn and potatoes.
How do you take into consideration these new data as to
what is healthy and what is not healthy in determining what the
requirements are for reimbursable meals?
Mr. Bost. Let us specifically talk about the Atkins diet
for just 30 seconds. One, it is a diet. It is there to lose
weight. I don't know if anybody said it was healthy for you. I
haven't heard any of the research that say it is healthy. It is
a diet. It is there to help one lose weight.
Mr. Keller. Weren't you saying that one of your major
challenges is obesity?
Mr. Bost. But the Atkins diet, you talked about it. It is a
diet, and it is there to help people lose weight. That is the
first point.
The second point is that I haven't heard any research that
would indicate that anyone had said that the diet itself is
healthy.
The last point is the fact that when you look at those
people that were on the Atkins diet long term, they essentially
gained back all the weight that they had lost. That is the
first point.
The second point, 34 percent of the meal can meet the fat
content, and that is why the dietary guidelines are essentially
reviewed periodically so that we can look and receive the best
possible data and science from the experts around the country
that will afford us the opportunity to make some decisions
about what is healthy and what is not. As I said before, that
Committee is in the process of reviewing the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans as we speak.
Mr. Keller. You are a skeptic on a low-carb type of diet,
it sounds like.
Mr. Bost. No, it is not that I am a skeptic, it is just
that if you go into a bookstore, there are 1,000 books on
diets. It is a question of individual diets and preferences and
choices and what works for you. If it is a diet that works for
you, I have no problems with it whatsoever, but it doesn't work
for everyone.
Mr. Keller. Nothing works for me.
We will move off of me.
Let me just close by asking you, does the Department review
and revise from time to time the specifications for products it
procures to make sure that they are based on these changing
dietary guidelines?
Mr. Yates. Yes, we do. We review them on an annual basis.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to talk a little bit about fresh fruits and
vegetables. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you again.
Mr. Bost. It is good to see you.
Mr. Holt. I think you have made it clear that they are
important in the diet. I think you would also agree that they
are important for pregnant women and moms of young children.
What can we do in this reauthorization to make fresh fruits and
vegetables both a permanent and nationwide part of the school
program and a permanent part nationwide of the WIC program?
I ask that partly because I know in my district, we
encounter some difficulties with the produce sellers in fully
participating in the program. So it makes it difficult to have
this integrated into the diet.
Mr. Bost. Let us start with the fresh fruit and vegetable
pilot that is currently taking place in 4 States, 100 schools
and an Indian reservation. As a part of child nutrition
reauthorization, the administration recommended, one, that it
continue in those schools and that we expand it initially to
some additional schools. I didn't necessarily put a number on
it because it depends a great deal on how much money would be
available to do it. And so we feel that that would be one way,
a very proactive way, to address the concern that you noted,
because it has been very well received in all of the schools by
all the teachers and administrators and, of course, by all of
the children. And so we see that as a vehicle to address that
specific concern.
In terms of WIC, the WIC food package itself right now, we
contracted with the Institute of Medicine to review the WIC
food package because, one, we believe that it is time, and,
two, there are opinions that it should change and include more
fresh fruits and vegetables. So that it would not be a question
about our lack of objectivity or subjectivity regarding this
matter, we referred it to the Institute of Medicine. They are
going to review it. There is an opportunity for anyone that is
interested to comment on what should be a part of that, whether
it should be fresh fruits and vegetables, whether it should be
substitutions, whether there should be juices. They will review
it and then make recommendations back to the Department in
terms of exactly what the package should look like. So we
believe that we have taken some steps to address both of those
concerns.
Mr. Holt. I hope we can find a way to make this more than
just an experimental, partial program, but truly nationwide.
Let me switch the subject to something that perhaps
officially isn't in our jurisdiction here, but probably should
be, and maybe we should try to extend our jurisdiction on that,
and that is the bonus commodities that provides for the
distribution of surplus production, because one of the
recipients of that would be schools. How do we make sure that
we don't experience what we experienced earlier this year,
where the money was essentially raided, and it was restored,
but it was--how do we make sure that that program continues and
the funds aren't shifted to other uses? I address this to
either of you to answer that.
Mr. Yates. The bonus buying money is used for a variety of
assistances to agriculture. We have helped the pork industry in
times of crisis. We have helped the cattle industry. But we
have been able to meet the needs of the schoolchildren even as
we have had to help some of these commodities that are in dire
distress. We believe that we will continue to be able to meet
the needs of agriculture and still meet what schools want. This
is one of the things, early in my testimony, we go to FNS and
ask them, what do the schools want. But we do have the ability
to help the industry when the market falls out of bed, and we
can come in there and sometimes put a bottom under that market
that helps considerably for a huge agricultural market. It is a
dual-purpose program.
Mr. Holt. Let me just say that many of the people who
provide food, shelters, food banks and so forth, in my district
had some very anxious weeks, or even months, this year when it
looked like the program was going the other way, and there
isn't time to go into that history today, but I just hope that
we can find a way to see that it is maintained for the benefit
of those who provide the food to the schools and to the
shelters and food banks. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. [presiding.] Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
gentlemen, for being here today and giving detailed answers to
our questions, sometimes confusing questions, I am sure, at
least confusing to me.
You mentioned earlier that you had commodity
representatives, of course, coming and asking you to buy
Brussel sprouts and asparagus and so forth. I haven't had
anybody in my office encouraging that we put Brussel sprouts in
the program, but I certainly do get commodity representatives
that come in, two recently. Dairy farmers and soybean growers
have been in the office, and I am sure in yours as well. And I
know we are going to have some testimony here a little bit
later on that, but I would like to address a couple of
questions to you if I could while you are here in this panel.
The law now requires dairy milk in the reimbursable school
meal program, but I understand that there is a provision in the
law that allows children with allergies or lactose intolerance
to receive a nondairy alternative, such as soy milk or orange
juice. To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Under Secretary, is
this current system fulfilling the nutritional needs of the
children?
Mr. Bost. To the best of my knowledge, yes, it is, because
as you noted, children that require--for medical reasons or for
religious reasons, there is an opportunity for them to receive
other types of fluids that we believe go a long way toward
addressing some of the nutritional challenges that they may
present.
The issue of soy--and, as you say, the soy folks have, of
course, come to see me. The current rules, as you noted, in
terms of reimbursement for the meal requires fluid milk. Soy-
based products do not meet that definition. But there is an
opportunity for soy to be served in schools based on the
individual needs of children and/or if there are religious
considerations that need to be taken into consideration. That
is one point.
I think the other point has to do, of course, with the
cost. The other consideration, of course, would be the
fortification of those things, of soy, to meet some of the
other nutritional needs that milk, we believe, currently
addresses.
With all of that said, we are always interested in
providing our students with healthier alternatives and choices,
and we have essentially said that, and it is at the discretion
of the schools to serve it if they so choose. I think it comes
down to a resource issue for them because of the issue of it
not being reimbursable.
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
Let me get your opinion now, and as I said earlier, I know
we have got some more testimony coming, but I am interested in
your opinion, sir. Do you think that there should be
alternatives to dairy milk served as part of the reimbursable
school meal program?
Mr. Bost. I think it is a question of where we are trying
to go with that. One, soy at this point, based on my very
limited knowledge, of course, of the subject, because I am not
a scientist, does not meet the same nutritional needs in
growing children that milk does, and so that has to be a
consideration. Two, it is a question of being able to fortify
it, and I don't know what that would take. Then, of course, the
last issue, of course, is how much is it going to cost. That
has to be a consideration. I don't know if I have enough
information at this juncture to answer your question.
Mr. Kline. All right, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Osborne. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After the discussion about soy, I have some other questions
to follow up on, but I want to go back to a couple of earlier
statements. You said that there is a report, and then you said,
well, it is not really a report, there are just some documents
on certification. Do you have anything else that is accessible
to my office besides what is currently on your Web site, which
is very, very incomplete and very sketchy?
I have some other questions, and I have limited time.
Mr. Bost. I just wanted to double-check my answer.
One, it is all on our Web site. Two, there are some
additional reports that we are putting some finishing touches
on, and last but not least, we are still continuing to look at
this issue.
Ms. McCollum. I would also like to know how much money--I
would like all the information you have delivered to either the
Chair so he can distribute it to all of us or, if people aren't
interested in it in the Full Committee, to my office, and the
cost of what it has been to the Department to investigate this.
My understanding, still current today, is that school districts
are based under local control. Can you tell me on average how
much a school lunch costs and how much the Federal Government
is really participating in the cost of that school lunch?
Mr. Bost. In terms of how much we reimburse the school
lunch?
Ms. McCollum. Per lunch.
Mr. Bost. About $2.
Ms. McCollum. A school lunch is about $2.
Mr. Bost. We cover the complete cost of a free lunch that
is provided to schoolchildren.
Ms. McCollum. The complete cost of a free lunch.
Mr. Bost. On average.
Ms. McCollum. On average.
Mr. Bost. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. You talked about all this local control and
local discretion for the certification. How does that work for
a school district? Let us say Northwest Airlines lays off a lot
of mechanics, and they find themselves on unemployment. How
does that work for--are parents expected to come in, re-enroll,
fill out paperwork? Does the school district have enough
discretion that it can quietly, without causing--because this
becomes very much peer pressure, sensitivity, especially as you
go into the junior high years. Are school districts allowed to
say, we know so and so works for Northwest or works for the
packing plant, and we need to provide that family a little help
and assistance here, and let us just cover the child's lunch
while the family is underemployed or not employed at all?
Mr. Bost. I think, first of all, we have to start with how
much--how long they are going to be unemployed or how long they
are laid off, because there are income requirements that the
family would have to meet regardless of whether they are laid
off or working. That is the first consideration. And so they
may be laid off for a month, but they still might have other
income, and so that has to be taken into consideration.
The second point that I want to make is are you talking
about under our proposal that talks about direct certification,
or are you talking about right now?
Ms. McCollum. I am talking about under your proposal, you
said there was going to be a lot of flexibility for the school
district, and so if the school district used this flexibility,
what kind of accountability measures would the school district
expect?
Mr. Bost. From?
Ms. McCollum. Well, I have a lot of National Guard families
right now. Some of them are having a hard time hanging onto
their homes, and so if a school district knew that and said,
gee, these families are overseas serving, let us help the
family out, they are having real challenging, difficult times
right here; their assets might look good, but provide a free or
reduced lunch. What would the school district expect the
Federal Government--if you saw a blip go up, would you be in
there saying, no, you can't do that?
Mr. Bost. We don't make any decisions. It is based on the
income of the family. So the income may go down, but they still
might not meet the eligibility requirements.
Ms. McCollum. You've answered my question.
Could I ask you, as you are rolling out this Department of
Defense program, how this is going to affect schools in
Minnesota, schools in other parts of the United States that do
not have military bases close to them?
Mr. Bost. You mean the fresh fruits and vegetables--.
Ms. McCollum. Yes, because I saw a list of bases. Are you
providing to military bases and the schools around, or is the
Department of Defense now delivering food all over the United
States?
Mr. Bost. Essentially there are selected bases and
Department of Defense locations all over the country that they
in turn purchase the fresh fruits and vegetables, and they
deliver it. It doesn't have to be in a base. It is not
necessarily--fresh fruits and vegetables are not necessarily
delivered to people who live on a base. They are delivered to
schools in various locations around the country. A distribution
point, maybe that would be a better way of describing it.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I would be really interested in
how that works and how they would be looking at rolling it out,
because to the best of my knowledge, no one in the Department
of Defense--.
Chairman Boehner. Currently we just have a pilot project
with regard to fresh fruits and vegetables. The distribution
process is being handled by the Department of Defense because
USDA doesn't have such a system at this point. DOD has done
this for a long time.
Ms. McCollum. Maybe that is why my school lunches were so
bad, being a military brat.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I notice that the nutritional guidelines indicate that a
young person should have 5 to 9 servings of fruits and
vegetables, and also in some of the materials we have here, it
indicates that roughly 45 percent of children consume no fruit,
and 20 percent eat less than 1 serving of vegetables per day,
which is a little bit alarming. I am sure it has some
correlation with some of the obesity we are seeing. I just
wondered if there is anything that the Department has done to
attempt to educate, change behavior, because it seems like this
is a little bit of a national problem.
Mr. Bost. Mr. Osborne, we have done all of those things. We
continue to work with the local school districts along with the
American School Food Service Association, one, to encourage
children to consume and to increase fruits and vegetables as a
part of a healthy diet. We have several campaigns that are
going on now; Eat Smart, Play Hard. We have a memorandum of
understanding with Health and Human Services to expand the Five
a Day Program.
And so there are several campaigns that we have ongoing now
even as we speak to hopefully turn the tide and get children to
increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables, along with
the DOD program that we talked about that actually distributes
fresh fruits and vegetables to schools, along with the pilot
that is going on in 4 States, where fruits and vegetables were
actually given to 100 schools in 4 States and an Indian
reservation. So we are always looking for those opportunities
to continue to provide those choices to children so that they
are able to eat it when it is put in front of them.
Mr. Osborne. A follow-up question. Since you have these
programs to educate, how are they administered? Do you try to
have teachers in the classroom become actively involved or
using public service announcements or using printed materials,
or all of those?
Mr. Bost. All of those, along with a major campaign that we
have going on with school systems and school districts and some
of the associations. Next week is National School Lunch Week,
and all of our staff will be traveling the country, going to
schools, talking about what we can do to continue to educate
teachers, administrators, parents. We also have teachers who
actually do that with some of the programs that they actually
do have in classrooms. We also have done work with food service
personnel in terms of providing them with information so that
they are able to make decisions and choices about the types of
foods that they purchase and how they prepare them.
And so it runs the entire gamut in terms of, one, providing
people with information and encouraging them to make some
different decisions and choices. And I don't want to minimize
this. We can do all of that, and we can continue to throw money
at all of that, but it gets down to that child going through
the line and what are they going to choose to eat. That is
where we need--we try to start to focus on that, but when you
have competing interests in some of the schools that we do have
around the country--and I am very sympathetic to many of the
financial challenges that schools have in terms of why they
offer a la carte meals. If you have a 12-year-old or 13-year-
old who is able to choose a hamburger, a cheeseburger, french
fries and a pizza as opposed to meatloaf, green beans and
something else, it is a hard sell for that child every day. But
what we are trying to do is to say to kids--and part of the
thing I talk about is eating that hamburger and french fries,
that is not bad. It is not bad for you, there are just concerns
when you eat it every day. You need to choose a variety of
foods that we are interested in you choosing. Do try to eat the
five fruits and vegetables, five to nine fruits and vegetables
a day, and that can take on different forms and shapes. And
encouraging new tastes for our children.
One of the things that did come out with our fresh fruits
and vegetable pilot in those 100 schools is that there were
some fruits, kiwis and other things, that kids had never
tasted. When they tasted it, they loved it. We are always
looking for opportunities to be a little bit more innovative
and a little bit more creative in terms of helping children and
parents and educators make more informed decisions and choices.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
South Carolina Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
missing most of this hearing. I sometimes wish I could divide
myself up a little bit better.
But I have a question I would like to ask you about the WIC
program. About 5 months ago, I got approached by a DPS,
Department of Public Safety, Undercover Special Crimes Unit
detective who had been in my court. I am a former judge, so he
knew me. He approached me in Houston with a problem in Harris
County of people stealing baby formula and selling it to the
WIC program to the tune of $250,000 a week is the estimated
amount of stolen merchandise being purchased by the WIC program
in Harris County alone. The next time he met with me, he
brought representatives of Wal-Mart, HEB, which is a local
chain in our State.
Mr. Bost. I am from Texas.
Mr. Carter. Good. Then you know what I am talking about.
And some of the folks from whatever Safeway calls themselves
now. They were showing me evidence of the loss from theft that
they were having there. He seemed to indicate to me that when
he had approached at least the WIC people locally, the response
that he got was that they are looking for the best price. Back
where I come from, we call that fencing stolen merchandise.
I was very concerned about it. I remain concerned. I have
since met with him again, and he has followed some of this gang
to Arizona and to California, and he is fairly confident that
they have got a bigger operation in California than they do in
Texas. A million dollars a month is, in my opinion, a pretty
good operation in Houston.
Do you have any information about that and what is being
done to stop fencing of stolen merchandise in Texas?
Mr. Bost. We have heard some of those stories. When we are
aware of it, of course, we work with the local law enforcement
agencies. We do sting operations through the Office of the
Inspector General to address those concerns.
I think part of the issue is what we have been able to see
in many instances is that you have people that are going into
HEB and actually stealing formula, so they are actually
stealing it from a supermarket and then selling it on the black
market to other entities. We have been able--whenever we find
that, usually they mark it, and we are able to trace it.
But there are problems with people essentially going into
stores, stealing everything, and then putting it on the market.
So it is not just specific to WIC, but we are aware of it, and
we are working with the law enforcement agencies and also the
State agencies to attempt to address this issue.
But formula is a major product that is very popular, that
is--it is like the automobiles. They release a list every year
about the most popular automobiles that are stolen. For
products that we deal in, formula is always at the top of that
list.
Mr. Carter. One of the problems that I have with this is if
we have someone who is in possession of dangerous drugs,
actually being in possession of those dangerous drugs is a
crime. If you can make money stealing baby formula, possession
of baby formula is not a crime, but if you have got a truck
full of baby formula that your professional shoplifters have
gotten for you that you are selling to the WIC program, and it
is generating $1 million a month worth of income, that is just
about as good as the drug business, especially if the Federal
Government is buying this through their WIC marketers, because,
as I understand it, he has clearly traced from the warehouse to
the WIC marketers, the smaller guys, because they sell it for
$7 to $9, sometimes $8 a unit, whatever that unit is, I assume
a can, versus the market price, which I understand is $11. And
then there is a cash rebate that comes back from manufacturers
on that somehow for these guys that buy it from them. So they
are making a real killing off this, the WIC merchants that are
buying this stuff. This also is a fairly large operation
involving as many as 50 people, both the people who do the
stealing and the people who buy it and warehouse it and then
sell it. To me that is organized criminal activity, and the
Federal Government shouldn't be involved in fencing merchandise
from organized criminal activity.
Mr. Bost. We aren't. Let me make that point real clear.
Essentially what happens is that an individual goes into a
supermarket and essentially steals a product and goes somewhere
else and sells it. It is a crime. It is criminal activity.
Whenever we are aware that a vendor is buying stolen
merchandise, we involve law enforcement officials, and we deal
with it very quickly and very swiftly. So whenever we are aware
of those things, we deal with it.
In addition to that, there has been a great deal of work
with our State partners to, one, make them aware that this is a
crime, and that they need to continue to work with their
vendors in their States to adequately address this problem. But
you are dealing with people who are shoplifters.
Mr. Carter. I actually think the Texas Legislature
addressed it this year, but they still--it is my understanding
to some extent, limited extent, the FBI is involved, but it is
my understanding from talking to the Special Crimes Unit, they
still feel like they are running up against sort of a stone
wall from the WIC Program.
Mr. Bost. I think it is something that we would be more
than happy to come and talk to you about. If there is something
that is occurring that they feel that we could help with, we
would be more than happy to do that. It is something that we
are aware of, it is something that we are on top of, and we are
working very diligently in our States to ensure that when we
find out about it, that we address it, and we address it very
swiftly.
Mr. Carter. When somebody like Wal-Mart is willing to come
to Washington to testify on this, as much as they like money, I
think they figure it is a pretty big problem. Thank you for
answering the questions.
Mr. Bost. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I commend you
for having this very important hearing. I am sorry that my
schedule didn't permit me to be here earlier. I do know some of
the questions that I had have already been talked about, over
certification, things of that nature; however, I would like to
ask Under Secretary Bost, there is a concern that many of us
are discussing regarding the question of obesity in our
elementary and secondary school children. Obesity in general is
something that we are really starting to, I think, finally
recognize is--we have always known that it could be a problem.
However, I think there is more and more focus now on the
question of obesity in general and, of course, to try to deal
specifically with some of the problems as relates to elementary
and secondary schools.
I just wonder what your department is doing, or has this
become a major concern? Has there been discussion regarding
what could be done in general about the problem?
Mr. Bost. One, let me say to you very clearly, this is a
major concern, and it is something that is very important to
us. As I shared with Representative Osborne, there are several
things that we are doing in the Department to hopefully start
to address this issue.
And it is real important to note also that we cannot do
this alone, that it is going to require a great deal of
cooperation between us, Health and Human Services, the
Department of Education, teachers and administrators.
But in terms of what we are doing, as I said before, we
have Changing the Scene, which is a kit that we have given to
schools that promotes a healthy school environment; also an Eat
Smart and Play Hard campaign, which uses a Power Panther
spokesperson, character, that helps deliver our communication
and nutrition and physical activity messages to schools. As I
said, we have a Five a Day memorandum of understanding with the
Department of Health and Human Services. There is also
information which is a leader's guide to afterschool nutrition
education that we have distributed to schools.
