[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL NUTRITION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 4, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-80
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-944 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut [Vacancy]
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2008.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 53
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Questions submitted to witnesses......................... 55
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 54
Statement of Witnesses:
Corrigan, Kathleen A., MBA, RD, director, food and nutrition
services, Mt. Diablo Unified School District............... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Written responses to questions for the record............ 55
Hecht, Kenneth, California Food Policy Advocates............. 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Written responses to questions for the record............ 57
Hill, Mary, president, School Nutrition Association.......... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
USDA dietary guidelines memo............................. 12
Written responses to questions for the record............ 60
Houston, Hon. Kate J., Deputy Under Secretary, Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of
Agriculture................................................ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
USDA responses to questions for the record............... 63
Parham, Penny, administrative director, department of food
and nutrition, Miami-Dade County........................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Written responses to questions for the record............ 69
Rivas, Dora, vice president, School Nutrition Association;
director of child nutrition, Dallas........................ 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional submission: ``Westland/Hallmark Meat Co.
Recall Costs''......................................... 33
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL NUTRITION
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews,
Scott, Tierney, Wu, Holt, Davis of California, Grijalva,
Sarbanes, Loebsack, Yarmuth, Hare, Courtney, McKeon. Castle,
Biggert, Kline, and Foxx
Staff Present: Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Brian
Kennedy, General Counsel; Michael Zola, Chief Investigative
Counsel; Patrick Findlay, Investigative Counsel; Sharon Lewis,
Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Thomas Kiley, Communications
Director; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director;
Danielle Lee, Press/Outreach Assistant; Ann-Frances Lambert,
Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy;
Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Lloyd Horwich, Policy
Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education; Ryan Holden, Senior Investigator,
Oversight; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Sarah
Dyson, Administrative Assistant, Oversight; Alejandra Ceja,
Senior Budget/Appropriations Analyst; Tylease Alli, Hearing
Clerk; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Sally Stroup, Minority Staff
Director; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Kirsten
Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Stephanie Arras,
Minority Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Cameron
Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director; Susan
Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Services Policy;
and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the
General Counsel.
Chairman Miller. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order to conduct a hearing on the challenges and
opportunities of improving school nutrition.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses and the audience and
the Members of Congress to this hearing.
Today's hearing will examine ways to improve the school
nutrition safety and the school food supply. Federal nutrition
programs are intended to provide children with healthful food
to eat at school. During the last reauthorization of the Child
Nutrition and National School Lunch Act, we required meals to
be in line with the Department of Health and Human Services'
dietary guidelines. We looked to sound nutritional science that
suggested the incorporation of healthy grains into school meal
programs, and we expanded the availability of fruits and
vegetables. We also asked schools and communities to establish
local wellness policies, looking at the role of nutrition
standards and physical activity, including a healthy learning
environment for our students. It is becoming clear, however,
that the declining Federal investment in school nutrition
programs has made it harder and harder for schools to provide
healthy, nutritious meals that children want to eat.
We welcome the recommendations of the School Nutrition
Association. Its members have been leaders in this area. We are
going to hear more today about how the programs are working and
what we can do in the next year's reauthorization of the Child
Nutrition Act and the National School Lunch Act to make them
work even better. We know that when children do not have enough
nutritious food to eat, it can have serious negative effects,
not just on their health but in many aspects of their lives,
including their ability to learn. We cannot expect children to
go to school on an empty stomach and still be able to succeed
academically.
Today, we are also going to examine whether the appropriate
controls are in place to ensure the safety of the school food
supply. As is now well-known, earlier this year, the Humane
Society of the United States announced that it had conducted an
investigation into the Hallmark/Westland Meat Company in Chino,
California. The investigation revealed that workers were using
electric shocks, forklifts and water sprays to force
nonambulatory cows to stand so they would pass inspection with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under the law,
nonambulatory cows, often called ``downer cows,'' are not
permitted to enter the food supply because of the risk they
pose of transmitting Salmonella, E. coli contamination and
possibly mad cow disease.
At the time that the Humane Society conducted this
important investigation at Hallmark/Westland Slaughterhouse,
Federal food safety inspectors were performing inspections at
the slaughterhouse twice a day. These abuses apparently were
happening right under the inspectors' noses, but it took a
private charity organization to uncover them.
It is unacceptable that the USDA so completely failed to do
its job at this particular slaughterhouse. We cannot judge the
USDA's inspection process as successful or effective if it
allows tainted meat to enter the school food supply. The Humane
Society's investigation prompted the largest meat recall by the
USDA in the Nation's history. In total, the USDA recalled over
140 million pounds of beef. More than one-third of that total
was beef that was purchased for and distributed to schools by
the USDA through the National School Lunch Program.
It goes without saying that we have an obligation to ensure
the safety of the food that our children eat. This incident
raises very alarming questions about the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's ability to monitor the safety of meat in this
country, including meat that is being served in the National
School Lunch Program. I hope that we can begin to answer some
of these questions in today's hearing.
In addition, along with Congresswomen McCarthy and DeLauro,
I have asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to
assess the overall effectiveness of the USDA's work to ensure
the safety of meat in the school food supply. Already, however,
it is clear that more must be done to ensure the safety of meat
that all customers, including school children, eat.
For starters, the USDA needs to provide more assistance and
guidance to States and localities related to local food safety
issues. As it stands, schools have only a limited capacity to
quickly track, handle and dispose of dangerous foods. This
capacity varies from school to school. Schools and parents
should have every assurance that the food supplied to their
kids' cafeterias by the Federal Government is safe.
Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us
today and for agreeing to testify.
With that, I would like to recognize Congressman McKeon,
the senior Republican on the committee.
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good afternoon. Welcome to today's hearing on ``Challenges and
Opportunities for Improving School Nutrition.'' Today's hearing will
examine ways to improve school nutrition and safety in the school food
supply.
Federal nutrition programs are intended to provide children with
healthful food to eat at school.
During the last reauthorization of the Child Nutrition and National
School Lunch Acts, we required meals to be in line with the Department
of Health and Human Services' Dietary Guidelines.
We looked to sound nutritional science that suggested the
incorporation of healthy grains into the school meal program and we
expanded the availability of fruits and vegetables.
We also asked schools and communities to establish local wellness
policies, looking at the role of nutrition standards and physical
activity in creating a healthy learning environment for our students.
It is becoming more clear, however, that the a declining federal
investment in school nutrition programs has made it harder and harder
for schools to provide healthy and nutritious meals that children want
to eat.
We welcome the recommendations of the School Nutrition Association,
whose members have been leaders in these areas.
We are going to hear more today about how the programs are working,
and what we can do in next year's reauthorization of the Child
Nutrition Act and the National School Lunch Act to make them work even
better.
We know that when children don't have enough nutritious food to
eat, it can have serious negative effects not just on their health but
on many aspects of their lives, including their ability to learn. We
can't expect children to go to school on an empty stomach and still be
able to succeed academically.
Today, we are also going to examine whether appropriate controls
are in place to ensure the safety of the school food supply.
As is now well known, earlier this year the Humane Society of the
United States announced that it had conducted an investigation of the
Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, California.
The investigation revealed that workers were using electric shocks,
forklifts, and water sprays to force nonambulatory cows to stand so
that they would pass inspection with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Under the law, nonambulatory cows, often called `downer cows,' are
not permitted to enter the food supply because of the greater risk they
pose of salmonella and e. coli contamination and of carrying mad cow
disease.
At the time that the Humane Society conducted this important
investigation at the Westland/Hallmark slaughterhouse, federal food
safety inspectors were performing inspections at the slaughterhouse
twice a day.
These abuses were happening right under the inspectors' noses, but
it took a private charity organization to uncover them.
It is unacceptable that the USDA so completely failed to do its
job.
We cannot judge the USDA's inspection process as successful or
effective if it allows tainted meat to enter the school food supply.
The Humane Society's investigation prompted the largest meat recall
by the USDA in the nation's history. In total, the USDA recalled over
140 million pounds of beef. More than one-third of that total was beef
that was purchased for and distributed to schools by the USDA through
the National School Lunch program.
It goes without saying that we have an obligation to ensure the
safety of the food that our children eat. But this incident raises very
alarming questions about the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ability
to monitor the safety of meat in this country--including the meat that
is being served to children in the National School Lunch program. I
hope we can begin to answer some of those questions in today's hearing.
In addition, along with Congresswomen McCarthy and DeLauro, I have
asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to assess the overall
effectiveness of the USDA's work to ensure the safety of meat in the
school food supply.
Already, however, it's clear that more must be done to ensure the
safety of the meat that all consumers--including schoolchildren--eat.
For starters, the USDA needs to provide more assistance and
guidance to states and locals related to food safety issues. As it
stands, schools have only a limited capacity to quickly track, handle
and dispose of dangerous food.
Schools and parents should have every assurance that the food
supplied to their kids' cafeterias by the federal government is safe.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, and I
look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
______
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Miller. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to examine important issues facing
the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition
programs.
Our goal with the Federal child nutrition programs,
particularly in recent years, has been to promote nutrition and
wellness while enhancing program and financial integrity. In
2004, the President signed into law a child nutrition reform
package that included key reforms to accomplish these goals.
That legislation included important steps to strengthen
nutrition programs and to improve their effectiveness for
America's most vulnerable children.
During the last reauthorization, it was a top priority to
address the health crisis of childhood obesity, which has
reached epidemic proportions in this country. In response, we
proposed reforms that would strike the right balance between
encouraging healthy environments while preserving local control
for States, communities and schools. For example, the bill's
establishment of local wellness policies to promote healthy
choices and physical activity was intended to complement the
larger focus of the Federal child nutrition programs, which is
to combat hunger and food insecurity while ensuring eligible
children receive nutrition assistance. I look forward to
hearing today about the current state of Federal child
nutrition programs with an eye toward reauthorization next
year.
Child nutrition is an area that is constantly evolving
because of changing needs among those who are disadvantaged and
who rely on nutritional assistance as well as enhanced
knowledge about health and wellness. A status update on these
important programs is reason enough to convene this hearing
today. However, the recent situation in California in which
beef used in the school lunch program was part of a major
recall due to a limited but very troubling health risk gives us
another good reason to examine the structure of our child
nutrition programs.
I expect that we will closely examine the events leading up
to and following revelations at the Hallmark/Westland facility
engaged in unsafe and inhumane practices that could have put
our Nation's food supply at risk. Already investigations are
underway by the Inspector General, by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service and by the Government Accountability Office,
among others. It may be premature to expect all of the answers
today, but there should be no doubt that we will get to the
bottom of this situation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
safeguards that are in place to prevent this type of occurrence
as well as the about the contingency plans that exist in order
to effectively respond if and when they do.
My staff and I have been monitoring this situation closely,
as have Chairman Miller and his staff, since it was first
uncovered. Although such information is still unknown, our
preliminary findings indicate that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Services Office did everything
they could to respond quickly and effectively once the
potential danger was revealed.
I hope the tone of today's hearing is constructive with an
emphasis not just on what went wrong, but also on what went
right and what can be done to prevent anything like this from
ever happening again. I also hope we take a comprehensive look
at the structure of our child nutrition and food safety
programs to examine every step in the safety, monitoring and
notification process. We must examine the link between Federal
overseers and State operators as well as the connection between
States and the local operators. Our witnesses from the USDA and
local districts will help us to look at these programs from all
angles.
Federal child nutrition programs have been established to
meet the most fundamental needs of some of our most vulnerable
children and families. That is why safety is of the utmost
importance when it comes to the products delivered in school
lunches and other nutrition assistance programs.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today to
share their insight and expertise on Federal child nutrition
programs.
As we examine the specific incident in California that has
posed so many unanswered questions, we must also retain our
focus on the larger program, its effectiveness and
opportunities to ensure the continued success of the school
lunch program and of other initiatives that have helped combat
hunger and that promote healthy foods among children and
families.
Thank you, Chairman Miller. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior
Republican, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller, I appreciate the opportunity to be here
to examine important issues facing the National School Lunch Program
and other child nutrition programs. Our goal with the federal child
nutrition programs, particularly in recent years, has been to promote
nutrition and wellness while enhancing program and financial integrity.
In 2004, the President signed into law a child nutrition reform
package that included key reforms to accomplish these goals. That
legislation included important steps to strengthen nutrition programs
and improve their effectiveness for America's most vulnerable children.
During the last reauthorization, it was a top priority to address
the health crisis of childhood obesity, which has reached epidemic
proportions in this country. In response, we proposed reforms that
would strike the right balance between encouraging healthy environments
while preserving local control for states, communities, and schools.
For example, the bill's establishment of local wellness policies to
promote healthy choices and physical activity was intended to
complement the larger focus of the federal child nutrition programs,
which is to combat hunger and food insecurity while ensuring eligible
children receive nutrition assistance.
I look forward to hearing today about the current state of federal
child nutrition programs with an eye toward reauthorization next year.
Child nutrition is an area that is constantly evolving because of
changing needs among those who are disadvantaged and rely on
nutritional assistance, as well as enhanced knowledge about health and
wellness.
A status update on these important programs is reason enough to
convene this hearing today. However, the recent situation in
California--in which beef used in the school lunch program was part of
a major recall due to a limited but very troubling health risk--gives
us another good reason to examine the structure of our child nutrition
programs.
I expect that we will closely examine the events leading up to and
following revelations that the Hallmark/Westland facility engaged in
unsafe and inhumane practices that could have put our nation's food
supply at risk. Already, investigations are underway by the Inspector
General, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Government
Accountability Office, among others. It may be premature to expect all
the answers today, but there should be no doubt that we will get to the
bottom of this situation.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the safeguards
that are in place to prevent this type of occurrence, as well as the
contingency plans that exist in order to effectively respond if and
when they do.
My staff and I have been monitoring this situation closely since it
was first uncovered, as has Chairman Miller and his staff. Although
much information is still unknown, our preliminary findings indicate
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Services
office did everything they could to respond quickly and effectively
once the potential danger was revealed. I hope the tone of today's
hearing is constructive, with an emphasis not just on what went wrong
but also on what went right and what can be done to prevent anything
like this from ever happening again.
I also hope we take a comprehensive look at the structure of our
child nutrition and food safety programs to examine every step in the
safety, monitoring, and notification processes. We must examine the
link between federal overseers and state operators, as well as the
connection between states and the local operators. Our witnesses from
the USDA and local districts will help us to look at these programs
from all angles.
Federal child nutrition programs have been established to meet the
most fundamental needs of some of our most vulnerable children and
families. That's why safety is of the utmost importance when it comes
to the products delivered in school lunches and other nutrition
assistance programs.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today to share their
insight and expertise on federal child nutrition programs. As we
examine the specific incident in California that has posed so many
unanswered questions, we must also retain our focus on the larger
program, its effectiveness, and opportunities to ensure the continued
success of the school lunch program and the other initiatives that help
combat hunger and promote healthy foods among children and families.
Thank you Chairman Miller, I yield back.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
We have a wonderful panel with us today. First is Mary
Hill, who was the Director of the Food Services for the Jackson
Public School District in Jackson, Mississippi for the past 25
years. She is the current President of the School Nutrition
Association. At the State level, Ms. Hill is the former
President of the Mississippi School Food Service Association
where she also served as Chair of various State association
committees.
Kathleen Corrigan is from the 7th District in California, a
very important district in California. She is the Director of
the School Food Services for the Mt. Diablo Unified School
District in Concord, California. She has 26 years of experience
in school nutrition, and she helped to launch the district's
coordinated School Health Council. She currently serves the
School Nutrition Association on the Nutrition Committee and on
the National Nutrition Standards Task Force.
Kenneth Hecht is the Executive Director and is one of the
cofounders of the California Food Policy Advocates. The mission
of the California Food Policy Advocates' and California
Statewide Nutrition Policy and Advocacy Organization is to
improve the health and well-being of low-income Californians by
increasing their access to nutritious and affordable foods.
Kate Houston was appointed by President George Bush as the
USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services. Ms. Houston was responsible for the developing and
for the promoting of science-based dietary guidance,
administering USDA's 15 nutritional assistance programs. In
October 2006, Ms. Houston was appointed to serve as the Deputy
Administrator for USDA's Food and Nutrition Service's special
nutrition programs.
Penny Parham is the Administrative Director of the
Department of Food and Nutrition for the Miami-Dade County
Public School System in Miami, Florida. Penny is a Registered
Dietician and holds a Master's Degree in Nutrition. She worked
as Food Service Systems Manager from 1989 and became the
district's Administrative Director in 2002.
Dora Rivas is the Director of the Food Service in the
Dallas Independent School District in Dallas, Texas. Dora is a
Registered Dietician and is credentialed as a school food and
nutrition specialist. She has been employed in the food service
industry for nearly 30 years.
Welcome to all of you. We, again, thank you for your time
and look forward to your testimony. When you begin to testify,
there are lights in front of you. A green light will go on.
That will give you 5 minutes to tell us all you know about this
program, so you have got to be very selective in your vast
knowledge. With a minute to go, an orange light will come on
and then a red light at the end of that, but we do want you to
finish up your thoughts and complete your sentences. We look
forward to your testimony.
Without objection, all of my colleagues will have 14 days
to submit materials or statements that they want for the record
of this committee.
Ms. Hill, we will begin with you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARY HILL, PRESIDENT, SCHOOL NUTRITION ASSOCIATION
Ms. Hill. Good afternoon.
Chairman Miller and members of the Committee, we deeply
appreciate this hearing. This hearing continues a most
extraordinary congressional tradition participated in by the
House and the Senate, the unprecedented tradition of scheduling
a hearing to coincide with an organization's Washington
meeting. We fully understand and appreciate that the tradition
represents a shared commitment to ending childhood hunger and
in improving the nutritional health of all of the children in
this country.
I am, as the chairman has said, Mary Hill, President of the
School Nutrition Association and Director of Child Nutrition
Programs in Jackson, Mississippi. With me this afternoon is
Katie Wilson, our president-elect, from Onalaska, Wisconsin;
Dora Rivas, who is our Vice President from Dallas, Texas; Craig
Weidel, who is Chair of our Public Policy and Legislative
Committee from Mesa, Arizona; and between the two locations a
few hundred of my best friends.
The School Nutrition Association represents the State and
local public administrators of the National School Lunch and
Breakfast Programs. We have approximately 55,000 dedicated
members who serve 30 million children each school day in almost
100,000 schools. As this committee and the Congress begin to
think about the 2009 Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, SNA
has several goals with regards to nutrition standards.
First and foremost, provide the Secretary of Agriculture
with the authority to regulate the sales of all foods and
beverages sold on the school campus, thus, ending the ``time
and place'' rule; require that all foods and beverages provided
on campus, with some exceptions, be consistent with the dietary
guidelines as is currently required of school meals; and
require a uniform national nutrition standard throughout the
country. Children in all States and local districts need the
same nutrients to grow and to be healthy.
Finally, please increase the Federal reimbursement as a
part of any legislation to improve nutrition standards anywhere
in schools.
Obesity is a national epidemic, and schools have an
important role to play, indeed, a critical role to play in the
fight against childhood obesity. SNA is committed to that fight
against obesity, but in addressing the obesity issue, we must
not ignore the practical constraints in the school meal
program. We urge the Congress to require science-based,
practical, uniform nutritional standards to benefit all
children.
The recall. Mr. Chairman, a not-so-funny thing has happened
on the way to this hearing. The USDA has had one of the largest
recalls in history, if not the very largest. As we understand
it, approximately 143 million pounds of beef were recalled of
which millions of pounds went to nutrition programs. Schools,
like all consumers, rely on the Department of Agriculture and
on the Food and Drug Administration to protect the safety of
our food supply. The USDA has had an excellent food safety
record, and we appreciate their vigilance. The schools support
the USDA commodity distribution program. Approximately 20
percent of the food served in schools come from the USDA. The
remaining 80 percent is purchased locally.
The commodities we receive from the USDA are quite
important to the programs we run. Finally, in recent years, the
USDA has greatly improved the quality of the commodity program.
Schools are treated as customers. The USDA asks what
commodities the individual local schools would prefer. The
image of USDA's ``dumping'' of commodities the schools do not
want and cannot use is no longer valid. There are two areas,
however, where we believe things can be improved with regard to
the recall.
Number 1, communications. In the era of instant news and e-
mail, when any USDA agency puts out a press release saying that
the product is unfit for human consumption, the information
reaches parents immediately. Frequently, the information
reaches the parents before the information reaches the local
school. That is not good. Parents often start calling before we
have any information. When the FSIS press release went out on
February 17th, we had no way of knowing the nature of the
recall or how serious the threat was to public health. We did
not have the information we needed to respond to many questions
we immediately received from very concerned parents.
In short, we believe that there must be a better
communications system put in place. There must be faster
communications between the Food and Nutrition Service and the
local recipient that may or may not actually be using the
product, communications from the Food and Nutrition Service in
Washington to USDA regional offices to the 50 States----
Chairman Miller. I am going to ask you if you can wrap up,
please. What you are saying is important, but I want to make
sure we have time for everybody.
Ms. Hill. Okay. Then, secondly, as to the recall procedure
for many of our programs that were affected, we have two of
them represented today--Dora Rivas, who had over 3,000 cases of
the affected product, and Craig Weidel, who had 750. The cases
have yet to be disposed of for various reasons, and it is also
unclear who will absorb the associated costs with the recall.
In short, the Department should improve the procedure on
how to execute the recall when one is announced.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Hill, President, School Nutrition
Association
Chairman Miller, Members of the Committee, we deeply appreciate
this hearing. This hearing continues a most extraordinary Congressional
tradition, participated in by the House and the Senate, the
unprecedented tradition of scheduling a hearing to coincide with an
organization's Washington meeting. We fully understand and appreciate
that the tradition represents a shared commitment to ending childhood
hunger and improving the nutritional health of all children in the
country.
I am Mary Hill, the President of the School Nutrition Association,
and the Director of Child Nutrition in Jackson, Mississippi. With me is
Katie Wilson our President-Elect from Onalaska, Wisconsin; Dora Rivas
our Vice President from Dallas, Texas; Craig Weidel, the Chairman of
our Public Policy and Legislation Committee, from Mesa, Arizona, and a
few hundred of my best friends. The School Nutrition Association (SNA)
represents the state and local public administrators of the National
School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. We have approximately 55,000
dedicated members who serve 30 million children each school day in
almost 100,000 schools.
Nutrition standards
Mr. Chairman, as you know, in the last year or two, most of the
attention with regard to child nutrition has focused on the key issue
of nutrition standards. It is a two part challenge: how to implement
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans into the meal program and
what standards to apply to so-called ``competitive foods'' sold outside
of the meal program whether in the cafeteria or sold down the hall in
vending machines.
SNA is deeply committed to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and
we believe that they should be applied to all foods and beverages sold
in school. Years ago we successfully petitioned the Congress to apply
the Guidelines to school meals. Since 1983, however, we have been
trying in vain to amend the law and provide the Secretary of
Agriculture with the authority needed to regulate the sale of all foods
and beverages sold on the school campus.
SNA originally endorsed the legislation introduced by Chairman
Harkin and Representative Woolsey to end the ``time and place rule''
providing the Secretary with the authority to regulate the sale of ALL
foods and beverages in the school, not just those foods and beverages
included in a reimbursable meal. It was, therefore, with great regret
that SNA could not support the final version of the nutrition standards
amendment that was offered during consideration of the Senate farm bill
last December. Why the change?
USDA currently reimburses local schools $2.47 for every ``free''
lunch provided to a child with income below 130% of the poverty line *
* * less than the price of a latte at the neighborhood coffee shop. The
school food service authority needs the revenue from the sale of all
beverages and foods sold on campus to ``balance the books'' and make
the program work for all children. Consistent nutrition standards must
therefore be provided for all foods and beverages sold in the school in
order to protect the financial and nutritional integrity of the school
nutrition program. We were concerned that the version of the amendment
offered as a part of the farm bill could have adversely effected the
economics of the school meal program in two ways:
1. It would have locked into law a wide variety of different
nutrition standards all over the country, increasing the cost of school
meals at the local level.
2. The amendment would also have allowed different nutrition
standards in different parts of the school building, giving a mixed
message to students and draining needed revenue from the school food
service authority.
SNA believes that we need to craft a science based, practical,
nutrition standard that applies throughout the school and throughout
the entire country. The children in California need the same nutrients
for healthy development that are needed by the children in South Dakota
and Florida.
Schools have a critical role to play in the fight against obesity.
