![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**COMMODITY NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS**

***Background***

Over many years, the Nation has built an array of nutrition assistance
programs designed to help the most vulnerable populations avoid hunger
and make healthy food choices. Taken together, the national nutrition
safety net serves one in five Americans over the course of a year.

Several components of the national nutrition safety net provide benefits
in the form of commodities distributed to program participants. Of the
\$50.9 billion in nutrition assistance spending in 2005, \$1.5 billion
was for commodities.

The commodity programs authorized or addressed by the Nutrition Title of
the farm bill include:

[The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR)]{.underline}

FDPIR provides a food package as an alternative to food stamps for
low-income families on or near reservations; the FDPIR cost \$78 million
in 2005 and provided nearly 100,000 individuals with \$41 in food per
month.

[The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)]{.underline}

TEFAP provides purchased and bonus commodities to States for
distribution to households and organizations that prepare meals for
needy people. The program provided \$140 million for commodity purchases
and over \$50 million for administrative expenses in 2005.

[The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)]{.underline}

SFMNP provides low-income seniors access to fresh produce and supports
farmers markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture
programs. The program provided \$15 million to support fruit and
vegetable purchases in 2005.

[The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)]{.underline}

CSFP provides supplemental foods to low-income women and their children
and the elderly. The program cost about \$150 million in 2005 and served
over 500,000 participants and provides funds each month per person
valued at about \$18 for elderly individuals and \$25 for women and
children.

Other components of the national nutrition safety net---including the
National School Lunch and Breakfast, Child and Adult Care Food, Summer
Food Service, and Special Milk Programs and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)---are
authorized outside the farm bill, most recently in 2004.

These programs complement USDA price and market support goals by
providing outlets for the distribution of surplus commodities. They
operate in partnership with State and local organizations that interact
directly with program participants. States voluntarily enter into
agreements with the Federal Government to operate programs according to
Federal standards in exchange for program funds that cover all benefit
costs and a portion of administrative expenses.

***General Opinions Expressed***

-   General support for preserving commodity programs administered by
    the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)---TEFAP, the CSFP, the FDPIR,
    and the SFMNP---without funding cuts; many supported increased
    funding to address unmet community needs and to improve
    infrastructure.

-   Some commenters recommended a uniform eligibility threshold of 185
    percent of poverty for all nutrition programs.

-   Many commenters proposed a buy-locally-first approach to provide
    healthier and fresher commodities and to halt rising costs of
    warehousing, shipping, and reprocessing charges that are limiting
    services. New programs and policy tools are needed to link
    vulnerable food producers with vulnerable consumers, including
    farmers markets, community food projects, and increased procurement
    of locally grown food by institutions. Many commenters cited
    experiences with the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
    Program and farm-to-school initiatives as a step in this direction.

-   There was general discussion about making improved nutritional
    status of Americans a national priority. Many expressed the position
    that the nutrition profile of food packages and the commodities
    provided by the Government through its nutrition programs should
    adhere to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and include more
    whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables.

[Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)]{.underline}

-   Many suggested the need for improvements in the quality of the food
    package to ensure that it meets dietary guidelines and for
    improvements in delivery to ensure that food products are
    distributed before their expiration dates.

-   Indian tribal leaders suggested the importance of following
    appropriate Nation-to-Nation protocols and respecting existing
    treaty agreements when making changes to FDPIR.

-   Many provided comments on current efforts to establish a more
    equitable methodology for allocating FDPIR administrative funds
    among the Independent Tribal Organizations (ITO), with many voicing
    concerns about potential funding cuts and some proposing provisions
    to protect against funding cuts.

-   Many requested a separate allocation, as well as increased funding,
    for nutrition education to address obesity and diabetes and maintain
    food preparation skills.

-   Many Native Americans expressed the view that tribes should set
    their own eligibility guidelines.

-   Some discussed their preference for a national multi-food ordering
    and delivery system (similar to the Prime Vendor Pilots) with
    improved customer service, Internet-based ordering from actual
    inventory, reduced time between orders and delivery, and pre-set
    delivery schedules.

-   Many proposed coverage of Native Americans who live nearby in urban
    areas because of the shortage of housing on the reservations and who
    would rather have commodity foods than food stamp benefits.

