Proposed Rule2023-02102
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 7, 2023
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentFood and Nutrition Service
Abstract
This rulemaking proposes long-term school nutrition standards based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025, and feedback the U.S. Department of Agriculture received from child nutrition program stakeholders during a robust stakeholder engagement campaign. Notably, this rulemaking proposes new added sugars standards for the school lunch and breakfast programs. It also proposes gradually reducing school meal sodium limits, consistent with research recommending lower sodium intake beginning early in life to reduce children's risk of chronic disease. In addition to addressing nutrition standards, this proposes measures to strengthen the Buy American provision in the school meal programs. As described below, this document also addresses long-term milk and whole grain standards; proposes a variety of changes to school meal requirements; addresses proposals from a prior rulemaking; and makes several technical corrections to child nutrition program regulations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects to issue a final rule in time for schools to plan for school year 2024-2025.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8050-8143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02102]
[[Page 8049]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 25
February 7, 2023
Part II
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Nutrition Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, et al.
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With
the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 8050]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 210, 215, 220, 225 and 226
[FNS-2022-0043]
RIN 0584-AE88
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent
With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes long-term school nutrition standards
based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025, and feedback
the U.S. Department of Agriculture received from child nutrition
program stakeholders during a robust stakeholder engagement campaign.
Notably, this rulemaking proposes new added sugars standards for the
school lunch and breakfast programs. It also proposes gradually
reducing school meal sodium limits, consistent with research
recommending lower sodium intake beginning early in life to reduce
children's risk of chronic disease. In addition to addressing nutrition
standards, this proposes measures to strengthen the Buy American
provision in the school meal programs. As described below, this
document also addresses long-term milk and whole grain standards;
proposes a variety of changes to school meal requirements; addresses
proposals from a prior rulemaking; and makes several technical
corrections to child nutrition program regulations. The U.S. Department
of Agriculture expects to issue a final rule in time for schools to
plan for school year 2024-2025.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule should be received on or
before April 10, 2023 to receive consideration.
ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested
persons to submit written comments on the provisions of this proposed
rule. Comments related to this proposed rule may be submitted in
writing by one of the following methods:
<bullet> Online (preferred): Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and
follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Send comments to School Meals Policy Division, Food
and Nutrition Service, P.O. Box 9233, Reston, Virginia 20195.
All written comments submitted in response to this proposed rule
will be included in the record and will be made available to the
public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the
identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be
subject to public disclosure. The Food and Nutrition Service will make
the written comments publicly available on the internet via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Namian, Director, School Meals
Policy Division--4th floor, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock
Place, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone: 703-305-2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
1. Background
2. Added Sugars
3. Milk
4. Whole Grains
5. Sodium
6. Menu Planning Options for American Indian and Alaska Native
Students
7. Traditional Foods
8. Afterschool Snacks
9. Substituting Vegetables for Fruits at Breakfast
10. Nuts and Seeds
11. Competitive Foods--Hummus Exemption
12. Professional Standards
13. Buy American
13A: Limited Exceptions to the Buy American Requirement
13B: Exception Documentation and Reporting Requirements
13C: Procurement Procedures
13D: Definition of ``Substantially''
13E: Clarification of Requirements for Harvested Farmed and Wild
Caught Fish
14. Geographic Preference
15. Miscellaneous Changes
16. Summary of Changes
17. Proposals from Prior USDA Rulemaking
18. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Table of Abbreviations
CACFP--Child and Adult Care Food Program
CNA--Child Nutrition Act
CN-OPS--Child Nutrition Operations Study
FDA--U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FNS--Food and Nutrition Service
HEI--Healthy Eating Index
ICN--Institute of Child Nutrition
NASEM--National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
NSLA--National School Lunch Act
NSLP--National School Lunch Program
RFI--Request for Information
SBP--School Breakfast Program
SFSP--Summer Food Service Program
SMP--Special Milk Program
SY--School Year
USDA--United States Department of Agriculture
Section 1: Background
On February 7, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
published Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional Standards for Milk,
Whole Grains, and Sodium \1\ to support schools after more than two
years of serving meals under pandemic conditions. Instead of making
permanent changes, this rule, hereafter referred to as ``the
transitional standards rule,'' began a multi-stage approach to
strengthen the school meal nutrition standards. USDA intended for the
transitional standards rule to apply for two school years, during which
it would provide immediate relief as schools return to traditional
school meal service following extended use of COVID-19 meal pattern
flexibilities. This proposed rule begins the next stage, where USDA
will further improve the school meal pattern requirements through this
notice-and-comment rulemaking based on a comprehensive review of the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 (Dietary Guidelines),
robust stakeholder input on school nutrition standards, and lessons
learned from prior rulemakings.\2\ With this rulemaking, USDA is
integrating each of these important factors in a way that puts
children's health at the forefront while also ensuring that the
nutrition standards are achievable and set schools up for success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional Standards for Milk,
Whole Grains, and Sodium (87 FR 6984, February 7, 2022). Available
at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium</a>.
\2\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th
Edition. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transitional standards rule finalized USDA's Restoration of
Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Flexibilities Proposed Rule (85 FR
75241, November 25, 2020) with some modifications. Effective July 1,
2022, the transitional standards rule:
<bullet> Allowed local operators of the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) to offer flavored,
low-fat milk (1 percent fat) for students in grades K through 12 and
for sale as a competitive beverage. It also allowed flavored, low-fat
milk in the Special Milk Program (SMP) and in the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) for participants ages 6 and older.
<bullet> Required at least 80 percent of the weekly grains in the
school lunch and breakfast menus to be whole grain-rich.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To meet USDA's whole grain-rich criteria, a product must
contain at least 50 percent whole grains, and the remaining grain
content of the product must be enriched.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Established Sodium Target 1 as the sodium limit for school
lunch and
[[Page 8051]]
breakfast in school year (SY) SY 2022-2023 and implemented a Sodium
Interim Target 1A effective for school lunch beginning in SY 2023-2024.
The transitional standards represented a middle ground between the
2012 standards for milk, whole grains, and sodium, and the temporary
meal pattern waivers that many schools relied on due to the COVID-19
pandemic.\4\ The 2012 standards,\5\ which were a key component of the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, improved school meal standards for the
first time in 15 years by increasing the availability of fruits,
vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat milk in school
meals; limiting sodium and saturated fat and eliminating trans fat in
school meals; and establishing calorie ranges to support age-
appropriate meals for school children. Regarding milk, whole grains,
and sodium, the 2012 standards allowed flavoring only in fat-free milk
in the NSLP and SBP; required all grains offered in the NSLP and SBP to
be whole grain-rich, effective SY 2014-2015; and required schools
participating in the NSLP and SBP to reduce the sodium content of meals
offered on average over the school week by meeting progressively lower
sodium targets over a 10-year period. With the transitional standards,
USDA intended to balance the needs of schools as they recover from
supply chain and other pandemic-related challenges, while taking
measured steps towards improving nutritional quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, in SY 2021-2022, USDA issued a nationwide
waiver allowing schools to request targeted meal pattern waivers
from their State agency. See: Nationwide Waiver to Allow Specific
School Meal Pattern Flexibility for SY 2021-2022. Available at:
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/covid-19-child-nutrition-response-90">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/covid-19-child-nutrition-response-90</a>.
\5\ Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088, January 26, 2012). Available at:
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/</a>
nutrition-standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-
breakfast-programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA is embarking on the next stage of updating the school
nutrition standards in this proposed rulemaking to further align school
meal nutrition standards with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines,
2020-2025. As described throughout this preamble, USDA worked closely
with stakeholders to gather input for this proposed rule. Informed by
this extensive stakeholder engagement, which allowed USDA to listen and
learn from schools, advocacy organizations, industry partners, and
others, USDA intends to develop standards that improve the nutritional
quality of school meals based on the latest nutrition science, that are
durable and built to last, and that result in meals children will
enjoy. USDA encourages further stakeholder input on all aspects of this
proposed rule.
This preamble discusses alternatives to certain proposals. For
example, for milk, USDA will consider two proposals: under one
proposal, USDA would limit milk choices in elementary and middle
schools (grades K-8) to a variety of unflavored milks only, while under
the other proposal, USDA would maintain the current standard allowing
all schools (grades K-12) to offer fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored
and unflavored, in reimbursable school meals. For whole grains, USDA
will consider maintaining the current requirement that at least 80
percent of the weekly grains offered are whole grain-rich, based on
ounce equivalents of grains offered, and will also consider an
alternative under which all grains offered must meet the whole grain-
rich requirement, except that one day each school week, schools may
offer enriched grains. For sodium, USDA proposes a gradual series of
reductions but may adjust the frequency of the sodium reductions as
well as the proposed levels for those reductions for the final rule
based on public comment. As noted above, USDA encourages public input
on all aspects of this proposed rule, including the alternatives
provided for certain provisions.
This proposed rule also addresses the Buy American provision, which
requires school food authorities to purchase, to the maximum extent
practicable, domestic commodities or products for use in the NSLP and
SBP. The Buy American provision supports the mission of the child
nutrition programs, which is to serve children nutritious meals and
support American agriculture. This requirement was first implemented in
the school meal programs in 1998. However, USDA understands that school
food authorities and other stakeholders find the Buy American provision
to be ambiguous, due to the lack of specificity in the regulation. USDA
is proposing to clarify and strengthen the Buy American provision in
the school meal programs.
USDA expects to issue a final rule in time for schools to plan for
SY 2024-2025. However, as noted throughout this preamble, not all of
the standards outlined in this proposed rule would be fully implemented
for SY 2024-2025. Based on stakeholder input and prior rulemaking
experience, USDA intends to phase in certain requirements so that State
agencies, schools, and the food industry have time to prepare for the
changes (for example, see Section 2: Added Sugars and Section 5:
Sodium). This additional time will also allow USDA to provide guidance
and support to State agencies and schools, so that they are well
equipped to meet the updated standards upon implementation. USDA
welcomes public input on the proposed implementation dates, including
if delayed implementation is warranted for any provisions where it is
not already specified. Additionally, in prior rulemakings, USDA has
included an effective date, as well as a delayed compliance date, for
certain provisions. This approach allows State and local operators to
focus on technical assistance, rather than on compliance, during the
initial implementation period. USDA welcomes public input on whether a
similar approach should be used for this rulemaking.
The remainder of Section 1: Background provides general information
to explain the need for this rulemaking. Sections 2 through 15 provide
specific information regarding each of the proposed changes, which
includes an overview of the current standard and the proposed change.
Section 16: Summary of Changes briefly summarizes all the provisions
included in this proposed rule and the specific public comments
requested throughout the preamble. Individuals and organizations may
choose to use this summary section as an outline for submitting their
public comments.
Dietary Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are the foundation of the
school nutrition standards. First released in 1980, the Dietary
Guidelines are jointly published by the USDA and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services every five years. The Dietary Guidelines are
required by law to be based on the preponderance of current scientific
and medical knowledge.\6\ They inform Federal nutrition requirements,
consumer health messages, and other science-based nutrition and health
education efforts. USDA is required to develop school nutrition
standards that are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary
Guidelines (National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758(f)) and that
consider the nutrient needs of children who may be at risk for
inadequate food intake and food insecurity. Following the
recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines can help people lower their
[[Page 8052]]
risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. About. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/process/monitoring-act">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/process/monitoring-act</a>.
\7\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans Can Help
You Eat Healthy to Be Healthy. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Infographic_Eat_Healthy_Be_Healthy.pdf">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Infographic_Eat_Healthy_Be_Healthy.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025 provide four overarching
recommendations:
<bullet> Follow a healthy dietary pattern \8\ at every life stage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A dietary pattern is the combination of foods and beverages
that constitutes an individual's complete dietary intake over time.
This may be a description of a customary way of eating or a
description of a combination of foods recommended for consumption.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th
Edition. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Customize and enjoy nutrient-dense food and beverage
choices to reflect personal preferences, cultural traditions, and
budgetary considerations.
<bullet> Focus on meeting food group needs with nutrient-dense
foods and beverages and stay within calorie limits.
<bullet> Limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars,
saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.
Through this rulemaking, USDA is exercising broad discretion
authorized by Congress to administer the school lunch and breakfast
programs and ensure meal pattern standards ``are consistent with the
goals of the most recent'' Dietary Guidelines. See 42 U.S.C. 1752,
1758(a)(1)(B), 1758(k)(1)(B), 1758(f)(1)(A), and 1758(a)(4)(B).
Consistent with its historical position, USDA interprets ``consistent
with the goals of'' the Dietary Guidelines to be a broad, deferential
phrase that requires consistency with the ultimate objectives of
Dietary Guidelines but not necessarily the adoption of the specific
consumption requirements or specific quantitative recommendations in
the Dietary Guidelines. Accordingly, through this proposed rule, USDA
is working to ensure an appropriate degree of consistency between
school meal standards and the Dietary Guidelines by considering
operational feasibility and the ongoing recovery from the impacts of
COVID-19, while also ensuring schools can plan appealing meals that
encourage consumption and intake of key nutrients that are essential
for children's growth and development.
Through this rulemaking, USDA intends to further align school meal
nutrition standards with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines, 2020-
2025. This effort is described in greater detail throughout the
preamble, and particularly in Section 2: Added Sugars, where USDA
proposes to establish added sugars limits for the school meal programs
and proposes to update the CACFP total sugars limits to align with the
proposed NSLP and SBP added sugars limits for ease of operations.
Healthy Eating Index
The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) is a measure of diet quality used to
assess how well a set of foods, such as foods provided through the
school meal programs, align with the Dietary Guidelines. Overall, a
higher total HEI score indicates a diet that aligns more closely with
dietary recommendations. An ideal overall HEI score of 100 suggests
that the set of foods is in line with the Dietary Guidelines
recommendations.
USDA used the HEI to measure improvements in school meals following
the 2012 final rule and found that the updated standards resulted in
healthier meals offered to children.\9\ For example, the school lunch
average total HEI score increased by 24 points (57.9 to 81.5) from SY
2009-2010 to SY 2014-2015. For school breakfast, the average total HEI
score increased by 21 points (49.6 to 71.3) over the same time.\10\
USDA also looked at the impact of the 2012 rule on specific meal
components. The HEI component score for fruits at lunch jumped from 77
percent to 95 percent of the maximum score following the 2012 final
rule, and the score for vegetables at lunch jumped from 75 percent to
82 percent. Of all the school lunch components, the score for whole
grains increased the most, moving from 25 percent to 95 percent of the
maximum score. At the same time, USDA recognizes that there is room for
improvement in certain areas, such as sodium. While the score for
sodium improved, it remains well below the maximum score, at 27 percent
for lunch. With this proposed rule, USDA intends to maintain the
already significant improvements in school meals, while continuing
steady progress in other areas; for example, by continuing to gradually
reduce sodium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. School Meals Are More
Nutritious After Updated Nutrition Standards. Available at: <a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNMCS_infographic2_NutritionalQualityofSchool%20Meals.pdf">https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNMCS_infographic2_NutritionalQualityofSchool%20Meals.pdf</a>.
\10\ School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study findings suggest that
the updated nutrition standards have had a positive and significant
influence on the nutritional quality of school meals. Between SY
2009-2010 and SY 2014-2015, ``Healthy Eating Index--2010'' (HEI)
scores for NSLP and SBP increased significantly, suggesting that the
updated standards significantly improved the nutritional quality of
school meals. Over this period, the mean HEI score for NSLP lunches
increased from 57.9 to 81.5, and the mean HEI score for SBP
breakfasts increased from 49.6 to 71.3. The study is available at:
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB
Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.) To see the
impact of the 2012 final rule on school breakfast meal component
scores, see Figure ES.17. Comparison of Healthy Eating Index--2010
Component Scores, as a Percentage of Maximum Scores, for SBP
Breakfasts Served in SY 2009-2010 and SY 2014-2015: All Schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrition Security
In addition to requiring that USDA develop school nutrition
standards that are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary
Guidelines, as described above, the National School Lunch Act also
requires USDA to ``consider the nutrient needs of children who may be
at risk for inadequate food intake and food insecurity'' (42 U.S.C.
1758(f)(1)(B)). Along with addressing food insecurity,\11\ USDA has
made addressing nutrition security a key policy priority. ``Nutrition
security'' \12\ means consistent access to the safe, healthy,
affordable foods essential to health and well-being. It builds on food
security by focusing on how diet quality can help reduce diet-related
diseases. Nutrition security also emphasizes equity and the importance
of addressing long-standing health disparities. Though poor nutrition
affects every demographic, diet-related diseases disproportionately
impact historically underserved communities, largely due to long-
standing structural and institutional racism in the United States.\13\
Promoting food and nutrition security is critical to addressing health
disparities and improving health outcomes. To that end, USDA is
evaluating its nutrition assistance programs to ensure that they serve
all Americans equitably, removing systemic barriers that may hinder
participation.\14\ USDA research suggests that Black and
[[Page 8053]]
Hispanic children participate in the school meal programs at higher
rates than white children,\15\ making improving the school meal
nutrition standards an important part of USDA's efforts to improve
access to healthy foods that promote well-being in an equitable
way.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Food insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability of
nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain
ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.
See: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Measurement. Available at:
<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/measurement/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/measurement/</a>.
\12\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. What is Nutrition Security?