Last but not least, one of the things that I failed to
mention when I answered this question for Representative
Osborne and is also very important to us is things we are doing
in our WIC clinics in terms of nutrition education and also
promoting breast-feeding. The research indicates for those
children--and they don't know why this is the case, but for
those children that are breast-fed, they are not as likely to
be obese when they become older. And so we are encouraging and
promoting breast-feeding. And also there are many other very
positive benefits in terms of helping to address many of the
health considerations that young children have. And so there
are many things that we are doing to address the obesity issue
among children.
Last but not least, as a part of child nutrition
reauthorization, one of the proposals that we have included
would--if schools would create a healthy school environment,
which means that if they are going to have vending machines,
that they would offer healthier alternatives in their vending
machines, that there be a physical education or physical
activity component, that they help children avoid risky
behavior, if they could be classified as a healthy school
environment, then we would look at increasing their
reimbursement rate that we give them as a part of the National
School Lunch Program. We are also trying to build some
incentive-based programs to move schools in the direction of
addressing this issue.
And, one more time, it is also very important that we
engage parents--especially when you talk about elementary
schools--that we engage parents in these discussions and
activities and actions that we take to help them provide some
guidance to their children, because the research also indicates
this fact that is also very important. I think when we were
growing up, there was a much higher likelihood that this
occurred when we were kids than it is now, but for those
families that consistently sit down with their children,
parents and children who eat together, they are more likely to
eat appropriately and not be as overweight. And so families
have a very important role to play.
Mr. Payne. I know my time has expired. I just wanted to say
that I believe that also breakfast--the information that really
ties sometimes performance of a child with the school breakfast
program. I would hope that we would almost kind of look at the
universal availability of school breakfast programs in areas.
Then there was also a question about vitamins. I heard that
there was some concern about whether vitamins are helpful to
young people. If, in fact, they have poor nutrition, it might
be more helpful than if a child had good nutrition. That is
another whole question that I would have asked if my time had
not run out.
With that, I guess I have to yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late.
I want to kind of deviate my questions a little bit from
the questions that I have heard since I have been here.
Graduating from an urban public school and having relatives who
administer food lunch programs in urban public schools, one of
the things that is not a topic of what we are talking about but
related is--I just want to get your thoughts on have you heard
much from the trenches, so to speak, on a problem that occurs,
at least in my school district, where oftentimes food is being
taken but thrown away, and, kind of piggybacking on what my
colleague said, then the student goes to the candy machine and
gets three candy bars? Food being dumped essentially.
Mr. Bost. Essentially you are talking about plate waste.
Mr. Tiberi. Yes, and how we deal with that issue.
Mr. Bost. I have not heard a great deal about that. What we
usually have heard about is the child even not going through
the line, but going straight to the candy machine. I haven't
heard a great deal about that. If you have heard about it or
you have--.
Mr. Tiberi. Yes. I have a relative who just retired. She
was so frustrated by it, extremely frustrated. The students
that would throw away the better food would tend to not throw
away the food--the desserts, the chocolate milk or the pop, and
then compound it by going to the vending machine and flaunting
the fact that they were getting potato chips or a candy bar.
Mr. Bost. If there is something specific, I would be more
than happy to sit down with you, but that is not one of the
things we have heard, like I say, that I have heard, and we
spend a great deal of time in schools. I go to high schools,
elementary schools, middle schools around the country. That is
not usually what I hear. What I usually hear is about the kid
who doesn't even go through the line; or does go through the
line, they get what they like, and then go on to a candy or
vending machine. But I would be more than happy to sit down and
talk with you about it.
Mr. Tiberi. Mr. Yates, any thoughts?
Mr. Yates. I served 13 years on a school board. My oldest
son is a principal at a K-8 and his wife is a teacher in a
grammar school. It was interesting when my 5-year-old grandson
started kindergarten. He lives in California. I call home every
night, I ask him, I say, what was the most exciting thing of
your first day at school? He said, you know, Grandpa, I had the
opportunity to choose what I could have for lunch. That was
much more exciting than the studies.
Mr. Tiberi. I thought he might say the recall election.
Mr. Yates. Anyway, I think there are occasions where you
see it happen. I experienced it during my 13 years of service
on the school board. I don't really see that as something that
is a huge problem. It happens occasionally.
I think we have to be very aware of offering these school
children items that are healthful, such as if you are going to
have machines to offer drinks, make sure those drinks are
nutritious and healthful and not something that just fills you
up with sugar. So those are things we need to look at. I see
that happening throughout the schools.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. Before I dismiss the panel, Mr. Yates, we
were talking about beef before. I think you understand my
concern that what we go through in the commodity distribution
program to actually distribute beef to a school and the number
of operations and steps in the process, I continue to scratch
my head wondering why we go through all of this. Based on the
recommendations from the Food 2000 group, it is my hope that
the Department will continue to try to address these issues
with beef and move to more commercial standards.
Mr. Yates. Yes, we have moved to commercial standards as
far as our microbial testing program is concerned. As I stated
to you earlier, we want to make this a more seamless operation
by being able to provide to the processor on an on-time basis
with a product that he can immediately process into what the
school wants. It is a fresh product. It hasn't been frozen. We
are being able to provide a more economical commodity. He is
able to put that into a final product that is very fresh and
meets our specifications. Anything that you could recommend to
us in a way that we could make this work better, we would be
more than open to that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. I want to thank both of you for coming
and testifying. We appreciate your testimony. I am sure in the
coming months we will have an opportunity to meet with you
again. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. I would now like to seat our second
panel.
I want to welcome our second panel today. Let me begin by
introducing each of them before we get into all of their
testimony. Our first witness, Ms. Paula Cockwell, is the
manager of nutrition services and warehouse operations for the
Mapleton Public Schools and Adams County School District 14.
She has worked in the school food service industry since 1985.
She has been a director of child nutrition programs for 13
years. She recently completed a 2-year term as the American
School Food Service Association Public Policy and Legislative
Chair and is the current Colorado School Food Service
Association Public Policy and Legislative Chair. Welcome.
Our second witness will be Mr. Thomas Stenzel, president
and chief executive officer of the United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association. Prior to his current position, he served
as president of the International Food Information Council and
served 6 years on the U.S. Agricultural Policy Advisory
Committee for Trade. We welcome you.
Our third witness, Dr. Joanne Slavin, is professor of
nutrition at the University of Minnesota at St. Paul where she
teaches courses in human nutrition, life-cycle nutrition, diet
and disease. She is a member of the American Dietetic
Association, American Society for Nutritional Sciences,
American Association for Cancer Research, and serves as food
science communicator for the Institute of Food Technologists.
We welcome you.
Our fourth witness, Mr. Robinson Joslin, currently serves
as president of the Ohio Soybean Association as well as being a
member of the Ohio Farm Bureau, Corn Growers Association, Ohio
Wheat Growers and the Ohio Pork Producers Association. He grows
approximately 850 acres of corn, soybeans and wheat, producing
commodity grain and identity-preserved soybeans and used to be
one of my constituents. Used to be.
Our fifth witness in this group is Dr. Robert Heaney. He
holds the John A. Creighton All-University Professorship at
Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, where he works in the
department of medicine. He is an internationally known expert
in bone biology and has worked for more than 45 years studying
osteoporosis and the health effects of dietary calcium. I want
to welcome you.
As you all know, you have 5 minutes, thereabout. We are
pretty lenient around here, but 5 minutes or so. Then we will
ask questions after all five of you have testified.
With that, Ms. Cockwell, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF PAULA COCKWELL, MANAGER OF NUTRITION SERVICES,
ADAMS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #14, FOOD SERVICE DIRECTOR,
MAPLETON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, DENVER, COLORADO
Ms. Cockwell. Mr. Chairman, allow me to express our
appreciation to you and the Committee for holding this hearing.
The commodity distribution program is a very key part of our
school meal programs. Schools across the country depend on the
commodity foods purchased by USDA to help provide nutritious
meals to more than 28 million children every day.
Commodity distribution to States constitutes about 20
percent of the food used for the school lunch programs. My
programs generate $3.7 million in revenue each year. I spend
more than $1.25 million on food purchases. Without Federal
commodities, it would be nearly impossible for me to maintain a
financially self-supporting program and still provide meals
that meet our high nutrition and quality standards.
In the late 1980's, USDA convened a blue ribbon panel to
evaluate the quality and nutrition of foods in the commodity
program, resulting in improved product specifications and
nutritional content. More recent changes have reduced the
allowable fat levels in meat and other center-of-the-plate
items.
In 1999, USDA undertook a reengineering effort to identify
ways to further improve the commodity distribution program to
meet the needs of key constituents, the producers and the
consumers. I had the honor to serve as the leader for the
Commodity Order Reengineering Team. The team's goal was to
evaluate the system then in place and suggest alternative
approaches. I am pleased to highlight the recommendations from
our work group that have been incorporated into the Federal
commodity program.
More commodities now parallel comparable products in the
commercial sector. Evaluation showed that the additional costs
for manufacturers of maintaining separate production lines and
inventories inevitably passed through to the school district
customer. Reducing or eliminating these costs increases the
amount of agricultural products purchased by USDA and
distributed to schools. Additionally, USDA greatly expanded the
ability of further processors to substitute commercial product
for commodity product as long as they are truly equivalent.
USDA is also moving toward best value purchasing, which
considers price, reliability of the supplier, quality and the
acceptability of products to the consumers. I ask the Committee
to encourage the Department to continue to move toward this
model.
Additional team recommendations are still under
consideration by the Department; for example, the development
of a commercial specification for boneless beef with complete
seamless commodity processing. Also, further processed foods
are increasingly important to the majority of school food
service programs. As schools struggle to find qualified labor
and keep costs down, processed products provide product
consistency and maximize staff efficiencies.
Fully cooked end products also provide an added food safety
measure for schools. However, currently each State must enter
into an agreement with a processor, and processors interested
in doing business with multiple States must have an agreement
in each State. The team advised the use of national processing
contracts to facilitate processing availability to all schools.
USDA is testing this concept as a means to streamline the
program and reduce paperwork, and the Department should be
encouraged to continue with this effort.
USDA offers a wide variety of products to States; however,
States make the decision on the products that they offer to
local districts, sometimes limiting local choice. The team
heard from school districts that had been told that certain
products were unavailable, when, in fact, they were on the USDA
offer lists. For example, sometimes small States cannot
generate sufficient volume to meet the shipping minimums
imposed by USDA. As first steps to address this issue, the
Department has reduced minimum order levels and encouraged
cooperative buying among the States. They are also developing
an electronic ordering system which we hope will facilitate all
schools having access to the full array of products that the
Department offers.
An area of great interest to all of us is the availability
of high-quality fresh produce. I have the good fortune to be in
one of the eight States that were part of a pilot partnership
with the Department of Defense for the distribution of fresh
produce with a small portion of their entitlement commodity
allocation. Augmenting the Federal pilot program, our State was
able to negotiate with DOD so that school districts may
purchase all of their fresh produce under the contract, paying
for that portion that is not available under the commodity
program with other Federal meal reimbursement.
The DOD program is a huge success. It ensures high quality
and prices that reflect Federal economies of scale. I encourage
this Committee to expand this program by both increasing the
amount of commodity dollars available from the current
entitlement level from $50 million to $100 million and by
facilitating what Colorado has been able to do in allowing us
to buy through DOD beyond our commodity entitlement.
There are two additional areas where we believe this
Committee can have a positive effect on the Nation's farmers
and children. First, appropriate 5 cents in commodities for
school breakfasts. Schools currently receive commodity
reimbursement only for lunches. Five cents in breakfast
commodities will help schools increase the variety and
nutritional quality of school breakfasts and at the same time
help our growers.
The second area of concern is the way bonus commodities are
accounted for in the school meal funding formula. As you know,
a change imposed on the School Lunch Act in 1998 cut $50
million in commodity assistance for school meals by counting
bonus commodities, those purchased from market support, as part
of a school's entitlement commodities. For the past 4 years, in
a series of legislative actions, Congress has provided funding
for these bonus commodities and, more importantly, maintained
the level of entitlement commodities. I encourage the Committee
to continue these precedents by restoring the entitlement
commodities at least for fiscal year 2004 through the
continuing resolution extending the child nutrition programs or
through the agricultural appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, again I thank you
for this opportunity and look forward to our continued work
together for the good of America's children.
Chairman Boehner. [Presiding.] Ms. Cockwell, thank you for
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cockwell follows:]
Statement of Paula Cockwell, Manager of Nutrition Services, Adams
County School District 14 , Commerce City, Colorado, and Mapleton
Public Schools, Denver, Colorado on behalf of the American School Food
Service Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Paula Cockwell,
Manager of Nutrition Services for Adams County School District 14 in
Commerce City, Colorado, and Mapleton Public Schools in Denver,
Colorado. Additionally, I am the immediate past chair of the Public
Policy and Legislation Committee of the American School Food Service
Association.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to express our appreciation to you and the
Committee for holding this hearing. The commodity distribution program
is a key part of our school meal programs. Schools across the country
depend on the commodity foods purchased by USDA to help provide
nutritious meals to more than 28 million children every day.
As you know, Section 2 of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act makes it clear that one of the goals of the program is, ``to
encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural
commodities.'' The important marriage between agriculture and child
nutrition has stood the test of time and is still valid today.
The food distribution program makes enormous contributions to our
school lunch program. Commodities constitute approximately 20% of food
used by schools for the meal programs. My two school districts generate
$3.7 million in revenue each year. I spend more than $1.25 million on
food purchases. Without federal commodities, it would be nearly
impossible for me to maintain a financially self-supporting program and
still provide meals that meet our high nutrition and quality standards.
In the late 1980s USDA convened a blue ribbon panel to evaluate the
quality and nutrition of foods in the commodity program. The Department
implemented many of the panel's recommendations. Product specifications
have improved and the foods offered under the program are consistent
with our national nutrition and health goals. More recent changes have
reduced the allowable fat levels in meat and other center-of-the-plate
products further facilitating schools'' ability to meet federal
guidelines for nutritious meals in schools.
In 1999, USDA undertook a re-engineering effort to identify ways to
further improve the commodity distribution program to meet the needs of
its key constituents--producers and consumers. I had the honor to serve
as leader for the CORE (Commodity Order Re-Engineering) Team, the group
that looked into the food distribution program for schools. Our team
included representatives from schools, state commodity distribution
agencies, and USDA staff from the regional offices and three USDA
agencies with responsibility for the commodity program. We also
received significant input from our agriculture industry partners. The
team's goal was to evaluate the system then in place and consider
alternative approaches regardless of how radical or far-reaching those
proposals might be.
I am pleased to report that many of the recommendations that our
work group made have been incorporated into the federal commodity
program. We felt that commodities should, to the extent possible,
parallel comparable products in the commercial sector. The additional
costs of maintaining separate production lines and inventories
inevitably passes through to the consumer. Reducing or eliminating
these non-value-added costs increases the amount of agricultural
products purchased by USDA and distributed to schools. Additionally,
USDA greatly expanded the ability of further processors to substitute
commercial product for commodity product, as long as they are truly
equivalent products. Also as a result of the re-engineering process,
USDA is moving towards ``best-value'' purchasing that considers not
just price, but those factors like the reliability of the supplier and
the quality and acceptability of products to consumers. I ask the
Committee to encourage the Department to move toward this for a broad
range of products.
Some recommendations of the task force are still being considered
and support by the Committee for them would be greatly appreciated. For
example, further processed foods are increasingly important to many
school foodservice programs. As schools struggle to find qualified
labor and keep costs down, processing relieves the need for some
cooking staff. Further processed items provide a consistent product.
And, finally, with our concern for food safety, fully cooked end-
products are an added safety measure for schools. The current system
provides uneven access to these food items. Each state must enter into
its own agreement with a processor, and processors interested in doing
business in multiple states must have a separate contract for each. The
CORE team felt national processing contracts would facilitate
processing for all schools. USDA is testing the concept of a national
processing contract as a means to streamline the program and reduce
paperwork, and the Department should be encouraged to continue this
effort.
Along a similar vein, states sometimes limit the products offered
by USDA that will be available to schools within that state. During our
team process, we heard from school districts that had been told that
certain products were not available to them when they were, in fact, on
the offer lists USDA sent out. For example, a school in a small
northwestern state wanted low-fat ground turkey. The state did not
order any. The reason was that as a small state, they could not
generate sufficient volume to meet the shipping minimums imposed by
USDA. The Department has addressed this in several ways. They have
reduced minimum order levels and encouraged cooperative buying among
the states. Also, I am encouraged by the progress the Department has
made in developing an electronic commodity ordering system (ECOS) and
hope that this will facilitate all schools having access to the full
array of products the Department buys.
An area of great interest to us all is the availability of high
quality fresh produce. I have the good fortune to be in one of the
eight states that were part of a pilot partnership with the Department
of Defense for the distribution of fresh produce with a small portion
of their entitlement commodity allocation. Augmenting the federal pilot
program, our state was able to negotiate with DOD so that school
districts that choose to do so, may purchase all of their fresh produce
under the contract, paying for that portion that is not available under
the commodity program with other federal meal reimbursements. The DOD
program is an enormous success. It ensures high quality and prices that
reflect federal economies of scale. I encourage the Committee to expand
this program by both increasing the amount of commodity dollars
available from the current entitlement level from $50 million to $100
million, and by facilitating what Colorado has been able to do in
allowing us to buy through DOD beyond our commodity entitlement.
Finally, I would like to talk about the commodity reimbursement.
There are two areas where I believe this Committee can have a positive
effect for our farmers and our children. Schools currently receive
commodity reimbursement for every school lunch served. We believe this
needs to be extended to school breakfasts as well. Five cents in
breakfast commodities will help schools improve the nutrition quality
of school breakfast at the same time it helps our growers.
The other area of concern is the issue of bonus commodities and how
they are accounted for in the school meal funding formula. As you know,
a change imposed on the school lunch act in 1998 cut $50 million in
commodity assistance for school meals by counting bonus commodities,
those purchased for market support, as part of a school's entitlement
commodities. For the past four years, Congress has provided funding for
these bonus commodities and, more importantly, maintaining the level of
entitlement commodities in a series of legislative actions. I encourage
the Committee to continue this by restoring the entitlement
commodities, at least for fiscal year 2004, through the continuing
resolution extending the child nutrition programs, or through the
agricultural appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, again I thank you for this
opportunity and look forward to our continued work together for the
good of America's children. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Stenzel, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. STENZEL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, UNITED FRESH
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stenzel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. Since my written testimony offers plenty of detail
for the record, let me focus here on just one key question: Do
our Federal child nutrition programs adequately address today's
crisis in childhood nutrition and obesity?
There is no doubt that our Federal nutrition programs have
made a huge difference in feeding millions of American
children. School breakfast and lunch are a valiant attempt to
do good, but on any nutritional health scale today, our
Nation's children are not getting healthier, but are instead on
the front edge of an epidemic of obesity, diabetes and a whole
array of chronic diseases. They are not making the right
choices among foods, and they are not getting enough exercise.
Schools are not the only solution to this crisis, but they have
to be the cornerstone of teaching different behavior to the
next generation.
Today there is an amazing consensus among U.S. and world
health authorities for the simple health message that people
need to eat five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables
every day for good health. That advice literally leaps out to
Americans from the Federal dietary guidelines, from the Healthy
People 2010 goals and numerous other health recommendations.
But despite that consensus, our Nation is a poster child for
long-term self-destruction.
USDA's Economic Research Service reports that children age
6 to 19 average only one-half the recommended levels of fruit
and vegetable consumption, and as Mr. Osborne pointed out
earlier, 45 percent of children eat no fruit on a given day at
all, and 20 percent eat less than one serving of vegetables.
While we can demand that school meals meet nutrition standards
on the plate, we can't force-feed the children. They make
different food choices every day not just from the school
vending machines and the a la carte items, but from the
convenience stores and supermarkets and restaurants in the
community. We are not going to insulate them from those
choices. But giving students healthy meals that don't meet the
quality and taste tests of that other competition dooms these
programs to wishful thinking and actually in our case puts kids
off of fruit and vegetable consumption instead of encouraging
promotion.
My suggestion today is simple: Look at what works. If we
see something that works, honor it, promote it, fund it and
expand it. So I am going to ask the Committee to look long and
hard at the fruit and vegetable pilot program that we have
already talked about extensively. This small program, $6
million in only 107 schools in 4 States and the Zuni Indian
reservation, is rocking the nutrition world.
I have to speak plainly. After spending hundreds of
millions of dollars on elaborate nutrition education programs
over the years, we finally found one simple way to get kids to
seriously increase their fruit and vegetable consumption: Give
them a good quality fresh fruit or vegetable snack in the
school. It is that simple. Total cost: 25 cents per student per
day, less than the cost of most of those brochures we pass out.
