Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of 

Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 

This study was conducted under GSA Contract #AG-3198-B-10-0012 with the Food and Nutrition 

Service.

 Authors 

Thea Palmer Zimmerman

Brenda Sun

Sujata Dixit-Joshi

 

February 2016 

 

Prepared for:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Officer:

Jinee Burdg

Prepared by:

Westat

An Employee-Owned Research Corporation®

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129

(301) 251-1500
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 ii 

 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page

Acknowledgments and Disclaimer................................................................... xiv

Glossary of Abbreviations................................................................................. xv

Executive Summary............................................................................................ xvii

1 Background.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 History of Food Distribution Programs ........................... 1-2

1.1.2 Overview of Food Distribution Process........................... 1-3

1.2 Description of USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs................... 1-4

1.2.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program ....................... 1-5

1.2.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations (FDPIR).......................................................... 1-7

1.2.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP)......................... 1-9

1.2.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

(TEFAP) ................................................................................ 1-12

1.2.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)............... 1-14

1.2.6 Summary ................................................................................ 1-17

2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Develop USDA Foods Nutrient Database – FND-2014 ............... 2-1

2.3 Compute Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA 

Foods...................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Nutrients and Food Groups Included in the 

Analysis .................................................................................. 2-4

2.3.2 Number of Participants....................................................... 2-5

2.3.3 Number of Distribution Days............................................ 2-5

2.3.4 As Offered: Entitlement Only and Entitlement 

Plus Bonus USDA Foods.................................................... 2-5

2.3.5 As Delivered: Entitlement Only and Entitlement 

Plus Bonus USDA Foods.................................................... 2-7

2.3.6 Calculations to Derive Nutrient and Food 

Group Content of USDA Foods....................................... 2-7
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 iii 

 

Contents (continued) 

Chapter Page

2.4 Compare Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA 

Foods to Dietary Standards................................................................. 2-9

2.5 Compare Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA 

Foods in 2014 and 2009....................................................................... 2-16

2.6 Strengths and Limitations of the Evaluation .................................... 2-16

3 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) .......................... 3-1

3.1.1 Food Group Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods........... 3-3

3.1.2 Nutrient Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods .................. 3-6

3.1.3 Healthy Eating Index for CSFP USDA Foods................ 3-10

3.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR).................................................................................................. 3-17

3.2.1 Food Group Assessment of FDPIR USDA 

Foods...................................................................................... 3-19

3.2.1 Nutrient Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods................ 3-21

3.2.3 Healthy Eating Index for FDPIR USDA Foods............. 3-24

3.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) ......................................... 3-30

3.3.1 Food Group Assessment of NSLP USDA 

Foods...................................................................................... 3-32

3.3.2 Comparison of NSLP USDA Foods With NSLP

Meal Pattern and Nutrition Standards............................... 3-34

3.3.3 Nutrient Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods.................. 3-35

3.3.4 Healthy Eating Index for NSLP USDA Foods ............... 3-39

3.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)..................... 3-46

3.4.1 Food Group Assessment of TEFAP USDA 

Foods...................................................................................... 3-48

3.4.2 Healthy Eating Index for TEFAP USDA Foods............ 3-50

3.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)............................... 3-55

3.5.1 Food Group Assessment of CACFP USDA 

Foods...................................................................................... 3-56

3.5.2 Healthy Eating Index for CACFP USDA Foods............ 3-57
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 iv 

 

Contents (continued) 

Chapter Page

3.6 Overall Summary................................................................................... 3-62

4 Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA Foods, 

2009 to 2014........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) .......................... 4-1

4.1.1 Food Composition of CSFP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Food Group Assessment of CSFP USDA 

Foods, 2014 and 2009.......................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Nutrient Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-5

4.1.4 HEI-2005 Scores for CSFP USDA Foods, 2014

and 2009................................................................................. 4-11

4.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

(FDPIR).................................................................................................. 4-11

4.2.1 Food Composition of FDPIR USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-12

4.2.2 Food Group Assessment of FDPIR USDA 

Foods, 2014 and 2009.......................................................... 4-12

4.2.3 Nutrient Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-14

4.2.4 HEI-2005 Scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-22

4.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) ......................................... 4-22

4.3.1 Food Composition of NSLP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-23

4.3.2 Food Group Assessment of NSLP USDA 

Foods, 2014 and 2009.......................................................... 4-24

4.3.3 Nutrient Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-27

4.3.4 HEI-2005 Scores for NSLP USDA Foods, 2014

and 2009................................................................................. 4-33

4.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)..................... 4-33

4.4.1 Food Composition of TEFAP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-34
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 v 

 

Contents (continued) 

Chapter Page

4.4.2 Food Group Assessment of TEFAP USDA 

Foods, 2014 and 2009.......................................................... 4-36

4.4.3 HEI-2005 Scores for TEFAP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-39

4.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)............................... 4-41

4.5.1 Food Composition of CACFP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-41

4.5.2 Food Group Assessment of CACFP USDA 

Foods, 2014 and 2009.......................................................... 4-42

4.5.3 HEI-2005 Scores for CACFP USDA Foods, 

2014 and 2009 ....................................................................... 4-44

4.6 Overall Summary................................................................................... 4-44

Appendix

A Distribution Guides, CSFP and FDPIR.......................................................... A-1

B USDA Foods Nutrient Database Documentation........................................ B-1

C Foods Available 2014......................................................................................... C-1

D Participant Numbers 2014................................................................................. D-1

E As-Offered Analysis for CACFP, NSLP, and TEFAP................................. E-1

F Nutrient Content of the Food Packages in the Commodity 

Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).............................................................. F-1

G Nutrient Content of the Food Packages in the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)..................................................... G-1

H Nutrient Content of the Food Packages in the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP)..................................................................................... H-1

Table

2-1 Nutrients Selected/Computed for Analysis.................................................... 2-2
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 vi 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

2-2 USDA Food Pattern Equivalent Database Food Groups 

Selected/Computed for Analysis ..................................................................... 2-3

2-3 Healthy Eating Index-2005 scoring system .................................................... 2-12

2-4 Healthy Eating Index-2010 scoring system .................................................... 2-13

2-5 Meal pattern and nutrition standards for NSLP lunches, SY 2013-

2014 ...................................................................................................................... 2-14

2-6 Age definitions of participants by USDA nutrition assistance 

program................................................................................................................ 2-15

2-7 Development of weighted average Vitamin A requirement in 

NSLP.................................................................................................................... 2-16

3-1 Food group and subgroup content of CSFP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations for the reference participant............................................. 3-4

3-2 Food group and subgroup content of CSFP USDA Foods per 

2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal...................................................................... 3-5

3-3 Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 3-7

3-4 Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant...................................... 3-8

3-5 Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average TFP standard for the reference participant..................... 3-9

3-6 HEI-2005 scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 

1999-2004 participants ages 60 years and older as well as SNAP 

participants ages 60 years and older................................................................. 3-12

3-7 HEI-2010 scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 

2011-2012 participants ages 2 years and older as well as the U.S.

Food Supply (2010)............................................................................................ 3-14
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 vii 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

3-8 Food group and subgroup content of FDPIR USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations for the reference participant............................................. 3-19

3-9 Food group and subgroup content of FDPIR USDA Foods per 

2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal...................................................................... 3-20

3-10 Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 3-21

3-11 Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant...................................... 3-23

3-12 Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average TFP standard for the reference participant..................... 3-25

3-13 HEI-2005 scores for FDPIR USDA Foods and all NHANES 

1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP 

participants ages 2-59 years............................................................................... 3-26

3-14 HEI-2010 scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-

2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as 

participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and the U.S. Food 

Supply (2010)....................................................................................................... 3-28

3-15 Food group and subgroup content of NSLP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations for the reference participant............................................. 3-33

3-16 Food group and subgroup content of NSLP USDA Foods per 

2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal...................................................................... 3-34

3-17 Nutrient and food group content of NSLP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average school meal standards for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 3-35

3-18 Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average recommended nutrient needs (DRI) for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 3-36
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 viii 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

3-19 Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant...................................... 3-38

3-20 Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average TFP standard for the reference participant..................... 3-40

3-21 HEI-2005 scores for NSLP USDA Foods and all NHANES 

1999-2004 participants ages 2-18 years as well as SNAP 

participants ages 2-18 years............................................................................... 3-41

3-22 HEI-2010 scores for NSLP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012

participants ages 2 to 17 years as well as the US food supply 

(2010).................................................................................................................... 3-43

3-23 Food group and subgroup content of the TEFAP USDA Foods 

per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal...................................................................... 3-49

3-24 HEI-2005 scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as 

SNAP participants ages 2-59 years................................................................... 3-51

3-25 HEI-2010 scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-

2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as 

participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and the U.S. Food 

Supply (2010)....................................................................................................... 3-54

3-26 Food group and subgroup content of CACFP USDA Foods per 

2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal...................................................................... 3-57

3-27 HEI-2005 scores for CACFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 

1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP 

participants ages 2-59 years............................................................................... 3-58

3-28 HEI-2010 scores for CACFP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-

2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as 

participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and the U.S. Food 

Supply (2010)....................................................................................................... 3-60

4-1 Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP 

USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of foods offered............ 4-2
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 ix 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

4-2 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-3

4-3 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP 

USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food 

Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal........................................................ 4-4

4-4 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant........................................ 4-6

4-5 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient needs 

(DRIs) for the reference participant ................................................................ 4-7

4-6 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average ULs for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-8

4-7 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard 

for the reference participant.............................................................................. 4-9

4-8 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 4-10

4-9 HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods.................... 4-11

4-10 Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR 

USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of foods offered............ 4-12

4-11 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-13

4-12 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR 

USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food 

Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal........................................................ 4-15
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 x 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

4-13 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant........................................ 4-16

4-14 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient needs 

(DRIs) for the reference participant ................................................................ 4-17

4-15 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average ULs for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-18

4-16 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard 

for the reference participant.............................................................................. 4-20

4-17 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 4-21

4-18 HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods................. 4-22

4-19 Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP 

USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of foods offered............ 4-24

4-20 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-25

4-21 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP 

USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food 

Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal........................................................ 4-26

4-22 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended 

nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant........................................ 4-28

4-23 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient needs 

(DRIs) for the reference participant ................................................................ 4-29
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xi 

 

Contents (continued) 

Table Page

4-24 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average ULs for the reference 

participant............................................................................................................ 4-30

4-25 Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP 

USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard 

for the reference participant.............................................................................. 4-31

4-26 Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods 

compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant........................................................................................... 4-32

4-27 HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods.................... 4-33

4-28 Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 

TEFAP USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of 

foods offered....................................................................................................... 4-35

4-29 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP 

USDA Foods (Entitlement foods) per 2,000 kcal compared to the 

2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal ...................... 4-37

4-30 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP 

USDA Foods (Entitlement + Bonus foods) per 2,000 kcal 

compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations 

per 2,000 kcal....................................................................................................... 4-38

4-31 HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP USDA Foods ................ 4-40

4-32 Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 

CACFP USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of 

foods offered....................................................................................................... 4-42

4-33 Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CACFP 

USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food 

Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal........................................................ 4-43

4-34 HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 CACFP USDA Foods ................ 4-44
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xii 

 

Contents (continued) 

Figure Page

3-1 Food group composition by weight of CSFP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered and delivered.................... 3-2

3-2 HEI-2005 overall scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 60 years and older as well 

as SNAP participants ages 60 years and older................................................ 3-12

3-3 HEI-2010 overall scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 2 years and older as well 

as the U.S. Food Supply (2010) ........................................................................ 3-14

3-4 Food group composition by weight of FDPIR USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered and delivered.................... 3-17

3-5 HEI-2005 overall scores for FDPIR USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as 

SNAP participants ages 2-59 years................................................................... 3-26

3-6 HEI-2010 overall scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, NHANES 

2011-2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as 

well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and the U.S.

Food Supply (2010)............................................................................................ 3-28

3-7 Food group composition by weight of NSLP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered and delivered.................... 3-31

3-8 HEI-2005 overall scores for NSLP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 2-18 years as well as 

SNAP participants ages 2-18 years................................................................... 3-41

3-9 HEI-2010 overall scores for NSLP USDA Foods, NHANES 

2011-2012 participants ages 2 to 17 years and the US food supply 

(2010).................................................................................................................... 3-43

3-10 Food group composition by weight of the TEFAP USDA Foods 

as a percentage of the total weight of foods offered and delivered ............ 3-47

3-11 HEI-2005 overall scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as 

SNAP participants ages 2-59 years................................................................... 3-51
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xiii 

 

Contents (continued) 

Figure Page

3-12 HEI-2010 overall scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods, 

NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All 

persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and 

the U.S. Food Supply (2010)............................................................................. 3-54

3-13 Food group composition by weight of CACFP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered and delivered.................... 3-56

3-14 HEI-2005 overall scores for CACFP USDA Foods and all 

NHANES 1999-2004 participants ages 2-59 years as well as 

SNAP participants ages 2-59 years................................................................... 3-59

3-15 HEI-2010 overall scores for CACFP USDA Foods, NHANES 

2011-2012 participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as 

well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), and the U.S.

Food Supply (2010)............................................................................................ 3-61
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xiv 

 

Acknowledgments and Disclaimer 

 Thea Palmer Zimmerman and Sujata Dixit-Joshi of Westat prepared this report for the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Office of Research and

Analysis. Many individuals contributed to this report. The authors are grateful to Jinee Burdg,

Dennis Ranalli, Stephanie Cooks, Janis Johnston, Kevin Kuczynski, TusaRebecca Schap, and other 

staff at the FNS Office of Policy Support and Food Distribution Division for their guidance and 

insights. Their guidance enabled us to accurately characterize the nutrient and food group content of 

USDA foods offered and delivered in the five nutrition assistance programs.

All data analysis was conducted by Brenda Sun with oversight from Thea Zimmerman; Elizabeth 

Mittl, and Merwyn Lasrado reviewed analyses. Susie McNutt and Joan Benson reviewed the report 

and Calvin Pierce provided editorial assistance.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USDA.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xv 

 

Glossary of Abbreviations 

 AI Adequate Intake

AMDR Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

CACFP Child and Adult Care Food Program

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNPP USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion

CSFP Commodity Supplemental Food Program

DFE Dietary Folate Equivalent

DGA Dietary Guidelines for Americans

DoD Department of Defense

DRI Dietary Reference Intake

DSCP Defense Supply Center Philadelphia

EAR Estimated Average Requirement

equiv Equivalents

FA List of USDA Foods Available (generated annually for each nutrition assistance 

program)

FDD Food Distribution Division

FDPIR Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

FND-2014 USDA Foods Nutrient Database 2014

FNDDS USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

FPE Food Pattern Equivalent

FPED USDA Food Pattern Equivalents Database

FSA Farm Service Agency

FSIS Food Safety Inspection Service

FY Fiscal Year

g Grams

HEI-2005

HEI-2010

Healthy Eating Index 2005

Healthy Eating Index 2010

HHFKA Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

HQ Headquarters

IOM National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine

ITO Indian Tribal Organization

kcal Kilocalorie

lb Pound

mcg Microgram (μg)

mg Milligram

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Glossary of Abbreviations 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xvi 

 

NSIP National Services Incentive Program

NSLP National School Lunch Program

oz Ounce

P.L. Public Law

RAE Retinol Activity Equivalent

RDA Recommended Dietary Allowance

SBP School Breakfast Program

SFSP Summer Food Service Program

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SNDA School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

SoFAAS Solid fats, alcohol, and added sugar (used in the Healthy Eating Index)

SoFAS Solid fats and added sugar (used in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans USDA Food 

Patterns)

SR USDA National Nutrition Database for Standard Reference

SY School Year

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TEFAP The Emergency Food Assistance Program

TFP USDA Thrifty Food Plan

U.S. United States

UHT Ultra-high temperature

UL Tolerable Upper Intake Level

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xvii 

 

Executive Summary 

 Background 

Through its food distribution programs, the USDA purchases a variety of food products to help 

income-eligible households and individual program participants obtain access to nutritious food and 

to support American agriculture. These products include a wide variety of fresh and shelf-stable 

fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, grains, and oils. USDA Foods are distributed to help supplement the 

diets of participants in several programs, including:

 Income-eligible elderly individuals participating in the Commodity Supplemental Food 

Program (CSFP);

 Income-eligible Native Americans participating in the Food Distribution Program on 

Indian Reservations (FDPIR);

 Children participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP);

 Individuals in need of assistance from food pantries and soup kitchens that participate 

in The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and

 Children and adults participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP).

This is the second report to examine the composition, nutrient, and food group content of USDA 

Foods; this report assesses the USDA Foods offered and delivered in fiscal year (FY) 2014 for four

nutrition assistance programs: CSFP, FDPIR, TEFAP, and CACFP, and in school year (SY) 2013-

2014 for NSLP. The previous report assessed the content of the USDA Foods offered and delivered 

in FY 2009 and SY 2009-2010.

1

 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-

USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xviii 

 

Methodology 

The methodology used in this evaluation was consistent with that used in the previous analysis, and 

included the following steps:

1. Development of a customized nutrient database of USDA Foods offered and delivered 

in 2014,2 i.e., the USDA Foods Nutrient Database (FND-2014), using several national 

nutrient databases and data from the USDA Fact Sheets produced for each USDA 

Food.

2. Computation of the nutrient and food group content of USDA Food packages offered 

and delivered in the five nutrition assistance programs.

3. Comparison of the nutrient and food group content of USDA Food packages offered 

and delivered to dietary standards. National dietary standards were adjusted for the 

age/gender distribution in each nutrition assistance program to allow comparison with 

the nutrient and food group values provided by each nutrition assistance program to a 

reference participant per day.

4. Comparison of the nutrient and food group content of 2014 USDA Food packages to 

2009 packages to assess changes over time.

A representative profile was constructed for USDA Foods offered and delivered to agencies 

administering CSFP, FDPIR, NSLP, TEFAP, and CACFP. The information needed to construct the 

profile was derived from the lists of foods available for each program, records of foods distributed, 

and data contained in the USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies 2011-2012, the 

USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, release 26, and the USDA Food Pattern 

Equivalents Database, version 11-12.3

Construction of the as-offered USDA Food package was based on the assumption that agencies 

would purchase all foods offered and spend an equal amount of their entitlement funds to purchase 

foods from all food groups. Distribution guides are available for FDPIR and CSFP; NSLP, CACFP, 

and TEFAP do not have prescribed USDA packages. Further, there is considerable variety of foods 

within a given food group, and participating State agencies have discretion to select foods that meet 

their specified needs. Administering agencies select USDA Foods in quantities and in forms that 

reflect local market conditions, participant preferences, and their own ability to store and redistribute the food to program sponsors and participants.

 

2 USDA Foods offered and delivered in FY 2014 for CACFP, CSFP, FDPIR, and TEFAP; offered and delivered in SY 

2013-2014 for NSLP.

3 These were the most recent versions of these databases available at the time of this study.
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xix 

 

Since the constructed as-offered package is hypothetical and the as-delivered package reflects actual 

deliveries made to participating agencies, the nutrient and food group profiles of USDA Foods are 

expected to be different for as-offered and as-delivered packages. Because of the well-defined 

participant food packages for FDPIR and CSFP, the magnitude of difference in nutrients and food 

groups contained in the as-offered and as-delivered packages should be less for these two programs 

than for CACFP, NSLP, and TEFAP.

For each nutrition assistance program, the computed nutrient and food group values for USDA 

Foods offered and delivered per participant were compared to the following national dietary 

standards:

 USDA Food Patterns (designed to satisfy Dietary Reference Intake [DRI]

recommendations and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans [DGA]),

 Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) developed by the Institute of Medicine’s Food and 

Nutrition Board (part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences),

 USDA Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) dietary standards,

 Healthy Eating Index 2005 (HEI-2005) and HEI-2010 developed by the USDA’s 

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), and

 Nutrition Standards in NSLP, revised in 2012.

Participants in each of the five nutrition assistance programs are diverse with respect to age, sex, and 

dietary need. With limited exceptions, however, the administrative data do not allow identification of 

program participants by age or sex. To address this limitation, a reference participant profile was 

constructed for each nutrition assistance program, for whom the recommended dietary requirements 

are weighted averages of the requirements for the entire population served by the program. The 

dietary requirements of these reference participants were measured against the nutrient and food 

group profiles of USDA Foods offered and delivered through each program.

Food group amounts offered and delivered were standardized on a per-2,000 kcal basis and 

compared to the DGA recommended quantities per 2,000 kcal as a way of accounting for the 

differences in calories provided by the USDA Foods in each program. The 2,000 kcal analysis 

estimates the quality of the food package, should an entire day’s intake be based on the ratio of 

foods in the package. Additionally, the food group analysis on a per-2,000 kcal basis and the HEI 
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xx 

 

scores (HEI-2005 and HEI-2010) do not depend on the dietary requirements of the reference 

participants in each of the five programs examined.

In FY 2014, USDA Foods distributed through CSFP and TEFAP included both entitlement and 

bonus foods.4 The key findings presented in this executive summary were drawn from the 

entitlement packages for FDPIR, NSLP, and CACFP, and from combined entitlement plus bonus 

food packages for CSFP and TEFAP.

Key Findings 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

CSFP delivers individual food packages that provide a balanced mix of USDA Foods to supplement 

the diets of program participants. CSFP was initially designed to serve income-eligible pregnant and 

postpartum women and their young children (up to age 6), but with the growth of the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), eligibility was amended 

in February 2014. Women, infants, and children were phased out of CSFP, and program enrollment 

was limited to the elderly exclusively. The program served a very small number of women, infants, 

and children in 2014 (3 percent of the total CSFP participant count in 2014), and these participant 

groups were excluded from the current analysis. The CSFP summary provided for FY 2014 is for 

the as-offered and as-delivered food packages with bonus foods. However, the comparison between 

FY 2009 and 2014 as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages are without bonus foods, as 

bonus foods were not included in the as-offered or as-delivered packages in FY 2009.

 In FY 2014, CSFP delivered approximately 183 million pounds of USDA Foods to 

elderly participants. Juice (34 percent), milk (18 percent), and vegetables (12 percent) 

accounted for two-thirds of the package weight.

 As delivered, CSFP food packages for elderly participants contained about one 

quarter (22 percent) of participants’ total energy needs. As offered and as delivered, 

CSFP food packages for elderly participants contained one-third or more of the 

recommended DRI for protein, six of the eight minerals, and eight of the ten vitamins. 

The as-offered and as-delivered packages met the recommended amount of calories 

from protein and fell below the recommended amount of calories from fat, but 

 

4 Bonus foods were not distributed through FDPIR, NSLP, and CACFP. Entitlement foods are USDA Foods that are 

charged against a recipient agency’s planned assistance level; bonus foods are USDA Foods that are not charged against 

the State’s entitlement and the recipient agency’s planned assistance level amount.
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xxi 

 

exceeded the recommended amount of calories from carbohydrates. The packages 

offered and delivered 25 percent of the recommended DRI for dietary fiber.

 USDA Foods delivered to elderly CSFP participants in FY 2014 achieved an 

HEI-2005 score of 85.5 and an HEI-2010 score of 83.6. These scores are 

considerably higher than the HEI-2010 scores for the U.S. food supply (55.0) in 2010

and the average American diet (59.0) in 2011-2012, as well as the HEI-2005 score for 

the average diet of Americans ages 60 and older (68.4) and the average diet of 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants ages 60 years and 

older (62.7) in 1999-2004.

 When compared with the 2009 food package, 7 million more pounds of USDA 

Foods were delivered in 2014. The packages delivered in 2009 and 2014 were similar 

in their composition (with juice, milk, and vegetables accounting for nearly two-thirds 

of the package weight) and nutrient content. There were no major changes in the 

macronutrient content. The 2014 package offered slightly more of two minerals 

(including twice the amount of iron) and six vitamins, but this amount did not shift the 

amount provided in relation to the DRI. The 2014 as-delivered CSFP food package 

contained more iron, zinc, vitamin E, thiamin, niacin, B6, B12, and folate, and less 

phosphorus, sodium, vitamins A and C and riboflavin than the 2009 package.

 The HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 as-offered and as-delivered CSFP packages 

were higher than the scores in 2009. The component scores for the 2014 as-delivered 

package were slightly higher for total vegetables, dark green/orange vegetables and 

legumes, whole grains, oils, saturated fat, and sodium.

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations 

FDPIR provides USDA Foods to income-eligible households living on Indian reservations, 

American Indian households in approved areas near reservations in Oklahoma, and to Alaska 

Natives as an alternative to the SNAP. The FDPIR food package offered to participating 

households provides them the opportunity to obtain a more nutritious diet and represents an 

acceptable nutritional alternative to SNAP benefits.

 In FY 2014, FDPIR delivered about 73 million pounds of USDA Foods to 

program participants, or about 2.3 pounds per day. By weight, the biggest 

contributors to FDPIR food packages were vegetables (19 percent), starches (19

percent), milk (12 percent), meat (12 percent), juice (12 percent), and fruit (11 percent). 

FDPIR food packages also included peanut butter and dried beans (6 percent), cheese 

(4 percent), cereal (3 percent), and oil (2 percent).

 As delivered, FDPIR food packages provided participants with most (84 percent) 

of their energy needs. As offered, FDPIR food packages provided 95 percent of 

participants’ energy needs. FDPIR food packages offered and delivered at least 100 
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xxii 

 

percent of the DRI for protein and carbohydrate. The FDPIR food package offered 

more than 100 percent of the DRI for six of the eight minerals, and eight of the ten 

vitamins; and delivered more than 100 percent of the DRI for five minerals and seven 

vitamins. Both as-offered and as-delivered packages provided less than 75 percent of 

the DRI for potassium, vitamin D, and vitamin E.

 USDA Foods delivered to FDPIR participants in FY 2014 achieved an HEI-2005 

score of 86.5 and an HEI-2010 score of 73.0. These scores are considerably higher 

than the HEI-2010 scores for the U.S. food supply (55.0) in 2010 and the average 

American diet (59.0) in 2011-2012, as well as the HEI-2005 score for the average diet of 

SNAP participants (51.9) in 1999-2004.

 When compared with the 2009 food packages, 5 million fewer pounds of USDA 

Foods were delivered in 2014. The packages delivered in 2009 and 2014 were similar 

in their composition, though the 2014 package contained slightly more milk by weight, 

and slightly less vegetables and starches. The 2014 package delivered slightly fewer 

calories, nearly the same amount of protein and carbohydrate, less cholesterol, and more 

fiber. The 2014 package offered slightly more of all minerals except copper and six of 

the ten vitamins. Notably, the 2014 FDPIR food package improved the percentage of 

the DRI recommended amount of calcium (93 percent of the DRI in 2014, 61 percent 

in 2009) and vitamin A (84 percent of the DRI in 2014, 65 percent in 2009). The 

FDPIR food package delivered in 2014 contained slightly less sodium than in 2009.

 The HEI-2005 score for the 2014 as-offered FDPIR package was slightly lower 

than in 2009, but the score for the as-delivered package was slightly higher than 

in 2009. The component scores for the 2014 as-delivered package were higher for milk, 

saturated fat and sodium; lower for both fruit components, both vegetable components, 

and whole grains; and equal for total grains, meat and beans, oils, and calories from 

solid fats, alcohol, and added sugar (SoFAAS).

National School Lunch Program 

NSLP operates in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions, and 

provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children. USDA Foods account for 15 to 

20 percent of foods served in school nutrition programs. Schools select from a wide variety of 

USDA Foods to help meet NSLP nutrient and meal pattern requirements.

 In SY 2013-2014, participating school districts received a total of 1.3 billion 

pounds of USDA Foods. By weight, meats accounted for ten percent of the as-offered 

package but 35 percent of USDA Foods delivered to schools. Fruit and vegetables 

accounted for one quarter of the total weight of USDA Foods delivered, and cheese 

accounted for ten percent of the weight delivered. Differences in the relative quantities 

of USDA Foods offered and delivered reflect State agency and local school district 

needs and preferences. These are driven by a variety of factors, including cost (the 
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xxiii 

 

USDA buys in bulk and gets relatively low prices), versatility (many of these items can 

be further processed into items most desirable to a particular school), and food safety 

and quality assurances provided by the USDA.

 USDA Foods offered 22 percent and delivered 7 percent of the NSLP reference 

participant’s energy needs. USDA Foods offered and delivered about 25 percent of 

the DRI for protein, between 5 and 26 percent of all minerals examined, and between 4 

and 34 percent of all vitamins except vitamin D.

 USDA Foods delivered to NSLP participants in SY 2013-2014 achieved an HEI2005 score of 76.7 and an HEI-2010 score of 81.2. These scores are considerably 

higher than the HEI-2010 scores for the U.S. food supply (55.0) in 2010 and the 

average American diet of children ages 2-17 years (55.1) in 2011-2012, as well as the 

HEI-2005 score for the average diet of SNAP participants ages 2-17 years (53.2) in 

1999-2004.

 When compared with the SY 2009-2010 food packages, 290 million more pounds 

of USDA Foods were delivered in SY 2013-2014. The packages delivered in SY 2009-

2010 and SY 2013-2014 differed in composition, with the SY 2013-2014 package 

providing more fruit and vegetables as a percentage of weight, and less cheese, grains, 

meat, and oil. Both packages delivered essentially the same amount of calories and 

protein, though the SY 2013-2014 package delivered slightly less fat and slightly more 

carbohydrate and fiber. The SY 2013-2014 package delivered slightly more of five of the 

eight minerals and five of the ten vitamins examined. Notably, the USDA Foods 

provided to NSLP doubled the amount of vitamin C delivered and increased the 

amount of vitamin B6 from 14 percent to 19 percent of the NSLP reference 

participant’s RDA. The USDA Foods delivered to NSLP in SY 2013-2014 contained 

slightly less sodium than in SY 2009-2010.

 HEI-2005 scores for USDA Foods offered and delivered to NSLP participants in 

SY 2013-2014 were higher than in SY 2009-2010. The component scores for USDA 

Foods delivered were higher for total fruit, both vegetable components, whole grains 

(which increased from 0.7 to 2.2), sodium, and calories from SoFAAS. Component 

scores were lower for total grains and oils, and unchanged for whole fruit, milk, and 

meat and beans.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program 

TEFAP provides emergency food assistance to income-eligible individuals of all ages; foods 

provided to participants are intended to supplement their diets. The USDA makes available highquality foods to State Distributing Agencies; the foods are then distributed to organizations that 

serve individuals and households in need of assistance. Participating organizations distribute the

foods to those in need, either for home use or on-site consumption (i.e., prepared meals). State 

agency demand for USDA Foods through TEFAP is driven by several factors, including the need to 
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xxiv 

 

acquire items that food banks typically lack in food donations from private entities. States also 

attempt to maximize the amount of USDA Foods they can get for their dollars, and to select foods 

appropriate to their storage facilities. USDA Foods are typically only a small part of what a TEFAP 

recipient receives from a soup kitchen or food bank.

 In FY 2014, 746 million pounds of USDA Foods were delivered to TEFAP 

recipients. Vegetables, fruit, meat, and juice accounted for approximately equal 

amounts of USDA Foods delivered by weight, and nearly 80 percent of the total weight 

of USDA Foods delivered.

 USDA Foods delivered to State agencies through TEFAP achieved an HEI-2005 

score of 86.2 and an HEI-2010 score of 85.5. These scores are considerably higher 

than the HEI-2010 scores for the U.S. food supply (55.0) in 2010 and the average 

American diet (59.0) in 2011-2012, as well as the HEI-2005 score for the average 

American diet (57.5), and the average diet of SNAP participants (51.9) in 1999-2004.

 When compared with the FY 2009 food packages, 16 million more pounds of 

USDA Foods were delivered in FY 2014. The packages delivered in 2009 and 2014 

differed in composition, with the 2014 package providing more fruit and juice as a 

percentage of weight, and less meat, peanut butter and dried beans, and vegetables.

 The HEI-2005 scores for USDA Foods delivered to State agencies through 

TEFAP in FY 2014 were lower than in FY 2009 (2.7 points lower for the as-delivered 

package with bonus foods). Component scores for USDA Foods delivered were higher 

for whole fruit and whole grains; lower for milk and oils; and unchanged for total fruit, 

both vegetable components, total grains, meat and beans, saturated fat, sodium, and 

calories from SoFAAS.

Child and Adult Care Food Program 

CACFP centers, like schools participating in NSLP, can select from a wide variety of USDA Foods 

that help them meet regulatory meal pattern requirements. Centers are permitted to receive USDA 

Foods or cash in lieu of USDA Foods. Fewer than 20 percent of CACFP-participating child care 

institutions opted to receive USDA Foods in FY 2009.

 CACFP centers that received USDA Foods rather than cash received slightly 

more than 1.7 million pounds of food in FY 2014. These centers selected more 

vegetables, by weight, than any other group of USDA Foods. Fruit (29 percent), meat 

(19 percent), and cheese (10 percent) made up the bulk of the remaining amount of 

USDA Foods delivered. CACFP centers select USDA Foods that meet their particular 

needs given factors that include local market conditions for comparable food items and 

their own capacities for storage. As a result, the mix of USDA Foods selected and 
Executive Summary 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 xxv 

 

delivered to CACFP providers in FY 2014 differed from the mix of USDA Foods 

offered.

 USDA Foods delivered to CACFP providers achieved an HEI-2005 score of 71.2

and an HEI-2010 score of 76.6. These scores are considerably higher than the HEI2010 scores for the U.S. food supply (55.0) in 2010, the average American diet (59.0) 

and that of children ages 2-17 years (55.1) in 2011-2012, as well as the HEI-2005 score 

for the average diet of SNAP participants (51.9) in 1999-2004.

 When compared with the FY 2009 food packages, 100,000 fewer pounds of USDA 

Foods were delivered in FY 2014. The packages delivered in 2009 and 2014 differed 

in composition, with the 2014 package providing more vegetables as a percentage of 

weight, and less cheese, grains, meat, and oil.

 The HEI-2005 scores for USDA Foods offered and delivered to CACFP providers 

in FY 2014 were higher than in FY 2009 (11.9 points higher for as-offered foods and 

2.7 points higher for as-delivered foods). Component scores for USDA Foods delivered 

were higher for total fruit and both vegetable groups and calories from SoFAAS, lower 

for total grains, oils, and sodium, and unchanged for whole fruit, whole grains, milk, 

meat and beans, and saturated fat.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-1 

 

1.1 Introduction 

The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is to

“increase food security and reduce hunger by providing children and low-income people access to 

food, a healthful diet and nutrition education in a way that supports American agriculture and 

inspires public confidence.”5 To achieve this goal, the FNS administers 15 nutrition assistance 

programs in partnership with State agencies. Participants in several programs receive USDA Foods

6

in one of three ways:

1. Meals served in schools and institutions, such as the Child and Adult Care Food

Program (CACFP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the Nutrition Services

Incentive Program (NSIP), and the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP);

2. Foods provided to households, such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program

(CSFP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the

Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP); and

3. Foods provided through outlets, such as disaster food assistance and the Bureau of

Prisons.

7

This report presents findings from nutrient and food group analyses of USDA Foods distributed

through CSFP, FDPIR, TEFAP, and CACFP in fiscal year (FY) 2014, and through NSLP in school 

year (SY) 2013-2014.8 The analyses examined the nutrient and food group content of USDA Foods

 

5 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, About FNS. Published 9/14/2015. Accessed September

2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/about-fns.

6 USDA Foods are foods purchased by the USDA and donated to Contracting Entities for use in their food service 

operations.

7 Roberts, S. Anti-poverty food and nutrition programs in the USA. A History of Commodity Programs. FDD Operations Branch,

2008. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/1-03-ProgramHistory-Overview.pdf.

8 This report is the second in series to assess the Nutrient and Food Group content of USDA food packages offered and 

delivered through these five programs. The first report was published in 2012; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food 

and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred 

Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. 

Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-and-mypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-andnutrition-programs-0.

Background 1 
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-2 

 

offered to States and local administering agencies, as well as the nutrient and food group content of 

USDA Foods selected by administering agencies and participants (i.e., the foods delivered). The 

nutrient and food group content of USDA Foods as offered and as delivered for each program were 

compared with four dietary standards: the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), the USDA’s Thrifty

Food Plan (TFP), the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans 2010 (DGA), the Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2005 and HEI-2010). The nutrient and food 

group content of the NSLP food package also was compared with NSLP meal pattern and nutrition 

standards.

1.1.1 History of Food Distribution Programs 

The USDA Foods program began during the economic depression in the 1930s, in response to the 

rise in unemployment and hunger, as well as farm surpluses. During this time, the agriculture market 

experienced excess farm commodities, with insufficient demands.

9 To prevent food spoilage, the

Commodity Credit Corporation Act was established in 1933 with the intent of providing loans to

farmers for building storage facilities for non-perishable farm commodities. The government

accepted loan payments in the form of crops and established a means of donating agriculture surplus

through domestic and international programs. In 1935, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 74-320,

through which funds were designated for school food purchases. Under Section 32, the USDA 

received authorization to purchase surplus agricultural products, thereby removing them from 

commercial channels of distribution and promoting consumption through schools and other nonprofit avenues. This law provided the basis for purchasing and delivering surplus USDA Foods 

through several Federal domestic food programs administered by the USDA.

10

In 1953, program administration changes shifted control from Federal to State agencies, and in 1961, 

the first executive order issued by President Kennedy mandated an increase in the quantity and 

variety of foods donated to households in need. This executive order shifted the primary purpose of 

food distribution programs from surplus disposal to providing nutritious foods to households. 

Subsequent program changes included establishment of a minimum level of USDA Foods in NSLP, 

and institutionalization of USDA Foods donations to domestic food programs, such as the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP), the Child Care Food Program (expanded and renamed to Child and Adult 

 

9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution: FDD – History and Background. Accessed 

June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/fdd-history-and-background. 

10 Ibid.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-3 

 

Care Food Program, or CACFP), the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the Nutrition Program 

for the Elderly (renamed the National Services Incentive Program, or NSIP), and emergency feeding 

programs. The USDA continues to make program updates so as to better align nutrition assistance

programs with the nutritional needs of program participants and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(DGA).

11

1.1.2 Overview of Food Distribution Process 

The FNS, Food Distribution Division (FDD) is responsible for publishing the list of the types and

quantities of USDA Foods expected to be available to nutrition assistance programs during the

upcoming fiscal year. The FDD also is responsible for coordinating and processing USDA 

Food orders received from State Distributing Agencies. The FNS also works collaboratively

with the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Commodity

Operations Office, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to obtain foods, ensure their 

safety, and make them available to States implementing the nutrition assistance programs.

12 The

AMS purchases Group A USDA Foods (including meat, poultry, fish, fruits, and vegetables), and the

FSA purchases Group B USDA Foods (including dairy products, cereals, grains, peanut products,

and vegetable oils).

13 When there are surpluses of particular foods, bonus USDA Foods (Group A 

and Group B) are made available to programs at no cost to the participating agencies.

14 Since bonus 

USDA Foods are available due to agricultural surplus, the types and quantities of available items vary 

from year to year.

15 The FSIS ensures the safety of donated USDA Foods through standards and

specifications for the handling of USDA Foods.

16 In FY 2014, the USDA purchased more than 2.2

million pounds of raw and processed foods worth over $2.1 billion, with meat products, fruits, and 

vegetables accounting for the top three food groups by weight of USDA Foods purchased.

17

 

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Title IV Nutrition. Summary of Improvements to Nutrition Programs; pp. 3, 17. Accessed 

June 2015. http://www.usda.gov/documents/07title4.pdf.

12 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, FD Program Overview. Accessed May 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/aboutfd/fd_overview.htm.

13 Ibid.

14 A USDA Food that is not charged against the State’s entitlement and the recipient agency’s planned assistance level 

amount.

15 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Schools/CN Commodity Programs Frequently Asked Questions. 

Accessed May 2015. http://origin.www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/_Drupal/programs/schcnp/schcnp_faqs.htm.

16 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service, FSIS Directive. Processing USDA – Donated

Commodities. 1989. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/7010-1.pdf.

17 USDA Food and Nutrition Service, National Data Bank U.S. Summary: Data Facts. September 14, 2015.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-4 

 

Authorized State agencies are responsible for program administration; entering agreements with 

subdistribution agencies and providing them guidance; providing recipient agencies with information 

regarding commodity assistance levels (entitlement funds), ordering options, available foods, and 

commodity values; ordering and allocating USDA Foods based on participation data for nutrition 

assistance programs; and permitting recipient agencies to refuse all or some portion of USDA Foods 

prior to delivery, and to change orders for Group B and unlimited bonus USDA Foods prior to 

order submission.18

Since 1994, the USDA also has partnered with the Department of Defense (DoD) Defense Supply 

Center Philadelphia (DSCP) to purchase U.S.-grown fresh fruits and vegetables for NSLP and

FDPIR (the DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program).