Available at: <a href="https://www.usda.gov/nutrition-security">https://www.usda.gov/nutrition-security</a>.
\13\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Actions on Nutrition
Security. Available at: <a href="https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-actions-nutrition-security.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-actions-nutrition-security.pdf</a>.
\14\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack Highlights Key Work in 2021 to Promote Food and
Nutrition Security. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/usda-0024.22">https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/usda-0024.22</a>. See also: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA
Equity Action Plan in Support of Executive Order (E.O.) 13985
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
through the Federal Government, February 10, 2022. Available at:
<a href="https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan">https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan</a>.
\15\ Overall, 70 percent of Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black
students participated in the NSLP on the study's target day in SY
2014-2015, compared with about half of non-Hispanic white students.
See: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study,
Final Report Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate
Waste, and Dietary Intakes, by Mary Kay Fox, Elizabeth Gearan,
Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, Katherine Niland, Liana Washburn,
Nora Paxton, Lauren Olsho, Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. Project
Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available at:
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB
Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.)
\16\ Indeed, a study published in 2021 concluded that from 2003
to 2018, the quality of foods consumed from school improved
significantly without population disparities. These findings suggest
that improvements to the school meal nutrition standards following
the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act produced significant,
specific, and equitable changes in dietary quality of school foods.
See: Liu J, Micha R, Li Y, Mozaffarian D. Trends in Food Sources and
Diet Quality Among US Children and Adults, 2003-2018. JAMA Netw
Open. 2021;4(4):e215262. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA's work to advance nutrition security focuses on four pillars:
<bullet> Meaningful support
<bullet> Healthy food
<bullet> Collaborative action
<bullet> Equitable systems
This proposed rule touches on all four pillars. It supports USDA's
efforts to foster healthy eating across all life stages, with a special
focus on young children, by proposing to update school meal standards
to reflect the latest nutrition science. This, in turn, is expected to
expand access to and increase consumption of healthy and nutritious
food among school children. As discussed below, to develop this
proposed rule, USDA collaborated with a variety of stakeholders,
including nutrition and health advocacy groups, the education
community, Tribal stakeholders, and many others. Finally, regarding the
fourth pillar, USDA is taking steps to improve school meal nutrition
standards for all children, including to better serve American Indian
and Alaska Native children as part of its effort to prioritize equity
in the school meal programs (see Section 6: Menu Planning Options for
American Indian and Alaska Native Students).
Practical and Durable Standards
USDA intends to develop nutrition standards that are durable and
built to last. For this rulemaking, USDA recognizes that continued,
meaningful improvement in the nutritional quality of meals consumed by
students is best achieved by standards that are both ambitious and can
be implemented successfully. USDA has incorporated lessons learned from
prior rulemakings and stakeholder input (described below) by proposing
ambitious changes that occur over time and in clear and predictable
increments. USDA's proposed approach also reflects an understanding
that changes in school meals must occur in the context of broader
efforts to achieve improvements in diet quality for all Americans.
School nutrition standards cannot be so far out of step with U.S. diets
that they are not achievable. This is particularly important regarding
standards for sodium levels, where current consumption levels far
exceed dietary recommendations. In this proposal, USDA seeks to align
reductions in school meal sodium levels with broader efforts to reduce
sodium in the U.S. food supply being led by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
This approach also reflects USDA's recognition that the food
industry must be engaged in and support schools' efforts to meet
nutrition standards by developing, marketing, and supplying products
that support them. USDA is supporting this goal with the Healthy Meals
Incentives initiative, which will include support for collaborative and
innovative efforts by school districts, food producers, suppliers,
distributors, and community partners to develop creative solutions for
increasing the availability of and access to nutritious foods for
school meals.
Based on stakeholder input and experience with the 2012 standards,
USDA also recognizes the importance of encouraging meals that meet
local and cultural preferences and ensuring the nutrition standards
allow them. This priority is reflected in the proposed standards. For
example, the whole grain-rich proposal would allow schools to
occasionally serve white rice or non-whole grain-rich tortillas, while
still promoting whole grain-rich foods throughout the school week. This
approach is expected to promote nutritious meals while increasing the
variety of foods available for students to enjoy.
Finally, USDA also acknowledges that there are unforeseeable
events, such as the recent supply chain challenges, that can make it
difficult for schools to fully comply with the nutrition standards in
all circumstances. In response to recent challenges, USDA has provided
waivers to the requirement for State agencies to apply fiscal action
for missing food components, for missing production records, and for
repeated violations involving milk type and vegetable subgroups due to
supply chain disruptions.\17\ State agencies also have discretion
regarding fiscal action for repeat violations of the requirements for
food quantities, whole grain-rich foods, and the dietary specifications
for calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat through current
program regulations, and USDA has encouraged States to use this
flexibility in appropriate circumstances.\18\ Emergency procurement
flexibilities at 2 CFR 200.320(c) may also be a resource for State
agencies and schools facing challenges meeting the meal pattern
requirements due to supply chain challenges or other emergencies. These
flexibilities, when used appropriately, can provide relief in those
circumstances when it is not feasible for schools to meet all aspects
of strong nutrition standards in every instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See: 7 CFR 210.18(l)(2)(i) and (ii).
\18\ See: 7 CFR 210.18(l)(2)(iii) and (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement: Listening Sessions
To develop these proposed standards, USDA relied on input from key
child nutrition program stakeholders. Throughout 2022, USDA held over
50 listening sessions with State agencies, school food authorities,
advocacy organizations (including a parent organization), Tribal
stakeholders, professional associations, food manufacturers, and other
Federal agencies. During these conversations, participants shared their
insights and perspectives on developing ambitious, achievable, and
durable standards to improve children's health. These conversations
were part of USDA's effort to build consensus on long-term solutions
for healthier school meals through collaborative action. Stakeholders
also provided important insight into the successes and challenges that
schools experience implementing the nutrition standards, including
input on the support, guidance, and resources needed from USDA to
improve school meals for children.
Several themes emerged from these discussions. For example, USDA
heard that uncertainty around school meal nutrition standards makes
product development and planning difficult and that clear expectations
and consistent standards are needed. Having time to plan for updated
standards, in advance of implementation, is important to many
stakeholders. Listening session participants also offered specific
input
[[Page 8054]]
on the types of standards they prefer. For example, regarding sodium
limits, many stakeholders preferred continuing with weekly limits
rather than moving to per-product limits. Participants suggested that
weekly limits give schools more flexibility to craft weekly menus that
may include some higher sodium foods, provided they are balanced out
with lower sodium foods on other days.
A number of listening sessions included a discussion about the
financial challenges facing school meal operations. Several
participants raised concerns about the standard meal reimbursement
rates, which in their view are too low. Participants also expressed
concerns about their inability to pay competitive salaries to their
staff, who are stretched thin and do not always have the financial
support they need to be successful. Cost constraints limit school food
service professionals' ability to offer the types of meals and variety
of foods that children enjoy, which participants argued negatively
impacts student participation. These challenges are exacerbated by
current supply chain issues and inflation, which listening session
participants emphasized significantly impact school meal operations.
Many participants urged USDA to work with the food industry to make
sure products that meet the standards are available to schools at
reasonable prices. Listening sessions with the food industry focused
largely on the time and cost associated with reformulating food
products to meet updated standards. Participants representing the food
industry and schools emphasized the importance of reformulating
products or recipes in a way that maintains palatability and children's
participation; some were concerned that too much change in the
formulation of products will negatively impact the taste of foods that
children enjoy. These challenges are discussed in greater detail
throughout the preamble.
Some participants suggested that USDA do more to communicate the
value of school meals to families and communities. For example,
participants recommended USDA develop education campaigns to share the
value of improved nutrition standards. Others suggested highlighting
other benefits of school meal participation, such as the time families
can save by not having to pack a lunch from home. Several participants
expressed general support for the school meal nutrition standards and
encouraged USDA to go further, for example, by adopting a nutrition
standard for added sugars.
USDA greatly appreciates the individuals and organizations that
participated in the listening sessions throughout 2022. Through these
listening sessions, USDA gained valuable insights into the successes
and challenges that schools experience implementing the school meal
standards. By hearing the on-the-ground perspective of individuals who
work in schools every day, USDA better understands the support that
schools will need to be successful in implementing updated standards.
As part of its effort to support schools working to meet updated
nutrition standards, in June 2022, USDA announced the Healthy Meals
Incentives initiative,\19\ which represents a $100 million investment
in nutritious school meals. The Healthy Meals Incentives initiative
will improve the nutritional quality of school meals through food
systems transformation, school food authority recognition and technical
assistance, the generation and sharing of innovative ideas and tested
practices, and grants. The recognition program includes a specific
focus on celebrating schools that exceed nutrition requirements for
sodium and whole grains, reduce added sugars in school breakfasts,
implement innovative practices in scratch cooking and nutrition
education, and provide meals that reflect the cultures of their
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Healthy Meals Incentives.
Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnp/healthy-meals-incentives">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnp/healthy-meals-incentives</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also important to recognize that at the time of these
listening sessions, in spring and summer 2022, school meal stakeholders
at all levels were facing significant challenges related to the COVID-
19 pandemic and associated supply chain issues. They were also
preparing to transition off of nationwide child nutrition program
waivers for the first time in over two years due to the expiration of
USDA's statutory nationwide waiver authority. USDA recognizes that
these issues present immediate challenges for schools, but also
appreciates the importance of looking to the future and prioritizing
children's health in the long-term. This rulemaking will allow a phase-
in period, during which USDA will provide implementation support to
State agencies and schools. As discussed further in the section-by-
section analysis, USDA also intends to work with the food industry and
other partners to ensure schools have adequate products to meet the
standards, particularly for sodium and added sugars. USDA welcomes
public input on other steps the Department can take to ensure schools
successfully meet the proposed standards.
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments on Transitional Standards Rule
Unlike most final rules, USDA requested public comment on the
transitional standards rule. In addition to accepting comments on the
provisions in the rule, interested persons were invited to comment on
``considerations for future rulemaking related to the school nutrition
requirements.''
USDA appreciates public interest in the transitional standards
rule. During the 45-day comment period (February 7, 2022, through March
24, 2022), USDA received over 8,000 comments. Of the total, about 7,000
comments were form letter copies from 12 form letter campaigns and
about 1,100 were unique submissions.
USDA worked in collaboration with a data analysis company to code
and analyze the public comments using a commercial web-based software
product. The Summary of Public Comments report is available under the
Supporting Documentation tab in docket FNS-2020-0038. All comments are
posted online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. See docket FNS-2020-0038-
2936, Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional Standards for Milk, Whole
Grains, and Sodium.
The following paragraphs describe general themes from the public
comments. Many respondents specifically addressed added sugars, milk,
whole grains, and sodium; feedback from these comments is included in
the specific sections of the preamble, as applicable.
Public Comments: Need for Transitional Standards
Many respondents cited the benefits of the transitional standards
rule, which they suggested will help schools get back on track
following COVID-19 operations. An industry respondent asserted that the
transitional standards rule balanced the need for near-term flexibility
while still providing nutritious foods to school children. They
expressed support for USDA's efforts to work towards achievable and
durable school meal nutrition standards that align with the current
Dietary Guidelines. Other respondents agreed, noting that the pandemic
has impacted schools extensively and that fully returning to the 2012
standards for milk, whole grains, and sodium may not be feasible for
schools and children. An advocacy organization focused on
[[Page 8055]]
nutrition science argued that the unprecedented supply chain
disruptions have placed immense challenges on schools, and that the
temporary relief provided by the transitional standards rule is
warranted.
Public Comments: Nutrition and Health
Many respondents noted the benefits of strong nutrition standards
and the important role that schools play in providing access to
nutritious foods. Respondents emphasized that developing healthy habits
in childhood is important for lifelong health and noted the value of
adopting science-based standards that align with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines in the long-term. They also mentioned the importance
of nutritious meals in helping children succeed academically and noted
that many children consume a substantial portion of their dietary
intake during the school day. Respondents cited concerns about diet-
related chronic diseases, such as diabetes and high blood pressure.
They emphasized the role that excess sodium and added sugars play in
increasing children's risk of developing these diseases and noted that
improving the long-term nutrition standards could help to address these
serious health concerns.
One respondent stated that they understood that, during the
pandemic, the focus was on maintaining meal access, but that
transitioning back to more nutritious meals is crucial for children's
long-term health. Another respondent agreed, noting the importance of
providing flexibility and a ``ramp'' to stronger nutrition standards
following the pandemic. Other respondents described the transitional
standards as a step in the right direction but emphasized the need to
do more to improve the healthfulness of school meals. For example, for
the long-term standards, respondents recommended including a limit on
added sugars, significantly reducing sodium in school foods, and
increasing whole grains. One respondent cited the importance of
ensuring school meal standards encourage long-term healthy habits.
Another respondent suggested that reducing sodium and added sugars in
foods marketed to children outside of the school meal programs, across
the U.S. food supply, would improve overall health outcomes for
children.
Public Comments: Product Availability
Several respondents noted the importance of ensuring products that
meet school meal standards are widely available. For example, one
respondent questioned whether manufacturers would be willing to
reformulate their products to meet USDA standards and expressed concern
about price points. They claimed that school nutrition programs are a
very ``hard customer'' already. Similarly, another respondent asserted
that the food industry is no longer making specialty products for
schools, making it difficult for schools to find compliant products. A
school food service respondent in a rural community also expressed
concern about their ability to find products, stating that
manufacturers have discontinued their school food lines due to
decreased staff and raw material availability. This respondent also
asserted that some vendors have stopped providing foods to schools
because the school food market is not profitable enough. A trade
association noted that school meal programs are facing higher costs,
including food and transportation costs, and that supply chain
challenges could continue. They suggested that USDA establish realistic
standards and phase in any new standards over time.
Public Comments: Staffing Challenges
A few respondents cited challenges in the school food labor force,
noting that funding and low pay for staff at their school make it
difficult to serve fresh and homemade foods. Respondents expressed a
strong commitment to nutritious school meals but faced difficulty due
to staffing challenges and rising food costs. Another respondent
agreed, asserting that they would like to see more fresh food offered
at their school, but they simply do not have the time or the staff to
cook fresh meals daily. Citing concerns about funding, one school food
service respondent asserted that budget constraints lead to staffing
reductions, lower quality meals from less scratch cooking, and lower
wages compared to other sectors. This respondent noted that school food
service employees are overworked and underappreciated.
Several respondents argued that now is not the time to place more
burden on schools still recovering from the pandemic. For example, one
school food service respondent opposed the transitional standards,
suggesting the standards are too restrictive and make the jobs of
school food professionals difficult. They expressed concerns about USDA
issuing the standards at a time when schools are still struggling with
supply chain and staffing challenges.
Miscellaneous Comments
Several school food service respondents cited concerns about food
waste, encouraging USDA to develop regulations that result in meals
that students will enjoy eating. They also emphasized the importance of
quality and taste in maintaining student participation in the programs.
One respondent suggested that USDA should measure program success based
on student participation, not based on compliance with improved meal
standards.
A few respondents identified their priorities for this proposed
rule, including meeting children's dietary needs and preferences.\20\
For example, some respondents suggested USDA encourage more vegan,
vegetarian, or plant-based meals in the school meal programs. Others
recommended that USDA make changes to increase fiber intake, to exclude
processed meats, or to better account for specific diets, such as those
of student athletes, who one respondent argued require more calories
than the current meal patterns allow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Existing regulations at 7 CFR 210.10(m)(1), 215.7a(b),
220.8(m), and 226.20(h) require Program operators to make
appropriate substitutions or modifications for milks and foods
served under the NSLP, SBP, SMP, and CACFP for children with a
disability which restricts their diet. This proposed rule makes no
change in these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several respondents requested technical assistance and training to
implement the transitional standards. One advocacy organization said
that technical assistance will help school nutrition professionals
prepare and serve meals that will encourage meal participation and
reduce waste. Some respondents encouraged USDA to provide support to
schools facing difficulty implementing new standards, instead of
penalizing non-compliance.
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments on Buy American Request for
Information
In August 2021, USDA published Request for Information: Buy
American in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program. Through this request for information (RFI), USDA asked for
public feedback on the Buy American provision, exceptions to the
requirement, and other related USDA policy guidance. USDA included 13
questions for consideration but was open to any comments or feedback
that stakeholders wanted to share. USDA received 154 comments in
response to the RFI. A wide variety of respondents submitted comments.
The majority of comments came from local entities, such as school food
authorities, but other interested parties, such as State agencies,
national and regional industry members, Tribal stakeholders, and
members of the U.S. House of
[[Page 8056]]
Representatives, also submitted comments.
Many respondents voiced support for the Buy American provision.
Respondents mentioned the importance of the Buy American provision and
its role in encouraging the consumption of domestic food. They
emphasized that the Buy American provision supports American
agriculture and the domestic economy. However, even while expressing
support, many respondents made it clear that challenges exist in
implementation of the Buy American provision. The most frequently
mentioned themes in these comments included difficulties managing
exceptions to the regulation and the time-consuming paperwork required
to document exceptions. State agencies and school food authorities
cited challenges with managing the documentation and monitoring use of
exceptions during reviews. Overall, respondents suggested that the Buy
American provision plays a critical role in providing children with
nutritious meals that support American agriculture but emphasized that
USDA must do more to support implementation. In this proposed rule,
USDA aims to respond to this feedback by providing clarification to the
requirements and supporting State agency and school efforts to
successfully implement the provision.
