[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: SUSTAINABILITY FROM COUNTER TO COMPOST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-26
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-527 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
___________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer
Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
Gerard J. Waldron, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Thomas Weimer, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................. 5
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, opening statement........................... 6
Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Witnesses
Daniel P. Beard, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Testimony............................................ 9
Answers to submitted questions............................... 44
Patricia D. Millner, Research Microbiologist, Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............... 13
Written Testimony............................................ 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 52
Tom Kelly, Ph.D., Chief Sustainability Officer, University of New
Hampshire...................................................... 20
Written Testimony............................................ 23
Carina Wong, Executive Director, Chez Panisse Foundation......... 29
Written Testimony............................................ 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 60
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: SUSTAINABILITY FROM COUNTER TO COMPOST
________________________________________________________________________
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer and Cleaver.
Staff present: Danielle Baussan.
The Chairman. Good afternoon. Global warming has been
linked to the cars that we drive, the energy supply, and now
the food that we buy. From farm to fork, our food often travels
long distances to reach our plate. The carbon dioxide emissions
from these food miles traveled are compounded by the methane
produced when food waste is tossed in landfills.
We cannot continue to spite the land that feeds us. The
witnesses before us today are all pursuing sustainable dining
options that can alleviate the impact of our food consumption
on global warming. The impact is prevalent in the three
responsibilities of a dining facility: procurement,
consumption, and disposal. Purchasing local food reduces food
miles traveled. Using renewable, biodegradable plates and
utensils reduces oil consumption and waste. Turning table
scraps and leftover food into compost returns nutrients to
farms and reduces global warming.
The food Americans eat increasingly comes from greater
distances. From 1970 to 1980, our food miles traveled increased
1,300 to 1,500 miles. A 2002 World Watch Institute report
stated that food in the United States traveled between 1,500
and 2,400 miles. The typical American prepared meal contains on
average ingredients from at least 5 countries outside of the
United States. By favoring more local fare, the CO2
emissions associated with food travel can decrease
significantly. A University of Washington study found that a
plate of Washington-sourced foods resulted in 33 percent fewer
CO2 emissions than a plate of similar foods from
their most popularly imported countries or States of origin.
Even if a meal is entirely local, its contribution to
global warming continues after the plates are cleared. Yard
trimmings and food waste constitute 24 percent of the U.S.
municipal solid waste stream, and half of the garbage at
restaurants is estimated to be food waste. As this food rots in
the landfill, it produces methane. If that methane escapes into
the atmosphere, it traps 20 times more heat than
CO2. Food in landfills will continue to contribute
to methane emissions. A 2006 study predicted that, by 2025,
food waste will increase by 44 percent worldwide. This methane
build-up is deplorable because it is preventable. Food waste
can be recycled into compost, resulting in fewer emissions and
in new economic products. Compost soil can be used to fertilize
crops and landscaping and support green jobs in food waste
recycling. The reduced garbage load can result in lowered
disposal fees as well. Using materials that can be converted to
compost further relieves the strain on our landfills and steers
facilities away from petroleum-based plastic products.
The witnesses before us today have successfully put these
principles into use. I look forward to hearing from those
witnesses, and I will introduce them at that point in the
hearing. The chairman's time has expired.
I now turn to recognize the Ranking Minority Member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
[The prepared statement of the Chairman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we are talking about the food chain and its impact on
greenhouse gas emissions. It seems from the testimony we will
hear today that, by making changes to the way food is
delivered, prepared, stored and disposed of, we can create some
positive environmental balances. But there are costs associated
with these changes. In the long run, these costs may be worth
it, or maybe they are not. It points to a larger problem with
all things green being sold to us today.
One of the projects we will hear a lot about today is part
of Speaker Pelosi's Green the Capitol Initiative. This project
includes many changes to House food service operations, and we
welcome Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard here to talk
about them. But do the costs associated with these changes
create worthwhile greenhouse gas reductions? Simply put, are we
getting the most bang for the buck? Some changes, like serving
cage-free eggs or hormone-free dairy--and in Wisconsin, we only
produce hormone-free dairy--will result in no greenhouse gas
reductions whatsoever.
One of my four guiding principles in evaluating any global
warming policy is: Will it produce tangible, measurable
environmental benefit? The House food service project seems to
leave that question open, which concerns me.
If the point is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, could
the money spent making wholesale changes to House food services
be better focused on creating more energy efficiency in the
House? It is unclear to me if there is enough transparency in
this process to actually measure if these changes are worth it.
Mr. Beard's testimony points toward many simple changes in
lighting, heating, and cooling that could end up saving the
taxpayers $20,000. And that is a good thing. It is just too bad
that $89,000 in taxpayers' money has apparently gone towards
questionable carbon offsets, in an effort for the House to
reach its goals of its Green the Capitol Initiative.
As the Washington Post reported in late January, it seems
that some of these offsets are very questionable. The report
showed that these offsets produced very little in the way of
additionality; that is, it was difficult to show how those
taxpayers' dollars did anything to create greenhouse gas
reductions that would not have occurred anyway.
This article shows to me there needs to be more
transparency in dealing with all things green. It seems obvious
that there are many opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse
or questionable actions to be hidden in a green cloak. Do
changes in the House cafeteria produce more and better
environmental benefits for the dollar than improvements in
energy efficiency? Do offsets really produce greenhouse gas
reductions? And, if so, how much? These are questions that both
policymakers and consumers should have answers to.
Many of the changes talked about today in the food service
industry will come down to consumer choice. Living in a carbon-
free environment will have significant costs and trade offs
associated with them. It will take consumers, and not Congress,
to tell us if these lifestyle changes are worth it.
