USDA Misinforms Parents Re: Chinese-Processed Chicken in School Meals | Civil Eats

USDA Misinforms Parents Re: Chinese-Processed Chicken in School Meals

Editor’s Note: The USDA responded to Bettina’s post here.

Further Update here.

On August 30, the USDA announced that it will allow four Chinese facilities to process poultry raised and slaughtered in the United States, Chile or Canada, and then export the cooked poultry products back into the United States.  The USDA’s move is widely seen as a preliminary step toward eventually allowing China to export its own raw poultry into this country, in exchange for China’s opening up its lucrative beef market to American beef producers.

Given China’s troubling food safety record and the fact that its own government official essentially admitted that China can’t live up to the food safety standards of more developed nations, there are those who speculate that the timing of the USDA announcement – the Friday before Labor Day weekend — was not unintentional.  But whether or not the agency was trying to bury this news, the announcement quickly led to an outcry among journalistsenvironmental watchdog groups and Congressional representatives, including New York Senator Charles Schumer (D), Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (D) and  Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D).

In the days following the announcement, a few readers asked me if the new USDA policy means that Chinese-processed chicken will appear on American school lunch trays.  On the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) website, I found this helpful Q & A:

Will chicken processed in China be included in school lunches?

No. The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service ensures that products included in [sic] school lunch program are produced, raised, and processed only in the United States, its territories or possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands.

To parents with little knowledge of how school food programs operate (i.e., the vast majority), this statement from FSIS would seem to settle the question — and provide solid reassurance for those concerned about Chinese-processed chicken being fed to their kids at school.

But the FSIS statement is in fact quite misleading.

It is true that school districts participating in the National School Lunch Program (the “NSLP,” which also includes school breakfast and after-school snack programs) receive agricultural commodities from the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, and it is true that these products are domestic.  But the USDA is well aware that school districts also procure significant portions of their school food from private vendors, and this method of school food sourcing is entirely omitted from the answer above — despite the blanket “no” response.

So the pertinent question is: can private vendors sell Chinese-processed chicken to schools?

We’ll bring the news to you.

Get the weekly Civil Eats newsletter, delivered to your inbox.

I emailed the FSIS and a USDA spokesperson agreed that “schools also make their own purchases” of school food, but she went on to note that such purchases are governed by a “Buy American” regulation which

requires participating schools to purchase domestically grown and processed foods, to the maximum extent practicable. A domestic . . . product is defined to be “. . .  a food product that is processed in the United States substantially using agricultural commodities that are produced in the United States.”

This regulation sounds like a de facto ban on Chinese-processed chicken.  But at the end of her email, the spokesperson also disclosed that under the “Buy American” rule:

[p]roducts that are processed in the United States and comprised of at least 51 percent domestic ingredients are considered domestic.

I have since expressly confirmed with the USDA that this definition of “domestic” would indeed allow Chinese-processed chicken into the school lunch program.  Here’s how:  if, for example, a manufacturer of frozen chicken egg rolls fully assembles the egg rolls in this country, but sources the cooked chicken in the egg rolls from a Chinese processor, the egg rolls are considered “domestic” so long as the Chinese-processed chicken doesn’t comprise more than 49% of the total product. School districts could buy these egg rolls without violating the “Buy American” rule and the egg rolls would not have to bear any country-of-origin labeling to disclose the location of the poultry processing.  And this scenario could easily apply to any chicken-based entree supplied to schools, such as chicken soup, frozen chicken burritos, chicken chili, chicken-stuffed ravioli, and more.

I also learned that there’s a second exception to the “Buy American” rule.  In the unlikely event that the economics of chicken processing shift, such that it becomes reliably cheaper for schools to source items like patties and nuggets using Chinese-processed chicken over domestically processed chicken, then schools can freely buy such products, regardless of ingredient percentages.

So the bottom line is this: despite the blanket reassurance to the contrary on FSIS’s website, it is entirely possible that Chinese-processed chicken will be used in school meals.

It’s also worth noting that, according to the USDA spokesperson, there is no analogous “Buy American” restriction on schools providing evening meals to students, nor does it apply to meals served in day care centers, as both of these programs are part of the Child and Adult Care Food Program rather than the NSLP.  (“School supper” programs are increasingly common; by 2015, an estimated 21 million students will be eating dinner at school.)  Accordingly, it appears that any Chinese-processed chicken product, regardless of ingredient percentages, can be used in these meals as well.

Thank you for being a loyal reader.

We rely on you. Become a member today to read unlimited stories.

Whether Chinese-processed chicken presents a serious concern for parents is open for debate.  According to sources interviewed by Politico, few U.S. poultry producers have expressed interest in processing chicken in China at the present time due to logistical constraints.  If that situation changes, however, parents are unlikely to know about it.  Moreover, because no country-of-origin labeling is required on products containing Chinese-processed chicken, only school districts which expressly obligate vendors to use 100% domestically processed chicken will know exactly what they’re serving to kids.

In my opinion, though, parents ought to be far more worried about the possible lifting of the export ban on Chinese-raised and -slaughtered rawpoultry.  If raw Chinese poultry enters this country and becomes reliably cheaper than domestic poultry, its use in school food could become widespread under the second exception to the “Buy American” rule noted above.  (And, at any rate, raw Chinese poultry could always be used, up to 49%, in manufactured food items regardless of cost.)  Given that some Chinese poultry farmers allegedly used large quantities of illegal drugs in raising chickens sold to KFC, and given the potential vulnerability of young school children eating such chicken, a lifting of the export ban on raw Chinese poultry is a cause for serious concern.

In the meantime, is FSIS intentionally misleading the public on this issue?  I can’t know, of course, but I suspect that in the rush to quell concerns about the August 30th announcement, the FSIS simply failed to vet its school food Q & A with the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, the branch of the agency overseeing child nutrition programs.  Regardless of motive, however, my own questioning of the agency (which began a full two weeks ago) has clearly brought the inaccuracy to its attention — yet, as of this writing, the original statement remains on its website.

Originally published on The Lunch Tray

Enjoy stories like this one? Got $25?  Help keep Civil Eats alive by supporting our Kickstarter Campaign before October 18.

Bettina Elias Siegel is a nationally recognized writer and commentator on issues relating to children and food. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Guardian, The Houston Chronicle, and other publications. She's the author of Kid Food: The Challenge of Feeding Children in a Highly Processed World and for 12 years covered the world of kid food and school nutrition in The Lunch Tray. Read more >

Like the story?
Join the conversation.

  1. Lauren Reed
    This is the first real reporting I've seen on this soon to be explosive issue. Reporting as in: doing something more than regurgitating a press release. Thanks for actually contacting, clarifying, and coming to the conclusion that Federal officials misled at best, lied at worst. No doubt more subterfuge is to come and I hope excellent bloggers like you will stay on top of it!
  2. Lauren: Thank you for those kind words. It took a lot of back and forth with USDA to nail this down, and of course the average parent is unlikely to have the time to do that. I'm glad I was able to shed some light on this issue.
  3. Ed Terry
    The phrase " to the maximum extent practicable" had a fairly defined meaning with the federal government. If a school system can document how their budget doesn't allow them to purchase domestic chicken, they have a case for purchasing Chinese chicken. It's a giant loophole.

    Also, simply because there is a requirement for 51% of the chicken to be of domestic origin, the burden of proof is on the government to show that a company is meeting or not meeting the requirement. With a decrease in funding for inspectors, this requirement is essentially unenforceable and meaningless.

    I've worked for the federal government for 21 years and a lot of regulations are simply ignored by companies because they simply factor in the risk of getting caught by the government as another business expense.

More from

School Food


A drone photograph of a corn field in Madison County, Ohio, with a grain silo in the background. (Photo credit: Hal Bergman, Getty Images)

Republican Plans for Ag Policy May Bring Big Changes to Farm Country

Project 2025 and the Republican Study Committee budget both propose major changes to how the government supports commodity farmers. They might face strong opposition from ag groups and their farm constituents.


Senator Cory Booker Says FDA Proposal Could Worsen Antibiotic Resistance

A farmworker feeds cows in a barn.

In Brazil, a Powerful Law Protects Biodiversity and Blocks Corporate Piracy

An overhead shot of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil. (Photo credit: FG Trade, Getty Images)

Bringing Back Local Milk, Ice Cream, and Cheese

Foggy Bottoms Boys co-owner Cody Nicholson-Stratton pictured with his son. (Photo courtesy of Foggy Bottoms Boys)

Can Cooking in Community Slow Dementia and Diabetes?