[Senate Hearing 110-41]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-41
CHILD NUTRITION AND THE SCHOOL SETTING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.agriculture.senate.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-041 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY
TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
MAX BAUCUS, Montana THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
DEBBIE A. STABENOW, Michigan PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MICHEAL D. CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
Mark Halverson, Majority Staff Director
Robert E. Sturm, Chief Clerk
Martha Scott Poindexter, Minority Staff Director
Vernie Hubert, Minority General Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing(s):
Child Nutrition and the School Setting........................... 1
----------
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS
Harkin, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, Chairman, Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry......................... 1
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania..... 4
Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from Georgia............... 5
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from Indiana.............. 3
Salazar, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................. 3
Panel I
Brownell, Kelly, Founder and Director, Rudd Center for Food
Policy and Obesity, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.... 14
Hennrich, Mary Lou, Executive Director, Community Health
Partnership, Portland, Oregon.................................. 11
Nece, Teresa, Director, Food and Nutrition, Des Moines Public
Schools, Des Moines, Iowa...................................... 7
Neely, Susan K., President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Beverage Association, Washington, DC........................... 9
Thornton, Janey, Child Nutrition Director, Hardin County School
District, Elizabethtown, Kentucky.............................. 6
----------
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Cochran, Hon. Thad........................................... 50
McConnell, Hon. Mitch........................................ 52
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie........................................ 54
Brownell, Kelly.............................................. 56
Hennrich, Mary Lou........................................... 64
Nece, Teresa................................................. 68
Neely, Susan K............................................... 72
Thornton, Janey.............................................. 78
Document(s) Submitted for the Record:
Engine Manufacturers Association, prepared statement......... 94
Society for Nutrition Education, prepared statement.......... 96
Support of the School Nutrition Association from various
organizations, prepared statements......................... 100
CHILD NUTRITION AND THE SCHOOL SETTING
----------
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Harkin, Lincoln, Stabenow, Salazar,
Casey, Klobuchar, Chambliss, Lugar, Coleman, and Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA,
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
Chairman Harkin. The Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry will come to order.
First of all, I want to welcome everyone to the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry's hearing on
child nutrition within the school setting. First let me begin
by welcoming all of our witnesses who are here today, thanking
them for their contributions to the health and well-being of
our kids in school.
Let me also welcome all of the School Nutrition Association
delegates who are here today. This is now an annualized
meeting, and it is always great to see all of you here and to
welcome you here to Washington. Again we have a big Iowa
delegation, I am proud to say, and I am certain Indiana is well
represented also, Senator Lugar.
Today we will hear about the progress made and about areas
where more can be done, and specifically about the role that
this Committee can play in improving children's diets. The farm
bill reauthorization this year provides us with an opportunity
to make further progress on these issues, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this year.
The hearing occurs at a critical moment for our Nation's
children. Over the past 30 years, in large part because of
Federal nutrition programs, we have made remarkable strides in
ending hunger in the United States. In recent years, thanks to
the efforts of school nutrition personnel, those of you in this
room, the nutritional quality of school means has also
improved. But now we have a new set of health risks associated
with diet which have grown rapidly in recent years with serious
consequences for our children.
Unhealthy weight, even obesity, among children has
increased dramatically. Diet-related type II diabetes has
reached levels never thought possible, with some estimating
that one in three children born today will develop the disease.
Added sugar and fat consumption generally is on the rise among
children, representing half of daily caloric intake among
school-aged kids. I might also add that too much salt is being
put in all of the foods that all of our kids consume.
I would like to make it clear that when I talk about diet-
related health problems, I am not trying to demonize any
particular food. All of us here enjoy the occasional sugary
snack. Myself, I prefer Dairy Queen, but that is just my own
predilection.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. The real issue here is maintaining the
proper balance in our diets. In recent decades, there have been
significant changes in the diets of most Americans, especially
kids. Since the last 1970's, the percentage of daily calories
that kids get from sweetened beverages has doubled--doubled--
from less than 5 percent to more than 10 percent, according to
the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. Foods that once
were considered a treat are now consumed daily, even multiple
times daily, by many of our kids. According to USDA's Food and
Nutrition Service, 52 percent of teenage males and 32 percent
of teenage females consume three or more soft drink servings
each day.
Even as the quality of federally reimbursed meals, as I
mentioned earlier, has improved, foods of little nutritional
value--candy, chips, sweetened beverages--have become
increasingly available and consumed in most schools where kids
spend, of course, the majority of their day.
Now, some schools and some States have taken action to
address these challenges, and I compliment them. But many more
have not. And the Federal Government I think has done little,
and far too little--again, I think, in my opinion--to set basic
nutrition standards for foods that are sold in our schools. I
mean all foods. Without such guidelines, millions of American
children fail to receive optimal nutrition at school, and the
$10 billion that our taxpayers spend every year in school meal
reimbursements is undermined by these foods of little
nutritional value available in school settings.
Today I am happy to announce that again Senator Murkowski
and I will be reintroducing today the Child Nutrition Promotion
and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007. It was called 2006
last year. I just want to thank all of the people who are here
and the School Nutrition Association for their strong support
of this legislation to set national guidelines--national
guidelines--and to give the Secretary of Agriculture the
authority to set those guidelines for all foods in all schools
that receive reimbursements for School Breakfast or School
Lunch Programs. So I just wanted to mention that, that we will
be reintroducing that legislation today. I hope that we can
once again have the support of the School Nutrition Association
and hopefully that with the farm bill up this year, perhaps we
can see some more determined action on that front this year.
With that, I would turn to my good friend and also a great
supporter of good health, Dick Lugar, Senator Lugar from
Indiana.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
had not anticipated making an opening statement, but let me
just say that this is always a rally of the faithful. And I
would say that Tom Harkin is absolutely right that it is a time
in which those who have fostered school lunches and school
breakfasts for children all over our country, rejoice, we have
preserved that thought that these meals ought to be available
to all of our children, regardless of which State or county or
locale they happen to be in. And this group is largely
responsible for maintaining that and maintaining support for
Senators who have supported that.
I agree also that it is extremely important that we tackle
once again the vending machine problem and the child obesity
problem. The Chairman has phrased this in more artful language,
but these are issues that come before us perennially, and
clearly there is now, I think, movement to understand the
dilemmas that come to school administrations that wrestle with
these problems, as well as with nutritionists, and, finally, of
course, our children. Of course, we could set better examples
as parents and adults with regard to the obesity issue, in
addition to working with the child issue, but it is so
important there. The data is incontrovertible. And I rejoice in
this hearing and the chance to hear from distinguished
witnesses, and hopefully we will have a chance to visit with
you.
Thank you.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
I would just mention that Senator Chambliss was here. He
has to go over to a meeting of the Armed Social Security
Committee. He will be right back, and I will keep the record
open for his opening statement.
Just for short statements, I would yield now to Senator
Salazar from Colorado.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin. I
very much appreciate you holding this hearing. Just two very
quick points.
First, I applaud the Chairman and all of you who have been
advocates of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. I think the
fact that was included in the 2002 farm bill was a very
important step forward. I know it operates in some six or seven
States now, and I hope that one of the things that we can do is
to find ways of expanding that to more States, including my
State, which currently does not participate in it.
Second of all, I think when we look at these nutrition
programs, what we really are talking about is having our
children across this country being in a position where they can
learn. I always wonder when I go to schools how is it that a
young person can be in a classroom in an environment that is
supposed to be a learning environment, but they have not had a
breakfast or they have not had a lunch and they are
malnutritioned. So it very much ties into the whole concept of
competitiveness and having a great educational system and
improving upon our educational system here.
I was briefly looking at the numbers for us in Colorado,
Mr. Chairman, and I noted that in Colorado we have over 1,000
Colorado schools with 72,000 students getting a breakfast from
our program. We have 1,600 schools and 330,000 students that
participate in the lunch programs that are provided out of the
programs that have been created by this Congress. And so it has
a huge impact on what we do in my State, and I know that is
true for each of our States across this country.
So thank you so much for putting a spotlight on this issue.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Salazar.
Again, a new member of our Committee, and we welcome him
because he is also a good proponent of preventative medicine
and good health, and that is Senator Casey from Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for having
this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses and the
advocates who are in the room.
There are few issues that this Congress will deal with that
have more importance, I think, for the families involved and
the children involved than the issues that we are going to be
talking about today. Very few issues have as much impact on
those families and our economy, frankly, now and in the future
than these issues. And I want to thank all of you for the work
that you do, the important work that you do, to make sure that
our children are receiving the nutrition they need. And I think
it is very important for this Congress to focus on these
programs.
I know in my State of Pennsylvania we have just over a
million people--a million children, I should say, that
participate in the School Lunch Program. We have got a lot less
in school breakfast. That is a problem. We have got to correct
that. About a quarter of a million in school breakfast. So this
issue is critically important to the families in Pennsylvania,
but I know across the country.
I know that in our State the Fruit and Vegetable Snack
Program has been a great program, but not enough schools are
participating. We have got to expand that for our State and
other States around the country.
But I really believe this is an issue for the future of
America, for our kids, as everyone here in this room knows, to
have the nutrition that they need in the dawn of their lives
and they get a healthy start. They are going to be better
educated and much better prepared to meet the challenges of
their educational career, but also the world of work and the
economy that they can build.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this hearing is as much about the
future and our economic future as it is about the children who
will benefit, and we are honored to be a part of it.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
Now I will turn to our distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Chambliss.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
am very appreciative of you holding this hearing today and the
bipartisan approach we have taken on nutrition in the past. And
I know as we craft the farm bill this year, we are going to
work very close together to make sure the nutrition title is
exactly the way it should be.
I welcome all of our visitors here today as we discuss the
child nutrition programs in the school setting, and I
particularly want to welcome all of my good friends from
Georgia who are up today to observe this hearing.
Good nutrition is not only important for good health, but
also for proper cognitive development in our children. Our
school nutrition programs are a key component in our effort to
provide healthy, nutritious meals to our Nation's school
children. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
which administers these programs, nearly 85 million school
breakfasts and over 210 million school lunches were served in
Georgia during fiscal year 2006. For too many of our children,
the school nutrition programs are the healthiest, most balanced
meals of their entire day, so thank goodness we have got great
nutrition folks in our schools that are helping look after
these children.
We appreciate the efforts of our school nutrition
professionals, many of whom are visiting today, for the job
they perform to ensure that our young people have a healthy
start on life. I know from the school teachers in my family of
the importance of good nutrition in our schools, especially for
our children's development. Moreover, the food for our school
meals programs come from U.S. farmers, which obviously helps
agriculture. School nutrition programs are good for families,
good for farmers, and good for the future of America.
Nutrition programs have been and continue to be an
important part of the farm bill. Although the Committee will be
facing budgetary pressures from all interested parties when
writing this farm bill, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working
together to address the nutritional issues which are critical
to the well-being of our Nation's children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to our
witnesses' testimony today.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. And we have
a great panel here today that covers, I think, the whole scope
of what we are talking about here.
We have Ms. Janey Thornton, Child Nutrition Director from
Hardin County School District in Elizabethtown, Kentucky; Ms.
Teresa Nece, Director of Food and Nutrition at Des Moines
Public Schools, Des Moines, Iowa, who I hope is going to speak
about the Fruit and Vegetable Program that Senator Salazar
mentioned; Ms. Susan Neely, President and CEO of the American
Beverage Association here in Washington; Ms. Mary Lou Hennrich,
the Executive Director of the Community Health Partnership in
Portland, Oregon; and Mr. Kelly Brownell, Founder and Director
of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale
University in New Haven, Connecticut, who has met with us
before and has been a witness before us in the past, and is one
of the really guiding lights in terms of nutrition in the
United States of America.
We thank you all for being here, and we will ask you each--
I will just say that all of your statements will be made a part
of the record in their entirety. What I would like you to do is
if you could just sum up your points within 5 minutes each. We
will go down the line in the order in which I introduced you,
and then we will open it for questions and answers with the
Senators.
So, first, I would turn to Ms. Janey Thornton.
STATEMENT OF JANEY THORNTON, CHILD NUTRITION DIRECTOR, HARDIN
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ELIZABETHTOWN, KENTUCKY
Ms. Thornton. Chairman Harkin, Senator Chambliss, members
of the Committee, thank you very, very much for this hearing on
child nutrition and for continuing the unique tradition of
hosting this hearing during our legislative annual conference.
I am Janey Thornton, President of the School Nutrition
Association, from Hardin County, Kentucky.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report this morning that, if
our membership and our Industry Advisory Board are any judge,
support for your legislation is increasing. SNA believes
strongly that the Secretary of Agriculture should have the
authority to regulate the sale of food and beverages throughout
the entire school day and throughout the entire school. We
cannot have one set of a la carte standards in the cafeteria
and then another set of standards or no standards down the
hall.
We need consistent standards in the school for two reasons:
to promote wellness, but also to send a consistent nutrition
message to our students. As every parent knows, if we tell our
children one thing but they see us doing something else, they
are going to follow our actions and ignore our words. Schools
must also practice what they preach, and with the foods we sell
and the nutrition education that we are teaching. Therefore, we
hope Congress will move forward with this important
legislation.
If the Congress is going to move forward in this area,
however, it is our hope and our suggestion that nutrition
guidelines within the cafeteria also be standardized. Current
law requires that meals served be consistent with the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. However, in recent years, many States
and even some local districts have come to interpret those
dietary guidelines differently.
The ever increasing range of nutrition standards is
creating a significant problem for our schools as well as for
our industry sponsors. The variety and disparity of standards
throughout the country are forcing an increase in our food
cost, which we cannot accommodate given our current Federal
reimbursement.
Mr. Chairman, whatever nutrition a child needs in Iowa are
the same nutritional standards that a child needs in Georgia or
in Kentucky or in any other State.
As we focus on improving the quality of school meals, we
must not forget about those low-income students who qualify for
the program but cannot afford to participate. I am referring,
of course, to the reduced-price school meals. Students from
families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the
poverty level are charged a maximum of 40 cents for lunch and
30 cents for breakfast. While that may not sound like a lot of
money, it is keeping students out of the program. SNA firmly
believes that if a family qualifies for free WIC benefits, they
should also qualify for free meals.
