[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SCHOOL MEAL REGULATIONS:
DISCUSSING THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES
FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 27, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-535 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
John Kline, Minnesota Carolyn McCarthy, New York,
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Kenny Marchant, Texas Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Susan A. Davis, California
David P. Roe, Tennessee Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Martha Roby, Alabama Jared Polis, Colorado
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 27, 2013.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee
on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education,
prepared statement of...................................... 5
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Brown, Kay E., Director for Eduction, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues, Government Accountability Office (GAO).... 9
Prepared statement of, Internet address to............... 10
Ford, Sandra E., SNS, director of food and nutrition
services, Manatee County School District, Bradenton, FL.... 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Schaper, Megan, SNS, food service director, State College
Area School District, State College, PA.................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Wootan, Margo G., D.Sc., director, nutrition policy, Center
for Science in the Public Interest......................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Additional Submissions:
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Thornton, Otha, president, National Parent Teacher
Association, prepared statement of..................... 49
Ms. Ford, response to questions submitted for the record..... 52
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio:
Letter, dated May 28, 2013, from Ms. Ford................ 50
Questions submitted for the record to:
Ms. Ford............................................. 51
Ms. Schaper.......................................... 54
Mr. Rokita, questions submitted for the record to:
Ms. Ford................................................. 51
Ms. Schaper.............................................. 54
Ms. Schaper, response to questions submitted for the record.. 55
SCHOOL MEAL REGULATIONS:
DISCUSSING THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES
FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS
----------
Thursday, June 27, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, Roe,
Thompson, Brooks, Scott, Davis, Polis, and Wilson.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary;
James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services
Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and
Human Services Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff
Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Krisann Pearce, General
Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Staff Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg,
Education and Human Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts,
Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary;
Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter,
Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
Coordinator; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy
Associate; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education
Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media
Coordinator; and Michael Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director.
Chairman Rokita. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
subcommittee will come to order.
Welcome to today's subcommittee hearing. I would like to
start by thanking our panel of witnesses for joining us to
discuss the effect of new federal school meal program
regulations.
In 2010, the democratic Congress passed the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act, which reauthorized the Child Nutrition
Act of 1966 and required the United States Department of
Agriculture to issue several regulations for schools and
districts participating in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs.
While well-intended, these new regulations have essentially
put the federal government in the business of dictating the
type, the amount, and even the color of food that can and
cannot be served in school cafeterias.
Under the USDA's new rules, participating schools are
required to limit the calorie intake of elementary and high
school students, even those enrolled in athletic programs.
It provides certain fruits and vegetables regardless of
cost or availability; designs meals around certain mandated
color categories and strict protein and grain limits, and
dramatically reduces sodium content over the next 10 years.
Thankfully, USDA agreed to temporarily suspend its weekly
limits on protein and grain servings after an outcry from local
school officials and parents, but schools need long-term
certainty just like businesses and relief from these burdensome
regulations.
In Indiana, my home state, more than 500,000 Hoosier
students are eligible for free and reduced lunch meals through
the USDA. That is more than 47 percent of the entire student
population in Indiana, and while we want to ensure that
eligible students who need access have it, this number is
alarming to me and is an issue we will explore in the future.
But today we are looking at the cost of burdensome
regulations. Providing students healthier meals is a laudable
goal we all share, but the stringent rules are creating serious
headaches for schools and students.
Because the law requires students to take fruits and
vegetables for lunch, even if they have no intention of eating
them, schools are struggling with increased waste. After
implementing the new standards a year early, one Florida school
district estimated students threw out $75,000 worth of food.
At Dedham High School in Massachusetts, providing the
required vegetables in 1500 meals each week costs the district
about $111 a day, but administrators report many students just
throw the fresh vegetables right into the trash.
Smaller portions, limited options, and unappetizing entrees
have caused some students to protest new cafeteria food. High
school students, athletes in particular, claim the calorie
limits leave them hungry, and have resorted to bringing
additional meals and snacks from home.
Other students have simply stopped participating in the
school lunch program altogether. According to the USDA in
February, the average daily participation in the school lunch
program has dropped about 3 percent in the past year.
In one New York school district, the number of kids buying
lunch dropped by half just 4 months after the implementation of
the new federal guidelines. This decline in participation made
it more difficult for the school to afford to serve lunches and
breakfasts that met the federal meal requirements.
As a result, the district's food operation went $59,000 in
the red and local leaders ultimately decided to opt-out of the
National School Lunch Program.
The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service estimated the cost of
compliance with new nutrition standards will reach $3.2 billion
over the next 5 years. With states already facing large budget
deficits, these regulations are placing an unnecessary burden
on schools and districts at the expense of low-and middle-
income students.
Making matters worse, schools are now bracing themselves
for additional regulations over ``competitive foods,'' quote,
unquote; the snacks, beverages, and meals sold in schools not
subject to reimbursement by the federal government.
This means the government would also be put in charge of
mandating the type of foods that can be sold at school events,
in vending machines, at snack bars, and so forth, piling more
costs and requirements on school districts.
The National Lunch and Breakfast Programs are critical to
ensuring low-income students have access to healthy and
affordable meals, but costly regulations dictated from the
federal government could reduce participation in these very
programs.
As policymakers, we have a responsibility to discuss the
concerns raised by students, parents, and school administrators
as we work to put these programs on a more sustainable path for
the future.
I look forward to the hearing today, from hearing from our
panel today and I am confident that their testimony will
provide valuable insight into how these regulations are
affecting federal child nutrition programs.
And I now will yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr.
Bobby Scott for his opening remarks.
Mr. Scott?
[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
In 2010, the Democratic Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act, which reauthorized the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and
required the United States Department of Agriculture to issue several
regulations for schools and districts participating in the National
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. While well-intended, these
new regulations have essentially put the federal government in the
business of dictating the type, amount, and even color of food that can
and cannot be served in school cafeterias.
Under the USDA's new rules, participating schools are required to
limit the calorie intake of elementary and high school students, even
those enrolled in athletic programs; provide certain fruits and
vegetables regardless of cost or availability; design meals around
certain mandated 'color categories' and strict protein and grain
limits; and dramatically reduce sodium content over the next ten years.
Thankfully, USDA agreed to temporarily suspend its weekly limits on
protein and grain servings after an outcry from local school officials
and parents, but schools need long-term certainty and relief from these
burdensome regulations.
In Indiana, my home state, more than 500,000 Hoosier students are
eligible for free and reduced meals through the USDA--more than 47% of
the entire student population. While we want to ensure that eligible
students who need access have it, this number is alarming and is an
issue we will explore in the future.
But today we are looking at the cost of burdensome regulations.
Providing students healthier meals is a laudable goal we all share, but
the stringent rules are creating serious headaches for schools and
students.
Because the law requires students to take fruits and vegetables for
lunch, even if they have no intention of eating them, schools are
struggling with increased waste. After implementing the new standards a
year early, one Florida school district estimated students threw out
$75,000 worth of food.
At Dedham High School in Massachusetts, providing the required
vegetables in 1500 meals each week costs the district about $111 a
day--but administrators report many students just throw the fresh
vegetables right into the trash.
Smaller portions, limited options, and unappetizing entrees have
caused some students to protest new cafeteria food. High school
students, athletes in particular, claim the calorie limits leave them
hungry, and have resorted to bringing additional meals and snacks from
home. Other students have simply stopped participating in the school
lunch program altogether. According to the USDA in February, the
average daily participation in the school lunch program had dropped
about 3 percent in the past year.
In one New York school district, the number of kids buying lunch
dropped by half just four months after the implementation of new
federal guidelines. This decline in participation made it more
difficult for the school to afford to serve lunches and breakfasts that
met the federal meal requirements. As a result, the district's food
operation went $59,000 in the red and local leaders ultimately decided
to opt-out of the National School Lunch Program.
The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service estimated the cost of
compliance with new nutrition standards will reach $3.2 billion over
the next five years. With states already facing large budget deficits,
these regulations are placing an unnecessary burden on schools and
districts at the expense of low-and middle-income students.
Making matters worse, schools are now bracing themselves for
additional regulations over ``competitive foods''--the snacks,
beverages, and meals sold in schools not subject to reimbursement by
the federal government. This means the government would also be put in
charge of mandating the type of foods that can be sold at school
events, in vending machines, at snack bars, and so forth, piling more
costs and requirements on school districts.
The National Lunch and Breakfast programs are critical to ensuring
low-income students have access to healthy and affordable meals, but
costly regulations dictated from the federal government could reduce
participation in these important programs. As policymakers, we have a
responsibility to discuss the concerns raised by students, parents, and
school administrators as we work to put these programs on a more
sustainable path for the future.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing
today.
I want to first join my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in sending our well-wishes to the ranking member of this
subcommittee, Carolyn McCarthy. Her expertise and thoughtful
insight and warmth are certainly missed, but we look forward to
having her back as soon as possible and wish her a speedy
recovery.
I would also like to thank the panel of witnesses for being
with us today, and I look forward to hearing from you
momentarily.
In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This bipartisan
legislation dramatically improved federal child nutrition
programs by increasing access and approving standards for foods
served to our children.
This legislation updated our nation's nutrition guidelines
which had not been revised in over a decade. It is our moral
imperative to ensure that children are getting the healthy
meals they need in order to be able to succeed in school and
throughout life.
Failing to provide our nation's children with nutritious
meals has several negative consequences. Food that is too high
in fat content and calories contributes to childhood obesity.
We know that our obese children are not only at high risk of
chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, but they are
also more likely to struggle with their weight as adults.
Medical costs of the United States obesity epidemic are
enormous. Approximately 10 percent of our nation's health care
spending goes toward treating conditions directly related to
unhealthy weight. Conversely, food that is insufficiently
nutritious fails to give children the sustenance they need to
focus in school.
For millions of children in the United States, school-
provided meals are their primary source of nutrition, and we
know children cannot learn on an empty stomach.
Research clearly shows that children who have access to
healthy school meals are healthy and perform better than
children who do not. A 2005 study published in the national--in
the Journal of Nutrition found that children who lack reliable,
healthy meals in kindergarten are noticeably behind their peers
in reading and math by the third grade.
A 2013 study published in the Journal of American Medical
Association Pediatrics found that students eating free or low-
cost meals in states where nutrition content of lunches exceed
the USDA standards are less likely to be overweight or obese
than students getting these meals in states that only
marginally meet the nutrition standards.
In addition to being evidence-based, we also know that
school lunch programs based on the nutrition standards are
strongly supported by the public. A June 2013 Kaiser Permanente
study found that 90 percent of Americans believed that schools
should take a role in combating obesity and more than 80
percent of people support the new federal nutrition standards
for school meals.
Furthermore, school districts across the country are
successfully implementing the standards established by the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
School administrators tell us that their students are now
eating more fruits, vegetables, and food cooked from scratch
and learning about ways to continue eating healthy throughout
their lives.
So I am glad that today we are having the opportunity to
discuss the regulations that govern the school meal programs
and possible ways to improve and strengthen them. It is
important throughout this process that we keep in mind the goal
of these nutrition programs and that is to provide children
with healthy foods that can support them as they receive an
education.
This is our goal and while Congress is and should be
actively involved in crafting policy to achieve that goal, we
must make sure that school meal guidelines are crafted based on
evidence and science, not on the political whims of
politicians.
And while we investigate possible ways to improve school
meal programs, it is important to remember that we want the
next generation to be stronger, smarter, and healthier, then we
need to invest in these nutrition programs that make what we
are doing the best that we can do for our children.
We must make sure that their country's future, doctors,
nurses, teachers, engineers, and business owners are being put
on the path to success, and providing them with nutritious
foods is very much part of that obligation.
I want to thank everyone for being here this morning.
I would like to thank--ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman,
that a written opening statement from Ranking Member McCarthy
be entered into the record.
[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing to discuss the
issue of school nutrition. As you may know, in the 111th Congress I had
the privilege of serving as the Chairwoman of the Healthy Families and
Communities Subcommittee. In that capacity, I often called upon
nutrition professionals to interact with Members and educate us on this
very important issue. I am hopeful that this Subcommittee will continue
that very important dialogue today.
As I have asserted before, I believe that our nation is in the
midst of a nutritional crisis. On one end of the spectrum, our nation
is experiencing record high rates in obesity. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that more than a third of our
nation is obese. On the other end of the spectrum, the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) latest data in 2011 has found that nearly 15% of
households experience food insecurity over the course of the year. For
a nation as wealthy and influential as ours, these figures are simply
unacceptable.
I believe a constructive way to help combat this two-pronged
nutritional crisis is to provide regular healthy meals in our nation's
schools. The CDC recognizes the importance of healthy habits beginning
at school, stating, ``schools are in a unique position to promote
healthy eating and help ensure appropriate nutrient intake among
students.'' Is there a better opportunity to promote effective change
than in our nation's schools? The answer is no. Learning does not begin
and end in the classroom. Most Members agree that a well-rounded
education includes physical education and, in turn, I would contend
that a healthy lifestyle does not begin and end on the athletic field.
Healthy living entails a holistic solution, one that should include
regular instruction in health sciences and, as we will focus on today,
a thoughtful health-conscience menu of food and drink served to
students regardless of economic circumstance.
The Congress, in my opinion, should be in the business of
incentivizing healthy eating habits at an early age. In December 2010,
we took a step forward on this path by passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act (HHFKA), a bill improving nutritional standards and ensuring
that students have access to healthy foods while in school. The
Congress authorized USDA to establish nutritional standards based on
scientific evidence for school breakfasts, lunches and for foods and
beverages sold to students in vending machines.
As with most pieces of legislation, the HHFKA is not perfect. Since
its passage, I have observed some issues with the USDA's rulemakings
and implementation. For example, I have reservations over the USDA's
rule to set minimum standards on grains and meats used in schools and I
am hopeful that the Department will permanently do away with the limit
going forward. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and using
their testimony to both further inform the debate on school nutrition
and strengthen HHFKA.
I would like to conclude my opening remarks on this note. Habits
formed at an early age are difficult to break. In 2011, Nestle, the
largest food company in the world, confirmed this by conducting a study
that yielded that unhealthy habits attained early in children mirror
those of adults. The USDA has evidence showing the prevalence rate of
very low food security households is on the uptick and the American
Heart Association notes that the proportion of children ages 5 to 17
who are classified as obese was five times higher in 2009 than it was
in 1973. So, before we hear the tired arguments from detractors that
the federal government is trying to create a ``nanny state'' by
promoting regular healthy meals in schools, I ask you how long are we
gong to leave our nation's youth, our country's future, out to dry?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Chairman Rokita. Without objection.