We must not, however, craft a standard that could undermine the
financial status of many local programs thereby jeopardizing their
service to children, including low income children.
As this Committee and the Congress begins to think about the 2009
Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, SNA has several goals with regard
to nutrition standards:
First, and foremost, provide the Secretary of Agriculture
with the authority to regulate the sale of all foods and beverages sold
on the school campus, thus ending the ``time and place'' rule.
Require that all foods and beverages provided on campus
(with some exceptions) be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines, as is
currently required for school meals.
Require a uniform national nutrition standard throughout
the country. Children in all states and local districts need the same
nutrients to grow and be healthy.
Finally, please increase the federal reimbursements as a
part of any legislation to improve nutrition standards anywhere in
schools.
We must consider nutrition standards in the practical context of
the financial structure of the program. Whatever nutrition standard is
ultimately agreed upon by the Congress or as a result of a Rule Making
(we prefer a Rule Making) we believe that it must be uniformly applied
and enforced throughout the school land then throughout the country.
We appreciate that many states or local school boards, for the best
of reasons, have tried to do ``better'' than the Dietary Guidelines and
have adopted their own version of the Guidelines. We are very
sympathetic to this effort. If the Congress, however, allows each state
or each district to select its own interpretation of the Dietary
Guidelines it will further increase the cost of the school meals
program. Further, if, for example, the athletic department in the
school is allowed to sell high-profit drinks and the school food
service authority is prohibited from selling those same drinks it makes
it much more difficult to ``balance the books'' and feed all children,
particularly low income children. In short, there is a connection
between nutrition standards and funding for the program.
Obesity is a national epidemic and schools have an important role
to play, indeed a critical role to play, in the fight against childhood
obesity. SNA is committed to that fight against obesity. But in
addressing the obesity issue we must not ignore the practical
constraints in the school meals program. We urge the Congress to
require a science based, yet practical, uniform national nutrition
standard to benefit all children.
Finally, it is our best judgment that developing the precise
details of the nutrition standard should be left to Administrative Rule
Making, with the benefit of the Institute of Medicine. As you know,
science changes all the time. If the nutrition standard were locked
into law every time the science changed the statute would have to be
changed.
The recent experience with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines is
instructive. USDA has been trying to update the meal pattern since the
2005 Guidelines were released three years ago. However, the recent
Guidelines changed the recommendation on fat and included several
nutrients not included in earlier editions of the Guidelines. After
much consideration, and several meetings with SNA, last November USDA
announced that it would have to consult with the Institute of Medicine
before it could update the meal pattern. Consulting with IOM will take
two years. Attached is the USDA memo to our state directors.
We commend USDA for this decision and for acknowledging what we all
know to be true: nutrition science is complicated. If USDA must consult
with the IOM before proposing a new school meal pattern, then our
counsel is twofold:
1. Please don't lock the nutrition standard into statute; and
2. Please don't allow each state and district to establish their
own interpretation of the Dietary Guidelines.
The recall
Mr. Chairman, a not so funny thing has happened on the way to this
hearing: USDA has had one the largest recalls in history, if not the
very largest. As we understand it, approximately 143 million pounds of
beef was recalled, of which millions of pounds went to nutrition
programs.
Schools, like all consumers, rely on the Department of Agriculture
and the Food and Drug Administration to protect the safety of our food
supply. USDA has had an excellent food safety record and we appreciate
their vigilance. The schools support the USDA commodity distribution
program. Approximately 20% of the food served in school comes from
USDA; the remaining 80% is purchased locally. The commodities we
receive from USDA are quite important to the programs we run. Further,
in recent years, USDA has greatly improved the quality of the commodity
program. Schools are treated as a customer. USDA asks what commodities
the individual local school would prefer. The image of USDA ``dumping''
commodities the schools do not want and can't use is no longer valid.
There are two areas, however, where we believe that things can be
improved with regard to the recall:
1. Communication:
In an era of instant news and email, when any USDA agency puts out
a press release saying the product is ``unfit for human
communication,'' the information reaches parents immediately.
Frequently, the information reaches the parents before the information
reaches the local school. That is not good. Parents start calling
before we have any information.
When the FSIS press release went out on February 17th we had no way
of knowing the nature of the recall or how serious the threat was to
public health. We did not have the information we needed to respond to
the many questions we immediately received from very concerned parents.
In short, we believe there must be a better communication system put in
place. There must be faster communication between the Food and
Nutrition Service and the local recipients that may or may not actually
be using the product. Communication from Food and Nutrition Service in
Washington to the USDA Regional Offices, to the fifty states, to the
local school food service authority, and then to the local 100,000
schools takes too long * * * particularly when CNN can put out the
recall immediately. The USDA communication system needs to be updated.
2. The Recall Procedure:
Many of our programs were affected. Dora Rivas has 3,000 cases of
affected product. Craig Weidel has 750 cases. The cases have not yet
been disposed of for a variety of reasons and it is also unclear who
will absorb the cost associated with the recall. In short, the
Department should improve their procedures on how to execute a recall
when one is announced. The schools need better guidance and more
training. Funds should be provided to execute the recall, to transport
the product and dispose of the product. Existing procedures are not
adequate; state and local administrators have not been trained in
advance on how to execute a recall of this magnitude.
2009 Authorization
Mr. Chairman, we have focused our testimony on just one issue, plus
the recall, as they have received the most attention this year. There
are, of course other issues that we will want to bring to the
Committee's attention next year, as the 111th Congress drafts the next
Reauthorization.
We remain concerned about low-income children who cannot
afford a reduced price meal and the recent economic downturn is making
the problem worse.
We must find ways to expand the school breakfast program
and break down the practical barriers to implementing the program.
Providing school breakfast commodities seems like an idea
whose time has come.
The program needs further streamlining. In most schools
the number of personnel is limited and the program is increasingly
complicated. It is very difficult to focus on nutrition standards if we
are also forced to verify income for tens of millions of children.
The school nutrition programs have stood the test of time. They
have risen above partisan politics. We all understand that our children
are the future of the country. Hungry children can't learn and you
can't compete in a world economy without an education. An educated
workforce is the backbone of the country and the school nutrition
programs are vital to our success.
It has been many years, Mr. Chairman, since the Congress has given
these critical child nutrition programs a top to bottom review. We
thank you again for our first 2009 Reauthorization Hearing and would be
delighted to answer any questions.
______
[USDA Dietary Guidelines memo, submitted by Ms. Hill,
follows:]
United States Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302-1500
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) serve as the foundation
for national nutrition policies, including the meal patterns and
nutrient standards of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) school
meals programs. As you are aware, the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) amended section 9(a) of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to require that the
Secretary issue guidance to increase the consumption of foods and food
ingredients that are recommended for increased serving consumption in
the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This memorandum
provides guidance to incorporate the applicable recommendations of the
2005 DGAs into the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School
Breakfast Program (SBP).
Following the release of the 2005 DGAs, USDA assembled an internal
working group of experienced nutritionists and program administrators
to examine ways to implement the 2005 DGAs into the school meals
programs, within group feeding limitations and cost restrictions, in
preparation for beginning the rulemaking process. Given the complexity
of issues uncovered during this process, USDA decided to contract with
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to convene a panel of experts from
diverse specialties in child nutrition. This expert panel will provide
USDA with recommendations to update the meal patterns and nutrition
requirements for both the NSLP and the SBP. Once a cooperative
agreement is signed, USDA estimates that it may take IOM from 18 to 24
months to provide the Department with these recommendations. USDA will
then engage in the formal rulemaking process to promulgate a proposed
rule that incorporates the IOM recommendations to the fullest extent
practicable.
While awaiting a formal rulemaking, State Agencies (SAs) should
encourage School Food Authorities (SFAs) to begin proactively
implementing the applicable recommendations of the 2005 DGAs within the
current meal pattern requirements and nutrition standards. Gradual
implementation provides an opportunity for students to develop a taste
for new items and/or modified recipes. The Department expects SAs to
encourage the progressive Implementation of the following
recommendations by all SFAs, regardless of the menu planning approach
being used.
FOOD GROUPS TO ENCOURAGE
WHOLE GRAINS
SAs should strongly encourage SFAs to increase the amount
and variety of whole grain products offered to students, and progress
toward the goal of making half of all grains offered and served, whole
grains.
The consumption of whole grains is strongly encouraged in the 2005
DGAs; one of the key recommendations states, ``In general, at least
half of the grains should come from whole grains.'' The Food and Drug
Administration, in draft industry guidance released after the
publication of the 2005 DGAs, has defined whole grains as, ``cereal
grains that consist of the intact, ground, cracked or flaked caryopsis
[kernel], whose principal anatomical components--the starchy endosperm,
germ and bran--are present in the same relative proportions as they
exist in the intact caryopsis.'' According to the 2005 DGAs, the whole
grain should be the first item listed in the ingredient statement in
order for a product to be considered a whole grain; for many whole
grain products, the words ``whole'' or ``whole grain'' appear before
the grain ingredient's name in the ingredient statement. Examples of
common whole grains can be found in Table 7 of the 2005 DGAs document.
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
SAs should encourage SFAs to increase the availability and
service of both fruits and vegetables within the school meals programs.
In the NSLP, SFAs should provide meals that offer both a
fruit and a vegetable, regardless of the menu planning approach being
used.
One of the key recommendations in the 2005 DGAs is to, ``Choose a
variety of fruits and vegetables each day. In particular, select from
all five vegetable subgroups (dark green, orange, legumes, starchy
vegetables, and other vegetables) several times a week.'' Fruits and
vegetables, as well as vegetable subgroups, offer somewhat different
combinations of nutrients; thus, consuming a variety of each is
important for a well-balanced diet.
MILK
SAs should encourage SFAs to offer only low-fat (1% or
less) and fat-free milk in the school meal programs for all children
above the age of two.
The 2005 DGAs include a recommendation to consume fat-free and low-
fat milk and milk products on a daily basis, with a key recommendation
stating, ``Consume three cups per day of fat-free or low-fat milk or
equivalent milk products. Children two to eight years should consume
two cups per day of fat-free or low-fat milk or equivalent products.''
The recommendation for low-fat and fat-free milk/milk products does not
apply to children younger than two years of age. Statutory requirements
necessitate offering fluid milk in a variety of fat contents in the
NSLP; this requirement can be met by offering both low-fat and fat-free
milk. Higher fat milks are unwarranted for children older than two.
NUTRIENTS WITHOUT CURRENT REGULATORY BENCHMARKS
SODIUM
SAs should strongly encourage SFAs to begin reducing
sodium incrementally, with a long-term, step-wise plan for meeting the
DGAs recommendation.
For the first time, the 2005 DGAs have set a quantitative upper
limit on daily sodium consumption. A key recommendation of the document
is, ``Consume less than 2,300 mg (approximately 1 tsp of salt) of
sodium per day.'' Previous versions have encouraged reduction of sodium
intake, without providing a numeric target. Since past DGAs have not
provided a quantitative sodium recommendation, neither have the school
meals programs. However, SFAs have long been encouraged to reduce
sodium in foods offered/served, and sodium levels have been monitored
by FNS and SAs during School Meals Initiative reviews.
Current DGA recommendations are substantially lower than the
average American's daily intake. Since sodium is a common preservative,
as well as a distinct flavor enhancer, successfully shifting the
American palate toward no more than 2,300 mg per day will require a
concerted effort across all food systems. SAs should strongly encourage
SFAs to establish and commit to a plan that would reduce the sodium
levels in school meals incrementally; a gradual, long term approach to
meet the DGAs recommendations will allow students' palates and the
product marketplace the necessary time to adjust.
FIBER
SAs should encourage SFAs to plan meals that provide fiber
at levels appropriate for each age/grade group that reflect the 2005
DGAs recommendation.
The 2005 DGAs are the first to quantify a daily fiber
recommendation: ``The recommended dietary fiber intake is 14 grams per
1,000 calories consumed.'' Previous versions of the DGAs simply
encouraged increased fiber intake, without specifying a numeric target.
Hence, the nutrient standards of school meals followed suit by
encouraging consumption without requiring a minimum level.
Now that a specific intake target has been published in the DGAs,
SAs should encourage SFAs to move toward this target. Even SFAs that
have been meeting recommended benchmarks for fiber over the past few
years will likely need to increase fiber to meet the DGA level. For
example, school meals planned to meet the nutrition requirements for
the Grade IV age/grade group in the Traditional Food Based Menu
Planning Approach should offer meals that, on average over a school
week, provide at least 11 grams of fiber based on the minimum caloric
requirement of 785 calories.
Fiber is found naturally in fruits, vegetables (particularly
legumes) and whole grains; these food groups can be significantly, but
gradually, increased in school meals. Gradual increases now, will allow
students' palates to adjust and will make the transition to a numeric
fiber target easier. Fruits can be served without the addition of salt,
butter or sauces; the addition of whole fruits as a choice in school
menus will increase fiber while reducing sodium.
CHOLESTEROL
SAs should encourage SFAs to plan meals that, on average
over a school week, provide less than 100 mg of cholesterol at lunch
and less than 75 mg of cholesterol at breakfast for all age/grade
groups.
The current nutrition requirements for both lunch and breakfast
encourage schools to reduce cholesterol levels. A maximum threshold has
not been established because the previous version of the DGAs
encouraged low cholesterol intake, but did not specify a numeric
target. A key recommendation of the 2005 DGAs, however, is to consume
``less than 300 mg/day of cholesterol.'' Therefore, SAs should
encourage SFAs to plan menus that, on average over a school week, do
not exceed more than one-fourth of the daily recommendation at
breakfast and no more than one-third of the daily recommendation at
lunch. Data from the third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment study
(SNDA-III) indicate that many SFAs are already offering meals at or
below levels that reflect the 2005 DGAs recommendation (i.e., 100 mg
for lunches and 75 mg for breakfast).
TRANS FATS
SAs should encourage SFAs to plan meals that minimize
trans fats.
The 2005s DGAs represent the first discussion of trans fats in
national nutrition policy. A key recommendation of the document
includes, ``keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible.''
While a numeric target is not included, SAs should encourage SFAs to be
cognizant of trans fats in all foods that are offered/served and to
work toward minimizing these unhealthy fats.
SUMMARY
While awaiting publication of the final rule updating the school
meal patterns and nutrition standards, SAs should encourage SFAs to
begin proactively implementing the 2005 DGAs. Implementation can be
accomplished through a variety of initiatives such as:
increasing whole grains
increasing both fruits and vegetables
offering only low-fat and fat-free milk/milk products
reducing sodium
increasing fiber
controlling cholesterol
minimizing trans fats.
FNS is in the process of developing technical assistance tools that
will further assist schools in meeting the 2005 DGAs; these tools will
be distributed as they are finalized.
Thank you for your dedication and cooperation in ensuring that
Child Nutrition Programs deliver the best possible nutrition service to
the Nation's children.
Stanley C. Garnett, Director,
Child Nutrition Division.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Corrigan.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN CORRIGAN, DIRECTOR, FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICES, MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. Corrigan. Greetings to Member McKeon, to members of the
Committee, and especially to Chairman Miller.
I am the Director of Food and Nutrition Services for the
Mt. Diablo Unified School District in Concord, California. My
name is Kathleen Corrigan, and I am speaking from the local
level today. I am here to tell you about some of the exciting
things happening in Mt. Diablo schools.
We believe breakfast is critical for every student in order
to start the day ready to learn. For the past few years, we
have had a focused plan to increase the number of students who
eat breakfast. We started with a presentation to district
administrators, reviewing the impact of breakfast on learning,
test scores and on student behavior. Next, we began to offer
breakfast a second time at recess or at midmorning for the
students who cannot quite get up early enough to get there for
the first breakfast service. We have expanded the number of
high-quality, nutritious menu offerings to include more fresh
fruit, whole grain cereals, breads, and low-fat dairy products.
Two years ago, we expanded our summer lunch service to include
breakfast and after-school snacks. We serve breakfast at 35 of
our 47 schools.
While I am an absolute believer in breakfast, it is
prohibitively expensive to operate small breakfast programs. At
a minimum, the additional staff time could cost just a little
over $3,000 a year, which is manageable. However, in addition,
extending the hours of the current employee would require
adding health benefits with an additional cost of about $15,000
a year. That requires serving a whole bunch of bagels, whole
wheat of course.
I want to try automated vending machines to serve breakfast
at small schools. If we can vend a nutritious and fun breakfast
that appeals to our student customers, this would be a way to
limit additional staffing at each site. We have applied for a
grant from California to purchase those vending machines for
three of our schools, and we are hoping our grant is
successful.
While we are still serving less than 5,000 students, our
breakfast efforts have been successful. We served 6.8 percent
more breakfasts in the 2005-2006 school year and 7.3 percent
more last year. Our breakfast service so far this year has
increased by another 12 percent over last year. We are thrilled
with these results.
I am also very excited to be part of Mt. Diablo's
Coordinated School Health Team. Coordinated School Health is a
planned, integrated program designed to enhance the health of
children and adolescents. The real payoff for districts comes
with the accompanying improvements in both academic performance
and attendance. Coordinated School Health includes eight
interrelated components. Those are health education, physical
education, health promotion for staff, parent and community
involvement, health services, psychological services, nutrition
services, plus a healthy and safe school environment. Most of
these components are in place in Mt. Diablo at different levels
of implementation, and enthused representatives serve on our
district team.
There is a piece still missing from our Coordinated School
Health plan. I believe that children will become like the
people who teach them. Children spend the majority of their
young lives at home and at school. The people who teach them
are also at home and at school. Until these powerful teachers
model the positive health habits we want to see in our
students, the problem of childhood obesity will continue.
Since the children will become like the people who teach
them, my next goal is to find funding to develop a wellness
program for school staff and parents in Mt. Diablo. This
remaining piece of our Coordinated School Health plan will
begin to create and encourage positive health habits in parents
and school staff because these behaviors must become habits.
When our most critical role models are modeling healthy habits
for kids, change will happen and not until then.
I also want to mention California's Senate Bill 12 that
went into effect in July of 2007. This bill imposed nutrition
guidelines on all foods and beverages sold on campus during the
school day, including fundraisers by student and adult groups.
Top leadership in my district embraced the intent of this
legislation. Working with the superintendent and his
assistants, we called together countless site personnel and
involved them in its implementation. This was, actually, a
career moment for me. After 25 or 26 years of working in school
nutrition, I never dreamed I would see such massive change in
district practices. The nutrition standards have been applied
to all groups districtwide, so it can be done.
Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about some of
the things I am most excited about in Mt. Diablo schools.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Corrigan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen A. Corrigan, MBA, RD, Director, Food and
Nutrition Services, Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Greetings to the Members of the Committee and especially to
Chairman Miller. I am the Director of Food and Nutrition Services from
Mt. Diablo Unified School District in Concord, California. My name is
Kathleen Corrigan and there are some exciting things I want to tell you
about Mt. Diablo's schools.
We believe breakfast is critical for every student in order to
start the day ready to learn. For the past few years we've had a
focused plan to increase the number of students who eat breakfast. We
started with a presentation to district administrators reviewing the
impact of breakfast on--learning, test scores and student behavior.
Next we began to offer breakfast a second time at recess or
midmorning for the students who can't quite get there early enough for
the first breakfast service. We have expanded the number of high
quality, nutritious menu offerings to include more fresh fruit, whole
grain cereals and breads, and low fat dairy products. Two years ago we
expanded our summer lunch service to include breakfast and after school
snacks.
We serve breakfast at 35 of our 47 schools. While I am an absolute
believer in breakfast, it is prohibitively expensive to operate small
breakfast programs. The additional staff time could cost just a little
over $3000/year and that's manageable. However, in addition extending
the hours of the current employee would require adding health benefits
with a cost of almost $15,000/year. That requires serving a whole bunch
of bagels!
I want to try automated vending machines to serve breakfast at
small schools. If we can vend a nutritious and fun breakfast that
appeals to our student customers, this would be a way to limit
additional staffing at each site. We have applied for funding from
California to purchase such vending machines for three schools and
we're hoping our grant will be funded.
Our breakfast efforts have been successful. We served 6.8% more
breakfasts in the 2005/2006 year and 7.3% more last year. Our breakfast
service so far this year has increased by another 12.1% over last year
and we are thrilled with these results!
I am also very excited to be part of Mt. Diablo's Coordinated
School Health team. Coordinated School Health is a planned, integrated
program designed to enhance the health of children and adolescents. The
real payoff for districts comes with the accompanying improvements in
both academic performance and attendance.
Coordinated School Health includes eight interrelated components
and those are health education, physical education, health promotion
for staff, parent and community involvement, health services,
psychological services, nutrition services, and a healthy and safe
school environment. Most of these components are in place in Mt. Diablo
at different levels of implementation and enthused representatives
serve on the district team.
There is a piece still missing from our Coordinated School Health
plan--I believe that children will become like the people who teach
them--Children spend the majority of their young lives at home and at
school. The people that teach them are also at home and at school.
Until these powerful teachers model the positive health habits we want
to see in our students, our problem of childhood overweight will
continue.
Since the children will become like the people that teach them, my
next goal is to find funding to develop a wellness program for school
staff and parents in Mt. Diablo. This remaining piece of our
Coordinated School Health plan will begin to create and encourage
positive health habits in parents and school staff--because these
behaviors must become habits. When our most critical role models are
modeling healthy habits for kids, change will happen--and not until
then.
I also want to mention California's Senate Bill 12 that went into
effect in July 2007. This bill imposed nutrition guidelines on ALL
foods and beverages sold on campus during the school day, including
fundraisers by student and adult groups. Top leadership in my district
embraced the intent of this legislation. Working with the
superintendent and his assistants we called together countless site
personnel and involved them in its implementation. This was a career
moment for me--I never dreamed I would see such a massive change in
district practices. The nutrition standards have been applied to all
groups districtwide--so it can be done.
Thank you for the opportunity to tell you some of the things I am
most excited about.
______
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hecht.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH HECHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA FOOD
POLICY ADVOCATES
Mr. Hecht. My name is Ken Hecht. I am with California Food
Policy Advocates--a nonprofit, statewide nutrition policy and
advocacy organization. I want to tell you about research we
have done on the impact that the Federal commodities have on
the nutrition quality of school meals.
Why look at commodities or school meals? Because our
children are in the grip of an obesity epidemic that threatens
their health, well-being and longevity. One-third of our kids
are obese or are overweight, and the number is growing. We have
to take steps to change the environment in which this is
happening, and school meals give us one such opportunity.
In California, over 3 million children, half the State's
school enrollment, eat a USDA-reimbursed lunch every day. A
third of that number eat breakfast at school. The school
cafeteria then is a great opportunity to give children good
nutrition and to teach them in the most effective way what they
need to know about nutrition for their lifetimes.
Studies show that USDA meals at school are healthier than
meals from any other source, but the School Nutrition and
Dietary Assessment Number III tells us that they still need
much improvement. A minority of schools is serving meals that
meet all the current USDA standards, and the standards are
years behind the schedule Congress assigned in being aligned
with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. In fact, at the
present pace, the 2010 guidelines will be published before the
USDA aligns the meal standards to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines.
So our study of commodities under a grant from the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation and together with Samuels & Associates
aims to see whether commodities contribute to nutrition quality
in school meals. Commodities have reached a level of about $1
billion a year and represent about one-fifth of the food on a
plate. Over the years, since the mid-1990s, the USDA has
improved the nutrition quality of commodities, has dropped some
items like shortening, has added some like whole grains and
fresh fruits and vegetables, and has modified numerous items--
leaner ground beef, more low-fat cheese.
The problem is that the school districts persist in
selecting mainly meat and cheese. About 82 percent of the
commodities ordered by our districts are for meat and cheese.
Fruit and vegetables amount to only 13 percent, and much of
that is for potatoes.
A second problem may be with the processors who our study
found handle more than half the commodity foods that the USDA
earmarks for California schools. This is a likely source of the
fat, saturated fat, sodium, and sugar that the SNDA III found
to be in school food and which has been incriminated as a
contributor to the obesity epidemic.
As far as we can determine, the USDA does not exercise the
oversight of processors in terms of nutrition quality. We urge
the Committee to examine the role of processors with regard to
nutrition quality as well as food safety.
School districts feel compelled to order meat and cheese
because they want to make the food as appealing as possible,
which many think means replicating fast food. In fact, school
food resembles fast food a lot--the food that is contributing
to childhood obesity. Because it is thought that this is the
only way to get participation high--and it needs to be high to
keep a cafeteria in the black--our observations are to the
contrary. If kids are given good, healthy food, they like it
and they buy it.