19 States participating in school meal 

programs and FDPIR have the option of allocating any portion of their commodity entitlement 

funds toward purchasing fruits and vegetables from the DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.20

Schools or State agencies may order produce directly from the DoD, and the DoD then bills the 

USDA for the product it delivers.

1.2 Description of USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs 

The USDA estimates that in any given year, about one in four Americans participate at some point 

in at least one of the 15 USDA nutrition assistance programs.21 Eligibility to participate in the 

USDA’s nutrition assistance programs is based on household income in relation to Federal poverty

guidelines. Participants can receive benefits from multiple programs, and guidelines are available to

State and local agencies to determine the acceptable overlap in program participation. The overlap in 

the populations served by the nutrition assistance programs is seen mostly in children; the eligibility

application for several programs is waived if the family/child participates in certain other programs.

For example, if a child is a member of a family receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

 

18 Subchapter B – General Regulations and Policies – Food Distribution. Part 250 – Donation of Foods for Use in the 

United States, its territories and possessions and areas under its jurisdiction; pp. 557-558. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title07/7cfr250_main_02.tpl.

19 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Accessed June 2015 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/dod-fresh-fruit-and-vegetable-program.

20 USDA does not impose a cap on the amount of entitlement used through the DoD program.

21 Oliveira, V. The Food Assistance Landscape. FY 2014 Annual Report. ERS. March 2015. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1806461/eib137.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-5 

 

(SNAP) benefits, the child also can participate in NSLP and CACFP. The following section provides

a brief overview of the five programs examined in this evaluation.

1.2.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

CSFP is authorized under section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. The

program was initially designed to serve income-eligible pregnant and postpartum women and their 

young children up to 6 years of age, and was expanded to include the elderly. In the mid-1990s, the 

program served approximately similar numbers of these two groups (women/infants/children and 

elderly participants). Subsequently, in the 1990s, there was a steady decline in the number of 

woman/infant/child participants and an increase in the elderly participants. In keeping with the 

participation trends, CSFP program eligibility was amended in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 

11379); women, infants, and children who were certified and received CSFP benefits as of February 

6, 2014, will continue to receive assistance until they are no longer eligible under the program rules 

in effect on February 6, 2014. Women, infants, and children who applied for CSFP benefits on 

February 7, 2014, or later were no longer certified to participate in the program. Such individuals 

may be eligible for other nutrition assistance programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), SNAP, and other nutrition assistance 

programs.22 In FY 2014, the total average monthly participation was approximately 600,000, of 

which less than 1,000 were woman/infant/child participants.23

CSFP Eligibility Requirements. The FNS provides USDA Foods to help State and local agencies 

meet the nutritional needs of income-eligible and elderly persons, or residents of one of the Indian 

reservations that participate in CSFP. States establish an income limit for the elderly that is at or

below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level.

CSFP Participation and Funding. In FY 2009, USDA Foods were made available to CSFP

participants in 32 States. Because the caseloads allotted for each individual State are often smaller 

than the number of eligible seniors and families, CSFP is not available statewide in most of the 

 

22 Oliveira, V. The Food Assistance Landscape. FY 2014 Annual Report. ERS. March 2015. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1806461/eib137.pdf.

23 Antonson, E. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution Division. CSFP 

Overview. Program History, Legislation, Regulation, and Policy. February 2014. Accessed July 2015.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/csfp/2015_CSFP_Orientation_CSFP_Overview_History_Policy.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-6 

 

participating States.

24 In FY 2014, Congress funded CSFP at $203 billion, reaching an average

573,000 people each month, the majority of whom were elderly.25

Distribution of USDA Foods Through CSFP. The FNS assigns caseloads and allocates

administrative funds to State agencies, which in turn may select local agencies to administer the

program within local areas.

26 The State and local agencies share the tasks of ordering USDA Foods

for distribution, storing and distributing USDA Foods, and establishing procedures for resolving

complaints about USDA Foods. State and local agencies may contract with commercial facilities to

store and distribute USDA Foods, and must ensure that these adhere to the required standards for

warehousing and distribution systems. The local agency is responsible for issuing food to

participants. The local agency distributes a package of USDA Foods to participants each month, or a

2-month supply every other month, in accordance with the CSFP Maximum Monthly Distribution 

Rates (Appendix A) established by the FNS.

27 These distribution rates specify the quantities of 

USDA Foods that must be provided from the food categories defined by the USDA. Agencies

select from these foods and within these distribution guides based on participant preferences, storage

capabilities, and delivery mechanisms.

USDA Foods Offered Through CSFP. USDA Foods offered in CSFP include nonfat dry and 

ultra-high temperature (UHT) pasteurized fluid milk, juice, farina, oats, ready-to-eat cereal, rice,

pasta, peanut butter, dry beans; canned meat, poultry, and fish; and canned fruits and vegetables.

USDA Foods offered through CSFP are in forms and quantities appropriate for household use. As

noted previously, the quantities and types of USDA Foods offered to participants in CSFP are

defined by the age of the participant, according to the Distribution Rates (Appendix A). The CSFP

food package is not intended to provide a complete diet; rather, USDA Foods are considered a good

 

24 Finegold, K., Kramer, F.D., Saloner, B., and Parnes, J. The Role of Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) in

Nutritional Assistance to Mothers, Infants, Children, and Seniors. Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 48; p. 10. Accessed 

June 2015. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/32850/PDF.

25 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Commodity Supplemental Food Program Frequently Asked 

Questions. Last published 07/07/2014. Accessed September 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/frequently-askedquestions.

26 Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 7: Agriculture, Part 247 – Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 

Accessed August 2015. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=1df35e9cd32b52b4209e6ccf5b606979&mc=true&node=pt7.4.247&rgn=div5.

27 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP): Revised Food

Package Maximum Monthly Distribution Rates and Potential Impact of Juices in Plastic Containers. Effective date Jan 13, 2011. 

Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CSFP_Rev_Max_Monthly_Dist_Rates_UHTMilk.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-7 

 

source of the nutrients typically lacking in the diets of the target population.

28,29 In FY 2009, CSFP

delivered a total 147.7 million pounds of USDA Foods, including 0.3 million pounds delivered to 

infants, 8.8 million pounds delivered to children and non-elderly women, and 138.6 million pounds 

delivered to elderly participants. Compared with an HEI-2005 score of 58 for the average American 

diet, the CSFP food package delivered to nonelderly women and children had an HEI-2005 score of 

73.9 and the package delivered to the elderly had an HEI-2005 score of 76.6, reflecting a balance of 

fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy, and protein foods.30

1.2.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 

FDPIR is authorized under section 4(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and section 4(a) of 

the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973. FDPIR is administered locally by either the 

Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) or the State agency. As of July 2014, about 100 ITOs and five

State agencies provide benefits to members of 276 tribes on Federally recognized Indian

reservations, in American Indian households located in approved areas near reservations or in 

Oklahoma, and among Alaska Natives.

31 Many households participate in FDPIR as an alternative to

SNAP because they do not have easy access to SNAP offices or authorized food stores.

32

FDPIR Eligibility Requirements. ITOs and State agencies administering FDPIR are responsible

for determining applicant eligibility. Income-eligible American Indian and non-Indian households 

that reside on a reservation, and households living in approved areas near a reservation or in 

Oklahoma that contain at least one person who is a member of a Federally recognized tribe are 

eligible to participate in FDPIR. Households are certified based on financial (income) and non-

 

28 Weimer, J. Factors Affecting Nutrient Intake of the Elderly. Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 769; p. iii. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economicreport/aer769.aspx.http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer769/aer769.pdf.

29 National CSFP Association. Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Fact Sheet. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ncsfpa.org/about.

30 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-

USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

31 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution Fact Sheet. Food Distribution Program on

Indian Reservations. Accessed May 2015 http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-fdpir.pdf.

32 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Accessed 

September 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-fdpir.pdf. 
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-8 

 

financial standards set by the Federal government, and must be recertified at least every 12 months. 

Elderly and disabled households may be certified for up to 24 months. Households may not 

participate in FDPIR and SNAP in the same month. Foods provided through FDPIR are intended

for the entire household, and benefit levels are based on the number of individuals in the household.

The household composition (age, gender, activity level, energy requirement) is not considered in

determining the types and quantities of food contained in the package; rather, it is based on the total

number of individuals in the household. Similarly, all eligible households receive the same benefits

regardless of household income or resources.

33

FDPIR Participation and Funding. In FY 2014, the FDPIR budget was $104 million and the 

average monthly participation was 85,397 individuals.

34

Distribution of USDA Foods Through FDPIR. The USDA defines FDPIR food categories and

quantities that must be provided within those categories; these guidelines are published in the

Monthly Distribution Guide Rates

35 (Appendix A). From the list of USDA Foods offered in 

FDPIR, ITOs and State agencies choose which items they can provide based on the capacity of

storage facilities, delivery mechanisms, and participant preferences

36 within the distribution guide

rates, which are updated periodically (Appendix A). The FNS purchases and ships the ordered foods

directly to ITOs and State agencies, or through a contracted warehouse. Until 1995, most FDPIR 

foods were shelf-stable, dry, or canned products; however, in 1995 the DoD Fresh Fruit and

Vegetable Program was extended to FDPIR participants to increase their access to fresh produce.

37

 

33 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution Fact Sheet. Food Distribution Program on

Indian Reservations. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdpir/about-fdpir.

34 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. USDA Food and Nutrition Program: Quick Facts. Food

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfsfdpir.pdf.

35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. FNS Handbook 501: The Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations, Exhibit O, Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations: Monthly Distribution Guide Rates by Household Size.

Effective April 10, 2014. Accessed May 2015.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fdpir/Exhibit_O_MonthlyDistributionGuideRatesEffective_4_10_2014.

pdf.

36 Harper, E., Orbeta, R., Southworth, L., Meade, K., Cleveland, R., Gordon, S., Buckley, M., and Hirschman, J. FDPIR

Food Package Nutritional Quality. Report to Congress. Report FD-08-FDPIR. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. November 2008; p. 2. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdpir-food-package-nutritional-quality-report-congress.

37 DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. About DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/DOD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram2011.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-9 

 

USDA Foods Offered Through FDPIR. USDA Foods provided to FDPIR participants are in 

forms and quantities appropriate for household use. The USDA makes nearly 80 different products 

available through FDPIR. Foods are offered in shelf-stable, dry, canned, and frozen (chicken, ground 

beef, and beef roast) forms.

38 Available foods include meat, poultry, and fish; canned fruits, 

vegetables, soups, and spaghetti sauce; macaroni and cheese, pastas, cereal, rice, and other grains; 

cheese, egg mix, low-fat milk, nonfat dry milk, and evaporated milk; flour, cornmeal, bakery mix,

and reduced-sodium crackers; low-fat refried beans, dried beans, and dehydrated potatoes; juices and

dried fruit; peanuts and peanut butter; and vegetable oil.

39 In addition, participants on most 

reservations can choose fresh produce instead of canned fruits and vegetables.

40 The USDA has not 

established criteria for the expected contribution of FDPIR foods to the diets of participating 

households. In FY 2009, FDPIR delivered about 78 million pounds of USDA Foods to program 

participants, or about 2.2 pounds per participant per day. USDA Foods delivered to FDPIR 

participants in FY 2009 had an HEI-2005 score of 85.3.41

1.2.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

NSLP was established under the National School Lunch Act in 1946. Currently, the program

operates in over 101,000 public and non-profit private schools and residential child care centers. The

FNS administers the program at the Federal level. At the State level, NSLP is usually administered by

State agencies, which operate the program through agreements with school food authorities.

42 The 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) required the USDA to align the nutritional 

standards of school meals with the current dietary guidance; provide more fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains; and reduce saturated fat and trans fat, in age-appropriate portion size and calories. The USDA 

 

38 Ibid. 

39 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Foods Available for 2015, Food Distribution Program on Indian

Reservations (FDPIR). Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fdpir/FY2015_FDPIR.pdf.

40 Ibid.

41 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-

USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

42 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet; p. 1. May 2015. 

Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-10 

 

also set targets for gradual reductions in sodium levels for school meals over the course of 10 years, 

with the final sodium target taking effect in SY 2022-2023.

43

NSLP Eligibility Requirements. Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through

NSLP. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level are

eligible to receive free meals; those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the

Federal poverty level are eligible for reduced‐price meals, for which students can be charged no 

more than 40 cents. Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of the Federal poverty 

level pay full price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food 

authorities set their own prices for full‐price (paid) meals, but must operate their meal services as 

non‐profit programs.44

NSLP Participation and Funding. In FY 2014, 99,953 public and nonprivate schools (grades K12) and residential child care institutions served NSLP meals to more than 30 million students; the

NSLP operating cost was $12.6 billion.

45 School districts participating in NSLP receive cash subsidies 

and USDA Foods for each meal served; subsidies are larger for free and reduced-price meals than 

for full-price meals.

46

Distribution of USDA Foods Through NSLP. In addition to NSLP operating costs, States can

receive USDA Foods for use in school lunches, based on the State’s entitlement.

47 In 1974, Congress

amended the National School Lunch Act to require the USDA to use NSLP funds to purchase

 

43 Nutritional standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Final Rule. Federal Registry, vol. 

77 no. 17, January 26, 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf.

44 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet; p. 1. Accessed 

June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.

45 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, National School Lunch Program Accessed September 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-programs/national-school-lunchprogram.aspx.

46 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, White Paper. USDA Foods in the National School

Lunch Program. May 2010; p. 4. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WhitePaper.pdf.

47 Under Section 6 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, States are guaranteed assistance for USDA

Foods at 11 cents per meal, which is adjusted annually for inflation. This guaranteed assistance is referred to as the

State’s USDA Foods entitlement. USDA uses a formula mandated by the law; this formula multiplies the number of

lunches served during the previous year by a per meal rate, which is adjusted annually for inflation. The Bureau of

Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions serves as a basis for the per meal

rate. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, White Paper. USDA Foods in the National School

Lunch Program. May 2010; pp. 3, 9. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WhitePaper.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-11 

 

USDA Foods to maintain the annual programmed level of assistance to schools.

48 USDA Foods

account for about 15 to 20 percent of foods served in school meals, with the remaining 85 percent

being purchased commercially.

49

The FNS publishes an annual list of USDA Foods available and the corresponding dollar value of 

each product. State agencies may allow local school districts to select individual USDA Foods from 

the available offerings. Schools choose items from the USDA Foods list for a variety of reasons,

including cost (the cost of a USDA Foods item may be cheaper than a commercially available

product), versatility (many of USDA Foods items can be further processed into items desired by a

particular school), and the food safety and quality assurances provided by the USDA (which may not

be matched by commercially available products). The decision of which foods to purchase is based 

not only on school preferences, but also on historical demand and on market and yield projections.

50

State agencies order products from the list of offerings until the dollar value in their entitlement

balance is depleted. In addition, bonus products are offered to States throughout the year on a fair

share basis. When placing orders, States specify the delivery location for USDA Foods; deliveries

may be to warehouses under contract with the State or owned by the State, school districts,

commercial distributors, or manufacturers for further processing. Commodity processing “allows the

processor to receive USDA-donated food like bulk chicken as an ingredient in the production of a

finished end product like chicken nuggets or patties.”51 Through the DoD Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, the USDA offers schools a wide variety of fresh produce. The USDA also 

works with schools to promote connections with local small farmers who may be able to provide 

fresh produce.52

USDA Foods Offered Through NSLP. In SY 2013-2014, the list of USDA Foods offered to 

school districts through NSLP included more than 200 products. The estimated value of USDA 

 

48 Ralston, K., Newman, C., Clauson, A., Guthrie, J., and Buzby, J. The National School Lunch Program. Background, Trends,

and Issues. Economic Research Report Number 61. U.S. Department of Agriculture. July 2008; p. 8. Accessed June 

2015. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/205594/err61_1_.pdf.

49 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA Foods: Healthy Choices for Our Schools. Alexandria,

VA: FNS, 2011; p. 1. Accessed July 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/8_USDAFHCFUS.pdf.

50 Food Research and Action Center. Commodity Foods and the Nutritional Quality of the National School Lunch Program:

Historical Role, Current Operations, and Future Potential; p. 5. Accessed June 2015. http://frac.org/newsite/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/commodities08.pdf.

51 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution Fact Sheet. Commodity Processing. Accessed 

May 2015. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-processing.pdf.

52 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution: DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.

Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/dod-fresh-fruit-and-vegetable-program.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-12 

 

Foods makes up about one-fifth of Federal resources spent on food for school lunch. USDA Foods

provided through NSLP are primarily packaged for institutional use, though some products are

provided in ready-to-serve form, such as frozen sliced apples, or ready-to-cook form, such as an 8-

piece cut-up chicken.

53 The USDA offers whole grain and enriched bread products; fresh, frozen, 

dried and canned vegetables; lean meat and meat alternatives; and trans fat free and low saturated fat 

oils for school meals.54 Although USDA Foods are not intended to constitute 100 percent of items 

served at school lunch, their contribution to the dietary intake at lunch of participating children has 

not been reported. In SY 2009-2010, participating schools received about 1.3 billion pounds of 

USDA Foods, and the HEI-2005 score for foods delivered through NSLP was 74.9.55

1.2.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 

TEFAP was authorized in 1981 as the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. The 1988 

Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated for the purchase of USDA Foods 

specifically for TEFAP.

56 Under the 1990 farm bill, the program name was changed to The 

Emergency Food Assistance Program. TEFAP helps supplement the diets of income-eligible 

Americans by providing them with emergency food and nutrition assistance at no cost.

TEFAP Eligibility Requirements. Each State sets criteria for determining which households are

eligible to receive food for home consumption. Income standards may, at the State’s discretion, be

met through participation in other Federal, State, or local food, health, or welfare programs for 

which eligibility is based on income. States can adjust the income criteria in order to ensure that 

assistance is provided only to those households most in need. Organizations that provide meals (as 

opposed to foods for home consumption) are eligible to receive USDA Foods if they serve 

predominantly individuals in need. Individuals who receive meals from these organizations (or 

 

53 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution, NSLP USDA Foods Fact Sheets, 

Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/nslp-usda-foods-fact-sheets.

54 Ibid.

55 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-

USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

56 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution Fact Sheet. The Emergency Food

Assistance Program. July 2014. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-tefap.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-13 

 

settings such as shelters and congregate settings) are considered to be in need and are not subject to a 

means test (i.e., are exempt from providing evidence of income eligibility).

57

TEFAP Participation and Funding. Participation rates for TEFAP are not available. In FY 2014,

Congress appropriated $318.15 million for TEFAP through normal appropriations.

58 In addition to 

USDA Foods purchased with appropriated funds, TEFAP distributes bonus foods purchased by the 

USDA to support agriculture markets. 

Distribution of USDA Foods Through TEFAP. Under TEFAP, the FNS makes USDA Foods 

available to State Distributing Agencies. The amount of food that is provided to each State is based 

on the number of unemployed persons and the number of people with incomes below the Federal 

poverty level in the State. The States then handle the administration and distribution of the donated

USDA Foods through local organizations, usually food banks, which then distribute the foods to

soup kitchens and food pantries that directly serve the public. States also may provide the food to 

community action agencies for distribution to eligible households.

USDA Foods Offered Through TEFAP. The available food products usually include items with a

longer shelf life, such as canned fruits and vegetables, dried egg mix, beans, rice, pasta, canned soups, 

and juices. UHT milk and canned and frozen meat, poultry, and fish also are provided. Foods are

provided in forms and quantities usable by households rather than institutions.

59 USDA Foods

account for only a small part of the foods that a TEFAP participant receives; for example, a study of 

Emergency Food Assistance System Providers reported that TEFAP USDA Foods account for

about 14 percent of all foods distributed,60

and large fluctuations in the types and amounts of foods

delivered are common.

61 In FY 2009, 729.6 million pounds of USDA Foods were delivered to TEFAP 

organizations. USDA Foods distributed through TEFAP had an HEI-2005 score of 88.9.62

 

57 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Nutrition Program 

Fact Sheet. July 2014. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-tefap.pdf.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid.

60 Ohls, J., and F. Saleem-Ismail. 2002. The Emergency Food Assistance System—Findings from the Provider Survey, Volume I:

Executive Summary. FANRR-16-1. USDA, Economic Research Service; p. 55. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr-food-assistance-nutrition-research-program/fanrr16-1.aspx. 

61 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on Nutrition

and Health. Chapter 9, The Emergency Food Assistance Program. FANRR-19-3; p. 259. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/873018/fanrr19-3_002.pdf.

62 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-14 

 

1.2.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

CACFP is authorized under section 17 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766). Program

regulations are issued by the USDA under section 7 CFR, part 226. In 2011, the IOM reviewed

CACFP and developed recommendations for the program.

63 Based on the IOM recommendations, 

the USDA released a proposed rule in 2015, requiring meals served to children and adults in day care 

to include a greater variety of vegetables and fruits, more whole grains, and less sugar and fat.64 This 

proposed rule is the first major update of CACFP meal patterns since the program’s inception in 

1968. The USDA designed meal pattern changes that would not increase cost for providers. The 

proposed rule focuses on incremental changes that reflect the science behind the nutritional needs 

of CACFP’s diverse participants, and that are practical and achievable for the program’s varied 

service providers to implement. Along with the updated meal patterns, the USDA is proposing best 

practices as a guide for providers when choosing to take additional steps to offer high-quality and 

nutritious meals to participants.65,66 The FNS administers CACFP through grants to States. The

program is administered in most States by the State educational agency, but is administered in a few 

States by an alternate agency, such as the State health or social services department. The child care

component (child care centers, day care homes, “at risk” afterschool programs, and emergency

shelters) and the adult day care component of CACFP may be administered by different agencies

within a State at the discretion of the Governor.67

The State administering agency is responsible for approving sponsoring organizations and 

independent centers to operate the program at the local level. The sponsoring organizations and 

independent centers enter into agreements with the State agency and assume administrative and

financial responsibility. The FNS provides annual funds to each State, so as to reimburse participating

 USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

63 Abt Associates. Nutritional Assessment of the CACFP: Final Report Volume II. Contract # 53-3198-3-018. Prepared for:

John Endahl, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Food and Consumer Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. May

1997; p. 21. Accessed June 2015. http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/D19971210.pdf.

64 Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. 

Proposed Rule. 1/15/2015. Accessed June 2015. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/15/2015-

00446/child-and-adult-care-food-program-meal-pattern-revisions-related-to-the-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act.

65 National CACFP Sponsors Association, CACFP News. Accessed June 2015. https://www.cacfp.org/news-eventsconferences/nutrition-news-feed.

66 The CACFP results presented in this report precede implementation of the meal pattern rules for CACFP; findings 

are not compared with CACFP meal patterns.

67 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Child and Adult Care Food Program. Why CACFP is

Important. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/care/CACFP/aboutcacfp.htm.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-15 

 

institutions for their costs in connection with food service operations, including administrative

expenses for the program. Participating facilities have the option of receiving USDA Foods or cash 

in lieu; about 20 percent of childcare facilities receive USDA Foods and the remaining facilities 

receive cash in lieu.68

CACFP Eligibility Requirements. CACFP provides subsidized nutritious meals and snacks to 

infants and children in participating day care facilities, emergency shelters, and at-risk afterschool 

programs, as well as to adults who receive day care in participating facilities. The program serves the 

following categories of individuals: children age 12 and under; persons age 15 and under who are 

children of migrant workers; persons of any age who have one or more disabilities, as determined by 

the State, and who are enrolled in an institution or child care facility serving a majority of persons 

who are age 18 and under; persons age 18 and under who are in emergency shelters; and persons age 

18 and under at the start of the school year who are in at-risk afterschool care centers. The program 

also serves adult participants who are enrolled in an adult day care center and who are functionally 

impaired or 60 years of age or older. The adult component of CACFP is targeted to individuals who 

remain in the community and reside with family members. Adults who reside in institutions are not 

eligible for CACFP benefits.

69

To serve the wide range of participant subgroups, CACFP is operated by various facilities, including 

child care centers, family day care homes, afterschool care programs, homeless shelters, and adult day

care facilities. Participating facilities determine the eligibility for each enrolled participant. 

Participants from households at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty level are eligible for free

meals; those from household incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the Federal poverty level are

eligible for reduced-price meals. Children from households who receive benefits from SNAP,

FDPIR, or State programs funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are

categorically eligible for free meals. Similarly, children who participate in Head Start and Even Start

programs, those in foster care, and those experiencing homelessness are automatically eligible for

free meals. Adults participating in SNAP, receiving Social Security income, or receiving Medicaid 

benefits are categorically eligible for free meals.

70

 

68 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Food Distribution. Schools/USDA Food Programs –

FAQs. Accessed July 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/schoolsusda-foods-programs-faqs.

69 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Child and Adult Care Food Program. Why CACFP is

Important. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/care/CACFP/aboutcacfp.htm.

70 Ibid.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-16 

 

CACFP Participation and Funding. In FY 2014, more than 3.3 million children and 120,000 

adults71 received CACFP meals and snacks on an average day; the total cost to the USDA in 2012 

was $1.171 billion.72

Distribution of USDA Foods Through CACFP. The State agency requires institutions to indicate 

their preference to receive USDA Foods or cash in lieu of USDA Foods. Approximately 20 percent 

of child care centers currently request USDA Foods.

73 State agencies must annually provide 

institutions with information on foods available, and submit a list of institutions that have elected to

receive USDA Foods. Each State is responsible for establishing application procedures to determine

eligibility of institutions and review the total number of enrolled participants, as well as the number

of enrolled participants eligible for free, reduced-price, and paid meals. CACFP reimburses

participating day care and adult day care centers for serving nutritious meals. The level of assistance 

for lunches and suppers served by CACFP is the same rate as the rate for school lunches (i.e., 22.75 

cents per meal).74 In addition to funds, the FNS also makes donated foods available to institutions

(but not family day care homes) participating in CACFP.

75

USDA Foods Offered Through CACFP. USDA Foods offered to institutions participating in 

CACFP include a wide assortment of fresh, frozen, and non-perishable food items such as canned, 

fresh, or frozen meat, poultry or fish; canned, fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables; oats; grain 

products such as flour, cornmeal, rice, and grits; cheese; pasta products; peanut butter and oils. 

Foods generally are packaged for institutional use, though many products are provided in a ready-toserve form, such as frozen apple slices, or ready-to-cook form, such as frozen breaded chicken 

pieces.

76 In FY 2009, CACFP centers that chose USDA Foods in lieu of cash received 2.2 million 

pounds of food, and USDA Foods delivered through CACFP had an HEI-2005 score of 71.3.77

 

71 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Child Nutrition Programs. Child and Adult Care Food 

Program. Accessed May 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program.

72 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution Fact Sheet. Schools/Child Nutrition 

Commodity Programs. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pfs-schcnp_final_revised-11-

26-12%282%29.pdf. 

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Foods USDA Foods Available List for School Year 2016 

for Schools and Institutions. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fdd/USDA_Foods_Available_List_SY15-16.pdf.

77 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-17 

 

1.2.6 Summary 

The USDA’s nutrition assistance programs are designed to alleviate food insecurity while providing 

healthy food choices to a large number of income-eligible women, infants, children, elderly, and 

households. The USDA continues to explore ways to offer healthier food choices to program 

participants that are in keeping with the DGA and the USDA Food Patterns. Besides the emphasis

on serving healthy options, USDA Foods are purchased in bulk and may be less expensive (and

more affordable for participating States) than identical products in commercial markets.

In reviewing the findings of this report, it is important to note that USDA Foods alone are not

expected to meet the nutrient requirement of a reference participant each day. For example, CSFP

food packages do not provide a complete diet, but are a good source of the nutrients typically lacking

in the diets of the target population.

78 Similarly, schools participating in NSLP receive a relatively

small portion of their annual Federal support in the form of USDA Foods and a much larger portion

as cash payments. USDA Foods comprise an average of 15 to 20 percent of the foods served in

school lunches nationwide, while the remaining foods are procured from commercial vendors.

79 The

contribution of USDA Foods to meeting the DRI,

80 the TFP,81 the DGA,82 the HEI-2005,83 the 

HEI-2010,

84 and the School Meal Pattern dietary standards85 for a reference participant is a function

 USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

78 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Frequently

Asked Questions. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/csfp/csfp_faqs.htm.

79 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. White Paper. USDA Foods in the National School Lunch

Program. 2010; p. 3. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/WhitePaper.pdf.

80 Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Food and Nutrition Information Center, National Agricultural

Library. DRI Tables. 2010. Accessed June 2015.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Tables/RDA_AI_vitamins_elements.pdf.

81 Carlson, A., et al. Thrifty Food Plan 2006. April 2007. Accessed June 2015.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/TFP2006Report.pdf.

82 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans,

2010. 7th Edition. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010. Accessed June 2015. 

www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelines2010.pdf.

83 Guenther, P.M., et al. Development and Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2005: Technical Report. s.l.: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, November 2007. Accessed June 2015.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/healthy_eating_index/HEI-2005TechnicalReport.pdf.

84 Guenther, P.M., Casavale, K.O., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., Hiza, H.A., Kuczynski, K.J., Kahle, L.L., and KrebsSmith, S.M. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2013; 113(4):569-580. Accessed June 

2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810369.

85 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 7 CFR Parts 210 and 220. Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; Final Rule. January 26, 2012; p. 24. Accessed January 2015. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf.
Background 1 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 1-18 

 

of the quantity of USDA Foods provided to each participant in relation to the total food offered. 

The use of weighted average dietary standards for a reference participant allows assessment of the

contribution of USDA Foods to the participant’s nutrient needs. This weighted standard does not

translate to exact nutrient targets for specific individuals because of the heterogeneity of 

requirements among different age and sex groups. The report also presents amounts of food pattern 

equivalent groups per 2,000 kcal and calculation of the HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 values for all 

programs. All three calculations are standardized by calories (either per 2,000 kcal or, for the HEI 

values, per 1,000 kcal), and thus are not dependent on the dietary requirements of the reference 

participant.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-1 

 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the methodology used to determine the nutrient and food group content of the

USDA Foods offered and delivered to participants in each of the five nutrition assistance programs. 

Specifically, this chapter describes the methods used to:

1. Develop a customized nutrient database of USDA Foods offered and delivered in FY

2014,86 i.e., the USDA Foods Nutrient Database (FND-2014);

2. Compute the nutrient and food group content of USDA Food packages offered and 

delivered in the five nutrition assistance programs;

3. Compare the nutrient and food group content of USDA Food packages offered and 

delivered to dietary standards; and

4. Compare the nutrient and food group content of 2014 USDA Food packages to 2009 

packages.

2.2 Develop USDA Foods Nutrient Database – FND-2014 

The FND-2014 includes a complete list of all USDA Foods offered and delivered, along with the 

corresponding nutrient values and food pattern equivalent (FPE) values per 100 grams as well as 

yield factors to convert USDA Foods from the form purchased to the form as consumed. The 

USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies 2011-12 (FNDDS11-12)87 is the primary 

source of nutrient values for the USDA Foods. The FNDDS11-12 nutrient values were 

supplemented with data from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 

 

86 USDA Foods offered and delivered in FY 2014 for CACFP, CSFP, FDPIR, and TEFAP; offered and delivered in SY 

2013-2014 for NSLP.

87 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2014. USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary 

Studies, 2011-2012. Food Surveys Research Group. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=12068.

Methods 2 
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-2 

 

Release 26 (SR26),88 the USDA Foods Fact Sheets,89 and the USDA Food Patterns Equivalents 

Database 2011-2012 (FPED11-12).90 Linking USDA Foods to the FNDDS enables determination 

of nutrient and food group values for foods as eaten (cooked, when appropriate). Appendix B 

provides detailed documentation of the development of the FND-2014.

The FND-2014 contains values for 65 FNDDS nutrients and 37 FPED variables. Consistent with 

the previous report, the findings are reported for a subset of nutrients and FPED variables 

(Tables 2-1 and 2-2).

Table 2-1. Nutrients Selected/Computed for Analysis

Calories (kcal) α-linolenic acid (g) Zinc (mg)

Protein (g) α-linolenic acid (% kcal)* Vitamin A (μg RAE)

Protein (% kcal)* Cholesterol (mg) Vitamin C (mg)

Carbohydrate (g) Total dietary fiber (g) Vitamin E (mg)

Carbohydrate (% kcal)* Calcium (mg) Vitamin D2 + D3 (μg)

Total fat (g) Copper (mg) Thiamin (mg)

Total fat (% kcal)* Iron (mg) Riboflavin (mg)

Saturated fat (g) Magnesium (mg) Niacin (mg)

Saturated fat (% kcal)* Phosphorus (mg) Vitamin B6 (mg)

Linoleic acid (g) Potassium (mg) Vitamin B12 (μg)

Linoleic acid (% kcal)* Sodium (mg) Folate (μg DFE)

*Not contained in FND-2014, computed for reporting purposes, using variables contained in FND-2014

 

88 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2013. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard 

Reference, Release 26. Nutrient Data Laboratory. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=23634.

89 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution. USDA Foods Fact Sheets. Accessed

June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/frequently-asked-questionsfact-sheets.

90 Bowman, S.A., Clemens, J.C., Friday, J.E., Thoerig, R.C., and Moshfegh, A.J. 2014. Food Patterns Equivalents 

Database 2011-12: Methodology and User Guide [Online]. Food Surveys Research Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition 

Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland. Accessed June 

2015. http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=23871.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-3 

 

Table 2-2. USDA Food Pattern Equivalent Database Food Groups Selected/Computed for 

Analysis

Food group FPED variable Description (units) 

Fruits F_TOTAL Total intact fruits (whole or cut) and fruit juices (cup equiv.)

Vegetables V_TOTAL Total dark green, red, and orange; starchy; and other vegetables; 

excludes legumes (cup equiv.)

Dark green V_DRKGR Dark green vegetables (cup equiv.)

Red and orange V_REDOR_TOTAL Total red and orange vegetables (tomatoes and tomato products + 

other red and orange vegetables) (cup equiv.)

Legumes V_LEGUMES Beans and peas (legumes) computed as vegetables (cup equiv.)

Starchy V_STARCHY_TOTAL Total starchy vegetables (white potatoes + other starchy vegetables) 

(cup equiv.)

Other V_OTHER Other vegetables not in the vegetable components above (cup equiv.)

Total grains G_TOTAL Total whole and refined grains (oz. equiv.)

Whole G_WHOLE Grains defined as whole grains that contain the entire grain kernel ― 

the bran, germ, and endosperm (oz. equiv.)

Refined G_REFINED Refined grains that do not contain all of the components of the entire 

grain kernel (oz. equiv.)

Protein foods PF_TOTAL Total meat, poultry, organ meat, cured meat, seafood, eggs, soy, and 

nuts and seeds; excludes legumes (oz. equiv.)

Seafood PF_SEAFD_HI Seafood (finfish, shellfish, other seafood) high in n-3 fatty acids (oz. 

equiv.)

PF_SEAFD_LOW Seafood (finfish, shellfish, and other seafood) low in n-3 fatty acids 

(oz. equiv.)

Eggs PF_EGGS Eggs (chicken, duck, goose, quail) and egg substitutes (oz. equiv.)

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products

PF_NUTSDS Peanuts, tree nuts, and seeds; excludes coconut (oz. equiv.)

PF_SOY Soy products, excluding calcium-fortified soy milk and immature 

soybeans (oz. equiv.)

Dairy D_TOTAL Total milk, yogurt, cheese, and whey. For some foods, the total dairy 

values could be higher than the sum of D_MILK, D_YOGURT, and 

D_CHEESE because Miscellaneous dairy component (composed of 

whey) is not included in FPED as a separate variable. (cup equiv.)

Oils OILS Fats naturally present in nuts, seeds, seafood; unhydrogenated 

vegetable oils, except palm oil, palm kernel oil, and coconut oils; fat 

present in avocado and olives above the allowable amount; 50

percent of fat present in stick/tub margarines and margarine spreads 

(grams)

Maximum SoFAS* SOLID_FATS Fats naturally present in meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy (lard, tallow, 

and butter); hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils; shortening, 

palm, palm kernel and coconut oils; fat naturally present in coconut 

meat and cocoa butter; and 50 percent of fat present in stick and tub 

margarines and margarine spreads (grams)

ADD_SUGARS Foods defined as added sugars (tsp. equiv.)

*Calculated value based on calories provided by SOLID_FATS and ADD_SUGARS food group values. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, 

alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) 

only.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-4 

 

2.3 Compute Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA Foods 

This section details the process to derive the amount of nutrients and food groups for USDA Foods 

offered and delivered through each of the five nutrition assistance programs. The selection of 

nutrients and food groups in this analysis was consistent with those included in the 2008 FDPIR 

Food Package Nutritional Quality: Report to Congress91 and the 2012 report Nutrient and MyPyramid Analysis 

of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs.

92

2.3.1 Nutrients and Food Groups Included in the Analysis 

The nutrient and food group content of program-specific USDA Food packages were computed 

using the methodology used for the 2012 report. Table 2-1 lists the nutrients and Table 2-2 lists the 

FPED variables included in the analysis. These computed variables were used to calculate the 

nutrient and food group content per participant per day for CSFP, FDPIR, and NSLP93 and the 

nutrient and food group density94 for all five programs.

The following four variables were used to compute the nutrient and food group content of CSFP, 

FDPIR, and NSLP food packages offered and delivered per participant per day: (1) number of 

participants, (2) number of program operating days, (3) amount of USDA Foods offered, and 

(4) amount of USDA Foods delivered.

 

91 Harper, E., Orbeta, R., Southworth, L., Meade, K., Cleveland, R., Gordon, S., Buckley, M., and Hirschman, J. FDPIR 

Food Package Nutritional Quality. Report to Congress. Report FD-08-FDPIR. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. November 2008). Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdpir-food-package-nutritional-quality-report-congress.

92 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Nutrient and MyPyramid 

Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs by Thea Palmer Zimmerman, Sujata Dixit-Joshi, Brenda 

Sun, Deirdre Douglass, Jason Hu, Fred Glantz, Elaine Eaker. Project Officer Dennis Ranalli. Report FD-12-

USDAFOODS. Alexandria, VA: January 2012. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nutrient-andmypyramid-analysis-usda-foods-five-its-food-and-nutrition-programs-0.

93 For CACFP and TEFAP, nutrient and food group content per participant/per day was not computed because 

number of participants and/or number of distribution days is not available for these programs.

94 Nutrient density of USDA Food packages reflects the proportion of nutrients relative to the amount of calories; it was 

computed as the nutrient content of USDA Food packages per 2,000 kcal.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-5 

 

2.3.2 Number of Participants 

The FNS provided the participant count for three of the five programs: NSLP, CSFP and FDPIR. 

Since data on the number of participants in CACFP95 and TEFAP are not tracked, the nutrient 

analysis of food packages for these two programs was limited to examining the nutrient density, 

HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores.

As with the previous report and per instructions received from the FNS, the participation numbers 

for NSLP were adjusted to exclude participants in Kansas. The State of Kansas does not receive 

USDA Foods; therefore the number of participants in Kansas was subtracted from the total number 

of NSLP participants. Additionally, there are school districts within other States that opt to receive 

cash in lieu of USDA Foods. The ratio of NSLP participants to the total number of students 

enrolled in each State was derived, and multiplied by the number of students in the school district 

opting to receive cash in lieu, to determine the number of NSLP participants within the State who 

would not receive USDA Foods. This number also was subtracted from the total number of NSLP

participants. (See Appendix D for NSLP participation count.)

2.3.3 Number of Distribution Days 

For CSFP, FDPIR, and NSLP, the total amount of food was equally distributed over the number of 

days a participant could have received food. There were 365 distribution days for CSFP and FDPIR, 

and 175 distribution days for NSLP.

96 As stated in 2.4.1, the analysis for CACFP and TEFAP was 

limited to nutrient density and HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores because of the lack of data on the 

number of distribution days.

2.3.4 As Offered: Entitlement Only and Entitlement Plus Bonus USDA 

Foods 

The nutrient and food group content of the 2014 entitlement and entitlement plus bonus USDA 

Foods as offered was derived using either USDA-issued guides that establish the amounts of foods 

 

95 FNS tracks the number of participants in CACFP, but most providers in CACFP opt for cash in lieu of receiving 

USDA Foods. Therefore there is no accurate count of the number of participants who receive USDA Foods.

