GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

SCHOOL MEAL 

PROGRAMS 

Changes to Federal 

Agencies’ Procedures 

Could Reduce Risk of 

School Children 

Consuming Recalled 

Food 

August 2009 

GAO-09-649 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

August 2009

SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAMS 

Changes to Federal Agencies’ Procedures Could 

Reduce Risk of School Children Consuming Recalled 

Highlights of GAO-09-649, a report to Food 

congressional requesters 

Over the past few years, several 

food recalls, such as for beef and 

peanut products, have affected 

schools. It is especially important 

that recalls affecting schools be 

carried out efficiently and 

effectively because young children 

have a higher risk of complications 

from food-borne illnesses. GAO 

was asked to determine how 

federal agencies (1) notified states 

and schools about food recalls, (2) 

advised states and schools about 

disposal and reimbursement of 

recalled food, and (3) ensured that 

recalls were being carried out 

effectively. To do this, GAO 

reviewed and analyzed relevant 

documents and interviewed federal 

and state officials, as well as 

officials from 23 school districts 

that had experience with at least 

one of four recent cases involving 

the safety of food in the school 

lunch program. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that USDA 

improve FNS notification 

procedures and instructions on 

carrying out recalls. GAO also 

recommends specific steps that 

USDA and HHS take to improve 

monitoring of the effectiveness of 

recalls. 

USDA and HHS agreed with this 

report’s recommendations. 

Despite its efforts, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), which oversees federal school meals programs, did 

not always ensure that states and schools received timely and complete 

notification about suspect food products provided to schools through the 

federal commodity program. The federal commodity program provides food to 

schools at no cost to the schools, and accounts for 15 to 20 percent of food 

served in school meals. During 3 recent recalls, FNS notified states, but in 

only one case did it inform schools to hold and not serve suspect foods prior 

to an official recall of commodity products. When a videotape aired by the 

media showed inhumane treatment of cattle at a plant that provided beef to 

the commodity program, FNS told states to have schools stop serving the 

company’s beef weeks before the official recall of commodity beef was 

announced. However, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recalled suspect peanut 

products and canned vegetables in two other cases, FNS did not inform states 

and schools to hold and not serve the companies’ commodity products until 

the recalls were expanded to include the companies’ commodity products—

weeks later. FNS’s initial notification to states regarding recalls did not 

provide complete information on the full range of products affected. Instead, 

states and schools continued to receive information on multiple other recalled 

products over time. It sometimes took states and schools a week or more to 

determine what additional products were subject to a recall, during which 

time they unknowingly served affected products. 

FNS provided instructions for disposal and reimbursement of recalled 

products to states who, in turn, provided instructions to schools but, 

nonetheless, some schools experienced problems. Some schools reported to 

GAO problems in finding landfills that would accept large quantities of 

recalled products. Some schools also reported that reimbursement 

instructions were not clear, reimbursement was delayed for months, and that 

all of their expenses related to the recalls were not reimbursed. 

 

Although both USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and the FDA 

procedures direct them to conduct recall quality checks, neither included 

thousands of schools that had received recalled USDA-commodities products 

for the beef and peanut recalls because they thought FNS conducted these 

checks. As a result, they were unable to ensure that the recalls were being 

carried out effectively by schools. FNS officials said that they did not conduct 

any kind of systematic quality checks of schools receiving recalled 

commodities, because they relied on FSIS and FDA to conduct such checks. 

FDA did include schools in its canned vegetable recall audit checks, and some 

may have received recalled-commodity canned vegetables. However, because 

FDA does not systematically sample for schools or analyze results of the 

quality checks for the group, the agency cannot be assured that the recall was 

carried out effectively in schools. View GAO-09-649 or key components.

For more information, contact Kay E. Brown 

at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-649 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

Despite Its Efforts, FNS Did Not Always Ensure that States and 

Schools Received Timely and Complete Information about 

Potentially Dangerous Commodity Products in Three 

Companies’ Recalls 11 

FNS Provided Disposal and Reimbursement Instructions to States, 

but State and School Administrators Reported Challenges in 

Disposing of Products and Obtaining Reimbursement 20 

Federal Regulators Did Not Systematically Monitor and Assess the 

Effectiveness of Recalls and Holds in Schools 25 

Conclusions 28 

Recommendations for Executive Action 30 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31 

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Agriculture 34 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 36 

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Figures 

Figure 1: Possible Food Distribution Routes from a Company to 

Schools 5 

Figure 2: Simple Diagram of How Schools are Notified of 

Commodity Recalls 8 

Figure 3: A School District’s Large Quantity of Westland/Hallmark 

Beef Products at a Disposal Transfer Station 22 

 School Food Recalls 
Abbreviations 

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service 

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

PCA Peanut Corporation of America 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Page 1 GAO-09-649 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

August 20, 2009 

Congressional Requesters 

In early 2009, the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) and more than 375 

companies that received or used its products recalled almost 4,000 types 

of peanut-containing foods for possible Salmonella contamination. A year 

before, in early 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

announced the largest food recall in its history when the 

Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company recalled more than 143 million 

pounds of beef sold over a two-year period. Prior to the recalls, USDA had 

purchased both peanut products and beef for school meal programs and 

distributed them as a federally-provided commodity to states to serve in 

school meals or snacks. Schools also purchased recalled beef and possibly 

peanut products commercially. While there were no reported illnesses 

among schoolchildren or the public from consuming recalled beef, almost 

700 people were sickened from consuming peanut products, of which onethird were school-aged children between the ages of 5 and 18. The 

magnitude of these two recalls, and the likelihood that schoolchildren 

consumed these recalled products, raises overall concerns about the 

safety of foods served in schools and the welfare of schoolchildren. 

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) are responsible for establishing regulations to 

ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply, while USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS) also works to help ensure the safety of food 

served in public schools through the federally-supported school meal 

programs. FSIS is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and 

processed egg products; while FDA is responsible for the safety of 

virtually all other food products, including grains, nuts, and produce. 

These regulatory agencies can request that companies voluntarily recall 

food products that are suspected to be unsafe, adulterated, or mislabeled. 

Schools are affected by recalled products, when they have received the 

product as a commodity from USDA or purchased the product 

commercially on their own. Commodities are foods procured by USDA 

and provided to states at no charge for schools to serve in school meal 

programs. School meal programs include the National School Lunch 

Program, which in addition to providing lunches, provides after school 

snacks; the School Breakfast Program; and Special Milk Program. 

Commodities generally account for 15 to 20 percent of the food served in 

school meals. The remaining 80 to 85 percent of food served in schools is 

 School Food Recalls 
 

procured on the commercial market by the schools themselves. While 

foods schools purchase are only subject to recalls announced by FSIS and 

FDA, the commodities are also subject to actions announced by FNS for 

safety and quality reasons. For example, FNS can issue an “administrative 

hold” on commodities based on the recommendation of FSIS or FDA and 

in conjunction with the responsible USDA procurement agency, 

prohibiting schools from using a particular product, pending further 

investigation, if concerns are raised about its quality and safety. FNS 

works with state agencies who, in turn, work with local school food 

authorities in their states to administer the school meal programs and to 

keep schools informed of food holds and recalls. 

Ongoing congressional interest in the safety of the nation’s food supply 

has led to numerous requests for GAO reports and testimonies. For 

example, in 2004, we reported on USDA and FDA recall programs and 

procedures to protect consumers from unsafe food and recommended that 

the agencies better track and manage food recalls, achieve more prompt 

and complete recalls, and determine if additional ways are needed to alert 

consumers about recalled food. 1

 In 2007, we added federal oversight of 

food safety to our high-risk list because of persistent and longstanding 

problems related to having 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 

food safety-related laws.2

 We have reported that this fragmented federal 

structure has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and 

inefficient use of resources. Recent recalls affecting federally subsidized 

school meal programs are of particular concern because children are more 

susceptible to developing complications from food-borne illnesses. 

In response to your request that we review the effectiveness of recalls of 

food products used in school food programs, this report addresses the 

following questions: 

1. How do federal agencies notify states and schools about food recalls 

involving schools, and what actions did state and school food 

administrators take in response to recent recall notifications? 