It is a simple concept, but let me thank USDA and the Food and
Nutrition Service. They did a fantastic job implementing that
pilot so well and so quickly. And also the partnership of the
National Cancer Institute's Five a Day Program has been key to
its success.
If any members of the Committee have not yet studied the
ERS report to Congress about this program, I urge you to do so.
In a nutshell, it is simple. USDA gives grants to schools that
then purchase and distribute fresh fruits and vegetables as a
snack to students in their schools. The schools can choose what
fruits and vegetables the kids like to eat, what time of day to
deliver the snack and how they choose to deliver them to the
students. In the pilot most of the elementary schools delivered
a tray of fruit or cut vegetables to each classroom where
teachers often use them in their lessons. Many of the high
schools set up kiosks in the hall to provide easy snack choices
for fast-paced kids while they are changing classes.
Could a simple program like this really make that big a
difference? Look at the results. First, kids actually liked the
choices, and they ate the fresh produce with no waste. The ERS
reports what kids were eating: fresh carrots, celery, broccoli,
cauliflower, cucumbers, tomatoes and peppers; the most popular
fruits, fresh apples, bananas, oranges, pears, grapes, melon,
pineapple, kiwi and strawberries. In this small pilot, most
kids' consumption increased by at least a whole serving a day.
That beats any long-term nutrition education program in
actually changing behavior that I am aware of.
Compare that result with the types of fruits and vegetables
that USDA is buying in its commodity purchasing programs today:
dried trail mix, canned peaches, frozen strawberries and the
like. There is nothing wrong with those products, but they are
just not competitive in the real world of our children's food
choices today. How many of you go to the grocery store to shop
for your kids and choose frozen strawberries in a little tin or
canned peaches? We just don't do it.
Let me quote again from this ERS report about what the
schools were feeding the kids in this pilot program. Less than
half of the schools served dried fruit of any kind. According
to observers, dried fruit seemed to be less popular with
children than fresh fruits and vegetables. Yet just a few days
ago on September 30, the last day of the fiscal year, USDA
proudly reported a purchase of $42.2 million of dried fruits
and tree nuts for the child nutrition programs. $42.2 million.
And we can't find the money to expand the simple pilot program
that is only funded at $6 million right now? Something is
terribly wrong.
Yet I think the answer may be simple. In the 2002 farm
bill, the Congress enacted a requirement that USDA purchase a
minimum of $200 million of fruits and vegetables for school
lunch and other programs. That is required. They have to
purchase a minimum of $200 million. USDA could designate a
portion of those funds that are already committed by law to
expanding this fresh fruit and vegetable pilot program. For
less than the amount that USDA spent on dried fruit and nuts
last year, USDA could expand the pilot program to 25 schools in
all 50 States. That is only 1,250 schools out of many
thousands, 98,000 schools. But we need to extend this pilot to
see if it works as well as it has thus far.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by reading you a letter. I
have here for the Committee today over 100 letters and e-mails
and comments from teachers and PTA leaders, parents and school
food service officials who can firsthand testify to the value
of this product. Dear Chairman Boehner, my name is Kathleen
Green, and I'm the principal of an elementary school here in
Iowa. We were blessed to have been the site for a fruit and
vegetable pilot program this year. I cannot begin to tell you
how much this has added to our neighborhood children. Our
poverty rate is 64 percent, and most of the children here eat
free or reduced lunch. We have noticed a decrease in the amount
of food that is thrown away during our lunches. The children
have experienced fruit and veggies that have previously never
been encountered. They have learned that fruits and vegetables
are a desirable snack instead of packaged, non-nutritious,
overprocessed carbohydrates. The students have reported that
when they have been in the grocery store, they show their
parents what they have been eating at school and ask them to
buy it. It has actually been a family learning experience. Many
of our families think that a snack must be something with flour
and sugar, and their children are actually teaching them a more
healthful way. Thank you for this wonderful pilot program.
Please, please, give us the chance to depend on this program.
Money spent on early childhood nutrition is gold.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Stenzel.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenzel follows:]
Statement of Thomas E. Stenzel, President and CEO, United Fresh Fruit &
Vegetable Association
Introductions
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Tom Stenzel. I am President and CEO of United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Association, the industry's national trade organization representing
growers, packers, processors, marketers and distributors of all
varieties of fresh fruits and vegetables, working together with our
retail and foodservice customers, and our suppliers. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before the Committee on behalf of the U.S. fruit
and vegetable industry regarding the future direction of federal child
nutrition policy.
Across the life span, proper nutrition is critical in promoting
health, preventing disease, and improving quality of life. Over a
decade of research has revealed the health benefits of increased fruit
and vegetable consumption in reducing the risk of cancer and numerous
other serious illnesses including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.
According to federal government statistics, better nutrition could
reduce the cost associated these diet-related diseases by a minimum of
$71 billion each year, enough to fully fund the entire USDA. Therefore
federal nutrition policy and assistance programs should support
incentives and key strategies that help Americans reach national health
goals.
With obesity reaching epidemic proportions in the United States,
greater attention must be focused on increasing produce consumption as
a public health solution. The fruit and vegetable industry has the good
fortune to offer consumers a healthy and nutritious product that is
increasingly recognized as critical to the prevention of chronic
diseases and maintaining overall good health. Therefore, increasing
federal support and funding to promote fruit and vegetable consumption
for chronic disease prevention and to reduce obesity should be a top
priority for the nation.
Over the past several years, the fruit and vegetable industry has
become aware of the importance of nutrition policy and involved in
child nutrition policy. Previously, our industry had little involvement
with child nutrition reauthorization efforts, leaving this process
mostly to those who had a more historical association with these
important programs. Frankly, we have been surprised with what we've
learned. Despite the best efforts of many on this Committee and in the
Congress, the nutritional health of our nation's children has in far
too many cases been secondary to other considerations.
When states don't have adequate refrigeration or
distribution systems, we still feed kids from 10 pound cans of soggy
beans, instead of offering fresh vegetables they might like.
We ask school officials to offer healthy meals, but low
reimbursement rates encourage them to sell unhealthy competitive foods
to break even on the business.
Our supplemental benefits program to pass on surplus
commodities from American agriculture is a free-for-all among commodity
groups to fight for sales, leaving kids high-fat, and poor quality
products that often wouldn't move through mainstream supermarkets.
When the Congress for the past two years has asked USDA
to add fruits and vegetables to the WIC program, we find out that WIC
is more of an entitlement program for entrenched commodities, than for
citizens who need a healthier WIC package.
It is clear that with obesity, diabetes and other nutrition-related
chronic diseases at epidemic proportions in the United States,
something has to change. Mr. Chairman, we submit that child nutrition
programs must put public health first, and guarantee that school
lunches, breakfasts, after-school snacks, and WIC become part of the
solution rather than part of the problem. Congress must develop
legislation that makes healthy meals, a healthy school food
environment, and a healthy start for WIC recipients our nation's top
priority in child nutrition programs.
So, how can we do that? As you review all the testimony before the
committee--from the school foodservice association, the anti-hunger
cause, the consumer groups, and more--you'll find that the one common
goal of every group is increasing the availability of fresh fruits and
vegetables in child nutrition programs. It doesn't matter whether we're
talking about school lunch or WIC, the Committee should keep one
overriding principle in mind as you write this bill: What are we doing
to increase fresh fruits and vegetables in child nutrition program?
Core Objectives for Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Increasing federal support and funding to create greater awareness
of the benefits provided by fruit and vegetable consumption with
respect to disease prevention and intervention efforts is a top
priority of the produce industry. Ultimately, we believe the goal of
any nutrition policy developed by Congress, the Administration, and
interest groups should ensure federal child nutrition feeding programs
support and encourage the health and well being of all Americans.
Simply stated, the produce industry's supports the overall nutrition
policy goal:
Federal nutrition policy should be developed which ensures the
increase of produce consumption by focusing efforts to reshape
national nutrition policy to anchor fruits and vegetable at the
``center of the plate.'' In turn, the federal government should
elevate its financial investment into nutrition program
priorities to better address the significant role fruit and
vegetables play in health promotion and disease prevention for
all Americans. Ultimately, the goal of federal nutrition policy
should be to extend, expand and enhance policies that recognize
and would directly encourage fruit and vegetable as critical to
promoting health and preventing an array of chronic diseases.
Within an overall commitment to increasing fresh fruits and
vegetables in these programs, let me highlight several core priorities
for you this afternoon.
We support the recommendation of the American School
Foodservice Association to increase reimbursement rates with the
concept of a 10-cent per meal ``healthy children supplement'' to be
devoted to improving the quality and healthfulness of school meals.
Without greater funds, schools will continue to be forced to buy the
lowest quality, cheapest, and least fresh product available.
We support increased school breakfast programs, including
expansion of the program to all children at no cost, and increased
provision of commodities under the breakfast program.
We support a new ``Healthy Foods for Healthy Kids
Initiative,'' to provide $10 million annual for grants to states and
school districts for innovative projects such as salad/garden bars,
healthy vending programs, cold storage and other creative ways to
increase fresh produce.
We support expansion of the DOD fresh program from $50
million annually to $100 million annually. This critical program is
oversubscribed each year as it is the most practical way schools can
receive frequent small deliveries of fresh produce under USDA programs.
We support making USDA commodity purchases for schools
conform to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. It makes no sense
to take high-fat or excess commodities and give those to schools. Let's
make sure to provide commodities in the proportion called for in the
Dietary Guidelines.
We support a major research and education agenda at USDA
to reflect its new commitment to the National 5 A Day Partnership. This
program traditionally led by the National Cancer Institute has been
expanded to multiple branches of government and public private
partners. We commend Under Secretary Bost and Secretary Veneman for
signing a Memorandum of Understanding with HHS supporting the 5 A Day
Program, and now we need to see this successful program grow.
Specifically, we support the USDA appoint 5 A Day coordinators in each
state to work with state and local partners, as well as designated a
permanent 5 A Day office within USDA to provide national leadership.
Finally, on WIC, we strongly support the science-based
revision of the WIC packages to increase fruits and vegetables offered
to recipients. On April 24, 2000, USDA published, in the Unified Agenda
section of the Federal Register, a notice about a rule FNS was
developing to revise the WIC food packages to add nutrient-dense leafy
and other dark green and orange vegetables to food packages for women
and children. The time line contained in that notice indicated that a
proposed rule would be published in September 2000. You know the rest--
even after several years of direction from Congress to publish the
revised WIC package proposal, USDA has failed to do so. While USDA now
seeks to have yet another study of the WIC program, the Congress should
direct USDA to publish a proposed final rule within 120 days of this
legislation's enactment so that further delay is not allowed.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an exhaustive list, but gives you a sense
of the clarity and specificity of the recommendations contained in our
document titled A Fresh Start to Better Nutritional Choices--2003 Child
Federal Policy Recommendations for Child Nutrition Programs which is
attached to my prepared statement. This document includes 31 specific
legislative recommendations covering seven key issue areas in child
nutrition. I ask you to examine all of these areas for cost-effective
and successful strategies for increasing fresh fruits and vegetables
throughout child nutrition programs.
Expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program
The single most important program I want to talk with you about
today is USDA's fresh fruit and vegetable pilot program launched in the
2002 Farm Bill. On behalf of the 107 schools in the pilot program, I
bring you unqualified and enthusiastic support from teachers, parents,
school foodservice officials, principals, school nurses,--and yes, even
the kids--for continuing and expanding the fresh fruit and vegetable
pilot program.
In the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress authorized a $6 million Fruit and
Vegetable Pilot program in fiscal year 03 to provide free fruit and
vegetable snacks to students in 25 schools each in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana and Iowa, and seven schools in the Zuni Nation in New Mexico.
In record time, USDA organized a basic pilot program and sent an
announcement to the states, wondering whether many schools would
volunteer to participate. With over 800 schools coming forward, USDA
was hard pressed to select just 107 schools to participate in the
program. Because of the efforts of Chairman Boehner and this committee,
the program has been extended for the current schools through the
fiscal year 04 school year.
Beginning in October 2002, the pilot program has produced an
unprecedented success story changing the lives of children and the
healthy food environment of every school participating. On March 25-26,
2003, USDA and the National Cancer Institute, supporter of the National
5 A Day Program, co-hosted a conference in Indianapolis of teachers,
food service personnel, principals, school nurses, parent-teacher
organizations, education administrators and more to report preliminary
results of the program. The reports, from participants in the
conference are overwhelming.
``In my 32 years of teaching, I've never seen a program make
such a tremendous difference in the lives of our kids.''
Teacher
``If we don't have the fruit and vegetable snack program next
fall, I'm not coming to school the first week because the kids
would kill me.'' Foodservice Director
``Visits to our nursing office are down, and the kids are
missing less school due to sickness.'' School Nurse
``Kids are trying new fruits and vegetables and then asking
their parents to buy them at home.'' Teacher
``We didn't expect it, but kids are actually eating more fruits
and vegetables from the regular school lunch, and our overall
sales are up.'' Foodservice Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS)
has further backed up the positive result of this program. In May they
released a report to Congress citing that participating schools thought
the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program was successful and feel
strongly that the pilot should be continued. As you are aware, the ERS
was directed by Congress to develop a report this year to evaluate the
pilot program. ERS based their analyses on site visits to schools,
administrative records, interviews, focus groups, and other people
directly involved in the administration of the pilot program. In the
report, schools believed that the pilot program lessened the risk of
obesity, encouraged children to eat healthier foods, increased
children's awareness of a variety of fruits and vegetables, and helped
children who would otherwise go hungry eat more food. The report cited
that 99% of the schools thought the program was successful and all but
two schools reported little to no food waste. Finally, USDA's Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Eric Bost has
testified that the Administration would like to extend and
significantly expand this important program as part of the Senate Child
nutrition hearings held earlier this year. We want to salute the
Administration for their great work of getting the pilot program
started and implemented as well as their strong support for expanding
this important program to more states.
After decades of working to teach school kids to make healthy food
choices, we've finally learned the secret to increasing their
consumption--put appealing, good-tasting, fresh fruits and veggies in
front of them and they'll love you for it. All this just because the
government spent a modest amount to give them a healthy fruit and
vegetable snack at school. More importantly, that single lesson may
help launch the most effective program in truly transforming the school
food environment and increasing actual consumption of fruits and
vegetables to meet U.S. Dietary Guidelines. With the rapidly growing
obesity epidemic, we need to commit to providing students with healthy
options, nutrition education, and programs that work to make a
difference in the eating patterns of school children and to encourage
healthy eating habits that last a lifetime. The fruit and vegetable
pilot program must be expanded to reach school children in all 50
states. When we're lucky enough to find a simple program that works,
let's not keep reinventing the wheel but simply go forward aggressively
to make this available across the country.
USDA Procurement and Distribution Systems
We also greatly appreciate the Committee's interest in USDA's
procurement and distribution system and the opportunity to discuss this
system with you. The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
purchased and distributed U.S. produced products since 1935. Purchases
are authorized under Section 32 for the Agricultural Act of 1935. This
Act was designed to bolster declining agricultural commodity prices
during the Depression and to help feed the growing number of hungry
Americans. Through Section 32 of the Act, permanent appropriation was
authorized that provides, in part, funds to the Secretary of
Agriculture on an annual basis for surplus removal and price support
for commodity markets. Section 32 funds are allocated each year to AMS
procurement staff to purchase poultry and egg products, meat, fish, and
fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. Besides Section 32
purchases, AMS also purchases products on behalf of FNS for other
Federal food assistance programs. Recipients include the elderly,
Indian reservations, needy families, and the homeless.
AMS purchases must satisfy three goals--support markets, provide
commodities that meet entitlement needs and be 100% domestic grown and
processed. The major outlet for commodities purchased is the National
School Lunch Program. Besides the entitlement funds which are allocated
to AMS each fiscal year to meet school lunch commodity needs, Section
32 funds are also held in reserve by the Secretary for emergency
surplus removal needs and disaster feeding programs. The reserve is
called Section 32 contingency funds and can be replenished each fiscal
year up to $500 million. The contingency funds are available for market
stability programs when Section 32 entitlement funds are not available
or when entitlement funding is insufficient to meet market needs. AMS
may also purchase commodities for school lunch entitlement with funds
authorized under Section 6 of the National School Lunch Act. This Act
provides for the purchase of commodities without regard for surplus
removal needs. USDA commodity procurement purchased about $617 million
worth of fruits and vegetables in fiscal year 2001. Of this amount less
than 5% ($32 million) of those purchases were for fresh fruits and
vegetables. The bulk of this funding went to dried, canned, and frozen
fruits and vegetable purchases.
One must now ask so what's the big deal if it is canned, frozen,
fresh, or dried? Unfortunately, when states don't have adequate
infrastructures for their schools to adequately refrigerate,
distribute, or prepare fresh produce, we are inclined to continue to
feed kids from bulk cans of soggy vegetables or frozen fruit, instead
of offering fresh produce they might like. As we have seen with the
pilot program is does make a difference and can have an impact on
children eating fruits and vegetables. In fact ERS's own report on the
pilot stated that children preferred fresh fruits and vegetables over
the dried trail mix and fruit. Therefore USDA's current procurement and
distribution system is woefully inadequate to handle fresh produce for
the federal child nutrition programs.
USDA has stated many times having a difficult time buying fresh
produce in part because of the distribution system at the department is
adequate to handle highly perishable products. It is our belief that
due to lack of infrastructure investment in schools by the federal
government, the ability to provide fresh fruits and vegetables for
school feeding programs continues to be inadequate. In addition,
logistical transportation issues continue to impede the delivery and
availability of fresh fruits and vegetables in school feeding programs.
This must infrastructure hurdle must be changed and the Committee has
an opportunity to take action ot make a change now.
One program that has worked is the ``DOD Fresh Program.'' The 2002
Farm includes language which allows for additional purchases under
Section 32. This program provides $50 million in funding each year for
the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for the schools, pursuant
to existing authority under the School Lunch Act. Through a 1995
memorandum of agreement between the AMS, FNS, and the Defense Personnel
Support Center (DPSC), the Department of Defense serves as the
servicing agency for the procurement of these fresh fruits and
vegetables through the ``DOD Fresh'' program.
Through this unique partnership between USDA and the Department of
Defense, the utilization of fresh fruits and vegetables in schools is
increasing. DOD/DPSC has provided a mechanism for delivering smaller
quantities, less than a truckload, of fresh fruits and vegetables to
schools and Indian reservations. DOD's distribution system is able to
make more frequent deliveries of a greater variety of fresh fruits and
vegetables in smaller delivery windows. The DOD program has been
successful because the fruits and vegetables arrive in good condition
and in smaller quantities that can be used while they are still fresh
and in time for the planned school menus. DOD delivers fresh fruits and
vegetables to 39 States, Indian Reservations, Guam and Puerto Rico in
support of the National School Lunch Program and the Food Distribution
Program on Indian Reservations. About 200 produce items of domestic
origin are available for schools through the program. Most of these
foods are available nationwide, but many are only regionally available.
While the DOD program has been extremely successful, one must ask
why the Department of Agriculture cannot find the ability to address
procurement and distribution problems for fresh produce. There answer
for the last 8 years has been to just contract with the Department of
Defense to handle this situation. We believe that this must change and
USDA must take responsibility for targeting adequate resources to
address their infrastructure needs for fresh produce.
Congressional Action to Enhance Fruits and Vegetables in Child
Nutrition Programs
There is no more important issue facing our country than investing
in our children to fight today's alarming obesity and health crises. We
are pleased that Congress is now recognizing the importance of
significantly increasing the availability of fresh fruits and
vegetables in federal nutrition programs and give children's nutrition
the priority it deserves with the introduction of several important
legislative bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.
H.R. 2592, The Healthy America Act, introduced in June by
Congressman Adam Putnam (R-FL) and Congressman Dennis Cardoza (D-CA),
is designed to significantly increase the availability of fresh fruits
and vegetables in nutrition programs supported by the federal
government. The Healthy America Act includes a number of priorities
submitted to Congress in April during Senate testimony by United
Chairman of the Board Karen Caplan, Frieda's, Inc and recommendations
presented to the Committee today. The Act calls for expansion of the
fruit and vegetable pilot snack program to schools in all 50 states,
inclusion of fresh fruits and vegetables in the WIC program, increased
funding for the school breakfast program, and a doubling of the
Department of Defense fresh produce purchase program for schools.
Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA) has introduced H.R. 2832, the
Healthy Nutrition for America's Children Act which would expand the
fruit and vegetable pilot program to all 50 states. Just last week
Congressman Hastings spoke to the students in his district about the
benefits of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet. We want to
also salute Congressman Hasting, Congressman Osborne, and Congressman
Wilson and the other House cosponsors for their support to expand the
pilot program.
