BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 909
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 5, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 909 (Alejo) - As Amended: January 4, 2012
�Note: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Agriculture
Committee and will be heard as it relates to issues under its
jurisdiction.]
SUBJECT : Pupil nutrition: Farm to School Program
SUMMARY : Establishes the Farm to School Program.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that at least 80% of the fresh produce a school
district purchases for use in its food service program shall
be California produce.
2)Provides that if a school district purchases California
produce in the quantity prescribed by this bill, the
California Department of Education (CDE) shall reimburse the
school district five cents for every meal the district serves
as part of the National School Lunch (NSL) or School Breakfast
Programs (SBP).
3)Requires a school district to expend the funds received
pursuant to this bill to purchase California produce.
4)Provides that, for the purposes of this bill, the CDE may
accept contributions of money and assistance from any public
or private source and agree to conditions placed on the
contributions if those conditions are not inconsistent with
the duties of the CDE.
5)Requires the Department of Agriculture to consult with the CDE
for the purpose of assisting school districts with meeting the
requirements of this bill. Requires the Department of
Agriculture to do the following:
a) Identify the sources and suppliers of California
produce;
b) Develop strategies for school districts to use,
including forward contracting and negotiating competitive
prices, that would result in more California produce use in
AB 909
Page 2
school meal programs; and,
c) Help small farmers collaborate with one another to
supply the large quantities of California produce demanded
by school districts.
6)Authorizes the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt any
rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of this
bill.
7)Defines "California produce" as produce that has been produced
in California or harvested in its surface or coastal waters.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires each school district or county superintendent of
schools maintaining any kindergarten or any of grades 1
through 12 to provide for each needy pupil one nutritionally
adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday,
except for family day care homes that shall be reimbursed for
75% of the meals served. (Education Code (EC) Section 49550)
2)Defines needy children as those children who meet federal
eligibility criteria for free and reduced price meals, except
for family day care homes which shall be reimbursed for 75% of
the meals. (EC 49552)
3)Requires the governing board of a school district and the
county superintendent of schools to make applications for free
or reduced price meals available to students at all times
during each regular schoolday. Requires the application to
contain specified information. (EC 49557)
4)Establishes the California Fresh Start Pilot Program to
encourage public schools to provide fruits and vegetables that
have not been deep fried to pupils in the SBP. Provides a
reimbursement of ten cents per meal to school sites that offer
one to two servings of nutritious fruits or vegetables for
breakfast. (EC 49565-49565.8)
5)Requires, as a condition for state funds for free and reduced
price meals, a school to follow the Enhanced Food Based Meal
Pattern, Nutrient Standard Meal Planning, or Traditional Meal
Pattern developed by the USDA or the SHAPE Menu Patterns
developed by the state. (EC 49430.5)
AB 909
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : School meal programs : Existing law requires local
educational agencies to provide one nutritiously adequate free
and reduced-price meal to needy children once a day during each
schoolday. A needy child is defined as a child who meets the
federal eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. Income
eligibility is 130% of federal poverty guidelines for free meals
($28,665 for a family of four) and 185% of federal poverty
guidelines for reduced-price meals ($40,793 for a family of
four). School meal programs are funded predominantly by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through its NSL
and SBP and supplemented by state funds. These programs are
federal entitlement programs, which mean that allocations are
not fixed; federal funds will be provided as long as recipients
meet income eligibility criteria. In 2009-10, the state
received $365.5 million for SBP and $1.2 billion for SLP. State
funds augmented the programs by $40 million for SBP and $91.9
million for SLP. According to the CDE, on an average day, more
than 4.7 million nutritious meals are served at approximately
43,000 locations.
Nutrition standards . The USDA requires meals provided under the
NSL and SBPs to meet the recommendations of the federal Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, which recommend that no more than 30%
of an individual's calories come from fat, and less than 10%
from saturated fat. Meals under the NSL and SBP must also
provide one-third and one-fourth, respectively, of the
Recommended Dietary Allowance for protein, calcium, iron,
Vitamin A, Vitamin C and calories. The USDA gives local school
food officials the authority to make decisions about the
specific food to serve and how they are prepared. As a
condition for receipt of state funds for the meal programs,
existing state law further limits serving of food that is deep
fried, par fried, or flash fried, and food containing artificial
trans fat.
This bill requires at least 80% of the fresh produce a school
district purchases for use in its food service programs to be
California produce, defined as produce that has been produced in
California or harvested in its surface or coastal waters. The
bill also requires the CDE to reimburse a school district five
cents for every meal the district serves as part of the NSL or
SBP. Funds received by a district pursuant to this bill must be
used to purchase California produce.
AB 909
Page 4
Federal guidelines . Federal law encourages nutrition programs
to purchase unprocessed locally grown and locally raised
agricultural products and gives local programs the authority to
specify what constitutes "local". However, federal guidelines
prohibit a program from defining "local" in a way that restricts
free and open competition. Local nutrition programs are allowed
to institute preference points or percentages that may give
advantage to local providers, but cannot issue requests for
proposals that restrict bids to only local producers. The USDA
further prohibits states from mandating a geographic preference
when conducting procurements for the federal meal programs. The
USDA does not prohibit an incentive program based on
geographical preference.
Consequently, the proposal in this bill appears to violate
federal rules. Staff recommends changing the bill to an
incentive program that will provide an increase in reimbursement
only if a school district chooses to implement the Farm to
School program established by this bill.
