The Council believes it would be in the interest of the public health for all prac tical means to be taken to limit the consumption of sugar in any form in which it fails to be combined with significant proportions of other foods of high nutritive value."

Since that report, several independent studies have added to and amplified the conclusions reached by the Association's Councils. A partial listing of the most recent studies is appended to this statement.

In our previous statements to Congress on this matter, we stated our twofold concern. We share, first of all, the desire of all Americans that children be afforded diets that are high in nutritional value. The present school lunch program plays a valuable role in helping to assure this. It would be imprudent and, we think, unfair to the child to tempt him to ignore the well-balanced lunch available to him in favor of purchasing foods from vending machines that would be far less valuable in terms of his overall growth and development.

Secondly, we are concerned about the deleterious effect on the oral health of children that is the consequence of undue consumption of super-rich foods, many of which are commonly sold in vending machines.

Conclusive evidence has long been available concerning the hazards to dental health resulting from the undue consumption of sugars. The hazards are especially great among school-age children. The sale of sugar-containing drinks and other confections in schools through vending machines encourages the betweenmeal consumption of sugar-rich products.

Dentists have been bringing this evidence to the attention of their patients and the general public for decades. Sound oral health care involves disincentives against indulgence in sugar-rich snacks between meals, much less in place of wellbalanced meals. Uncontrolled placement of food and drink vending machines purveying such products militates against the efforts being made by dentists, parents and schools to teach good oral hygiene habits to children.

Various forces are exerted upon a child during his formative years with respect to diet. Those that favor good dietary habits include, or should include, parental training by both precept and example, dental health education courses in school and regular visits to the dentist. A child that has all these benefits is fortunate indeed. A child who lacks one or more of them is, of course, even more vulnerable than he otherwise would be to the development of bad dietary habits. The school experience, I think it can be agreed, it not a refuge from life but a preparation for it. Schools ought to be teaching their students about our total society, both its virtues and its drawbacks. But we don't think it is at all rational to desire or permit schools to themselves become a source of temptation toward the less satisfactory aspects of our life. It is irrational to ask a child to take a course in health education at 11:00 in the morning and, at noon, send him to a cafeteria where vending machines offer him an array of precisely those kinds of foods against which we just warned him.

As a child develops and approaches full maturity, it is true that he can rightfully expect to exercise greater freedom of choice at 16 than at 6. Again, however, that does not seem to our Association to be a sufficiently weighty argument to justify transforming the school into a source of supply for whatever some may desire if it distorts the central purpose of an educational institution.

It is also sometimes pointed out that the proceeds from vending machines sales are, in some schools, used for highly laudable purposes. That clearly poses a difficult problem. Every parent or parent-teacher group wants its school to have the finest equipment, resources materials and so forth. Schools are often hard pressed to find the funds to purchase what they should have. All of us, as citizens, need to be sympathetically alert to that need and be responsive in meeting it. When all is said and done, however, it is hardly defensible educational policy to tempt a child to injure his oral health in order for his school to have more athletic equipment or better band uniforms.

As in most situations, prudent choices must be made, the advantages and disadvantages of alternate choices must be weighed in the balance. However judged, machines that offer sugar-laden foods that injure oral health and offer no genuine nutritional advantage, seem to us to conflict with the intent of the School Lunch Program.

Before closing, I would like to quote in part from an article that appeared in the October, 1974 issue of the Oklahoma Dental Association Journal:

"Research during the past several decades has shown that there is a positive association between the amount and frequency of sugar eaten by children and their amount of tooth decay. When we consider the fact that elementary school

children in Oklahoma need a mean average of $65 each in dental care, the monetary cost of eating sweets between meals becomes apparent.

"The Oklahoma Public Health Association recently passed a resolution calling the attention of school administrators and local government officials to the need for protecting the health of school children by eliminating the sale of sugarrich food products from the schools. A typical response from school personnel has been, 'If we don't sell candy, the children just go across the street to get it, and maybe get run over. Why shouldn't we prevent accidents, and make money for ourselves by selling it in school?'

