U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–535 PDF 2013

SCHOOL MEAL REGULATIONS: 

DISCUSSING THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES 

FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–25 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 27, 2013 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 5 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia ............................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brown, Kay E., Director for Eduction, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, Government Accountability Office (GAO) ...................................... 9 

Prepared statement of, Internet address to ............................................ 10 

Ford, Sandra E., SNS, director of food and nutrition services, Manatee 

County School District, Bradenton, FL ....................................................... 32 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Schaper, Megan, SNS, food service director, State College Area School 

District, State College, PA ........................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Wootan, Margo G., D.Sc., director, nutrition policy, Center for Science 

in the Public Interest .................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Additional Submissions: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California: 

Thornton, Otha, president, National Parent Teacher Association, prepared statement of ................................................................................. 49 

Ms. Ford, response to questions submitted for the record ............................ 52 

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio: 

Letter, dated May 28, 2013, from Ms. Ford ............................................ 50 

Questions submitted for the record to: 

Ms. Ford .............................................................................................. 51 

Ms. Schaper ........................................................................................ 54 

Mr. Rokita, questions submitted for the record to: 

Ms. Ford ..................................................................................................... 51 

Ms. Schaper ............................................................................................... 54 

Ms. Schaper, response to questions submitted for the record ...................... 55 

(1) 

SCHOOL MEAL REGULATIONS: 

DISCUSSING THE COSTS AND CONSEQUENCES 

FOR SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS 

Thursday, June 27, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Kline, Petri, Roe, Thompson, 

Brooks, Scott, Davis, Polis, and Wilson. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; 

Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services 

Policy; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny Prescott, 

Staff Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole 

Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alex Sollberger, Communications Director; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy 

Advisor; Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media 

Coordinator; and Michael Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director. 

Chairman ROKITA. Good morning. A quorum being present, the 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s subcommittee hearing. I would like to start 

by thanking our panel of witnesses for joining us to discuss the effect of new federal school meal program regulations. 

In 2010, the democratic Congress passed the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act, which reauthorized the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 

and required the United States Department of Agriculture to issue 

several regulations for schools and districts participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. 

While well-intended, these new regulations have essentially put 

the federal government in the business of dictating the type, the 
2 

amount, and even the color of food that can and cannot be served 

in school cafeterias. 

Under the USDA’s new rules, participating schools are required 

to limit the calorie intake of elementary and high school students, 

even those enrolled in athletic programs. 

It provides certain fruits and vegetables regardless of cost or 

availability; designs meals around certain mandated color categories and strict protein and grain limits, and dramatically reduces sodium content over the next 10 years. 

Thankfully, USDA agreed to temporarily suspend its weekly limits on protein and grain servings after an outcry from local school 

officials and parents, but schools need long-term certainty just like 

businesses and relief from these burdensome regulations. 

In Indiana, my home state, more than 500,000 Hoosier students 

are eligible for free and reduced lunch meals through the USDA. 

That is more than 47 percent of the entire student population in 

Indiana, and while we want to ensure that eligible students who 

need access have it, this number is alarming to me and is an issue 

we will explore in the future. 

But today we are looking at the cost of burdensome regulations. 

Providing students healthier meals is a laudable goal we all share, 

but the stringent rules are creating serious headaches for schools 

and students. 

Because the law requires students to take fruits and vegetables 

for lunch, even if they have no intention of eating them, schools are 

struggling with increased waste. After implementing the new 

standards a year early, one Florida school district estimated students threw out $75,000 worth of food. 

At Dedham High School in Massachusetts, providing the required vegetables in 1500 meals each week costs the district about 

$111 a day, but administrators report many students just throw 

the fresh vegetables right into the trash. 

Smaller portions, limited options, and unappetizing entre ́es have 

caused some students to protest new cafeteria food. High school 

students, athletes in particular, claim the calorie limits leave them 

hungry, and have resorted to bringing additional meals and snacks 

from home. 

Other students have simply stopped participating in the school 

lunch program altogether. According to the USDA in February, the 

average daily participation in the school lunch program has 

dropped about 3 percent in the past year. 

In one New York school district, the number of kids buying lunch 

dropped by half just 4 months after the implementation of the new 

federal guidelines. This decline in participation made it more difficult for the school to afford to serve lunches and breakfasts that 

met the federal meal requirements. 

As a result, the district’s food operation went $59,000 in the red 

and local leaders ultimately decided to opt-out of the National 

School Lunch Program. 

The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service estimated the cost of 

compliance with new nutrition standards will reach $3.2 billion 

over the next 5 years. With states already facing large budget deficits, these regulations are placing an unnecessary burden on 
3 

schools and districts at the expense of low-and middle-income students. 

Making matters worse, schools are now bracing themselves for 

additional regulations over ‘‘competitive foods,’’ quote, unquote; the 

snacks, beverages, and meals sold in schools not subject to reimbursement by the federal government. 

This means the government would also be put in charge of mandating the type of foods that can be sold at school events, in vending machines, at snack bars, and so forth, piling more costs and requirements on school districts. 

The National Lunch and Breakfast Programs are critical to ensuring low-income students have access to healthy and affordable 

meals, but costly regulations dictated from the federal government 

could reduce participation in these very programs. 

As policymakers, we have a responsibility to discuss the concerns 

raised by students, parents, and school administrators as we work 

to put these programs on a more sustainable path for the future. 

I look forward to the hearing today, from hearing from our panel 

today and I am confident that their testimony will provide valuable 

insight into how these regulations are affecting federal child nutrition programs. 

And I now will yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Bobby 

Scott for his opening remarks. 

Mr. Scott? 

[The statement of Chairman Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

In 2010, the Democratic Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 

which reauthorized the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and required the United States 

Department of Agriculture to issue several regulations for schools and districts participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. While wellintended, these new regulations have essentially put the federal government in the 

business of dictating the type, amount, and even color of food that can and cannot 

be served in school cafeterias. 

Under the USDA’s new rules, participating schools are required to limit the calorie intake of elementary and high school students, even those enrolled in athletic 

programs; provide certain fruits and vegetables regardless of cost or availability; design meals around certain mandated ’color categories’ and strict protein and grain 

limits; and dramatically reduce sodium content over the next ten years. Thankfully, 

USDA agreed to temporarily suspend its weekly limits on protein and grain servings 

after an outcry from local school officials and parents, but schools need long-term 

certainty and relief from these burdensome regulations. 

In Indiana, my home state, more than 500,000 Hoosier students are eligible for 

free and reduced meals through the USDA—more than 47% of the entire student 

population. While we want to ensure that eligible students who need access have 

it, this number is alarming and is an issue we will explore in the future. 

But today we are looking at the cost of burdensome regulations. Providing students healthier meals is a laudable goal we all share, but the stringent rules are 

creating serious headaches for schools and students. 

Because the law requires students to take fruits and vegetables for lunch, even 

if they have no intention of eating them, schools are struggling with increased 

waste. After implementing the new standards a year early, one Florida school district estimated students threw out $75,000 worth of food. 

At Dedham High School in Massachusetts, providing the required vegetables in 

1500 meals each week costs the district about $111 a day—but administrators report many students just throw the fresh vegetables right into the trash. 

Smaller portions, limited options, and unappetizing entre ́es have caused some students to protest new cafeteria food. High school students, athletes in particular, 

claim the calorie limits leave them hungry, and have resorted to bringing additional 

meals and snacks from home. Other students have simply stopped participating in 
4 

the school lunch program altogether. According to the USDA in February, the average daily participation in the school lunch program had dropped about 3 percent in 

the past year. 

In one New York school district, the number of kids buying lunch dropped by half 

just four months after the implementation of new federal guidelines. This decline 

in participation made it more difficult for the school to afford to serve lunches and 

breakfasts that met the federal meal requirements. As a result, the district’s food 

operation went $59,000 in the red and local leaders ultimately decided to opt-out 

of the National School Lunch Program. 

The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service estimated the cost of compliance with 

new nutrition standards will reach $3.2 billion over the next five years. With states 

already facing large budget deficits, these regulations are placing an unnecessary 

burden on schools and districts at the expense of low-and middle-income students. 

Making matters worse, schools are now bracing themselves for additional regulations over ‘‘competitive foods’’—the snacks, beverages, and meals sold in schools not 

subject to reimbursement by the federal government. This means the government 

would also be put in charge of mandating the type of foods that can be sold at school 

events, in vending machines, at snack bars, and so forth, piling more costs and requirements on school districts. 

The National Lunch and Breakfast programs are critical to ensuring low-income 

students have access to healthy and affordable meals, but costly regulations dictated 

from the federal government could reduce participation in these important programs. As policymakers, we have a responsibility to discuss the concerns raised by 

students, parents, and school administrators as we work to put these programs on 

a more sustainable path for the future. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 

today. 

I want to first join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 

sending our well-wishes to the ranking member of this subcommittee, Carolyn McCarthy. Her expertise and thoughtful insight and warmth are certainly missed, but we look forward to having her back as soon as possible and wish her a speedy recovery. 

I would also like to thank the panel of witnesses for being with 

us today, and I look forward to hearing from you momentarily. 

In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. This bipartisan legislation 

dramatically improved federal child nutrition programs by increasing access and approving standards for foods served to our children. 

This legislation updated our nation’s nutrition guidelines which 

had not been revised in over a decade. It is our moral imperative 

to ensure that children are getting the healthy meals they need in 

order to be able to succeed in school and throughout life. 

Failing to provide our nation’s children with nutritious meals has 

several negative consequences. Food that is too high in fat content 

and calories contributes to childhood obesity. We know that our 

obese children are not only at high risk of chronic diseases like 

heart disease and diabetes, but they are also more likely to struggle with their weight as adults. 

Medical costs of the United States obesity epidemic are enormous. Approximately 10 percent of our nation’s health care spending goes toward treating conditions directly related to unhealthy 

weight. Conversely, food that is insufficiently nutritious fails to 

give children the sustenance they need to focus in school. 

For millions of children in the United States, school-provided 

meals are their primary source of nutrition, and we know children 

cannot learn on an empty stomach. 
5 

Research clearly shows that children who have access to healthy 

school meals are healthy and perform better than children who do 

not. A 2005 study published in the national—in the Journal of Nutrition found that children who lack reliable, healthy meals in kindergarten are noticeably behind their peers in reading and math by 

the third grade. 

A 2013 study published in the Journal of American Medical Association Pediatrics found that students eating free or low-cost meals 

in states where nutrition content of lunches exceed the USDA 

standards are less likely to be overweight or obese than students 

getting these meals in states that only marginally meet the nutrition standards. 

In addition to being evidence-based, we also know that school 

lunch programs based on the nutrition standards are strongly supported by the public. A June 2013 Kaiser Permanente study found 

that 90 percent of Americans believed that schools should take a 

role in combating obesity and more than 80 percent of people support the new federal nutrition standards for school meals. 

Furthermore, school districts across the country are successfully 

implementing the standards established by the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act of 2010. 

School administrators tell us that their students are now eating 

more fruits, vegetables, and food cooked from scratch and learning 

about ways to continue eating healthy throughout their lives. 

So I am glad that today we are having the opportunity to discuss 

the regulations that govern the school meal programs and possible 

ways to improve and strengthen them. It is important throughout 

this process that we keep in mind the goal of these nutrition programs and that is to provide children with healthy foods that can 

support them as they receive an education. 

This is our goal and while Congress is and should be actively involved in crafting policy to achieve that goal, we must make sure 

that school meal guidelines are crafted based on evidence and 

science, not on the political whims of politicians. 

And while we investigate possible ways to improve school meal 

programs, it is important to remember that we want the next generation to be stronger, smarter, and healthier, then we need to invest in these nutrition programs that make what we are doing the 

best that we can do for our children. 

We must make sure that their country’s future, doctors, nurses, 

teachers, engineers, and business owners are being put on the path 

to success, and providing them with nutritious foods is very much 

part of that obligation. 

I want to thank everyone for being here this morning. 

I would like to thank—ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, 

that a written opening statement from Ranking Member McCarthy 

be entered into the record. 

[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing to discuss the issue of school 

nutrition. As you may know, in the 111th Congress I had the privilege of serving 

as the Chairwoman of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee. In 

that capacity, I often called upon nutrition professionals to interact with Members 
6 

and educate us on this very important issue. I am hopeful that this Subcommittee 

will continue that very important dialogue today. 

As I have asserted before, I believe that our nation is in the midst of a nutritional 

crisis. On one end of the spectrum, our nation is experiencing record high rates in 

obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that more 

than a third of our nation is obese. On the other end of the spectrum, the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) latest data in 2011 has found that nearly 15% of 

households experience food insecurity over the course of the year. For a nation as 

wealthy and influential as ours, these figures are simply unacceptable. 

I believe a constructive way to help combat this two-pronged nutritional crisis is 

to provide regular healthy meals in our nation’s schools. The CDC recognizes the 

importance of healthy habits beginning at school, stating, ‘‘schools are in a unique 

position to promote healthy eating and help ensure appropriate nutrient intake 

among students.’’ Is there a better opportunity to promote effective change than in 

our nation’s schools? The answer is no. Learning does not begin and end in the 

classroom. Most Members agree that a well-rounded education includes physical 

education and, in turn, I would contend that a healthy lifestyle does not begin and 

end on the athletic field. Healthy living entails a holistic solution, one that should 

include regular instruction in health sciences and, as we will focus on today, a 

thoughtful health-conscience menu of food and drink served to students regardless 

of economic circumstance. 

The Congress, in my opinion, should be in the business of incentivizing healthy 

eating habits at an early age. In December 2010, we took a step forward on this 

path by passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA), a bill improving nutritional standards and ensuring that students have access to healthy foods while 

in school. The Congress authorized USDA to establish nutritional standards based 

on scientific evidence for school breakfasts, lunches and for foods and beverages sold 

to students in vending machines. 

As with most pieces of legislation, the HHFKA is not perfect. Since its passage, 

I have observed some issues with the USDA’s rulemakings and implementation. For 

example, I have reservations over the USDA’s rule to set minimum standards on 

grains and meats used in schools and I am hopeful that the Department will permanently do away with the limit going forward. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and using their testimony to both further inform the debate on school nutrition and strengthen HHFKA. 

I would like to conclude my opening remarks on this note. Habits formed at an 

early age are difficult to break. In 2011, Nestle, the largest food company in the 

world, confirmed this by conducting a study that yielded that unhealthy habits attained early in children mirror those of adults. The USDA has evidence showing the 

prevalence rate of very low food security households is on the uptick and the American Heart Association notes that the proportion of children ages 5 to 17 who are 

classified as obese was five times higher in 2009 than it was in 1973. So, before 

we hear the tired arguments from detractors that the federal government is trying 

to create a ‘‘nanny state’’ by promoting regular healthy meals in schools, I ask you 

how long are we gong to leave our nation’s youth, our country’s future, out to dry? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of Virginia 

Good morning and thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing today. First, I 

want to join my colleagues on both sides in sending our well wishes to the Ranking 

Member of this Subcommittee, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. Her expertise, thoughtful 

insight and warmth are certainly missed, but we look forward to having her back 

as soon as possible and wish her a speedy recovery. I would also like to thank the 

panel of witnesses for being with us here today and I look forward to hearing from 

you momentarily. 

In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Healthy, HungerFree Kids Act of 2010. This bipartisan legislation dramatically improved federal 

child nutrition programs by increasing access and improving the standards of the 

foods served to our children. This legislation updated our nation’s nutrition guidelines, which had not been revised in over a decade. 
7 

It is our moral imperative to ensure that kids are getting the healthy meals they 

need to be able to succeed in school and throughout life. Failing to provide our nation’s youth with nutritious meals has several negative consequences. Food that is 

too high in fat content and calories contributes to childhood obesity. 

We know that obese children are not only at higher risk for chronic diseases like 

heart disease and diabetes, but they are also more likely to struggle with their 

weight as adults. The medical costs of the U.S. obesity epidemic are enormous—approximately 10% of our nation’s health care spending goes toward treating conditions related to unhealthy weight. Conversely, food that is insufficiently nutritious 

fails to give children the sustenance they need to focus in school. For millions of 

children in the United States, school-provided meals are their primary source of nutrition, and we know that children cannot learn on an empty stomach. 

Research clearly shows that children who have access to healthy school meals are 

healthier and perform better than children who do not. A 2005 study published in 

the Journal of Nutrition found that children who lack reliable, healthy meals in kindergarten are noticeably behind their peers in reading and math by the third grade. 

A 2013 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that students eating free or 

low-cost meals in states where the nutritional content of lunches exceeded USDA 

standards were less likely to be overweight or obese than students getting these 

meals in states that only marginally met the USDA nutrition standards. 

In addition to being evidence-based, we also know that school lunch programs 

based on nutrition standards are strongly supported by the public. A June 2013 Kaiser Permanente survey found that 90% of Americans believe schools should take a 

role in combating obesity and more than 80% of people support the new federal nutritional standards for school meals. 

Furthermore, school districts across the country are successfully implementing the 

standards established in The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. School administrators tell us that their students are now eating more fruits, vegetables, and food 

cooked from scratch, and learning about ways to continue eating healthy throughout 

their lives. 

