What is your feeling about this kind of an approach?

Mr. PASDEN. I have been told by investigators that one of the biggest problems they have is that food stamps are not traceable. Once someone spends them, it is almost impossible to go back and verify who spent it, so signing them would provide evidence for investigators, if they could locate that coupon and trace it.

Senator ANDREWS. Would that add much cost to the program? We did not think it would.

Mr. PASDEN. If I remember right, someone testified this morning, I think it was the Inspector General, I am not quite sure who it was, that signing that-I think it was Bill Davis from the auditor general's office, suggested this very revision that you are talking about and he did not think it would cost very much, or take much more time.

However, I have done no work to back that up.

Senator ANDREWS. When a food stamp recipient picks up his book, he would have to sign the coupons. But the books are mailed to recipients in some cases?

Mr. PASDEN. In some cases, yes.

Senator ANDREWS. It was then thought they could put a facsimily signature with the case number and with the picture, much like the driver's licenses are put together now. That provision could be made a part of the new food stamp authorizations, and they could then be coded with a serial number of the applicant. So they would in effect have the same tracing capability and protection against theft. It would be a protection, not just for the taxpayers to guard against fraudulent use, but it would be a protection against theft from the food stamp recipient.

Mr. PASDEN. The only drawback I see to that, Senator, is that there are approximately $800 million worth of coupons that go into circulation each month, and the sheer volume, if it is not done right, could be a great problem.

The CHAIRMAN. But when a person makes the application, they could then sign off on the original one in the checkout counter. They sure check when I sign a bank check, they want me to drag out my driver's license and identify myself and do a host of other things.

The same thing with a check. It would not be anymore work with the grocery store checkout counter.

Mr. PASDEN. That is the point Mr. Davis was making, it would not be anymore work.

Senator ANDREWS. That is interesting. At least they are beginning to think about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have a different mood of thinking. I believe we will see some creative suggestions to try to tighten up on this program.

Mr. PASDEN. Well, there have been quite a few proposed regulations that have come out since our report was issued.

Some of them would address the areas that we are talking about, so there appears to be some hope that the Department would like to make some strides in this area.

I caution that they are proposals, and you must watch them to see if the final rules are the same as what has been proposed, but they look good.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have been most helpful.

You say you are a former member on the investigative staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee?

Mr. PASDEN. I am employed by the General Accounting Office, and when I did that study, I was detailed to the Appropriations Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.
Well, very good.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PASDEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a panel, Dr. Robert Rizek, Director, Consumer Nutrition Center, Science and Education Administration, USDA, accompanied by Dr. Catherine Woteki, Consumer Nutrition Center, and Betty Peterkin, Consumer Nutrition Center. It is nice to have you, and I appreciate your appearance. I am delighted to see you.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT RIZEK, DIRECTOR, CONSUMER NUTRITION CENTER, SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CATHERINE WOTEKI, AND BETTY PETERKIN, CONSUMER NUTRITION CENTER

Dr. RIZEK. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume you have a prepared statement, and we will of course include your statement in the record.

You may summarize it.1

Dr. RIZEK. Very well, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Andrews, the thrifty food plan, developed by USDA in 1975, is the least costly of the four USDA family food plans. It was adopted as the basis for the coupon allotment for the food stamp program, effective January 1976 (Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 231-Monday, December 1, 1975) and incorporated into the Food Stamp Act of 1977, Public Law 95-113, approved September 29, 1977.

The TFP is a research-based set of economical and nutritious diets that reflects insofar as possible food choices of households with limited food budgets. The TFP is an assortment of foods that represents as little change from average food consumption of persons in U.S. households with relatively low food costs as was required to provide a nutritious diet while controlling costs. The TFP specifies the amounts of foods of different types (food groups) that households might buy, or obtain from other sources, to provide nutritious meals and snacks for household members. In the plan, amounts of food groups are suggested for men, women, and children of different ages and for pregnant and nursing women (table 1). A plan for any household can be determined by totaling the amounts suggested for persons of the sex and age of household members.