I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much for being here. And I am
extremely interested in having a dialogical exchange with you
after your presentations. I am very much interested in
sustainable eating and sustainable agriculture that could
separate us from the rest of the world that, frankly, is
already ahead of us in so many ways with regard to dealing with
the greenhouse gases because of our geography. This Nation is a
mammoth piece of property, and I think, if used wisely, we
could demonstrate to the rest of the world what kinds of things
can be done on a local level that could sustain life and the
environment at the same time. So, I look forward to our
exchange later on. And thank you so much for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. This is an excellent topic, because it
illustrates one of the ways that our daily activities that we
take for granted contribute significantly to the greenhouse gas
issue. In my district, which includes portions of the San
Francisco Bay Area, one of the most interesting approaches I
have seen is the grease recycling project in the East Bay.
Innovative ideas such as this are small yet can be effective,
and these are initiatives which will lower greenhouse gas
emissions.
I am interested in hearing remarks from Chez Panisse
Foundation, which is based in the Bay Area, and all of the
witnesses. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. All time
for opening statements from Members has expired, although they
will be allowed to place their opening statements in the
record. We now turn to our panel.
STATEMENTS OF DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; PATRICIA D. MILLNER, RESEARCH
MICROBIOLOGIST, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE; TOM KELLY, PH.D., CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER,
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; AND CARINA WONG, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, CHEZ PANISSE FOUNDATION
The Chairman. Our first witness, Daniel Beard, is the Chief
Administrative Officer for the House of Representatives. Mr.
Beard spent 10 years on the staff of the House Appropriations
and Natural Resources Committee. He returned to the Hill at
Speaker Pelosi's request to become the Chief Administrative
Officer. He is well suited to Speaker Pelosi's Green the
Capitol Initiative with his extensive background managing
environmental issues with the Department of the Interior and
the National Audubon Society. His work on Greening the Capital
and the House cafeteria system has been noted by food writers
for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the San
Francisco Chronicle.
We welcome you, Mr. Beard. Whenever you are ready, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD
Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you
today.
Our goal with the House Food Service Operation has been to
make it a premier showcase of sustainable, green, and healthy
food operations. We have worked closely with our new food
service vendor, Restaurant Associates of New York, to implement
our changes with each of the 240,000 meals we serve each month
in our cafeterias, carry outs, and other facilities.
Our highest priority was the banning of all plastic and
Styrofoam from the cafeterias. In addition, we wanted to make
nearly all of our waste stream compostable. As a result, all of
the knives, forks, and spoons, which are in use in the
cafeteria, as well as our sandwich clamshells, which has a
delicious desert in it, are made from corn-based products. The
plates and coffee cups are from paper. And the entree
containers, which are shown here, are made from sugar cane.
This material in front of me will become compost in 90 days.
The House is demonstrating, I think, with this effort and
with every meal that we serve, that there is a market for U.S.
manufacturers to provide green, sustainable, recyclable
products. Our biodegradable items, for example, come from
companies in Maine, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
We send the compostable food service items, along with all
of the food waste in the front of the cafeteria and from the
kitchens, to a pulper which was purchased on the Longworth
loading dock. The pulper then breaks down the compost into this
material, which looks a lot like coleslaw or a moist confetti.
So all of these items plus all the food from the front and back
of the House plus all these are then ground into this kind of a
mix. It is picked up once a day, and it is sent to compost
facilities in suburban Maryland. Two days a week, it goes to
the Department of Agriculture; three days a week to a
commercial composter near Crofton. The result is, what you have
in 90 days is compost material. And I brought both an example
of the compost material, the start of the process, as well as
the end of the process.
Now, while the new operation has only been up and running
for 60 days, preliminary results are very encouraging. The
waste hauler for the landfill picked up 20 tons less material
in the last three weeks of December 2007 as compared with 2006.
We are realizing cost savings by hauling and depositing less
waste in landfills, and the compost tipping fees are 30 percent
less than they are at the regular landfills.
More important, sending the food service waste for compost
also reduces our carbon footprint by preventing the conversion
to methane, as the Chairman mentioned. We are now working to
calculate the methane reduction and use the savings as a carbon
offset for the House operations.
We have also looked at our food, the food that we serve,
for sustainability improvements. Our coffee, Pura Vida coffee,
is fair trade, shade grown, and organic. Our beef, chicken, and
pork are hormone free. The seafood served is certified
sustainable by our using the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood
guidelines.
Under Restaurant Associates, the amount of fresh produce
and meat has increased from 35 percent under the previous
vendor, GSI, to 85 percent. This switch to fresher food and the
resulting trimmings is complemented at the back end, with the
pulper and the composting solutions that we have implemented.
The House is also promoting the buying of food produced in
a 150-radius from the Capitol whenever possible. We are
emphasizing the purchase of organically produced food, and
providing a market for new and existing farms and businesses to
meet these needs. This, incidentally, is part of the policy
efforts and the direction that Restaurant Associates has used
in its operations in other cities as well.
We have made a good start, but we know that there is much
more that we have to do to be sustainable, greener, and to
continue to reduce our carbon footprint.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify. And I would be happy to answer questions at the
appropriate point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Beard, very much.
Our next witness is Dr. Patricia Millner, who specializes
in environmental microbiology. Her work on micro-organisms and
composting has significantly influenced the design of large-
scale composting facilities. She also researches how composted
soil can prevent disease. She is a research microbiologist in
the Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, where House cafeteria food waste is
composted.
We welcome you, Dr. Millner. Whenever you are ready, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA D. MILLNER
Ms. Millner. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to present some information on
general aspects of composting and the environmental benefits as
related to food residuals, management, and the greening
practices.