What are some solutions? As for commodities, expand the
supply of fruit and vegetables, but the Department of Defense's
Fresh Program may be disappearing, and it never has been very
large to begin with.
One idea is to add school breakfast as a basis for
accumulating entitlement dollars just as with lunch. The new
credit could be earmarked for fresh food for school breakfasts.
A pilot program in California has done just that and has been
evaluated with flying colors.
Provide onetime grants to districts to buy refrigerators
and freezers they need to store fruits and vegetables. Develop
incentives for school districts to use their commodity
entitlements on fresh fruits and vegetables, perhaps a rebate
so they can stretch their entitlement dollars.
One of the things that needs to be changed in addition to
food quality is participation so, as the food improves, more
children get to it. There are ways to do that--moving toward
universally free food, as some school districts are doing;
improving the process of qualifying kids for free and reduced-
price meals by leaving anachronistic paper applications behind
and relying upon readily available demographic data; bringing
breakfast into the classroom or serving it as the first class
break and second chance breakfast. There is a lot of experience
across the Nation that shows that bringing breakfast into the
school day makes participation soar. The result can be more
kids eating better meals, learning good nutrition skills for
their lifetime and starting to slow and reverse the obesity
epidemic.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Hecht follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Hecht, California Food Policy Advocates
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, Members of the Committee,
my name is Ken Hecht, I am with California Food Policy Advocates, a
nonprofit, statewide nutrition policy and advocacy organization. CFPA
works to improve the health and well-being of low-income Californians
by increasing their access to nutritious, affordable food. We give high
priority to strengthening and expanding participation in the federal
nutrition programs in light of their scope and size. I deeply
appreciate the chance to speak on behalf of many California nutrition
advocates and the broader community of Californians concerned about our
youngsters' nutrition, health and academic opportunity.
I want to start by talking about research we currently are
completing on federal commodities and their impact upon the nutrition
quality of school meals. We are doing the research, which is sponsored
by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, together with Samuels &
Associates, a nutrition research and evaluation firm with years of
experience studying school nutrition.
Federal commodities are extremely important. Amounting to about $1
billion per year, commodity foods constitute nearly one-fifth of the
food--and influence selection of the other food items--in the lunch
that 30 million school children consume each school day. School lunch
supplies about one-third of a student's recommended daily allowances
(RDAs), and school breakfast furnishes one-fourth the RDAs: together
this is more than half the nutrition a child receives in a day--180
days per year for 13 years of school. The food represents nourishment,
and it also teaches children about healthy eating, in the same way that
schools use their authority and trust to teach math and language
skills. In these two ways, commodities, as the backbone of school
meals, are important to children, but commodities also are
indispensable to schools, making it possible for them to operate their
cafeterias financially in the black.
Since the mid-1990's USDA has made impressive changes to
commodities. The common belief that commodities are merely a device by
which USDA relieves growers of unhealthy food and foists it off on
school children is nothing more than an urban myth. Over the years,
USDA gradually has improved the nutrition quality of commodities: it
has eliminated food items high in fat and sodium and sugar; it has
added healthy items--whole grain items, for example, and developed a
small but promising program to bring fresh fruit and vegetables to
schools. And numerous items have been retained while their nutrition
quality has improved: for example, ground beef is leaner, more cheese
is low fat, canned fruit and vegetables contain less sugar and sodium.
Recent communications with USDA underline the agency's continuing
commitment to offer school districts food that is responsive to obesity
prevention.
Still, there are numerous opportunities to strengthen the
commodities program's capacity to prevent obesity and food insecurity.
Given that one-third of California's children are in the grip of the
obesity epidemic, improving the nutrition in school meals is an
imperative. The recent results of USDA's School Nutrition and Dietary
Assessment (SNDA) III confirm that most school meals fail to meet the
current standards for fat, saturated fat and sodium, elements with
ominous consequences for obesity.
The most obvious step should be to expand consumption of fresh
fruit and vegetables. They are at the top of every nutritionist's
obesity-prevention list. USDA should help school districts develop more
refrigeration and frozen storage and cover other one-time-only costs in
connection with serving much more fresh produce. The supply of fresh
produce should be vastly expanded, as well. If the very popular but
small Department of Defense Fresh program is withdrawn, as we have been
told it might be, a good replacement should be developed quickly, and
the commodity entitlement dedicated to fresh produce should be
expanded, too. One way to do this would be to provide school districts
with a commodity entitlement based upon breakfast participation, in
addition to lunch participation, and to direct the new entitlement
credit to fresh produce in the School Breakfast Program. California has
just completed an amazingly successful pilot program, providing 10
cents of state reimbursement to school districts for every additional
serving of fruit in the breakfast program, but like most states,
California is facing huge budget deficits and potential cuts to all its
education spending. Federal funds may be indispensable to carry this
proven winner forward.
We were surprised to discover that over 50 percent of USDA
commodity foods are directed to manufacturers for further processing
before being delivered to school districts. USDA, in some cases, and
California Department of Education, in the others, does monitor the
processors to ensure that the entitlement value in the commodity that
goes in to a processor come out to a school district. But it is our
understanding that there is no responsibility on the state or federal
agency to regulate or even to influence the nutrition quality of the
processing, and no governmental agency does so. In some cases, USDA-
purchased products are sent to processors where the foods take on fat,
sodium and sugar that are counterproductive to the students' health.
Considerations of nutrition quality, then, as well as food safety, may
argue for greater oversight of what goes on in commodity processing. We
urge this Committee to consider how it might strengthen this major, but
un-scrutinized link in the food chain.
Perhaps the most disturbing finding from our study is that,
regardless of what commodity foods USDA now offers, the districts in
California persist in spending more than 4 out of 5 of their
entitlement dollars on meat and cheese--items high in saturated fat and
high in calories. Fruit and vegetables amount to just 13 percent, and a
good chunk of that was potatoes. Because commodities tend to be the
first foods ordered by school districts when assembling their menus,
the pattern described above means that school meals will continue to be
meat- and cheese-centric, perpetuating the kinds of diets that are
contributing to the overweight and obesity that our youngsters now
confront.
What prevents this paradigm from shifting? Most of all, it is the
commandment that school food directors receive from their school
board--do not lose a penny. This insistence that food service stay in
the black means that revenues must be high. This requires that
participation be high, and this in turn depends on the appeal of the
food. In most cases, schools cater to the students' perceived
preference for fast food, which then gets imported into the school and
sanctified by its presence there--if the school serves it, it must be
good for us. What are the ways out of this difficult and destructive
bind?
First and foremost, of course, is the insufficiency of the
reimbursement. Healthy foods cost more to purchase, store, prepare,
monitor and assess. The school food directors we know, if provided
adequate reimbursement, would jump at the chance to turn out the
healthiest meals. A second strategy is to provide financial
incentives--a rebate, if you will--to schools to spend more of their
entitlement dollars on fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grains and
other healthy foods. Third, there should be support for training:
school food staff need to understand the nutrition crisis and learn how
to help turn it around. USDA regional staff and state agency staff have
lost funding over the years so that they are unable to provide
leadership, training and monitoring to ensure good nutrition quality.
Not least, USDA meal nutrition standards should be aligned with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans on an accelerated schedule; interim
steps, as outlined in USDA's memorandum dated December 17, 2007, should
be vigorously promoted, and monitoring of lunch and breakfast should be
broader and more frequent.
California has played a leadership role in improving the nutrition
standards in competitive foods. These, as you know, are all the foods
sold on school campuses in competition with the USDA reimbursable
meals. Even with the tighter standards, however, there are glaring
problems--the first example that comes to mind is sports drinks, laced
with calories and unnecessary so long as free, fresh water is
available. The far better solution, as The New York Times noted on
Sunday, is to do what Los Angeles Unified School District has done--cut
out competitive foods altogether. This strengthens the lunch program
and eliminates the stigma that arises when kids who can, buy a la carte
items and the kids who can't are segregated in the USDA-meal line.
Having said all this, I want to emphasize that recent studies, like
SNDA III, continue to make the case that school meals, while not
everything they should be, are better nutritionally than others and
that school meals have been shown to improve students' nutrition and
health, contribute to better attendance and attention, and help
students achieve better academic performance. It is an overriding
imperative to work toward more meals, as well as better meals, for more
students. How can this be done? Ideally, with meals that are
universally free, so that all children, regardless of family
background, will participate free of stigma. But it also will increase
participation substantially to eliminate the vagaries of paper
applications for free and reduced-price school meals. These pieces of
paper are so often lost, mislaid, forgotten, or simply filled in wrong
by parents, that free and reduced-price certification should not depend
upon them. Paper applications for free and reduced-price meals are
anachronistic and counterproductive; area eligibility, based upon the
census or other readily available demographic measures, would improve
accuracy and better target the neediest children for the essential
nutrition that school meals can provide.
There are other promising ideas, too, to increase participation in
school meals. Closed campuses, with cafeterias serving the reimbursable
meal and minimizing a la carte items, would boost participation in
school lunch at the same time that it contributes to better academic
achievement and student safety. Breakfast in the classroom, second
chance breakfast and other opportunities to eat after the bell, when
and where students are more likely to eat--all are proven methods for
improving nutrition and academics. School meals, like other school
activities, are wonderful opportunities for learning. They are too good
to ignore.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Houston.
STATEMENT OF KATE HOUSTON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, FOOD,
NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Houston. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Mr. McKeon
and members of the Committee.
I am Kate Houston, Deputy Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition and Consumer Services at the United States Department
of Agriculture. Thank you for inviting me here today to provide
the Committee an important update on a critical issue facing
the Department, consumers and schools--the Hallmark/Westland
Meatpacking Company's beef recall.
As Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer has assured the public,
I also want to assure you: The food supply is safe. This
includes USDA commodities available to schools and to other
outlets participating in our nutrition assistance programs.
On January 30th, the USDA became aware of the gross
mistreatment of cattle by the Hallmark/Westland Meatpacking
Company. Because this company was a supplier of commodity
ground beef and beef products to the National School Lunch
Program, the USDA put an immediate administrative hold on the
use of this company's products dating back to October 1, 2006.
We are resolved to find out what went wrong at this plant and
to hold anyone involved in violations fully accountable for
their actions. We are also resolved to examine our inspection
system to make sure that we have the best possible policies and
practices in place and to deter violations of facilities under
the Department's jurisdiction. We immediately put the
administrative and regulatory tools at our disposal to work.
I want to mention, however, that I represent one missionary
within the Department of Agriculture. Certainly, we have sister
agencies--the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the
Agricultural Marketing Service--that have also played a role in
this recall.
On February 17, the USDA asked Hallmark/Westland for a
voluntary recall of 143 million pounds of fresh and frozen
ground beef products, which included the product that had
previously been put on hold by schools. The recall action was
deemed necessary because the establishment did not comply with
FSIS regulations. The USDA is requiring that any unconsumed
products affected by the recall be destroyed or rendered
inedible. We directed States to provide school districts with
State-specific instructions for the appropriate disposal of
affected product.
The USDA takes this recall very seriously. It is the
largest beef recall in the history of the United States, and
its impact is far-reaching, affecting nutrition assistance
programs in 45 States and the District. While the managing of a
recall of such proportion has many challenges, the USDA has
taken a series of actions to maintain clear lines of
communication with States and local programs to minimize the
disruption to school food service operations.
The FNS administers the school meal programs through
agreements with State agencies. Once FNS communicates hold and
recall information to States, they, in turn, are responsible
for notifying school districts that received or were scheduled
to receive affected product. State agencies serve as the
primary source of information for local schools. State agencies
and other entities that administer nutrition assistance
programs receive information from USDA's Rapid Alert System.
This is an automated, web-based tool to communicate critical
hold and recall information as quickly as possible following an
administrative hold or recall. A rapid alert message is sent
continuously until receipt of that message is acknowledged.
The Rapid Alert System in this case was immediately
activated to announce the January 30th administrative hold and,
again, to provide notification of the February 17 recall. It
was then employed several additional times to provide updated
information as needed. The same week the beef recall was
announced, the USDA provided information directly to all public
schools through the Department of Education's Crisis
Communication System.
FNS stakeholder organizations have also been invaluable in
disseminating critical information. Over the past weeks, we
have reached out to numerous organizations, including the
School Nutrition Association, the American Commodity
Distribution Association, the National Association of
Elementary and Secondary School Principals, and the National
Scoreboard Association. These organizations agreed to provide
assistance in getting the word to the local level, and we have
been grateful for their help.
FNS is actively collecting information from States to
determine the status of affected beef that has been consumed or
is on hold and is scheduled to be destroyed. Currently, almost
90 percent of the affected beef has been traced, including
about 60 percent of the Westland product that was further
processed into value-added product like beef crumbles and
hamburger patties.
The USDA is working as quickly as possible to provide
replacement product to schools with the goal of minimizing any
disruption to the local school food service operations. We are
working with States and further processors to prioritize these
shipments to destinations with the greatest need. The USDA is
offering schools a choice of replacement product or a credit to
their commodity entitlement account that will be available for
the following school year. We have also agreed to reimburse
schools for destruction costs and for certain other related
expenses.
Mr. Chairman, this is the most up-to-date information I can
provide today on the recall. The USDA is dedicated to providing
safe and wholesome products to children served through the
National School Lunch Program. We are very proud of our
extraordinary track record of school food safety and for the
commodity program that provides children with the highest
quality food available in the marketplace. I would be pleased
to provide the Committee with future updates as information
becomes available, and I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Houston follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kate J. Houston, Deputy Under Secretary,
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
Kate Houston, Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services (FNCS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Thank you
for inviting me to appear before you today as part of the hearing,
Challenges and Opportunities for Improving School Nutrition.
The mission of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is to increase
food security and reduce hunger in partnership with cooperating
organizations by providing children and low-income people access to
food, a more healthful diet, and nutrition education in a manner that
supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.
USDA's 15 federal nutrition assistance programs collectively touch
the lives of one in five Americans in the course of a year. And as this
Committee knows, the school meals programs--two of the largest
nutrition assistance programs--represent an especially important
opportunity to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's school
children. With over 101,000 schools and institutions participating in
the National School Lunch Program and nearly 84,000 participating in
the School Breakfast Program, USDA is proud that schools across the
country are providing safe, wholesome, and nutritious meals to over 31
million school children each school day.
I have been invited here today to provide the Committee important
information on a critical issue facing the Department, consumers, and
schools--the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company (Hallmark/Westland)
beef recall. As Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer has assured the
public, I want to assure you--the food supply is safe. This includes
USDA commodities available to schools and other outlets participating
in our nutrition assistance programs.
On January 30, 2008, the Humane Society of the United States
brought to public attention an alarming and disturbing video showing
the gross mistreatment of cattle. Secretary Schafer has described the
footage depicted in the video as ``shameful and irresponsible.'' The
Department has pledged to find out what went wrong at the Hallmark/
Westland and to hold anyone involved in violations fully accountable
for their actions.
As has been reported, Hallmark/Westland was one of the contractors
of commodity ground beef and beef products for the National School
Lunch Program. In total, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
purchased about 20 percent of USDA commodity ground beef and beef
products from Hallmark/Westland. About 94 percent of this beef--just
over 50 million pounds--was directed to the National School Lunch
Program. In addition, some schools may have purchased beef from
Hallmark/Westland commercially.
The same day the video was released, USDA immediately put the
administrative and regulatory tools at our disposal to work. We
launched investigations by our Office of the Inspector General and by
our Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and AMS. Those
investigations are ongoing. We also put an immediate administrative
hold on the use of Hallmark/Westland products dating back to October 1,
2006 received by the school lunch program and our other nutrition
assistance programs.
Over the past five weeks, as information has become available, USDA
has taken further actions with regard to Hallmark/Westland. Based on
evidence from the ongoing investigation, FSIS recommended to Hallmark/
Westland that it undertake a recall of all products produced at the
plant since February 1, 2006, and Hallmark/Westland initiated a
voluntary recall of 143 million pounds of fresh and frozen beef
products.
USDA recommended that this action be taken because of a serious
violation of FSIS' animal slaughter rules. For that reason, USDA
recommended this be a Class 2 recall. While it is extremely unlikely
that these animals posed a risk to human health, recall action was
deemed necessary because the establishment did not comply with FSIS
regulations. USDA is requiring that any unconsumed products affected by
the recall by destroyed or rendered inedible.
Immediately following the recall, Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services' Under Secretary, Nancy Montanez Johner, pledged that the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS), along with our Department partners, would
do everything possible to assist State Agencies and schools in
responding to the recall. She also made clear that parents and their
children should continue to have confidence in the safety of the food
supply as a whole, including meals served as part of the National
School Lunch Program.
We at the Department of Agriculture take this recall very
seriously. It is the largest beef recall in U.S. history and its impact
is wide-reaching. It has affected nutrition assistance programs in 45
States and the District of Columbia. We do not yet know the total
number of affected schools. While managing a recall of such proportion
has many challenges, FNS, together with our Department partners, has
taken a series of actions to maintain clear lines of communication with
States and local programs, and to minimize disruption to school meal
service operations.
Ongoing communication is critical to effectively carry out a recall
of this magnitude. From the time of USDA's decision to suspend
Hallmark/Westland contracts, FNS has utilized all available channels to
provide ongoing communication with State agencies, school officials,
and other key stakeholders.
USDA utilizes a Rapid Alert System (RAS), an automated, web-based
tool to communicate emergency information to USDA commodity recipients.
It allows State agency cooperators to immediately receive information
by several means, including cell phone, email, or fax. The system uses
the communication tools sequentially until the recipient acknowledges
receipt of the message, which confirms to USDA that all affected
parties received notification.
FNS immediately activated the RAS following the January 30, 2008,
administrative hold, and provided the necessary information for States
and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITO) to track the product and suspend
use until further notice. A follow-up notice was sent to all States and
ITOs about the product hold.
When FSIS announced the recall on February 17, 2008, the same
procedures were followed. Issuances through RAS and e-mail went out on
February 17, February 19 and February 26 to announce additional
products as the trace-forward and trace-backward investigations
continued.
FNS also partnered with the U.S. Department of Education to
disseminate the recall information to school officials in every school
district across the country. FNS has developed and disseminated
information for specialized audiences, including State Agencies, school
officials, and parents. State distributing agencies provided schools
with State-specific, detailed instructions for the appropriate
destruction of product in accordance with local health agency
requirements. Talking points were developed and provided to schools for
use in communicating recall information to concerned parents.
FNS stakeholder organizations have also been invaluable to
disseminate critical information regarding the recall. Over the past
weeks, FNS reached out to numerous organizations, including the School
Nutrition Association, the American Commodity Distribution Association,
the National Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals,
and the National School Boards Association. All agreed to provide
assistance, and we are grateful for their help.
To further ensure school food service professionals are fully
informed, FNS posted recall information on FNS' food safety website and
utilized the Meal Talk list serve to advise them of its availability.
Specialized staff in FNS' seven regional offices is on call to provide
ongoing technical assistance to States and schools.
USDA has been working aggressively with both States and local
program operators to locate affected product as expeditiously as
possible. I can report today that significant progress has been made.
Within hours of USDA's decision to suspend Hallmark/Westland contracts
on January 30, FNS identified which State agencies ordered commodity
beef products from Hallmark/Westland and in what amounts. These
products were immediately placed on hold and since that time, have not
been available for use in schools and other nutrition assistance
programs.
FNS is actively collecting information from States to determine the
status of affected beef that has been consumed or is being destroyed.
States have been responsive and almost 90 percent of affected beef has
been tracked. States continue to report daily as they receive
additional information from their local school food authorities. The
States' responsiveness reflects the effectiveness of the RAS and the
positive relationships we have nurtured with State officials and
stakeholder organizations. As of February 29, thirteen States have
completed their reporting on the status of affected product, and
reporting is in progress and nearing completion in the 32 additional
States affected and the District of Columbia. We continue to work with
States to complete a full accounting of all affected products dating
back to February 1, 2006.
There are some challenges in identifying all affected product
involved in the nutrition assistance programs, and these challenges can
slow down the completion of this process. For example, USDA must rely
on States to provide information on where the affected meat was
distributed following USDA delivery to our State customers, and in most
cases, States rely on schools to provide information back to the State.
Local schools have yet to finalize their reports to States regarding
the status of affected product covered by the recall dating back to
February 1, 2006.
Furthermore, the commodity distribution system is complex. About 60
percent of the Westland product purchased for schools went to further
processors to convert the ground beef into value added products, like
meatballs or hamburger patties. That meat is often commingled with
other product. While the identity of the product is not lost, it adds a
layer of complexity to the tracing and reporting process.
Finally, when a product reaches a distributor or State warehouse,
product is not segregated by manufacturer, but by product type, such as
beef taco meat. There can be several of the same type of product by
different manufacturers all stored in the same warehouse location.
Accordingly, in a recall, the distributors and warehouses must contact
every school that received a specific type of product, and provide
identifying information, including lot numbers on the recalled product
for the schools to use when locating the product in their systems. As
I'm sure you can appreciate, all of these activities take time to
complete.
While the process of tracing all affected product continues, FNS
and AMS are working as quickly as possible to provide replacement
product to schools with the goal of minimizing disruption to local
school food service operations. We are working with States and further
processors to prioritize shipments to destinations with the greatest
need, and we are working with schools to determine their needs for
product replacement for the remainder of the school year. Because the
end of the school year is fast approaching, USDA is offering schools a
choice of replacement product or credit to their commodity entitlement
accounts that will be available for the next school year.
Mr. Chairman, this is the most up-to-date information I can provide
today on the recall. USDA staff has held several staff-level briefings
for House staff over the past weeks, and as our efforts continue, I
would be pleased to provide updates to the Committee as new information
is available.
I also want to take this opportunity to share a broader view of
FNS' activities to ensure school food safety, and to briefly mention
the wide array of other important activities ongoing within the Agency
to improve meal quality, participation, and program integrity.
There are many controls in place that allow us to have day-to-day
confidence in the safety of meals served in schools, and school meals
have a demonstrated safety record. Congressional and USDA action has
been crucial in developing a strong school food safety system, which
was further enhanced by the passage of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004. The mechanisms and resources Congress
provides have allowed us to develop a robust and successful school food
safety record.
To implement the food safety provisions of the Act, USDA issued
``Guidance for School Food Authorities: Developing a School Food Safety
Program Based on the Process Approach to HACCP Principles,'' which was
distributed to all school food authorities in the summer of 2005. The
process approach to HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point)
is a food safety management system that focuses on the control of
biological, chemical, and physical hazards in food by scrutinizing
every step of the food preparation process.
Through a HACCP-based food safety program, schools can identify
potential food hazards, identify critical points where hazards can be
controlled or minimized, and develop monitoring procedures to determine
whether the hazards identified are effectively controlled.
The HACCP Guidance was developed with input from a variety of
stakeholders, including representatives from FSIS, the Food and Drug
Administration, the National Food Service Management Institute, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the School Nutrition
Association, the National Environmental Health Association, State and
local public health Agencies, and State and local education agencies,
including school food service directors.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 also
increased the existing food safety inspection requirement from one to
two per year. These health inspections must be conducted by the State
or local governmental agencies responsible for food safety inspections.
The Department provides school districts with ongoing food safety
education and outreach to program stakeholders by conducting
presentations throughout the country to inform State and local health
and school officials about food safety inspection requirements.
In addition to our ongoing work to ensure the safety of school
meals, FNS is engaged in a variety of activities that support,
encourage, and promote efforts to improve the quality of school meals,
and the nutrition environment more generally, in ways that are both
consistent with the latest nutrition science, and meet the specific
needs and circumstances of each community.
To conform meal standards to the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
Americans (DGA), FNS has contracted with the National Academy of
Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) to recommend updated meal
patterns and nutrition requirements for both the National School Lunch
Program and the School Breakfast Program. When the IOM recommendations
are final, FNS will then engage in the formal rulemaking process to
promulgate a proposed rule that incorporates the IOM recommendations to
the fullest extent practicable.
While IOM is working to develop recommendations, FNS is encouraging
State Agencies to provide technical assistance to school food
authorities so that they can begin implementing the applicable
recommendations of the 2005 DGAs within the current meal pattern
requirements and nutrition standards. This spring, FNS will issue
updated school meal pattern guidance and a series of nutrition fact
sheets to assist foodservice professionals and menu planners in
implementing the 2005 DGAs.