96 The value of 175 days was based on data provided by the FNS indicating that weather and other disruptions reduced 

the average number of school days from 180 days, which was the figure used in the 2012 report.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-6 

 

offered to participants on a monthly basis (for FDPIR and CSFP), or an algorithm based on the 

foods available to the program in 2014 (for NSLP, CACFP and TEFAP).

 FDPIR and CSFP Food Packages 

For FDPIR and CSFP, the USDA defines the food groups and quantities of foods required from 

each category. The food packages offered to participants in FDPIR and CSFP reflect equal selection 

of all program-specific USDA Food options available within each food category. The constructed 

food packages contain a mix of foods in exact proportion to the selection and substitution rules 

outlined for each program’s monthly distribution guide. (Appendix A provides the Distribution 

Guides for both FDPIR and CSFP.) The relative weight for each food item offered through the 

programs was computed and used to derive the gross weight for each USDA Food. For example, 

participants in FDPIR may select one box of dry cereal from the four kinds of cereal available. If the 

list of USDA Foods available to FDPIR included six different packages options for the four kinds 

of cereal, one-sixth of the nutrients from each of the cereal items on the USDA Foods Available List 

(FA) were added together to make one “average” cereal box. (Appendix C provides the FA lists.)

 NSLP, CACFP, and TEFAP 

These three nutrition assistance programs do not have distribution guides or limits on the 

combination of foods offered. The as-offered package was developed using the 2014 FA, the 

average cost of each food,97 and the total funds allocated to the program in either SY 2013-2014 (for 

NSLP) or FY 2014 (for CACFP and TEFAP). All USDA Foods available in 2014 were assigned to 

major food groups, and an equal portion of the total funds allocated to the program was allotted to 

each major food group. (Appendix C provides the FA lists.) Funds allotted to a major food group 

were then further divided equally and allotted to subgroups and finally to individual USDA Foods. 

The average price per food was used to calculate the amount of USDA Food that could have been 

purchased with the funds allotted. (See Appendix E for the groups of USDA Foods developed and 

the methodology to compute amount of USDA Foods per group.)

 

97 The cost of USDA Foods in FY 2014 (TEFAP and CACFP) and SY 2013-2014 (NSLP) were obtained from the 

Entitlement and Bonus Detail Status Reports or directly from FNS; all USDA Foods on the FA lists were included in 

the as-offered calculations.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-7 

 

2.3.5 As Delivered: Entitlement Only and Entitlement Plus Bonus USDA 

Foods 

The as-delivered 2014 entitlement and entitlement plus bonus USDA Food packages were 

computed by summing the amount of each USDA Food delivered annually in each program 

provided in (1) the FNS Entitlement and Bonus Detail Report, (2) the Food Issuance Report, (3) the 

Multi-Food Requisition Reports, and (4) the DoD reports of fresh produce deliveries.

The analysis for CSFP required additional adjustments to the delivered data, primarily to

accommodate the participant subgroups. All analysis was limited to the elderly program 

participants.98 Information from two data sources was combined to estimate the amount of food 

delivered to the elderly: (1) the Food Issuance Report, which lists the number of units of USDA 

Foods issued to non-elderly (children and women) or elderly participants, and (2) the CSFP Quantity 

and Value of Commodities Report for FY 2014, which lists pounds of food delivered to CSFP as a

whole. The Food Issuance Report data was used to derive the ratio of each USDA Food delivered to

the non-elderly and elderly participants. This ratio was then used to determine the pounds of each

USDA Food delivered to non-elderly and elderly participants. Only the foods offered and delivered 

to elderly participants were retained in the analytic file.

2.3.6 Calculations to Derive Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA 

Foods 

The calculations to derive the nutrient and food group content of USDA Foods varied by program, 

as described below.

 

98 As stated in Section 1.2.1, as of February 7, 2014, CSFP did not certify women, infants, and children.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-8 

 

 FDPIR, CSFP, NSLP 

These programs track the number of participants receiving USDA Foods, allowing for analysis on a 

per-participant, per-day basis. The following process was used to compute the nutrient and food 

group content of USDA Food packages:

1. Compute the amount of USDA Food “x” offered/delivered per participant per day.

2. Apply yield factors to the amount of USDA Food “x” offered/delivered per participant 

per day. The weights of foods as offered and as delivered per participant per day were 

reduced by five percent to account for food lost to waste and spoilage, based on the 

2006 Thrifty Food Plan Report99 and in keeping with the assumption made in the 2008 

FDPIR report to Congress. The adjusted weights were multiplied by the yield factor in 

the FND-2014, and this final weight was used to determine the nutrient and food group 

values for each USDA Food.

3. Compute the amount of nutrient or food group “y” contained in USDA Food “x”

offered/delivered per participant per day.

4. Sum the amount of each nutrient or food group across all USDA Foods to obtain the 

amount of nutrient or food group “y” offered/delivered per participant per day.

5. Sum the nutrients and food group values per USDA Food for the as-offered and asdelivered food packages to obtain the daily total nutrient and food group values.

In keeping with the 2012 report, Appendices F-H detail the nutrient and food group content of the

USDA Foods offered and delivered per participant per month for CSFP, FDPIR, and NSLP.

 CACFP, TEFAP 

Because these programs do not track the number of participants receiving USDA Foods, it was not 

possible to calculate nutrient and food group content of the packages as offered and as delivered on 

a per participant, per day basis. The following process was used to compute the nutrient and food 

group content of USDA Food packages for these programs:

1. Compute the amount of USDA Food “x” offered/delivered in FY 2014.

 

99 Carlson, A., Lino, M., WenYen, J., Hanson, K., and Basiotis, P.P. Thrifty Food Plan, 2006. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center of Nutrition Policy and Promotion, April 2007. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/TFP2006Report.pdf.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-9 

 

2. Apply yield factors to the amount of USDA Food “x” offered/delivered in FY 2014. 

The weights of foods as offered and as delivered was reduced by five percent to account 

for food lost to waste and spoilage (as above); these adjusted weights were multiplied by 

the yield factor in the FND-2014; and this final weight was used to determine the 

nutrient and food group values for each USDA Food.

3. Compute the amount of nutrient or food group “y” contained in USDA Food “x”

offered/delivered in FY 2014.

4. Sum the amount of each nutrient or food group across all USDA Foods to obtain the 

amount of nutrient or food group “y” offered/delivered in FY 2014.

5. Compute the amount of nutrient “y” offered/delivered per 2,000 kcal in FY 2014 using 

the ratio of nutrient “y” to obtain the total calories offered/delivered in FY 2014.

2.4 Compare Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA Foods 

to Dietary Standards 

For the five nutrition assistance programs, the USDA does not intend USDA Foods to provide the

entire day’s intake for program participants; instead, these foods are intended to supplement other 

foods purchased for consumption. However, a comparison of the nutrients provided to daily

nutrient standards serves as a means of assessing the contribution of USDA Foods to the overall 

diet. The nutrient content and food group equivalent values of the program-specific food packages 

as offered and as delivered were compared to the weighted average dietary standard for the 

reference participant for each program and to the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI), the Thrifty Food 

Plan (TFP), and the USDA Food Patterns recommendations per 2,000 kcal. The nutrient analysis 

and food group equivalent values were used to compute program-specific HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 

scores, and these program-specific component and total HEI-2005 scores were compared with 

HEI-2005 scores for the U.S. population as reported by Cole, et al.100 HEI-2010 scores for the 2014 

food packages were also compared to HEI-2010 scores for the U.S. population (2011-2012) as 

reported by Wilson, et al.101 and available on the CNPP website.

102

 

100 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008; p. C34. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.

101 Wilson, M.M., Reedy, J., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. American diet quality: where it is, where it is heading, and what it 

could be. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116:302-310.

102 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Healthy Eating Index. Accessed February 

29, 2016. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-10 

 

This report includes the following four dietary standards:

1. Dietary Reference Intakes. The DRIs are standards developed by the Institute of 

Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board (part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) 

to assess the adequacy and quality of nutrient intakes.103 Infants and children through 

eight years of age have the same DRIs, regardless of gender. For ages nine and up, the 

DRIs are gender-based. The DRI standards include:

– Estimated Average Requirement (EAR). The level of intake estimated to meet

the requirements of half of the healthy individuals in a particular age and gender

group; also used to calculate the RDA for intake of nutrients by individuals.

– Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). The recommended level of intake 

established to meet the needs of almost all (97-98 percent) individuals in a group.

– Adequate Intake Level (AI). A level provided for nutrients when data for the

nutrient is insufficient to estimate requirements; believed to cover the needs of all 

individuals in the group.

– Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL). The maximum level of intake likely to

pose no risk of adverse effects for all individuals in the group. As the UL for 

magnesium applies only to intake of magnesium from pharmacological agents and 

does not apply to magnesium from food, the data tables do not present the values 

for magnesium. The UL for vitamin E, folic acid, and niacin apply only to 

synthetic forms of the vitamins, as would be found in supplements or added to 

foods during fortification. Values for added vitamin E and folic acid are included 

in FNDDS and thus the FND-2014, but added niacin is not available. The tables 

of results compare total niacin to the UL.

– Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR). Ranges of intakes 

that are associated with reduced risk of chronic disease while providing

recommended intakes of other essential nutrients.

2. Thrifty Food Plan Dietary Standards. The USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion developed the TFP as a national standard for a nutritious diet at minimal 

cost. The TFP is the basis for SNAP benefits. The cost of a TFP food is based on a 

reference family defined as a male and female ages 20 to 50, and two children ages 6 to 

8 and 9 to 11. The DGA, the DRIs (primarily the RDAs and AIs), and USDA Food

Patterns form the basis of the TFP dietary standards.

The TFP market basket for each age/gender group provides 100 percent or more of the 

group’s RDA for 16 essential nutrients: protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin B6, 

vitamin B12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folate, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, 

 

103 Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Food and Nutrition Information Center, National Agricultural 

Library. DRI Tables. 2010. Accessed: February 2011. 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI/DRI_Tables/RDA_AI_vitamins_elements.pdf.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-11 

 

zinc, copper, and fiber. Because the AI for potassium and the RDA for vitamin E were 

difficult to meet within the cost constraints for market baskets, the standards were 

adjusted to at least 63 percent of the RDA for vitamin E and at least 70 percent of the 

AI for potassium.104 The TFP comparisons include many of the same nutrients listed in 

the DRI comparison.

3. 2010 USDA Food Patterns. The 2010 DGA standards105 include the 2010 USDA 

Food Patterns, which provide quantities of foods to consume from specific food groups 

and subgroups in order to achieve a diet consistent with the DGA. The guidelines apply 

to individuals over 2 years of age. The 2010 USDA Food Patterns provide food group 

recommendations for a variety of daily calorie levels. The recommendations include 

goals for the amounts to eat from a number of food groups as well as limits for some 

dietary components, such as added sugars and discretionary fats.

Determination of the food groups in the offered and delivered USDA Food packages 

enables comparisons with the 2010 USDA Food Patterns recommendations, rather than 

nutrient-level comparisons with the DRIs. Comparing the food groups provided by the 

food package per 2,000 kcal to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 

2,000 kcal allows an assessment of USDA Foods offered and delivered to participants 

on a density basis. As the calculation of food groups per 2,000 kcal does not rely on 

participant numbers served by USDA Foods, this report presents the results of this 

comparison for all five nutrition assistance programs.

4. Healthy Eating Index. The USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion 

developed the HEI106 as a way to assess compliance with Federal dietary guidelines. This 

report includes two versions of the HEI: the HEI-2005 and the HEI-2010. Both the 

HEI-2005 and the HEI-2010 contain 12 components, use a density approach in setting 

standards, and employ least-restrictive standards. The HEI-2010 standards are based on 

the amount of each component per 1,000 kcal, and the food groups and nutrients 

comprising the HEI scores reflect the key recommendations of the 2010 DGA.

The HEI-2005 and the HEI-2010 components and scoring system are shown in Tables 

2-3 and 2-4, respectively. As shown, the Greens and Beans component in the HEI-2010 

replaces the Dark Green and Orange Vegetables and Legumes component in the HEI2005; the HEI-2010 includes a new component for Seafood and Plant Proteins; and 

Fatty Acids (ratio of polyunsaturated [PUFAs] and monounsaturated [MUFAs] to 

saturated fatty acids [SFAs]) in the HEI-2010 replaces Oils and Saturated Fat from the 

 

104 Carlson, A., Lino, M., WenYen, J., Hanson, K. and Basiotis, P.P. Thrifty Food Plan 2006. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion April 2007. Dietary Standards; p. 14. Accessed June 2015. 

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/TFP2006Report.pdf.

105 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2010. 7th Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010; p. 79. Accessed June 2015. 

www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelines2010.pdf.

106 Guenther, P.M., Reedy, J., Krebs-Smith, S.M., Reeve, B.B., and Basiotis, P.P. Development and Evaluation of the Healthy 

Eating Index-2005: Technical Report. s.l.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 

November 2007. Accessed June 2015. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/healthy_eating_index/HEI2005TechnicalReport.pdf.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-12 

 

HEI-2005.107 The Calories from SoFAAS component from the HEI-2005 has been 

renamed as Empty Calories in the HEI-2010. Additionally, the Refined Grains 

component replaces Total Grains to assess over-consumption by assigning a maximum 

number of servings as the standard for a minimum score of zero, similar to the scores 

for sodium and empty calories. Thus, each component in the HEI calculation represents 

a specific aspect of healthful diet and the overall HEI score provides a summary 

measure of diet quality; higher HEI scores are indicative of meeting recommendations.

The HEI-2005 and the HEI-2010 scores of the offered and delivered USDA Food

packages were compared with the average scores for diets of Americans and SNAP 

participants. The HEI scores for diets of Americans and SNAP participants are based 

on actual consumption data; the program-specific HEI scores are not based on 

consumption data, rather they represent the score possible if individuals consumed the 

foods in quantities provided through the program.

Table 2-3. Healthy Eating Index-2005 scoring system

HEI-2005 Component 

Max. 

points 

Standard for 

maximum score 

Standard for minimum 

score of zero 

Total fruit 5 ≥ 0.8 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No fruit

Whole fruit 5 ≥ 0.4 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No whole fruit

Total vegetables 5 ≥ 1.1 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No vegetables

Dark green and orange 

vegetables and legumes

5 ≥ 0.4 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No dark green or orange 

vegetables or legumes

Total grains 5 ≥ 3.0 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No grains

Whole grains 5 ≥ 1.5 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No whole grains

Milk 10 ≥ 1.3 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No milk

Meat and beans 10 ≥ 2.5 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No meat or beans

Oils 10 ≥ 12 grams per 1,000 kcal No oil

Saturated fat 10 ≤ 7% of energy ≥ 15% of energy

Sodium 10 ≤ 0.7 gram per 1,000 kcal ≥ 2.0 grams per 1,000 kcal

Calories from SoFAAS* 20 ≤ 20% of energy ≥ 50% of energy

*The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

 

107 Guenther, P.M., Casavale, K.O., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., Hiza, H.A., Kuczynski, K.J., Kahle, L.L., and KrebsSmith, S.M. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI-2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2013; 113(4):569-580. Accessed June 

2015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3810369.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-13 

 

Table 2-4. Healthy Eating Index-2010 scoring system

HEI-2010 Component 

Max. 

points 

Standard for 

maximum score 

Standard for minimum 

score of zero 

Total fruit 5 ≥ 0.8 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No fruit

Whole fruit 5 ≥ 0.4 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No whole fruit

Total vegetables 5 ≥ 1.1 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No vegetables

Greens and beans 5 ≥ 0.2 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No dark green vegetables, beans, 

or peas

Whole grains 10 ≥ 1.5 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No whole grains

Dairy 10 ≥ 1.3 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal No dairy

Total protein foods 5 ≥ 2.5 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No protein foods

Seafood & plant proteins 5 ≥ 0.8 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal No seafood or plant proteins

Fatty acids 10 (PUFAs+MUFAs)/SFAs ≥2.5* (PUFAs+MUFAs)/SFAs ≤1.2

Refined grains 10 ≤ 1.8 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal ≥ 4.3 oz. equiv. per 1,000 kcal

Sodium 10 ≤ 1.1 gram per 1,000 kcal5 ≥ 2.0 grams per 1,000 kcal

Empty calories 20 ≤ 19% of energy ≥ 50% of energy

*PUFAs = polyunsaturated fatty acids; MUFAs = monounsaturated fatty acids; SFAs = saturated fatty acids

NSLP Meal Pattern and Nutrition Standards. The determination of food groups made it 

possible to compare the NSLP food package in SY 2013-2014 with the Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch Programs.108 HHFKA required the USDA to issue new science-based 

nutrition standards to improve the nutritional quality of school meals. The standards are based on 

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine109 and are aligned with the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans. The lunch standards specify weekly and daily requirements for low/nonfat fluid milk, fruits, vegetables, meat/meat alternates, and whole grain-rich items. The standards 

also set specifications for calories, sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat (Table 2-5).

The HHFKA provisions for NSLP were phased in over several years. During school year 2012-

2013, two provisions went into effect: (1) school food authorities (SFAs) were required to include 

both a fruit and a vegetable during lunch (instead of a fruit or a vegetable), and (2) at least one-half 

of the grains offered during lunch had to meet the whole grain-rich criteria. The following year, 

2013-2014, one-half of grains offered during breakfast had to be whole grain-rich. During school 

year 2014-2015, SFAs were required to: (1) offer one cup of fruit or vegetable to all age/grade 

groups at breakfast (the third year of meal pattern implementation), (2) offer all whole grain-rich 

products at breakfast and lunch, and (3) meet sodium (Target 1 levels) for school breakfast and 

lunch. The sodium content of the offered and delivered food packages was not compared with the 

 

108 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 7 CFR Parts 210 and 220. Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; Final Rule. January 26, 2012; p. 24. Accessed January 2015. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-26/pdf/2012-1010.pdf.

109 Renamed the National Academy of Medicine, effective July 1, 2015.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-14 

 

sodium requirements, since these are not quantifiable but call for “reducing sodium” in SY 2013-

2014.

Table 2-5. Meal pattern and nutrition standards for NSLP lunches, SY 2013-2014

Meal Pattern/Nutrient 

Lunch Meal Pattern and Nutrition Standards 

Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 

Amount of food per week (minimum per day) 

Fruit (cups) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 5 (1)

Vegetables (cups) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 5 (1)

Dark green 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Red/orange 3⁄4 3⁄4 11⁄4

Beans/peas (legumes) 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Starchy 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Other 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄4

Additional veg. to reach total 1 1 11⁄2

Grains (oz. equiv.) 8-9 (1) 8-10 (1) 10-12 (2)

Whole grains At least half of grains must be whole-grain rich.

Meat/meat alternates (oz. equiv.) 8-10 (1) 9-10 (1) 10-12 (2)

Fluid milk (cups) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)

Must be fat-free (unflavored/flavored) or 1% low fat (unflavored).

Min.-max. calories (kcal) 550-650 600-700 750-850

Saturated fat (% total calories) <10 <10 <10

Sodium Reduce Reduce Reduce

Trans fat Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must indicate zero 

grams of trans fat per serving.

Weighted Average Dietary Standards 

There is considerable age variability in the participants served by each of the five programs. For 

example, NSLP serves only school children, FDPIR serves families, and CSFP, CACFP, and TEFAP

serve population subgroups of varying ages. Because dietary guidelines vary by age, an average 

dietary guideline, weighted by the mix of ages and genders served by each program, was developed. 

This weighted average dietary standard represents the dietary recommendations for a “reference 

participant” in the nutrition assistance program. For NSLP, CSFP, and FDPIR (the programs that 

track the number of participants), the age distribution of the participants served by each program was

determined using the references shown in Table 2-6.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-15 

 

Table 2-6. Age definitions of participants by USDA nutrition assistance program

Program Focus Ages % Population Reference for age distribution 

NSLP School children 6-7 yrs. 15.6% School Nutrition Dietary Assessment IIII110

8-10 yrs. 32.9%

11-13 yrs. 25.5%

14-15 yrs. 12.5%

16-18 yrs. 13.5%

CSFP Elderly >60 yrs. 100% Provided by the FNS: CSFP Participation

Report – FY 2014

FDPIR Households 6-8 yrs. 25% Reference household for determining

SNAP benefits: one man and one

woman ages 20-50, and two children

ages 6-8 and 9-11

9-11 yrs. 25%

M 20-50 yrs. 25%

F 20-50 yrs. 25%

NSLP. The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) III111 provided the reference for age 

distribution in NSLP because it provides the most recent estimate of the age distribution of NSLP

participants. Neither the SNDA IV112 nor the 2011-2012 data from National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES)113 contain estimates of NSLP participants by age. The NCES tables do not 

differentiate the count of students who receive free- or reduced-price meals from students who pay 

full price for meals. In addition, the NCES categorizes students participating in the free or reduced 

price lunch programs by school level rather than by age (i.e., 6-7 years, 8-10 years, 11-13 years, 14-15 

years, and 16-18 years). Since the ratio of primary, middle, and high school NSLP participants 

reported by the NCES is comparable to the SNDA III distribution, the breakdown of ages is likely 

to be similar in the 2011-2012 data. The use of reference age distribution from SNDA III resulted in 

refined weighted dietary standards.

CSFP. Previously, CSFP served infants, children, mothers, and elderly participants, but as discussed 

in chapter 1, in 2014 infants, children, and mothers were phased out of CSFP, which now serves 

only elderly participants. For this report, only USDA Food deliveries to elderly participants in CSFP

 

110 SNDA III provided the most recent estimates of NSLP participant by age (see text).

111 Gordon, A., Fox, M.K., Clark, M., Nogales, R., Condon, E., Gleason, P., and Sarin, A. School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment Study-III: Volume II: Student Participation and Dietary Intakes. Final Report. Mathematica Policy Research. 

November 2007; p. 84. Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNDA-IV_Vol2_0.pdf.

112 Fox, M.K., Condon, E., Crepinsek, M.K., et al. Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV, Vol. I: School Food Service 

Operations, School Environments, and Meals Offered and Served. Final Report. Mathematica Policy Research. November 2012; 

pp. 2-6 (footnote). Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SNDA-IV_Vol1Pt1_0.pdf. 

113 Schools and Staffing Survey. National Center for Education Statistics. Table 1. Total Number of Schools and 

Students, and Percentage of Schools and Students that Participated in Title I and Federal Free- and reduced-price lunch 

programs, by school type and selected school characteristics: 2011-2012. Accessed June 2015. 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013312_s12n_001.asp.
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-16 

 

were analyzed. The weighted average dietary standards were created by selecting the highest nutrient 

requirement for the elderly participants; this represents the dietary standard for a reference 

participant in CSFP.

FDPIR. The reference household for SNAP (7 USC 2012 (u).c) was used to calculate a weighted 

average dietary standard for FDPIR. Using the percentage of each age group in the nutrition 

assistance program, a weighted average dietary standard was calculated by multiplying the fraction of 

the population for each age group by the dietary standard for any nutrient or food group; the 

weighted average dietary standard is the sum of all the fractional values for the age groups. Within 

any age/gender range, the highest nutrient requirement was selected to represent the dietary 

standard for the “reference participant.” Table 2-7 presents an example of the development of the 

weighted average standard for the reference participant in NSLP.

Table 2-7. Development of weighted average Vitamin A requirement in NSLP

NSLP % Population 

Highest DRI nutrient 

requirement for age range Population fraction x DRI 

6-7 yrs. 15.6 400 62.4

8-10 yrs. 32.9 600 197.4

11-13 yrs. 25.5 600 153.0

14-15 yrs. 12.5 900 112.5

16-18 yrs. 13.5 900 121.5

Weighted average RDA 646.8

2.5 Compare Nutrient and Food Group Content of USDA Foods 

in 2014 and 2009 

To examine the changes in nutrient and food group content of USDA Food packages over time, an 

analysis compared the extent to which the program-specific food packages met the dietary standards 

in FY 2014 and FY 2009 or SY 2013-2014 compared to SY 2009-2010. The change in nutrient and 

food group values from 2009 to 2014 was computed as change in amount and percentage change.

2.6 Strengths and Limitations of the Evaluation 

This evaluation provides information on the nutritional content of USDA Food packages as offered 

and as delivered through five USDA nutrition assistance programs. The findings provide a 
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-17 

 

comprehensive understanding of the quantity and quality of USDA Food packages; the macro- and 

micronutrient and food group content; and the contribution of USDA Foods to meeting the 

recommended daily nutrient levels and food groups for the reference participants in each program. 

The findings also provide information on changes in the composition, nutrient, and food group 

content of USDA Foods since 2009. The major strengths and limitations of this evaluation are:

Strengths

 Use of methodology in this evaluation that is consistent with that used in the 

previous report. Using a consistent method allows for comparison with the previously 

reported values.

 Development of an updated customized food and nutrient database, 

incorporating nutrient and food group values for all USDA Foods, as well as 

fresh fruits and vegetables provided by the DoD. Nutrient values (sodium and 

vitamin C) and yields were adjusted to account for the foods specific to the USDA 

nutrition assistance programs. Development of the database did not rely primarily on 

the description of foods from the FNDDS or SR26, but also consulted the nutrient 

labels available for most USDA Foods to increase the confidence of the match between 

the food and the database values. This increased the accuracy of the nutrient profile of 

USDA Foods. For example, the sodium values for canned USDA Foods reflect the 

information on the USDA fact sheets.

 Examination of the similarities and differences in the as-offered and as-delivered 

food packages. Participating agencies are offered a list of USDA Foods to select from, 

and their preferences play a role in the USDA Foods delivered to each program. Such 

data serve to adjust the offerings in the USDA package as well as to obtain buy-in for 

nutrient-dense foods that may be selected less often.

 Examination of the unique and combined contribution of entitlement and bonus 

foods. Comparison of food packages without and with bonus foods reveals the 

additional contribution of bonus foods to meeting the nutrient and food group needs of 

program participants. In FY 2014, bonus foods were offered and delivered to only two 

of the five programs, CSFP and TEFAP. Inclusion of bonus foods increased the 

amount of juice in CSFP and juice and meat in TEFAP.

 Determination of program participation numbers. As with the previous evaluation, 

the analysis did not utilize the national NSLP participation numbers to compute the 

per-person contribution of the food packages. Rather, the analysis excluded participants 

at schools that opted not to receive USDA Foods. Note that in SY2009-2010, the 

number of participants receiving cash in lieu was calculated using the total enrollment 

count rather than the percent of total enrollment participating in NSLP by state; the 

calculated number of students receiving cash in lieu was therefore higher than the actual 

number. Including the national participation numbers would have resulted in an 

overestimate of the total number of participants receiving USDA Foods, thereby 
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-18 

 

leading to an underestimate of the dietary contribution of USDA Foods. While this 

approach can be seen as a strength, it must be noted that the participation numbers for 

NSLP may still overestimate the number of participants who actually received USDA 

Foods.

 Derivation of weighted average nutrient/food group standards based on the age 

and gender of participants in each program. All five programs serve males and 

females of varying ages. Therefore, the weighting of the nutrient/food group 

recommendations enabled assessment of the adequacy of the USDA Food package for 

each of the five nutrition assistance programs.

 Comparison of nutritional quality against the HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores. 

The HEI scores provide an assessment of the extent to which the USDA Food

packages align with the most recent dietary guidelines.

Limitations

 Selection of the highest level of recommended amounts of nutrients for all age 

groups. Consistent with the previous evaluation, the analysis has been adjusted to 

reflect the gender and age composition of program participants. It is important to note 

that the analysis used the highest level of the recommended amounts for the age groups 

and genders in each program. As ages, genders, height, weight, and activity levels may 

vary widely across participants within a nutrition assistance program, this method may 

lead to an underestimation of the true contribution of USDA Foods to a particular 

individual participant. The approach used in this analysis therefore errs on the side of 

underestimating the dietary contribution of USDA Foods for younger children, females, 

and those with lower nutrient requirements because of their smaller body size and lower 

weight.

 The lack of program specific per-participant nutrient recommendations for 

CSFP and FDPIR, limiting the ability to examine the extent to which USDA 

Foods contribute to meeting program-specific nutrient recommendations.

However, this evaluation compared the contribution of USDA Foods to the perparticipant daily recommendations for the three nutrition assistance programs (and 

program-specific guidelines for NSLP), thereby making it possible to compare and 

contrast the role of USDA Foods across the three programs. For example, evidence that 

USDA Foods are providing more than the daily recommended amount of sodium or fat 

can be used to make changes in USDA Foods, even in the absence of program-specific 

guidelines.

 For NSLP, TEFAP, and CACFP, a lack of distribution guides for an as-offered 

USDA Food package. A method was developed for deriving an as-offered package 

based on the foods available in 2009, the total amount of entitlement funds allocated for 

2009, and the average price per USDA Food to the programs in 2009. Funds were 

allocated evenly among the various groups to calculate a weight of each food offered on 

the basis of price per pound. This method may lead to overrepresentation of less-
Methods 2 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 2-19 

 

expensive foods in the as-offered package. Comparisons of as-offered and as-delivered 

food packages in these programs must be viewed with caution.

 For the as-offered packages for FDPIR and CSFP, the use of an equal proportion 

of each type of food to create the as-offered quantity for that food item. For 

example, elderly participants in CSFP may select either one 24-ounce canned meat 

product or two 6- to 14.75-ounce canned or dried meat products each month. With 

seven canned/dried meat products offered, the as-offered package was assumed to 

consist of one-seventh of each product, and the product weights were adjusted for the 

difference in the distribution rates. The nutrients provided to an actual participant will 

obviously reflect their selections, and for that reason may differ from those in the asoffered package.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-1 

 

This chapter presents the program-specific food and nutrient content of 2014 USDA Foods as 

offered and as delivered, including entitlement foods and (where applicable) bonus foods. Specifically, 

this chapter describes:

1. The food group composition of USDA Foods as offered and as delivered;

2. Comparison of the nutrient and food group content of USDA Foods with dietary 

standards: the DRI, the TFP, the DGA, the HEI-2005, and the HEI-2010 (and for 

USDA Foods delivered to NSLP participants, comparison with NSLP Meal Pattern and 

Nutrition Standards); and

3. Comparison of the nutrient and food group content of the 2014 USDA Foods with that 

of the 2009 USDA Foods.

3.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 

The FY 2014 CSFP Maximum Monthly Distribution Rates specify the amounts and kinds of foods 

offered to State and local agencies (Appendix A). The as-offered CSFP food packages, without and 

with bonus foods, contained approximately 196 million pounds and 234 million pounds of USDA 

Foods, or 432 g/participant/day and 517 g/participant/day, respectively. The as-delivered packages, 

with and without bonus foods, contained approximately 145 million pounds and 183 million pounds 

of USDA Foods, or 320 g/participant/day and 404 g/participant/day, respectively.

The as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages, without and with bonus foods, included foods 

from nine food groups.114 Compared with the as-offered package without bonus foods, the asoffered package with bonus foods included more juice and less or similar amounts of cereal, cheese, 

fruit, meat, milk, peanut butter/dried beans, starches, and vegetables. The same pattern held true for 

the as-delivered packages. Compared with the as-offered packages with and without bonus foods, 

the as-delivered packages included less cheese and juice and but more cereal, milk, starches, and 

vegetables (Figure 3-1).

 

114 Food groups shown are as defined in the CSFP Maximum Monthly Distribution Rates.

Results and Discussion 3 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-2 

 

Figure 3-1. Food group* composition by weight of CSFP USDA Foods as a percentage of the 

total weight of foods offered and delivered

*Food groups are those in the CSFP distribution guide (Appendix A).

Food Sources of Calories. An examination of calories by food product in CSFP food packages as 

offered and as delivered is indicative of preferences. Although CSFP has distribution rates, 

administering agencies and participants can select specific products within broad food groups (e.g., 

cereal or canned vegetables). As described in Section 2.3.3, the as-offered food package was 

CEREAL

8%

CHEESE

7%

FRUIT

7%

JUICE

30%

MEAT

6%

MILK

18%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

7%

STARCHES

5% VEGETABLES

12%

Entitlement Foods as Offered 

(Total = 196 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

7%

CHEESE

6%

FRUIT

6%

JUICE

41%

MEAT

5%

MILK

15%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

6%

STARCHES

4% VEGETABLES

10%

Entitlement + Bonus Foods as Offered 

(Total = 234 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

17% CHEESE

<1%

FRUIT

6%

JUICE

17%

MEAT

7%

MILK

23%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

7%

STARCHES

7%

VEGETABLES

16%

Entitlement Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 145 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

13%

CHEESE

<1%

FRUIT

6%

JUICE

34%

MEAT

5%

MILK

18%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

6%

STARCHES

6%

VEGETABLES

12%

Entitlement + Bonus Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 183 million lbs/year) 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-3 

 

developed by assuming equal representation of all products within a food category. In reality, 

participants can substitute one product for another, so a comparison of calories by food product in 

the as-offered package and the as-delivered package provides a glimpse into the relative popularity 

of products. Appendix F presents the nutrients for each food product offered or delivered to a 

reference participant on a monthly basis for CSFP.

Participants may select ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal, farina, rolled oats or grits within the cereal group.

Six different RTE cereals are offered, in relatively equal amounts (there are slight differences due to 

different package weights), but bran flakes provided the most calories from RTE cereal. Far more 

farina was delivered than offered, while less oats and grits were delivered. While canned vegetables 

provided similar amount of calories in the as-delivered and as-offered package, canned pinto and 

kidney beans provided more calories in the as-delivered food package than did other beans. 

Compared with the as-offered package, the as-delivered package had fewer calories from applesauce 

and canned apricots, slightly fewer calories from meat products, and far fewer calories from cheese, 

but slightly more calories from peanut butter.

3.1.1 Food Group Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods 

Food Group Comparison. The as-offered CSFP food package without bonus foods provided one 

quarter of the recommended amount of fruits; with the addition of juice from bonus foods, the asoffered food package provided 40 percent of the recommended amount of fruit. The as-delivered 

package without bonus foods provided 12 percent of the recommended amount of fruit, and 28 

percent with the addition of bonus foods. The as-offered packages provided nearly identical 

amounts of all other food groups, with or without bonus foods, meeting less than 50 percent of the 

recommended amount for all food groups except legumes (72 percent) and nuts/seeds/soy products

(75 percent). The as-offered packages did not exceed the recommended amount of oil or calories 

from SoFAS. The as-delivered package without bonus foods provided less of all food groups than 

did the as-offered package, with the exception of the grains and refined grains subgroup, and the 

nuts/seeds/soy products subgroup. The as-delivered package without bonus foods did not exceed 

the recommended amount of oil or calories from SoFAS (Table 3-1).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-4 

 

Table 3-1. Food group and subgroup content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted 

average 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations for the reference participant

Food Group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup eq.) 2 0.5 24% 0.8 40% 0.2 12% 0.6 28%

Vegetables (cup eq.) 3 0.4 12% 0.4 12% 0.3 9% 0.3 9%

Dark green 0.3 <0.1 10% <0.1 10% <0.1 5% <0.1 5%

Red and orange 0.9 0.2 23% 0.2 23% 0.1 11% 0.1 11%

Legumes 0.3 0.2 72% 0.2 72% 0.1 45% 0.1 45%

Starchy 0.9 0.1 9% 0.1 9% 0.1 10% 0.1 10%

Other 0.7 <0.1 6% <0.1 6% 0.1 8% 0.1 8%

Total grains (oz eq.) 8 1.8 22% 1.8 22% 2.3 29% 2.3 29%

Whole 4 0.6 14% 0.6 14% 0.5 13% 0.5 13%

Refined 4 1.2 30% 1.2 30% 1.8 45% 1.8 45%

Protein foods (oz eq.) 6.5 1.1 17% 1.1 17% 1.1 16% 1.1 16%

Seafood 1.4 0.2 14% 0.2 14% 0.1 10% 0.1 10%

Meat, poultry, eggs 4.4 0.4 8% 0.4 8% 0.3 7% 0.3 7%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.7 0.5 75% 0.5 75% 0.6 87% 0.6 87%

Dairy (cup eq.) 3 1.2 41% 1.2 41% 0.7 22% 0.7 22%

Oils (grams) 31 2.8 9% 2.8 9% 3.3 11% 3.3 11%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 330 36.7 11% 36.7 11% 20.3 6% 20.3 6%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 14% 7%  6%  4%  4% 

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Food Groups Comparison per 2,000 kcal. On a 2,000 kcal basis, the as-offered CSFP food 

package without bonus foods provided more than the recommended amount of several food 

groups: legumes, total grains, refined grains, nuts/seeds/soy products, and dairy; nearly the 

recommended amount of fruit and red/orange vegetables; and more than 50 percent of the 

recommended amount of all other food groups with the exception of starchy vegetables, other 

vegetables, and meat/poultry/eggs. The addition of bonus foods, which were all juices, increased the 

amount of fruits, but other food groups were essentially the same. Neither food package exceeded 

the recommended amount of oils or calories from SoFAS per 2,000 kcal. The as-delivered CSFP 

food package without bonus foods also provided more than the recommended amount of legumes, 

total grains, refined grains, and nuts/seeds/soy products. Although the food package without bonus 

foods provided just 50 percent of the recommended amount of fruit, the addition of bonus foods 

increased this to just over the recommended amount per 2,000 kcal. The as-delivered CSFP food 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-5 

 

package without bonus foods provided 93 percent of the recommended amount of dairy, and more 

than 50 percent of the recommended amount of red/orange vegetables, starchy vegetables, whole 

grains, total protein foods, and seafood. Because the added bonus foods also increased the total 

calories provided by the food package without increasing the amount of any food groups other than 

fruits, the CSFP food package with bonus foods provided slightly less of every food group other 

than fruit per 2,000 kcal. Neither as-delivered food package exceeded the recommended amount of 

oil or SoFAS per 2,000 kcal (Table 3-2).

Table 3-2. Food group and subgroup content of CSFP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to 

the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup eq.) 2 1.8 92% 2.8 142% 1.0 50% 2.1 107%

Vegetables (cup eq.) 2.5 1.4 54% 1.3 50% 1.1 44% 1.0 40%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 57% 0.1 53% 0.1 31% 0.1 29%

Red and orange 0.8 0.8 98% 0.7 91% 0.4 54% 0.4 50%

Legumes 0.2 0.8 409% 0.8 381% 0.6 282% 0.5 261%

Starchy 0.7 0.3 43% 0.3 40% 0.4 54% 0.3 50%

Other 0.6 0.1 25% 0.1 23% 0.2 37% 0.2 34%

Total grains (oz eq.) 6 6.6 111% 6.2 103% 9.7 161% 8.9 149%

Whole 3 2.2 72% 2.0 67% 2.2 72% 2.0 67%

Refined 3 4.5 149% 4.2 139% 7.5 250% 6.9 231%

Protein foods (oz eq.) 5.5 4.1 75% 3.8 69% 4.4 81% 4.1 74%

Seafood 1.1 0.7 66% 0.7 61% 0.6 52% 0.5 48%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 1.4 38% 1.3 35% 1.3 36% 1.2 34%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 2.0 331% 1.8 308% 2.5 419% 2.3 388%

Dairy (cup eq.) 3 4.6 154% 4.3 143% 2.8 93% 2.6 86%

Oils (grams) 27 10.8 40% 10.0 37% 13.6 51% 12.6 47%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 258 139.0 54% 129.4 50% 84.4 33% 78.0 30%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 13% 7%  6%  4%  4% 

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-6 

 

3.1.2 Nutrient Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods 

CSFP food packages do not provide a complete diet, but are good sources of the nutrients typically 

lacking in the diets of the target population. The following section describes the nutrient content of 

CSFP food packages in relation to the DRI and the TFP dietary standards.

 Comparison With DRI 

Energy. The as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages with and without bonus foods 

provided between 482 and 567 calories, representing between 20 and 24 percent of the 

recommended amount for the reference participant (Table 3-3).

Macronutrients. The only bonus foods provided in CSFP food packages were juice products, so 

few macronutrient differences are seen when comparing the food packages with or without bonus 

foods. The as-offered packages provided very similar amounts of most macronutrients, only 

differing in the amount of carbohydrate, where the package without bonus foods provided 64 

percent and the package with bonus foods provided 72 percent of the recommended amount. The 

as-delivered packages also provided very similar amounts of all macronutrients other than 

carbohydrate, where the package without bonus foods provided 62 percent and the package with 

bonus foods provided 70 percent of the recommended amount. All food packages met the AMDR 

standards for protein as a percent of calories, and were below the standards for fat as a percent of 

calories; the as-offered package with bonus foods and both of the as-delivered packages exceeded 

the AMDR standard for carbohydrate as a percent of calories (Table 3-3).