Every day our SNA members are confronted with children who
cannot afford that fee. Sometimes our members actually reach
into their own pockets to pay the fee. Some schools might hold
up that report card until the fees are paid. This is a real
problem. There are families in America who cannot afford the 40
cents per child for a nutritious school lunch and 30 cents for
breakfast.
With my district being adjacent to Fort Knox, I hear almost
weekly from many of our military families about this very
concern. We are not here today urging Congress to expand the
free meal program and eliminate the reduced-price program. We
are just urging Congress to finally fund the reduced-price
pilot program to determine once and for all whether it is the
fee as opposed to some other variable that might be keeping
those low-income children from the program. According to USDA,
a valid test can be implemented for approximately $23 million
over a 3-year period.
Finally, as we celebrate National School Breakfast Week, we
are asking the Committee to provide USDA commodities for the
School Breakfast Program. As you know, USDA currently provides
approximately 18 cents in commodities for each lunch served to
almost 30 million children in the program. By comparison, no
commodity support is provided to the School Breakfast Program
and the 9 million children who participate, even though, as you
have mentioned, all available research indicates that this is
the most important meal of the day. School breakfast commodity
support would help us expand this program and would at the same
time support American agriculture. We are suggesting that 10
cents per meal be provided in USDA commodities for each
breakfast served.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, that concludes our
formal statement. We will be most pleased to answer any
questions you may have, and we certainly thank you again for
this opportunity to address you today. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thornton can be found on
page 78 in the appendix.]
Chairman Harkin. Madam President, thank you very much for a
great statement, and thanks for your great leadership of this
organization.
Ms. Thornton. Thank you.
Chairman Harkin. Now we will turn to Teresa Nece, a long-
time friend of mine, from Des Moines. Welcome back again,
Teresa.
STATEMENT OF TERESA NECE, DIRECTOR, FOOD AND NUTRITION, DES
MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DES MOINES, IOWA
Ms. Nece. Thank you. Chairman Harkin and members of the
Committee, I am Teresa Nece, Food and Nutrition Director, Des
Moines Public Schools, Des Moines, Iowa. I am pleased to be
here today representing my school district, other Iowa schools,
as well as schools across the Nation. Mr. Chairman, you and
each Committee member are to be commended for spending your
time working on behalf of our Nation's children. The children
deserve policies and programs that will contribute to their
health and well-being. My comments today will be focused on the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program currently operating in 14
States and on three Indian Tribal Organizations, representing
375 schools.
Des Moines has been fortunate to have had four of its 59
schools participate in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
during the past 5 years. Currently we have two program
participants reaching approximately 900 students reaping
program benefits each and every day.
The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program has been very
successful in participating schools across the Nation because
the fruits and vegetables are available free to all students. I
feel this is a very important aspect of the program design. One
of the original reasons for offering fresh fruits and
vegetables to students throughout the day was to demonstrate
that when fresh fruits and vegetables were made readily
available, students would increase their consumption of fruits
and vegetables and decrease consumption of candy, chips, and
other similar, less healthy snacks. The theory has worked.
Our students have definitely enjoyed the experience of not
only trying familiar fruits and vegetables but also new and
different fruits and vegetables.
One of our first learning experiences in a middle school
was to offer Bartlett pears in the classroom. We discovered
that the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students thought
fresh pears were white, soft, and sliced. Many of the students
had never seen or tasted a whole fresh pear. Classroom teachers
discovered that they had many teachable moments with the fruits
and vegetables. They embraced the program and encouraged their
students to try new foods each and every day. What more could
we ask of our teachers?
We have noted improved eating habits of the students as
well as a healthier school environment in our buildings. One of
the greatest benefits of the program has been the creation of a
school community focused on healthy foods offered throughout
the day--before school, during school, and after school. This
environmental change has taken work on the part of all staff
and students. In our schools, we offer fresh fruits and
vegetables in the classrooms every day, in the school
cafeteria, in the office, and in the nurse's office.
Parents have told us about their students looking forward
to the fruits and vegetables at school, as well as about
shopping experiences at the grocery store when the students
request the purchase of fruits and vegetables that they have
had during the week.
Teachers and principals have stated many times one of the
unexpected benefits of the program is the opportunity for
students and teachers to talk about something other than
academics. In Des Moines, the piece of fruit or vegetable has
brought a neutral focal point for teaching life skills and has
supported the development of a school family focused on success
for all students.
Teachers have watched their learning behavior of their
students change, creating a relaxed classroom atmosphere that
enhanced the learning experience. They identified that their
students are more ready to learn with the availability of the
fresh fruits and vegetables in the classroom.
The program has been a positive experience for our
district. I have had requests for expansion of the program into
schools within my district because of the positive impact of
the program. Our State child nutrition director has received
numerous calls from other schools in Iowa requesting
information on how to get involved.
This program impacted the lives of our students by creating
an environment focused on developing good eating habits. This
program has supported the role of the school meal programs and
has enhanced the learning environment in the total school. I
know that our Iowa experiences mirror experiences from across
the Nation.
Chairman Harkin and members of the Committee, the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Program has demonstrated changed student
food consumption practices. Children are eating more fruits and
vegetables. Healthy fruits and vegetables are chosen more often
by students, decreasing the consumption of less healthy snack
foods.
In summary, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the
Fruit and Vegetable Program has been remarkably successful, not
just in fulfilling its stated purpose of increasing fruit and
vegetable consumption, but also in helping to create something
much bigger, namely, a culture of wellness and health
promotion. I strongly believe in the value of this program and
would like to see the program expanded. Additionally, I would
like to see the school meal programs enhanced with additional
funding to support infrastructure needs to facilitate increased
offerings of fruits and vegetables as a part of the School
Breakfast and Lunch Programs.
I look forward to my continued work in impacting the lives
of students and families each day in Des Moines. And that
concludes my statement, and I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nece can be found on page 68
in the appendix.]
Chairman Harkin. Ms. Nece, thank you very much, and thanks
for your great leadership in Iowa in this program. I am going
to have more questions for you when we get to our question
period.
Now we turn to Susan K. Neely, President and CEO of the
American Beverage Association. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN K. NEELY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Neely. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Chambliss, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today to discuss child
nutrition and the school setting. I am Susan Neely, President
and CEO of the American Beverage Association. We represent the
nonalcoholic refreshment beverage industry and have done so for
almost 90 years, which means we represent producers,
distributors, franchise companies that market hundreds of
brands, bottled water, flavored water, fruit juice, ready-to-
drink teas, coffees, fruit drinks, carbonated soft drinks,
dairy-based beverages, and sports drinks. I am also the mother
of two elementary school aged children and originally from
Iowa.
Mr. Chairman, the American Beverage Association agrees that
the obesity crisis is a complex national challenge that
requires us to re-examine old practices and find new solutions.
All of us--policymakers, parents, educators, industry, and
community leaders--have a responsibility to do our part to help
teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle. I am proud
to report that the American beverage industry is doing just
that. The Committee invited me here today to talk about our
recently adopted school beverage guidelines which limit
calories and increase nutritious offerings in the beverages
that are available in schools.
Last May, ABA, Cadbury Schweppes, Coke, and Pepsi teamed up
with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a joint
initiative of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the
American Heart Association, to develop these new guidelines. In
a nutshell, the only beverages available in elementary and
middle schools will be water, low-fat and nonfat milk, and 100
percent juice. The milk and juice products will be portion
controlled to keep calories in check while delivering key
nutrients children need. For older students in high schools,
the product mix is broadened to include low- and no-calorie
beverages, light juices, and portion-controlled servings of
sports drinks and other beverages that are all capped at 100
calories per container.
The most dramatic effect of the guidelines, once fully
implemented, is that full-calorie, carbonated soft drinks and
fruit drinks will no longer be available in schools. Mr.
Chairman, I repeat, we will no longer sell full-calorie soft
drinks in schools, even high schools.
We agree with parents and educators that schools are
special places and play a meaningful role in shaping our
children's health. The guidelines were designed using nutrition
science, including the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005,
as well as the American Heart Association's Dietary Guidelines
for Healthy Children and 2006 Diet and Lifestyle
Recommendations.
We think we have struck the right balance with these
guidelines. A recent national survey found that 82 percent of
parents surveyed support our school beverage guidelines. It is
important to note that they support the guidelines over more
restrictive alternatives. When asked to choose between the
guidelines and a policy providing only water, low-fat milk, and
100 percent juice in all grades, K through 12, parents support
the guidelines by a margin of 56 percent to 42 percent. When
asked if they support the guidelines or a complete ban on
vending in schools, they chose the guidelines by a margin of 82
percent to 14 percent.
Clearly, parents believe we have hit the mark with our
policy. It is based on sound nutrition and reflects the reality
of how most of us live. Like grownups who like our treats, kids
want to drink both nutritious and enjoyable beverages. Through
these guidelines, schools can help our children learn how to
choose beverages that are lower in calories and/or high in
nutrition.
Now, the No. 1 question we get about our guidelines, even
from those who say they support it, is: Will they be
implemented? They are only voluntarily. I can assure you that
the beverage industry is working hard to implement the
guidelines. In the past 10 months since we signed the
Memorandum of Understanding with the Alliance for a Healthier
Generation, our companies have spent hundreds of hours training
their marketing and sales teams. The teams have reached out to
school contract partners to educate them. We are reformulating
products. We are creating new package sizes to meet the smaller
portion sizes required in the guidelines. And we are
retrofitting vending machines to accommodate the changes in
package sizes. Mr. Chairman, our policy is indeed a national
policy as our companies are implementing it in each one of
their schools across the country.
The School Beverage Guidelines MOU requires full
implementation of the guidelines by August 2009. The first
progress report on implementation of the guidelines will be
completed in August. We fully expect the August report to show
a continued decline in the sale of full-calorie soft drinks in
our schools.
The bottom line: The School Beverage Guidelines are common
sense, supported by science, backed by parents, responsive to
concerns about calories and nutrition, and they are already
being implemented across the country. We are making it happen
in our schools.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to
appear before the Committee and want to conclude by stating
again how proud we are of these new school beverage guidelines.
While we applaud this Committee's efforts to find new ways to
address good nutrition, we hope it will recognize and support
the significant effort by this industry to change the beverage
offerings in schools that is already well underway. We will
continue to do our part to support healthy, happy kids. After
all, we are parents, too.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Neely can be found on page
72 in the appendix.]
Chairman Harkin. I can assure you that we recognize it, and
we compliment the industry for taking these bold steps. I think
it is moving in the right direction.
Ms. Neely. Thank you.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you very much.
And now we turn to Mary Lou Hennrich, Executive Director of
Community Health Partnership in Portland, Oregon. Ms. Hennrich?
STATEMENT OF MARY LOU HENNRICH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
HEALTH PARTNERSHIP, PORTLAND, OREGON
Ms. Hennrich. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, Senator
Chambliss, members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to allow me to testify today and, as you said, my
name is Mary Lou Hennrich. My 35-year career as a public health
nurse and administrator finds me currently serving as the
Executive Director of Community Health Partnership, Oregon's
Public Health Institute, based in Portland, Oregon. Community
Health Partnership is an independent, nonprofit organization
committed to improving the health of Oregonians. In recent
years, our organization has led statewide efforts to improve
the nutritional quality of foods and beverages in schools,
similar to what you are trying to do nationally. I have
advocated for stronger school nutrition standards in Portland
Public Schools, which is my local school district and Oregon's
largest district.
The challenges we have encountered in our efforts at the
local and State level--and in Oregon, we have been working for
nearly 6 years to pass State standards for food sold outside
the National School Lunch Program--have made it very clear to
us that we need strong Federal leadership on this issue. That
is why our organization has endorsed Senators Harkin and
Murkowski's Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch
Protection Act of 2006 and will do so in 2007, and we urge the
Senate to pass it this year.
I am going to speak a little bit about local control
because this seems to be an issue that comes up at the State
level where, when we try to do things on a statewide basis, we
are told local districts want to do it. I think when the
Federal Government tries to do it, they are told the locals are
the States. So it is kind of like everybody is passing the buck
on, you know, who is the local and everybody else should be
doing it.
I think parents do not care whether school food standards
come from Congress, a State, or the local school district. To
them, local control means that they have control over what
their kids are eating in school. And parents have told us,
loudly and clearly, that they want the foods sold in their
children's schools to be healthy. The sale of low-nutrition
foods in schools undermines parents' ability to help their
children eat a healthful diet. Parents should not have to worry
that their children will spend their lunch money on low-
nutrition foods from vending machines, school stores, and a la
carte in the cafeteria instead of on balanced school meals.
While we respect that many school-related policies are left
to local control, school foods are different. School foods have
been a Federal issue since the Truman administration. Congress
and the USDA set detailed standards for school lunches and
breakfasts. And as Senator Harkin said, the Federal Government
invests huge amounts of money--$10 billion in fiscal year 2006
alone--in school lunches and breakfasts. Selling low-nutrition
foods in schools undermines that major taxpayer investment and
the efforts to ensure that school meals are healthy.
The majority of the Nation's 14,000 school districts are
not equipped to develop science-based nutrition standards for
school foods. A recent national analysis found that only 20
percent of the largest 100 school districts in the country have
set specific nutrition standards for a la carte and vending in
their recently passed local wellness policies. In Oregon, our
organization analyzed the 174 local district wellness policies
that were filed with the State Department of Education. That is
out of what should have been 189, but there were a few
districts that did not even turn in a policy. And we found the
exact same percentage, which was 19.5 percent of policies, set
any specific guidelines around foods sold outside the National
School Lunch Program. So the local wellness policies did not do
it.
All other things being equal, local control is an important
consideration. However, the inherent value of local control
must be weighed against the significant threat that childhood
obesity poses to our children's health. I think as Senator
Harkin clearly said this morning, we have got diabetes on a
rampant rise, and almost 40 percent of girls and one-third of
boys are on track to develop diet-related diabetes. We have got
to re-examine the value and effectiveness of local control with
regard to children's health and nutrition.
Things have drastically changed in schools in the past 20-
plus years. When my oldest child, who is now 32 and is a
teacher, was in school, 99 percent of eating happened in the
cafeteria. Now that she is a teacher, she reports that more
than 75 percent of eating occurs in hallways and classrooms.