A four-person household-a man, woman, and children 6-8 and 9-11 years of age-is used by the Department in setting food stamp allotments. This is not a typical food stamp household. USDA studies have shown that allotments based on this four-person

'See p. 453 for the prepared statement of Dr. Rizek.

household exceed the sex-age-specific TFP cost for 75 percent of food stamp households.

Households following the TFP may choose from the food groups they enjoy eating. Since the TFP is based on average consumption patterns, not all foods in it are economical. A food list for a family of four for a month (table 2) illustrates the kinds and amounts of foods used in estimating the cost for the plan. In this illustration, the plan provides 23 pounds of red meat and 7 pounds of poultry, despite the fact that chicken is a more economical source of protein than most types of red meat.

Sample menus for a week (table 3) show how foods in the TFP can be combined into appetizing and nutritious meals. The meals are not expected to suit any family entirely. However, they can be prepared from foods typical of those used by survey households operating on low budgets. These foods are generally available in stores across the country. The amounts of foods in the sample menus that are served to family members will differ depending on individual food needs. For example, at a meal, young children may eat one-quarter cup of vegetables and teenagers, one-half cup. Generally, servings of bread and cereals are generous and servings of meat, poultry, and fish are small. Meals for a day for a man following the TFP, on the average, contain about 11⁄2 cups of milk, 4 to 5 ounces of cooked lean meat or alternate such as egg or legumes, 3 to 4 servings of vegetables and fruit, and 7 or more servings of cereal, pasta, and bread and other bakery products.

Data from the USDA household food consumption survey 196566, the most recent such data available when the plan was developed, were used to develop the TFP. In developing the plan, minimal changes in average consumption patterns required to meet nutritional and cost constraints were systematically identified by use of a quadratic programing model. Generally, changes were reductions in quantities of meat, poultry, and fish, fruit, and vegetables, other than potatoes, and increases in quantities of potatoes, dry beans, and grain products. Figure 1 shows how food in the TFP compares with average food consumption patterns for a fourperson household from a more recent survey conducted in spring 1977.

The TFP provides for nutritious diets. It was designed in 1975 to provide the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) set in 1974 by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) for protein, calcium, iron, magnesium, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B., Vitamin B12, and vitamin C. To meet their iron allowances, young children, teenage girls, and women of childbearing age will need to select frequently foods that provide important amounts of iron, such as liver, heart, kidney, economical lean meats, dry beans, dry peas, dark-green vegetables, dried fruits, cereals with added iron, and molasses. Such special selections are also necessary for meeting allowances for iron in the more expensive food plans. Levels of vitamin B, and magnesium in the TFP for a few sex-age categories were below the RDA but above levels in usual consumption patterns.

Estimates were not made of levels provided by the plan of some nutrients for which there are allowances. Phosphorus levels were not calculated but are known to be well above the allowances in

most U.S. diets. The use of iodized salt is recommended as an efficient way to supplement dietary iodine. The requirement for vitamin D for normal persons can be met by exposure to sunlight. However, for infants and elderly persons whose activities limit their exposure to sunlight, the allowance should be provided in the diet by such foods as eggs, liver, butter, and milk fortified with vitamin D or by supplementation. Insufficient reliable information was available on the content in foods of three other nutrients for which allowances were set in 1974-vitamin E, folacin, and zincto make reliable estimates of levels provided by the plans.

A TFP developed to meet the RDA would be expected to provide generous amounts of nutrients for most persons. The NAS-NRC states that the basis for the RDA is such that "even if a person habitually consumes less than the recommended amounts of some nutrients, his diet is not necessarily inadequate for those nutrients." Although USDA uses the RDA as a standard in developing food plans, it recognizes that failing to meet the RDA does not imply dietary inadequacy. This is fortunate, because nationwide studies show that very few people-rich or poor-have diets every day that meet the RDA for all nutrients. These studies also show that average calorie intakes for sex-age categories are as much as 25 percent below the RDA for energy; yet obesity continues to be a national problem.

Fat provides 30 to 39 percent of energy in the TFP, depending on the sex-age category. Sugars, other than found naturally in foods, in the plan provide 12 to 16 percent of energy-less than levels in consumption patterns used as the basis for the plan. Cholesterol levels do not exceed 350 mg per day.

In developing the plan, the RDA were increased by 5 percent to allow for some discard of edible food without jeopardizing the nutritional quality of the diet. The discard of inedible parts of food, such as excessive fat and drippings from meat and poultry, peelings and bone, and losses of vitamins in cooking, is allowed for in the nutritive values used. Allowance for edible discard is believed necessary because some edible food is discarded in most homes in the preparation of food, as plate waste, or due to spoilage. Household discard of edible food of 5 to 11 percent has been estimated from admittedly inconclusive studies of food waste by USDA and the University of Arizona. Our Center is funding a study of methods for measuring household food losses at the University of Arizo

na.

U.S. average costs of foods in the TFP for individuals in each of the 14 sex-age categories and for selected families are estimated by the Consumer Nutrition Center each month and released by USDA. Costs for the other three plans-low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal-are also estimated. Average prices paid for almost 2,000 foods by survey households with relatively low food costs are used as basis for the TFP estimates. Such prices reflect the assortment of food container sizes and brands, quality of food selected, and price levels of stores of purchase for families who use food at relatively low cost. Prices are updated monthly using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for the most detailed food groupings.

The September 1980 cost for foods in the TFP for the four-person household ($233 per month) is the basis for the food stamp allotment for four-person households with no income effective for the 1981 calendar year, in accordance with the Food Stamp Act amendments of 1980. For smaller and larger households, the maximum allotment is adjusted for the number of household members and for economies associated with buying and using food in large households relative to small ones.

Many households, whether or not they are eligible for food stamps, do not select nutritious assortments of food. Receipt of enough food stamps to buy the TFP, of course, will not assure the recipient gets a nutritious diet. Food stamp recipients may not use their stamps to purchase foods as suggested in the TFP. They may make more or less economical and nutritious choices than those in the plan.

The TFP is but one of many combinations of foods that could be developed at extremely low cost. Amounts of food groups in consumption patterns could be changed in other ways to provide nutritious diets. While such combinations would deviate further than the thrifty plan from food consumption patterns as reported in 1965-66, they might be as acceptable as the TFP to some households. Other plans at the same or lower cost than the TFP could be developed if selections of foods within food groups were limited to only those foods which are less expensive, rather than selections typical of those in survey households. However, for purposes of estimating the nutritive value and the cost of a plan for use nationwide, average selections of foods in food groups based on those made by survey families with relatively low food costs have been used.

The nationwide food consumption survey 1977-78 provides information that shows that some households spend at levels below the maximum food stamp allotment level based on the cost of the TFP. It also shows that some households spending at the maximum allotment level used food that provides the RDA for 11 nutrients studied.

The TFP was developed at a cost below which 10 percent of U.S. households spent in 1965-66. In 1977-78, of over 14,000 U.S. households surveyed, 11.6 percent used food at home during the survey week valued at less than the maximum food stamp allotment for a household of that size.

The nutritive value of household diets was estimated and compared to the 1974 RDA for 11 nutrients. This is but one of several measures of nutritional quality of household diets that might be used. Of households using food valued at the full food stamp allotment level, 9 percent used food that met the RDA for 11 nutrients and 33 percent used food that met 80 percent or more of the RDA for 11 nutrients, as shown in figure 2. At a cost level 15 percent above the allotment level, 18 percent of the household diets met the full RDA and 51 percent met 80 percent of the RDA or more. At a cost level 15 percent below the allotment level, 3 percent of the household diets met the full RDA and 16 percent met 80 percent RDA or more. As discussed earlier, diets that meet the RDA would be expected to provide generous amounts of nutrients