House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Challenges and Opportunities For Improving School Nutrition

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. 11080

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
WASHINGTON
40944 PDF
2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 5011
Sfmt 5011
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Robert C. Bobby Scott, Virginia
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Carolyn McCarthy, New York
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
David Wu, Oregon
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Susan A. Davis, California
Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Linda T. Sanchez, California
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania
David Loebsack, Iowa
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Phil Hare, Illinois
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Howard P. Buck McKeon, California,

Senior Republican Member
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Judy Biggert, Illinois
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Ric Keller, Florida
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
John Kline, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Kenny Marchant, Texas
Tom Price, Georgia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
John R. Randy Kuhl, Jr., New York
Rob Bishop, Utah
David Davis, Tennessee
Timothy Walberg, Michigan
[Vacancy]
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
(II)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2008 ..............................................................................

Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ..........................................................
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. Buck, Senior Republican Member, Committee
on Education and Labor ...............................................................................
Prepared statement of ...............................................................................
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor .........
Questions submitted to witnesses ............................................................
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement of ...........................................................
Statement of Witnesses:
Corrigan, Kathleen A., MBA, RD, director, food and nutrition services,
Mt. Diablo Unified School District ..............................................................
Written responses to questions for the record ........................................
Hecht, Kenneth, California Food Policy Advocates .......................................
Hill, Mary, president, School Nutrition Association ......................................
USDA dietary guidelines memo ...............................................................
Houston, Hon. Kate J., Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................
USDA responses to questions for the record ...........................................
Parham, Penny, administrative director, department of food and nutrition, Miami-Dade County .............................................................................
Rivas, Dora, vice president, School Nutrition Association; director of child
nutrition, Dallas ............................................................................................
Additional submission: Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. Recall Costs ...
53
4
5
1
3
55
54
14
16
55
17
19
57
7
9
12
60
21
23
63
26
28
69
29
31
33
(III)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
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.
Todays 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
(1)
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
2
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 years 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 USDAs
inspection process as successful or effective if it allows tainted
meat to enter the school food supply. The Humane Societys investigation prompted the largest meat recall by the USDA in the Nations 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 Agricultures
ability to monitor the safety of meat in this country, including meat
that is being served in the National School Lunch Program. I hope
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
3
that we can begin to answer some of these questions in todays
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 USDAs 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 todays hearing on Challenges and Opportunities for
Improving School Nutrition. Todays 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 years reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act and the National
School Lunch Act to make them work even better.
We know that when children dont 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 cant 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
4
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 USDAs inspection process as successful or effective if it allows tainted meat to enter the school food supply.
The Humane Societys investigation prompted the largest meat recall by the
USDA in the nations 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 Agricultures ability to monitor the safety of meat in this countryincluding 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 todays
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
USDAs work to ensure the safety of meat in the school food supply.
Already, however, its clear that more must be done to ensure the safety of the
meat that all consumersincluding schoolchildreneat.
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.
Id 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 Americas 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 bills 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 trou-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
5
bling 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
Nations 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 Agricultures 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 todays 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 Americas
most vulnerable children.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
6
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 bills 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 Californiain which beef used in
the school lunch program was part of a major recall due to a limited but very troubling health riskgives 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 nations 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 Agricultures
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 todays 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. Thats 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
7
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 districts 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
USDAs 15 nutritional assistance programs. In October 2006, Ms.
Houston was appointed to serve as the Deputy Administrator for
USDAs Food and Nutrition Services 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 Masters Degree in Nutrition. She worked as Food Service
Systems Manager from 1989 and became the districts 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 organizations 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
8
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 USDAs 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 email, when any USDA agency puts out a press release saying that
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
9
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 todayDora 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 organizations 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
10
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 highprofit 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
11
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 dont lock the nutrition standard into statute; and
2. Please dont 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 cant 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 Committees 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
12
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 cant learn and you cant 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 223021500
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 componentsthe starchy endosperm, germ and
branare 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
13
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 ingredients 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 Americans 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,
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
14
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 onethird 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 Nations 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
15
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. Diablos 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
16
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 Californias 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.
[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. Diablos schools.
We believe breakfast is critical for every student in order to start the day ready
to learn. For the past few years weve 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 onlearning, test scores and student behavior.
Next we began to offer breakfast a second time at recess or midmorning for the
students who cant 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 thats 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
were 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. Diablos 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
17
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 planI believe
that children will become like the people who teach themChildren 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 staffbecause
these behaviors must become habits. When our most critical role models are modeling healthy habits for kids, change will happenand not until then.
I also want to mention Californias 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 meI
never dreamed I would see such a massive change in district practices. The nutrition standards have been applied to all groups districtwideso 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 Advocatesa 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 States 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
18
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 itemsleaner 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 lotthe food that is contributing to childhood obesity.
Because it is thought that this is the only way to get participation
highand it needs to be high to keep a cafeteria in the blackour
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 Defenses 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 thatmoving 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 nu-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
19
trition skills for their lifetime and starting to slow and reverse the
obesity epidemic.
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 foodand influence selection of the other food itemsin the lunch that 30 million school children consume
each school day. School lunch supplies about one-third of a students 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 day180 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-1990s 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 itemswhole 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 agencys
continuing commitment to offer school districts food that is responsive to obesity
prevention.
Still, there are numerous opportunities to strengthen the commodities programs
capacity to prevent obesity and food insecurity. Given that one-third of Californias
children are in the grip of the obesity epidemic, improving the nutrition in school
meals is an imperative. The recent results of USDAs 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 nutritionists 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
20
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 cheeseitems 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 boarddo 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 willto 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 USDAs 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 problemsthe 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 donecut 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 cant 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
21