I am glad that today we have an opportunity discuss the regulations that govern 

the school meal programs and possible ways to improve and strengthen them. It is 

important throughout this process that we keep in mind the goal of these nutrition 

programs: to provide children with healthy foods that can support them as they receive an education. 

This is our goal, and while Congress is and should be actively involved in crafting 

the policy to achieve that goal, we must make sure that school meal guidelines are 

crafted based on evidence and science, and not the political whims of politicians. 

While we investigate possible ways to improve school meal programs, it is important 

to remember that if we want the next generation to be stronger, smarter, and 

healthier, then we need to invest in these nutrition programs to make sure that we 

are doing the best that we can for our children. 

We must make sure that the county’s future doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, 

and business owners are being put on a path to success, and providing them with 

nutritious foods is very much part of that obligation. 

With that, I again thank everyone for being here this morning and yield back to 

the Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Pursuant to committee Rule 7(c), all subcommittee members will 

be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the 

permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing 

record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions 

for the record, and other extraneous material referenced during the 

hearing to be submitted into the official record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

Ms. Kay Brown is the director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues at the Government Accountability Office. She 

is currently responsible for leading GAO’s work-related child welfare, child care, domestic nutrition assistance, temporary assistance 

for needy families, otherwise noted in these circles as TANF, and 

services for older adults. 
8 

And—so, welcome. Thank you for being here. 

To introduce our second witness, I turn now and recognize my 

distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

I appreciate the honor and distinct privilege of introducing Ms. 

Megan Schaper, a constituent of the Pennsylvania 5th Congressional District. Ms. Schaper is the food services director of the 

State College Area School District in State College, Pennsylvania. 

Ms. Schaper received her B.S. in hotel, restaurant, and institutional management from the Pennsylvania State University in 

1988. She later became the food service director at the Farrell Area 

School District where more than 80 percent of the students receive 

federally subsidized school meals. 

Since 1993, she has been the food services director of the State 

College Area School District where 17 percent of the students are 

eligible for free and reduced lunch. 

She is responsible for all aspects of the schools’ cafeteria operations including the planning of the daily menus, hiring, training 

staff, purchasing equipment and supplies, and ensuring compliance 

with USDA regulations for healthy school meals. 

In addition, she co-chairs the district’s School Health and 

Wellness Council, which is charged with implementing, monitoring, 

and revising the wellness policy. She also holds the school nutrition 

specialist credential and was named the Northeast Region’s Director of the Year by the School Nutrition Association. 

She is on the board of the School Nutrition Association of Pennsylvania, is the webpage manager for and a member of the Bid 

Committee for the Pittsburgh Regional Food Services Directors. 

I had the opportunity to spend some time with Megan and her 

family last evening, and I welcome her to the committee for this 

important hearing today. 

And I yield back, Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

And welcome. 

Dr. Margo Wootan is the—did I pronounce that right—Wootan. 

Thank you. Dr. Margo Wootan is the director of nutrition policy at 

the Center for Science in the Public Interest, known as CSPI. 

She coordinates and leads the activities of the National Alliance 

for Nutrition and Activity, co-leads the Food Marketing Work 

Group, and is a member of the National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance Steering Committee. 

Welcome. 

And then, Ms. Sandra Ford—did I pronounce that right? Okay, 

thank you—is the director of food and nutrition services for the 

Manatee County School district in Bradenton, Florida, which has 

54 schools and 44,000 students. In addition, Ms. Ford has been an 

active member of the School Nutrition Association currently serving as the Board of Directors president. 

Welcome all. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system, and although I am officially explaining it for you, it is really a reminder for us up here as well, 

who sometimes can’t follow the green, yellow, and red as well, but 

it is pretty self-explanatory. 
9 

You will each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When 

you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When 1 minute 

is left, it will turn yellow, and when your time is expired, the light 

will turn red, and I will enforce that with the gavel. 

So at that point, please have your remarks wrapped up as best 

as possible, and after everyone has testified, members will each 

have 5 minutes to ask questions of the panel. 

So with that, I would now like to recognize Ms. Brown for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Chairman Rokita and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me here today to discuss the challenges that local officials face while implementing the new requirements for the National School Lunch Program. 

My remarks are based on our discussions with USDA and school 

food authority officials, food industry representatives, and site visits to eight school districts across the country where we observed 

lunches and spoke with students in 17 schools. 

The new requirements aim to improve the nutritional quality of 

school lunches to benefit the more than 30 million children who 

participate in the program each month and school food authority 

officials in all eight districts we visited expressed support for this 

goal. However, the changes pose multiple challenges for them. 

First, the new limits on the amounts of meat or meat alternates 

and grains led officials in all eight districts to modify or eliminate 

some popular menu items. 

For example, the limits on grains led one district to decrease the 

size of the sub roll used in a very popular deli sandwich line, and 

two districts stopped serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as 

a daily option in elementary schools. 

Half the districts noticed that student reactions to these changes 

were generally negative. In addition to the limits on meats and 

grains, lunches were also expected to meet minimum and maximum calorie requirements. 

School officials in five of the districts we visited told us it was 

difficult to meet the minimum calorie requirements for grades nine 

through 12 while also adhering to the meat and grain limits. 

As a result, some added foods such as ice cream, butter, or ranch 

dressing that, while allowable, generally did not improve the nutritional content of the meal. 

In response to these challenges, USDA temporarily lifted the limits on meats and grains. We believe SFAs can benefit from more 

certainty and are recommending that the department permanently 

remove the meat and grain limits. USDA officials told us this week 

that they are working on a way to accomplish this. 

Also, half of the districts we visited reported difficulties with student acceptance of other required changes such as the use of some 

whole grain rich products especially pastas as well as two of the 

five required vegetable categories. 
10 

However, I should note that some of our districts had begun adding whole grains into their menus before the current school year 

and have seen student acceptance improve over time. 

Further, the requirement that each student must take at least 

one fruit or vegetable has led to food waste in some but not all 

cases. In seven of 17 lunch periods we observed, we saw many students throw away some or all of their fruits and vegetables. However, we also observed students consume sizable quantities of fruits 

and vegetables in the other 10 schools. 

Also, in five of our eight districts, school officials heard complaints that the new lunch requirements were leaving some students hungry. For example, in one district, a high school principal 

told us that athletic coaches expressed concerns that student athletes were hungrier this year than in past years. 

These concerns were likely related to decreased entre ́e sizes; 

however, we observed that when students took all of the offered 

lunch components their meals were substantially larger in size 

than the students who had not taken or eaten all of the items offered. 

Finally, school food officials also expressed concern about the impact of compliance with the new requirements on their food costs 

and overall budgets. All eight reported increases in fruit and vegetable costs this year. 

Further, they told us that they experienced decreases in participation in part because of the new lunch requirements as well as 

other factors. In fact, three expressed concerns about the impact of 

the changes on their financial stability overall. 

However, I should note that we have not yet obtained end of year 

financial data from the districts we visited nor have we fully analyzed the changes in participation. We will be providing additional 

information on these and other related issues in our report later 

this year. 

In conclusion, while many students likely received more nutritious lunches during the last school year, implementation challenges remain that will take time to resolve. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

[The statement of Ms. Brown may be accessed at the following 

Internet address:] 

http://gao.gov/products/GAO-13-708T 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Schaper, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MEGAN SCHAPER, DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND 

NUTRITION SERVICES, STATE COLLEGE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. SCHAPER. Good Morning, Chairman Rokita, Mr. Scott, and 

members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to meet 

with you this morning. 
11 

In my district like most districts, there is an expectation that my 

department operates as a business and is able to cover all of its 

own expenses. 

Revenue to operate school food service programs generally comes 

from either government reimbursements or from cash sales to customers. The amount of funds received in either case is directly determined by the number of students we can convince to be customers in the school cafeteria. 

My school district was well on the way to meeting the new nutrition standards when we ended the 2011/12 school year. We served 

an abundance of fruits and vegetables every day, our breads were 

whole-grain rich, and we knew that our meals were well within the 

fat and calorie ranges as required. 

That said, we still had extremely negative reactions from students and families with the meals planned to be in compliance with 

the meat and grain caps. 

Sandwiches and entre ́e salads could not be offered 5 days a week 

at our elementary schools without respectively exceeding or not 

reaching the grain limits. At secondary schools, popular entres had 

to be eliminated or substantially reduced in size and in our customers’ opinions, the larger fruits and vegetables did not make up 

for this. 

Some schools found that they had to add non-grain desserts to 

menus just to meet calorie minimums. I was pleased when the caps 

were temporarily removed this year, but this reversal was difficult 

for manufacturers and distributors who had invested in developing 

and stocking items specifically to help the schools meet the new 

regulations. 

The businesses that supply schools need to know that the money 

spent developing, producing, and stocking products isn’t wasted. I 

strongly encourage Congress to make the elimination of these caps 

permanent. 

Participation dropped in my schools by 34,000 meals or 3 percent. Anticipating negative reactions to the new standards, my district opted to utilize nonfederal funding to justify not raising our 

lunch prices this year as would have been required under Section 

205, and therefore I believe we avoided larger decreases in participation. 

The lunch price equity rule required many other districts to raise 

meal prices. Higher meal prices combined with less satisfaction 

with the meals in general dealt the proverbial one-two punch to the 

participation levels in many districts. 

Statewide in Pennsylvania participation has dropped by 5.6 percent through March with the majority of that loss in the paid-meal 

category. 

If school meal prices are not competitive with the cost of a homepacked meal we will continue to lose paying customers and run the 

risk of becoming a program that serves primarily low income students with all the stigma attached and districts will not be able to 

generate the sales volume required to be financially sound. 

Despite selling fewer meals, my district’s food cost increased by $40,000 as a result of the enhanced fruit and vegetable requirements. My students do like fruits and vegetables and generally did 

take the required portion; however teenagers especially made sure 
12 

that my servers knew that we could make them take, but could not 

make them eat, something they did not want. 

Director—this phenomenon seemed to be magnified in many of 

my colleague’s districts. Directors across Pennsylvania are discouraged to be purchasing food that is simply being thrown away untouched. 

Sometimes the standards actually got in the way of providing the 

best nutrition to students. I have several sites where it is 

logistically very difficult to provide choices. On the day of the week 

where we provide legumes as the vegetable of the day, most children do not eat a vegetable at all. 

To be most effective at ending hunger and curbing childhood obesity, schools need the flexibility to provide healthful lunches that 

students actually want to purchase and eat. 

To underscore the difficulty that directors are having meeting 

the new regulations, to date, only about 64 percent of Pennsylvania 

schools have been certified as meeting the new standards. 

Our programs are reeling from the effects of the past year yet we 

have a significant new challenge in the pending competitive foods 

rule that has the potential to make it even harder to provide quality school meals. 

Competitive foods generated 21 percent of my program’s total income this year. That income will be reduced by at least half. My 

district, like many others, relies on the income to purchase better 

quality foods for student meals than we would otherwise be able 

to afford. 

It also provides the funds needed to replace equipment, provide 

staff training, and engage in educational initiatives for students. 

And my experience has been that this income will not be improved 

with higher meal sales. 

This rule may force schools that receive less federal funding to 

opt out of the lunch program altogether. In fact, the session entitled ‘‘On or Off the National School Lunch Program’’ was extremely 

well-attended at the Pennsylvania Association of School Business 

Officials this past March. 

If schools opt to leave the school lunch program, there is no assurance that students will receive a meal that meets USDA nutrition standards or in fact receives a meal at all. 

To balance budgets, schools will have to cut jobs. In my district, 

it may mean eliminating the breakfast program so that we can reduce employee hours and save money on benefits and pensions, and 

the effect will be far-reaching affecting school food producers, 

equipment manufacturers, and others who support our industry. 

A program—I am sorry. My district and I are committed to providing healthful meals and the foods that make a positive contribution to our students’ well-being. 

However, a program that cannot remain fiscally solvent due to 

decreased participation, decreased opportunities to generate revenue, and mandated increases in program costs is not positioned to 

provide high-quality, healthful meals to students. 

Thank you for your time this morning. 

[The statement of Ms. Schaper follows:] 
13 

Prepared Statement of Megan Schaper, SNS, Food Service Director, 

State College Area School District, State College, PA 

Good Morning, Chairman Rokita, Mr. Scott, and members of the committee. My 

name is Megan Schaper. I am the food service director of the State College Area 

School District located in central Pennsylvania. I have been a school nutrition professional for 23 years and have served at my current district for the past 20 years. 

I am an active member of the School Nutrition Association and the Pittsburgh Regional Food Service Directors. In my roles for these organizations, I have had extended conversations with many of Pennsylvania’s directors. I thank you for this opportunity to share with you my—and many of my colleagues’—concerns about the 

cost and consequences of the newest school meals regulations. 

The State College Area School District has an enrollment of 6,900 students and 

the budget for my department is 3.4 million dollars. Sixteen percent of our students 

are eligible to receive subsidized school meals. Like most districts, there is an expectation that my Food Service Department operates as a business and is able to cover 

all of its own expenses without financial support from the district’s general fund. 

One school year into the implementation of the new meal standards, it is a good 

time to consider if the nutrition standards and lunch price equity rule are working 

as intended. I recognize and appreciate the seriousness of childhood hunger and 

health issues that these changes are intended to help curb. However, in the rush 

to fix these problems, we’ve implement changes without adequate testing or pilots 

to know if the new standards would, in fact, be helpful or hurtful to our efforts. 

The past school year was extremely challenging for school nutrition professionals. 

The new nutrition standards coupled with lunch price equity lunch price increases 

resulted in fewer students choosing to eat lunch at school. At the same time that 

programs were experiencing lower revenue from the sale of meals, food and labor 

costs dramatically increased. While dealing with these difficult financial circumstances, many of us in the industry wonder if we aren’t, in fact, making it more 

difficult for schools to help ensure that students are well and properly nourished. 

To understand why we wonder this, you need to be aware of the paradigm of how 

school food service departments are funded. Revenue generally comes from two different sources, government reimbursements and cash sales to customers. The 

amount of funds received from either source is directly determined by the number 

of students we can convince to be a customer of the school cafeteria. When school 

cafeterias are able to provide the foods and services that our customers want, while 

still meeting nutritional standards, we are positioned to generate the volume of participation needed to fund great programs. 

My school district was well on the way to meeting the new nutrition standards 

when we ended the 2011-12 school year. We felt that we would only need to make 

minor tweaks to our menu to remain in compliance. We served an abundance of 

fruits and vegetables every day and most of our students liked and chose these 

foods. Most of the breads served were whole grain rich. Utilizing Nutrient Standard 

Menu Planning, we knew that our meals were within the fat and calorie ranges required. 

We were ahead of the curve, still we had extremely negative reactions from students and families with the meals planned to be in compliance with the meat and 

grain caps. In our district, we had to discontinue serving some of our most popular 

lunches even though they met the calorie and fat targets and provided fruits, vegetables, and milk in the required quantities. Sandwiches and entre ́e salads could not 

be offered five days a week at the elementary level without respectively exceeding 

or not reaching the grain limits. Both servers and customers were confused as to 

why the chicken tenders and the entre ́e salads each needed to be served with a different type of bread item and the customer getting the chicken tenders couldn’t opt 

for the type of roll being served with the salad on the same serving line. 

At the secondary schools, popular and reasonably sized hamburgers, pizza, and 

chicken fillet sandwiches all had to be substantially reduced in size even though the 

meals were within the calorie range. The fact that the side salads had doubled in 

size to two-cups or that students could take two portions of fruit with the lunch 

wasn’t adequate compensation in our customers’ opinions. 

Further, the limits on meat and grains made it difficult to consistently meet the 

calorie requirements for many directors. Some schools found that they had to add 

non-grain desserts—jello, ice cream, baked potato chips—to the menu just to meet 

the calorie minimums. These desserts added no positive nutrients to the meal other 

than calories and increased the cost of providing the meal. But, serving larger portions of nutrient-dense whole grains was not an available option. 

The very short time period between learning of the meat and grain caps and implementation left manufacturers and suppliers scrambling to develop, produce and 
14 

stock items to meet schools’ needs. In September, many products that schools needed were not yet available at our distributors’ warehouses. Just about the time distribution was caught up, the caps were removed on a temporary basis. I was pleased 

when the caps were temporarily removed mid-year. But this reversal was difficult 

for manufacturers and distributors who had invested in developing and stocking 

items specifically to help schools meet the caps. 

The businesses that supply schools with food are struggling to know what schools 

want and they need to have some assurance that the money spent developing and 

making products for us isn’t wasted. For instance, AdvancePierre spent in excess 

of $100,000 on research for each product that they brought to market for schools 

in the fall. Now, many of those items developed to help with the meat cap are no 

longer wanted by directors. 

Manufacturers and menu planners need to know that the caps are permanently 

lifted so that we can move forward without wasting any more resources or time. I 

strongly encourage Congress to make the elimination of these caps permanent. 

Participation in my schools suffered this year, dropping by 34,000 meals or 3%. 

Though we did rebound some after we were able to adjust the menus given the 

meat/grain flexibility, participation did not fully recover. Statewide in Pennsylvania, 

participation dropped by 9% through December with paid meal participation decreasing by 14%. More recent statewide data has not yet been made available but 

it is my understanding that participation remained down, especially in the paid category, for the entire school year. 