Mr. Scott. I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, a Representative
in Congress From the State of Virginia
Good morning and thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
today. First, I want to join my colleagues on both sides in sending our
well wishes to the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy. Her expertise, thoughtful insight and warmth are certainly
missed, but we look forward to having her back as soon as possible and
wish her a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank the panel of
witnesses for being with us here today and I look forward to hearing
from you momentarily.
In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This bipartisan legislation
dramatically improved federal child nutrition programs by increasing
access and improving the standards of the foods served to our children.
This legislation updated our nation's nutrition guidelines, which had
not been revised in over a decade.
It is our moral imperative to ensure that kids are getting the
healthy meals they need to be able to succeed in school and throughout
life. Failing to provide our nation's youth with nutritious meals has
several negative consequences. Food that is too high in fat content and
calories contributes to childhood obesity.
We know that obese children are not only at higher risk for chronic
diseases like heart disease and diabetes, but they are also more likely
to struggle with their weight as adults. The medical costs of the U.S.
obesity epidemic are enormous--approximately 10% of our nation's health
care spending goes toward treating conditions related to unhealthy
weight. Conversely, food that is insufficiently nutritious fails to
give children the sustenance they need to focus in school. For millions
of children in the United States, school-provided meals are their
primary source of nutrition, and we know that children cannot learn on
an empty stomach.
Research clearly shows that children who have access to healthy
school meals are healthier and perform better than children who do not.
A 2005 study published in the Journal of Nutrition found that children
who lack reliable, healthy meals in kindergarten are noticeably behind
their peers in reading and math by the third grade.
A 2013 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that students
eating free or low-cost meals in states where the nutritional content
of lunches exceeded USDA standards were less likely to be overweight or
obese than students getting these meals in states that only marginally
met the USDA nutrition standards.
In addition to being evidence-based, we also know that school lunch
programs based on nutrition standards are strongly supported by the
public. A June 2013 Kaiser Permanente survey found that 90% of
Americans believe schools should take a role in combating obesity and
more than 80% of people support the new federal nutritional standards
for school meals.
Furthermore, school districts across the country are successfully
implementing the standards established in The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act of 2010. School administrators tell us that their students are now
eating more fruits, vegetables, and food cooked from scratch, and
learning about ways to continue eating healthy throughout their lives.
I am glad that today we have an opportunity discuss the regulations
that govern the school meal programs and possible ways to improve and
strengthen them. It is important throughout this process that we keep
in mind the goal of these nutrition programs: to provide children with
healthy foods that can support them as they receive an education.
This is our goal, and while Congress is and should be actively
involved in crafting the policy to achieve that goal, we must make sure
that school meal guidelines are crafted based on evidence and science,
and not the political whims of politicians. While we investigate
possible ways to improve school meal programs, it is important to
remember that if we want the next generation to be stronger, smarter,
and healthier, then we need to invest in these nutrition programs to
make sure that we are doing the best that we can for our children.
We must make sure that the county's future doctors, nurses,
teachers, engineers, and business owners are being put on a path to
success, and providing them with nutritious foods is very much part of
that obligation.
With that, I again thank everyone for being here this morning and
yield back to the Chairman.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Pursuant to committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members
will be permitted to submit written statements to be included
in the permanent hearing record, and without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow
statements, questions for the record, and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted into the
official record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
of witnesses.
Ms. Kay Brown is the director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues at the Government Accountability Office.
She is currently responsible for leading GAO's work-related
child welfare, child care, domestic nutrition assistance,
temporary assistance for needy families, otherwise noted in
these circles as TANF, and services for older adults.
And--so, welcome. Thank you for being here.
To introduce our second witness, I turn now and recognize
my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
I appreciate the honor and distinct privilege of
introducing Ms. Megan Schaper, a constituent of the
Pennsylvania 5th Congressional District. Ms. Schaper is the
food services director of the State College Area School
District in State College, Pennsylvania.
Ms. Schaper received her B.S. in hotel, restaurant, and
institutional management from the Pennsylvania State University
in 1988. She later became the food service director at the
Farrell Area School District where more than 80 percent of the
students receive federally subsidized school meals.
Since 1993, she has been the food services director of the
State College Area School District where 17 percent of the
students are eligible for free and reduced lunch.
She is responsible for all aspects of the schools'
cafeteria operations including the planning of the daily menus,
hiring, training staff, purchasing equipment and supplies, and
ensuring compliance with USDA regulations for healthy school
meals.
In addition, she co-chairs the district's School Health and
Wellness Council, which is charged with implementing,
monitoring, and revising the wellness policy. She also holds
the school nutrition specialist credential and was named the
Northeast Region's Director of the Year by the School Nutrition
Association.
She is on the board of the School Nutrition Association of
Pennsylvania, is the webpage manager for and a member of the
Bid Committee for the Pittsburgh Regional Food Services
Directors.
I had the opportunity to spend some time with Megan and her
family last evening, and I welcome her to the committee for
this important hearing today.
And I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
And welcome.
Dr. Margo Wootan is the--did I pronounce that right--
Wootan. Thank you. Dr. Margo Wootan is the director of
nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, known as CSPI.
She coordinates and leads the activities of the National
Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, co-leads the Food
Marketing Work Group, and is a member of the National Fruit and
Vegetable Alliance Steering Committee.
Welcome.
And then, Ms. Sandra Ford--did I pronounce that right?
Okay, thank you--is the director of food and nutrition services
for the Manatee County School district in Bradenton, Florida,
which has 54 schools and 44,000 students. In addition, Ms. Ford
has been an active member of the School Nutrition Association
currently serving as the Board of Directors president.
Welcome all.
Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony,
let me briefly explain our lighting system, and although I am
officially explaining it for you, it is really a reminder for
us up here as well, who sometimes can't follow the green,
yellow, and red as well, but it is pretty self-explanatory.
You will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony.
When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When
1 minute is left, it will turn yellow, and when your time is
expired, the light will turn red, and I will enforce that with
the gavel.
So at that point, please have your remarks wrapped up as
best as possible, and after everyone has testified, members
will each have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel.
So with that, I would now like to recognize Ms. Brown for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION WORKFORCE,
AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
(GAO)
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me here today to discuss the challenges that local
officials face while implementing the new requirements for the
National School Lunch Program.
My remarks are based on our discussions with USDA and
school food authority officials, food industry representatives,
and site visits to eight school districts across the country
where we observed lunches and spoke with students in 17
schools.
The new requirements aim to improve the nutritional quality
of school lunches to benefit the more than 30 million children
who participate in the program each month and school food
authority officials in all eight districts we visited expressed
support for this goal. However, the changes pose multiple
challenges for them.
First, the new limits on the amounts of meat or meat
alternates and grains led officials in all eight districts to
modify or eliminate some popular menu items.
For example, the limits on grains led one district to
decrease the size of the sub roll used in a very popular deli
sandwich line, and two districts stopped serving peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches as a daily option in elementary schools.
Half the districts noticed that student reactions to these
changes were generally negative. In addition to the limits on
meats and grains, lunches were also expected to meet minimum
and maximum calorie requirements.
School officials in five of the districts we visited told
us it was difficult to meet the minimum calorie requirements
for grades nine through 12 while also adhering to the meat and
grain limits.
As a result, some added foods such as ice cream, butter, or
ranch dressing that, while allowable, generally did not improve
the nutritional content of the meal.
In response to these challenges, USDA temporarily lifted
the limits on meats and grains. We believe SFAs can benefit
from more certainty and are recommending that the department
permanently remove the meat and grain limits. USDA officials
told us this week that they are working on a way to accomplish
this.
Also, half of the districts we visited reported
difficulties with student acceptance of other required changes
such as the use of some whole grain rich products especially
pastas as well as two of the five required vegetable
categories.
However, I should note that some of our districts had begun
adding whole grains into their menus before the current school
year and have seen student acceptance improve over time.
Further, the requirement that each student must take at
least one fruit or vegetable has led to food waste in some but
not all cases. In seven of 17 lunch periods we observed, we saw
many students throw away some or all of their fruits and
vegetables. However, we also observed students consume sizable
quantities of fruits and vegetables in the other 10 schools.
Also, in five of our eight districts, school officials
heard complaints that the new lunch requirements were leaving
some students hungry. For example, in one district, a high
school principal told us that athletic coaches expressed
concerns that student athletes were hungrier this year than in
past years.
These concerns were likely related to decreased entree
sizes; however, we observed that when students took all of the
offered lunch components their meals were substantially larger
in size than the students who had not taken or eaten all of the
items offered.
Finally, school food officials also expressed concern about
the impact of compliance with the new requirements on their
food costs and overall budgets. All eight reported increases in
fruit and vegetable costs this year.
Further, they told us that they experienced decreases in
participation in part because of the new lunch requirements as
well as other factors. In fact, three expressed concerns about
the impact of the changes on their financial stability overall.
However, I should note that we have not yet obtained end of
year financial data from the districts we visited nor have we
fully analyzed the changes in participation. We will be
providing additional information on these and other related
issues in our report later this year.
In conclusion, while many students likely received more
nutritious lunches during the last school year, implementation
challenges remain that will take time to resolve.
This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer
any questions you have.
[The statement of Ms. Brown may be accessed at the
following Internet address:]
http://gao.gov/products/GAO-13-708T
------
Chairman Rokita. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Schaper, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MEGAN SCHAPER, DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICES, STATE COLLEGE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. Schaper. Good Morning, Chairman Rokita, Mr. Scott, and
members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
meet with you this morning.
In my district like most districts, there is an expectation
that my department operates as a business and is able to cover
all of its own expenses.
Revenue to operate school food service programs generally
comes from either government reimbursements or from cash sales
to customers. The amount of funds received in either case is
directly determined by the number of students we can convince
to be customers in the school cafeteria.
My school district was well on the way to meeting the new
nutrition standards when we ended the 2011/12 school year. We
served an abundance of fruits and vegetables every day, our
breads were whole-grain rich, and we knew that our meals were
well within the fat and calorie ranges as required.
That said, we still had extremely negative reactions from
students and families with the meals planned to be in
compliance with the meat and grain caps.
Sandwiches and entree salads could not be offered 5 days a
week at our elementary schools without respectively exceeding
or not reaching the grain limits. At secondary schools, popular
entres had to be eliminated or substantially reduced in size
and in our customers' opinions, the larger fruits and
vegetables did not make up for this.
Some schools found that they had to add non-grain desserts
to menus just to meet calorie minimums. I was pleased when the
caps were temporarily removed this year, but this reversal was
difficult for manufacturers and distributors who had invested
in developing and stocking items specifically to help the
schools meet the new regulations.
The businesses that supply schools need to know that the
money spent developing, producing, and stocking products isn't
wasted. I strongly encourage Congress to make the elimination
of these caps permanent.
Participation dropped in my schools by 34,000 meals or 3
percent. Anticipating negative reactions to the new standards,
my district opted to utilize nonfederal funding to justify not
raising our lunch prices this year as would have been required
under Section 205, and therefore I believe we avoided larger
decreases in participation.
The lunch price equity rule required many other districts
to raise meal prices. Higher meal prices combined with less
satisfaction with the meals in general dealt the proverbial
one-two punch to the participation levels in many districts.
Statewide in Pennsylvania participation has dropped by 5.6
percent through March with the majority of that loss in the
paid-meal category.
If school meal prices are not competitive with the cost of
a home-packed meal we will continue to lose paying customers
and run the risk of becoming a program that serves primarily
low income students with all the stigma attached and districts
will not be able to generate the sales volume required to be
financially sound.
Despite selling fewer meals, my district's food cost
increased by $40,000 as a result of the enhanced fruit and
vegetable requirements. My students do like fruits and
vegetables and generally did take the required portion; however
teenagers especially made sure that my servers knew that we
could make them take, but could not make them eat, something
they did not want.
Director--this phenomenon seemed to be magnified in many of
my colleague's districts. Directors across Pennsylvania are
discouraged to be purchasing food that is simply being thrown
away untouched.
Sometimes the standards actually got in the way of
providing the best nutrition to students. I have several sites
where it is logistically very difficult to provide choices. On
the day of the week where we provide legumes as the vegetable
of the day, most children do not eat a vegetable at all.
To be most effective at ending hunger and curbing childhood
obesity, schools need the flexibility to provide healthful
lunches that students actually want to purchase and eat.
To underscore the difficulty that directors are having
meeting the new regulations, to date, only about 64 percent of
Pennsylvania schools have been certified as meeting the new
standards.
Our programs are reeling from the effects of the past year
yet we have a significant new challenge in the pending
competitive foods rule that has the potential to make it even
harder to provide quality school meals.
Competitive foods generated 21 percent of my program's
total income this year. That income will be reduced by at least
half. My district, like many others, relies on the income to
purchase better quality foods for student meals than we would
otherwise be able to afford.
It also provides the funds needed to replace equipment,
provide staff training, and engage in educational initiatives
for students. And my experience has been that this income will
not be improved with higher meal sales.
This rule may force schools that receive less federal
funding to opt out of the lunch program altogether. In fact,
the session entitled ``On or Off the National School Lunch
Program'' was extremely well-attended at the Pennsylvania
Association of School Business Officials this past March.
If schools opt to leave the school lunch program, there is
no assurance that students will receive a meal that meets USDA
nutrition standards or in fact receives a meal at all.
To balance budgets, schools will have to cut jobs. In my
district, it may mean eliminating the breakfast program so that
we can reduce employee hours and save money on benefits and
pensions, and the effect will be far-reaching affecting school
food producers, equipment manufacturers, and others who support
our industry.
A program--I am sorry. My district and I are committed to
providing healthful meals and the foods that make a positive
contribution to our students' well-being.
However, a program that cannot remain fiscally solvent due
to decreased participation, decreased opportunities to generate
revenue, and mandated increases in program costs is not
positioned to provide high-quality, healthful meals to
students.
Thank you for your time this morning.
[The statement of Ms. Schaper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Megan Schaper, SNS, Food Service Director,
State College Area School District, State College, PA
Good Morning, Chairman Rokita, Mr. Scott, and members of the
committee. My name is Megan Schaper. I am the food service director of
the State College Area School District located in central Pennsylvania.