Section 2: Added Sugars
Current Requirement
Currently, there is no added sugars limit in the school meal
programs. Under the current regulations, schools may choose to serve
some menu items and meals that are high in added sugars, provided they
meet weekly calorie limits (7 CFR 210.10(f)(1) and 220.8(f)(1)).
However, USDA has determined that the calorie limits alone are not
enough to meet recommendations for limiting children's intake of added
sugars. USDA expects that a targeted limit would better support
reducing added sugars in school meals, especially school breakfast.
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 recommends limiting
intake of added sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per day.
According to the Dietary Guidelines, when a person's intake of added
sugars exceeds this recommended limit, a healthy dietary pattern within
calorie limits is very difficult to achieve. This is because added
sugars contribute calories without contributing essential nutrients to
the diet. The Dietary Guidelines indicates that about 70 to 80 percent
of school-aged children exceed the recommended limit for added
sugars.\21\ In 2016, FDA issued a final rule updating the Nutrition
Facts label, which requires in part, a declaration of the amount of
added sugars in a serving of a product as well as the percent Daily
Value (% DV) for added sugars.\22\ Manufacturers with $10 million or
more in annual sales were required to update their labels by January 1,
2020; manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales
were required to update their labels by January 1, 2021.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
\22\ Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement
Facts Labels (81 FR 33741, May 27, 2016). Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11867/food-labeling-revision-of-the-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11867/food-labeling-revision-of-the-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels</a>. See
also: 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(iii).
\23\ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Changes to the Nutrition
Facts Label. Available at: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label">https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the most recent research available using USDA school
meal data from SY 2014-2015, the average percentage of calories from
added sugars is approximately 11 percent at school lunch and 17 percent
at school breakfast.\24\ Consuming too many added sugars can lead to
health problems, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease.\25\
Additionally, schools that serve meals that are high in added sugars
have less room within the established calorie limits to offer nutrient-
rich foods and beverages that are essential to establishing healthy
dietary patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Fox MK, Gearan EC, Schwartz C. Added Sugars in School Meals
and the Diets of School-Age Children. Nutrients. 2021; 13(2):471.
Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471">https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471</a>.
\25\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Know Your Limit
for Added Sugars. Available at: <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/healthy_eating/sugar.html">https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/healthy_eating/sugar.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement on Added Sugars Standards: Public Comments and
Listening Sessions
USDA received extensive stakeholder input to develop the proposed
added sugars standards through public comments and through listening
sessions held in spring and summer 2022. This section provides an
overview of input received through public comments, followed by input
shared during the listening sessions.
Although the transitional standards rule did not establish added
sugars limits, USDA received public comments about added sugars in
school meals. Over 4,000 comments addressed sugars or added sugars in
school meals. The majority of these were form letters, but over 100
unique comments were submitted about sugars or added sugars.
Many respondents recommended that USDA implement an added sugars
limit to better align school meal standards with the Dietary
Guidelines. Several advocacy organizations stated that the Dietary
Guidelines recommend that added sugars contribute less than 10 percent
of total calories, and suggested USDA establish a standard that aligns
with this recommendation. One advocacy organization representing
children's health noted that in the U.S., children consume 17 percent
of their calories from added sugars. They stated that excess
consumption of added sugars increases the risk for dental decay,
cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and a variety of
other health conditions. Another advocacy organization focused on
public health asserted that most school meals exceed the Dietary
Guidelines recommendations for added sugars. They also noted that
flavored milk is the leading source of added sugars in school breakfast
and lunch.
One respondent who identified as a pediatric cardiologist stated
that added sugars are a significant source of excess calories and have
no nutritional value. They also noted that cases of diabetes among
children are significantly increasing and suggested that limiting added
sugars in school meals could help reverse this trend. A school food
service respondent also expressed concern about added sugars in school
meals, arguing that children do not need so much sugar in their diets.
A respondent who identified as a nurse educator agreed, asserting that
added sugars have no nutritional value and increase the risk of heart
disease. An advocacy organization focused on public health noted that
excess added sugars consumption is linked to several metabolic
abnormalities, a shortfall of essential nutrients, and increased risk
of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, and inflammation in
the body.
Several respondents were especially concerned about added sugars in
school breakfasts. A few advocacy organizations asserted that at
current levels, a typical school breakfast can easily exceed the
recommended maximum added sugars for an entire day for a young child.
Respondents were concerned about added sugars in a variety of foods
commonly offered at breakfast, including flavored milks, sweetened
cereals, muffins, and condiments and toppings. Two State agencies
suggested limiting grain-based desserts at breakfast to 2 ounce
equivalents per week (which is the current limit at lunch) to reduce
added
[[Page 8057]]
sugars. Regarding flavored milk, one advocacy organization argued that
numerous studies suggest that sugar can be reduced in flavored milk
over time without impacting consumption.
One advocacy organization focused on nutrition and science argued
that product-specific targets alone would not be sufficient to reduce
added sugars in school meals; they asserted that a weekly limit would
also be needed for meals to meet the Dietary Guidelines
recommendations. A few industry respondents opposed product-specific
limits, asserting that individual food products, such as flavored milk
and yogurt, can fit into a healthy diet. At the same time, one industry
respondent described its success in reducing added sugars in its
products, including a 20 percent reduction in breakfast cereals.
However, this respondent encouraged USDA to develop a ``realistic''
standard that includes adequate time for industry to develop products
and integrate them into the food system for student acceptance.
An advocacy organization affirmed that product reformulation to
reduce added sugars is achievable, and if done gradually, does not
change consumer preferences. Another advocacy organization stated that
consumer demand for low-sugar products has grown in recent years, and
that due to mounting scientific evidence of the harmful effects of
added sugars, it is urgent to establish an added sugars standard for
school meals. Another advocacy organization agreed, stating that
consumer preferences have already spurred industry to innovate and
reformulate foods.
Listening session participants raised many similar themes. Most
participants supported the idea of a new added sugars standard for
school meals. They emphasized that sugary school breakfasts are seen as
an issue by parents, guardians, and teachers and expected that the
public would support an added sugars standard. Some recommended
following a similar model to the current total sugar limits for
breakfast cereals and yogurts in CACFP but noted that more may be
needed to meet the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines. Several
participants emphasized that added sugars are more of an issue in
school breakfast and suggested that encouraging more protein-rich
breakfasts could help to address this problem. Listening session
participants recommended limiting added sugars in specific products,
such as flavored milk, yogurt, and certain grain products, as well as
establishing a weekly limit for added sugars. However, some
participants noted that certain products that are high in added sugars,
such as grain-based desserts, are also very popular with students.
Proposed Standard
This rulemaking proposes the following added sugars limits in the
school lunch and breakfast programs:
<bullet> Product-based limits: Beginning in SY 2025-2026, this
rulemaking proposes to implement quantitative limits for leading
sources of added sugars in school meals, including grain-based
desserts, breakfast cereals, yogurts, and flavored milks.
<bullet> Weekly dietary limit: Beginning in SY 2027-2028, this
rulemaking proposes to implement a dietary specification limiting added
sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per week in the school lunch
and breakfast programs; this weekly limit would be in addition to the
product-based limits described above.
The proposed product-based limits are as follows:
<bullet> Grain-based desserts: would be limited to no more than 2
ounce equivalents per week in school breakfast, consistent with the
current limit for school lunch. Grain-based desserts include cereal
bars, doughnuts, sweet rolls, toaster pastries, coffee cakes, and fruit
turnovers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Buying Guide for Child
Nutrition Programs. Available at: <a href="https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG">https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG</a>. See: Section 4--
Grains, Exhibit A: Grain Requirements for Child Nutrition Programs,
for a list of grain-based desserts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Breakfast cereals: would be limited to no more than 6
grams of added sugars per dry ounce.
<bullet> Yogurt: would be limited to no more than 12 grams of added
sugars per 6 ounces.
<bullet> Flavored milk: would be limited to no more than 10 grams
of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces or, for flavored milk sold as a
competitive food for middle and high schools, 15 grams of added sugars
per 12 fluid ounces.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For clarification, USDA is proposing a higher added sugars
limit for flavored milk sold as a competitive food in middle and
high schools due to the larger serving size. The serving size for
milk offered as part of a reimbursable meal is 8 fluid ounces. Milks
sold to middle and high school students as a competitive food may be
up to 12 fluid ounces. One alternative proposed by USDA in Section
3: Milk would allow flavored milk (fat-free and low-fat) at school
lunch and breakfast for high school children only, effective SY
2025-2026. Under this alternative, USDA is proposing that children
in grades K-8 would be limited to a variety of unflavored milk. The
proposed regulatory text for Alternative A would allow flavored milk
for high school children only (grades 9-12). USDA also requests
public input on whether to allow flavored milk for children in
grades 6-8 as well as high school children (grades 9-12). If in the
final rule, based on public input, USDA finalizes the option
allowing flavored milk only in high schools (grades 9-12), flavored
milk would only be allowed as a competitive food in high schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in more detail below, under Product-based Limits,
these proposed product-based limits address several leading sources of
added sugars in school breakfast. More information and rationale for
the specific added sugars limits proposed in this rulemaking may be
found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Section 18: Procedural
Matters.
The gradual, phased-in approach proposed in this rulemaking is
expected to make implementation of the added sugars standards
achievable for schools. USDA expects that the proposed product-based
limits would incentivize the food industry to develop products with
less added sugars. This would in turn help schools to develop lunch and
breakfast menus that are lower in added sugars, which would better
position schools to successfully meet the weekly dietary limit for
added sugars upon implementation.
For consistency, USDA also proposes to apply the product-based
added sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurts to the CACFP; the
added sugars limits would replace the current total sugar limits for
breakfast cereal and yogurt in CACFP. Total sugars include both added
sugars and sugars naturally present in many nutritious foods and
beverages, such as sugar in milk and fruit, while added sugars include
sugars that are added during the processing of foods, foods packaged as
sweeteners (such as table sugar), sugars from syrups and honey, and
sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices.\28\ Since 2015, the
Dietary Guidelines have recommended limiting calories from added sugars
to less than 10 percent of calories per day. Current CACFP regulations
state that breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of total
sugar per dry ounce (7 CFR 226.20(a)(4)(ii)) and that yogurt must
contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces (7 CFR
226.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)). Proposing to change the CACFP total sugar limits
for breakfast cereals and yogurt to added sugar limits, consistent with
the proposed requirements for school lunch and breakfast, aligns
program requirements, reflects current dietary recommendations, and is
expected to simplify operations for schools that participate both in
school meals and CACFP. Because most sugars included in breakfast
cereals are added sugars, USDA does not expect this change to
significantly impact the types of
[[Page 8058]]
breakfast cereals allowed in CACFP. Yogurt contains sugars found
naturally in milk and fruit, making it more difficult to directly
compare the current total sugars limit in CACFP to the proposed added
sugars limit. However, USDA has confirmed that a variety of yogurt
products that meet the current CACFP total sugars limit would also meet
the proposed added sugars standard.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See: ``Total Sugars'' at 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(ii) and ``Added
Sugars'' at 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(iii).
\29\ USDA reviewed nutrition label data for yogurt and breakfast
cereal products in May 2022 using K-12 school and food service
product catalogs directly from food company websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA seeks comments on these proposed changes, found at 7 CFR
210.10(b)(2)(iv), 210.10(c), 210.10(d)(1)(i), 210.10(f)(4), 210.10(h),
220.8(b)(2)(iv), 220.8(c), 220.8(f)(4), 226.20(a)(4)(ii),
226.20(a)(5)(iii)(B), and 226.20(c) of the proposed rule.
In developing these proposed changes, USDA considered several
important factors, outlined below.
Product-Based Limits
A study published in January 2021 provided valuable information in
the development of this proposal. The study, Added Sugars in School
Meals and the Diets of School-Age Children,\30\ found that a majority
of schools exceeded the Dietary Guidelines recommended limit for added
sugars at lunch (69 percent) and breakfast (92 percent). The study also
identified the leading sources of added sugars within the programs.
Flavored milk was the leading source of added sugars in both programs,
contributing half of the added sugars at lunch and about 30 percent of
the added sugars at breakfast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Fox MK, Gearan EC, Schwartz C. Added Sugars in School Meals
and the Diets of School-Age Children. Nutrients. 2021; 13(2):471.
Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471">https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to flavored milk, this proposed rule also addresses
several other leading sources of added sugars in school breakfasts,
where added sugars are more of an issue compared to school lunch. This
proposal covers the following food items, which the study found to be
among the top ten sources of added sugars in the SBP:
<bullet> Breakfast cereals
<bullet> Granola bars and breakfast bars
<bullet> Toaster pastries
<bullet> Cinnamon buns
<bullet> Yogurt
Under this proposed rule, breakfast cereals would be limited to 6
grams of added sugars per ounce and yogurts would be limited to 12
grams of added sugars per 6 ounces. The other items listed above would
be covered by the weekly limits for grain-based desserts. Granola bars,
breakfast bars, toaster pastries, and cinnamon buns (a type of sweet
roll) are all grain-based desserts, according to USDA guidance.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Buying Guide for Child
Nutrition Programs. Available at: <a href="https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG">https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG</a>. See: Section 4--
Grains, Exhibit A: Grain Requirements for Child Nutrition Programs,
for a list of grain-based desserts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, USDA has already successfully implemented product-
based limits for breakfast cereals, yogurt, and grain-based desserts in
its child nutrition programs. For example, NSLP regulations currently
limit how often grain-based desserts may be served in reimbursable
meals to encourage more nutrient-dense choices; \32\ this proposed rule
would apply the same limit to the SBP. Further, CACFP currently has
total sugar limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt. This proposed rule
would build on these successes by also applying product-based limits
for breakfast cereals and yogurt to the NSLP and SBP. The proposed
limits in this rulemaking are based on added sugars for consistency
with the Dietary Guidelines. USDA is also proposing to update the CACFP
total sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurts to align with the
proposed NSLP and SBP added sugars limits for ease of operations. The
new added sugars limit for flavored milks served in the school meal
programs will follow a similar framework. The products covered by this
proposal are commonly served in the programs, are popular with
children, and have room to reduce added sugars while maintaining
palatability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See: 7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WIC Program has also successfully implemented product-based
specifications for certain foods in the WIC food packages. Recently,
USDA proposed revisions to the WIC food packages to incorporate
recommendations from the National Academies of Science, Engineering,
and Medicine (NASEM) in its 2017 scientific report, ``Review of WIC
Food Packages: Improving Balance and Choice,'' and to align the food
packages with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. The WIC
rule, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages,\33\ proposes to
revise limits on total sugars for yogurt and soy beverage, consistent
with recommendations in the NASEM report. The Department is seeking
comments on the provisions related to sugar in the WIC proposed rule
with specific interest in comments on an added versus total sugars
limit for foods that currently have total sugar limits: yogurt, soy
beverage, and breakfast cereal. Both the WIC proposed rule and this
proposed rule share the common goal of limiting sugar intake and
promoting healthy dietary patterns among program participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages (87 FR 71090,
November 21, 2022). Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/21/2022-24705/special-supplemental-nutrition-program-for-women-infants-and-children-wic-revisions-in-the-wic-food">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/21/2022-24705/special-supplemental-nutrition-program-for-women-infants-and-children-wic-revisions-in-the-wic-food</a>. USDA is accepting comments on this proposed rule through
February 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA expects that the product-specific limits in this proposed rule
would incentivize the school food industry to develop products with
less added sugars. This would in turn help schools to develop lunch and
breakfast menus that are lower in added sugars. As noted, some food
manufacturers have already begun reducing added sugars in their
products; USDA commends and would like to see these efforts continued.
USDA also encourages other food companies to follow this lead, with a
particular focus on the products included in this proposal and other
products that are popular with school-age children and that are
commonly served in school meals. With the product-specific standards in
place, USDA expects that schools would be better positioned to
successfully meet the weekly dietary limit for added sugars, described
further below.
Weekly Dietary Limit
USDA expects the product-based limits to have a meaningful impact
on the added sugars offered in school meals but recognizes that a
weekly limit is also helpful to achieve consistency with the Dietary
Guidelines recommendation. While the proposed product-based limits
target leading sources of added sugars in school meals, other foods
also contribute to children's overall added sugars intake in the NSLP
and SBP. Therefore, this rulemaking also proposes a weekly dietary
limit, or dietary specification, for added sugars, to be implemented in
SY 2027-2028. The dietary specification would require that less than 10
percent of calories per meal come from added sugars, averaged over one
school week by program.\34\ USDA expects that the product-based limits
will help with initial added
[[Page 8059]]
sugars reductions in school meals by targeting leading sources of added
sugars; the subsequent weekly limit will further support USDA's efforts
to help school children meet dietary recommendations. USDA expects that
the weekly limit will encourage schools to plan overall menus with less
added sugars. For example, schools may opt to remove foods that are
high in added sugars from their menus, choose to offer those foods less
often, and/or select similar products with less added sugars than the
products they are serving today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ For comparison, as noted, according to the most recent
research available using USDA school meal data from SY 2014-2015,
the average percentage of calories from added sugars is
approximately 11 percent at school lunch and 17 percent at school
breakfast. See: Fox MK, Gearan EC, Schwartz C. Added Sugars in
School Meals and the Diets of School-Age Children. Nutrients. 2021;
13(2):471. Available at: <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471">https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phasing in this requirement will give schools time to adjust menus
and help children adapt to meals with less added sugars. For example,
schools might consider serving more protein-rich foods at breakfast in
place of grain-based foods, which tend to have more added sugars (see
Section 17: Proposals from Prior USDA Rulemaking). The phase-in period
will also allow USDA to update its nutrient analysis software to
include a dietary specification for added sugars, and to provide
additional technical assistance to schools on reducing added sugars in
school meals.