 

1

GAO, Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and Complete Recalls 

of Potentially Unsafe Food, GAO-05-51(Washington D.C.: Oct. 6, 2004). 

2

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: January 2007) and 

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

Page 2 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

2. How do federal agencies advise states and schools about disposal of 

and reimbursement for recalled products, and what were state and 

school food administrators’ experiences with the disposal and 

reimbursement process? 

3. How did federal agencies assess the effectiveness of recent recalls, and 

to what extent do these assessments ensure that recalls are being 

carried out effectively in schools? 

To address these questions, we reviewed recent holds and recalls of 

products from four companies: 1) the 2009 Peanut Corporation of America 

peanut products recalls; 2) the January and February 2008 

Westland/Hallmark beef holds and recall; 3) a series of recalls from 

December 2007 through February 2008 of canned vegetables by the New 

Era Canning Company; and 4) a December 2007 administrative hold on 

Glacier Sales Inc. potato rounds. These events were selected to include 

recalls that took place over the last two years and include examples of 

recalls announced by both FDA and FSIS, as well as administrative holds 

initiated by FNS. To determine the role of federal agencies in carrying out 

food holds and recalls involving schools, we reviewed relevant regulations, 

policies, and guidance related to food holds and recalls, and interviewed 

officials from USDA, including FSIS, FNS, and the commodity 

procurement agencies, including the Agriculture Marketing Service and 

the Farm Service Agency; as well as FDA, the U.S. Department of 

Education, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Through interviews with federal officials and reviews of documentation 

they provided on recent holds and recalls from the four companies, we 

determined how the federal agencies carried out their role of notifying 

states and schools of suspect products. This included determining how 

they provided identifying product information and disposal instructions, 

and how they ensured that recalls were carried out effectively, as well how 

they reimbursed states and schools for selected recalls of commodity 

foods. To understand the experiences of states and school districts during 

food holds and recalls, we conducted site visits to state agencies and to 

school districts that state officials identified in California, Indiana, 

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. We also conducted site visits to school 

districts in Michigan and New Jersey that were identified in federal 

documents as being affected by recalls. After the peanut recall was 

announced, we added Minnesota and Idaho to our selected states and 

interviewed state and school food administrators from those states about 

the peanut product recalls. In total, we reviewed documentation and 

interviewed officials from 23 school districts, representing hundreds of 

schools subject to commodity and commercial recalls; however, this 

Page 3 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

information cannot be generalized to all schools. We selected states and 

school districts primarily for their experiences with one or more of the 

four food holds and recalls that are the focus of this report; but, also to 

ensure variation in geographic dispersion of states, school district size, 

and quantity of recalled products. In two states, we also interviewed 

distributors of food products to schools. To analyze how federal agencies 

assessed the effectiveness of recent recalls, we reviewed documentation 

on federal agencies’ oversight and assessment of recent recalls and 

interviewed federal officials. We also interviewed officials from the 

national and state-level School Nutrition Association, the American 

Commodity Distribution Association, and the Center for Science in the 

Public Interest to obtain their views on food safety in schools. Further, we 

coordinated our review of how the Westland/Hallmark recall affected 

schools with the USDA Inspector General’s broader evaluation of FSIS 

management controls over pre-slaughter activity, published in November 

2008; ongoing evaluations of the FSIS effectiveness checks for the 

Westland/Hallmark recall; and USDA purchase specifications for ground 

beef used in federal food programs, such as school meal programs.3

We conducted this performance audit from May 2008 to August 2009, in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions, based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Background 

Schools Receive Food 

Through a Complex 

Distribution Network 

The distribution of food, including processing of food into different 

products, can be extensive and complex, with school districts receiving 

products from various sources. Once a food is produced by a particular 

company, it can travel to distributors, retailers, and/or processors before 

reaching schools. Sometimes large school food authorities can receive 

food directly from the originating company, but it is more typical for the 

 

3

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report: Evaluation of 

FSIS Management Controls Over Pre-Slaughter Activities, 24601-0007-KC, (Washington, 

D.C., Nov. 2008). 

Page 4 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

food to travel through these middlemen. This complex distribution path 

can make it difficult to track food from beginning to end, a problem which 

arises during food recalls when distributors, processors, and retailers must 

determine and inform states and school districts which products were 

produced with recalled foods and which were not. Because this 

identification process does not occur all at once, FNS, states, and school 

districts sometimes learn about affected products over time (see Fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Possible Food Distribution Routes from a Company to Schools 

Sources: GAO analysis; Art Explosion (images).

School district

R R

D = Distributors

R = Retailers

P = Processors

Distributors

D D

Processors

P

Company

Retailers

School

One component of the food distribution system that adds to the 

complexity of tracking individual ingredients is processing, whereby 

Page 5 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

companies turn a food into one or more new foods. For example, 

according to USDA, Westland/Hallmark sent much of the commodity 

ground beef that it produced directly to processors and, sometimes, 

distributors. Distributors sent the beef to school districts, while further 

processors used the ground beef to create products schools can more 

readily use, such as meatballs and hamburger patties. Processors then sent 

these products to school districts, either directly or through distributors. 

Federally Subsidized 

School Meal Programs 

Federally subsidized school meal programs, such as the National School 

Lunch Program, are administered by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), but several other USDA agencies are involved in procuring foods 

for the programs. FNS works with states to administer the school meal 

programs through local school food authorities. FNS subsidizes the school 

meal programs through donated commodities and cash payments. USDA’s 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases commodities such as 

beef, poultry, fish, egg products, fruits, and vegetables, while the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA) purchases commodities such as grains, peanut 

products, dairy products, and oils for the school meal programs and other 

commodity distribution programs. FNS officials estimate that almost 50 

percent of these commodities are further processed. In some instances, 

USDA contracts directly with processors, while in other instances, states 

and school districts contract with processors and USDA diverts 

commodities to processors on the schools’ behalf to make specific foods, 

such as sending commodity beef to a processor to be turned into beef for 

tacos. Schools also use federal cash subsidies and their own operating 

monies to procure food and processed food products commercially, not 

involving USDA agencies. 

Food Recall and Hold 

Procedures 

Food holds and recalls to protect consumers are governed by various 

laws, regulations, and policies.4

 There are a series of events that typically 

 

4

FDA, Regulatory Procedures Manual, (Washington D.C., Mar. 2009); FSIS, Recall of Meat 

and Poultry Products, Directive 8080.1 Revision 5, (Washington D.C., Nov. 2008); USDA, 

Commodity Hold and Recall Process, (Washington D.C., July 2001). The FDA manual 

provides policy, responsibilities and procedures for FDA staff to initiate, review, classify, 

publish, audit and terminate recall actions. The FSIS directive provides responsibilities 

and public notification procedures regarding the voluntary recall of FSIS-inspected meat 

and poultry products. FNS officials said they use the USDA procedures for handling 

commodity holds and recalls. This document—developed jointly by FNS, FSIS, the 

Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Farm Service Agency—defines federal, state, and 

local agency roles and obligations. 

Page 6 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

precede a food hold or recall. Federal agencies—FSIS, FDA, or CDC—can 

become aware of a problem when a company identifies a problem and 

independently announces a recall, through inspections, product testing, or 

an outbreak of a suspected food-borne illness. CDC works with state 

health departments to identify the specific food or product involved. Once 

the product and its source are identified, either FSIS or FDA—whichever 

has jurisdiction over the product—works with the affected company to 

conduct a food recall. Neither FSIS nor FDA has “mandatory recall 

authority”—the ability to force a company to recall a product. However, 

both FSIS and FDA can request that a company recall a product and, in 

most cases, the company complies.5

 Either FSIS or FDA then classifies the 

recall from Class I to Class III:6

• Class I: A recall of food that poses a reasonable probability of causing 

serious, adverse health consequences or death. The PCA peanut product 

recalls were designated Class I because of the presence of Salmonella; the 

New Era canned vegetables recall was Class I because of the potential for 

botulism contamination. 