My district was able to fare better than many because we opted to not raise our 

lunch prices for the year. Under Section 205, the equity in school lunch pricing rule, 

we would have been required to raise prices by $.05 for the 2012-13 school year even 

though our lunch prices were higher than those of other districts in my area ($2.25 

and $2.80 for elementary and high school lunches respectively). Anticipating that 

there would be some backlash from the smaller entre ́es, we utilized the non-federal 

funds that my program earns to justify not raising prices. 

The lunch price equity rule required many other districts to raise meal prices 

even though the directors felt that the higher price would be more than families 

would be willing to pay. Higher meal prices, combined with less satisfaction with 

the meals in general, dealt the proverbial one-two punch to the participation levels 

in many districts. 

Local school boards and food service professionals have a vested interest in their 

programs being successful. They can and will make meal pricing decisions that reflect what the families in their community are able and willing to pay. It is often 

fiscally more advantageous for a program to keep prices low and sell more meals 

than it is to raise prices and reduce program participation. 

Parents at home considering whether to purchase a school meal or to provide 

their child with a packed lunch typically only consider the price in relationship to 

the food cost of the packed meal. They don’t and won’t consider that the school meal 

price also includes the cost of labor, benefits, equipment replacement, utilities, etc. 

If we are unable to keep school meal prices competitive with the cost of a home 

packed meal, we will continue to lose paying customers. In fact, fewer children will 

be influenced by the healthier meal standards if parents do not feel that the full 

priced meal is affordable. And, we run the risk of the National School Lunch Program being a program that primarily serves only low income students with all the 

stigma attached. 

Section 205, the equity in school lunch pricing rule of the Healthy Hunger-Free 

Kids Act, gets in the way of school nutrition professionals and local school boards 

doing what they know is best for children, communities, and School Nutrition Programs. 

Many programs experienced significant increases in food cost this year. My own 

district’s food cost increased by $40,000 even though we served 34,000 fewer meals. 

The larger portions of fruits and vegetables were the main reason for this in my 

district. We were already, for the most part, meeting the vegetable sub-group and 

whole grain requirements, so our food cost in 2011-12 already reflected the reality 

that whole grains cost more than white bread and dark greens cost more than iceberg lettuce. For many districts, implementing the new standard had a much more 

drastic impact on costs. 

It was especially discouraging for myself and my colleagues to be spending more 

money for food and to not see that investment pay off in better student participation. My students generally do like fruits and vegetables and we did not have a 

problem, in most cases, requiring students to take the required portion. However, 

when we did have to make a student take a required fruit or vegetable component, 

it did invariably go into the garbage can. Teenagers, especially, made sure that my 
15 

servers knew that we could make them take, but we couldn’t make them eat, something that they did not want. 

This phenomenon seemed to be magnified in many of my colleagues’ districts. Directors across Pennsylvania are discouraged to be purchasing food that is simply 

being thrown away untouched. 

Sometimes the standards actually got in the way of providing the best nutrition 

to students. I have several sites where it is logistically very difficult to provide 

choices. So, on the day of the week when we provide legumes as the vegetable of 

the day, most children at those sites do not eat a vegetable at all. Prior to this year 

these same schools only served fresh vegetables as we found that the students were 

more likely to eat the fresh vegetables than cooked ones. However, this year I am 

required to provide a starchy vegetable once per week. So, in place of fresh vegetables, the students are served peas, corn or potatoes, not because they are healthier 

choices but because starchy vegetables are now required once each week. 

The new regulations have simply made it harder for food service professionals to 

meet students’ expectations and to do what they know is best for their own districts. 

A USDA study conducted before the new standards were implemented indicated 

that students who chose a school lunch consumed more fruits, vegetables, and milk 

and less sugar than those who brought a lunch from home. Students who opt to get 

lunch at the fast food restaurant or convenience store near the school surely are not 

going to get a healthful meal. And, students who opt not to eat lunch at all won’t 

get the nutrients they need and are more likely to binge on non-healthful snacks 

when they get home from school. To be most effective at ending hunger and curbing 

childhood obesity, schools need to be able to provide healthful lunches that students 

want to purchase and eat. 

To underscore the difficulty that directors are having in meeting the new regulations, to date only about 64% of Pennsylvania’s schools have been certified as meeting the new standards. 

Our programs are reeling from the effects of implementing the new standards. 

Most schools lost participation resulting in fewer students receiving well balanced 

meals and less income for our programs. And we incurred higher program costs. 

School nutrition professionals are a resilient group who will do everything possible 

to provide great meals for students. Especially if the meat/grain caps and the lunch 

price equity rules are addressed, I am hopeful that things can improve. 

However, we have significant new challenges coming upon us quickly in the form 

of additional breakfast requirements and competitive food regulations that will not 

provide the time and space needed to regain the ground lost this year and threaten 

to do further and more significant harm to our programs. 

Beginning with the 2014-15 school year, school breakfast will be required to provide one full cup of fruit with breakfast instead of one-half cup. This change will 

mirror the food waste and cost problems that we are currently experiencing with 

the lunch program. Unlike lunch, which typically has a lunch period scheduled within the school day, the School Breakfast Program has always struggled to be allotted 

any time at all for students to get and eat the meal. The time available is usually 

the amount of time between when the child arrives at school and the start of the 

instructional day, usually less than ten minutes. Whether breakfast occurs in the 

cafeteria or classroom, many students struggle now to eat the entire meal before 

they are required to turn their attention away from the meal and to their class 

work. Students simply will not have the time to eat a larger breakfast and the 

money spent on the additional fruit, at least $.25 for each meal, will go into the 

garbage can. 

Before implementing this breakfast requirement, time is needed to study the food 

waste problems at lunchtime and then to proceed only if we find that this problem 

has subsided. 

The pending competitive foods rule has the potential to deal a most devastating 

blow to school nutrition programs. Competitive foods are so named because they 

compete with school meals for students’ dollars. However, this ignores some critical 

facts about competitive foods. 

First, there is a notion that without competitive foods, students would opt for the 

more healthful reimbursable meal. This is not necessarily true. Older students, who 

make the vast majority of competitive food purchases, will bring the foods that they 

want with them to school or will opt not to eat at all and binge later. In many, 

many cases, competitive foods are not replacing the meal but instead are 

supplementing the meal. This was especially true this year when students perceived 

the meals as being smaller. 

Second, competitive food profits provide the funds needed to operate quality programs. The revenue generated allows us to purchase better quality foods for breakfasts and lunches than we could otherwise afford. It also provides the funds needed 
16 

to replace equipment, provide staff training, and engage in educational initiatives 

for students. 

All schools were required in 2006 to implement local school wellness policies to 

include nutrition standards for competitive foods. My own district’s decision at that 

time was to eliminate all competitive foods at the elementary schools. Nutrition 

standards were established for competitive foods available in the secondary schools 

and middle-school students were limited to purchasing no more than one of these 

competitive foods per day. Soda machines were banned from all school campuses. 

As a result of these changes, my program’s competitive food sales decreased by 

$120,000 and my ability to replace equipment and provide staff training has since 

been severely compromised. 

Competitive foods generated just over $700,000 this school year—21% of my program’s total revenue. I estimate that the proposed competitive food rules would reduce my program’s revenue by at least half. 

Further, these revenues have a much more significant impact on my program’s 

bottom line than do meal sales. The profit margin on a school meal is very slim, 

and for some menus there is no profit at all. However, competitive foods are always 

priced to ensure that they generate at least a 50% profit that can then be used to 

help cover the costs of operating a quality school lunch program. 

The additional burden of this proposed rule impacts schools with high subsidized 

meal eligibility and those with low subsidized meal eligibility very differently. It 

may force schools that receive less federal funding to opt out of NSLP altogether. 

In fact, a session entitled On or Off the National School Lunch Program was extremely well attended at the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials 

conference in March. If schools opt to leave the School Lunch Program, there is no 

assurance at all that students will receive a meal that meets the USDA nutrition 

standards or, in fact, receive a meal at all. 

To balance budgets, schools will have to cut jobs. In my district, it may mean 

eliminating the breakfast program so that we can reduce employees’ hours and save 

money on benefits and pensions. And the effect will be far reaching, affecting food 

producers, equipment manufacturers and others who support our industry. 

To mitigate the harm that could be done by the competitive foods rule, USDA 

must provide flexibility, simplicity, and minimum standards that allow schools and 

food service directors the room to make site based decisions that best fit their districts’ needs. Any food that is served as part of a reimbursable school meal should 

be allowed as a competitive food without restriction. And, school nutrition programs 

should be recognized as the primary food provider within school buildings during 

the school day. 

To illustrate the magnitude to the restrictions that will be placed on competitive 

foods, please see the attached photograph. Most people would deem these items to 

be reasonable snacks for a high school student to purchase but all would be banned 

from schools based on the proposed rule. 
17 

There seems to be a sense that school district general funds should pick up the 

added cost of operating school cafeterias. Yet my district, like many, is facing tough 

fiscal realities of its own. Most school general fund budgets simply do not have the 

resources to subsidize the school cafeterias. Tough choices will have to be considered 

at the expense of students and jobs. 

My district and I are committed to providing healthful meals and foods that make 

a positive contribution to our students’ well-being. However, a program that cannot 

remain fiscally solvent due to decreased participation, decreased opportunities to 

generate revenue, and mandated increases to program costs is not positioned to provide high quality, healthful meals to students. As with the advice to secure one’s 
18 

own mask first before assisting another, we need to be mindful that our school 

meals programs need to be healthy themselves in order to advance the healthfulness 

of our nation’s children. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee with my concerns. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Schaper. 

Dr. Wootan? 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARGO WOOTAN, DIRECTOR OF NUTRITION POLICY, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

Dr. WOOTAN. Good morning. 

We probably all can agree on the importance of our children’s 

health. Where there may be some disagreement is on what the federal government’s role is in protecting children’s health, and specifically for this hearing, the role in determining school meal standards. 

That question was answered long before I was born. Unlike other 

aspects of education, foods that have—school foods have long been 

predominantly a federal program. Since the 1940s, dating back to 

the Truman Administration, Congress and USDA have set nutrition standards for school meals. 

While most education funding comes from states and localities, 

they contribute less than 10 percent of the funds for school meals 

nationally. Congress invests more than $13 billion a year in the 

school lunch and breakfast program. 

It is a matter of good government and fiscal responsibility to ensure that those funds are well-spent, that these nutrition programs 

provide good nutrition for kids. 

In 2004, the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress passed the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 

2004, requiring USDA to update the school meal standards to align 

with the Dietary Guidelines. 

So USDA solicited feedback from industry, food service, nutrition 

experts, commissioned a study for the Institute of Medicine, and 

then based on that input proposed standards and gave ample time 

for parents, schools, companies, Congress, and others to comment 

on them. 

And comment, people did. Over 130,000 people commented; the 

overwhelming majority, over 90 percent, in support of the proposed 

standards. Parents are particularly loud and clear in their support. 

Over 80 percent of parents support the new school meal standards. 

As you contemplate whether the new meal standards are achievable, I urge you to consider the tens of thousands of schools that 

have already made great progress, including schools in all of your 

states. 

As of the end of April, almost three-quarters of school districts 

participating in the school lunch program have applied for the 

$0.06 reimbursement meaning that they believe that they are 

meeting the new school meal standards. 

Those numbers have been increasing and are expected to increase even further when USDA gets its next report from states. 

Changes of course take time and not surprisingly some schools 

are experiencing challenges. USDA, the Alliance for a Healthier 
19 

Generation, and many others are providing technical assistance, 

training, model menus and product specifications, and other resources to help schools work through these challenges. 

And USDA has shown that it is listening to schools’ concerns. 

When schools faced challenges with the grain and protein limits, 

USDA responded and gave them the flexibility that they asked for, 

which the agency has made clear that it plans to make permanent. 

In April, USDA also provided additional flexibility on paid meal 

pricing. 

The answers to the challenges faced by some schools is not to revert back to serving unhealthy food in schools. Our kids need us 

to persevere and ensure that schools get the support they need. 

I hope that one of the outcomes of this hearing will be enhanced 

efforts to help those schools that are struggling and to get them the 

technical assistance that they need and to connect them with the 

many, many schools that are implementing the new school meal 

standards successfully. 

And there is a lot to learn from successful schools around the 

country. I included in my testimony some pictures of some of the 

healthy school meals that are being served around the country, and 

if you have a chance to take a look at them or others that we could 

make available, you will see that there are many appealing healthful meals that kids enjoy and that are good for them. 

These meals also are providing enough calories for the vast majority of young people in schools. For those students who want 

more, many schools are offering additional servings of fruits and 

vegetables at no additional charge. 

And for those students with exceptional calorie needs, such as 

competitive athletes, they can purchase a second lunch. They can 

purchase items out of a la carte. There are also afterschool snacks 

and afterschool supper programs to help them meet their caloric 

needs. 

Importantly, the school meal standards are being achieved at the 

current rates of reimbursement in thousands of schools across the 

country, and USDA is providing additional reimbursement and 

there are several other school financing provisions that were put 

into place over the last couple of years. 

USDA’s updates to the school meal standards are long overdue. 

Schools around the country are showing that they are achievable. 

We know they are critical to our children’s health, and importantly, 

they will maximize the taxpayer investment in these important 

child nutrition programs. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Wootan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Margo G. Wootan, D.Sc., Director, Nutrition Policy, 

Center for Science in the Public Interest 

Good morning. I’m Margo Wootan, the director of Nutrition Policy at the Center 

for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit organization, where I’ve worked on 

school foods and other nutrition issues for over 20 years. 

We probably all agree on the importance of our children’s health. Unfortunately, 

a third of children are overweight or obese, and unhealthy eating habits and obesity 

are major contributors to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases. Obesity 

adds $190 billion a year to national health care costs, about half of which are paid 

by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid. 
20 

Where there may be some disagreement is on what the federal government’s role 

is in protecting children’s health, and specifically for this hearing, the federal role 

in determining school meal standards. 

That question was answered before I was born. Unlike other aspects of education, 

school foods have long been predominantly a federal program. Since the 1940s, dating back to the Truman Administration, Congress and USDA have set the nutrition 

standards for school meals. 

While most education funding comes from states and localities, they contribute 

less than 10% of the funds for school meals. Congress invests more than $13 billion 

a year in the school lunch and breakfast programs. It is a matter of good government and fiscal responsibility to ensure that those funds are well spent—that these 

nutrition programs provide good nutrition to children. 

In 2004, the Bush Administration and the Republican-led Congress passed the 

Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, requiring USDA to update 

the school meal standards to align them with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

Over the next seven years, USDA formed internal working groups, solicited feedback from industry, food service, and nutrition experts, and commissioned an Institute of Medicine study to develop recommendations to update the meal standards. 

USDA proposed standards based on all that input, and then gave ample opportunity for parents, schools, food companies, Congress, and others to comment on 

them. Over 130,000 people commented—the overwhelming majority in favor of the 

proposed standards. Parents were particularly loud and clear—over 80% support the 

new school meal standards. 

As you contemplate whether the new school meal standards are achievable, I urge 

you to consider the tens of thousands of schools that have already made great 

progress, including schools I’d be happy to put you in touch with in Indiana, Tennessee, Minnesota, California, and other states. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation has recruited over 14,000 schools; USDA’s HealthierUS School Challenge 

has certified over 6,500 schools (see http://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/healthierus/ 

awardwinners.html for a list), and there are a growing number of schools qualifying 

for the six cents in additional school lunch reimbursement, which is available to 

schools meeting the new standards. 

Change takes time, and not surprisingly, some schools are experiencing challenges. USDA, the Alliance, and others are providing technical assistance, trainings, 

model menus and product specifications, and other resources to help schools work 

through challenges. 

USDA has shown that it is listening to schools’ concerns. When schools faced challenges with the grain and protein limits, USDA responded and gave them additional 

flexibility, which the agency has said it plans to make permanent. In April, USDA 

also provided additional flexibility on paid-meal pricing. 

The answer to the challenges faced by some schools is not to revert back to serving unhealthy food in schools. Our kids need us to persevere and ensure that schools 

get the help and support they need. I hope that one outcome from this hearing will 

be enhanced efforts to help struggling schools with additional technical assistance, 

including the opportunity to learn from the many schools that are successfully implementing the new school meal standards. 

And there’s a lot to learn from successful schools around the country. For example, simple things like taste tests, having students vote for favorite menu items, giving menu items catchy names, and sprucing up cafeterias are some of the ways 

schools have been increasing student acceptance of healthy school meals. The photos 

in my written testimony depict a few of the appealing and healthful meals that 

many schools are serving. 
21 

As you can see, these meals provide plenty of food and should meet the needs of 

the vast majority of young people in schools. For those students who want more, 

many schools offer additional servings of fruits and vegetables at no additional 

charge. And for those students with exceptional calorie needs, such as competitive 

athletes, they can purchase a second lunch or healthy a la carte options to supplement their meal or take advantage of afterschool snack or afterschool supper programs. 

Importantly, the school meal standards are being achieved at current reimbursement rates by thousands of schools, and USDA is providing an additional six cents 

per lunch to schools that meet the new school meal standards. 

