Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 1:45 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator LEAHY. [presiding]. The subcommittee meeting will come to order.

For those of you whom I have not met before, I am Patrick Leahy, the junior Senator from Vermont.

Our next witness is Susan Fridy, who is the legislative representative of the National Milk Producers Federation.

Due to the many witnesses, the committee is limiting statements to 10 minutes. I would point out to Ms. Fridy and to anybody else who wishes to testify that the committee will have no objection to your full statement being included in the record. I would recommend, if at all possible, that you hit the high points of it, and also cover any other particular areas that you feel should be covered. We are glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN FRIDY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

MS. FRIDY. As you know, Patrick B. Healy was to come and testify. He was unable to come and I will be representing him. I am accompanied today by Mr. John Adams, who is our Director of Environmental and Consumer Affairs.

I am Susan Fridy, legislative representative of the National Milk Producers Federation, which is a national farm commodity organization representing dairy farmers and the dairy cooperative associations which they own and operate. These cooperatives range from small groups to very large federated organizations, operating throughout the continental United States and Alaska.

We are proud of our record as long-time supporters of legislation to provide good nutrition for the children of our nation.

Dairy products are well recognized as an essential ingredient to a balanced diet. We, therefore, have a direct interest in the bills before you today to strengthen the school lunch and child nutrition programs. We were alarmed at the administration's budget proposal to eliminate the present child feeding programs and provide a block grant to the States in lieu of these programs, which we feel Congress has carefully developed over the years.

The block grant proposal would reduce the overall child nutrition program by approximately $600 million. This is certainly not the year to entertain any ideas about reducing child feeding assistance. In the face of rising foods costs, high levels of unemployment, inflation, and the desperate economies of many local governments, more and more families will rely on these programs which enable their children to participate in a reduced cost breakfast, lunch, and special milk supplement.

Even if the block grant proposal would not reduce the Federal share of assistance for these valuable programs, we foresee no advantage in the Federal Government losing its control over the nutritional requirements which carefully assure each child the greatest food value for his

needs. Loss of Federal regulation of the child feeding would create an inequity among children in different areas of our country. Local areas might be persuaded to patronize local economies and lose the concept of a well-balanced meal at lowest possible price.

It is for this reason, greatest food value for each dollar spent, that we have always supported provisions which instruct the Secretary of Agriculture to make bulk commodity purchases for use in the child feeding programs. The Secretary of Agriculture is in a particularly good position to determine the best time to make bulk purchases at the best price. In addition, this purchasing authority can serve as a tool for stimulating various commodity markets and help divert a depression of farm prices.

Part of the administration's budget proposal was to eliminate direct funding for special food service, the breakfast program and WIC, which would mean an end of food benefits for 13 million children. One program which would have been terminated is the special milk program which provides an additional half pint of milk at reduced price for each child. We have heard the argument that with the expansion of the school breakfast and lunch programs, children do not need another half pint of milk. We would like to point out that many children prefer to bring their own lunch which they supplement with milk purchased at school. Why should not these children enjoy a reduction in the price of their milk, as do those who purchase a full meal, so that all children can benefit from the Federal food programs?

In addition, many children want to consume a second half pint of milk with their lunch or breakfast. In an age when children are continually tempted by foods which offer little nutrition and empty calories, we should encourage consumption of wholesome foods. Reduced price milk is just such a way to make good nutrition more available. The addition of milk to a meal or snack is the addition of a whole food, not simply a beverage.

The special milk program has been, over the years, one of the most effective and least costly means of improving child nutrition. Yet there is annually a battle to keep this program fully funded. Yearly, the budget proposal reduces or eliminates the Special Milk appropriation. Yearly the Congress reinstates the appropriation. But the problem lies in the inability of the local school to plan for the milk program. The year 1973 is an example of this problem. The budget request was only $25 million. Congress increased this to $97,123,000. But, because schools could not plan in advance for use of these funds, the money was not completely used for fiscal year 1974. Had the local school administrators been assured of the funds, the money would have been put to its full use.

We are encouraged by proposals before you to provide for adequate planning time at the local level by appropriating sums for child nutrition programs a year in advance of the fiscal year in which the funds will become available for disbursement to the States. A provision of this type would solve many problems at the local level, as well as assure full utilization of available funds.

We have been concerned with the growing trend to allow nutritionally equivalent foods substitute for the wholesome foods now recognized by USDA regulations. Determining such equivalency on one basis alone is not a true measure of food value. Protein is usually the

basic component in comparing foods by such proposals, but high quality protein is only one of milk's vital ingredients. The nutritional value of a glass of milk is enhanced by the special combination of milk's components which complement one another.

Understanding the delicate balances of good nutrition and those foods which are more nutritious when combined with certain other foods is basic to understanding good nutrition.

The dairy industry has an excellent record of providing nutritional education materials and services to the school systems. To this end, we commend you for the provisions which encourage the teaching of the principles of good nutrition in the schools.

While my next subject is not actually one we would expect to be a part of the legislation you adopt, we would like to bring it to your attention.

Last year, the Department of Agriculture rewrote regulations concerning the definition of milk which is made available through the child feeding programs. In an effort to increase milk consumption by allowing students a choice of milk as a part of a type A lunch, the Department allowed the inclusion of milk other than whole milk. Some schools have abused this flexibility by offering students only low fat or skim milk, which can be purchased at a savings to the schools. Since many students do not care for skim milk, this has lowered milk consumption in some cases. We suggest that USDA review their regulations referring to the definition of milk to assure that children are offered whole milk, when other types of milk, such as low fat, are made available.