Indeed, there is a lot of food sold through venues other than
school meals. Nationally, 83 percent of elementary schools, 97
percent of middle, and 99 percent of senior high schools sell
foods and beverages out of vending machines, school stores, or
a la carte. Unfortunately, too many of the choices offered to
children, as you have heard, in these venues are of poor
nutritional value. They also undermine what is being taught in
the classroom. We need to sell what we tell.
There are revenue considerations. The sale of low-nutrition
food outside school meals programs undermines school lunch. For
example, when Jefferson County School District in Kentucky set
nutrition standards for items sold through its a la carte line,
it experienced an annual decrease of $3 million in a la carte
revenue. However, at the same time it saw a $6.9 million annual
increase in school meal revenue. We are finding that in
Portland. It has changed its offerings dramatically and now is
seeing an increase in the money they are getting from national
school meals, and the kids are getting healthier foods.
So I have other things in my testimony, but I think you can
ask me questions on that. Our organization did what turned out
to be the sentinel study on soda contracts, and I can answer
questions about the revenue, the changes. We applaud the ABA
for their voluntary guidelines but do point out they are
voluntary. Schools must approach and ask to have these
implemented. We believe that those guidelines should be the law
of the land, and we would hope that would happen under your
bill.
So thank you very much. I urge the Committee and the rest
of the Senate to set national nutrition standards for foods and
beverages sold out of vending machines, school stores, and a la
carte. It is important that Congress act now to address this
pressing problem. Children are only children once, and every
year that we wait and debate this and do not move forward, we
have lost a year in that child's life.
Thank you very much, and I would be glad to answer
questions later.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hennrich can be found on
page 64 in the appendix.]
Chairman Harkin. Thank you very much, Ms. Hennrich, and I
will come back to the part of your statement that you did not
mention about what happened in Portland with the removal of
soft drinks.
Ms. Hennrich. Yes.
Chairman Harkin. Now, Dr. Kelly Brownell, Professor of
Psychology and Epidemiology and Public Health at the Rudd
Center at Yale University. Welcome back again, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF KELLY BROWNELL, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, RUDD CENTER
FOR FOOD POLICY AND OBESITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, NEW HAVEN,
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Brownell. Thank you, Chairman Harkin, Senator
Chambliss, and colleagues. Being a proud native of Indiana, I
am especially happy to make Senator Lugar's acquaintance.
The window is open at this particular moment in history.
The public is interested in child nutrition. They are willing
to take action, and they are willing to have their elected
leaders take action. We realize as a Nation that our children
need protecting from a difficult and challenging food
environment, and we also realize that the foods children eat in
schools affects their health, well-being, and also our national
presence in education. And a malnourished child, which could
mean an overnourished child, will not perform well in school.
I would like to introduce a concept that economists and
public health people have been looking at for a number of years
called ``optimal defaults.'' The idea is that one hopes to
create an environment where healthy behavior becomes the
default rather than the reverse. So take lead paint, for
example. We have legislation that forbids the use of lead
paint, so when people paint, it becomes a healthier behavior by
default. Air bags in cars would be another example. Unleaded
gasoline would be yet another example. There are a number of
precedents like this where we try to create an environment that
makes healthy behavior the default.
Unfortunately, in the food environment, unhealthy behavior
has become the default, and it has become very difficult for
parents to offer a good nutrition environment for their
children, particularly when it is occurring in schools.
I am happy to come with a scientific perspective on this,
and I would like to discuss several things that we know not to
be true and several things we know to be true.
First is the myth that schools will lose money if they get
rid of what we commonly know as junk food. As the previous
speaker mentioned, it has not proven to be the case. Schools
will either stay neutral or make more money if they switch out
the unhealthy for healthier food.
The second myth is that children will compensate outside of
schools for the unhealthy food that they are not getting in
schools. Colleagues of mine at Yale University have recently
completed a study finding that not to be the case, that what
happens is children tend to eat the same outside of schools,
but, of course, improve what they eat in schools because of the
better nutrition environment.
The third issue is that local control is sufficient. We
have done a study in Connecticut, my colleagues at the Rudd
Center, looking at school wellness policies. There is
remarkable variation in the way the schools either develop
their policies, much less implement them, ranging from very
aggressive and progressive nutrition-related school policies to
something that is nothing more than a paragraph on a sheet of
paper. And, hence, local control does not seem to be getting
the job done, and if we wait for school district by school
district to make the changes, I fear we have a very long wait
indeed.
Let me turn my attention to things we know to be true.
First, the food landscape has changed remarkably for the
American child. From 1994 to 2004, for example, there were more
than 1,600 new candy products introduced specifically targeted
to children. There were 52 fruit and vegetable products. This
typifies the food landscape.
Science has advanced a great deal during that time, and we
have learned an awful lot about what contributes to child
obesity and to poor nutrition in general. For example, we have
a paper about to come out in the American Journal of Public
Health looking at the impact of sugared beverage consumption on
children's nutrition and their risk for obesity and diabetes,
and yet again the science shows clearly, in words that Senator
Lugar used, incontrovertible evidence that soft drinks and
sugared beverages are related to poor health, poor nutrition,
and risk for diseases like diabetes. There is no longer any
dispute on this in the scientific literature.
So what we have is that the defaults are sub-optimal.
Children are raised in a difficult environment. Schools become
a wonderful opportunity to turn that tide around. It is a place
where children spend many hours. It is a place where they learn
lessons about nutrition as well as eat the foods there, and
creating a good environment for them can be a remarkable
opportunity for us as public health advocates.
The schools should be more than a good nutrition
environment, but it should teach good nutrition lessons. And
having branded products in machines interferes with that
because children become loyal customers at early ages and the
fact that a child may see a beverage machine that has a
somewhat healthier selection of beverages but still is branding
certain soft drink brands can be quite difficult.
Schools, as I said, are a wonderful place to help, and I
would like to end with the following idea. I have a sheet here
that I believe is available to members of the Committee that
shows trends in public opinion over the last 5 and 6 years. And
if you ask the public whether childhood obesity is a serious
problem, what began as a 74-percent endorsement in 2003 is now
a 93-percent endorsement. If you ask Americans in polls not
done by the food industry whether they favor soft drink and
snack food bans in schools, the number began at 47 percent in
2001, went to 59 percent, 69 percent, and 83 percent in 2006.
So it looks like it is a winning issue, at least from my
perspective, where public opinion combines with science to
provide a very compelling need to change nutrition in schools.
I am delighted that the Committee is looking into this. I
find it a very positive sign. And I think in 5 and 10 years we
will have a much better food environment in schools, and I am
delighted that 2007 may be a place to start that journey.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brownell can be found on
page 56 in the appendix.]
Chairman Harkin. Dr. Brownell, thank you very much for your
testimony and for your great leadership in this area.
We will have just a series of rounds of questions of 5
minutes, and I will start with my round of questions at 5
minutes.
Ms. Thornton, as President of the School Nutrition
Association, again, I compliment you and all of you who are in
this room for all the wonderful work you are doing. One of the
things that I am concerned about is the quality of commodities
that are made available. Now, I have talked to a lot of people
about this, and I need to know from you have they gotten better
over the years, the commodities that are provided? We have not
really talked about that here, but is that an area that we
should be looking at in the farm bill this year? Any thoughts
that you might have on the quality and the type of commodities
that we provide for the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs.
Ms. Thornton. I think the nutritional quality of
commodities has improved dramatically over the last number of
years. We are seeing beef products, for instance, with a lower
fat content. We are seeing a lot more fresh fruits and
vegetables. We are seeing canned fruits with water pack or a
natural juice pack as opposed to a sugar-based pack. There are
a lot more frozen options. And then the whole option of being
able to divert products so that we can have those manufactured
ourselves into an end product that is a nutritionally sound
product has also been a great improvement.
Chairman Harkin. I would welcome any input from your
association about any thoughts you might have on how we address
this, or if we should, in the farm bill this year in terms of
modifications or anything that we should be thinking about. I
would welcome that. But it has been sort of my information that
they have gotten better.
Ms. Thornton. Absolutely.
Chairman Harkin. And I just wanted to ask you that, if that
was your feeling also.
Teresa, about the Fruit and Vegetable Program, it has been
my understanding that not one school that has ever participated
ever asked to be dropped from the program, and that you just
keep getting more and more requests for schools to participate
in this. And it has been my understanding also that now
companies like, I think, Sunkist, Dole--I do not mean to single
out any companies, but some like that are now packaging fruits
and vegetables just for this program. Is that right?
Ms. Nece. That is correct. Actually, I have not ever heard
of a school that has requested to not participate. I have heard
of schools that want to participate. You know, in Des Moines, I
would say that I probably have 90 percent of the schools that
are interested in participation because of the significant
positive events that have occurred in the school environment,
and that it has encouraged that healthy environment for not
only learning but also for nutrition behavior.
In terms of product availability, we have seen a great
change in prepackaged food items including pineapple. One of
the most popular student ones was a pineapple push-up.
Chairman Harkin. I have seen that, yes.
Ms. Nece. Which is just marvelous. But it makes also for
easy classroom distribution so that you have little mess, and
you do not have a great amount of waste from the food product
itself.
Chairman Harkin. I have told this story before. It was a
third-grade kid that taught me how to eat kiwi fruit.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. I thought, kiwi fruit, boy, they are hard
to peel, a mess. So I went to this one classroom 1 day, and
they were having the fruits and vegetables. These kids were
having kiwi fruit. And I thought, ``Boy, this is a mess. How is
this going to work?'' This third-grade kid showed me. He took a
spoon, got a little plate, took the spoon and jabbed it right
in the middle, broke it open, scooped it out and ate it. Why
didn't I ever think of that?
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. I will never forget that.
This Fruit and Vegetable Program, it was a theory that we
tested. We wanted to test it to see if it would work. We had
all kinds of information that maybe there would be a mess and
there would be peels on the floor and all that kind of stuff.
We found that that really did not occur. We had one--this was
in Michigan, as a matter of fact, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. We have a lot of programs in Michigan.
Chairman Harkin. I know. You have got a lot of them there.
And we had one information--this is a couple years ago--where
the bus driver--they had put some fruits on the bus going out
to pick up kids. And the bus driver got really upset because
kids were putting banana peels and apple cores on the floor and
stuff like that, and he got very upset about it until the
principal of the school decided to take affirmative action. He
went to the local Safeway story--I do not know if it was
Safeway or whatever store it was--and got these little plastic
bags, and he just put them on the back of seats of the bus, and
the kids would put them in there afterward, and the problem was
solved. So it is just ingenious things like that.
But I just think that this program has taken off. I will
state publicly here right now that because this has proven to
be successful, that kids do eat these fruits and vegetables,
they are getting healthy, the teachers like it, the principals
like it, the school boards like it. I have not seen anyone that
has been opposed to it. It is my goal and I will do whatever I
can to ensure that every elementary school kid in America in 10
years gets free fresh fruits and vegetables in school. I think
that is a goal we ought to shoot for, and we will do everything
we can to get to that point.
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, could I just insert one
thing? Could we ask that they be grown in Michigan?
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. I do not know about that. It is a national
program here.
Ms. Neely, my time is running out. I just wanted to ask
you--well, my time is out; I will do it on my second round--
about the idea about snack food companies. The beverages seem
to be doing OK, but the problem is with the snack foods that is
a problem in our vending machines in schools. I want to ask you
about that, but I will do that during my second round because
my time has run out.
With that, I will turn to Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and,
Debbie, you all just don't grow peaches in Michigan. That is
the problem.
[Laughter.]
Senator Chambliss. To serve to all these kids all over
America.
Ms. Nece, I am a big fan of that program, too. We were to
be included, Georgia was to be included in the pilot program in
the ag appropriation bill of last year, which, unfortunately,
with the continuing resolution, got dropped out. But I share
that with you, Mr. Chairman, and as we move into the farm bill,
that is certainly an issue that we need to address, and I hope
we are able to accomplish that.
I would just like to ask you, as a practical matter, is it
a problem to our local systems to any degree to purchase local
fruits and vegetables? Or is it something they kind of look
forward to?
Ms. Nece. I think it is a great opportunity to involve
local suppliers if the suppliers exist in the community, and I
think that is a reasonable responsibility for a school district
to look at options and ways of incorporating local.
One of the challenges initially from my perspective in the
startup was figuring out how to manage all the fruits and
vegetables that were going to go to our classrooms, and then
how were we going to distribute those out to each and every
classroom in a school building and get it done in a timely
manner to not interfere with the operation of the school day.
And so that took some creativity, but I think that the
options to look at local purchases using local suppliers of
products that are not only local but what are coming from
national manufacturers is a great opportunity.
Senator Chambliss. Great. Ms. Thornton, Congress required
schools to develop local wellness policies in the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, and the policies
were required to go into effect at the beginning of this past
school year. Knowing the nutritional expertise that can be
provided by the School Nutrition Association, how active was
your organization in helping schools develop their local plans?
And how active will your organization be in helping to revise
those plans as needed?
Ms. Thornton. Our organization did offer training for
wellness programs throughout the country as well as training at
a number of our national meetings. But obviously only those
folks that chose to attend those meetings had that training. I
think it varied dramatically across the country as to how
involved child nutrition folks were in the development of the
plans. It was left up to the districts, obviously. But I think
you could tell a difference in plans where someone in school
nutrition was involved and then those where they were not.
Senator Chambliss. Ms. Hennrich, as I hear from you
relative to national mandates relative to nutritional aspects
in our School Lunch Programs, I am one of those folks who
happens to have a lot of confidence in our local folks. I visit
schools on a regular basis. I have a fifth grader and a third
grader as grandchildren. I have a daughter who is a teacher.
When I go into the schools, I try to make it a point to eat
lunch and visit with the kids, and I am always impressed by
what I see. And I try to do it so they do not always know the
Senator is coming to eat lunch so we are going to have what he
likes that particular day.
But I am saying this because you seemed to indicate with
your recommendation that there is a problem out there. Local
control means to me--we set broad parameters with which our
dietitians are required to make certain selections of
nutritional food, and whether it is the State or whether it is
the local folks at the end of the day who adopt those dietary
guidelines, it is the local folks who make the decision about
what is going to be served in the lunchroom on those particular
days.