USDA’s updates to the school meal standards are long overdue, are achievable, 

are critical to our children’s health, and will maximize the taxpayer investment in 

these important child nutrition programs. We need to give some schools and students a little more time to adjust, and ensure that struggling schools get the technical assistance they need to join the thousands of schools that are successfully serving healthy school meals to students. 

Thank you. 
.. " ,. if '" 8 !: i: 

_ 

-P'iP' IdH 

-

l> 

=S.2 i:t «: 

.. o 

L2 i 

!:, § 8" r 

.-

::: 

'" II: !l 

. . _or 

.. i &. .,. .. ' : 

i' Z !: 

§ g."'! [ 

a '" .. [ 2.!'.. !::i'!( 

, ... , i § ': 

",-<'!.>3 

o _ • , I '&... if .. 

.. 3,!/ _ 

... - "'!!. Z il 

2 .. '" a' !'.. S' ;;O:< 

, 

Q. "'<» ... " 

;. ::!..:l - 1;" 

.. 

-< 

1 

II n[!Hi 

-

... 

'. 'f " z .. _ 

f:; C i-.; e ... !5 .. , 

1;::toi'9 

, , 

-

, , 

!T .. '" 

l " n 

oS 'I·' ; 

.. ii - i if 

.q ! ! 

. ;' 1 

, , 

, > 

. -," !: 

g 

, , 

o • 

> - , . '0 .I, 

., -. H 

H 

B 

§: 

;: 

.. H .. '" , .-

, !'.1: 

a " " 

,. , 

J> ::: ' .. .. 

.. &. s .. tl 

L 

, 

• it 

2 

,. 

, 

it 

• • • 

.-

., 

;;: s 

B 

Ji 

, , 

:;OS" Z 0' 

! ' 

£jl ,< , , · , -

-

-

, • • o _ 

P 

· " , iil;ii 

;; II 2 

P • e·h 

! [; 

OJ Q g. - 0 , 

, ! , F : !!: - • a h, , -

-

i' ;< 

;r .., ,- , 

H. 

f if 

i-

,. 0 -

., ! 

, '[' - 3. . s: ",.:z g. h= 

;: 

ql ;'i 

g 

g 

a 

,-

o 

gl:· !31!;d., 

.. .. 33 ,-' 

,_" .• >., 

.... 

&. 

.. .. 

... ,.51-: 

H>Ul'''. 

.. c: :1 :> .... ;:;l[e 3 .. !!.§.l:l 

<l 

" 

; 

'!) ... " .. 

8'1 
23 

Increased Funding for Healthv School Meals 

In Ja""a'Y 2012, USDA ,eleasedf",", rogulatOons to update the .tandard< f<>< schoof ""'01 •. USOA ... tlmat ... 

that implementation 01 t~ updated .t .. l<I.,ds might inaease ot~ eo.," II'! roughly 8 _cent or $3.2 billion 

OV<!,fi",'f'!o", 

The lleaHhy, llunleH,ee Kfds "ct(1l1lF1(Aj Includes a . " 0<11 ~cltale of provi<lO<1. desl",.". to inaease 

lundinefor "-'aHhy ><.hooI meals. Timely implementation 01 ~ provislO<1. will help inHe_ '~nue to 

><.hooI food _e prOJf.m. to locil~.t e implementation 01 U5O"'. propos.ed ><.hooI me.1 st.nd. ,ds. 

5ectlon 101 p'ovide •• 6..,.,.,t·_·lund> Inc'e.se In 

,elmbu,sement for schoof lunches that meet Ihe new 

><.hooI meal .tandard •• addi"...., e,tlm'IN $1.5 billiO<1 

over Ii", 'f'!a .. if .11 W>ooIs "",t the st.ndard. 

Immediately. 

5ect1O<1 20S '~ui,e. school dlstnct. te Iroduali'! beeln 

do<lnllhe cap between p.id meal ,evenu'" and f,..., 

meal revenu ... to eMure Ihol funds meant for pr<Mdi", 

he.hhy food. for Iow·I"",,,,,, chHdren ore not d illefled 

10 OIhe, purposes. U50A ... timat ... that dosl", Ihis PI' 

woold r .... $321 mi ll;"" for schoof meal. pr"l,.ms 0_ 

u.. ne" five yea .. with m>nimol impact on p.rtid~tion in 

1"-' N:;U>, ...... n amont low·income children. 

5ectlon 2061. deslt:ned 10 ensure tr..t lhe prkes charged 

f<>< food. :I04d in vendin, machi,.. .. . 10 carte lin ..... nd 

TImely Implementation 01 the He.hhy, 

Hunger·Free Kids Act will fully pay lor 

USDA's school lunch regulatiOns. 

schoof " ores eo",r the com '0 produce.nd ~ Ihem. A "atioto.1 mul-co<1 .Iu dy ,onducred b-; USDA 

showed th. 1 r""",,"es frem non'prOCram food. (.uch •• foods :I04d . 1. ""rte) do not cover tkel, costs ond 

school. eften"se federal e~ .ub.leli ... to elfset their production. USOA estimotes Ihat Implementation 

of the provi";on wi" 00". on add;d<>r>al $7.2 biHion in re"""." 10 .choof food service o<rou",' ove, lhe 

,.. .. Ii", 'f'!'" and will r ... ult in 0_ 900,000 more children p.rtil:i~lin, in Ihe schoof me.1 pr"l,.ms. 

Our Children Cannot Wait AnV Longer 

USOA', upd.tes to schoof m",,1 ,tandards or" k>nc 

overdue, ochiev.bIe, aili",,1 to ou, children', hu lth. 

ond wil l ~,l ml.e the lO.p.v~ ;" .... tment In the 

Pfcg,am •. 

For more inform.tion, <onlact MariO Wootan with u,., 

Cen!~ for s.c"nte ;" the Publil: Inter ... t .t wlrUlonooligtf!"pir.et.ors or 202·777-3387. 
24 

Tips for Making Healthy Lunches for Less 

s.e",lns healthV s<:hool mulson a tiShl budeel c~n be ~ challenee. The lollowlnl tips we'e 

lathered /rom school food se"'''e prole .. lon~ , ;ocrossthe cOllntry to help mIke se",;ns 

helllhv food, more afford .ble. We recosn;,e that school nlltrit>on prOllrlm co.ts Ind 

enlilenee. vary /rom one e<>mmllnlty tothe nut, >0 while these tip. may not wo" fo r 

everyone, we hope >ome will be usefu l at your s<:hooL For more re>o ur.;f< on Ihe new s<:hool 

mell nlndlrds, visit www.schoolfoods.ol'l orcontlct nutritionpoli9'@cspinet.ofl. 

Menu Planning and Preparation 

Use Ie .. upen,lve hu~hV items. 

o Mi. in less expensive items Ilonll side more 

upensive one •. The 1011 does not hIve 10 be for 

all students to take a len expensive item. If 20 

percent 01 students choo,,"less "pensive option, 

then YOIISIve money on 20 pe rcent ol the IlInches 

served that diY. 

o Switch from more expensive protein<, like chlcken, 

beef, Ind pork, 10 belns one meal I week. SIIY 

dried beln.overclnned for even more S1vinl" 

o Market a nd lest len expenSive and less proceued 

hulthy items. 

Some school' ha ..... follnd wilh jIOOd rec ipes 

or mlrkeling IheV eon swap out higher cost, 

more proce.sed food" like ch.,ken nUlIKeto 

.nd I"'Uies, for leu expensive, leu 

processed food" like ro.aS! chicken. 

1r\C(\'pol'1lte more-costly Items wisely. 

o Whenconsiderins I new, slighlly more expen,lve item, Ihink abolll how mlny 

student. wililctullly e~. If only I third of students Ire like ly 10 try the new 

item, prepare that miny portion •. This way you ilre servin.a: 1 new, hel~hy item, 

bUI nOI spendl"8 exll'l on wlste. 

o Serve poPllla. bill expensive ilems less often. 

o Ju.t beClllse In item i. popular doe. nol me.n ~ makes money. Illhe item is 

poPlllar and expensive, like hambll'iers, less "profif" per lunch will be 

lIenel'1lted. Take the to!-il1 revenue (reimbursement r.te X me.l. by c.tello..,.) 

and dedllct Ihe 10111 cost per melilo determine how much ·profif" lhal meal 

wililenerlte. 

Increase school mealappell. 

. ppe"ling pre..,ntations. 

o Cook ..... set.bles 10 pre..,,,,. vibrlnt colors and lUlU •• " Ind VI..,.lhe waY=--1 00 

cut Ihe 'fllit., veletablt., .nd sandwiches to provide more in terestinl or 
25 

r o Use catchy names, like "'ire e nl ine red tomatoes" In elementary school. or 

- ""uthwest chlpotle chicken" in upper IlriOdes. 

• Have I b .. ic sarad bar, with both fruits and veletables. 

o Cut dow<> on .taff prepar.ttion time by not 

di,hinli outlnclilliduar portions. 

, 

o Try p1acinllhe salad bar allhe D.linnlnil of the 

line and I llowinil.tudenu 10 choo ... the fruits 

Ind veletable.they like. 

o Allowinil.tudenls totOO ... which Items they 

like, .swtll.s how much they want 10 uke, will 

help red"". w •• te; studenul'. less likely 10 

take fruit. or velleta ble.they won't .at. 

o SlIrad boll, •• I$O"re a IfUI pjace 10 offer Ie,ume 

salads. Don', .lIPf!CI thlt I II students will""'. 

them .ilht aWIY. Give them I chlnee. 

Stand.rdize ,ecllMl< 10 ensure the rjllhl .mount 01 each 

Ing,ed ient Is In the mell. Thi. will ..... ke ordarins u.~r 100 en<u,e the item fiU inlo , .... 

meal standard. 

Umit d~s"'rt. k~ s"'rt . spec ial occasion food. to .. v@monevandcalorle •. 

R@ .... "'hmilkoptions. 

o II C~rUln option.li k@ fl"vor d milk Or pl"$t<: bonl~s"re more upensi~. 

consider offerln, unflavored milk ~unle$$ meal parti<lpation will be .ffected! or 

cardboard cartons. 

U'" ~ .. me product multiple way •. U.inll" product in differenl "",ipe. cln cut down 

on Inv~nlOrv and r~duce waSI~. 

o Avoid bUVin, many different IVpes of chicken products. n5l~ad. chanlle them up 

with new nlmesand sides. For ulmpl~. r~51 chicken can be rotisserie style. 

blIrb.eque. leriy"ki. Or used On .. "I"d. 

o ehanlle up your ,ide •. R~51ed ~1I.I ble •• for ulImple •• re Inexpensiv~ and 

ver .. tile . 

Umlt main Inllred;,",s to reduce ~ and spollall' ond ..... , precious 51or. ,e .pa<~. 

Chose fruits.nd veilelables Ihlt are in .... son when possible. 

o Pu rch"", Irozen. <"nned. iOnd produce lhat store. well ~"pples. sweet pOt3tQeS. 

elc.) In h~ off ",oson. 

Offer I II Clrt ~ items lhal cc>uld be combined inlo I r~imbur .. ble meal. 

o Oe pendinll on what kid.choo .... ~.hierscou1d urle .tude nl. 101r.b milk and 

Iru illO have a relmbur .. ble mel l. It coslslhe $Iudenl less money "nd lhe school 

could ,.ot the meal re imbur ... menlS. 

M. Nlle wa.le. 

o WedSi", fruil Can provide. cos,· .. .,i"'$ benefil. Students C<ln choose how much 

'''' w," ' 0,"". w." ... ,~ ..0" •• ,,'. " .. ,," ,".oW 00' """" ,ru ~ 
26 

r : Snen cook;", i. " .. ential for food quality and cost centrol. Try no! to cook . 11 

the food for the d;oy It once. If . C" fU'; n option doesn't sell well In the first 

couple lunch p.eriods, you may not d 10 pr@p;I'"lSmuchforl.ler inthedI V. 

Keep lioad production records. This will help you determine how mony servin,. 

to prep;lre in the future. 

o PlY lOuention to ... ",inll sileo Make Sure you serve the correct serving size of 

uch option. for .""mple, "Sf! halkup scoops for foods w~h. ha lkup serving 

size. 

o Stop u.inli d iopowble ulensib;f po .. ible. II you Ire concerned the kid. will throw 

away utensils, place" bucket of _PV witer rillht next 10 the 'rl.h. 

Analyze the cost of rea l flatware . How many lime. doe •• ,eal fork need 

to be used before it I.chuper than u.ina. di'l>Osabl" one? One din ,;;:! 

found it was only 17 time., 

o Reduce Use of unnece.ScO')' paper Ind pl"stic produ<;!$. StQP uslnll paper boats, 

baliS, plastic cups, and wraps around sandwiches. They add unnece .... ry cost to 

the mnl that could be .pent on 1<><><1. 

Thi. also may appeal tQ .tudents whQ are Interested In environmental 

issue •. Try marketint the chante. usinli po<l~" 'I' material. tllat '~mind 

students that ,eduelnll waste is 11<><><1 fQ' the erwironment. 

Offe,. limited numbe r 'I! ent,ee. in elementary SChools. 

'I Consider Institulinlla fou,·we_. menu <vele wilh. standard .Ite r""t;'e offered 

every day, such as deli sandwiches, fo, students who dQ not like the main entree 

item. Offe'ina lewe'QptiQn. can reduce wa.te and allow fo, bett e, estimate. of 

how ""ny servint. tQ produce. 

o Hillh school.r< " ' i>&CI QptlQns. Koweve" fo, yQunge, chlidren, too ""ny choice s 

may slow down the lunch line , lI;'inll them less time toell lunch. 

Purchasing a nd Inventory 

, 

Perfect pu,eh •• i", p,actices. 

o Consider ioininll or starting" buyinll 

club with d i.trict. in you, ., .... This 

will allow you tQ make bulk purchases 

.nd eut dQwn 'In product and delfliery 

CQsts. 

If you don', have adequate 

.tQ"'lIe .poce at yQur school, 

.h.re freezer/cooler space with ""arby diWicts Qr Qthe, I."er 

InstitutlQn. lhQspitals, wQrkplaces, etc.). 

o "," ~O, ~"o. '" '''''~'' ,", ",., ,'0""''" ".'0,"" '"'~ ~"~ 
27 

I Ot " ~., , •• m.ow 

o Ilyou are a new food seNU dlrecter or jU<llhlnk you could learn from anoiller 

director, ask your 51ale child nutr~icn pro&ram or stale School Nutrition 

Assoclition for" wuution of" successful director. 

Marke t your pro,ram to students and r ---------:; ..... - C 

naif to Increne ~nicip"lion , 

o Use Cillchv or ipp<!alinK rlamn, 

cOndllCl list" tests, MV, students 

vote on meal options, ."'.'" 

, ludenl'lo become amb .. sodo .. 

ofille mul proe,,,m>, hold 

recll>" contests, e le. 

Analyze curren! paid meallnd .. I. can. 

item prices to ensure Ihev ,,,Red the true 

co<l of purcll;,,;ne. preparlnc, and sellin, 

the item, Including Indirect costs. 

Resources 

USDA: Food B"V1nl Guide, Menu PLannine and Preparation Resourc .... I nd Othe, Resource> 

1111 p: tIht.'thymeal.,!lf I. usda , lew I 

NfSMI: Financill ManaKement Resource, 

httpllwww.nf.mi.or&lRe>9urceOverview .• w.?ID=63 

NFSMI: Mul Pattern Guide 

hllP' ljwww,nffmi.org/ResourceOverview.asp. 710=425 

NFSMI: Purchulnll Manual 

hlIP:ilwww,nbmi.org/ResourctOverview.lso· ?IO=§4 

SNA: Markeli", and PR Tools 

hllp:ljwww,schoolnutril!on.orJI!L,v,1 2 NSlW2012.uP!?id'16%O 

SNA: Mea l Pattem Resources (for SNA member. only) 

www.gh90lnulril!on.o.i/mulpattern 

USDA: Usinll USDA Foods 

hllp:ilwww,/nwsda.gOlllfddifood./hullhytproftuional.hlm 

, 
28 
29 
30 
31 

--- ...... H __ , __ .. R ....... __ Ao ........ E_ ... Go . ........ _u. - -- ---_. __ ..... _-

West Salem School District: A School FoodSuccessStory .... --_ ... __ ._- T .. ~ .... 

""'-----~-----... ---.... _ ...... _""_ .... _ .... _...._e .. ___ _ 

-.-~---~---- _ _ . .-.... _ .. ., ...... _--...----_ ... -..... -...... .. ... - -

_oo ... ..... ____ ~. ~ ___ .. _,, __ _ 

------ ---

_ ....... ~---,,--.-- ... -...... --"" .. -.... --- .. -~ 

_.-.... _ .. __ ..... ""--..... ---------- ................... f. _____ ............. ______ •• __ .. 

........ ________ ...... _--_ ... n ....... _ .... 

......... _ _-_ ....... ...... 

____ __ ... ... __ _ ... .... -... 

.. 

_ 

_"_ .... _.._n ______ ....... __ ,, _ 

....... , •. -_ ,.-- ____ .. --.- ...... .M_n. _--___ .... ...... -~- -. ... __ __ .... . _ -

_ .. 