-   Various participants requested additional traditional foods such as
    Indian corn and bison (accounting for differences among tribes) as
    permanent items in the food package.

[The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)]{.underline}

-   Many forum participants remarked about the important role TEFAP
    plays in community food banks.

-   Many said that they are seeing increased numbers of clients at food
    banks and serving them with reduced supplies of USDA commodities.

-   Many participants supported an increase in USDA commodity donations
    to fill local need while others favor augmenting food supplies with
    purchases from local farmers.

-   Many conveyed the concern that higher storage and delivery costs are
    putting a financial strain on emergency food providers, particularly
    in Western States that deliver to remote, rural locations. They
    proposed higher TEFAP administrative funding.

-   Some participants made suggestions for improving the nutritional
    content of commodities: more protein and dairy items, more foods
    appropriate for those with health-related or religious dietary
    restrictions. Others would like more culturally relevant food items.
    Many requested more variety in the food products made available and,
    therefore, more choices for food banks and for clients.

-   Many representatives of food banks spoke about the uncertainty of
    the content of TEFAP deliveries, leading to the proposal that USDA
    should share more information with food banks about the availability
    and distribution of TEFAP foods so that they are able to adequately
    plan for changes in the TEFAP food supply.

[Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)]{.underline}

-   Many view SFMNP as a cost-effective means to provide low-income
    seniors resources to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables
    and to strengthen community ties, with farmers helping seniors and
    seniors helping farmers.

-   Several would increase funding to allow participation by additional
    low-income seniors in current sites, and expand the program to
    accommodate all States and Indian Tribal Organizations.

-   Some requested that USDA set aside or modify proposed rules that
    establish new requirements for eligibility determination, benefit
    maximums, notifications, data collection, and reporting on the
    grounds that such requirements are burdensome compared to the
    program's modest benefits.

-   Many are concerned about the lack of administrative funding for the
    program. Some want a separate administrative fund; others would like
    the proposed limit for administrative costs raised from 8 percent to
    anywhere from 12 to 20 percent.

-   Some suggested adding products such as honey, nuts, eggs, and apple
    cider to the list of eligible products to improve the market basket
    and make participation more appealing.

[Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)]{.underline}

-   Many favored making CSFP a national entitlement, expanding the
    program to all States or to States with approved State plans
    (Arkansas, Delaware, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Utah). Some support
    was expressed for making the CSFP an elderly-only program.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many spoke generally of increased funding for caseload and program
    administration.

-   Many participants supported increased access to program benefits by
    low-income elderly persons, setting them as a priority group and
    aligning elderly eligibility criteria with CSFP for women and
    children.

-   Many supported evaluation of CSFP to provide participant profiles
    and determine outcomes.

-   A few noted the disproportionate effect of grant reductions and
    increased administrative requirements on rural service levels and
    States that are not automated (e.g., New Hampshire).

    [Miscellaneous]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many participants requested increased funding for the Fresh Fruit
    and Vegetable Snack Program authorized under the Child Nutrition and
    WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 and the Department of Defense Fresh
    Fruit and Vegetable Program. Some suggested doubling the funding,
    but the most common suggestion was to expand it to all 50 States and
    all Indian Tribal Organizations.

-   Some encouraged USDA to develop a greater role in nutrition
    research. Specific suggestions included: exploring the relationship
    between diet and health, examining the impacts of nutrition program
    participation on diet quality and health, improving the nutritional
    content of nutrition assistance benefits, understanding consumer
    behavior regarding the consumption and benefits of fruits and
    vegetables, creating a database of food safety and the nutrient
    composition of the food supply.

    ***Detailed Suggestions Expressed***

[Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)]{.underline}

-   There have been beneficial improvements in FDPIR that should
    continue: addition of frozen items, fresh fruits and vegetables,
    tailgate deliveries, and nutrition education.

-   Allow the carryover of unobligated administrative funds from one
    year to the next.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some programs have difficulty meeting the 25 percent match
    requirement. Although warehouses cannot be used for in-kind match,
    the value of the land beneath warehouses or their salvage value
    should be considered.

-   Provide funding for bar coding and scanning systems in grocery
    centers.

-   Inform tribes that they are eligible to receive both FDPIR
    commodities and TEFAP commodities.