I just do not see the problem there. Now, if there is, if
there are schools that are not serving the right kinds of
meals, obviously we want to know about that. So I throw that
out to you because that is what I got from your conversation in
your statement there.
Ms. Hennrich. Senator Chambliss, let me kind of go back and
say more specifically it is not with the school meals program.
We believe that Congress has done an admirable job and the
locals have done an admirable job actually making the broad
policy play in local districts. It is the fact that you do not
have any reach over what is sold in hallways, in school stores.
There are no Federal guidelines. That is the point to us, that
those competitive foods are the things that we are concerned
and why we believe that you should broaden your definition of
not just in the cafeteria or where the school meals are being
sold but throughout the whole school, because that is where
kids are eating now. And there are no guidelines, no standards.
Anything can be sold. There is the voluntary guidelines that
are coming in from the ABA, but they do not have to play. And
that is what we are concerned about. It is really up to
individual local schools. And that is where I think they have
been pushed in the corner in terms of funding, believing they
have got to sell ``bad foods,'' foods that do not have much
nutritional value, to kids in order to keep the band playing.
Senator Chambliss. Well, I understood that part of it, but
I obviously misunderstood and thought you were talking, too,
about our lunchrooms.
Ms. Hennrich. No.
Senator Chambliss. Good. Because I am very proud of my
folks.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Unfortunately, as I
indicated to you, we have got a hearing over in Armed Services
relative to our issue out at Walter Reed, and I am going to
have to go over there. But I did want to get into one other
issue, but I am not going to have time to. But in Ms.
Hennrich's testimony, you do refer to this situation involved
Coca-Cola and the Portland Public School System, and your
testimony seems to characterize a contract renegotiation is
going to cost the public school system about a $6,000 penalty,
that that is what Coca-Cola is seeking to extract. And in
looking at the Portland Public School System's website, they
have a press release on there dated February 7 that says
exactly what is going on out there. And, Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to insert a copy of that press release in the record.
Chairman Harkin. Without objection.
Chairman Harkin. OK. Thank you, Saxby.
Senator Lugar?
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up on
questioning Mrs. Hennrich. You pointed out that testimony from
those who reported to you indicated that 75 percent of eating
occurs in hallways and classrooms. Is that a general
characteristic or a specific school? Or where did the 75
percent come from?
Ms. Hennrich. Senator, I think that was I was alluding to
my daughter, who is a teacher, just saying, ``Mother, it is not
happening in cafeterias anymore. It is happening all over the
school.'' So that is not a scientific number. That was simply
her estimate in her school that kids are eating from vending
machines, school stores, things people bring from home and
their lockers. You name it. She just said it is unregulated out
there.
Senator Lugar. There seems to be anecdotal evidence that
that is true. If not 75 percent, I am just curious whether any
of you have any research on how much occurs in the lunchroom,
as Senator Chambliss was talking about admirable standards, and
how much outside where there are no standards. This would seem
to me to be a very important point, and maybe in due course we
will get some research, if we do not have it.
In any event, we have come to a conclusion that something
is occurring outside the lunchroom and, in fact, in fairly
large volume, and there has been a great deal of interest, and
admirable, Ms. Neely's testimony, the voluntary efforts that
are involved. But let me just say that essentially Mr.
Brownell's testimony leads me to believe that we are back into
an issue that is not unlike that which we faced with regard to
the whole School Lunch Program, say in about 1994, 1995, and
1996. The argument then was that certainly it was admirable to
have these programs, but we have a Federal system, which means
that we have States and we have local governments. And as a
matter of fact, they look after children, too, are very humane,
but there is no particular reason for a Federal lunch program.
That was the issue, and it was fought vividly, and a pretty
close decision.
Now, people who were not there in that period of time 10,
12 years ago cannot fathom that we were arguing whether we
should have a National School Lunch Program. But that was the
issue, and it could have been terminated at that point.
Now, at this point, I am convinced that we really have to
have national standards for what is occurring in the hallway. I
think it is incontrovertible with regard to the obesity problem
for our children. However, I ask you, Mr. Brownell, you say,
Who should develop the standards? This is a critical issue. You
said, ``It is likely that calls have been made for USDA to
establish the definitions of Foods of Minimal Nutritional
Value.'' You state, ``This could be a barrier to progress,
given the dual and oft-conflicting priorities of the agency to
help promote food sales but at the same time establishing
national nutrition policy.''
Therefore, you suggest that, ``Having the criteria
established by the Institute of Medicine or the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention could help alleviate the dual
role experienced by the USDA and avoid to some extent the
problems created by the `revolving door' between the USDA and
the food industry.''
Now, without indicting USDA, I would just observe that we
do have a political system in this country that is to the good.
People come and go. Sometimes those who come into office have
very different values that are not necessarily those of
scientists, nutritionists, doctors, and so forth, taking a look
at food. And, therefore, I am at least persuaded that the
Committee ought to look very carefully at who sets the
standards and, furthermore, that we probably should move to set
some standards.
Ultimately, the question will be raised--and several of you
have suggested all the arguments against it, and this is a
critical one often that comes up in local meetings, and that
is, we need the revenue. Here is the principal, the
superintendent, somebody. Just very frankly, we are not getting
enough support from the State of Indiana or the State of Ohio
or what have you, quite apart from the Federal Government. It
is a question of kids' education. Which comes first? And this
is a critical--now, so people say, well, perhaps that could be
substituted, maybe if people began to eat nutritious foods and
drinks and so forth, the revenue--maybe. But it appears to me
that this is a factor for some research also. Who is eating
outside the cafeteria, to begin with, and how much--and how the
revenue situation is going to be there. Because, absent that,
we are going to have a very tough problem in which we are
talking about denying education to children while we are busy
trying to fix the fact that they will not have diabetes. And we
do not want to get involved in that kind of a critical choice
if, in fact, the facts or the programs can avoid that.
So I ask any of you for comment. My time is already
expired, but, nevertheless, yes, sir?
Mr. Brownell. It is a very realistic concern because the
general lore is that schools are making a great deal of money
from the sales of these products, and it is supporting the
soccer team or the band or students to come to Washington on
trips or things like that. And so there was a perfect need for
some research on the topic, which has now been done, and the
studies on this show either the revenue stays the same or
increases as the foods become healthier because children will
buy the healthier options.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
Ms. Thornton. The School Nutrition Association also, if I
may, totally agrees with your comment, but we also have some
real concern as to what is happening within the cafeteria and
the diversity that is there. We are all over the board with
regard to nutrition standards, some being really high with
maybe sodium, low on fat, standards are all over the place. And
I think this chart that I gave you would just give you some
indication of what we are seeing and how it is impossible to
meet standards across the country by manufacturers and even to
find product in many instances.
Senator Lugar. We need some standards in the kitchen in
addition.
Ms. Thornton. Absolutely.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
Chairman Harkin. I might just add, Senator Lugar, that a
couple of years ago, in anticipation of trying to figure out
who was going to decide what these standards are, in our
appropriations bill we requested the Institute of Medicine and
the National Academy of Sciences to study this and to come out
with some recommendations. And I am told that they are going to
do that sometime this spring. It has been about 2 years in the
development.
Senator Lugar. Good.
Chairman Harkin. So we will have at least some
documentation on this, hopefully soon, I hope.
Senator Lugar. That is great.
Chairman Harkin. From the Institute of Medicine. Is that
right? It is going to come out this spring sometime? So
hopefully we will have at least that to go on. Thank you,
Senator Lugar.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the panel for your testimony and for your great advocacy.
I have a couple of specific questions, one with regard to
the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program. We know that there are a
lot of States out there--a lot of schools, I should say, in
those States that have a real interest in participating. In
Pennsylvania, we had last year, I am told, some 1,000 schools
applying, but, of course, it is limited by the program to, I
guess, 25.
I would ask you your opinion on that and how we go about
expanding that so that more and more schools in a lot of our
States can participate. And I know that is directed at all of
you, but whoever wants to take that one.
Ms. Nece. Very well. I will take the first shot at it.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Ms. Nece. I think there are some collective, collaborative
ways where we need to look at how we expand the options. And
you are correct, currently in any of the States participating,
there are primarily 25 schools to the State. And that is true
in Iowa, and it is open for application each year, and those
applications then are reviewed under a set of criteria for
implementation.
I think there is a nutrition education component that is
extremely important in the Fruit and Vegetable Program. One of
the ways in my district that we gets fruits and vegetables
available in our elementary schools is through a grant. It is
referred to as ``Basics,'' and it is a nutrition education
curriculum that goes into the classroom, and as a part of that,
we provide fruits and vegetables as a part of a snack. And that
has been a very successful way for us to incorporate fruits and
vegetables in the schools that are not grant schools.
Ms. Thornton. I think another way you may do it is through
the commodity program. We are asking for more commodities for
breakfast. Fresh fruits and vegetables would be great for
breakfast. So if we could tie those two together, then we would
have both issues solved, perhaps.
Senator Casey. Thank you. And a related question on
coordination. In Pennsylvania, as I mentioned before, we have
got about a million children, just over a million children, in
School Lunch, but just about a quarter of a million or so in
School Breakfast, and that lack of coordination is obviously a
problem for Pennsylvania. I guess it is a two-part question
that could go to anyone, Ms. Thornton, Ms. Nece, Ms. Hennrich.
I guess the two-part question, one is: How can Pennsylvania
move forward to better coordinate that based upon your
experience? But, also, have you seen this lack of coordination
or disconnect between School Lunch and School Breakfast in your
own communities or in other States?
Ms. Thornton. I think we see that obviously nationwide,
just from the numbers we have. But very often we get back to
the money issue. If a parent has to pay for one meal of the
day, they typically pay for lunch because that is in the middle
of the day. When they do not have money, then that breakfast is
often left off there. That is why we are really anxious to see
money appropriated for this pilot, because those reduced-price
kids are often the ones that do not have food available at home
either. So if we can see if money is truly that issue, I think
this would give us one more step forward to being able to do
something about that.
Senator Casey. Ms. Hennrich?
Ms. Hennrich. I know that in Oregon the numbers are about
the same, the percentages. Of course, Oregon has much smaller
numbers than Pennsylvania. But I think that what I have heard,
breakfast in the classroom, and really getting schools that
offer breakfast for all kids and that has to do--and I am not
an expert because I am not a school nutrition director. But
hearing from them, I know there are programmatic issues and
issues around funding that make it difficult to--only if you
have a certain percentage of free and reduced children then can
you really offer it freely in every classroom every day. And so
I think that they are constantly balancing, wanting to do the
right thing and providing the nutrition both at breakfast and
lunch, with the limited resources. So I think it is a balance
of getting the will and the direction and the help to really
have good programs and know how to do them, along with adequate
funding so they can really make it happen.
Senator Casey. And, Ms. Hennrich, I wanted to point to your
testimony, just startling numbers here. On page 2, two sets of
numbers which are disturbing to say the least: Rates of obesity
among U.S. children and teens tripled between 1980 and 2002.
That is fact No. 1. And the second one, for individuals born in
2000, the chance of developing diabetes during their lifetime
is 39 percent for females, 33 percent for males. Just
startling. And with those statistics that everyone here has
heard over and over again, but they bear repeating--and you
also have the question of the voluntary nature of these new
guidelines. What do those who are at the witness table
recommend in terms of making the connection between what the
Beverage Association membership is trying to do--and we
appreciate that--and the failure by more schools or school
districts to take this challenge more seriously because of the
voluntary nature of where we are with the guidelines? Anyone
want to chime in there?
Ms. Hennrich. Well, I will jump in first. One of the
problems is that I think schools kind of inadvertently, before
they realized we had the child obesity epidemic happening and
the diabetes epidemic, they were struggling for funds and so,
you know, kind of walked into, geez, let's just have this
vending machine and make a little money and put it down here.
And the next thing you know, let's have a few more vending
machines. And my son is 27 and went to a Portland public school
high school, and I said to him about a year back when I was
really into this, I said, ``Brent, did you have machines at
Benson High School?'' And he goes, ``Of course we did,
Mother.'' And I said, ``Well, I walked in and out of there a
lot as a parent volunteer doing''--``I never noticed them.'' I
think they have become such a part of the landscape everywhere
we go. Hospital emergency rooms. I mean, all kinds of places
that I believe should be role models about health have vending
machines everywhere selling products that I do not think any of
us think are the best for our kids. And yet they happened. They
one by one kind of snuck in. And then what--the Portland
district I think is a good example. They found they had--all
the different high schools had contracts with different--with
Pepsi or with Coke. And all of a sudden--and different
agreements and different things happening.
So they said, my goodness, we have got to get this
together, and they came up with one contract. And it is an 8-
year contract. It started in 2001 and goes to 2009. And we
found in our soda contract study that we have some districts in
Oregon that signed 15-year contracts. And there is one school
district that kind of knowing that all this turmoil and the
local--the voluntary standards were coming in, quickly went and
signed a contract that starts in 2008 and goes to 2015.
So some of them are stuck with the contracts they did in
2001 and 2002. Others seem to be rushing to kind of get
themselves into a contract that will go out into the future.
And it is complicated with the voluntary guidelines. Although
the MOU from the alliance says that they, you know, will not
stand in the way of local districts changing product mix, et
cetera, we are not finding that to be true in every case. And I
think Portland is an example where they did go further than the
voluntary guidelines. They took out diet sodas and they took
out sports drinks. So they went further than the guidelines,
but they have been told--we were told at a meeting of the local
wellness task force by the director of nutrition services that
although this had all been negotiated and agreed upon last
fall, that all of a sudden this spring we are told by Coca-Cola
that things were changing, and either those products needed to
come back in or potentially face a $600,000 fine.
Now the district is in, quote, good-faith negotiations at
the moment, and we do not get any information on what exactly
is happening. So it is complicated, I think, by the fact that
you have got voluntary guidelines now that have come in, but
you have these contracts, and the local districts, they are all
very different. And it is going to take a while to unwind all
of it, I think.
Senator Casey. Thank you. I am over time.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you.
Senator Salazar?
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin.
Let me just at the outset say that I fully support you and
endorse you in the great role of getting every one of our
children in elementary school to be a part of the Fruit and
Vegetable Program within 10 years. I think it is a laudable
goal, and I think it is something that hopefully we can develop
the kind of inertia around here to make happen.