--------_ ------------- ... _-..... ----- T ..... ' ............... 

----_ """'-----"--"---" ..... _._ .. _ . ..-...... 

--

--------"'-----"-- ... --_._ --_ .. _-- ._--_ .. -

R. ... d Re.ou~ •• 

'" GLANCE 

_"'-__ 3 

_."'-'.700 

Moah_I'o< tlOJ",3(l(l 

_"" . ... "'-._Moolo:2.lIo 

InlO!Irap,,", U, go' USDR TO Set Nlti ..... ' Sill"",,,,, for SchOOl Snic k. 

__ • ______ ,-_ ... _---... __ .. _ .. _ .... __ ~_ ... ...,. .... ' ___ ~_IO 

_ .. _--..... -_ ....-.._-_ ... _-_ .. _ .. _-_ .. ..-

-.... --~- ---~-.-----~-
32 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. Ford, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA FORD, DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND 

NUTRITION SERVICES, MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 

Ms. FORD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am the 

director of food and nutrition services for Manatee County School 

District in Bradenton, Florida. I am also president of the School 
33 

Nutrition Association, but today I am speaking on behalf of Manatee County Schools. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and share my insights on the challenges related to implementing the new nutrition standards, or meal pattern, for school 

meals. 

I know I speak for my colleagues across the country when I say 

that as a school nutrition professional, my first priority is to ensure 

every student has access to well-balanced, healthy school meals. 

I join my fellow members of the School Nutrition Association in 

calling for the updated nutrition standards to bring the meal pattern in line with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but as we 

all know, complex regulations sometimes lead to unintended consequences. 

School meal programs operate on extremely tight budgets. We receive just $2.86 in federal reimbursement per lunch for food, supplies, labor, equipment, electricity, indirect costs, and other related 

costs. Even a slight increase in costs or drop in participation can 

impact our program. 

The new meal pattern requirements have significantly increased 

the expense of preparing school meals far beyond the additional 

$0.06 reimbursement provided under the Healthy, Hunger-Free 

Kids Act. 

USDA estimated that initially the new meal pattern would increase the average cost of serving a school lunch by $0.05. When 

all of the requirements are implemented, USDA estimated the cost 

per lunch would be $0.10 higher and the cost per breakfast would 

be $0.27 higher. 

However, in Manatee County, food costs alone have already increased by 5 percent. Our food costs went from 37 percent of our 

revenue to 43 percent of our revenue. Not to mention the $43,000 

we spent on retaining staff to meet the new standards last fall. 

These expenses will only rise as the school breakfast standards go 

into effect. 

The weekly limits on grain and protein served with school meals 

restricted some very healthy school menu options that were student favorites. Under the new standards, schools could no longer 

offer daily sandwich choices because serving two slices of whole 

grain bread each day exceeded the weekly grain limits. 

Sandwiches were commonly offered in schools as a daily alternative to the hot entre ́e, but under the grain and proteins maximums, our cafeteria faced the choice of either eliminating sandwiches or offering them only 4 days a week. 

On the first day of school last year, one of my elementary students broke into tears because he would not be able to get his peanut butter and jelly sandwich. 

Menu changes have driven children out of the program. Our participation has declined from 71 percent to 68 percent. We anticipate 

at year-end our total revenue will be down about $0.5 million. 

USDA has acknowledged problems with the grain and the protein maximums and temporarily lifted the maximums once and 

then extended the delay. 
34 

But a temporary reprieve only leaves school cafeterias and industry partners in limbo and does nothing to help industry develop 

new products or for school cafeterias to meet the new standards. 

Every roll and wrap goes through extensive testing before it is 

served in a school cafeteria. Temporary regulations have left industry guessing. 

Congress should pass legislation to permanently lift these grain 

and protein maximums. Calorie limits and whole grain requirements under the new standards will protect the nutritional integrity of the standards. 

Congress should also address Section 205 of the act, which has 

forced many schools to increase their lunch prices. When setting 

the school meal prices, school boards must take into account not 

only local food and labor costs but also the local economic conditions and what families are able and willing to pay. At the end of the school year, I had to raise lunch prices by $0.05 

for next year. These mandated price increases have contributed to 

the declining participation. 

Today, USDA will be releasing new nutrition standards for competitive foods; those foods sold in a la carte lines, snack bars, and 

vending machines. If we are to eliminate all of the a la carte 

choices currently offered that do not meet the proposed competitive 

food regulations, our school meal program would project an annual 

loss of $975,000. 

Also of concern is the way the proposed rule failed to mirror the 

nutrition standards for school meals. If the proposed regulations 

are unchanged, schools will have to evaluate food choices based on 

two completely different sets of standards. 

In my 27 years of working in school cafeterias, I have witnessed 

how school lunch brings students from every walk of life together. 

The National School Lunch Program was designed to serve all children, not just poor children, and that is one of the program’s greatest strengths. 

These new regulations, though well-intended, are threatening 

this critical mission by gradually driving paying students out of the 

program. 

I hope the members of this committee will support legislation to 

remedy several of the challenges posed by the new meal pattern 

and will continue to seek the input of school nutrition professionals 

as Congress considers changes to the school meal programs. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you again for 

this opportunity, and I will be happy to answer any questions you 

have. 

[The statement of Ms. Ford follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sandra E. Ford, SNS, Director of Food and 

Nutrition Services, Manatee County School District, Bradenton, FL 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Sandra Ford, SNS, Director of 

Food and Nutrition Services for Manatee County School District in Bradenton, Florida. I am also President of the School Nutrition Association, but today I will be 

speaking on behalf of Manatee County School District. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today 

and share my insights on the challenges related to implementing the new nutrition 

standards, or meal pattern, for school meals. 

I know I speak for my colleagues across the country when I say that as a school 

nutrition professional, my first priority is to ensure every student has access to well- 
35 

balanced, healthy school meals. School nutrition professionals are constantly working to improve the quality of the meals we serve and to teach children to make a 

lifetime of healthy choices. In fact, I am proud to report we have children in Manatee County who tried their very first peach or were first introduced to kale in our 

school cafeterias. 

I joined my fellow members of the School Nutrition Association in calling for updated nutrition standards to bring the meal pattern in line with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. We support offering a wide variety of fruits, vegetables and 

whole grains for students and ensuring school meals meet reasonable limits on sodium, unhealthy fat and calories. 

But as we all know, complex regulations sometimes lead to unintended consequences. School meal programs operate on extremely tight budgets. We receive just $2.86 

in federal reimbursement to prepare a lunch that includes fruits, vegetables, whole 

grains, milk and a protein, not to mention covering supply, labor, equipment, electricity and indirect and other costs. Even a slight increase in costs or drop in the 

number of students participating in our program can mean the difference between 

a year-end profit or deficit. 

The new meal pattern requirements have significantly increased the expense of 

preparing school meals, at a time when food costs were already on the rise. New 

meal pattern costs have far exceeded the additional 6 cent reimbursement provided 

under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. 

USDA estimated that initially, new meal pattern requirements would increase the 

average cost of producing and serving a school lunch by 5 cents. By Fiscal Year 

2015, when all of the requirements are implemented, USDA estimated the cost per 

lunch would be 10 cents higher and the cost per breakfast would be 27 cents higher. 

However, in Manatee County School District, food costs alone have already increased by 5%, which is more than FNS projected. Our food costs went from 37% 

of our revenue to 43% of our revenue. These expenses will only rise as the school 

breakfast standards go into effect, requiring cafeterias to double the amount of fruit 

or vegetables offered. And given our experience with lunch, we expect the breakfast 

increase will surpass USDA’s projections. 

Retraining our staff members significantly added to the expense of meeting the new standards. Our training programs cost over $43,000 last year. We had to teach 

our cooks and servers to follow new recipes and portion sizes and retrain them on 

what students must have on their tray for a reimbursable meal. A similar training 

program is required as the new breakfast standards go into effect. 

At the same time, certain requirements under the new regulations have contributed to declining participation in the meal program, resulting in decreased revenue. 

For instance, the weekly limits on grains and proteins served with school meals 

restricted some very healthy school menu items that happened to be student favorites. Under the new standards, schools could no longer offer daily sandwich choices 

because serving two slices of whole grain bread each day exceeds weekly grain limits. Meanwhile, salads topped with grilled chicken and low fat cheese exceeded 

weekly protein limits. 

These menu choices were commonly offered in schools as a daily alternative to the 

nutritious hot entre ́e choice of the day. Students always felt comfortable knowing 

that if they didn’t like the hot entre ́e, they could choose from a deli sandwich, a 

peanut butter and jelly or chef salad. 

Under the grain and protein maximums, our cafeterias faced the choice of either 

eliminating these daily alternatives or offering them only four days a week, leaving 

students confused and upset on Fridays. On the first day of school, one of my elementary school students burst into tears in the cafeteria because he couldn’t get his 

peanut butter and jelly sandwich. 

Meanwhile, we haven’t been able to find whole grain sandwich wraps that meet 

the weekly grain limits, so we’ve had to cut our wraps in half. How would you feel 

if suddenly your favorite sandwich was served on just half a wrap? 

These menu changes have driven children out of our program. Even in Manatee 

County, where 60% of students receive free or reduced price meals, our lunch participation has declined from 71% to 68%. We anticipate at year-end our total revenue will be down about $500,000. If not for the additional 6 cent reimbursement, 

which we have been receiving since November, our revenue would be down even 

more. Nationally, USDA reports a 3.2% decrease in average daily participation this 

year. 

USDA has acknowledged problems with the grain and protein maximums—they 

temporarily lifted the maximums once, then extended the delay through the 2013- 

2014 School Year. But a temporary reprieve only leaves school cafeterias in limbo. 

We brought back our daily sandwich choices to the menu to maintain participation, 
36 

but how will students respond if we are forced to take away their sandwiches again 

next year? 

A temporary reprieve does nothing to help industry partners develop new products for school cafeterias to meet the new standards. Every roll and wrap goes 

through extensive testing before it is served in a school cafeteria. Our industry partners do months of R&D to identify recipes that meet the whole grain standards and 

food safety requirements, but still have the look and taste our students expect. 

Temporary regulations leave our industry partners guessing. Do they phase out 

their old product line and invest in developing products to meet new standards? Or 

will USDA issue another reprieve so that schools will be clamoring for their old 

product line? 

Congress should pass legislation to permanently lift these grain and protein maximums. Calorie limits and whole grain requirements under the new standards will 

protect the nutritional integrity of the standards, but eliminating weekly maximums 

on grains and proteins will give school cafeterias the flexibility they need to plan 

healthy menus that still appeal to students. 

Congress should also address Section 205 of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act. 

Also called the paid meal equity provision, Section 205 has forced many schools to 

increase their lunch prices, regardless of the cost of preparing the meals. These 

mandated price increases have contributed to declining participation in Manatee 

County and in districts across the country. 

School meal prices, just like restaurant prices, differ greatly from one community 

to the next, and they should. When setting school meal prices, school boards must 

take into account not only local food and labor costs, but also the local economic conditions and what families are able and willing to pay. 

At the end of last school year, my program was fortunate enough to have a surplus, but paid meal equity requirements mandated that I raise my lunch prices this 

year by $.05 cents. Manatee County School District has not provided a salary increase for employees in five years. Families in our community are struggling and 

cannot afford this lunch price increase. 

Congress can strike a reasonable balance by amending Section 205 to ensure that 

well-managed school meal programs that are financially solvent will be allowed to 

set their own meal prices. 

As I assess the current state of Manatee County’s school meal program, I have 

to consider what is on the horizon. I have mentioned the upcoming school breakfast 

requirements which present additional challenges. We also anticipate the release of 

USDA’s new nutrition standards for competitive foods—those items sold in a la 

carte lines, snack bars and vending machines. 

Today, if I were to eliminate all of the a la carte choices currently offered in Manatee County Schools that do not meet the proposed competitive food regulations, our 

school meal program would project an annual loss of $975,000. Also of concern is 

the way the proposed rules fail to mirror the nutrition standards for school meals. 

If the proposed regulations are unchanged, schools will have to evaluate food choices 

based on two completely different set of standards. 

As Congress and USDA evaluate changes to the National School Lunch Program, 

I hope they will remember that school lunch is so much more than just a meal. In 

my 27 years working in school cafeterias, I have witnessed how school lunch brings 

students from every walk of life together. I’ve seen how school meals are teaching 

students about healthy choices. 

The National School Lunch Program was designed to serve all children, not just 

poor children, and that is one of the program’s greatest strengths. These new regulations, although well intended, are threatening this critical mission by gradually 

driving paying students out of the program. 

I hope the members of this committee will support legislation to remedy several 

of the challenges posed by the new meal pattern, and will continue to seek the input 

of school nutrition professionals as Congress considers changes to school meal programs. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity 

to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Ford. 

It is now time to hear from members of the subcommittee, and 

out of respect for those members’ schedules, I am going to defer my 

questioning to the end; a favor I hope will be returned by the full 

committee chair. 

With that, I recognize Chairman Kline for 5 minutes. 
37 

Mr. KLINE. We can’t have these bargaining arrangements on the 

record there, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Thank you—although off the record, I am open. Thanks for holding the hearing. 

Thanks very much the witnesses for being here. This is an issue 

that has gained a lot of public attention. We are all hearing about 

some of these problems that Ms. Ford outlined so well from schools 

in our districts, and so I really appreciate having experts here in 

the room to give us their input. 

And I want to thank Ms. Brown and the work that the GAO has 

done. As you know, we rely so heavily on the work that the GAO 

does in a wide range of fields and I appreciate very much the— 

what you and your team have done in looking into this issue, and 

we look forward to your final report until we come up with a request for another report, which as you know, in your business happens quite a lot because we really do appreciate your input, and 

so as we struggle with these issues, we so often turn to the GAO 

as we did in this case. 

So you went to a lot of schools and in your testimony you talked 

about differences, things seem to be working fairly well in some 

schools and not in another schools, but what would you say was the 

top most or the topmost concerns as you went—was it cost? 

We heard some of that from Ms. Ford for example, the student 

opinions of the food, the waste, federal and state compliance, common—what sort of rose to the top? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, first let me say thank you for the kind words 

on GAO, and I actually from hearing these comments have a few 

ideas of some new work we could do based on that. 

Mr. KLINE. We will talk. 

Ms. BROWN. But the—I think the thing that we heard most frequently and was most loudly voiced was the concern about the limits on the meats and grains, and beyond that, we heard from all 

of the districts we were in a consistent concern about participation, 

about the costs of the fruits and vegetables, and about student acceptance. 

The concerns that we raised about waste and hunger some districts seem to be managing or handling better than others but 

again, that is why we made the recommendation on the lifting the 

limits permanently on the meats and grains because that was the 

thing that we heard the most loudly. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, and did the opinions differ? It sounded 

like in your testimony they did because of geographic location or 

size of the district. Was there some pattern there that you could 

easily identify; student population and that kind of thing? 

Ms. BROWN. I think the interesting thing about our site visits 

was how universal some of these concerns were. The site visits that 

we made were to school districts in urban areas, in rural areas, in 

some that prepared their foods in their own kitchens, some that 

had central kitchens; just lots of varieties. Some that had more free 

and reduced price, or fewer, and across the board, the concerns 

that I mentioned earlier were common among all of them. 

Mr. KLINE. Very, very interesting. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going to set the 

standard here and yield back. 
38 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the chair. 

Mrs. Davis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of you for being here. 

Dr. Wootan, if I could go back for a second to why we are here, 

why we are talking about this and what we hope for our young people today to be healthier and to not have problems with obesity or 

other physical problems down the line, what—we are not actually 

able to—I think, you might challenge this and others—to really calculate that into the cost that schools are seeing down the line, but 

how would you suggest that we do that? 

Should we be doing that? And how can we make that point a little better because obviously we need to be able to monitor young 

people on whether or not the changes that have occurred are making a difference. 

Dr. WOOTAN. That is an excellent question and a very important 

point that kids are eating about one-third to one-half of their calories at school during the school day, so it is a very big part of their 

diet. 

And we know that, you know, unhealthy eating habits are one 

of the biggest contributors to heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Obesity alone costs upwards of $190 billion a year. So the costs are 

quite significant. 

So an investment of an additional $0.14 to ensure that the school 

meals are healthy seems quite modest compared to the hundreds 

of billions of dollars that we are spending on heart disease, cancer, 

diabetes. Even with obesity, that $190 billion cost, about half of 

that is paid through Medicare and Medicaid. 

So we are going to pay for this one way or another. We can invest on the front-end and help support and protect our children’s 

health or we can pay on the back end for the diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases that unhealthy eating habits will cause. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes, one of these figures actually suggests that $14 

billion are paid out in direct health expenses and about $3 billion 

of that is for children under Medicaid—Medicare—I am sorry, Medicaid. 

How do we though, with that information, and maybe others 

want to respond to that—how do we build that into our calculus 

when we are trying to understand better the cost because I can understand that having been on a school board and watching foodservice struggle often with these issues. 

And I also heard, Ms. Ford, that when it came time to try to 

bring in more calories the easy answer in that was to provide additional cookies as opposed to fruit and vegetables or fruit particularly, which was more expensive for the school to deal with. How 

can we put that better into the calculus then? Is it looking at best 

practices of school districts? 