-   Provide more guidance to tribes about the tradeoffs between the food
    stamp program and FDPIR.

-   Provide technical assistance to tribes that want to develop a
    community garden.

-   Provide more food with commercial labels.

-   Teachers on reservations should be eligible for food packages in
    summer months.

-   Vary size of food package by income. Offer a complete package (not
    supplemental) for those without income.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reform certification requirements that are a participation barrier
    for many tribal members.

-   More Native Americans are applying for food stamp program (FSP)
    benefits so that they can buy ready-to-eat foods; nutrition
    education is needed to teach them how to prepare foods.

-   Develop culturally sensitive nutrition education.

-   Funds are needed for tribal members to attend meetings and
    conferences.

-   Better ways are needed to verify income of applicants (particularly
    reports of zero income) to comply with program requirements.

-   Specific considerations proposed for the revision of the FDPIR
    administrative fund allocation formula are:

(a) Funding reductions and reallocations can force some programs to
    change to tailgate services, increasing distances for participants
    to receive packages.

(b) Allow more representation of other tribes in the group working on
    this issue.

(c) Need to take into consideration the unique needs of various tribes
    such as geography, need for tailgating, and services needed.

(d) Provide for waivers in using the new methodology.

(e) Include cost-of-living adjustments in the formula.

[The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)]{.underline}

-   USDA should increase the mandatory commodity purchase level to \$500
    million.

-   Administrative reimbursements should be based on the amount of food
    that food banks receive and distribute (based on a simple \$6 per
    case, for example).

-   Use Section 32 funds for increased administrative costs, to support
    costs associated with handling bonus commodities, and to help move
    commodities from farms to food banks. Allocate all Section 32 funds
    for increased TEFAP funding.

-   Alter the 60/40 allocation formula (based on unemployment and
    poverty) to better account for the number of people living in areas
    with chronic unemployment and other factors.

-   Some rural areas would prefer cash in lieu of commodities (allowing
    them to directly purchase commodities from vendors) because
    administrative costs often equal or exceed the cost of commodities.

-   Streamline and improve the current expense reimbursement process to
    reduce burden and more adequately cover expenses of nonprofit
    organizations.

-   Establish reimbursement limits that address the needs of some food
    banks for capital improvements, such as the purchase of an
    additional forklift.

-   Make USDA programs more accessible to small community and
    faith-based organizations.

-   Increase FNS control over food banks with contracts and establish an
    impartial board to review complaints.

-   Consider national uniform rules or identify model practices to
    improve quality and consistency of commodity distribution contracts.

-   Reduce overly burdensome paperwork requirements. Clients should not
    need to certify eligibility each time that they receive food. Allow
    the food distribution organization to monitor clients' eligibility
    status.

-   Instruct local providers that FDPIR participants are categorically
    eligible for TEFAP.

-   Integrate nutrition education with TEFAP so that nutrition education
    can occur at food pantries.

-   Use of commercially labeled commodities should be limited because
    they make it difficult to track allegations of fraud, sale, or
    misuse of TEFAP products.

-   Surplus commodities (bonus buys) should be distributed through the
    TEFAP network to improve the overall supply of commodities to the
    program.

-   Decisions on bonus buys should be based on the nutritional value of
    food instead of its availability as surplus.

-   USDA should purchase kosher foods and more protein-rich options for
    kosher clients, and display the kosher label.

-   Give programs more choice over commodities they distribute to their
    clients.

-   Reinstate the TEFAP cheese waiver in Wisconsin.

-   Grant waiver authority to allow food banks to turn excess unwanted
    commodities into useful products that clients will eat and
    appreciate.

[Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP)]{.underline}

-   Adequately fund SFMNP to prevent reductions in the number of seniors
    served.

-   Reexamine the distribution of funds to the States.

-   Expand the program by reallocating program funds that are returned
    annually by States to FNS for use in subsequent years.

-   Make the program available year-round.

-   Provide larger benefits so that elderly can use the farmers markets
    more often.

-   Hawaii opposes the proposed rule to limit SFMNP benefits to \$50 per
    person and prefers a rule that allows them to continue their 2004
    benefit levels.

-   Eliminate barriers that prevent people from accessing the benefits.

-   Allow self-declaration of income eligibility in SFMNP.