Composting involves a natural aerobic self-heating process
in which micro-organisms rapidly transform the raw organic
materials into humus, which is a critical component for soil
health. Management and testing are used throughout this process
in order to ensure that the primary goals of nutrient
stabilization, pathogen destruction, and odorant elimination
are achieved.
When finished, compost is mixed with soil, and this helps
to reduce erosion from wind and water. Compost also enhances
soil structure, root penetration, and, very importantly, the
water-holding capacity of soil. All of these aid in plant
growth and increase the resistance to drought, disease, and
other stresses. Compost also provides major and minor plant
nutrients and can substitute for one-third the amount of
nitrogen fertilizer usually required for turf. This means that
compost use on lawns in areas like Washington, D.C., and the
surrounding metropolitan area can help reduce nutrient runoff
that ultimately gets into water waste such as the Potomac River
and the Chesapeake Bay.
Composting can also reduce the generation and release of
greenhouse gases. Recent estimates indicate that aerobic
composting instead of landfilling of food residuals avoids
major amounts of methane generation and release. Approximately
6 metric tons of CO2 equivalent are saved from each
metric ton of compost food residuals that are not landfilled.
Locally, at the Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, we
compost 13,000 cubic yards a year of organics from our 6,500
acre farm. This picture up here gives you an aerial view of our
composting site. The long rows are actually the wind rows we
use. The second picture shows the compost turner, which is used
in the process of turning this compost periodically.
In recent years, we have composted food residuals mixed
with compostable biobased cafeteria ware from the South and
Whitten Buildings. This activity now includes collectively
about 40 cubic yards per week, or 6 tons, of material from the
South Building and the Whitten Building, the U.S. House of
Representatives Longworth Building cafeteria and a commercial
organics food retailer. A commercial provider collects and
hauls the material 10 miles from D.C. to our site at
Beltsville, where it is mixed with sawdust from the
congressional woodworking shop, along with leaves and old hay
from our farm. This public-private team effort has helped to
advance the inclusion of compostable biobased cafeteria ware.
As the seasons progress, we plan to incorporate grass,
landscape, and floral trimmings from the congressional grounds,
the U.S. Botanical Gardens, and the USDA headquartered complex.
The residuals from the Longworth cafeteria are notably
distinct from the other materials that are collected in that
they are pulped, as Mr. Beard has explained. This type of
processing reduces the whole mass by approximately 70 percent,
with concurrent per-unit whole cost savings, and facilitates an
accelerated decomposition.
Our interest in composting food residuals at BARC measures
well with our field skill research studies, which include
evaluations of the degradation rate of biobased cafeteria ware
as part of the USDA's BioPreferred Program. And that includes
things like this corn-based bottle, which is a water bottle
with a chlorine filter attached inside. And there are some
other articles that are being passed around the room that are
also biobased.
We are also looking at the efficiency of biofiltration on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from a variety of different
composting formats. Alternative uses for excess compost heat
are also an important feature of our program. And, lastly, we
are also always concerned with the safe production of local
leafy greens, fresh fruits, and vegetables.
Currently, the compost from Beltsville is used for soil
improvement on the USDA farm, the U.S. National Arboretum and
the USDA Whitten Building gardens.
Looking forward, we have engaged with the Maryland
Environmental Service, the Maryland Department of Environmental
Protection, and members of the U.S. EPA headquartered in Region
III food recycling work group to explore and encourage more
food composting capacity in the D.C. metropolitan region. To
address this need and to avoid long-haul distances, we are
pursuing, through our cooperative research and development
agreements, a variety of in-vessel composting and processing
options that include energy recovery and sustainability.
In conclusion, BARC and other ARS locations continue to
press forward with composting and other technologies to
increase recycling of agricultural, municipal, and food
residuals, to reduce the landfilling of organics, to increase
energy capture, and to lessen the pollution that threatens our
natural precious resources: soil, water, and air.
My colleagues and I appreciate the opportunity and the
interest of your committee in the issue of recycling food
residuals and compostable biobased products.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Millner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cleaver [presiding]. Thank you very much.
We will move now to Dr. Kelly. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF TOM KELLY, PH.D.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify about the essential role of the food service industry
and sustainability, and the strategic value of sustainability
to guide food service innovation.
I am the chief sustainability officer of the University of
New Hampshire where, for the last 10 years, I have directed the
University Office of Sustainability, the first endowed
university-wide program of its kind in the country. The
University of New Hampshire is building a culture of
sustainability by organizing everything we do around its
principles, our curriculum, our operations, our research, and
engagement with the wider world.
Within our own campus operations, we have been building a
low carbon infrastructure that will result in total emissions
57 percent below 1990 levels by this time next year, with no
offsets purchased, millions of dollars saved, and energy
security enhanced.
But our efforts go well beyond that in educating the next
generation of citizen professionals to meet the challenges of
sustainability. And building a sustainable food system is
fundamental to this broader mission. I have included specific
examples in my written testimony, including our local harvest
initiative that links local and regional procurement with
energy and water efficiency and composting, as well as the
first organic dairy research farm on a land grant university in
the United States. But for my purposes, for speaking, I would
like to share four principles and five broader recommendations
with you that we have found to be important in building a
sustainable food service at the University of New Hampshire,
and all of these are about business not as usual, but about
collaborations and partnerships that cut across virtually every
well established boundary between disciplines, management
functions, and internal and external stakeholders.