Ms. FORD. I think your points are well taken, but—and having 

been a member of the school board, you certainly know that school 

food service programs are viewed as a business and we do have to 

balance our participation because it is extremely important for the 

students to participate in the program along with the regulations 

and the requirements of that program. 
39 

Dr. WOOTAN. And one thing just to add, we looked—there are 

schools in all of your districts that are already meeting theses 

standards and are participating in the healthier U.S. schools challenge and that are able to serve healthy meals that kids like at the 

current reimbursement rate. So we know that it can be done. 

For those schools that are struggling, we really need to get them 

the support, the technical assistance, the tips, connect them with 

schools that are doing this successfully so that they can also be 

more successful in implementing the standards. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Brown, when you were looking at a number of 

schools, did you feel that they could look at best practices in other 

places? Because one of the things I think you mentioned is that, 

you know, this will take time, and we know that. 

Ms. BROWN. I think there is definitely some promise in trying to 

develop and gather best practices. We have made those types of 

recommendations to USDA in the past on a number of areas including nutrition education. 

And while the school food directors that we talked to had lots of 

experience and some of them were nutritionists themselves, if there 

are any tips that some of the schools that are struggling with similar things could share, I am sure that they would appreciate that. 

They may not all be applicable to every district, but it could be useful. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentlelady. 

Dr. Roe? Chairman Roe is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. I thank the chairman for holding this, and in full disclosure, I had a banana, a peach, a few grapes, and a small can 

of V-8 juice this morning for breakfast. Just to let you know that 

I am trying to be as healthy as I can. 

Dr. WOOTAN. Sounds great. 

Mr. ROE. I am hungry right now, I might also add. [Laughter.] 

I—first of all, I want to share with you some experiences and obviously everyone wants our children to eat healthier, and to be 

more physically active. There is no question that that is beneficial. 

It has been shown over and over again. 

In Johnson City Tennessee, where I am from, about 8 or 10 years 

ago we started a program called ‘‘Up and At ’Em’’ and it was to 

start at the kindergarten level and we probably broke every HIPAA 

law in the world but we weighed every child in the school, in the 

elementary school system we had. We found that 39 percent were 

at risk or overweight. 

And that only 1 percent were underweight. I was one of those 

kids that was always probably underweight growing up, but we 

found that out and we started this program and it was to teach 

children how to eat better long before this ever came up. And one 

of the things I would—and we are keeping up with those kids as 

they go through the school system. 

So we will—that data you are talking about, we probably will 

have because most—we don’t—we are not very mobile and most of 

the kids that start in first grade are going to end up at the same 

high school. We only have one high school in the city. So we really 

have a captive audience that we can do that with. 
40 

One of the things I heard from them our local school folks were 

our athletes and so forth—and I would have been one of those and 

you look at—and I think, Dr. Wootan, you mentioned that onethird to one-half of the children get their calories at school. 

Probably the underserved kids maybe get a majority of their calories at school and that is a real issue, and if you are an athlete, 

you know, if you are active and you play football, basketball, run 

track, whatever, you can’t survive on this. 

And we had teachers buying because the kids had to purchase 

the extra food, we had teachers actually doing that. I think that 

has got to be addressed and it can’t be a one-size prescriptive, everything fits everybody, and I appreciate the USDA in allowing 

some latitude here and kudos to Ms. Brown also. That was a very 

good presentation. 

If you all—this is a great panel because you actually are out 

there doing it, and Ms. Ford, what would you do and one of the 

things that bothered me a little bit was the fact that we sold a lot 

of the vending food things and that the school got hooked on this 

end. 

In other words, they needed the money to run the program. How 

do you do that? How do you make that work? These extra requirements that we are making you do with—you have got to balance 

the budget—and you mentioned your deficit went from $500,000 to 

almost $1 million once you took that out. How do you do that? 

Ms. FORD. Well, as I have stated before, and I think one of the 

biggest challenges we currently face is we do have to operate our 

programs as a business. We are accountable to not a profit-making 

business, but a break-even business where we are covering all of 

the related expenses. 

I think as my school board asked me that same question when 

I presented this to them and really it will require us to take a look 

at our business model and we will have to step back and take a 

look at all aspects of our program. It more than likely will mean 

a reduction of force. Because our numbers, our labor numbers are 

really based on that revenue number at that site. 

And if I lose that revenue, I am going to have to take a look at 

reduction of force. 

Mr. ROE. That or your local community has to raise taxes. 

Ms. FORD. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROE. The revenue—the money has to come from somewhere. 

Dr. WOOTAN. But the majority of schools are finding that revenue 

stays the same or actually increases when they switch to healthier 

options and a la carte and vending. And so those changes that 

USDA announced today should not have a negative financial impact on the majority of the schools. 

Ms. Schaper, my time’s about out, but would you talk a little bit 

about price equity? 

Ms. SCHAPER. Actually, I would like to—I would really like to respond to this if I could. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. 

Ms. SCHAPER. In 2006 we were all required to do local wellness 

policies. So in 2006, I sat down with members of my community, 

members of my school districts, the students, and we wrote local 
41 

wellness policies and we made big reductions in the a la carte competitive foods in our district. 

In my district, that meant $120,000 loss in revenue. At my middle schools, we did have a small increase in lunch participation. In 

my high schools, I had no increase in lunch participation. 

Students who wanted to pick just a bagel and a bottle of water 

for lunch and now that was limited because of a la carte standards, 

did not switch over to buy a full lunch instead. So we did not see 

that income come back. 

And the reality—and this is sad, and I don’t like saying this, but 

I can make more money and I do need that money to buy equipment, to train staff, to provide better foods for the school lunch program. 

I can make more money in competitive food sales. There is a 

profit margin on those items. There is not a profit margin on a 

school lunch. I have a certain amount of money and that gets spent 

providing the lunch. 

Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, thank you and I also was in tears with 

the kid who couldn’t eat his peanut butter sandwich, too. I yield 

back. [Laughter.] 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Polis is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to begin by acknowledging some very special observers 

from my district that we have with us today. Three heroes from the 

front-line of education, educators for my district. Sheila Pattorff 

from Ferguson Alternative High School in Loveland; Kim Pearson 

and Martin Pearson. Kim from the International School of—Middle 

School of Thornton, and Martin from Stuart Middle School in 

Brighton, 27J. 

So thank you for joining us today. They are here of course as 

educators and as middle school educators, I think particularly at 

the middle school levels they see the impact of learning, whether 

kids are hungry or coming off of a caffeine and sugar high or 

whether they are well fed. I think many of those differences are 

particularly accentuated at the middle school level at which they 

work every day. 

Ensuring school meals are healthy is absolutely critical for kids’ 

health as well as for academics. Research shows that students who 

don’t have reliable healthy meals lag behind their peers and simply 

it is harder to learn. 

That is why Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 

of 2010, provided better funding and healthier standards for school 

lunches. It was a step in the right direction to ensure that students 

across the nation have access to healthy food and drinks. 

I am also very pleased to see the USDA this morning issued a 

rule on competitive foods, an issue that I long worked on in prior 

capacities in the State Board of Education in Colorado and through 

our state legislature, which requires more robust and comprehensive standards for snacks and beverages that students can purchase outside of the school meal program; vending machines at 

schools, et cetera. Unfortunately, the previous Congress short-circuited these efforts when it blocked the USDA proposed rules to 

put the new standards into effect. 
42 

One example is when Congress itself tried to reclassify pizza as 

a vegetable. Unfortunately, we—there was some testimony about 

interference. I think one of the worst, most to blame is Congress 

itself. 

In fact, in trying to say that somehow pizza—not vegetable 

pizza—we are talking about pizza with no vegetables simply because of the quarter tablespoon of tomato sauce, so cheese pizza, 

pepperoni pizza, Congress itself against the USDA and against 

science said is a vegetable. 

That is why this morning I introduced, reintroduced the SLICE 

Act along with Congresswoman DeLauro, Congressman McGovern, 

and Congressman Rangel, simply takes away Congress’ ability to 

decide what food group pizza is in and returns that to the USDA. 

Pizza is fine. We all probably eat it and it has its place in school 

meals, but it is not broccoli, it is not a carrot, it is not celery. You 

know, again, I think these recent reforms were a step in the right 

direction. 

I was a little bit troubled by some of the items that Ms. Schaper 

mentioned. A couple things—I wanted to make sure I got this 

right. Did you say that 60 percent of the districts in Pennsylvania 

were not meeting the new standards? Was that the amount that 

were not certified? 

Ms. SCHAPER. Sixty-four percent are certified. 

Mr. POLIS. Are certified. So 36 are not. 

So in Colorado, 100 percent of the districts participate in the National School Lunch Program are certified for the $0.06 reimbursement, so again, this is—shows that there needs to be a better implementation in Pennsylvania is what it demonstrates to me. 

We had no problem. I mean, our state is fairly similar size. We 

have rural districts. We have urban districts, we have suburban 

districts. We have 100 percent certification. 

I also saw—and the reason I am asking you this because it 

wasn’t—I didn’t see it in your written testimony, but I wrote 

down—you said it is logistically very difficult to provide choices. 

I am sure it is more logistically difficult to provide choices, but 

that is the whole point of these kinds of regulations, to ensure that 

those who are in the field and working don’t take the easiest path 

for themselves, they instead take the best path for kids. 

And when decisions are made like the one that apparently, according to your testimony, you made in Pennsylvania, that you provided desserts to meet the calorie minimums, when you could have 

offered fruits or vegetables, you are almost begging for more Congressional regulation because of course that is not the right decision for the health of the students to make. 

When you have the USDA grain limits, instead of adding desserts to meet the calorie minimums, you should add fruits or vegetables to meet the calorie limits, which is permitted under the law. 

In the brief time that I have remaining, for Ms. Wootan, I would 

like to ask her what are schools and food services directors doing 

to ensure that not only they are serving healthy foods that the kids 

like and eat the healthy foods that are being served? 

Dr. WOOTAN. A lot of schools are having very good luck doing 

taste tests with the kids to find out what they like, have them vote 

for their favorite menu items or recipes, have cooking contests 
43 

among students to really engage the kids in finding out what they 

like, what they will eat. 

You know, healthy food tastes just as good as unhealthy food if 

it is and made well and it is presented nicely. You just have to figure out—it takes a little time to figure out which healthy options 

the kids will like best. 

Mr. POLIS. I would like to highlight the successes of Boulder Valley School District under our director of food services, Anne Cooper, 

who added cooking and salad bars in schools across Boulder Valley 

School Districts. It is very successful evidence that students are actually eating the healthier foods. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. 

Mrs. Brooks is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. 

As someone who has been a working mom my entire life, when 

my kids were growing up, I counted on those school lunches. I was 

not one of those moms that packed lunches. I counted on the 

schools to provide those healthy and good lunches and lunches that 

would fill my kids up so then they could go to after school activities 

and so forth. 

And what I am concerned about is that while I appreciate the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, I am afraid that we do 

have too many hungry children still and that is in large part—I 

was very surprised quite frankly when I received an email from a 

constituent, a 12-year-old boy in Fishers, Indiana who actually is 

buying his lunch at about $5 a day, but he is 6-feet tall, he is 120 

pounds, and he is not getting enough choice, and he is not getting 

enough food for that $5 a day. 

And I think time and time again, we are hearing that kids are 

going hungry and so to the food directors, in particular, who have 

this issue and we have issues of kids in different sizes and their 

age groups, and so Ms. Schaper and Ms. Ford, would you please 

talk about how are your—what are the solutions to this growing 

problem under this rule? 

We cannot have hungry kids. If we have hungry kids, they cannot learn, they will not do well in afterschool activities, and one 

thing I haven’t heard anything about as well is there were a number of limitations put on beverages as well and a lot of kids count 

on those beverages to, you know, help them with energy afterschool. 

Could you talk about hunger a bit more? And for these kids who 

don’t fit in the model of what they are being given on these—in 

sometimes very lean lunches for kids of different sizes? 

Ms. SCHAPER. Right. The reality is that the calorie limits are 

based on what the children actually take. It is not based on what 

we offer. It is based on what they take. So we can offer lots and 

lots of fruits and vegetables, but if the kids don’t actually choose 

to take it, when we do the analysis of our menus, we don’t get to 

count those calories. 

That is why schools were reduced to having to put more popular 

with kids items on the menu that would increase those calories. 
44 

It is not what any of us want to do, but we do want kids to come 

to the lunch line, have a lunch, feel filled up, feel like they had 

enough to eat, and then be able to participate in their classroom 

activities for the rest of the day, their afterschool activities at the 

end of the day, to have the calorie needs that they need. 

As I contemplate the testimony I hear this morning, it sounds 

like school lunches were horrible prior to this year and they were 

not. My lunches were very, very healthy before. They are very, very 

healthy now. It is just costing me a lot more money to do it this 

year. Thank you. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Ms. Ford? 

Ms. FORD. And I agree with what Megan said. And I think one 

of the biggest challenges was the upper limits, when the upper limits were placed on I couldn’t give the high school students a 3- 

ounce bun anymore. I had to give them the 2-ounce bun. 

So I think a lot of what we were hearing in the media as hungry 

children really was dealing with the fact that the upper limits were 

creating some downsizing of portions. 

We could offer a sandwich on a 3-ounce bun or the same sandwich on a 2-ounce bun and the students were able to pick based 

on their size. When some of that restriction was taken away, when 

the upper limits were in place, I think that was where we were 

hearing about hungry kids. 

The other thing is we really do add whole-grain items or wanted 

to add the bread or the protein item as—in addition to being able 

to add the fruits and vegetables. We didn’t add cookies, but we 

were still restricted in what we could add to increase that calorie 

count. 

Mrs. BROOKS. And aren’t there a number of—and I think that 

might have been pictures of a number of snack items that are no 

longer allowed. I don’t recall which of you provided that, and can 

you just review in case people didn’t have the opportunity to take 

a look, the type of items that, you know, most of us have thought 

are pretty healthy food items that are now no longer allowed because you just reminded me of the calories—— 

Ms. SCHAPER. They are snacks. They truly are snacks, but in my 

school district, we provide a very, very good lunch, and most of my 

kids choose to buy a lunch, but a lot of them are involved in afterschool activities, a lot of them are athletes. They like to buy something else that will go with the meal. 

Things like Rold Gold Pretzels, Pepperidge Farms Goldfish 

Crackers, Whole Wheat Peanut Butter Crackers are all items that 

will be discontinued under these competitive food regulations. 

Mrs. BROOKS. With my remaining little bit of time, any comments on drinks and the restrictions on drinks? 

Ms. SCHAPER. You know, I really haven’t had time to review the 

regulation because as it came out yesterday, so I don’t know that 

I am very comfortable on doing that yet. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Oh, okay. 

Dr. WOOTAN. They are very similar to what the industry has already agreed to voluntarily. It will be milk, juice, low-fat milk in 

elementary schools plus some lower calorie beverages in high 

school. So it is quite similar to what a lot of schools have already 

agreed to do. 
45 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. My time is up. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentlelady. 

Ms. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Underlying this discussion is the notion that healthy foods cost 

more. I am a lifelong educator and a school principal and when I 

was serving as principal, we had a salad bar that the children had 

access to and it only had vegetables and fruit and different condiments that went with salads and it cost the same as the food— 

the regular meal. It also had bits of chicken, turkey meat to put 

with the salads. Is that a choice now for the children? 

Dr. WOOTAN. Yes, many schools have salad bars and they are a 

very popular way to get kids to eat fruits and vegetables. 

Ms. WILSON. And I think that the reason I brought it up because 

it was during the same time that salad bars were offered in restaurants. And so it was almost similar to them like eating out and 

so all of these schools that are having to adjust their budgets according to the diets, is that something—is it a way that they can 

understand and know what other schools are doing that are successful with the new guidelines? Is there any way for you to make 

sure that all schools know that that is a choice? 

Ms. FORD. I think that one of the things the School Nutrition Association is doing is really trying to be that person that you are 

talking about to share the best practice stories and to share the 

success stories around the country. 

So yes, there is avenues for that to happen, but currently, states 

as you heard from Colorado, states are approaching this a little differently. So Florida is a very aggressive state in terms of providing 

training and materials while other states may not be. 

Dr. WOOTAN. And USDA does have a lot of training materials 

and training modules that can be done online or can be done in 

person. I think the challenge is to make sure that those schools 

that are struggling the most, that need the technical assistance, get 

it. 

Ms. WILSON. Okay. Just a follow up. A primary focus of congressional school nutrition policy is to ensure that low income students 

have access to healthy foods because in many instances, that 

breakfast at school and that lunch at school is probably in some instances, many instances the only meals that those children will receive. 

Have your interim findings about the standard’s effects on student meal participation in the schools distinguished between students’ family income level? This is for Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. What we have seen over the last many years but 

more recently as well is an increase in the proportion of low and 

free and reduced priced students receiving—purchasing the 

lunches. 

So I think there are indications that those kids are continuing 

to receive the nutrients in the lunches that are intended. 

Does that answer your question? 

Ms. WILSON. Mm-hmm. That answered it. 