Let me ask a question to you, Ms. Neely. It seems to me
that on either side of you, you have proponents of the Federal
mandate in terms of how we deal with our children and the
cafeterias, out in the hallways, and so forth. And my question
to you is: You as Beverage Association have come up with a set
of voluntary guidelines, and what I would like to know from you
is how you believe that those voluntary guidelines ultimately
will be effective. And from you, Mr. Brownell, from an academic
point of view, how can we measure the effectiveness of these
programs? I see the mandates that we have put forward, for
example, with respect to teenage/underage drinking, and yet we
know the statistics on college campuses and drinking between 16
and 21, which shows that those mandates have not worked. And I
would venture that all of my colleagues here and all of you
would agree on the goal that we want to have healthier children
and we want them to be eating healthier foods.
So my question to you is whether you believe that the
voluntary guidelines that the Beverage Association has come up
with will get us there. And, No. 2, how do we deal with the
reality of the fact that the schools cannot do everything? It
is the parents that are buying things and bringing them--
allowing their children to take them to school or whatever. How
do you deal with that reality? The schools control, you know, a
significant aspect of what happens in terms of a child's diet,
but the rest of the world that we deal with. And so at the end
of the day, whatever we end up doing in terms of mandates or
supporting voluntary compliance, how do we ensure effectiveness
at the end of the day?
Ms. Neely. Well, that is a very large, important question,
and I will try to answer a bit of it from the beverage industry
perspective.
First, I will start with the latter part of your question,
schools versus what happens at home and elsewhere in a child's
life. I think we do agree with Dr. Brownell that schools are
the optimal environment to teach healthy behaviors, which is
why the beverage industry wanted to enter this agreement with
the Alliance for a Healthier Generation. It is a special place,
and it is where we can teach children the best habits. So
schools are important to learn lifelong habits, and that is why
we are all concentrated on them.
I would also say that beverages are, as is being discussed
here, only one component of the obesity challenge, and so we
are trying to tackle our piece of it, what is sold in the
vending machines, and our agreement with the alliance actually
applies to all of the beverages sold. We have the most impact
as an industry on the vending machines because that is where
the majority of our contractual relationships are, but there
also are obviously beverages sold in the cafeteria and the a la
carte lines and the school stores. And it would certainly be
our intent that this policy applies across the school. Again,
it is a national policy.
I will say that one of the things we so strongly support in
the approach the alliance is taking is that it is a
comprehensive look at the entire school environment, so it is
not just the nutrition component, but it is also the fitness
component, which Senator Harkin has sponsored a useful piece of
legislation.
Senator Salazar. Ms. Neely, do your guidelines go beyond
the schools? And would there be a problem in terms of your
guidelines going beyond the schools so that parents and anybody
else that interfaces with a child's life actually would know
what guidelines there are that might work in terms of the diet
for their children from nonalcoholic beverages?
Ms. Neely. Well, we think the schools are special places to
have a more limited environment where kids could really learn
healthy behaviors, and then as they are with their parent, I
think those of us who are parents want to have some say over
what they do as well.
Senator Salazar. I have about a minute. I am very
interested in this question of effectiveness, because it does
not do anything for us to pass the greatest law in the world
but----
Ms. Neely. Our commitment is that these guidelines will be
implemented by the start of the school year in 2009, so we are
almost a year into it, and we have two 2 more years to go. So--
--
Senator Salazar. I will be very interested in knowing how
we are going to measure the effectiveness of the program. So
let me, Mr. Brownell----
Ms. Neely. We will bring you a copy of our first report in
August, this August.
Senator Salazar. I look forward to getting that report.
Mr. Brownell, I have about a minute on my time, so if you
can be quick.
Mr. Brownell. I will be very quick. I believe the objective
assessment of the effectiveness of this program would be in
order, and somebody other than the industry should probably do
that evaluation, but it definitely needs to be done.
If I were betting on this myself, I would bet that this
will take a long time to roll out. There will be spotty
compliance, and that it will be incomplete in terms of changing
the children's nutrition environment because it leaves in some
sugared beverages, namely, sports drinks, and it amply allows
opportunities for the company to do branding to the children in
the schools. And I believe the schools should not be an
opportunity for the soft drink industry to develop brand
loyalty.
The other thing I might say is that we should know that it
is not the food industry that is putting the quarters and the
dollars into those machines and helping pay for the education.
It is the children and the parents of the community. So it is a
myth that the industry is somehow helping education in this
process. It is more or less a tax being applied to the parents
and children of the community to help support the education.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Brownell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Salazar.
Senator Coleman?
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The New York Times about a year ago did a series of
articles on obesity and the epidemic and the impact of
diabetes, and it is truly devastating and worth taking a look
at.
The Chairman talked about the food industry in addition to
the beverage industry. I represent a State that has General
Mills, has been very, very active in their foundation and
partnership, American Dietetic Association Foundation, the
President's Council on Physical Fitness, they have Champion for
Healthy Kids grant program, very, very active. I was a former
mayor and worked hand in hand with the business community. I
did not see them as the enemy. The Beverage Council, you know,
coming forward with their programs.
And perhaps you, Ms. Thornton, or others, how do you
involve the private sector in this? As others said, Government
cannot do this all by ourselves. Assuming--and, you know, I can
look to General Mills or I can look to the beverage folks as
folks who are willing partners. We may in the end not agree
with everything that is being offered, but how do you engage
the private sector in this? Do you see a role for them in what
we are talking about here?
Ms. Thornton. Absolutely. I think industry, at the local
level, our community members, community organizations, even our
churches, civic organizations--we all have got to work
together. We all have a responsibility. In our district, we
have even involved some factory leaders because we think they
have a very vested interest in wellness of students in our
community.
So I think we need to stop perhaps pointing fingers and all
start taking a role and recognizing that we have all got to
work together to change what we are seeing happening right now.
And I think we all want the same end results, and that is, what
is best for children. It is just we may not all have exactly
the same philosophy as to how we need to get there.
Senator Coleman. Mr. Brownell, you seem somewhat critical
of at least involving the industry in the evaluation of the
research. What role do you see for the private sector in this
issue of improving nutrition, fitness behavior, et cetera?
Mr. Brownell. Did you address that to me?
Senator Coleman. Mr. Brownell or Ms. Hennrich, either or
both of you.
Ms. Hennrich. You start.
Mr. Brownell. OK. I believe the industry has done some
interesting and progressive things. If we look at industry
behavior in general, we could look back at the tobacco
industry, for example, that deceived the public time after time
after time, and what seemed like victories at the moment turned
out not to be. Now, the food industry is not the tobacco
industry, and food is not tobacco as a substance. However,
there are some interesting lessons to be learned from that.
So I believe industry has a voice. The industry players who
are making good-faith efforts to move ahead on this should be
applauded for doing so. Nor do I think we can just take at face
value industry claims that they are holding the children's
interest of the public at their heart.
So who sets the guidelines becomes important, and I think
industry should not set the guidelines for the nutrition
education of our children. I think that should be done by a
Government agency free of industry influence, and then industry
can help accomplish the goals.
Ms. Thornton. One of the things I would like to add, we
have an Industry Advisory Council as a part of our
organization. You should have before you a group of letters
just collected here saying from industry that they think
national standards are certainly the way to go in schools. So
this is certainly putting it out of industry into your hands to
say we do need something. It would make it so much clearer for
everyone.
Senator Coleman. And a question about the data. Mr.
Brownell, in your data you have indicated that 83 percent of
parents favor soft drink and snack food bans in public schools.
Ms. Neely, you have got a figure that says by a margin of 82
percent to 14 percent parents favor guidelines over bans. Could
somebody sort that out? Ms. Neely?
Ms. Neely. Well, I appreciate you asking that question,
Senator. I think the distinction is that when we surveyed
parents, we heard that they agreed with us that calories should
come out of the schools. So that is why our policy, which was
put together not by industry but with nutrition scientists at
the American Heart Association, that is why our policy is
framed around getting calories out of the equation. And even
the products that are higher in nutrition, like 100 percent
juice, are portion controlled so that the calories remain
limited.
So, again, our policy was developed with healthy input from
a significant health organization, and we think it is
appropriate, and supported by parents as common-sensical.
Senator Coleman. I have to ask you a question, Mr.
Brownell. If parents looking at the guidelines--and I take it
your objection to the guidelines is that includes things like
sport drinks, low-calorie----
Mr. Brownell. And opportunities for----
Senator Coleman. Pardon me?
Mr. Brownell. And opportunities for branding.
Senator Coleman. But if parents wanted to give their kids
those choices--and parents, when you say it is a tax, kids are
spending money, parents are--and with these contracts, they are
making choices. And if parents want to make choices about
things like sport drinks, again, understanding that there are
guidelines that are worked out in accordance with recognized--
do you think parents should have that right?
Mr. Brownell. Oh, of course. I do not know that anybody has
proposed any rule that would interfere with parents' rights to
do things. And, in fact, even the most severe ban ideas would
not restrict children from bringing the beverages into schools
if they wanted to do or if the parents wanted to do it. It
really would be local choice and up to the parents. But the
question is: Should the schools be selling snack foods and
beverages to children that ultimately could be hurting their
health?
Senator Coleman. And if parents and the local school board
wanted to make that choice, do they--I guess that is the
question then. Do we come in and say there is a Federal
standard and we are saying no? Or even if there is some balance
there, even if there are these other options out there, but
what we are saying is if there is this particular option, to
have something with caloric content, to have a sport drink, if
you are going to do that, one point of view would say no, we
are not going to allow that. Ms. Neely, your response to that?
Ms. Neely. Well, the question is should parents have some
input or--I am not sure I understood the question exactly.
Senator Coleman. I mean, the question--there is a
perspective that we are trying to sort out here. Should there
be a Federal standard that says no, in fact, no sport drinks,
no--and that any caloric content, et cetera, if schools want to
do that, and if parents and a local school board come up with a
policy and a contract that says this is what we want, to offer
these choices to our kids, understanding, you know, where the
bulk of things, but we are going to offer choice for a sport
drink, should--do parents have--do we respect the wish of the
parents there or, in fact, should we simply come in and say
that is a bad choice and we are not going to allow the school
to do it?
Ms. Neely. Well, I think as we all agree, schools are
special places where educators, nutrition experts, policymakers
want to work with parents to determine what the best approach
is. Why we think, in working with the American Heart
Association, we have hit the right balance is that we have
focused on calories. So sports drinks are available for active
kids who are engaged in sports, but they are capped at a
certain size so that the calories are commensurate with what is
determined appropriate.
The view of the American Heart Association, when we
developed the policy, is, well, kids should have water, they
should have juice, they should have things that are high in
nutrition or functional. But they also are going to want
something that is enjoyable. So why not push diet soft drinks
as an option only for high school kids, so if you are going to
have a treat, you learn how in school to take the no-calorie or
low-calorie option.
So we think we have hit the balance because we are out
there listening to parents, we are listening to schools, and we
consulted with nutrition scientists in order to create that
balance.
One of the things our survey showed is that parents reject
the notion of a wholesale ban. They think that is too much,
that it just goes too far. And so, again, the mix in the
machines or in the a la carte line or in the school store
should be framed around calories and nutrition, not concern
about specific products.
Senator Coleman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you.
I might just add for the record that I have a letter here
dated March the 1st from the American Heart Association and the
American Stroke Association endorsing the legislation that
Senator Murkowski and I are introducing today. I just want to
read just one letter from this. It said that, ``The foods and
drink sold in our schools must meet standards informed by the
latest science.'' What we talked about earlier, Senator Lugar.
``However, the current Federal nutritional standards for foods
sold outside of school meals or foods of minimal nutritional
value is now 30 years out of date. It is clear that a review by
the Secretary of Agriculture of this definition is overdue.''
So I know the American Heart Association was involved in
that process with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, but
they are also saying that we need to enact national standards.
I have a chart here. I will just take a little bit of time.
I just wanted to show it. I think this might be an appropriate
point in the proceedings. Why this is so important--no, I will
just hold it up here. I do not need that. You can hold it up.
Why it is so important to get the standards--or get the
definitions updated, according to USDA right now, here is what
is allowed: fruitades, french fries, ice cream bars, candy
bars, cookies, chips, snack cakes, and doughnuts. Not allowed,
seltzer water. No calories. Seltzer water is not allowed.
Caramel corn, popsicles, jelly beans, chewing gum, lollipops,
cotton candy, and breath mints.
This is really confusing. This is just--that is why we need
to update the standards, 30 years out of date. You can have a
Twinkie, but you cannot have seltzer water. Now, that just does
not make sense. That is just one aspect of the legislation,
that is, to get them to update these standards so we get them--
kind of clear it out a little bit and bring it up to date.
I am sorry to have taken that time to do that. I wanted to
get that in now.
We will go to Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Chairman Harkin. Thank you
for the work that you are doing. And like Senator Coleman, I am
from Minnesota. I grew up on General Mills cereal. That is how
I got a number of my vitamins in the morning. But I now have
seen my daughter--she was at a very poor school for a number of
years that was 80 percent free and reduced lunch. And it is one
thing to have cereal, and it is another thing to see these kids
eating snack food all day and drinking sugar pop. And I have a
very personal reaction to this just because I have seen these
poor kids that have gained a lot of weight and that really, I
do not think, have much of a choice. And as you pointed out,
some of it is how they have grown up and the food that they are
getting from their parents. But I do not believe that we can
continue going the way that we are and expect things to change.
Obviously, some of this is having fruits and vegetables
available, but some of it is also looking at having some kind
of national standards.
I guess my first question is about this--I have talked to
some school officials in Minnesota, and they are attempting to
proactivley look at the new nutrition guidelines by
incorporating more fresh fruits and vegetables. But they have
found themselves in something of a Catch-22 because it is
expensive to do that, and so then they get into these
contracts, as you pointed out, so that they bring more money
in, and the kids are drinking pop and eating Fritos.
And so my question is to Ms. Nece: Do you feel that greater
support from the Federal Government would allow schools to pay
for more nutritious foods and still have the flexibility to
base their snack food sales on nutritional standards rather
than financial concerns?