I have been a school nutrition professional for 23 years and have
served at my current district for the past 20 years. I am an active
member of the School Nutrition Association and the Pittsburgh Regional
Food Service Directors. In my roles for these organizations, I have had
extended conversations with many of Pennsylvania's directors. I thank
you for this opportunity to share with you my--and many of my
colleagues'--concerns about the cost and consequences of the newest
school meals regulations.
The State College Area School District has an enrollment of 6,900
students and the budget for my department is 3.4 million dollars.
Sixteen percent of our students are eligible to receive subsidized
school meals. Like most districts, there is an expectation that my Food
Service Department operates as a business and is able to cover all of
its own expenses without financial support from the district's general
fund.
One school year into the implementation of the new meal standards,
it is a good time to consider if the nutrition standards and lunch
price equity rule are working as intended. I recognize and appreciate
the seriousness of childhood hunger and health issues that these
changes are intended to help curb. However, in the rush to fix these
problems, we've implement changes without adequate testing or pilots to
know if the new standards would, in fact, be helpful or hurtful to our
efforts.
The past school year was extremely challenging for school nutrition
professionals. The new nutrition standards coupled with lunch price
equity lunch price increases resulted in fewer students choosing to eat
lunch at school. At the same time that programs were experiencing lower
revenue from the sale of meals, food and labor costs dramatically
increased. While dealing with these difficult financial circumstances,
many of us in the industry wonder if we aren't, in fact, making it more
difficult for schools to help ensure that students are well and
properly nourished.
To understand why we wonder this, you need to be aware of the
paradigm of how school food service departments are funded. Revenue
generally comes from two different sources, government reimbursements
and cash sales to customers. The amount of funds received from either
source is directly determined by the number of students we can convince
to be a customer of the school cafeteria. When school cafeterias are
able to provide the foods and services that our customers want, while
still meeting nutritional standards, we are positioned to generate the
volume of participation needed to fund great programs.
My school district was well on the way to meeting the new nutrition
standards when we ended the 2011-12 school year. We felt that we would
only need to make minor tweaks to our menu to remain in compliance. We
served an abundance of fruits and vegetables every day and most of our
students liked and chose these foods. Most of the breads served were
whole grain rich. Utilizing Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, we knew
that our meals were within the fat and calorie ranges required.
We were ahead of the curve, still we had extremely negative
reactions from students and families with the meals planned to be in
compliance with the meat and grain caps. In our district, we had to
discontinue serving some of our most popular lunches even though they
met the calorie and fat targets and provided fruits, vegetables, and
milk in the required quantities. Sandwiches and entree salads could not
be offered five days a week at the elementary level without
respectively exceeding or not reaching the grain limits. Both servers
and customers were confused as to why the chicken tenders and the
entree salads each needed to be served with a different type of bread
item and the customer getting the chicken tenders couldn't opt for the
type of roll being served with the salad on the same serving line.
At the secondary schools, popular and reasonably sized hamburgers,
pizza, and chicken fillet sandwiches all had to be substantially
reduced in size even though the meals were within the calorie range.
The fact that the side salads had doubled in size to two-cups or that
students could take two portions of fruit with the lunch wasn't
adequate compensation in our customers' opinions.
Further, the limits on meat and grains made it difficult to
consistently meet the calorie requirements for many directors. Some
schools found that they had to add non-grain desserts--jello, ice
cream, baked potato chips--to the menu just to meet the calorie
minimums. These desserts added no positive nutrients to the meal other
than calories and increased the cost of providing the meal. But,
serving larger portions of nutrient-dense whole grains was not an
available option.
The very short time period between learning of the meat and grain
caps and implementation left manufacturers and suppliers scrambling to
develop, produce and stock items to meet schools' needs. In September,
many products that schools needed were not yet available at our
distributors' warehouses. Just about the time distribution was caught
up, the caps were removed on a temporary basis. I was pleased when the
caps were temporarily removed mid-year. But this reversal was difficult
for manufacturers and distributors who had invested in developing and
stocking items specifically to help schools meet the caps.
The businesses that supply schools with food are struggling to know
what schools want and they need to have some assurance that the money
spent developing and making products for us isn't wasted. For instance,
AdvancePierre spent in excess of $100,000 on research for each product
that they brought to market for schools in the fall. Now, many of those
items developed to help with the meat cap are no longer wanted by
directors.
Manufacturers and menu planners need to know that the caps are
permanently lifted so that we can move forward without wasting any more
resources or time. I strongly encourage Congress to make the
elimination of these caps permanent.
Participation in my schools suffered this year, dropping by 34,000
meals or 3%. Though we did rebound some after we were able to adjust
the menus given the meat/grain flexibility, participation did not fully
recover. Statewide in Pennsylvania, participation dropped by 9% through
December with paid meal participation decreasing by 14%. More recent
statewide data has not yet been made available but it is my
understanding that participation remained down, especially in the paid
category, for the entire school year.
My district was able to fare better than many because we opted to
not raise our lunch prices for the year. Under Section 205, the equity
in school lunch pricing rule, we would have been required to raise
prices by $.05 for the 2012-13 school year even though our lunch prices
were higher than those of other districts in my area ($2.25 and $2.80
for elementary and high school lunches respectively). Anticipating that
there would be some backlash from the smaller entrees, we utilized the
non-federal funds that my program earns to justify not raising prices.
The lunch price equity rule required many other districts to raise
meal prices even though the directors felt that the higher price would
be more than families would be willing to pay. Higher meal prices,
combined with less satisfaction with the meals in general, dealt the
proverbial one-two punch to the participation levels in many districts.
Local school boards and food service professionals have a vested
interest in their programs being successful. They can and will make
meal pricing decisions that reflect what the families in their
community are able and willing to pay. It is often fiscally more
advantageous for a program to keep prices low and sell more meals than
it is to raise prices and reduce program participation.
Parents at home considering whether to purchase a school meal or to
provide their child with a packed lunch typically only consider the
price in relationship to the food cost of the packed meal. They don't
and won't consider that the school meal price also includes the cost of
labor, benefits, equipment replacement, utilities, etc. If we are
unable to keep school meal prices competitive with the cost of a home
packed meal, we will continue to lose paying customers. In fact, fewer
children will be influenced by the healthier meal standards if parents
do not feel that the full priced meal is affordable. And, we run the
risk of the National School Lunch Program being a program that
primarily serves only low income students with all the stigma attached.
Section 205, the equity in school lunch pricing rule of the Healthy
Hunger-Free Kids Act, gets in the way of school nutrition professionals
and local school boards doing what they know is best for children,
communities, and School Nutrition Programs.
Many programs experienced significant increases in food cost this
year. My own district's food cost increased by $40,000 even though we
served 34,000 fewer meals. The larger portions of fruits and vegetables
were the main reason for this in my district. We were already, for the
most part, meeting the vegetable sub-group and whole grain
requirements, so our food cost in 2011-12 already reflected the reality
that whole grains cost more than white bread and dark greens cost more
than iceberg lettuce. For many districts, implementing the new standard
had a much more drastic impact on costs.
It was especially discouraging for myself and my colleagues to be
spending more money for food and to not see that investment pay off in
better student participation. My students generally do like fruits and
vegetables and we did not have a problem, in most cases, requiring
students to take the required portion. However, when we did have to
make a student take a required fruit or vegetable component, it did
invariably go into the garbage can. Teenagers, especially, made sure
that my servers knew that we could make them take, but we couldn't make
them eat, something that they did not want.
This phenomenon seemed to be magnified in many of my colleagues'
districts. Directors across Pennsylvania are discouraged to be
purchasing food that is simply being thrown away untouched.
Sometimes the standards actually got in the way of providing the
best nutrition to students. I have several sites where it is
logistically very difficult to provide choices. So, on the day of the
week when we provide legumes as the vegetable of the day, most children
at those sites do not eat a vegetable at all. Prior to this year these
same schools only served fresh vegetables as we found that the students
were more likely to eat the fresh vegetables than cooked ones. However,
this year I am required to provide a starchy vegetable once per week.
So, in place of fresh vegetables, the students are served peas, corn or
potatoes, not because they are healthier choices but because starchy
vegetables are now required once each week.
The new regulations have simply made it harder for food service
professionals to meet students' expectations and to do what they know
is best for their own districts. A USDA study conducted before the new
standards were implemented indicated that students who chose a school
lunch consumed more fruits, vegetables, and milk and less sugar than
those who brought a lunch from home. Students who opt to get lunch at
the fast food restaurant or convenience store near the school surely
are not going to get a healthful meal. And, students who opt not to eat
lunch at all won't get the nutrients they need and are more likely to
binge on non-healthful snacks when they get home from school. To be
most effective at ending hunger and curbing childhood obesity, schools
need to be able to provide healthful lunches that students want to
purchase and eat.
To underscore the difficulty that directors are having in meeting
the new regulations, to date only about 64% of Pennsylvania's schools
have been certified as meeting the new standards.
Our programs are reeling from the effects of implementing the new
standards. Most schools lost participation resulting in fewer students
receiving well balanced meals and less income for our programs. And we
incurred higher program costs. School nutrition professionals are a
resilient group who will do everything possible to provide great meals
for students. Especially if the meat/grain caps and the lunch price
equity rules are addressed, I am hopeful that things can improve.
However, we have significant new challenges coming upon us quickly
in the form of additional breakfast requirements and competitive food
regulations that will not provide the time and space needed to regain
the ground lost this year and threaten to do further and more
significant harm to our programs.
Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, school breakfast will be
required to provide one full cup of fruit with breakfast instead of
one-half cup. This change will mirror the food waste and cost problems
that we are currently experiencing with the lunch program. Unlike
lunch, which typically has a lunch period scheduled within the school
day, the School Breakfast Program has always struggled to be allotted
any time at all for students to get and eat the meal. The time
available is usually the amount of time between when the child arrives
at school and the start of the instructional day, usually less than ten
minutes. Whether breakfast occurs in the cafeteria or classroom, many
students struggle now to eat the entire meal before they are required
to turn their attention away from the meal and to their class work.
Students simply will not have the time to eat a larger breakfast and
the money spent on the additional fruit, at least $.25 for each meal,
will go into the garbage can.
Before implementing this breakfast requirement, time is needed to
study the food waste problems at lunchtime and then to proceed only if
we find that this problem has subsided.
The pending competitive foods rule has the potential to deal a most
devastating blow to school nutrition programs. Competitive foods are so
named because they compete with school meals for students' dollars.
However, this ignores some critical facts about competitive foods.
First, there is a notion that without competitive foods, students
would opt for the more healthful reimbursable meal. This is not
necessarily true. Older students, who make the vast majority of
competitive food purchases, will bring the foods that they want with
them to school or will opt not to eat at all and binge later. In many,
many cases, competitive foods are not replacing the meal but instead
are supplementing the meal. This was especially true this year when
students perceived the meals as being smaller.
Second, competitive food profits provide the funds needed to
operate quality programs. The revenue generated allows us to purchase
better quality foods for breakfasts and lunches than we could otherwise
afford. It also provides the funds needed to replace equipment, provide
staff training, and engage in educational initiatives for students.
All schools were required in 2006 to implement local school
wellness policies to include nutrition standards for competitive foods.
My own district's decision at that time was to eliminate all
competitive foods at the elementary schools. Nutrition standards were
established for competitive foods available in the secondary schools
and middle-school students were limited to purchasing no more than one
of these competitive foods per day. Soda machines were banned from all
school campuses. As a result of these changes, my program's competitive
food sales decreased by $120,000 and my ability to replace equipment
and provide staff training has since been severely compromised.
Competitive foods generated just over $700,000 this school year--
21% of my program's total revenue. I estimate that the proposed
competitive food rules would reduce my program's revenue by at least
half.
Further, these revenues have a much more significant impact on my
program's bottom line than do meal sales. The profit margin on a school
meal is very slim, and for some menus there is no profit at all.
However, competitive foods are always priced to ensure that they
generate at least a 50% profit that can then be used to help cover the
costs of operating a quality school lunch program.
The additional burden of this proposed rule impacts schools with
high subsidized meal eligibility and those with low subsidized meal
eligibility very differently. It may force schools that receive less
federal funding to opt out of NSLP altogether. In fact, a session
entitled On or Off the National School Lunch Program was extremely well
attended at the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials
conference in March. If schools opt to leave the School Lunch Program,
there is no assurance at all that students will receive a meal that
meets the USDA nutrition standards or, in fact, receive a meal at all.
To balance budgets, schools will have to cut jobs. In my district,
it may mean eliminating the breakfast program so that we can reduce
employees' hours and save money on benefits and pensions. And the
effect will be far reaching, affecting food producers, equipment
manufacturers and others who support our industry.
To mitigate the harm that could be done by the competitive foods
rule, USDA must provide flexibility, simplicity, and minimum standards
that allow schools and food service directors the room to make site
based decisions that best fit their districts' needs. Any food that is
served as part of a reimbursable school meal should be allowed as a
competitive food without restriction. And, school nutrition programs
should be recognized as the primary food provider within school
buildings during the school day.
To illustrate the magnitude to the restrictions that will be placed
on competitive foods, please see the attached photograph. Most people
would deem these items to be reasonable snacks for a high school
student to purchase but all would be banned from schools based on the
proposed rule.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
There seems to be a sense that school district general funds should
pick up the added cost of operating school cafeterias. Yet my district,
like many, is facing tough fiscal realities of its own. Most school
general fund budgets simply do not have the resources to subsidize the
school cafeterias. Tough choices will have to be considered at the
expense of students and jobs.
My district and I are committed to providing healthful meals and
foods that make a positive contribution to our students' well-being.
However, a program that cannot remain fiscally solvent due to decreased
participation, decreased opportunities to generate revenue, and
mandated increases to program costs is not positioned to provide high
quality, healthful meals to students. As with the advice to secure
one's own mask first before assisting another, we need to be mindful
that our school meals programs need to be healthy themselves in order
to advance the healthfulness of our nation's children.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee with my
concerns.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Schaper.
Dr. Wootan?
STATEMENT OF DR. MARGO WOOTAN, DIRECTOR OF NUTRITION POLICY,
CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Dr. Wootan. Good morning.
We probably all can agree on the importance of our
children's health. Where there may be some disagreement is on
what the federal government's role is in protecting children's
health, and specifically for this hearing, the role in
determining school meal standards.
That question was answered long before I was born. Unlike
other aspects of education, foods that have--school foods have
long been predominantly a federal program. Since the 1940s,
dating back to the Truman Administration, Congress and USDA
have set nutrition standards for school meals.