Minerals. All CSFP food packages provided similar amounts of calcium (38 to 43 percent of the 

RDA), copper (41 to 45 percent), magnesium (25 to 30 percent), and potassium (16 to 24 percent of 

the AI). All food packages met the RDA for iron, with both as-delivered packages providing twice 

the RDA for iron; the amount of iron provided was much higher in the as-delivered package 

compared to the as-offered, due in large part to the amount of farina in the as-delivered packages. 

The as-offered packages both provided the recommended amount of phosphorus, while the asdelivered packages provided 62 to 64 percent. None of the packages exceeded the weighted average 

AI for sodium (Table 3-3); additionally, none of the packages provided minerals in excess of the 

ULs (Table 3-4).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-7 

 

Table 3-3. Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) for the reference participant

Nutrient/ 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories2 2,400 527 22% 567 24% 482 20% 521 22%

Protein, g 56 25.8 46% 26.0 46% 21.8 39% 22.0 39%

Protein, % kcal 10-35 20%  18%  18%  17% 

Carbohydrate, g 130 83.4 64% 93.1 72% 81.0 62% 90.7 70%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  66% ↑ 67% ↑ 70% ↑

Total fat, g ND 11.1 N/A 11.2 N/A 8.9 N/A 9.0 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 20-35 19% ↓ 18% ↓ 17% ↓ 15% ↓

Saturated fat, g low 4.0 N/A 4.0 N/A 2.4 N/A 2.4 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal ND 7% N/A 6% N/A 4% N/A 4% N/A

Linoleic acid, g 14 2.0 14% 2.0 14% 2.1 15% 2.1 15%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 3% ↓ 3% ↓ 4% ↓ 4% ↓

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.6 0.1 8% 0.1 9% 0.1 6% 0.1 7%

α-Linolenic acid, % 

kcal 0.6-1.2 0% ↓ 0% ↓ 0% ↓ 0% ↓

Cholesterol, mg low 26.7 N/A 26.7 N/A 13.8 N/A 13.8 N/A

Total dietary fiber, g 30 7.7 26% 7.9 26% 7.3 24% 7.5 25%

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1200 504.8 42% 512.3 43% 452.7 38% 460.2 38%

Copper, mg 0.9 0.4 43% 0.4 45% 0.4 41% 0.4 43%

Iron, mg 8 7.8 98% 7.9 99% 16.5 207% 16.6 208%

Magnesium, mg 420 119.8 29% 125.7 30% 104.6 25% 110.5 26%

Phosphorus, mg 700 694.8 99% 703.3 100% 436.0 62% 444.6 64%

Potassium, mg 4700 1026.3 22% 1120.9 24% 766.5 16% 861.1 18%

Sodium, mg3 1300 807.8 62% 810.9 62% 434.2 33% 437.3 34%

Zinc, mg 11 4.6 42% 4.6 42% 5.9 53% 5.9 54%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 900 313.0 35% 313.5 35% 308.8 34% 309.3 34%

Vitamin C, mg 90 38.7 43% 63.1 70% 30.2 34% 54.6 61%

Vitamin D, μg 20 3.1 15% 3.1 15% 3.1 15% 3.1 15%

Vitamin E, mg 15 2.6 17% 2.6 17% 3.7 24% 3.7 25%

Thiamin, mg 1.2 0.6 53% 0.7 54% 0.9 77% 0.9 78%

Riboflavin, mg 1.3 0.8 64% 0.9 66% 1.0 80% 1.1 82%

Niacin, mg 16 6.8 43% 7.0 43% 12.2 76% 12.3 77%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.7 0.6 38% 0.7 40% 1.0 56% 1.0 58%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.4 2.1 88% 2.1 88% 2.7 114% 2.7 114%

Folate, μg (DFE) 400 236.4 59% 240.2 60% 379.3 95% 383.1 96%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR; ↑= exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.

3 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of 

concern for most participants, but rather the UL.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-8 

 

Vitamins. The as-offered CSFP food packages generally provided slightly less of all vitamins than 

the as-delivered food packages, with the exception of vitamin C: The package without bonus foods 

provided 43 percent and the package with bonus foods provided 70 percent of the recommended 

amount, while the as-delivered packages provided 34 and 61 percent, respectively. The as-delivered 

packages both provided more than the recommended amount of vitamin B12, and the as-offered 

packages both provided 88 percent. The as-delivered packages provided at least 75 percent of 

thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and folate. None of the packages provided vitamins in excess of the ULs 

(Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average ULs for 

the reference participant

Nutrient 

Weighted 

Average UL 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amount Amount Amount Amount 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 2500 504.8 512.3 452.7 460.2

Copper, mg 10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Iron, mg 45 7.8 7.9 16.5 16.6

Phosphorus, mg 4000 694.8 703.3 436.0 444.6

Potassium, mg ND 1026.3 1120.9 766.5 861.1

Sodium, mg 2300 807.8 810.9 434.2 437.3

Zinc, mg 40 4.6 4.6 5.9 5.9

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 3000 313.0 313.5 308.8 309.3

Vitamin C, mg 2000 38.7 63.1 30.2 54.6

Vitamin D, μg 100 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

Vitamin E (added), mg1 1000 0.6 0.6 2.0 2.0

Thiamin, mg ND 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9

Riboflavin, mg ND 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

Niacin, mg1 35 6.8 7.0 12.2 12.3

Vitamin B6, mg 100 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.0

Vitamin B12, μg ND 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7

Folate, μg (folic acid)1 1000 86.7 86.7 180.9 180.9

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted.

 Comparison With TFP Dietary Standards 

As the TFP dietary standard differs little from the DRI, results for most nutrients duplicate those 

seen in the previous comparison. The recommended amount of calories for the reference participant 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-9 

 

in CSFP is slightly higher (2,600 kcal) than that used in the DRI comparison (2,400 kcal) (taken from 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010), but this does not significantly change the percentage of the 

standard met by the CSFP food packages.

There are three nutrients for which the TFP standard differs from the DRI: sodium, potassium, and 

vitamin E. All CSFP food packages met the TFP standard for sodium. The TFP standards for both 

potassium and vitamin E are ranges; the as-offered packages provided 25 and 27 percent of the 

lower-bound TFP standard for potassium, while the as-delivered packages provided 19 and 21 

percent. The as-offered packages provided 24 and 25 percent of the lower-bound TFP standard for 

vitamin E, while the as-delivered packages provided 35 percent (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5. Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Nutrient/ 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories 2,600 527 20% 567 22% 482 19% 521 20%

Protein, g ND 25.8 N/A 26.0 N/A 21.8 N/A 22.0 N/A

Protein, % kcal 10-35 20%  18%  18%  17% 

Carbohydrate, g ND 83.4 N/A 93.1 N/A 81.0 N/A 90.7 N/A

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  66% ↑ 67% ↑ 70% ↑

Total fat, g ND 11.1 N/A 11.2 N/A 8.9 N/A 9.0 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 20-35 19% ↓ 18% ↓ 17% ↓ 15% ↓

Saturated fat, g ND 4.0 N/A 4.0 N/A 2.4 N/A 2.4 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal < 10 7%  6%  4%  4% 

Linoleic acid, g 14 2.0 14% 2.0 14% 2.1 15% 2.1 15%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 3% ↓ 3% ↓ 4% ↓ 4% ↓

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.6 0.1 8% 0.1 9% 0.1 6% 0.1 7%

α-Linolenic acid, 

%kcal 0.6-1.2 0% ↓ 0% ↓ 0% ↓ 0% ↓

Cholesterol, mg <= 300 26.7  26.7  13.8  13.8 

Total dietary fiber, g 30 7.7 26% 7.9 26% 7.3 24% 7.5 25%

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1200 504.8 42% 512.3 43% 452.7 38% 460.2 38%

Copper, mg 0.9 0.4 43% 0.4 45% 0.4 41% 0.4 43%

Iron, mg 8 7.8 98% 7.9 99% 16.5 207% 16.6 208%

Magnesium, mg 420 119.8 29% 125.7 30% 104.6 25% 110.5 26%

Phosphorus, mg 700 694.8 99% 703.3 100% 436.0 62% 444.6 64%

Potassium, mg2 4136 1026.3 25% 1120.9 27% 766.5 19% 861.1 21%

Sodium, mg <=2300 807.8  810.9  434.2  437.3 

Zinc, mg 11 4.6 42% 4.6 42% 5.9 53% 5.9 54%
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-10 

 

Table 3-5. Nutrient content of CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant (continued)

Nutrient/ 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

Entitlement + 

Bonus Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 900 313.0 35% 313.5 35% 308.8 34% 309.3 34%

Vitamin C, mg 90 38.7 43% 63.1 70% 30.2 34% 54.6 61%

Vitamin D, μg ND 3.1 N/A 3.1 N/A 3.1 N/A 3.1 N/A

Vitamin E, mg2 10.5 2.6 24% 2.6 25% 3.7 35% 3.7 35%

Thiamin, mg 1.2 0.6 53% 0.7 54% 0.9 77% 0.9 78%

Riboflavin, mg 1.3 0.8 64% 0.9 66% 1.0 80% 1.1 82%

Niacin, mg 16 6.8 43% 7.0 43% 12.2 76% 12.3 77%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.7 0.6 38% 0.7 40% 1.0 56% 1.0 58%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.4 2.1 88% 2.1 88% 2.7 114% 2.7 114%

Folate, μg (DFE) 400 236.4 59% 240.2 60% 379.3 95% 383.1 96%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR; ↑= exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percent of the lower value (shown) in the acceptable range for the standard; acceptable range for potassium = 

4136-4606 mg; acceptable range for vitamin E= 10.5-12.75 mg

3.1.3 Healthy Eating Index for CSFP USDA Foods 

 HEI-2005 Score 

The as-offered CSFP food packages without and with bonus foods achieved HEI-2005 scores of 

83.6 and 83.3 respectively. The HEI-2005 scores for the as-delivered CSFP food package without 

and with bonus foods were two points higher (85.2 and 85.5) than that achieved by the as-offered 

food packages.

Despite comparable total HEI-2005 scores for the food packages with and without bonus foods, 

compared with the as-offered and as-delivered food packages without bonus foods, the as-offered 

and as-delivered food packages with bonus foods achieved higher component score for whole fruit 

and sodium and lower component scores for total vegetables, dark green/orange vegetables and 

legumes, whole grains, and oils. These differences in component scores are attributable to the 

inclusion of juice as a bonus food; the addition of juice led to an increase in servings of whole fruit 

and total calories in the bonus food package. The increase in total calories resulted in slightly lower 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-11 

 

density for the overall package and lower component scores for the vegetable, grain, and oil 

subgroups.

The differences in the HEI-2005 sodium component score for the as-offered and as-delivered food 

packages reflect food preferences of participating agencies in the as-offered food package. The 

foods providing the most sodium in the as-offered package included reduced-fat processed 

American cheese, dry milk, peanut butter, and 1 percent UHT milk. Reduced-fat processed 

American cheese was delivered in much smaller quantities than ordered, and was not a top source of 

sodium in the as-delivered food package; top sources of sodium in the as-delivered food package 

included dry milk, 1 percent UHT milk, peanut butter, and farina (Appendix F).

These scores are considerably above those achieved by the average American ages 60 years and 

older, both for all persons (68.4) and SNAP participants (62.7) (NHANES 1999-2004).

115 CSFP 

participants consuming foods in ratios offered and delivered in the food package would have HEI2005 scores for the food packages about 25 points higher than those the achieved by Americans and 

approximately 30 points higher than those achieved by SNAP participants (Table 3-6, Figure 3-2).

 HEI-2010 Score 

The as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages had an overall HEI-2010 score of 80.0 and 

82.0, respectively; the as-offered and as-delivered packages with bonus foods had slightly higher 

scores of 81.0 and 83.6, respectively. As indicated above, juice was the only bonus food offered and 

delivered in CSFP, which led to an increase in the amount of fruit and calories for the bonus food 

packages. This increase in total calories affected the food group density; it reduced the amount of all 

other food groups offered and delivered per 1,000 kcal, thereby resulting in lower HEI-2010 

component scores for total vegetables, greens and beans and whole grains in the as-offered and asdelivered bonus food packages, and dairy in the as-delivered bonus food package. The increased 

calories improved the component scores for the “moderation components,” refined grains and 

sodium, though there was no change in the component score in the as-delivered package, as the asdelivered package had the maximum possible score. The inclusion of juice did not affect the fatty 

acid component score as the fatty acid component score is not dependent on total calories.

 

115 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008, page 

C-37. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-12 

 

Table 3-6. HEI-2005 scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 participants 

ages 60 years and older as well as SNAP participants ages 60 years and older

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score 

Offered Delivered 

All 

Persons 

SNAP 

Participants 

Entitlement 

Foods 

+ Bonus 

Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

 + Bonus 

Foods 

1. Total fruit 5 5.0 5.0 3.1 5.0 4.6 4.1

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.6 5.0 4.9

3. Total vegetables 5 4.4 3.9 3.4 3.0 4.3 3.6

4. Dark green & 

orange veg & 

legumes 5 5.0 4.7 4.0 3.1 2.0 2.1

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

6. Whole grains 5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 1.6 1.3

7. Milk 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 5.9 4.9

8. Meat and beans 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.0

9. Oils 10 4.5 4.2 5.7 5.3 6.7 3.8

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.1 3.0

11. Sodium 10 4.2 5.1 9.0 9.3 6.9 7.5

12. Calories from 

SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 10.8 9.8

Total HEI-2005 Score 100 83.6 83.3 85.2 85.5 68.4 62.7 

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Figure 3-2. HEI-2005 overall scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 60 years and older as well as SNAP participants ages 60 years 

and older

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered

Entitlement

Offered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

Delivered

Entitlement

Delivered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

All persons SNAP

participants

Total HEI-2005 Score

NHANES 1999-2004
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-13 

 

The HEI-2010 score for the as-delivered CSFP food package with bonus foods was slightly higher 

than the as-offered food package without bonus foods. This difference is due to the higher 

component scores for the fatty acid and sodium and the lower refined grains component score in 

the as-delivered food package with bonus as compared to the as-offered food package with bonus.

The lower fatty acid and sodium component scores reflect the smaller amount of reduced-fat 

processed American cheese in the as-delivered food package noted previously; the as-delivered food 

package with bonus had lower scores for whole fruit, all vegetable components, and much lower 

score for refined grain as compared to the as-offered food package with bonus. Cereal choices in the 

as-delivered food package with bonus account for the lower refined grain component score: 

although the as-offered food package with bonus offers relatively equal amounts of all ready-to-eat 

and cooked cereals, the as-delivered food package with bonus contains much more farina, corn 

flakes, rice crisp cereal, and corn and rice squares, all of which are refined grains (Appendix F).

The total HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages were more than 

20 points higher than those achieved by the average American diet (NHANES 2011-2012)

116 diet as 

well as the U.S. food supply in 2010 (the latest year for which HEI-2010 scores are available).117 The 

HEI-2010 component scores for the as-offered CSFP food packages exceeded or were equal to 

those achieved by the average American diet and the U.S. food supply in 2010 for 10 of the 12 

components, and were lower only for whole fruit and fatty acid ratio. HEI-2010 component scores 

for the as-delivered food packages met or exceeded those for the average American diet and the U.S. 

food supply for all components except whole fruit and refined grains, as well as total vegetables for 

the as-delivered food package with bonus (Table 3-7, Figure 3-3).

 

116 Wilson, M.M., Reedy, J., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. American diet quality: where it is, where it is heading, and what it 

could be. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116:302-310.

117 Miller, P.E., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 

115:95-100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-14 

 

Table 3-7. HEI-2010 scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 2011-2012 participants 

ages 2 years and older as well as the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score 

Offered Delivered All 

persons 

2011-12 

U.S. Food 

Supply 

2010 

Entitlement 

Foods 

+ Bonus 

Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

+Bonus 

Foods 

1. Total fruit 5 5.0 5.0 3.1 5.0 3.0 1.8

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.6 4.0 2.3

3. Total vegetables 5 4.4 3.9 3.4 3.0 3.4 2.6

4. Greens and beans 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 3.0 2.1

5. Whole grains 10 7.2 6.7 7.2 6.7 2.9 2.4

6. Dairy 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.9 6.4 4.8

7. Total protein foods 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

8. Seafood & plant 

proteins 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 3.8

9. Fatty acids 10 3.0 3.0 9.7 9.7 4.7 7.3

10. Refined grains 10 8.2 8.9 2.2 3.3 6.2 6.7

11. Sodium 10 5.2 6.3 10.0 10.0 4.2 0.3

12. Empty calories 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.6 15.7

Total HEI-2010 score 100 80.0 81.0 82.0 83.6 59.0 55.0 

Note: Empty calories = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar

Figure 3-3. HEI-2010 overall scores for CSFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 2011-2012

participants ages 2 years and older as well as the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered

Entitlement

Offered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

Delivered

Entitlement

Delivered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

NHANES

2011-2012

US Food Supply

2010

Total HEI-2010 Score
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-15 

 

 Discussion 

Prior to 2014, CSFP served income-eligible seniors (age 60 and older), infants, children, and women, 

but participation for infants, children, and women was steadily declining. Section 4102 of the Farm 

Bill amended CSFP eligibility requirements, resulting in the phasing out of participation for infants, 

children and women, and transitioning CSFP to an income-eligible, seniors-only (age 60 and older) 

program.118 Infants, children, and women who were enrolled in the program prior to February 6, 

2014, continued to receive CSFP benefits, but others seeking to apply for benefits were referred to 

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

In FY 2014, infants, children, and women accounted for less than 3 percent of CSFP participants; 

since these subgroups were being phased out, the results presented in this section are for elderly 

participants only.119

 In FY 2014, USDA Foods offered and delivered through CSFP to participating State 

and local agencies included both entitlement and bonus foods. The as-offered and asdelivered CSFP food packages, with and without bonus foods, included a variety of 

foods from nine food groups. The additional juice offered in the bonus food package 

was the only difference between the as-offered packages. Preferences of participants 

and participating agencies are reflected in differences in the composition of the asoffered and as-delivered packages. Compared to the as-offered package, the as-delivered 

package included less juice, cheese, and starches, and slightly more milk, vegetables, and 

cereal.

 The as-offered CSFP food packages provided 20 percent or more of the weighted 

average 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations for total vegetables, total grains, 

and dairy. However, the as-delivered packages contained less vegetables from the dark 

green, red orange, and legumes groups, and contained more refined grains. When the 

nutrient content was examined per 2,000 kcal, both the as-offered and as-delivered 

packages exceeded the recommended amount of grains per 2,000 kcal; both exceeded 

the recommended amount of refined grains per 2,000 kcal, with the as-delivered 

packages containing substantially more refined grains than the as-offered packages. 

None of the CSFP food packages exceeded the recommended amount of oils or 

calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) per 2,000 kcal.

 

118 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Distribution Division. Memo to Regional 

Directors, Special Nutrition Programs, State Directors, CSFP Agencies. Commodity Supplemental Food Program 

CSFP) – Implementation of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L.113079). Accessed July 2015. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CSFP_Farm_Bill_Implementation_Memo.pdf.

119 As indicated in Chapter 2, the proportion of USDA foods offered and delivered to infants, children, and women was 

portioned out and the results represent the amount of foods offered and delivered to the elderly.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-16 

 

 In the as-offered package, American cheese provided the most calories, followed by 

peanut butter, dry milk, oats, and white rice. The major sources of calories in the asdelivered CSFP food packages were farina, peanut butter, dry milk, and macaroni.

 CSFP food packages do not provide a complete diet to participants, but contain good 

sources of the nutrients typically lacking in the diets of the target population.120 The asoffered packages provided about 527 calories (567 calories with bonus foods) and the 

as-delivered packages provided 482 calories (521 calories with bonus foods). This is 

slightly less than 30 percent of the recommended amount of calories for a reference 

participant. The packages also provided 30 percent or less of the DRI for all 

macronutrients except carbohydrates. The as-offered and as-delivered packages 

provided more than two-thirds of the weighted average DRI for three and two of the 

eight minerals, respectively; both the as-offered and as-delivered packages provided 

more than the weighted average DRI for iron and phosphorus; the as-offered packages 

provided approximately twice as much of the weighted average DRI for sodium as did 

the as-delivered package (62 percent and 33 percent, respectively). Finally, the as-offered 

packages provided more than 60 percent of the weighted average DRI for two vitamins 

(riboflavin and vitamin B12), and the as-delivered packages provided more than 60 

percent of the weighted average DRI for thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B12, and 

folate.

 The TFP standards are identical to the DRI levels for most nutrients except calories, 

sodium, potassium, and vitamin E. CSFP food packages met the TFP standard for 

sodium and provided about 20 percent or more of potassium and vitamin E.

 The as-delivered CSFP food packages provided more than 100 percent of the DRI and 

TFP standards for iron and vitamin B12; the amount of iron did not exceed the UL 

(there is no UL for vitamin B12 because of its low toxicity). 

 In FY 2014, both the as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages had total HEI2005 and HEI-2010 scores of more than 80. The as-delivered packages scored 

marginally higher than the as-offered package. As-offered and as-delivered food 

packages achieved the maximum possible HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores for six and 

five of the 12 components, respectively. Although the as-offered package achieved the 

maximum HEI-2005 score for total grains, it fell short of the maximum for the new 

HEI-2010 score for refined grains. The as-delivered package achieved the maximum 

score for the HEI-2010 score for saturated fat but fell far short of the maximum score 

for the new HEI-2010 fatty acid component. The as-delivered packages fell short of 

meeting the maximum HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores for whole fruit, total vegetables 

and whole grains. The as-delivered CSFP food package with bonus foods achieved an 

overall HEI-2010 that exceeded that of the 2010 U.S. food supply; scores for the 

package were also higher than the U.S. food supply for eight of the 12 components: 

total fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, seafood and plant 

protein, fatty acids, sodium, and empty calories.

 

120 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Commodity Supplemental Food Program. Nutrition 

Program Fact Sheet. Accessed July 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/about-csfp.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-17 

 

3.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 

In FY 2014, the as-offered FDPIR food package provided 82 million pounds of USDA Foods, or 

1,189 g/participant/day; the as-delivered FDPIR food package provided 73 million pounds of 

USDA Foods annually, or 1,065 g/participant/day. Both the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR 

food packages contained foods from 10 food groups. (The variety of foods in the FDPIR food 

package is specified by the FDPIR Distribution Guides; see Appendix A.) Compared with the asoffered food package, the as-delivered FDPIR food package contained more cheese, juice, milk and

oil and vegetables, and less fruit and starches, and the same amount of cereal, peanut butter/dried 

beans, and meat (Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4. Food group* composition by weight of FDPIR USDA Foods as a percentage of the 

total weight of foods offered and delivered

*Food groups are those in the FDPIR Distribution Guides (Appendix A).

Food Sources of Calories. An examination of calories by food product for the as-offered and asdelivered FDPIR food packages is indicative of preferences; although FDPIR has distribution 

guides, participants and administering agencies can select specific products within broad food 

groups (such as cereal or canned vegetables), depending on participant preferences or transportation 

and storage capabilities. As described in Section 2.3.3, the as-offered food package was developed by 

assuming equal representation of all products within the distribution guide food categories. In 

CEREAL

3%

CHEESE

3%

FRUIT

13%

JUICE

11%

MEAT

12%

MILK

10%

OIL

1%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

6%

STARCHES

24%

VEGETABLES

17%

Entitlement Foods as Offered 

(Total = 82 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

3%

CHEESE

4%

FRUIT

11%

JUICE

12%

MEAT

12%

MILK

12%

OIL

2%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

6%

STARCHES

19%

VEGETABLES

19%

Entitlement Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 73 million lbs/year) 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-18 

 

reality, one product may be substituted for another, so a comparison of calories by food product in 

the as-offered package with the as-delivered package provides a glimpse into the popularity of the 

food products. Appendix G presents the nutrients for each food offered or delivered to a reference 

participant on a monthly basis for FDPIR.

Within the dry cereal group, bran flakes provided the most calories for the as-offered package, while 

corn flakes provided the most calories for the as-delivered package. Macaroni and cheese provided 

the most calories from starches in the as-offered package, while spaghetti provided the most in the 

as-delivered package. Although white flour and whole wheat flour provided similar amounts of 

calories in the as-offered package, the as-delivered package had 16 times more calories from white 

flour than whole wheat. Corn provided the most calories from canned vegetables for both the asoffered and as-delivered packages, and potatoes the most calories for fresh vegetables. The asoffered package had similar amounts of calories from all varieties of canned beans and dried beans, 

while the as-delivered package had more calories from canned refried beans, canned pinto beans, 

and dried pinto beans than other beans. All varieties of canned fruits provided similar amounts of 

calories to the as-offered package; avocados provided the most calories from fresh fruit, and raisins 

the most calories from dried fruit. Canned peaches were the source of the most calories from 

canned fruit in the as-delivered package; mixed fruit, apples, and oranges provided the most calories 

from fresh fruit; and raisins and fruit-nut mix provided the most calories from dried fruit. Canned 

beef provided the most calories from the meat group in the as-offered package, while frozen ground 

beef provided the most calories in the as-delivered package. Although calories from peanuts and 

peanut butter were similar in the as-offered package, peanut butter provided three times the number 

of calories as peanuts in the as-delivered package. Processed American cheese provided nearly twice 

the number of calories as reduced fat cheese in the as-offered package, but over five times as many 

calories as reduced fat cheese in the as-delivered package. Though evaporated milk provided nearly 

the same number of calories to both the as-offered and as-delivered packages, the as-offered 

package contained fewer calories from 1 percent UHT milk and more calories from dry milk than 

the as-delivered package.121 Vegetable oil was the largest source of calories from the oil group in 

both the as-offered and as-delivered packages.

 

121 Note that an earlier version of this report erroneously stated that the amount of calories from dry milk was the same 

in the as-offered and as-delivered packages.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-19 

 

3.2.1 Food Group Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods 

Food Group Comparison. Both the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages provided 

more than the weighted average recommended amount for legumes, total grains, and 

nuts/seeds/soy products; the as-offered FDPIR food package also provided more than the weighted 

average recommended amount of whole grains. Both the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food 

packages provided almost three times the weighted average recommended amount for refined grains 

(297 percent and 282 percent, respectively), but neither food package exceeded the recommended 

amount of oils or calories from SoFAS (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8. Food group and subgroup content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted 

average 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations for the reference participant

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 2.0 1.2 58% 0.9 45%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.8 1.1 39% 1.1 38%

Dark green 0.3 0.1 32% <0.1 11%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 44% 0.3 39%

Legumes 0.3 0.4 144% 0.4 142%

Starchy 0.8 0.3 37% 0.5 68%

Other 0.6 0.4 60% 0.2 31%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 7.0 14.7 210% 11.0 157%

Whole 3.6 4.3 119% 1.1 30%

Refined 3.5 10.4 297% 9.9 282%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.9 4.7 80% 3.7 62%

Seafood 1.3 0.4 28% 0.1 6%

Meat, poultry, eggs 4.0 3.5 87% 2.7 68%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 0.9 152% 0.9 142%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3.0 1.9 65% 2.0 68%

Oils (grams) 28.5 17.0 60% 21.8 77%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 260.0 201.7 78% 192.5 74%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 12% 10%  11% 

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Food Groups Comparison per 2,000 kcal. The FDPIR food package provided slightly more than 

2,000 kcal; therefore, standardizing the food groups provided to the 2,000 kcal level resulted in 

findings very similar to those presented for the food group comparison. The as-offered and asdelivered FDPIR food package per 2,000 kcal provided more than twice the recommended amount 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-20 

 

of legumes, total grains, and nuts/seeds/soy products; the as-offered FDPIR food package also 

provided more than the recommended amount of whole grains. Both the as-offered and the asdelivered FDPIR food packages provided over three times the recommended amount of refined 

grains. The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages provided approximately half or less of 

the recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables, and seafood. Neither food package exceeded the 

recommended amount of oil or calories from SoFAS (Table 3-9).

Table 3-9. Food group and subgroup content of FDPIR USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared 

to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 2.0 1.1 57% 1.0 50%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.5 1.1 43% 1.2 48%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 47% <0.1 18%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 43% 0.3 43%

Legumes 0.2 0.4 210% 0.5 236%

Starchy 0.7 0.3 41% 0.6 86%

Other 0.6 0.3 58% 0.2 35%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 6.0 14.3 239% 12.2 203%

Whole 3.0 4.2 139% 1.2 41%

Refined 3.0 10.1 338% 11.0 366%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.5 4.6 84% 4.1 74%

Seafood 1.1 0.3 32% 0.1 8%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 3.4 91% 3.0 82%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 0.9 148% 0.9 158%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3.0 1.9 63% 2.3 75%

Oils (grams) 27.0 16.6 61% 24.3 90%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 258.0 197.0 76% 214.1 83%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 13.0% 10%  11% 

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-21 

 

3.2.1 Nutrient Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods 

 Comparison With DRI 

Energy. The as-offered FDPIR food package provided 95 percent of the weighted average 

recommended energy needs for the reference participant, while the as-delivered FDPIR food 

package provided 84 percent of the recommended amount of calories.

Macronutrients. The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages provided more than the 

weighted average recommended amount of protein and carbohydrate, and the as-delivered FDPIR 

food package provided more than the weighted average recommended amount of α-linolenic acid. 

Both the as-offered and as-delivered food packages met the AMDR guidelines for percentage of 

calories from protein, carbohydrate and linoleic acid, the as-delivered FDPIR food package also met 

the guidelines for percentage of calories from total fat and α-linolenic acid. The as-offered FDPIR 

food package provided the weighted average recommended amount of dietary fiber, while the asdelivered FDPIR food package provided 72 percent (Table 3-10).

Table 3-10. Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) for the reference participant

Nutrient/Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Calories2 2,150 2,048 95% 1,798 84%

Protein, g 38.8 84.8 219% 71.6 185%

Protein, % kcal 10-32.5 17%  16% 

Carbohydrate, g 130 321.6 247% 260.4 200%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  58% 

Total fat, g ND 50.5 N/A 53.7 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 22.5-35 22% ↓ 27% 

Saturated fat, g ND 14.2 N/A 15.7 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal as low as possible 6% N/A 8% N/A

Linoleic acid, g 12.8 11.7 91% 12.1 94%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 5%  6% 

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.2 1.1 95% 1.4 116%

α-Linolenic acid, % kcal 0.6-1.2 1% ↓ 1% 

Cholesterol, mg ND 206.6 N/A 170.8 N/A

Total dietary fiber, g 29.8 29.6 99% 21.6 72%
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-22 

 

Table 3-10. Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) for the reference participant (continued)

Nutrient/Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1075 1028.8 96% 1000.4 93%

Copper, mg 0.7 1.4 195% 1.0 148%

Iron, mg 11 24.1 219% 19.9 181%

Magnesium, mg 277.5 357.0 129% 259.8 94%

Phosphorus, mg 787.5 1753.4 223% 1413.0 179%

Potassium, mg 4425 2734.3 62% 2265.9 51%

Sodium, mg3 ≤1425 1772.1 124% 1506.1 106%

Zinc, mg 8 13.3 167% 10.8 136%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 650 730.8 112% 543.9 84%

Vitamin C, mg 58.8 77.2 131% 64.6 110%

Vitamin D, μg 15 6.8 46% 5.7 38%

Vitamin E, mg 12 9.1 76% 7.8 65%

Thiamin, mg 1.0 2.3 233% 1.9 192%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 2.4 237% 2.0 197%

Niacin, mg 12.5 25.9 207% 22.0 176%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.0 1.9 191% 1.5 151%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.0 4.3 213% 3.6 182%

Folate, μg (DFE) 325 882.7 272% 775.2 239%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = within AMDR; ↓ = below AMDR; ↑ = above AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for the reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.

3 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of 

concern for most participants, but rather the UL.

Minerals. The mineral profiles of the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages were

similar when compared with the weighted average RDA. Both the as-offered and as-delivered 

FDPIR food packages provided more than 100 percent of the weighted average RDA for copper, 

iron, phosphorus, sodium, and zinc; the as-offered FDPIR food package also provided more than 

100 percent of the weighted average RDA for magnesium. The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR 

provided 96 percent and 93 percent of the weighted average RDA for calcium, and 62 and 51 

percent of the weighted average RDA for potassium, respectively (Table 3-10). The mineral levels in 

the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages were below the UL for all minerals 

(Table 3-11).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-23 

 

Table 3-11. Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average ULs for 

the reference participant

Nutrient Weighted Average UL 

Offered Delivered 

Amount Amount 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 2625 1028.8 1000.4

Copper, mg 7 1.4 1.0

Iron, mg 42.5 24.1 19.9

Phosphorus, mg 3750 1753.4 1413.0

Potassium, mg ND 2734.3 2265.9

Sodium, mg 2175 1772.1 1506.1

Zinc, mg 28.75 13.3 10.8

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 2150.0 730.8 543.9

Vitamin C, mg 1462.5 77.2 64.6

Vitamin D, μg 93.8 6.8 5.7

Vitamin E (added), mg1 725.0 1.8 0.9

Thiamin, mg ND 2.3 1.9

Riboflavin, mg ND 2.4 2.0

Niacin, mg1 26.3 25.9 22.0

Vitamin B6, mg 75.0 1.9 1.5

Vitamin B12, μg ND 1.4 1.0

Folate, μg (folic acid)1 750.0 366.4 315.3

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted correspondingly.

Vitamins. When compared with the weighted average recommended amount, the as-offered and asdelivered FDPIR food packages provided more than twice the recommended amount of folate; the 

as-offered FDPIR food package also provided more than twice the weighted average RDA for 

thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and vitamin B12, more than 100 percent of the weighted average RDA for 

vitamins A and C, 76 percent of the weighted average RDA of vitamin E and 46 percent for vitamin 

D. The as-delivered FDPIR food package provided more than 100 percent of the weighted average 

RDA for all vitamins except vitamins A, D and E (Table 3-10). The vitamin levels in the as-offered 

and as-delivered FDPIR food packages were below the UL for all vitamins (Table 3-11).

 Comparison With TFP Standards 

The TFP dietary standards are very similar to the DRIs; therefore, most of the results of comparison 

to the TFP dietary standards are similar to those in the section above. The TFP standards differ 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-24 

 

from the DRIs for three nutrients: sodium, potassium, and vitamin E.122 Both the as-offered and asdelivered FDPIR food packages met the TFP standard for sodium. The as-offered and as-delivered 

FDPIR food packages provided less than the TFP standard for potassium (76 and 63 percent, 

respectively) and vitamin E (93 and 80 percent, respectively) (Table 3-12).

3.2.3 Healthy Eating Index for FDPIR USDA Foods 

 HEI-2005 Score 

The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages achieved overall HEI-2005 scores of 88.1

and 86.5, respectively. Compared with the as-offered FDPIR package, the as-delivered food package 

had lower component scores for five of the 12 components, most notably the whole grain 

component score, which was three points lower than that of the as-offered package. Although the 

as-offered package contains approximately equal amounts of the ready-to-eat cereals, the asdelivered package contained far more cornflakes and corn squares and less bran flakes; similarly, the 

as-delivered package contained far less whole grain rotini than the as-offered package (Appendix G). 

The as-delivered package also had lower component scores for whole fruit and legumes, but higher

scores for milk and oils.

FDPIR participants consuming foods in quantities contained in FDPIR food packages would have 

HEI-2005 scores about 30 points above those achieved by Americans and 35 points above those 

achieved by SNAP participants, respectively (NHANES 1999-2004)

123 (Table 3-13, Figure 3-5).

 

122 The TFP standard for sodium is set to the median consumption or the UL for sodium, whichever is higher; the 

standards for potassium and vitamin E are provided as a range.

123 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008, page 

C-34. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-25 

 

Table 3-12. Nutrient content of FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Nutrient/Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Calories 2,150 2,048 95% 1,798 84%

Protein, g N/A 84.8 N/A 71.6 N/A

Protein, % kcal 10-32.5 17%  16% 

Carbohydrate, g N/A 321.6 N/A 260.4 N/A

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  58% 

Total fat, g N/A 50.5 N/A 53.7 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 22.5-35 22% ↓ 27% 

Saturated fat, g N/A 14.2 N/A 15.7 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal <10 6%  8% 

Linoleic acid, g 12.75 11.7 91% 12.1 94%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 5%  6% 

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.2 1.1 95% 1.4 116%

α-Linolenic acid, % kcal 0.6-1.2 1% ↓ 1% 

Cholesterol, mg ≤ 300 206.6  170.8 

Total dietary fiber, g 29.8 29.6 99% 21.6 72%

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1075.0 1028.8 96% 1000.4 93%

Copper, mg 0.7 1.4 195% 1.0 148%

Iron, mg 11.0 24.1 219% 19.9 181%

Magnesium, mg 277.5 357.0 129% 259.8 94%

Phosphorus, mg 787.5 1753.4 223% 1413.0 179%

Potassium, mg2 3590 - 4041 2734.3 76% 2265.9 63%

Sodium, mg ≤ 2175.0 1772.1  1506.1 

Zinc, mg 8.0 13.3 167% 10.8 136%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 650.0 730.8 112% 543.9 84%

Vitamin C, mg 58.8 77.2 131% 64.6 110%

Vitamin D, μg N/A 6.8 N/A 5.7 N/A

Vitamin E, mg2 9.8-10.5 9.1 93% 7.8 80%

Thiamin, mg 1.0 2.3 233% 1.9 192%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 2.4 237% 2.0 197%

Niacin, mg 12.5 25.9 207% 22.0 176%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.1 1.9 191% 1.5 151%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.0 4.3 213% 3.6 182%

Folate, μg (DFE) 325.0 882.7 272% 775.2 239%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percentage of the lower value in the acceptable range for the standard.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-26 

 

Table 3-13. HEI-2005 scores for FDPIR USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 participants 

ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered All Persons 

SNAP 

Participants 

1. Total fruit 5 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.8

2. Whole fruit 5 4.4 3.2 3.5 2.5

3. Total vegetables 5 3.2 3.3 3.2 2.9

4. Dark green & orange veg 

& legumes 5 3.5 2.4 1.4 1.3

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.7

7. Milk 10 7.3 8.7 6.3 5.6

8. Meat and beans 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

9. Oils 10 6.9 10.0 6.3 4.7

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 9.4 3.9 3.8

11. Sodium 10 9.2 9.3 6.2 6.3

12. Calories from SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 7.2 5.7

Total HEI-2005 score 100 88.1 86.5 57.5 51.9 

Note: SoFAAS = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Figure 3-5. HEI-2005 overall scores for FDPIR USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered Delivered All persons SNAP participants

Total HEI-2005 Score

NHANES 1999-2004
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-27 

 

 HEI-2010 Score 

The HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages were 81.4 and 73.0, 

respectively. The lower HEI-2010 score for the as-delivered food package was due to lower 

component scores for five of the 12 components, particularly the much lower component score for 

whole grains as compared to that for the as-offered food package. The as-delivered whole grain 

score was 4.1 compared to a score of 10 for the as-offered food package. Both as-offered and asdelivered food packages had scores of zero for refined grains, but achieved the maximum 

component scores for total protein, sodium and calories from SoFAAS.

These total HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages were more 

than 14 points higher than those achieved by the average American diet (NHANES 2011-2012), 

both for all persons ages 2 years and older124 and children ages 2 to 17 years,125 and the U.S. food 

supply in 2010 (the latest year for which HEI-2010 scores are available).

126 The HEI-2010 

component scores for the as-offered FDPIR food package exceeded or were equal to those of the 

average American diet for 10 of the 12 components for all persons (lower only for total vegetable

and refined grains), and eight of the 12 components for children (lower for total and whole fruit, 

dairy and refined grains). The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-delivered FDPIR food 

packages exceeded or were equal to those of the average American diet for 10 of the 12 components 

for all persons (lower only for whole fruit and refined grains) and eight of the 12 components for 

children (lower for total fruit, whole fruit, dairy and refined grains). The HEI-2010 component 

scores for the as-offered food package exceeded or were equal to those of the U.S. food supply for 

11 of the 12 components for the as-offered food package, and 10 of 12 for the as-delivered package.