In addition, FNS has launched an aggressive initiative to improve
the nutritional quality of its commodity program. Schools participating
in the NSLP today have access to the widest choice of healthy commodity
foods in history. Over the past two decades, we have worked to reduce
the levels of fat, sodium, and sugar. We now offer schools more than
180 choices of quality products, including whole grains and low fat
foods. FNS also continues to promote the HealthierUS School Challenge
and support implementation of local wellness policies as part of its
broad strategy to reduce obesity and improve the nutritional health and
well-being of children. To ensure a strong future for the National
School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, FNS is working hard to improve
program participation among children from all income levels, and we are
working with schools to strengthen program integrity by assisting
schools in improving the accuracy of meal counting and claiming. In
particular, FNS is focusing efforts on improving participation in the
School Breakfast Program, where a significant disparity exists between
the average daily participation in the School Breakfast Program and the
National School Lunch Program.
While we all recognize that providing nutritious meals in a healthy
school nutrition environment is important, school children represent a
particularly vulnerable population, and first and foremost, USDA, along
with our partners at the Federal, State and local levels, has a
responsibility to ensure school meals are safe.
We are proud of our many efforts to ensure the safety and improve
the quality of school meals, and many of these efforts could not have
been possible without the School Nutrition Association and the many
school food service professionals who give their very best to provide
nutritious meals in our schools each day.
As we celebrate National School Breakfast Week, I would like to
conclude by thanking Congress and the school food service community for
your daily commitment to the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the work of USDA with you
today.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Parham.
STATEMENT OF PENNY PARHAM, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF FOOD AND NUTRITION, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Ms. Parham. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McKeon and members of the Committee.
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today
and to provide testimony regarding concerns with the Federal
nutrition policy in light of the Westland Meat Company recall.
I am Penny Parham, the Administrative Director for the
Department of Food and Nutrition of the Miami-Dade County
Public Schools. Miami-Dade County Public Schools is the fourth
largest school district in the Nation, and we serve over 44
million meals annually. We have over 350,000 students across
325 school buildings, spread over 2,000 square miles, and we
are prepared for a challenge such as we experienced with this
recall.
The first notification we received regarding the Westland
meat recall was to hold the beef aside. It came to us via our
Florida branch of the USDA. We immediately informed all of our
food service managers and our contracted warehouse to hold the
boxes and to place them in a separate area pending further
instructions. We communicated with our distributor to identify
and to hold the products. We communicated with our school
district leadership to inform all stakeholders in the status of
the beef hold. We then removed all beef products from our
school menu until further notice in order to preserve the
highest level of confidence in our school program with our
students, parents and our Miami-Dade community at large.
During the hold and throughout the recall notification,
there was continued communication between the Miami-Dade
schools and the USDA via e-mail, press releases and a
conference call in which we participated. We received numerous
support information in the form of guidance materials and
contact information for answering questions from the community
regarding holds, recalls and food safety measures.
When we were officially informed by the USDA that the hold
had moved to a recall, we worked with our local media and with
our local health department in crafting our response. We
documented and destroyed the product, following national
recommendations and our own internal policy, which is to
denature it. We then documented our disposal for the USDA, and
we are in the process of requesting reimbursement or
replacement of the product that was destroyed. It is our
understanding that we will receive these reimbursements or
replacements in a timely manner.
As a result of the recall and of the removal of all beef
from our menu during that time period, our food service program
incurred additional costs because we had to increase our
inventory in order to replace those items on the menu.
A recall such as the Westland case contributes to the
public's perception that school food is inferior or of lower
quality. Moving forward, we need to assure the public that the
same level of care is taken with the behind-the-scenes
treatment of food as is taken with the preparation and with the
serving of food. The public needs assurance that animals are
not being mistreated and that sick or downed animals are not
being used in the production of beef products.
In addition to the public's perception, it is important
that we keep our frontline child nutrition employees, such as
our managers, cooks and servers, assured that the commodity
foods that we receive are safe, wholesome and of the highest
quality possible. While the USDA was prompt and communicated
effectively to us in their handling of the recall, it is of
utmost importance that they are also prompt in providing us
with reimbursement or replacement of the product.
As food service programs have been hit hard by the rising
costs of food, notably, in Miami-Dade, our cost for milk just
this school year will be almost $4.5 million more than it was
over the prior year. The cost of all staple food items such as
grains, produce and meat has risen over 23 percent.
Reimbursement from the USDA does not cover the rising costs of
food, and this makes our program difficult to manage.
The recall of the Westland beef highlights the sometimes
complicated and complex mission of providing high-quality,
health-enhancing foods to our students in the school meal
programs. To achieve our shared goal of promoting healthy
lifestyles and of fighting childhood obesity, school nutrition
programs must be able to procure and serve wholesome, nutrient-
dense, high-quality foods for our breakfast, lunch and after-
school care programs.
The USDA can have a more meaningful and substantial impact
on this shared responsibility by increasing our Federal
reimbursement rates to more accurately reflect the cost of
producing a healthy school meal and by making fluid milk a
commodity allocation in our programs.
On behalf of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, I would
like to thank you for your care and concern for our Nation's
most valuable resource--our children. Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before the Committee. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Parham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Penny Parham, Administrative Director, Department
of Food and Nutrition, Miami-Dade County
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McKeon and members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide
testimony regarding concerns with federal nutrition policy in light of
the Westland Meat Company recall. I am Penny Parham, the Administrative
Director for the Department of Food and Nutrition for Miami-Dade County
Public Schools in Florida, which is the nation's fourth largest school
district. I am a Registered Dietitian with a Master's degree in
Dietetics and Nutrition. Miami--Dade County Public Schools serves over
40 million meals annually. Although we have over 350,000 students in
325 school buildings spread across over 2,000 square miles,
facilitating a recall is a challenge for which we are well prepared.
The first notification we received regarding Westland Meat Company was
to hold the beef aside. This notification came via e-mail, from the
Florida Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Once we were provided the lot numbers of the beef in question, we had
all our food service managers label and hold those boxes in a separate
area pending further instructions. We communicated with our contracted
distributor to identify and hold all products at the warehouse, and
communicated with our school district leadership to inform all
stakeholders of the status of the beef hold. We then removed ALL beef
products from the menu until further notice in order to preserve the
highest level of confidence in our school meal programs with our
students, parents and the Miami-Dade community at large. During the
hold and throughout the recall notification, there was continued
communication between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the USDA via
e-mail, press releases and a conference call. We received numerous
communications from contracted manufacturers who had processed beef
from the Westland plant, and we received support information in the
form of guidance materials and contact information from the USDA for
answering questions from the community about the hold, recalls and food
safety measures.
When we were officially informed by the USDA of the recall, we
worked with our local media and our local health department to respond.
We documented and destroyed the beef following national recommendations
and internal policy to dispose of the product (denature). We then
documented our disposal for the USDA and requested reimbursement or
replacement of the beef that was destroyed. It is our understanding
that we will receive reimbursement or replacement of the beef in a
timely manner.
As a result of the recall and removal of all beef from the menu,
our food service program incurred additional costs because we had to
increase our inventory in order to replace those items on the menu that
were made with beef. A recall such as the Westland case contributes to
the public's perception that school food is inferior and of lower
quality. Moving forward we need to assure the public that the same
level of care is taken with the behind the scenes treatment of food as
is taken with the preparation and serving of food. The public needs
assurance that animals are not being mistreated and that sick or
``downed'' animals are not used in the production of beef products. In
addition to the public's perception, it is important that front line
child nutrition employees, such as the cafeteria managers, cooks and
servers are assured that the commodity foods they receive in their
kitchens are safe, wholesome and of the highest quality possible.
While the USDA was prompt and communicated effectively in their
handling of the recall of Westland beef, it is of the utmost importance
that they are also prompt in providing the documented and requested
reimbursement or replacement of the beef that was destroyed. The USDA
should assist school food service programs that have been hit hard by
rising food and labor costs. The cost of staple foods including, milk,
grains, produce and meat have risen over 23 percent. Notably, our cost
for milk in the 2007-2008 school year alone has risen an additional
$4.5 million. Reimbursements from the USDA do not cover the rising
costs of food and labor. Miami-Dade County Public Schools' policy is to
provide health promoting foods to students such as fresh produce, whole
grains, trans-fat free foods and lean meats. The rising costs and
shortfalls in reimbursements make this extremely difficult to do. We do
not want to serve our students highly refined sugar and flour products
which are more affordable, but we are continually being pushed down
this path.
The recall of the Westland beef highlights the sometimes
complicated and complex mission of providing high quality, health
enhancing foods to our students in school meal programs. To achieve our
shared goal of promoting healthy lifestyles, school nutrition programs
must be able to procure and serve wholesome, nutrient-dense, high
quality foods for school breakfast, lunch and after school care snack
programs. The USDA could have a more meaningful and substantial impact
on this shared responsibility by increasing the federal reimbursement
rates to more accurately reflect the cost of producing a school meal,
and by making fluid milk a USDA commodity allocation in school meal
programs.
On behalf of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, I would like to
thank you for your care and concern for our nations' most valuable
resource--our children. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before
the committee and I welcome any questions you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. Rivas.
STATEMENT OF DORIS RIVAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOD AND CHILD
NUTRITION SERVICES, DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. Rivas. Mr. Chairman and Mr. McKeon, thank you very much
for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing.
I am Dora Rivas, the Vice President of the School Nutrition
Association, but I am appearing here today in the capacity of
the Executive Director for the Child Nutrition Service Program
for the Dallas Independent School District. I am here to
address the Hallmark/Westland meat recall and how the recent
recall has affected us in Dallas, Texas.
Our system is large, and we have more than 215 schools. The
magnitude of the recent beef recall has been a learning
experience for the USDA, for the Food Safety Inspection Service
and for all of us involved in responding to such an event. Food
service directors across the country have the biggest challenge
of taking prompt action and also have the direct responsibility
of staying current on any evolving situation while, at the same
time, assuring parents that the school meals are safe and
healthy for their children.
Since the whole recall process started in January and until
all of the products are properly removed, we will be traveling
uncharted territory in making sure that we obtain all of the
information from all sources that are available to us. I,
personally, looked daily at the School Nutrition Web site, at
the newspaper, and watched for every e-mail that had the
subject title of ``beef recall'' to make sure I did not miss
anything.
The greatest challenge was keeping up with the evolving
magnitude of holding products subject to the food recall first
learned from the School Nutrition Association Web site that the
product being placed on hold was fine ground beef and processed
products containing A608 fine ground beef from Westland. Not
having the product in stock, we informed our Communications
Department with Dallas ISD that we did not have any of the
product in question in our inventory.
On February 5th, we received further notice from the TDA
State Commodity Office that the recall included A594, bulk
beef, which we did have and had diverted to Advance Foods to
convert the ground beef into crumbles and steak fingers. We did
have that product in stock. We held our breath, waiting for
further instructions and then were made aware on February 17th,
a Sunday, that the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service had
released an announcement indicating a class II recall by the
Hallmark/Westland Meatpacking Company.
On February the 19th, the SNA Web site had information on
the recall in question. On February the 20th, 2 days later, we
received an urgent USDA recall message from the TDA Regional
Service Center. On the 21st, the Texas Department of
Agriculture provided additional guidance on the disposal of the
recall and some Q&A on the reimbursement of expenses.
It was unfortunate that the press release information went
out to the public before official information instructions
arrived to food service directors via USDA and State
communications, allowing little time to prepare for media and
public response. Providing information to school districts
first and then providing a press release on action would have
been a better situation for us. Having gone through the
process, however, a major recall now gives us all the
opportunity to reflect and to develop formal detailed
instructions for proper handling, disposal and reimbursement
for future incidents.
On Monday, February the 18th, after the public release, our
staff immediately began reviewing the codes to see what was on
our shelves. By February 22nd, we were able to pull more than
2,500 cases of product, change the menu and make the delivery
adjustments. It must be emphasized that making an adjustment in
a school district the size of Dallas is no small feat. Regular
routes had to be set aside so that trucks could be dispatched
to go to all 200 schools and gather any product in school
freezers immediately. Over 2,000 cases had to be sorted and
separated from regular stock, and many safeguards had to be
taken to ensure that there was no potential for accidentally
pulling recalled product.
Our school meals have an exceptional safety record. We have
not had a food borne illness in Dallas ISD and in the many
schools across the country. A greater emphasis on the
safeguards schools utilize to ensure safe food as provided to
our student customers would have been of great benefit to our
programs. Seeking reassurance, concerned parents called our
office. We have a HACCP program in place, and all of our
cafeteria supervisors are ServSafe certified.
HACCP systems are a comprehensive approach to food safety
that follows the flow of food through a food service operation
to eliminate and reduce the risk of foodborne hazards. Among
these procedures are examinations of foods as they are received
by the kitchen, and we use proper cooking and holding
temperatures to ensure food is safe. In addition to the focus
on the potential risk, this would have been a great opportunity
to receive support from the USDA and States to educate the
public on all of our safeguards in place.
Currently, we are sorting out the costs. On February 21st,
we received reassurance that we would be reimbursed for some of
our expenses. Our reimbursable costs are over $114,000. Some of
the nonreimbursable expenses we have incurred are overtime
costs and administrative expenses. The district will have to
absorb these costs. Small school districts will have difficulty
absorbing the costs due to having been reimbursed at a later
time.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be glad to answer
any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Rivas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dora Rivas, Vice President, School Nutrition
Association; Director of Child Nutrition, Dallas, TX
Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon, thank you very much for the opportunity
to participate in this important hearing. I am Dora Rivas, the Vice
President of the School Nutrition Association, but I am appearing here
today in my capacity as the Director of Child Nutrition for Dallas,
Texas.
I would like to associate myself with the testimony of our
President, Mary Hill. The standards issue that she addressed so well is
a major concern to my colleagues all over the country. Further, as she
mentioned there is a direct link between the nutrition standards and
the economics of the program.
I am here, however to address the Hallmark/Westland Meat recall,
and how the recent recall has affected us in Dallas, Texas. Our system
is large; we have more than 215 schools. We have total student
enrollment of more than 160,000 and our average daily participation in
the school lunch program is more than 130,000 lunches with 50,000
breakfasts.
The magnitude of the recent Beef Recall has been a learning
experience for USDA, FSIS, and all of us involved in responding to such
an event. Food Service Directors across the country had the biggest
challenge of taking prompt action and also had the direct
responsibility of staying current on an evolving situation while at the
same time assuring parents that school meals are safe and healthy for
their children.
Since the recall started in January and until all products are
properly disposed, we will be traveling uncharted territory in making
sure we obtain all information from all sources that are available to
us. I personally looked daily at the School Nutrition Association
website, newspaper, and watched for every email that had the subject
title of ``Beef Recall'' to make sure I didn't miss anything.
The greatest challenge was keeping up with the evolving magnitude
of holding product subject to the food recall. We were first informed
by the School Nutrition Association that the product being placed on
hold was fine ground meat and processed products containing A608, fine
ground beef from Westland. Not having the product in stock, we informed
our Communications Department at the Dallas ISD that we did not have
any of the product in question on our inventory. On Feb. 5th, we
received further notice from the state commodity office that the recall
included A594, Bulk Beef, which we did have and had diverted to Advance
Foods to convert the ground beef into crumbles and steak fingers. We
had that product in stock. We held our breath waiting for further
instructions and then were made aware on Feb. 17th (a Sunday) that
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) released an
announcement indicating a Class II recall by Hallmark/Westland Meat
Packing Co.
On Feb. 19th , the SNA Website had information on the recall in
question. On Feb. 20th at 1:15pm (2 days later) we received an URGENT
USDA Recall message from the Regional Service Center. On Feb. 21, the
Texas Department of Agriculture provided further guidance on disposal
and some Q & A on reimbursement for some expenses. It is unfortunate
that press release information went out for public release before
official information and instructions arrived to food service directors
via the USDA/State communications allowing little time to prepare for
media and public response. This should be a lesson learned. Providing
information to school districts first and then providing a Press
Release on action taken would have been a much better situation for us.
Having gone through the process of a major recall now gives us all the
opportunity to develop formal detailed instructions for proper
handling, disposal, and reimbursement for potential future incidents.
On Monday, Feb. 18th after the public release, our staff had begun
reviewing the codes to see what was on our shelves. (Our 10 degree
freezer is over 27,200 sq. feet in size.) By February 22nd we were able
to pull more than 2500 cases of product, changed menu, and make food
delivery adjustments.
It must be emphasized that to make an adjustment in a school
district the size of Dallas is no small feat. Regular routes had to be
set aside so that trucks could be dispatched to go to all 200+ schools
and gather any product at school freezers immediately. Over 2000 cases
had to be sorted and separated from regular stock. Many safeguards had
to be taken to ensure there is no potential for accidentally pulling
recalled product until it leaves our warehouse. However, as we were
gathering all this information and responding to the recall, the media
arrived at our warehouse interviewing staff on whether we had the
recalled product in our warehouse. Our very capable staff was able to
report that we had pulled all product from inventory and from schools
and assured them of the safety of food supplied to our students.
Hopefully, a recall of this magnitude does not happen again, however,
if it does, using this experience will prepare us with pre-established
procedures as a positive outcome from this very unfortunate event.
I can only image how difficult it must have been for smaller
schools that do not have the staff of a large school system. It would
be even more difficult for them to change the menu at short notice, and
without a Communication's Office they are responding directly to the
parents.
Our school meals have an exceptional safety record. We have not had
a food-borne illness in the Dallas ISD, and in the many schools across
the country. A greater emphasis on the safeguards schools utilize to
ensure safe food is provided to our student customers would have also
been of great benefit to our programs. Concerned parents called our
office seeking reassurance. We have a HACCP program in place and all of
our cafeteria supervisors are ServSafe certified. HACCP (Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point) systems are a comprehensive
approach to food safety that follows the flow of food through a
foodservice operation to eliminate or reduce the risk of food borne
hazards. Among these procedures are examinations of foods as they are
received by the kitchen and use of proper cooking and holding
temperatures to ensure food is safe. In addition to the focus on
potential risk, this would have been a great opportunity for support
from USDA/States to educate the public on all of the safeguards in
place.
Currently we are still sorting out the costs. On Feb. 21st , we
received some reassurance that we would be reimbursed for some of our
expenses. Our reimbursable costs are over $114,000.00. Some of the non-
reimbursable expenses we have incurred are overtime costs and
administrative expenses. The district will have to absorb these costs,
which total over $2000. (100 hours of driver overtime X $20.00/hour).
Again, I am concerned about what happens in the small districts where
they do not have the resources to respond and absorb the costs. Also,
while some of the costs are reimbursable, the school district must be
able to advance the costs that will be reimbursed at some point later
on.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
[Additional submission by Ms. Rivas follows:]
------
Chairman Miller. Thank you all very much for your
testimony. Let me see if I can knit two things together here.
Kathleen, in your statement, at the end, you referred to
Senate bill 12 in California that imposed nutrition guidelines
on all foods and beverages sold on campus during the school
day.
Ken, in your testimony, you raised the question of
commodities that are diverted to food processors, and I assume
that is what you were referring to when you said ``to Advance
Foods.'' That is a process that takes a commodity and then
gives it back to you as another food?
Ms. Rivas. That is correct.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Does Senate bill 12 not cover those
foods? You mentioned sodium and fat being added in the diet at
that point.
Mr. Hecht. Senate bill 12 speaks just to the competitive
foods. It does not affect the USDA.
Chairman Miller. This is not in lieu of what we are doing
at the Federal level with dietary guidelines?
Mr. Hecht. Correct. What we are trying to align with the
dietary guidelines would be the USDA reimbursable meals as the
statute requires.
Chairman Miller. Right.
Kathleen or maybe Ms. Rivas, what control do you have over
the vendors with respect to sodium, fat, sugar, et cetera?
Ms. Corrigan. Are you referring to meals?
Chairman Miller. Yes. Well, I guess when they come back as
meals or enchiladas or hamburgers or whatever.
Ms. Corrigan. In my district, we follow a menu planning
system called Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, so every item is
incorporated into our menu based on the nutrients in that,
including fat, saturated fat, calories, vitamins A and C, et
cetera. So those foods are--you know, they have to meet a
standard or we cannot use them.
Chairman Miller. And the processors know that, the vendors
you buy from?
Ms. Corrigan. Yes, but we know what to buy. It is really
our job to buy things that we can get to fit into our menu. Am
I answering your question?
Chairman Miller. You are.
Ms. Corrigan. Okay.
Chairman Miller. I assume then that the vendor would
accommodate that because he wants to make the sale.
Ms. Corrigan. Sure. Sure.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Ms. Rivas.
Ms. Rivas. Yes, that is correct. The USDA guidelines,
regardless of the menu planning system, require that we meet 30
percent calories from fat and no more than 10 percent from
saturated fat. So, in our specifying what products we purchase,
we tell the vendors what products we need and what nutrient
composition needs to be in that product. That is what we
purchase, and it must meet the guidelines for the meal pattern.
Chairman Miller. So, back quickly to you, Ken. I
interpreted your comments to suggest that this is a loophole
here in meeting these guidelines with the processors. That is
not accurate?
Mr. Hecht. I think the problem is that the assessment of
these foods at the school district level by the USDA or, in
many cases, by the State of California, to whom it is
delegated, comes very infrequently, and it is done against
standards which are now antique, and they do not isolate the
contribution--good or bad, really--from a particular processor.
What you are looking at is the finished product many stages
later.
Chairman Miller. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Houston, we have got a broad hearing here. How did we
get from 1 cow to 143 million pounds of beef being recalled? I
mean, that is how it is portrayed to the public. This cow was
allowed into the food chain, and now, all of a sudden, we have
got 143 million pounds of beef--that is some cow.
Ms. Houston. Well, I want to be clear here, not to overstep
what I am prepared to discuss as the Food and Nutrition Service
perspective here dealing with the National School Lunch
Program. I think your question would be best directed to
someone at the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and I
apologize that those individuals are not here with me today. We
would be happy to provide you some additional information
regarding how we came up with 143 million pounds of total beef
and beef products that were recalled.
Chairman Miller. Well, I guess it has been said in the
press or has been hinted out in the press, whatever term you
want to use, that this, in fact, turned out to be somewhat of a
practice at this particular slaughterhouse/meatpacker and that
that is how one cow that set off the alarm ended up reaching
all the way back into time to get to 143 million pounds.
Ms. Houston. At this point, that part of the investigation
continues to be ongoing, so I think it would be premature for
me or for anyone else at the Department to comment, other than
to say that there was a body of evidence that was presented to
a recall committee that the Department puts together, and it
was their determination based on the information available to
them that the 143 million pounds and a recall date going back
to February 1, 2006 was a prudent course of action.
Chairman Miller. Do States or districts have the
opportunity to select vendors? This was a vendor who was very
large within the school nutrition program for the supply of
beef. As to Dallas or Miami-Dade--big districts--could they say
we want somebody else to supply the commodities or is that
selection made solely at the Federal level?
Ms. Houston. The Agricultural Marketing Service at the
Department makes the determination on a select number of
vendors that meet very rigorous standards for the provision of
commodity entitlements. So, at the school level, they are
informing the Department through the State agencies what
commodities they would like to receive. The Agricultural
Marketing Service is then responsible for going out and for
procuring those commodities from verified vendors.
Chairman Miller. So they have no say in that process of
selecting that vendor to supply that product in various regions
of the country?
Ms. Houston. Not for the commodity entitlements.
I would add that the commodity entitlement portion of the
food that is part of the national school lunch meal is about 15
to 20 percent of the total meal. The additional part of the
meal is food that is purchased commercially at the local level
with cash reimbursement that is provided by the Department of
Agriculture.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Houston. For that section, my point is that the local
levels are making the decision as to what vendors they use to
provide the food.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I kind of was going
down the same path you were.
This is not something we deal with all the time. Probably,
I guess, the Ag Committee is more familiar with this, but I was
trying to think how this grew to be such a large recall. Then I
also wonder how long it takes from the time the beef is
slaughtered until it is eaten. It seems to me like there is
quite a bit of time in there. I do not know if this meat is
frozen or in what kind of condition it is kept. When you get
that large, when you are talking 143 million pounds, how much
of that beef has already been eaten? It just seems to me like--
I do not know how we get our arms around it.
Ms. Houston. Just to provide some context, there were just
over 50 million pounds of beef from the total 143 million
pounds that we have identified as going to the National School
Lunch Program and to our other nutrition assistance programs.
Mr. McKeon. How much again?