• Class II: A recall of food that poses a remote probability of adverse health 

consequences. The Westland/Hallmark beef recall was designated as Class 

II because of a remote probability of adverse health consequences due to 

proper inspection procedures not being followed at the meat processing 

plant. 

• Class III: A recall of food that will not cause adverse health consequences, 

but does not meet product specifications. For example, a product that 

might contain the presence of an undeclared, otherwise safe substance, 

such as excess water. 

When a USDA commodity product is identified in a recall, FSIS or FDA 

contacts FNS. FNS then works with AMS or FSA to obtain more 

information on the affected commodity products. FNS then contacts the 

state agencies to whom it provided the product. The state agencies then 

 

5

Should a company fail to voluntarily recall a product, the FSIS and FDA have methods to 

remove products from commerce, such as product seizure. 

6

FSIS makes a determination of the recall classification at the time the recall is announced. 

FDA does not make a recall classification until after further evaluation; however, FDA 

makes an initial decision of how to treat the recall, based on known information about the 

recall at the time. For example, FDA treated the PCA peanut product recall as a potential 

Class I recall before it actually classified the recall because of the products’ association 

with Salmonella. 

Page 7 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

notify school districts, who then notify the responsible persons at 

individual schools. Under USDA procedures, FNS is directed to notify 

states within 24 hours of learning of a recall, and then the states are 

expected to notify schools within 24 hours of receiving a recall notice 

from FNS. This process is used only when USDA commodities are 

involved, which account for 15 percent to 20 percent of the products used 

in school meals (see Fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Simple Diagram of How Schools are Notified of Commodity Recalls 

Releases

recall 

information

Sources: GAO analysis; Art Explosion (images).

FNS

State agency

School district

School

USDA HHS

FSIS FDA

AMS

Notifies affected 

states of recall

Notifies schools

of recall

Locates recalled 

products at district 

and school-level 

Releases

recall 

information

Identifies

commodities

affected by 

the recall

Identifies

commodities

affected by 

the recall

FSA

Page 8 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

If a state agency has FNS divert bulk commodity products on its behalf to 

a processor and the commodity is subsequently recalled, the appropriate 

procurement agency notifies the processor to which the commodity had 

been diverted. FNS does not alert the states as to which processors were 

affected. If a state or school food authority procures food commercially, 

which accounts for 80 percent to 85 percent of products used in school 

meals, neither FNS, FSIS, nor FDA is responsible for notifying states and 

schools; the school food administrator is typically notified directly by a 

distributor, wholesaler, or whoever sold the school district the food. Once 

schools are notified, recalls can expand if investigations reveal problems 

with products, in addition to those initially recalled. For example, FDA or 

FSIS may discover that problems at a particular manufacturing plant are 

more longstanding than initially thought. In these instances, the recalling 

firm could issue additional recalls for other products or time periods. As a 

result, schools could end up serving affected products between the first 

and subsequent recalls. 

In this report, we address holds and recalls by four companies which 

affected schools. 

From January 2009 through March 2009, PCA issued a recall—and 

expanded the recall on three separate occasions—for products it supplied. 

The companies that received or used its products also issued recalls, 

covering almost 4,000 types and brands of peanut-containing products. 

Recalls were initiated after CDC, FDA, and state investigations of illnesses 

suspected of being food-borne revealed Salmonella in peanut butter 

manufactured by PCA. Salmonella is an organism that can cause severe 

illness, particularly in the elderly, young children, and others with 

weakened immune systems. Since peanuts are under its purview, FDA 

posted PCA’s recall notices and monitored the recall as it developed. 

Schools in four states—Arkansas, California, Idaho, and Minnesota—

received recalled commodity peanut products through the school meal 

programs that had not been further processed. In addition, commodity 

peanut butter was shipped to a further processor, which then distributed 

effected processed products to other states. 

PCA Peanut Product Recall 

In January 2008, an animal protection organization released an undercover 

video of persons trying to force non-ambulatory7

 cows to stand and walk 

Westland/Hallmark Beef Holds 

and Recall 

 

7

USDA defines “non-ambulatory” cattle as those that cannot rise from a recumbent position 

or cannot walk. 

Page 9 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

at the Westland/Hallmark meat processing plant in Chino, California. 

Because of the mistreatment of the cattle, on January 30, 2008, FNS issued 

a 10-day hold on all commodity ground beef produced by 

Westland/Hallmark since October 1, 2006.8

 On February 8, 2008, FNS 

extended the hold for 10 additional days. On February 17, FSIS announced 

a recall by Westland/Hallmark, designated as a Class II recall, of more than 

143 million pounds of beef produced over a two-year period from February 

1, 2006, to February 2, 2008, because proper inspection procedures were 

not followed when cows that had become non-ambulatory were not 

reinspected before they were slaughtered. There were no problems found 

during FSIS testing of meat that was delivered for school meal programs, 

but concerns remained among Congress and others because nonambulatory cows may pose an increased risk of bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease, linked to a rare but fatal 

degenerative brain disease in humans. 

FNS estimated that over 7,000 school districts in 46 states and the District 

of Columbia were involved in the recall of commodity beef products. FNS 

also estimated that approximately 50 million pounds of suspect 

Westland/Hallmark commodity ground beef was provided to schools, of 

which approximately 30 million pounds were served prior to the recall and 

about 20 million pounds destroyed as a result of the recall. FSIS and FNS 

were not aware of any schoolchildren or any other persons getting sick 

from eating the recalled beef. 

The New Era Canning Company issued a recall in December 2007 and 

expanded this recall on three subsequent occasions in early 2008, covering 

numerous types of New Era canned vegetables. These products had been 

distributed nationwide as part of the USDA commodity program and were 

sold commercially under 10 different brand names over a five-year period. 

These products were recalled because the vegetables had not been 

adequately heated during the canning process and could have contained a 

bacterial toxin which causes botulism, a potentially life-threatening illness. 

According to FDA and FNS officials, there were no reported illnesses 

New Era Canned Vegetables 

Recall 

 

8

The Agricultural Marketing Service contracts with companies like Westland/Hallmark to 

provide commodities for the school meal programs. These contracts prohibit the 

mistreatment of animals; so when AMS became aware that Westland/Hallmark was 

mistreating cows, it suspended its contract and worked with FNS to place a hold on 

Westland/Hallmark beef. While FNS issued a hold for a contractual violation, FSIS issued a 

recall because Westland/Hallmark did not follow inspection procedures that require a 

veterinarian to reinspect non-ambulatory cattle before slaughter. 

Page 10 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

attributed to recalled products and FDA reported that no toxins were 

found in product testing. The multiple recalls were the result of FDA, the 

Michigan Department of Agriculture, and New Era identifying additional 

products and time periods that could be affected. 

FNS officials reported that schools in 37 states received New Era products 

through the USDA commodity program. Schools received 516,432 cases of 

the recalled canned beans, but had only 13,931 cases remaining at the time 

of the recall. It is unknown how many cases states and school districts 

purchased commercially. 

On December 3, 2007, FNS issued an administrative hold on Glacier Sales 

potato rounds because of texture, taste, and odor issues. FNS officials said 

that Glacier Sales subsequently withdrew the product and worked with 

school districts to arrange reimbursement and/or replacement. FNS 

reported that 5 states had schools that were affected and that 6,480 cases 

of the product were involved during the hold, though additional states 

were affected once the company issued a withdrawal notice. Subsequent 

testing of the potato rounds found no health or safety problems. 

Glacier Sales Potato Rounds 

Hold 

As a result of a number of factors, FNS did not always ensure in our three 

recall cases that states and schools received timely and complete 

notification about suspect food products provided to schools through the 

federal commodity program. First, USDA has procedures that explicitly 

allow FSIS to provide FNS with immediate notification of investigations 

that could involve commodity products, which could allow FNS to issue a 

precautionary hold on the suspect product, but FDA and FNS do not have 

similar formal protocols. Second, in two recent recalls we reviewed, FNS 

followed the lead of the FDA, and removed foods from school meals when 

they were officially recalled, but did not work with FDA and the USDA 

procurement agencies to place a hold on the products when it first became 

aware of food safety issues at facilities that supplied commodities. Third, 

in its recall notices, FNS did not provide complete and accurate available 

information that would be needed by schools to identify all affected 

products in their inventory, particularly for processed products. In 

addition, states did not always provide schools with timely and complete 

information. FNS tried several mechanisms to provide information directly 

to schools; however, these did not work as intended either for content or 

timeliness. As a result, in some cases, schools served affected products in 

school meals. FNS is aware of these factors, and is taking a number of 

steps to improve its processes. 