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 eatall 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
schoolsthe
Hallmark/Westland
Meatpacking Companys 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
companys 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 Departments 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
agenciesthe Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Agricultural Marketing Servicethat 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
22
The USDA takes this recall very seriously. It is the largest beef
recall in the history of the United States, and its impact is farreaching, 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
USDAs 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 Educations 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
23
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.
[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.
USDAs 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 programstwo of the largest nutrition assistance programsrepresent an especially important opportunity to improve the health and well-being of the Nations
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 schoolsthe Hallmark/
Westland Meat Packing Company (Hallmark/Westland) beef recall. As Agriculture
Secretary Ed Schafer has assured the public, I want to assure youthe 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, USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchased about 20 percent of
USDA commodity ground beef and beef products from Hallmark/Westland. About 94
percent of this beefjust over 50 million poundswas 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
24
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 USDAs 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 followup 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 tracebackward 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 USDAs 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
25
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 Im 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
26
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, MIAMIDADE
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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
27
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 publics
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 publics 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
28
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 Nations most valuable resourceour children. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Committee. I welcome any questions you may have.
[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 nations
fourth largest school district. I am a Registered Dietitian with a Masters degree in
Dietetics and Nutrition. MiamiDade 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 publics 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
29
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 publics 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. MiamiDade 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 resourceour 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
30
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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
31
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 didnt 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 USDAs 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
32
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 Communications 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:]
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
33
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
westland.eps
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.
34
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
areyou 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 contributiongood or bad, reallyfrom
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 beefthat is some cow.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
35
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-Dadebig districtscould 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.
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 try-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
36
ing 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 likeI 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 arean 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 justit 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 isI am glad I am not on the
Ag Committee. I guess we will be having other hearings as we go
into theI 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 dont 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 saidand I quoteadequate management controls were not in place to ensure that
ground beef products purchased were free of pathogens. It went on
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
37
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 dont 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 thinkwell,
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?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
38
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 knowand I would
invite you to supplement the recordis 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 laypersons 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 understandingand again I would defer to my colleagues at the Food
Safety and Inspection Serviceis 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
doesnt 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 thatanyway,
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 standardlets say the wholethe 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 uniformright 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
39
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 dont 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 dont 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 beingwe 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 dont 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, shouldnt we
also consider the physical fitness and the physical education that
is offered at these schools?
Ms. CORRIGAN. Certainly.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
40
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 youto 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 dont 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 wedistricts 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 dont 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 dont know
if you can answer this one. If you cant, maybe have somebody get
back to me because I share my friend Mr. McKeons 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 regulationsthat 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 dont have these kinds of violations happening again.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
41
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 dont 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 thethe 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 dont 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
justI 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
42
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 dont 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
43
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. Houstons 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 thatthat 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
44
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 informationfor 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 weyes, 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 isnt 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, na-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
45
tional nutrition standards. So that everybody is on level playing
fields and we dont 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 actuallythose
students like, that they will come in and actually want just to participate in the program. The cost factor is the other. Some really
dont 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?
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 packageto steal a phrase
right nowbecause 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
theis there any theory of negligence or something that you can
get reimbursement from somebody?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
46
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
cant
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 612 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 alsoabout 60 percent of meat was coarse ground
that was then sent to further processors for development of valueadded 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
47
Mr. TIERNEY. And the actively traced isI suppose it is just
traced, or whatever actively traced means, you havent 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 USDAs 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 isI 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
48
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.
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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
49
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 lets 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. Hills 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 ourwhat students favorite menu options
were, and then we took those and tried to create a healthier alternative. You know, if you were to seeyou 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 cant speak for the district he is in. But a lot of timeswe have
tried to do this over the years in sort of a tricky way. We dont 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 dont 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 standardsI
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
toSNA will be continuing to work with the Institute of Medicine
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
50
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 thismany 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
someI know one of the corporations in New Jersey, I guess
M&Ms, 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 toin general willing to assist in that?
And secondly, how do you arguereconcile 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 thatfor 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 pusheddowner ani-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
51
mals, 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 serviceFood 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 didnt do it. But you happen
to be the messenger. I cant 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,
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
52
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 concernI 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 moreyou know, it doesnt 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 revisedthe 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?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
53
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. Theif this video wasnt
taken perhaps this wouldnt 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 dont have to
Ms. HOUSTON. I would be happy to provide that information.
Mr. PAYNE. You dont 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
dont 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 couldnt 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
nations 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 nations 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
54
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 arent 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 didnt 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 its 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? Its been almost thirty years, and that is shameful. Thats 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.
Its time that we take a more active role in fighting childhood obesity and starting
with school nutrition is a big first step.
But sometime its not as complicated as what our children our eating. Sometimes,
its just making sure that they are eating at all. Thats why Ive 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:]
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6602
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
55
[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, 2008the 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/sept98schoolbreakfast.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/
ClassroomBreakfast.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:

Study Shows Federal Nutrition Programs Protect Childrens Health:

Yes, Breakfast Does Improve Learning, Nutrition and Weight:

Action for Healthy Kids Report Shows Link between Nutrition and Academic
Achievement:
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:
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
56
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 Californias higher standards for
vending and ala carte items served at schools have affected student health and participation in the classroom.
Californias 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. Californias 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?
Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008the date on which the hear-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
57
ing record will close. If you have any questions, please contact us. Once again, we
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 Americansfoods 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 nutritionquality 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 meals 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
58
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 assessments calculationone students 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
Isnt 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 lowincome 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,
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
59
and sodium. Few of these foods include fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Ninetyfive 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 nations 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 doesnt 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 stigmaunless 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 fooda 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 Californias 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. Tierneys
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, Californias 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
studys results. It is noteworthy that the states annual collection of Fitnessgram
datahttp://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/documents/ovftnssguide.docsuggests
a
slight improvement in students body mass index (BMI) since enactment of SB 12
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
60
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
Healths fact sheet on the role of sports drinks in childrens diets:
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/CWHSportsDrinksFAQSheet7.07.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 Committees 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/ LEAFFiscalExecutiveSummary.pdf
and
nature.berkeley.edu/cwh/PDFs/ LEAFAccomplishmentsExecutiveSummary.pdf
for a full description of the study.

In summary, Californias 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 Healths and Samuels &
Associates studies make plain, the best nutrition for the countrys 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
Mr. Scott (VA-03) asked that you provide information on the disparity of costs for
school lunch programs across the country.
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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
61
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/Hallmarkwhat 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 weve just experienced?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
62
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 wasnt 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 arent 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
isnt 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, couldnt they provide valuable assistance
in monitoring against blatant illegal activities such as occurred at Hallmark/
Westland?
Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008the 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
63
imported product because of a seasonal lack of American supply and the desire to
offer a variety of items in the snack program?
Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, March 18, 2008the 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/Hallmarkwhat 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 weve 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?
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
64
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 Agencys program requirements. This proposal is reviewed
by AMS auditors who operate out of the Agencys 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 Contractors 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 wasnt 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 arent 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 isnt 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
65
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 Agencys 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, couldnt 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
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
66
mortem inspections have been completed. At this facility, on average, 90 minutes
throughout the day were spent verifying humane handling activities in the antemortem 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 establishments 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 establishments 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 animals 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-bycarcass post mortem inspections. Agency inspection personnel are stationed at fixed
positions along the slaughter line, and are known as on-line inspectors. Inspectors
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
67
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 plants 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 AMSs 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.
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
68
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 establishments 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 firms 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 or-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
69
ders, 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
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
youve learned since the program was established in 2003.
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 Woolseys 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 students eligibility when they eat school breakfast, as all students eat break-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6621
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK
70
fast 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 Districts 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.]
VerDate 0ct 09 2002
14:51 Jun 27, 2008
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6011
G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-80\40944.TXT
HBUD1
PsN: DICK

House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Challenges and Opportunities For Improving School Nutrition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Challenges and Opportunities For Improving School Nutrition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Challenges and Opportunities For Improving School Nutrition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL NUTRITION

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 4, 2008

Serial No. 11080

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

Howard P. Buck McKeon, California,

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

Hearing held on March 4, 2008 ..............................................................................

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m., in room 2175,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

Ms. HILL. Good afternoon.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

[USDA Dietary Guidelines memo, submitted by Ms. Hill, follows:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

SAs should strongly encourage SFAs to begin reducing sodium incrementally,

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Corrigan.

Ms. CORRIGAN. Greetings to Member McKeon, to members of the

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:51 Jun 27, 2008