Ms. Houston. Just over 50 million pounds that went to our
nutrition assistance programs.
Mr. McKeon. 50 million pounds?
Ms. Houston. Correct. About 94 percent of that was provided
to the National School Lunch Program. We had a few other
nutrition assistance programs that received very small amounts
of that product. About 30.5 million of those pounds, through
our tracing process, we expect to have already been consumed.
Generally speaking, school food authorities have product in
their freezers for a maximum of about 6 months. So, while the
recall dates back to February 2006, there was a smaller amount
of product that was currently in the inventories of school food
authorities or in the pipeline to be shipped to those schools,
and that product was put on hold as of January 30th. So, while
the recall began on February 17, that product had already been
on hold and was out of the menuing of school meals several
weeks before that time.
Mr. McKeon. Boy. When we are building cars, it seems like
we are buying things that are--an auto manufacturer is
expecting a transmission to come in the day that it is put in
the car and it has gone out, and they move things very quickly,
and we are talking about a perishable product. Even though it
is kept in a freezer, you could keep up to 6 months.
Again, this really, really throws me. I used to be a meat
cutter and I would see a beef would come in, we would cut it
up, we would sell it that day, and hopefully it is consumed in
the next few days. And I just--it is just hard for me to really
get a handle on all of this where we can track 143 million
pounds of beef that is somewhere slaughtered, put out into the
process and keep a handle on all that, keep track of all that.
It is--I am glad I am not on the Ag Committee. I guess we will
be having other hearings as we go into the--I am sure I should
have some other questions about the food nutrition program, but
I am stuck on the recall. And, Mr. Chairman, I think I will
just grapple with that myself. I don't even know what questions
to ask. I would yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I would like to thank the panel.
Ms. Houston, in 2003 the GAO said the USDA had a pattern of
``choosing food vendors with a history of known safety
violations.'' In 2005, the Inspector General of the USDA said--
and I quote--``adequate management controls were not in place
to ensure that ground beef products purchased were free of
pathogens.'' It went on to note that one unnamed plant had had
40 violations but continued in the program, and in 2003 and
2004 it noted in that plant, again unnamed, that there were
samples of E. coli and Salmonella found in ground beef. My
understanding is that the problem that occurred here with
Hallmark is a problem that occurred with downer cows that
occurred after there was an inspection of the facility but
before the slaughter. Is that correct?
Ms. Houston. That is correct. All of the animals that day
had passed an ante mortem inspection as it is called.
Mr. Andrews. How long of a time usually passes between that
ante mortem inspection and the slaughter?
Ms. Houston. Here again we are starting to veer to a Food
Safety and Inspection Service venue, and I would be hesitant to
answer that particular question. It is really out of my realm
of expertise. But I would be happy to get the information to
you.
Mr. Andrews. I wish that you would. Does the Department
have a policy as to the maximum time that can expire between
the ante mortem inspection and the slaughter?
Ms. Houston. Again, I think that question would be best
directed to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and we will
be happy to get you that information.
Mr. Andrews. I would like that. And let me tell you what
troubles me. And I speak frankly as only someone who has the
information that I have learned at this very meaningful hearing
today. The Hallmark plant was supplying 20 percent of the
ground beef in the program. There are only about 10 suppliers,
as I understand. Was it the largest of the suppliers?
Ms. Houston. Over the period of the recall it was the third
largest supplier, and last year it was the second largest.
Mr. Andrews. So it is the third largest supplier. How many
inspectors were assigned to the plant to do these ante mortem
inspections of the cows?
Ms. Houston. Again, I apologize, Mr. Andrews. But that is a
Food Safety and Inspection Service question. And I am not
familiar with what the specific----
Mr. Andrews. I would also like you to supplement the
record--it is not your fault that you don't know it. I would
like you to supplement the record by telling us whether that
number of inspectors was higher or lower than it was 5 years
ago, as to whether there were more inspectors or fewer in
place. Was there a record of prior violations of Hallmark
before this recall?
Ms. Houston. We would need to defer to FSIS to find out if
there were any previous infractions by that plant, and again we
can get you that information. I would comment that in terms of
pathogen risk for the National School Lunch Program, we have a
zero tolerance policy for any pathogens and we do test every
lot of----
Mr. Andrews. No. No. I fully understand that and I
understand that the testing of the lots is a different question
than the ante mortem inspection of the cows themselves. And do
you think--well, I suppose it is outside your realm of
expertise. But I would ask you to ask those who would know this
whether there should be a standard for this or not, right? I
mean there is a standard that says no downer cows may be used
for ground beef; is that correct?
Ms. Houston. For the National School Lunch Program cows
must be ambulatory in order to be slaughtered.
Mr. Andrews. The reason for that is that there is a higher
incidence of BSE in the downer cows than there is in the
ambulatory cows; is that right?
Ms. Houston. I would say that in this particular situation
there was a violation of that regulatory requirement, which is
the reason in which the recall occurred.
Mr. Andrews. I think what we would like to know--and I
would invite you to supplement the record--is how frequent are
those violations. How would you know, how often do you inspect?
Is there a standard? I mean, if I understand this in
layperson's terms what happened here is that a cow that passed
the ante mortem inspection becomes a downer cow? Is that what
happens before the slaughter? But there is something that
happens between the inspection and the slaughter which lets
this into the mix, right?
Ms. Houston. That is correct. What can happen, my
understanding--and again I would defer to my colleagues at the
Food Safety and Inspection Service--is that the animals were
inspected and passed the ante mortem inspection and sometime
during their walk from the holding area where they passed the
inspection to their walk to the knock box they went down.
Oftentimes this is due to an acute injury such as breaking a
leg----
Mr. Andrews. My time has expired, but I would just ask you
to let us know what inspection regime exists to make sure that
doesn't happen again or a lot and, if so, what data do you keep
on that so we can keep an eye on this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Congresswoman Biggert.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hill, you talked
about that Congress should require a uniform national standard,
nutritional standard for all foods and beverages so that--
anyway, that would include vendors or any group in the school,
it would be fund raising or selling any foods or anything; is
that correct?
Ms. Hill. What we are trying to do is level the playing
field during the school day. So that involves anything that
occurs from the beginning until the end of school. So, yes, it
could involve some of those if they are occurring during the
school day.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you know any school systems that do that
now, that have a uniform standard--let's say the whole--the
States have a standard that does that?
Ms. Hill. We do. We have some States that have already, in
compliance with the dietary guidelines, set standards. And what
we are asking so that we can be uniform--right now we have just
got many different types of standards across this country,
which is really costly to our programs when you look at the
fact that we need to be financially sound and some of the
things that we need to purchase to maintain our programs. So
what we are asking is that we have that uniformity of that
standard because basically what occurs for a child to eat in
California is the same that should occur in Florida. So we are
just asking for that uniform standard.
Mrs. Biggert. And you want that regulation by law?
Ms. Hill. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. Is there any difference across the country
because there are different foods for different areas that this
would affect and change the type of meals that would be served?
Ms. Hill. No. I don't think it would involve so much the
type. Because still as the food service director, we are still
going to be looking at the cost and looking at the products
that we are using. And you will still have some differences in
different school districts in different regions in the country.
We are just saying that you want that standard set when you are
talking about the amount of sodium, when you talk about the
amount of sugar. But you will still have the variances of the
menu items across the----
Mrs. Biggert. Just taking the commodities that go into
making a meal can come out very different----
Ms. Hill. Right.
Mrs. Biggert. Entree, whatever you want to call them.
Ms. Hill. That is correct.
Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Corrigan, you talk about the breakfasts
required. Have you any data that shows that the children that
have the breakfasts and have the lunches, that there is an
improvement in the academics?
Ms. Corrigan. I don't have local data, but there has been a
lot of research done to document the fact that breakfast does
have an impact on student attendance even and their behavior in
the classroom, as well as test scores. And I am sure we could
get you that information.
Mrs. Biggert. I think there has been some books written
about it, too. But you talk about the vending machines or
vending to provide a breakfast. What would that look like and
would it be a hot meal that would come out of----
Ms. Corrigan. Unfortunately, the word ``vending'' has a
very bad rap. But we just look at it as another way to deliver
meals there are vending machines available now so that students
can enter a student I.D. Number and only get a complete lunch
or a complete breakfast. It would be a chilled breakfast or
lunch, a sandwich, fruit, that sort of thing, as well as a
chilled breakfast.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you do that now?
Ms. Corrigan. We are hoping to. We did get some funding
from Kaiser Permanente to put one vending machine in one of our
middle schools, and that is in the process of being--we are
wiring the school and getting that set up and we hope to get
that started in the next month or so. And then we have asked
for grant funding because they are not cheap machines. They
cost about $15,000.
Mrs. Biggert. But having vending is the reason for doing
that, so you can have the meals served at different times?
Ms. Corrigan. Yes. At the middle school it would serve as
an additional point of service so that when all students
arrived just a few minutes before school starts, we have an
opportunity to serve more of them, and then at the elementary
level we would use it--because it is self-operated we don't
have to add staffing and add benefits to an employee to be
there in order to serve breakfast.
Mrs. Biggert. Along with increasing the nutrition,
shouldn't we also consider the physical fitness and the
physical education that is offered at these schools?
Ms. Corrigan. Certainly.
Mrs. Biggert. Do you have physical fitness in your schools
every day?
Ms. Corrigan. We do. That is not under my area of
expertise, but we do still have PE and----
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. If you--to reauthorize this, what would
be the three top issues that you would like to see addressed in
the reauthorization?
Ms. Corrigan. Oh. That is a tough one. Can I think about it
for a minute? I don't think too well on my feet unfortunately.
Reimbursement, of course, nutrition standards and----
Mrs. Biggert. Would anybody else like to add another one?
Ms. Parham. We need to have some improvement on the
economic eligibility income guidelines. Right now in Miami-
Dade, a family of three is supposed to earn less than $22,300
to qualify for a free meal. Wages just have gone up. Costs have
gone up. So these economic eligibility guidelines no longer
really certify the needy families for these. So that would have
to be looked at. And, of course, the reimbursement rates and
improving our USDA commodity allocations so that we--districts
can be protected against having higher food costs while still
maintaining and serving fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, whole
milk, lean meats and the healthy items that we want our
children to eat. Those would be the top three.
Mrs. Biggert. I yield back belatedly.
Mr. Hecht. Of course we would start with reimbursement. But
beyond that I would urge the Committee to think of new ways to
increase participation, which we badly need to do both in
breakfast and in lunch. Breakfast, the way Kathleen is talking
about during the school day, gets all kinds of good
participation. At lunch time, if we had children certified for
free and reduced priced lunches because of where they live or
because of demographic materials that are available to
everyone, rather than depending on paper applications which get
lost before they get home or don't get returned, we would be
serving a lot of children who desperately need that nutrition.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Yield back.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Houston, I don't
know if you can answer this one. If you can't, maybe have
somebody get back to me because I share my friend Mr. McKeon's
thoughts while I am trying to get my mind wrapped around this
problem, the severity of it. But can you or someone elaborate
how you can be certain that the practices that affected the
meat produced at Hallmark/Westland are not taking place at
other facilities given that the regulations--that the defiance
of the regulations in that plant were taking place while there
were USDA inspectors on site?
Ms. Houston. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record
here, but anything dealing with the food safety and inspection
side really is best handled by my colleagues at FSIS. I will
say that Secretary Schaefer has pledged to support all ongoing
investigations into what went wrong at this plant and to make
any changes that are required to ensure that we don't have
these kinds of violations happening again.
Mr. Hare. And I appreciate that. Could you maybe have
somebody respond to myself or the Committee from USDA or the
Committee address that because my concern is that if this
happened at this facility with USDA inspectors on site, it
could be happening at others. And I don't want to have to see
us go through another one of these recalls.
Ms. Houston. I think the first step here is we need to
understand what went wrong and why it went wrong. And once we
have a better understanding of that information, we will be in
a position to identify what changes, if any, need to be made.
Mr. Hare. Thank you. Ms. Rivas, you testified about
concerns about the ability of the smaller school districts to
address the major recall of beef. And I come from a district
that has a lot of rural areas, a lot of smaller schools. And
from both a personnel perspective and monetary perspective,
they are problems. As SNA represents personnel from both large
and small school districts, I was wondering if you could
provide any additional insights about how this recall would
more significantly impact smaller school districts, those
smaller school districts?
Ms. Rivas. I think currently the process was the--the flow
of communication from the Food Safety and Inspection Service,
USDA, all the way down to the end user. And what I think would
help all school districts is just to be able to make that
communication system more immediate. We have the safest food
supply in the world, and child nutrition programs are held to
an even higher standard as far as food safety is concerned. And
we needed assistance to be able to reassure parents that the
school meals were safe and okay for their children and we
needed more support in being able to reassure those small
school districts do not have communication departments to be
able to assist in responding to the parents. And many of them
are not as capable in being able to reassure the parents and do
not know all of the details related to the recall and the
process. So I think being that we have gone through the recall,
formalizing some of those procedures, providing more training
for them, I think would be able to help not only small but
large school districts as well.
Mr. Hare. Thank you. Ms. Hill, I don't have a lot of time
left. But you suggested in your testimony that the lack of
uniform standards has driven the price of reimbursed meals up.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the relationship between
varying State and local standards to the school nutrition
programs?
Ms. Hill. One of the main problems is when you are
utilizing so many different standards across the country it
just costs us more to get products because I may want a
specific product in Mississippi, somebody else may want the
same or similar product just--I will use a chicken nugget as an
example. There may be 15 different types of chicken nuggets and
just trying to produce that could be costly to our programs
when you are looking at trying to maintain what the
reimbursable rate is right now of 2.47 in our programs.
So we are all over the page with those standards. It is
just costing our programs to get the products in and to
maintain what we need to maintain within those guidelines of
the funding that we are presently receiving.
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Hill. If I could add one more thing, to answer that
question, because we could have some other things. As we look
at the reauthorization of 2009 and when we look at that wish
list there are several things. But we are also concerned about
breakfast and would really like the implementation of more
breakfast programs and really look at removing some of those
barriers that are up as far as breakfast is concerned. The
other thing has to do with the fact of looking at commodities
for our breakfast programs because presently we are not getting
any commodities for our breakfast programs. And also looking at
how we can further streamline the programs. They are getting so
complicated until much of our time now rather than dealing with
nutrition standard, those kinds of things that we need to deal
with, we are focusing on verifying income for 10 million
students across this country. So we really need to look at our
programs and what it is we are being required to do to maintain
those programs. Certainly we are still concerned about those
low income children who cannot afford those reduced priced
meals. And particularly with the recent economic downturn, it
is really making the problem worse. So I did want to add that
because we do have a wish list.
Mr. Payne. [presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Castle?
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of
you. I missed the beginning of this. I was meeting with my Farm
Bureau folks and got here late. So I have been trying to get my
arms around it. It is not an easy issue for those of us who
don't work with it every day. But I want to sort of focus on
the problems with the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company and the
recall here and how that was handled. And maybe I will start
with Ms. Houston and go to the others. But how will the
handling of this, what did you all learn from this in terms of
changes you may make in the future or changes that perhaps
should be made in the future with response to any incidents in
the nutrition programs?
Ms. Houston. Mr. Castle, I appreciate the question. And as
we can all appreciate, any time we go through an unprecedented
situation such as this one, there are things that we learn from
the experience and there is always things that we can do better
the next time around. From the perspective of the Food and
Nutrition Service, we are taking a look at our mechanisms to
communicate information in a timely manner to make sure that
everybody who needs the information has it as quickly as
possible. We are pleased to have this rapid alert system that
allows us to very quickly get information about either an
administrative hold or a recall to our State agencies. But we
learned through this process that in some cases there was some
time delay between when that information got to the State
agency and when it was ultimately communicated to school
districts. We were gracious to the Department of Education that
enabled us to use their crisis communication systems so that we
could get information directly to school officials. But we are
looking at mechanisms by which we can have direct lines of
communication with school food service personnel across the
country for future instances, and I am sure there is technology
in place that will enable us to be able to accomplish that
goal.
Certainly we appreciate all of the comments and information
that is provided to us by the local level and we will take all
of that into consideration in thinking through other ways in
which we can further improve our activities next time around.
Mr. Castle. Thank you very much. Let me open up that
question and your comments to the other panelists to see if
they have comments about the way this was handled or could be
handled.
Ms. Rivas. I can just say that I appreciate Ms. Houston's
comment on being able to make that communication system faster
and more immediate to local school districts. I think that in
addition to that as we have worked through the procedures
related to the handling of the recall and implementation of it,
through the disposal of the product and the reimbursement, if
we can now go through and formalize the definitions of what is
the recall and what is the hold and what is Class 1, Class 2,
Class 3 and be able to put them in training modules to be able
to have emergency preparedness training for local school
districts, I think that would be helpful. And I think just
continuing to reassure our parents that we do have the safest
food supply in the world as well as that--that child nutrition
programs are held to a higher standard and this is why the
recall occurred. And so we can assure the parents that all our
child nutrition programs have safe food and that they can be
assured that we follow food safety programs and that we provide
training to all of our staff to assure that from the point that
a product is delivered to us to the point that it is prepared
and the point that is served, that, you know, we follow strict
temperature holding and preparation procedures to assure that
our meals are safe and healthy for our students.
Mr. Castle. Thank you. Do any of the rest of you have
comments on notification methodology?
Ms. Hill. If I could just add a little because, first of
all, I want to say we have had a wonderful working relationship
with USDA over the years and of course they were at our meeting
yesterday to really talk about this problem. But the point we
just want to be clear is that there is a flaw in the system and
we just need better communications at the school district level
to reach us so that then we can be proactive and get the
correct information out so what we think is that, yes, we
appreciate the working relationship, but there are some
concerns with the system, getting the communications out and
then the execution of the recall. Even though some may get it,
you still have quite a few across this country who have real
issues with those two facts.
Mr. Castle. What is the methodology of communication? Is it
the Internet or telephone or fax?
Ms. Houston. The way the communication works now is that
the USDA employees' rapid alert system, which through multiple
means of communication, both e-mail, fax and phone, we can set
out Web based automated messages to State agency recipients and
each State agency is responsible for communicating down to the
20,000 school districts around the country the information that
was provided by the Department of Agriculture. There are some
good reasons why that system is in place. And part of it is
because there is some State specific information that needs to
be communicated to the local level. So while there is some
merit in USDA sending some broad information directly down to
the local level, I think we also do need to have some role for
the State agency to play so that they can get information--for
example, there are different public health standards in
different States for the proper disposal of recalled product.
And USDA is not in a position to be able to do that. State
agencies are responsible for knowing what products that we sent
to them went to what school districts. So we were not a
position to initially say who received what product that was
affected by the hold and the recall. So while I think we--yes,
we do want to look at ways in which we can communicate some
broad information to the local level quickly, we do also need
to recognize the critical role that the State agency plays.
Mr. Castle. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Corrigan, you indicated that you would provide us with some
studies as to the effectiveness of the school lunch program and
the school breakfast program, I believe. You are going to have
studies of both and they will show the effects on education,
discipline, attendance and health of the students?
Ms. Corrigan. Correct.
Mr. Scott. Do you have studies on the summer feeding
programs?
Ms. Corrigan. I would guess that most of the studies are
accurate for the summer feeding programs because some of those
studies done on lunches would be pertinent for the same lunch
program during the summer. So----
Mr. Scott. Okay. We look forward to getting that
information. Thank you.
Ms. Hill, you indicated that the present reimbursement rate
is $2.47. Is that sufficient to produce a nutritious meal?
Ms. Hill. I am glad you asked that. No, sir, it is not.
Mr. Scott. So do you----
Ms. Hill. That would be one of our wish list items as we
look at reauthorization, that certainly we need some increase.
Mr. Scott. So do you put in more money on a local basis or
provide a less nutritious meal than you would like to?
Ms. Hill. We are asking that the increase comes from
Congress, USDA.
Mr. Scott. What do you do now if $2.47 isn't enough? Does
the locality have to put in additional money?
Ms. Hill. It may vary across this country because some
localities do have to add right now, which is a burden for them
because of the educational process that they are also doing.
Many of us are attempting to maintain within what we are given
to operate our programs. But certainly it is a strain when you
look at that amount.
The other point is right now the estimated average cost of
a school lunch is $3.10. So you can see the variance of what we
are operating with. But I think many food service directors
across this country do an outstanding job trying to work within
those barriers, but many, yes, have had to get some type of
assistance. And that is the other point too when you look at
the financial structure of our programs. The reason that we
really wanted the nutrition, national nutrition standards. So
that everybody is on level playing fields and we don't have
individuals outside of our programs that are pulling funding
from our programs.
So those guidelines then would assist us in bringing some
additional financial status to our programs. But we need the
increase in the reimbursement rate, and we have not really had
a real one in a number of years.
Mr. Scott. We are going to receive information showing the
effectiveness of the school nutrition programs such that we
would want to encourage everybody to participate. What things
affect participation rates?
Ms. Hill. In our schools?
Mr. Scott. For the students. All students do not
participate. If they have to pay some, what kinds of things
increase the participation rate?
Ms. Hill. Well, for many of us, and it may vary across the
country, but your menu items. Those items that will actually--
those students like, that they will come in and actually want
just to participate in the program. The cost factor is the
other. Some really don't have the money to pay even in the
reduced category when you look at they are paying a subsidized
amount, particularly with the economic downfall. We have really
seen many of those reduced students who are having difficulty
paying that subsidized amount, but I think the big thing with
participation is those choices that we serve those students in
the participation. You may even look with some, what are the
other choices that they have in a school setting. If it is only
the cafeteria or if there are other things going on in other
parts of the building that I was telling you about----
Mr. Scott. You mean like the vending machines?
Ms. Hill. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. With soft drinks and snacks.
Ms. Hill. And more and more with the wellness policies that
school districts have put in. We are seeing less of that. So
that is the positive piece of the wellness plans that were a
part of the previous reauthorization in 2004.
Ms. Parham. I would also like to add that school schedules
have a big impact on participation. And students need adequate
time to access both the breakfast program and the lunch
programs and that would have a better impact on our
participation. As we look for reauthorization, I would venture
to say that many of us are kind of in need of an economic
stimulus package--to steal a phrase right now--because the
rising food costs cannot be offset by selling the less helpful
food items that used to be sold to offset gaps in funding in
school nutrition programs. So right now we are meeting wellness
policies. We are providing the healthiest meals possible. And
there is a major gap between the reimbursement rates and what
it costs to put that on a plate.
Mr. Scott. I am going to try to get into the quick
questions that I have in the time I have left. And one is for
Ms. Rivas. Are there any sources for funding of your expenses
for a recall? You indicated that there were a lot of expenses
you incurred. Can you look to the--is there any theory of
negligence or something that you can get reimbursement from
somebody?
Ms. Rivas. No. We are currently going to be receiving
reimbursement for the value of the commodities through USDA.
However, the additional expenses related to overtime or some of
the administrative expenses we will be needing to absorb. And
so as far as we know, there is no other source of funds to be
able to offset those administrative fees or additional overtime
to be able to gather the product.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. My time has expired. But I did want
to ask Ms. Hill to provide information on whether or not there
is a disparity in cost of food around the country. I would
imagine that some cities could produce a nutritious meal a lot
cheaper than other parts of the country because the cost of
food is more. If you could give us information on that, my time
has expired so I can't----
Ms. Hill. I certainly will. Because you are right, when you
look at labor and fringe benefits, it could very well differ. I
will get that for you.
Ms. Houston. Mr. Scott, if I could assure you that USDA has
committed to reimburse local school districts for costs
associated with the hold and recall, and we will provide States
replacement product pound for pound for AMS purchase
commodities that was affected by the recall. USDA will also
reimburse States for costs associated with the disposal and
destruction. And that includes transportation of the recalled
product, up to one month of storage costs and direct disposal
costs.
Mr. Scott. I am sure Ms. Rivas will be in touch with you.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your testimony here today. Ms. Houston, I was wondering if you
could answer a question. There was about 50 million pounds of
beef that was distributed to the school lunch program. We
understand there were several million pounds that are still
being, as was phrased, actively traced. Can you define for us
with some specificity what actively traced really means?