Despite Its Efforts, 

FNS Did Not Always 

Ensure that States 

and Schools Received 

Timely and Complete 

Information about 

Potentially Dangerous 

Commodity Products 

in Three Companies’ 

Recalls 

Page 11 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

FSIS Has Procedures that 

Allow it To Provide FNS 

Early Notification of 

Investigations involving 

Commodity Products; 

however, FDA Does Not, 

Which Could Limit FNS’s 

Response 

When FSIS learns a food within its regulatory jurisdiction—such as meat 

or poultry products—may be adulterated or mislabeled, USDA procedures 

allow for immediate notification of FNS. FSIS alerts FNS and the 

procurement agency, such as AMS, that there is a potential recall. In 

consultation with others, FNS determines whether to put a temporary hold 

on the product. If FNS decides to issue a hold, it notifies states and 

schools so they can remove the commodity products from school menus, 

pending additional testing and data collection. FSIS convenes a committee 

which, when commodities are involved, includes representatives of FNS 

and other agencies. 

In the case of the Westland/Hallmark beef recall, FNS placed a hold on 

commodity beef products from the California plant prior to the publicly 

announced recall; however, in this case, the hold did not result from 

communication with FSIS. Instead, FNS officials said that following the 

media coverage of inhumane practices at the plant, they consulted with 

AMS and initiated a hold on January 30, 2008, for beef products produced 

at the Westland/Hallmark plant. However, rather than placing a hold on all 

products produced at the plant; the hold only covered products produced 

after October 1, 2006. FSIS officials said that they did not have an ongoing 

investigation at the time, but that a USDA investigation was started soon 

after. According to FNS officials, they were subsequently included in FSIS 

recall discussions, and on February 17, FSIS announced the recall. The 

recall covered a longer time frame than the FNS hold—including all beef 

produced after February 1, 2006—as a result, some schools could have 

served recalled beef produced between February 1, 2006, and October 1, 

2006, during the FNS hold, even though this beef was later recalled. 

Although FNS works to help ensure the safety of USDA commodities that 

may be served in schools, FNS stated that it is not responsible for taking 

food safety actions for products commercially procured by schools. This 

distinction led to confusion and potential risk of consuming affected 

products when schools purchased Westland/Hallmark beef commercially 

during the FNS hold on Westland/Hallmark commodity beef. For example, 

a school district in California told us that during the FNS hold, some of its 

processors believed that Westland/Hallmark commercial products were 

safe, claiming that only Westland/Hallmark commodity beef was affected. 

School district administrators said they explained to the processors that 

they did not want to receive any Westland/Hallmark product, and 

commercial products were subsequently included in the FSIS recall, 

suggesting the school district, had it believed the processors, would have 

served the suspect meat to school children. 

Page 12 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

Unlike FSIS procedures, FDA procedures do not specifically provide for 

immediate notification of FNS when FDA investigations include 

commodity products, although agency officials stated that they 

communicate frequently. FDA is responsible for the safety of virtually all 

food products, except for meats, poultry, and processed egg products. 

FDA procedures require FDA notify USDA agencies, including FNS, “of 

recalls of FDA-regulated products that have been distributed to any USDA 

agency that may have involvement with the school lunch program.”9

However, the procedures do not give any indication that FNS can be 

included in the recall deliberations, as they are when an FSIS food is 

concerned. According to FDA officials, FNS was included in discussions 

and email correspondence during the investigation of the Salmonella

outbreak that was traced to peanut products, but FDA did not provide us 

with information about notifications provided to FNS during the 

investigation of the New Era plant. According to FNS and FDA officials, 

they are working together with AMS and FSA officials on developing a 

memorandum of understanding that will provide for specific notification 

to FNS, AMS, and FSA during FDA investigations that may involve 

commodities intended for school meal programs. However, the agencies 

have not established a time frame for completing the memorandum of 

understanding. 

FNS Waited to Take Action 

on Commodity Products 

until New Era and PCA 

Issued Recall Notices 

Affecting Commodity 

Products Instead of Using 

Available Information to 

Initiate Administrative 

Holds after Initial Recalls 

FNS and USDA procurement agencies determined whether commodity 

products were involved after receiving FDA announcements of recalls of 

New Era and PCA products. For the initial PCA recall on January 13, 2009, 

FNS officials said that the FSA, which procures food for USDA commodity 

programs, checked for commodity peanut butter purchases for school 

meal programs from PCA’s Blakely, Georgia plant, and found that there 

were none within the time period identified in the notice, so FNS did not 

notify states to take any precaution with commodity peanut products. 

Subsequently, after two FDA announcements of recall expansions, on 

January 23, 2009, FNS posted to its Web site a statement that none of its 

commodities were affected by the PCA recall. Five days later, on January 

28, 2009, following additional inspection and review at the Blakely plant, 

FDA announced another PCA recall notice, which expanded the 

manufacturing dates and products subject to recall. Upon learning of the 

January 28 expanded recall, FNS worked with FSA to determine if 

commodities were affected. FNS informed the affected states of the 

 

9

FDA Regulatory Procedures Manual. 

Page 13 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

recalled commodity products the following evening. Similarly, after the 

first New Era recall announcement in December 2007, FNS officials said 

that AMS checked for commodity canned bean purchases from New Era 

and found that it had purchased other products from New Era, but not 

those that were part of the recall, so FNS did not notify states to take 

precautions with New Era commodity products. In January 2008, New Era 

expanded its recall to include additional products. FNS worked again with 

AMS which, this time, determined that commodity products were affected. 

The following day, FNS informed affected states of the recall. 

FNS did not issue administrative product holds after it was notified about 

initial recalls of New Era and PCA products. In both the PCA and New Era 

situations, the initial recalls did not include commodity products; but in 

both cases, commodity products were eventually recalled because the 

recall was expanded either to include products manufactured over a 

longer time period or to include more products manufactured at the same 

plant. USDA hold and recall guidance does not indicate what factors and 

criteria FNS should consider when determining whether to institute an 

administrative hold. FNS, in consultation with the responsible 

procurement agency, could have placed a hold on all commodity products 

produced by these companies when it became aware of a potential food 

safety issue, regardless of when the products were produced, particularly 

given the serious health risks of botulism and Salmonella potentially 

posed by the recalled products. Instead, FNS relied strictly on the recall 

notices and only notified schools about the potential hazards of 

commodity products after the firms had expanded their recalls to 

specifically include products purchased through the commodity program. 

Because FNS did not immediately place a hold on all PCA peanut products 

and New Era canned vegetable products at the time of the initial recall, 

children may have possibly consumed these products through the school 

meals programs—products that were later included in the expanded 

recalls. According to the CDC, of the 691 individuals sickened, 226 were 

school-aged children, of which 46 were hospitalized due to consuming 

Salmonella-contaminated peanut products.10 CDC does not have 

information on how many of the children may have consumed the 

products in school.11

 

10CDC provided data for persons aged 5 through 18 for use as school-aged children. 

11Data from CDC, as of March 24, 2009. 

Page 14 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

In the Westland/Hallmark case, FNS officials said that they notified states 

on the same day they learned of the recall affecting commodity products, 

but FNS’s initial recall communication did not provide states with 

complete and accurate information that was needed by schools to identify 

all affected products on their shelves.12 The initial recall communication 

issued by FNS informed states that the products that had been subject to 

hold were now being recalled, but did not inform states which specific 

processed Westland/Hallmark beef commodity products, such as sloppy 

joe mix, frozen beef patties, and other items offered by FNS to states to 

order for school meal programs, were also subject to the recall. It was not 

until February 26, 2008—almost four weeks after the original hold was 

issued—that FNS notified states that these further-processed products 

contained recalled beef. The longer recalled products remain unidentified, 

the greater the risk that these products could be inadvertently consumed. 