First, a comprehensive approach to food system
sustainability must address the important role played by the
food service industry, and I applaud your actions here today to
do just that. The food service industry is an increasingly
important actor in the chain that links agriculture, the
environment, and public health. In addition to minimizing their
own direct operational impacts, sustainability practices within
the food service industry can create greater demand for
sustainable agriculture from the local to the global level,
while providing healthy, delicious cuisine that nourishes the
palate and the spirit. This means that the sustainable food
system advocates from all sectors must engage the food service
industry in these broader efforts.
Second, a comprehensive approach to building a sustainable
food service industry must see that industry as part and parcel
of the larger food system. A successful approach must go beyond
food counter to compost, as this hearing is entitled, to
embrace the entire food system cycle, from healthy soils to
healthy farm and food enterprises to healthy communities,
including composting operations, that in turn help build
healthy soils. And so the cycle continues. We cannot truly have
a sustainable food service industry unless we have a
sustainable food system from farm to fork to compost to food
security and nutritional health.
This means that the sustainable food service advocates and
enterprises need to actively engage with partners from
agriculture, resource conservation, and nutrition to add their
unique and critical contribution to this larger shared goal.
Third, a comprehensive approach to building a sustainable
food industry must see the food system as part of the larger
society in which it operates. In our communities, food,
agricultural, and nutrition are linked and inseparable from
climate management, biodiversity and eco systems, and to
regional economies and livable wages. All of these factors
interact to impact our public health and quality of life. This
is the province of sustainable communities and the larger goal
of sustainable development.
Within a given food service operation, sustainability means
thinking up and down the supply chain and across the life cycle
of its products and services, and out into the communities and
regions that are working to sustain the quality of life.
Finally, in addition to incorporating sustainability
practices into our food service industry, it is critically
important that these practices are seen as an integral part of
education and learning within a broader culture of
sustainability. In higher education, sustainable food practices
must be complemented by curriculum, research, and public
engagement that strengthens sustainable food systems in our
communities.
By cultivating the capacity of students in all fields to
advance sustainability in their civic and professional lives,
we can ensure that the goals of energy independence and climate
stabilization benefit from and contribute to the equally
important goals of food security and environmental and public
health. Education is the key to empowering and inspiring the
creative problem solving that can sustain and improve the
quality of life for all Americans.
What is common to all these efforts that we are engaged in
related to food, energy, and the environment, and quality of
life is collaboration built around shared goals that are in
everyone's interests. Those shared interests lie in the fact
that reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so-called mitigation,
is absolutely necessary but insufficient to address the issue.
We must simultaneously adapt to regional impacts of an already
changing climate by building resilience into the systems that
sustain our communities, including food systems.
So, five points just to summarize here in closing that
these, we think, are, based on our experience, principles that
could help guide a national policy framework.
One, support regional approaches to food and agriculture
that reflect the diversity of ecology and culture and the
opportunities.
Two, link food and farming to health, nutrition, and
poverty reduction.
Three, support research for sustainable approaches to
biofuels that must reflect the best scientific assessments
across the full life cycle of those fuels.
Fourth, support responsive land grant universities. We have
a marvelous network in place, including cooperative extension
that can really contribute to these problems and solutions.
And, finally, support sustainability science with the
recognition from the National Research Council, National
Academy Sciences of the importance of responsive science.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much, Dr. Kelly.
Let me apologize. The sounds you heard were aimed at
getting us over to the Capitol to cast four votes, and time is
running out for us to get there. Is it possible for you to stay
until we can return? I would say approximately 25 minutes. I
hate to do this. Congress is manic depressive; and this is not
a sustainable way of doing business, but this is the way it is.
So we would appreciate it very much if you could stay, and we
will get back immediately after the last vote is cast. Thank
you.
And, Ms. Wong, we will start with you.
Mr. Cleaver [presiding]. I appreciate your waiting for us.
I apologize. We never know when we are going to be called for a
vote, except that we know we will not be now. We have taken the
last vote for today, and so we are ready to resume. I cannot
apologize enough.
Ms. Wong, if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF CARINA WONG
Ms. Wong. Thank you.
I come here today as the executive director of the Chez
Panisse Foundation and, more importantly, as the mother of two
young children. When you have children, you begin to worry
about a lot of things, and what they eat, or food, is one of
them.
The Chez Panisse Foundation gets its name from a restaurant
that wholly supports two farms and 85 others by buying locally,
seasonally and sustainably. It was started by a woman named
Alice Waters. Alice is also the founder of the Chez Panisse
Foundation. We are a separate nonprofit, and our work is to
support educational programs that use food to educate, empower
and nurture youth to build a more sustainable future.
Twelve years ago, we started an organic kitchen and garden
program at a public middle school to build a model that would
change the way children relate to food. We wanted to show them
how their food choices have both an impact on their health, the
community and the environment. Today, the Edible Schoolyard is
a program in which every child participates in growing,
harvesting, cooking and sharing food at the table. Children
learn about where their food comes from and math, reading and
writing. They learn about proportionality with recipes and
science with soil experiments and history through ancient
grains that they harvest. They turn the compost pile, and the
scraps from the kitchen classrooms go into it.
The original vision for the Edible Schoolyard was to
include a school lunch program for all students, not just a
healthy lunch but a delicious one, that is made from local,
seasonal and sustainable ingredients. Our schools in Berkeley,
like other schools in America, before we started this work,
were serving frozen lunchmeat sandwiches in packages; something
called encheritos, which I am still not sure what they are; and
chicken fingers that, no doubt, had traveled what is the
typical 1,500 miles to get to our cafeteria. So we funded a
chef to work inside the school district to begin to make
changes, not just taking the bad things out but focusing on
buying locally. It was an important part of our strategy and
our vision.