While most education funding comes from states and
localities, they contribute less than 10 percent of the funds
for school meals nationally. Congress invests more than $13
billion a year in the school lunch and breakfast program.
It is a matter of good government and fiscal responsibility
to ensure that those funds are well-spent, that these nutrition
programs provide good nutrition for kids.
In 2004, the Bush Administration and the Republican-led
Congress passed the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act
of 2004, requiring USDA to update the school meal standards to
align with the Dietary Guidelines.
So USDA solicited feedback from industry, food service,
nutrition experts, commissioned a study for the Institute of
Medicine, and then based on that input proposed standards and
gave ample time for parents, schools, companies, Congress, and
others to comment on them.
And comment, people did. Over 130,000 people commented; the
overwhelming majority, over 90 percent, in support of the
proposed standards. Parents are particularly loud and clear in
their support. Over 80 percent of parents support the new
school meal standards.
As you contemplate whether the new meal standards are
achievable, I urge you to consider the tens of thousands of
schools that have already made great progress, including
schools in all of your states.
As of the end of April, almost three-quarters of school
districts participating in the school lunch program have
applied for the $0.06 reimbursement meaning that they believe
that they are meeting the new school meal standards.
Those numbers have been increasing and are expected to
increase even further when USDA gets its next report from
states.
Changes of course take time and not surprisingly some
schools are experiencing challenges. USDA, the Alliance for a
Healthier Generation, and many others are providing technical
assistance, training, model menus and product specifications,
and other resources to help schools work through these
challenges.
And USDA has shown that it is listening to schools'
concerns. When schools faced challenges with the grain and
protein limits, USDA responded and gave them the flexibility
that they asked for, which the agency has made clear that it
plans to make permanent. In April, USDA also provided
additional flexibility on paid meal pricing.
The answers to the challenges faced by some schools is not
to revert back to serving unhealthy food in schools. Our kids
need us to persevere and ensure that schools get the support
they need.
I hope that one of the outcomes of this hearing will be
enhanced efforts to help those schools that are struggling and
to get them the technical assistance that they need and to
connect them with the many, many schools that are implementing
the new school meal standards successfully.
And there is a lot to learn from successful schools around
the country. I included in my testimony some pictures of some
of the healthy school meals that are being served around the
country, and if you have a chance to take a look at them or
others that we could make available, you will see that there
are many appealing healthful meals that kids enjoy and that are
good for them.
These meals also are providing enough calories for the vast
majority of young people in schools. For those students who
want more, many schools are offering additional servings of
fruits and vegetables at no additional charge.
And for those students with exceptional calorie needs, such
as competitive athletes, they can purchase a second lunch. They
can purchase items out of a la carte. There are also
afterschool snacks and afterschool supper programs to help them
meet their caloric needs.
Importantly, the school meal standards are being achieved
at the current rates of reimbursement in thousands of schools
across the country, and USDA is providing additional
reimbursement and there are several other school financing
provisions that were put into place over the last couple of
years.
USDA's updates to the school meal standards are long
overdue. Schools around the country are showing that they are
achievable. We know they are critical to our children's health,
and importantly, they will maximize the taxpayer investment in
these important child nutrition programs.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Wootan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Margo G. Wootan, D.Sc., Director, Nutrition
Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest
Good morning. I'm Margo Wootan, the director of Nutrition Policy at
the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit
organization, where I've worked on school foods and other nutrition
issues for over 20 years.
We probably all agree on the importance of our children's health.
Unfortunately, a third of children are overweight or obese, and
unhealthy eating habits and obesity are major contributors to heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. Obesity adds $190
billion a year to national health care costs, about half of which are
paid by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid.
Where there may be some disagreement is on what the federal
government's role is in protecting children's health, and specifically
for this hearing, the federal role in determining school meal
standards.
That question was answered before I was born. Unlike other aspects
of education, school foods have long been predominantly a federal
program. Since the 1940s, dating back to the Truman Administration,
Congress and USDA have set the nutrition standards for school meals.
While most education funding comes from states and localities, they
contribute less than 10% of the funds for school meals. Congress
invests more than $13 billion a year in the school lunch and breakfast
programs. It is a matter of good government and fiscal responsibility
to ensure that those funds are well spent--that these nutrition
programs provide good nutrition to children.
In 2004, the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress
passed the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004,
requiring USDA to update the school meal standards to align them with
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Over the next seven years, USDA
formed internal working groups, solicited feedback from industry, food
service, and nutrition experts, and commissioned an Institute of
Medicine study to develop recommendations to update the meal standards.
USDA proposed standards based on all that input, and then gave
ample opportunity for parents, schools, food companies, Congress, and
others to comment on them. Over 130,000 people commented--the
overwhelming majority in favor of the proposed standards. Parents were
particularly loud and clear--over 80% support the new school meal
standards.
As you contemplate whether the new school meal standards are
achievable, I urge you to consider the tens of thousands of schools
that have already made great progress, including schools I'd be happy
to put you in touch with in Indiana, Tennessee, Minnesota, California,
and other states. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation has recruited
over 14,000 schools; USDA's HealthierUS School Challenge has certified
over 6,500 schools (see http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/healthierus/
awardwinners.html for a list), and there are a growing number of
schools qualifying for the six cents in additional school lunch
reimbursement, which is available to schools meeting the new standards.
Change takes time, and not surprisingly, some schools are
experiencing challenges. USDA, the Alliance, and others are providing
technical assistance, trainings, model menus and product
specifications, and other resources to help schools work through
challenges.
USDA has shown that it is listening to schools' concerns. When
schools faced challenges with the grain and protein limits, USDA
responded and gave them additional flexibility, which the agency has
said it plans to make permanent. In April, USDA also provided
additional flexibility on paid-meal pricing.
The answer to the challenges faced by some schools is not to revert
back to serving unhealthy food in schools. Our kids need us to
persevere and ensure that schools get the help and support they need. I
hope that one outcome from this hearing will be enhanced efforts to
help struggling schools with additional technical assistance, including
the opportunity to learn from the many schools that are successfully
implementing the new school meal standards.
And there's a lot to learn from successful schools around the
country. For example, simple things like taste tests, having students
vote for favorite menu items, giving menu items catchy names, and
sprucing up cafeterias are some of the ways schools have been
increasing student acceptance of healthy school meals. The photos in my
written testimony depict a few of the appealing and healthful meals
that many schools are serving.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As you can see, these meals provide plenty of food and should meet
the needs of the vast majority of young people in schools. For those
students who want more, many schools offer additional servings of
fruits and vegetables at no additional charge. And for those students
with exceptional calorie needs, such as competitive athletes, they can
purchase a second lunch or healthy a la carte options to supplement
their meal or take advantage of afterschool snack or afterschool supper
programs.
Importantly, the school meal standards are being achieved at
current reimbursement rates by thousands of schools, and USDA is
providing an additional six cents per lunch to schools that meet the
new school meal standards.
USDA's updates to the school meal standards are long overdue, are
achievable, are critical to our children's health, and will maximize
the taxpayer investment in these important child nutrition programs. We
need to give some schools and students a little more time to adjust,
and ensure that struggling schools get the technical assistance they
need to join the thousands of schools that are successfully serving
healthy school meals to students.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Ford, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA FORD, DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICES, MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. Ford. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am the
director of food and nutrition services for Manatee County
School District in Bradenton, Florida. I am also president of
the School Nutrition Association, but today I am speaking on
behalf of Manatee County Schools.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before
the subcommittee and share my insights on the challenges
related to implementing the new nutrition standards, or meal
pattern, for school meals.
I know I speak for my colleagues across the country when I
say that as a school nutrition professional, my first priority
is to ensure every student has access to well-balanced, healthy
school meals.
I join my fellow members of the School Nutrition
Association in calling for the updated nutrition standards to
bring the meal pattern in line with the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, but as we all know, complex regulations sometimes
lead to unintended consequences.
School meal programs operate on extremely tight budgets. We
receive just $2.86 in federal reimbursement per lunch for food,
supplies, labor, equipment, electricity, indirect costs, and
other related costs. Even a slight increase in costs or drop in
participation can impact our program.
The new meal pattern requirements have significantly
increased the expense of preparing school meals far beyond the
additional $0.06 reimbursement provided under the Healthy,
Hunger-Free Kids Act.
USDA estimated that initially the new meal pattern would
increase the average cost of serving a school lunch by $0.05.
When all of the requirements are implemented, USDA estimated
the cost per lunch would be $0.10 higher and the cost per
breakfast would be $0.27 higher.
However, in Manatee County, food costs alone have already
increased by 5 percent. Our food costs went from 37 percent of
our revenue to 43 percent of our revenue. Not to mention the
$43,000 we spent on retaining staff to meet the new standards
last fall. These expenses will only rise as the school
breakfast standards go into effect.
The weekly limits on grain and protein served with school
meals restricted some very healthy school menu options that
were student favorites. Under the new standards, schools could
no longer offer daily sandwich choices because serving two
slices of whole grain bread each day exceeded the weekly grain
limits.
Sandwiches were commonly offered in schools as a daily
alternative to the hot entree, but under the grain and proteins
maximums, our cafeteria faced the choice of either eliminating
sandwiches or offering them only 4 days a week.
On the first day of school last year, one of my elementary
students broke into tears because he would not be able to get
his peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Menu changes have driven children out of the program. Our
participation has declined from 71 percent to 68 percent. We
anticipate at year-end our total revenue will be down about
$0.5 million.
USDA has acknowledged problems with the grain and the
protein maximums and temporarily lifted the maximums once and
then extended the delay.
But a temporary reprieve only leaves school cafeterias and
industry partners in limbo and does nothing to help industry
develop new products or for school cafeterias to meet the new
standards.
Every roll and wrap goes through extensive testing before
it is served in a school cafeteria. Temporary regulations have
left industry guessing.
Congress should pass legislation to permanently lift these
grain and protein maximums. Calorie limits and whole grain
requirements under the new standards will protect the
nutritional integrity of the standards.
Congress should also address Section 205 of the act, which
has forced many schools to increase their lunch prices. When
setting the school meal prices, school boards must take into
account not only local food and labor costs but also the local
economic conditions and what families are able and willing to
pay.
At the end of the school year, I had to raise lunch prices
by $0.05 for next year. These mandated price increases have
contributed to the declining participation.
Today, USDA will be releasing new nutrition standards for
competitive foods; those foods sold in a la carte lines, snack
bars, and vending machines. If we are to eliminate all of the a
la carte choices currently offered that do not meet the
proposed competitive food regulations, our school meal program
would project an annual loss of $975,000.
Also of concern is the way the proposed rule failed to
mirror the nutrition standards for school meals. If the
proposed regulations are unchanged, schools will have to
evaluate food choices based on two completely different sets of
standards.
In my 27 years of working in school cafeterias, I have
witnessed how school lunch brings students from every walk of
life together. The National School Lunch Program was designed
to serve all children, not just poor children, and that is one
of the program's greatest strengths.
These new regulations, though well-intended, are
threatening this critical mission by gradually driving paying
students out of the program.
I hope the members of this committee will support
legislation to remedy several of the challenges posed by the
new meal pattern and will continue to seek the input of school
nutrition professionals as Congress considers changes to the
school meal programs.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for
this opportunity, and I will be happy to answer any questions
you have.
[The statement of Ms. Ford follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra E. Ford, SNS, Director of Food and
Nutrition Services, Manatee County School District, Bradenton, FL
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Sandra Ford, SNS,
Director of Food and Nutrition Services for Manatee County School
District in Bradenton, Florida. I am also President of the School
Nutrition Association, but today I will be speaking on behalf of
Manatee County School District.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today and share my insights on the challenges related to
implementing the new nutrition standards, or meal pattern, for school
meals.
I know I speak for my colleagues across the country when I say that
as a school nutrition professional, my first priority is to ensure
every student has access to well-balanced, healthy school meals. School
nutrition professionals are constantly working to improve the quality
of the meals we serve and to teach children to make a lifetime of
healthy choices. In fact, I am proud to report we have children in
Manatee County who tried their very first peach or were first
introduced to kale in our school cafeterias.
I joined my fellow members of the School Nutrition Association in
calling for updated nutrition standards to bring the meal pattern in
line with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We support offering a
wide variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains for students and
ensuring school meals meet reasonable limits on sodium, unhealthy fat
and calories.
But as we all know, complex regulations sometimes lead to
unintended consequences.
School meal programs operate on extremely tight budgets. We receive
just $2.86 in federal reimbursement to prepare a lunch that includes
fruits, vegetables, whole grains, milk and a protein, not to mention
covering supply, labor, equipment, electricity and indirect and other
costs. Even a slight increase in costs or drop in the number of
students participating in our program can mean the difference between a
year-end profit or deficit.
The new meal pattern requirements have significantly increased the
expense of preparing school meals, at a time when food costs were
already on the rise. New meal pattern costs have far exceeded the
additional 6 cent reimbursement provided under the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act.
USDA estimated that initially, new meal pattern requirements would
increase the average cost of producing and serving a school lunch by 5
cents. By Fiscal Year 2015, when all of the requirements are
implemented, USDA estimated the cost per lunch would be 10 cents higher
and the cost per breakfast would be 27 cents higher.
However, in Manatee County School District, food costs alone have
already increased by 5%, which is more than FNS projected. Our food
costs went from 37% of our revenue to 43% of our revenue. These
expenses will only rise as the school breakfast standards go into
effect, requiring cafeterias to double the amount of fruit or
vegetables offered. And given our experience with lunch, we expect the
breakfast increase will surpass USDA's projections.
Retraining our staff members significantly added to the expense of
meeting the new standards. Our training programs cost over $43,000 last
year. We had to teach our cooks and servers to follow new recipes and
portion sizes and retrain them on what students must have on their tray
for a reimbursable meal. A similar training program is required as the
new breakfast standards go into effect.
At the same time, certain requirements under the new regulations
have contributed to declining participation in the meal program,
resulting in decreased revenue.
For instance, the weekly limits on grains and proteins served with
school meals restricted some very healthy school menu items that
happened to be student favorites. Under the new standards, schools
could no longer offer daily sandwich choices because serving two slices
of whole grain bread each day exceeds weekly grain limits. Meanwhile,
salads topped with grilled chicken and low fat cheese exceeded weekly
protein limits.
These menu choices were commonly offered in schools as a daily
alternative to the nutritious hot entree choice of the day. Students
always felt comfortable knowing that if they didn't like the hot
entree, they could choose from a deli sandwich, a peanut butter and
jelly or chef salad.