We support the inclusion of language in the bills considered by this committee declaring the proper nutrition of the Nation's children to be a matter of the highest priority of Congress. Certainly, the mental and physical growth of our Nation's children is dependent upon making nourishing, wholesome and adequate quantities of food available to them. In many cases, a child's best nutrition is made available through his school food service program. These programs should, therefore, reflect the best food value our Nation can provide. Thank you.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much.

You have no objection to skim milk being offered provided there is also an offering of normal whole milk.

MS. FRIDY. We have no objection to skim milk or lowfat milk or any of the flavored milk.

Senator LEAHY. So long as the other is made available?

MS. FRIDY. Yes; so long as the whole milk is available at the same time.

Senator LEAHY. And you support the WIC program?

MS. FRIDY. I personally think it is a fine program.

Senator LEAHY. I happen to agree with you, and I am always happy to hear witnesses who are enlightened enough to have the same view that I have on subjects. I am always concerned, of course, about those who might have a different view on whatever the subject might be. Mr. Adams, was there anything you wanted to add to the testimony? Mr. ADAMS. No; thank you.

Senator LEAHY. We certainly appreciate you being here on behalf of Mr. Healy, and giving us the comments that you did.

MS. FRIDY. Thank you very much.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Next on the list we have Mrs. Annie Galbraith and Ms. Emma Clinkscales.

For the record, Mrs. Galbraith, am I pronouncing that correctly? Ms. GALBRAITH. The only thing wrong with the pronunciation is that it is Ms. and it is Galbraith.

Senator LEAHY. I stand corrected. Ms. Galbraith is the associate director of the dietary department and dietetic internship director of the MGH in Boston. She is also president-elect of the American Dietetic Association. Ms. Clinkscales is the director of the Nutrition Services of the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health in the Alabama Department of Health in Montgomery, Ala.

We are very happy to have you both here. If you care to lead off, go ahead.

STATEMENT OF ANNIE GALBRAITH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DIETARY DEPARTMENT AND DIETETIC INTERNSHIP DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MASS.

Ms. GALBRAITH. Thank you very much, Senator.

We do have a little more detailed statement which is prepared and you have indicated will be filed. We are going to highlight that just a bit for purposes of our conversation this afternoon.

Senator LEAHY. Certainly.

Ms. GALBRAITH. The Senator has introduced us and given most of our credentials. I would add that we are both registered dietitians, and we are here to present a statement on behalf of the 26,000 members of the American Dietetic Association in support of the provisions of S. 850. We join those who are expressing concern over the possible termination of child nutrition feeding programs. We would urge the enactment of legislation to extend and revise the existing programs. Dietitians are particularly concerned with the administration's block grant proposal that would eliminate support currently being given to schools to help defray the costs of breakfasts, lunches, and milk served to the children of the so-called middle income or wealthy families; make the assured support of day care and summer feeding programs questionable; and, almost entirely erase the WIC program, the womens, infants, and childrens feeding program. For this reason we support S. 850, a bill that would lend some assurance to the continuing nutritional benefits of each of the aforementioned programs.

We understand that some individuals have recommended a change in the school lunch program, which now requires that a nutritionally adequate meal be served. They would only require only that a nutritionally adequate meal be offered.

In our opinion, such a change would eliminate any nutritional standard for the meals served in school and would not meet the intent of the program. A regulation that would apply to the offering of a selection of food items in the type A program, particularly at the secondary school level, accompanied by a nutritional education program, would in our opinion, be a far more positive approach.

Without a nutritional standard for the school-served meal, there is no assurance to children or parents that the meal served or offered is making its full contribution to the health of the consumer.

We believe that nutrition services under the supervision of qualified nutrition personnel should be a component of all health-related programs and should be designed to reach the total population with priority to such nutritionally vulnerable groups as infants, children, and youth in the growing years, and women in the child-bearing years. Further, we believe that nutrition education should be available to all individuals and families and, in schools, should be a basic curriculum requirement. School feeding programs in which there is continued application of current nutrition knowledge and coordination with nutrition education in the classroom should be available to all children.

The American Dietetic Association's position is that the inclusion of nutrition as a component of health care will significantly reduce the number of people requiring medical care services, a most expensive service in today's economy.

In our opinion, the provisions of S. 850 will help to expand existing services and give some assurance that the vulnerable groups will be reached with assistance in maintaining their nutritional health.

Evidence mounts that Americans who fail to attain a diet optimal for health care can be found at every socioeconomic level. The poorly nourished woman risks complications in pregnancy, as well as the chance that her infant may be of low birth weight with accompanying risk of retarded physical and mental development. We are aware of the high incidence of overweight as well as underweight in schoolage children and adults. We are also aware of the fact that dental diseases as well as the prevalence of chronic illness require dietary treatment, monitoring and followup.

We are concerned that the opportunities afforded through the current child-feeding and supplemental programs may not be fully utilized in contributing to the health education of the participants and for this reason may be diminished in scope rather than expanded and promoted.

It has been reported that some 650,000 low income women, infants and children are currently receiving supplemental food through the WIC program which will begin to phaseout as of June 30, 1975, unless legislation such as S. 850 is enacted. This is a program scarcely 2 years old.

The impact of termination of such benefits when they have been received for such a short period of time would be negative both physically and phychologically. Furthermore, the collection of sound nutritional data to measure the results or effect on the nutritional health of the recipients becomes almost impossible under such short-term programs

In commenting on the short-lived feature of the WIC program in 1973, The American Dietetic Association said:

If this were made into a permanent program with increasing funds to allow new participating programs each year, WIC could effectively improve the nutritional status of young children in America.

« PreviousContinue »