Lots of districts are trying to change their food and take
fat out or lower the sugar, but they are not looking at their
local sourcing. And we knew that local, seasonal and
sustainably grown foods would be better for the environment,
and they would simply taste better for kids: ripe, juicy
tomatoes in the late summer, tangerines in the winter, apples
in the fall, lettuces in the spring. We had a vision they would
lure children into our cafeterias, but could the district, our
public school district, afford these changes? They had a policy
that said they should do it, but would they really do it?
So, 2\1/2\ years later, we have a salad bar in every
school, much of which is organic; free breakfasts for all
students; and organic milk at lunch. Thirty percent of our
produce is organic and actually regionally or locally procured.
We compost and recycle in all of our kitchens, 16 of them, and
we have moved away from metal containers, serving buffet style
with compostable trays and, in some schools, with real plates.
The Foundation does not pay for any of the food costs. We
supported the cook in the development of new menus, procurement
systems and in evaluation.
It sounds quite simple: Buy locally and make real food. It
is as right as rain, but we face many challenges. Can you
imagine that, when we started, we had to teach people who were
making the food how to use a knife? Can you imagine that we do
not have a stove in our central kitchen that serves 5,000 meals
a day? Can you imagine that we could not even buy from a farmer
from the farmers market because we had no place to store his or
her produce and no way to purchase directly from them? Finally,
what do you think you can make for lunch that is nourishing and
delicious that is less than a dollar? Despite these challenges,
we have made progress, and I do believe it can be done in other
places.
For school districts, it requires more incentives and
better policies. When a fruit cocktail meets nutritional
guidelines set by the USDA, I think we have a problem. We need
stronger language in the farm bill to support the local
purchasing of all food, not just fruits and vegetables, and we
need investments or loans to help farmers grow real food--
broccoli instead of just corn for corn syrup.
We need pilot programs to show that this can be done in
other parts of the country, both the lunch piece and the
education piece.
We need more funding for food. We have to stop thinking of
food as cheap. Jamie Oliver--I was recently with him--another
chef from the U.K., held up an iPod, and he said, ``Would you
want to buy this iPod if it just cost $20?'' No. You would
question where it came from, and you would question what it was
made of. We should be thinking about the same thing with food
for our children. Do we really want to buy the cheapest beef?
The beef recall, the largest in history with 173 million pounds
of beef, should be a lesson to us.
We need more funding for training and for school gardens,
because we have learned at the Edible Schoolyard, if they grow
it and cook it, they absolutely will eat it.
Finally, it requires leadership at all levels of government
and in our schools. Budgets are tight, but we can pay now or
pay later. I do not need to tell you about the obesity crisis
facing our children and the CDC's telling us that this
generation will be the first to die younger than its parents.
I end with how I introduced myself, as a mother who cares
about what kind of world my children will live in. Children
learn eating habits when they are very, very young. I have a
son who is 1 and a daughter who is 3. Fortunately, my daughter
loves peas. She saw a basket of them recently at Chez Panisse,
and she asked to take a handful of them out of the restaurant
with her. As we left, she said, ``More, mama, more.'' But at
the same time, she goes to a daycare center in Oakland where
there is a lunch subsidized by the Federal Government that
gives her fish sticks and chocolate pudding for lunch. There is
something wrong with this picture, when a mother tries to do
the right thing but the Government sends a different message.
I am so honored to be here, testifying before this
committee. It means that Government, our leaders, are
connecting the dots between the food system and the
environment, between our children's health and the health of
this economy. What we feed our children matters. The National
Lunch Program serves 31 million children a day. We have a
choice about what to feed them.
Thank you for connecting your efforts to create energy
independence and to stop global warming with our efforts to
make a very simple meal--lunch--more delicious and locally
grown for children.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Wong, very much.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver, for a round of questions.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard, I returned to Washington this past Sunday night,
and I came to my office at about 11 o'clock at night, which is
just a slight symbol of the fact that I have no life. When I
arrived at 11 o'clock at night, all around the offices, the
lights--in our offices, we have changed all of the lightbulbs.
There is a rule to turn off the lights when you leave, and the
television is not supposed to be on all night. However, when I
looked out my window, I could see that there were very few
other Members practicing that kind of stewardship, if I can use
an etiological term.
Although I think we are making some strides, is there
anything that you can suggest that would help us get across to
the people here in the Capitol the events that we are doing?
I had hoped, when word got out about all of the changes
that you have implemented in the dining room, that that would
be a subtle suggestion that maybe we ought to do something in
our offices and even in our district offices.
I have a mobile unit in my district in Missouri, in Kansas
City, Missouri. We have a mobile unit that runs off of grease.
We get the grease, of course, at restaurants, so it ends up
being recycled. You cook a Big Mac in it. We drive with it.
I think, as we are trying to get the Nation to even think
about the sustainability of our food supply, of our dining,
that maybe we need some moral authority to make those
pronouncements. I am not sure we do have that, based on what is
going on on the Hill right now.
Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
Mr. Beard. Yes, I do, Mr. Cleaver. I happen to think that
what we need to have is a night lighting policy. You know, we
need to direct that the lights in the offices be turned off at
a reasonable hour, whatever that may be. Until we can go back
and retrofit all of the offices with motion-detector lights, we
do not really have any choice other than to mechanically flick
those--make sure, direct that those lights are turned off.
The system that is currently used by the Architect of the
Capitol is to have the cleaning crews, as they leave, turn off
all of the lights, but that is an inconsistent pattern. It does
not work. I think a better solution would be to work with the
Architect of the Capitol to implement a night lighting policy.