Ms. Houston. These numbers change on a regular basis. But
the latest information I have is that about 6\1/2\ million
pounds are still actively being traced. However, that product
is likely to have already been consumed because the product
that has not yet fully been traced was product that was from
the time period of October 2006 back to February 2006, the
difference in time between the initial product hold and the
total timeline that the recall covered. The trace forward and
the trace back process is a complex one and takes time because
there is not only the product that AMS purchased directly from
Hallmark/Westland that went to school districts, there is
also--about 60 percent of meat was coarse ground that was then
sent to further processors for development of value-added
products like hamburgers and beef crumble. Some of those
products are oftentimes more difficult to trace because they
have been commingled and are in final end user products.
So as you can appreciate, over time we will get all of this
sorted out. But we felt very confident that all of the product
was initially put on an administrative hold that had not yet
been consumed. So we feel like we have a good handle on the
overall situation.
Mr. Tierney. And the actively traced is--I suppose it is
just traced, or whatever actively traced means, you haven't
given up on it, you believe it is out there somewhere and you
are tracing it down?
Ms. Houston. Yes. We will continue this process until we
have full accounting for all of the just over 50 million pounds
that went to USDA's nutrition assistance programs.
Mr. Tierney. And you will be good enough to update this
committee as that goes along?
Ms. Houston. We absolutely will, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have just one other
general questions for whomever may feel qualified to answer
that. There have been recent reports that I have become aware
of children not buying school lunch when they are entitled to
because of the stigma that might be attached. There was some
question raised in some of the reports about the possibility of
using a technology like a charge card type of situation, some
way of people purchasing the lunch other than with cash so that
nobody knew where the source of the money was. Is there
movement in that field?
Ms. Corrigan. I would be happy to reply to that. In Mount
Diablo schools, we have what is called a point-of-sale system.
At an elementary level, every student can come through, pick up
their individual card, which is secretly coded, and scan the
card. Parents can pay in advance for students not eligible for
a free meal; they can pay the reduced price or they can pay the
full price. So as a student goes through a line, nobody knows,
they are all treated the same.
Mr. Tierney. So it is not just the reduced price children
that are getting those cards, everybody gets those cards?
Ms. Corrigan. Everybody gets the card. Paid, free and
reduced, everybody has to use a card.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Houston, is this something that is taking
off across the system or what do we know about that?
Ms. Houston. It is. I think we are seeing an increased use
of technology across school districts. And we are fully
supportive of all activities that would help to reduce stigma.
We have rules and regulations in place to prevent any overt
identification of a student based on whether they are receiving
a free, reduced price, or----
Mr. Tierney. I think that is--I believe that very much.
Which in these cases the students felt the stigma because they
were sort of self-identifying with the way they were going
through the line. Some schools separated them.
Ms. Houston. I will also add that there has been some
calling into question whether or not students just because they
are eating the USDA school meal has some stigma attached
because other students are choosing to purchase other a la
carte items in school. And we fully promote the USDA school
meal as the nutritious option that we would like to see all
children purchase and participate in the school meal program
regardless of income level.
Mr. Tierney. Is the conversion cost of going to that kind
of system at all prohibiting some districts from doing that?
Ms. Hill?
Ms. Hill. Yes, it is. And that is one of the added pieces
that I was going to ask. Even though you will see that more and
more districts are moving to that simply because of handling
funds and the overt identification, it is a costly system. And
that is one of the reasons when we look at what the
reimbursement rate is and what the expectations are of us
running our programs, we need some additional funding. But,
yes, that is a barrier for some because of the cost factor.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
witnesses for useful testimony. Much of the discussion today
has dealt with safety. I would like to, however, follow on the
more recent questions having to do with nutritional value and
standards and the access to other foods in the schools. It
happens that last night I was in my office in New Jersey about
7:30 in the evening and a young man, a middle school student
from Freehold, Ryan Lerner, called and said, ``what can we do
about obesity in all my friends.'' And his father then got on
the line and apologized for the son calling the Congressman.
And I praised the young man for his concern. He wanted to know
whether it was just a matter of physical education and
exercise. And I said, well, that, but also nutrition. And it
is, I think, pretty well established now that school meals are
too high in fat and sodium. They are not as nutritious as we
need. There is not as much fruit and vegetables as we would
like to see. And except in a handful of States that have
restricted the other a la carte competitive foods and vending
machines and so forth in the schools, there are too many other
opportunities for bad eating habits. So it is an open-ended
question. I suppose mostly to Ms. Hill and Ms. Corrigan, but to
any of you, what can we do about this? I would like to be able
to tell young Mr. Lerner that----
Ms. Corrigan. We will talk to him.
Mr. Holt [continuing]. That things are getting better in
the time while he is still in school.
Ms. Hill. They are. And let me say that many of our school
districts across this country understand the obesity problem
and we understand the roles that we play. It is not totally our
responsibility, as you have mentioned, but certainly we have a
very critical role that we must play. And I think you will see
across this country that more and more our programs are
offering the healthier foods. You will see more fresh fruits
and fresh vegetables. You will see those entree items that are
lower in the percentage of fat and sodium, and that is one of
the pieces that we are talking about.
Mr. Holt. They seem so voluntary and so slow. Some States
have taken stronger action.
Ms. Hill. That is correct.
Mr. Holt. Should we be taking stronger action?
Ms. Hill. That is why we are asking for that national
nutrition standard that would basically work towards that and
all of us would be working towards a common goal. Everybody
would be on the same page. Even in some States you will find
some that are higher than others. And let me just say initially
to start, the USDA guidelines that we operate the programs on
do give us some requirements of how we are operating those
programs. And there is, as was mentioned earlier, a certain
percentage of fat and those kinds of things that we really need
to look at when we plan our menus with the wellness plans. And
I think that was the item that opened the door with all of
these different nutrition standards across this country, was
because they really wanted to work on the dietary guidelines
and to see what role and how they could really be instrumental
in reducing the obesity rate. The point is, though, we all want
to be on the same page. We want those standards that really
would affect all school districts, all students, because they
are basically the same.
Like your young man, the same applies to him as it does for
any other child in any other State. What we are saying is let's
get some uniformity, get the Secretary that responsibility to
get some uniformity in those standards because it is a constant
issue that we will be working on. We know our responsibility.
But I think we will see a tremendous change in our programs.
Mr. Holt. Ms. Corrigan, please.
Ms. Corrigan. I would like to add to Ms. Hill's comments
because in our school district we started many years ago to try
and create menus that were healthier for kids, and the way we
did that is we looked at what our--what students' favorite menu
options were, and then we took those and tried to create a
healthier alternative. You know, if you were to see--you will
occasionally see nachos on our menu. And people will think
nachos, why are they serving kids nachos? Well, it is a low
fat, low sodium, high fiber chip. The cheese sauce is the same.
Probably not high fiber, but low fat and low sodium. And we do
offer it with fresh fruits, fresh vegetables and salads. We try
to include a lot of seasonal produce. So we have things like
strawberries and kiwi and pears, fresh pears on our menus. And
so I would encourage your student who calls you to really go in
and find out the truth on the menus at school. I can't speak
for the district he is in. But a lot of times--we have tried to
do this over the years in sort of a tricky way. We don't
necessarily want the kids to know it is healthy. But the
unfortunate part is that then the parents may not know either.
So in our school district, we have nutrient analysis on the
menu so now the parents can see that all of our meals do day
after day meet the dietary guidelines for Americans. So the
perception might not be accurate. So I would encourage the
student to really find out the details.
Mr. Holt. Well, you don't have to look far to see the
effect on the body weight of kids.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much. Let me just conclude by
asking a question or two. Has the School Nutrition Association
made a strong push to try to get the national nutrition
standards--I know that the New Jersey group that visited my
office did have very strong feelings about it, but perhaps Ms.
Hill, is this an issue that is being pushed uniformly by your
organization?
Ms. Hill. Yes, it is. And as a matter of fact, the
organization is now finalizing some national nutrition
standards that we want to propose to our membership. So, yes,
we have been working on it now for over a year and we are very
close to the final piece. But, yes, it has been on our agenda
for a while.
Ms. Rivas. And I might add that Kathleen and myself are
also on the National Nutrition Standards Committee and we are
going to--SNA will be continuing to work with the Institute of
Medicine and some other organizations to make sure that it does
meet not just our view, but it is also supported by other
associations as well.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. Anyone can try to answer this--many
of the school districts are under financial problems and, of
course, the vending machine business is what they say can
offset the lack of the Board of Education providing fund, say,
for school trips and all that. Have you dealt with that, Ms.
Hill, to try to discourage school districts from the
proliferation of vending machines? I know some--I know one of
the corporations in New Jersey, I guess M&M's, or one of the
candy groups, took their products out of schools and only had
nutritional kinds of foods or snacks. Have we found the
industry trying to--in general willing to assist in that? And
secondly, how do you argue--reconcile the argument that some
local school districts might make that they need the funds to
offset deficits in their budgets?
Ms. Hill. To answer your first question, yes. I think
companies are really working with us because they too
understand the health issues and the health problems that we
are having across this country, even as it relates not only to
obesity but to other health issues.
To answer the second question, I think many wellness
policies that school districts have to implement with the
reauthorization of 2004 looked at vending. So not only it was a
food service, but a school issue because they also knew where
we were going and wanted to move in the directions of eating
healthier. Yes, it is an issue for those funds that those
administrators in the past have really counted on for different
programs. But it is a matter of if we are going to waive those
funds with the health of our children.
So I think many of them have realized that even though for
some they probably have not found a compensation to match those
funds and it is hard on districts, because I can speak with
mine, when you have got to look other places and they are short
of funding as well, to recoup those funds they used to get from
vending. But I think in most districts they understand what the
overall outcome is when you look at the health issue of our
children and then decide which is more important.
Ms. Parham. Excuse me. We have a wellness policy that is
across the whole campus. But the loss of funds have impacted
the athletics and activities department. So that has been an
ongoing concern.
Mr. Payne. We had a conference in my district at our
University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey on obesity
in general and did focus on school obesity. And I think it is
really an issue that is going to take more than the Department,
but I think overall school wellness programs are important,
because we are becoming unfit. Recently the Navy found out that
only one out of five persons could qualify either in terms of
health or education. So that is going in the wrong direction.
Let me just quickly ask. In your statement, Ms. Houston,
you mentioned that--for that reason in your testimony on page
3, USDA recommended this be a Class 2 recall. You said while it
is extremely unlikely that these animals posed a risk to the
human health, recall action was deemed necessary, and so forth.
The footage I saw of those animals that were being pushed--
downer animals, would appear to me to have posed a health
threat. How bad does an animal have to be before in your
opinion it poses a health threat? I mean, these animals looked
like they were dying, but you reflected that I guess in the
eyes of the Department that you did not feel that these animals
posed a risk to human health. But you recalled the meat anyway.
Could you explain that?
Ms. Houston. Sure. The Class 2 recall was issued because of
a finding of regulatory noncompliance. The ongoing
investigation I think will bear more information about what
went wrong here and it is really outside of my purview to
comment. I will say that I think we have no information to
suggest that the animals and some of the footage that was on
the video was necessarily animals that went into the food
supply. But again I will yield to my colleagues of the food
service--Food Safety and Inspection Service to provide you
further details regarding their investigation, and we would be
happy to get those experts connected with your office.
Mr. Payne. Ms. Hill, you mentioned the USDA notification on
February 17th, which indicated that the beef was unfit for
human consumption, which is an alarming description of the
product as you understood it. Why did USDA send out such a
strong message while at the same time assuring the public that
the risks from the beef was minimal? I just wonder at what
level does contaminated meat, you know, become harmful? And you
are in the business. How do you see that?
Ms. Hill. Well, first of all. I am not sure of the
terminology and why they use the terminology. That may be
something internal that Ms. Houston can address when it says
not fit for human consumption. But we have been assured,
though, that there were no real issues. So that question may
have to go back there. I do know it was an alarming release
when you talk about a recall and then the follow-up information
that comes with it.
So I am not sure about the terminology. But it really
created a very alarming problem.
Mr. Payne. Ms. Houston, you tried initially, but is there
any way you can tell me how food that is unfit for human
consumption really is okay? I mean, it seems like an oxymoron.
It seems like proving a negative. I mean, I know you didn't do
it. But you happen to be the messenger. I can't talk to the
person who might have told you that is what they thought. But
could you try to----
Ms. Houston. My understanding from talking to my colleagues
at the Agriculture Marketing Services is that the term ``unfit
for human consumption'' is a legal term and that meat was put
under that legal definition strictly because there was a
finding of regulatory noncompliance at this particular meat
packing facility. So by virtue of the fact that we have
determined that some regulations were not followed, that meat
then becomes deemed unfit for human consumption.
Mr. Payne. But when it gets on your plate, it is all right
to eat?
Ms. Houston. Again, I will defer to my colleagues at the
Food Safety and Inspection Service, and we can get you more
information on this topic.
Mr. Payne. Okay. And the other alarming point I suppose is
that there was a big recall and I was very pleased at that.
However, when the recall was done we found out that about 60
percent of the food had been consumed. Is that true?
Ms. Houston. That is correct, sir. The recall period dated
back to February 1, 2006. Obviously that was some period of
time ago. So there is some meat. I can only speak for the
school lunch program, the nutrition assistance programs at the
Food and Nutrition Service. Of the about 50 million pounds of
affected meat that was directed to the nutrition assistance
programs, we believe just over 30 million of that pounds was
likely to have been consumed.
Mr. Payne. So it sounds great that there was a 50 million
pound recall, of course the question is the 30 million of the
pounds were eaten up already. So, I mean, it is not as good as
it sounds. There is a tremendous concern--I know that Ms.
Houston in your statement you say that you did not know the
total number of affected schools in the recall, but given that
this is a Class 2 recall, were you to state that it is
extremely unlikely that there is a risk to human health and
what would USDA do differently if there was a more serious risk
to human health? In other words, what is the Class 2 recall as
opposed to other classes? What is a Class 1 recall? Maybe Class
3?
Ms. Houston. The designation of a Class 2 recall states
that there is a, quote, remote possibility of any adverse
health effects if consumed. This is in contrast to a Class 1
recall, which is a higher risk health hazard situation and that
designates as a, quote, reasonable probability that the use of
the product would cause serious adverse health consequences.
Mr. Payne. So 1 is reasonable and 2 is----
Ms. Houston. Remote. Class 2 is remote possibility. To
answer your question about what we did differently, as I stated
earlier in my remarks, we learn from situations and we are
always seeking to improve upon the ways in which we do
business. With that being said, I am very proud of the way the
Food and Nutrition Service responded swiftly within hours of
the time in which the decision was made to hold the product. We
had information to our State agency cooperators to alert them
of which specific----
Mr. Payne. How can you find out sooner? I mean, you did act
swiftly. But it was after 60 percent of the food had been
consumed. How can you react more--you know, it doesn't seem
swift if 60 percent has been consumed.
Ms. Houston. Again, at the point in which we became aware
of a regulatory violation at this plant we took immediate
action to place all affected product on hold. There was, then,
further review and a determination by the Recall Committee to
issue a recall. We then immediately notified our State
operators again of the revised--the revised status of this
product. The decision on the Recall Committee to issue the
recall back to February 1, 2006 was based on evidence that was
made available to them for their decision, and I would have to
defer to them to explain to you why that particular decision
was made.
Mr. Payne. Okay. The Hallmark/Westland Company, have they
been taken off the list of companies that provide meat to the
schools?
Ms. Houston. As soon as we became aware of the video and
the alleged abuses at the Hallmark plant, they were immediately
suspended from USDA.
Mr. Payne. Okay. Now, they are suspended----
Ms. Houston. And that plant has been shut down, I believe,
ever since; there has been no operation at that plant.
Mr. Payne. Just my last question. The--if this video wasn't
taken perhaps this wouldn't have been exposed. What is the
role--do you have inspectors at these plants?
Ms. Houston. We do, sir, have inspectors at these plants.
Mr. Payne. And what do they do?
Ms. Houston. Again, I would have to defer to my colleagues
at the Food Safety and Inspection Service to discuss with you
what the role of the inspectors at the plant are, how many
inspectors they had there.
Mr. Payne. You don't have to----
Ms. Houston. I would be happy to provide that information.
Mr. Payne. You don't have to be a doctor or a veterinarian
to see that those animals look sick. So I just wonder what is
it that the inspectors do.
Ms. Houston. Well, again I also want to make clear that we
don't have evidence at this time that any of the animals that
were shown on that video went to slaughter. It is important to
also note that we have rules and regulations in place and in
this particular case those rules and regulations were not
followed.
Mr. Payne. The video I saw, they had a forklift pushing
that poor piece of beef to wherever he couldn't walk, so they
were just pushing them over. Do you remember? Did you see that
same video that showed on television?
Ms. Houston. I did, sir. It was gross mistreatment of
animals and in no way would we condone the actions on that
video. We have pledged at the Department to identify what went
wrong, why it went wrong and to ensure that it would not happen
again.
Mr. Payne. Well, I think my time has expired; therefore I
will conclude the hearing. And without objection, all members
will have 14 days to submit extraneous material or questions
for the hearing record. Let me thank all of the witnesses. We
will certainly have follow-up and we will be in touch with your
office for some more clarification of the situation, and with
the other departments involved.
The meeting is adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on improving
school nutrition and for taking the time to examine the recent recall
of beef by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Stemming the increase of childhood obesity in our country is an
issue of great importance to me. This issue has dramatic implications
on the long term health of our nation's citizens and on our health care
system. While there are many factors that contribute to the increasing
rate of childhood obesity, the nutritional value of the food served in
our nation's schools is certainly one of them.
Due to my concern about the nutritional value of some of the food
served in schools, I have cosponsored the Child Nutrition Promotion and
School Lunch Protection Act (HR 1363). This legislation would require
the USDA to update its nutritional standards for all `non-meal' food
served in schools. It is particularly important that `non-meal'
nutritional standards be reviewed and strengthened because they have
not been updated for nearly 30 years. Today, I look forward to hearing
about what can be done to improve the nutritional value of all food
sold in schools.
In addition, I am anxious to learn more about the recent recall of
more than 140 million pounds of beef by the USDA. While I understand
that the USDA has classified this as a ``Class II'' recall, meaning
that there is a remote possibility that the consumption of the products
could result in adverse health effects, it is still extremely
troubling. I am particularly concerned that at least 12 school
districts in my congressional district received meat that has been
recalled.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
______
[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to examine
the current state of school nutrition on what steps we should take to
improve it. The thing that we all need to recognize is that at school,
our children aren't just learning the traditional subjects we are
teaching them in the classroom * * * they are learning a lot more. They
learn from their friends, some good things like social interaction
skills and some things we would probably wish they didn't learn, like
when children pick on one another * * * but they also learn a lot about
food. If we are going to fight childhood obesity and teach our kids how
to eat healthy, then it's clear that school is one the frontlines of
this battle.
The last time the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
set nutrition standards for school vending machines and lunch line a la
carte items was in 1979. Can you image if the last time we updated
school textbooks was 1979? It's been almost thirty years, and that is
shameful. That's why I have introduced H.R. 1363, the Child Nutrition
Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act. This bill would require the
USDA to update its nutrition standards for foods sold outside of school
meals and apply the new nutrition standards to the whole campus and
school day. It's time that we take a more active role in fighting
childhood obesity and starting with school nutrition is a big first
step.
But sometime it's not as complicated as what our children our
eating. Sometimes, it's just making sure that they are eating at all.
That's why I've included free universal breakfast as part of H.R. 2392,
the Family and Workplace Balancing Act. Studies show that starting the
day with a full stomach has an enormous benefit to children students
including being more alert, improved memory and problem-solving skills
and better performance on standardized tests. All children should have
the benefits of a nutritious breakfast at the start of the school day,
which is why the balancing act would provide breakfast for every child,
regardless of need.
If I could also just say a word about conditions at the Westland/
Hallmark Meat Co. plant of Chino, California. We are fortunate indeed
that the Humane Society was able to go undercover to expose these
horrendous violations of food safety standards. Otherwise, we might
never have discovered this danger to our school children and to the
public. Another important way in which we discover illegal practices is
through employees who blow the whistle on their employers.
But despite the benefit to the public from these workers' heroic
acts, often they are retaliated against. They are demoted, lose their
jobs and are blacklisted. Congress has established broad protections
for Federal government employees and contractors who speak out. But
when it comes to the private sector, there are large gaps in coverage.
That is why I introduced the Private Sector Whistleblower Streamlining
Act of 2007, which is pending in this Committee. The legislation is
designed to fill the gaps for private sector whistleblowers and
establishes whistleblower protections for workers who report violations
of federal law in a wide variety of areas, including food safety. So
while exploring all the areas in which we can improve school lunch, we
need to make it easier for workers to expose violations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
[Questions submitted to witnesses and their responses
follow:]
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 11, 2008.
Ms. Kathleen Corrigan, Food and Nutrition Director,
Mt. Diablo Unified School District, Concord, CA.
Dear Ms. Corrigan: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008
full Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving
School Nutrition.'' Below are the questions which Committee members
have asked you to respond for the record.
Mrs. Biggert (Il-13) asked that you provide data that shows
academic improvement for students that receive school breakfast and
lunches.
Mr. Scott (VA-03) asked that you provide data on summer food
programs in schools.
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us. Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at
this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Written Responses From Kathleen A. Corrigan, MBA, RD
Mrs. Biggert (IL-13) asked that I provide data that shows academic
improvement for students that receive school breakfasts and lunches.
There are several studies that show the link between academic
performance and students eating school breakfast and lunch. With
regards to breakfast, there are a couple of studies to look at. One
comes from research conducted by the Harvard School of Medicine and
Massachusetts General Hospital. The study was published in 1998 and
this is a link to the press release:
http://www.massgeneral.org/pubaffairs/releases/sept--98--school--
breakfast.htm
Another study is the Maryland Meals for Achievement study. The
Maryland Department of Education conducted a study about school
breakfast programs in 2001, updating the research from the 1998 study
by Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital. You can find information
about that study through this link:
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/CA432B36-F5D2-41DA-
9E0D-4D01C373AA75/1541/Classroom--Breakfast.PDF
Here are some links to additional information about school meals
and academic performance:
Maryland Students Prove Eating School Breakfast Improves Academic
Performance:
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Index.aspx?id=331
Minnesota School Breakfast Program/Energizing the Classroom:
http://cfl.state.mn.us/energize.pdf
New York Classroom Breakfast Program Has Positive Impact:
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Index.aspx?id=810
Study Shows Federal Nutrition Programs Protect Children's Health:
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Index.aspx?id=558
Yes, Breakfast Does Improve Learning, Nutrition and Weight:
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Index.aspx?id=1261
Action for Healthy Kids Report Shows Link between Nutrition and
Academic Achievement:
http://www.schoolnutrition.org/Index.aspx?id=883
Mr. Scott (VA-03) asked that I provide data on summer food programs
in schools.
Since the summer food programs also serve breakfast and lunch
frequently to summer school students the research above applies. One of
the best sources of information specifically about the Summer Food
Service Program is the annual report put out by the Food Research and
Action Council (FRAC). The report can be accessed through this link:
http://www.frac.org/pdf/2007summer.pdf
Another source of information about the Summer Food Service Program
is the USDA Food and Nutrition Services website. Follow this link to
find out information about program participation rates and costs:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/cnpmain.htm
Ms. Woolsey (CA-06) asked that I explain how California's higher
standards for vending and ala carte items served at schools have
affected student health and participation in the classroom.
California's standards (specifically SB12) only went into effect
July 2007. I am not aware of any research in progress and studies of
this type can be problematic. Human Subject Committees at universities
make it very difficult to do clinical studies involving students in the
school setting.
There may be published results from research on similar topics that
could be found in the literature. Please let me know if there is an
interest in such a literature review.
Ms. Woolsey (CA-06) asked if I thought the California standards are
appropriate and how they could be improved.
There is no question that reasonable nutrition standards improve
the quality of food and beverages available to students during the
school day. California's standards have done that primarily because
they apply campus wide. The dark side of school nutrition standards is
the unfortunate impact on finances.
Historically the larger profit margin in ala carte sales helped
cover the cost of ``semi-reimbursable'' meals since reimbursements have
not kept pace with increasing costs. With higher nutrition standards,
income from ala carte sales in my district is estimated to decrease
$600,000 this year resulting in a cumulative loss in ala carte sales of
$1,000,000 over the past three years.
Meal costs in Mt. Diablo USD were approximately $2.888 last year.
Escalating fuel and food costs are forcing our costs up this year and
are projected to increase by another 10% next year. This is compounded
by the fact that I pay more money for fresh produce and whole grain
products. Decreasing income and skyrocketing expenses are beginning to
threaten even simple survival in school nutrition programs. Increased
reimbursement is required to offset this impending financial disaster.