Under the grain and protein maximums, our cafeterias faced the
choice of either eliminating these daily alternatives or offering them
only four days a week, leaving students confused and upset on Fridays.
On the first day of school, one of my elementary school students burst
into tears in the cafeteria because he couldn't get his peanut butter
and jelly sandwich.
Meanwhile, we haven't been able to find whole grain sandwich wraps
that meet the weekly grain limits, so we've had to cut our wraps in
half. How would you feel if suddenly your favorite sandwich was served
on just half a wrap?
These menu changes have driven children out of our program. Even in
Manatee County, where 60% of students receive free or reduced price
meals, our lunch participation has declined from 71% to 68%. We
anticipate at year-end our total revenue will be down about $500,000.
If not for the additional 6 cent reimbursement, which we have been
receiving since November, our revenue would be down even more.
Nationally, USDA reports a 3.2% decrease in average daily participation
this year.
USDA has acknowledged problems with the grain and protein
maximums--they temporarily lifted the maximums once, then extended the
delay through the 2013-2014 School Year. But a temporary reprieve only
leaves school cafeterias in limbo. We brought back our daily sandwich
choices to the menu to maintain participation, but how will students
respond if we are forced to take away their sandwiches again next year?
A temporary reprieve does nothing to help industry partners develop
new products for school cafeterias to meet the new standards. Every
roll and wrap goes through extensive testing before it is served in a
school cafeteria. Our industry partners do months of R&D to identify
recipes that meet the whole grain standards and food safety
requirements, but still have the look and taste our students expect.
Temporary regulations leave our industry partners guessing. Do they
phase out their old product line and invest in developing products to
meet new standards? Or will USDA issue another reprieve so that schools
will be clamoring for their old product line?
Congress should pass legislation to permanently lift these grain
and protein maximums. Calorie limits and whole grain requirements under
the new standards will protect the nutritional integrity of the
standards, but eliminating weekly maximums on grains and proteins will
give school cafeterias the flexibility they need to plan healthy menus
that still appeal to students.
Congress should also address Section 205 of the Healthy, Hunger
Free Kids Act. Also called the paid meal equity provision, Section 205
has forced many schools to increase their lunch prices, regardless of
the cost of preparing the meals. These mandated price increases have
contributed to declining participation in Manatee County and in
districts across the country.
School meal prices, just like restaurant prices, differ greatly
from one community to the next, and they should. When setting school
meal prices, school boards must take into account not only local food
and labor costs, but also the local economic conditions and what
families are able and willing to pay.
At the end of last school year, my program was fortunate enough to
have a surplus, but paid meal equity requirements mandated that I raise
my lunch prices this year by $.05 cents. Manatee County School District
has not provided a salary increase for employees in five years.
Families in our community are struggling and cannot afford this lunch
price increase.
Congress can strike a reasonable balance by amending Section 205 to
ensure that well-managed school meal programs that are financially
solvent will be allowed to set their own meal prices.
As I assess the current state of Manatee County's school meal
program, I have to consider what is on the horizon. I have mentioned
the upcoming school breakfast requirements which present additional
challenges. We also anticipate the release of USDA's new nutrition
standards for competitive foods--those items sold in a la carte lines,
snack bars and vending machines.
Today, if I were to eliminate all of the a la carte choices
currently offered in Manatee County Schools that do not meet the
proposed competitive food regulations, our school meal program would
project an annual loss of $975,000. Also of concern is the way the
proposed rules fail to mirror the nutrition standards for school meals.
If the proposed regulations are unchanged, schools will have to
evaluate food choices based on two completely different set of
standards.
As Congress and USDA evaluate changes to the National School Lunch
Program, I hope they will remember that school lunch is so much more
than just a meal. In my 27 years working in school cafeterias, I have
witnessed how school lunch brings students from every walk of life
together. I've seen how school meals are teaching students about
healthy choices.
The National School Lunch Program was designed to serve all
children, not just poor children, and that is one of the program's
greatest strengths. These new regulations, although well intended, are
threatening this critical mission by gradually driving paying students
out of the program.
I hope the members of this committee will support legislation to
remedy several of the challenges posed by the new meal pattern, and
will continue to seek the input of school nutrition professionals as
Congress considers changes to school meal programs.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you again for this
opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Ford.
It is now time to hear from members of the subcommittee,
and out of respect for those members' schedules, I am going to
defer my questioning to the end; a favor I hope will be
returned by the full committee chair.
With that, I recognize Chairman Kline for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kline. We can't have these bargaining arrangements on
the record there, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Thank you--although off the record, I am open. Thanks for
holding the hearing.
Thanks very much the witnesses for being here. This is an
issue that has gained a lot of public attention. We are all
hearing about some of these problems that Ms. Ford outlined so
well from schools in our districts, and so I really appreciate
having experts here in the room to give us their input.
And I want to thank Ms. Brown and the work that the GAO has
done. As you know, we rely so heavily on the work that the GAO
does in a wide range of fields and I appreciate very much the--
what you and your team have done in looking into this issue,
and we look forward to your final report until we come up with
a request for another report, which as you know, in your
business happens quite a lot because we really do appreciate
your input, and so as we struggle with these issues, we so
often turn to the GAO as we did in this case.
So you went to a lot of schools and in your testimony you
talked about differences, things seem to be working fairly well
in some schools and not in another schools, but what would you
say was the top most or the topmost concerns as you went--was
it cost?
We heard some of that from Ms. Ford for example, the
student opinions of the food, the waste, federal and state
compliance, common--what sort of rose to the top?
Ms. Brown. Well, first let me say thank you for the kind
words on GAO, and I actually from hearing these comments have a
few ideas of some new work we could do based on that.
Mr. Kline. We will talk.
Ms. Brown. But the--I think the thing that we heard most
frequently and was most loudly voiced was the concern about the
limits on the meats and grains, and beyond that, we heard from
all of the districts we were in a consistent concern about
participation, about the costs of the fruits and vegetables,
and about student acceptance.
The concerns that we raised about waste and hunger some
districts seem to be managing or handling better than others
but again, that is why we made the recommendation on the
lifting the limits permanently on the meats and grains because
that was the thing that we heard the most loudly.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, and did the opinions differ? It
sounded like in your testimony they did because of geographic
location or size of the district. Was there some pattern there
that you could easily identify; student population and that
kind of thing?
Ms. Brown. I think the interesting thing about our site
visits was how universal some of these concerns were. The site
visits that we made were to school districts in urban areas, in
rural areas, in some that prepared their foods in their own
kitchens, some that had central kitchens; just lots of
varieties. Some that had more free and reduced price, or fewer,
and across the board, the concerns that I mentioned earlier
were common among all of them.
Mr. Kline. Very, very interesting.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going to set the
standard here and yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the chair.
Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you for being here.
Dr. Wootan, if I could go back for a second to why we are
here, why we are talking about this and what we hope for our
young people today to be healthier and to not have problems
with obesity or other physical problems down the line, what--we
are not actually able to--I think, you might challenge this and
others--to really calculate that into the cost that schools are
seeing down the line, but how would you suggest that we do
that?
Should we be doing that? And how can we make that point a
little better because obviously we need to be able to monitor
young people on whether or not the changes that have occurred
are making a difference.
Dr. Wootan. That is an excellent question and a very
important point that kids are eating about one-third to one-
half of their calories at school during the school day, so it
is a very big part of their diet.
And we know that, you know, unhealthy eating habits are one
of the biggest contributors to heart disease, cancer, diabetes.
Obesity alone costs upwards of $190 billion a year. So the
costs are quite significant.
So an investment of an additional $0.14 to ensure that the
school meals are healthy seems quite modest compared to the
hundreds of billions of dollars that we are spending on heart
disease, cancer, diabetes. Even with obesity, that $190 billion
cost, about half of that is paid through Medicare and Medicaid.
So we are going to pay for this one way or another. We can
invest on the front-end and help support and protect our
children's health or we can pay on the back end for the
diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases that unhealthy
eating habits will cause.
Mrs. Davis. Yes, one of these figures actually suggests
that $14 billion are paid out in direct health expenses and
about $3 billion of that is for children under Medicaid--
Medicare--I am sorry, Medicaid.
How do we though, with that information, and maybe others
want to respond to that--how do we build that into our calculus
when we are trying to understand better the cost because I can
understand that having been on a school board and watching
food-service struggle often with these issues.
And I also heard, Ms. Ford, that when it came time to try
to bring in more calories the easy answer in that was to
provide additional cookies as opposed to fruit and vegetables
or fruit particularly, which was more expensive for the school
to deal with. How can we put that better into the calculus
then? Is it looking at best practices of school districts?
Ms. Ford. I think your points are well taken, but--and
having been a member of the school board, you certainly know
that school food service programs are viewed as a business and
we do have to balance our participation because it is extremely
important for the students to participate in the program along
with the regulations and the requirements of that program.
Dr. Wootan. And one thing just to add, we looked--there are
schools in all of your districts that are already meeting
theses standards and are participating in the healthier U.S.
schools challenge and that are able to serve healthy meals that
kids like at the current reimbursement rate. So we know that it
can be done.
For those schools that are struggling, we really need to
get them the support, the technical assistance, the tips,
connect them with schools that are doing this successfully so
that they can also be more successful in implementing the
standards.
Mrs. Davis. Ms. Brown, when you were looking at a number of
schools, did you feel that they could look at best practices in
other places? Because one of the things I think you mentioned
is that, you know, this will take time, and we know that.
Ms. Brown. I think there is definitely some promise in
trying to develop and gather best practices. We have made those
types of recommendations to USDA in the past on a number of
areas including nutrition education.
And while the school food directors that we talked to had
lots of experience and some of them were nutritionists
themselves, if there are any tips that some of the schools that
are struggling with similar things could share, I am sure that
they would appreciate that. They may not all be applicable to
every district, but it could be useful.
Mrs. Davis. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Rokita. Thank the gentlelady.
Dr. Roe? Chairman Roe is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman for holding this, and in full
disclosure, I had a banana, a peach, a few grapes, and a small
can of V-8 juice this morning for breakfast. Just to let you
know that I am trying to be as healthy as I can.
Dr. Wootan. Sounds great.
Mr. Roe. I am hungry right now, I might also add.
[Laughter.]
I--first of all, I want to share with you some experiences
and obviously everyone wants our children to eat healthier, and
to be more physically active. There is no question that that is
beneficial. It has been shown over and over again.
In Johnson City Tennessee, where I am from, about 8 or 10
years ago we started a program called ``Up and At 'Em'' and it
was to start at the kindergarten level and we probably broke
every HIPAA law in the world but we weighed every child in the
school, in the elementary school system we had. We found that
39 percent were at risk or overweight.
And that only 1 percent were underweight. I was one of
those kids that was always probably underweight growing up, but
we found that out and we started this program and it was to
teach children how to eat better long before this ever came up.
And one of the things I would--and we are keeping up with those
kids as they go through the school system.
So we will--that data you are talking about, we probably
will have because most--we don't--we are not very mobile and
most of the kids that start in first grade are going to end up
at the same high school. We only have one high school in the
city. So we really have a captive audience that we can do that
with.
One of the things I heard from them our local school folks
were our athletes and so forth--and I would have been one of
those and you look at--and I think, Dr. Wootan, you mentioned
that one-third to one-half of the children get their calories
at school.
Probably the underserved kids maybe get a majority of their
calories at school and that is a real issue, and if you are an
athlete, you know, if you are active and you play football,
basketball, run track, whatever, you can't survive on this.
And we had teachers buying because the kids had to purchase
the extra food, we had teachers actually doing that. I think
that has got to be addressed and it can't be a one-size
prescriptive, everything fits everybody, and I appreciate the
USDA in allowing some latitude here and kudos to Ms. Brown
also. That was a very good presentation.
If you all--this is a great panel because you actually are
out there doing it, and Ms. Ford, what would you do and one of
the things that bothered me a little bit was the fact that we
sold a lot of the vending food things and that the school got
hooked on this end.
In other words, they needed the money to run the program.
How do you do that? How do you make that work? These extra
requirements that we are making you do with--you have got to
balance the budget--and you mentioned your deficit went from
$500,000 to almost $1 million once you took that out. How do
you do that?
Ms. Ford. Well, as I have stated before, and I think one of
the biggest challenges we currently face is we do have to
operate our programs as a business. We are accountable to not a
profit-making business, but a break-even business where we are
covering all of the related expenses.
I think as my school board asked me that same question when
I presented this to them and really it will require us to take
a look at our business model and we will have to step back and
take a look at all aspects of our program. It more than likely
will mean a reduction of force. Because our numbers, our labor
numbers are really based on that revenue number at that site.
And if I lose that revenue, I am going to have to take a
look at reduction of force.
Mr. Roe. That or your local community has to raise taxes.
Ms. Ford. Absolutely.
Mr. Roe. The revenue--the money has to come from somewhere.
Dr. Wootan. But the majority of schools are finding that
revenue stays the same or actually increases when they switch
to healthier options and a la carte and vending. And so those
changes that USDA announced today should not have a negative
financial impact on the majority of the schools.
Ms. Schaper, my time's about out, but would you talk a
little bit about price equity?
Ms. Schaper. Actually, I would like to--I would really like
to respond to this if I could.
Mr. Roe. Okay.
Ms. Schaper. In 2006 we were all required to do local
wellness policies. So in 2006, I sat down with members of my
community, members of my school districts, the students, and we
wrote local wellness policies and we made big reductions in the
a la carte competitive foods in our district.
In my district, that meant $120,000 loss in revenue. At my
middle schools, we did have a small increase in lunch
participation. In my high schools, I had no increase in lunch
participation.
Students who wanted to pick just a bagel and a bottle of
water for lunch and now that was limited because of a la carte
standards, did not switch over to buy a full lunch instead. So
we did not see that income come back.
And the reality--and this is sad, and I don't like saying
this, but I can make more money and I do need that money to buy
equipment, to train staff, to provide better foods for the
school lunch program.
I can make more money in competitive food sales. There is a
profit margin on those items. There is not a profit margin on a
school lunch. I have a certain amount of money and that gets
spent providing the lunch.
Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I also was in tears
with the kid who couldn't eat his peanut butter sandwich, too.
I yield back. [Laughter.]