Is five cents an incentive ? It is unclear how a minimum
requirement for purchasing California produce affects the costs
for school districts. Is five cents per meal an adequate
incentive or would it simply cover increased costs? This bill
would increase the state reimbursement rate by five cents. The
last increase in the state share occurred in 2006 by almost
seven cents. The table below shows the current per meal
reimbursement rates:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| School Breakfast Program |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Federal | State |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+----------+------------+---------|
| | Free |Reduced-Pric| |
| | | e | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Basic Breakfast | $1.51 | $1.21 | $0.2195 |
|--------------------------------+----------+------------+---------|
|Especially Needy Breakfast | $1.80 | $1.50 | $0.2195 |
|(Approved sites that served 40% | | | |
AB 909
Page 5
|or more free and reduced-price | | | |
|lunches in 09-10) | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| School Lunch Program |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Federal | State |
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Free |Reduced-Pric| |
| | | e | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Agencies that served less than | $2.77 | $2.37 | $0.2195 |
|60% free/reduced-price lunches | | | |
|in 09-10 | | | |
|--------------------------------+----------+------------+---------|
|Agencies that served 60% or | $2.79 | $2.39 | $0.2195 |
|more free/reduced price lunches | | | |
|in 09-10 | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Source: California Department of Education |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Existing farm to school programs . The author states that this
bill intends to expand existing Farm to School programs.
According to the CDE, California was one of the first states to
establish Farm to School programs. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified
School District's Farmers' Market Salad Bar was one of first
such programs, established in 1997. It was expanded to all
schools in the district by 2001. The district purchases fresh
produce from the local farmer's market twice a week. According
to an official from the district, the cost for the produce did
not increase, but there are some increased costs to administer
the program. Other models of farm to school programs include
establishing school gardens (used for educational and food
program purposes), purchasing produce from local or other
California farmers, and purchasing from a third party that
delivers locally grown produce.
Clarifications required . The calculation of 80% is unclear.
What is the 80% measured by - expenditures or volume of food
purchased? The CDE may have difficulty calculating a percentage
AB 909
Page 6
of volume of food purchased. Staff recommends tying the 80% to
a district's annual expenditure for produce. The CDE also
recommends allowing a school district to self-certify that it
meets the 80% threshold, similar to the practice currently in
place for districts to self-certify that it complies with the
prohibition on deep fried and trans fat food as a condition of
receiving state funds for meal programs. Compliance will be
checked through audits, administered through the CDE's
Coordinated Review Effort (CRE). Staff recommends inserting a
self-certification provision as part of the application for
funding.
Technical amendments . The author intends to require the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to provide
assistance to school districts. However, the bill references
the Department of Agriculture, which is the name of a federal
agency. Staff recommends making a technical correction.
The bill's definition of "California produce" includes a
reference to produce harvested in "surface or coastal waters",
which can be construed to include seafood as produce. The
author intends to include fruits, vegetables and nuts as
produce. As such, staff recommends clarifying the definition of
produce as "fruits, vegetables and nuts grown in California as
defined in the Food and Agricultural Code Section 43100."
Technical assistance . The bill requires the CDFA to provide
technical assistance to school districts and farmers, including
identifying the source and suppliers of California produce.
Staff recommends expanding the information to include when
certain fruits, vegetables or nuts are in season. The bill also
requires the CDFA to provide technical assistance to school
districts in identifying suppliers and developing strategies
that can be used by school districts, such as forward
contracting and negotiating competitive prices, and helping
small farmers collaborate with one another. The CDE already
provides technical assistance to school districts. It may be
more appropriate for the CDE, instead of CDFA, to provide
assistance on contracting and negotiating prices. Staff
recommends requiring the CDE, instead of the CDFA, to comply
with that provision.
Arguments in Support . The author states, "AB 909 furthers the
fight in the battle against childhood obesity by providing
nutritional meals to school children. This bill expands the
AB 909
Page 7
practice and allows school districts to utilize California's
rich agricultural resources rather than continuing to rely on
importing goods from outside the state. The state stands to
benefit from the savings incurred in healthcare costs and the
economic stimulus provided to the agricultural community."
Prior legislation
AB 967 (Nava), establishes the Farm Fresh Schools program, which
provides specified grants to school districts to promote the
consumption of locally grown fruits and vegetables in public
schools. The bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee suspense file in 2007.
AB 2121 (Nava) was identical to AB 967 and was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2006.
SB 281 (Maldonado), Chapter 236, Statutes of 2005, establishes
the California Fresh Start Pilot Program to encourage public
schools to provide fruits and vegetables that have not been deep
fried to pupils in the SBP. The bill appropriated $400,000 to
provide a reimbursement of ten cents per meal to school sites
that offer one to two servings of nutritious fruits or
vegetables for breakfast.
AB 826 (Nava) establishes the California Farm to School Child
Nutrition Improvement Program, which requires the CDE, to the
extent funds are available from identified sources, and in
collaboration with the California Department of Food and
Agriculture and the California Department of Health Services
(DHS) to implement outreach and training of school food service
personnel and the agricultural industry in order to facilitate
the delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables to school
cafeterias. The bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in
2005.
AB 2504 (Maldonado) requires the DHS to administer a two-year
pilot program to make available free fresh and dried fruits and
vegetables to pupils in 25 eligible elementary and secondary
schools throughout the state. The bill was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger in 2004.
AB 801 (Salinas) establishes the Choose California Act, which
requires all state owned or state run institutions, including
public schools and school districts, to purchase agricultural
AB 909
Page 8
products grown in California before those that are grown outside
the state as long as specified criteria are met regarding the
price of bids for in-state products. The bill was vetoed by
Governor Gray Davis in 2001.
SB 1893 (Perata) requires state agencies and school districts to
give preference to agricultural products produced in this state
if the cost and quality are equal or superior to those produced
outside California. The bill was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2000.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087