One of the concerns I had was children who qualify for free lunch 

sometimes out of just fear, shame, and embarrassment do not eat 
46 

because there is a way to determine in the cafeteria who is free, 

who is reduced, and who is paying, and my question has to do with 

how do you recommend to school cafeterias to make sure that every 

child has the ability to eat this nutritious food that we are now proposing for them? 

Ms. BROWN. You know, I have seen some real evolution in the 

thinking on that over the years. That was a very, very significant 

concern when I started doing this work about 10 years ago, but in 

the last round that when we went through the different—when we 

visited the number of different school districts, we saw a lot of 

cases where it would be completely invisible for the students who 

had a free lunch and who was paying. 

Students had pin numbers that they put into pin pads at the end 

of the line and things like that that would not highlight who was 

a low income student. 

I think there is still a concern in the breakfast area just because 

not enough kids eat breakfast to kind of mask over the fact that 

many of the kids who come in to eat the breakfasts are low income. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. 

I am going to recognize myself now for 5 minutes and continuing 

on with you, Ms. Brown. 

I appreciate again, everyone being here. 

But, Ms. Brown, in your conversations with industry representatives, you talk about the difficulty in forecasting demand which impacts production, inventory, storage, and so on, and how this may 

get worse with the changes to the school breakfast program. 

So what will happen? I want you to be specific again for the 

record. What will happen to food production if the current and new 

regulations are not modified? 

Ms. BROWN. I think one of the biggest things that the industry 

needs is certainty and just to give you an example, we saw in one 

school district—they had a popular lunch that used a tortilla that 

was a 12-inch tortilla and when the meat and grain limitations 

came in it went to 9-inches and then when USDA lifted the waiver, 

they went to 10-inches. 

So if you are an industry representatives and you are trying to 

develop products that have enough whole grains and that will appeal to the kids at the same time that you are having to change 

some of your equipment and your workers and revise your packaging and your inventory and your distribution system, that is another one of the key reasons why we think that lifting the—making 

permanent the decision on that would be helpful because everything we have heard here is that students’ acceptance is a really, 

really important issue and the industry officials told us if that they 

didn’t have—that they were really weren’t able to focus on improving the products that they had, particularly I think the whole 

grains are a really good example to make them more palatable to 

the kids are so that they will be inclined to eat them. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank you. 

Now to Ms. Ford and Ms. Schaper, I want to follow up on a question asked by Chairman Kline and others as well on the 

compounding effect of these rules. 
47 

Quickly, in your opinion, what are the potential long-term impacts to your school meal programs, starting with Ms. Schaper? 

Ms. SCHAPER. As I indicated in my testimony, I really do fear for 

the future of my program. It is beginning to cost quite a bit more 

to run the program. We see participation coming down. 

I am going to have to go back tomorrow and look at the impact 

of the competitive food regulations now that they have been released and I am going to have to make large, large cuts to labor 

in order to keep my program at least break even. I am concerned 

for having to cut breakfast programs and laying off employees. It 

is going to be a difficult future. 

Chairman ROKITA. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Ford? 

Ms. FORD. I think part of the challenge is not having an opportunity to react to one before the other one rolls out so we have just 

kind of been on this little chase here. 

Florida has mandated breakfast programs in schools over 80 percent free and reduced. So that is not a place I can look. So I think 

we just have to continue to look at efficiency of operation, and my 

biggest concern is the fact that they are just rolling one after the 

other. So now with breakfast coming in I am not necessarily going 

to be able to separate what was the cost of the new lunch regulations from what is the cost of the new breakfast regulations. 

Chairman ROKITA. Well, thank you. 

And I am going to yield my remaining 2 minutes to my friend 

from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks, who has some more questions. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This follows up a little bit on the running of your programs 

which I understand are so tight or you are now I think as Ms. Ford 

indicated, it is operating a business. This part of school operation 

is like operating a business. 

So one of my school districts, Elwood, has 75 percent free and reduced lunch. The kids that pay for their lunch, they have seen a 

diminishing number of kids pay for the lunch because the choices 

have been removed. 

With increased cost across your programs, how do you prepare 

for things like the freezer goes out? The ovens break down? Where 

is that built into your business model to those of you who are running programs? 

Ms. FORD. Well, I will jump in there and say that is part of in 

a way competitive food and a la carte dollars. We look at the budget as a whole. So when I build my budget as a whole, I build a 

budget that includes equipment repair and maintenance and equipment replacement. 

I honestly this year we have had to call off a couple serving line 

renovations because we just didn’t have the extra funds that were 

going to be able to do that. 

So I think it is part of that whole business package. All of it 

rolled in together. We do budget for those things, but if we have 

a particularly bad year with equipment replacement or repair, then 

somewhere along the line, something else has to give. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Ms. Schaper? 

Ms. SCHAPER. I think Sandy answered it exactly as I would. 
48 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank the gentlelady. 

And we will now recognize Mrs. Davis for any closing remarks. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, I appreciate you all being here. 

I want to go back for just a second because I think when we talk 

about the competitive foods and the standards that the USDA has 

put out, we sometimes forget that there is a reason why we don’t 

want kids having sugar drinks because that really—while it provides them the calories—it doesn’t provide them a lot more and we 

may be encouraging them in many ways to have that as a greater 

habit in their diet, and that is a concern. 

Dr. Wootan, could you just very quickly—why should we be concerned about this because it is easier—we all know and especially 

with young children we tend to put, you know, kids love cheese and 

yet, you know, cheese, as a fat is something that—it should be limited in a young child’s diet, not necessarily at the extent that they 

have today. Why is all of this important? 

Dr. WOOTAN. Well, good nutrition is so important in childhood for 

the growth and development of the child now. You know, so they 

are ready to learn at school and that to just meet their basic nutrition needs. But also, most of the diseases that are so costly and 

that affect us as adults like heart disease and cancer and diabetes, 

these are very long-term, chronic diseases that start when you are 

young. And so eating well now helps determine, you know, whether 

or not you end up with a heart attack, you know, is it going to be 

at 40 or 50 or 60. 

It also teaches good habits. You know, we don’t want to teach 

kids one thing in the classroom and then teach them something 

very different in the cafeteria or in the hallway through the vending machines, and so cultivating and teaching good habits over a 

lifetime helps children to eat better throughout their life. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

And I apologize, Mr. Chairman. With a closing statement, I did 

ask a question, and I think just trying to summarize—it is a difficult I think often because we are dealing with budgets and a lot 

of constraints and I am very sympathetic to that, but I would hope 

that we would look to the best practices to the extent that we can 

and provide the kind of support that is necessary and I think a lot 

of that is out there. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

For my closing remarks, I just want to say two things. First of 

all, Mr. Thompson, was called away and will be submitting questions for the record and perhaps some other materials. So we look 

forward to that as being a part of the record and hopefully you will 

engage in answering those questions for him as well. 

And then the second point would be to simply say thank you. 

Clearly you are on the front lines. Clearly you are subject matter 

experts. Clearly you have the interest of America’s children first 

and foremost at heart. 

And as someone who represents 700,000 people, as long as on behalf of this entire committee we thank you for that interest. We 
49 

share your interest. We share your concern, and we are going to 

have future hearings related subject matter to the food programs 

in our nation’s schools in the months to come. 

So with that, seeing no more business before the committee, this 

hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Additional submission by Hon. Susan A. Davis, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California, follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Otha Thornton, President, 

National Parent Teacher Association 

The National PTA submits this testimony to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce for the committee hearing 

on School Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and Consequences for Schools and 

Students. 

National PTA comprises millions of families, students, teachers, administrators, 

and business and community leaders devoted to the educational and overall success 

of children. As the nation’s oldest and largest child advocacy organization, PTA is 

a powerful voice for all children, a relevant resource for families, schools, and communities, and a strong advocate for public education. With over 22,000 local units 

around the country, PTA members have firsthand experience of the daily challenges 

and successes within school buildings. 

PTA has long sought to improve child nutrition and wellness and prides itself on 

having been instrumental in the formation of federal policy in this area since its 

inception in 1897. A fundamental component of PTA’s mission has always been to 

preserve children’s health and protect them from harm. As early as 1899, the National Congress of Mothers advocated for a national health bureau to provide families and communities with health information. Its sustained efforts bore fruit when 

the Children’s Bureau was established in 1912 as a part of the U.S. Public Health 

Service. 

In 1923, PTA worked to ensure the provision of hot lunches in schools—and 

launched our own nationwide hot lunch program in mid-1940s. In the same decade 

and throughout the 1950s, we were involved in the establishment and expansion of 

the school milk programs. We also worked to ensure the passage of both the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. 

In the 2004, PTA and our coalition partners fought successfully for the inclusion 

of language mandating the creation of local school wellness policies in the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act. These wellness policies provide parents, students, school nutrition representatives, school board members, school administrators, and the general public the opportunity to formulate local policies that are tailored to the specific needs of their communities. We advocated for further involvement of parents and other stakeholders in local wellness policies when the legislation was reauthorized again in 2010. 

We mention these past accomplishments not only to underscore PTA’s commitment to the well-being of our nation’s children, but also to provide a historical context for where we are today and why we support updated nutrition standards for 

school meals that went into effect in 2012. 

Furthermore, the status of our children’s health has changed since the establishment of the original school lunch program. The National School Lunch Program was 

originally established to support military conscription during the aftermath of the 

Great Depression, when many young Americans were being turned down for service 

due to their being underweight. Several decades later, we find ourselves facing very 

different circumstances for our military recruits. A report released in 2012 by Mission: Readiness—Still Too Fat to Fight—showed that one in four young people cannot join the military due to being overweight or obese. 

Beyond military recruits, in the last 30 years, childhood obesity rates have dramatically increased. According to Trust for America’s Health 2012 report F as in 

Fat, the obesity rate for young children in 1980 was 6.5 percent. In 2008, our nation’s childhood obesity rate for the same age group was at nearly 19.6 percent. 

Times have changed—and we must too. 

PTA was a strong supporter of a provision in the 2010 reauthorization which required the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to update the nutrition 

standards for the school lunch and breakfast programs. As we are all aware, these 

updated nutrition standards for the school lunch were implemented in July 2012. 

PTA worked to support schools in this transition, including National PTA’s creation 

of the Parent’s Guide to the National School Lunch Program—a document designed 
50 

to inform parents of the changes and assist them in supporting schools and their 

children with the transition to healthier school meals. PTA members in local schools 

throughout the country worked to support schools during this period. 

As parents, PTA members are acutely aware that change can be difficult. Transition periods are challenging. The case of updating nutrition standards for school 

meals is no different. Many schools around the country were already serving 

healthier meals, others transitioned relatively seamlessly, but some schools have 

struggled. As we move forward, we must all work together to ensure successful implementation of healthier school meals. 

For example, in recognition of across-the-board challenges and unintended consequences, the USDA moved to provide additional flexibility to schools in meeting 

the whole grain and meat/meat alternative maximum and minimums. National PTA 

viewed this as a positive, proactive approach to identify challenges and find solutions in an effective way. In Congress, Representatives Tom Latham and Mike 

McIntyre introduced legislation—The School Food Modernization Act—to provide 

training support for school food personnel and resources for schools to obtain muchneeded cafeteria equipment to help prepare and serve healthier meals. 

Since our inception, PTA members have worked side by side with schools and 

community officials to improve the lives of children and families. As schools and 

food service personnel implement serving healthier school meals, we offer our full 

support. PTA members are ready and willing to assist schools in making sure this 

transition is successful. 

Despite the challenges schools have experienced and those that may be ahead, ultimately, our children are worth it. The facts about childhood obesity rates in this 

country are undeniable, and PTA’s belief that our nation’s children deserve healthy, 

nutritious meals in school is a core tenant of the PTA mission. 

National PTA respectfully asks that as we work together to improve school foods, 

we do not make decisions which will reverse the work being done to provide children 

with healthier, nutritious meals that allow them to go to class ready to learn. National PTA commends the committee’s work to highlight challenges schools are facing across the country and looks forward to continuing work with you to improve 

our nation’s education system. 

[Additional submission by Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, follows:] 

National Harbor, MD, May 28, 2013. 

Hon. JOHN KLINE, Chairman; Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KLINE AND REP. MILLER: We are writing to endorse H.R. 1303 

and ask the Committee to take up and report the bill as soon as possible. ‘‘The 

School Nutrition Flexibility Act’’ is a bipartisan piece of legislation which currently 

has over 30 cosponsors. 

As you know, H.R. 1303 would permanently eliminate the weekly grain and protein maximums while maintaining the calorie maximums in the National School 

Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. With this bill, Congress will protect the nutritional integrity of the school lunch standards while giving local schools and industry providers more flexibility to design healthy menus that meet standards and student tastes. It is a simple, yet powerful step Congress can take to ease the increasing burden not only on those who prepare the meals, but those who provide the food 

and equipment resources utilized by the school nutrition professionals while still 

maintaining the integrity of serving healthy and nutritious meals to kids. While 

USDA has extended the temporary relief into School Year 2013-2014, we need the 

permanent elimination to move forward with meal planning and production. 

We also support Section 3 of the bill which addresses the paid meal equity section 

of the current law. Current law now requires for the first time since 1946, that certain School Food Authorities annually increase their paid meal prices regardless of 

their financial solvency. H.R. 1303 would amend the law by narrowing its scope to 

those School Food Authorities that have a negative fund balance at the end of the 

previous school year. When setting meal prices, school boards take into account local 

food and labor costs and what families are able and willing to pay. We note that 

participation in the paid meal program is down this year and believe this new requirement is a contributing factor. 
51 

We hope the Committee will move promptly on this important legislation. There 

is no cost associated with the bill. 

Sincerely, 

SANDRA E. FORD, SNS, 

President. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, July 29, 2013. 

Ms. SANDRA FORD, Director of Food and Nutrition Services, 

Manatee County School District, 215 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205. 

DEAR MS FORD: Thank you for testifying at the June 27, 2013 hearing on ‘‘School 

Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and Consequences for Schools and Students’’ 

I appreciate your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than August 19, 2013 

for inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Mandy 

Schaumburg or Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 

225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R-IN)

1. What are your greatest concerns with the meal pattern rule, the competitive 

foods rule, and/or the other rules that have been issued as a result of the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act? Is it similar to what school districts reported to GAO? Are 

there differences in how the rules impact programs with low percentages of free and 

reduced-price students and those with higher percentages? 

2. Do you think the changes occurring in the school lunch and breakfast programs 

will result in healthier options for your students? Or do you think you could have 

ensured students had healthy choices without imposing such enormous costs on 

your program? 

REP. MARCIA FUDGE (D-OH)

I consider myself to be a staunch defender of the needs of those who suffer from 

food insecurity, particularly children. Many of the regulations required by the National School Lunch & Breakfast Program are being implemented by school districts 

in the name of reducing the incidence of childhood obesity in this country, a true 

challenge that deserves our full attention. We also have a hunger epidemic that 

must be addressed. 

The National School Lunch & Breakfast Program is one of our nation’s largest 

feeding programs. If our school meals programs are struggling financially to implement new regulations, then we are putting school children who depend on these 

meals at risk. There are children who leave school after Friday lunch and don’t receive their next meal until Monday’s school breakfast. It is our responsibility and 

our duty to ensure that these regulations are having the intended effect. 

1. Do you believe USDA’s National School Lunch & Breakfast Program regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal of providing 

healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of your concerns? 

2. I’ve heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating that their costs go beyond the 

estimated costs proposed by USDA, and the 6 cent additional funding per meal is 

not covering the cost. What is the breaking point in terms of how much financial 

strain schools can handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes 

threatened? 

Earlier this year my colleague Rep. Stivers and I introduced H.R. 1303, the School 

Nutrition Flexibility Act, to address some of the concerns we had heard from our 

local school nutrition experts. One of the top concerns we heard echoed again and 

again was that schools were finding it extremely difficult to serve meals that fit 

within weekly minimum and maximum serving ranges for the grains and meat portions of the USDA standards. While USDA has responded to this concern through 

the means of a temporary waiver, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act provides a 
52 

long-term solution for this issue by calling for the permanent elimination of the 

maximums on grains. 

3. In your testimony, you stated that the weekly limits on grains and proteins 

served with school meals have restricted some very healthy school menu items that 

happen to be student favorites. What are some examples of these items and what 

potential impact could it have on a student’s desire to participate in the school lunch 

program? 

4. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe that a permanent 

elimination of the protein/grain standards is unnecessary because USDA, when the 

time comes, could provide a waiver for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain 

why it is more prudent to have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a 

temporary fix. 

The School Nutrition Flexibility Act addresses another issue that has proven to 

be difficult for local schools: the paid meal equity provision. The Healthy, Hunger 

Free Kids Act allows the federal government to set the price of a school lunch for 

the first time since 1946. As a result, schools participating in the School Lunch Program are now required to increase the price of their lunch. Some communities are 

struggling to pay the increase and participation in the school lunch program has declined in some schools. 

5. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation in the school 

lunch program for paying students, and what impact does this situation have on 

students who receive a free lunch? 

Ms. Ford’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R-IN)

Q: What are your greatest concerns with the meal pattern rule, the competitive 

foods rule, and/or the other rules that have been issued as a result of the Healthy, 

Hunger Free Kids Act? Is it similar to what school districts reported to GAO? 