"If the school is not adequately supported and revenue must be obtained by supplementary methods, the sale of milk and fruit is preferable to the candy machines. Many students would buy milk, fruit juices, and fresh fruit in preference to candy and soft drinks if they had a choice.

"Candy and soft drinks are major sources of increased and 'empty' calories that contribute to overweight. When obesity is not corrected in childhood, the chances are poor for successful weight loss in adulthood. Infant mortality also is higher for offspring of mothers who are in a poor nutritional state.

"Parents, teachers, school administrators, and dental personnel should consider these questions:

-Is our belief in the need to control dental caries, obesity, and infant mortality important enough to stimulate a concerted effort toward the removal of candy and soft drink machines from schools?

-Do the higher costs of health and dental care resulting from a high intake of sweets outweigh the profits derived by schools from the sale of candy and soft drinks?

-Is it consistent to encourage the government to spend millions of dollars for school lunches, and then permit the schools to sell candy and soft drinks, which often compete with the sale of nutritious lunches?"

The American Dental Association strongly urges the inclusion of statutory authority to regulate the sale of food items in competition with programs authorized under the Child Nutrition Act. The Association supports S. 1309 introduced by Senator Case and hopes that these views will be placed in the permanent hearing record.

APPENDIX

RECENT STUDIES RELATING TO NUTRITION AND DENTAL HEALTH

William David, D.D.S., Lincoln, Nebraska: The Physical Character of Food as a Dietary Factor in Dental Caries Control; The Chronicle of the Omaha District Dental Society, Volume 33: Feb., 1969, Pages 179–180.

Eleanor J. Edmonds: Diet and Dental Health; Texas Dental Journal, Volume 88: May, 1970, Pages 21-22.

T. H. Grenby, BSC, Ph. D.: Some Aspects of Food and Dental Caries; Chemistry and Industry, Volume 28: September, 1968, Pages 1266-1270.

R. L. Hartles, Ph. D., DSC: Dietary Modification as a Means of the Control of Dental Caries: Dental Health, Volume 10: Autumn, 1971, Pages 47-51.

P. B. V. Hunter, BDS: Sugar and Dental Decay; School Dental Service Gazette, Volume 80: October 1970, Pages 59-60.

William H. Keeler, MD, MPH and John E. Higgins, D.D.S., Roanoke, Virginia; The Indiscriminate Distribution of Sweets to Children as Favors or Captive Purchases; Journal of the American Dental Association, Volume 75: October, 1967, Pages 903-907.

Ernest Newbrun, DMD, Ph. D.: Sucrose, The Arch Criminal of Dental Caries; Journal of Dentistry for Children, Volume 36: July-August, 1969, Pages 239-248. Abraham E. Nizel, D.M.D., MSD: Dental Caries: Protein? Fats and Carbohydrates; A Literature Review, New York Dental Journal, Volume 35: February, 1969, Pages 71-81.

J. D. Palmer, BDS, LDS; Dietary Habits at Bedtime in Relation to Dental Caries in Children, British Dental Journal, Volume 13: April 6, 1971, Pages 288-293.

Solomon N. Rosenstein, D.D.S.: Systemic and Environmental Factors in Rampant Caries; New York State Dental Journal, Volume 32: November 1966, Pages 400-406.

Gordon Stevenson, MS: Present Status of Programs to Control Dental Caries by Combining Lactobacillus Counts and Dietary Restriction of Carbohydrates; Journal of Dental Education, Volume 35: June, 1971, Pages 41-42.

G. B. Winter, MB, BDS, FDS, DCH: Sucrose and Cariogenesis; British Dental Journal, Volume 124: May 7, 1968, Pages 407-411.

Mr. THURSTON. Col. Ellsworth Reiss.