FNS Notifications to States 

about the 

Westland/Hallmark Recall 

Did Not Always Provide 

Complete Information, 

Particularly on Processed 

Products 

FNS also did not provide states and schools with information to identify 

the processors of products containing Westland/Hallmark beef in 

instances where commodity beef ordered by states in bulk from FNS was 

provided directly to processors. In addition to allowing states to order 

processed commodity products from USDA, the Department also allows 

states to have FNS bulk commodities, such as beef, diverted directly to 

processors of the state’s choosing for further processing. During the 

Westland/Hallmark hold, FNS notified further processors, providing them 

information that allowed them to identify affected beef products. FNS also 

advised states in its recall instructions to contact their processors to 

determine if their state or schools had received further processed food 

containing recalled beef. USDA’s procedures do not specify how and when 

processors are to inform states and schools of recalled products and, as in 

the Westland/Hallmark recall, FNS officials said that they did not oversee 

this notification to ensure that further processors promptly inform states 

and schools. Moreover, although FNS knew which further processors 

received affected Westland/Hallmark beef, it did not provide the names of 

these further processors to states and schools, because FNS considers it 

the responsibility of the processor to contact consignees, in this case 

states and schools. As a result, states and schools had to wait for further 

processors to identify and inform them of affected products. Some school 

food administrators told us that they received information from further 

processors for some products weeks after the initial Westland/Hallmark 

 

12USDA guidance provides that FNS notify states within 24 hours of learning of a recall 

involving commodities. 

Page 15 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

holds announcements, during which time affected products were served in 

some school meals. 

Moreover, in its initial administrative hold notice, FNS did not alert states 

that further processors often commingle beef from multiple sources to 

create end products, which means that states and schools could receive 

affected end products, even if the bulk beef they diverted to further 

processors came from a plant other than Westland/Hallmark. After the 

Westland/Hallmark administrative hold was announced, identifying the 

affected beef, officials in one state said they assumed all its further 

processed beef products were not affected, because it had not had FNS 

divert Westland/Hallmark beef to processors on its behalf. However, 

almost three weeks after the hold announcement, the state said it learned 

from FNS that beef processors often commingle commodity beef and 

realized some of its further processed products were made, in part, with 

affected beef from other states. Due to the confusion, schools in the state 

had likely been serving products in school meals for several weeks which 

should have been put on hold. FNS officials told us that they are in the 

process of rewriting the USDA recall procedures and it will address 

processors and further processed products; however, FNS officials said 

that they have not established a time frame for completion. 

States Did Not Always 

Provide Timely and 

Consistent Information to 

School Districts on Holds 

and Recalls, but Some 

School Districts Took the 

Initiative to Hold Products 

as They Waited for More 

Information 

Although USDA procedures direct states to notify affected schools within 

24 hours of receiving a recall notice from FNS, states did not always 

forward the information within this time frame and schools sometimes 

received critical information days later. FNS announced its administrative 

hold on Westland/Hallmark beef on January 30, 2008, but in one state, a 

school official told us that she did not hear about the hold from the state’s 

technical assistance office until five days later, on February 4, 2008. 

Similarly, after the Sunday, February 17, 2008, USDA announcement of the 

Westland/Hallmark beef recall, officials in four of the five states we 

interviewed said they did not notify schools until after the Monday 

holiday, on Tuesday, February 19, Wednesday, February 20, or Thursday, 

February 21. Officials in one state in which schools were open on the 

Monday federal holiday said that they were unable to provide information 

schools requested, because the FNS regional office was closed for the 

holiday. For the New Era recall of canned vegetables, officials in another 

school district told us they found out about the January 18, 2008, recall 

when FDA investigators showed up at the school five days later, on 

January 23, 2008, to check their compliance with recall procedures; FDA 

investigators and school officials did not find any affected product 

remaining in inventory. Later that same day, school district officials said 

Page 16 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

they received an email from the state informing them they had received a 

truckload of affected canned green and garbanzo beans several years 

before. State officials said they did not initially forward information about 

the recall because they assumed that the product was so old it was likely 

consumed. 

After receiving information about the Westland/Hallmark hold from FNS, 

indicating that further processors were responsible for notifying states of 

further processed products containing Westland/Hallmark beef, states 

gave different instructions to school districts on what to do about the hold, 

resulting in different responses. For example, at the beginning of the beef 

hold, one state said that it instructed its school districts to place all 

processed beef products on hold until processors had time to figure out 

which items were affected and which were not. As a result, this state’s 

schools had all affected beef on hold. On the other hand, according to a 

school district in a different state, the state did not instruct its school 

districts to place all beef products on hold and state officials did not 

initially realize that some processed products could also be affected. A few 

days after the initial hold announcement, state officials determined 

processed products from one processor could be affected and sent school 

districts an email informing them that many additional processed items 

were subject to the hold. As a result, a school district in this state told us 

that its schools may have served affected products in the interim. 

Some school districts took the initiative to hold suspect products, pending 

final notification about all products affected by the recalls. In the case of 

Westland/Hallmark, some schools told us that media and parent inquiries 

about the safety of the meat served in schools prompted them to remove 

all beef from their school lunch menus after the initial recall. One school 

district in California, in an abundance of caution, did not serve beef for the 

remainder of the school year. Because they stopped serving any beef 

products after the recall announcement, these school districts did not risk 

serving products, including processed products, that were later identified 

as the recall unfolded and expanded. 

FNS Has Used 

Supplemental Notification 

Strategies, but Most Have 

Not Resulted in More 

Timely Notification to 

States and Schools 

Supplemental notification methods provide the potential for FNS to 

communicate recall information directly to schools in a more timely 

manner than under the standard notification procedures. The standard 

USDA procedures allow FNS 24 hours after learning of a recall involving 

commodities to notify states, and then allow an additional 24 hours for 

states to notify schools. Under this standard notification process, schools 

might not learn of a recall until 48 hours after it was announced by FSIS or 

Page 17 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

FDA, during which time, schools could unknowingly serve affected 

products. Although FNS could explore ways to reduce the standard 

notification time frames, supplemental notification methods providing 

information directly to schools, such as through email and Web site 

postings, could potentially provide schools with more timely information.13

Because of the breadth of the recall, FNS officials said that they used the 

U.S. Department of Education’s crisis communication email system to 

send email alerts directly to all schools about the Westland/Hallmark beef 

recall; but, this additional notification did not seem to improve 

communication to schools. FNS officials said this was the first time that 

they had used Education’s crisis system to ensure schools received prompt 

notification. However, this communication was not sent until February 22, 

2008, more than 3 weeks after FNS had placed the commodity beef on 

hold and 5 days after the recall was publicly announced.14

FNS also employed its own newly-developed commodity alert system to 

notify school districts directly about the PCA peanut product recall, but 

the system did not appear to improve the content or timeliness of 

communications to schools.15 FNS’ Commodity Alert System was designed 

to email “instant notices” on food safety issues to registered subscribers. 

According to FNS, the system was first used January 30, 2009, to 

communicate that the PCA peanut product recall included commodity 

products. However, the email was not sent until 2 days after FDA publicly 

announced an expanded recall of products containing suspect peanuts. 

More importantly, the email to subscribers did not identify the affected 

commodity products by name or the states or schools receiving them, but 

simply stated that “a limited number of [peanut] products were identified 

as being purchased by USDA.” FNS said it did not include information on 

products or states affected because alert emails could not exceed 300 

characters of text.16 FNS subsequently assessed how many of those who 

 

13We have previously reported on the need for USDA and FDA to ensure that customers are 

notified promptly of food recalls and to determine if additional approaches are needed to 

alert customers. GAO-05-51. 

14The notification, sent through the Department of Education’s crisis communication 

system, went to school administrators and principals, not to school food service 

professionals. 

15The commodity alert system was first used for the PCA recall. It was not developed until 

after the Westland/Hallmark recall. 

16FNS officials have indicated that they have increased the number of allowable characters 

to 1000. 

