transfat”—for end products made with commodity foods that have been ordered from the USDA and diverted
to commercial manufacturers for further processing. Schools may order bulk commodity food products from
the USDA and divert them to commercial food manufacturers for conversion to end products; for example,
bulk chicken could be converted to chicken nuggets (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2007a). However,
this does not necessarily mean that products with similar specifications are not available through local
commercial markets.
In the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study III, researchers mention that some prepared foods—
including pizza, chicken patties, French Fries, and breakfast sandwiches—are manufactured exclusively for
school food services (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2007b). However, researchers do not provide
insight into whether these school-only foods have nutritional attributes that are superior or inferior to
commercial formulations or identify whether commodity foods are used in the preparation of such school-only
foods.
The Food Research and Action Center recently concluded that the commodity program likely provides
significant political support at the national level for the NSLP, though decision-makers at the national and
state levels could do more to improve the quality and nutrition content of commodity foods that are offered to
schools (Food Research and Action Center, 2008). Further, researchers noted that the commodity program
leaves little room for wider fresh fruit and vegetable offerings because the program’s ordering, purchasing,
storage, and transportation methods tend to require shelf-stable products, rather than perishable items.
Despite the commodity program’s proclivity for shelf-stable products, the Department of Defense operates a
“DOD Fresh” program to provide fruits and vegetables to schools in most states. An evaluation by the
USDA’s Economic Research Service in 2003 reported that children consumed 92% to 93% of servings
offered during a brief pilot program in 2002, and that 71% of the school administrators believed that students’
interest in fresh fruits and vegetables served at school had increased during the pilot period (Buzby,
Gutherie, and Kantor, 2003). However, the value of DOD Fresh commodities accounted for just 4% to 6% of
the total school commodity value at the national level from 2006 to 2008 (USDA Commodity Food Network,
2009). There is also limited evidence that some districts may be able to purchase fruits and vegetables more
cheaply in their local commercial markets (Hecht, et al., 2008).
A report published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation assessed commodity orders among California
schools in SY 2005-6 and reported that over 82% of the state’s school entitlement value was directed toward
meat and cheese products (Hecht, et al., 2008). Though researchers pointed out that these products are high
in fat and saturated fat, this information offers little evidence that could be used to assess whether the
commodity program has an impact on child nutrition or adherence to USDA nutrition standards. School meals
are required to have minimum calorie content, and thus it is reasonable that some food items in school
lunches will have higher calorie and fat content. Also, it would be rational for schools to allocate their
commodity funds toward products with the greatest price advantage over equivalent commercial products,
and it may be that meat and cheese items offered the best price advantage that year to schools in California.
Definitive conclusions about the commodity program’s impact on child nutrition could only be achieved from
schools’ ordering information if it were proved that some aspect of the commodity program leads schools to
order and serve more foods that have undesirable nutritional attributes than they would in the absence of the
commodity program. Therefore, current evidence about the commodity program’s impact on school
operations and finances would be a useful element in an assessment of the program’s impact on child
nutrition.
Impact on School Finances
The USDA is responsible for providing a systematic review of the costs and benefits of providing
commodities, according to the National School Lunch Act, though the most recent study with a direct
comparison of commercial and USDA commodity food prices was published over 10 years ago.
In 1998, the USDA published a report on the prices paid by one of its procurement arms, the Farm Service
Agency (FSA), compared to prices of equivalent commercial products (MacDonald, Handy, and Plato, 1998).
The report compared just six products and reported that USDA prices were 4% to 38% lower than equivalent
commercial products.