We have already worked with the Architect to reduce the run
time on the fans, for example, for the heating and cooling
systems. We have reduced the run time by 14 percent, which, in
turn, you know, is having an impact on our carbon footprint and
on our overall operations. We are also trying to install better
controls so that we are not running the air-conditioning
systems, you know, 24/7 at a very low temperature.
So I happen to think the easiest way to go about this is to
work with the Architect of the Capitol to come up with a night
lighting policy so that we turn those lights off. If a Member
is there and wants them on, all he has to do is flick the
switch, but otherwise, they are off, and we ought to make sure
that they are off. There is a significant savings that can be
had, you know, both in terms of carbon and the costs of
electricity.
Mr. Cleaver. Now, when this committee first began its work,
at one point, we had the largest carbon footprint in
Washington; Capitol Hill did. Is that still the case? If so,
how do we expand what you are doing?
Mr. Beard. I am not always sure we have the largest carbon
footprint in Washington, but you have to remember, the 7,000
employees of the House of Representatives who are here in
Washington on this campus do business in very old structures. I
mean, the Capitol is 1793, finished in 1810. Our newest
building is the Rayburn Building, 1965, so it is 42 years old.
You know, the Ford is 1939, the Longworth is 1933, the Cannon
Building is 1908.
Now, each one of those buildings was built to the fire,
safety, health, heating and cooling standards of their day, and
we have had to go back and retrofit every one of them. Some
buildings, like the Capitol, leak like a sieve. I mean, there
is no other way to describe it. That is just because we have
had a hodgepodge development.
So we have very old, very aging infrastructure where, for a
long time, no one made any improvements in the heating and
cooling systems, in the metering or in any of the other aspects
of building operations. So we have a long ways to go to be able
to address that.
Our carbon footprint of 91,000 tons for a community, a
small city of 7,000 people in the District, is probably larger
than normal, but I do not think that it is too outrageously
high. There are other bigger institutions like Georgetown and
GW, but most of them have buildings that are a lot newer than
ours. Ours do not change very much, frankly.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes himself for a round of questions.
Mr. Beard, what was your most difficult challenge in
attempting to green the Capitol?
Mr. Beard. That is an interesting question.
I think there were really two big problems. The first was
getting our arms around all of the factual situation. What is
our carbon footprint? Luckily, the General Accounting Office
had been asked to prepare that information a couple of years
ago, and they made it available to us. So that solved that
problem.
I think the second problem has been getting people to
realize that they have to do business in a different way. That
is everyone from Members and other agencies like the Architect
of the Capitol or the Senate or the Capitol Police, or whomever
it may be, and our employees. We need to do business in a
different way, but it is not that expensive, it is not that
difficult, and it certainly does not take new technology. It is
all off-the-shelf, and we are not doing anything different than
any other major corporation or institution in America is doing
at the present time. Wal-Mart or Harvard or any company worth
its salt is investing in and is making energy-efficient
improvements to affect the bottom line.
The Chairman. Are there any other commercial cafeterias
that close the loop for procurement, consumption and disposal,
as the House cafeteria does?
Mr. Beard. I do not know of any in the Washington, D.C.,
area. Rutgers University has a very good one. The Harvard
Business School has one. Google, both in the Bay Area as well
as in New York, has pretty modern facilities. But I do not know
of any others in the D.C. area that have taken the kind of
steps that we have.
The Chairman. How have you been able to create a corporate-
model, sustainable cafeteria without a price premium?
Mr. Beard. Well, it does cost a little bit more, but I am
convinced that you make it up on the back end by increased
sales. You know, our restaurant is a commercial operation, if I
can put it in those terms. We have a vendor. The vendor
prepares the meals, sells the food, and then the House receives
a payment as a percentage of those sales. So, the more meals we
serve, the more money we make, in a sense, if I can use that
analogy.
Last year, we received $275,000 in revenues under GSI. We
anticipate that will go up to $1.2 million this year with
Restaurant Associates, primarily because we are presenting a
better product in a better environment, and the food is better,
it is fresher, and we are getting on a per capita basis greater
attendance at the cafeteria than we have had in the past.
I do not know how that will work out, you know, 6 months
from now, but certainly, it goes back to the testimony that we
received about the schoolchildren in school cafeterias. It is
not that difficult; it is very easy. You know, you want to make
available the best product you can to the employees who work
here and to the Members and to our guests that we possibly can.
If we are willing to invest a little bit to do that, we will
get money back on the back end.
It cost us, for example, $90,000 to purchase and install
the pulper, but we will make that money back over probably a 6-
year period of time. I think it was a good investment.
The Chairman. So, in the end, though, it is not a price
premium, if you think about it. It is the overall life cycle.
Mr. Beard. It may be in the first year, but in the second,
third, fourth, and fifth years, it is not.
The Chairman. It is not.
Dr. Millner, the Beltsville composting facility that is
operating, is that operating at capacity?
Ms. Millner. Yes, at the present time, we are. We actually
expanded ourselves a little bit more than we originally
intended, but with some additional modifications and some
processes with the in-vessel systems, we are able to handle
things.
The Chairman. How many facilities like that are there in
the United States?
Ms. Millner. Composting facilities in general? I am going
to think that there might be about 4,000 or 5,000 total. A lot
of these do not handle food composting particularly. Most of
them handle yard trimmings and that sort of thing.
The Chairman. You discussed new facilities to avoid long-
haul distances.
Ms. Millner. Yes.
The Chairman. What are the constraints of finding a
location for a composting facility?
Ms. Millner. Well, there are actually quite a few. Most of
them center around community concerns about potential aspects
that maybe there might be some odor or maybe there might be
some additional traffic or as to the aesthetic appearances of
an outdoor composting facility where you see the piles and that
sort of thing instead of an enclosed, in-vessel type of system.