With the introduction of these bills, now is the time for all of us
to work together in a bipartisan fashion to put in place actual
solutions to these challenges, not excuses for failing to act. Congress
must develop legislation to make healthfulness, freshness and quality
equal components of school breakfasts and lunches, to build a healthier
school environment that truly teaches lifelong wise food choices, and
to launch a smarter start for WIC recipients that can be incorporated
into healthy diets long after leaving the program. These legislative
initiatives take us down that path. We strongly encourage Committee
Members to include this legislation in the Committee's work on
developing child nutrition reauthorization legislation this year.
Conclusion
Since 1946, with the creation of the National School Lunch Program,
child nutrition programs have been a vital link in providing access to
nourishing meals for 25 million school children each day. Congress is
now debating future funding and options for child nutrition programs
such as school lunches, breakfast, after-school and summer programs,
the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program and more. With
nutrition research continuing to confirm the importance of consuming 5-
to-9 servings a day of fruits and vegetables, and obesity reaching
epidemic proportions, these child nutrition programs are a critical
opportunity to improve public health.
Yet, the importance of fruits and vegetables not only for nutrition
but as a tool for teaching children healthy choices over a lifetime has
been too often overlooked in these programs. I don't need to repeat the
facts about today's crisis in childhood obesity and poor nutrition,
which is leading to a future legacy of disease and staggering health
care costs. We tell WIC recipients to eat more fruits and vegetables,
but the WIC food packages don't include these very products. We tell
schools to serve more fruits and vegetables, and then supply them with
heavily processed foods and surplus commodities, rather than the
freshest highest quality produce that kids would like to eat. Now, that
can change as Congress renews and updates the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
It's a tragedy that research shows that on any given day, 45% of
children eat no fruit and 20% eat less than one serving of vegetables.
Yet at the same time, a GAO study released in September 2002 found
federal nutrition programs such as the School Lunch program and the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) did not reach their potential for increasing the consumption of
fruit and vegetables to yield health benefits for Americans. With
obesity rates reaching epidemic proportions in the United States,
greater attention must be focused on increasing fruit and vegetable
consumption as a public health solution. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I
will be happy to answer any questions at this time and look forward to
working with you during your consideration of this important
reauthorization process.
Attachments
a. A Fresh Start to Better Nutritional Choices--2003 Child Federal
Policy Recommendations for Child Nutrition Programs. United Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Association, (April 2003).
b. USDA's Fruit and Vegetable Program Works! Produce for Better
Health Foundation and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association,
(May 2003).
______
[Attachments to Mr. Stenzel's statement have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
Chairman Boehner. Ms. Slavin.
STATEMENT OF JOANNE L. SLAVIN, PROFESSOR OF NUTRITION,
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION, UNIVERSITY OF
MINNESOTA
Ms. Slavin. Thank you for the opportunity to submit verbal
and written testimony relevant to the nutritional needs of
children and dietary requirements of the National School Lunch
Program. I am here on behalf of the Wheat Foods Council, a
nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public awareness
of the importance of grain foods, whole grains and fiber in a
healthful diet.
Grain foods provide many elements essential to growing
children: complex carbohydrates; vitamins such as niacin,
thiamin, riboflavin and folic acid; minerals important to
children such as iron; plant protein; phytochemicals; and
dietary fiber. Research continues to support grain foods at the
base of the USDA food guide pyramid, with whole grains
comprising a significant part of the base. The current U.S.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that Americans eat a
variety of grain foods each day with particular focus on whole
grains.
Whole grain foods have been linked to protecting people
from a number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular
disease, cancer, and diabetes. The reauthorization of the Child
Nutrition Act, along with the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act, provides Congress with the opportunity to
review and strengthen current nutrition standards for grain
foods, particularly whole grains.
When the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children was
implemented in 1995, whole grain foods and fiber intake were
not included as requirements because recommendations were not
available at that time. Since 1995, the 2000 dietary guidelines
for Americans changed to a new focus on grain foods with an
emphasis on whole grains, and in 2002 the Institute of Medicine
established for the first time adequate intake levels of
dietary fiber for children and adults.
The benefits of consuming adequate levels of dietary fiber
are important for children as well as adults. Unfortunately,
both children and adults do not consume enough fiber. Whole
grain foods and their refined grain counterparts are important
contributors of fiber. For example, whole wheat bread provides
two or more grams of fiber per slice while white bread supplies
about half a gram per slice. For Americans, white bread is an
important contributor to dietary fiber in the diet, and as most
parents know, white bread is a favorite choice for children.
Children are also familiar with ready-to-eat cereals and
cereal snacks. Ready-to-eat cereal-based products can help
children meet their dietary fiber intake needs because many
ready-to-eat cereals contain 2 to 5 grams of fiber.
Led by the Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy
People 2010 targets the needs for Americans age 2 and older to
consume at least three servings of whole grains per day. Using
this goal as a guideline, the inclusion of a whole grain choice
in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast
Program will benefit our Nation's children.
However, the serve-it-and-they-will-eat-it philosophy is
not recommended. Schools will need pilot programs similar to
the USDA's pilot fruit and vegetable program, along with
education of classroom and marketing resources, to help
children increase their intake of whole grain foods.
School food programs provide excellent opportunities for
children from all socioeconomic backgrounds to try new foods
and develop healthy eating patterns. Many experts believe
nutrition intervention should begin before 6th grade because
children are not as resistant to change. We know whole grains
are good for children, but if we want children and adults to
increase whole grain consumption, we need to introduce whole
grains to children when they are eager to learn.
One way schools could help children increase whole grain
consumption is to introduce whole grain foods gradually.
Serving partial whole grain foods can help achieve this goal.
For example, schools could offer sandwiches made with one piece
of whole grain bread and one piece of white bread; pasta dishes
with mixed with half portions of whole grain pasta.
Manufacturers are generally very eager to sell products to
school food services, due to volume, and once a whole grain
standard is implemented, it is likely they will find ways to
make whole grain foods more attractive to children.
Children enjoy grain foods for many reasons, and we know
that children are more likely to eat grain foods than fruits
and vegetables. A 2002 report to Congress on plate waste and
school nutrition programs showed that children wasted 1.6 to 3
times more fruits and vegetables on their plates than they
wasted breads and other grain foods.
Grain foods are also popular with school food service
personnel. In fact, a recent survey showed that 80 percent of
food service personnel surveyed were somewhat or very motivated
to serve whole grain foods in schools, and 88 percent believed
whole grain foods will provide health benefits to students if
they are included on school menus.
Whether children are served whole or enriched grain foods,
both options provide tremendous nutritional benefits. Grain
foods are often misunderstood, and most people do not know that
both white bread and whole grain bread are rich in
antioxidants. In fact, both white bread and whole grain bread,
on average, contain as much or more antioxidant activity as
common fruits and vegetables. Children at a young age may not
be as concerned about the health benefits of grains, but it is
our job to ensure that they have every opportunity to include
them in their diet.
With all the myths surrounding protein and fat in popular
weight loss diets, carbohydrate-based foods appear to be
unappreciated by the media and misdirected consumers.
Nutritionists who are knowledgeable about the importance of
consuming a well-balanced diet need your help to ensure that
children and consumers select a diet rich in grain-based foods.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. On
behalf of the Wheat Foods Council and myself, we urge you to
legislate and fund whole grain offerings and pilot programs for
the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition
programs.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Slavin.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Slavin follows:]
Statement of Joanne L. Slavin, Ph.D., R.D., Professor of Nutrition,
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota
October 3, 2003
The Honorable John A. Boehner
Chairman
Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-6100
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit verbal and written
testimony relevant to the nutritional needs of children and dietary
requirements of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). I am here on
behalf of the Wheat Foods Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated
to increasing public awareness of the importance of grain foods, whole
grains, and fiber in a healthful diet.
Grain foods provide many elements essential to growing children--
complex carbohydrates; vitamins such as niacin, thiamin, riboflavin and
folic acid; minerals important to children, such as iron; plant
protein; phytochemicals and dietary fiber. Research continues to
support grain foods at the base of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, with
whole grains comprising a significant part of the base. The 2000
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee emphasized whole grain
consumption because they recognized the health benefits associated with
eating whole grain foods. The current U.S. Dietary Guidelines for
Americans recommend that Americans eat a variety of grain foods each
day, with particular focus on whole grains. This was a wise addition to
the guidelines and, as a result of evolving research on grains in the
diet, it is anticipated that the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee will update the guidelines with a whole grain serving
recommendation.
Whole grain foods have been linked to protecting people from a
number of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer,
and diabetes. The reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, along
with the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, provides
Congress with the opportunity to review and strengthen current
nutrition standards for grain foods, particularly whole grains.
The NSLP not only contributes to the nutritional well-being of
children, it also acquaints children with healthy dietary choices
because the program requires participating schools to offer foods that
meet set nutritional standards. When the School Meals Initiative for
Healthy Children was implemented in 1995, whole grain foods and fiber
intake were not included as requirements because recommendations were
not available at that time. Since 1995, the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans changed to a new focus on grain foods, with an emphasis on
whole grains and, in 2002, the Institute of Medicine established, for
the first time, adequate intake levels of dietary fiber for children
and adults.
The recommended dietary intake of fiber for school-age children
ranges from 25 grams of total fiber per day (four- to eight-year-old
children), to as high as 38 grams per day (14- to 18-year-old boys)\1\.
Recommendations are based on caloric intake and, as children grow and
need more calories, they also need more dietary fiber.
The benefits of consuming adequate levels of dietary fiber are
important for children as well as adults. Unfortunately, both children
and adults do not consume enough dietary fiber\1\.
Whole grain foods and their refined grain counterparts are
important contributors of dietary fiber. For example, whole-wheat bread
provides two or more grams of fiber per slice, and white bread supplies
about 0.5 grams of dietary fiber per slice\2\. For Americans, white
bread is the most important contributor to dietary fiber in the diet
and, as most parents already know, white bread is a favorite choice for
children. A survey of eight to 11 year olds showed that 72 percent of
the children surveyed preferred white bread\3\. Children also are
familiar with ready-to-eat cereal and cereal snacks. Ready-to-eat
cereal-based products can help children meet their dietary fiber intake
needs because many ready-to-eat cereals contain two to five grams of
fiber\4\. In fact, cereal and cereal snacks are not only kid friendly,
they can also be one of the best foods to eat to meet daily fiber
intake needs.
According to the USDA's 1994 96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
by Individuals, children eat on average 0.8-1.1 servings of whole
grains per day\5\. Only 2 percent of 6 to 11 year olds and 6 percent of
12 to 19 year olds consume at least six daily servings of grain foods,
with at least three being whole grains6. Led by the Department of
Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2010 targets the need for
Americans aged two years and older to consume at least three whole
grain foods per day. Using this goal as a guideline, the inclusion of a
whole grain choice in the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program will
benefit our Nation's children.
However, the serve-it-and-they-will-eat-it philosophy is not
recommended. Schools will need pilot programs, similar to the USDA's
pilot fruit and vegetable program, along with educational, classroom,
and marketing resources to help students increase their intake of whole
grain foods.
School food programs provide excellent opportunities for children
from all socio-economic backgrounds to try new foods and develop
healthy eating behaviors. Many experts believe nutrition intervention
should begin before sixth grade because children are not as resistant
to change\7\. We know whole grains are good for children, but if we
want children and more adults to increase whole grain consumption, we
need to introduce whole grains to children when they are eager to
learn. Many children will accept new foods if they are offered to them
multiple times. Schools are uniquely positioned to offer a wide variety
of healthy foods--so that children not only may learn about them, but
learn also to select them for a healthful diet.
One way schools can help children increase whole grain consumption
is to introduce whole grain foods gradually. Serving partial whole
grain foods can help achieve this goal. For example, schools could
offer sandwiches made with one piece of whole grain bread and one piece
of white bread, or pasta dishes mixed with one-half portion of whole
grain pasta and one-half portion of enriched pasta. Additionally,
school bakeries and manufacturers could produce more partial whole
grain foods such as pizza dough, baked goods, and snacks. Manufacturers
are generally very eager to sell products to school foodservices due to
volume and, once a whole grain standard is implemented, it is highly
likely they will find ways to make whole grain foods more attractive to
children.
Currently, there are many whole grain foods available, but
marketing them and serving them as kid-friendly foods will be important
for success. Some whole grain foods are already kid friendly. Whole
grain cereals, whole grain snacks, whole grain crackers, and pizza made
with whole grain flour, will certainly be acceptable to school
children. Children tell us that food shape, color, and flavor are
important to them, and peer pressure plays a role in deciding which
foods they choose\8\. We urge Congress to earmark research funds for
pilot programs to help schools increase whole grain consumption in kid-
friendly ways.
Children enjoy grain foods for many reasons, and we know that
children are more likely to eat grain foods than fruits and vegetables.
A 2002 report to Congress on plate waste in school nutrition programs
showed that children wasted 1.6 to three times more fruits and
vegetables on their plates than they wasted breads and other grain
foods\9\.
Grain foods also are popular with school foodservice personnel.
Most school foodservices must be self-sufficient, and grain foods are
an important part of their menus because they are economical, popular
with children, versatile, easy to prepare, and available from a wide
variety of vendors year-round. In fact, a recent survey showed that 80
percent of foodservice personnel surveyed were somewhat or very
motivated to serve whole grain foods at schools, and 88 percent
believed whole grain foods will provide health benefits to students if
they are included on school menus\8\.
Whether children are served whole or enriched grain foods, both
options provide tremendous nutritional benefits. Grain foods are the
major source of carbohydrates in our diets, and they serve as excellent
foods to fortify our diets with vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and
antioxidants. Grain foods are often misunderstood, and most people do
not know that both white bread and whole grain bread are rich in
antioxidants. In fact, both white bread and whole grain bread, on
average, contain as much or more antioxidant activity than common
vegetables and fruits\8\. Children, at their young age, may not be as
concerned about the health benefits of grains, but it is our job to
ensure that they have every opportunity to include them in their diets.
With all the myths surrounding protein and fat in popular weight-
loss diets, carbohydrate-based foods appear to be unappreciated by the
media and misdirected consumers. Nutritionists, who are knowledgeable
about the importance of consuming a well-balanced diet, need your help
to ensure that children and consumers select a diet rich in grain-based
foods. Government funds nutrition programs to help children reach
optimal health and well-being, and grain-based foods are instrumental
in reaching these goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. On behalf
of the Wheat Foods Council and myself, we urge you to legislate and
fund whole grain offerings and pilot programs for the NSLP and other
child nutrition programs.
Sincerely,
Joanne L. Slavin, Ph.D., R.D.
Professor of Nutrition
University of Minnesota
REFERENCES
1. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board, Dietary
Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,
Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. The National Academies Press:
Washington, D.C., 2002; (7-35)--(7.36).
2. Marlett, J.A., Cheung, T.F. Database and quick methods of
assessing typical dietary fiber intakes using data for 228 commonly
consumed foods. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997; 97:1139-1148.
3. RHI, Assessment of Attitudes Towards Grain Among Children's.
Overland Park, Kan. 2000; 4.
4. The American Dietetic Association, High-Fiber Diet. In: Manual
of Clinical Dietetics. The American Dietetic Association: Chicago, Ill,
2000; 710-711.
5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service,
Pyramid Servings Data Results from USDA's 1994-96 Continuing Survey of
Food Intakes by Individuals. [Electronic Version]. Beltsville, Md.,
1999; 4.
6. Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health,
Healthy People 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2003 from http://
www.healthypeople.gov/document/HTML/Volume2/19Nutrition.htm. (n.d.);
19-22.
7. Sandeno, C., Wolf, G., Drake, T., and Reicks, M., Behavioral
strategies to increase fruit and vegetable intake by fourth- through
sixth-grade students. J Am Diet Assoc. 2000; 100(7):828-830.
8. Marquart, L., Reicks, M., and Burgess Champaux, T., Data
presented by Len Marquart at the annual conference for the American
Association of Cereal Chemists, Oct. 1, 2003, at Portland, Ore.
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Plate Waste in School Nutrition Programs: Final Report to Congress.
Retrieved March 18, 2002 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/
efan02009/. 2002;9.
______
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Joslin.
STATEMENT OF ROBINSON W. JOSLIN
Mr. Joslin. Mr. Chairman and other members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for inviting me to testify at
this important hearing on the dietary requirements of the
National School Lunch Program, and whether these requirements
are contributing adequately to the overall nutritional needs of
students.
My name is Rob Joslin, as Mr. Chairman already stated. I am
not really an expert witness; I am a soybean farmer from
Sidney, Ohio. I also serve as President of the Ohio Soybean
Association.
Today, I am representing both the American Soybean
Association and the Soy Foods Association of North America.
Members of these two organizations care greatly about
nutritional adequacy of students' diets, and want Congress to
modify the current laws to assure that schools can easily
provide nutritional foods for all children regardless of their
health, cultural, or religious needs.
As part of efforts to reauthorize the Child Nutrition
Programs, we ask the Committee to include language that
provides schools an option to offer students soy milk that
meets the nutritional requirements as prescribed by the
Secretary. I feel there is a clear need to allow local control
in this matter.
I will summarize my testimony, and ask that the entire
testimony be made part of the record. I will begin by sharing
some background on why allowing soy milk is a beneficial option
for children who do not drink cow's milk. Second, I will review
the nutritional comparability of soy milk to cow's milk. And,
finally, I will discuss some of the shortfalls of our current
system.
I want to make one thing clear at the outset. I was raised
on a dairy farm. I drink milk. I like milk. Providing an option
to offer soy milk to meet the nutritional needs of children who
do not drink dairy milk and, thus, are not served by the
current Federal Child Nutrition Programs would complement, not
replace, milk in the program.
This is not an issue of commodity versus commodity. A large
portion of my soybean harvest and the soybean harvest of many
farmers is used to manufacture feed for dairy cows, but some is
also used for manufacturing soy milk.
The desire to allow soy milk in the Federal Child Nutrition
Program began with concerned food service directors. They
requested soy milk as a reimbursable option for children who do
not drink cow's milk. Soy milk would allow children a beverage
containing protein, calcium, vitamin E and other essential
nutrients for growth and development. School food service
directors from across the country have written over 250 letters
in support of soy milk as an option for their school children.
Let me clarify that what I am asking for and what the Soy
Foods Association of North America and the American Soybean
Association supports is allowing schools the option to offer
fortified soy milk as part of a reimbursable meal in the USDA's
Child Nutrition Programs. The language drafted by these
organizations is not a mandate for soy milk. It would simply
allow soy milk as a reimbursable option of schools serving
children who do not drink cow's milk.
School food service directors are asking for this option
because, according to USDA's own study, on average, 16 percent
of the lunches selected by students in secondary schools did
not include milk, and about 6 percent of the elementary school
lunches did not include milk.
Because of allergies to bovine protein, lactose
intolerance, or cultural religious practices, a growing number
of students do not take full advantage of the Federal nutrition
programs, including the School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. These students presently do not consume dairy
products. Remember, milk not consumed does not meet any
nutritional needs. For example, Seventh Day Adventists follow a
strict vegetarian diet and do not consume cow's milk. For these
children, lactose free cow's milk is not an acceptable
alternative.
A recent survey of food service directors sheds light on
the need for soy milk in schools. I would like to read you one
of their comments. A school food service director from Lewes,
Delaware, wrote that, quote, ``This product is definitely
needed. The African American population in our district are low
consumers of dairy. We offer 1 percent unflavored and skim and
still need a soy product,'' end quote.
Congressman Kline asked about the cost of soy milk to
schools. If this provision, giving the schools the option to
offer soy milk to be reimbursed, is adopted, schools could plan
their purchases. For example, schools could, No. 1, buy larger
quantities to drop price; No. 2, buy products on the market
that are now available at the same times they purchase milk; or
three, request competitive bids from their suppliers.
Now, I would like to talk about nutritional comparability
of soy milk to cow's milk. Fortified soy milk is a nutritional
option for children not consuming dairy products. Fortified soy
milk on the market today contains calcium, vitamin A and
vitamin D equivalent to milk as well as vitamin B, iron, and
high-quality protein.
The USDA's dietary guidelines for Americans and the food
guide pyramid for children lists soy-based beverages with added
calcium as a suitable source of calcium. In both the children's
pyramid and the dietary guidelines, calcium-fortified soy milk
is the only beverage listed as a suitable milk alternative.
These Federal nutrition guidelines are meant to serve as a
blueprint for Federal nutrition programs. The Soy Foods
Association of America has submitted a letter recommending the
USDA set nutritional requirements for soy milk served in
Federal nutrition programs with established levels of protein,
calcium, as well as vitamin A and vitamin D. USDA sets
nutritional requirements for juice, cereals, and other foods
used in these programs. I will submit a copy for the record.