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Polis is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to begin by acknowledging some very special
observers from my district that we have with us today. Three
heroes from the front-line of education, educators for my
district. Sheila Pattorff from Ferguson Alternative High School
in Loveland; Kim Pearson and Martin Pearson. Kim from the
International School of--Middle School of Thornton, and Martin
from Stuart Middle School in Brighton, 27J.
So thank you for joining us today. They are here of course
as educators and as middle school educators, I think
particularly at the middle school levels they see the impact of
learning, whether kids are hungry or coming off of a caffeine
and sugar high or whether they are well fed. I think many of
those differences are particularly accentuated at the middle
school level at which they work every day.
Ensuring school meals are healthy is absolutely critical
for kids' health as well as for academics. Research shows that
students who don't have reliable healthy meals lag behind their
peers and simply it is harder to learn.
That is why Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act of 2010, provided better funding and healthier standards
for school lunches. It was a step in the right direction to
ensure that students across the nation have access to healthy
food and drinks.
I am also very pleased to see the USDA this morning issued
a rule on competitive foods, an issue that I long worked on in
prior capacities in the State Board of Education in Colorado
and through our state legislature, which requires more robust
and comprehensive standards for snacks and beverages that
students can purchase outside of the school meal program;
vending machines at schools, et cetera. Unfortunately, the
previous Congress short-circuited these efforts when it blocked
the USDA proposed rules to put the new standards into effect.
One example is when Congress itself tried to reclassify
pizza as a vegetable. Unfortunately, we--there was some
testimony about interference. I think one of the worst, most to
blame is Congress itself.
In fact, in trying to say that somehow pizza--not vegetable
pizza--we are talking about pizza with no vegetables simply
because of the quarter tablespoon of tomato sauce, so cheese
pizza, pepperoni pizza, Congress itself against the USDA and
against science said is a vegetable.
That is why this morning I introduced, reintroduced the
SLICE Act along with Congresswoman DeLauro, Congressman
McGovern, and Congressman Rangel, simply takes away Congress'
ability to decide what food group pizza is in and returns that
to the USDA.
Pizza is fine. We all probably eat it and it has its place
in school meals, but it is not broccoli, it is not a carrot, it
is not celery. You know, again, I think these recent reforms
were a step in the right direction.
I was a little bit troubled by some of the items that Ms.
Schaper mentioned. A couple things--I wanted to make sure I got
this right. Did you say that 60 percent of the districts in
Pennsylvania were not meeting the new standards? Was that the
amount that were not certified?
Ms. Schaper. Sixty-four percent are certified.
Mr. Polis. Are certified. So 36 are not.
So in Colorado, 100 percent of the districts participate in
the National School Lunch Program are certified for the $0.06
reimbursement, so again, this is--shows that there needs to be
a better implementation in Pennsylvania is what it demonstrates
to me.
We had no problem. I mean, our state is fairly similar
size. We have rural districts. We have urban districts, we have
suburban districts. We have 100 percent certification.
I also saw--and the reason I am asking you this because it
wasn't--I didn't see it in your written testimony, but I wrote
down--you said it is logistically very difficult to provide
choices.
I am sure it is more logistically difficult to provide
choices, but that is the whole point of these kinds of
regulations, to ensure that those who are in the field and
working don't take the easiest path for themselves, they
instead take the best path for kids.
And when decisions are made like the one that apparently,
according to your testimony, you made in Pennsylvania, that you
provided desserts to meet the calorie minimums, when you could
have offered fruits or vegetables, you are almost begging for
more Congressional regulation because of course that is not the
right decision for the health of the students to make.
When you have the USDA grain limits, instead of adding
desserts to meet the calorie minimums, you should add fruits or
vegetables to meet the calorie limits, which is permitted under
the law.
In the brief time that I have remaining, for Ms. Wootan, I
would like to ask her what are schools and food services
directors doing to ensure that not only they are serving
healthy foods that the kids like and eat the healthy foods that
are being served?
Dr. Wootan. A lot of schools are having very good luck
doing taste tests with the kids to find out what they like,
have them vote for their favorite menu items or recipes, have
cooking contests among students to really engage the kids in
finding out what they like, what they will eat.
You know, healthy food tastes just as good as unhealthy
food if it is and made well and it is presented nicely. You
just have to figure out--it takes a little time to figure out
which healthy options the kids will like best.
Mr. Polis. I would like to highlight the successes of
Boulder Valley School District under our director of food
services, Anne Cooper, who added cooking and salad bars in
schools across Boulder Valley School Districts. It is very
successful evidence that students are actually eating the
healthier foods.
I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mrs. Brooks is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here.
As someone who has been a working mom my entire life, when
my kids were growing up, I counted on those school lunches. I
was not one of those moms that packed lunches. I counted on the
schools to provide those healthy and good lunches and lunches
that would fill my kids up so then they could go to after
school activities and so forth.
And what I am concerned about is that while I appreciate
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, I am afraid that we
do have too many hungry children still and that is in large
part--I was very surprised quite frankly when I received an
email from a constituent, a 12-year-old boy in Fishers, Indiana
who actually is buying his lunch at about $5 a day, but he is
6-feet tall, he is 120 pounds, and he is not getting enough
choice, and he is not getting enough food for that $5 a day.
And I think time and time again, we are hearing that kids
are going hungry and so to the food directors, in particular,
who have this issue and we have issues of kids in different
sizes and their age groups, and so Ms. Schaper and Ms. Ford,
would you please talk about how are your--what are the
solutions to this growing problem under this rule?
We cannot have hungry kids. If we have hungry kids, they
cannot learn, they will not do well in afterschool activities,
and one thing I haven't heard anything about as well is there
were a number of limitations put on beverages as well and a lot
of kids count on those beverages to, you know, help them with
energy afterschool.
Could you talk about hunger a bit more? And for these kids
who don't fit in the model of what they are being given on
these--in sometimes very lean lunches for kids of different
sizes?
Ms. Schaper. Right. The reality is that the calorie limits
are based on what the children actually take. It is not based
on what we offer. It is based on what they take. So we can
offer lots and lots of fruits and vegetables, but if the kids
don't actually choose to take it, when we do the analysis of
our menus, we don't get to count those calories.
That is why schools were reduced to having to put more
popular with kids items on the menu that would increase those
calories.
It is not what any of us want to do, but we do want kids to
come to the lunch line, have a lunch, feel filled up, feel like
they had enough to eat, and then be able to participate in
their classroom activities for the rest of the day, their
afterschool activities at the end of the day, to have the
calorie needs that they need.
As I contemplate the testimony I hear this morning, it
sounds like school lunches were horrible prior to this year and
they were not. My lunches were very, very healthy before. They
are very, very healthy now. It is just costing me a lot more
money to do it this year. Thank you.
Mrs. Brooks. Ms. Ford?
Ms. Ford. And I agree with what Megan said. And I think one
of the biggest challenges was the upper limits, when the upper
limits were placed on I couldn't give the high school students
a 3-ounce bun anymore. I had to give them the 2-ounce bun.
So I think a lot of what we were hearing in the media as
hungry children really was dealing with the fact that the upper
limits were creating some downsizing of portions.
We could offer a sandwich on a 3-ounce bun or the same
sandwich on a 2-ounce bun and the students were able to pick
based on their size. When some of that restriction was taken
away, when the upper limits were in place, I think that was
where we were hearing about hungry kids.
The other thing is we really do add whole-grain items or
wanted to add the bread or the protein item as--in addition to
being able to add the fruits and vegetables. We didn't add
cookies, but we were still restricted in what we could add to
increase that calorie count.
Mrs. Brooks. And aren't there a number of--and I think that
might have been pictures of a number of snack items that are no
longer allowed. I don't recall which of you provided that, and
can you just review in case people didn't have the opportunity
to take a look, the type of items that, you know, most of us
have thought are pretty healthy food items that are now no
longer allowed because you just reminded me of the calories----
Ms. Schaper. They are snacks. They truly are snacks, but in
my school district, we provide a very, very good lunch, and
most of my kids choose to buy a lunch, but a lot of them are
involved in afterschool activities, a lot of them are athletes.
They like to buy something else that will go with the meal.
Things like Rold Gold Pretzels, Pepperidge Farms Goldfish
Crackers, Whole Wheat Peanut Butter Crackers are all items that
will be discontinued under these competitive food regulations.
Mrs. Brooks. With my remaining little bit of time, any
comments on drinks and the restrictions on drinks?
Ms. Schaper. You know, I really haven't had time to review
the regulation because as it came out yesterday, so I don't
know that I am very comfortable on doing that yet.
Mrs. Brooks. Oh, okay.
Dr. Wootan. They are very similar to what the industry has
already agreed to voluntarily. It will be milk, juice, low-fat
milk in elementary schools plus some lower calorie beverages in
high school. So it is quite similar to what a lot of schools
have already agreed to do.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. My time is up.
Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Underlying this discussion is the notion that healthy foods
cost more. I am a lifelong educator and a school principal and
when I was serving as principal, we had a salad bar that the
children had access to and it only had vegetables and fruit and
different condiments that went with salads and it cost the same
as the food--the regular meal. It also had bits of chicken,
turkey meat to put with the salads. Is that a choice now for
the children?
Dr. Wootan. Yes, many schools have salad bars and they are
a very popular way to get kids to eat fruits and vegetables.
Ms. Wilson. And I think that the reason I brought it up
because it was during the same time that salad bars were
offered in restaurants. And so it was almost similar to them
like eating out and so all of these schools that are having to
adjust their budgets according to the diets, is that
something--is it a way that they can understand and know what
other schools are doing that are successful with the new
guidelines? Is there any way for you to make sure that all
schools know that that is a choice?
Ms. Ford. I think that one of the things the School
Nutrition Association is doing is really trying to be that
person that you are talking about to share the best practice
stories and to share the success stories around the country.
So yes, there is avenues for that to happen, but currently,
states as you heard from Colorado, states are approaching this
a little differently. So Florida is a very aggressive state in
terms of providing training and materials while other states
may not be.
Dr. Wootan. And USDA does have a lot of training materials
and training modules that can be done online or can be done in
person. I think the challenge is to make sure that those
schools that are struggling the most, that need the technical
assistance, get it.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. Just a follow up. A primary focus of
congressional school nutrition policy is to ensure that low
income students have access to healthy foods because in many
instances, that breakfast at school and that lunch at school is
probably in some instances, many instances the only meals that
those children will receive.
Have your interim findings about the standard's effects on
student meal participation in the schools distinguished between
students' family income level? This is for Ms. Brown.
Ms. Brown. What we have seen over the last many years but
more recently as well is an increase in the proportion of low
and free and reduced priced students receiving--purchasing the
lunches.
So I think there are indications that those kids are
continuing to receive the nutrients in the lunches that are
intended.
Does that answer your question?
Ms. Wilson. Mm-hmm. That answered it.
One of the concerns I had was children who qualify for free
lunch sometimes out of just fear, shame, and embarrassment do
not eat because there is a way to determine in the cafeteria
who is free, who is reduced, and who is paying, and my question
has to do with how do you recommend to school cafeterias to
make sure that every child has the ability to eat this
nutritious food that we are now proposing for them?
Ms. Brown. You know, I have seen some real evolution in the
thinking on that over the years. That was a very, very
significant concern when I started doing this work about 10
years ago, but in the last round that when we went through the
different--when we visited the number of different school
districts, we saw a lot of cases where it would be completely
invisible for the students who had a free lunch and who was
paying.
Students had pin numbers that they put into pin pads at the
end of the line and things like that that would not highlight
who was a low income student.
I think there is still a concern in the breakfast area just
because not enough kids eat breakfast to kind of mask over the
fact that many of the kids who come in to eat the breakfasts
are low income.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady.
I am going to recognize myself now for 5 minutes and
continuing on with you, Ms. Brown.
I appreciate again, everyone being here.
But, Ms. Brown, in your conversations with industry
representatives, you talk about the difficulty in forecasting
demand which impacts production, inventory, storage, and so on,
and how this may get worse with the changes to the school
breakfast program.
So what will happen? I want you to be specific again for
the record. What will happen to food production if the current
and new regulations are not modified?
Ms. Brown. I think one of the biggest things that the
industry needs is certainty and just to give you an example, we
saw in one school district--they had a popular lunch that used
a tortilla that was a 12-inch tortilla and when the meat and
grain limitations came in it went to 9-inches and then when
USDA lifted the waiver, they went to 10-inches.
So if you are an industry representatives and you are
trying to develop products that have enough whole grains and
that will appeal to the kids at the same time that you are
having to change some of your equipment and your workers and
revise your packaging and your inventory and your distribution
system, that is another one of the key reasons why we think
that lifting the--making permanent the decision on that would
be helpful because everything we have heard here is that
students' acceptance is a really, really important issue and
the industry officials told us if that they didn't have--that
they were really weren't able to focus on improving the
products that they had, particularly I think the whole grains
are a really good example to make them more palatable to the
kids are so that they will be inclined to eat them.
Chairman Rokita. I thank you.
Now to Ms. Ford and Ms. Schaper, I want to follow up on a
question asked by Chairman Kline and others as well on the
compounding effect of these rules.
Quickly, in your opinion, what are the potential long-term
impacts to your school meal programs, starting with Ms.
Schaper?
Ms. Schaper. As I indicated in my testimony, I really do
fear for the future of my program. It is beginning to cost
quite a bit more to run the program. We see participation
coming down.
I am going to have to go back tomorrow and look at the
impact of the competitive food regulations now that they have
been released and I am going to have to make large, large cuts
to labor in order to keep my program at least break even. I am
concerned for having to cut breakfast programs and laying off
employees. It is going to be a difficult future.
Chairman Rokita. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Ford?
Ms. Ford. I think part of the challenge is not having an
opportunity to react to one before the other one rolls out so
we have just kind of been on this little chase here.
Florida has mandated breakfast programs in schools over 80
percent free and reduced. So that is not a place I can look. So
I think we just have to continue to look at efficiency of
operation, and my biggest concern is the fact that they are
just rolling one after the other. So now with breakfast coming
in I am not necessarily going to be able to separate what was
the cost of the new lunch regulations from what is the cost of
the new breakfast regulations.
Chairman Rokita. Well, thank you.
And I am going to yield my remaining 2 minutes to my friend
from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks, who has some more questions.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This follows up a little bit on the running of your
programs which I understand are so tight or you are now I think
as Ms. Ford indicated, it is operating a business. This part of
school operation is like operating a business.
So one of my school districts, Elwood, has 75 percent free
and reduced lunch. The kids that pay for their lunch, they have
seen a diminishing number of kids pay for the lunch because the
choices have been removed.