Ms. Nece. Yes, I think that would be of some great
assistance to school districts across the Nation. One of the
proposals from the School Nutrition Association is to increase
the commodity support or to actually create commodity support
for the School Breakfast Program. The School Breakfast Program
is one of the programs that used far less than the National
School Lunch Program. And one of the things that I have seen in
my district is an increase in breakfast participation, and part
of that is because of the offering of fresh fruits and
vegetables. Even in our Fresh Fruit and Vegetable pilot
schools, we have watched the numbers continue to grow.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
There was a recent ``Cathy'' cartoon that I showed to
Chairman Harkin, and it was in the Sunday paper, and it talked
about how the health-conscious consumer thinks more about fresh
fruits and vegetables, knows more about fresh fruits and
vegetables, plants more, buys more, but that the only thing
that they do not do is actually eat them. And so my concern is
that if we have a strictly voluntary approach to nutrition in
schools, we can educate kids about how good they are. But when
you put a kid in a situation--and, again, I have seen it,
especially in a school where there is more poverty--where they
are surrounded by high-sugar, high-fat, and professionally
marketed junk food, many of them are going to choose that.
So I guess my question of all of you is: Do you think it is
reasonable to expect that education alone will guide children
away from junk food and toward healthy food? Or should we be
playing a more active role?
Mr. Brownell. I can respond partly--go ahead.
Ms. Hennrich. Go ahead.
Mr. Brownell. I was going to say that there is a long and
rich history of research on the effects of nutrition education,
and it tends not to work very well in the absence of structural
environmental change that supports it. So I agree with you that
something more than just education needs to be done.
Ms. Hennrich. And I totally second that. Nancy Becker is a
dietician who works with us, teaches at Portland State
University, and she kind of laughingly says, ``I spend my life
teaching nutrition education, but,'' she said, ``honestly,
changing the environment, making the foods available that we
want people to eat, that is what is going to make change.'' Not
saying that we should not be teaching kids, et cetera, but the
fact is you can teach them up the ying-yang, and if you do not
make those fruits and vegetables available for them to eat,
they are not going to eat them.
Ms. Thornton. I will also say that in my district I have
had a number of parents call after we started serving a lot
more fresh fruits and vegetables, and they were amazed that we
were able to get the children to eat them. We are finding that
because of the busy lifestyles of parents, we have so many more
convenience foods, and the parents are becoming more aware that
this is what they need to do. But because so many parents do
not practice it at home, they do not truly understand the need
for fresh fruits and vegetables, good nutrition at home. It is
just easier to eat out of a box or out of a can or whatever.
As we educate the kids and they are learning to eat
properly, we are also indirectly educating those parents, and
we are seeing a difference just from anecdotally what they are
eating at home.
Senator Klobuchar. But again, when you are around kids--I
mean, I have been in different kinds of schools with my
daughter where their parents are buying them grapes and that is
what they are eating for a snack. You start having that kind of
synergy in the school.
Ms. Thornton. Yes.
Senator Klobuchar. But when it is a poor school, I just do
not think you see that as much. And so I think that we have
neglected to take care of these kids when they are in our car.
Ms. Nece. And, Senator Klobuchar, I just would emphasize
again, we do agree that the school environment should be more
controlled. That is why we are taking full-calorie products out
of the schools so that it will be low-calorie offerings, and we
are actually creating packages and reformulating products to
have smaller portion sizes of the things that are high in
nutrition and have more calories. So we agree that it should be
a more controlled environment in the schools and are trying to
walk the talk, so to speak.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Ms. Nece. The middle-school environment that we have the
fruit and vegetable pilot that has been in existence for 5
years has no vending machines available for students, and they
did not have a snack machine, never had one. But they did have
a soda machine a number of years ago. The machines went away.
And the students are active participants not only in the school
meals program, but also in that access to that fresh fruit and
vegetable and product, and we do see consumption change. It is
a school that is about 80 percent free and reduced.
Chairman Harkin. Which school is that?
Ms. Nece. Hardin Middle School.
Chairman Harkin. Hardin Middle School. That is right. I
have been there.
Senator Klobuchar. You know, and, again, I as a parent just
decided to make peanut butter sandwiches every day because they
are more nutritious than what happens if you put them into this
environment where they just cannot help but go to pick the
pizza every day. Again, I think that we can do what we can with
the environment, but at some point we are going to have to
decide that this is what you are going to get to eat if we are
going to change behavior.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Lincoln?
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so
much for your leadership holding this very important hearing to
discuss an issue that is always on the minds of parents all
across our great Nation, and that is the overall health and
well-being of our children.
Having for the third school day in a row forgotten to send
in my check for school lunch----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lincoln. I left them out on the counter this
morning for both of my children, but I discovered when I
finally--and this is the benefit of having twins. When I asked
one of my boys, I said, ``Now, why is it that you always run
out of lunch money before your brother?'' And he hemmed and
hawed, and, you know, he said, ``Well, it is because we can buy
a cookie.'' And I said, ``Yes, but we agreed we are only going
to buy cookies on Friday.'' And I said, ``Besides, how are you
getting lunch?'' ``Well, I use my brother's card.''
Anyway, there are a lot of choices and issues that we deal
with, with our children, and it is so important for the
parental engagement in terms of teaching those issues and those
choices. And I think that that is something so important for
all of us to remind ourselves.
And there are other ways, too, for our parents to engage
themselves in the school and what they are doing and what our
children are doing. I know we have had a discussion about how
many cookies we can have and when we can have them. And I
remembered the check, so we are moving along here.
But I do think it is important to remind ourselves that our
children are going to be faced with those choices when they
leave the schools as well. So if we as parents do not engage
ourselves in teaching those good habits--and as a school, there
is no doubt--as Ms. Neely mentioned, this is a place to learn
and reinforce good choices and good behavior.
I want to applaud your industry for the work you have done
and the voluntary efforts that you have made in trying to bring
about those choices. With children that are also doing after-
school activities, knowing that they are--other than the water
fountain--the water fountain is good. We use those. But to know
that there are those drinks that are there available to them
after their sports activities to make sure that there is some
thought being put into those drinks or into those beverages
that they may be selecting.
So it is a very healthy discussion that we are having and a
very important one, coming from a State like Arkansas where we
have seen tremendous childhood obesity and tremendous issues in
diabetes as well, with our different populations, whether it is
minority populations, low-income populations, and all of those
issues that we are dealing with.
So we want to do something that is constructive and
certainly encouraging in terms of making sure that we are
teaching good habits and making sure that parents are involved
in that, too, because we know when they come home, that
environment is perhaps going to be very different.
I do want to put in a plug for the Breakfast Program. I
think it is critically important, having had a sister that
taught in the public schools, recognizing that children do come
in with a tremendous amount of hunger and the need before they
begin their school day to have that available to them. I think
that is very, very important.
Just a couple of quick questions. Ms. Neely, as you know,
school districts are implementing local wellness policies as a
requirement of the Child Nutrition Act. Any more that you might
want to add to how school beverage guidelines mesh with those
wellness policies?
Ms. Neely. Well, we think the guidelines mesh very well
with the school wellness policies, and as our marketing sales
teams are meeting with school leadership, they are presenting
this as something that would make sense in the context of the
overall policy.
Senator Lincoln. Well, and in order for things to work,
people have to participate. What is the willingness or the
percentage of school districts that you see showing a
willingness to implement your guidelines over the past year?
Ms. Neely. Well, we are 10 months into it, so we have not
yet----
Senator Lincoln. I know your study comes out in August,
but----
Ms. Neely. It does, and we have not completed the school
year yet, and it is the first that would apply to the
guidelines. But we are making progress. As I said, we fully
expect the first report will show a significant decline in the
sale of full-calorie soft drinks in schools, and it will also
speak to the contracts that have been changed.
So we think we are making progress. We are starting to
assemble the data now, and as I said, we will personally
deliver the report to all of you so that you can see we are
doing what we said we would do.
Senator Lincoln. Good. We appreciate that.
Dr. Brownell, there are some researchers from Ohio State
University and Indiana University that released a study
indicating that children are more likely to gain weight during
the summer months as opposed to during the school year. I do
not know. That goes counter to everything. I always keep
thinking I will try to lose my weight during Lent, but, you
know, summer is coming and I am going to--it is a better time
to lose weight. But apparently that is not the case for
children. They gain weight during the summer months as opposed
to during the school year due to inactivity and improper
snacking.
I am just wondering if you are familiar with that study.
Are there any comments you might have on its findings as they
related to what we are talking about today?
Mr. Brownell. The results from that study seem a bit
counter-intuitive at first glance, but I think you are right.
If you think about what happens to children in the summer where
their structured physical activity from organized sports and
other things in the school declines, and also, my guess--
although I do not have data handy on this--is that their amount
of time in front of the television increases and other screen
activities, like computer games and Internet websites and
things like that. And one could expect all those things to
increase food intake and to decrease physical activity.
Senator Lincoln. You also discussed the views of economists
and public health experts on the importance of creating
conditions where actions that enhance health and well-being
become the default response, kind of. Maybe you might want to
discuss your views a little bit more--you have already touched
on some of it--on the argument that it may be useful,
particularly for young adults, to learn to make healthy
choices. I just think that is so critically important that we
engage our children. My boys cooked dinner last night, which
was quite interesting. But it was a part of me trying to help
them understand. I laid out all the foods before I left. I made
sure they knew the recipe was on the counter. They had a
wonderful time, and they very much understood a lot of the
preparation and what they were putting into their dinner. These
types of choices, as well as the choices they make in
selections, are important as they reach the real world.
Mr. Brownell. I think your focus on parents is absolutely a
good idea, and the question becomes how can we best support
parents. When I give talks these days, I will start off by
asking the audience if they can list the National Dietary
Guidelines or even name the two Government agencies that
establish them. And even rooms full of dieticians cannot do
that.
And then I give people a little quiz, and I ask them to
tell me which food products are associated with the following
slogans, and I will say things like, ``Break me off a piece of
that...''? You know, Kit Kat bar. Or ``I go cuckoo for...''?
Cocoa Puffs. And nearly 100 percent of the audience can nail
those things.
Now, parents are competing with that, and parents can try
their best and do their best, and I think we should support
them in every way possible, and that includes looking at the
marketing picture, looking at what is happening in schools. The
schools can do programs to help educate parents themselves. All
these things need to be done together in order to have an
impact.
But anything that can possibly be done to support parents,
as you are doing with your own children, to teach them good
rules about food and healthy eating I think is absolutely
indicated.
Senator Lincoln. Yes?
Ms. Hennrich. I have one thing as a parent. When my
children were young, it was the age of recycling. And I am the
first to admit, I was throwing cans and cardboard in the
garbage can. And my kids came home from school and said, ``Mom,
you cannot do that.'' And I went, ``Why not?'' ``Well, because
you need to recycle this.'' I was, like, ``Oh, all right.''
And, I mean, I am out in healthy Oregon, you know, so I am
supposed to be--but we did not really know that. As parents,
somewhere, you know, that had escaped me while I was doing
whatever I was doing being a parent. And I think there is a
corollary here, that when the kids learn about fruits and
vegetables, they eat things they have never eaten before, and
then they are at the grocery store. I hear stories over and
over of kids saying to their parents, ``Mom, we had that at
school. We should buy some of that. We should have some of
that.''
So I think sometimes we kind of have this thing, well,
parents, we are supposed to be all knowledgeable, teaching our
kids everything that is good for them. Yet sometimes, you know,
the best of us kind of miss a little piece here or do not have
that. So I think it is reciprocal.
And so I think that if the environment in school does not
undermine what you are trying to do as a parent, and, in fact,
supports that, and for the kids who do not have the parents who
are necessarily thinking about doing that, if it just kind of--
--
Senator Lincoln. Or do not have time.
Ms. Hennrich. Right.
Senator Lincoln. They are working three jobs, or they do
not have the time to do that.
Ms. Hennrich. Exactly. Exactly. And so, therefore, is the
default, as Dr. Brownell says, that they kind of just learn
this is what we are supposed to be doing and eating, it is the
modeling that is there. And so it can do nothing but be a win-
win for parents and children.
Senator Lincoln. Mr. Chairman, can I just reinforce another
thing that Ms. Thornton said, and that is, engaging the
community in these things. I know we were supposed to, as
Senator Chambliss in the appropriations, be the next State or
one of those five or six next States for the fresh fruits and
vegetables, and because of the CR we did not. We were so
excited about that, and we had already engaged our fresh fruits
and our specialty crop growers, our farmers' markets and others
to be engaged with the school, not only to provide those
products but to come in and talk to the children about how
great it is to be a small family farmer of specialty products.
And we also had schools where they brought parents into the
schools and engaging with the local community folks, different
types of things like fly fishing and--I mean, a whole host of
things that just brings parents into the schools and engages
them in the decisionmaking and being a part of the child's
life. And it leads to all of those other things which are
healthy choices and that are important. So I appreciate Ms.
Thornton bringing in the rest of the community because that is
important, too.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln, for
your very valuable contribution, especially you and Senator
Klobuchar, who have kids in school. You can add a lot to this
process about what we should do.
I mentioned the letter that we got from the American Heart
Association. I would ask that it be included in the record, and
also your counsel, Marshall Matz, a long-time friend of this
Committee, had given us the series of letters, Ms. Thornton,
that you mentioned about this and about asking Congress to
establish a uniform national nutrition standard, and I would
ask that all these be made a part of the record also.
[The following information can be found on page 100 in the
appendix.]
Please, what happens when these other ones out there, who
are not a part of this process as well, they get out, we will
put more of ours in. So there is nothing controlling their--
what do you do about the snack foods, the junk food kind of
stuff that is coming in?
Ms. Neely. Well, just for the record, I would also say the
other signatory was Cadbury Schweppes, so there is----
Chairman Harkin. Oh, Cadbury Schweppes, OK. That is another
one, yes.
Ms. Neely.--Coke, Pepsi, and Cadbury Schweppes, and a host
of other brands, but those were the three signatories.
Obviously, I am more intimately familiar with the beverage
Memorandum of Understanding, and ours was for--it was our
entire board of directors that signed onto it, and so we
represent not quite 100 percent of the industry but close to
it.
On the snack food side, again, they followed the same sort
of conceptual model in that it is all about calories, and the
major trademarks that committed to that do represent a healthy
share of the market, and their agreement is all around calories
and limiting calories.