Both FDPIR food packages had lower refined grain component scores and the as-delivered package 

also had a slightly lower fatty acid component score (Table 3-14, Figure 3-6).

 

124 Wilson, M.M., Reedy, J., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. American diet quality: where it is, where it is heading, and what it 

could be. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116:302-310.

125 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Healthy Eating Index. Accessed February 

29, 2016. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex

126 Miller, P.E., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 

115:95-100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-28 

 

Table 3-14. HEI-2010 scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 2 

years and older (all persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (children), 

and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered 

All 

Persons 

2011-12 

Children 

2011-12 

U.S. Food 

Supply 

2010

1. Total fruit 5 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.9 1.8

2. Whole fruit 5 4.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 2.3

3. Total vegetables 5 3.2 3.3 3.4 2.1 2.6

4. Greens and beans 5 5.0 3.5 3.0 0.7 2.1

5. Whole grains 10 10.0 4.1 2.9 2.5 2.4

6. Dairy 10 7.3 8.7 6.4 9.0 4.8

7. Total protein foods 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0

8. Seafood & plant 

proteins 5 5.0 5.0 3.7 3.1 3.8

9. Fatty acids 10 7.8 7.2 4.7 3.3 7.3

10.Refined grains 10 0.0 0.0 6.2 4.9 6.7

11.Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 4.2 4.9 0.3

12.Empty calories 20 20.0 20.0 12.6 11.5 15.7

Total HEI-2010 score 100 81.4 73.0 59.0 55.1 55.0 

Note: Empty calories = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar

Figure 3-6. HEI-2010 overall scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants 

ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years 

(Children), and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered Delivered All persons Children US Food Supply

2010

Total HEI-2010 Score

NHANES 2011-2012
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-29 

 

 Discussion 

The USDA Food package provided to FDPIR participants is based on the number of individuals in 

the household. The FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group127 reviews the food package on an 

ongoing basis; discussion topics range from ways to add new products or eliminate existing 

products, increase choices within food categories, improve packaging, change packaging size of 

products, revise the guide rate for a product, and improve the quality and nutrient profile of USDA 

Foods. Improvements in the food package are intended to align the food package with the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans.

 In FY 2014, FDPIR food packages did not contain any bonus foods. The as-offered 

and as-delivered FDPIR food package included foods from ten food groups. The 

proportion of food groups by weight differed in the two packages; compared with the 

as-offered food package, the as-delivered FDPIR food package contained more cheese, 

juice, meat, milk, oil, and vegetables, and less fruit and starches.

 Both the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages contained almost three 

times the weighted average recommended amount for refined grains, but neither food 

package exceeded the recommended amount of oils or calories from SoFAS.

 In the as-delivered package, white flour and vegetable oil were the largest source of 

calories, and canned tuna, canned turkey, and lima beans provided the least amount of 

calories.

 The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages provided 2,048 and 1,798 

calories, respectively, translating to 95 percent and 84 percent of the DRI 

recommendations. When compared with the DRI and the TFP standards, both the asoffered and as-delivered packages provided more than the recommended amount for 

five to six of the eight minerals and seven to eight of the ten vitamins examined. The 

vitamin D level of as-offered and as-delivered packages was less than 50 percent of the 

recommended DRI amount, and the potassium level was about 75 percent of the 

recommended DRI amount.

 In FY 2014, both the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages had total HEI2005 and HEI-2010 scores of more than 80 and more than 70, respectively. The asoffered package scored marginally higher than the as-delivered package. The as-offered 

and as-delivered food packages achieved the maximum possible HEI-2005 and HEI2010 scores for four of the 12 components, respectively. The as-delivered package fell 

short of meeting the maximum HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores for total fruit, whole 

fruit, total vegetables, dark green and orange vegetables/legumes, whole grains, and 

 

127 The FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group was formed in 2009 and is comprised of officials from the National 

Association of Food Distribution Programs on Indian Reservations, representatives of Indian Tribal Organizations, 

State agencies that administer FDPIR, Federal and Tribal health professionals, USDA commodity procurement 

specialists, and the FNS Regional and National staff.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-30 

 

milk. Although the as-offered and as-delivered packages achieved the maximum HEI2005 score for total grains, both packages exceeded the upper limit for refined grains 

and scored the minimum HEI-2010 score for the refined grain component. The HEI2010 score for the as-delivered FDPIR food package exceeded the scores for the 

average American diet (NHANES 2011-2012) and the U.S. Food Supply in 2010; the 

package also scored higher than the U.S. food supply for 9 of the 12 components.

3.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

In FY 2014, bonus foods were not offered or delivered in NSLP. The as-offered NSLP food 

package provided 1,770 million pounds of USDA Foods, or 154 g/participant/day; the as-delivered 

NSLP food package provided 1,331 million pounds of USDA Foods annually, or 116 

g/participant/day. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages contained foods from 7 

and 8 food groups, respectively (see Appendix E for additional information about food groups in 

NSLP, CACFP, and TEFAP); only the as-delivered NSLP food package contained fluid milk.128 The 

top three contributors to the total weight of the as-offered package were items from the grain, fruit, 

and vegetable groups. The top three contributors to the total weight of the as-delivered NSLP food 

package were meat, fruits, and vegetables. Compared to the as-offered NSLP food package, the asdelivered package contained less grains and oil, and more cheese, fruit, meat, and vegetables 

(Figure 3-7).

Food Sources of Calories. An examination of calories by food product for the NSLP food package 

as offered and as delivered is indicative of preferences. Although NSLP does not have distribution 

guides or limits, an as-offered food package was created (as described in Section 2.3.3) to represent 

the USDA Foods made available to participating agencies. The as-offered food package was 

developed by assuming equal representation of all products within a food category. In reality, 

participating agencies make selections based on factors such as participant preference, storage 

facility constraints, and cost considerations. A comparison of the calories by food product in the asoffered package with the as-delivered package provides a glimpse into the popularity of the food 

products. Appendix H presents the nutrients for participants per month in NSLP.

 

128 Only programs in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands may order UHT fluid milk, as they are 

offshore sites with limited access to fresh fluid milk. Therefore, UHT fluid milk is not on the National Foods Available 

list offered to all states, but there are deliveries of UHT fluid milk.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-31 

 

Figure 3-7. Food group* composition by weight of NSLP USDA Foods as a percentage of the 

total weight of foods offered and delivered

*Food groups are based on the IOM’s report on school meals.129

In the as-delivered food package, part skim mozzarella and American cheese provided the most 

calories in the cheese group. The main sources of calories in the fruit group were canned pears, fresh 

apples, frozen strawberries, applesauce, frozen peaches, and canned mixed fruit. Dehydrated 

potatoes and white flour provided the largest amounts of calories in the grain group, with whole 

grain products providing fewer calories in the as-delivered food package than in the as-offered food 

package. One exception was rice: Similar amounts of calories from brown and white rice were 

offered, but the as-delivered NSLP food package provided almost eight times more calories from 

brown rice than white rice; similarly, the as-delivered food package contained 20 times more calories 

from whole grain pastas than enriched pasta. Corn and green beans were the preferred canned 

vegetables, though deliveries of tomato paste also provided more calories than all canned vegetables 

other than corn. Although delivery of most fresh vegetables was smaller than the amount offered, 

fresh potatoes provided more than three times more calories as delivered than the amount offered,

and provided the most calories for the vegetable group; sweet potatoes, carrots, and lettuce were 

more commonly delivered than other fresh vegetables. Potatoes were also the source of the most 

calories from frozen vegetables, as frozen potatoes and frozen corn were delivered in greater 

 

129 Institute of Medicine. School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies 

Press. 2010; pages 271-272. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SchoolMealsIOM.pdf.

CHEESE

5%

FRUIT

19%

GRAINS

30%

JUICE

4%

MEAT

10%

OIL

17%

VEGETABLES

15%

Entitlement Foods as Offered 

(Total = 1,770 million lbs/year) 

CHEESE

10%

FRUIT

25%

GRAINS

JUICE 5%

<1%

MEAT

35%

MILK

<1%

OIL

<1%

VEGETABLES

24%

Entitlement Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 1,331 million lbs/year) 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-32 

 

amounts than offered. Meat, poultry, and fish products are offered as canned, fresh (chilled), or 

frozen products. Although canned meats were delivered at approximately the same amount as 

offered, there were some striking differences for fresh and frozen products. More whole chicken 

and frozen ground beef was delivered than offered; these foods contributed the most calories in the 

meat food group. The quantity of as-delivered products also exceeded the quantity offered for fresh 

and frozen meat products, with the exception of frozen pollock, frozen catfish, frozen ground pork, 

and whole frozen turkey. Peanut butter was delivered in greater amounts than offered, while other 

nut products were delivered in smaller amounts than offered. Both frozen eggs and oil were offered 

in greater amounts than delivered.

3.3.1 Food Group Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods

Food Group Comparison. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided less 

than 10 percent of the weighted average amount of fruit, dark green vegetables, red/orange

vegetables, legumes, other vegetables; seafood; and dairy recommended for the reference participant. 

In comparison to the 2010 USDA Food Patterns, the as-delivered NSLP food package contained 

less fruit; legumes; total grains, whole grains, and refined grains; seafood, nuts/seeds/soy products; 

and oils than the as-offered NSLP food package. Although the as-offered NSLP food package met 

the guideline for maximum SoFAS (as percent of total calories) set by the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

guidelines, the as-delivered NSLP food package exceeded that guideline (Table 3-15).

Food Groups Comparison per 2,000 kcal. The as-offered NSLP food package provided more 

than 90 percent of the recommended amount of legumes, total grains, as well whole and refined 

grains. The as-offered food package provided less than 50 percent of the recommended amount of 

fruits, total vegetables, and all vegetable subgroups other than legumes and starchy vegetables per 

2,000 kcal. As delivered, the NSLP food package met more of the recommendations, providing at 

least 90 percent of the recommended amount of fruits, total vegetables, dark green vegetables, 

legumes, protein foods, nuts/seeds/soy products and dairy; over 50 percent of the recommended 

amount of red/orange vegetables, other vegetables, total, whole, and refined grains; but just 13 

percent of the recommended amount of seafood per 2,000 kcal. The as-offered NSLP food package 

exceeded the recommended amount of oils, providing over four times the recommended amount 

per 2,000 kcal, but did not exceed the recommended amount of calories from SoFAS; the asdelivered NSLP food package did not exceed the recommended amount of oil but did exceed the 

recommendation for calories from SoFAS (Table 3-16).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-33 

 

Table 3-15. Food group and subgroup content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted 

average 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations for the reference participant

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 1.8 0.2 10% 0.1 8%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.8 0.2 8% 0.2 8%

Dark green 0.3 <0.1 5% <0.1 5%

Red and orange 0.8 0.1 6% <0.1 4%

Legumes 0.3 <0.1 14% <0.1 5%

Starchy 0.8 0.1 16% 0.2 19%

Other 0.7 <0.1 3% <0.1 4%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 7.0 1.8 26% 0.2 3%

Whole 3.6 0.8 21% 0.1 3%

Refined 3.5 1.1 31% 0.1 4%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.7 0.2 4% 0.7 12%

Seafood 1.3 <0.1 3% <0.1 1%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.9 0.1 3% 0.6 16%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 0.1 14% <0.1 8%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3.0 0.2 7% 0.3 9%

Oils (grams) 27.8 25.3 91% 0.8 3%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 238.1 20.4 9% 28.4 12%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 11% 5%  20% ↑

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-34 

 

Table 3-16. Food group and subgroup content of NSLP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to 

the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 2.0 0.8 41% 2.0 98%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.5 0.9 37% 3.2 128%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 32% 0.2 97%

Red and orange 0.8 0.2 28% 0.4 55%

Legumes 0.2 0.2 93% 0.2 101%

Starchy 0.7 0.6 79% 2.2 317%

Other 0.6 0.1 15% 0.4 59%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 6.0 8.1 136% 3.1 52%

Whole 3.0 3.4 113% 1.3 45%

Refined 3.0 4.8 159% 1.8 59%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.5 1.0 19% 10.0 182%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 15% 0.1 13%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.5 13% 9.2 247%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 0.4 63% 0.7 119%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3.0 0.9 29% 3.9 130%

Oils (grams) 27.0 111.4 412% 11.8 44%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 258.0 90.0 35% 407.1 158%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 13% 5%  20% ↑

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

3.3.2 Comparison of NSLP USDA Foods With NSLP Meal Pattern and 

Nutrition Standards 

The as-offered NSLP food package contained more than one quarter of the minimum number of 

servings of fruit (31 percent of the standard), total vegetables (26 percent), and all vegetable 

subgroups (20 to 42 percent) except starchy vegetables (16 percent) and dark green vegetables (15 

percent). The as-offered food package contained less than one quarter of the minimum number of 

servings of protein foods and no servings of milk. Amounts provided by the as-delivered NSLP 

food package were slightly lower for all food groups except total vegetables and protein foods, for 

which the as-delivered food package contained 28 and 54 percent of the minimum number of 

servings, respectively. Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided more 

than the total amount of starchy vegetables; the as-offered NSLP food package provided over 100

percent of the school meal standard requirements for total grains and whole grains, while the asdelivered NSLP food package provided 17 and 16 percent, respectively (Table 3-17).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-35 

 

Table 3-17. Nutrient and food group content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted 

average school meal standards for the reference participant

Food Groups Standard 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 0.6 0.2 31% 0.1 23%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 0.8 0.2 26% 0.2 28%

Dark green 0.1 <0.1 15% 0.0 14%

Red and orange 0.2 0.1 25% 0.0 15%

Legumes 0.1 <0.1 42% 0.0 14%

Starchy 0.1 0.1 126% 0.2 155%

Other 0.1 <0.1 20% 0.0 25%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 1.3 1.8 142% 0.2 17%

Whole 0.6 0.8 128% 0.1 16%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 1.3 0.2 18% 0.7 54%

Milk (cup equiv.) 1 <0.1 0% 0.0 0%

Nutrients 

Calories1 614.8-714.8 454 74% 139 23%

Saturated fat, % kcal <10 10%  15% ↑

Sodium, mg reduce 131.6 N/A 142.1 N/A

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 Value for % Met is the percentage of the lower value in the acceptable range for the standard.

The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided 74 percent and 23 percent of the 

calorie standards, respectively.130 The as-offered NSLP food package met the school meal pattern 

standard for saturated fat as a percent of calories, while the as-delivered NSLP food package 

exceeded it.

3.3.3 Nutrient Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods

 Comparison With the DRIs 

Energy. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided 22 percent and seven 

percent of the recommended daily amount of calories, respectively (Table 3-18).

 

130 The amount of energy provided by the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages represents 61 and 21 percent 

of the amount of the energy required daily by the previous NSLP recommendations.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-36 

 

Table 3-18. Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRI) for the reference participant

Nutrient/Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Calories2 2,104.0 454 22% 139 7%

Protein, g 36.3 8.9 24% 9.2 25%

Protein, % kcal 10-30 8% ↓ 26% 

Carbohydrate, g 130.0 41.2 32% 13.5 10%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 36% ↓ 39% ↓

Total fat, g ND 29.0 N/A 5.6 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 25-35 57% ↑ 36% ↑

Saturated fat, g as low as possible 4.9 N/A 2.4 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal ND 10% N/A 15% N/A

Linoleic acid, g 12.7 10.7 84% 0.6 5%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 21% ↑ 4% ↓

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.3 1.5 117% 0.1 6%

α-Linolenic acid, % kcal 0.6-1.2 3% ↑ 0% ↓

Cholesterol, mg as low as possible 21.6 N/A 28.9 N/A

Total dietary fiber, g 31.9 4.0 13% 1.6 5%

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1253.2 105.4 8% 102.6 8%

Copper, mg 0.7 0.2 26% 0.1 11%

Iron, mg 10.8 2.1 19% 0.9 8%

Magnesium, mg 267.0 49.1 18% 21.1 8%

Phosphorus, mg 1133.0 192.8 17% 142.0 13%

Potassium, mg 4442.8 308.9 7% 231.6 5%

Sodium, mg3 ≤1453.2 131.6 9% 142.1 10%

Zinc, mg 8.3 1.3 15% 1.2 15%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 646.8 57.1 9% 53.0 8%

Vitamin C, mg 49.7 16.7 34% 8.0 16%

Vitamin D, μg 15.0 0.2 1% 0.2 1%

Vitamin E, mg 11.4 3.5 31% 0.5 4%

Thiamin, mg 0.9 0.3 33% 0.1 10%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 0.2 19% 0.1 12%

Niacin, mg 12.4 2.5 20% 1.9 16%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.0 0.2 20% 0.2 19%

Vitamin B12, μg 1.9 0.2 10% 0.4 23%

Folate, μg (DFE) 310.4 83.3 27% 21.5 7%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = within AMDR; ↓ = below AMDR; ↑ = above AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for the reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.

3 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of 

concern for most participants, but rather the UL.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-37 

 

Macronutrients. The as-offered NSLP food package provided 24 and 32 percent of the weighted 

average recommended amount of protein and carbohydrate, respectively, while the as-delivered 

NSLP food package provided 25 percent and 10 percent of the recommended amounts. Due to the 

slightly higher protein provided by the as-delivered NSLP food package as compared to the asoffered NSLP food package, the as-delivered package met the guideline for the percentage of 

calories from protein. Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages exceeded the 

AMDR guidelines for percentage of calories from total fat. Compared to the as-offered NSLP food 

package, the as-delivered NSLP food package had lower amount of linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid; 

the as-offered NSLP food package exceeded the guidelines for percentage of calories from linoleic 

acid and α-linolenic acid (Table 3-18).

Minerals. The as-offered NSLP food package provided 26 percent of the weighted average RDA 

for copper and more than 15 percent of the weighted average RDA for iron, magnesium, 

phosphorus, and zinc. The as-delivered NSLP food package provided more than 10 percent of the 

weighted average RDA for copper, phosphorus, sodium, and zinc. Both the as-offered and as 

delivered NSLP food packages provided less than 10 percent of the weighted average RDA for 

calcium and potassium (Table 3-18). The quantity of minerals in the as-offered and as-delivered 

NSLP food packages was below the UL (Table 3-19). The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food 

packages provided 8 percent of the weighted average RDA for calcium, or 24 percent of the 

previous NSLP requirement for calcium. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food package 

provided 19 and 8 percent of the weighted average RDA for iron, respectively, or 58 and 24 percent 

of the previous NSLP requirement for iron.

Vitamins. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided approximately 15 to 34

percent of the weighted average recommended amount of most vitamins. The as-offered NSLP 

food package provided more than 30 percent of the weighted recommended amount of vitamin C,

vitamin E and thiamin; approximately 20 percent for riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, and folate; and 

10 percent or less for vitamins A, D and B12. The as-delivered NSLP food package provided more 

than 20 percent of the weighted recommended amount of vitamin B12 and less than 10 percent of 

vitamins A, D, E, and folate (Table 3-18). The vitamin levels in the as-offered and as-delivered 

NSLP food packages were below the UL for all vitamins (Table 3-19).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-38 

 

Table 3-19. Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average ULs for 

the reference participant

Nutrient Weighted Average UL 

Offered Delivered 

Amount Amount 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 2922.0 105.4 102.6

Copper, mg 5.5 0.2 0.1

Iron, mg 41.3 2.1 0.9

Phosphorus, mg 3844.0 192.8 142.0

Potassium, mg ND 308.9 231.6

Sodium, mg 2179.2 131.6 142.1

Zinc, mg 24.1 1.3 1.2

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 1861.2 57.1 53.0

Vitamin C, mg 1270.2 16.7 8.0

Vitamin D, μg 96.1 0.2 0.2

Vitamin E (added), mg1 605.2 <0.1 <0.1

Thiamin, mg ND 0.3 0.1

Riboflavin, mg ND 0.2 0.1

Niacin, mg1 21.8 2.5 1.9

Vitamin B6, mg 62.1 <0.1 <0.1

Vitamin B12, μg ND 0.2 0.4

Folate, μg (folic acid)1 620.8 26.2 1.9

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted.

 Comparison With the TFP Dietary Standards 

The TFP dietary standards overlap with the AMDR, the RDAs, and the AIs of the DRIs, with some 

exceptions. The TFP standards are relaxed relative to the DRIs for vitamin E, potassium, and 

sodium, because those DRIs are difficult to achieve through typical American eating patterns.131 The 

energy recommendations also are different in the TFP standards and the DRIs, primarily due to the 

difference in age-gender grouping between the TFP standards and the DRIs,132 resulting in a slightly 

higher energy requirement under the TFP standards than under the DRIs. The as-offered and asdelivered NSLP food packages provided 20 percent and 6 percent of the weighted average TFP 

standard for energy, respectively. Although the as-offered NSLP food package met the TFP 

standard for calories from saturated fat, the as-delivered food package exceeded that standard. Both 

the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages exceeded the TFP standards for total calories 

 

131 FDPIR report to Congress. Page 13. Accessed June 2015.

132 In the TFP standards, a single nutrient value is set for boys and girls ages 1 to 11 years (four age categories), whereas 

a single DRI nutrient value is set for children up to 8 years (two age categories). 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-39 

 

from fat, total calories from linoleic acid, and total calories from α-linolenic acid. The as-offered 

NSLP food package provided more than 10 percent of the TFP standards for five minerals and nine 

vitamins (copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc; and vitamins C, E, thiamin, riboflavin, 

niacin, B6, B12 and folate). The as-delivered NSLP food package provided more than 10 percent of 

the TFP standards for three minerals and six vitamins (copper, phosphorus, and zinc; and vitamins 

C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, B6, B12 and folate). The TFP has range values for potassium and 

vitamin E standards; the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages provided 8 and 6 percent 

of the lower limit for potassium, respectively, and 32 and 4 percent of the lower limit for vitamin E. 

Both food packages also provided less sodium than the TFP-specified UL (Table 3-20).

3.3.4 Healthy Eating Index for NSLP USDA Foods

 HEI-2005 

The as offered and as-delivered NSLP food package achieved HEI-2005 scores of 72.6 and 76.7, 

respectively. The higher overall score for the as-delivered food package than the as-offered package 

are due to higher component scores for fruits, vegetables, meat, and milk in the as-delivered 

package. These component scores reflect the composition of NSLP food packages by weight: the asdelivered food package provided greater percentages of these food groups than the as-offered 

package.

Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages compared favorably to the average diet of 

an American child (2 to 18 years) and the average diet of a child participating in SNAP (NHANES 

1999-2004).

133 NSLP participants consuming foods in quantities contained in the as-offered and asdelivered food packages would achieve HEI-2005 scores approximately 17 to 21 points above those 

achieved by American children on average and by child SNAP participants (Table 3-21, Figure 3-8).

 

133 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008, page 

C-35. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-40 

 

Table 3-20. Nutrient content of NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Nutrient/Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Calories 2,299.6 454 20% 139 6%

Protein, g N/A 8.9 N/A 9.2 N/A

Protein, % kcal 10-30 8% ↓ 26% 

Carbohydrate, g N/A 41.2 N/A 13.5 N/A

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 36% ↓ 39% ↓

Total fat, g N/A 29.0 N/A 5.6 N/A

Total fat, % kcal 25-35 57% ↑ 36% ↑

Saturated fat, g N/A 4.9 N/A 2.4 N/A

Saturated fat, % kcal <10 10%  15% ↑

Linoleic acid, g 12.7 10.7 84% 0.6 5%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 21% ↑ 4% ↓

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.3 1.5 117% 0.1 6%

α-Linolenic acid, % kcal 0.6-1.2 3% ↑ 0% ↓

Cholesterol, mg ≤ 300 21.6  28.9 

Total dietary fiber, g 31.9 4.0 13% 1.6 5%

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1253.2 105.4 8% 102.6 8%

Copper, mg 0.7 0.2 26% 0.1 11%

Iron, mg 10.8 2.1 19% 0.9 8%

Magnesium, mg 267.0 49.1 18% 21.1 8%

Phosphorus, mg 1133.0 192.8 17% 142.0 13%

Potassium, mg2 3705-4121 308.9 8% 231.6 6%

Sodium, mg ≤2179.2 131.6  142.1 

Zinc, mg 8.3 1.3 15% 1.2 15%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 646.8 57.1 9% 53.0 8%

Vitamin C, mg 49.7 16.7 34% 8.0 16%

Vitamin D, μg N/A 0.2 N/A 0.2 N/A

Vitamin E, mg2 11.2-11.4 3.5 32% 0.5 4%

Thiamin, mg 0.9 0.3 33% 0.1 10%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 0.2 19% 0.1 12%

Niacin, mg 12.4 2.5 20% 1.9 16%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.0 0.2 20% 0.2 19%

Vitamin B12, μg 1.9 0.2 10% 0.4 23%

Folate, μg (DFE) 310.4 83.3 27% 21.5 7%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓ = below AMDR; ↑ = above AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for the reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percentage of the lower value in the acceptable range for the standard.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-41 

 

Table 3-21. HEI-2005 scores for NSLP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 participants 

ages 2-18 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-18 years

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered 

All 

Children 

SNAP 

Participants 

1. Total fruit 5 2.5 5.0 3.4 3.4

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 5.0 3.1 2.7

3. Total vegetables 5 2.1 5.0 2.3 2.4

4. Dark green & orange veg & 

legumes 5 1.0 3.8 0.8 0.9

5. Total grains 5 5.0 2.6 5.0 5.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 2.2 0.9 0.6

7. Milk 10 3.4 10.0 8.4 7.8

8. Meat and beans 10 3.6 10.0 8.0 8.5

9. Oils 10 10.0 4.9 5.8 5.3

10. Saturated fat 10 8.2 0.0 4.1 3.6

11. Sodium 10 10.0 8.4 5.4 5.2

12. Calories from SoFAAS 20 20.0 19.8 7.1 7.1

Total HEI-2005 Score 100 72.6 76.7 55.0 53.2 

Note: SoFAAS = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Figure 3-8. HEI-2005 overall scores for NSLP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 2-18 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-18 years

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered Delivered All Children SNAP participants

Total HEI-2005 Score

NHANES 1999-2004
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-42 

 

 HEI-2010 

The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages achieved HEI-2010 scores of 74.2 and 81.2, 

respectively. The as-offered NSLP food package achieved maximum scores for four components 

whereas the as-delivered package achieved maximum component scores for eight components. The 

higher HEI-2010 scores for the as-delivered food package than the as-offered package are consistent 

with the composition of NSLP food packages, and reflect greater percentage by weight of fruit, 

vegetables, meat, and dairy in the as-delivered package when compared to the as-offered package.

The as-delivered food package provided more cheese and meat than the as-offered package; this is 

reflected in the fatty acid component score, equal to 10 for the as-offered package but 0 for the asdelivered package.

Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages were more than 19 points higher than 

those achieved by the average American diet for children ages 2 to 17 years (NHANES 2011-

2012)

134,135 as well as that of the U.S. food supply in 2010 (the latest year for which HEI-2010 scores 

are available).

136 The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-offered NSLP food package exceeded 

or were equal to those achieved by the average American diet for children for eight of the 12 

components (lower for total and whole fruit, total dairy, and total protein), and 10 of 12 for the asdelivered package (lower for seafood/plant proteins and fatty acids). The HEI-2010 component 

scores for the as-offered NSLP food package exceeded or were equal to those achieved by the U.S. 

food supply for seven of the 12 components for the as-offered food package, and 10 of 12 for the 

as-delivered package. The as-offered NSLP food package had lower component scores than the U.S. 

food supply for total and whole fruit, total vegetables, greens/beans, dairy, total protein foods; the 

as-delivered food package had lower component scores for seafood/plant proteins and fatty acids 

(Table 3-22, Figure 3-9).

 

134 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Healthy Eating Index. Accessed February 

29, 2016. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex.

135 Cole, et al., reported HEI-2005 scores for children 2 -18 years; USDA CNPP reported HEI-2010 scores for children

ages 2-17 years.

136 Miller, P.E., Reedy, .J, Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 

115:95-100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-43 

 

Table 3-22. HEI-2010 scores for NSLP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 2 to 

17 years as well as the U.S. food supply (2010)

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered 

Children 

2011-2012 

U.S. Food 

Supply 

2010 

1. Total fruit 5 2.5 5.0 3.9 1.8

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 5.0 4.8 2.3

3. Total vegetables 5 2.1 5.0 2.1 2.6

4. Greens and beans 5 0.8 5.0 0.7 2.1

5. Whole grains 10 10.0 4.5 2.5 2.4

6. Dairy 10 3.4 10.0 9.0 4.8

7. Total protein foods 5 1.8 5.0 4.4 5.0

8. Seafood & plant 

proteins 5 4.0 2.7 3.1 3.8

9. Fatty acids 10 10.0 0.0 3.3 7.3

10.Refined grains 10 7.7 10.0 4.9 6.7

11.Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 4.9 0.3

12.Empty calories 20 20.0 19.1 11.5 15.7

Total HEI-2010 score 100 74.2 81.2 55.1 55.0 

Note: Empty calories = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar

Figure 3-9. HEI-2010 overall scores for NSLP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants 

ages 2 to 17 years and the US food supply (2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered Delivered Children

NHANES

2011-2012

US Food Supply

2010

Total HEI-2010 Score
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-44 

 

 Discussion 

The foods served at NSLP meals represent a combination of USDA Foods and non-USDA Foods 

produced from various sources. While USDA Foods are provided to NSLP, there is no distribution 

guide for the program; therefore the as-offered NSLP food package was developed using the cost of 

foods and funds available to schools in SY 2013-2014. As detailed in Chapter 2, an equal portion of 

the total spending incurred in NSLP was allocated to each food group. The lack of distribution 

guides and the variability in food selections across administering agencies mean that the as-offered 

food package may not reflect the actual variety and quantity of USDA Foods provided in any one 

school.

Up until 2011, NSLP had a statutory requirement to provide one-third of the DRI for children for 

calories, protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C, while providing no more than 30 percent of 

calories from fat and less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat through the lunches 

provided. The USDA aligned NSLP nutrition standards with the DGA; these standards went into 

effect beginning with SY 2012-2013. In this section, the nutrient and food group content of NSLP

food packages are compared with the nutrition standards that were effective starting 2012.

 In SY 2013-2014, bonus foods were not offered or delivered to NSLP participants. The 

as-offered NSLP food package included foods from seven food groups and the asdelivered package included foods from 8 food groups; milk was included only in the asdelivered package. The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages contained 154

g and 116 g of USDA Foods/participant/day, respectively. Participant and agency 

preferences are apparent in the proportion of foods contained in the as-delivered NSLP 

food package. For example, compared to the as-offered NSLP food package, the asdelivered food package included more meat, cheese, and grains and less oil. While grains 

were the topmost food group by weight in the as-offered package, meat was the 

topmost in the as-delivered package.

 The as-offered NSLP food package contained more than 10 percent of the weighted 

average recommended daily amount for legumes and starchy vegetables; total grains –

and whole and refined grains; and 91 percent of the recommended amount of oils. 

However, the as-delivered NSLP food package contained more than 10 percent of the 

weighted average recommended amounts for starchy vegetables, total protein foods, 

and meat/poultry/eggs; it also exceeded the maximum SoFAS.

 The main sources of calories in the as-offered package were vegetable oils, while partskim mozzarella cheese, American cheese, and frozen ground beef provided the most 

calories in the as-delivered package.

 The NSLP Meal Pattern and Nutrition Standards became effective starting SY 2012-

2013. While USDA Foods represent between 15 to 20 percent of all foods served in 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-45 

 

school lunch, they provide between 14 percent and 155 percent of the food group 

requirements in the NSLP meal pattern and nutrition standards. The as-offered NSLP 

food package provided more than 25 percent of the school meal standard amounts of 

fruits, total vegetables, red/orange vegetables, legumes, and other vegetables, while the 

as-delivered NSLP food package provided more than 25 percent of the school meal 

standard for total vegetables and other vegetables. Both the as-offered and as-delivered 

food packages provided more than the NSLP meal pattern requirement for starchy 

vegetables. The as-offered and as delivered NSLP food packages provided 380 and 139 

calories respectively, translating to 59 percent and 23 percent of the calorie requirements 

for lunch;137 both packages exceeded the school meal pattern standard for percentage of 

calories from saturated fat.

 The as-offered NSLP food package provided 18 percent of the recommended daily 

amount of calories, or about 10 percent more than that provided by the as-delivered 

NSLP food package. Compared with the as-offered NSLP food package, the asdelivered package contained less carbohydrate and total fat, saturated fat, and dietary 

fiber, and more cholesterol. Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages

provided more than the recommended amount of calories from fat. When compared 

with the DRI, the as-offered NSLP food package provided between 9 and 31 percent of 

the recommended amount of all vitamins except vitamin D, and between 6 and 20 

percent of the recommended amount of minerals. The as-delivered NSLP food package 

provided between 4 and 23 percent of the recommended amount of all vitamins except 

vitamin D, and between 5 and 15 percent of the recommended amount of minerals. 

Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages met less than ten percent of 

DRI for calcium and potassium. Both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food 

packages provided just one percent of the recommended amount of vitamin D; which 

can be attributed to the lack of milk in either food packages. When compared with the 

TFP standards, the as-offered NSLP food package provided between 9 and 31 percent 

of the recommended amount of vitamins and between 7 and 20 percent of the 

recommended amount of minerals. The as-delivered NSLP food package provided 

between 4 and 23 percent of the recommended amount of vitamins and between 6 and 

15 percent of the recommended amount of minerals. Both the as-offered and asdelivered NSLP food packages met less than ten percent of the TFP standard for 

calcium and potassium; there are no TFP standards for vitamin D.

 In SY 2013-14, both the as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages had total 

HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores of greater than 70. The as-delivered food package 

scored slightly higher than the as-offered package. The as-offered and as-delivered food 

packages achieved the maximum possible HEI-2005 scores for three and five of the 12 

components, respectively. Similarly, the as-offered and as-delivered food packages 

achieved the maximum possible HEI-2010 scores for four and eight of the 12 

components, respectively. The as-offered and as-delivered packages achieved HEI-2005 

total grain scores of 4.9 and 2.6, respectively, and similar scores for whole grains; for the 

new HEI-2010 enriched grain component, both packages achieved the maximum score. 

The as-delivered packages fell short of meeting the maximum HEI-2010 scores for

 

137 The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food package provided 51 percent and 21 percent respectively of the amount 

of energy required by the SMI standards in place prior to SY 2012-2013.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-46 

 

whole grains, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids, and nearly exceeded the 

maximum score for empty calories. The HEI-2010 score for the as-delivered NSLP 

food package exceeded the scores achieved by the average American diet for children 

(NHANES 2011-2012) and the U.S. Food Supply in 2010; the package scored higher 

than the average American diet for children for 10 of the 12 components, and higher 

than the U.S. food supply for 9 of the 12 components.

3.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 

In FY 2014, the as-offered TEFAP food packages without and with bonus foods included 

approximately 406 million and 767 million pounds of USDA Foods, respectively. The as-delivered 

TEFAP food packages without and with bonus foods included approximately 385 million and 746

million pounds of USDA Foods, respectively. All TEFAP food packages included foods from ten 

food groups. Compared with the as-offered package, the as-offered package with bonus foods 

contained more fruit, juice, and meat, but less of all other food groups. Compared with the asdelivered package, the as-delivered package with bonus foods contained more grains, cereal, 

vegetables, starches, and peanut butter/dried beans, and less meat, juice, and fruits. Finally, 

differences were also seen in the food group composition of the as-offered and as-delivered TEFAP

food packages. Compared to the as-offered package, the as-delivered package included more fruit, 

meat, peanut butter and dried beans, starches and vegetables, but less grains, milk, and oil. Similarly, 

compared to the as-offered package with bonus foods, the as-delivered package with bonus foods 

contained more fruit, meat, peanut butter and dried beans, starches and vegetables, but less milk, 

cereal, and grains (Figure 3-10).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-47 

 

Figure 3-10. Food group* composition by weight of the TEFAP USDA Foods as a percentage of 

the total weight of foods offered and delivered

*Food groups are those from the CSFP Distribution Guide (Appendix A).

CEREAL

15%

FRUIT

7%

GRAINS

7%

JUICE

16%

MEAT

4%

MILK

14%

OIL

10%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

8%

STARCHES

8%

VEGETABLES

11%

Entitlement Foods as Offered 

(Total = 406 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

5%

FRUIT

12% GRAINS

<1%

JUICE

6%

MEAT

11%

MILK

OIL 4%

1%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

13%

STARCHES

17%

VEGETABLES

31%

Entitlement Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 385 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

8%

FRUIT

18%

GRAINS

4%

JUICE

24%

MEAT

15%

MILK

9%

OIL

5%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

4%

STARCHES

5%

VEGETABLES

8%

Entitlement + Bonus Foods as Offered 

(Total = 767 million lbs/year) 

CEREAL

2%

FRUIT

20%

GRAINS

<1%

JUICE

20%

MEAT

19%

MILK

3%

OIL

1%

PB/DRIED 

BEANS

7%

STARCHES

10%

VEGETABLES

18%

Entitlement + Bonus Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 746 million lbs/year) 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-48 

 

3.4.1 Food Group Assessment of TEFAP USDA Foods 

When compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal, the as-offered 

and as-delivered TEFAP food packages with and without bonus foods met or exceeded the 

weighted average amount recommended for legumes, total grains, refined grains, and the 

nuts/seeds/soy products subgroup per 2,000 kcal. The as-offered and as-delivered packages with 

bonus foods also provided more than the recommended amount for fruits; the as-delivered packages 

with and without bonus foods provided more than the recommended amount for starchy 

vegetables, and the as-delivered package with bonus foods provided more than the recommended 

amount for total protein foods and the seafood subgroup. The as-offered and as-delivered TEFAP 

food packages with and without bonus foods provided less than 20 percent of the weighted average 

amount of dairy per 2,000 kcal. Finally, all TEFAP food packages met the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

guidelines for maximum SoFAS (as percent of total calories) per 2,000 kcal (Table 3-23).
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-49 

 

Table 3-23. Food group and subgroup content of the TEFAP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement Foods 

Entitlement + Bonus 

Foods Entitlement Foods 

Entitlement + Bonus 

Foods 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 2 0.7 33% 2.5 127% 0.7 34% 3.2 160%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.5 0.8 32% 0.9 37% 2.0 79% 1.7 68%

Dark green 0.2 0.0 25% 0.0 18% 0.1 31% 0.0 20%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 36% 0.3 35% 0.7 94% 0.6 71%

Legumes 0.2 0.4 217% 0.3 158% 1.0 478% 0.6 303%

Starchy 0.7 0.4 56% 0.5 78% 0.7 105% 0.8 116%

Other 0.6 0.1 13% 0.1 10% 0.4 70% 0.3 45%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 6 8.2 137% 6.0 100% 9.3 156% 5.9 99%

Whole 3 3.0 100% 2.2 73% 2.8 92% 1.8 59%

Refined 3 5.2 174% 3.8 126% 6.6 219% 4.2 139%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.5 2.0 36% 4.1 75% 5.0 91% 6.8 123%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 15% 1.0 92% 0.2 16% 1.3 119%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.6 15% 2.2 59% 2.0 55% 3.7 99%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 1.3 209% 0.9 152% 2.8 470% 1.8 299%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3 0.5 18% 0.4 14% 0.2 7% 0.2 7%

Oils (grams) 27 88.5 328% 64.5 239% 28.5 105% 18.2 68%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 258 125.5 49% 220.4 85% 80.9 31% 224.2 87%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 13% 6%  11%  4%  11% 

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern amount for 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-50 

 

3.4.2 Healthy Eating Index for TEFAP USDA Foods 

 HEI-2005 

The as-offered TEFAP food packages without and with bonus foods achieved HEI-2005 scores of

75.7 and 84 respectively. The HEI-2005 scores for the as-delivered TEFAP food package without 

and with bonus foods were 85.3 and 86.2 respectively. The as-offered food packages achieved 

maximum component scores for four of the 12 component without bonus foods and eight of the 12 

with bonus foods. The as-delivered food packages achieved maximum component scores for eight 

of 12 components without bonus foods and seven of 12 with bonus foods. All TEFAP food 

packages achieved maximum component scores for oils, saturated fat, sodium, and calories from 

SoFAAS.

Bonus foods in TEFAP provided additional amounts of six of the ten food groups: fruit, juice, meat, 

milk, starches (all bonus deliveries in the starch group were dehydrated potatoes), and vegetables.