Currently, the USDA does not reimburse schools for soy milk
unless a student provides a statement from a physician or other
recognized medical authority. For low-income households that do
not have primary care physicians or health insurance, going to
health care professionals and taking time from work may not be
possible or affordable. We ask the Committee to amend the law
to give schools the voluntary option to serve fortified soy
milk, therefore not increasing the school's workload or adding
to the financial burden on families.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Members of the
Committee for your commitment to the health and welfare of the
Nation's children. Soy farmers, soy processors, soy food
manufacturers share the goal of making our Federal nutrition
programs more effective in improving the nutritional intake and
health of our children. I urge you to ensure that schools have
local control by offering a nutritious soy milk option to
children receiving meals under the Federal nutrition programs.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Joslin.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joslin follows:]
Statement of Robinson W. Joslin, President, Ohio Soybean Association
Mr. Chairman and other members of the Committee, I want to thank
you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing on the dietary
requirements of the National School Lunch Program and whether these
requirements are contributing adequately to the overall nutritional
needs of students. My name is Rob Joslin and I raise soybeans in
Sidney, Ohio. I also serve as the President of the Ohio Soybean
Association.
Today, I am representing both the American Soybean Association and
the Soyfoods Association of North America. Members of these two
organizations care greatly about the nutritional adequacy of the diets
of students and want Congress to modify the current laws to assure that
schools can easily provide nutritional foods for all children
regardless of their health, cultural, or religious needs. As part of
legislation to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act and the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act, we ask the subcommittee to include
language that provides schools an option to offer students soymilk that
meets the nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary, as part
of a reimbursable meal.
I would first like to share some background on why allowing soymilk
is a beneficial option for children who do not drink cow's milk.
Second, I will review the nutritional comparability of soymilk to cow's
milk. Then, I will discuss some of the shortfalls of our current
system. And finally, I will discuss childhood health and soy protein.
I want to make one thing clear at the outset. Providing an option
to offer soymilk to meet the nutritional needs of children who do not
drink milk and thus are not served by the current federal child
nutrition programs, would complement, not replace cow's milk in the
program. This is not an issue of commodity versus commodity. A large
portion of my soybean harvest as well as many other soybean farmers, is
used to manufacture feed for dairy cows, but some is used to make
soymilk. I believe soymilk provides a nutritious beverage option to
children who do not consume cow's milk. I am not alone in this belief.
The desire to allow soymilk in the federal child nutrition programs
began with concerned school foodservice directors requesting soymilk as
a reimbursable option for children who do not drink cow's milk to have
an opportunity to consume a beverage containing protein, calcium,
vitamin D and other essential nutrients for growth and development.
School foodservice directors from across the country have written over
250 letters in support of soymilk as an option for their school
children.
OUR NATION'S CHILDREN NEED ANOTHER OPTION
Let me clarify that what I am asking for, and what the Soyfoods
Association of North America and the American Soybean Association
support, is allowing schools the OPTION to offer fortified soymilk as
part of a reimbursable meal in USDA's child nutrition programs. The
language drafted by these organizations is not a mandate for soymilk.
It would simply allow soymilk as a reimbursable option for schools
serving children who do not drink cow's milk.
School foodservice directors are asking for this option because,
according to the USDA's own study, ``on an average day, 16% of lunches
selected by students in secondary schools did not include milk and
about 6% of elementary school lunches did not include milk.
1 Because of lactose intolerance, allergies to bovine
protein, or cultural and religious practices, a growing number of
students do not take full advantage of federal nutrition programs,
including the School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs--these
students cannot consume dairy products.
Some children who have lactose intolerance may be able to consume
cow's milk, but many require an enzyme treated cow's milk or soymilk.
But students have many other reasons for not consuming cow's milk that
go beyond lactose intolerance. These reasons include cultural or
religious beliefs, avoidance of animal products, and cow's milk
allergy. For example, Seventh Day Adventists follow a strict vegetarian
diet and do not consume cow's milk. It is estimated that up to 2.5% of
infants and children are allergic to cow's milk. Symptoms of cow's milk
allergy can include hives, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, breathing
difficulties and drops in blood pressure 2. For these
children, lactose-free cow's milk is not an acceptable alternative.
Lactose intolerance is prevalent in some population groups as early
as two years of age. Studies have shown lactose intolerance in up to
85% of Asian-American, 72% of African-American, 70% of Native American,
56% of Hispanic-American, and 21% of Caucasian-American school aged
youth. 3 Many of those with lactose intolerance experience
nausea, cramps, bloating, gas and diarrhea that may begin about 30
minutes to 2 hours after eating or drinking foods containing lactose.
A recent survey of foodservice directors shed light on the need for
soymilk in schools. Some of their comments were as follows.
``This product is definitely needed. The African American
population in our district are very low consumers of dairy. We offer 1%
unflavored and skim and still need a soy product.'' Foodservice
supervisor in Lewes, Delaware
``At the present time we have parents sending soymilk to school
with their children. This would be a helpful service for parents if we
could offer soymilk.'' Foodservice director in Lindstrom, Minnesota
``We have a growing population of vegetarian students and I think
they would find this appealing.'' Foodservice director in Reynoldsburg,
Ohio
``I think soymilk as a ``mainstream'' beverage would appeal to our
Asian population which is 30% of the enrollment. I am very concerned
that our students are not getting the calcium they need.'' Foodservice
director in Union City, California
The 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans stress the importance of
recognizing diversity within the American population and for
alternative diets to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse
population. Allowing soymilk as an option would accommodate the needs
of growing numbers of children following alternative eating patterns.
COMPARABILITY OF COST
Some have raised concerns about the cost of soymilk compared to
that of cow's milk. The language submitted with this testimony does not
ask for an increase in the meal reimbursement rate to schools serving
soymilk. If the language were adopted, schools would have the
opportunity to obtain soymilk by various methods. Schools could request
competitive bids from soymilk manufacturers; request that dairy bids
include soymilk options; or purchase large quantities of 8-ounce
cartons of soymilk from supermarkets or wholesale stores. We anticipate
that the demand for soymilk in federal nutrition programs will begin
slowly and increase steadily over time with increased awareness of this
option for children. This phase-in would give suppliers time to
formulate and package a product that could be priced competitively with
cow's milk.
FORTIFIED SOYMILK IS A NUTRITIONAL OPTION
Fortified soymilk is a nutritional option for children not
consuming dairy products. Fortified soymilk on the market today
contains calcium, vitamin A and Vitamin D equivalent to milk, as well
as iron, B vitamins and high quality protein. Fortified soymilk is also
low in saturated fat and contains no cholesterol.
It is true that commercially available soymilk does vary in
nutrient composition, but the language submitted along with this
testimony would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the
nutritional requirements for soymilk offered in federal child nutrition
programs, just as nutritional requirements are set for cereal and juice
for these programs. The Soyfoods Association of North America (SANA)
has submitted a letter recommending that USDA set nutritional
requirements for soymilk served in federal nutrition programs that
establish 7 grams of protein, 300 milligrams of calcium, as well as 100
IU of vitamin D and 500 IU of vitamin A per 8 ounce serving. Soymilk
meeting these nutritional requirements would provide a nutritionally
comparable product to cow's milk currently offered in the federal
nutrition programs.
While the bioavailability of calcium in soymilk and cow's milk may
differ, soymilk can still be a significant source of calcium in the
diet. In addition, studies have found that in comparison with animal
protein, soy protein decreases calcium excretion, presumably due to the
lower sulfur amino acid content of soy protein 4. It is
important to note that most soymilk consumers are not replacing cow's
milk, but are adding fortified soymilk to a diet that did not contain
dairy products for medical, religious or ethical reasons. Therefore,
they are adding a good source calcium, as well as vitamin D, vitamin A
and B vitamins, to a diet that may have been lacking in these
nutrients.
Many health groups recognize that fortified soymilk is an
appropriate choice for children who do not consume dairy products. The
USDA's 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food Guide Pyramid for
Young Children list ``soy-based beverages with added calcium'' as a
suitable source of calcium. In both the children's Pyramid and the
Dietary Guidelines, calcium fortified soymilk is the ONLY beverage
listed as a suitable milk alternative. These federal nutrition
guidelines are meant to serve as the blueprint for federal nutrition
programs. We do not see our request as opening the door for calcium
fortified juices or waters to be considered as suitable dairy milk
alternatives, as these beverages do not contain high quality protein.
The American Dietetic Association (ADA) and the American School Food
Service Association (ASFSA) also support providing the option of
fortified soymilk as an alternative to cow's milk in federal nutrition
programs.
In examining the composition of soymilk, questions have been raised
about using a beverage that is fortified with calcium and vitamin D in
the federal nutrition programs. The use of fortified foods in federal
nutrition programs is not prohibited by federal or state regulations.
In fact, vitamin and mineral fortification is very common among food
products served in these programs. For example, cow's milk is fortified
with vitamin D, and grain products are fortified with iron.
INADEQUACY OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM
Currently, USDA does not reimburse schools for soymilk unless the
student provides a statement from a physician or other recognized
medical authority. For low income households that do not have primary
care physicians or health insurance, going to a health care
professional and taking time from work may not be possible or
affordable. The option of utilizing school nurses to provide medical
clearance for children who wish to consume dairy products has also been
considered but is not practical. Many schools have only part-time
nurses on the premises, and national data shows that there is only one
school nurse for every 822 American schoolchildren. 5
As stated earlier in this testimony, some children do not consume
cow's milk for cultural, religious, and health reasons. Involvement of
the medical community in providing documentation for children who do
not consume cow's milk for non-medical reasons is inappropriate. We ask
the Subcommittee to amend the law to give schools the choice to serve
fortified soymilk without increasing the workload burden on school food
service personnel and school nurses or adding to the financial load on
families.
Moreover, offering soymilk on an a la carte basis is not practical
for children who are low income and receive a free or reduced price
meal, but cannot drink milk. Schools are not reimbursed for la carte
items, and children from low income families are often unable to
purchase these options.
CHILDHOOD HEALTH AND SOY PROTEIN
Fortified soymilk can also play a role in the growing problem of
childhood overweight and obesity. Recent studies show the number of
overweight children in the United States is up 50% since 1991.
6 And, 60% of overweight children ages 5 to 10 have at least
one risk factor for heart disease. 7 These children also
show signs of heart disease and diabetes (i.e. elevated cholesterol and
blood sugar) that are normally only found in adults.
Soy protein has been proven to reduce total cholesterol, especially
LDL ``bad'' cholesterol, while maintaining HDL ``good'' cholesterol.
Soy protein is recognized by both the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and the American Heart Association as a means to reduce
cholesterol and the risk of heart disease. In 1999, FDA approved the
following health claim for soy protein:
``25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated
fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease. A serving of
(name of food) supplies (x) grams of soy protein.
Some early results from human trials suggest that soy also may have
a role in reducing blood sugars and related signs of diabetes.
8- 9 According to preliminary research, the early
introduction of soy into children's diets also may delay or prevent the
onset of cancer and osteoporosis in adulthood. 10
CONCLUSION
I thank the members of the Committee for your commitment to the
health and welfare of the nation's children. Soy farmers, soy
processors, and soyfood manufacturers share the goal of making our
federal nutrition programs effective in improving the nutritional
intake and health of all children. I urge you to ensure that schools
have the opportunity to offer a nutritious soy beverage to children
receiving meals under federal child nutrition programs that do not
consume dairy products.
REFERENCES
1 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II, USDA,
January 2001.
2 Sampson, H. Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis. Food Allergy
News, June/ July 2001.
3 American Academy of Pediatrics. The Practical
Significance of Lactose Intolerance in Children. Pediatrics.
1978;62:240-245. American Academy of Pediatrics. The Practical
Significance of Lactose Intolerance in Children: Supplement.
Pediatrics. 1990;86:643-644. Jackson KA, Savaiano DA. Lactose
maldigestion, calcium intake and osteoporosis in African-, Asian-, and
Hispanic Americans. J Am Coll Nutr. 2001;20(2 Suppl):198S-207S. Johnson
AO, Semenya JG, Buchowski MS, Enwonwu CO, Scrimshaw NC. Correlation of
lactose maldigestion, lactose intolerance, and milk intolerance. Am J
Clin Nutr. 1993;57:399-401. Yang Y, He M, Cui H, Bian L, Wang Z. The
prevalence of lactase deficiency and lactose intolerance in Chinese
children of different ages. Chin Med J (Engl). 2000;113:1129-1132.
4 Messina M, Messina V. Soyfoods, soybean isoflavones,
and bone health: a brief overview. J Ren Nutr
2000;10(2):63-8.
5 National Center For Education Statistics (2002) and
National Association of School Nurses (2002).
6 Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kuczmarski RL, Johnson CL.
Overweight and obesity in the US: Prevalence and trends, 1960-1994. Int
J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998; 22:39-47. Strauss RS, Pollack HA.
Epidemic increase in childhood overweight, 1986-1998. JAMA
2001;286:2845-2848.
7 Freedman DS, Dietz WH, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS. The
relation of overweight to cardiovascular risk factors among children
and adolescents: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 1175-
1182.
8 Hermansen, K. Sondergaard, M, Hoie, L, Carstensen, M.
Brock, B. Beneficial effects of a soy-based dietary supplement on lipid
levels and cardiovascular risk markers in type 2 diabetic subjects.
Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 228-33.
9 Jayagopal, V., Albertazzi, P., Kilpatrick, E. S.,
Howarth, E. M., Jennings, P. E. Hepburn, D. A., Atkin, S. L. Beneficial
effects of soy phytoestrogen intake in postmenopausal women with type 2
diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1709-14.
10 Badger, T., Hakkak, R., Korourian, S. Ronis, M.,
Rowlands, C. et al. (1999) Differential and tissue specific protective
effects of diets formulated with whey or soy proteins on chemically-
induced mammary and colon cancer in rats. FASEB Journal; v13, n4,
pA583.
______
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Heaney.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. HEANEY, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.A.C.N.
Dr. Heaney. Chairman Boehner, Mr. Kildee, Members of the
Committee, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity of being
here. I am physician; I am a biomedical scientist; I work as a
faculty member at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska,
Congressman Osborne's home state.
Greetings, Coach.
I am here to try to address some questions of science that
you may have, and I hope that I will offer some useful
information either in my testimony or in questions afterwards.
I would like to deal with some of the objections that one
sometimes hears raised against milk and to provide you with
some evidence that there are effectively no substitutes for
milk that we know of in today's diet.
Milk, you know, has been aptly described as nature's most
perfect food. It has a cost per calorie that is less than that
of the average food in a typical diet, and yet it packs in an
amazing variety of nutrients: calcium, vitamin D, phosphorus,
protein, potassium, magnesium, a host of vitamins, and a number
of micronutrients that we haven't even figured out yet.
This country is in the midst of what several Federal
agencies and health professions' organizations have termed a
calcium crisis. After age 8 or 9, the typical American female
takes in an amount of calcium per day which is half or less of
the recommended intake for the rest of her life. Calcium is
vital not just for the development of strong bones, but for
many body systems. Low calcium intakes have been convincingly
implicated in diseases as varied as high blood pressure,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes, colorectal cancer, and even
obesity in addition to its established role in osteoporosis.
But calcium is not the only critical nutrient. Studies that
I performed in my laboratory at Creighton and confirmed by many
other investigators show that diets low in calcium are
typically low in up to four or more other nutrients as well.
Different nutrients for different persons. But they are
multiply deficient. We can remedy all those shortfalls with a
single food, milk.
Now, one sometimes hears the issue of lactose intolerance
raised, and I would like to deal with that for a moment. The
fact is that people of all races are able to consume, digest,
and benefit from milk without difficulty. We have heard that
many Americans and perhaps the majority of minorities lack the
enzyme in their own intestines that help the body break down
milk sugar, and this is true. But the good news is, it actually
doesn't matter. What is often ignored--and those of us who know
something about animal husbandry understand this. What is often
ignored is the fact that the digestion of our foods is a
cooperative process between our own intestinal enzymes and
those of our intestinal bacteria who work together with us to
help digest our foods.
When our intestines lose the enzyme to break down milk
sugar, our intestinal bacteria pick it up for us and carry on
the process seamlessly. That is only true, however, if we feed
them milk by drinking it ourselves. Persons who never stop
drinking milk do not experience lactose intolerance regardless
of race. And for those who have stopped, it only takes a few
weeks of building up milk intake to get to the point where
large quantities, more than would ever be served in a school
lunch program, can be consumed without discomfort.
Furthermore, it is hurtful to say that people who lack the
enzyme--races, minorities--can't digest milk because it
convinces them that they shouldn't be drinking it, and that
deprives them of a nutrient that may be very important for
their health.
Among its other benefits of particular interest to African
Americans is the fact that calcium helps maintain a normal
blood pressure. High blood pressure starts during adolescence,
and its consequences, that is, strokes and heart attacks
occurring later in life, are major causes of morbidity and
mortality for the African American population in this country.
The widely acclaimed DASH studies, Dietary Approaches to
Stop Hypertension, supported by the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute of the NIH, showed that a high dairy intake
reduced blood pressure sufficiently to prevent roughly one-
fourth of all strokes and heart attacks in the United States,
and in a study published just last summer in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, a high dairy intake resulted in a
62 percent reduction in development of hypertension among young
adults, black and white. These are huge benefits, larger than
can be claimed for most drugs.
Finally, we have heard arguments that soy beverages should
be allowed to substitute for cow's milk in federally sponsored
meal programs. I want to be the first to say that soy beverages
are wholesome and nutritious foods in their own right, but they
are not substitutes for milk just as a potato is not a
substitute for an orange.
Soy does not have the nutrient profile of milk. And in
order to compensate for one of its deficiencies, soy beverage
processors add calcium, as we have heard. And one might think
that would be sufficient to make them equivalent, but
unfortunately that is not the case. The added calcium is not
fully available to the body.
In a study that I published 3 years ago, I found that
despite having the same calcium content as cow milk, fortified
soy beverage released substantially less of its calcium into
the bloodstream. And just this past summer I tested all of the
calcium-fortified soy and rice beverages that I could find in
the Omaha market. In all of them, the calcium had settled down
into the bottom of the carton as a heavy sludge. And although
there was an instruction on the carton to shake before using,
our experience in my laboratory was that it would have taken a
hardware store paint shaker to suspend that calcium in the
milk. What is worse, isotopic tracer tests that I performed on
this calcium indicated that in several of the beverages the
calcium was so coarse that it is unlikely that it would have
been absorbable by the body.
But, as I have already said, there is more to the story
than just calcium. Although the evidence is not yet all in,
what is available indicates that milk has about twice the
effect on blood pressure as does an equivalent quantity of
calcium. The same is true with respect to weight control and
obesity. Milk performs nearly twice as well as calcium alone.
Moreover, milk improves the body's response to insulin while
calcium has no effect.
No one knows what the special extra in milk may be.
Scientists are working on it, but for now, substituting any
other food for milk risks conveying a message that the other
food is equivalent when it is not and depriving people of the
full benefit no matter what the calcium content of the food may
be.
So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, I think we all know that
milk, as provided to the school children in this country, as
well as before that in Great Britain, plays a very important
role in improving the nutritional status of our young people.
There has been a decline in whole milk consumption, and the
need today therefore for school milk intake is greater than it
ever was in the past.
And I thank you for the opportunity of providing this
testimony.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Heaney, thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Heaney follows:]
Statement of Robert P. Heaney, M.D., John A. Creighton University
Professor, Professor of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska
My name is Robert P. Heaney. I am a physician and biomedical
scientist, a faculty member of Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.
I work primarily in the field of calcium and bone biology. I was a
member of the Calcium and Related Nutrients Panel of the Food and
Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, the group which released the
most recent recommendations concerning calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin
D intakes for the American public. I also chaired the Science Advisory
Panel on Osteoporosis for the Office of Technology Assessment.
I am appearing before you to urge continued support for milk in the
school lunch program, to reassure you that objections one sometimes
hears against milk are scientifically groundless, and to provide you
with evidence that there are effectively no substitutes for dairy foods
if we are to meet the nutritional needs of our school age children.
The Role of Milk and Dairy Products
Milk has been aptly described as nature's most perfect food. With a
cost per calorie less than that of the average food in a typical
American diet, milk packs an amazing variety of nutrients--calcium,
vitamin D, phosphorus, protein, potassium, magnesium, as well as
riboflavin, and a host of other vitamins. The nutrient most likely to
be in short supply in a typical American diet is, as I think everybody
recognizes today, calcium. Calcium certainly has received the most
attention recently. The federal interagency task forces on US health
goals, producing the plans ``Healthy People 2000'' and ``Healthy People
2010'', in both reports, identified calcium deficiency as a problem of
sufficient magnitude to warrant a national effort.
This country is in the midst of what several federal agencies and
health professional organizations have termed a ``calcium crisis''.
After age 8 or 9, the typical American girl or woman gets half or less
the recommended amount of calcium each day.
An adequate calcium intake is essential, not just for the
development of a strong skeleton, but for many other body systems. Low
calcium intake has been convincingly shown to increase the risk or
severity of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, colorectal
cancer, and even obesity, in addition to its generally recognized role
in osteoporosis. Nor is the benefit deferred until later in life. There
is a very large rise in the risk of forearm fractures occurring in
children about the time of puberty. Parents commonly attribute those
fractures to their child's being ``accident prone'', but we now know
that it is the children with the thinnest bones who are most likely to
break their bones, \1\ and we also know that calcium intake from
beverages like milk is a factor in determining bone strength at that
critical period of life.