So I think it is a good start, and I know that----
Chairman Harkin. But without national standards--I mean,
assuming that the voluntary guidelines are fine as far as they
go, but without national standards, I mean, even you have to
admit that those who are not signatory to this, the hundreds of
other snack food companies that are out there in different
States, some of these are just local businesses and stuff like
that. They cover one or two States, three States, something
like that. They are not as big as Frito-Lay, for example, but
they are out there. They are still able to then, under these
guidelines, continue to market their foods in the schools. Is
that not right?
Ms. Neely. Well, I again will speak on behalf of beverage.
We have a national policy. We agree there should be a national
approach on this particular issue. We would certainly talk
about going further. We just, as I said, want there to be some
reflection that we are a year into implementing a set of
standards really that we think are the right approach and, you
know, that is what we want to see promulgated across the
country.
So I will not duck the question. I will just say I cannot
speak on behalf of snack food, but I can speak on behalf of
beverage, that we want to see our policy promulgated across the
country.
Chairman Harkin. I understand that. I am, I guess, trying
to make the point that--my problem with the voluntary--I do not
have a problem with it as such. It is great. But it is the
implementation of it. And since nothing happens to a school
that does not--or a school district that does not abide by that
and nothing happens to a company that is not a signatory to
this to go ahead and keep marketing this junk food to kids,
then it seems to me while the effort might be marginally
successful and it might do some good sometimes, I do not know
that it really kind of goes the distance in terms of cutting
down on these junk foods.
Again, I do not mean to belabor that point, but it just
seems to me that is the problem with not having the national
standards in there. And I am hopeful that these groups that
have done so well--and, again, I am very complimentary of what
you have done. This is a great step forward. I just hope that
all of you will work with us as the Institute of Medicine study
comes out. I do not know what it is going to say. We asked the
experts to do it. They have no monetary involvement with
companies here and there. We thought the National Academy of
Sciences would be the best one to do the study. And I hope that
when they come out we will take a look at that and think about
those standards and think about how we implement that and get
the Secretary of Agriculture then to implement these standards
all over the school, not just in the lunchrooms. And I hope
that this association, the Alliance for a Healthier Generation,
would be supportive of that effort.
Ms. Neely. Senator, I can assure you that we are very
supportive of seeing this implemented all across the school--
from the beverage standpoint, which is what I can speak to--and
we will be happy to work with you to that end.
Chairman Harkin. I appreciate that.
Let me just get to one other Internet here. In 2004, Dr.
Brownell, you know that we put into our child nutrition
reauthorization a provision that stated that every school in
America had to come up with a school wellness policy by last
July. We did not say what it had to be. We just said get the
process going, start talking about it locally, thinking about
what a school wellness policy would be.
Now, again, we are going to be looking at those. As I said,
a lot of schools just came in this year. So we really do not
know a lot about it, but I want to take a look at what they
have done locally. And I am just going to ask, Dr. Brownell, if
you have any preliminary analysis of the guidelines, how they
are being formulated, how they are being implemented. Do you
have any idea at all preliminary what is happening to these?
Mr. Brownell. Well, my colleague at Yale, Marlene Schwartz,
is undertaking a major study of the implementation of wellness
policies in Connecticut. What she has found thus far is that
there is great variability in the degree to which schools are
taking this seriously. Some are taking them very seriously and
have very progressive policies. Others do the bare minimum that
is provided to them from the outside as a template and then put
it in a drawer afterwards, and there does not seem to be much
follow-through. But it is a little bit too early to know how
they will play out over the years.
I think the fact that the wellness policies are being
discussed is a very positive move forward, because just even
discussion is a good thing, and that will get people thinking
about it. Some national standard that would support a good
wellness policy I think would be very helpful because,
otherwise, we will get spotty compliance and irregular uptake
of what would be good nutrition values across school systems.
So that is why I think the national policy is so important,
and the variability that we have seen so far would suggest just
that.
Chairman Harkin. Does anybody else here have any thoughts
on that?
Ms. Hennrich. Senator Harkin, in Oregon, our organization
did get a copy of all the policies. We have 198 school
districts in Oregon, and 189 of those participate in the
National School Meals Program. So those are the school
districts that should turn in policies.
We got a copy from the Oregon Department of Education of
each of those policies that were turned in this past September.
There were 174. So out of 189, there were 15 that did not turn
anything in. And there is really no piece in this law to say
you have got to turn them in or else. So those 15 are just kind
of hanging out there.
But the 174 that were turned in, actually we have done some
initial analysis of them, and this is where I talked about that
in only 20 percent of them, a little less than 20 percent, did
they mention anything about foods sold outside of the National
School Lunch Program. So they did not say--like here is one,
Ashland School District, Jackson County, they did say there
would be a minimum of 50 percent fruit juice, low-fat and fat-
free milk, and soy milk. That is what they said in terms of
anything that is sold outside of the National School Lunch
Program. Bandon School District in Coos County said ``limits
the amount of FMNV''--with all of the problems that we know the
definition of FMNV has--``sold in vending machines.''
So even the ones that did something did pretty minimal when
it came to anything outside of the School Lunch Program, and
this is where I was interested in the study that had been
nationally done on the 100 largest school districts, and they
found 20 percent of those policies said something about the
food sold outside National School Lunch. So, you know, and we
are finding, too, it is very variable, and when we look at it
by the poorest school districts, what we find is we really
believe it is a matter of social justice, that those school
districts that do not have parent activists, do not have school
leaders that have time, they have got so many other things on
their plates, that if you do not have some kind of real outside
push on this, we are finding that the poorer districts really
had very minimal policies. Mostly they pulled down--the School
Board Association in Oregon did kind of a template on the
website, and they pulled it down, inserted the name of their
school district, and some--this is very sad. Where the Board of
Education said you could--there were parentheses, and you could
choose ``daily'' or you could choose ``weekly.'' I mean, you
were supposed to make a choice. They turned in the policy that
said ``daily weekly.'' You know, all they did was download it,
put their district name on it, have a quick whatever, pass it,
and it went on.
Chairman Harkin. Yes, our hope when we did this was, again,
get the process going, get school districts thinking about it,
and then States, State Departments of Education, then take a
look at it, and then out of this amalgam of different
approaches, start looking at those that are really doing good
things, and then sort of go back to the school districts and
say, ``We think you ought to do this.''
Now, we did not have at that time, again, any standards, or
we did not know--but I think the Institute of Medicine study
that will come out will help sort of, again, give them ideas
about what they ought to be doing in terms of establishing
those kinds of wellness standards. So hopefully this process
will continue.
I have taken enough time. I would turn to Senator Lugar for
the second round.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was intrigued with your statement, Ms. Thornton, that in
Salt Lake City as an experiment, they eliminated reduced-price
lunch and lunch participation--or eliminated the reduced-price
fee, rather, and lunch participation rose 50 percent, breakfast
participation 300 percent. It appears that eliminating the
reduced-price fee has a much greater impact on breakfast but,
nevertheless, rather dramatic on lunch.
You say in your testimony, ``We are not here today urging
the Congress to expand the free meal program and eliminate the
reduced-price program. We are just urging Congress to finally
fund the reduced-price pilot program to determine once and for
all whether it is the fee as opposed to some other variable
that might be keeping those low-income children from the
program.''
I would say common sense has already indicated, given that
dramatic a change in Salt Lake City, that the answer would be
yes. What I am really curious about is whether your association
or anybody else has done research on what it would cost if, in
fact, despite your admonition, we proceeded to think about
eliminating the fee. And I raise that because it appears to me
this is fairly critical. We have been talking about the
standards for the meals, but if a significant number of
children are not even getting the meals to begin with, that is
academic. That is sort of a second problem.
Ms. Thornton. Right. I think that was one school district.
I think there are other issues that are barriers to breakfast
that districts are slowly overcoming like breakfast in the
classroom, because in most school districts breakfast is not a
part of the school day, and in most cases lunch is. So that
certainly is one component, that cost component.
Obviously, if the same kids ate breakfast as ate lunch, you
know, that would be fairly easy to calculate that 30 cents per
meal times however many students that would be.
I think we will still have some component of children that
parents choose to feed them at home, which is fine. Our concern
is that they have had food.
Senator Lugar. Well, that is all of our concern.
Ms. Thornton. Yes.
Senator Lugar. My concern started when I went on the school
board in Indianapolis in 1964. The first Federal aid
Indianapolis ever accepted was for a breakfast program for so-
called latch-key children. The problem in our country is there
are many latch-key children, or their equivalent, and we are
now looking at it in a different Committee with No Child Left
Behind. The fact is that the amount of progress by children who
are suffering in this way is a very tough issue, and school
boards are very unhappy that there are so many children not
meeting the standards. There are lots of reasons why they might
not, given teacher quality, availability of lots of things. But
the health issues, the availability of food, basically--then I
sort of pick it up from there, that we are not measuring in No
Child Left Behind the same children year by year. The schools
that I am looking at in the inner city of Indianapolis have a
50-percent turnover.
Now, if we do not have some type of at least statewide
standard, it is very likely that because they are wards of
relatives that carry them to the next district the next year,
they are out of luck. We are almost back to the same problem
basically with the National School Lunch Program. This is why I
would like to know what the cost is going to be. You are
advising us $23 million for the pilot project.
Ms. Thornton. Right.
Senator Lugar. I think that may be useful, but I think
maybe my prejudice is why, that that has already been
established. And the question is: What kind of money in the
Food Stamp Program, which you have cited, which we are going to
be taking up in the farm bill and reauthorization, what kind of
money in the food stamp bill needs to be devoted to eliminate
this barrier?
Ms. Thornton. I cannot give you that information right off,
but I will certainly see that our association works with USDA
and gets you that information.
I would like to say, though, it is amazing to many of us in
my position that come test time, we will have schools that will
pay for every child to have a breakfast because they know it
makes a difference. And we kind of sit back and laugh and say,
you know, they can only give you back what they know. It is not
going to help all those days that they have not had breakfast.
Senator Lugar. Well, this is known as ``gaming the
system,'' and anybody involved in No Child Left Behind is a
student of all the ways that occurs.
Ms. Thornton. Yes.
Senator Lugar. But this is certainly an ingenious way, to
feed children on the day of the test so that at least they have
some pep to get a few more points.
Ms. Thornton. Right.
Senator Lugar. But that really does not suffice, as you
know.
Ms. Thornton. Right.
Senator Lugar. And that is why I ask this question,
seriously, and you are going to provide a serious answer.
Ms. Thornton. Yes, we will.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Yes, thank you. One topic that I did not
touch on in my first round of questions was on the WIC Program,
Women, Infants, and Children's Program. And I will assert it
more than ask a question, but it is my belief that the cuts
that are proposed to WIC, especially starting in 2009 and going
forward, are obviously detrimental to the children and families
affected, but I think harmful for our economy, and I am going
to fight aggressively and mightily and resolutely against those
cuts.
I do not know if anyone on the panel has any direct
experience with WIC and the impact of the program to make
comment. And I just have one other question.
Ms. Hennrich. Yes, I actually worked for Multnomah County
Health Department for many years and was the manager of the WIC
Program in Portland, so I think now it fairly intimately. And
it is absolutely essential that we get kids started out early,
that we--Oregon has the highest sustained breast-feeding rate
in the Nation; 26 percent of all babies in Oregon are breast-
fed until 6 months. And our WIC Program pushes that very hard.
I am kind of amazed when we say it is the best. I think it
ought to be 75 percent, not 25 percent. But we are the leaders
in it. But feeding mothers well during their pregnancy, we have
a program so that it is way too small, but some State money has
been put in so that women can get vouchers for farmers' markets
and buy fresh fruits and vegetables that are locally produced
in the summer.
Absolutely, WIC is essential. It is that first building
block prenatally, and then as the children grow until they come
to school. So anything you can do to--and also to get the WIC
food package changed to include fruits and vegetables is high
on our list.
Senator Casey. And, again, you are right, we could have
more--we could increase our commodity purchases for WIC.
Ms. Hennrich. Yes.
Senator Casey. I guess my problem with the way that things
work in Washington is often when they propose budget cuts to
programs like WIC which have a disproportional and devastating
impact on people, the budget-meisters did no analysis. It is
just, Where can we find money to pay for tax cuts? And they cut
indiscriminately, with no analysis about waste, fraud, and
abuse, no analysis about inefficiency. They just bring down the
meat axe and cut. But that is the way they do it in Washington,
but we are going to fight against it.
One quick point. On the question of how we impact behavior,
whether by children or adults, and especially adults who happen
to be parents, it is my belief--and I think there is a lot of
evidence to show this--that unfortunately the cold reality in
terms of how we impact how people think, I think, Mr. Brownell,
you mentioned the impact of surveying a group of even experts,
and they can recite the TV ads. Whether it is children's health
insurance programs, whether it is nutrition, whatever it is in
terms of getting people to focus on a problem, to be aware of
it, to take steps to improve--or to change behavior, so much of
this revolves around television and the advertising. I know it
works in the beverage context. It has an impact on all of our
lives. We are all subjected to that, and we are all prone to
believe television ads and be impacted by them.
My question is this: In this context of changing behavior,
in this context of making parents and school officials and,
obviously, children more aware of these choices they make about
nutrition, is there any initiative that you are aware of--
public, private, nonprofit, whatever--across the country, any
initiative that focuses on paid television ads to impact
behavior? Because if we are not doing that, all the laws and
regulations in the world are not going to be enough. And I just
want to know if anyone has any information about any initiative
to pay for ads to impact this positively.
Ms. Neely. Well, Senator, I would certainly encourage you
to look at what the Advertising Council, which is the nonprofit
arm of the advertising industry, is doing. They have a major
campaign in that regard of communications of all sorts on this
issue. The Alliance for a Healthier Generation, one of their
partners is Nickelodeon, and as a parent with children who do
like Nickelodeon, I can attest that they do an excellent job
with their paid spaces to communicate healthy messages about
this is the most important meal of the day, that kind of thing.
And I will hear my children playing back what they saw on those
commercials on Nickelodeon, so I know that they are very
effective. So there is some good work being done out there by
professionals that is supported by our companies and others.
Mr. Brownell. One quick comment. There are some positive
changes, and the challenge by the Ad Council I think is one of
them. But they are a drop against the tidal wave, and they are
simply not going to have an impact given the massive, massive
amount of advertising for unhealthy foods.
