Statement
of the
American School Food Service Association
before the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry

March 2, 1999
 
 
 

Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin, members of the Committee, I am Martha Hill, President of the American School Food Service Association, and Director of Food Service, Boone County, West Virginia.  We very much appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and this delightful tradition of hosting a child nutrition hearing to coincide with the ASFSA Legislative Action Conference.

With me this morning are Gaye Lynn MacDonald, Chair of ASFSA’s Public Policy and
Legislative Committee, and Barry Reese, President of the Indiana School Food Service Association.  I would also like to recognize Chris Urbanski, Indiana’s Legislative Chair, and Gale Knafel, winner of last year’s Richard Lugar Child Nutrition Award.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to also express our deep appreciation to you and all members of the Committee for your leadership on the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-336) signed by the President on October 31, 1998.  This important legislation retains program stability and advances child nutrition by:
 

· Reauthorizing all expiring child nutrition programs through September 30, 2003;

· Providing meal supplements (snacks) for children in afterschool programs;

· Authorizing pilot programs to evaluate the effect of providing breakfast to all elementary school children;

· Extending the waiver on requiring weighted averages in menu planning; and

· Requiring states to develop a single, permanent agreement for school food programs.

There are several issues I would like to address this morning that grow out of the reauthorization bill, and one issue --- the commodity distribution program --- that perhaps you could consider as part of any pending agriculture legislation.
 

1. Funding for the school breakfast pilots -- One of the most exciting provisions in the reauthorization legislation is the provision that authorizes the Secretary to conduct pilot projects in six school food authorities to evaluate the effect of providing free breakfasts to all elementary children.  Specifically, the research will look at the impact of eating school breakfast on academic achievement, attendance, tardiness, and classroom behavior.  This research pilot was authorized based upon separate research studies conducted by the University of Minnesota for the State of Minnesota, Harvard University, and Tufts University demonstrating a positive relationship between nutrition and learning.

As you know, the Senate version of this legislation, which passed the Senate unanimously, would have provided mandatory funding for this research pilot.  In conference, however, the mandatory funding was changed to an authorization for funds.  The Administration, in its FY2000 budget, has requested $13 million for the study.  ASFSA urges the Congress to provide this funding.  We would very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, for this Committee  to indicate its support for funding to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

According to the Executive Summary of the pilot program conducted by the State of Minnesota, there is a general increase in composite math and reading percentile scores in those schools that participated in the Minnesota school breakfast pilot.  Nurses in those schools reported a significant decline in morning complaints of minor headaches and stomachaches, concluding that school breakfast is the reason students are spending less time in their offices and more time in the classroom.  Furthermore, the number of students sent to the principal’s office for discipline declined by over 40%.
 

According to the Department of Agriculture (USDA), it is estimated that 7.8 million children will participate in the school breakfast program in FY2000.  We are pleased with the growth in the school breakfast program, but we are still serving only 28.5 percent of those students who participate in the school lunch program.  Given the very high priority that the Congress and the Administration is placing on education, and given the results of the school breakfast research to date, we believe that it is prudent, and indeed vitally important, that the Congress fund the school breakfast pilots that have been authorized.

2. Nutrition education -- According to current law, “Congress finds that effective dissemination of scientifically valid information to children participating or eligible to participate in the school lunch and related child nutrition programs should be encouraged.”  Unfortunately, the Nutrition Education and Training (NET) program has been struggling for some time.  When the program was first established in 1978, it was funded at the rate of 50 cents per child, per year, or $26.2 million in 1978.  Funding for nutrition education has declined steadily since that time.

We still believe that nutrition education is an important component of the child nutrition effort.  Given the size of the child nutrition budget, it is simply foolish not to invest a small amount of money in nutrition education so that children can develop positive eating habits that will benefit them throughout their lives.  As you know, diet continues to be a risk factor in five of the ten leading cases of death in America.

We understand that the Congress is not going to enact a comprehensive restructuring of the Nutrition Education and Training program, and Team Nutrition in 1999.  We therefore ask the Congress to provide an appropriation of $10 million for nutrition education at the state and local level, with the understanding that we can take a comprehensive look at this area when time permits.  The school nutrition community and USDA are working together to develop a unified, comprehensive approach to providing nutrition education for children and those serving them.

3. The USDA Commodity Distribution Program -- The USDA Commodity Distribution Program remains a critical part of the federal support for child nutrition programs.  While administration of this program has been criticized from time to time, we still believe that the commodity program is good for American agriculture and good for the federal child nutrition programs.

Like any program that has stood the test of time, however, it must on occasion respond to changing needs and to national trends.  In the 1980s USDA made a major effort to improve the quality of the commodities that were distributed to schools and, for the most part, were successful in doing so.  ASFSA applauds the current effort by USDA to improve the commodity food distribution system.  However, there are two specific statutory changes that we believe are necessary for these improvements to be effective:

(a) Current law requires that at least 12 percent of federal support for the school lunch
program be in the form of commodities.    Additionally, in response to agricultural surpluses the Secretary, from time to time, purchases commodities that are distributed to schools as a “bonus.”  While schools can plan on “entitlement commodities” they are likely to receive from USDA, bonus commodities are more a function of the agricultural economy.  Therefore, we believe the Congress should restore the practice of excluding the value of bonus commodities from the calculation that is used to determine whether the 12 percent requirement has been met.  A change made last year by the Appropriations Committee resulted in an estimated reduction of 79 million pounds of agricultural products purchased by USDA for distribution to schools.
 

(b) As you know, Section 32 of the Agriculture Act of 1935 establishes a trust fund that the Secretary may use to purchase agricultural commodities for distribution to schools and other recipient agencies. Schools are the largest recipient agency of the USDA commodity distribution program, receiving approximately two-thirds of domestic distribution.  Schools currently receive approximately 15 cents in commodities for every meal served.  Unfortunately, costs associated with using commodities can equal or exceed the entitlement value of them.  These costs are attributed to distribution expenses, storage expenses, and the high cost of labor to convert the commodities into end food products used by local schools.  Needless to say, it is simply not good business to spend 10 cents (or more) to receive 15 cents.  Indeed, several schools (but not many) have dropped out of the commodity distribution program because of the costs associated with participation.  We do not want to see this trend continue.  It would not be good for the school nutrition program, or good for American agriculture if schools were to refuse USDA commodities.  Therefore, we ask the Congress to amend Section 32 with language that recognizes the needs of recipient agencies.

4. Child nutrition procurement regulations -- On February 17, 1998, USDA published proposed procurement regulations for many programs, including child nutrition.  In our opinion, these new procurement regulations could pose quite a problem.  We have commented on these regulations, however, and have had several good meetings with USDA.  We are not, therefore, at this time, asking the Congress to “freeze” the existing regulations.  Of course, if the final regulations undermine our ability to use our best judgment in running local programs, I trust we can come back and visit with you again.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to again thank this Committee for its leadership on child
nutrition.  We believe that the recent legislation, enacted unanimously in the Senate, makes the child nutrition programs stronger.  Thank you again.  I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.