STATEMENT OF COL. ELLSWORTH C. REISS (RET.), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE AGENCIES FOR FOOD DISTRIBUTION, TRENTON, N.J.

Colonel REISS. It is my pleasure as the president of the National Association of State Agencies to appear before your committee in regard to Federal food commodities as portrayed in S. 850.

Recently, an amendment to H.R. 4222, which is similar to S. 850, eliminated so much as pertains to cereals, oils and shortening which, in value, would be over and above the ten cents per meal in commodity or cash allowance. Of course, the full committee in the House voted 35 ayes and 2 noes on the commodity part. However, when the bill reached the House floor the food commodities were married to an amendment with a 25 cent ceiling on lunches. This price ceiling on lunches went down in an overwhelming defeat which included the food commodities.

On page 45 of the House of Representatives Report 94-68 the minority views are as follows:

The other provision is one mandating the purchase of specified commodities, cereals, oils and shortening, at the 1974 level of purchase in addition to the level of commodity purchases, or cash in lieu of commodities, which are now ten cents a meal with an escalator clause which could go to 11.1 cents next year. The cost of this addition is $79 million. Aside from cost, we believe that this provision is extremely unwise. Once the Congress starts mandating the purchase of certain commodities as opposed to others there may be no end to such requirements, and the Department of Agriculture may well be put in the position of not being able to take best advantage of market conditions. The reason cereals, oils and shortening as not purchased last year is that the Department of Agriculture concentrated very heavily on the purchase of high protein items such as beef, cheese and other meats; thus, from a nutrition standpoint, this was highly desirable. Thus supplied, they could make their own purchases of cereals and oils.

Gentlemen, this viewpoint is well taken, and it convinced many of the members of the House; however, other major important data was almost totally excluded.

Recently the President of the United States, through the Secretary of Agriculture, increased foreign aid under Public Law 480 from $1 billion to $1.6 billion involving food support. Public Law 480 pertains to donations of farm products to foreign governments, intergovernmental and voluntary agencies, and the World Food Program to relieve hunger, and for military and political reasons. I have a letter dated October 1, 1974 from the White House indicating that for the past 20 years, $25 billion of food commodities has been shipped to needy people in all parts of the world.

For your information, the U.S. Department of Agriculture during fiscal year 1974 purchased over $81 million in grains and over $25 million in oils and shortening for our domestic programs. Out of this total purchase, approximately $49 million in grains and $20 million in oils and shortening pertained to school lunch and other related programs. This amounts to approximately 4 percent of the total export program.

Gentlemen, do you think that Congress and the President can justify a $600 million increase in export programs and then turn down a $69 million request for our domestic programs? Is this beneficial to our taxpayers and to our domestic programs?

On July 16, 1974, the U.S. Department of Agriculture disseminated a letter titled "Food Distribution Program Policy." This policy letter eliminated all grain products and oils from the commodity lists, except for needy families and Supplemental Food Program recipients. In the past, these typical section 416 items have been available to schools and institutions on an open allocation basis. This policy letter has not been changed; however, during the week of April 13, 1975, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made allocations to the State distributing agencies for peanut shortening and peanut salad oil. Sufficient quantities are being offered for fiscal year 1976 for school lunch programs. It is very confusing to try to determine the USDA policy when it changes in midstream.

During the fiscal year 1975, our domestic programs schools, institutions, and so forth, were offered dry milk in large quantities. The State distributing agencies were informed by USDA that if the quantities offered were not accepted, the particular State concerned would lose the dollar value. Under the circumstances, most states accepted the quantities offered. During this same period the USDA did not offer flour. The USDA indicated that the recipient agencies in the Federal food programs could buy the flour at an equal or cheaper price than USDA. This was not true in the State of New Jersey. A survey was taken on local cost of 100 pounds of flour. Over 400 school districts responded. The results indicated that USDA could purchase flour $3.01 cheaper than local school districts. Savings to New Jersey on flour, all purpose, would have amounted to $45,000.