Page 18 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

signed up for the service successfully received the January 30, 2009, email 

alert and found that 37 percent of those who completed the initial 

registration and who could have expected email alerts on important food 

safety problems did not receive the email due to problems with their 

registrations.17 FNS stated they would take steps to improve the 

registration process. In a subsequent alert, sent on March 17, 2009, 

regarding expanded PCA recalls of commodity peanut butter, FNS stated 

that two recall notices had been issued 20 days and 14 days earlier 

because USDA purchased peanut butter associated with the PCA 

Plainview, Texas plant. 

FNS has also used its Web site to communicate food safety information to 

states and schools, but recent postings have not been timely or complete. 

FNS’ food safety Web site notes, “Here you will find information on food 

safety and security related to the assistance programs administered by 

FNS, as well as links to FNS’ food safety partners,” and includes 

information under a heading, “Current Initiatives and Resources.” 

However, we found only a single posting for the New Era canned 

vegetables recall and it addressed only the initial New Era recall and the 

first recall expansion, not the second and third recall expansions that 

involved commodities. According to the Web site, “No USDA-purchased 

commodities are involved at this time.” The Web site did not inform states, 

schools, parents, and the public that two subsequent New Era recalls did 

include USDA-purchased commodities. For the PCA recall, FNS posted a 

statement on January 30, 2009, 2 days after FDA publicly announced an 

expansion of the recall, to say that a limited number of recalled products 

were identified as USDA purchases. However, the announcement did not 

say whether schools were affected, which states were affected, or what 

products were affected. Another USDA statement posted to the FNS Web 

site on March 6, 2009, explained that 10 days earlier, FNS had learned that 

commodity peanut butter purchased from Sunland Inc., and distributed to 

schools was made from peanuts roasted at PCA. 

 

17These persons may have completed the initial registration and had received an email 

welcoming them to the system, but if they did not reply to the email to acknowledge receipt 

of the confirmation, they would not have completed their registration. 

Page 19 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

FNS Provided 

Disposal and 

Reimbursement 

Instructions to States, 

but State and School 

Administrators 

Reported Challenges 

in Disposing of 

Products and 

Obtaining 

Reimbursement 

FNS Provided Disposal 

Instructions, but Not All 

Schools Followed Disposal 

Procedures and Some 

School Districts Reported 

Challenges in the Disposal 

of Recalled Beef 

FNS provides disposal instructions to states that are specific to each 

recall; these instructions are then tailored by each state to meet state or 

local public health procedures. For example, for the Westland/Hallmark 

beef recall, FNS guidance instructed states and school food authorities 

with 50 cases or less to destroy the product on site, and render it unfit for 

human consumption by following guidance from state or local health 

authorities. If states or school food authorities had more than 50 cases, 

FNS guidance said to take the product to a landfill, have it incinerated, or 

send it for inedible rendering. States often revised the FNS notice before 

sending it on to school districts by changing the listed contacts or 

including additional disposal instructions specific to the state. For 

example, one state allowed its school districts to follow alternate methods 

of disposal suggested by local health departments. 

Although all school districts we interviewed that had recalled products in 

their inventories reported disposing of them,18 at least two school districts 

did not follow all instructions provided by FNS and state officials. For 

example, a school district official in one state told us her staff destroyed 

recalled New Era canned beans that had been opened by pouring the 

contents down the garbage disposal. FNS and FDA’s notices said not to 

 

18This refers to the New Era, Westland/Hallmark, and PCA recalls. Glacier Sales was an 

administrative hold. 

Page 20 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

open cans and the FNS notice said further, that if cans were already open, 

not to put the contents in a garbage disposal because of the risk of 

exposure to the toxin that causes botulism. Another district worked with 

its distributor, who was storing Westland/Hallmark recalled beef products, 

to divide the district’s recalled beef among its schools so the district did 

not exceed 50 cases at any one location. School district officials said this 

allowed them to dispose of the products on site, rather than make special 

arrangements with a landfill, as specified in FNS destruction instructions 

for school districts with more than 50 cases of recalled products. 

In some instances, the destruction and disposal of recalled product was 

delayed as school food administrators searched for a means of disposal, 

increasing the risk that these products could be inadvertently consumed. 

Five of the 15 school districts we interviewed that had affected 

Westland/Hallmark products in-stock reported challenges in disposing of 

affected beef products in landfills. For example, an official from one 

district found that the district’s trash pickup company would not take 

15,000 pounds of affected beef because they did not accept food. There 

was no local landfill, and a neighboring town’s landfill also refused to take 

the beef. The food service director told us neither the state nor the city 

health department was able to help locate a disposal site. Finally, at the 

suggestion of someone in another state, the food service director arranged 

disposal at a landfill in another town, but the director had to arrange for 

delivery of the 15,000 pounds of meat to the landfill. The raw beef was 

buried, in accordance with state instructions. A school district in another 

state told us the city landfill would not accept raw beef; so after making 

inquiries, the food service director learned he could send the beef to a 

rendering company, which turns food into other products. For a fee, the 

rendering company collected the district’s 400 cases of raw beef from the 

district warehouse. However, the rendering company required that all beef 

be removed from its packaging, so the food service director and his staff 

spent a few hours opening 400 cases and separating meat from its 

wrapping. Figure 3 shows a large quantity of beef from one school district 

at a transfer station, prior to being transported to a landfill for disposal. 

Page 21 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

Figure 3: A School District’s Large Quantity of Westland/Hallmark Beef Products at 

a Disposal Transfer Station 

Source: Long Beach Unified School District.

Schools that had smaller quantities of recalled beef typically did not report 

difficulties in disposing of recalled products. FNS destruction instructions 

allowed school districts with smaller quantities to dispose of the suspect 

foods in their regular trash such as by opening packages, dousing the food 

with bleach, and double-bagging it to prevent consumption before placing 

it in the trash receptacle. 

School districts also reported that disposal of commercially purchased 

foods was simpler as the processor or distributor typically collected and 

disposed the recalled products. Officials at some of the school districts we 

interviewed told us it was their distributor or processor who informed 

them of commercial recalls, and then collected any affected product 

and/or stopped delivery. For example, one school district reported that its 

distributor collected and disposed of commercially purchased 

Westland/Hallmark beef. 

Page 22 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

Some school officials told us they were not reimbursed for all costs 

incurred due to recalls.19 USDA guidance defines which expenses are 

reimbursable and which are not. Reimbursable expenses include some 

transportation, as well as storage, destruction, and processing costs. 

Schools and school districts are not reimbursed for administrative and 

personnel costs, including overtime paid to deal with a hold or recall, or 

for other foods purchased to replace recalled products. 

Some State and School 

Officials Said They Were 

Not Reimbursed for All 

Costs Incurred in Disposal 

and Found the Process 

Difficult 

However USDA guidance did not specifically address whether states can 

be reimbursed for commodities that have been processed with recalled 

ingredients, leading to inconsistencies in reimbursement in the 

Westland/Hallmark recall. After the Westland/Hallmark recall schools 

were either reimbursed for the recalled beef or received a replacement. 

However, officials in one state told us its schools were not reimbursed for 

the cost of other commodities that had also been used in recalled 

processed beef products, such as commodity tomatoes used to make 

spaghetti meat sauce. In contrast, a school district in Texas was 

reimbursed for commodity cheese it had sent to a further processor, along 

with commodity beef to make burritos and taco snacks. FNS officials told 

us that it reimbursed states for all commodity products, such as tomatoes 

and cheese, used in further processed products that were subject to 

recall.20

Reimbursement and replacement for recalled commodity products varied 

by recall. For the Westland/Hallmark recall, school districts provided 

documentation on the quantity of recalled beef destroyed to the states, and 

the states served as the intermediary for FNS reimbursement and 

replacement. For disposal costs related to New Era recalled products, FNS 

officials said they reimbursed states for their disposal costs, who then 

reimbursed schools. Most school districts did not receive reimbursement 

or replacement of New Era products because in eight of the nine states 

that had recalled product, the quantities destroyed were so small, states 

did not request product replacement or reimbursement. FNS officials said 

 

19Federal, state, and sometimes local agencies, as well as the recalling company, may play a 

role in the reimbursement or replacement of recalled products, as well as related expenses. 