With increased cost across your programs, how do you
prepare for things like the freezer goes out? The ovens break
down? Where is that built into your business model to those of
you who are running programs?
Ms. Ford. Well, I will jump in there and say that is part
of in a way competitive food and a la carte dollars. We look at
the budget as a whole. So when I build my budget as a whole, I
build a budget that includes equipment repair and maintenance
and equipment replacement.
I honestly this year we have had to call off a couple
serving line renovations because we just didn't have the extra
funds that were going to be able to do that.
So I think it is part of that whole business package. All
of it rolled in together. We do budget for those things, but if
we have a particularly bad year with equipment replacement or
repair, then somewhere along the line, something else has to
give.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Ms. Schaper?
Ms. Schaper. I think Sandy answered it exactly as I would.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you very much.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. Thank the gentlelady.
And we will now recognize Mrs. Davis for any closing
remarks.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, I appreciate you all being here.
I want to go back for just a second because I think when we
talk about the competitive foods and the standards that the
USDA has put out, we sometimes forget that there is a reason
why we don't want kids having sugar drinks because that
really--while it provides them the calories--it doesn't provide
them a lot more and we may be encouraging them in many ways to
have that as a greater habit in their diet, and that is a
concern.
Dr. Wootan, could you just very quickly--why should we be
concerned about this because it is easier--we all know and
especially with young children we tend to put, you know, kids
love cheese and yet, you know, cheese, as a fat is something
that--it should be limited in a young child's diet, not
necessarily at the extent that they have today. Why is all of
this important?
Dr. Wootan. Well, good nutrition is so important in
childhood for the growth and development of the child now. You
know, so they are ready to learn at school and that to just
meet their basic nutrition needs. But also, most of the
diseases that are so costly and that affect us as adults like
heart disease and cancer and diabetes, these are very long-
term, chronic diseases that start when you are young. And so
eating well now helps determine, you know, whether or not you
end up with a heart attack, you know, is it going to be at 40
or 50 or 60.
It also teaches good habits. You know, we don't want to
teach kids one thing in the classroom and then teach them
something very different in the cafeteria or in the hallway
through the vending machines, and so cultivating and teaching
good habits over a lifetime helps children to eat better
throughout their life.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. With a closing statement, I
did ask a question, and I think just trying to summarize--it is
a difficult I think often because we are dealing with budgets
and a lot of constraints and I am very sympathetic to that, but
I would hope that we would look to the best practices to the
extent that we can and provide the kind of support that is
necessary and I think a lot of that is out there.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
For my closing remarks, I just want to say two things.
First of all, Mr. Thompson, was called away and will be
submitting questions for the record and perhaps some other
materials. So we look forward to that as being a part of the
record and hopefully you will engage in answering those
questions for him as well.
And then the second point would be to simply say thank you.
Clearly you are on the front lines. Clearly you are subject
matter experts. Clearly you have the interest of America's
children first and foremost at heart.
And as someone who represents 700,000 people, as long as on
behalf of this entire committee we thank you for that interest.
We share your interest. We share your concern, and we are going
to have future hearings related subject matter to the food
programs in our nation's schools in the months to come.
So with that, seeing no more business before the committee,
this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Additional submission by Hon. Susan A. Davis, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California,
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Otha Thornton, President,
National Parent Teacher Association
The National PTA submits this testimony to the United States House
of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce for the
committee hearing on School Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and
Consequences for Schools and Students.
National PTA comprises millions of families, students, teachers,
administrators, and business and community leaders devoted to the
educational and overall success of children. As the nation's oldest and
largest child advocacy organization, PTA is a powerful voice for all
children, a relevant resource for families, schools, and communities,
and a strong advocate for public education. With over 22,000 local
units around the country, PTA members have firsthand experience of the
daily challenges and successes within school buildings.
PTA has long sought to improve child nutrition and wellness and
prides itself on having been instrumental in the formation of federal
policy in this area since its inception in 1897. A fundamental
component of PTA's mission has always been to preserve children's
health and protect them from harm. As early as 1899, the National
Congress of Mothers advocated for a national health bureau to provide
families and communities with health information. Its sustained efforts
bore fruit when the Children's Bureau was established in 1912 as a part
of the U.S. Public Health Service.
In 1923, PTA worked to ensure the provision of hot lunches in
schools--and launched our own nationwide hot lunch program in mid-
1940s. In the same decade and throughout the 1950s, we were involved in
the establishment and expansion of the school milk programs. We also
worked to ensure the passage of both the National School Lunch Act and
the Child Nutrition Act.
In the 2004, PTA and our coalition partners fought successfully for
the inclusion of language mandating the creation of local school
wellness policies in the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act.
These wellness policies provide parents, students, school nutrition
representatives, school board members, school administrators, and the
general public the opportunity to formulate local policies that are
tailored to the specific needs of their communities. We advocated for
further involvement of parents and other stakeholders in local wellness
policies when the legislation was reauthorized again in 2010.
We mention these past accomplishments not only to underscore PTA's
commitment to the well-being of our nation's children, but also to
provide a historical context for where we are today and why we support
updated nutrition standards for school meals that went into effect in
2012.
Furthermore, the status of our children's health has changed since
the establishment of the original school lunch program. The National
School Lunch Program was originally established to support military
conscription during the aftermath of the Great Depression, when many
young Americans were being turned down for service due to their being
underweight. Several decades later, we find ourselves facing very
different circumstances for our military recruits. A report released in
2012 by Mission: Readiness--Still Too Fat to Fight--showed that one in
four young people cannot join the military due to being overweight or
obese.
Beyond military recruits, in the last 30 years, childhood obesity
rates have dramatically increased. According to Trust for America's
Health 2012 report F as in Fat, the obesity rate for young children in
1980 was 6.5 percent. In 2008, our nation's childhood obesity rate for
the same age group was at nearly 19.6 percent. Times have changed--and
we must too.
PTA was a strong supporter of a provision in the 2010
reauthorization which required the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to update the nutrition standards for the school
lunch and breakfast programs. As we are all aware, these updated
nutrition standards for the school lunch were implemented in July 2012.
PTA worked to support schools in this transition, including National
PTA's creation of the Parent's Guide to the National School Lunch
Program--a document designed to inform parents of the changes and
assist them in supporting schools and their children with the
transition to healthier school meals. PTA members in local schools
throughout the country worked to support schools during this period.
As parents, PTA members are acutely aware that change can be
difficult. Transition periods are challenging. The case of updating
nutrition standards for school meals is no different. Many schools
around the country were already serving healthier meals, others
transitioned relatively seamlessly, but some schools have struggled. As
we move forward, we must all work together to ensure successful
implementation of healthier school meals.
For example, in recognition of across-the-board challenges and
unintended consequences, the USDA moved to provide additional
flexibility to schools in meeting the whole grain and meat/meat
alternative maximum and minimums. National PTA viewed this as a
positive, proactive approach to identify challenges and find solutions
in an effective way. In Congress, Representatives Tom Latham and Mike
McIntyre introduced legislation--The School Food Modernization Act--to
provide training support for school food personnel and resources for
schools to obtain much-needed cafeteria equipment to help prepare and
serve healthier meals.
Since our inception, PTA members have worked side by side with
schools and community officials to improve the lives of children and
families. As schools and food service personnel implement serving
healthier school meals, we offer our full support. PTA members are
ready and willing to assist schools in making sure this transition is
successful.
Despite the challenges schools have experienced and those that may
be ahead, ultimately, our children are worth it. The facts about
childhood obesity rates in this country are undeniable, and PTA's
belief that our nation's children deserve healthy, nutritious meals in
school is a core tenant of the PTA mission.
National PTA respectfully asks that as we work together to improve
school foods, we do not make decisions which will reverse the work
being done to provide children with healthier, nutritious meals that
allow them to go to class ready to learn. National PTA commends the
committee's work to highlight challenges schools are facing across the
country and looks forward to continuing work with you to improve our
nation's education system.
______
[Additional submission by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, follows:]
National Harbor, MD, May 28, 2013.
Hon. John Kline, Chairman; Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Kline and Rep. Miller: We are writing to endorse H.R.
1303 and ask the Committee to take up and report the bill as soon as
possible. ``The School Nutrition Flexibility Act'' is a bipartisan
piece of legislation which currently has over 30 cosponsors.
As you know, H.R. 1303 would permanently eliminate the weekly grain
and protein maximums while maintaining the calorie maximums in the
National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. With this bill,
Congress will protect the nutritional integrity of the school lunch
standards while giving local schools and industry providers more
flexibility to design healthy menus that meet standards and student
tastes. It is a simple, yet powerful step Congress can take to ease the
increasing burden not only on those who prepare the meals, but those
who provide the food and equipment resources utilized by the school
nutrition professionals while still maintaining the integrity of
serving healthy and nutritious meals to kids. While USDA has extended
the temporary relief into School Year 2013-2014, we need the permanent
elimination to move forward with meal planning and production.
We also support Section 3 of the bill which addresses the paid meal
equity section of the current law. Current law now requires for the
first time since 1946, that certain School Food Authorities annually
increase their paid meal prices regardless of their financial solvency.
H.R. 1303 would amend the law by narrowing its scope to those School
Food Authorities that have a negative fund balance at the end of the
previous school year. When setting meal prices, school boards take into
account local food and labor costs and what families are able and
willing to pay. We note that participation in the paid meal program is
down this year and believe this new requirement is a contributing
factor.
We hope the Committee will move promptly on this important
legislation. There is no cost associated with the bill.
Sincerely,
Sandra E. Ford, SNS,
President.
______
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2013.
Ms. Sandra Ford, Director of Food and Nutrition Services,
Manatee County School District, 215 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL
34205.
Dear Ms Ford: Thank you for testifying at the June 27, 2013 hearing
on ``School Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and Consequences for
Schools and Students'' I appreciate your participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than August 19, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Mandy Schaumburg or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. What are your greatest concerns with the meal pattern rule, the
competitive foods rule, and/or the other rules that have been issued as
a result of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act? Is it similar to what
school districts reported to GAO? Are there differences in how the
rules impact programs with low percentages of free and reduced-price
students and those with higher percentages?
2. Do you think the changes occurring in the school lunch and
breakfast programs will result in healthier options for your students?
Or do you think you could have ensured students had healthy choices
without imposing such enormous costs on your program?
rep. marcia fudge (d-oh)
I consider myself to be a staunch defender of the needs of those
who suffer from food insecurity, particularly children. Many of the
regulations required by the National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
are being implemented by school districts in the name of reducing the
incidence of childhood obesity in this country, a true challenge that
deserves our full attention. We also have a hunger epidemic that must
be addressed.
The National School Lunch & Breakfast Program is one of our
nation's largest feeding programs. If our school meals programs are
struggling financially to implement new regulations, then we are
putting school children who depend on these meals at risk. There are
children who leave school after Friday lunch and don't receive their
next meal until Monday's school breakfast. It is our responsibility and
our duty to ensure that these regulations are having the intended
effect.
1. Do you believe USDA's National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal
of providing healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of
your concerns?
2. I've heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated
with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating
that their costs go beyond the estimated costs proposed by USDA, and
the 6 cent additional funding per meal is not covering the cost. What
is the breaking point in terms of how much financial strain schools can
handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes
threatened?
Earlier this year my colleague Rep. Stivers and I introduced H.R.
1303, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act, to address some of the
concerns we had heard from our local school nutrition experts. One of
the top concerns we heard echoed again and again was that schools were
finding it extremely difficult to serve meals that fit within weekly
minimum and maximum serving ranges for the grains and meat portions of
the USDA standards. While USDA has responded to this concern through
the means of a temporary waiver, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act
provides a long-term solution for this issue by calling for the
permanent elimination of the maximums on grains.
3. In your testimony, you stated that the weekly limits on grains
and proteins served with school meals have restricted some very healthy
school menu items that happen to be student favorites. What are some
examples of these items and what potential impact could it have on a
student's desire to participate in the school lunch program?
4. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe
that a permanent elimination of the protein/grain standards is
unnecessary because USDA, when the time comes, could provide a waiver
for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain why it is more prudent to
have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix.
The School Nutrition Flexibility Act addresses another issue that
has proven to be difficult for local schools: the paid meal equity
provision. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act allows the federal
government to set the price of a school lunch for the first time since
1946. As a result, schools participating in the School Lunch Program
are now required to increase the price of their lunch. Some communities
are struggling to pay the increase and participation in the school
lunch program has declined in some schools.
5. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation
in the school lunch program for paying students, and what impact does
this situation have on students who receive a free lunch?
______
Ms. Ford's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
Q: What are your greatest concerns with the meal pattern rule, the
competitive foods rule, and/or the other rules that have been issued as
a result of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act? Is it similar to what
school districts reported to GAO?
I supported updating the meal pattern to ensure school meals meet
the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. But as we all know, complex
regulations can lead to unintended consequences.
School meal programs walk a tightrope between meeting standards,
managing costs and maintaining participation. In Manatee County
Schools, the cost of meeting new regulatory requirements has surpassed
the additional 6 cent reimbursement, and student participation has
declined due to changes to the menu. I am hopeful participation will
rebound this fall, but new breakfast and competitive food regulations
could present similar challenges, threatening the balance. I am
attaching our end of the year dashboard which shows a comparison of our
programs. Our revenue is the greatest concern. We eliminated 15 staff
positions--either vacant or relocated staff.
I was pleased to hear Dr. Janey Thornton, Deputy Under Secretary
for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, announce during School
Nutrition Association's Annual National Conference in July that USDA
will permanently eliminate weekly maximums on grains and proteins by
the end of the calendar year. I hope Congress and USDA will continue to
respond to regulatory challenges as they arise during implementation.
Q: Are there differences in how the rules impact programs with low
percentages of free and reduced-price students and those with higher
percentages?
Every school meal program is unique and faces different challenges.
However, as a general rule, students who are not dependent on free or
reduced-price school meals are more likely to have the means to bring
food from home or seek an alternative venue to purchase their meals if
they become dissatisfied with the options in their school cafeteria. As
a result, schools with very low free or reduced-price participation can
experience more significant fluctuations in participation (and revenue)
in response to menu changes. Our schools with low free and reduced are
faced with even greater challenges to keep the participation up--
looking for creative ways to market and to provide a customized menu
selection.
Q: Do you think the changes occurring in the school lunch and
breakfast programs will result in healthier options for your students?