Public Comments Requested
USDA will consider public input on the following questions when
developing the final rule and may incorporate changes to the added
sugars proposals based on public input. USDA invites public input on
these proposals in general, and requests specific input on the
following questions:
<bullet> USDA is proposing product-specific limits on the following
foods to improve the nutritional quality of meals served to children:
grain-based desserts, breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milk. Do
stakeholders have input on the products and specific limits included in
this proposal?
<bullet> Do the proposed implementation timeframes provide
appropriate lead time for food manufacturers and schools to
successfully implement the new added sugars standards? Why or why not?
<bullet> What impact will the proposed added sugars standards have
on school meal menu planning and the foods schools serve at breakfast
and lunch, including the overall nutrition of meals served to children?
Section 3: Milk
Current Requirement
The National School Lunch Act (NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(i) and
(ii)) requires schools to offer students a variety of fluid milk at
lunch; such milk must be consistent with the most recent Dietary
Guidelines. The Child Nutrition Act (CNA, 42 U.S.C. 1773(e)(1)(A))
requires school breakfasts to meet the same terms and conditions set
forth for school lunches in the National School Lunch Act (NSLA, 42
U.S.C. 1758), including the requirements for fluid milk. Current
regulations at 7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i), 220.8(d), and 210.11(m)(1)(ii),
(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii) allow schools to offer fat-free and low-fat
(1 percent fat) milk, flavored and unflavored, in reimbursable school
lunches and breakfasts, and for sale as a competitive beverage. The
current regulations also require that unflavored milk be offered at
each school meal service. Fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored and
unflavored, may also be offered to participants ages 6 and older in the
SMP and CACFP (7 CFR 215.7a(a) and 226.20(a)(1)(iii)). Lactose-free and
reduced-lactose milk meet the meal pattern requirements for fluid milk
(7 CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i), 215.7a(a), 220.8(d), and 226.20(a)(1)). The
current milk requirement took effect on July 1, 2022.
For comparison, the 2012 final rule permitted flavoring in fat-free
milk only and required low-fat milk to be unflavored in school lunch
and breakfast. This requirement went into effect in SY 2014-2015.
However, Congressional and administrative actions beginning in SY 2017-
2018 allowed schools to offer low-fat, flavored milk.\35\ Prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic, in SY 2019-2020, schools were allowed to offer fat-
free and low-fat milk, flavored and unflavored, in reimbursable school
meals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See page 6991-6992 of Child Nutrition Programs:
Transitional Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium (87 FR
6984, February 7, 2022). Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement on Milk Standards: Public Comments and Listening
Sessions
USDA received extensive stakeholder input on the milk standards
through public comments and listening sessions held in spring and
summer 2022. This section provides an overview of input received
through public comments, followed by input shared during the listening
sessions.
Several public comments supported the transitional standard
allowing low-fat, flavored milk, arguing that, in their view, children
prefer flavored milk. One respondent asserted that the nutritional
difference between low-fat, flavored milk and fat-free, flavored milk
is insignificant. A few State agencies that supported allowing low-fat
flavored milk argued that more children select and consume milk when
flavored milk is offered, helping them receive important nutrients.
Some respondents cited concerns about the amount of added sugars in
flavored milk, suggesting that USDA address this concern. A few
respondents recommended that USDA disallow all flavored milks in the
programs; one advocacy organization was concerned that offering
flavored milk every day would train a child's palate to prefer sugar-
sweetened foods. Another advocacy organization focused on public health
suggested that if USDA continues to allow flavored, low-fat milk, it
should establish a limit to prevent schools from serving flavored milks
that are high in added sugars. An industry respondent noted that milk
processors have already significantly reduced the added sugars content
of flavored milk. They stated that between SY 2006-2007 and SY 2019-
2020 the average added sugars level in flavored milk declined by 57
percent.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ According to this comment, the average added sugars level
for flavored milk declined by 57 percent, going from 16.7 grams to
7.1 grams in an 8 fluid ounce serving of flavored milk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few respondents suggested that USDA allow whole milk to be served
in the school meal programs, arguing that whole milk would help reduce
food waste and provide children with important vitamins and nutrients.
One industry respondent stated that dairy products at all fat levels,
including reduced-fat and whole milk, should be permitted as options in
school meals. The same respondent pointed out that reduced-fat and
whole milk make up most retail sales of milk and asserted that many
parents in the U.S. believe that these milk types are the healthiest
options for their children. A few respondents argued that it is better
for children to drink whole, flavored milk than to not drink milk at
all.
Several respondents shared input on lactose-free milk and non-dairy
fluid milk substitutes. One respondent noted that lactose-free milk
provides children who are lactose intolerant the protein and calcium
they need without gastro-intestinal distress, but cited cost as a
barrier, noting that lactose-free milk costs about twice as much as
milk with lactose. The respondent, who stated that a significant
portion of their student population is lactose intolerant, suggested
additional funding would help schools to offer lactose-free milk. An
advocacy organization focused on animal rights urged USDA to allow
plant-based milks and other non-dairy beverages for all children. They
argued
[[Page 8060]]
that this change would support children who are lactose intolerant and
reduce the environmental harms caused by concentrated animal feeding
operations. Another respondent suggested almond or other nut milks as
an alternative to cow's milk. An advocacy organization recommended that
USDA better communicate its policy allowing fluid milk substitutes for
children with medical or special dietary needs.
Listening session participants raised many similar themes. Several
participants suggested that overall milk consumption increases when
low-fat, flavored milk is an option and recommended USDA continue to
allow low-fat, flavored milk. Some listening session participants noted
that fat-free, flavored milk is not widely available in the retail
market, and that, in their view, children are not familiar with and do
not like the way it tastes. Listening session participants representing
the food industry emphasized the importance of considering palatability
and acceptability when establishing milk standards and suggested that
added sugars and sodium standards could impact milk options available
to schools. Participants also raised cost constraints as a limitation
to offering lactose-free milk and milk alternatives for children who
cannot consume cow's milk.
Proposed Standard
This rulemaking proposes two alternatives for the milk standard:
<bullet> Alternative A: Proposes to allow flavored milk (fat-free
and low-fat) at school lunch and breakfast for high school children
only, effective SY 2025-2026. Under this alternative, USDA is proposing
that children in grades K-8 would be limited to a variety of unflavored
milk. The proposed regulatory text for Alternative A would allow
flavored milk for high school children only (grades 9-12). USDA also
requests public input on whether to allow flavored milk for children in
grades 6-8 as well as high school children (grades 9-12). Children in
grades K-5 would again be limited to a variety of unflavored milk.
Under both Alternative A scenarios, flavored milk would be subject to
the new proposed added sugars limit.
<bullet> Alternative B: Proposes to maintain the current standard
allowing all schools to offer fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored and
unflavored, with the new proposed added sugars limit for flavored milk.
Several additional proposals would apply under either alternative.
As discussed in Section 2: Added Sugars, this rulemaking will limit the
amount of added sugars in flavored milk to no more than 10 grams per 8
fluid ounces, effective SY 2025-2026. This proposed added sugars
standard would apply to milk served in reimbursable school lunches and
breakfasts, and for sale as a competitive beverage. Consistent with
current requirements, this rulemaking would require that unflavored
milk be offered at each school meal service. This rulemaking also
proposes to continue to allow fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored and
unflavored, to be offered to participants ages 6 and older in the SMP
and CACFP. However, as noted below, USDA requests public input on
allowing unflavored milks only for children in grades K-8 or K-5, as
applicable, in SMP and CACFP, if Alternative A is finalized with
restrictions on flavored milk for grades K-8 or K-5 in NSLP and SBP.
While USDA appreciates comments on whole milk, allowing whole milk in
the school meal programs would make it harder for children to meet
nutrient needs while staying within calorie and saturated fat limits.
Additionally, the Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025 recommends unsweetened
fat-free or low-fat milk for school-aged children. Therefore, USDA does
not propose allowing whole milk in the school meal programs.
USDA also proposes to reorganize the regulatory text related to
fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons. This rulemaking
would move the regulatory text explaining the fluid milk substitute
requirements from paragraph (m) of 7 CFR 210.10--which currently
discusses exceptions and variations allowed in reimbursable meals--to
paragraph (d) of 7 CFR 210.10--which discusses the fluid milk
requirements. These changes are expected to help clarify the
requirements for fluid milk substitutions. Fluid milk substitutions are
addressed further below.
Under Alternative A, USDA is proposing to allow flavored milk for
high school children only (grades 9-12). This approach would reduce
exposure to added sugars and would promote the more nutrient-dense
choice of unflavored milk for young children when their tastes are
being formed. The proposed regulatory text for this alternative would
allow flavored milk only for high schools (grades 9-12); however,
regarding this alternative, USDA requests public input on whether to
allow flavored milk only in high schools (grades 9-12) or in middle
schools and high schools (grades 6-12). USDA aims to balance the
importance of reducing young children's exposure to added sugars with
the importance of providing older children the autonomy to choose among
a greater variety of milk beverages that they enjoy; respondents are
encouraged to provide input on how to balance these important
priorities. Respondents are also invited to provide input on any
operational considerations that USDA should keep in mind regarding
school configurations; for example, how such a standard should apply to
schools that serve children in grades K-12. While not proposed in this
rulemaking, should Alternative A be finalized with restrictions on
flavored milk for grades K-8 or K-5 in NSLP and SBP, USDA also requests
public input on whether to pursue a similar change in SMP and CACFP.
As noted in Section 2: Added Sugars, flavored milk is the leading
source of added sugars in the school lunch and breakfast programs,
contributing half of the added sugars at lunch and about 30 percent of
the added sugars at breakfast. While USDA expects the proposed product-
based added sugars limit for flavored milk would support reducing added
sugars for schoolchildren of all ages, this additional measure would
further reduce elementary and middle schoolchildren's exposure to added
sugars. According to the Dietary Guidelines ``consuming beverages with
no added sugars is particularly important for young children.'' The
Dietary Guidelines also recommend young children make healthier, more
nutrient-dense food choices, including choosing unsweetened beverages
instead of beverages with added sugars. As noted below, USDA invites
public input on both proposed alternatives. Respondents that support
Alternative A are encouraged to provide specific input on whether USDA
should limit flavored milk to high schools (grades 9-12) or to middle
schools and high schools (grades 6-12). After considering public input,
USDA will determine which alternative to finalize.
USDA seeks comments on these proposals, which are both found at 7
CFR 210.10(d), 210.11(m), and 220.8(d) of the proposed rule.
Below, USDA addresses important topics raised by comments.
Added Sugars in Milk
The Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025 recommend consumption of
beverages that contain no added sugars, such as water and unsweetened
fat-free or low-fat milk, as the primary choice for children and
adolescents. They also note that early food preferences influence later
food choices and assert that decreasing the consumption of sugar-
sweetened beverages will help reduce added sugars intake and will allow
children to achieve a healthy
[[Page 8061]]
dietary pattern. According to the Dietary Guidelines, sugar-sweetened
beverages--a top contributor of added sugars--make up 15 to 25 percent
of total added sugars intake in childhood, and 32 percent in
adolescence.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See page 87. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at:
<a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flavored milks are the top contributor of added sugars in the
school meal programs. USDA expects that the proposed added sugars limit
for flavored milk, discussed in Section 2: Added Sugars, will help to
address this issue in the near-term and may support children's
consumption of nutrient-dense foods later in life.\38\ Additionally,
USDA understands that dairy, including fluid milk and fluid milk
substitutes, provide protein and a variety of nutrients that are
underconsumed during childhood and adolescence. According to Dietary
Guidelines, average intake of dairy foods, which provide potassium,
calcium, and vitamin D, is typically below recommended intake levels
for adolescents.\39\ USDA recognizes that for some children, flavored
milk is a palatable option that improves consumption of these important
nutrients, which support the accrual of bone mass. The National School
Lunch Act currently requires a variety of fluid milk to be offered with
every school lunch and breakfast. USDA appreciates the benefit of
allowing flavored milk--a fluid milk option that many children enjoy
and may be less likely to waste. For example, USDA research from SY
2014-2015 found that about 18 percent of low-fat, flavored milk offered
with school lunch was wasted, compared to 35 percent of low-fat,
unflavored milk.\40\ However, schools are not required to offer
flavored milk, and may consider offering unflavored milk options only
at certain meals or on certain days to promote more nutrient-dense
choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See Figure 2-1: ``Science shows that early food preferences
influence later food choices. Make the first choice the healthiest
choices . . .'' U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
\39\ See page 76 and page 88. U.S. Department of Agriculture and
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at:
<a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
\40\ See Table 5.1: Mean Percentage of Observed Trays including
Specific Foods and Mean Percentage of Observed Foods Wasted in NSLP
Lunches. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,
Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study,
Final Report Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate
Waste, and Dietary Intakes, by Mary Kay Fox, Elizabeth Gearan,
Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, Katherine Niland, Liana Washburn,
Nora Paxton, Lauren Olsho, Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. Project
Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available at:
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB
Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluid Milk Substitutes
As noted, many commenters raised concerns on behalf of children who
cannot consume, or have difficulty consuming, cow's milk. USDA
appreciates the public's concern about children's access to fluid milk
substitutes, particularly given the disproportionate rates of lactose
intolerance among communities of color. For example, according to the
National Institutes of Health, in the United States, African Americans,
American Indians, Asian Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos are more
likely to have lactose malabsorption, and ``lactose intolerance is
least common among people who are from, or whose families are from,
Europe.'' \41\ Global estimates find that about 5 to 15 percent of
Europeans are lactose intolerant, compared to 65 to 90 percent of
adults in Africa and East Asia.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases. Definition & Facts for Lactose Intolerance. Available at:
<a href="https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/lactose-intolerance/definition-facts">https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/lactose-intolerance/definition-facts</a>.
\42\ <a href="http://InformedHealth.org">InformedHealth.org</a> [internet]. Cologne, Germany: Institute
for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG); 2006-. Lactose
intolerance: Overview. 2010 Sep 15 [Updated 2018 Nov 29]. Available
at: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310267/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310267/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to fluid milk, yogurt, and cheese, the Dietary
Guidelines include ``fortified soy beverages'' as part of the dairy
group because they are similar to milk and yogurt based on nutrient
composition and in their use in meals. However, as noted, the National
School Lunch Act requires fluid milk (cow's milk) to be offered with
every school breakfast and lunch. The statute is also very specific
about allowable fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons. To
provide a substitute for cow's milk, the statute requires:
<bullet> That the non-dairy beverage is nutritionally equivalent to
fluid milk and meets nutritional standards established by the
Secretary, which must include fortification of calcium, protein,
vitamin A, and vitamin D to levels found in cow's milk (42 U.S.C.
1758(a)(2)(B)(i)).
<bullet> That the substitution is requested in writing by a medical
authority or the student's parent or legal guardian (42 U.S.C.
1758(a)(2)(B)(ii)).
<bullet> That the school notify the State agency if it is providing
fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons (42 U.S.C.
1758(a)(2)(B)(ii)).
<bullet> That the school cover any expenses related to providing
fluid milk substitutes in excess of program reimbursements (42 U.S.C.
1758(a)(2)(B)(iii)).
USDA recognizes that the specific nutrition and paperwork
requirements and cost burden associated with fluid milk substitutes
present barriers for schools and families. Additionally, USDA
recognizes that under the statute, schools are allowed--but not
required--to provide fluid milk substitutes for non-disability reasons;
this means that, due to budget constraints, some schools may opt not to
provide a fluid milk substitute requested for non-disability reasons on
behalf of a child. As noted below, USDA requests public input on the
current fluid milk substitute process. While USDA does not have the
authority to change the statutory requirements outlined above, better
understanding challenges associated with the current process may help
USDA address the concerns raised by commenters.
As a point of clarification, the statute and regulation require
schools to provide meal modifications for children with a disability
that restricts their diet. Lactose intolerance may be considered a
disability; for example, a child whose digestion is impaired due to
lactose intolerance may be considered a person with a disability that
requires a menu substitution for fluid milk. In 2020, USDA proposed
changes to align regulatory requirements for disability-related meal
modifications with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
as amended. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-235) clarified
the meaning and interpretation of the ADA definition of ``disability''
to ensure that the definition of disability would be broadly construed
and applied without extensive analysis. These proposed changes to meal
modifications for disability reasons will be further addressed in the
forthcoming final rule, as discussed in Section 17: Proposals from
Prior USDA Rulemaking. For up-to-date information about meal
modifications for disability reasons, see USDA policy guidance:
Modifications to Accommodate Disabilities in the School Meal
Programs.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Modifications to
Accommodate Disabilities in the School Meal Programs, September 27,
2016. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/modifications-accommodate-disabilities-school-meal-programs">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/modifications-accommodate-disabilities-school-meal-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comments Requested
For the final rule, USDA is considering two different milk
[[Page 8062]]
proposals and invites comments on both. These two proposals are
included in the regulatory text as Alternative A and Alternative B:
<bullet> Alternative A: Proposes to allow flavored milk (fat-free
and low-fat) at school lunch and breakfast for high school children
only, effective SY 2025-2026. Under this alternative, USDA is proposing
that children in grades K-8 would be limited to a variety of unflavored
milk. The proposed regulatory text for Alternative A would allow
flavored milk for high school children only (grades 9-12). USDA also
requests public input on whether to allow flavored milk for children in
grades 6-8 as well as high school children (grades 9-12). Children in
grades K-5 would again be limited to a variety of unflavored milk.