20USDA procedures provide that schools typically receive reimbursement and replacement 

directly from the recalling firm, unless the firm goes out of business or delays 

reimbursement, in which case USDA will initiate action to provide reimbursement or 

replacement. 

Page 23 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

that only one state had a significant amount of the recalled products and 

that this state requested reimbursement which FNS provided. 

Some school officials informed us that they found the overall 

reimbursement process confusing, and three states reported having to 

submit multiple claims. FNS general procedures and those specific to 

Westland/Hallmark did not explicitly describe all types of documentation 

necessary for reimbursement. One school district in Indiana reported that 

it was unclear what information was required for reimbursement and staff 

spent a lot of time removing the code stickers and other identifying labels 

from recalled products, thinking they would need to submit them to the 

state. They later learned the code stickers and labels were not required. 

The district submitted a claim, but was later asked by the state to submit 

additional documentation on disposal costs such as mileage and labor, so 

more staff time was spent assembling this information and resubmitting 

the claim. 

Some school districts also found the reimbursement process to be lengthy. 

USDA procedures direct that reimbursement to states occur within 90 

days (3 months) of a recall, and that states, in turn, reimburse school 

districts “in a timely manner.” Districts in several states that were 

reimbursed for New Era and Westland/Hallmark claims reported that they 

did not receive payment until many months after the recalls. In at least one 

state, state officials reported that they received reimbursement more than 

90 days after the Westland/Hallmark recall. After receiving reimbursement 

from FNS, states may also have contributed to delays in providing 

reimbursement to schools. For example, food service staff in California 

told us their district filed for reimbursement of about $42,000 in March 

2008 for Westland/Hallmark beef but had not been reimbursed by their 

state as of November 2008, eight months later. California state officials 

told us that reimbursement was delayed, in part, because the state could 

not disburse payments until the budget was passed, which occurred in late 

September. 

Page 24 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

Federal Regulators 

Did Not 

Systematically 

Monitor and Assess 

the Effectiveness of 

Recalls and Holds in 

Schools 

Neither FDA nor FSIS 

Systematically Monitored 

the Effectiveness of 

Recalls for Schools 

Although both FSIS and FDA have procedures to systematically conduct 

and document quality checks to determine whether recalls are carried out 

effectively, the procedures did not ensure these checks were done in 

schools affected by recent recalls of USDA commodities. These checks, 

called effectiveness checks by FSIS and audit checks by FDA, involve 

visiting or contacting a sample of affected consignees—entities that 

received a recalled product, such as distributors, hospitals, restaurants, 

and schools—and determining whether they were notified of a recall; all 

affected product was located; affected product was properly disposed; and 

all steps were completed in a timely manner. These checks help ensure 

that affected products are removed from the market and are not 

consumed. Both FSIS and FDA conduct quality checks of a sample of 

consignees, however, procedures differ and neither ensures that a sample 

of schools is included. In an overall review of FSIS and FDA food recalls, 

we also previously reported that the agencies’ procedures for selecting the 

sample of companies to check did not ensure that all segments of a food 

distribution chain are included, as well as problems with the timeliness of 

the checks.21

FDA procedures do not require it to systematically monitor recalls in 

schools by explicitly sampling schools for audit checks, grouping 

consignees into categories, or reviewing audit checks by consignee 

category, such as schools. Nonetheless, many of the FDA audit checks for 

the New Era recalls were conducted in schools that may have received the 

product as a USDA commodity or procured it commercially. FDA officials 

said that although they are not required to do so, in this case, they tried to 

give schools preference for selection in the sample if a school was 

 

21GAO-05-51. 

Page 25 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

identifiable from the available information. The FDA district coordinator 

told us that of 2,553 completed audit check reports on the New Era recalls, 

823 were for schools. The district coordinator was able to identify schools 

for whom audit check report forms were completed by the name on the 

audit form or because the person who completed the form wrote “school” 

under consignee type. “School” is not listed as one of nine consignee types 

on the audit check form, which includes “retailer,” “hospital,” and others. 

Our review of the audit checks of schools in one of the states we visited 

indicated some schools were not properly notified or had not followed 

recall instructions. Also, in the remarks section of some of the FDA audit 

check forms, the preparer indicated the recall for the school was 

“ineffective” or “not effective.” The FDA district coordinator for the New 

Era recalls said the completed audit check forms were grouped by 

category, including a category for schools, and that any problems that 

were identified on the forms were addressed. However, FDA did not have 

documentation of any analysis that was done for the schools as a group to 

determine whether there were systemic problems, nor did they have 

documentation of corrective actions taken. 

FDA officials said that they conducted audit checks for the PCA peanut 

product recalls, and field staff were instructed to give priority to schools in 

making their selections for the audit checks, but only schools that 

procured the products commercially were included because the audit 

checks specifically excluded schools that received affected peanut 

products only through the school meals program. FDA officials said that 

they rely on FNS to conducts its own checks of schools that received 

affected commodities for school meal programs. FDA instructions for 

conducting audit checks for the PCA recalls included special provisions 

for selecting schools and other facilities that served vulnerable 

populations. However, at the time of our contact with FDA officials, they 

did not know if schools had procured affected peanut products 

commercially or had been selected for audit checks and did not have an 

assessment of audit check activity to date for schools or other consignees. 

According to FDA, the analysis of audit checks typically occurs further 

into the monitoring phase of the recall, closer to the termination phase of 

the recall. 

FSIS procedures explicitly allow for grouping those to be contacted for 

effectiveness checks in categories such as schools, and selecting 

consignees from each category to create its sample. However, after the 

Westland/Hallmark recall, FSIS did not create a school category for its 

effectiveness checks, even though thousands of schools were affected. 

FSIS did ask FNS to provide names of schools and states affected by the 

Page 26 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

Westland/Hallmark recall of commodity beef and received a list of over 

7,000 affected school districts, but FSIS officials did not use this 

information to include the schools in its effectiveness checks.22 FSIS 

effectiveness checks for the Westland/Hallmark beef recall did not include 

any schools that received the beef through the commodity program. FSIS 

estimated there were 9,500 consignees who received recalled 

Westland/Hallmark commercial beef, not including schools and others that 

had received Westland/Hallmark commodity beef for federally-subsidized 

food programs. FSIS officials said they did not know how many of the 

9,500 consignees that had procured beef commercially were schools. FSIS 

determined its statistical sample would be 200 of the 9,500 consignees, 

using systematic sampling with a sampling interval of 47. Our review found 

2 names of schools, the name of a preschool, and a school food distributor 

included in the sample; both schools that were selected procured the 

product commercially. 

FSIS officials said they did not specifically include schools receiving 

recalled commodity products in their checks for the Westland/Hallmark 

recall, and FDA officials said they did not specifically include schools 

receiving recalled commodity products in their checks for PCA recalls, 

because they said that USDA was responsible for conducting its own 

checks of schools receiving commodities. 

FNS Did Not Monitor the 

Effectiveness of Recalls or 

its Own Administrative 

Holds for Commodity 

Products in Schools 

Although FSIS and FDA procedures direct them to monitor the 

effectiveness of recalls, they told us that they relied on FNS to conduct 

checks of schools affected by recalls of USDA commodity products; 

however, FNS does not conduct such effectiveness checks. FNS officials 

told us it was not their responsibility to check on the effectiveness of any 

of three companies’ recent recalls covered in this review, but that they 

relied on their regulatory partners, FSIS and FDA, to conduct these quality 

checks. FNS has authority to issue holds on USDA commodity products, in 

conjunction with regulatory and procurement agencies, but does not have 

procedures in place to conduct a systematic review of schools to 

determine whether schools received notice of the hold and followed 

instructions to keep the identified products from being served to students. 

 

22FNS collects information on the disposition of recalled product through its 

reimbursement process, but this does not constitute an effectiveness check. As previously 

discussed, effectiveness checks confirm for a sample of consignees, such as schools, 

whether they had been notified and carried out the recall properly, including whether all 

affected products had been identified and disposed of properly. 