I supported updating the meal pattern to ensure school meals meet the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans. But as we all know, complex regulations can lead to unintended consequences. 

School meal programs walk a tightrope between meeting standards, managing 

costs and maintaining participation. In Manatee County Schools, the cost of meeting 

new regulatory requirements has surpassed the additional 6 cent reimbursement, 

and student participation has declined due to changes to the menu. I am hopeful 

participation will rebound this fall, but new breakfast and competitive food regulations could present similar challenges, threatening the balance. I am attaching our 

end of the year dashboard which shows a comparison of our programs. Our revenue 

is the greatest concern. We eliminated 15 staff positions—either vacant or relocated 

staff. 

I was pleased to hear Dr. Janey Thornton, Deputy Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, announce during School Nutrition Association’s Annual National Conference in July that USDA will permanently eliminate weekly 

maximums on grains and proteins by the end of the calendar year. I hope Congress 

and USDA will continue to respond to regulatory challenges as they arise during 

implementation. 

Q: Are there differences in how the rules impact programs with low percentages 

of free and reduced-price students and those with higher percentages? 

Every school meal program is unique and faces different challenges. However, as 

a general rule, students who are not dependent on free or reduced-price school 

meals are more likely to have the means to bring food from home or seek an alternative venue to purchase their meals if they become dissatisfied with the options 

in their school cafeteria. As a result, schools with very low free or reduced-price participation can experience more significant fluctuations in participation (and revenue) 

in response to menu changes. Our schools with low free and reduced are faced with 

even greater challenges to keep the participation up—looking for creative ways to 

market and to provide a customized menu selection. 

Q: Do you think the changes occurring in the school lunch and breakfast programs 

will result in healthier options for your students? Or do you think you could have 

ensured students had healthy choices without imposing such enormous costs on your 

program? 

Manatee County Schools has always provided healthy choices for our students. 

The new meal pattern’s requirement to serve more fruits and vegetables is resulting 
53 

in more students taking fruits and vegetables, but it does pose an additional cost 

to school meal programs. 

REP. MARCIA FUDGE

Q. Do you believe USDA’s National School Lunch & Breakfast Program regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal of providing 

healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of your concerns? 

Updating the meal pattern for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs was a critical step to ensure school meals meet the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These regulations guarantee all students have access to 

healthy, well-balanced meals at school. 

However, complex regulations can lead to unintended consequences. School meal 

programs must walk a tightrope between meeting complicated nutrition standards 

while managing rising costs, and maintaining participation. Manatee County 

Schools has struggled with the cost of meeting new regulatory requirements, and 

we have experienced a decline in student participation due to changes to the menu. 

We are hopeful that participation will rebound this fall as students adjust to 

menu changes and as we work to identify new menu items that meet the new requirements and appeal to student tastes. Yet at the same time, I am concerned new 

breakfast and competitive food regulations could present similar challenges, threatening the balance. 

The biggest challenge is not being able to react to the first change before the second change comes along. Food services programs in Manatee County and most districts around the country are businesses. As a business, when a change occurs, you 

evaluate and adjust. Our challenge is that before we could complete the process of 

lunch, we are in the midst of a breakfast change. 

Q. I’ve heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating that their costs go beyond the 

estimated costs proposed by USDA, and the 6 cent additional funding per meal is 

not covering the cost. What is the breaking point in terms of how much financial 

strain schools can handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes threatened? 

Every school meal program faces unique challenges as school cafeteria infrastructure and equipment, food, labor and other costs all vary dramatically from one community to the next. 

Schools nationwide have experienced rising costs as a result of the new regulations, often in excess of the additional 6 cent reimbursement provided for meeting 

the standards. School nutrition professionals are still adjusting menus and operational practices to limit costs and to restore or increase program participation and 

revenues. 

Every school meal program has a different ‘‘tipping point,’’ but with additional 

breakfast and competitive food standards coming into effect in the next two school 

years, all programs will face a difficult challenge to maintain financial stability. 

Q. In your testimony, you stated that the weekly limits on grains and proteins 

served with school meals have restricted some very healthy school menu items that 

happen to be student favorites. What are some examples of these items and what potential impact could it have on a student’s desire to participate in the school lunch 

program? 

The weekly restrictions on grains and proteins under the meal pattern presented 

significant barriers to menu planning, including limiting healthy options like daily 

sandwiches served on whole grain bread and entre ́e salads topped with lean meat 

and low fat cheese. As some of these popular options were removed from the menu 

or served on only select days, Manatee County Schools experienced a decline in student participation. 

I would like to thank you for your leadership in introducing H.R. 1303 with Rep. 

Stivers to address these concerns and eliminate the weekly grain and protein restrictions. I was pleased to hear Dr. Janey Thornton, Deputy Under Secretary for 

Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, announce during School Nutrition Association’s Annual National Conference in July that USDA will permanently eliminate 

these weekly maximums by the end of the calendar year. I hope Congress and 

USDA will continue to respond to regulatory challenges as they arise during implementation. 

Q. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe that a permanent 

elimination of the protein/grain standards in unnecessary because USDA, when the 

time comes, could provide a waiver for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain why 
54 

it is more prudent to have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix. 

From sandwich buns to breakfast cereals, school meal programs depend on our 

industry partners to provide foods and beverages that meet nutrition standards and 

student tastes. All of these products go through extensive testing before they are 

served in a school cafeteria. Our industry partners invest in R&D to identify recipes 

that meet the whole grain standards and food safety requirements, but still have 

the look and taste our students expect. 

Temporary regulations leave our industry partners guessing. Do they phase out 

their old product line and invest in developing products to meet new standards? Or 

will USDA issue another reprieve so that schools will be clamoring for their old 

product line? By promising to permanently eliminate the weekly grain/protein maximums, USDA is providing industry and school nutrition professionals with clear direction. 

Q. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation in the school 

lunch program for paying students, and what impact does this situation have on students who receive a free lunch? 

Many students who drop out of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs end up purchasing their meals from nearby fast food restaurants or other 

venues that do not offer the healthy, well-balanced meals that school meal programs 

provide. Declines in student participation also reduce revenue for school meal programs, hampering the program’s ability to make further improvements to menus. 

School meal programs strive to serve all students, not just those who rely on free 

or reduced-price meals. When paying students drop out of the National School 

Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the students who depend on these meals as a key 

source of nutrition can feel singled out or stigmatized just by entering the cafeteria. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, July 29, 2013. 

Ms. MEGAN SCHAPER, Director of Food and Nutrition Services, 

State College Area School District, 131 W. Nittany Ave., State College, PA 16801. 

DEAR MS SCHAPER: Thank you for testifying at the June 27, 2013 hearing on 

‘‘School Meal Regulations: Discussing the Costs and Consequences for Schools and 

Students’’ I appreciate your participation. 

Enclosed are additional questions submitted by members of the subcommittee 

after the hearing. Please provide written responses no later than August 19, 2013 

for inclusion in the final hearing record. Responses should be sent to Mandy 

Schaumburg or Dan Shorts of the committee staff who can be contacted at (202) 

225-6558. 

Thank you again for your important contribution to the work of the committee. 

Sincerely, 

TODD ROKITA, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R-IN)

1. Ms. Schaper, what has been the impact of these new requirements on your district’s administrative costs? How much have you had to pay for training or hiring 

new employees? Have you lost any food service employees as a result of the new 

regulations? 

2. How many food vendors does your school district work with on the school meal 

programs? Have you seen any of the vendors stop—or do you anticipate any stopping—offering products for school lunch and breakfast programs? 

REP. MARCIA FUDGE (D-OH)

I consider myself to be a staunch defender of the needs of those who suffer from 

food insecurity, particularly children. Many of the regulations required by the National School Lunch & Breakfast Program are being implemented by school districts 

in the name of reducing the incidence of childhood obesity in this country, a true 

challenge that deserves our full attention. We also have a hunger epidemic that 

must be addressed. 

The National School Lunch & Breakfast Program is one of our nation’s largest 

feeding programs. If our school meals programs are struggling financially to implement new regulations, then we are putting school children who depend on these 

meals at risk. There are children who leave school after Friday lunch and don’t re-
55 

ceive their next meal until Monday’s school breakfast. It is our responsibility and 

our duty to ensure that these regulations are having the intended effect. 

1. Do you believe USDA’s National School Lunch & Breakfast Program regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal of providing 

healthy meals to children in need? If no, what are some of your concerns? 

2. I’ve heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating that their costs go beyond the 

estimated costs proposed by USDA, and the 6 cent additional funding per meal is 

not covering the cost. What is the breaking point in terms of how much financial 

strain schools can handle before your ability to serve children in need becomes 

threatened? 

Earlier this year my colleague Rep. Stivers and I introduced H.R. 1303, the School 

Nutrition Flexibility Act to address some of the concerns we had heard from our 

local school nutrition experts. One of the top concerns we heard echoed again and 

again was that schools were finding it extremely difficult to serve meals that fit 

within weekly minimum and maximum serving ranges for the grains and meat portions of the USDA standards. While USDA has responded to this concern through 

the means of a temporary waiver, the School Nutrition Flexibility Act provides a 

long-term solution for this issue by calling for the permanent elimination of the 

maximums on grains. 

3. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe that a permanent 

elimination of the protein/grain standards is unnecessary because USDA, when the 

time comes, could provide a waiver for the 2014-2015 school year. Please explain 

why it is more prudent to have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a 

temporary fix. 

The School Nutrition Flexibility Act addresses another issue that has proven to 

be difficult for local schools: the paid meal equity provision. The Healthy, Hunger 

Free Kids Act allows the federal government to set the price of a school lunch for 

the first time since 1946. As a result, schools participating in the School Lunch Program are now required to increase the price of their lunch. Some communities are 

struggling to pay the increase and participation in the school lunch program has declined in some schools. 

4. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation in the school 

lunch program for paying students, and what impact does this situation have on 

students who receive a free lunch? 

Ms. Schaper’s Response to Questions Submitted for the Record 

CHAIRMAN TODD ROKITA (R-IN)

1. What has been the impact of these new requirements on your district’s administrative costs? How much have you had to pay for training or hiring new employees? 

Have you lost any food service employees as a result of the new regulations? 

My district did not spend more on training or administrative costs than we have 

in previous years. We cannot spend more money than we bring in from student 

sales. Our budget is tight and we simply aren’t able to spend funds that are not 

available. Rather, it is a matter of what other training opportunities and administrative activities had to be forgone in order to have the time and resources to implement the new regulations. 

The one day that we have available for staff training each year had to be solely 

dedicated to the new regulations to the exclusion of ServSafe food safety training, 

marketing and customer service training, and technology and computer skills training that would have otherwise been priorities. 

Similarly, I was not able to hire another administrator to help implement the 

standards and submit for certification. Instead, I directed my time and energy to 

those tasks to the exclusion of creative and successful initiatives that my department had promoted in the past. I did not have the time available to coordinate 

Chefs Move to Schools events. I was not able to coordinate parent volunteers to provide taste testing in my cafeterias. Our involvement with the school gardens and 

other farm-to-school initiatives had to be reduced. Instead of using my time to 

proactively educate children about healthy foods, I had to devote my time to researching and rewriting purchase specifications, rewriting recipes, producing new 

cookbooks, reviewing all of my allergens in light of the new recipes, determining 

meat and grain contributions, recalculating nutrient analysis, and completing USDA 

paperwork to submit for certification. 

One of my most dependable and dedicated supervisors decided not to continue in 

school food service at the end of the year. After 24 years of service, she stated that 
56 

it ‘‘just wasn’t fun anymore.’’ Of course children’s health and well-being should take 

precedence to my staff having fun, but it should also be possible to develop reasonable regulations that promote health and well-being without being so difficult for 

those in the schools to implement. 

2. How many food vendors does your school district work with on the school meals 

programs? Have you seen any of the vendors stop—or do you anticipate any stopping—offering products for school lunch and breakfast programs? 

We purchase foods produced by dozens of different manufacturers. Those items 

come to us from two large food service distributors, one dairy, one bakery, and six 

or seven small, local businesses. I believe that the large manufacturers and distributors have the resources and motivation to continue to supply schools. However, the 

cost of continuously reformulating products to meet changing standards are being 

passed on to us. Some of the small businesses who we patronize are not able to invest the resources to develop products to meet USDA standards. Our sales volume 

is not large enough and there simply is not sufficient interest from their retail customers for items that meet USDA regulations. Our efforts to support local businesses will be diminished. 

REP. MARCIA FUDGE (D-OH)

1. Do you believe USDA’s National School Lunch & Breakfast Program regulations, both current and pending, are helping you achieve the goal of providing 

healthy meals to children in need? 

No, my program was providing very healthy meals that students enjoyed prior to 

the implementation of these regulations. The regulations have simply raised costs 

and driven paying customers from the program. Serving fewer paying customers reduces the funds available to operate quality school cafeterias for all students. Because the funding for school cafeterias is directly tied to participation, it is critical 

that enough students choose to patronize the school cafeteria in order to cover our 

costs. Further, when paying customers leave the program, students receiving free 

and reduced priced meals are less comfortable accessing this benefit due to the stigma associated with being eligible for subsidized meals. 

Minimum standards are necessary to ensure that school meals are healthful. Simply enforcing the previous, reasonable meal regulations would have remedied the 

problems of poorly run programs. Providing $.06 as incentive for meeting tough new 

standards would be unnecessary if USDA simply enforced the former guidelines by 

withholding all funding from schools that failed to provide healthful meals. 

2. I’ve heard apprehensions about the increased costs associated with implementation of these regulations. Many schools are indicating that their costs go beyond the 

estimated costs proposed by USDA, and the 6 cent additional funding per meal is 

not covering the cost. What is the breaking point in terms of financial strain schools 

can handle before your ability to serve children becomes threatened? 

I can’t speak to the breaking point for all programs but most schools are facing 

difficult budgetary circumstances. The weak economy and funding cuts as a result 

of sequestration resulted in less revenue for school programs. Further, medical and 

pension cost increases are out pacing income growth. Most schools are already cutting programs and simply do not have excess funds to support the school cafeterias. 

If my program is unable to remain self-supporting, we will have to find ways to 

decrease costs. As only 15% of our students are eligible for subsidized meals, our 

breakfast program is not utilized by the majority of our students and loses money. 

We currently subsidize the program with funds from lunch and a la carte sales. We 

may need to eliminate the breakfast program to keep the overall program fiscally 

solvent. While this won’t affect the majority of my students, it will greatly impact 

those whose families need this program the most. I expect to have to make this decision after the 2014-15 school year when I know exactly how the Smart Snacks in 

Schools rule affects my program’s finances. 

The $.06 additional funding is appreciated but it does not cover the cost of the 

new regulations. For example, the additional 1⁄2 cup of fruit that is needed adds a 

minimum cost of $.11 (for a juice) up to 

$.29 (for an apple) per meal. Add to this the fact that whole grains cost more and 

that manufacturers are passing on their increased costs for reformulating products, 

schools are spending significantly more to provide meals and the federal funding 

only covers a fraction of that increase. 

3. Some critics of the School Nutrition Flexibility Act believe that a permanent 

elimination of the protein/grain standards is unnecessary because USDA, when the 

time comes, could provide a waiver for the 2014-15 school year. Please explain why 
57 

it is more prudent to have a permanent solution for this issue rather than a temporary fix. 

The research and development behind each new food item that Advance/Pierre 

brings to market costs $100,000. One of the products that Advance/Pierre developed 

for the start of the 2012-13 school year was a 1.5 ounce hamburger that helped 

schools serve cheeseburgers while staying under the protein cap. With the temporary removal of the cap, schools are no longer interested in purchasing a hamburger that is that small. (A McDonald’s single hamburger weighs 2 ounces.) Advance/Pierre did not get a fair return on its investment. Manufacturers are not willing to produce new products for schools without the assurance that the products 

they develop today will still be wanted a few years from now. 

4. Why should we be concerned about the drop off in participation in the school 

lunch program for paying students, and what impact does this situation have on students who receive free lunch? 

The profit margin on school meals is extremely thin. In order for a school nutrition department to break-even financially (or maybe generate enough extra money 

to replace an oven or refrigerator), we need to sell as many meals as possible. The 

funds received for each meal (lunch price or reimbursement rate) are adequate to 

cover costs only if sufficient sales volume can be generated. When 10% of paying 

students decide not to purchase school meals, food costs go down proportionally but 

the cost of labor, utilities, cleaning supplies, equipment repair and replacement, etc. 

remains unchanged. 

Further, as mentioned earlier, schools without local resources to support the 

school cafeteria will have to make difficult decisions. Eliminating programs that 

aren’t self-supporting, like the school breakfast program in many schools, is a very 

real possibility. Some schools may opt to leave the national program altogether. In 

that circumstance, there is no guarantee that low income families will receive help 

with meals at school. And the meals served to all students would not be subject to 

any nutrition standards what-so-ever. 

Finally, schools have worked hard over the years to remove the social stigma that 

can be associated with receiving subsidized school meals by eliminating the overt 

identification of eligible students. If paying students opt out of the program, leaving 

only those who have no other choice, students who need program benefits may 

choose not to participate. The program in and of itself will identify them as poor. 

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your questions. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