Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

7/31/2019 Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

1/81

Vol. 77 Thursday,No. 17 January 26, 2012

Part II

Department of Agriculture

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 210 and 220Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School BreakfastPrograms; Final Rule

VerDate Mar2010 17:44 Jan 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26JAR2.SGM 26JAR2


2/81

4088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17/ Thursday, January 26, 2012/ Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 210 and 220

[FNS20070038]

RIN 0584AD59

Nutrition Standards in the NationalSchool Lunch and School BreakfastPrograms

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service(FNS), USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule updates themeal patterns and nutrition standardsfor the National School Lunch andSchool Breakfast Programs to align themwith the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans. This rule requires mostschools to increase the availability offruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-

free and low-fat fluid milk in schoolmeals; reduce the levels of sodium,saturated fat and trans fat in meals; andmeet the nutrition needs of schoolchildren within their calorierequirements. These improvements tothe school meal programs, largely basedon recommendations made by theInstitute of Medicine of the NationalAcademies, are expected to enhance thediet and health of school children, andhelp mitigate the childhood obesitytrend.

DATES: Effective date:This rule iseffective March 26, 2012.

Compliance date:Compliance withthe provisions of this rule must begin

July 1, 2012, except as otherwise notedon the implementation table provided inthe preamble under SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:William Wagoner or MarisolAldahondo-Aponte, Policy and ProgramDevelopment Branch, Child NutritionDivision, Food and Nutrition Service at(703) 3052590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

This final rule modifies several keyproposed requirements to respond tocommenter concerns and facilitatesuccessful implementation of therequirements at the State and locallevels. The rule phases in many of thechanges to help ensure that allstakeholdersthe children, the schools,and their supply chainshave time toadapt. Most notably, this final ruleprovides additional time forimplementation of the breakfastrequirements and modifies those

requirements in a manner that reducesthe estimated costs of breakfast changes,as compared to the proposed rule. As aresult, the final rule is estimated to add$3.2 billion to school meal costs over5 years, considerably less than theestimated cost of the proposed rule.

When considered in the context ofother related provisions of the Healthy

Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010,sufficient resources are expected to beavailable to school food authorities tocover the additional costs of updatedmeal offerings to meet the newstandards.

Specifically, in addition to improvingnutritional quality, the HHFKAmandated that beginning July 1, 2011,revenue streams for a la carte foodsrelative to their costs be at least as highas the revenue streams for Programmeals compared to their costs.Consequently schools should receiveover $1 billion a year in new foodrevenues beginning in School Year20112012. That will help schools worktoward implementing the new standardseffective the following year, i.e.,July 1,2012. In addition, USDA estimates thatthe School Food Authorities revenuesrule will increase participation inschool meal programs by 800,000children.

In addition, the six-cent per lunchperformance-based reimbursementincrease included in the HHFKA willprovide additional revenue beginningOctober 1, 2012. The CongressionalBudget Office estimated about $1.5

billion over 5 years will be provided in

performance-based funding.I. Background

The Richard B. Russell NationalSchool Lunch Act (NSLA) in Section9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requiresthat school meals reflect the latestDietary Guidelines for Americans(Dietary Guidelines). In addition,section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-FreeKids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111296,HHFKA) amended Section 4(b) of theNSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1753(b), to require theDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) toissue regulations to update the meal

patterns and nutrition standards forschool lunches and breakfasts based onthe recommendations issued by theFood and Nutrition Board of theNational Research Council of theNational Academies of Science, part ofthe Institute of Medicine (IOM). On

January 13, 2011, USDA published aproposed rule in the Federal Register(76 FR 2494) to update the meal patternsand nutrition standards for the NationalSchool Lunch Program (NSLP) and theSchool Breakfast Program (SBP) to alignthem with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines.

The proposed rule sought to increasethe availability of fruits, vegetables,whole grains, and fat-free and low-fatfluid milk in the school menu; reducethe levels of sodium, saturated fat andtrans fat in school meals; and meet thenutrition needs of school childrenwithin their calorie requirements. Theintent of the proposed rule was to

provide nutrient-dense meals (high innutrients and low in calories) that bettermeet the dietary needs of schoolchildren and protect their health. Theproposed changes, designed for mealsoffered to school children in gradesKindergarten (K) to 12, were largely

based on the IOM recommendations setforth in the report School Meals:Building Blocks for Healthy Children(October 2009).

In summary, the January 2011proposed rule sought to improvelunches and breakfasts by requiringschools to:

Offer fruits and vegetables as twoseparate meal components; Offer fruit daily at breakfast and

lunch; Offer vegetables daily at lunch,

including specific vegetable subgroupsweekly (dark green, orange, legumes,and other as defined in the 2005 DietaryGuidelines) and a limited quantity ofstarchy vegetables throughout the week;

Offer whole grains: half of thegrains would be whole grain-rich uponimplementation of the rule and allgrains would be whole-grain rich twoyears post implementation;

Offer a daily meat/meat alternate atbreakfast;

Offer fluid milk that is fat-free(unflavored and flavored) and low-fat(unflavored only);

Offer meals that meet specificcalorie ranges for each age/grade group;

Reduce the sodium content of mealsgradually over a 10-year period throughtwo intermediate sodium targets at twoand four years post implementation;

Prepare meals using food productsor ingredients that contain zero grams oftrans fat per serving;

Require students to select a fruit ora vegetable as part of the reimbursable

meal; Use a single food-based menuplanning approach; and

Use narrower age/grade groups formenu planning.