I also would like to say that the amount of exposure of
children to food marketing in general is increasing at the same
time that television exposure to food marketing is going down.
It is because other things have come in to take its place. So
food industry websites that have engaging games for children
would be an example. It will soon be the case that food
advertisements will be beamed over cell phones to children
specific to their location because of the GPS chips that are
built into the modern cell phones. And there are a number of
viral--in fact, I mentioned in my testimony, in my written
testimony, that the industry uses the words ``viral
marketing,'' ``stealth marketing,'' and ``guerilla marketing''
to describe the ways they are going after children.
Senator Casey. Anybody else?
Ms. Hennrich. I guess in the Northwest, Kaiser Permanente
has done an ad campaign called ``Thrive,'' and they have had
some great ads on, you know, bicycling to work, on eating
antioxidants and fruits and vegetables. But it is a drop in the
bucket compared to what is happening on the other side.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Klobuchar?
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up
some of Senator Lugar's questions about the breakfasts. In
Minnesota, actually, the State legislature eliminated the
reduced-price category for school breakfasts, and they made
school breakfast free to all students who are eligible for free
and reduced-price meals. And so I saw this in the school where
my--basically the whole school would go down and have breakfast
in the morning, and I was horrified to hear that story about
just on the day of a test.
I wondered if any of you knew how many other States had
done this, where they have eliminated, as Senator Lugar was
talking about, the free and reduced--eliminated the reduced-
price breakfast and have replaced it with the free breakfast
for poorer schools.
Ms. Hennrich. Oregon has not.
Ms. Thornton. I am not aware of other States. That is not
to say there is not any. I know there are some individual
districts. My district, for instance, our local board pays for
breakfast for all elementary school students. But I think these
are isolated instances and not really the rule nationwide.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. The other thing is I was talking
before--I was listening to Senator Lincoln, and I want to make
clear that I think education plays a major role in this. My
daughter actually last week came and told me that she said that
Daddy has been saying pack my lunch, and he said that the fruit
roll-up was a fruit. ``I do not think that is right, do you,
Mom?'' she said.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. ``I think that is a dessert,'' she said.
So, in any case, I do think that it plays a major role, but
I also, again, want to go back to the fact that when there are
just these endless possibilities of food that is not good for
kids, I do not think we are going to get to where we want to
be. And I wondered if you--if there are any statistics--I guess
I would ask you, Mr. Brownell--of schools where we have put
that standard in place, that is in force, where we have seen
not just, oh, yes, they are eating healthy food, but we have
seen a decrease in obesity. Are there examples of that from
around the country?
Mr. Brownell. There are some, but we are early enough in
the research that we have mainly anecdotal reports at the
moment. But I think in the next several years we will see an
awful lot more research.
What is available--some of which has come from the
University of Minnesota, by the way--has been quite positive.
Ms. Hennrich. One study that we had--Amanda Purcell from
California Center for Public Health Advocacy came up and spoke
to our legislature last week because we are working on trying
to get State standards in Oregon, and she referenced a study
out of UCLA where L.A. Unified went ahead and implemented the
basic standards that we are talking about in Oregon and that
are now California law. They did them before they became
California law. And the study actually did a control, looked at
the schools on L.A. Unified that implemented early versus
others that did not. And I cannot remember the researcher at
UCLA, but they actually found a year later smaller waist
circumferences and some other indicators. And so I have asked
her to get me that study because it does seem like one that
actually really looked at just changing what is being sold in
the hallways and in the a la carte and in the school stores,
and that it did really make a difference. So I think it is
beginning to come out.
Ms. Thornton. I think you will see, too, there are any
number of school districts that food sold within the cafeteria
has changed dramatically from, you know, obviously eliminating
deep fat fryers, changing tremendously the kinds of foods. If a
la carte is sold, they would meet the same standards that USDA
would be recommending. It may be a la carte because it is a
higher, maybe a whole muscle meat product, a more expensive
food, but still, we sell apples a la carte. They would be on
the line, maybe bananas, like a tossed salad that a child may
buy just as an individual.
So I think you are seeing kinds of things sold that are
changing tremendously, and I think you are going to see this
continue to change.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Chairman Harkin. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
I just have a couple things I just want to close up on
here. Ms. Nece, you mentioned in your statement about
infrastructure needs for the Fruit and Vegetable Program. Could
you elaborate a little bit? What infrastructure needs?
Ms. Nece. Sure. From my perspective as a food service
director, what needs to transpire with many schools across the
Nation as we continue to increase fruit and vegetable
consumption, particularly fresh, we run into just storage
facilities to be able to handle the volume of fresh fruits and
produce that come in at any given time. So it is dealing with
whether it is equipment or the additional cost of purchasing,
not every school district in the Nation has easy access to
fresh fruits and vegetables.
Chairman Harkin. Has what?
Ms. Nece. Does not have easy access to fresh fruits that
are financially--or that are reasonable in cost.
Chairman Harkin. I see.
Ms. Nece. And so as schools continue to increase their
options making fruits and vegetables available, it is looking
at what are the needs that need to support that additional
offering of fruits and vegetables.
Chairman Harkin. Storage, basically.
Ms. Nece. Storage, whether it is equipment. For us in the
Fruit and Vegetable Pilot, we actually had to go to daily
delivery from a produce supplier to be able to manage the fresh
produce on a daily basis.
Chairman Harkin. The refrigeration and things that you have
in the school lunchroom, that cannot handle that?
Ms. Nece. Well, part of what we were doing is we were also
increasing fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables
in our school meals programs. So you have fresh fruits and
vegetables coming in for breakfast, for lunch, for the pilot
programs during that entire timeframe. So you increase what
needs to have refrigerated storage.
Chairman Harkin. I would also like to look at what we can
do in the farm bill on this program to encourage somehow more
local--I think it was Senator Chambliss or someone who brought
that up about more local growing and consumption of local
fruits and vegetables and how we can do that. And any thoughts
any of you have on that I would really appreciate that, unless
you have something right now that you have on your mind. But if
you do not----
Ms. Hennrich. Well, I know Portland Public Schools is
working very hard with local farmers in having a Harvest of the
Month, and they did winter squash the other day in all the
schools and actually got a lot of that product donated by the
squash growers in Oregon.
But one of the things that I do not know the specifics, and
I think that you can speak much more to them, is some of--what
I have heard, at least, is that there are some of the
procurement rules that make it a little difficult to try to
advantage local producers of fruits and vegetables from Oregon.
And I am not adequately knowledgeable to speak of that, but I
have heard Kristy Obbink, the Portland Public School Director,
talk about trying to work within some guidelines that make it
more difficult sometimes than she thinks it should be.
Ms. Thornton. Right, and those----
Chairman Harkin. Dr. Brownell, do you have some--oh, I am
sorry.
Ms. Thornton. I am sorry. Go on.
Mr. Brownell. Well, I also agree it is very important. The
American food system has changed in such a way that people have
a distant psychological and physical relationship with food. It
tends to be shipped long distances. It has so many ingredients
and additives and preservatives that you hardly know what it is
by the time you eat it. And so anything that can shrink the
psychological and physical distance I think would be quite
helpful, and local foods would go a long way in that direction.
Ms. Thornton. We are working very closely with the Farm to
School Program in many, many of our States. We do have some
issues that we are working to overcome. One in Kentucky, so
many of the farmers are fairly small farmers, and to get the
quantity of foods we need is sometimes an issue.
Also, if we have something on the menu, we depend on that
product being there that day. Maybe we had a lot of rain or had
cool weather or whatever and that product is not there. We have
not contracted with the outside vendor to get it, so I have
16,000 kids sitting there with nothing.
So we are slowly working, though, with them, and we
certainly, I think all of us, want to continue to do that to
support our local farmers.
Chairman Harkin. I am just, again, looking for suggestions
or advice how we might do that. One of the things that you just
kind of hit on, and, that is, you have all these small farmers,
but there is no kind of a central place where they can send it
where it is processed, packaged, and shipped on to you.
Ms. Thornton. Right.
Chairman Harkin. It is that kind of thing, and so we are
looking at something like that, either through the cooperative
co-ops or something. I do not know how we do it, but to somehow
promote that kind of concept.
Ms. Thornton. And then in our part of the country, you
know, obviously we do not plant until Derby Day, so we do not
get food that ripens until in the summer. So we use a lot of
that during the summer months, but to actually use the fresh
product--maybe a little bit in August in schools that start
early, and we can do a little bit with apples. But the season
is not when we are in school.
Chairman Harkin. The same way where I am from, too.
Ms. Thornton. Yes.
Chairman Harkin. The season is different.
[Pause.]
Chairman Harkin. Derek Miller, who knows everything about
all this stuff, just gave me a note, and Derek says that OMB
regulations have a prohibition on geographical preferences in
procurement. I asked him what we could do about it, and he
said, ``Well, you can override it.'' Well, we will have to
think about that.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. One last thing I wanted to cover with Ms.
Neely and Dr. Brownell. Ms. Neely, you talked about a public
opinion survey. You said, ``A recent nationwide survey...When
asked to choose between the School Beverage Guidelines and a
policy...parents supported our guidelines...when asked if they
preferred our guidelines or a complete vending ban...they chose
the guidelines by a margin of 82 percent to 14 percent.''
Could you make that available to us? I have not been able
to get this survey. Who did the survey?
Ms. Neely. I would be happy to. It was done by Public
Opinion Strategies, the pollster for NBC and the Wall Street
Journal.
Chairman Harkin. Yes. Could you make that available to the
Committee?
Ms. Neely. Certainly.
Chairman Harkin. In its raw form, so we know the questions.
And, again, I have the same question for you, Mr. Brownell. You
said trends in public opinion, which seem to kind of go the
other way, and I would like to know who did this.
Mr. Brownell. We will send the data on who did the various
numbers in that sheet because they come from different polls
over time.
Chairman Harkin. I would like to see it.
Mr. Brownell. Also, when you do polls, how you ask
questions matters a lot.
Chairman Harkin. That is why I want to see the raw data.
Mr. Brownell. You should see the way the questions----
Ms. Neely. But I would say just from the soft drink
questions specifically, probably we would agree with your data.
What we heard from parents and saw in market research, which
one of the reasons the industry wanted to move forward with
this is that they want full-calorie regular soft drinks out of
the schools, and we agree with parents.
So I do not think our data is inconsistent with that. What
our policy says is no-calorie soft drinks in the schools, and
parents, again, seemed to embrace this sort of calorie
construct. So whether it is sports drinks, soft drinks,
whatever, that they are within a calorie construct that makes
sense. If it is obesity we are trying to tackle, it is about
calories, not people's personal likes and dislikes of
individual products.
Chairman Harkin. OK. It would just be interesting to take a
look at that.
Well, that is all I have for today. I just again thank the
School Nutrition Association for all of the great work you do,
all of you who are here for your annual meetings here. I urge
you to make sure you contact all your Representatives and
Senators when you are here. You have a lobby day someday. I do
not know. Is that tomorrow? Oh, it is today. OK, today on the
Hill. I am sorry I kept you here this long then.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Harkin. I want you to get out there and do your
work and get a hold of your Representatives and Senators and
let them know that you support national guidelines. Do we have
a House companion?
Derek tells me there is going to be a companion bill in the
House. Perhaps they are going to try to introduce that today,
Shays and Woolsey. So on the House side, if you can go to the
House side, really encourage your Representatives to get on
board this, I think that we could get something done about this
hopefully this year when we do the farm bill and get it
through.
On the Fruit and Vegetable Program, we are going to see
what we can do about expanding that.
I think the bottom line really is that we all want what is
best for our kids. And, you know, leave no child behind, that
is fine, I am supportive of it. We need to fund it better,
obviously. But we also need to leave no child behind in terms
of health, either, and like it or not, schools are now becoming
a place where kids get most of their nutrition during the day,
and that is just it. You know, no more do we have kids that eat
their breakfast at home and maybe even have a healthy meal at
home at night. So we are looking at our schools to provide
that. We all want to make sure that the foods and beverages
that they consume there not only are healthy in and of
themselves, but that also promote their thinking about this.
You know, at an early age when they start eating fruits and
vegetables, they find they like them, they get satisfaction
from it, and then it carries on later on in life. If kids start
eating potato chips and drinking soda pop at age 4, well, you
have set a bad course for the future. But when they start
eating fresh fruits and vegetables and they get the flavor of
those if it is fresh, I think it starts establishing habits and
life patterns for these kids as they grow up.
Again, I do not want to be alarmist on this or anything
like that, but, you know, that is why the voluntary guidelines
are fine, but I have just got to say that we are in almost a
crisis situation. We have got to do something right away. This
diabetes thing that is hitting us is just awesome. And when we
look ahead to the costs to our society downstream of this, boy,
it is just amazing.
So we have got to do what we can early on to start
preventing this and getting kids healthier, and that also means
exercise in school, too, by the way. I do not want to leave
that out. As you know, I have my bill in on the Play Day at
school and to make sure that we, again, within whatever
confines that we can here, try to encourage schools to provide
physical exercise for all those kids at least once a day.
I remember I was in Japan one time, and I went out to a
factory. About 9:30 in the morning, the whistle blew and
everybody stopped working, and they all stood by their desks
and their workstations and did exercises for 5 minutes. I was
told by my guy who was there taking me through that, you know,
what they had found was that mid-morning people get a little
lethargic, and that is when mistakes are made. So get the blood
moving again, get them exercising. And then I was told that
they do that in schools in Japan. I do not know that for a
fact, but I was told that kids in school actually do that in
school.
Well, that is why we need to promote both ends, the
wellness in terms of what they eat during the day, what is
available to them to eat during the day, and then to get them
to do exercise, get kids out playing. To me it is just
abominable that we are building elementary schools in America
now without playgrounds. Without playgrounds. One principal is
quoted as saying, ``Well, my job is to educate kids, not to
build monkey bars.'' A cute saying, but it misses the mark
completely, that these kids do need to have exercise.
Well, that is enough of that. I just thank you all very
much. Thank you for being here. Thanks for your great
testimony. Thanks for all the good work that you do in getting
our kids a good, healthy start in life. And we will try to do
our part in the farm bill with your advice and your input, all
of you, on what we ought to be doing.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 6, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.043
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 6, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 35041.077