Under both Alternative A scenarios, flavored milk would be subject to
the new proposed added sugars limit.
<bullet> Alternative B: Proposes to maintain the current standard
allowing all schools to offer fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored and
unflavored, with the new proposed added sugars limit for flavored milk.
USDA will consider the following questions when developing the
final rule and may incorporate changes to the milk proposals based on
public input. USDA invites public input on these proposals in general,
and requests specific input on the following questions:
<bullet> The Dietary Guidelines state that ``consuming beverages
with no added sugars is particularly important for young children.'' As
discussed above, one of the two proposals USDA is considering would
limit milk choices in elementary and middle schools (grades K-8) to
unflavored milk varieties only at school lunch and breakfast. To reduce
young children's exposure to added sugars and promote the more
nutrient-dense choice of unflavored milk, should USDA finalize this
proposal? Why or why not?
[cir] Respondents that support Alternative A are encouraged to
provide specific input on whether USDA should limit flavored milk to
high schools only (grades 9-12) or to middle schools and high schools
only (grades 6-12).
<bullet> If Alternative A is finalized with restrictions on
flavored milk for grades K-8 or K-5 in NSLP and SBP, should USDA also
pursue a similar change in SMP and CACFP? Are there any special
considerations USDA should keep in mind for SMP and CACFP operators,
given the differences in these programs compared to school meal program
operators?
<bullet> What feedback do stakeholders have about the current fluid
milk substitute process? USDA is especially interested in feedback from
parents and guardians and program operators with firsthand experience
requesting and processing a fluid milk substitute request.
Section 4: Whole Grains
Current Requirement
Current regulations at 7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv) and 220.8(c)(2)(iv)
require at least 80 percent of the weekly grains offered in the school
lunch and breakfast programs to be whole grain-rich. The remaining
grain items offered must be enriched. To meet USDA's whole grain-rich
criteria, a product must contain at least 50 percent whole grains; any
grain ingredients that are not whole grain must be enriched, bran, or
germ. In other words, whole grain-rich products are at least half whole
grain. Products that exceed the 50 percent whole grain threshold, such
as products that are 100 percent whole grain, also meet the whole
grain-rich criteria. The current whole grain-rich requirement took
effect on July 1, 2022.
For comparison, the 2012 final rule required all grains offered in
the school lunch and breakfast programs to meet the whole grain-rich
criteria. However, successive legislative and administrative action
beginning in 2012 prevented full implementation of the whole grain-rich
requirement.\44\ Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in SY 2019-2020, at
least 50 percent of the weekly grains offered in the school lunch and
breakfast programs were required to be whole grain-rich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See page 6994 of Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional
Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium (87 FR 6984, February
7, 2022). Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement on Grains Standards: Public Comments and
Listening Sessions
USDA received extensive stakeholder input on the grains standards
through public comments and listening sessions held in spring and
summer 2022. This section provides an overview of input received
through public comments, followed by input shared during the listening
sessions.
Many public comments cited the importance of increasing whole
grains in children's diets. For example, respondents stated that whole
grains provide important nutrients and fiber and improve diet quality.
A few advocacy organizations noted that diets high in whole grains and
fiber are associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular disease,
stroke, and diabetes. Advocacy organizations also expressed concern
that children ages 4 to 18 do not currently meet the recommended intake
for whole grains and exceed the recommended limit for refined grains.
Several respondents offered specific suggestions for USDA to
consider when developing this proposed rule. A school food service
respondent suggested that the school meal standards follow MyPlate
guidelines: make half of your grains whole grain.\45\ This respondent
noted that they use MyPlate to teach students and families about
healthy eating. An advocacy organization focused on public health noted
that schools have made significant progress in offering whole grain-
rich foods and argued that it is possible to offer all grains as whole
grain-rich. One respondent stated that whole grain-rich foods are
accepted by students at their school, while another asserted that
school districts have been able to create healthy, delicious meals with
entirely whole grain-rich foods. An advocacy organization representing
food and nutrition professionals supported the 80 percent whole grain-
rich requirement in the transitional standards rule as a
``steppingstone'' towards stronger requirements. Other respondents
suggested maintaining the 80 percent whole grain-rich standard in the
long-term, arguing it is strict enough. For example, one respondent
noted that the 80 percent standard allows for some enriched grains,
which they argued improves palatability. This respondent asserted that
children would appreciate the inclusion of some enriched grains at
breakfast and lunch. Similarly, one industry respondent suggested
allowing some flexibility for schools to offer fortified and enriched
grains, stating that this would help schools provide more menu options
that kids enjoy. Several respondents recommended that USDA ease back on
the requirement and require half of the grains offered to meet the
whole grain-rich criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Grains. Available at:
<a href="https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/grains">https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/grains</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many respondents noted the importance of working with the food
industry to ensure that whole grain-rich items are readily available
and affordable for schools. For example, one school district respondent
emphasized that school meals ``do not exist in a vacuum'' and are a
part of the broader commercialized food system. Some respondents
expressed concerns with
[[Page 8063]]
the availability or acceptability of specific products, including whole
grain-rich tortillas, pastas, and biscuits; for example, one school
nutrition director suggested that whole grain-rich tortillas and pastas
``crumble'' and are not accepted by students. Conversely, some industry
respondents shared their success developing a wide array of whole
grain-rich products. One industry respondent successfully developed
whole grain-rich breakfast entr[eacute]es, ready-to-eat breakfast
cereals, and biscuits; this respondent supported stronger whole grain-
rich standards. Another industry respondent stated its intent to
continue innovating and expanding whole grain-rich options, even though
its core K-12 grain portfolio already meets USDA's whole grain-rich
criteria. A different industry respondent stated that they have 25
entr[eacute]e items containing whole grain-rich pasta or breading that
are accepted by students; however, this respondent indicated that
development of these products required heavy collaboration and several
changes in formulations over time.
Listening session participants raised many similar themes. Many
participants generally supported increasing whole grains in the
programs, noting that schools have been successful in meeting the whole
grain-rich standards. Participants also stated that many products that
children enjoy are available in the market. However, some participants
noted that certain menu items, such as pasta and tortillas, are still
not available or acceptable in whole grain-rich form, while others
cited concerns about supply chain issues impacting the availability of
certain products. Some listening session participants supported a 100
percent whole grain-rich requirement for consistency with the Dietary
Guidelines, while others argued a 100 percent whole grain-rich standard
is not realistic. Listening session participants also recommended a 50
percent whole grain-rich standard or an 80 percent whole grain-rich
standard.
Proposed Standard
For the whole grains requirement in the school lunch and breakfast
programs, USDA is considering two different options and invites
comments on both. This rulemaking:
<bullet> Proposes to maintain the current whole grains requirement
that at least 80 percent of the weekly grains offered are whole grain-
rich, based on ounce equivalents of grains offered.
<bullet> Requests public input on an alternative whole grains
option, which would require that all grains offered must meet the whole
grain-rich requirement, except that one day each school week, schools
may offer enriched grains.
The alternative approach is described in greater detail below. USDA
will consider public input when developing the final rule and may
incorporate changes to the whole grains proposal based on public input.
Either approach would promote whole grain-rich foods while allowing
schools to occasionally serve non-whole grain-rich products that
stakeholders and public comments have suggested are popular with
students. USDA expects that both standards would be achievable for
schools and would result in meals that students enjoy.
In addition, USDA also proposes to add a regulatory definition of
``whole grain-rich'' for clarity. The definition would read as follows:
Whole grain-rich is the term designated by FNS to indicate that the
grain content of a product is between 50 and 100 percent whole grain
with any remaining grains being enriched. This proposed definition
would not change the meaning of whole grain-rich, which has previously
been communicated in USDA guidance; USDA is instead proposing to define
the term in regulation for clarity. This definition would be included
in NSLP, SBP, and CACFP regulations.
As noted above, as an alternative to the proposal to maintain the
current whole grains requirement that at least 80 percent of the weekly
grains offered are whole grain-rich, USDA is considering a days-per-
week model. This alternative would require that all grains offered in
the school lunch and breakfast programs must meet the whole grain-rich
requirement, except that one day each school week, schools may offer
enriched grains. For most school weeks, this would result in four days
of whole grain-rich grains, with enriched grains allowed on one day. On
the day enriched grains are permitted, schools may choose to offer
enriched grains, whole grain-rich grains, 100 percent whole grains, or
a combination of these. This alternative proposal would prevent
enriched grains from being offered in competition with whole grain-rich
grains on a daily basis, since it would limit enriched grains to one
day per week in each program. As such, under this alternative, all
students that participate in NSLP or SBP would be offered only whole
grain-rich grains on most school days. Based on public input, USDA may
choose to finalize this alternative in the final rule. As noted below,
USDA seeks public input on both approaches.
Finally, USDA proposes a corresponding change to the definition of
``entr[eacute]e'' in the competitive food, or ``Smart Snack''
regulations.\46\ The competitive food regulations allow entr[eacute]e
items to be sold [agrave] la carte on the day they are served and the
day after, even if the entr[eacute]e does not comply with the
competitive food standards. This exemption helps school food
professionals to better manage their programs and prevent food waste.
It also helps to reduce potential confusion about whether an
entr[eacute]e served to some students as part of a meal can be
purchased [agrave] la carte by other students. The current definition
of ``entr[eacute]e'' in the competitive food regulations specifies that
grain entr[eacute]es must be whole grain-rich; however, under the
proposed standard, enriched grains may be served as part of a
reimbursable meal entr[eacute]e. USDA proposes to remove the whole
grain-rich criteria from the definition of ``entr[eacute]e,'' which
would allow any reimbursable meal entr[eacute]e that includes enriched
grains to also be sold as a Smart Snack on the day it is served in the
school lunch or breakfast program, and the day after. This proposal
would not impact the general standards for competitive foods, which
would continue to require all other grain items sold as Smart Snacks to
meet USDA's whole grain-rich criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ For more information on Smart Snacks in Schools, see: Tools
for Schools--Focusing on Smart Snacks. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/tools-schools-focusing-smart-snacks">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/tools-schools-focusing-smart-snacks</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA seeks comments on this proposal, found at 7 CFR 210.2,
210.10(c)(2)(iv), 210.11(a)(3), 220.2, 220.8(c)(2)(iv), and 226.2 of
the proposed rule.
In developing this proposal, USDA considered several important
factors, outlined below.
Dietary Recommendations
Whole grains are an important source of dietary fiber, which is
considered a dietary component of public health concern for the general
U.S. population.\47\ The Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025 recommend that
at least half of total grains consumed should be whole grains. The
Dietary Guidelines also note that while school-age children, on
average, meet the recommended intake of total grains, they do not meet
the recommendation to make half of their grains whole grains. Although
the Dietary Guidelines do not use the term
[[Page 8064]]
``whole grain-rich,'' it states that one way to meet the recommendation
is to choose products with at least 50 percent of the total weight made
up of whole grain ingredients, which is consistent with USDA's whole
grain-rich criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Current Dietary Guidelines--Food Sources
of Select Nutrients. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-online-materials/food-sources-select-nutrients">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-online-materials/food-sources-select-nutrients</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consuming whole grains may provide many health benefits, such as
reducing the risk of heart disease and supporting healthy
digestion.\48\ Studies have found a connection between whole grains
consumption and better health. For example, according to the Harvard
T.H. Chan School of Public Health, a meta-analysis of seven major
studies found that cardiovascular disease was 21 percent less likely in
people who ate two and a half or more servings of whole grain foods
each day compared with people who ate less than two servings each
week.\49\ Another study found that women who averaged two to three
servings of whole grains each day were 30 percent less likely to have
developed type 2 diabetes compared to those who rarely ate whole
grains.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Grains. Available at:
<a href="https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/grains">https://www.myplate.gov/eat-healthy/grains</a>.
\49\ Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, The Nutrition
Source--Whole Grains. Available at: <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/">https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/</a>. See footnote 7:
Mellen PB, Walsh TF, Herrington DM. Whole grain intake and
cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis.
2008;18:283-90.
\50\ Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, The Nutrition
Source--Whole Grains. Available at: <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/">https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/</a>. See footnote 9:
de Munter JS, Hu FB, Spiegelman D, Franz M, van Dam RM. Whole grain,
bran, and germ intake and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective
cohort study and systematic review. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research also demonstrates that USDA standards make a difference in
children's consumption of whole grain foods. For example, a USDA study
found that the ratio of whole grain to total grain consumption in
children's total diets nearly doubled from SY 2003-2004 to SY 2013-
2014. This study suggested an association between school meal standards
and higher whole grain consumption by school children, and noted that
repeated exposure to a food, such as through school meals, increases an
individual's preference for it. In the case of whole grains, the study
suggested repeated exposure in school may encourage children's whole
grain consumption outside of school and in later years.\51\
Additionally, USDA research found that in SY 2014-2015, the Healthy
Eating Index (HEI) component score for whole grains was 95 percent of
the maximum score at breakfast and at lunch. This represents a
significant increase compared to SY 2009-2010, when the average score
at breakfast was 38 percent and the average score at lunch was 25
percent of the maximum score.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Schoolchildren Consumed
More Whole Grains Following Change in School Meal Standards.
February 3, 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2020/february/schoolchildren-consumed-more-whole-grains-following-change-in-school-meal-standards/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2020/february/schoolchildren-consumed-more-whole-grains-following-change-in-school-meal-standards/</a>. Drawn from: ``Dietary
Guidance and New School Meal Standards: Schoolchildren's Whole Grain
Consumption Over 1994-2014,'' by Biing-Hwan Lin, Joanne F. Guthrie,
and Travis A. Smith, American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
(doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2019.01.010), January 2019.
\52\ In SY 2014-2015, all grains offered in the NSLP and SBP
were required to be whole grain-rich; however school food
authorities that demonstrated a hardship in meeting this requirement
could seek an exemption that allowed for meeting a relaxed
requirement that at least 50 percent of all grains must be whole
grain-rich. See Figure ES.14. And Figure ES.17. School Nutrition and
Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics
of School Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, Katherine Niland,
Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and
Tara Wommak. Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April
2019. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/
31/2017.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the 80 percent whole grain-rich standard does not fully
meet the Dietary Guidelines recommendation that at least half of total
grains should be whole grains, it does encourage increased consumption
of whole grain-rich foods while allowing menu planners some flexibility
to provide regional and cultural favorites that are not whole grain-
rich. This limited flexibility responds to public comments and points
made during USDA's listening sessions with child nutrition program
stakeholders, who emphasized the importance of ensuring that school
meal standards meet cultural preferences. For example, white rice and
non-whole grain-rich tortillas were cited as foods that schools would
like to continue to occasionally serve as part of school lunch. The 80
percent threshold is a minimum standard, not a maximum; schools that
are able to offer all grains as whole grain-rich are encouraged to
exceed the proposed standard. USDA encourages schools to incorporate
more whole grain-rich products in the breakfast and lunch menus in a
way that children will enjoy.
Many corn-based products commonly served in schools (including
certain breakfast cereals, tortillas, and grits) are whole grain-rich
and count towards the whole grain-rich requirements in the school meal
programs. For example, ingredients labeled hominy, corn masa, and masa
harina are considered whole grain-rich. For more information about
crediting these foods and other products made from cornmeal, corn
flour, etc. in the school meal programs, please see the policy
memorandum Crediting Coconut, Hominy, Corn Masa and Masa Harina in the
Child Nutrition Programs.\53\ Additionally, all fortified, ready-to-eat
breakfast cereal, including corn-based cereal, can contribute to school
meal requirements if the ingredient statement of a corn-based, ready-
to-eat breakfast-s the total grains component, in the amount of up to
20 percent of the weekly grains requirement in this proposed rule. All
ready-to-eat breakfast cereals with at least 50 percent whole grain
ingredients (whole grain as the primary grain ingredient) contribute to
the whole grain-rich requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. Crediting Coconut, Hominy,
Corn Masa and Masa Harina in the Child Nutrition Programs. August
22, 2019. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/crediting-coconut-hominy-corn-masa-and-masa-harina-child-nutrition-programs">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/crediting-coconut-hominy-corn-masa-and-masa-harina-child-nutrition-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Availability
USDA recognizes that many stakeholders are concerned about product
availability, particularly in relation to recent supply chain
challenges. The past several years have been incredibly difficult for
school food service professionals, and USDA acknowledges that some of
these challenges will continue for some time. However, USDA also
appreciates the importance of maintaining strong nutrition standards
for the long term and encouraging schools to provide children with the
most nutritious meals possible.
As noted, manufacturers are working to increase whole grain-rich
options. In public comments submitted on the transitional standards
rule, food industry respondents emphasized progress made toward
expanding whole grain-rich offerings. For example, one respondent
described recent efforts to enhance its K-12 portfolio to provide whole
grain-rich items that are good sources of protein and low in sodium.