Obesity also affects children and adolescents. There is a growing
body of evidence that an adequate calcium intake can help reduce that
problem and assist efforts to lose weight. Low calcium diets, we have
learned recently, send a signal to the fat cells to conserve energy
\2\--exactly the wrong message in the face of national overconsumption
and decreased physical activity.
Moreover, calcium is not the only critical nutrient. Studies
performed in my laboratory, and confirmed by many other investigators,
show that diets low in dairy products are deficient not only in regard
to calcium, but, on average, in four other nutrients as well. \3\ The
most economical and effective way of remedying all these deficits in
young people is to ensure the continued supply of milk in school meal
programs.
The Myths about Milk
The arguments raised against the healthfulness of milk are
scientifically groundless. Jeanne Goldberg, the distinguished
nutritionist and nutrition columnist published a paper on this topic in
the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in October
2002 \4\ in which she refuted each of the milk myths currently
circulating. (I am appending a copy of her paper to my testimony in the
event the members of the Committee may wish to pursue this issue in
greater depth.)
Before I mention one of her key points, I think it is useful to
recognize the origin of the anti-milk campaign--and it is literally a
campaign. If one checks carefully, one finds that behind most of the
stories is an organization called the People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA) and its sister organization, the Physicians Committee
for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). These are animal rights organizations
that oppose the use of any animal product--leather, fur, meat, or milk.
At the time of the USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans, PCRM
shamelessly played the race card, alleging that African Americans could
not digest milk because of lactose intolerance. The facts are that
people of all races are able to consume, digest, and benefit from milk
without difficulty.
The Truth about Lactose Intolerance
It is true that African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, and
Oriental Americans commonly lose the enzyme that helps their bodies
break down milk sugar sometime during childhood. This absence of a
natural intestinal enzyme is tested for by consuming an amount of
lactose equivalent to that in a quart of milk and detecting one of the
byproducts in exhaled air. Many persons testing positive have
absolutely no symptoms of lactose intolerance, and most can easily
drink milk one serving at a time. Moreover, if persons who lack this
enzyme continue to consume milk on a regular basis, their intestinal
bacteria take over the job of digesting lactose for them. (Many of us
tend to think of bacteria as ``germs'', with a negative connotation--
they cause disease. But that is true for only a minority of bacteria,
most of which are actually quite helpful. In fact, if we had no
intestinal bacteria at all, we would probably be malnourished because
of the role bacteria play both in digesting our food for us and in
manufacturing some nutrients that we need.)
Dr. Dennis Savaiano, Dean of Nutrition at Purdue University in
Indiana, has published extensively on this topic, and I commend you to
his writings \5\ if you have further questions on this matter. In
brief, he has been unable to find a single individual, of any race,
whom he could not get to consume two to three servings of milk per day
without difficulty. If they had never stopped drinking milk, then they
never experienced lactose intolerance in the first place. If they had
stopped, it takes only a few weeks, gradually building up milk intake,
to get to the point where large quantities can be readily digested and
utilized by the body, without discomfort.
In fact, a case can be made that African Americans, despite their
relatively strong skeletal structures, may actually need calcium more
than do Caucasians, inasmuch as calcium is helpful in reducing blood
pressure, and the protective effect seems to be larger in African
Americans than in Caucasians. Recall that the consequences of high
blood pressure, stroke and myocardial infarction, are major causes of
morbidity and mortality in the African American population. In the
widely acclaimed Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)
studies, \6\ \7\ supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), the addition of 2-3
servings of low fat milk to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables
reduced blood pressure sufficiently that the researchers estimated that
the result, on a nationwide basis, would be a reduction in stroke and
heart attack risk in the range of 17-27 percent. This is a huge
benefit, larger than can be attributed to most drugs, and the good news
is that it is a benefit that comes at negative cost. As I have already
indicated, dairy products cost less per calorie than most other foods
in the diet. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that high blood
pressure commonly starts during the teen years; hence it is critically
important that we maintain a high calcium intake in our school age
children. In a study recently published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association, young adults consuming a high dairy intake,
followed over a 10 year period, experienced an astounding 62 percent
reduction in development of hypertension. \8\
Soy Beverages are not Appropriate Substitutes for Milk
Finally, arguments have been made that other beverages such as soy
beverages should be given a status which would allow them to substitute
for cow milk in federally sponsored meal programs. Some of this comes
from the understandable economic interest of soy farmers and soy
beverage makers, but some also comes from PCRM and PETA, as I have
already noted. The truth of the matter is that soy beverages are
wholesome and nutritious foods in their own right, but they are not
substitutes for milk. Allowing them to serve as an alternative for cow
milk conveys an inaccurate message. They do not have the nutrient
profile of milk, and in order to compensate for some of their inherent
deficiencies, soy beverage processors are required to add nutrients,
such as calcium, to the native soy beverage. One might think that that
would be sufficient to make them equivalent, but unfortunately that is
not the case. Since calcium is regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration as a food, and not as a drug, there are effectively no
quality assurance standards with respect to the state of the calcium
and other nutrients added as a fortificant to food.
In my work as a calcium nutritionist, I have consulted extensively
with (and done projects for) various cereal, beverage, and supplement
manufacturers who have added calcium to their products. The most
responsible of those manufacturers have taken pains to assure that the
calcium they add is bioavailable--that is, can be assimilated by the
body. (In fact, most of the tests for such bioavailability done
nationally have been carried out in my laboratory.) I do not know what
steps the soy beverage processors may have taken internally, but I have
tested several of their products and am sorry to have to report to this
Committee that the calcium that they contain is often not very
assimilable. In a study published three years ago \9\ I found that,
despite having the same calcium content as cow milk, fortified soy milk
released substantially less of its calcium into the bloodstream. I have
just this past summer tested four additional soy and rice beverages
marketed as milk substitutes and fortified with extra calcium. In all
of them the calcium settled down into the bottom of the carton on the
supermarket shelf, as a heavy sludge, and although there was an
instruction on the carton to ``shake before using'', our experience was
that it would have taken a hardware store paint shaker to suspend the
calcium in some of them. What is worse, isotopic tracer tests show that
the calcium in some of these soy beverages is so coarse that it is
unlikely to be readily absorbed even were it to be adequately suspended
in the beverage itself? These are technological problems which the soy
beverage manufacturers should have been able to solve if they had had a
sufficient interest in doing so. But for the moment the evidence is
clear that the soy beverages do not now provide calcium equivalent to
that available from cow milk.
In summary, milk provided to school children has played an
important part in improving the nutritional status of the peoples of
the United States and Great Britain for over 70 years. The need today
is, if anything, greater than in the past. Milk is a safe, nutritious,
and economical source of the nutrients our children need, and there are
no effective alternatives.
I thank you for the opportunity of offering this testimony and
stand ready to answer any questions which you may have.
References Cited
Goulding A, Cannan R, Williams SM, Gold EJ, Taylor RW, Lewis-Barned
NJ. Bone mineral density in girls with forearm fractures. J
Bone Miner Res 13:143-148, 1998.
Zemel MB, Shi H, Greer B, DiRienzo D, Zemel PC. Regulation of
adiposity by dietary calcium. FASEB J 14:1132-1138, 2000.
Barger-Lux MJ, Heaney RP, Packard PT, Lappe JM, Recker RR. Nutritional
correlates of low calcium intake. Clinics in Applied Nutrition
2(4):39-44, 1992.
Goldberg J. Milk: can a ``good'' food be so bad? Pediatrics
110(4):826-832, 2002.
Suarez FL, Savaiano D, Arbisi P, Levitt MD. Tolerance to the daily
ingestion of two cups of milk by individuals claiming lactose
intolerance. Am J Clin Nutr 65:1502-1506, 1997.
Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM,
Bray GA, Vogt TM, Cutler JA, Windhauser MM, Lin P-H, Karanja N.
A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood
pressure. N Engl J Med 336:1117-1124, 1997.
Vollmer WM, Sacks FM, Ard J, Appel LJ, Bray GA, Simons-Morton DG,
Conlin PR, Svetkey LP, Erlinger TP, Moore TJ, Karanja N.
Effects of diet and sodium intake on blood pressure: subgroup
analysis of the DASH-sodium trial. Ann Intern Med 135:1019-
1028, 2001.
Pereira MA, Jacobs DR Jr, Van Horn L, Slattery ML, Kartashov AI,
Ludwig DS. Dairy consumption, obesity, and the insulin
resistance syndrome in young adults. JAMA 287:2081-2089, 2002.
Heaney Dowell MS, Rafferty K, Bierman J. Bioavailability of the
calcium in fortified soy imitation milk, with some observations
on method. Am J Clin Nutr 71:1166-1169, 2000.
______
Chairman Boehner. Let me ask Ms. Cockwell about these
children who don't select milk. I don't want to get you in the
middle of this fight and I don't want to really be in the
middle of it either.
But why don't they take milk? Don't like it? Don't want to
drink it? Lactose intolerant?
Ms. Cockwell. Well, I can't say I have really surveyed the
kids on the subject. Maybe when I go home that is one thing I
should do, is check to see why they are not drinking their
milk. We do have notes from doctors stating that certain
children cannot drink milk, and we do, you know, provide other
choices for them.
Chairman Boehner. Is there a big demand in your school
lunch program for soy milk?
Ms. Cockwell. I haven't had any requests.
Chairman Boehner. All right.
Mr. Stenzel, why should schools make the distinction among
fresh, frozen, or canned fruits and vegetables?
Mr. Stenzel. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard in
the earlier discussion by Under Secretary Bost that it is not
what we put in front of kids, it is what they actually eat. And
I think that is really where we have to look at these child
nutrition programs now.
Are we giving kids the quality of fruits and vegetables
that they are going to choose on their own down the road?
Maybe, if they are captive sitting there in front of that meal
program and they have to eat it for some reason, that is one
thing. But we know the real world is the competition outside
the schoolroom.
Chairman Boehner. But what about the cost?
Mr. Stenzel. We have got to make sure the cost is equal.
Let us go back to the Commodity Purchase Program. This year,
this past year, USDA will have spent $92 million on dried
fruits and nuts for the Child Nutrition Program. I find that
astounding.
Now, I will be the first to tell you that there are members
of my own industry, who are right there knocking on the doors
saying, Please take my surplus commodity, and it may be a dried
or canned or other frozen product. On the other hand, I have
never met a commodity that is not in oversupply. So I am not so
sure whether those original messages from the 1930's and 1940's
about propping up markets for dried fruits and nuts is the
health and nutrition of our children.
Chairman Boehner. What is the USDA going to do with the
$200 million worth of fresh fruits and vegetables they are
required to buy under the 2002 farm bill?
Mr. Stenzel. That is precisely the issue, Mr. Chairman. And
you know from the Ag Committee that you pushed through $200
million in fruits and vegetables purchases. The Fruit and
Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee that the Secretary
appointed 2 years ago to advise her on infrastructure and
issues with regard to our industry recommended increasing the
share of fresh produce out of that $200 million. In the last
several years, the amount of fresh produce out of the $200
million, less than 5 percent.
Less than 5 percent of all fruits and vegetables purchased
were fresh. And those were potatoes, things that could be
stored.
We understand there are infrastructure problems in storage.
The Department of Defense program is an excellent opportunity
in order to deliver fresh produce to schools, but we simply
have got to find a way to overcome the grain--.
Chairman Boehner. But schools could buy fresh fruit and
produce directly from their local vendors.
Mr. Stenzel. Absolutely. Schools buy a tremendous amount of
fresh produce. It is simply not being provided by the
Department of Agriculture through the commodity programs.
Chairman Boehner. Ms. Cockwell, let me ask you about the
distribution program when it comes to things like beef, pork,
poultry, where the Department goes out and buys it under
section 32, they store it, they ship it somewhere where it is
semiprocessed, and they distribute it through a school. Then
the school sends it to a processor; and then the processor has
to keep it segregated, then has to bring it back to you.
It sounds like a very expensive way to do business. And I
guess, in the end, it is still cheaper to you, buying those
commodities through the USDA? I imagine you have to buy the
same kind of commodities out on the open market.
Ms. Cockwell. We are talking about--when we further process
the items that USDA purchases is what it sounds like to me; is
that your question?
Chairman Boehner. Yes.
Ms. Cockwell. OK. Sometimes when we do that it is to
provide the item to the students or to our customers in the
form that they will eat it, so that they do get the nutritional
value that we are trying to convey to them every day in the
school setting.
Chairman Boehner. But you couldn't buy that directly from a
commercial vendor at a comparable price?
Ms. Cockwell. It depends on the product. Sometimes we can,
sometimes the products aren't available, an equal product is
not available on the commercial market.
Chairman Boehner. Mr. Joslin, it sounds like Dr. Heaney
doesn't like your idea of allowing soy milk to be reimbursable
under the school lunch program. I give you an opportunity to--.
Mr. Joslin. To respond?
Chairman Boehner. To respond.
Mr. Joslin. Well, I guess I will stand by my testimony.
First of all, milk that is not consumed does not add in any
way to the nutritional needs of the students. USDA already
establishes as an alternative to milk--personally, if I had my
druthers--like I said originally, I am a milk drinker. I was
raised on a dairy farm. In an ideal world, every kid would
consume their 8 ounces that is placed on their tray. But,
again, there is a significant number of kids, not necessarily
because of lactose intolerance, because of religious or
cultural beliefs, who do not consume dairy milk. The American
School Food Service Association, they represent 65,000 schools,
have identified the need to include soy milk as an option, as a
top priority.
Chairman Boehner. But if we were to allow, if we were to
suggest that there should be substitutes for milk, what about
other fortified beverages?
Mr. Joslin. Well, soy milk is the only one, first of all,
that is recognized by the USDA and it has the adequate protein.
It would be very cost-ineffective to include a protein in water
or orange juice.
Soy milk has a natural high-quality protein, which has
already been recognized by the Food and Drug Administration as
being heart healthy. It is a high quality. You just fortify it
with calcium.
The other thing--and I bought soy milk; I tried to drink
it. I personally didn't care for it, but I didn't have it set
up as cement in the bottom of my refrigerator. It sat in there
for 2 or 3 weeks while I was trying to get used to it.
Chairman Boehner. It sat in my refrigerator for my daughter
for a long time, but I don't think I am going to try it. But
having said that, that doesn't taint my objectivity here as the
Chairman.
I see that my time has expired. Let me recognize the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenzel, since the inception of the breakfast program,
I have not seen anything quite as exciting or as popular as the
pilot program for fresh fruits and vegetables. I visited the
Linden Middle School last May, this past May. And, first of
all, you see no waste; it is all consumed. And it is--the
school does a very good creative way of distribution of the
fruits and vegetables. Students like it very, very much.
You mentioned in your testimony that the lack of
infrastructure investment by the Federal Government has a
direct impact upon the ability of schools to introduce fresh
fruits and vegetables into their school meals. Can you comment
further on that?
Mr. Stenzel. Mr. Kildee, thank you. I share your surprise
and enthusiasm at the pilot program, quite naturally. I think
going into it, none of us had any expectation that 99.5 percent
of the schools would love the program. The students love it. We
have really got a winner on our hands.
Now, how do we transfer the lessons of that program to the
overall commodity purchasing programs? We have to get more high
quality, more fresh produce into those programs. Right now,
most of those commodity purchases go through State warehouses,
they have long delivery times, they sit. And that is one of the
challenges for AMS in terms of its commodity purchasing
programs.
But I think rather than say that those are hurdles that we
can't overcome, it really is time to find a way to overcome
them. This pilot program allows schools to make local
decisions, local choices, and they were able to get the fresh
fruits and vegetables kids wanted.
The Chairman asked about, don't some school districts buy
produce on their own. Of course they do; and when they buy
their own, it comes delivered every day. There are produce
wholesalers and food service wholesalers who deliver great
products to schools. We have just got to find a way to make
sure that all of the money, the tax money that we are investing
in these commodity purchase programs are giving kids what they
want and need, and help them choose better, make better choices
for their future rather than necessarily putting something in
the program that they don't really want.
Mr. Kildee. There seem to be three basic sources of fresh
fruits and vegetables, three programs: the DOD fresh program,
the commodity program allows the purchase of fruits and
vegetables as part of the total commodities, and the Fruit and
Vegetable Pilot Program. Of the three, the one that is most
successful seems to be the pilot program.
Mr. Stenzel. I would certainly say it has been the most
exciting at the local level. But I will share the opinion of
Ms. Cockwell that the DOD fresh program has also been extremely
successful. It was really conceived to get around some of these
infrastructure hurdles of having to store fruits and vegetables
for long periods of time. So schools can now order from DOD
whatever fresh produce that they want and have it delivered on
a regular basis while it is still high quality.
We need to expand that program from $50 million to the $100
million level. In the farm bill, actually many of us thought
that it was expanded by $50 million, not to $50 million. But
AMS has a different interpretation of the statute than several
of us who worked on it.
But I would tell you that this pilot program, I think, says
something else about experiential learning. It is not just
about giving the kids food to eat; it is, every day we are
taking about 5 minutes to give that kid an experience that
makes them reflect on their own choices. We are not going to
shut out the rest of the world and insulate them from the
competitive foods, whether it is a la carte foods or Seven-
Eleven, but if every day they get a moment in time where they
think, well, it does matter to me, there are consequences to my
actions, I think that is what schools are all about, not just
feeding kids, but helping them learn the context of their own
food choices.
Mr. Kildee. So the DOD fresh program and the pilot program
really empower the school more to decide where to buy, when to
buy, what to buy?
Mr. Stenzel. I think that is absolutely right.
Mr. Kildee. What I noticed at the Linden Middle School,
they have a great distribution system, the students are in
charge of all that. But in the classroom during the day, the
fresh fruits and vegetables are there, available; and they are
flexible enough where a student can go up during the third hour
and grab a vegetable or some fruit. And as I say, there is
virtually no waste that takes place.
And for that $6 million, that is--I tell you, if we could
increase that--I think that pilot programs generally come into
being to see how they do work, and I think this has passed its
final test very well. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stenzel. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. [Presiding.] The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr.
Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ladies and
gentlemen, for being here. It is especially nice to have a
Minnesotan from the university.
By the way, Coach, the Gophers. We are doing all right out
there. We are doing well out there. Thank you. To get an
acknowledgment from the coach is very uplifting for all of us
new Members of Congress.
I guess just to prove I am fearless, if nothing else, I
want to jump back into the discussion of milk and soy milk. In
the interest of full disclosure, I have told a number of people
that we have not a single dairy cow on the farm, but a number
of acres of soybeans. Having said that, I, like Chairman
Boehner, haven't spent much time drinking soy milk. And Mr.
Joslin, because you have admitted that you are not a medical
doctor and you are a farmer, I direct my question to Dr.
Heaney.
You in your testimony stated that--I gather the gist of it
was that there really isn't lactose intolerance for a long
period of time, that virtually anybody can drink milk; is that
correct?
Dr. Heaney. That is exactly correct. The biggest milk
drinkers in the world are the Masai of East Africa. They have
the same genetic background as African Americans. They have
been tested for lactase nonpersistence, that is, the enzyme
lack; and they have the same prevalence as lactase
nonpersistence as North American African Americans. But they
drink 5 or 6 quarts of milk per day without symptoms, without
any symptoms.
Mr. Kline. How does it help out my own granddaughter? For
example, I noticed my kids, wisely on their part and good for
us, dropped the kids off for a few days this summer; and my
granddaughter drank soy milk and not dairy milk because my
daughter-in-law was told that she couldn't drink milk.
Where do those medical opinions come tomorrow?
Dr. Heaney. Well, I can't tell you exactly where all
medical opinions would come from, but there are such things as
apparent milk intolerance in childhood, and pediatricians
suggest trying something else in their place.
The infant formulas which are soy-based are not the same
type of a nutrient profile that the soy beverage that we are
talking about as a possible substitute is concerned. These are
all constructed foods, you understand. They are not natural
foods in that sense.
Soy is a marvelous nutritional source and, you know, I have
been sitting here wondering why aren't we talking about putting
textured soy protein into the spaghetti sauces, mixing it in
with hamburger and some of the burgers, et cetera, or the meat
loafs? A marvelous way to get good nutrition into our kids and
use up a commodity at the same time.
What I am concerned about is not that they shouldn't
consume soy; I think it is a great idea. It is not just the
equivalent of milk. And if we knew everything that was in milk,
maybe we could put it in soy beverage, but we don't, and milk
works better than any alternative.
So to say that one is equivalent to the other is to convey
misinformation to people.
Mr. Kline. All right. Thank you, Doctor. I think that is
extremely clear.
Mr. Joslin, your understanding that under the current rules
is, if a child does have a note from the doctor that they are
lactose intolerant, that the soy milk is reimbursable. Is that
correct?