National nutrition standards could provide some improvement to
escalating food costs. Countless variations on required nutrition
standards in states and/or districts create an impossible situation for
food and beverage manufacturers. It is very expensive for them to
develop a wide range of products to meet a wide range of standards.
Clearly those costs get passed on to their customers in school
nutrition. Enabling manufacturers to focus on one uniform set of
national standards could help curb escalating food costs.
______
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 11, 2008.
Mr. Kenneth Hecht, Executive Director,
California Food Policy Advocates, San Francisco, CA.
Dear Mr. Hecht: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008 full
Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving School
Nutrition.'' Below are the questions which Committee members have asked
you to respond for the record.
Chairman Miller (CA-07) asks that you respond to this for the
record:
``The School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment III, indicates that
school meals are too high in fat and sodium, while your study shows
improvements in the nutritional values of commodities provided. How do
you reconcile these two facts? What is the role of processed foods in
the nutritional value of commodities? What is the role of federal and
local governments in providing oversight to ensure quality in this part
of the food chain?''
Mr. Tierney (MA-06) asks that you respond to this for the record:
``There have been recent reports that I have become aware of
children not buying school lunch when they are entitled to because of
the stigma that might be attached. In these cases the students felt the
stigma because they were sort of self identifying with the way they
were going through the line. Some schools separated them. There was
some question raised in some of the reports about the possibility of
using a technology like a charge card type of situation, some way of
people purchasing the lunch other than with cash so that nobody knew
where the source of the money was. Is there movement in that field? Is
the conversion cost of going to that kind of system at all prohibiting
some districts from doing that?''
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us. Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at
this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Written Responses From Kenneth Hecht
Chairman Miller: The School Nutrition and Dietary Standards III
indicates that school meals are too high in fat and sodium, while your
study shows improvements in the nutritional values of commodities
provided. How do you reconcile these two facts? What is the role of
processed foods in the nutritional value of commodities? What is the
role of federal and local governments in providing oversight to ensure
quality in this part of the food chain?
Two main factors contribute to the loss of nutrition quality
between the time when commodity foods are acquired by USDA and the time
when they are consumed by school students:
1. More than half the commodity foods acquired by USDA is processed
before reaching the school districts. Processing introduces added fats,
sugar, sodium and other unhealthy ingredients, such as those observed
by SNDA III.
2. Commodities represent less than 20 percent of the food served to
students at school. The 80 percent that is commercially purchased and
prepared foods accounts for a portion of the loss of nutrition.
There is no federal or state oversight of nutrition quality in
processing at this time. USDA monitoring of school meal nutrition
quality could more effectively improve nutrition quality in processing
if the monitoring were conducted more broadly and more frequently and
if the assessment were based, as Congress prescribed, on a closer
alignment with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Recommendations
1. Congress should examine whether regulation of processing would
improve nutrition quality without impeding continued improvement in
commodity nutrition quality.
2. Congress should insist that USDA speedily comply with its
direction to align school meal standards with the 2005 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and establish a process to conduct the
alignment rapidly with successive version of the Guidelines.
3. Congress should enable USDA and the states to examine school
meal nutrition quality more broadly and frequently than the School
Meals Initiative currently requires.
4. Congress should not renew authority to USDA (due to expire 9/30/
09) that waives implementation of weighted averages in conducting SMI
assessments.
The School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment III found school meals
to be too high in added fat, saturated fat, sodium and other unhealthy
ingredients. SNDA III also found very little improvement in school meal
nutrition quality since SNDA II. The assessment reported school meals
to be too low in foods recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans--foods low in added fats, sugar and sodium, such as whole
grains, low fat dairy products and fruits and vegetables. These foods
are at the heart of the problem for it is these foods that are being
replaced by less healthy substitutes, and it is these foods that
contribute to the promotion of health and prevention of chronic
disease.
USDA has improved the nutrition quality standards for commodity
foods at the point of their acquisition. Because there currently is no
federal or state nutrition-quality monitoring of processing, even
though more than 50 percent of commodities is processed before arrival
at school districts, it is impossible to quantify the loss of nutrition
quality that occurs at that point. However, it is the principal purpose
of processing to introduce other ingredients to raw commodities so
that, in combination, they become edible foods that will appeal to
schoolchildren. Commodities count for less than 20 percent of the
school meal, so while the contribution of commodities to the meal's
nutrition quality is significant, it is not the only source of that
quality. Selection and preparation of the remaining 80 percent
obviously play a role, also.
There are at least two options for ensuring nutrition quality in
processing. The more direct is to regulate levels of nutrition quality
for processors. Various agency administrators and school district food
service directors have urged that this would be a mistake. They think
that regulation would stifle continued nutrition improvement and unduly
complicate (with price repercussions) commodity processing. Instead,
they urge reliance upon the nutrition analysis prescribed by the School
Meals Initiative, arguing that school districts' requirements to
satisfy their SMI review will cause districts to insist that processors
provide foods designed to conform to SMI standards.
Unfortunately, there are multiple serious problems with reliance
upon SMI reviews:
1. SMI standards have not been aligned with the Dietary Guidelines.
Although Congress, in the 2004 reauthorization, explicitly required
that school meal standards be aligned with the Dietary Guidelines by
June 30, 2006, this has not been done. In fact, the most recent
estimate for completion of the alignment is not until 2012 (2 years
after the next version of the Guidelines appears). School meal
standards must be brought into compliance with the nutritional needs of
children as outlined in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines.
2. The SMI nutrition analysis calls for the assessment to be made
on the basis of ``weighted averages.'' This means that the frequency
with which certain foods are selected would affect the assessment's
calculation--one student's selection of low fat cottage cheese would
not be treated the same as 100 students' choice of the ubiquitous
pepperoni pizza. The requirement to use weighted averages has been
waived since it was enacted. Congress should end this waiver no later
than when it is due to expire on September 30, 2009.
3. SMI nutrition analyses currently occur only once every 5 years,
and only a small number of schools within a school district are
selected for examination. Given the severity of the obesity epidemic
and the key role that school meals play in students' (particularly low-
income students') daily nutrition, Congress should consider increasing
the frequency and breadth (more schools) of the SMI review.
Mr. Tierney: There have been recent reports that I have become
aware of children not buying school lunch when they are entitled to
because of the stigma that might be attached. In these cases the
students felt the stigma because they were sort of self-identifying
with the way the way they were going through the line. Some schools
separated them. There was some question raised in some of the reports
about the possibility of using a technology like a charge card type of
situation. Some way of people purchasing the lunch other than with cash
so that nobody knew where the source of the money was. Is there
movement in that field? Is the conversion cost of going to that kind of
system at all prohibiting some districts from doing that?
Many school districts provide and permit foods for sale on school
campuses in competition with the USDA-reimbursable meals. The
competitive foods tend to be less healthy options, promote snacking and
undermine the financial strength of the school meal program. They also
involve ``overt identification'' of low-income students, who therefore,
wary of being stigmatized, are discouraged from eating the free and
reduced-price school meals, in violation of the National School Lunch
Act.
Recommendations
1. The best solution to both the overt-identification and nutrition
quality concerns is to eliminate competitive foods altogether. This
will improve students' nutrition intake and promote growth and
financial stability in the school meal program.
2. A different solution is to severely limit competitive foods and
to assist school districts to introduce or upgrade point of service
(POS) systems that mask the source of funds with which school foods are
purchased.
The New York Times carried an article on March 1, 2008, entitled
``Free Lunch Isn't Cool, So Some Students Go Hungry.'' The article
described the not uncommon arrangement in school cafeterias where low-
income students line up in one place for the USDA reimbursable meal, to
which they may be entitled at no charge, while the students who can
afford to line up in a different location for a la carte food items
sold for cash. Investigators frequently report, as the article stated,
that low-income students, realizing they will be identified as poor,
refuse to get into the regular school lunch line, where only those
unable to purchase food go for their lunch and thus miss out on
essential nutrition to which they are entitled and that they need for
good health and academic performance.
The best solution is to eliminate altogether the competitive foods
on campus, not only the a la carte line, but also the vending machines,
student-operated stores and other outlets for what is almost always
nutritionally inferior food.
A survey of foods in California high schools (www.phi.org/pdf-
library/fastfoodsurvey2000.pdf) provided shocking data on the extent of
snack foods that compete with the foods in the school meal program.
``Ninety-five percent of responding districts reported selling fast
foods as a la carte items. These include a variety of foods, including
entrees, snacks, and desserts. The most common fast foods sold as a la
carte items are pizza, cookies, chips, and burritos (Table C-1).
Traditionally, these foods are high in total fat, saturated fat, and
sodium. Few of these foods include fruits, vegetables, or whole grains.
Ninety-five percent of responding districts reported selling fast foods
as a la carte items. These include a variety of foods, including
entrees, snacks, and desserts. The most common fast foods sold as a la
carte items are pizza, cookies, chips, and burritos (Table C-1).
Traditionally, these foods are high in total fat, saturated fat, and
sodium. Few of these foods include fruits, vegetables, or whole
grains.'' (P.9)
While some may argue that children need options in order to learn
to make healthy food choices, there is no support for this claim.
Rather, there is ample evidence that our nation's youth are not
learning to make healthy choices in school, but rather are learning to
replace meals with snack foods. In a national WIC study, FitWIC, a
Latino mother reported in a focus group, ``What I think is that the
food that she is getting at school is making her fat because she
doesn't eat that way at home. What she eats at home are fruits,
oranges, cucumbers, bananas * * *''
Another factor influencing the school meal program is an open
campus. Nearly one-half the high schools in California have open
campuses. (Fast Food Survey, p.7.) Open campuses encourage students to
leave campus and not to eat the nutritionally superior school lunch.
Open campuses also may contribute to untoward events such as afternoon
tardiness and potential truancy, as well, as increased risk of auto
accidents.
To encourage school lunch participation while at the same time
decreasing the likelihood of stigma, many school districts are
incorporating methods for automatic identification of students (and
their eligibility for free and reduced-price meals). Methods include
``swipe'' cards and personal identification number (PIN) devices. These
systems have many advantages. They hide the source of payment, this
avoiding stigma--unless there are alternative sources of food
(competitive foods) for which cash must be paid, thus excluding those
who cannot afford to pay. The machines also speed up service, thus
permitting a school to serve more students in the typically very short
time available to select and eat the food--a key complaint from
students who then resort to vending machines on and off campus and to
other speedy sources of nutritionally inferior food.
Points of service (POS) machines, accepting student swipe cards,
also are efficient components of inventory control and help to reduce
loss of cash revenues. The machines are not panaceas, but they do make
a positive contribution to school cafeteria operations. A very informal
search in San Francisco elicited a price of about $2,500 per machine
(including wiring). While the initial cost may be daunting, the
machines' efficiencies quickly make back their cost, as employees with
salaries and benefits no longer need to perform the tasks which POS
machines take on. One-time only grants to cover the nonrecurring costs
of purchase and installation of these automating systems would be an
excellent investment.
Ms. Woolsey: Mr. Hecht, coming from California, which has
relatively high standards for its vending and a la carte items at
schools, can you tell us how having higher standards has affected
student health and participation in the classroom? Do you think that
the California standards are appropriate and how do you think they
could be improved?
A study of the impact of California's new nutrition standards for
competitive foods is underway but it is premature to predict what it
will show. The new standards are a good first step but much remains to
be done.
Recommendations: (Similar to the recommendations in response to Mr.
Tierney's question above)
1. Eliminate competitive foods altogether.
2. Restrict competitive foods:
a. By ensuring that they are aligned with the current Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, and/or
b. By limiting them to the fruit, vegetable and whole grain
components in the reimbursable meal.
As the questions implies, California's SB 12 and SB 965 (2005) were
enacted to improve the nutrition standards in the foods and beverages
sold and served on school campuses in competition with the USDA
reimbursable meals and snacks. Both laws were elements of California
Childhood Obesity Prevention Plan, intended to improve students' health
and academic performance. The legislation does not allow the sale of
certain beverages and foods high in fat and sugars, such as sodas,
regular chips and candies. Currently with the support of a grant from
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the UC Berkeley Center for Weight
and Health is evaluating the implementation of this legislation, but it
is premature to speculate on the study's results. It is noteworthy that
the state's annual collection of Fitnessgram data--http://
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/documents/ovftnssguide.doc--suggests a slight
improvement in students' body mass index (BMI) since enactment of SB 12
and 965, but it is too soon and too slight a change to predict whether
it will persist and, if so, whether SB 12 and 965 have contributed to
the change.
Preliminary data on the kinds of foods replacing the products not
allowed by the legislation suggest that suppliers are having no
difficulty (despite anticipated hardship) providing snack foods and
beverages, such as baked chips and sports drinks, that meet the SB 12
and 965 guidelines. Clearly, the legislation is a very respectable
first step, but certainly not an end-point For example, fresh, free
water, which is the beverage of choice by doctors and nutritionists, is
ignored by many students in favor of sports drinks, which are fast
becoming the school beverage to replace the forbidden soda. (For more
information, see the UC Berkeley Center for Weight and Health's fact
sheet on the role of sports drinks in children's diets:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/CWH--Sports--Drinks--FAQ--Sheet--
7.07.pdf
To avoid the situation where children are being asked to chose
between snack foods and beverages and the school lunch, stakeholders
are evaluating the benefits of eliminating snack foods altogether in
favor of whole, regular meals. In a recent study on limiting high fat,
high sugar foods and beverages in California schools, school nutrition
personnel reported that they were willing to stop selling the snack
foods if the ``playing field was level.'' (These exact words were
repeated by School Nutrition Association witnesses at the Committee's
March 4, 2008, hearing.)
In other words, they were willing to discontinue selling items IF
these items were disallowed in other school locations (such as vending
machines and school stores). This study showed, paradoxically, that
schools not selling snack or a la carte foods had more often increased
revenues due to increased numbers of students consuming the school
lunch. See:
nature.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/ LEAF--Fiscal--Executive--Summary.pdf
and
nature.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/ LEAF--Accomplishments--Executive--
Summary.pdf
for a full description of the study.
In summary, California's new standards for competitive foods and
beverages certainly seem to be a good first step toward better school
nutrition. However, the new standards are not enough: there are
conspicuous gaps in the present standards. Also, manufacturers of snack
foods have ingeniously created and marketed new foods that meet the
letter of the law, eroding some of the gains that the bills' authors
sought. As the UC Berkeley Center for Weight and Health's and Samuels &
Associates' studies make plain, the best nutrition for the country's
students will come on campuses that are closed, that eliminate
competitive foods entirely, and that give high priority to serving
lunch with fresh, non-processed foods, with an emphasis upon foods
recommended in the Dietary Guidelines such as fresh fruit and
vegetables and whole grains.
______
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 11, 2008.
Ms. Mary Hill, SNS, President, Executive Director,
Jackson Public Schools, Jackson, MS.
Dear Ms. Hill: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008 full
Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving School
Nutrition.'' Below are the questions which Committee members have asked
you to respond for the record.
Mr. Scott (VA-03) asked that you provide information on the
disparity of costs for school lunch programs across the country.
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us. Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at
this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Written Responses From Mary Hill
Q: Mr. Scott asked that you provide information on the disparity of
costs for school lunch programs across the country.
A: SNA is currently collecting information regarding school meal
costs from districts nationwide. At the present time, the majority of
our information comes from school districts situated along the East
Coast, particularly in the Mid-Atlantic region. We are hoping to
release a final study of school meal costs sometime in late summer.
According to our preliminary data, the total average cost of
preparing a school meal, nationwide is $2.70, +/- $0.05 margin of
error. The cost of preparing a meal tends to be much higher in small
school districts than in large school districts. Additionally, total
costs tend to be much higher in states that have strong nutrition
standards, such as West Virginia. The data takes into account food
costs, non-food costs/supplies, labor costs, and indirect costs
(electricity, trash removal, and other services charged to the school
nutrition program).
Another source of information is from the 2007 Technomic, Inc.
school food segment report. According to them, the food costs for the
100 largest school districts was $1.30. Using a national estimate of
labor costs, we estimate that the average national cost is $3.10 per
meal. That report is attached to this email.
______
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 11, 2008.
Hon. Kate Houston, Deputy Under Secretary,
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Houston: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008
full Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving
School Nutrition.'' Enclosed are the questions which Committee members
have asked you to respond for the record. I recognize that the
Committee asked questions of you during the hearing that you were
unable to provide answers to in your capacity with Food and Nutrition
Services. I ask that you please coordinate responses to the following
questions with the appropriate agency within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Chairman George Miller (CA-07) asked the following question during
the hearing:
1. How did evidence of one cow entering the food supply become a
recall of 143 million pounds of beef? The press has reported that
inhumane treatment was a common practice at Westland/Hallmark--what
type of evidence do you have that implies that this treatment goes back
to February 2006?
Mr. Rob Andrews (NJ-01) asked the following questions during the
hearing:
1. How much time passes between ante mortem inspection and
slaughter? Does the Department have a policy on the maximum amount of
time that can pass between ante mortem inspection and slaughter?
2. How many inspectors were assigned to conduct ante mortem
inspections at the Westland/Hallmark facility?
3. Was that number of inspectors was higher or lower than it was 5
years ago?
4. Does Westland/Hallmark have a record of prior violations before
this recall?
5. If so, how frequent are those violations? How often do
inspections occur? What is the process after a violation occurs?
6. Please explain what occurs between a cow passing inspection and
going on to the slaughter.
Mr. Phil Hare (Il-17) asked the following question during the
hearing:
1. How can you be certain that the practices that affected the meat
produced at Hallmark/Westland are not taking place at other facilities
given the regulations, and that the defiance of the regulations in that
plant were taking place while there were USDA inspectors on site?
Mr. Donald Payne (NJ-10) asked the following questions during the
hearing:
1. Please explain and define how a product that is legally unfit
for human consumption is indeed, ok to eat.
2. Please explain explicitly what the role is of each inspector at
a slaughterhouse.
Mr. John Tierney (MA-06) asked during the hearing that you provide
an update as to the status of the recall, specifically on the status of
the actively-traced product.
Additionally, Chairman Miller asks that you also respond to the
following questions for the record:
1. As you know, Chairman Miller, Representatives McCarthy and
DeLauro, and Senator Durbin recently requested that the Government
Accountability Office examine the communication process between USDA
and local authorities in instances where food contamination may be a
problem, and whether adequate guidance has been provided to schools in
managing food safety concerns. Given what you have heard from several
school nutrition directors today, what more should FNS do to ensure
that schools have the information, training, and procedures they need
to execute a recall such as the one we've just experienced?
2. USDA is responsible for the selection, oversight and auditing of
all of the commodity suppliers for the School Lunch program. A 2005
report by Assistant Inspector General Robert W. Young indicated that
USDA maintained contracts with suppliers with known recurring food
safety violations, and allowed these vendors to continue to provide
commodities. Do states and schools have control or choice about who
provides their commodities? Do they have access to all of the
inspection, safety and audit records for these contractors? Can you
please describe the selection and monitoring processes, and what
information is available to the schools?
3. On March 3rd, The Wall Street Journal published an article
regarding the weak safety standards that the USDA upholds. The article
quotes the USDA Inspector General report that in two plants supplying
ground beef to the school lunch program, ``documentation was not
available'' to prove that the meat wasn't contaminated. This is despite
the fact that participation in the school lunch program requires that
all contaminated meat be properly identified, segregated and
controlled. If food processing plants aren't required to keep
documentation, how can USDA be assured that these plants are indeed
destroying contaminated product?
4. In the 2005 USDA Inspector General report it was also noted that
the USDA awarded contracts to vendors that the agency knew had food
safety problems. ``At one unnamed plant, meat samples tested during the
2003-04 school year contained both E. coli and salmonella. The plant
was cited 40 times for USDA violations that year, including failure to
follow food-safety standards.'' The Wall Street Journal also noted that
an official at AMS responded to the OIG report by making recommended
changes. Yet how can we, and parents across the nation, be assured that
the USDA isn't awarding contracts to vendors that continuously receive
food safety violations?
5. The USDA notification to schools on February 17th regarding the
recall indicated that the beef was ``unfit for human consumption,''
which is an alarming description. Why did USDA send out such a strong
and urgent message, while at the same time assuring the public that the
risk from the beef was minimal?
6. It is likely that the practices at Hallmark/Westland were
observed by many employees, yet none came forward to report the abuse.
One of the most important ways we discover illegal practices is through
whistleblowers. And while federal employees and government employees
have broad protections when they blow the whistle, private sector
employees generally are not protected if they report violations of food
safety. Would you agree that federal legislation protecting
whistleblowers would be an important tool in preserving the safety of
food in the schools? If workers were not worried about being retaliated
against, couldn't they provide valuable assistance in monitoring
against blatant illegal activities such as occurred at Hallmark/
Westland?
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 14, 2008.
Hon. Kate Houston, Deputy Under Secretary,
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Houston: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008
full Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving
School Nutrition.'' Enclosed are the questions which Committee members
have asked you to respond for the record. I recognize that the
Committee asked questions of you during the hearing that you were
unable to provide answers to in your capacity with Food and Nutrition
Services. I ask that you please coordinate responses to the following
questions with the appropriate agency within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Ms. Woolsey (CA-06) asks that you respond to these for the record:
1. We know that there is a ``Buy American'' requirement for foods
provided in our child nutrition programs. How is this requirement being
met within the school food programs, including the fruit and vegetable
snack program?
2. According to USDA reports, our importation of fresh product is
highest and our domestic production the lowest during the main months
of the school year. Given the seasonality of many fruits and vegetables
are effectively schools forced to use imported product because of a
seasonal lack of American supply and the desire to offer a variety of
items in the snack program?
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us.
Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
USDA Response to Questions for the Record
Question: How did the evidence of one cow entering the food supply
become a recall of 143 million pounds of beef? The press has reported
that inhumane treatment was a common practice at Westland/Hallmark--
what type of evidence do you have that implies that this treatment goes
back to February 2006?
Answer: The recall goes back to February 1, 2006, because evidence
from the ongoing investigation demonstrates that, over the past two
years, this plant did not always notify the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) public health veterinarian when cattle became non-
ambulatory after passing ante-mortem (prior to slaughter) inspection,
as is required by FSIS regulations. This evidence is part of the
ongoing investigation.
Question: As you know, Chairman Miller, Representatives McCarthy
and DeLauro, and Senator Durbin recently requested that the Government
Accountability Office examine the communication process between USDA
and local authorities in instances where food contamination may be a
problem, and whether adequate guidance has been provided to schools in
managing food safety concerns. Given what you have heard from several
school nutrition directors today, what more should FNS do to ensure
that schools have the information, training, and procedures they need
to execute a recall such as the one we've just experienced?
Answer: USDA has a long-standing commitment to school food safety.
From our pioneering work with the School Nutrition Association to
establish a food safety credentialing program for school food service
employees, to our collaborative efforts to establish standard
procedures for recall actions affecting foods purchased by the
Department for school use, we have done much to ensure the safety and
wholesomeness of school meals. The result is that in comparison to
other food service alternatives, the documented incidence of food-borne
illness associated with school meals is extremely low. We continue to
work with schools to improve on this record of success.
USDA hold and recall processes and procedures have been in place
for a number of years and have worked efficiently and effectively in
past recalls that involved school commodities. FNS, in cooperation with
the National Food Service Management Institute (NFSMI), has provided
training and technical assistance materials to State agencies and
school food service managers on these procedures. However, given the
magnitude of the Westland beef recall, FNS has identified several areas
where communication can be strengthened and how information
dissemination about a food recall can be improved to ensure parents and
students receive accurate and timely information. FNS is working more
closely with State agencies to provide additional technical assistance
to effect better implementation of recall processes and procedures. We
will seek input from our program cooperators to help us in this regard.
The NFSMI is working to finalize guidance for State agencies to better
manage future hold/recall situations. Once this guidance is complete,
there will be an education and training campaign tailored to States and
school districts. The guidance is expected to be ready in July 2008.
Furthermore, we are exploring various communication options that will
allow both FNS and our State agency partners to better transmit food
safety information directly to schools so they, in turn, can provide
timely and accurate information to students, parents, and teachers
about food safety matters. This was a concern we heard during the
Westland recall, and we intend to be fully responsive.