Another described a significant initiative in the early 2000s to
increase the whole grain content in its products based on dietary
recommendations, as well as further innovations following USDA's 2012
school nutrition rule. Industry respondents also described success in
developing whole grain-rich products that children enjoy. USDA
encourages other food manufacturers to expand their whole grain-rich
offerings and invites public comment regarding any specific challenges
in this area. Additionally, USDA reminds stakeholders that a variety of
whole-grain rich products are available through the USDA Foods program.
In SY 2022-2023, the following whole grain-rich products were available
through USDA Foods: cereal, flour, oats,
[[Page 8065]]
pancakes, pasta (including macaroni, penne, rotini, and spaghetti),
rice, and tortillas. USDA Foods also provided fish with whole grain-
rich breading.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Foods Available List
for SY 2023. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-fis/usda-foods-available">https://www.fns.usda.gov/usda-fis/usda-foods-available</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comments Requested
For the final rule, USDA is considering two different options and
invites comments on both:
<bullet> Maintaining the current requirement that at least 80
percent of the weekly grains offered are whole grain-rich, based on
ounce equivalents of grains offered; or
<bullet> Requiring that all grains offered must meet the whole
grain-rich requirement, except that one day each school week, schools
may offer enriched grains.
USDA will consider the following questions when developing the
final rule and may incorporate changes to the whole grains proposal
based on public input. USDA invites public input on both these options
in general, and requests specific input on the following questions:
<bullet> Which option would be simplest for menu planners to
implement, and why?
<bullet> Which option would be simplest to monitor, and why?
Section 5: Sodium
Current Requirement
Current regulations at 7 CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 220.8(f) require
schools to meet Sodium Target 1 for school lunch and breakfast,
effective SY 2022-2023. For school lunch only, schools are required to
meet Sodium Target 1A beginning in SY 2023-2024. These standards are
shown in the tables below:
National School Lunch Program Transitional Sodium Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: Interim Target 1A:
Age/grade group effective July 1, effective July 1,
2022 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades K-5...................... <=1,230 mg........ <=1,110 mg.
Grades 6-8...................... <=1,360 mg........ <=1,225 mg.
Grades 9-12..................... <=1,420 mg........ <=1,280 mg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Breakfast Program Transitional Sodium Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target 1: effective July 1,
Age/grade group 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades K-5................................ <=540 mg.
Grades 6-8................................ <=600 mg.
Grades 9-12............................... <=640 mg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current sodium limits apply to the average lunch and breakfast
offered during the school week; they do not apply per day, per meal, or
per menu item. This means that specific products are not held to
specific sodium limits, but rather, meals must fit in to the overall
weekly limit. Menu planners may occasionally offer higher sodium meals,
menu items, or products if they are balanced out with lower sodium
meals, menu items, or products throughout the school week.
For comparison, the 2012 final rule \55\ included three
transitional targets (Target 1, Target 2, and the Final Target) to
reduce sodium intake over a 10-year period. However, successive
legislative and administrative action prevented implementation of
sodium targets beyond Target 1 from occurring.\56\ Prior to the COVID-
19 pandemic, in SY 2019-2020, schools were required to meet Sodium
Target 1. According to a USDA study, in SY 2014-2015, on average, 72
percent of weekly lunch menus met Sodium Target 1 and another 13
percent were within 10 percent of the target. For breakfast, 67 percent
of weekly menus met Sodium Target 1, and another 10 percent of weekly
menus were within 10 percent of the target.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088, January 26, 2012). Available at:
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition-standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition-standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs</a>.
\56\ See page 6997 of Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional
Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium (87 FR 6984, February
7, 2022). Available at: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/07/2022-02327/child-nutrition-programs-transitional-standards-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium#footnote-29-p6991</a>.
\57\ See Table C.14 and Table E.14. School Nutrition and Meal
Cost Study, Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of
School Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, Katherine Niland,
Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and
Tara Wommak. Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April
2019. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/
31/2017.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA is applying lessons learned from implementation of the 2012
sodium standards to this rulemaking. The transitional standards rule
removed Sodium Target 2 and the Final Target from the regulations and
noted that this forthcoming proposed rule would address longer-term
sodium standards. USDA has determined that a more gradual approach to
sodium reduction, when compared to the original schedule outlined in
the 2012 rule, is more likely to be achieved and thus would better meet
the needs of schools and students. Studies have noted that
implementation of sodium reductions take time and effort. For example,
one study noted several considerations, such as environmental context,
potential barriers to implementation, the importance of technical
assistance, and the need for buy-in from partners to successfully
reduce sodium.\58\ Another study focused on community-wide sodium
reduction efforts recommended designing programs ``to reduce sodium
gradually to take into account consumer preferences and taste
transitions.'' \59\ As detailed in the following Stakeholder Engagement
section, USDA acknowledges that some stakeholders would prefer a more
rapid approach to sodium reduction in schools, including a return to
the 2012 sodium standards. USDA appreciates the strong commitment these
individuals and organizations have to children's dietary health.
However, as explained under Proposed Standard, USDA expects this
proposed approach to be a more viable option, based in part on its
alignment with FDA's voluntary sodium reduction targets. USDA expects
further sodium reductions in school meals to be achievable as even more
new and reformulated food products that align with FDA's voluntary
targets become available over time. USDA expects that FDA's voluntary
sodium reduction goals will support children's acceptance of school
lunches and breakfasts with less sodium, as the incremental school meal
reductions will occur alongside sodium
[[Page 8066]]
reductions in the broader U.S. food supply. As explained below, the
average American's sodium daily intake is about 48 percent higher than
the daily recommended limit for those 14 years and older. Taken
together, efforts by FDA and USDA support a broad, government-wide
effort to improve dietary patterns and reduce average sodium intake
across the U.S. population, including among school children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Cummings PL, Kuo T, Gase LN, Mugavero K. Integrating sodium
reduction strategies in the procurement process and contracting of
food venues in the County of Los Angeles government, 2010-2012. J
Public Health Manag Pract. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1 Suppl 1):S16-22. doi:
10.1097/PHH.0b013e31829d7f63. PMID: 24322811; PMCID: PMC4450096.
Available at: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24322811/">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24322811/</a>.
\59\ Kane H, Strazza K, Losby JL, Lane R, Mugavero K, Anater AS,
Frost C, Margolis M, Hersey J. Lessons learned from community-based
approaches to sodium reduction. Am J Health Promot. 2015 Mar-
Apr;29(4):255-8. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.121012-ARB-501. Epub 2014 Feb 27.
PMID: 24575726; PMCID: PMC5379176. Available at: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379176/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5379176/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement on Sodium Standards: Public Comments and
Listening Sessions
USDA received extensive stakeholder input on the sodium standards
through public comments and listening sessions held in spring and
summer 2022. This section provides an overview of input received
through public comments, followed by input shared during the listening
sessions.
Public comments on the transitional standards rule provided
feedback on the transitional sodium standards, and in many cases,
provided USDA with suggestions to develop the standards proposed in
this rulemaking. Several respondents noted the importance of reducing
sodium in school meals to limit children's risk of chronic disease. An
advocacy organization focused on public health noted that most
Americans--including 9 out of 10 children--consume sodium at levels far
above the recommended limits, putting them at increased risk for
developing elevated blood pressure at an early age. An advocacy
organization focused on nutrition and science agreed, noting that
studies show a link between high blood pressure in childhood and high
blood pressure in adulthood. They also asserted that high blood
pressure in childhood is linked to early development of heart disease
and risk for premature death. One respondent who identified as a
pediatric cardiologist underscored these concerns and suggested
limiting sodium would benefit children's health.
An advocacy organization representing food and nutrition
professionals supported the transitional sodium standards and urged
USDA to continue reducing sodium in its future rulemaking. This
organization recognized the challenges of further reductions but
emphasized the importance of limiting sodium to reduce children's risk
of chronic disease. Another advocacy organization focused on public
health agreed that USDA made important progress with the transitional
sodium standards but must go further with its long-term standards.
Several respondents commented on the sodium targets from the 2012
rule. A few advocacy organizations recommended that USDA reestablish
Sodium Target 2 and the Final Target, and some respondents suggested
USDA establish an additional target below the Final Target. Conversely,
a school food service respondent expressed uncertainty about schools'
ability to further reduce sodium, arguing that levels below Target 1A
would result in ``bland'' food and reduced student participation. An
industry respondent suggested that USDA extend the transition to Target
2 for several years and advised against returning to the Final Target.
A school nutrition director opposed sodium reductions in school meals,
noting that schools struggle to meet the current standard and claiming
that further reductions would negatively impact the taste of the meals.
Another opponent suggested that sodium reductions are not needed and
would decrease student acceptance.
Respondents also acknowledged the importance of product
reformulation, taste testing, and recipe adjustments in achieving
sodium reductions. Several respondents suggested that successful
product reformulation is the most significant challenge to sodium
reduction in school meals. A trade association asserted that it takes
over a year to develop or reformulate products, and that some companies
do not have the resources for research and development; other
respondents also mentioned the cost of reformulation. An industry
respondent asserted that many companies view USDA's sodium limits as
``overly restrictive''; they claimed that further reductions would
result in manufacturers leaving the school market. Some industry
respondents, however, supported gradual sodium reductions in school
meals. For example, one respondent stated its commitment to reducing
sodium while maintaining quality and taste. Another industry respondent
suggested that all products in their K-12 portfolio could be included
in school meals within the weekly sodium standards; this respondent
intends to further reduce sodium in their products.
A few respondents commented on the timeframe for future sodium
reductions. One advocacy organization recognized that schools would
experience challenges achieving the sodium standards for multiple
reasons and suggested that USDA create a reasonable, practical timeline
to implement sodium standards. They stated that the timeline should
allow schools to plan, source, and test meals that are nutritious and
palatable. An industry respondent asserted that sodium reductions
should be phased in slowly over 15 years or more.
Listening session participants raised many similar themes. Many
participants, including State agencies and schools, acknowledged that
sodium reductions are a challenge, with some suggesting that they are a
greater challenge at lunch. Participants generally supported
maintaining weekly sodium limits, as opposed to transitioning to a
different sort of limit (such as per-product limits) because weekly
limits allow for more flexibility with menu planning. Listening session
participants also generally emphasized that gradual decreases are
preferable, as they allow children's taste preferences to adapt to
lower-sodium foods over time. However, listening session participants
representing the food industry emphasized the importance of knowing
what end point they are working towards, as this helps with product
reformulation efforts. Others, including participants representing
schools, also noted the importance of clear expectations for the long
term, so that they have adequate time to prepare for sodium reductions.
Proposed Standard
USDA proposes to establish weekly sodium limits, informed by FDA's
voluntary sodium reduction goals, with further reductions to support
closer alignment with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines. For school
lunch, this proposed rule would set forth three reductions, to be
phased in as follows and as shown in the chart below:
<bullet> SY 2025-2026: Schools will implement a 10 percent
reduction from SY 2024-2025 school lunch sodium limits.
<bullet> SY 2027-2028: Schools will implement a 10 percent
reduction from SY 2026-2027 school lunch sodium limits.
<bullet> SY 2029-2030: Schools will implement a 10 percent
reduction from SY 2028-2029 school lunch sodium limits.
[[Page 8067]]
Proposed National School Lunch Program Sodium Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sodium limit: effective Sodium limit: effective Sodium limit: effective
Age/grade group July 1, 2025 July 1, 2027 July 1, 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades K-5........................... <=1000 mg.............. <=900 mg............... <=810 mg.
Grades 6-8........................... <=1105 mg.............. <=990 mg............... <=895 mg.
Grades 9-12.......................... <=1150 mg.............. <=1035 mg.............. <=935 mg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because school breakfasts are closer to meeting dietary
recommendations for sodium than school lunches, this proposed rule
would set forth two reductions for school breakfasts, to be phased in
as follows and as shown in the chart below:
<bullet> SY 2025-2026: Schools will implement a 10 percent
reduction from SY 2024-2025 school breakfast sodium limits.
<bullet> SY 2027-2028: Schools will implement a 10 percent
reduction from SY 2026-2027 school breakfast sodium limits.
Proposed School Breakfast Program Sodium Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sodium limit: Sodium limit:
Age/grade group effective July 1, effective July 1,
2025 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades K-5...................... <=485 mg.......... <=435 mg.
Grades 6-8...................... <=540 mg.......... <=485 mg.
Grades 9-12..................... <=575 mg.......... <=520 mg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a best practice, USDA will also recommend sodium limits for
certain products, such as condiments and sandwiches, which are top
contributors of sodium in school lunch.\60\ This will support schools'
efforts to procure lower sodium products and meet the weekly limits.
USDA expects that FDA's voluntary sodium reduction targets will be
helpful in developing these best practice limits. USDA also invites
input from the public on which products it should develop best practice
sodium limits for, including what specific limits would be achievable
for schools and industry while still making a difference for children.
Meeting these best practice limits would be recommended, but not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ According to the School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, in
SY 2014-2015 in the NSLP, ``Overall, the top contributor of sodium
was condiments and toppings, followed by sandwiches with plain meat,
poultry, or fish; flavored fat-free milk; sandwiches with breaded
meat, poultry, or fish; and salad dressings.'' School Nutrition and
Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics
of School Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, Katherine Niland,
Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and
Tara Wommak. Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April
2019. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/
31/2017.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA expects that the implementation timeframes and the gradual
approach to sodium reductions outlined above will support
manufacturers' efforts to develop and reformulate food products, making
implementation more achievable for schools. It will also give schools
time to plan menus that gradually reduce sodium and maintain
palatability. In the years between now and SY 2025-2026, USDA
encourages schools to work towards lower sodium meals, and if possible,
to meet the proposed limits early. USDA invites public input on the
sodium proposals for school lunch and breakfast and is specifically
interested in input on the frequency of sodium reductions and the
proposed schedule for those reductions.
USDA recognizes that sodium reduction is challenging for schools
and that it involves many stakeholders, including nutrition and health
experts, the food industry, and other Federal partners. Successful
implementation of sodium reduction in school meals will require
commitment and support from each of these partners. USDA will evaluate
progress towards reducing sodium in school meals, as well as in the
broader marketplace, on an ongoing basis. USDA is also committed to
providing technical assistance and support to schools working to
implement the sodium reductions proposed in this rulemaking.
When determining the sodium limits for school lunch and breakfast,
it is important to remember that the limits established by USDA apply
to the meals as offered, and children's actual sodium intake is
dependent on the meals as consumed. When accounting for children's
consumption of meals, these proposed sodium reductions either approach
or meet dietary recommendations for sodium intake among school-aged
children. Most schools participate in offer versus serve, which allows
students to decline some components of a reimbursable meal as a way of
providing choice and reducing waste. Offer versus serve is mandatory at
lunch and optional at breakfast for high schools. For elementary and
middle schools, offer versus serve is optional in both programs. During
SY 2014-2015 over 80 percent of all elementary and middle schools used
offer versus serve at lunch.\61\ This means that most students
participating in the school lunch program have the option to decline
some food components and will therefore consume less sodium compared to
the complete lunch as menued. However, USDA also appreciates the
importance of gradually reducing the amount of sodium offered in meals
to support reducing children's sodium consumption over time; this
proposed rule works towards that goal. (See the Regulatory Impact
Analysis in Section 18: Procedural Matters, for more information.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See page 127 (A.25). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition
and Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 1: School Meal Program
Operations and School Nutrition Environments, by Sarah Forrestal,
Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, Christopher W. Logan, Patricia
Connor, Maria Boyle, Ayseha Enver, and Hiren Nissar. Project
Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available at:
<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB
Control Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA seeks comment on this proposed change, found in 7 CFR
210.10(c) and (f)(3) and 7 CFR 220.8(c) and (f)(3) of the proposed
regulatory text. Respondents are encouraged to comment on the limits
proposed, as well as the implementation timeframe.
In developing this proposal, USDA considered several important
factors, outlined below.
[[Page 8068]]
Impact of Sodium on Children's Health
The Dietary Guidelines recommend limiting foods and beverages high
in sodium, noting that ``there is very little room for food choices
that are high in sodium'' at most ages.\62\ However, average intakes of
sodium are currently high compared to recommendations. For example, a
USDA study found that during SY 2014-2015, over 80 percent of school-
aged children consumed more sodium than recommended.\63\ Another study
using 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data
found that most children (94 percent) had usual sodium intakes that
exceeded recommended intakes; this study found that there were no
differences based on participation in the school meal programs.\64\
Overall, average U.S. sodium intake is 3,400 mg per day. For
comparison, the Dietary Guidelines recommend adults and children 14
years and older limit sodium intake to less than 2,300 mg per day; the
recommendations for children 13 years and younger are even lower.\65\
When comparing the average American's sodium intake to recommendations,
the average American's daily intake is about 48 percent higher than the
recommended level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
\63\ See Table I.43. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition and
Meal Cost Study Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate
Waste, and Dietary Intakes Appendix I-P. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study">https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study</a>. (OMB Control
Number 0584-0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.)
\64\ Gleason, S., Hansen, D., Kline, N., Zvavitch, P., & Wakar,
B. (2022). Indicators of diet quality, nutrition, and health for
Americans by program participation status, 2011-2016: NSLP final
report. Prepared by Insight Policy Research. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support.
Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/diet-health-indicators-program-participation-status-2011-2016">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/diet-health-indicators-program-participation-status-2011-2016</a>.