The Chairman. So what are the opportunities for expansion?
Ms. Millner. Well, in an urban area, what we are looking at
is--there are a variety of different in-vessel systems that are
available within the United States, so that is what we are
looking at. What is the most efficient type of system for the
food-type operations? Particularly, how do they compare with
regard to gaseous emissions that impact global warming? What
are their energy costs for operating them? Because they
obviously do utilize some kind of forced aeration, so that has
to be taken into account.
The Chairman. So, can you answer that? Can you deal with
that question for a second? What are the expenses related to
composting?
Ms. Millner. The expenses are the capitalization, if you
are talking about a brand-new facility. If they have to get a
facility up and going, it is whatever is required for the
permitting of that facility. Then there are operations and
maintenance costs, in addition to any of the capital items for
the equipment that you need to purchase to move the materials
around.
The Chairman. How commercially profitable is the compost
after it has been processed?
Ms. Millner. That depends on what they decide to do in the
beginning. I often tell people you have to start with the end
in mind. In that regard, I say that if you are really looking
to produce a very high-end horticultural product, then you need
to do certain things within the steps in making that product to
get to that very high end. You can ask a very large price for
that because horticultural producers want a reliable, high-
quality product.
If, on the other hand, you are producing a product that you
are just using for general field application for corn or for
some other commodity, you may not need to go to that high of an
end to produce a high-quality product. Consequently, you do not
have to put in as much capital investment.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Ms. Wong, what aspect of the School Lunch Initiative has
the greatest influence on children, in your opinion?
Ms. Wong. I think the greatest aspect of it is--a simple
example is a salad bar, just having fresh, local produce where
kids can see and choose. Kids like to choose things. So, when
they see it, they want to eat it. And it really makes a
difference in both their health and in the environment.
The Chairman. Are you interested in expanding to other
school districts?
Ms. Wong. Absolutely. We are always looking for different
partners, and we have been contacted by folks in Chicago and in
New York and in Los Angeles. While we may not run the program,
for we are a very small organization, we absolutely support and
are trying to link up funders to support this kind of program
in other school districts.
The Chairman. Well, let me ask this question to any of you
down there. What has been the response from diners as you move
to this new model? What are you hearing back from the people
who consume this food?
Mr. Beard. Well, speaking for the House anyway, when the
New York Times' food critic came to taste the food, after
tasting the food, she walked around and talked to people. She
randomly talked to people in the Longworth cafeteria. She came
back and said, ``Well, that was a surprise.'' I said, ``What
was?'' She said, ``The number-one answer I got back was people
were excited about being able to participate in a composting
exercise.'' They like the food, but it is just as important
that we are composting. So I think that was, to me at least,
one real testament.
I also judge the number of negative e-mails I get. Usually
when we make some kind of change around here, I get a lot. I
guess it is part of the job. But I would have to tell you that
I have not received any bad e-mails. Now, I have received e-
mails about we need additional information on various aspects
and problems with people with special diets, but I have yet to
receive an e-mail where somebody said this is lousy food, so--
--
The Chairman. Ms. Wong, what kind of comments are you
receiving from diners?
Ms. Wong. In our kitchen classroom, some of the kids serve
lunch. Kids make a dish, and they grow the food. I can tell
you, on countless occasions I have been in there and have seen
young boys and girls devouring plates of Swiss chard and kale.
How many times have you seen that? I see it every time I go
down there in the winter because they have been involved in
growing it and cooking it, and it tastes good because it is
straight from their garden that they have been growing it.
Another story is one of the programs we implemented was a
free breakfast program, so we would source apples and other
fruits and vegetables locally from the farmers market. Teachers
can do it or not do it, but it is available to all of the kids.
At one school in particular, there was a classroom; one teacher
was too lazy to go down and get the food in the cafeteria and
bring it back up. One of the young students called the food
service director and said, ``Why is everyone else getting this
great free breakfast with this fruit and these muffins, and I
don't have it?''
So students really are noticing differences. The longest
line in the high school is the salad bar line.
The Chairman. Interesting.
Mr. Beard. If I could interject, Mr. Chairman, I would also
have to say that, at least in our case, the best test is a
market test. You know, we have long lines and a lot of people
coming back, and the use of the cafeteria is greater now than
it was when we compare it back to a year ago.
The Chairman. So you are saying that revenues are up?
Mr. Beard. Revenues are up. More people are eating. And
they are satisfied customers, which is ultimately the strongest
test. You don't usually go back for another bad meal at a
restaurant. That has been my experience. You get only one
chance.
The Chairman. Yes, I agree with that, so that is quite a
tribute.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Blumenauer.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You picked up on a
point that I think is very important, in terms of customer
satisfaction.
I appreciate, Mr. Beard, that you have a big operation,
lots of moving parts that you are dealing with, but you are
already seeing, as your testimony pointed out, cost savings
just in the area of solid waste, customer satisfaction and more
people actually taking advantage of the healthier, more
environmentally sensitive areas.
Do you have a sense of, as we are going forward, what the
cost implications of that will be over time? I noticed you
referenced the $20,000----
Mr. Beard. Right.
Mr. Blumenauer [continuing]. Just as one little example.