Or do you think you could have ensured students had healthy choices
without imposing such enormous costs on your program?
Manatee County Schools has always provided healthy choices for our
students. The new meal pattern's requirement to serve more fruits and
vegetables is resulting in more students taking fruits and vegetables,
but it does pose an additional cost to school meal programs.
rep. marcia fudge
Q. Do you believe USDA's National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal
of providing healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of
your concerns?
Updating the meal pattern for the National School Lunch and
Breakfast Programs was a critical step to ensure school meals meet the
current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These regulations guarantee
all students have access to healthy, well-balanced meals at school.
However, complex regulations can lead to unintended consequences.
School meal programs must walk a tightrope between meeting complicated
nutrition standards while managing rising costs, and maintaining
participation. Manatee County Schools has struggled with the cost of
meeting new regulatory requirements, and we have experienced a decline
in student participation due to changes to the menu.
We are hopeful that participation will rebound this fall as
students adjust to menu changes and as we work to identify new menu
items that meet the new requirements and appeal to student tastes. Yet
at the same time, I am concerned new breakfast and competitive food
regulations could present similar challenges, threatening the balance.
The biggest challenge is not being able to react to the first
change before the second change comes along. Food services programs in
Manatee County and most districts around the country are businesses. As
a business, when a change occurs, you evaluate and adjust. Our
challenge is that before we could complete the process of lunch, we are
in the midst of a breakfast change.
Q. I've heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated
with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating
that their costs go beyond the estimated costs proposed by USDA, and
the 6 cent additional funding per meal is not covering the cost. What
is the breaking point in terms of how much financial strain schools can
handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes
threatened?
Every school meal program faces unique challenges as school
cafeteria infrastructure and equipment, food, labor and other costs all
vary dramatically from one community to the next.
Schools nationwide have experienced rising costs as a result of the
new regulations, often in excess of the additional 6 cent reimbursement
provided for meeting the standards. School nutrition professionals are
still adjusting menus and operational practices to limit costs and to
restore or increase program participation and revenues.
Every school meal program has a different ``tipping point,'' but
with additional breakfast and competitive food standards coming into
effect in the next two school years, all programs will face a difficult
challenge to maintain financial stability.
Q. In your testimony, you stated that the weekly limits on grains
and proteins served with school meals have restricted some very healthy
school menu items that happen to be student favorites. What are some
examples of these items and what potential impact could it have on a
student's desire to participate in the school lunch program?
The weekly restrictions on grains and proteins under the meal
pattern presented significant barriers to menu planning, including
limiting healthy options like daily sandwiches served on whole grain
bread and entree salads topped with lean meat and low fat cheese. As
some of these popular options were removed from the menu or served on
only select days, Manatee County Schools experienced a decline in
student participation.
I would like to thank you for your leadership in introducing H.R.
1303 with Rep. Stivers to address these concerns and eliminate the
weekly grain and protein restrictions. I was pleased to hear Dr. Janey
Thornton, Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services, announce during School Nutrition Association's Annual
National Conference in July that USDA will permanently eliminate these
weekly maximums by the end of the calendar year. I hope Congress and
USDA will continue to respond to regulatory challenges as they arise
during implementation.
Q. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe
that a permanent elimination of the protein/grain standards in
unnecessary because USDA, when the time comes, could provide a waiver
for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain why it is more prudent to
have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix.
From sandwich buns to breakfast cereals, school meal programs
depend on our industry partners to provide foods and beverages that
meet nutrition standards and student tastes. All of these products go
through extensive testing before they are served in a school cafeteria.
Our industry partners invest in R&D to identify recipes that meet the
whole grain standards and food safety requirements, but still have the
look and taste our students expect.
Temporary regulations leave our industry partners guessing. Do they
phase out their old product line and invest in developing products to
meet new standards? Or will USDA issue another reprieve so that schools
will be clamoring for their old product line? By promising to
permanently eliminate the weekly grain/protein maximums, USDA is
providing industry and school nutrition professionals with clear
direction.
Q. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation
in the school lunch program for paying students, and what impact does
this situation have on students who receive a free lunch?
Many students who drop out of the National School Lunch and
Breakfast Programs end up purchasing their meals from nearby fast food
restaurants or other venues that do not offer the healthy, well-
balanced meals that school meal programs provide. Declines in student
participation also reduce revenue for school meal programs, hampering
the program's ability to make further improvements to menus.
School meal programs strive to serve all students, not just those
who rely on free or reduced-price meals. When paying students drop out
of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the students who
depend on these meals as a key source of nutrition can feel singled out
or stigmatized just by entering the cafeteria.
______
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, July 29, 2013.
Ms. Megan Schaper, Director of Food and Nutrition Services,
State College Area School District, 131 W. Nittany Ave., State College,
PA 16801.
Dear Ms Schaper: Thank you for testifying at the June 27, 2013
hearing on ``School Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and
Consequences for Schools and Students'' I appreciate your
participation.
Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the
subcommittee after the hearing. Please provide written responses no
later than August 19, 2013 for inclusion in the final hearing record.
Responses should be sent to Mandy Schaumburg or Dan Shorts of the
committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 225-6558.
Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the
committee.
Sincerely,
Todd Rokita, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education.
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. Ms. Schaper, what has been the impact of these new requirements
on your district's administrative costs? How much have you had to pay
for training or hiring new employees? Have you lost any food service
employees as a result of the new regulations?
2. How many food vendors does your school district work with on the
school meal programs? Have you seen any of the vendors stop--or do you
anticipate any stopping--offering products for school lunch and
breakfast programs?
rep. marcia fudge (d-oh)
I consider myself to be a staunch defender of the needs of those
who suffer from food insecurity, particularly children. Many of the
regulations required by the National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
are being implemented by school districts in the name of reducing the
incidence of childhood obesity in this country, a true challenge that
deserves our full attention. We also have a hunger epidemic that must
be addressed.
The National School Lunch & Breakfast Program is one of our
nation's largest feeding programs. If our school meals programs are
struggling financially to implement new regulations, then we are
putting school children who depend on these meals at risk. There are
children who leave school after Friday lunch and don't receive their
next meal until Monday's school breakfast. It is our responsibility and
our duty to ensure that these regulations are having the intended
effect.
1. Do you believe USDA's National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal
of providing healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of
your concerns?
2. I've heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated
with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating
that their costs go beyond the estimated costs proposed by USDA, and
the 6 cent additional funding per meal is not covering the cost. What
is the breaking point in terms of how much financial strain schools can
handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes
threatened?
Earlier this year my colleague Rep. Stivers and I introduced H.R.
1303, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act to address some of the
concerns we had heard from our local school nutrition experts. One of
the top concerns we heard echoed again and again was that schools were
finding it extremely difficult to serve meals that fit within weekly
minimum and maximum serving ranges for the grains and meat portions of
the USDA standards. While USDA has responded to this concern through
the means of a temporary waiver, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act
provides a long-term solution for this issue by calling for the
permanent elimination of the maximums on grains.
3. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe
that a permanent elimination of the protein/grain standards is
unnecessary because USDA, when the time comes, could provide a waiver
for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain why it is more prudent to
have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix.
The School Nutrition Flexibility Act addresses another issue that
has proven to be difficult for local schools: the paid meal equity
provision. The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act allows the federal
government to set the price of a school lunch for the first time since
1946. As a result, schools participating in the School Lunch Program
are now required to increase the price of their lunch. Some communities
are struggling to pay the increase and participation in the school
lunch program has declined in some schools.
4. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation
in the school lunch program for paying students, and what impact does
this situation have on students who receive a free lunch?
______
Ms. Schaper's Response to Questions Submitted for the Record
chairman todd rokita (r-in)
1. What has been the impact of these new requirements on your
district's administrative costs? How much have you had to pay for
training or hiring new employees? Have you lost any food service
employees as a result of the new regulations?
My district did not spend more on training or administrative costs
than we have in previous years. We cannot spend more money than we
bring in from student sales. Our budget is tight and we simply aren't
able to spend funds that are not available. Rather, it is a matter of
what other training opportunities and administrative activities had to
be forgone in order to have the time and resources to implement the new
regulations.
The one day that we have available for staff training each year had
to be solely dedicated to the new regulations to the exclusion of
ServSafe food safety training, marketing and customer service training,
and technology and computer skills training that would have otherwise
been priorities.
Similarly, I was not able to hire another administrator to help
implement the standards and submit for certification. Instead, I
directed my time and energy to those tasks to the exclusion of creative
and successful initiatives that my department had promoted in the past.
I did not have the time available to coordinate Chefs Move to Schools
events. I was not able to coordinate parent volunteers to provide taste
testing in my cafeterias. Our involvement with the school gardens and
other farm-to-school initiatives had to be reduced. Instead of using my
time to proactively educate children about healthy foods, I had to
devote my time to researching and rewriting purchase specifications,
rewriting recipes, producing new cookbooks, reviewing all of my
allergens in light of the new recipes, determining meat and grain
contributions, recalculating nutrient analysis, and completing USDA
paperwork to submit for certification.
One of my most dependable and dedicated supervisors decided not to
continue in school food service at the end of the year. After 24 years
of service, she stated that it ``just wasn't fun anymore.'' Of course
children's health and well-being should take precedence to my staff
having fun, but it should also be possible to develop reasonable
regulations that promote health and well-being without being so
difficult for those in the schools to implement.
2. How many food vendors does your school district work with on the
school meals programs? Have you seen any of the vendors stop--or do you
anticipate any stopping--offering products for school lunch and
breakfast programs?
We purchase foods produced by dozens of different manufacturers.
Those items come to us from two large food service distributors, one
dairy, one bakery, and six or seven small, local businesses. I believe
that the large manufacturers and distributors have the resources and
motivation to continue to supply schools. However, the cost of
continuously reformulating products to meet changing standards are
being passed on to us. Some of the small businesses who we patronize
are not able to invest the resources to develop products to meet USDA
standards. Our sales volume is not large enough and there simply is not
sufficient interest from their retail customers for items that meet
USDA regulations. Our efforts to support local businesses will be
diminished.
rep. marcia fudge (d-oh)
1. Do you believe USDA's National School Lunch & Breakfast Program
regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal
of providing healthy meals to children in need?
No, my program was providing very healthy meals that students
enjoyed prior to the implementation of these regulations. The
regulations have simply raised costs and driven paying customers from
the program. Serving fewer paying customers reduces the funds available
to operate quality school cafeterias for all students. Because the
funding for school cafeterias is directly tied to participation, it is
critical that enough students choose to patronize the school cafeteria
in order to cover our costs. Further, when paying customers leave the
program, students receiving free and reduced priced meals are less
comfortable accessing this benefit due to the stigma associated with
being eligible for subsidized meals.
Minimum standards are necessary to ensure that school meals are
healthful. Simply enforcing the previous, reasonable meal regulations
would have remedied the problems of poorly run programs. Providing $.06
as incentive for meeting tough new standards would be unnecessary if
USDA simply enforced the former guidelines by withholding all funding
from schools that failed to provide healthful meals.
2. I've heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated
with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating
that their costs go beyond the estimated costs proposed by USDA, and
the 6 cent additional funding per meal is not covering the cost. What
is the breaking point in terms of financial strain schools can handle
before your ability to serve children becomes threatened?
I can't speak to the breaking point for all programs but most
schools are facing difficult budgetary circumstances. The weak economy
and funding cuts as a result of sequestration resulted in less revenue
for school programs. Further, medical and pension cost increases are
out pacing income growth. Most schools are already cutting programs and
simply do not have excess funds to support the school cafeterias.
If my program is unable to remain self-supporting, we will have to
find ways to decrease costs. As only 15% of our students are eligible
for subsidized meals, our breakfast program is not utilized by the
majority of our students and loses money. We currently subsidize the
program with funds from lunch and a la carte sales. We may need to
eliminate the breakfast program to keep the overall program fiscally
solvent. While this won't affect the majority of my students, it will
greatly impact those whose families need this program the most. I
expect to have to make this decision after the 2014-15 school year when
I know exactly how the Smart Snacks in Schools rule affects my
program's finances.
The $.06 additional funding is appreciated but it does not cover
the cost of the new regulations. For example, the additional \1/2\ cup
of fruit that is needed adds a minimum cost of $.11 (for a juice) up to
$.29 (for an apple) per meal. Add to this the fact that whole
grains cost more and that manufacturers are passing on their increased
costs for reformulating products, schools are spending significantly
more to provide meals and the federal funding only covers a fraction of
that increase.
3. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe
that a permanent elimination of the protein/grain standards is
unnecessary because USDA, when the time comes, could provide a waiver
for the 2014-15 school year. Please explain why it is more prudent to
have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix.
The research and development behind each new food item that
Advance/Pierre brings to market costs $100,000. One of the products
that Advance/Pierre developed for the start of the 2012-13 school year
was a 1.5 ounce hamburger that helped schools serve cheeseburgers while
staying under the protein cap. With the temporary removal of the cap,
schools are no longer interested in purchasing a hamburger that is that
small. (A McDonald's single hamburger weighs 2 ounces.) Advance/Pierre
did not get a fair return on its investment. Manufacturers are not
willing to produce new products for schools without the assurance that
the products they develop today will still be wanted a few years from
now.
4. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation
in the school lunch program for paying students, and what impact does
this situation have on students who receive free lunch?
The profit margin on school meals is extremely thin. In order for a
school nutrition department to break-even financially (or maybe
generate enough extra money to replace an oven or refrigerator), we
need to sell as many meals as possible. The funds received for each
meal (lunch price or reimbursement rate) are adequate to cover costs
only if sufficient sales volume can be generated. When 10% of paying
students decide not to purchase school meals, food costs go down
proportionally but the cost of labor, utilities, cleaning supplies,
equipment repair and replacement, etc. remains unchanged.
Further, as mentioned earlier, schools without local resources to
support the school cafeteria will have to make difficult decisions.
Eliminating programs that aren't self-supporting, like the school
breakfast program in many schools, is a very real possibility. Some
schools may opt to leave the national program altogether. In that
circumstance, there is no guarantee that low income families will
receive help with meals at school. And the meals served to all students
would not be subject to any nutrition standards what-so-ever.
Finally, schools have worked hard over the years to remove the
social stigma that can be associated with receiving subsidized school
meals by eliminating the overt identification of eligible students. If
paying students opt out of the program, leaving only those who have no
other choice, students who need program benefits may choose not to
participate. The program in and of itself will identify them as poor.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your questions.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]