they be public or private, in terms of bringing those services to the project.

We are reaching to get that kind of linkage through area service networks. If we provide maximum local autonomy in the project to set its local conditions for the nutrition program itself, and yet have it link in with a community service network that we are going to try to develop, maybe we can achieve both ends here.

Senator KENNEDY. In terms of coordination, fine. But in terms of channeling the resources and funneling the funds for it, I just think we have hammered on it.

I think in this way it is obstructing one of the really important aspects of the program-the important consumer participation aspect.

I just do not see why it ought to go to State and other planning agencies and then out to that local community. I would much rather take my chances for the development of States and if they wanted to work on that-and hold them accountable.

NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY

Part of our whole problem about the disillusionment and lack of confidence in the government is they do not know who is accountable. We see it up here the growth of White House staff. You do not know who is making foreign policy, whether it is Kissinger or Secretary Rogers. Everything gets spread around.

Everybody ought to be accountable. If it goes well, you pin a medal on them. If not, you do something else.

The people at the State level say, "Gee, we would love to have done it but the planning agency got it all fouled up."

The local people say, "We sent the money on up.

Everybody is knocking the problem around and no one knows where the fault lies.

Then you lose support for the program and then people say, "Senator Percy and Senator Kennedy, why are you supporting that program? We never see that money. They are sending us soybeans and we wanted something else."

I think I would rather hold them accountable. I would rather hold the Governor accountable and the local people. I think that is about as far as you can go.

However, if we set this additional kind of layer in, I think we are removing the responsibility. I think we are dampening the kinds of initiatives that are important. I would say that I think it would be useful that the AoA would provide help and assistance-technical help and assistance. If the local groups wanted to do this voluntarily to make their local programs more efficient, they could say, "You fund our program. We have five communities here and we will do about 1,000 to 2,000 meals. We can do it more efficiently than the others."

Let them compete on that limited amount of money. The State director can make that kind of judgment. He can say, "We can feed more elderly people by going with this program than the other one."

It seems to me that way you would provide that kind of help and assistance they want. If they do not like it, they can get out. If they do, they can stay.

Commissioner, you have been very patient with us. I am sure we understand what our positions are in this. I would like to submit some other questions. You have been kind to stay with us.

The committee is in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the Select Committee was recessed, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

Appendix 1.

MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES

FROM DR. JEAN MAYER

[From Barron's, June 5, 1972]

"LET THEM EAT CAKE"-UNCLE SAM'S WAR ON HUNGER MAKES Just as

MUCH SENSE

(The accompanying effort to explode the myth of "hunger in America" was written by John B. Parrish, Professor of Economics, College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois. Apart from his concern as a citizen and taxpayer, the Professor's interest in the issue is strictly academic.)

Uncle Sam is giving up his role of friendly Uncle. He is becoming "Big Daddy"-super parent. "Big Daddy" is now taking over the feeding of the nation's children. Parental feeding is going out of style. Besides, feeding children at home is time-consuming, "undignified" and "demeaning." Currently "Big Daddy" is serving four billion lunches annually to nearly 30,000,000 school children. One of the biggest lobbies ever assembled in the nation's capital is now pushing hard to raise the number of lunches to six billion annually to all of the nation's 50,000,000 school children, regardless of family income.

Under the Food Stamp Program, "Big Daddy" is now subsidizing the food purchasing of nearly 12,000,000 low-income persons. The Nixon Administration's Family Assistance Plan would raise the number to at least 25,000,000 and probably closer to 30,000,000. (Not to mention other federal programs such as food commodity distribution, school breakfasts, snacks and lunches for Head Start, child day-care centers, settlement houses, summer camps, emergency food and medical services, food for the elderly, special milk programs, etc.)

On May 6, President Nixon urged Congress to boost the school feeding program by nearly $50 million for regular school year lunches, breakfasts and for summertime meals. Feeding of low-income children would be compulsory for schools, free for the children. Excluded through income ceilings would be children of the near poor and nonpoor families.