In fiscal year 1974 the USDA's total purchase of flour, all purpose, was approximately 270 million pounds. If recipient agencies only saved on an average of $2.00 per hundredweight, this would amount to approximately $5.4 million savings.

During the current fiscal year the recipient agencies cutback on the purchases of high cost flour. Because of the cut-back on flour, they will not be able to use the large amounts of dry milk on hand. This causes a problem for fiscal year 1976 because USDA had contemplated the purchase of over $27 million of dry milk. Since dry milk and flour are used in bakery products, and they normally go hand in hand, and the flour is not available from USDA, the recipient agencies would be forced to turn down quantities of dry milk offered in fiscal year 1976. This could pose a problem for USDA and the dairy industry. If flour is made available by USDA, most of this problem area could be eliminated.

Just another consideration, grains and oils have been used to support individuals in natural disaster areas in mass feeding operations. Gentlemen, this is a point that I would like to bring out, that may have a little bearing on S. 850, but I think it is very important. Last year the USDA wanted to eliminate the food commodity program. Because of the USDA intention, the great State of Kansas dropped out of the program. What would have happened if all the rest of the States and territories dropped out of the program? I am certain that there would have been a much greater number of business failures because there would have been no Federal or State distributing organizations to assist in the removal of surplus and price support food items form the economy. Chaos would have prevailed.

During this current fiscal year, institutional programs received only two food items. This pertains to an area other than S. 850. It was the intent of the USDA that this program could be eliminated in fiscal year 1976 and the institutions would not miss the two items. The same theory was used for our summer camp program for underprivileged children. Even though the Congress under Public Law 93-347 extended these programs to June 30, 1977, the USDA has not funded them commencing July 1, 1975. The elimination of institutions and summer camp feeding programs affect at least 2.7 million participants in current programs. The major food items that these two programs received in the past have been in the grain and oil category, section 416 items.

Considering all the above facts, the following recommendations are made: No. 1. Since peanut oil and peanut shortening has been made available by USDA for fiscal year 1976 for schools, that these items be made available to all other related programs including institutions and summer camps. Out of the $69 million that I mentioned, $20 million was supposed to be for oils and shortening. This can now be reduced because the $20 million is being taken out of the current budget for next year.

No. 2. That our domestic food program requirements for grains, oils and shortening receive priority over export insomuch that pertains to political and military reasons. We agree that those individuals overseas that are in a starvation status should get first priority. Our domestic requirements would include school lunch, institutional, special feeding, summer camps, title VII, disaster and other related programs.

No. 3. That USDA make timely clarification of policy that is not confusing to Congress and State distribution agencies.

At this time I would also like to insert two items for the record. One involves Senator Allen's report to the people, and he states in here:

Against $3.9 billion foreign aid giveaway, my opposition and my vote were against the bloated foreign aid giveaway appropriations bill. U.S. foreign aid and loans which could well reach over $22 billion in this fiscal year, offering something for everyone except the American taxpayer.

I would like to insert this in the record.

Mr. THORNTON. It will be inserted in the record.

I would also like to briefly report on a news release by Senator Proxmire who raps child nutrition program cuts, when he mentions the cost overruns on B1 bombers which amounted to three hundred and some odd million dollars. This is just cost overruns on 10 B1 bombers. This could underwrite many of our Federal food programs. Also, cost overruns on housing and construction of 269 recent Federal construction projects was 75 percent higher than original estimates, increasing from $76 billion to $133 billion, the General Accounting Office reported today. GAO said the cost of 59 of the nonmilitary construction projects soared from at least 2 to nearly 9 times the original estimates. These 59 projects accounted for $46 billion of the huge $57 billion total in cost overruns.

This is just to be brought out to indicate to you that proper priorities have not been set up, and I think that some of our food programs should get a better priority and not remain, on the tail end of all the programs.