Mr. Beard. Well, I would not be surprised if, overall, we
were going to be up around $200,000 in savings just in the kind
of investments we have made in going to energy-efficient
equipment and in the changes to the tipping fees. We also are
not going to be purchasing as much carbon offsets, so that is a
savings. So I would not be surprised, at the end of the year,
if we would reach $200,000 in savings. It is not unusual.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, I would add my voice to what you were
saying as to how positive the transition has been. You do not
usually see that when you are talking about changes, and
particularly when there are a few people who had decided to be
cranky before they had even seen it. I have been stunned at
just the chatter, as I dip down in there for a few minutes to
try and grab something, and at the positive feedback from our
office and with the young men and women on the Hill who we come
in contact with and with visitors.
This is something that I don't think has been given proper
attention, but we have millions of visitors who are on Capitol
Hill every year, and the opportunity to watch the modeling and
the feedback that they get is an opportunity to carry that
message. Up to this point, based on the feedback from my
constituents and from the folks we pick up on, it has been very
positive, and I appreciate it.
I would pose a question to you, Mr. Beard, and to our other
panelists about the lessons that this suggests for other areas
of the Federal Government. I think it is important for us to
model the behavior we want from the rest of America on Capitol
Hill, but the Federal Government is the largest landlord,
landowner, employer, probably the largest provider of food
services in the United States. As you sort of run this all out,
it has a pretty significant potential impact.
I wondered if any of you had thoughts or observations from
these lessons about what changes we should have in Federal
policy to be able to accelerate this change to capture these
savings and to increase customer satisfaction.
Mr. Beard. Do you want to go ahead?
Ms. Wong. I mentioned earlier in my testimony that the farm
bill is now in conference, but there are things in it that
encourage and provide incentives for participating locally. So
those are important pieces of legislation that need to be
strengthened, as well as encouraging loans for farmers to
really begin to produce real food. Those are two very strong
examples that I think, policy-wise, support our efforts.
Mr. Blumenauer. I will send you my Food and Farm Bill of
Rights legislation----
Ms. Wong. Terrific.
Mr. Blumenauer [continuing]. Some of which got into the
farm bill.
Ms. Wong. I am sure I will agree with it.
Mr. Beard. Well, I think my observation would be that it is
not that hard. We are not talking about rocket science here.
This is not brain surgery or anything. We are talking about
obtaining locally produced products and providing fresh food to
our customers.
I really have to put in a plug for our vendor. Restaurant
Associates has been a fantastic vendor for the House. I met
with the president of Restaurant Associates in November, and I
told him that success, to me, would be that in a year people
would come to Washington, D.C., and say, ``We have to go to the
House of Representatives cafeteria because it is a green and
sustainable operation.''
I think we are almost there. I mean, I think, frankly, with
some more publicity like this hearing, we will be having that
kind of an impact. It really is not that hard. It does not cost
that much more. And you make the money back, you know, in the
long term by having greater revenues.
So I guess the other thing is--in terms of policy, I think
the suggestions about the farm bill are very, very interesting
and very worthwhile. We have actually made these changes,
incidentally, without the benefit of getting as many products
from local providers as we would like to have because of the
time of the year we are in. I think, when you see it in the
spring and in the fall here, you will see a lot fresher
products. Our apples, peaches and other kinds of things that
you will see will be local products.
As you walk into the Longworth cafeteria, for example, or
into the Rayburn, you will notice a little sign, and it says,
``Our local partners.'' What it shows is the local farms that
are supplying food that day. I have talked to Restaurant
Associates about having some of those farmers come into the
restaurants and, you know, talk some about the kinds of things
that they are doing and about their products, so it can build a
link between our cafeterias and our suppliers, the farms that
we are using.
So there are a lot of exciting things that we can do, and
Restaurant Associates has been more than willing to participate
in that.
Ms. Millner. I would just say there is hardly a week that
goes by when I do not receive a call from other Federal
agencies around here in the Washington metropolitan area who
would like to be able--they are interested in doing the
composting of food residuals and are trying to get on board
with the bio-based products.
So I think there is a huge, pent-up demand among the
Federal agencies to do that. As soon as there is more
composting capacity for food waste in the area, I can see that
going forward rather rapidly.
Mr. Blumenauer. Super. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Oregon.
We are going to ask now each one of you to give us your
best 1-minute summary of what you want us to remember about
this phenomenon so that we can retain that in our minds. Feel
free to use the props which you have brought as part of your
summation.
Ms. Wong, we will begin with you for 1 minute.
Ms. Wong. I would like to give a quote from my
organization's founder. I think this sums it up. Alice Waters
said, ``I believe there is something very wrong with the way
most people in our culture relate to food, and this is
something that seems to me to be absolutely central to the
future of environmentalism. Even the environmental visionaries,
who seem to be seeing the trees awfully well, even some of
these brilliant revolutionaries keep missing the forest. And
the forest is that learning to make the right choices about
food is the single most important key to environmental
awareness for ourselves and for our children.''
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Wong, very much.
Dr. Millner.
Ms. Millner. I would just sum up by saying that composting
is Mother Nature's natural process for decomposing and
recycling. It starts and ends there.
The Chairman. Beautiful. Thank you.
Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard. I think I would use a little bit of a variation
of that. Again, you know, we start with the food itself. The
materials are compost material, you know--I guess I call it my
coleslaw--leading us into compost. So it is a life cycle, and
you have to think about it in life-cycle terms and look at this
in a much more comprehensive fashion.
Then, I think the last thing that I would say is that I
would encourage you to visit the Members' Dining Room, the
Longworth or the Rayburn cafeteria. Bon appetit!
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Beard. Thank you.
The Chairman. I am doing that, and it is really great. I
want to congratulate you.
Mr. Beard. Thank you.
The Chairman. You know, we are daily diners, but I think
Members might want to try Chez Panisse too. That might be a
good congressional trip for us.
We thank you all very much for your patience.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]