Why should "Big Daddy" be doing all this? Senator George McGovern's antipoverty crowd makes two claims. First, the poor can't feed their children because they don't have enough money to buy enough food. Millions of American children are "hungry and badly nourished." This is "shocking." Second, many nonpoor parents won't feed their children properly. If both parents and children stay up too late watching TV and skip breakfast the next morning, then “Big Daddy" will just have to feed them at school.

Before accepting these political claims and solutions, it might be well to examine the evidence. What is the actual extent of "hunger" and "malnutrition" in the U.S.? Why have U.S. diets been reported "declining," 1955-1965? What, if anything, can school lunches do to improve diets? What, if anything, can food stamps do to improve diets?

How much "hunger and malnutrition" is there in this country? This question may be put to three major scientific tests. The first test is to apply the results of

the 1965-66 Household Food Consumption Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was found that among high-income families (annual incomes of $10,000 or more), average daily nutrient intake exceeded the Food and Nutrition Board's full Recommended Daily Allowances in every one of eight nutrients studied. And what of the nation's poor (annual incomes of $3,000 or less)? The average daily nutrient intake of the poor also exceeded the full RDA in every one of the eight nutrients.

This actually understates the high level of nutrient intake of the poor. The full RDA are purposely set very high to provide a wide safety margin. If the more realistic two-thirds of RDA is used, the nation's poverty families had a daily intake of nutrients which exceeded recommendations by from 67% to 176%. America's poor are overeating, particularly in terms of calories and carbohydrates.

A second test may be applied from the National Nutrition Survey, 1968-1970. This was the most intensive study ever made of the nutritional status of the nation's population. It focused on the lowest-income families in 10 states and New York City. It involved diet review, clinical examination, biochemical analysis. There were three major findings. For one, virtually no cases were found of the common nutritional diseases that would have been found if the poor had been chronically hungry or malnourished. The rare, occasional case arose from idiosyncratic or situational factors. Secondly, from 93% to 99% of both poverty and nonpoverty persons were found to have adequate nutrient states in the case of riboflavin, vitamins A and C, hemoglobin. In the light of individual variations and the generous "safety" margin, this finding reflects remarkably high levels of nutritional health among the nation's poor, and the absence of conditions which accompany serious malnourishment. Third, in terms of daily dietary intake, very little difference was found between the poverty and nonpoverty populations in calories, protein, vitamin A. The higher-income groups were somewhat better off than the lowest in iron, but the poverty group was better off than the upper-income groups in vitamin C.

A third test of the "hunger and malnutrition due to low income" thesis may be applied from a special study of the nutritional status of U.S. children, based on the USDA's 1965 Household Food Consumption Survey. It was found that all infants up to one year of age met the RDA for protein, calcium, vitamins A and C, at all income levels. Yet it was found that among these same infants, all were short of iron, at all income levels. Why? Because the "normal" diets of infants, even the "good" diets at upper-income levels, are iron deficient. Increased income transfer payments in cash or food stamps will not remove this deficiency. Ironically, the deficiency is aggravated in some infants when parents have given them too much, not too little, unfortified milk.

One can only conclude from the evidence that claims of widespread "hunger and malnutrition" are false. The problem is not inadequate income. The problem is not quantitative. The problem is qualitative.

The USDA reported in early 1968 that despite fading poverty and rising real family income, the quality of U.S. diets declined, 1955-1965. Diets rated "good" declined from 60% in 1955 to 50% in 1965. Diets rated "poor" increased from 15% in 1955 to 21% in 1965. How to explain this paradox? It is self-evident that the answer is not to be found in the income parameter. The evidence indicates the answer is found in changing food habits of an affluent society, particularly among the nation's youth.

The factors include: (1) decline in family-wide variety group eating, (2) greater use of limited variety convenience foods, (3) greater selection of food based on taste rather than nutrient content, (4) more snacking with limited variety foods, (5) meal skipping, (6) more eating away from home at limited variety fast-service, drive-in restaurants, (7) declining nutritional knowledge and awareness in an urbanizing society, (8) earlier determination of food choices by youth based on the limited variety habits of a youth culture, (9) declining priority of food in family budgets, (10) rise of health fad foods and pursuit of limited variety food diets such as Zen Macrobiotic. The problem of U.S. diets is lack of balance, arising from voluntary changes in food habits.