These additional amounts are reflected in the HEI-2005 component scores when bonus foods were 

added. Compared with the as-offered food package without bonus foods, the as-offered food 

package with bonus foods had higher component scores for total fruit, whole fruit, meats and beans; 

similar differences were noted for the component scores in the as-delivered food packages with and 

without bonus foods.

Compared to the as-offered food package with bonus foods, the as-delivered food package with 

bonus foods achieved higher HEI-2005 scores for total vegetables and dark green/orange 

vegetables/legumes, but lower component scores for total and whole grains, milk, and oils. Both the 

as-offered and as-delivered food packages with bonus foods achieved the maximum component 

scores for the remaining components (total and whole fruit, meat/beans, saturated fat and sodium).

The HEI-2005 scores were about 20 points and 25 points above that achieved by the average 

American diet and the average SNAP participant diet, respectively (ages 2 to 59 years, NHANES 

1999-2004);

138 see Table 3-24 and Figure 3-11. 

 

138 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008, page 

C-34. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-51 

 

Table 3-24. HEI-2005 scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score 

Offered Delivered 

All 

Persons 

SNAP 

Participants 

Entitlement 

Foods 

+ Bonus 

Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

 +Bonus 

Foods 

1. Total fruit 5 2.0 5.0 2.1 5.0 3.1 2.8

2. Whole fruit 5 1.4 5.0 2.7 5.0 3.5 2.5

3. Total vegetables 5 1.8 2.3 5.0 5.0 3.2 2.9

4. Dark green & 

orange veg & 

legumes 5 1.0 1.4 5.0 4.9 1.4 1.3

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 3.6 4.6 2.9 1.0 0.7

7. Milk 10 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 6.3 5.6

8. Meat and beans 10 7.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

9. Oils 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.6 6.3 4.7

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.9 3.8

11. Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.2 6.3

12. Calories from 

SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 7.2 5.7

Total HEI-2005 score 100 75.7 84.0 85.3 86.2 57.5 51.9 

Note: SoFAAS = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

Figure 3-11. HEI-2005 overall scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered

Entitlement

Offered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

Delivered

Entitlement

Delivered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

All persons SNAP

participants

Total HEI-2005 Score

NHANES 1999-2004 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-52 

 

 HEI-2010 

The as-offered TEFAP food packages without and with bonus foods achieved HEI-2010 scores of 

73.5 and 82.5 respectively, the as-delivered food packages without and with bonus foods were 82.5 

and 85.5 respectively. As seen, the total HEI-2010 scores were slightly higher for both as-delivered 

food packages than for the comparable as-offered food packages. While the as-delivered TEFAP 

food package without bonus foods achieved maximum scores for five components, the as-delivered 

TEFAP food package with bonus foods achieved maximum scores for 9 components. All TEFAP 

food packages (as –offered and as-delivered, with and without bonus foods) achieved maximum 

component scores for seafood/plant proteins, fatty acid ratio, sodium, and SoFAAS.

Bonus foods in TEFAP provided additional amounts of six of the ten food groups: fruit, juice, meat, 

milk, starches (all bonus deliveries in the starch group were dehydrated potatoes), and vegetables.

These additional amounts are reflected in the higher HEI-2010 component scores when bonus 

foods were added. Compared to the food packages without bonus foods, the as-offered and asdelivered food packages with bonus foods achieved higher component scores for total and whole 

fruit, total vegetables and greens/beans, total protein, and refined grains.

These total HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered TEFAP food packages both with 

and without bonus foods were more than 15 points higher than that achieved by an average 

American diet (NHANES 2011-2012), both for all persons ages 2 years and older139 and children 

ages 2 to 17 years,140,141 as well as that of the U.S. food supply in 2010 (the latest year for which 

HEI-2010 scores are available).

142

The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-offered TEFAP food packages exceeded or were equal 

to those achieved by the average American diet of all persons for six of 12 components without 

bonus foods (lower for total and whole fruit, total vegetables, greens/beans, dairy and total protein) 

and nine of 12 components with bonus foods (lower for total vegetables, greens/beans and dairy).

 

139 Wilson, M.M., Reedy, J., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. American diet quality: where it is, where it is heading, and what it 

could be. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116:302-310

140 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Healthy Eating Index. Accessed February 

29, 2016. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex.

141 Cole, et al., reported HEI-2005 scores for children 2 -18 years; USDA CNPP reported HEI-2010 scores for children

ages 2-17 years.

142 Miller, P.E., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 115:95-

100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-53 

 

The as-offered food package met or exceeded the component scores achieved by the average 

American diet of children for six of 12 components without bonus foods (lower for total and whole 

fruit, total vegetables, greens/beans, dairy and total protein) and 11 of 12 components with bonus 

foods (lower only for dairy). The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-delivered TEFAP food 

packages exceeded or were equal to those achieved by the average American diet (all persons and 

children) for eight of 12 components without bonus foods (lower for total and whole fruit, dairy and 

refined grains) and 11 of 12 components with bonus foods (lower only for dairy).

The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-offered food package exceeded or were equal to those 

of the U.S. food supply for seven of the 12 components without bonus foods and 10 of the 12 

components with the addition of bonus foods. The as-delivered food package exceeded or was equal 

to those of the U.S. food supply for 10 of 12 components without bonus foods and 11 of 12 with 

bonus foods. All TEFAP food packages had lower dairy component scores than the U.S. food 

supply (Table 3-25, Figure 3-12).143

 Discussion 

TEFAP is intended to supplement the diets of income-eligible Americans, and participants often 

include household as well as individuals. TEFAP participants obtain food for home consumption 

from sources such as food pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters. State agencies set income-based 

eligibility standards that are used by participating pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters to ensure that 

assistance is provided only to households with the greatest need. National data on the number and 

characteristics of TEFAP participants are not available; therefore, the results are limited to the 

composition of TEFAP food packages and the nutrient and food group contribution of TEFAP 

food packages toward meeting the 2010 USDA Food Pattern amounts recommended per 2,000 kcal, 

as well as the HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores. The nutrient and food group content of TEFAP 

food packages was not compared with the DRI, the TFP, and the 2010 USDA Food Patterns.

 

143 Miller, P.E., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 

115:95-100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-54 

 

Table 3-25. HEI-2010 scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 

2 years and older (All persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), 

and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score 

Offered Delivered All 

persons 

2011-

2012

Children 

2011-

2012

U.S. 

Food 

Supply 

2010 

Entitlement 

Foods 

+ Bonus 

Foods 

Entitlement 

Foods 

 +Bonus 

Foods 

1. Total fruit 5 2.0 5.0 2.1 5.0 3.0 3.9 1.8

2. Whole fruit 5 1.4 5.0 2.7 5.0 4.0 4.8 2.3

3. Total vegetables 5 1.8 2.3 5.0 5.0 3.4 2.1 2.6

4. Greens and beans 5 0.6 1.6 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.7 2.1

5. Whole grains 10 10.0 7.3 9.2 5.9 2.9 2.5 2.4

6. Dairy 10 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 6.4 9.0 4.8

7. Total protein 

foods 5 3.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0

8. Seafood & plant 

proteins 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.7 3.1 3.8

9. Fatty acids 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.7 3.3 7.3

10. Refined grains 10 6.8 9.6 4.0 8.8 6.2 4.9 6.7

11. Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 4.2 4.9 0.3

12. Empty calories 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 12.6 11.5 15.7

Total HEI-2010 score 100 73.5 82.5 78.9 85.5 59.0 55.1 55.0 

Note: Empty calories = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar

Figure 3-12. HEI-2010 overall scores for the TEFAP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012

participants ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 

17 years (Children), and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered

Entitlement

Offered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

Delivered

Entitlement

Delivered

Entitlement

+ Bonus

All persons Children US Food

Supply

2010

Total HEI-2010 Score

NHANES 2011-2012
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-55 

 

The USDA does not publish a distribution guide for TEFAP, therefore the as-offered food package 

was developed using the cost of foods and funds available in FY 2014. As detailed in Chapter 2, an 

equal portion of the total spending incurred in TEFAP was allocated to each food group. Due to the 

absence of distribution guides, the as-offered food package may not reflect the actual variety and 

quantity of USDA Foods provided to all TEFAP participants.

 In FY 2014, bonus foods were offered and delivered through TEFAP. Of all the USDA 

Foods offered and delivered through the five nutrition assistance programs examined in 

this report, TEFAP received the largest share; approximately 406 million pounds were 

offered and 746 million pounds were delivered. The as-offered TEFAP food package 

with and without bonus foods included foods in 10 food groups; meat accounted for 

about 4 percent of the total package weight and juice accounted for slightly more than 

15 percent of the total package weight. Participating agency preferences were apparent 

in the proportion of foods contained in the as-delivered TEFAP food packages. For 

example, compared to the as-offered packages, the as-delivered packages included more 

vegetables, fruits, meat, starches, and less grains and oil.

 The as-offered food packages with and without bonus foods met or exceeded the 

weighted recommended average amount for legumes, total and enriched grains, 

nuts/seeds/soy products, and oils; the as-offered package with bonus foods also 

exceeded the weighted recommended average about for total fruit. The as-delivered 

packages with and without bonus foods met or exceeded the weighted recommended 

average amount for legumes, starchy vegetables, total and enriched grains, and

nuts/seeds/soy products. The as-delivered package with bonus foods also met or 

exceeded the recommended amount for total fruit, total protein foods and all protein 

subgroups. All TEFAP food packages met the 2010 USDA Food Pattern guidelines for 

maximum SoFAS per 2,000 kcal.

 In FY 2014, the as-offered and as-delivered TEFAP food packages had total HEI-2005 

and HEI-2010 scores between 75.7 and 86.2. The as-delivered packages scored slightly 

higher than the as-offered packages. The as-delivered packages fell short of meeting the 

maximum HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores for milk (for HEI-2005) and dairy (HEI2010), whole grains (and total grains for HEI-2005 and refined grains for HEI-2010), 

and oils (for HEI-2005). The HEI-2010 score for the as-delivered TEFAP food package 

with bonus foods exceeded the scores for the average American diet for both all 

persons and children (NHANES 2011-2012) as well as the U.S. Food Supply in 2010; 

the package also scored higher than the U.S. food supply for 10 of the 12 components.

3.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

In FY 2014, bonus foods were not offered or delivered through CACFP. The as-offered and asdelivered CACFP food package contained 3.5 million pounds and 1.7 million pounds of USDA 

Foods, respectively. Although both the as-offered and as-delivered food packages included foods 

from seven food groups, the as-offered package included 243 USDA Foods from the FA list, while 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-56 

 

88 USDA Foods were delivered to participants in CACFP; foods in the as-offered food package that 

were not delivered in FY 2014 included low-fat bakery mix, canned juice, cornmeal, dehydrated 

potatoes, dried beans, flour, fresh fruits and fresh vegetables. Compared to the as-offered CACFP 

food package, the as-delivered CACFP food package contained a greater percentage by weight of

cheese, meat, fruit, and vegetables, and a smaller percentage of grains, juice, and oil (Figure 3-13).

Figure 3-13. Food group* composition by weight of CACFP USDA Foods as a percentage of the 

total weight of foods offered and delivered

*Food groups are those used to develop the as-offered food package, which were taken from the IOM report on school meals.144

3.5.1 Food Group Assessment of CACFP USDA Foods

The as-offered CACFP food package provided more than the weighted average amount of starchy

vegetables, total grains and both whole and enriched grain subgroups, the nuts/seed/soy products 

subgroup, and oils. The as-delivered package provided more than three times the recommended 

amount of dark green vegetables, and more than the recommended amount of starchy vegetables,

total protein foods and the meat/poultry/eggs and nuts/seeds/soy products subgroups, dairy, and 

oils per 2,000 kcal. The as-delivered CACFP food package provided less than five percent of the 

 

144Institute of Medicine. 2010. School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies 

Press, pages 271-272. Available at http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SchoolMealsIOM.pdf.

CHEESE

5%

FRUIT

20%

GRAINS

26%

JUICE

4%

MEAT

10%

OIL

15%

VEGETABLES

20%

Entitlement Foods as Offered 

(Total = 3.5 million lbs/year) 

CHEESE

10%

FRUIT

29%

GRAINS

JUICE 2%

<1%

MEAT

OIL 19%

<1%

VEGETABLES

40%

Entitlement Foods as Delivered 

(Total = 1.7 million lbs/year) 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-57 

 

weighted average amount of refined grains per 2,000 kcal. The as-delivered CACFP food package 

did not include any seafood. Finally, the as-offered package met the guideline for maximum SoFAS 

(as percent of total calories) per 2,000 kcal, though the as-delivered package exceeded both (Table 3-

26).

Table 3-26. Food group and subgroup content of CACFP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared 

to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

Amount % Met Amount % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv.) 2.0 0.9 46% 2.0 102%

Vegetables (cup equiv.) 2.5 1.4 57% 3.8 153%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 37% 0.7 360%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 34% 0.2 21%

Legumes 0.2 0.2 86% 0.1 27%

Starchy 0.7 1.0 137% 2.8 393%

Other 0.6 0.1 20% 0.2 33%

Total grains (oz equiv.) 6.0 7.6 127% 1.4 23%

Whole 3.0 3.2 106% 1.3 42%

Refined 3.0 4.5 149% 0.1 3%

Protein foods (oz equiv.) 5.5 1.2 22% 7.5 137%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 14% 0.0 0%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.5 13% 6.9 186%

Nuts, seeds, soy products 0.6 0.6 100% 0.6 104%

Dairy (cup equiv.) 3.0 0.8 27% 6.4 212%

Oils (grams) 27.0 105.8 392% 8.4 31%

Maximum SoFAS (kcal)2 258.0 99.2 38% 442.9 172%

Maximum SoFAS (% kcal) 13% 5%  22% ↑

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

=met guideline; ↑=exceeded guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

3.5.2 Healthy Eating Index for CACFP USDA Foods 

 HEI-2005 

The as-offered CACFP food package achieved a total HEI-2005 score of 75.5 and the as-delivered 

score was 71.2. The as-offered and as-delivered food packages achieved maximum score for five 

(total grains, whole grains, oils, sodium, and calories from SOFAAS) and six components (total fruit, 

whole fruit, total vegetables, dark green/orange/ legumes, milk, and meat and beans) respectively.

These differences reflect the food group composition of CACFP food packages. The as-offered 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-58 

 

food package contained a greater percentage by weight of grains, juice, and oil, but less cheese, fruit, 

meat and vegetables.

The HEI-2005 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered CACFP food packages were between 14 

and 24 points above those achieved by the average American diet and the average SNAP participant 

diet (ages 2-59 years old, NHANES 1999-2004),

145 respectively (Table 3-27, Figure 3-14).

Table 3-27. HEI-2005 scores for CACFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 participants 

ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered All Persons 

SNAP 

Participants 

1. Total fruit 5 2.9 5.0 3.1 2.8

2. Whole fruit 5 2.7 5.0 3.5 2.5

3. Total vegetables 5 3.3 5.0 3.2 2.9

4. Dark green & orange veg & legumes 5 1.3 5.0 1.4 1.3

5. Total grains 5 5.0 1.1 5.0 5.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 2.1 1.0 0.7

7. Milk 10 3.2 10.0 6.3 5.6

8. Meat and beans 10 3.8 10.0 10.0 10.0

9. Oils 10 10.0 3.5 6.3 4.7

10.Saturated fat 10 8.4 0.0 3.9 3.8

11.Sodium 10 10.0 5.9 6.2 6.3

12.Calories from SoFAAS1 20 20.0 18.6 7.2 5.7

Total HEI-2005 score 100 75.5 71.2 57.5 51.9 

Note: SoFAAS = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

 145 Cole, N. and Fox, M.K. Diet Quality of Americans by Food Stamp Participation Status: Data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, July 2008, page 

C-37. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NHANES-FSP.pdf.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-59 

 

Figure 3-14. HEI-2005 overall scores for CACFP USDA Foods and all NHANES 1999-2004 

participants ages 2-59 years as well as SNAP participants ages 2-59 years

 HEI-2010 

The total HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered CACFP food packages were 77.6 and 

76.6, respectively. The as-offered food package achieved maximum component scores for four 

components (whole grains, fatty acids, sodium, and empty calories) whereas the as-delivered food 

package achieved maximum score for seven components (total fruit, whole fruit, total vegetables, 

greens and beans, dairy, total protein foods, refined grains). As seen with the HEI-2005 component 

scores, these differences reflect the food group composition of CACFP food packages. The asoffered food package contained a greater percentage by weight of grains, juice, and oil, but less 

cheese, fruit, meat and vegetables. 

These total HEI-2010 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered CACFP food packages were more 

than 20 points higher than those achieved by the average American diet (NHANES 2011-2012), 

both for all persons ages 2 years and older146 and children ages 2 to 17 years,147,148 and the U.S. food 

 

146 Wilson, M.M., Reedy, J., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. American diet quality: where it is, where it is heading, and what it 

could be. J Acad Nutr Diet 2016; 116:302-310

147 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Healthy Eating Index. Accessed February 

29, 2016. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex.

148 Cole, et al., reported HEI-2005 scores for children 2 -18 years; USDA CNPP reported HEI-2010 scores for children

ages 2-17 years.

0

20

40

60

80

Offered Delivered All persons SNAP participants

Total HEI-2005 Score

NHANES 1999-2004
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-60 

 

supply in 2010 (the latest year for which HEI-2010 scores are available).

149 The HEI-2010 

component scores for the as-offered CACFP food package exceeded or were equal to those of the 

average American diet for six of the 12 components for all persons (lower for total and whole fruit, 

total vegetables, greens/beans, dairy and total protein foods), and eight of the 12 components for 

children (lower for total and whole fruit, dairy and total protein foods). The HEI-2010 component 

scores for the as-delivered CACFP food packages exceeded or were equal to those of the average 

American diet (both for all persons and children) for 10 of the 12 components (lower for 

seafood/plant proteins and fatty acids). The HEI-2010 component scores for the as-offered food 

package exceeded or were equal to those of the U.S. food supply for 9 of the 12 components for the 

as-offered food package, and 10 of 12 for the as-delivered package. The as-offered CACFP food 

package had lower component scores for greens/beans, total dairy and total protein, while the asdelivered food package had lower component scores for sea/plant proteins and fatty acids

(Table 3-28, Figure 3-15).

Table 3-28. HEI-2010 scores for CACFP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants ages 2 

years and older (All persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years (Children), 

and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

Component 

Maximum 

Component 

Score Offered Delivered 

All 

persons 

2011-12

Children 

2011-12

U.S. Food 

Supply 

2010

1. Total fruit 5 2.9 5.0 3.0 3.9 1.8

2. Whole fruit 5 2.7 5.0 4.0 4.8 2.3

3. Total vegetables 5 3.3 5.0 3.4 2.1 2.6

4. Greens and beans 5 0.9 5.0 3.0 0.7 2.1

5. Whole grains 10 10.0 4.2 2.9 2.5 2.4

6. Dairy 10 3.2 10.0 6.4 9.0 4.8

7. Total protein foods 5 1.9 5.0 5.0 4.4 5.0

8. Seafood & plant proteins 5 4.5 2.0 3.7 3.1 3.8

9. Fatty acids 10 10.0 0.0 4.7 3.3 7.3

10.Refined grains 10 8.3 10.0 6.2 4.9 6.7

11.Sodium 10 10.0 7.4 4.2 4.9 0.3

12.Empty calories 20 20.0 18.0 12.6 11.5 15.7

Total HEI-2010 score 100 77.6 76.6 59.0 55.1 55.0 

Note: Empty calories = calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar

 

149 Miller, P.E., Reedy, J., Kirkpatrick, S.I., and Krebs-Smith, S.M. The United States food supply is not consistent with 

dietary guidance: Evidence from an evaluation using the Healthy Eating Index2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015; 

115:95-100.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-61 

 

Figure 3-15. HEI-2010 overall scores for CACFP USDA Foods, NHANES 2011-2012 participants 

ages 2 years and older (All persons) as well as participants ages 2 to 17 years 

(Children), and the U.S. Food Supply (2010)

 Discussion 

CACFP serves more than 3.3 million children and 120,000 adults in at-risk afterschool care centers, 

adult day care centers, child care centers, day care homes, and emergency shelters. The USDA offers 

USDA Foods (providers may choose to receive cash in lieu150) and cash assistance for meals served 

to eligible children and adults. The State agency then receives permission from the USDA to replace 

all or a portion of its donated foods for CACFP with cash in lieu. The donated food programs are 

distributed only to centers that elect to receive these foods. However, data on the number of 

participants who actually receive USDA Foods is not tracked, limiting the analysis to the 

composition, nutrient, and food group contribution per 2,000 kcal, and HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 

scores.

This section presents the composition of CACFP food packages and the nutrient and food group 

contribution of CACFP food packages toward meeting the 2010 USDA Food Pattern amounts 

recommended per 2,000 kcal, as well as the HEI-2005 and HEI-2010 scores.

 

150 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). 

Accessed June 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cacfp/child-and-adult-care-food-program.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Offered Delivered All persons Children US Food

Supply 2010

Total HEI-2010 Score

NHANES 2011-2012
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-62 

 

 In FY 2014, bonus foods were not offered or delivered through CACFP. The as-offered 

and as-delivered CACFP food packages included foods in seven food groups. The asoffered and as-delivered food packages differed in the weight of all food groups; for 

example, oil accounted for 15 percent and less than one percent of the weight for the 

as-offered and as delivered CACFP food package respectively.

 The as-offered CACFP food package provided more than the weighted average 

recommended amount of starchy vegetables, total grains and both whole and enriched 

grain subgroups, the nuts/seed/soy products subgroup, and oils. The as-delivered 

package provided more than three times the recommended amount of dark green

vegetables, and more than the recommended amount of starchy vegetables, total protein 

foods and the meat/poultry/egg and nuts/seeds/soy products subgroups, dairy, and 

oils per 2,000 kcal. The as-delivered package exceeded the 2010 USDA Food Pattern 

guidelines for maximum SoFAS per 2,000 kcal.

 In FY 2014, as-offered and as-delivered CACFP food packages had total HEI-2005 and 

HEI-2010 scores ranging from 71.2 to 76.6. The scores were higher for the as-offered 

packages compared to the as-delivered packages. As-offered and as-delivered food 

packages achieved the maximum possible HEI-2005 for five and six of the 12 

components, and the maximum possible HEI-2010 scores for four and six of the 12 

components, respectively. The as-delivered packages fell short of meeting the maximum 

HEI-2005 scores for total and whole grains, oils, saturated fat, sodium, and SoFAAS; 

the as-delivered package fell short of meeting maximum HEI-2010 scores for whole 

grains, total protein, seafood/plant proteins, fatty acid, sodium, and SoFAAS. The HEI2010 score for the as-delivered CACFP food package exceeded the scores for the

average American diet for both all persons and children (NHANES 2011-2012) and the

U.S. Food Supply in 2010; the package also scored higher than the U.S. food supply for 

9 of the 12 components.

3.6 Overall Summary 

This evaluation examined the nutrient and food group content of the USDA Foods provided to five 

USDA nutrition assistance programs in FY 2014. The USDA Foods offered and delivered to a 

reference participant in CSFP, FDPIR, NSLP, TEFAP, and CACFP were analyzed and compared 

with four dietary standards: the DRIs, the TFP dietary standards, the USDA Food Patterns from the 

DGA 2010, and the HEI (both HEI-2005 and HEI-2010). This section summarizes results across all 

five programs.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-63 

 

Variety in USDA Foods 

 The USDA Food packages offered and delivered through the five programs contained a 

wide variety of foods. With the exception of CACFP, the number of foods offered and 

delivered was comparable, indicating that that the food selections were as varied as the 

foods offered.

 The USDA Food packages offered and delivered bonus foods through two of the five 

programs: CSFP and TEFAP.

 All five programs offered and delivered foods from all food groups.

Quantity of USDA Foods 

 In the CSFP food packages for the elderly, juice was offered as a bonus food. As 

offered and as delivered, and including bonus foods, the packages provided an average 

of 517 and 404 g/participant/day, respectively.

 As offered and as delivered, FDPIR food packages provided an average of 1,189 and 

1,065 g/participant/day, respectively.

 As offered and as delivered, NSLP food packages provided an average of 154 and 116 

g/participant/day, respectively.

 In TEFAP food packages, additional quantities of foods in several food groups were 

offered as bonus foods. Including bonus foods, the amount of USDA Foods offered 

through TEFAP totaled 767 million pounds, and the delivered amount totaled 746

million pounds.

 The amount of USDA Foods offered through CACFP totaled 3.5 million pounds, and 

the delivered amount totaled 1.7 million pounds

Thus, the weight of foods delivered was less than those offered for all programs. Bonus foods made 

a substantial contribution to the amount of USDA Foods offered and delivered through CSFP and 

TEFAP.

Contribution of USDA Foods to Meeting USDA Food Pattern recommendations from the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

1. Recommended Number of Food Groups

– The CSFP food package for elderly participants, with bonus foods, provided 

more than one quarter of the weighted average recommended amount of five of 
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-64 

 

the 16 food groups (fruits, legumes, total grains, refined grains, nuts/seeds/soy 

products). For each food group, the amount of foods offered was either less or 

comparable to the amount of foods delivered with the exception of legumes and 

dairy (for which the amount offered was more than the amount delivered). None 

of the packages exceeded the weighted average limit for SoFAS.

– FDPIR food packages offered and delivered more than the required amount of 

four of the 16 food groups (legumes, total grains, whole grains, and refined 

grains), and more than 60 percent of the recommended amount for an additional 

four food groups (starchy vegetables, protein foods, meat/poultry/eggs, dairy, 

and oils). Compared with the as-offered package, the as-delivered package

provided a greater amount of starchy vegetables and oils; for all other food 

groups, the amount offered was more than the amount delivered.

– The NSLP food package offered at least ten percent of the weighted average 

recommended amount of eight of the 16 food groups (total fruit, legumes, starchy 

vegetables, total grains, whole grains, and refined grains, nuts/seeds/soy 

products, as well as 91 percent of the recommended amount of oil). The package 

delivered more than 10 percent of the weighted average recommended amount of 

two of the 16 food groups (protein foods and meat/poultry/eggs). The asdelivered package exceeded the weighted average limit for SoFAS.

As shown, the USDA Food packages offered and delivered vary in their contribution to 

meeting the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations, with FDPIR providing the 

largest contribution toward the weighted average recommended amount of each food 

group.

2. Recommended Number of Food Groups per 2,000 kcal

– The CSFP food packages for the elderly offered and delivered more than 100 

percent of the recommended amount of six of the 16 food groups per 2,000 kcal 

(fruits, legumes, total grains, refined grains, nuts/seeds/soy products, and dairy). 

None of the packages exceeded the recommended amount of SoFAS.

– The as-offered FDPIR food packages provided more than 100 percent of the 

recommended amount of four of the 16 food groups per 2,000 kcal (legumes, 

total grains, refined grains, and nuts/seeds/soy products); the as-delivered 

package provided 70 to 90 percent of five additional food groups (starchy 

vegetables, protein foods, meat/poultry/eggs, dairy and oils). The packages did 

not exceed the recommended amount of SoFAS.

– The NSLP food package offered more than 100 percent of the recommended 

amount of four of the 16 food groups per 2,000 kcal (total grains, whole grains, 

refined grains and oils) and delivered more than 100 percent of the recommended 

amount of six of the 16 food groups per 2,000 kcal (total vegetables, legumes, 

starchy vegetables, protein foods, meat/poultry/eggs, nuts/seeds/soy products, 

and dairy). The as-delivered package exceeded the maximum recommended 

amount of SoFAS per 2,000 kcal.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-65 

 

– TEFAP food packages with bonus foods offered and delivered more than 100 

percent of the recommended amount for six and eight of the 16 foods groups per 

2,000 kcal, respectively (fruits, legumes, starchy vegetables [as delivered only], 

total grains, enriched grains, total protein [as delivered only], seafood [as delivered 

only], nuts/seeds/soy products, oils [as offered only]). Both packages provided 

between 50 and 100 percent of the recommended amount for four of the 16 food 

groups per 2,000 kcal (total grains, whole grains, refined grains, and 

nuts/seeds/soy products); the as-offered package also provided 75 percent of the 

recommended amount of total protein and 92 percent of the recommended 

amount of seafood. Both packages provided 15 percent or less of the 

recommended amount of dairy. None of the packages exceeded the 

recommended amount of SoFAS per 2,000 kcal.

– The CACFP food packages provided more than 100 percent of the recommended 

amount for six and eight of the 16 food groups per 2,000 kcal (fruits [as delivered 

only], vegetables [as delivered only], dark green vegetables [as delivered only],

starchy vegetables, total grains [as offered only], both whole and refined grains [as 

offered only], protein foods [as delivered only], meat/poultry/eggs [as delivered 

only], nuts/seeds/soy products, dairy [as delivered only], and oils [as offered 

only]). Neither package exceeded the recommended amount of SoFAS per 2,000 

kcal.

Standardizing the amount of food groups provided on a 2,000 kcal basis takes into 

account the fact that varying amounts of calories were provided in each program, and 

allows some comparisons to be made across programs. The SoFAS content was within 

the recommended amount per 2,000 kcal for all food packages as delivered except 

NSLP. However, it is important to note that this analysis is a projection, and does not 

reflect individual participants’ diets, because the food package is not intended to supply 

the entire day’s needs for the participant.

Macro- and Micronutrient Contribution of USDA Foods

 The CSFP food package with bonus foods for the elderly delivered about one quarter 

percent of the participant’s total energy. The energy content of USDA Foods offered 

and delivered was comparable. The food package also delivered one-third or more of 

the recommended DRI for six minerals (calcium, copper, iron, phosphorus, sodium, 

and zinc) and eight vitamins (vitamins A, C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, B12, 

and folate). As delivered, the package did not exceed the UL for any vitamin or mineral.

 The FDPIR food package delivered about 85 percent of the participant’s total energy 

needs. The energy content of the as-offered package was more than that of the asdelivered package (84 percent vs. 97 percent). As delivered, the food package also met 

or exceeded the recommended DRI for five minerals (copper, iron, phosphorus, 

sodium, and zinc) and seven vitamins (vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, 

vitamin B12, and folate). As delivered, the package did not exceed the UL for any 

vitamin or mineral.
Results and Discussion 3 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 3-66 

 

 The NSLP food package delivered about 7 percent of the participant’s total energy 

needs. The energy content of the offered package was more than that of the delivered 

package (22 percent vs. 7 percent). The food package also delivered between 5 and 20 

percent of all 8 minerals and between 4 and 29 percent of 9 vitamins. The NSLP food 

package delivered less than 4 percent of vitamin D.

 The as-offered FDPIR and NSLP food packages contained slightly more energy than 

the as-delivered packages. Food packages for all three programs were good sources of 

iron, zinc, vitamin C, and B-vitamins. The as-offered and as-delivered food packages for 

CSFP, FDPIR, and NSLP did not provide vitamins and minerals in excess of the UL.

HEI scores of USDA Foods

 The as-offered CSFP food packages without and with bonus foods achieved HEI-2005 

scores of 83.6 and 83.3, respectively, while the as-delivered food packages achieved 

scores of 85.2 and 85.5, respectively. The as-offered CSFP food packages without and 

with bonus foods achieved HEI-2010 scores of 80.0 and 81.0, respectively, while the asdelivered food packages achieved scores of 82.0 and 83.6.

 The as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages achieved HEI-2005 scores of 

88.1 and 86.5, respectively, and HEI-2010 scores of 81.4 and 73.0, respectively.

 The as-offered and as-delivered NSLP food packages achieved HEI-2005 scores of 72.6 

and 76.7, respectively, and HEI-2010 scores of 74.2 and 81.2, respectively.

 The as-offered TEFAP food packages without and with bonus foods achieved HEI2005 scores of 75.7 and 84.0, respectively, while the as-delivered food packages 

achieved scores of 85.3 and 86.2, respectively. The as-offered TEFAP food packages 

without and with bonus foods achieved HEI-2010 scores of 73.5 and 82.5, respectively, 

while the as-delivered food packages achieved scores of 78.9 and 85.5.

 The as-offered and as-delivered CACFP food packages achieved HEI-2005 scores of 

75.5 and 71.2, respectively, and HEI-2010 scores of 77.6 and 76.6, respectively.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-1 

 

This chapter examines changes from FY 2009 to FY 2014 in the food composition, nutrient and 

food group content, and HEI-2005 scores of USDA Foods offered and delivered by the five 

nutrition assistance programs. To assess changes over time, the findings from the current analysis of 

the 2014 USDA Foods were compared with the previous analysis of the 2009 USDA Foods.

4.1 Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) 

This section reports changes in food composition, nutrient and food group content, and HEI-2005 

scores of the CSFP food packages for elderly participants. Each CSFP participant receives a package 

of USDA Foods at one- or two-month intervals. The 2009 food packages included bonus foods, but 

bonus foods were not included in 2014, so changes are reported only for CSFP food packages 

without bonus foods. Additional background information about USDA Foods in CSFP is found in 

section 1.2.1.

4.1.1 Food Composition of CSFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

In FY 2009, CSFP offered a total 143 million pounds of USDA Foods to elderly participants; in FY 

2014, CSFP offered a total 196 million pounds. The total weight of foods in CSFP food packages 

offered to elderly participants increased by 53 million pounds from 2009 to 2014, mainly because of 

the increase in the number of elderly participants, from 443,292 in 2009 to 563,707 in 2014. Because 

the distribution guide rates for the two years were comparable, the food group composition of the 

as-offered packages was comparable (differences from 2009 to 2014 in the weight of food groups 

ranged from less than 1 percent to 6 percent). In 2009, CSFP delivered a total 139 million pounds of 

USDA Foods to elderly participants; in FY 2014, CSFP delivered 145 million pounds. From 2009 to 

2014, the food weight of the as-delivered package for the elderly increased by almost 7 million 

pounds, with increases of approximately 10 percent or more in the juice, milk, and vegetable food 

groups (Table 4-1).

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group 

Content of USDA Foods, 2009 to 2014 4 
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-2 

 

Table 4-1. Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered

Food group 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Cereal 8% 6% 2% 17% 8% 6%

Cheese 7% 8% -1% <1% 7% -8%

Fruit 7% 7% <1% 6% 7% -1%

Juice 31% 36% -5% 17% 31% 14%

Meat 6% 5% 1% 7% 6% 1%

Milk 18% 12% 6% 23% 18% 5%

PB/dried beans 7% 7% <1% 7% 7% <1%

Starches 5% 5% <1% 7% 5% 2%

Vegetables 12% 13% -1% 16% 12% 4%

Total weight1 196 143 53 145 139 7

1 Total weight = million lbs. /year; amounts are displayed rounded to the whole numbers; difference is calculated on amounts prior to 

rounding.

4.1.2 Food Group Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

Food Group Comparison. Consistent with the food composition of the CSFP food package, for 

most food groups and subgroups, the percentage of the weighted average recommended amount 

that was offered to participants remained stable from 2009 to 2014. Compared to 2009, in 2014 the 

food package delivered smaller percentages of the weighted average recommended amount of fruit, 

seafood, and dairy, and fewer SoFAS; higher percentages of total grains, whole grains, and refined 

grains; and similar percentages of other food groups (Table 4-2).

Food Group Comparison per 2,000 kcal. When standardized to 2,000 kcal, the 2014 as-offered 

CSFP food package met slightly less of the recommended amount than the 2009 food package for 

four of the 16 groups (fruits, vegetables, total grains, and dairy). Differences were more pronounced 

for the percentage of recommended amount of nuts/seeds/soy products and dairy subgroups in the 

two as-offered packages. Compared to the 2009 as-delivered package, the 2014 package met slightly 

more than the recommended amount of all food groups, notably refined grains (57 percent increase) 

and nuts/seeds/soy products (56 percent increase) and subgroups except total fruit (61 percent 

decrease) and dairy (59 percent decrease) (Table 4-3).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-3 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-2. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference participant

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2 0.5 24% 0.5 26% <0.1 -2% 0.2 12% 0.6 30% -0.4 -18%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 3 0.4 12% 0.4 12% <0.1 <1% 0.3 9% 0.2 8% 0.1 1%

Dark green 0.3 <0.1 10% <0.1 8% <0.1 2% <0.1 5% <0.1 4% <0.1 1%

Red and orange 0.9 0.2 23% 0.2 25% <0.1 -2% 0.1 11% 0.1 11% <0.1 0%

Legumes 0.3 0.2 72% 0.2 71% <0.1 1% 0.1 45% 0.2 53% -0.1 -8%

Starchy 0.9 0.1 9% 0.1 9% <0.1 0% 0.1 10% 0.1 10% <0.1 0%

Other 0.7 <0.1 6% <0.1 5% <0.1 1% 0.1 8% <0.1 6% 0.1 2%

Total grains (oz equiv) 8 1.8 22% 1.9 23% -0.1 -1% 2.3 29% 1.9 24% 0.4 5%

Whole 4 0.6 14% 0.6 16% <0.1 -2% 0.5 13% 0.3 8% 0.2 5%

Refined 4 1.2 30% 1.2 30% <0.1 <1% 1.8 45% 1.6 39% 0.2 6%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 6.5 1.1 17% 0.9 14% 0.2 3% 1.1 16% 1.0 15% 0.1 1%

Seafood 1.4 0.2 14% 0.2 14% <0.1 0% 0.1 10% 0.2 11% -0.1 -1%

Meat, poultry, eggs 4.4 0.4 8% 0.2 4% 0.2 4% 0.3 7% 0.2 5% 0.1 2%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.7 0.5 75% 0.5 71% <0.1 4% 0.6 87% 0.6 79% <0.1 8%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3 1.2 41% 1.3 43% -0.1 -2% 0.7 22% 1.2 41% -0.5 -19%

Oils (grams) 31 2.8 9% 2.6 9% 0.2 <1% 3.3 11% 2.9 9% 0.4 2%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(kcal) 330 36.7 11% 62.9 19% -26.2 -8% 20.3 6% 60.8 18% -40.5 -12%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(% kcal) 14% 7%  12%  -5% 4%  11%  -7%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-4 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-3. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA 

Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2 1.8 92% 2.0 102% -0.2 -10% 1.0 50% 2.2 111% -1.2 -61%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 1.4 54% 1.4 55% <0.1 -1% 1.1 44% 0.9 34% 0.2 10%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 57% 0.1 42% <0.1 15% 0.1 31% 0.0 20% 0.1 11%

Red and orange 0.8 0.8 98% 0.8 108% <0.1 -10% 0.4 54% 0.3 43% 0.1 11%

Legumes 0.2 0.8 409% 0.8 367% <0.1 42% 0.6 282% 0.6 261% <0.1 21%

Starchy 0.7 0.3 43% 0.3 41% <0.1 2% 0.4 54% 0.3 42% 0.1 12%

Other 0.6 0.1 25% 0.1 24% <0.1 1% 0.2 37% 0.2 30% <0.1 7%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6 6.6 111% 7.2 120% -0.6 -9% 9.7 161% 7.0 117% 2.7 44%

Whole 3 2.2 72% 2.5 82% -0.3 -10% 2.2 72% 1.2 41% 1.0 31%

Refined 3 4.5 149% 4.7 158% -0.2 -9% 7.5 250% 5.8 193% 1.7 57%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 5.5 4.1 75% 3.5 64% 0.6 11% 4.4 81% 3.5 63% 0.9 18%

Seafood 1.1 0.7 66% 0.8 71% -0.1 -5% 0.6 52% 0.6 51% <0.1 1%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 1.4 38% 0.8 20% 0.6 18% 1.3 36% 0.8 22% 0.5 14%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 2.0 331% 2.0 345% <0.1 -14% 2.5 419% 2.1 363% 0.4 56%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3 4.6 154% 5.0 168% -0.4 -14% 2.8 93% 4.6 152% -1.8 -59%

Oils (grams) 27 10.8 40% 10.3 38% 0.5 2% 13.6 51% 10.7 40% 2.9 11%

Maximum SoFAS 

(kcal)2 258 139.0 54% 245.3 95% -106.3 -41% 84.4 33% 223.0 86% -138.6 -53%

Maximum SoFAS 

(% kcal) 13% 7%  12%  -5% 4%  11%  -7%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-5 

 

4.1.3 Nutrient Assessment of CSFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

 Comparison With the DRIs 

Energy and Macronutrients. The calorie and macronutrient content was comparable in 2009 and 

2014 for the as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages, with differences from 2009 to 2014 of 

less than six percent in the percentage of the recommended amount of macronutrients (Table 4-4).