Mr. Joslin. That is my understanding.
Mr. Kline. And your understanding, if the child for
religious reasons is not supposed to drink milk, is that
reimbursable?
Mr. Joslin. It is my understanding that is not.
Mr. Kline. OK. Thank you. But at a very minimum, I suppose
you are saying that if for some reason, religious or medical
intolerance, the ability to use soy milk instead of milk ought
to be made easier; is that correct?
Mr. Joslin. I think that is a fair summation.
Mr. Kline. All right. We will let it rest at that.
I am going to step back out of this battle, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Chairman Boehner. [Presiding.] The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Osborne.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Apparently I am the only person in the room who has ever
tried soy milk and have actually survived on it fairly well.
And I have had some heart disease, and as a result, they have
steered me in that direction. So I find that it is certainly
tolerable and have used it for some time.
I was just wondering if either of you gentlemen on the end
there, who seem to be at odds, are aware of any comprehensive
studies that have compared milk and soy milk. I know that each
of you are advocates for either milk or soy milk. But are you
aware of any studies that have been done where there have been
a control group and some type of a double-blind or whatever
study that has yielded some results?
Mr. Joslin. My testimony has a whole list of studies at the
end of it which talk about the benefits of soy milk, and
several of them compare soy and cow's milk.
Dr. Heaney. To answer your question directly, Coach, I know
of no side-by-side study of the sort that you are talking about
that would have compared the ability of either soy milk or
cow's milk to support growth in children, which is what we are
talking about.
I don't think there is any question about the nutritional
value of either product. The question is, are they equivalent,
and I think they are not.
Mr. Osborne. Well, thank you. That might be a topic of some
academic research at some point. And it may be, you know, you
don't want to use kids as guinea pigs, but apparently both are
not sufficiently harmful that it would be doing any great harm
to anybody.
Mr. Joslin. May I add one point, though?
Mr. Osborne. Mr. Joslin.
Mr. Joslin. Again, the soy milk--my testimony today is not
going after kids presently drinking milk. I hope everybody
focuses on the significant minority of children that are not
presently drinking dairy milk. That is what we are talking
about. It is not--I don't want to inroad on the efforts of the
dairy producers because I really believe in it.
We had two people here mention, three with Mr. Osborne,
mention that they either know somebody or have a family member
or they themselves drink soy milk. It is a significant and
growing number of our population that does not consume it. And
offering a soy-based beverage as an alternative to people who
either cannot, or choose not to, drink dairy milk, it is very
appropriate for this Committee.
Mr. Osborne. Well, thank you.
Now, changing topics, Mr. Stenzel, what more needs to be
done to improve USDA's capacity to handle fresh produce? You
feel, evidently, there are some deficiencies. What would you
suggest be done?
Mr. Stenzel. I think in the commodity purchase programs,
Mr. Osborne, the first thing has to be a commitment from the
Department to substantially increase the percentage of fresh
produce in those buys. We can't do business as usual.
Now, how to do that means we have to overcome the hurdles
of storage and distribution and transportation and those
things, but I know with the American School Food Service
Association there is a tremendous amount of interest in ways to
do that, how we could provide for purchases under the
entitlement programs and even the bonus buys in order to
provide more fresh produce directly to the schools.
We have got to find our ways around those warehousing and
storage issues, but I think now is the time for smart people
who are mutually motivated to put their heads together and find
ways to do that.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Boehner. I want to thank all of our witnesses
today for your patience. We didn't think the first panel would
go as long as it did. But we appreciate your testimony.
And this concludes our hearing today. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material provided for the record follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee
on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman:
I want to thank you for convening this full committee
hearing in anticipation of the reauthorization of federal child
nutrition programs.
Since coming to Congress in 1975, I have been a steadfast
advocate of child nutrition programs and the significant role they play
in meeting the health and educational needs of our nations'' children.
I have seen first hand--at school cafeterias, summer
programs and WIC clinics--children who receive their only meals through
our federal nutrition programs.
I have seen the difference between the child who attends
school on an empty stomach and the child who can sit down and have some
cereal and juice in the classroom. The child who gets a free breakfast
is more alert through the school day and can focus on learning. The
child who does not eat breakfast faces a different day, and many times
has difficulty making it through the day.
I also know that we have an obligation to the children
who participate in these programs, particularly in light of the growing
epidemic of childhood obesity.
The number of overweight children has doubled in the last
two to three decades. This crisis spans age, race and gender groups.
Because overweight adolescents have a 70 percent chance
of becoming overweight or obese adults and with more than half of all
students participating in the school lunch program, we have an
excellent opportunity to address childhood obesity head on. Increasing
the availability of nutritious foods in the commodities program will
make a difference.
If we are to truly leave no child behind and to narrow
the achievement gap between the ``haves'' and ``have nots'', then every
child should have access to a nutritious and safe school meal that
contributes to a child's health and academic well being.
The commodities that are made available to our schools
for school meals are integral to this effort and I look forward to the
testimony from our witnesses on how we can better meet the demands of
schools and school food directors who face daily challenges from making
meals more attractive so that children will eat them, to getting the
right quantity of product when it is needed, to storage requirements
for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Mr. Under Secretary, welcome back. As this is the first
time I have had the opportunity to hear from you during this
reauthorization, I want to take advantage of your appearance during
this hearing and ask you some questions about your plans for the
reauthorization.
Again, Mr. Chairman I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses and thank you for convening this hearing.
______
Statement of Hon. Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington
I am pleased to be able to provide my statement for the record on
this very important issue.
As you are aware, the 2002 Farm bill included a Fruit and Vegetable
Pilot Program that provided $6 million to 107 schools with the goal of
determining the best ways to increase fresh fruit and fresh vegetable
consumption in elementary and secondary schools. Twenty-five schools
were selected to participate in the pilot program in each of the states
of Iowa, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio and seven schools of the Zuni
Indian Tribal Organization in New Mexico. Schools provided fresh fruits
and vegetables as snacks to children, many also provided nutritional
education.
An Economic Research Service (ERS) study of the pilot project
showed that students involved in the program were more likely to eat
more nutritious school lunch program meals and selected more fruits and
vegetables as part of those meals. The study also showed that several
schools implemented nutrition education activities to build on the
healthy fruit and vegetable offerings. Teachers also reported that
students ate less high calorie foods from vending machines, had greater
attention spans and visited the nurse less.
I have recently introduced legislation to expand this successful
pilot program. H.R 2832, the ``Healthy Nutrition for America's Children
Act'' is a common sense, practical way to introduce school children to
the benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables.
The media is full of reports about child obesity and proposed
lawsuits against fast food companies. By using existing funds, H.R.
2832 will enable selected schools in all 50 states the flexibility to
design individual programs to encourage healthy eating habits through
the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables for snacks for children and
in turn, promote a lifetime of healthy eating habits--something
lawsuits won't ever accomplish.
This program would use $75 million annually for five years. This
funding would come from existing federal dollars provided in the 2002
Farm Bill for fruit and vegetable purchases.
The fruits and vegetables grown by American farmers are some of the
finest in the world. My bill will teach children about the great
products grown by our farmers and that these fresh fruits and
vegetables play an important role in living healthy lives.
Mr. Chairman, I urge you and your colleagues to include this
proposal to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Pilot Program in
your legislation for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act and the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
______
Respnse to Questions Submitted for the Record from Eric M. Bost, Under
Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and COnsumer Services, Food and Nutrition
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
1) a clarification on the Department's policy on offering dairy
alternatives to students as part of the reimbursable meal. There is
some confusion whether exceptions are made for medical issues only with
a note from a medical professional, or whether exceptions also are
granted for religious (or other reasons). If religious purposes also
are acceptable, are notes also required and if so, by whom.
In accordance with Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act, schools must offer students milk as
part of a reimbursable lunch. All milk served in the program must be
pasteurized fluid milk that meets State and local standards for such
milk.
Program regulations require a substitution for children
with disabilities who are unable to consume the milk or other food
items. The substitution must be in writing and prescribed by a licensed
physician identifying the food or foods and the food or foods of choice
that must be substituted.
The regulations permit and FNS encourages accommodations
for children that are not considered disabled but have special dietary
needs such as milk intolerance. Schools must have a statement from a
recognized medical practitioner (e.g., a licensed physician,
physician's assistant, nurse practitioner or other health professional
specified by the State agency) that, (1) identifies the medical or
other special dietary need which restricts the child's diet, (2)
stipulates the food or foods to be omitted from the child's diet and
the food or choice of foods to be substituted.
FNS issued instructions on variations in the meal
requirements for religious reasons for Jewish schools and Seventh Day
Adventist Schools. For Jewish schools, juice may be substituted for the
milk, when necessary to meet the Jewish Dietary Law or the milk may be
offered at a different time than the meal. These schools must notify
the State agency that they are implementing a variation offered in the
instruction.
As a reminder, students can decline fluid milk under
``offer-versus-serve'' (OVS). OVS permits students to decline certain
food items that they do not intend to consume.
FNS encourages and program regulations specify that
schools should consider ethnic and religious preferences when planning
and preparing meals.
Summary of the Recommendations for Certification Accuracy
At the time of his testimony, Under Secretary recommended the
following certification accuracy provisions:
Enhanced verification
Enhance verification of paper-based applications by
drawing on an increased verification sample including both a random
sample and one focused on error-prone applications in each school and
completing the verifications within 45 days. (Note: Although not
mentioned specifically, the original thought was a sample size increase
from 3% to somewhere between 10-15%; this enhanced verification sample
was to be part of a comprehensive approach to improve both
certification accuracy and access to eligible children. The
administration considers the issue of sample size to be negotiable, but
is committed to an increase in some measure that provides for improving
certification accuracy.)
Provide funding to support the enhanced verification
activities and other improvements to the certification process.
Provisions to improve access by eligible children
Require direct certification for free meals through the
Food Stamp Program, to improve certification accuracy over paper
applications while increasing access for the lowest-income families and
reducing the application and verification burden for families and
schools.
Permit households to submit a single application covering
all children attending school, and provide for yearlong certifications.
These improvements reduce certification and verification burden while
reducing potential for error.
Minimize barriers for eligible children who wish to
remain in the program by requiring a robust, consistent effort in every
State to follow-up with those who do not respond to verification
requests, including a minimum of three contacts in writing and by
phone.
Research
Initiate a series of comprehensive demonstration projects
to test alternative mechanisms for certifying and verifying applicant
information, including use of data matching that identifies eligible
and ineligible households and a nationally representative study of
certification error and the number of dollars lost to program error.
Additional ideas regarding ensuring protections for eligible children
The Administration is committed to a balance of access to program
benefits with efforts to ensure program integrity in the National
School Lunch Program. Examples of opportunities might include data
matching with other means-tested programs; school flexibility regarding
the review process (for example, specific populations such as homeless
children); and increased technical assistance and training for schools.
FNS is interested in considering various safeguards that support the
guiding principles outlined in Under Secretary Bost's testimony. Those
guiding principles are:
1. Ensuring access to program benefits for all eligible children.
Broadly speaking, we propose streamlining the application process and
the administration of programs to minimize burdens on both schools and
parents;
2. Supporting healthy school environments to address the epidemic
of overweight and obesity among our children by providing financial
incentives to schools that meet dietary guidelines and specific
criteria; and
3. Improving the accuracy of program eligibility determinations,
while ensuring access to program benefits for all eligible children,
and reinvesting any program savings to support improved program
outcomes.
______
Statement of the American Commodity Distribution Association
Chairman Boehner and members of the Committee, the American
Commodity Distribution Association (ACDA) appreciates the opportunity
to comment on the commodity distribution program. ACDA is a non-profit
professional trade association devoted to the improvement of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) commodity distribution system. ACDA
members include state agencies that distribute USDA-purchased
commodities, agricultural organizations, recipient agencies such as
schools, and allied organizations. ACDA members are responsible for
distributing over 1.5 billion pounds of USDA-purchased commodities
annually to programs such as the National School Lunch Program.
Our statement focuses on three important issues to the commodity
distribution program: the important role of ``bonus'' commodities;
efforts to ensure the safety of USDA-purchased food; and the need to
continue to streamline program operation. Attached for your
consideration is a copy of ACDA's legislative issue paper for this
year. The issue paper outlines a number of additional topics, such as
establishing a commodity reimbursement for the School Breakfast
Program, that we believe would also help improve the operation of the
commodity distribution program.
Bonus Commodities
Through State agencies, USDA distributes well over 1.5 billion
pounds of food annually, most of which goes to schools. Other
recipients of USDA-purchased commodities include the Child and Adult
Care Food Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the Nutrition
Program for the Elderly, the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program. One of the
strengths of the Department's commodity distribution system is its
ability to move commodities efficiently. This efficiency is largely
dependent on the volume, not the dollar value, of product flowing
through the system. The more cases of product that move through the
system, the more cost effective it is for States to maintain their
distribution system.
For a variety of reasons, the cost of operating a commodity
distribution system at the State level increases every year, and the
volume of product moving through the system has not increased enough to
offset these costs. As a result, States are finding it more and more
difficult to provide services that are expected by our customers--the
school districts. Complicating this, the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act (Public Law 106-170), passed in late 1999,
would make it considerably more difficult to operate distribution
programs at the State level by significantly reducing the volume of
commodities available to schools and other programs.
As you know, the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
requires that at least 12 percent of all school lunch assistance be in
the form of USDA commodities. P.L. 106-170 amended the School Lunch Act
to require USDA to include the value of bonus commodities when
calculating whether or not the 12 percent requirement has been
satisfied. On a per student basis the cut imposed by P.L. 106-170 might
have appeared to be small. However, the overall impact on the commodity
distribution system would be disastrous. This change could result in a
decrease of at least 80 million pounds of commodities per year.
Fortunately, this cut has never been realized as Congress has
forestalled its implementation through either the annual appropriations
process or other legislation. The most recent fix was enacted as part
of the 2002 Farm Bill, which corrected this issue through Fiscal Year
2003. Of course, fiscal year 2003 ended last month, and similar action
by Congress is necessary to restore this funding for Fiscal Year 2004.
ACDA hopes that Congress can enact a similar fix for the current fiscal
year.
Food Safety
It is often said the United States enjoys the safest food supply in
the world. USDA commodity foods are no exception. These products are
subject to the same inspection and regulatory requirements as the
entire U.S. food supply. Additionally, USDA contract specifications are
often more rigorous than commercial specifications and require federal
employees to perform on site sanitation reviews and grading functions.
Although the federal employees conducting these reviews are not
directly charged with monitoring food safety, they are required to
report food safety concerns to the appropriate federal agency. The end
result is that there is typically a greater federal inspection presence
in plants that sell product to USDA.
The Department's commodity distribution program has a history of
evolving to meet the changing needs of recipient agencies and American
agriculture. One of the most significant changes began when USDA
embarked on a broad effort to further improve the way it purchases and
distributes food for the nutrition assistance programs. Part of this
effort was a review of the process through which USDA initiates a
recall of food it has purchased and distributed to recipient agencies.
In July 2001, the Department issued a new policy to streamline this
process. In summary, the updated recall policy:
Institutionalized USDA's commodity food recall process;
Streamlined and clarified communications between USDA and
other federal agencies that may be involved in a recall, such as the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
Streamlined and expedited communications between USDA,
State distributing agencies, and recipient agencies;
Ensures the removal of adulterated product from recipient
agencies as soon as possible; and
Ensures appropriate reimbursement of costs to State and
recipient agencies and expedites product replacement.
Improvements to the Commodity Distribution Program
Over the past 20 years the commodity distribution program has
improved significantly. Like any program, however, there is always room
for additional improvement. USDA undertook a reengineering effort in
1999 to identify ways to further improve the program so that it can
continue to meet the needs of its key constituents--agricultural
producers and consumers.
This reengineering project has resulted in a number of important
improvements. For example, USDA is in the process of rolling out an
Electronic Commodity Ordering System (ECOS), which will, among other
things, utilize the internet to facilitate the ordering and delivery of
USDA commodities. Additionally, USDA pilot tested a number of
initiatives intended to streamline the reprocessing of USDA commodities
for schools.
USDA should be applauded for its efforts in this area, and we are
hopeful that the Department will continue to make additional
improvements. Additional improvements will benefit all the stakeholders
in the commodity distribution program--from the agricultural producers
to recipient agencies.
Conclusion
ACDA appreciates the opportunity to comment on these important
issues, and we look forward to working with the Committee as the
reauthorization process continues.
2003 ISSUE PAPER
The American Commodity Distribution Association (ACDA) is a non-
profit professional trade association devoted to the improvement of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) commodity distribution system.
ACDA members include state agencies that distribute USDA commodities,
agricultural organizations, recipient agencies, such as schools, and
allied organizations, such as nonprofit anti-hunger groups. ACDA
members are responsible for distributing over 1.5 billion pounds of
USDA purchased commodities annually to programs such as the National
School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP), the Summer Food Service Program, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
ACDA believes Congress and USDA should consider several issues as
they review how to further improve these programs. These
recommendations will strengthen the commodity programs, and ensure that
they will continue to meet the needs of agricultural producers and
recipient agencies.
Ensure USDA can continue to make bonus purchases. Nearly $1 billion
has been transferred from the Section 32 account to provide much needed
assistance to livestock producers. Section 32 funds have traditionally
been the source utilized by USDA to make bonus purchases to support
agricultural prices, and there is significant concern that the
Department will not be able to make these purchases this year. If the
Section 32 account is not replenished through legislative action, the
Department must ensure that it can use other funding mechanisms to make
bonus buys as needs arise.
Restore the minimum level of commodity assistance for the School
Lunch Program. The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA)
requires that at least 12% of federal assistance provided through the
School Lunch Program be in the form of commodities. Starting with
Fiscal Year 2004, bonus commodities--commodities purchased through
USDA's price support programs--will be counted toward this requirement.
This will result in a budget cut of at least $55 million per year,
which amounts to over 80 million pounds of commodities. ACDA urges
Congress to amend the NSLA to avoid this budget cut.
Establish commodity assistance for the School Breakfast Program. To
encourage efforts to expand the availability of the School Breakfast
Program, Congress should provide commodity assistance for this program
at a level of five cents per reimbursable breakfast served. This would
provide an excellent avenue to assist the farm economy by removing
surplus food, and would provide much needed assistance to this program.
Revise the formula for allocating State Administrative Expense
(SAE) funds. In most states, the amount of school lunch SAE funds
allocated to the commodity program is not sufficient to meet regulatory
requirements and satisfy the expectations of schools. As a result,
recipient agencies are often required to pay a service and handling fee
to receive USDA-purchased commodities. Congress should consider
amending the NSLA to ensure a more equitable allocation of SAE funds at
the state level to fund the food distribution program.
Improve nutrition integrity by encouraging the consumption of
reimbursable meals. The Surgeon General, among others, has recognized
that the health effects of obesity and overweight are issues of
national importance. The school meal programs are a healthy alternative
to other options available to schoolchildren, and Congress should fund
nutrition education efforts that encourage the consumption of program
meals.
Strengthen the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Over the past two years,
the declining economy has resulted in increased demand for emergency
food assistance. At the same time, private sector food donations in
many areas have decreased. Both of these factors are straining the
budgets of local community action agencies and food banks. To help
alleviate this problem, Congress should appropriate the fully
authorized amount of funding for TEFAP storage and distribution costs--
$60 million. For the same reasons, adequate funding for CSFP is
necessary to ensure that the addition of new state programs does not
compromise existing programs.
______
Statement of Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a
national, nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive
medicine, especially good nutrition. PCRM recommends modifications to
the National School Lunch Act in order to meet the goals of
significantly reducing childhood obesity and promoting the long-term
health of American children and adolescents. Last fall, PCRM launched
the Healthy School Lunch Campaign in preparation for the upcoming
reauthorization of the Act. The campaign's key message is simple: Foods
served as part of the school lunch program should promote the health of
all children.
As you know, when the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) was
established in 1946, its goal of safeguarding the health and well-being
of the nation's children grew out of concerns with malnutrition caused
by a shortage of food. Today, we are concerned with over-consumption.
In fact, in a December 8, 2002, article by the conservative think tank
American Enterprise Institute entitled We're Feeding the Poor as if
They're Starving, it is noted that ``the central nutritional problem
facing the poor--indeed, all Americans--is not too little food, but too
much of the wrong food.''
The school lunch program has not kept pace with what we have
learned about health and nutrition. Rather, the foods given to children
under the guise of good nutrition--chili-cheese dogs, pizza,
cheeseburgers, chicken nuggets, dairy milk (all of which are too high
in saturated fat and cholesterol and too low in fiber- and nutrient-
rich fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes)--have played a role
in helping to create a generation of obese and overweight children. Not
only did the Surgeon General recently report that the prevalence of
obesity has nearly tripled for adolescents in the past two decades, but
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 60 percent of
overweight five- to ten-year-olds already have at least one risk factor
for heart disease, such as raised blood pressure or insulin levels. A
shift away from unhealthy foods in favor of encouraging children to
consume healthy and good-tasting food from plant sources would be a
tremendous first step in addressing this epidemic.