Question: USDA is responsible for the selection, oversight and
auditing of all of the commodity suppliers for the School Lunch
program. A 2005 report by Assistant Inspector General Robert W. Young
indicated that USDA maintained contracts with suppliers with known
recurring food safety violations, and allowed these vendors to continue
to provide commodities. Do states and schools have control or choice
about who provides their commodities? Do they have access to all of the
inspection, safety and audit records for these contractors? Can you
please describe the selection and monitoring processes, and what
information is available to the schools?
Answer: When a school chooses to use their entitlement credits on
donated commodities, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) serves as the
contractor that selects the vendors. The contractors in the AMS frozen
beef purchase program are selected through a multistep process. First,
contractors must prepare a technical proposal that addresses all of the
Agency's program requirements. This proposal is reviewed by AMS
auditors who operate out of the Agency's Audit, Review and Compliance
(ARC) Branch, for completeness and accuracy. Once this proposal is
deemed to be adequate, a ``pre-award'' audit by an AMS ARC Branch
auditor is conducted of the Contractor to ensure that the Contractor's
process in operation is accurately characterized by their written
technical proposal. There is a written audit report prepared during
this ``pre-award'' audit. If this ``pre-award'' audit is passed, the
Contractor is then deemed eligible to submit bids on AMS invitations
and will be subject to monthly audits of their production. These
monthly audits also result in written audit reports being prepared.
Additionally, just because contractors are approved to submit bids,
it does not necessarily mean they will be awarded any contracts.
Contracts are awarded on a competitive bid process for each invitation.
During the purchase year, AMS is issuing invitations weekly and
typically purchases around 150 million pounds annually. If a contractor
is awarded a contract, they will then have an AMS Meat Grading and
Certification (MGCB) Branch employee stationed at their facility during
all hours of production for AMS-purchased product. These MGCB employees
perform a number of checks during the day and also complete written
reports during each day of production. AMS maintains copies of all of
these audit and certification records that assure compliance with AMS
specification and contract requirements. Finally, all contractors
operate under continuous testing protocols that require compliance with
specified standards to remain eligible to bid and supply products.
Question: On March 3, The Wall Street Journal published an article
regarding the weak safety standards that the USDA upholds. The article
quotes the USDA Inspector General report that in two plants supplying
ground beef to the school lunch program, ``documentation was not
available'' to prove that the meat wasn't contaminated. This is despite
the fact that participation in the school lunch program requires that
all contaminated meat be properly identified, segregated and
controlled. If food processing plants aren't required to keep
documentation, how can USDA be assured that these plants are indeed
destroying contaminated product?
Answer: AMS disagrees with the published article in question as we
believe it to be incomplete and misleading. A couple of points are of
particular importance. First, it is important to note that OIG reviewed
this program during its first year of implementation, with only a
limited number of findings, and most of the issues identified were part
of the planned second or third year of the phased implementation.
Second, the concern with regard to documentation had to do with meat
that had been rejected for use in school lunch production but for which
plants' quality management plans did not adequately define how this
product would be segregated and not reused. Prior to, during, and
subsequent to the OIG audit AMS had a grader physically on-site in the
plant to oversee the disposition of such product to ensure there was no
possibility that such meat would be inappropriately used. In addition,
even before the OIG report was issued, AMS, as a part of its own
continuous improvement process under this program, required firms to
strengthen their internal controls by documenting procedures for the
control and disposition of rejected products beginning July 2004.
Compliance with this requirement, over and above other controls, is
further assured through monthly program audits.
Question: In the 2005 USDA Inspector General report it was also
noted that the USDA awarded contracts to vendors that the agency knew
had food safety problems. ``At one unnamed plant, meat samples tested
during the 2003-04 school year contained both E. coli and salmonella.
The plant was cited 40 times for USDA violations that year, including
failure to follow food-safety standards.'' The Wall Street Journal also
noted that an official at AMS responded to the OIG report by making
recommended changes. Yet how can we, and parents across the nation, be
assured that the USDA isn't awarding contracts to vendors that
continuously receive food safety violations?
Answer: First and foremost, because of AMS' stringent process and
product requirements, AMS strongly believes the products it purchases
for Federal food and nutrition programs, including raw ground beef, are
as safe as any products purchased by other large volume food buyers.
Parents can rest assured that all products testing positive for E. coli
O157:H7 or Salmonella are rejected and not allowed to be shipped to
Federal food and nutrition program outlets, including schools.
With regard to the issue of contracts being awarded to vendors with
food safety violations that was identified in the OIG report, AMS had
at the time of the OIG audit, and continues to maintain management
controls that ensure that contracts are only awarded to eligible
suppliers with strong food safety controls and a proven ability to
produce safe and high quality products.
The basis for the OIG finding mentioned above was a one-time
occurrence that occurred at the very beginning of the Agency's movement
towards a statistical process control program that the Agency now uses
to evaluate suppliers to ensure that AMS only does business with the
highest quality suppliers possible. In fact, in its response to the OIG
report, AMS demonstrated to OIG that for the School Year (SY) 2004-2005
and SY 2005-2006 purchasing cycles, all suppliers had approved
technical proposals and all non-conformances were cleared prior to
receiving a contract.
Question: The USDA notification to schools on February 17th
regarding the recall indicated that the beef was ``unfit for human
consumption,'' which is an alarming description. Why did USDA send out
such a strong and urgent message, while at the same time assuring the
public that the risk from the beef was minimal?
Answer: Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. voluntarily recalled
approximately 143 million pounds of raw and frozen beef products that
FSIS determined to be unfit for human food because the cattle did not
receive complete and proper inspection. Through evidence obtained
through the ongoing investigation, the establishment did not
consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in situations
in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing ante-mortem
inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS regulations.
Such circumstances require that an FSIS public health veterinarian
reassess the non-ambulatory cattle which are either condemned and
prohibited from the food supply, or tagged as suspect. Suspect cattle
receive more thorough inspection after slaughter than is customary.
This noncompliant activity occurred occasionally over the past two
years and therefore all beef product produced during the period of time
for which evidence indicates such activity occurred has been determined
by FSIS to be unfit for human consumption, which is a legal definition.
While it is extremely unlikely that these meat products pose a risk
to human health, the recall action was deemed necessary because the
establishment did not comply with FSIS regulations.
This recall is designated as Class II due to the remote probability
that the beef being recalled would cause adverse health effects if
consumed. This recall designation is in contrast to a Class I recall,
which is a higher-risk health hazard situation where there is a
reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious,
adverse health consequences or death.
Question: It is likely that the practices at Hallmark/Westland were
observed by many employees, yet none came forward to report the abuse.
One of the most important ways we discover illegal practices is though
whistleblowers. And while federal employees and government employees
have broad protections when they blow the whistle, private sector
employees generally are not protected if they report violations of food
safety. Would you agree that federal legislation protecting
whistleblowers would be an important tool in preserving the safety of
food in the schools? If workers were not worried about being retaliated
against, couldn't they provide valuable assistance in monitoring
against blatant illegal activities such as those that occurred at
Hallmark/Westland?
Answer: There is an ongoing investigation into the Hallmark/
Westland incident and as soon as more specific information is
available, that information will be made known to you. However, it is
important to note that there is a sign in each plant that has a hotline
number for the USDA Office of the Inspector General, in order to make
notification of noncompliant practices an accessible option for private
sector employees in the plants. Plant employees also routinely notify
FSIS inspection program personnel in events of plant noncompliance with
regulation.
Question: How much time passes between ante mortem inspection and
slaughter? Does the Department have a policy on the maximum amount of
time that can pass between ante mortem inspection and slaughter?
Answer: The time that passes between ante mortem inspection and
slaughter could be several hours, but must be within the same day.
Question: How many inspectors were assigned to conduct ante mortem
inspections at the Westland/Hallmark facility?
Answer: The number of inspectors assigned to an establishment is
dependent upon the size of the facility, the type of products produced
as well as their production volume. Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing
Company had five FSIS inspection program personnel at the facility each
day of operation. There were three on-line inspectors, one public
health veterinarian and one off-line inspector. FSIS veterinarians and
other inspection personnel are not stationed in the ante-mortem area
for the entire day, although they do return randomly to conduct humane
handling verification activities. Other inspection activities are
conducted off-line when ante mortem inspections have been completed. At
this facility, on average, 90 minutes throughout the day were spent
verifying humane handling activities in the ante-mortem area. These
inspectors were present at the slaughter facility every day for the
entire eight-hour shift.
Question: Was that number of inspectors higher or lower than it was
5 years ago?
Answer: Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company was staffed based on
its current production rates and in accordance with the national method
of assigning work, which was implemented in 2004. If production and
processes change, the number of inspectors may also change. There was
one food inspector vacancy in early 2006 that was promptly filled, and
there was no other vacancy until late October 2007. That food inspector
vacancy was filled in early 2008. The on-line positions were covered
daily and, as necessary, relief inspectors, inspectors hired on an
intermittent basis, or even an in plant off-line inspector would cover
the on-line duties.
Question: Does Westland/Hallmark have a record of prior violations
before this recall?
Answer: Yes.
Question: If so, how frequent are those violations? How often do
inspections occur? What is the process after a violation occurs?
Answer: In December 2005, an FSIS District Veterinary Medical
Specialist conducted a routine humane handling audit and issued
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company a humane handling related non-
compliance record (NR) because of overly aggressive driving of animals
and multiple structural inadequacies in the pens. The plant promptly
implemented appropriate corrective measures. In May 2007, FSIS
conducted another audit that noted no excessive use of electric prods,
or any other regulatory non-compliance.
FSIS inspection program personnel conduct carcass-by-carcass
inspection and verify that establishments follow all food safety and
humane handling regulations. FSIS inspection program personnel also
verify that the establishment maintains proper sanitation procedures;
it follows its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan
and complies with all FSIS regulations pertaining to slaughter and
processing operations. This requires continuous inspection of slaughter
and processing operations. Furthermore, offline FSIS personnel conduct
random humane handling inspections at intermittent times during the
day.
If the establishment fails to maintain sanitation, does not follow
its HACCP plan or violates other regulations, FSIS inspection program
personnel will issue a citation to the establishment in the form of a
noncompliance record to document the noncompliance. If necessary, they
could also take regulatory control action, such as a Notice of Intended
Enforcement or a Suspension of Inspection.
Question: Please explain what occurs between a cow passing
inspection and going on to the slaughter.
Answer: The inspection process begins with an establishment's
notification of FSIS that they want animals inspected prior to
slaughter. Inspection at a slaughter establishment begins in the ante
mortem area or pen where FSIS inspection program personnel inspect live
animals before moving to slaughter. It is the establishment's
responsibility to follow the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Egregious
violations to humane handling requirements can lead to suspension of
inspection within an establishment. This will stop the plant from
operating.
During this inspection, FSIS inspection program personnel observe
all animals at rest and in motion. Inspection program personnel are
trained to look for abnormalities and signs that could indicate disease
or health conditions that would prohibit the animal from entering the
food supply. If an animal goes down or shows signs of illness after
receiving and passing ante mortem inspection before slaughter, the
establishment must immediately notify the FSIS veterinarian to re-
inspect the animal and make a case-by-case disposition of the animal's
condition. Alternatively, the establishment may humanely euthanize the
animal. Re-inspected animals allowed to continue to slaughter are
labeled as ``U.S. Suspect'' and are segregated until the animal has
received additional inspection by an FSIS veterinarian.
FSIS public health veterinarians and other inspection personnel are
not stationed in the ante mortem area for the entire day. They do
return randomly to verify humane handling, as well as the stunning and
bleeding process. Other inspection activities are also conducted off-
line inside the slaughter facility when ante mortem inspections have
been completed. These off-line FSIS inspection program personnel move
through the different areas of the establishment while performing their
duties. This gives them the ability to vary their assigned off line
inspections.
Post mortem inspection occurs in the slaughter area after the
animal has been humanely stunned and bled. FSIS inspection program
personnel perform carcass-by-carcass post mortem inspections. Agency
inspection personnel are stationed at fixed positions along the
slaughter line, and are known as on-line inspectors. Inspectors look
for signs of disease or pathological conditions that would render a
carcass or part unwholesome or otherwise unfit for human consumption.
Any carcass in need of further diagnosis or disposition is segregated
and the veterinarian summoned. The establishment must maintain the
identity of every carcass and ensure that the retained carcasses do not
enter the food supply until released by FSIS inspection program
personnel. After further inspection, if a carcass has no generalized
signs of disease or pathological conditions, it is passed without
restriction and may enter the food supply. Off-line FSIS inspection
program personnel also observe the sanitary conditions of those parts
of the slaughter area not directly related to carcass inspection, such
as where the hides are removed.
Question: How can you be certain that the practices that affected
the meat produced at Hallmark/Westland are not taking place at other
facilities given the regulations, and that the defiance of the
regulations in that plant were taking place while there were USDA
inspectors on site?
Answer: The investigation led by OIG with support from FSIS and AMS
is ongoing. However, we are not waiting for the completion of the
investigation to act.
FSIS has already taken a number of steps to strengthen our
inspection system. As announced on February 28, FSIS has implemented a
series of interim actions to verify and thoroughly analyze humane
handling activities in all federally inspected establishments.
FSIS has increased the amount of time allocated per shift by
inspection program personnel to verify humane handling activities and
to verify that animals are handled humanely in ante-mortem areas. FSIS
is also conducting surveillance activities to observe the handling of
animals outside the approved hours of operation from vantage points
within and adjacent to the official premises. A notice has been issued
to all FSIS inspection program personnel to reinforce the work methods
for conducting humane handling verification activities at all levels
and to ensure the greatest utility of the Humane Activities Tracking
System (HATS) program.
Surveillance and inspection activities are prioritized and focused
based on existing data such as the category of livestock handled at the
facility, humane handling data, observations made at the facility
during regular inspection and a plant's operating schedule.
FSIS will continue to collect information in HATS, which provides
an accounting of the time spent by FSIS inspection program personnel
performing specific tasks and the results of that inspection related to
humane handling and slaughter. Starting on March 3, 2008, FSIS
inspection program personnel assigned to Federally inspected livestock
slaughter establishments increased the amount of time that they spend
conducting HATS activities from anywhere between 50-100 percent. This
increased HATS inspection will continue for 60 days and will be closely
measured during that time.
Prioritization will help to ensure the optimal use of resources to
ensure humane handling and food safety. FSIS is focusing surveillance
and inspection activities at establishments where older or potentially
distressed animals are slaughtered, such as facilities that handle
dairy or veal cattle. At these facilities, the time spent performing
HATS activities will be doubled. At facilities with contracts from the
AMS for nutrition assistance programs, regardless of the type or class
of the animal slaughtered, HATS verification time is being doubled. At
facilities where non-ambulatory livestock are infrequently presented,
such as in slaughter facilities that handle young market classes
including steers, heifers, market hogs, and lambs, an additional 50
percent of HATS verification time may be required. At least once every
two weeks, a District Veterinary Medical Specialist or a district
analyst is verifying that inspection personnel at each official
livestock slaughter establishment are conducting the appropriate
increase in HATS verification time. Any plant found not to be in
compliance will be reported to the in-plant supervisor and the
frontline supervisor.
Meanwhile, FSIS will begin reviewing the HATS to determine what, if
any, adjustments are needed to maximize its utility as a tracking tool
to improve compliance.
FSIS is currently auditing all 19 beef slaughter establishments
that participate in AMS's nutrition assistance program. This is the
first in a set of audits we will be conducting.
The investigation being led by OIG with support from FSIS and AMS
is ongoing. Once the investigation has concluded, we will have
additional information that, along with the results of the additional
verification activities, will determine the actions for FSIS oversight,
inspection and enforcement that may be required.
Question: Please explain and define how a product that is legally
unfit for human consumption is indeed, ok to eat.
Answer: The term unfit for human consumption is a legal term. It
was triggered by the failure of the firm to follow a regulatory
requirement. While this requirement was not met, it is extremely
unlikely that these meat products pose a risk to human health because
of the interlocking system of safeguards that exist.
Question: Please explain explicitly what the role is of each
inspector at a slaughterhouse.
Answer: FSIS employs about 7,800 in plant inspection program
personnel. They inspect more than 6,200 federally inspected
establishments. These establishments vary greatly in size and type of
activity conducted.
FSIS employees conduct carcass-by-carcass inspection at all
federally inspected slaughter facilities and verify that establishments
follow all food safety and humane handling regulations.
Inspection at a slaughter establishment begins in the ante mortem
area or pen where FSIS inspection program personnel inspect live
animals before moving to slaughter. During this inspection, FSIS
inspection program personnel observe all animals at rest and in motion.
Inspection program personnel are trained to look for abnormalities and
signs that could indicate disease or health conditions that would
prohibit the animal from entering the food supply.
It is the establishment's responsibility to follow the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act. Egregious violations to humane handling
requirements lead to suspension of inspection within an establishment.
This will stop the plant from operating. Noncompliance records for
humane handling also can be issued when the violation is less than
egregious, such as not having water available in pens.
FSIS inspection program personnel also verify that the
establishments maintain proper sanitation procedures, follow their
HACCP plans, and comply with all FSIS regulations pertaining to
slaughter and processing operations.
FSIS inspection program personnel perform carcass-by-carcass post
mortem inspections. Agency inspection personnel are stationed at fixed
positions along the slaughter line, and are known as on-line
inspectors.
Inspectors look for signs of disease or pathological conditions
that would render a carcass or part unwholesome or otherwise unfit for
human consumption.
Any carcass in need of further diagnosis or disposition is
segregated and the FSIS public health veterinarian summoned.
The establishment must maintain the identity of every carcass and
ensure that the retained carcasses do not enter the food supply until
it is released by FSIS inspection program personnel.
Off-line FSIS inspection program personnel also observe the
sanitary conditions of those parts of the slaughter area not directly
related to carcass inspection, such as where the hides are removed.
Question: Please provide an update as to the status of the recall,
specifically on the status of the actively-traced product.
Answer: With a recall of this magnitude, this process will take
several weeks to complete. It is the recalling firm's responsibility to
provide adequate notice of the recall and to advise each of its
consignees of the need to retrieve and control recalled product.
Subsequent consignees are then expected to notify their consignees or
customers of the recall. In accordance with FSIS Directive 8080.1, FSIS
will conduct 200 effectiveness checks to ensure that all of the
approximate 9,500 consignees have received notice of the recall and are
making every effort to retrieve and destroy the recalled product. FSIS
personnel verify that Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company has been
diligent and successful in notifying its consignees of the need to
retrieve and control recalled product, and that the consignees have
responded accordingly. FSIS will also coordinate with FNS/AMS on
tracking the destruction of recalled product that went to nutrition
assistance programs.
Question: We know there is a ``Buy American requirement'' for foods
provided in the child nutrition programs. How is this requirement being
met within the school food programs, including the fruit and vegetable
snack programs?
Answer: The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act requires
schools located in the contiguous United States to purchase domestic
commodities and products for the school lunch and breakfast programs
``to the maximum extent practicable.'' This requirement extends to the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Two exceptions which may
permit purchases of foreign products are: 1) the product is not
produced or manufactured in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonable
available quantities of a satisfactory quality; and 2) competitive bids
reveal the costs of a U.S. product is significantly higher than the
foreign product.
USDA continues to provide schools with on-going technical
assistance to ensure schools have procurement strategies in place to
comply with the Buy American provision. For example, we have encouraged
the inclusion of a Buy American clause in all product specifications,
bid solicitations, requests for proposals, purchase orders, and other
procurement documents issued. Similarly, school food authorities may
ask their suppliers to provide certification as to the origin of the
product. School food authorities are also encouraged to monitor
contractor performance to ensure compliance with all contractual
requirements, including the Buy American provision.
In addition, to ensure school food authorities understand their
responsibilities under the Buy American provision, the Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) issued a memorandum to State agencies in April
2006 to reiterate the Buy American requirements for all food purchases
made under the Child Nutrition Programs. At that time, FNS made
available a set of Questions and Answers (Q&As) that addressed the
relevance of the Buy American provisions in the context of procurement
actions under the Child Nutrition Programs, including the FFVP. Both
the memorandum and the Q&As are posted on FNS' web site to allow for
easy access by both program participants and the general public.
FNS also included information about the Buy American provision into
the Food Buying Guide for the Child Nutrition Program. Approximately
200,000 copies of the guide were printed and provided to every school
participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. Currently, FNS is finalizing development of a web-based
procurement training curriculum, which will be released later this
year, and will incorporate training on the Buy American provisions.
Question: According to USDA reports, our importation of fresh
product is highest and our domestic production the lowest during the
main months of the school year. Given the seasonality of many fruits
and vegetables are effectively schools forced to use imported product
because of a seasonal lack of American supply and the desire to offer a
variety of items in the snack program?
Answer: The seasonal availability of fresh fruit and vegetables
certainly plays a role in what is purchased for the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (FFVP). However, with the various growing seasons
across the United States, many domestic fruits and vegetables are
available at an affordable cost during most if not all of the
traditional school year.
______
[VIA FACSIMILE],
March 14, 2008.
Ms. Penny Parham, Administrative Director,
Department of Food and Nutrition, Miami, FL.
Dear Ms. Parham: Thank you for testifying at the March 4, 2008 full
Committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving School
Nutrition.'' Below are the questions which Committee members have asked
you to respond for the record.
Ms. Woolsey (CA-06) asks that you respond to this for the record:
Ms. Parham, universal free school breakfast is a legislation that I
have been working on for many years. Can you share with us some of the
successes of the universal school breakfast system that you instituted
in Florida and some of the lessons you've learned since the program was
established in 2003.
Please send an electronic version of your written response (in Word
format) to the Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008--the
date on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions,
please contact us. Once again, we greatly appreciate your testimony at
this hearing.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
Written Responses From Penny Parham
Thank you for affording me the opportunity to testify at the full
committee hearing, ``Challenges and Opportunities for Improving School
Nutrition'' on March 4, 2008. I am happy to respond to Representative
Woolsey's request that I share some of the successes of the Universal
School Breakfast Program that we have implemented at Miami-Dade County
Public Schools and to highlight some of the successes and lessons
learned since the program was established in 2003.
To me the most important success of the Universal Breakfast Program
is the fact that it erased the stigma of eating breakfast at school.
Prior to the implementation of the Universal Breakfast Program, 90% of
breakfasts served at school were to students approved for free or
reduced price meals. There was a perception among students that if you
ate breakfast at school you were ``poor.'' Now, there is no record of a
student's eligibility when they eat school breakfast, as all students
eat breakfast for free. The free breakfast is marketed as such and
enjoyed by all students at no cost, no eligibility requirement and no
unintended stigma associated with the service. Another success of the
Universal Breakfast Program is that it has increased our student
participation in breakfast by 3 million breakfasts served annually,
even though we have experienced declining enrollment in the district. A
third success of the program is that we provide a tangible service that
benefits the individual student and their family, benefits the school
by providing an available support ensuring hunger is not an obstacle to
learning and benefits the District by providing excellent public
relations and a springboard for before school activities and
educational opportunities. Last, but certainly not least, this program
enables us to provide a guaranteed breakfast for students during
standardized testing.
In regards to lessons learned, under the USDA Provision 2 Guidance
for which we operate our Universal Breakfast program, if an individual
school population improves economically by more than 5% after four (4)
years, new meal claiming percentages must be established. This year we
must re-establish our base-year claiming percentages because the
demographics at individual schools within the district have shifted. We
are re-establishing our percentages, as required by our State agency,
but because the District population as whole did not shift 5%, we
believe extensions based on total district numbers should be granted.
Approving some but not all schools in a district for Universal
Breakfast does not eliminate the perceived stigma of free school meals.
However, Universal School Breakfast must be adequately funded in order
for districts to choose this as a service option for all students at
all schools.
A second lesson learned, is that even with Universal School
Breakfast, not all students will participate. Annually, we serve over
twice as many school lunches as breakfast, even though breakfast is
free and marketed to the community. There are many reasons for choosing
or not choosing breakfast at school, however, Universal School
Breakfast provides the open availability to all students and ensures
that morning hunger will not be an impediment to learning.
Historically, school meal programs have been thought of as
providing meals for ``needy'' children, based on economics. However, in
this day and age of working parents, epidemic levels of childhood
obesity and access to nutrition information and nutrition education,
school meals are a valuable service for all school children, regardless
of their economic need. By providing District's financially viable
Universal School Breakfast, stigmas evaporate, participation increases,
and breakfast available at school becomes accepted as part of a normal
school day.
Thank you for your interest. If I can be of further assistance
please do not hesitate to contact me.
______
[Whereupon, at 5:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]