Minerals. The 2014 as-offered CSFP food package met slightly higher percentages of the 

recommended amount for seven of the eight minerals examined; the 2014 package contained less 

potassium than the 2009 package, with both packages providing about 22 percent of the 

recommended amount. In contrast, the as-delivered 2014 package provided almost twice the amount 

of iron as the 2009 package (207 percent and 113 percent of the recommended amount, 

respectively); the 2014 as-delivered package also provided 186 mg less phosphorus and 356 mg less 

sodium than the 2009 package (Table 4-2). Although the increased iron in the 2014 as-delivered 

food package exceeded the RDA for iron, the amount of iron was not in excess of the UL. Neither 

the 2014 nor the 2009 package exceeded the UL for any mineral (Tables 4-5, 4-6).

Vitamins. The 2009 and 2014 CSFP food packages met similar percentages of the recommended 

amount for nine of the ten vitamins examined; the 2014 as-offered package contained slightly more 

folate than the 2009 package. However, the 2014 as-delivered package contained greater amounts of 

six of the ten vitamins examined: vitamin E, thiamin, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and folate. 

Neither the 2014 nor the 2009 package provided vitamins in excess of the UL (Tables 4-5, 4-6).

 Comparison With the Thrifty Food Plan Dietary Standards 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the TFP dietary standards are very similar to the DRIs. Therefore, most 

of the results of the comparison of the 2009 and 2014 CSFP food packages are similar to those in 

the section above. The TFP standards differ from the DRIs for three nutrients: sodium, potassium, 

and vitamin E. The as-delivered 2014 food package provided less sodium and potassium, and more 

vitamin E, compared to the 2009 package; both met the TFP standard for sodium (Tables 4-7, 4-8).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-6 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-4. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant

Energy/ 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories2 2,400 527 22% 513.0 21% 14 1% 482 20% 545.3 23% -63.3 -3%

Protein, g 56 25.8 46% 25.2 45% 0.6 1% 21.8 39% 25.0 45% -3.2 -6%

Protein, % kcal 10-35 20%  20%  <1% 18%  18%  <1%

Carbohydrate, g 130 83.4 64% 75.0 58% 8.4 6% 81.0 62% 83.2 64% -2.2 -2%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  59%  4% 67% ↑ 61%  6%

Total fat, g ND 11.1 N/A 13.5 N/A -2.4 8.9 N/A 13.6 N/A -4.7

Total fat, % kcal 20-35 19% ↓ 24%  -5% 17% ↓ 22%  -5%

Saturated fat, g low 4.0 N/A 5.7 N/A -1.7 2.4 N/A 5.7 N/A -3.3

Saturated fat, % kcal ND 7% N/A 10% N/A -3% 4% N/A 9% N/A -5%

Linoleic acid, g 14 2.0 14% 1.9 13% 0.1 1% 2.1 15% 1.9 14% 0.2 1%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 3% ↓ 3% ↓ <1% 4% ↓ 3% ↓ 1%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.6 0.1 8% 0.2 10% -0.1 -2% 0.1 6% 0.1 9% <0.1 -3%

α-Linolenic acid, 

% kcal 0.6-1.2 <1% ↓ <1% ↓ <1% <1% ↓ <1% ↓ <1%

Cholesterol, mg low 26.7 N/A 34.0 N/A -7.3 13.8 N/A 32.6 N/A -18.8

Total dietary fiber, g 30 7.7 26% 6.8 23% 0.9 3% 7.3 24% 6.1 20% 1.2 4%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR; ↑= exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-7 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-5. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient 

needs (DRIs) for the reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1200 504.8 42% 498.4 42% 6.4 <1% 452.7 38% 456.3 38% -3.6 <1%

Copper, mg 0.9 0.4 43% 0.4 41% <0.1 2% 0.4 41% 0.3 38% 0.1 3%

Iron, mg 8 7.8 98% 7.1 89% 0.7 9% 16.5 207% 9.1 113% 7.4 94%

Magnesium, mg 420 119.8 29% 118.2 28% 1.6 1% 104.6 25% 110.7 26% -6.1 -1%

Phosphorus, mg 700 694.8 99% 651.4 93% 43.4 6% 436.0 62% 622.5 89% -186.5 -27%

Potassium, mg 4700 1026.3 22% 1032.8 22% -6.5 <1% 766.5 16% 940.5 20% -174 -4%

Sodium, mg2 1300 807.8 62% 782.7 60% 25.1 2% 434.2 33% 790.6 61% -356.4 -28%

Zinc, mg 11 4.6 42% 4.0 36% 0.6 6% 5.9 53% 4.4 40% 1.5 13%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg 900 313.0 35% 316.3 35% -3.3 <1% 308.8 34% 359.3 40% -50.5 -6%

Vitamin C, mg 90 38.7 43% 40.2 45% -1.5 -2% 30.2 34% 49.5 55% -19.3 -21%

Vitamin D, μg 20 3.1 15% 3.2 16% -0.1 -1% 3.1 15% 3.2 16% -0.1 -1%

Vitamin E, mg2 15 2.6 17% 1.9 13% 0.7 4% 3.7 24% 2.1 14% 1.6 10%

Thiamin, mg 1.2 0.6 53% 0.6 47% <0.1 6% 0.9 77% 0.8 68% 0.1 9%

Riboflavin, mg 1.3 0.8 64% 0.8 63% <0.1 1% 1.0 80% 1.1 85% -0.1 -5%

Niacin, mg 16 6.8 43% 6.3 39% 0.5 4% 12.2 76% 8.9 56% 3.3 20%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.7 0.6 38% 0.6 34% <0.1 4% 1.0 56% 0.8 49% 0.2 7%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.4 2.1 88% 1.7 70% 0.4 18% 2.7 114% 2.4 100% 0.3 14%

Folate, μg (DFE) 400 236.4 59% 203.8 51% 32.6 8% 379.3 95% 323.6 81% 55.7 14%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of concern for most participants, but rather the UL.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-8 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-6. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant

Nutrient 

Weighted 

average UL 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Minerals

Calcium, mg 2500 504.8 498.4 6.4 452.7 456.3 -3.6

Copper, mg 10 0.4 0.4 <0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1

Iron, mg 45 7.8 7.1 0.7 16.5 9.1 7.4

Phosphorus, mg 4000 694.8 651.4 43.4 436.0 622.5 -186.5

Potassium, mg ND 1026.3 1032.8 -6.5 766.5 940.5 -174.0

Sodium, mg 2300 807.8 782.7 25.1 434.2 790.6 -356.4

Zinc, mg 40 4.6 4.0 0.6 5.9 4.4 1.5

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 3000 313.0 316.3 -3.3 308.8 359.3 -50.5

Vitamin C, mg 2000 38.7 40.2 -1.5 30.2 49.5 -19.3

Vitamin D, μg 100 3.1 3.2 -0.1 3.1 3.2 -0.1

Vitamin E (added), mg1 1000 0.6 0.2 0.4 2.0 0.5 1.5

Thiamin, mg ND 0.6 0.6 <0.1 0.9 0.8 0.1

Riboflavin, mg ND 0.8 0.8 <0.1 1.0 1.1 -0.1

Niacin, mg1 35 6.8 6.3 0.5 12.2 8.9 3.3

Vitamin B6, mg 100 0.6 0.6 <0.1 1.0 0.8 0.2

Vitamin B12, μg ND 2.1 1.7 0.4 2.7 2.4 0.3

Folate, μg (folic acid)1 1000 86.7 69.9 16.8 180.9 147.5 33.4

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-9 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-7. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Energy / 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories 2,600 527 20% 513 20% 14 0% 482 19% 545 21% -63 -2%

Protein, g ND 25.8 N/A 25.2 N/A 0.6 21.8 N/A 25.0 N/A -3.2

Protein, % kcal 10-35 20%  20%  <1% 18%  18%  <1%

Carbohydrate, g ND 83.4 N/A 75.0 N/A 8.4 81.0 N/A 83.2 N/A -2.2

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  59%  4% 67% ↑ 61%  6%

Total fat, g ND 11.1 N/A 13.5 N/A -2.4 8.9 N/A 13.6 N/A -4.7

Total fat, % kcal 20-35 19% ↓ 24%  -5% 17% ↓ 22%  -5%

Saturated fat, g ND 4.0 N/A 5.7 N/A -1.7 2.4 N/A 5.7 N/A -3.3

Saturated fat, % kcal < 10 7%  10% ↓ -3% 4%  9%  -5%

Linoleic acid, g 14 2.0 14% 1.9 13% 0.1 1% 2.1 15% 1.9 14% 0.2 1%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 3% ↓ 3% ↓ <1% 4% ↓ 3% ↓ 1%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.6 0.1 8% 0.2 10% -0.1 -2% 0.1 6% 0.1 9% <0.1 -3%

α-Linolenic acid, 

% kcal 0.6-1.2 <1% ↓ <1% ↓ <1% <1% ↓ <1% ↓ <0.1%

Cholesterol, mg <= 300 26.7  34.0  -7.3 13.8  32.6  -18.8

Total dietary fiber, g 30 7.7 26% 6.8 23% 0.9 3% 7.3 24% 6.1 20% 1.2 4%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR; ↑= exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-10 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-8. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Vitamins 

Calcium 1200 504.8 42% 498.4 42% 6.4 0% 452.7 38% 456.3 38% -3.6 0%

Copper, mg 0.9 0.4 43% 0.4 41% <0.1 2% 0.4 41% 0.3 38% 0.1 3%

Iron, mg 8 7.8 98% 7.1 89% 0.7 9% 16.5 207% 9.1 113% 7.4 94%

Magnesium, mg 420 119.8 29% 118.2 28% 1.6 1% 104.6 25% 110.7 26% -6.1 -1%

Phosphorus, mg 700 694.8 99% 651.4 93% 43.4 6% 436.0 62% 622.5 89% -186.5 -27%

Potassium, mg2 4136 1026.3 25% 1032.8 25% -6.5 <1% 766.5 19% 940.5 23% -174 -4%

Sodium, mg ≤ 2300 807.8  782.7  25.1 434.2  790.6  -356.4

Zinc, mg 11 4.6 42% 4.0 36% 0.6 6% 5.9 53% 4.4 40% 1.5 13%

Minerals 

Vitamin A, μg 900 313.0 35% 316.3 35% -3.3 <1% 308.8 34% 359.3 40% -50.5 -6%

Vitamin C, mg 90 38.7 43% 40.2 45% -1.5 -2% 30.2 34% 49.5 55% -19.3 -21%

Vitamin D, μg ND 3.1 N/A 3.2 N/A -0.1 3.1 N/A 3.2 N/A -0.1

Vitamin E, mg2 10.5 2.6 24% 1.9 18% 0.7 6% 3.7 35% 2.1 20% 1.6 15%

Thiamin, mg 1.2 0.6 53% 0.6 47% <0.1 6% 0.9 77% 0.8 68% 0.1 9%

Riboflavin, mg 1.3 0.8 64% 0.8 63% <0.1 1% 1.0 80% 1.1 85% -0.1 -5%

Niacin, mg 16 6.8 43% 6.3 39% 0.5 4% 12.2 76% 8.9 56% 3.3 20%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.7 0.6 38% 0.6 34% <0.1 4% 1.0 56% 0.8 49% 0.2 7%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.4 2.1 88% 1.7 70% 0.4 18% 2.7 114% 2.4 100% 0.3 14%

Folate, μg (DFE) 400 236.4 59% 203.8 51% 32.6 8% 379.3 95% 323.6 81% 55.7 14%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percent of lower value (shown) in the acceptable range for the standard; acceptable range for potassium = 4136-4606 mg; acceptable range for vitamin E= 10.5-

12.75 mg
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-11 

 

4.1.4 HEI-2005 Scores for CSFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The HEI-2005 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered CSFP food packages were higher in 2014 

than in 2009, with increases of approximately 2 points and 10 points, respectively. The increase for 

the 2014 as-delivered package was due to the greater amounts of vegetables (total, dark 

green/orange vegetables/legumes), whole grains, and oils (Table 4-9).

Table 4-9. HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 CSFP USDA Foods

HEI component 

Maximum 

score 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

1. Total fruit 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 3.1 5.0 -1.9

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 2.7 -0.8 1.4 2.3 -0.9

3. Total vegetables 5 4.4 4.1 0.3 3.4 2.4 1.0

4. Dark green, orange veg & 

legumes 5 5.0 4.2 0.8 4.0 2.2 1.8

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

6. Whole grains 5 3.6 4.1 -0.5 3.6 2.0 1.6

7. Milk 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

8. Meat and beans 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

9. Oils 10 4.5 4.3 0.2 5.7 4.5 1.2

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 7.9 2.1 10.0 8.4 1.6

11. Sodium 10 4.2 4.2 0.0 9.0 4.9 4.1

12. Calories from SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0

Total HEI-2005 score 100 83.6 81.5 2.1 85.2 76.6 8.6 

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

4.2 Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 

Households participating in FDPIR receive a monthly food package to help them maintain a 

nutritionally balanced diet. Although a small amount of bonus food was delivered to FDPIR 

participants in FY 2009, there were no bonus deliveries in FY 2014; the comparisons reflect

entitlement foods only. Additional background information about USDA Foods in FDPIR is found 

in section 1.2.2.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-12 

 

4.2.1 Food Composition of FDPIR USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

In FY 2009, FDPIR offered a total 90 million pounds of USDA Foods; in FY 2014, FDPIR offered 

a total 82 million pounds of USDA Foods. The total weight of foods in the as-offered FDPIR food 

package decreased by nearly eight million pounds from 2009 to 2014, mainly because of the decrease 

in the number of participants from 95,369 in 2009 to 85,397 in 2014. Because the distribution guide 

rates for the two years were comparable, the food group composition of the as-offered package was 

comparable (differences from 2009 to 2014 in the weight of food groups were one percent or less). 

In 2009, FDPIR delivered a total 78 million pounds of USDA Foods; in 2014, FDPIR delivered a 

total 73 million pounds. From 2009 to 2014, the food weight of the as-delivered package decreased 

by 4.5 million pounds, though changes in the food group content by weight was less than four

percent for all food groups. (Table 4-10).

Table 4-10. Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered

Food group 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Cereal 3% 4% -1% 3% 3% <1%

Cheese 3% 3% <1% 4% 4% <1%

Fruit 13% 13% <1% 11% 11% <1%

Juice 11% 12% -1% 12% 13% -1%

Meat 12% 11% 1% 12% 13% -1%

Milk 10% 10% <1% 12% 9% 3%

Oil 1% 2% -1% 2% 2% <1%

PB/dried beans 6% 6% <1% 6% 6% <1%

Starches 23% 23% <1% 19% 21% -2%

Vegetables 16% 16% <1% 19% 17% 2%

Total weight1 82 90 -8 73 78 -5

1 Total weight = million pounds/year; amounts are displayed rounded to the whole numbers; difference is calculated on amounts prior to 

rounding.

4.2.2 Food Group Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

Food Group Composition. Compared to the 2009 as-offered food package, in 2014 the food 

package offered a greater percentage of the weighted average recommended amount of dark green 

vegetables and other vegetables; protein foods, including seafood, meat/poultry/eggs; dairy; and 

oils. Compared to 2009, in 2014 the food package delivered a greater percentage of the 

recommended 2010 USDA Food pattern amount for dark green vegetables, other vegetables, and

dairy (Tables 4-11).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-13 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-11. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference participant

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 1.2 58% 1.2 59% <0.1 -1% 0.9 45% 1.0 52% -0.1 -7%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.8 1.1 39% 1.4 50% -0.3 -11% 1.1 38% 1.1 42% <0.1 -4%

Dark green 0.3 0.1 32% <0.1 7% 0.1 25% <0.1 11% <0.1 5% <0.1 6%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 44% 0.5 61% -0.2 -17% 0.3 39% 0.3 43% <0.1 -4%

Legumes 0.3 0.4 144% 0.5 198% -0.1 -54% 0.4 142% 0.4 159% <0.1 -17%

Starchy 0.8 0.3 37% 0.6 77% -0.3 -40% 0.5 68% 0.7 84% -0.2 -16%

Other 0.6 0.4 60% 0.3 40% 0.1 20% 0.2 31% 0.1 20% 0.1 11%

Total grains (oz equiv) 7.0 14.7 210% 14.9 213% 0.2 2% 11.0 157% 11.6 166% -0.6 -9%

Whole 3.6 4.3 119% 4.5 123% -0.2 -4% 1.1 30% 1.3 36% -0.2 -6%

Refined 3.5 10.4 297% 10.4 298% <0.1 -1% 9.9 282% 10.3 295% -0.4 -13%

Protein foods (oz 

equiv) 5.9 4.7 80% 4.0 68% 0.7 12% 3.7 62% 4.2 72% -0.5 -10%

Seafood 1.3 0.4 28% 0.1 8% 0.3 20% 0.1 6% 0.2 13% -0.1 -7%

Meat, poultry, eggs 4.0 3.5 87% 2.9 71% 0.6 16% 2.7 68% 3.2 79% -0.5 -11%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.9 152% 1.0 171% -0.1 -19% 0.9 142% 0.9 144% <0.1 -2%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 1.9 65% 1.6 53% 0.3 12% 2.0 68% 1.4 46% 0.6 22%

Oils (grams) 28.5 17.0 60% 25.5 89% -8.5 -29% 21.8 77% 24.5 86% -2.7 -9%

Maximum SoFAS 

(kcal)2 260.0 201.7 78% 199.0 77% 2.7 1% 192.5 74% 186.5 72% 6 2%

Maximum SoFAS 

(% kcal) 12% 10%  9%  1% 11%  10%  1%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-14 

 

Food Group Composition per 2,000 kcal. When standardized to 2,000 kcal, the 2014 as-offered 

FDPIR food package met slightly less of the recommended amount of seven of the 16 food groups 

(vegetables, red/orange vegetables, legumes, starchy vegetables, whole grains, nuts/seeds/soy 

products and oils), and slightly more dark green vegetables, other vegetables, total grains, refined 

grains, protein foods including seafood, meat/poultry/eggs, and dairy. Compared to the 2009 asdelivered package, the 2014 package met slightly more than the recommended amount of three of 

the 16 food groups (legumes, other vegetables, and dairy); the percent met for other food groups 

was unchanged or slightly less (Table 4-12).

4.2.3 Nutrient Assessment of FDPIR USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

 Comparison With the DRIs 

Energy and Macronutrients. In both 2009 and 2014, the as-offered FDPIR food package 

contained more calories than the as-delivered food package. The as-offered and as-delivered 

packages met or exceeded the DRI for protein and carbohydrates in both 2009 and 2014. Compared 

to the 2009 food packages, the 2014 packages offered less of the recommended weighted average 

amounts of total fat, linoleic acid, and α-linolenic acid (Table 4-13).

Minerals. The 2014 as-offered food package met a higher percentage of the weighted average 

recommended amount for six minerals of the eight minerals examined (calcium, iron, phosphorus, 

potassium, sodium and zinc); the 2014 as-delivered food package met a higher percentage of the 

weighted average recommended amount for six minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, 

potassium, and zinc). While the sodium content of the as-delivered food package was slightly lower 

in the 2014 food package than the 2009 food package, all packages exceeded the recommended 

amount of sodium, though neither the 2014 or the 2009 packages provided minerals in excess of the 

UL (Tables 4-14, 4-15).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-15 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-12. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA 

Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 1.1 57% 1.1 56% <0.1 1% 1.0 50% 1.1 56% -0.1 -6%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 1.1 43% 1.3 52% -0.2 -9% 1.2 48% 1.2 50% <0.1 -2%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 47% <0.1 8% 0.1 39% <0.1 18% <0.1 7% <0.1 11%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 43% 0.5 59% -0.2 -16% 0.3 43% 0.4 48% -0.1 -5%

Legumes 0.2 0.4 210% 0.5 218% -0.1 -8% 0.5 236% 0.4 202% 0.1 34%

Starchy 0.7 0.3 41% 0.6 80% -0.3 -39% 0.6 86% 0.7 101% -0.1 -15%

Other 0.6 0.3 58% 0.2 42% 0.1 16% 0.2 35% 0.1 24% 0.1 11%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6.0 14.3 239% 14.1 235% 0.2 4% 12.2 203% 12.6 211% -0.4 -8%

Whole 3.0 4.2 139% 4.2 141% <0.1 -2% 1.2 41% 1.4 47% -0.2 -6%

Refined 3.0 10.1 338% 9.9 329% 0.2 9% 11.0 366% 11.2 374% -0.2 -8%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 5.5 4.6 84% 3.8 69% 0.8 15% 4.1 74% 4.6 84% -0.5 -10%

Seafood 1.1 0.3 32% 0.1 9% 0.2 23% 0.1 8% 0.2 15% -0.1 -7%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 3.4 91% 2.7 73% 0.7 18% 3.0 82% 3.5 94% -0.5 -12%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.9 148% 1.0 171% -0.1 -23% 0.9 158% 1.0 167% -0.1 -9%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 1.9 63% 1.5 51% 0.4 12% 2.3 75% 1.5 50% 0.8 25%

Oils (grams) 27.0 16.6 61% 24.1 89% -7.5 -28% 24.3 90% 26.6 99% -2.3 -9%

Maximum SoFAS 

(kcal)2 258.0

197.

0 76% 188.0 73% 9 3% 214.1 83% 202.6 79% 11.5 4%

Maximum SoFAS 

(% kcal) 13.0% 10%  9%  1% 11%  10%  1%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-16 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-13. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant

Energy/ Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories2 2,150 2,048 95% 2,116.6 98% -68.6 -3% 1,798 84% 1,840.7 86% -42.7 -2%

Protein, g 38.8 84.8 219% 81.0 209% 3.8 10% 71.6 185% 71.2 184% 0.4 1%

Protein, % kcal 10-32.5 17%  15%  2% 16%  15%  1%

Carbohydrate, g 130.0 321.6 247% 314.0 242% 7.6 5% 260.4 200% 258.7 199% 1.7 1%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  59%  4% 58%  56%  2%

Total fat, g ND 50.5 N/A 63.2 N/A -12.7 53.7 N/A 59.4 N/A -5.7

Total fat, % kcal 22.5-35 22% ↓ 27%  -5% 27%  29%  -2%

Saturated fat, g ND 14.2 N/A 17.1 N/A -2.9 15.7 N/A 16.8 N/A -1.1

Saturated fat, % kcal ND 6% N/A 7% N/A -1% 8% N/A 8% N/A <1%

Linoleic acid, g 12.8 11.7 91% 15.7 123% -4 -32% 12.1 94% 14.0 110% -1.9 -16%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 5%  7%  -2% 6%  7%  -1%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.2 1.1 95% 1.7 143% -0.6 -48% 1.4 116% 1.6 135% -0.2 -19%

α-Linolenic acid, 

% kcal 0.6-1.2 1% ↓ 1%  <1% 1%  1%  <1%

Cholesterol, mg low 206.6 N/A 211.6 N/A -5 170.8 N/A 188.4 N/A -17.6

Total dietary fiber, g 29.8 29.6 99% 28.7 97% 0.9 2% 21.6 72% 19.6 66% 2.0 6%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-17 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-14. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient 

needs (DRIs) for the reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1075.0 1028.8 96% 780.1 73% 248.7 23% 1000.4 93% 652.7 61% 347.7 32%

Copper, mg 0.7 1.4 195% 1.5 204% -0.1 -9% 1.0 148% 1.2 162% -0.2 -14%

Iron, mg 11.0 24.1 219% 22.5 204% 1.6 15% 19.9 181% 19.3 175% 0.6 6%

Magnesium, mg 277.5 357.0 129% 357.7 129% -0.7 0% 259.8 94% 256.4 92% 3.4 2%

Phosphorus, mg 787.5 1753.4 223% 1594.5 202% 158.9 21% 1413.0 179% 1312.4 167% 100.6 12%

Potassium, mg 4425.0 2734.3 62% 2661.3 60% 73 2% 2265.9 51% 2175.8 49% 90.1 2%

Sodium, mg2 ≤1425.0 1772.1 124% 1657.1 116% 115 8% 1506.1 106% 1574.0 110% -67.9 -4%

Zinc, mg 8.0 13.3 167% 12.4 155% 0.9 12% 10.8 136% 10.4 130% 0.4 6%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg 650.0 730.8 112% 571.9 88% 158.9 24% 544.1 84% 420.2 65% 123.9 19%

Vitamin C, mg 58.8 77.2 131% 79.1 135% -1.9 -4% 64.6 110% 69.7 119% -5.1 -9%

Vitamin D, μg 15.0 6.8 46% 4.4 29% 2.4 17% 5.7 38% 3.5 23% 2.2 15%

Vitamin E, mg 12.0 9.1 76% 7.8 65% 1.3 11% 7.8 65% 6.7 56% 1.1 9%

Thiamin, mg 1.0 2.3 233% 2.3 241% <0.1 -8% 1.9 192% 2.0 206% -0.1 -14%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 2.4 237% 2.2 224% 0.2 13% 2.0 197% 2.0 201% <0.1 -4%

Niacin, mg 12.5 25.9 207% 25.7 205% 0.2 2% 22.0 176% 22.1 177% -0.1 -1%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.1 1.9 191% 1.7 163% 0.2 28% 1.5 151% 1.4 134% 0.1 17%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.0 4.3 213% 3.2 163% 1.1 50% 3.6 182% 3.0 152% 0.6 30%

Folate, μg (DFE) 325.0 882.7 272% 789.5 243% 93.2 29% 670.0 206% 714.3 220% -44.3 -14%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of concern for most participants, but rather the UL.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-18 

 

Table 4-15. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant

Nutrient 

Weighted 

average UL 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Minerals

Calcium, mg 2625 1028.8 780.1 248.7 1000.4 652.7 347.7

Copper, mg 7 1.4 1.5 -0.1 1 1.2 -0.2

Iron, mg 42.5 24.1 22.5 1.6 19.9 19.3 0.6

Phosphorus, mg 3750 1753.4 1594.5 158.9 1413 1312.4 100.6

Potassium, mg ND 2734.3 2661.3 73.0 2265.9 2175.8 90.1

Sodium, mg 2175 1772.1 1657.1 115.0 1506.1 1574 -67.9

Zinc, mg 28.75 13.3 12.4 0.9 10.8 10.4 0.4

Vitamins

Vitamin A, μg 

(RAE) 2150 730.8 571.9 158.9 544.1 420.2 123.9

Vitamin C, mg 1462.5 77.2 79.1 -1.9 64.6 69.7 -5.1

Vitamin D, μg 93.75 6.8 4.4 2.4 5.7 3.5 2.2

Vitamin E 

(added), mg1 725 1.8 7.8 -6.0 7.8 0.3 7.5

Thiamin, mg ND 2.3 2.3 0 1.9 2 -0.1

Riboflavin, mg ND 2.4 2.2 0.2 2 2 0

Niacin, mg1 26.25 25.9 25.7 0.2 22 22.1 -0.1

Vitamin B6, mg 75 1.9 1.7 0.2 1.5 1.4 0.1

Vitamin B12, μg ND 1.4 3.2 -1.8 3.6 3 0.6

Folate, μg (folic 

acid)1 750 366.4 329.9 36.5 465.4 308.9 156.5

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted.

Vitamins. Compared to the 2009 packages, the 2014 as-offered package provided a greater 

percentage of the weighted average recommended amount for eight of the ten vitamins (vitamin A, 

D, E, riboflavin, niacin B6, B12, and folate); the 2014 as-delivered package provided a greater 

percentage of the weighted average recommended amount for five vitamins (vitamin A, D, E, B6,

and B12). The 2014 food package delivered less vitamin C, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin. Both the 

2009 and 2014 as-delivered package provided more than 100 percent of the weighted average 

recommended amount of all vitamins except vitamin A (less than 100 percent in the 2009 food 

package only), vitamin D, and vitamin E. (Table 4-14). Neither the 2014 nor the 2009 packages 

provided vitamins in excess of the UL (Table 4-15).
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-19 

 

 Comparison With the Thrifty Food Plan Dietary Standards 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the TFP dietary standards are very similar to the DRIs. Therefore, most 

of the results of the comparison of the 2009 and 2014 FDPIR food packages are similar to those in 

the section above. The TFP standards differ from the DRIs for three nutrients: sodium, potassium, 

and vitamin E. Compared to the 2009 packages, the 2014 as-offered package provided more sodium, 

potassium, and vitamin E; the 2014 as-delivered package provided more potassium and vitamin E 

but less sodium. The sodium content of all 2009 and 2014 packages were within the TFP weighted 

average recommended amount of sodium (Tables 4-16 and 4-17).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-20 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-16. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Energy/ Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories 2150 2,048 95% 2,116 98% -68.6 -3% 1,798 84% 1,841 86% -43 -2%

Protein, g N/A 84.8 N/A 81.0 N/A 3.8 71.6 N/A 71.2 N/A 0.4

Protein, % kcal 10-32.5 17%  15%  2% 16%  15%  1%

Carbohydrate, g N/A 321.6 N/A 314.0 N/A 7.6 260.4 N/A 258.7 N/A 1.7

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 63%  59%  4% 58%  56%  2%

Total fat, g N/A 50.5 N/A 63.2 N/A -12.7 53.7 N/A 59.4 N/A -5.7

Total fat, % kcal 22.5-35 22% ↓ 27%  -5% 27%  29%  -2%

Saturated fat, g N/A 14.2 N/A 17.1 N/A -2.9 15.7 N/A 16.8 N/A -1.1

Saturated fat, % kcal <10 6%  7%  -1% 8%  8%  <1%

Linoleic acid, g 12.75 11.7 91% 15.7 122% -4 -31% 12.1 94% 14.0 109% -1.9 -15%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 5%  7%  -2% 6%  7%  -1%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.2 1.1 95% 1.7 143% -0.6 -48% 1.4 116% 1.6 135% -0.2 -19%

α-Linolenic acid, 

% kcal 0.6-1.2 1% ↓ 1%  <1% 1%  1%  <1%

Cholesterol, mg ≤ 300 206.6  211.6  -5 170.8  188.4  -17.6

Total dietary fiber, g 29.8 29.6 99% 28.7 96% 0.9 3% 21.6 72% 19.6 66% 2 6%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard or within AMDR; ↓= below AMDR; ↑= exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-21 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-17. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1075.0 1028.8 96% 780.1 73% 248.7 23% 1000.4 93% 652.7 61% 347.7 32%

Copper, mg 0.7 1.4 195% 1.5 215% -0.1 -20% 1.0 148% 1.2 171% -0.2 -23%

Iron, mg 11.0 24.1 219% 22.5 204% 1.6 15% 19.9 181% 19.3 175% 0.6 6%

Magnesium, mg 277.5 357.0 129% 357.7 129% -0.7 <1% 259.8 94% 256.4 92% 3.4 2%

Phosphorus, mg 787.5 1753.4 223% 1594.5 202% 158.9 21% 1413.0 179% 1312.4 167% 100.6 12%

Potassium, mg2 3590 2734.3 76% 2661.3 74% 73 2% 2265.9 63% 2175.8 61% 90.1 2%

Sodium, mg ≤ 2175.0 1772.1  1657.1  115 1506.1  1574.0  -67.9

Zinc, mg 8.0 13.3 167% 12.4 155% 0.9 12% 10.8 136% 10.4 130% 0.4 6%

Vitamins

Vitamin A, μg 650.0 730.8 112% 571.9 88% 158.9 24% 544.1 84% 420.2 65% 123.9 19%

Vitamin C, mg 58.8 77.2 131% 79.1 134% -1.9 -3% 64.6 110% 69.7 119% -5.1 -9%

Vitamin D, μg N/A 6.8 N/A 4.4 N/A 2.4 5.7 N/A 3.5 N/A 2.2

Vitamin E, mg2 9.8 9.1 93% 7.8 80% 1.3 13% 7.8 80% 6.7 69% 1.1 11%

Thiamin, mg 1.0 2.3 233% 2.3 229% <0.1 4% 1.9 192% 2.0 196% -0.1 -4%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 2.4 237% 2.2 220% 0.2 17% 2.0 197% 2.0 197% 0 0%

Niacin, mg 12.5 25.9 207% 25.7 205% 0.2 2% 22.0 176% 22.1 177% -0.1 -1%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.1 1.9 191% 1.7 156% 0.2 35% 1.5 151% 1.4 128% 0.1 23%

Vitamin B12, μg 2.0 4.3 213% 3.2 159% 1.1 54% 3.6 182% 3.0 148% 0.6 34%

Folate, μg (DFE) 325.0 882.7 272% 789.5 243% 93.2 29% 670.0 206% 714.3 220% -44.3 -14%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percent of lower value (shown) in the acceptable range for the standard; acceptable range for potassium = 3590-4041 mg; acceptable range for vitamin E= 9.8-10.5 

mg
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-22 

 

4.2.4 HEI-2005 Scores for FDPIR USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The HEI-2005 scores for the as-offered and as-delivered FDPIR food packages showed little change 

from 2009 to 2014; the HEI-2005 score for the as-offered food package declined by 0.2 points; the 

HEI-2005 score for the as-delivered package increased by 1.3 points (Table 4-18).

Table 4-18. HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 FDPIR USDA Foods

HEI component 

Maximum 

score 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

1. Total fruit 5 3.5 3.5 0.0 3.1 3.5 -0.4

2. Whole fruit 5 4.5 4.4 0.1 3.2 4.0 -0.8

3. Total vegetables 5 3.2 3.3 -0.1 3.3 3.6 -0.3

4. Dark green, orange 

veg & legumes 5 3.5 1.9 1.6 2.4 2.6 -0.2

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 2.3 -0.3

7. Milk 10 7.3 5.8 1.5 8.7 5.7 3.0

8. Meat and beans 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

9. Oils 10 6.9 10.0 -3.1 10.0 10.0 0.0

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 9.8 0.2 9.4 9.2 0.2

11. Sodium 10 9.2 9.6 -0.4 9.3 9.2 0.1

12. Calories from 

SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0

Total HEI-2005 score 100 88.1 88.3 -0.2 86.5 85.2 1.3 

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

4.3 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

NSLP provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children during the school year. 

Prior to 2012, school lunches had to adhere to the School Meals Initiative (SMI) nutrition standards, 

which were based on the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

151 The standards required school lunch 

to provide one-third of the RDA for calories, protein, vitamins A and C, and calcium and iron. The 

standards also set recommendations of no more than 30 percent of total calories from fat and no 

more than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fat. These nutrition standards for school meals 

were revised per the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to reflect the 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and the DRIs. These revised nutrition standards for school meals required 

 

151 US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Health and Human Services. Nutrition and your health: dietary 

guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-23 

 

counting the servings of fruits and vegetables separately, with specifications for the number of 

servings from various vegetable subgroups; increasing fruit, vegetable, and whole grain-rich 

products; limiting milk to low/non-fat varieties; reducing sodium content over ten years; and 

adhering to calorie and fat levels established for each grade level. In recent years, the USDA has

reformulated products to lower the sugar, fat, and sodium content and improve the nutrient density 

of products used in school meals. For example, USDA Foods include reduced-fat mozzarella cheese, 

low-sodium spaghetti sauce, and low-fat, low-sodium ham products.

This section reports changes in food composition, nutrient and food group content, and HEI-2005 

scores of NSLP food packages. Bonus foods were not delivered to NSLP in SY 2013-2014; the 

current comparison reflects entitlement foods only. Additional background information about 

USDA Foods in NSLP is found in section 1.2.3.

4.3.1 Food Composition of NSLP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

In SY 2009-2010, NSLP offered a total 357 million pounds of USDA Foods; in SY 2013-2014, 

NSLP offered a total 1,770 million pounds of USDA Foods. The total weight of USDA Foods 

offered to NSLP participants increased by 1,413 million pounds from 2009 to 2014, with increases 

in the percentage by weight of fruit, juice, and vegetable food groups. The greater amount of food 

offered in 2014 is explained by the change in methodology for deriving the quantity in the as-offered 

food package. In 2009, any foods on the FA list that were not delivered in 2009 were not included in 

the as-offered package, as no cost/pound could be determined. With the recognition that this 

method did not adequately represent the FA list, the 2014 package used data for deliveries to all five 

nutrition assistance programs to calculate the cost/pound; the FNS provided additional data for any 

USDA Foods still lacking cost data, so that all foods on the FA list in 2014 were included in the asoffered package. In SY 2009-2010, NSLP delivered a total 1,041 million pounds of USDA Foods; in 

SY 2013-2014, NSLP delivered a total 1,331 million pounds of USDA Foods. The total weight of 

USDA Foods delivered increased by 290 million pounds, though the food group composition of the 

as-delivered USDA Foods was comparable (differences from 2009 to 2014 in the weight of food 

groups ranged from less than 1 percent to 6 percent). The number of participants decreased from 

30,294,022 in 2009 to 29,752,722 in 2014 (Table 4-19).
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-24 

 

Table 4-19. Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered

Food group 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Cheese 5% 11% -6% 10% 12% -2%

Fruit 19% 4% 15% 25% 19% 6%

Grains 30% 36% -6% 5% 6% -1%

Juice 4% <1% 4% <1% <1% <1%

Meat 10% 13% -3% 35% 40% -5%

Milk <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Oil 17% 27% -10% <1% 2% -2%

Vegetables 15% 9% 6% 24% 21% 3%

Total weight1 1,770 357 1,413 1,331 1,041 290

1 Total weight = million pounds per year; amounts are displayed rounded to the whole numbers; difference is calculated on amounts 

prior to rounding.

4.3.2 Food Group Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

Food Group Comparison. Consistent with the changes to the total weight of USDA Foods 

offered, the USDA Foods offered to NSLP in 2014 met larger percentages of the weighted average 

recommended amount of all food groups. Compared to 2009, the USDA Foods delivered to NSLP

met larger percentages of the weighted average recommended amount of fruit, vegetables, and 

whole grains but less total grains, protein foods, and dairy; and less refined grains, discretionary oils, 

and SoFAS (Table 4-20).