\65\ See page 46. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at:
<a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the American Heart Association,\66\ excess sodium
intake is associated with higher blood pressure in children, and
children with high-sodium diets are almost 40 percent more likely to
have elevated blood pressure compared to children with lower-sodium
diets. About one in six children ages 8-17 years has raised blood
pressure.\67\ Further, high blood pressure in childhood is linked to
early development of heart disease. Conversely, lowering sodium intake
during childhood can reduce the risk for high blood pressure in
adulthood. High blood pressure is currently all too common in adults:
more than 4 in 10 adults in the U.S. have high blood pressure and that
number increases to almost 6 in 10 for non-Hispanic Black adults.\68\
As noted in a study published in 2015, ``available data are
sufficiently strong to recommend a lower sodium intake beginning early
in life,'' including through sodium reductions in school meals. This
study also noted that eating patterns, including preferences for foods
higher in sodium, are developed at a young age, concluding that ``the
most appropriate approach to halt [the hypertension] epidemic should
include prevention strategies that target children.'' \69\ Given the
potential long-term impact on children's health, as demonstrated
through numerous scientific studies, it is critical to reduce sodium
levels in school meals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ American Heart Association, Sodium and Kids. Available at:
<a href="https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sodium/sodium-and-kids">https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sodium/sodium-and-kids</a>.
\67\ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Reducing
Sodium in Children's Diets. Available at: <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/children-sodium/index.html">https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/children-sodium/index.html</a>.
\68\ Ostchega Y, Fryar CD, Nwankwo T, Nguyen DT. Hypertension
prevalence among adults aged 18 and over: United States, 2017-2018.
NCHS Data Brief, no 364. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health
Statistics. 2020. Available at: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32487290/">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32487290/</a>.
\69\ Appel, L.J., Lichtenstein, A.H., Callahan, E.A., Sinaiko,
A., Van Horn, L., & Whitsel, L. (2015). Reducing Sodium Intake in
Children: A Public Health Investment. Journal of clinical
hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 17(9), 657-662. Available at:
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.12615">https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.12615</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration Voluntary Sodium Reduction Goals
In October 2021, FDA issued short-term (2.5-year) voluntary sodium
reduction for 163 categories of processed, packaged, and prepared
foods. FDA's targets take into consideration the many functions of
sodium in food, including taste, texture, microbial safety, and
stability; the targets are intended to support increased food choice
for consumers seeking a diverse diet that is consistent with
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines by encouraging food
reformulation and new product development for Americans. The targets in
FDA's guidance seek to support decreasing average U.S. population
sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg to 3,000 mg per day, about a
12 percent reduction by encouraging food manufacturers, restaurants,
and food service operations to gradually reduce sodium in foods over
time. FDA's voluntary sodium reduction goals are expected to support
school efforts to procure lower-sodium products for use in school
meals.
The sodium limits in this proposed rule are informed by FDA's
voluntary sodium reduction goals. FDA's goals are not intended to focus
on foods (e.g., milk) that contain only naturally occurring sodium, and
were developed to reflect reformulation in targeted foods, where an
actionable reduction could occur, while still allowing for naturally
occurring sodium in items such as milk, fresh fruit, and fresh
vegetables. To develop the proposed school meal sodium limits, USDA
used the average short-term FDA targets for foods commonly served in
school lunch and breakfast to calculate a baseline menu goal for weekly
sodium limits for each meal; this calculation resulted in an initial 10
percent reduction from the transitional sodium limits. However, USDA
recognized that further incremental sodium reductions are needed to
support children's long-term health, particularly at lunch. USDA also
recognized that FDA expects to issue revised subsequent targets in the
next few years to facilitate a gradual, iterative process to reduce
sodium intake.\70\ Therefore, in addition to the initial 10 percent
reduction to the weekly sodium limits in SY 2025-2026, this rulemaking
proposes a second 10 percent reduction in SY 2027-2028 for both
programs. For school lunch only, this rulemaking proposes another 10
percent reduction for SY 2029-2030. When accounting for children's
consumption of meals, these proposed limits either approach or meet
dietary recommendations for sodium intake among school-aged children.
(See the Regulatory Impact Analysis in Section 18: Procedural Matters,
for more information). Further, USDA expects that this gradual approach
to sodium reduction would set schools and students up for success, as
research indicates gradual sodium reductions are less noticeable to
consumers.\71\ While the limits proposed in this rulemaking represent
significant progress towards reducing children's sodium intake, USDA is
committed to continually evaluating the sodium limits and how they
compare to dietary recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Sodium Reduction.
Available at:<a href="http://www.fda.gov/SodiumReduction">www.fda.gov/SodiumReduction</a>.
\71\ Institute of Medicine 2010. Strategies to Reduce Sodium
Intake in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/12818">https://doi.org/10.17226/12818</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, efforts by FDA and USDA support a broad,
government-wide effort to improve dietary patterns and reduce average
sodium intake
[[Page 8069]]
across the U.S. population, including among school children. USDA
expects further sodium reductions to be achievable as even more new and
reformulated food products that align with FDA's voluntary targets
become available. Aligning school meal sodium limits with FDA's
voluntary sodium reduction goals may help support children's acceptance
of school lunches and breakfasts with less sodium, as the school meal
reductions will occur alongside sodium reductions in the broader U.S.
food supply.
Public Comments Requested
USDA will consider the following questions when developing the
final rule and may incorporate changes to the sodium proposal based on
public input. USDA invites public input on this proposal in general,
and requests specific input on the following questions:
<bullet> USDA plans to recommend (but not require) sodium limits
for certain products, such as condiments and sandwiches, to further
support schools' efforts to procure lower sodium products and meet the
weekly limits.
[cir] For which products should USDA develop best practice sodium
limits?
[cir] What limits would be achievable for schools and industry,
while still supporting lower-sodium meals for children?
<bullet> Does the proposed implementation timeframe provide
appropriate lead time for manufacturers and schools to successfully
implement the new sodium limits?
<bullet> Do commenters agree with USDA's proposed schedule for
incremental sodium reductions, including both the number and level of
sodium reductions and the timeline, or suggest an alternative? Why?
Section 6: Menu Planning Options for American Indian and Alaska Native
Students
Current Requirement
Current regulations at 7 CFR 210.10(m)(3) encourage schools to
``consider ethnic and religious preferences when planning and preparing
meals.'' The meal pattern standards allow a wide variety of foods to be
served to meet the meal component requirements, including foods
traditional to Native American and Alaska Native communities (See
Section 7: Traditional Foods). However, any efforts to meet student
preferences must follow the meal pattern standards outlined in
regulation. At the same time, USDA currently allows schools in American
Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to serve vegetables
such as yams, plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the grains
component. The option is intended to accommodate cultural food
preferences and to address product availability and cost concerns in
these areas.
On February 10, 2022, USDA released its Equity Action Plan,\72\
which details action the Department will take to advance equity,
including a focus on increasing Tribal trust. The Equity Action Plan
highlights the importance of considering policy design and
implementation to ensure Tribal communities have equitable access to
Federal programs and services, including incorporating indigenous
values and perspectives in program design and delivery. In this plan,
USDA also committed to reviewing ``current statutory authorities,
regulations, and policies that can be used to promote tribal
sovereignty and self-determination throughout USDA, with an eye towards
expansion.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Equity Action Plan in
Support of Executive Order (E.O.) 13985 Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government,
February 10, 2022. Available at: <a href="https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan">https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments and Listening Sessions
Several comments on the transitional standards rule addressed the
importance of meeting dietary needs and preferences of students,
including those of American Indian and Alaska Native students. For
example, several respondents submitted written comments noting that the
Dietary Guidelines \73\ recognize the importance of personal, cultural,
and traditional dietary preferences, and these respondents suggested
that USDA's meal patterns do the same. One advocacy organization
emphasized that all children should be able to consume a school meal
that supports their culture and health needs. Another advocacy
organization encouraged USDA to obtain feedback from schools that serve
a high proportion of students of color or indigenous students when
developing the proposed rule. This organization suggested that USDA
elevate strategies to meet nutritional goals, develop meal patterns
that celebrate students' cultural heritage, and encourage culturally
relevant foods. Similarly, an industry association suggested that the
school meal programs need to do more to promote equity and expand
culturally appropriate meal options for children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The Dietary Guidelines are described as a framework that
may be customized to fit cultural traditions. See page 27. U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition.
December 2020. Available at: <a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral comments were submitted in listening sessions that USDA
conducted with Tribal stakeholders in spring 2022. During these
sessions, participants suggested that USDA provide some latitude so
that schools can offer meals that better align with student's food
traditions. For example, many participants expressed concern about milk
requirements, considering the high percentage of children with lactose
intolerance in indigenous communities. Many Tribal stakeholders,
including indigenous nutritionists, expressed concern about the grains
requirements as a poor nutritional match for indigenous children and a
contributory factor to the high diabetes rates in indigenous
communities. These stakeholders requested indigenous starchy vegetables
be allowed as a grain substitute, and for USDA to invest in more
research into how the Dietary Guidelines work or do not work for
indigenous communities.
Proposed Standard
USDA proposes to add tribally operated schools, schools operated by
the Bureau of Indian Education, and schools serving primarily American
Indian or Alaska Native children to the list of schools \74\ that may
serve vegetables to meet the grains requirement, and requests public
input on additional menu planning options that would improve the child
nutrition programs for American Indian and Alaska Native children. USDA
also proposes to revise the current regulatory text at 7 CFR
210.10(c)(3) and 220.8(c)(3) to clarify that this provision also allows
the substitution of traditional vegetables such as prairie turnips.
While the proposed list of specific vegetables is not exclusive, USDA
welcomes public input on any other vegetables that should be listed in
the regulatory text. This proposal is also extended to the CACFP and
SFSP: USDA proposes to revise 7 CFR 225.16(f)(3) and 226.20(f) to allow
institutions and facilities, or sponsors, as applicable, that serve
primarily American Indian or Alaska Native children to substitute
vegetables for grains or breads. Additionally, USDA proposes to include
schools in Guam and Hawaii in this provision for all programs, to
reflect cultural food preferences. Schools, institutions,
[[Page 8070]]
facilities, and sponsors would not be required to submit a request for
approval to use this option; it would be automatically available to any
qualifying school, institution, facility, or sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As noted above, USDA currently allows schools in American
Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to serve vegetables
such as yams, plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the grains
component. See 7 CFR 210.10(c)(3) and 220.8(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the NSLP and SBP, the school food authority would be
responsible for maintaining documentation to demonstrate that the
schools using this option are tribally operated, are operated by the
Bureau of Indian Education, or serve primarily American Indian or
Alaska Native students. This documentation would be maintained for
program reviews. For example, this documentation could be a certifying
statement indicating that the school is tribally operated or operated
by the Bureau of Indian Education. By ``schools serving primarily
American Indian or Alaska Native children,'' USDA intends to include
schools where American Indian or Alaska Native children represent the
largest demographic group of enrolled children. This could be based on
participant self-reporting, school data, or census data; to meet the
documentation requirement, these schools could, for example, maintain
aggregate data regarding their student demographics.
For the CACFP and SFSP, the institution, facility, or sponsor would
also be required to maintain documentation demonstrating that the site
qualifies for this menu planning option. For CACFP and SFSP, the
determination that an institution, facility, or sponsor serves
primarily American Indian or Alaska Native children would be made in
one of two ways:
<bullet> For enrolled sites, the institution, facility, or sponsor
determines, based on participant self-reporting, that American Indian
or Alaska Native children represent the largest demographic group of
enrolled children.
<bullet> For non-enrolled sites, the institution, facility, or
sponsor determines that American Indian or Alaska Native children
represent the largest demographic group of children served by the site,
based on school or census data.
This action builds on the commitment USDA made in its Equity Action
Plan \75\ to adapt its programs to include Tribal values and indigenous
perspectives, including supporting traditional food ways. At the same
time, USDA acknowledges that for decades, the United States government
actively sought to eliminate traditional American Indian and Alaska
Native ways of life--for example, by forcing indigenous families to
send their children to boarding schools. This separated indigenous
children from their families and heritage, and disrupted access to
traditional foods, altering indigenous children's relationship to
food.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Equity Action Plan in
Support of Executive Order (E.O.) 13985 Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities through the Federal Government,
February 10, 2022. Available at: <a href="https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan">https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan</a>.
\76\ National Museum of the American Indian, Struggling with
Cultural Repression, Chapter 3: Boarding Schools. Available at:
<a href="https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/boarding-schools/">https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/boarding-schools/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA recognizes that this rulemaking is just one small step in a
larger effort towards improving the child nutrition programs for
American Indian and Alaska Native children and encourages input on
other steps the Department can take to improve the programs for
American Indian and Alaska Native children. For example, USDA is
interested in other specific areas of the school meal pattern that
present challenges to serving culturally appropriate meals,
specifically regarding any regulatory requirements in 7 CFR 210.10 and
220.8. This could include, for example, meal component requirements
that present barriers to serving culturally appropriate meals.
Individuals and organizations are encouraged to provide feedback on
specific regulatory requirements outlined at:
<bullet> 7 CFR 210.10(c), (d), (e), and (f)
<bullet> 7 CFR 220.8(c), (d), (e), and (f)
Based on public input, in the final rule, USDA may incorporate
additional menu planning options for schools that are tribally
operated, are operated by the Bureau of Indian Education, or serve
primarily American Indian or Alaska Native students. Alternatively,
USDA may also consider finalizing a process by which these schools
could request, on a case-by-case basis, menu planning options for USDA
approval, provided the requests reasonably align with meal pattern
requirements. If finalized, either of these options would be in
addition to the proposal included in this rulemaking. These potential
options, if finalized, would not relax the nutrition standards, but
instead would allow schools to use an alternative approach to achieve
the goal of providing healthy meals for their students. USDA greatly
appreciates public input on this topic, particularly from members of
American Indian or Alaska Native communities.
These proposed changes are found in 7 CFR 210.10(c)(3),
220.8(c)(3), 225.16(f)(3), and 226.20(f) of the proposed regulatory
text.
Public Comments Requested
USDA will consider the following questions when developing the
final rule and may incorporate changes to this proposal based on public
input. Additionally, in the final rule, USDA may consider additional
menu planning options for schools that are tribally operated, are
operated by the Bureau of Indian Education, or serve primarily American
Indian or Alaska Native children, based on public input. USDA invites
public input on this proposal and the alternatives in general, and
requests specific input on the following question:
<bullet> USDA requests public input on additional menu planning
options that would improve the school meal programs for American Indian
and Alaska Native children. Are there other specific areas of the
school meal pattern that present challenges to serving culturally
appropriate meals for American Indian and Alaska Native children,
specifically regarding any regulatory requirements in 7 CFR 210.10 and
220.8?
Section 7: Traditional Foods
Current Requirement
Information about crediting foods in the school meal programs is
primarily communicated through USDA guidance, rather than regulation.
As such, while traditional foods are not explicitly mentioned in the
school lunch and breakfast program regulations, they may be served in
reimbursable school meals in accordance with USDA guidance.
USDA does not define the term ``traditional foods;'' however, the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2014, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1685(b)(5))
defines traditional food as ``food that has traditionally been prepared
and consumed by an [American] Indian tribe'' and includes the following
foods in its definition: wild game meat; fish; seafood; marine mammals;
plants; and berries. USDA acknowledges that there are 574 federally
recognized tribes in the United States and appreciates the importance
of recognizing the diversity of American Indian and Alaska Native
cultures and traditions, including food traditions.
The Food Buying Guide \77\ is the USDA's main resource for
determining how specific foods credit towards the meal pattern
requirements. While the Food Buying Guide provides a broad list of
products commonly served in the child nutrition programs, it does not
[[Page 8071]]
provide yield information on every possible food served in a
reimbursable meal; for example, some traditional foods are not listed
in the Food Buying Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Buying Guide for Child
Nutrition Programs. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/food-buying-guide-for-child-nutrition-programs">https://www.fns.usda.gov/tn/food-buying-guide-for-child-nutrition-programs</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, USDA issued policy guidance \78\ about serving traditional
foods in the child nutrition programs. In this guidance, USDA explained
that if a food is served as part of a reimbursable meal, but not listed
in the Food Buying Guide, the yield information of a similar food or
in-house yield \79\ may be used to determine the contribution towards
the meal pattern requirements. The 2015 guidance also explained how to
credit certain traditional foods, such as wild rice, blue cornmeal, and
ground buffalo. Other resources, such as USDA's fact sheet Bringing
Tribal Foods and Traditions Into Cafeterias, Classrooms, and
Gardens,\80\ encourage schools to incorporate traditional foods onto
their menus. USDA will work to incorporate the 2015 policy guidance
into the Food Buying Guide and will work on a multi-year initiative
with tribes to identify more traditional foods to provide yield
information and incorporate into the guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Child Nutrition Programs
and Traditional Foods, July 15, 2015. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/child-nutrition-programs-and-traditional-foods">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/child-nutrition-programs-and-traditional-foods</a>.
\79\ Information on calculating in-house yield data may be found
on page I-5 of the Food Buying Guide.
\80\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bringing Tribal Foods and
Traditions Into Cafeterias, Classrooms, and Gardens, August 2017.
Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cfs/bringing-tribal-foods-and-traditions-cafeterias-classrooms-and-gardens">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cfs/bringing-tribal-foods-and-traditions-cafeterias-classrooms-and-gardens</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments and Listening Sessions
Although the transitional standards rule did not include a
traditional foods provision, a handful of written comments and dozens
of oral comments provided by Tribal stakeholders addressed this topic.
For example, one advocacy organization asserted that many Tribal
communities would like to serve traditional foods in the school meal
programs and suggested that promoting the service of such foods is an
important part of an equitable school meal program.
During USDA's listening sessions with Tribal stakeholders,
participants highlighted the importance of serving traditional foods in
the school meal programs, as well as local and traditional fruits,
starchy vegetables, meats, and fish. Participants also discussed the
financial and regulatory challenges of fuller incorporation of such
traditional foods into school meals and expressed their position that
traditional foods are nutritionally a better match for indigenous
children. Tribal stakeholders emphasized that what constitutes
``traditional foods'' varies by Tribal community.
Proposed Change
USDA proposes to explicitly state in regulation that traditional
foods may be served in reimbursable school meals. The intent of this
change is to emphasize USDA's support for integrating traditional foods
into the school meal programs. While many traditional foods may already
be served in the programs under existing USDA regulations and guidance,
USDA expects that this regulatory change to explicitly mention
traditional foods will help to address the perception that traditional
foods are not creditable, draw attention to the option to serve
traditional foods, and support local efforts to incorporate traditional
foods into school meals. Within its authority, USDA will work with
State agencies and schools to overcome any food safety, crediting, or
other barriers to serving traditional foods in school meals to fully
realize the intent of the change.
As noted, USDA does not define the term ``traditional food.'' By
``traditional food,'' USDA means the definition included in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2014, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1685(b)(5)),
which defines traditional food as ``food that has traditionally been
prepared and consumed by an [American] Indian tribe,'' including wild
game meat; fish; seafood; marine mammals; plants; and berries. USDA
intends for this term to be used broadly, to cover the diversity of
food traditions among American Indian and Alaska Native communities.
However, as noted below, USDA welcomes stakeholder input on use of this
term, and may adjust the term in the final rule based on this input.
This proposed change is found in 7 CFR 210.10(c)(7) and 220.8(c)(4)
of the proposed regulatory text.
Public Comments Requested
USDA recognizes that this change is just one part of a larger
effort to support the service of traditional foods in school meals.
USDA will consider the following questions when developing the final
rule and may incorporate changes to the traditional foods proposal
based on public input. USDA invites public input on this proposal in
general, and requests specific input on the following questions:
<bullet> USDA has provided guidance \81\ on crediting certain
traditional foods. Are there any other traditional foods that schools
would like to serve, but are having difficulty serving? If so, what
specific challenges are preventing schools from serving these foods?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Child Nutrition Programs
and Traditional Foods, July 15, 2015. Available at: <a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/child-nutrition-programs-and-traditional-foods">https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/child-nutrition-programs-and-traditional-foods</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Which traditional foods should USDA provide yield
information for and incorporate into the Food Buying Guide?
<bullet> Is ``traditional foods,'' as described in the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2014, as amended (25 U.S.C. 1685(b)(5)), an
appropriate term to use, or do stakeholders recommend a different term?
USDA greatly appreciates public input on this topic, particularly
from members of American Indian or Alaska Native communities.
Section 8: Afterschool Snacks
Current Requirement
According to the National School Lunch Act (NSLA, 42 U.S.C.
1766a(d)), the nutritional requirements for snacks served through the
CACFP \82\ also apply to afterschool snacks served by schools. USDA
updated the CACFP meal pattern standards in 2017 but did not make
corresponding updates to the standards in 7 CFR part 210 for
afterschool snacks served to school-aged children, which are also
referred to as ``meal supplements.'' As such, current regulations at 7
CFR 210.10(o)(2) outlining the standards for afterschool snacks served
under 7 CFR part 210 for school-aged children are outdated and do not
reflect statutory requirements. As outlined at 7 CFR 210.10(o)(3),
afterschool snacks served to preschool-aged children already follow the
CACFP meal pattern standards. To avoid confusion with afterschool
snacks served through the CACFP, the remainder of this preamble will
refer to afterschool snacks served by schools under 7 CFR part 210 as
``NSLP snacks.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The nutrition standards for snacks served through the CACFP
are found at 7 CFR 226.20(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Standard
USDA proposes to align NSLP snack standards for school-aged
children at 7 CFR 210.10(o) with the CACFP snack requirements, as
required by statute. The existing requirements for NSLP snacks served
to preschool-aged children and infants will remain in effect.
Under the proposed NSLP snack requirements for school-aged
children, reimbursable snacks would include two of the following five
components, as is currently required for CACFP snacks:
<bullet> Milk
<bullet> Vegetables
[[Page 8072]]
<bullet> Fruits
<bullet> Grains
<bullet> Meats/meat alternates (or ``protein sources,'' as
proposed; see Section 15: Miscellaneous Changes)
USDA also proposes applying the following CACFP snack requirements
to NSLP snacks served to school-aged children:
<bullet> Only one of the two components served at snack may be a
beverage.
<bullet> Milk must be unflavored or flavored fat-free (skim) or
low-fat (1 percent fat or less) milk for children 6 years old and
older.
<bullet> At least one serving of grains per day, across all eating
occasions, must be whole grain-rich.
<bullet> Grain-based desserts do not count towards meeting the
grains requirement.
<bullet> As proposed in Section 2: Added Sugars, breakfast cereals
must contain no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce.
<bullet> As proposed in Section 2: Added Sugars, yogurt must
contain no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces.
For simplicity, USDA proposes to create one NSLP snack meal pattern
chart in 7 CFR 210.10(o) by adding a column for children ages 6 and
over to the existing meal pattern chart for NSLP snacks served to
preschoolers. Additionally, USDA proposes to change all regulatory
references in 7 CFR part 210 from ``meal supplements'' to ``afterschool
snacks.''
USDA seeks comment on this proposed change, found in 7 CFR
210.10(o) of the proposed regulatory text.
Section 9: Substituting Vegetables for Fruits at Breakfast
Current Requirement
Current regulations at 7 CFR 220.8(c) and (c)(2)(ii) allow schools
to substitute vegetables for fruits at breakfast, provided that the
first two cups per week are from the dark green, red/orange, beans and
peas (legumes) or other vegetable subgroups. However, in recent years,
through Federal appropriations, Congress has provided school food
authorities the option to substitute any vegetable--including starchy
vegetables--for fruits at breakfast, with no vegetable subgroup
requirements.
USDA recognizes that it is confusing for State agencies and schools
to have a requirement in regulation and policy that is repeatedly
changed through Congressional action. As noted in Section 1:
Background, child nutrition stakeholders have requested stability in
program requirements. To better meet these expectations and support
schools, USDA intends to establish a durable standard that continues to
encourage vegetable variety at breakfast.
Proposed Change
USDA proposes to continue to allow schools to substitute vegetables
for fruits at breakfast, but changes the vegetable variety requirement.
Under this proposal, schools that substitute vegetables for fruits at
breakfast more than one day per school week would be required to offer
a variety of vegetable subgroups. In other words, schools that
substitute vegetables more than one day per school week would be
required to offer vegetables from at least two subgroups.
According to the Dietary Guidelines, healthy dietary patterns
include a variety of vegetables from all five vegetable subgroups. The
Dietary Guidelines also note that for most individuals, following a
healthy eating pattern will require an increase in total vegetable
intake and an increase from all vegetable subgroups.\83\ While the
Dietary Guidelines recommend increasing consumption of vegetables in
general, they note that starchy vegetables are more frequently consumed
by children and adolescents than the red and orange; dark green; or
beans, peas, and lentils vegetable subgroups, underscoring the need for
variety. This proposal continues to encourage schools opting to serve
vegetables at breakfast to offer a variety of subgroups, but in a way
that is less restrictive compared to the current regulatory standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See ``Vegetables,'' page 31. U.S. Department of Agriculture
and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020-2025 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition. December 2020. Available at:
<a href="https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/">https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposal, schools choosing to offer vegetables at
breakfast one day per school week would have the option to offer any
vegetable, including a starchy vegetable. The requirement to offer a
second vegetable subgroup would apply in cases where schools choose to
substitute vegetables for fruits at breakfast more than one day per
school week. For example, a school could substitute a starchy vegetable
for fruit at breakfast on Monday, then substitute a dark green
vegetable for fruit at breakfast on Tuesday. The rest of the week the
school could choose to substitute any vegetable, including a starchy
vegetable, for fruit at breakfast, since it would have met the variety
requirement by Tuesday. Consistent with current regulations, schools
are not required to offer vegetables at breakfast, and may choose to
offer only fruits at breakfast to meet this component requirement.
USDA seeks comment on this proposed change, found in 7 CFR
220.8(c)(2)(ii) of the proposed regulatory text.
Section 10: Nuts and Seeds
Current Requirement
Current regulations allow nuts and seeds and nut and seed butters
to be served as a meat/meat alternate in the child nutrition programs.
In all child nutrition programs, nut and seed butters may credit for
the full meat/meat alternate requirement. However, there is some
variation for crediting of actual nuts and seeds in the programs. Lunch
and supper regulations limit nut and seed crediting to 50 percent of
the meat/meat alternate component (7 CFR 210.10(c)(2)(i)(B),
225.16(d)(2), 225.16(e)(5), and 226.20(a)(5)(ii)). SBP regulations
include the same limit (7 CFR 220.8(c)(2)(i)(B)). CACFP regulations for
breakfast do not explicitly include the 50 percent limit for nuts and
seeds, but refer to USDA guidance, which includes the 50 percent limit
(7 CFR 226.20(a)(5)(ii)). Snack regulations and USDA guidance on snacks
do not include the 50 percent limit; nuts and seeds may credit for the
full meat/meat alternate component when offered as part of a snack (7
CFR 210.10(o)(2)(ii)(B), 7 CFR 225.16(e)(5), and 226.20(a)(5)(ii)). For
programs where nut and seed crediting is limited to 50 percent of the
meat/meat alternate component, program operators choosing to serve nuts
and seeds must serve them alongside another meat/meat alternate in
order to meet the component requirement.
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments
Although the transitional standards rule did not address nuts and
seeds, one respondent commented on nuts and seeds crediting. An
advocacy organization acknowledged the discrepancy between nut and seed
butter crediting compared to nut and seed crediting. They asserted that
the nutritional content of nuts and seeds does not change when these
foods are blended or pureed into butter form and stated that nuts and
seeds and their butters are nutritionally comparable to meat or other
meat alternates based on available nutritional data. This advocacy
organization supported allowing nuts and seeds to meet the full meat/
meat alternate component requirement.
[[Page 8073]]
Proposed Change
USDA proposes to allow nuts and seeds to credit for the full meat/
meat alternate (or protein source) component in all child nutrition
programs and meals. This proposal would remove the 50 percent crediting
limit for nuts and seeds at breakfast, lunch, and supper. This change
is intended to reduce complexity in the requirements by making the
requirements consistent across programs and by removing the discrepancy
between nut and seed crediting and nut and seed butter crediting. It
also provides more menu planning flexibility for program operators. As
noted in Section 15: Miscellaneous Changes, in this rulemaking, USDA is
also proposing to change the name of the meat/meat alternate meal
component in the NSLP, SBP, and CACFP regulations to ``protein
sources.'' However, current guidance for all programs still uses the
term ``meat/meat alternate.'' USDA is using both the current and
proposed component name in this section.
USDA expects that nuts and seeds will most often continue to be
offered in snacks, or in small amounts at breakfast, lunch, or supper
alongside other meat/meat alternates (or protein sources). However,
USDA is aware that nuts and seeds may also be used in larger quantities
in plant-based meals. For example, walnuts may be used as a substitute
for ground beef in tacos, and a variety of nuts may be used as a meat
replacement in burgers. While USDA does not necessarily think these
menu items will be common due to cost constraints, the Department does
not want to limit operators' ability to serve them.
There are several considerations program operators should keep in
mind when choosing to serve nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds are
generally not recommended to be served to children ages 1-3 since they
present a choking hazard. If served to very young children, nuts and
seeds should be finely minced. As always, program operators should also
be aware of food allergies among their participants and take the
necessary steps to prevent exposure. Finally, USDA encourages program
operators to serve nuts in their most nutrient-dense form, without
added sugars and salt. Program operators are also encouraged to choose
nutrient-dense nut and seed butters, and schools must consider the
contribution of these foods to the weekly limits for calories,
saturated fat, and sodium.
USDA seeks comment on this proposed change, found in 7 CFR
210.10(c)(2)(i)(B), 220.8(c)(2)(i)(B), 225.16(d)(2), 225.16(e)(5),
226.20(a)(5)(ii), and 226.20(c)(2) of the proposed regulatory text.
Section 11: Competitive Foods--Hummus Exemption
Current Requirement
The Child Nutrition Act, 42 U.S.C. 1778(b), requires USDA to
establish science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in
schools outside of the school meal programs. Current regulations at 7
CFR 210.11 establish the competitive foods, or ``Smart Snack''
standards. These standards help to promote healthy food choices and are
important to providing children with nutritious food options throughout
the school day.
To qualify as a Smart Snack, foods must meet nutrient standards for
calories, sodium, fats, and total sugars. The standards for total fat
and saturated fat are included at 7 CFR 210.11(f) and are as follows:
<bullet> The total fat content of a competitive food must be not
more than 35 percent of total calories from fat per item as packaged or
served.
<bullet> The saturated fat content of a competitive food must be
less than 10 percent of total calories per item as packaged or served.
At 7 CFR 210.11(f)(3), USDA has established exemptions to the total
fat and saturated fat standards for the following foods:
<bullet> Reduced fat cheese and part skim mozzarella cheese,
<bullet> Nuts and seeds and nut and seed butters,
<bullet> Products that consist only of dried fruit with nuts and/or
seeds with no added nutritive sweeteners, and
<bullet> Whole eggs with no added fat.
Additionally, according to 7 CFR 210.11(f)(2), seafood with no
added fat is exempt from the total fat standard, but subject to the
saturated fat standard. Other foods must meet the total fat and
saturated fat standards described at 7 CFR 210.11(f) to be sold as a
Smart Snack.
Stakeholder Engagement: Public Comments
Although the transitional standards rule did not address the total
fat and saturated fat standards for Smart Snacks, one food industry
respondent commented on this topic. This respondent stated that hummus,
which currently does not meet the fat standards, is primarily made with
wholesome ingredients recommended in the Dietary Guidelines. They also
suggested that hummus helps to promote the consumption of other
nutrient dense foods, like vegetables and whole grains. This respondent
suggested that USDA remove the total fat requirement from Smart Snack
regulations, but also provided some alternative suggestions to allow
hummus to be sold as a Smart Snack.
Proposed Change
USDA proposes to add hummus to the list of foods exempt from the
total fat standard in the competitive food, or Smart Snack,
regulations. Hummus would continue to be subject to the saturated fat
standard for Smart Snacks. This change would allow hummus, which is
already permitted as part of a reimbursable school meal, to also be
sold as a Smart Snack. It also aligns with other proposals in this
rulemaking by expanding schools' ability to provide vegetarian and
culturally appropriate foods to children. This narrow approach allows
schools to provide hummus, a nutrient-dense food option, for sale to
children while still maintaining the overall Smart Snack standards.
These standards are important to ensuring the food and beverage options
available to children during the school day support healthy eating.
Currently, there is no standard of identity for hummus. Therefore,
as part of this change, USDA will add the following definition for
hummus to the Smart Snack regulations: Hummus means, for the purpose of
competitive food standards implementation, a spread made from ground
pulses (beans, peas, and lentils), and ground nut/seed butter (such as
tahini [ground sesame], peanut butter, etc.) mixed with a vegetable oil
(such as olive oil, canola oil, soybean oil, etc.), seasoning (such as
salt, citric acid, etc.), vegetables and juice for flavor (such as
olives, roasted pepper, garlic, lemon juice, etc.). Manufactured hummus
may also contain certain ingredients necessary as preservatives and/or
to maintain freshness.
This change would apply to hummus as a standalone product; it would
not apply to combination products that include hummus, such as hummus
packaged for sale with pretzels, pita, or other snack-type foods.
Applying this exemption only to hummus would ensure that the other
foods children consume alongside hummus would still be subject to the
total fat standard. Children would have the option to purchase the
standalone hummus and a second standalone product that also meets the
Smart Snack standards, such as fresh carrots or whole grain-rich pita
bread.
USDA seeks comment on this proposed change, found in 7 CFR
[[Page 8074]]
210.11(a)(7) and 210.11(f)(2) of the proposed regulatory text.
Section 12: Professional Standards
Current Requirement
The Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C. 1776 (g)(1)(A)) requires the
Secretary to establish a program of education, training, and
certification for all school food service directors responsible for the
management of a school food authority, including minimum educational
requirements. In March 2015, USDA published a final rule implementing
this requirement, Professional Standards for State and Local School
Nutrition Programs Personnel as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010.\84\ Then, in March 2019, USDA published Hiring
Flexibility Under Professional Standards,\85\ a final rule that
provided flexibility to the hiring standards for new school nutrition
program directors in small local educational agencies. Current
regulations at 7 CFR 210.30(b)(1) outline the hiring standards for
school nutrition program directors; the standards vary for directors in
small, medium, and large local educationa
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on February 7, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.