-   Simplify rules and paperwork requirements so that diverse
    organizations can help make the program more accessible to
    participants.

-   Simplify the application procedures to establish a SFMNP.

-   Distribution of funds should focus on enhancing access for older
    adults to food from local farmers.

-   Use Web-based training and conference calls instead of face-to-face
    training for farmers.

-   Allow State farmers market associations to apply for food stamp
    authorization for members.

[Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)]{.underline}

-   Rather than increase CSFP, increase the minimum food stamp benefit
    to \$50 for elderly and disabled persons.

-   Give each State the authority to set its own priorities in CSFP
    based on its knowledge of demographics, local needs, services, and
    food supply.

-   New requirements for race and ethnic reporting in CSFP are too
    burdensome.

-   Develop culturally sensitive nutrition education.

-   Allow food banks to inventory products by the unpacked case, as in
    TEFAP.

-   Designate senior citizens as the first priority when receiving CSFP
    services and allow States to provide benefits to women and children
    if extra funds are available.

    [Miscellaneous]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Support faith-based organizations because they are on the front
    lines of the fight against hunger.

-   All aspects of the farm bill, not just those deemed nutrition,
    should be evaluated in terms of the impact on the health and safety
    of vulnerable communities.

-   Enact a national fast food surcharge to generate revenues to fund
    TEFAP, CSFP, and SFMNP expansion.

-   Allow tribes to administer WIC, FSP, SFMNP, and CSFP as sovereign
    nations, rather than as a State-sponsored organization. (Note:
    Tribes already directly administer WIC, SFMNP, and CSFP.)

-   Increase the Defense Supply Purchasing Network.

-   Amend laws to provide for in-State or local preference, particularly
    regarding Department of Defense's farm-to-school purchases.

-   Increase the fruit and vegetable snack allowance per child to \$60.

-   Fund the Farm-to-Cafeteria project.

-   Pilot a farmers market voucher for low-income families to purchase
    fruits and vegetables in the summer, particularly in areas where
    there is no summer meal program.

-   Allow flexible program regulations in WIC, TEFAP, and CSFP to enable
    situation-variable responses during events like disasters (e.g.,
    getting chilled baby-formula to infants in disaster areas).

-   Allow WIC participants in federally declared disaster areas to use
    their benefits in any State.

-   Increase funding for WIC.

-   Provide funding to expand EBT to WIC.

-   Make WIC available to seniors age 55 and older.

-   Increase spending for the WIC Farmers Market Program.

-   Improve WIC participants' access to farmers market produce.

-   Make nutrition education a part of the WIC Farmers Market Program.

-   Designate Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) as
    the nutrition educators for WIC offices.

-   Support the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program.

-   Change public perception of the Food Stamp Program, WIC program, and
    School Lunch Program as being "free handout programs" by continuing
    nutrition education.

-   Support Cent\$ible Nutrition Program.

-   Support continued investment in public education on the importance
    of nutrition for health, learning, and productivity.

-   Use listening sessions to inform potential stakeholders of the
    benefits of USDA programs (i.e., provide informational materials
    and/or a display of some sort).

-   Provide additional tax incentives to encourage charitable food
    donations to food banks and pantries.

-   Support food banks that purchase local food.

-   Federal tax law should provide additional incentives to encourage
    charitable food donations to food banks and pantries.

-   Increase support for community food projects through the competitive
    grants program.

-   Increase technical support to organize community food projects and
    support food retailers in minority neighborhoods.

-   Support the development of local and regional infrastructure, such
    as public wholesale terminals, local distribution systems, and local
    food reserves that would be available in times of crises and
    disasters.

-   Create food-related enterprise zones that build local food
    systems\--from producing to processing to distribution to retail.

-   Study the concerns of grandparents and other relatives who are
    caretakers raising children and identify ways to help them.

-   Concern was expressed about importation of Milk Protein Concentrate
    and other potentially "unsafe" imports that affect the U.S. food
    supply, including those provided to FNS program participants.

-   Perform research to evaluate health claims for food crops.

-   USDA agencies working on food and nutrition should be brought
    together.

-   Make broader use of the American Dietetic Association's evidence
    grading system to evaluate nutrition guidelines, claims, and
    education.