Currently, the USDA commodities program, which supplies food items
to the NSLP, puts the needs of U.S. agriculture ahead of the health
needs of children and provides few low-fat, plant-based entree
ingredients for use in school lunch menus. Every year, the USDA buys
millions of pounds of excess beef, pork, milk, and other meat and dairy
products to bolster sagging prices in the animal agriculture industry.
These high-fat, high-cholesterol products are then distributed at very
low cost through the NSLP, where they fuel many children's life-long
struggle against obesity and heart disease.
Meanwhile, the USDA drops the ball on providing healthy foods. For
example, it costs a school district more than twice as much to provide
a high-fiber, low-fat, cholesterol-free veggie burger (approximately
$0.55 each) than it does to provide a higher-fat, fiber-free hamburger
(approximately $0.23 each). That's because the government subsidizes
hamburger meat, but not veggie burgers. In 2001, of the two government
commodity programs that provide food directly to schools, $518.1
million was spent on cheese, beef, poultry, and eggs, and only $161.1
million was spent on fruits and vegetables.
Also, despite the public's growing appetite for non-dairy beverages
and the health community's recognition of the health benefits of these
products, the NSLP does not allow calcium-fortified soymilk or calcium-
fortified orange juice to be provided as a reimbursable option for
school lunches. In other words, if soymilk or another non-dairy
beverage is offered in place of cow's milk, the USDA will not reimburse
school districts for the entire meal. This forces schools to shoulder
the financial burden of providing these beverages as an alternative to
cow's milk. Our organization petitioned the USDA to change its
regulations to make non-dairy beverages available in the school lunch
program as a reimbursable option regardless of whether the child has
been diagnosed as lactose intolerant, but the USDA responded that it
was prevented from doing so until Congress amends the statute. For
these reasons, PCRM is asking that the commodities program be
restructured to provide foods that offer health benefits to children in
government-sponsored nutrition programs and that a calcium-rich, non-
dairy beverage be made available to children in schools and other child
nutrition programs regardless of medical need.
PCRM recommends the following specific changes in the National School
Lunch Act:
1) That 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1755 Direct expenditures for agricultural
commodities and other foods be amended to delete subsection (c)(1)(D)
that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to ``give special emphasis
to high protein foods, meat and meat alternates (which may include
domestic seafood commodities and their products).'' In its place should
be a provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
restructure the commodities program to provide foods that offer health
benefits to children in government-sponsored nutrition programs.
Instead of buying up beef, pork, chicken, butter, cheese, processed
meats, and other foods high in saturated fat, USDA purchases should
include healthy, low-fat, high-fiber, nutrient-rich commodity foods in
quantities that schools can use.
RATIONALE: While the USDA has the goal of providing nutritious
meals for our nation's youths, it also aims to boost agricultural
industries that produce foods that contribute to obesity, heart
disease, and cancer. On average, only one-third of foods on the
commodity foods list are healthy, low-fat, cholesterol-free, fiber-rich
fruits and vegetables. Many of the healthier meat substitutes are not
available in the commodity food program and cost the schools more to
include in their menus.
2) That the nutritional requirements as set forth in 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1758 be amended to require that schools offer calcium-rich, non-
dairy beverages such as calcium-fortified juice, soymilk, or rice milk
daily as a milk alternate, regardless of whether a student shows a
medical, religious, or dietary need. RATIONALE: Numerous scientific
studies link the consumption of cow's milk to obesity, anemia, ear
infections, constipation, respiratory problems, heart disease, and some
cancers. Due to the dangers of dairy product consumption, cow's milk
with added lactase, such as Lactaid'' milk, is not a suitable
alternative. And, as people of ethnicities other than Caucasian are
typically unable to digest dairy sugar, relying on dairy products as
the sole source of calcium in child nutrition programs favors children
of Northern European descent. According to the American Academy of
Family Physicians'' 2002 report on lactose intolerance, 60 to 80
percent of blacks, 50 to 80 percent of Hispanics, 80 to 100 percent of
American Indians, 95 to 100 percent of Asians, and 6 to 22 percent of
American whites are lactose intolerant. Lactose intolerance, which is
sometimes apparent as early as age three, causes flatulence, cramping,
diarrhea, and bloating after eating dairy products. Therefore, Congress
should authorize the USDA to reimburse school districts for offering
non-dairy, calcium-fortified beverages in the NSLP as well as all other
federal nutrition programs.
A diet drawn from varied plant sources easily satisfies the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and, in particular, satisfies calcium and
protein requirements, providing all essential amino acids, even without
intentional combining or ``protein complementing.'' There is plenty of
protein in whole grains, vegetables, and legumes, and plenty of calcium
in green leafy vegetables, fortified juices, and other foods with
health advantages that meat and dairy products lack. With the approval
of Alternate Protein Products in the NSLP, schools are now able to
provide children with meatless, cholesterol-free entries. PCRM
recommends that schools offer vegan entries, such as veggie or soy
burgers, bean and rice burritos, and veggie chili, on a regular basis
so that children will be presented with nutritious selections, develop
tastes for health-promoting foods, and acquire healthy eating habits
that will stay with them for the rest of their lives.
In summary, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine urges
you to mandate that meals served under the NSLP include a non-dairy,
calcium-rich beverage option and contain only healthy, nutrient-dense
foods, so that children have no choice but to eat a nutritious meal.
The federal government should stop putting agricultural interests ahead
of children's health. It is abundantly clear that providing the best
possible foods for children--vegetables, fruits, and other vegetarian
foods--will pay enormous dividends, helping to ensure their better
health for years to come. Thank you for your attention to this very
important health issue.
______
Follow-Up Statement of Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) submits this
additional testimony for the record on ``Improving the Quality and
Efficiency of Commodity Distribution to Federal Child Nutrition
Programs.''
As noted in our previous submission, dated 10/7/03, PCRM is a
national, nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive
medicine, especially good nutrition. Last fall, PCRM launched the
Healthy School Lunch Campaign in preparation for the upcoming
reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA). The campaign's
key message is simple: Foods served as part of the school lunch program
should promote the health of all children. As part of the campaign,
PCRM is encouraging lawmakers to amend the NSLA to make non-dairy
beverages, such as nutritious, low-fat, and cholesterol-free soymilk, a
reimbursable option in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).
A reimbursable non-dairy beverage alternative offered in the
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is necessary because many U.S.
children are lactose intolerant (mainly children of ethnicities other
than Caucasian), allergic to milk, or choose to avoid milk for other
reasons, such as taste preferences, religious or ethical
considerations, or health concerns. Cow's milk and other dairy products
are not necessary in children's diets for bone health and can, in fact,
be harmful to their health. Some cancers, asthma, allergies, ear
infections, constipation, and diabetes have all been linked to the
consumption of dairy products mainly due to the proteins in milk, not
the milk sugar lactose. A number of studies have linked milk
consumption with prostate cancer in older men, presumably due to milk's
effect on hormones. All children, whether or not they experience
discomfort or ill health upon consuming dairy products, should have the
opportunity to choose a nutritious, non-dairy beverage such as soymilk
through the NSLP.
Children in the United States are becoming increasingly overweight,
and rates of diabetes are on the rise--largely because we consume such
a high-fat, calorie-dense diet. Whole and even ``low-fat'' milks
contain saturated fat, sugar (lactose and added sucrose in flavored
milks), and cholesterol, which collectively contribute to the
development of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. As reported by
Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, fluid milk is the number-one single food source of
saturated fat and total fat in a child's diet. To reduce these health
risks, children should be encouraged or at least given the opportunity
to obtain calcium from dark green, leafy vegetables (calcium
absorption: 52-59%), broccoli (calcium absorption: 61%), beans (calcium
absorption: 22%), fortified juices (calcium absorption: 38%), and
fortified soy-, rice, almond, and oat milks (calcium absorption: 24 -
34%)--foods that provide highly absorbable calcium and a variety of
health advantages without the fat and cholesterol in cow's milk
(calcium absorption: 32%). Hence, children should, at a minimum, be
able to choose an enriched soymilk beverage in the school cafeteria.
Enriched soymilk is delicious and can help to meet the nutritional
needs of children. Enriched soymilk contains protein, calcium, and
vitamins A and D at levels comparable to cow's milk, but without the
disadvantageous saturated fat, cholesterol, and hormones found in dairy
milk. In comparison, an 8-ounce serving of 1/2% fat chocolate cow's
milk contains:
150 calories
1 gram of saturated fat
10 milligrams of cholesterol
300 milligrams of calcium
230 milligrams of sodium
0 grams of fiber
24 grams of sugar
An 8-ounce serving of Silk chocolate soymilk contains:
135 calories
<0.5 grams of saturated fat
0 milligrams of cholesterol
300 milligrams of calcium
96 milligrams of sodium
1 gram of fiber
17 grams of sugar
In addition to the nutritional superiority of soymilk to cow's
milk, children will choose and consume soymilk when it is offered to
them in the lunch line. A pilot study conducted by PCRM at Dillard
Elementary School in Broward County, Florida, demonstrated the
acceptability of soymilk among school children. The pilot study
included four weeks where both vanilla and chocolate Silk'' soymilk
were offered in the lunch line next to the variety of dairy milks ( +%
chocolate milk, 1% regular milk, and whole regular milk). Data was
collected on how many children selected soymilk and cow's milk from the
lunch line, as well as how much milk was consumed by weighing the
contents of all milk cartons as children threw away their lunch trays.
At the end of 4 weeks, one-third of the children were choosing either
vanilla or chocolate soymilk over cow's milk, which represented a 2.5%
increase in total milk selection from the lunch line compared with milk
selection prior to the inclusion of a soymilk option (97.8% of kids
chose some kind of milk after the introduction of soymilk). Regarding
consumption, at the end of four weeks, an average of 61% of the soymilk
chosen was consumed, and 53.5% of the cow's milk chosen was consumed.
Children in Dillard Elementary School were delighted to have the
soymilk option in their lunch line as many of them are African American
and unable to tolerate cow's milk. One child stated, ``I can't have
regular milk because I'll be on the toilet all day.'' This fall, PCRM
will conduct three additional lengthier soymilk acceptability studies
in elementary schools.
In summary, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine urges
you to allow meals served under the NSLP that include a non-dairy,
calcium-rich beverage option, such as enriched soymilk, to be
reimbursable in order to accommodate the needs of all students.
Enriched soymilk is a nutritionally replete and healthy beverage that
is well accepted by elementary school children. Moreover, the inclusion
of soymilk in elementary school lunch lines may very well increase
calcium consumption from beverages in the National School Lunch
Program.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional testimony.
Please visit our Web site at www.HealthySchoolLunches.org or contact me
directly for further information.
References:
1. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Ma J, Gann PH, Gaziano JM, Giovannucci
EL. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the
Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54.
2. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk
consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among
postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;77(2):504-11.
3. Keller JL, Lanou AJ, Barnard ND. The consumer cost of calcium
from food and supplements. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102:1669-71.
4. Lloyd T, Chinchilli VM, Johnson-Rollings N, Kieselhorst K,
Eggli DF, Marcus R. Adult female hip bone density reflects teenage
sports-exercise patterns but not teenage calcium intake. Pediatrics.
2000 Jul;106(1 Pt 1):40-4.
5. Messina V, Mangels AR. Considerations in planning vegan diets:
children. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Jun;101(6):661-9.
______
Statement of Nancy E. Foster, President and CEO, U.S. Apple Association
The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) is the national trade
association representing all segments of the apple industry. Members
include 40 state and regional apple associations representing the 7,500
apple growers throughout the country, as well as more than 400
individual firms involved in the apple business.
The U.S. apple industry has long partnered with the federal
government to provide fresh-market apples and processed apple foods to
federal child nutrition programs including the National School Lunch
Program. Through this partnership, our industry has supplied wholesome,
nutritious apples and apple products to our nation's schoolchildren
through routine Section 6 purchases, while Section 32 surplus commodity
purchases have served to remove excess supplies of apples and apple
products from the market during years when the industry has faced
market surplus. This relationship represents a ``win-win'' for all
participants: the children who benefit from these programs enjoy
delicious, nutritious U.S. apples and apple foods, the federal
government receives the highest-quality apples and apple products
available anywhere in the world, and the U.S. apple industry benefits
from increased demand.
The federal government is a very important customer of the U.S.
apple industry. Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has purchased an average of 350,000 cartons of
fresh-market apples with an average value of $4.2 million per year, and
has purchased 87.3 million pounds of apple juice, sauce and canned/
frozen apple slices with an average value of $25.2 million per year.
These apples and apple products are sourced from suppliers across the
country, who are proud to provide healthful apples and apple products
to schoolchildren.
However, our children are at risk for overweight and obesity, and
our nation is losing its battle against these health-threatening
conditions. Yet, the science is clear that eating more fruits and
vegetables, including apples, can and should be part of the solution to
that problem. Federal child nutrition programs represent an
extraordinary opportunity to elevate child nutrition and health policy
to a higher national priority, by moving fruits and vegetables,
including apples and apple products, more to the ``center of the
plate.''
Apples are the original icon of health, and modern research is
demonstrating that apples and foods made from them may in fact provide
a ``whole body'' range of health benefits. Nutrient-dense, versatile,
great-tasting U.S. apples, fresh-cut apple slices, and processed apple
products, including 100 percent U.S. apple juice and apple cider,
applesauce and canned slices, can play an important role in improving
the health of the children who benefit from our country's child
nutrition programs, while improving the U.S. apple industry's ailing
economic health in the process.
As this committee considers how to improve the efficiency and
quality of commodity distribution to federal child nutrition programs,
USApple urges that legislation to reauthorize these programs include
the following three priorities:
Increase federally-funded purchases of produce, including
apples and apple products, such as through an expanded USDA Fruit and
Vegetable Pilot Program;
enhance the infrastructure needed to support federal
purchases of produce, including apples and apple products; and
create greater opportunities through federal child
nutrition education programs to promote the health benefits of produce
consumption and the ``5 to 9 A Day'' message.
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program
As you know, the 2002 farm bill-authorized Fruit and Vegetable
Pilot Program provided $6 million in Section 32 surplus commodity
removal funds to 107 schools in Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio and the
Zuni Indian Tribal Organization, with a combined total enrollment of
64,377 schoolchildren. The USDA-administered program provided grants to
schools to purchase fruits and vegetables for distribution throughout
the school day, outside of USDA-supported school meal times. A valuable
aspect of the program is local decision making; each school chose which
fruits and vegetables to purchase, and many sourced from local
producers.
USDA's evaluation report of the pilot program's first two months is
available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan03006/.
The report documents that the pilot program was very popular with
students and schools, and urged that the program be continued. It also
found that apples were the most popular item in the pilot program:
fresh-market apples were purchased by more schools than
any other fresh item ($97,803 purchased in two months);
dried apple chips were the third most-purchased dried
fruit ($6,597 over two months); and
fruit juices worth $5,570 were also purchased (data on
apple juice/cider is not available).
USApple strongly urges expansion of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot
Program. We recommend that the committee include H.R. 2832, introduced
by Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington state, in its upcoming child
nutrition reauthorization legislation. This program works for our
schoolchildren, by immediately increasing their fruit and vegetable
consumption, improving their health and further encouraging healthy
food choices and better eating behaviors for a lifetime. It works for
the U.S. apple industry by increasing distribution of fresh-market
apples, fresh-cut apple slices, apple juice, apple cider and dried
apples to participating schoolchildren. It also works for the federal
government by reducing future health care costs for tomorrow's adults.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our comments. We look
forward to expanding our partnership with the federal government to
promote our nation's and our industry's health.
______
Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS),
the country's largest animal protection organization with more than 7.8
million supporters nationwide, we urge the House Committee on Education
and the Workforce to allow soy milk to be a reimbursable beverage in
the school lunch and breakfast programs. It should be reimbursable with
no stipulations (e.g. doctors' notes) for the simple yet powerful
reason that it makes sense.
Human Health
A substantial number of children do not drink milk for health,
ethical, or religious reasons. Children with lactose intolerance can
suffer from uncomfortable and sometimes painful intestinal problems if
they drink milk. For some children, milk consumption is associated with
aggravated allergy symptoms, asthma, chronic ear infections, and other
conditions because the milk protein, casein, can irritate the immune
system and stimulate mucus production.
Children who cannot or do not want to consume cow's milk should be
provided with a healthful alternative--particularly since the National
School Lunch Act mandates that the program should accommodate all
children's dietary needs. Schools now offer alternatives such as soy
milk only to students who bring doctors' notes explaining why they need
nondairy beverages. But it makes no sense to require a doctor's note
for something as simple as a nutritious drink--especially for
economically disadvantaged schoolchildren who may not have access to
adequate health care.
A growing number of organizations and even school foodservice
directors from across the country are calling for the inclusion of soy
milk in school lunches. We add our voice to this chorus.
Drinking soy milk can offer health advantages. The Food and Drug
Administration has concluded that including foods containing soy
protein in a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol may reduce the
risk of coronary heart disease by lowering blood cholesterol levels.
Soy milk also contains fewer calories and less fat compared to dairy
milk, which according to the National Institutes of Health is the
number-one source of saturated fat in children's diets. While not the
sole cause, the high level of fat found in animal products contributes
to the growing epidemic of obesity in children. According to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, childhood obesity in rising at an
alarming rate and the rate is highest for minority and economically
disadvantaged children. Therefore, ensuring that low fat, plant-based
options are available would seem prudent. Enriched soy milk is
comparable to dairy milk as a source of calcium and protein. It is
outrageous for the dairy industry to suggest that soy milk is somehow
nutritionally deficient; millions of people drink soy milk every day
and derive a variety of nutritional benefits from this product.
Animal Welfare
Some students who opt not to drink dairy milk make this choice as
an ethical decision not to support intensive animal production. They
are concerned about treatment of dairy cows as disposable commodities
from whom every last ounce of efficiency must be squeezed at the
expense of humane treatment. These students, like those who will not
drink dairy milk because of health concerns or religious restrictions,
should have ready access to a nutritious beverage alternative without
needing to obtain a doctor's note.
Dairy cow welfare has often been seriously compromised by an
increasing focus on maximizing production. The amount of milk produced
by the average dairy cow has been steadily increasing due largely to
intense genetic selection. With this increase there has been a
concomitant increase in production-related diseases, the most prominent
being mastitis (infection of the udder) and laminitis (infection of the
hoof), both of which can be very painful. These diseases and other
problems related to high production, such as weakened immune systems,
result in cows that are sent to slaughter having only lived a quarter
of their natural life. These same health problems are exacerbated by
the use in some conventional dairy farms of recombinant bovine
somatotropin (rBST), a hormone that increases milk production.
Conclusion
Congress does not face a public policy choice here between dairy
and soy milk. It is a question of providing nutritious alternatives to
dairy milk for those children who cannot or will not drink dairy milk.
We urge the Committee to allow soy milk as a reimbursable school lunch
and breakfast program option regardless of childrens'' reasons for
preferring it. Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments and
for your careful consideration of this issue.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0141.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0141.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0141.003
Letter from Donna Wittrock, President, American School Food Service
Association, Submitted for the Record
November 14, 2003
Honorable John Boehner, Chairman
Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Committee Hearing on Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Dear Rep. Boehner:
Thank you for your continued interest and leadership on issues
related to the federal child nutrition programs and the commodity food
distribution program. We greatly appreciated having had the opportunity
to testify at the hearing you chaired on October 7. During that
hearing, Mr. Robinson Joslin, president of the Ohio Soybean Association
testified regarding the availability of non-dairy milk products in
school meal programs. I wish to clarify a statement Mr. Joslin made
regarding the position of the American School Food Service Association
on this issue.
Mr. Joslin said, ``the American School Food Service Association,
they represent 65,000 schools, have identified the need to include soy
milk as an option, as a top priority.'' Mr. Joslin overstated ASFSA's
position in this matter. We do, however, support making soy milk an
OPTION and a supplemental sheet of lesser ASFSA positions does address
soy milk as follows:
Soy milk- support legislation that would allow soy beverage to
be credited as fluid milk in school meals but only if standards
are established requiring that such products provide at a
minimum the same nutrients as dairy milk.
If the Congress does feel it is appropriate to include soy milk, we
would urge that soy beverages be made available subject to a local
decision. As yet, the products available to schools are considerably
more expensive than dairy milk and it would be a burden to a program
where the current reimbursement rate is inadequate to meet all of the
needs for providing nutritious meals to children. However, where there
is sufficient demand, a school district should be allowed to offer the
alternate product as part of a reimbursable school meal.
Thank you for allowing me to share these concerns with you and I
would appreciate it if this letter can be included as part of the
hearing record.
Sincerely,
Donna Wittrock
President
American School Food Service Association