Food Group Comparison per 2,000 kcal. When standardized to 2,000-calories, the 2014 USDA 

Foods as offered provided more than twice the amount of fruit, and more vegetables (including 

red/orange, legumes, and starchy vegetables), total grains, enriched grains, and seafood, but less dark 

green vegetables, other vegetables, whole grains, meat/poultry/egg, nuts/seeds/soy products, and 

dairy products than in 2009. The amount of protein foods was unchanged. Similar changes were 

seen in the percentage of recommended amount met by the as-delivered USDA Foods, with the 

2014 food package providing more fruits (41 percent increase) and vegetables (total vegetables 

increased by 55 percent and dark green vegetables by 84 percent), but also more whole grains (30 

percent increase) and dairy than the 2009 food package, and less refined grains (61 percent decrease) 

protein foods (27 percent decrease), discretionary oils (39 percent decrease) and SoFAS (12 percent 

decrease) (Table 4-21).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-25 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-20. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended amounts from the 2010 USDA Food Pattern for the reference participant

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 1.8 0.2 10% <0.1 1% 0.2 9% 0.1 8% 0.1 4% <0.1 4%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.8 0.2 8% <0.1 2% 0.2 6% 0.2 8% 0.1 5% 0.1 3%

Dark green 0.3 <0.1 5% <0.1 2% <0.1 3% <0.1 5% <0.1 1% <0.1 4%

Red and orange 0.8 0.1 6% <0.1 1% 0.1 5% <0.1 4% <0.1 2% <0.1 2%

Legumes 0.3 <0.1 14% <0.1 3% <0.1 11% <0.1 5% <0.1 1% <0.1 4%

Starchy 0.8 0.1 16% <0.1 3% 0.1 13% 0.2 19% 0.1 11% 0.1 8%

Other 0.7 <0.1 3% <0.1 1% <0.1 2% <0.1 4% <0.1 2% <0.1 2%

Total grains (oz equiv) 7.0 1.8 26% 0.5 7% 1.3 19% 0.2 3% 0.3 4% -0.1 -1%

Whole 3.6 0.8 21% 0.3 8% 0.5 13% 0.1 3% <0.1 1% 0.1 2%

Refined 3.5 1.1 31% 0.2 6% 0.9 25% 0.1 4% 0.3 7% -0.2 -3%

Protein foods (oz 

equiv) 5.7 0.2 4% 0.1 1% 0.1 3% 0.7 12% 0.8 14% -0.1 -2%

Seafood 1.3 <0.1 3% <0.1 1% <0.1 2% <0.1 1% <0.1 1% <0.1 0%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.9 0.1 3% <0.1 1% 0.1 2% 0.6 16% 0.7 19% -0.1 -3%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.1 14% <0.1 4% 0.1 10% <0.1 8% 0.1 11% -0.1 -3%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 0.2 7% 0.1 2% 0.1 5% 0.3 9% 0.2 8% 0.1 1%

Oils (grams) 27.8 25.3 91% 7.6 27% 17.7 64% 0.8 3% 1.6 6% -0.8 -3%

Maximum SoFAS 

(kcal)2 238.1 20.4 9% 7.0 3% 13.4 6% 28.4 12% 30.7 13% -2.3 -1%

Maximum SoFAS 

(% kcal) 11% 5%  6%  -1% 20% ↑ 22% ↑ -2%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 Weighted average USDA Food Pattern recommended amount

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-26 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-21. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA 

Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 0.8 41% 0.4 20% 0.4 21% 2.0 98% 1.1 57% 0.9 41%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 0.9 37% 0.8 30% 0.1 7% 3.2 128% 1.8 73% 1.4 55%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 32% 0.1 42% <0.1 -10% 0.2 97% <0.1 13% 0.2 84%

Red and orange 0.8 0.2 28% 0.2 24% <0.1 4% 0.4 55% 0.3 34% 0.1 21%

Legumes 0.2 0.2 93% 0.1 54% 0.1 39% 0.2 101% <0.1 20% 0.2 81%

Starchy 0.7 0.6 79% 0.4 51% 0.2 28% 2.2 317% 1.3 183% 0.9 134%

Other 0.6 0.1 15% 0.1 20% <0.1 -5% 0.4 59% 0.2 40% 0.2 19%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6.0 8.1 136% 7.9 132% 0.2 4% 3.1 52% 4.0 67% -0.9 -15%

Whole 3.0 3.4 113% 4.4 148% -1.0 -35% 1.3 45% 0.4 15% 0.9 30%

Refined 3.0 4.8 159% 3.5 116% 1.3 43% 1.8 59% 3.6 120% -1.8 -61%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 5.5 1.0 19% 1.0 19% <0.1 <1% 10.0 182% 11.5 209% -1.5 -27%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 15% 0.1 10% 0.1 5% 0.1 13% 0.1 10% <0.1 3%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.5 13% 0.5 14% <0.1 -1% 9.2 247% 10.4 281% -1.2 -34%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.4 63% 0.4 73% <0.1 -10% 0.7 119% 0.9 165% -0.2 -46%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 0.9 29% 1.2 39% -0.3 -10% 3.9 130% 3.3 110% 0.6 20%

Oils (grams) 27.0 111.4 412% 125.8 466% -14.4 -54% 11.8 44% 22.4 83% -10.6 -39%

Maximum SoFAS 

(kcal)2 258.0 90.0 35% 114.6 44% -24.6 -9% 407.1 158% 439.5 170% -32.4 -12%

Maximum SoFAS 

(% kcal) 13% 5%  6%  -1% 20% ↑ 22% ↑ -2%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-27 

 

4.3.3 Nutrient Assessment of NSLP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

 Comparison With DRIs 

Energy and Macronutrients. Although the 2014 USDA Foods offered to NSLP provided more 

than three times the number of calories as in 2009, there was no difference in energy for the USDA 

Foods as delivered. Findings were similar for other macronutrients: As offered, the 2014 USDA 

Foods provided more protein, carbohydrate, total fat, and fiber, but as delivered, the 2014 USDA 

Foods provided nearly the same amount of protein, three grams more carbohydrate, and one gram 

less fat and cholesterol in 2014 when compared to 2009 (Table 4-22).

Minerals. Compared with 2009, the as-offered 2014 USDA Foods provided more of each mineral, 

providing an additional 5-20 percent of the recommended amount. In contrast, changes in the asdelivered packages were not as large, and the amount of iron, sodium, and zinc were essentially 

unchanged. Neither the 2014 or 2009 packages provided minerals in excess of the UL (Tables 4-23 

and 4-24).

Vitamins. As with the findings for minerals, the as-offered 2014 USDA Foods provided more of 

each vitamin than in 2009, more than doubling the amount met for all vitamins, though the amount 

of vitamin D provided was only one percent of the recommended amount in both 2009 and 2014. 

Compared to 2009, the as-delivered 2014 USDA Foods provided essentially the same amount of 

vitamins D, E, riboflavin, and B12, though the 2014 as-delivered NSLP food package provided 

twice the amount of vitamin C and increased amounts of vitamins A and B6. Neither the 2014 nor

2009 NSLP food package provided vitamins in excess of the UL (Tables 4-23 and 4-24).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-28 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-22. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average 

recommended nutrient needs (DRIs) of the reference participant

Energy/ 

Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories2 2104.0 454 22% 122 6% 332 16% 139 7% 139 7% -0.5 0%

Protein, g 36.3 8.9 24% 2.3 6% 6.6 18% 9.2 25% 9.4 26% -0.2 -1%

Protein, % kcal 10-30 8% ↓ 8% ↓ <1% 26%  27%  -1%

Carbohydrate, g 130.0 41.2 32% 8.8 7% 32.4 25% 13.5 10% 10.2 8% 3.3 2%

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 36% ↓ 29% ↓ 7% 39% ↓ 29% ↓ 10%

Total fat, g ND 29.0 N/A 8.8 N/A 20.2 5.6 N/A 6.9 N/A -1.3

Total fat, % kcal 25-35 57% ↑ 65% ↑ -8% 36% ↑ 44% ↑ -8%

Saturated fat, g low 4.9 N/A 1.6 N/A 3.3 2.4 N/A 2.6 N/A -0.2

Saturated fat, % kcal ND 10% N/A 12% N/A -2% 15% N/A 17% N/A -2%

Linoleic acid, g 12.7 10.7 84% 3.4 27% 7.3 57% 0.6 5% 1.0 8% -0.4 -3%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 21% ↑ 25% ↑ -4% 4% ↓ 6%  -2%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.3 1.5 117% 0.5 38% 1.0 79% 0.1 6% 0.1 9% 0 -3%

α-Linolenic acid, %kcal 0.6-1.2 3% ↑ 4% ↑ -1% 0% ↓ 1%  -1%

Cholesterol, mg low 21.6 N/A 6.0 N/A 15.6 28.9 N/A 30.2 N/A -1.3

Total dietary fiber, g 31.9 4.0 13% 1.0 3% 3.0 10% 1.6 5% 0.9 3% 0.7 2%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = within AMDR; ↓ = below AMDR; ↑ = exceeds AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Calorie recommendation from Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010.
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-29 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-23. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average recommended nutrient 

needs (DRIs) for the reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1253.2 105.4 8% 29.2 2% 76.2 6% 102.6 8% 80.7 6% 21.9 2%

Copper, mg 0.7 0.2 26% <0.1 6% 0.2 20% 0.1 11% 0.1 9% 0 2%

Iron, mg 10.8 2.1 19% 0.5 5% 1.6 14% 0.9 8% 0.8 8% 0.1 0%

Magnesium, mg 267.0 49.1 18% 12.6 5% 36.5 13% 21.1 8% 16.1 6% 5.0 2%

Phosphorus, mg 1133.0 192.8 17% 50.0 4% 142.8 13% 142.0 13% 122.2 11% 19.8 2%

Potassium, mg 4442.8 308.9 7% 61.3 1% 247.6 6% 231.6 5% 160.7 4% 70.9 1%

Sodium, mg2 ≤1453.2 131.6 9% 41.4 3% 90.2 6% 142.1 10% 146.1 10% -4.0 0%

Zinc, mg 8.3 1.3 15% 0.4 4% 0.9 11% 1.2 15% 1.2 15% 0 0%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg 646.8 57.1 9% 17.8 3% 39.3 6% 53.0 8% 34.0 5% 19.0 3%

Vitamin C, mg 49.7 16.7 34% 2.3 5% 14.4 29% 8.0 16% 3.9 8% 4.1 8%

Vitamin D, μg 15.0 0.2 1% <0.1 <1% 0.2 1% 0.2 1% 0.1 1% 0.1 0%

Vitamin E, mg 11.4 3.5 31% 1.0 8% 2.5 23% 0.5 4% 0.5 4% 0 0%

Thiamin, mg 0.9 0.3 33% 0.1 6% 0.2 27% 0.1 10% 0.1 9% 0 1%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 0.2 19% <0.1 5% 0.2 14% 0.1 12% 0.1 12% 0 0%

Niacin, mg 12.4 2.5 20% 0.6 5% 1.9 15% 1.9 16% 2.1 17% -0.2 -1%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.0 0.2 20% <0.1 4% 0.2 16% 0.2 19% 0.1 14% 0.1 5%

Vitamin B12, μg 1.9 0.2 10% 0.1 3% 0.1 7% 0.4 23% 0.4 23% 0 0%

Folate, μg (DFE) 310.4 83.3 27% 14.6 5% 68.7 22% 21.5 7% 19.2 6% 2.3 1%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, note that Americans consume too much sodium; therefore, the AI is not the level of concern for most participants, but rather the UL.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-30 

 

Table 4-24. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the 

weighted average ULs for the reference participant

Nutrient 

Weighted 

average UL 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Minerals

Calcium, mg 2922.0 105.4 29.2 76.2 102.6 80.7 21.9

Copper, mg 5.5 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0

Iron, mg 41.3 2.1 0.5 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.1

Phosphorus, mg 3844.0 192.8 50.0 142.8 142 122.2 19.8

Potassium, mg ND2 308.9 61.3 247.6 231.6 160.7 70.9

Sodium, mg 2179.2 131.6 41.4 90.2 142.1 146.1 -4

Zinc, mg 24.1 1.3 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 0

Vitamins

Vitamin A, μg (RAE) 1861.2 57.1 17.8 39.3 53 34 19

Vitamin C, mg 1270.2 16.7 2.3 14.4 8 3.9 4.1

Vitamin D, μg 96.1 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Vitamin E (added) mg1 605.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.5

Thiamin, mg ND 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0

Riboflavin, mg ND 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0

Niacin, mg1 21.8 2.5 0.6 1.9 1.9 2.1 -0.2

Vitamin B6, mg 62.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Vitamin B12, μg ND 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0

Folate, μg (folic acid)1 620.8 26.2 4.7 21.5 21.5 7.1 14.4

1 ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply only to synthetic forms obtained from supplements and/or fortified foods. Values for vitamin 

E and folate shown here are only the amounts added to foods; values for niacin have not been adjusted.

 Comparison With Thrifty Food Plan Dietary Standards 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the TFP dietary standards are very similar to the DRIs. Therefore, most 

of the results of the comparison of the 2009 and 2014 NSLP food packages are similar to those in 

the section above. The TFP standards differ from the DRIs for three nutrients: sodium, potassium, 

and vitamin E. The 2014 as-delivered NSLP food package provided more of all three nutrients, but 

still met the TFP standard for sodium (Tables 4-25, 4-26).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-31 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-25. Energy and macronutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP 

standard for the reference participant

Energy/ Macronutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Calories 2299.6 454 20% 121.6 5% 332.4 15% 139 6% 139.5 6% -0.5 0%

Protein, g N/A 8.9 N/A 2.3 N/A 6.6 9.2 N/A 9.4 N/A -0.2

Protein, % kcal 10-30 8% ↓ 8% ↓ <1% 26%  27%  -1%

Carbohydrate, g N/A 41.2 N/A 8.8 N/A 32.4 13.5 N/A 10.2 N/A 3.3

Carbohydrate, % kcal 45-65 36% ↓ 29% ↓ 7% 39% ↓ 29% ↓ 10%

Total fat, g N/A 29.0 N/A 8.8 N/A 20.2 5.6 N/A 6.9 N/A -1.3

Total fat, % kcal 25-35 57% ↑ 65% ↑ -8% 36% ↑ 44% ↑ -8%

Saturated fat, g N/A 4.9 N/A 1.6 N/A 3.3 2.4 N/A 2.6 N/A -0.2

Saturated fat, % kcal <10 10%  12% ↑ -2% 15% ↑ 17% ↑ -2%

Linoleic acid, g 12.7 10.7 84% 3.4 27% 7.3 57% 0.6 5% 1.0 8% -0.4 -3%

Linoleic acid, % kcal 5-10 21% ↑ 25% ↑ -4% 4% ↓ 6%  -2%

α-Linolenic acid, g 1.3 1.5 117% 0.5 37% 1.0 80% 0.1 6% 0.1 9% 0 -3%

α-Linolenic acid, % kcal 0.6-1.2 3% ↑ 4% ↑ -1% 0% ↓ 1%  -1%

Cholesterol, mg ≤ 300 21.6  6.0  15.6 28.9  30.2  -1.3

Total dietary fiber, g 31.9 4.0 13% 1.0 3% 3.0 10% 1.6 5% 0.9 3% 0.7 2%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = within AMDR; ↓ = below AMDR; ↑ = above AMDR

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-32 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-26. Nutrient content of the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods compared to the weighted average TFP standard for the 

reference participant

Nutrient DRI1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Minerals 

Calcium, mg 1253.2 105.4 8% 29.2 2% 76.2 6% 102.6 8% 80.7 6% 21.9 2%

Copper, mg 0.7 0.2 26% <0.1 6% 0.2 20% 0.1 11% 0.1 9% 0 2%

Iron, mg 10.8 2.1 19% 0.5 4% 1.6 15% 0.9 8% 0.8 8% 0.1 0%

Magnesium, mg 267.0 49.1 18% 12.6 5% 36.5 13% 21.1 8% 16.1 6% 5.0 2%

Phosphorus, mg 1133.0 192.8 17% 50.0 4% 142.8 13% 142.0 13% 122.2 11% 19.8 2%

Potassium, mg2 3705.3 308.9 8% 61.3 2% 247.6 6% 231.6 6% 160.7 4% 70.9 2%

Sodium, mg ≤2179.2 131.6  41.4  90.2 142.1  146.1  -4.0

Zinc, mg 8.3 1.3 15% 0.4 4% 0.9 11% 1.2 15% 1.2 15% 0 0%

Vitamins 

Vitamin A, μg 646.8 57.1 9% 17.8 3% 39.3 6% 53.0 8% 34.0 5% 19.0 3%

Vitamin C, mg 49.7 16.7 34% 2.3 5% 14.4 29% 8.0 16% 3.9 8% 4.1 8%

Vitamin D, μg N/A 0.2 N/A <0.1 N/A 0.2 0.2 N/A 0.1 N/A 0.1

Vitamin E, mg2 11.2-11.4 3.5 32% 1.0 9% 2.5 23% 0.5 4% 0.5 4% 0 0%

Thiamin, mg 0.9 0.3 33% 0.1 6% 0.2 27% 0.1 10% 0.1 9% 0 1%

Riboflavin, mg 1.0 0.2 19% <0.1 5% 0.2 14% 0.1 12% 0.1 11% 0 1%

Niacin, mg 12.4 2.5 20% 0.6 5% 1.9 15% 1.9 16% 2.1 17% -0.2 -1%

Vitamin B6, mg 1.0 0.2 20% <0.1 5% 0.2 15% 0.2 19% 0.1 14% 0.1 5%

Vitamin B12, μg 1.9 0.2 10% 0.1 3% 0.1 7% 0.4 23% 0.4 23% 0 0%

Folate, μg (DFE) 310.4 83.3 27% 14.6 5% 68.7 22% 21.5 7% 19.2 6% 2.3 1%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets standard

1 Weighted average nutrient standard for reference participant

2 Value for % Met is the percent of lower value (shown) in the acceptable range for the standard; acceptable range for potassium = 3705-4121 mg; acceptable range for vitamin E= 11.2-

11.4 mg
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-33 

 

4.3.4 HEI-2005 Scores for NSLP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The HEI-2005 scores for USDA Foods offered and delivered in NSLP were higher in 2014 than in 

2009, with increases of 3.8 and 4.3, respectively. The increase for 2014 as-delivered was due to 

greater amounts of fruit, vegetables (total, dark green/orange vegetables/legumes), whole grains, 

sodium, and calories from SoFAAS (Table 4-27).

Table 4-27. HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 NSLP USDA Foods

HEI component 

Maximum 

score 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

1. Total fruit 5 2.5 1.2 1.3 5.0 3.6 1.4

2. Whole fruit 5 1.9 2.3 -0.4 5.0 5.0 0.0

3. Total vegetables 5 2.1 1.7 0.4 5.0 4.3 0.7

4. Dark green, orange 

veg & legumes 5 1.0 1.1 -0.1 3.8 0.9 2.9

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 2.6 3.4 -0.8

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 2.2 0.7 1.5

7. Milk 10 3.4 4.5 -1.1 10.0 10.0 0.0

8. Meat and beans 10 3.6 3.0 0.6 10.0 10.0 0.0

9. Oils 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 4.9 9.3 -4.4

10. Saturated fat 10 8.2 5.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

11. Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 8.4 8.3 0.1

12. Calories from 

SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 0.0 19.8 17.1 2.7

Total HEI-2005 score 100 72.6 68.8 3.8 76.7 72.4 4.3

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

4.4 The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 

TEFAP serves a diverse participant group and includes income-eligible households and individuals 

of varying ages. Participants receive nutrition assistance from food pantries, soup kitchens, and 

shelters. The total amount of USDA Foods distributed through TEFAP is much higher than that 

distributed through other nutrition assistance programs examined in this report. TEFAP offered 

entitlement and bonus USDA Foods in FY 2009 and FY 2014. Therefore the section below presents 

the change in food composition, food group content, and HEI-2005 scores of the as-offered and asdelivered TEFAP food packages. Information on the contribution of TEFAP food packages 

towards the DRI and the TFP standards is not included due to the unavailability of the number of 
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-34 

 

participants served by the program. Additional background information about USDA Foods in 

TEFAP is found in section 1.2.4.

4.4.1 Food Composition of TEFAP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

In FY 2009, TEFAP offered a total 81 million pounds of USDA Foods without bonus foods and 

609 million pounds with bonus foods. In FY 2014, TEFAP offered a total 406 million pounds of 

USDA Foods without bonus foods and 767 million pounds with bonus foods. The total weight of 

USDA Foods without and with bonus foods offered in TEFAP increased by 324 and 159 million 

pounds, respectively, from 2009 to 2014. The greater amount of food offered in 2014 is explained 

by the change in methodology for deriving the quantity in the as-offered food package. In 2009, any 

foods on the FA list that were not delivered in 2009 were not included in the as-offered package, as 

no cost/pound could be determined. Recognizing that this method did not adequately represent the 

FA list, the 2014 package used data for deliveries to all five nutrition assistance programs to calculate 

the cost/pound; the FNS provided additional data for any USDA Foods still lacking cost data, so 

that all foods on the FA list in 2014 were included in the as-offered package. Compared to 2009, the 

2014 USDA Foods without bonus foods offered less cereal, peanut butter and dried beans, starchy 

foods and vegetables; the 2014 USDA Foods with bonus foods offered more cereal, grain, and milk, 

but less fruit, starches and vegetables. In FY 2009, TEFAP delivered a total 345 million pounds of 

USDA Foods without bonus foods and 730 million pounds with bonus foods. In FY 2014, TEFAP 

delivered a total 386 million pounds of USDA Foods without bonus foods and 746 million pounds 

with bonus foods. The total weight of USDA Foods without and with bonus foods delivered in 

TEFAP increased by 40 and 16 million pounds, respectively, from 2009 to 2014. Compared with 

2009, the 2014 as-delivered USDA Foods without bonus foods contained more cereal, fruit and 

vegetables but less grain, meat and starches; the as-delivered USDA Foods with bonus foods 

contained more fruit and juice but less meat, milk, peanut butter and dried beans, and vegetables 

(Table 4-28).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-35 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-28. Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP USDA Foods as a percentage of the total weight of foods 

offered

Food Group 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement Foods Entitlement + Bonus Foods Entitlement Foods Entitlement + Bonus Foods 

2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 

Cereal 15% 19% -4% 8% 12% -4% 5% 4% 1% 2% 2% <1%

Fruit 7% 6% 1% 18% 9% 9% 12% 10% 2% 21% 11% 10%

Grains 7% <1% 7% 4% 4% <1% <1% 1% -1% <1% <1% <1%

Juice 17% 9% 8% 25% 18% 7% 6% 6% <1% 20% 17% 3%

Meat 4% 4% <1% 15% 5% 10% 11% 16% -5% 19% 21% -2%

Milk 14% 4% 10% 9% 9% <1% 4% 4% <1% 3% 5% -2%

Oil 10% 4% 6% 5% 9% -4% 1% 1% <1% 1% 1% <1%

PB/dried beans 8% 10% -2% 4% 7% -3% 13% 12% 1% 7% 12% -5%

Starches 8% 24% -16% 5% 15% -10% 17% 19% -2% 10% 9% 1%

Vegetables 11% 19% -8% 8% 12% -4% 31% 26% 5% 18% 22% -4%

Total weight1 406 81 324 767 609 159 385 345 40 746 730 16

1 Total weight = million lbs. per year; amounts are displayed rounded to the whole numbers; difference is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-36 

 

4.4.2 Food Group Assessment of TEFAP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

When standardized to 2,000 kcal, the 2014 as-offered USDA Foods met more of the weighted 

average recommended amount of four of the 16 food groups (fruits, seafood, dairy, and oils); with 

bonus foods, the 2014 as-offered food package also met more of the weighted average 

recommended amount of four food groups (fruits, total protein foods, seafood, and 

meat/poultry/eggs). Compared to 2009, the 2014 as-delivered USDA Foods met more of the 

recommended amount of six of the 16 food groups (total vegetables, legumes, other vegetables, 

whole grains, nuts/seeds/soy products, and oils). Compared to 2009, the 2014 as-delivered USDA 

Foods with bonus foods met more of the recommended amount of fruits (79 percent increase), dark 

green vegetables (five percent increase), starchy vegetables (26 percent increase), other vegetables (2 

percent increase), whole grains (31 percent increase), seafood (48 percent increase), and SoFAAS (48

percent increase), and met less of the recommended amount of red/orange vegetables (30 percent 

decrease), legumes (278 percent decrease), enriched grains (29 percent decrease), protein foods (48

percent decrease), meat/poultry/eggs (57 percent decrease) and nuts/seeds/soy products (190

percent decrease), dairy (29 percent decrease) and oils (16 percent decrease). The 2009 and 2014 asdelivered packages with bonus foods provided essentially the same amounts of total and dark green 

vegetables and total grains (Tables 4-29, 4-30).
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-37 

 

Table 4-29. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP USDA Foods (Entitlement foods) per 2,000 kcal compared

to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 0.7 33% 0.5 23% 0.2 10% 0.7 34% 0.7 36% 0 -2%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 0.8 32% 1.3 53% -0.5 -21% 2.0 79% 1.8 72% 0.2 7%

Dark green 0.2 0.0 25% 0.1 31% -0.1 -6% 0.1 31% 0.1 26% 0 5%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 36% 0.4 49% -0.1 -13% 0.7 94% 0.7 92% 0 2%

Legumes 0.2 0.4 217% 0.5 240% -0.1 -23% 1.0 478% 0.8 351% 0.2 127%

Starchy 0.7 0.4 56% 0.8 107% -0.4 -51% 0.7 105% 0.8 110% -0.1 -5%

Other 0.6 0.1 13% 0.1 18% 0 -5% 0.4 70% 0.2 42% 0.2 28%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6.0 8.2 137% 15.4 257% -7.2 -120% 9.3 156% 10.2 170% -0.9 -14%

Whole 3.0 3.0 100% 8.8 292% -5.8 -192% 2.8 92% 1.5 49% 1.3 43%

Refined 3.0 5.2 174% 6.6 222% -1.4 -48% 6.6 219% 8.7 291% -2.1 -72%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 5.5 2.0 36% 2.8 51% -0.8 -15% 5.0 91% 6.3 114% -1.3 -23%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 15% 0.1 7% 0.1 8% 0.2 16% 0.6 51% -0.4 -35%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.6 15% 0.8 21% -0.2 -6% 2.0 55% 3.0 81% -1 -26%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 1.3 209% 1.9 336% -0.6 -127% 2.8 470% 2.7 472% 0.1 -2%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 0.5 18% 0.2 5% 0.3 13% 0.2 7% 0.2 7% 0 0%

Oils (grams) 27.0 88.5 328% 42.0 156% 46.5 172% 28.5 105% 27.0 100% 1.5 5%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(kcal) 258.0 125.5 49% 23.4 9% 102.1 40% 80.9 31% 66.8 26% 14.1 5%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(% kcal) 13.0% 6%  1%  5% 4%  3%  1%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-38 

 

Table 4-30. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP USDA Foods (Entitlement + Bonus foods) per 2,000 kcal 

compared to the 2010 USDA Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food group 

USDA 

Food 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 2.5 127% 0.9 47% 1.6 80% 3.2 160% 1.6 81% 1.6 79%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 0.9 37% 0.9 34% 0 3% 1.7 68% 1.7 69% 0 -1%

Dark green 0.2 0.0 18% 0.0 19% 0 -1% 0.0 20% 0.0 15% 0 5%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 35% 0.3 38% 0 -3% 0.6 71% 0.8 101% -0.2 -30%

Legumes 0.2 0.3 158% 0.3 157% 0 1% 0.6 303% 1.2 581% -0.6 -278%

Starchy 0.7 0.5 78% 0.5 65% 0 13% 0.8 116% 0.6 90% 0.2 26%

Other 0.6 0.1 10% 0.1 10% 0 0% 0.3 45% 0.2 43% 0.1 2%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6.0 6.0 100% 11.6 193% -5.6 -93% 5.9 99% 5.9 98% 0 1%

Whole 3.0 2.2 73% 5.3 176% -3.1 -103% 1.8 59% 0.8 28% 1.0 31%

Refined 3.0 3.8 126% 6.3 211% -2.5 -85% 4.2 139% 5.0 168% -0.8 -29%

Protein foods (oz equiv) 5.5 4.1 75% 2.8 52% 1.3 23% 6.8 123% 9.4 171% -2.6 -48%

Seafood 1.1 1.0 92% 0.1 10% 0.9 82% 1.3 119% 0.8 71% 0.5 48%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 2.2 59% 0.9 23% 1.3 36% 3.7 99% 5.8 156% -2.1 -57%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.9 152% 1.9 327% -1.0 -175% 1.8 299% 2.8 489% -1.0 -190%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 0.4 14% 0.9 29% -0.5 -15% 0.2 7% 1.1 36% -0.9 -29%

Oils (grams) 27.0 64.5 239% 72.7 269% -8.2 -30% 18.2 68% 22.7 84% -4.5 -16%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(kcal) 258.0 220.4 85% 39.2 15% 181.2 70% 224.2 87% 101.4 39% 122.8 48%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(% kcal) 13.0% 11%  2%  9% 11%  5%  6%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guidelines

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-39 

 

4.4.3 HEI-2005 Scores for TEFAP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The HEI-2005 score for the as-offered USDA Foods without bonus foods decreased by 

approximately 1.9 points, but with bonus foods, the total HEI-2005 score increased by 4.4 points. 

The HEI-2005 scores for the as-delivered USDA Foods without bonus foods increased by 2.3 

points, while the HEI-2005 score for the as-delivered package with bonus foods decreased by 2.7 

points. Changes in the HEI-2005 score for the as-delivered package with bonus foods reflected the 

decreases in the component scores for milk and oils (Table 4-31).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-40 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-31. HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 TEFAP USDA Foods

HEI component 

Maximum 

score 

Offered Delivered 

Entitlement Foods 

Entitlement + Bonus 

Foods Entitlement Foods 

Entitlement + Bonus 

Foods 

2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 2014 2009 Diff 

1. Total fruit 5 2.0 1.4 0.6 5.0 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 -0.2 5.0 5.0 0.0

2. Whole fruit 5 1.4 1.4 0.0 5.0 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 -0.2 5.0 4.3 0.7

3. Total vegetables 5 1.8 3.0 -1.2 2.3 2.0 0.3 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

4. Dark green, orange 

veg & legumes 5 1.0 1.5 -0.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 4.9 5.0 -0.1

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.0

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 3.6 5.0 -1.4 4.6 2.4 2.2 2.9 1.4 1.5

7. Milk 10 2.0 0.6 1.4 1.7 3.3 -1.6 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.8 4.2 -3.4

8. Meat and beans 10 7.4 9.7 -2.3 10.0 8.4 1.6 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

9. Oils 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 7.6 9.5 -1.9

10. Saturated fat 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 9.8 0.2 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0

11. Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 9.5 0.5 10.0 9.7 0.3

12. Calories from 

SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0

Total HEI-2005 score 100 75.7 77.6 -1.9 84.0 79.6 4.4 85.3 83.0 2.3 86.2 88.9 -2.7

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses 

calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-41 

 

4.5 Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

This section reports changes in food composition, nutrient and food group content, and HEI-2005 

scores of CACFP food packages for FY 2009 and 2014 for facilities that did not receive cash in lieu. 

Bonus foods were not delivered to CACFP in either year; the comparison reflects entitlement foods 

only. Additional background information about USDA Foods in CACFP is found in section 1.2.5.

4.5.1 Food Composition of CACFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The CACFP food packages offered and delivered in FY 2009 and 2014 did not include bonus foods.

In 2009, CACFP offered a total 500,000 pounds of USDA Foods; in 2014, CACFP offered a total 

3.5 million pounds. The total weight of USDA Foods offered to CACFP participants increased by 3 

million pounds from FY 2009 to 2014. The greater amount of food offered in 2014 is explained by 

the change in methodology for deriving the quantity in the as-offered food package. In 2009, any 

foods on the FA list that were not delivered in 2009 were not included in the as-offered package, as 

no cost/pound could be determined. With the recognition that this method did not adequately 

represent the FA list, the 2014 package used data for deliveries to all five nutrition assistance 

programs to calculate the cost/pound; the FNS provided additional data for any USDA Foods 

lacking cost data, so that all foods on the FA list in 2014 were included in the as-offered package. 

Compared with the 2009 as-offered package, the 2014 as-offered package contained a greater 

percentage by weight of the fruit, juice, and vegetable food groups, and decreased percentages of the 

cheese, grains, meats, and oils food groups. In 2009, CACFP delivered a total 1.8 million pounds of 

USDA Foods; in 2014, CACFP delivered a total 1.7 million pounds. The total weight of USDA 

Food delivered decreased by approximately one million pounds; there was an increase of more than 

30 percent in the vegetable food group, and slightly more than ten percent increase in the 

proportion of cheese and grains (Table 4-32).
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-42 

 

Table 4-32. Food group composition by weight of the 2014 and 2009 CACFP USDA Foods as a 

percentage of the total weight of foods offered

Food group 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

Cheese 5% 11% -6% 10% 21% -11%

Fruit 21% 5% 16% 29% 28% 1%

Grains 27% 31% -4% 2% 13% -11%

Juice 4% 0% 4% - - -

Meat 10% 14% -4% 19% 27% -8%

Oil 15% 27% -12% 0% 3% -3%

Vegetables 20% 11% 9% 40% 7% 33%

Total weight1 3.5 0.5 3.0 1.7 1.8 -0.1

1 Total weight = million lbs. /year; amounts are displayed rounded to the whole numbers; difference is calculated on amounts prior to 

rounding.

4.5.2 Food Group Assessment of CACFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

Compared to the 2009 as-offered food package (standardized to 2,000 kcal), the 2014 food package

met higher percentages of the recommended amount of 11 of the 16 food groups (fruits; total 

vegetables and all vegetable subgroups; total and refined grains; seafood, and nuts/seeds/soy 

products), and lower percentages of the recommended amount of whole grains, total protein foods, 

meat/poultry/eggs, dairy, oils, and calories from SoFAS. As compared to the 2009 as-delivered 

CACFP food package, the 2014 as-delivered food package also met higher percentages of 11 food 

groups, including: fruits (47 percent increase), total vegetables and all vegetable groups (20 to 360

percent increases), legumes (10 percent increase), seafood and meat/poultry/eggs (14 percent 

increase for both), nuts/seeds/soy products (48 percent increase), and dairy (67 percent increase); 

the package met a smaller percentage of total, whole grains and refined grains (2 to and 186 percent 

decrease), oils (66 percent decrease), and SoFAS (26 percent decrease) (Table 4-33).
Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-43 

 

Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Table 4-33. Food group and subgroup content of the 2014 and 2009 CACFP USDA Foods per 2,000 kcal compared to the 2010 USDA 

Food Pattern recommendations per 2,000 kcal

Food Group 

USDA 

Meal 

Pattern1 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Differences 2014 2009 Differences 

Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met Amt % Met 

Fruits (cup equiv) 2.0 0.9 46% 0.1 5% 0.8 41% 2.0 102% 1.1 55% 0.9 47%

Vegetables (cup equiv) 2.5 1.4 57% 0.3 12% 1.1 45% 3.8 153% 0.4 15% 3.4 138%

Dark green 0.2 0.1 37% 0.0 0% 0.1 37% 0.7 360% 0.0 0% 0.7 360%

Red and orange 0.8 0.3 34% 0.2 21% 0.1 13% 0.2 21% 0.1 11% 0.1 10%

Legumes 0.2 0.2 86% 0.0 22% 0.2 64% 0.1 27% 0.0 7% 0.1 20%

Starchy 0.7 1.0 137% 0.1 17% 0.9 120% 2.8 393% 0.2 33% 2.6 360%

Other 0.6 0.1 20% 0.0 4% 0.1 16% 0.2 33% 0.1 10% 0.1 23%

Total grains (oz equiv) 6.0 7.6 127% 7.3 121% 0.3 6% 1.4 23% 7.0 117% -5.6 -94%

Whole 3.0 3.2 106% 4.7 158% -1.5 -52% 1.3 42% 1.3 44% 0 -2%

Refined 3.0 4.5 149% 2.5 85% 2 64% 0.1 3% 5.7 189% -5.6 -186%

Protein foods (oz 

equiv) 5.5 1.2 22% 1.3 24% -0.1 -2% 7.5 137% 6.7 123% 0.8 14%

Seafood 1.1 0.2 14% 0.1 10% 0.1 4% 0.0 0% 0.0 3% 0 -3%

Meat, poultry, eggs 3.7 0.5 13% 0.8 23% -0.3 -10% 6.9 186% 6.4 172% 0.5 14%

Nuts, seeds, soy 

products 0.6 0.6 100% 0.4 64% 0.2 36% 0.6 104% 0.3 56% 0.3 48%

Dairy (cup equiv) 3.0 0.8 27% 1.3 44% -0.5 -17% 6.4 212% 4.3 145% 2.1 67%

Oils (grams) 27.0 105.8 392% 131.4 487% -25.6 -95% 8.4 31% 26.2 97% -17.8 -66%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(kcal) 258.0 99.2 38% 125.0 48% -25.8 -10% 442.9 172% 511.1 198% -68.2 -26%

Maximum SoFAS2 

(% kcal) 13% 5%  6%  -1% 22% ↑ 26% ↑ -4%

Note: Amounts are displayed rounded to the nearest tenth; % Met is calculated on amounts prior to rounding.

 = meets guideline; ↑ = exceeds guideline

1 USDA Food Pattern recommended amount per 2,000 kcal

2 SoFAS = calories from solid fats and added sugars. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar (SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from 

solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-44 

 

4.5.3 HEI-2005 Scores for CACFP USDA Foods, 2014 and 2009 

The HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 USDA Foods offered and delivered in CACFP were greater than 

in 2009, with increases of 11.9 and 2.7, respectively. The increase for 2014 as delivered was primarily

due to greater scores for total fruit, total vegetables, dark green/orange vegetables/legumes, and 

calories from SoFAAS (Table 4-34).

Table 4-34. HEI-2005 scores for the 2014 and 2009 CACFP USDA Foods

HEI component 

Maximum 

score 

Offered Delivered 

2014 2009 Difference 2014 2009 Difference 

1. Total fruit 5 2.9 0.3 2.6 5.0 3.4 1.6

2. Whole fruit 5 2.7 0.6 2.1 5.0 5.0 0.0

3. Total vegetables 5 3.3 0.7 2.6 5.0 0.9 4.1

4. Dark green, orange 

veg & legumes 5 1.3 0.5 0.8 5.0 0.3 4.7

5. Total grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 1.1 5.0 -3.9

6. Whole grains 5 5.0 5.0 0.0 2.1 2.2 -0.1

7. Milk 10 3.2 5.1 -1.9 10.0 10.0 0.0

8. Meat and beans 10 3.8 3.0 0.8 10.0 10.0 0.0

9. Oils 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 3.5 10.0 -6.5

10. Saturated fat 10 8.4 3.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

11. Sodium 10 10.0 10.0 0.0 5.9 6.3 -0.4

12. Calories from SoFAAS 20 20.0 20.0 0.0 18.6 15.4 3.2

Total HEI-2005 score 100 75.5 63.6 11.9 71.2 68.5 2.7 

Note: SoFAAS = Calories from solid fat, alcohol, and added sugar. The HEI uses calories from solid fats, alcohol and added sugar 

(SoFAAS), while the Dietary Guidelines for Americans uses calories from solid fats and added sugars (SoFAS) only.

4.6 Overall Summary 

Variety in USDA Foods

 In FY 2009, bonus foods were offered and delivered through four of the five programs: 

FDPIR, NSLP, TEFAP, and CACFP. In FY 2014, bonus foods were offered and 

delivered through two programs: CSFP and TEFAP.

 All five USDA Food packages offered foods from the same food groups in both years.

 The HEI-2005 scores for the as-offered packages improved for CACFP (11.9 points), 

followed by the TEFAP food package with bonus foods (4.4 points), NSLP (3.8 points) 

and CSFP (2.1 points). The HEI-2005 scores for the as-offered packages decreased for 

FDPIR (0.2 points lower) and the TEFAP food package without bonus foods (1.9 

points lower).
Changes in Nutrient and Food Group Content: 2009 to 2014 4 

Nutrient and Food Group Analysis of USDA Foods 

in Five of Its Food and Nutrition Programs – 2014 4-45 

 

 The HEI-2005 scores for the as-delivered packages improved for all packages except 

the TEFAP food package with bonus foods (2.7 points lower); the largest improvement 

was seen in CSFP (8.6 points), followed by NSLP (4.3 points), CACFP (2.7 points), the 

TEFAP food package without bonus foods (2.3 points) and FDPIR (1.3 points).

Quantity of USDA Foods

 A greater quantity of USDA Foods was offered and delivered in 2014 than in 2009 

through CSFP, NSLP, TEFAP, and CACFP; less food was offered and delivered 

through FDPIR. While a greater quantity of food was offered to CACFP in 2014, the 

amount delivered was less than that delivered in 2009.

 The amount of food (by weight) delivered through all five programs remained similar or 

differed by less than 10 percent, with the exception of juice delivery in CSFP (19

percent less in 2014) and vegetables in CACFP (33 percent more in 2014).

Contribution of USDA Foods to Meeting USDA Food Pattern recommendations from the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

 For most food groups, the percentage of the weighted average recommended amount 

offered and delivered to participants was similar or differed by less than 10 percent for 

all five programs across the two years. Differences of 15 percent or more were noted 

for the percentage of the weighted average recommended amount delivered in CACFP

for dairy (19 percent less in 2014); and in FDPIR for legumes (17 percent less in 2014), 

starchy vegetables (17 percent less in 2014), and dairy (22 percent more in 2014).

 Standardizing the amount of food groups provided on a 2,000 kcal basis takes into 

account the fact that varying amounts of calories were provided in each program, and 

allows some comparisons across programs to be made. The food packages delivered to 

FDPIR provided similar amount of food groups per 2,000 kcal. However, differences of 

50 percent or more were noted for groups per 2,000 kcal across the two years, with the 

most changes noted for CACFP (14 of the 16 food groups/subgroups) followed by 

TEFAP (12 food groups/subgroups), NSLP (five food groups), and CSFP (4 food 

groups/subgroups). The as-delivered 2014 food packages for NSLP, TEFAP, and 

CACFP met 50 percent or more of the recommended total vegetables, dark green 

vegetables, legumes, and starchy vegetables per 2,000 kcal than the 2009 food packages.

Macro- and Micronutrient Contribution of USDA Foods

 In both years, CSFP, FDPIR, and NSLP food packages offered and delivered similar 

amounts of energy and macronutrients. Differences of 50 percent or more in the 

percentage of the weighted average recommendations met were noted only in CSFP for 

iron (94 percent more delivered), largely due to the increase in the amount of quickcooking farina in the 2014 as-delivered package.