Page 27 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

FNS did not conduct such checks on its hold or hold extensions for 

Westland/Hallmark beef or Glacier Sales potato rounds. 

Protecting school children from food-borne illnesses in schools depends 

on the efforts of many local, state, and federal entities. Agencies within 

USDA and HHS, including FSIS, FNS, and FDA, have critical roles in 

identifying food safety issues, disseminating information, providing 

guidance, and evaluating the effectiveness of food holds and recalls. While 

these agencies have related policies and procedures in place, recent 

recalls of products, from raw beef to peanut butter, have highlighted the 

importance of revisiting these policies and procedures to ensure they 

accomplish what they intend. Nearly 700 people, including over 200 

school-aged children, were sickened by Salmonella during a 2009 recall of 

Peanut Corporation of America products and ingredients. And while it is 

not known to what extent the source of the bacteria in these cases of 

illness were from a school snack or meal, federal and state agencies must 

ensure schools receive timely notification, adequate information, and clear 

instructions on food holds and recalls. Evaluations also must be 

conducted to determine the effectiveness of those efforts. School children 

are a vulnerable population, in part because they are more likely to suffer 

complications from food-borne illnesses, and in part because they may 

have less knowledge to make informed choices about the foods they 

consume. As such, USDA and HHS should make the policy and procedure 

changes necessary to ensure that the food children consume in schools is 

unadulterated and safe. 

Conclusions 

The speed and complexity with which recalls unfold, often leading to 

multiple recalls of related products or covering longer manufacturing time 

frames, creates challenges for agencies and their efforts to protect 

consumers—particularly school children—from potentially harmful foods. 

Although FNS, in conjunction with the responsible USDA procurement 

agency, can issue an administrative hold on suspect products prior to a 

recall—an action taken in the Westland/Hallmark recall—the lack of 

criteria and guidance on when to issue a hold may have contributed to a 

conservative response to the New Era and PCA recalls, whereby FNS did 

not preemptively issue a hold on products that were later recalled. Absent 

guidance on when to issue administrative holds, FNS will continue to face 

challenges in deciding when to issue administrative holds. The ability to 

issue holds provides a valuable tool that allows FNS to act quickly to 

protect school children while investigations are ongoing. In addition, FNS 

and FDA officials said they are working on a memorandum of 

understanding about how the agencies will communicate during FDA food 

Page 28 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

safety investigations. Such a document could provide FNS with important 

information when it considers administrative holds of suspect commodity 

products used in school meal programs. But, no time frame has been 

established for completing it. 

Gaps in the protocols federal agencies follow in communicating with each 

other and gaps in states then communicating with schools districts have 

led to delays in schools receiving notice of recalls and sufficient 

information on what actions to take. These delays were, in some instances, 

exacerbated by difficulties in identifying processed foods that contained 

recalled ingredients, in part, because federal hold and recall guidance does 

not explicitly address the role of processors or distributors. As a result, 

some affected commodities were served to school children after holds and 

recalls were announced. In addition, insufficient guidance on disposal 

procedures for recalled products increased the risk that they could be 

inadvertently consumed. FNS officials said they have plans to address the 

role of processors and update the hold and recall procedures for USDA 

commodities, but have not established a time frame for completing the 

revisions. It is important for FNS to make changes to the procedures as 

soon as feasible to avoid confusion and delays the next time a major recall 

occurs that involves processed products. 

Given the current technology for almost instant communication, it seems 

federal regulators could disseminate information through states to schools 

and directly to schools more quickly than the standard procedures, which 

permit up to 48 hours to elapse by the time FNS communicates with states 

and states communicate with schools. New strategies for federal 

regulators to communicate directly with schools, such as the FNS 

Commodity Alert System used for the PCA recalls, are promising but have 

yet to deliver timely or complete information. Further, although FSIS and 

FDA perform checks of how effectively recalls are carried out, neither 

agency systematically monitors or evaluates holds and recalls in schools. 

While FDA selected some schools for its New Era recall audit checks, it 

did not document its analysis of audit checks conducted at schools, nor 

did it track corrective action taken as a result of its audit checks of 

schools. Unless FSIS, FDA, and FNS revise their assessment procedures, 

these agencies will not be able to determine if additional actions are 

necessary to keep school children safe. 

We have previously reported that food safety oversight is a complex and 

fragmented system requiring major improvements. Yet smaller, immediate 

improvements in coordination, notification, and evaluation procedures in 

Page 29 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

the near term could better equip states and schools to protect their 

students from unsafe foods. 

To better ensure the safety of foods provided to children through the 

school meal programs, we recommend the Secretary of Agriculture and 

the Secretary of HHS take 12 actions to make improvements in three areas 

related to recalls affecting schools: interagency coordination; notification 

and instructions to states and schools; and monitoring effectiveness. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

We recommend the Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS and that the 

Secretary of HHS direct FDA to jointly: 

• establish a time frame for completing a memorandum of understanding on 

how FNS and FDA will communicate during FDA investigations and 

recalls that may involve USDA commodities for the school meal programs, 

which should specifically address how FDA will include FNS in its 

prerecall deliberations. 

We recommend the Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to: 

• develop guidelines, in consultations with AMS and FSA, to be used for 

determining whether or not to institute an administrative hold on suspect 

commodities for school meal programs; 

• work with states to explore ways for states to speed notification to 

schools; 

• improve the timeliness and completeness of direct communication 

between FNS and schools about holds and recalls, such as through the 

commodity alert system; 

• take the lead among USDA agencies to establish a time frame in which it 

will improve the USDA commodity hold and recall procedures to address 

the role of processors and determine distributors’ involvement with 

processed products, which may contain recalled ingredients, to facilitate 

providing more timely and complete information to schools; 

• revise its procedures to provide states with more specific instructions for 

schools on how to dispose of recalled commodities and obtain timely 

reimbursement; and 

Page 30 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

• institute a systematic quality check procedure to ensure that FNS holds on 

foods and products used by schools are carried out effectively. 

We recommend the Secretary of Agriculture direct FSIS to: 

• revise its procedures to ensure that schools are included in effectiveness 

checks. 

We recommend the Secretary of HHS direct FDA to: 

• revise the Recall Audit Check Report form to include a consignee prompt 

for schools; 

• revise FDA procedures to ensure schools are included in audit checks, 

either by drawing a separate schools-only sample or providing a selection 

preference for schools; and 

• revise FDA procedures to ensure analysis of its audit checks is 

documented, and any problems with recalls or audit checks affecting 

consignees involved with schools identified and acted upon. 

We provided a draft of this report to USDA and HHS for review and 

comment. USDA stated that it generally agreed with and supported the 

recommendations of the report and provided additional information on the 

roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in assuring the 

safety of food provided by USDA through its nutrition assistance 

programs. We have reprinted USDA’s comments in their entirety in 

appendix I. HHS stated that it agreed with the recommendations of the 

report and that GAO has raised important issues regarding the safety of 

foods provided to children through the school meals programs. We have 

reprinted HHS’s comments in their entirety in appendix II. Both USDA and 

HHS also provided technical corrections to the report which we 

incorporated, as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of 

Education, and relevant congressional committees. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 31 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix 

Kay

III. 

 E. Brown 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 32 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
 

List of Congressional Requesters 

The Honorable George Miller 

Chairman 

Committee on Education and Labor 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Committee on Education and Labor 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro 

Chairwoman 

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 

Administration, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 

United States Senate 

Page 33 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix I: Comments from the Department Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Agriculture 

of Agriculture 

Page 34 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 35 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Appendix II: Comments from the Department Human Services 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 36 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Page 37 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Page 38 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Page 39 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Page 40 GAO-09-649 School Food Recalls
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-09-649 

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215, or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn A. Larin, Assistant 

Director; Sylvia Arbelaez-Ellis; Susan L. Aschoff; Susannah L. Compton; 

Jean L. Cook; Sarah A. Farkas; Alexander G. Galuten; Nisha R. Hazra; 

Lise L. Levie; Daniel S. Meyer; and Charles E. Willson made key 

contributions to this report. 

 School Food Recalls 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(130853) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper