When Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Director William Marshall III reportedly looked at a plate of prison food during a site visit and asked a warden, “Would you eat that?”, referring to expired food that was being served to inmates. The warden said, “no” to which Marshall said, “then don’t serve it.”
It reflected a broader institutional reckoning. For years, the Bureau has struggled with staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, and resource constraints. Now, a new Office of Inspector General audit highlights how even the basic task of documenting what is served to inmates has exposed systemic weaknesses.
The February 2026 OIG report, Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Documentation of its Compliance with Select National Menu Requirements, does not focus on food taste or quality. Instead, it examines whether the BOP properly documents compliance with its own National Menu requirements.
Yet beneath the technical findings there is a deeper story about management systems, oversight, and accountability.
In 2008, the Bureau implemented a standardized National Menu across its 122 institutions to ensure inmates receive three nutritionally adequate meals per day that meet federal health and safety standards. Every federal inmate can tell you that hamburgers are served for lunch on Wednesday and fish on Friday. It is commonly used as a measure for how much time is left in a sentence … “I have three more hamburger Wednesdays until I go home!”
According to OIG, during fiscal year 2024 alone, the BOP served approximately 428,000 meals per day, totaling more than 150 million meals for the year. Feeding a population of that scale is an enormous logistical undertaking.
The National Menu includes standardized recipes and product specifications, along with dietary variations for medical, therapeutic, and religious needs. Institutions are required to generate “as served” menus documenting any changes made to the planned menu. These records are intended to demonstrate that weekly meals meet daily serving requirements. They must be prepared through the Bureau’s automated Federal Nutrition System and retained for two years.
On paper, the system appears structured and compliant. The OIG’s audit, however, found significant gaps in how certified religious meals were documented.
The OIG reviewed documentation from six institutions, including FCI Atlanta, FCC Butner (includes a medical center), FCI Fairton, FCC Florence, FCI Terminal Island, and FPC Bryan (women’s facility). While standard menus were generally consistent with National Menu requirements, the documentation for certified religious meals was not.
Federal regulations require that inmates be given a reasonable opportunity to observe religious dietary practices consistent with budget and security constraints. For inmates participating in the certified religious diet program, meals are prepackaged kosher or halal trays.
The OIG found that as served menus frequently lacked documentation showing required food items, including vegetables, had been served. In fact, at least two thirds of the lunches and dinners reviewed at each of the six institutions lacked documentation reflecting required vegetables for certified religious meals. Because meals have become so poor in federal prison, inmates rely on commissary and contraband food brought into the prison.
At FCI Atlanta, OIG auditors observed a certified religious meal that included fish, tomato sauce, rice, and lima beans. Yet those items were not recorded on the institution’s as served menu for that day. The vegetables were present, but the documentation did not reflect them.
The BOP explained that certified religious meals arrive as sealed, preassembled trays and that the Federal Nutrition System does not capture every item contained within those packages. In other words, the meals may have met standards, but the documentation system did not allow institutions to fully demonstrate compliance.
The OIG acknowledged that lack of documentation does not necessarily mean the items were not served. However, it emphasized that institutions must be able to demonstrate compliance, particularly when it comes to religious accommodations.
The audit focused narrowly on documentation. Yet the broader context of BOP food service issues is troubling. In fiscal year 2024, the OIG conducted unannounced inspections and found risks to food safety caused by malfunctioning equipment and sanitation failures, including inoperable freezers and broken heating carts. In 2023, inspectors observed moldy bread and rotting vegetables during an inspection of FCI Tallahassee.
The BOP is also managing aging infrastructure, equipment life cycle challenges, and staffing shortages. Food service operations depend on functioning freezers, refrigeration units, and trained staff. When those systems falter, food quality and safety can deteriorate quickly.
The Bureau operates with an annual budget exceeding eight billion dollars, but a large portion of that funding supports staffing and security costs. Deferred maintenance and equipment replacement have compounded challenges in food service operations. Understaffing has required augmentation practices, pulling employees from other functions to maintain security coverage. That ripple effect can leave food service operations thinly supervised.
In that environment, documentation gaps are rarely isolated technical issues. They often signal strain within broader management systems.
The OIG issued one recommendation. It urged the Bureau to update the Federal Nutrition System to allow institutions to fully capture all items served in certified religious meals, or to take alternative steps to ensure comprehensive documentation.
Director Marshall, responding on behalf of the BOP, concurred with the recommendation. However, the BOP stated that the Federal Nutrition System is primarily an inventory management system and that updating it would not enhance compliance or cost containment. Instead, the BOP maintained that compliance is demonstrated through nationally approved meal specifications, contractual requirements, receiving standards, and the sealed tray process.
To address transparency concerns, the BOP updated institutional as served menu retention folders to include hard copies of certified religious diet menus, general specifications, and quote sheets detailing required items. Institutions will also retain access to updated documentation on the Central Office intranet.
After reviewing these corrective actions, the OIG determined they were sufficient to close the recommendation.
On its face, this audit is about vegetables on kosher trays. In reality, it reflects a recurring pattern within the Bureau of Prisons. Oversight bodies repeatedly identify gaps in documentation, internal controls, and compliance systems. The Bureau often concurs with recommendations and implements corrective actions that address the specific deficiency. Yet the cycle continues across different operational areas.
Director Marshall’s reported question, “Would you eat that?”, symbolizes a shift toward accountability and visibility. Leadership attention to food service matters. But sustainable improvement requires more than rhetorical challenge. It demands functional data systems, adequate staffing, maintained equipment, and consistent oversight.
The Bureau feeds more than 150 million meals annually. That scale alone requires reliable systems capable of tracking not just inventory costs but compliance with nutritional and religious standards. When documentation systems cannot demonstrate what is served, public confidence erodes, even if meals meet specifications.
The corrective steps outlined in the OIG response improve transparency at the institutional level. They provide paper assurance that certified religious meals contain required components. Whether those measures translate into stronger oversight across the Bureau’s entire food service infrastructure remains to be seen.
The OIG has ongoing audits examining equipment acquisition and life cycle management in food services. Combined with prior inspections identifying sanitation failures and equipment malfunctions, these reviews suggest that food service remains an operational vulnerability.
For Director Marshall, the challenge is not simply whether a tray looks appetizing. It is whether the Bureau’s systems are robust enough to ensure compliance, transparency, and nutritional adequacy across 122 institutions operating under fiscal and staffing pressure.
The question “Would you eat that?” resonates because it frames accountability in human terms. The real test is whether the Bureau can build systems strong enough to prove compliance or non-compliance.
Follow me on LinkedIn or Twitter or Forbes. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