School administrators all over the country are enthusiastic about their new non-education parental function of communal feeding of children. School magazines are full of "before" and "after" stories when children are served "steaming hot nutritious meals" at noon. After only a few days, the children's cheeks take on a new glow. They are now happier. They are more alert. They study better. They are better behaved. Who could ask for anything more?

Now what is the truth? The truth is that school lunches can't do very much to raise the nutritional status of the population. They may prove counterproductive. There are many reasons why.

First, children receive school lunches only half the days of the year. So the maximum annual gain is 50%. Second, the maximum nutritional achievement of a school lunch is one-third of the Recommended Daily Allowances. Satiety puts a ceiling on what one can do. One-third of one-half is 17%-the maximum boost during the year. Third, serving well balanced school lunches is only a small part of the battle. Getting children to consume the varieties of food served is the big step. Numerous reports indicate that having already formed limited food tastes, children leave the kale, broccoli, spinach, bean salad untouched. It is not possible to raise the quality or nutrient balance of children's diets by filling up the nation's school garbage cans with unconsumed foods rich in vitamins A and C and iron. Our 17% is reduced to not more than 10%, if that.

Fourth, children can be persuaded to participate in school lunches from ages 6 to around 14, after which the dropout rate rises sharply as youth food habits and independent decision-making take over. Thus the exposure to school lunches is around eight years, over a life cycle of 67 years for males and 74 for females. Our 10% is now reduced to 1%.

Fifth, the above estimate of 1% elevation in diets through school lunches, is undoubtedly too high. As responsibility for feeding children is shifted to the schools, there is apt to be a decline in parental concern about serving wellbalanced meals at home. Why bother with time-consuming food preparation at home if the kids will be fed at school? So our 1% is now down to a fraction of 1%. Sixth, if parents believe school children now have good diets because of school lunches, the program could well be counterproductive. The major nutrient deficiency of American youth is serious iron deficiency among girls from around age 12 on. There is no way this program can be met through "hot nutritious school lunches."

Along with school lunches, advocates of the "Big Daddy" approach to the nation's diet problems promote the issuance of food stamps to the poor. Not only have the liberals promoted and jumped on the food stamp bandwagon, but also many on the political right have succumbed. President Nixon, in a special message to the Congress on May 7, 1969, said the time has come to "put an end to hunger in America for all time"-with food stamps, free or low cost. A food stamp allowance of $750 has been added in the Family Assistance Plan to the minimum income guarantee of $1,600 for a family of four. The political spectrum from far left to far right says the solution to the malnutrition problem is "now at hand."

Is it really? What is the truth about "Big Daddy" feeding the nation's poor via food stamps? The truth is that food stamps per se will do very little to raise the nation's diet levels and very well may prove counterproductive. Why? There are many reasons.

First, there is abundant nutrition research available to indicate that food has a low priority in the expenditure patterns of the poor. Unless this is changed, the total amount spent on food, including the cash value of food stamps, will remain about the stamps, will remain about the same. The income released by food stamps will be spent on nonfood items.

Second, even if the total amount of spending on food by poor families should be increased via food stamps, diets will not be enhanced very much, if at all. The reason is that the problem of diets among low income families (as among higher) is qualitative, not quantitative. It is failure to purchase a variety of foods rich in all the micronutrients, particularly vitamins A and C. Consider the welfare mother. Before she has food stamps, she purchases one pound of hamburger, potato chips, soda pop, cookies, canned peaches. That is what the kids like. If she does purchase more food with food stamps, she will come out of the supermarket with two pounds of hamburger, two sacks of potato chips, two cartons of soda pop, etc.

Third, the poor diet of low-income ethnic minorities is based in large part on certain very strong cultural preferences. It is true, not only in this country but also abroad, that among migrants from rural to urban areas, food patterns are the very last cultural attribute to be given up, long after clothing, language, housing styles and work preferences have changed. There is abundant research which reports that the relatively rigid food habits of the poor are continued after families receive food stamps.