In addition, the proposed rule soughtto improve school meals by requiringState agencies (SAs) to:

Conduct a nutritional review ofschool lunches and breakfasts as part ofthe administrative review process;

Determine compliance with themeal patterns and dietary specifications

based on a review of menu and



3/81

4089Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17/ Thursday, January 26, 2012/ Rules and Regulations

production records for a two-weekperiod; and

Review school lunches andbreakfasts every 3 years, consistent withthe HHFKA.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines werereleased on January 31, 2011, afterUSDA published the proposed rule. On

March 21, 2011 USDA issued a Noticein the Federal Register (76 FR 15225)seeking public comment on the need tomodify the proposed rule to reflect the2010 Dietary Guidelinesrecommendations to consume red-orange vegetables and proteinsubgroups: (1) Seafood; (2) meat, poultryand eggs, and (3) nuts, seeds, and soyproducts. The public comments to theNotice (76 FR 15225) were added to theproposed rule docket and all commentsassociated with the proposed rule wereconsidered in preparing this final rule.

USDA received a total of 133,268public comments during the commentperiod January 13April 13, 2011. Thistotal included several singlesubmissions with thousands ofcomments. The types of commentsreceived included 7,107 unique letters,122,715 form letters from 159 mass mailcampaigns, 3,353 non-germane letters,and 93 duplicates. Comments wereanalyzed using computer software thatfacilitated the identification of the keyissues addressed by the commenters, aswell as by USDA policy officials.

Although USDA considered all

comments, the description and analysisin this final rule preamble focuses onthe most frequent comments and thosethat influenced revisions to theproposed rule, and discussesmodifications made to the proposed rulein response to public input. USDAgreatly appreciates the public commentsas they have been essential indeveloping a final rule that is expectedto improve school meals in a sound andpractical manner. To view all publiccomments on the proposed rule go towww.regulations.govand search forpublic submissions under docket

number FNS20070038. A Summary ofPublic Comments is available assupporting material under the docketfolder summary.

Note: This final rule does not update thePre-K school meal patterns. These are underreview and will be updated in a futurerulemaking amending regulationsimplementing the USDAs Child and AdultCare Food Program. However, two provisionsin this final rule, menu planning approachand fluid milk requirements, impact Pre-Kmeals as discussed later in this preamble.

II. Public Comments and USDAResponse

USDA received comments fromnutrition, health, and child advocates atthe national, state and local levels; SAsthat administer the school mealprograms; school districts/boards;schools; school food service staff;superintendents, principals, andteachers; food manufacturers anddistributors; food industryrepresentatives; food servicemanagement companies; academia;nutritionists/dietitians; communityorganizations; parents and students; andmany other interested groups andindividuals. Overall, the commentsprovided were generally moresupportive of the proposed rule thanopposed. Comments from nutrition,health and child advocates; communityorganizations; academia; and parentsfavor the proposed rule, citing concernabout the national childhood obesity

problem and the increased likelihood ofpreventable diseases such ascardiovascular disease, high bloodpressure, high cholesterol, stroke, andtype 2 diabetes, all of which increasethe cost of healthcare nationally. Manycomments enthusiastically supportedthe increase in fruits, vegetables, wholegrains, fat-free milk/low-fat milk in theschool menus, and most other proposedchanges designed to improve thenutritional quality of school meals.

Comments from SAs and school foodauthorities (SFAs), food industry,industry representatives, food service

management companies, and others inthe public and private sectors associatedwith the operation of the school mealsprograms also supported improvingschool meals but voiced strong concernsabout some aspects of the proposed rule.The proposed food quantities,meat/meat alternate component at

breakfast, weekly vegetable subgrouprequirement at lunch, starchy vegetableslimit, sodium reductions, whole grainsrequirement, and frequency ofadministrative review were the parts ofthe proposal that prompted most of theirconcerns. Program operators also raised

concerns about the rule cost andimplementation timeline, the impact ofthe proposed changes on studentparticipation in the meal programs, andthe potential for increased plate waste ifmeals are not acceptable to students. Anumber of commenters suggested thatUSDA conduct additional research orpilot test the proposed changes beforeimplementation. All of the aboveconcerns are more prevalent in the SBPthan the NSLP. Schools that operate theSBP voiced significant concern aboutthe estimated 50 cents increase in food

and labor costs for each reimbursablebreakfast in FY 2015, when all therequirements will be in place as statedin the proposed rule.

USDA has taken into considerationthe different views expressed bycommenters and seeks to be responsiveto the concerns raised by stakeholders,especially those responsible for the

management and day to day operationof the school meal programs. At thesame time, we are mindful that theoverweight and obesity epidemicaffecting many children in Americarequires that all sectors of our society,including schools, help children makesignificant changes in their diet toimprove their overall health and becomeproductive adults. This final rule makessignificant improvements to the NSLPand SBP to facilitate successfulimplementation of the requirements atthe State and local levels. This final rulemodifies several key proposed

requirements to respond to commenterconcerns as well as to addressrequirements of the Consolidated andFurther Continuing Appropriations Act,2012, Public Law 11255. Most notably,this final rule provides additional timefor implementation of the SBPrequirements and modifies thoserequirements in a manner that reducesthe estimated costs of breakfast changes,as compared to the proposed rule.

No changes to the SBP meal patterntake effect immediately uponpublication of this final rule, exceptlimiting flavor to fat-free milk, andrequiring the service of only fat-free and

low-fat milk (the latter is a statutoryrequirement codified in the NSLA in theHHFKA. See the discussion on Milkfor further details). Furthermore, thisrule introduces selected requirementsinto the SBP beginning SY 20132014(the second year of implementation) toease the estimated increase in breakfastcosts and minimize impact on SBPoperations. This approach is intended toenable program operators to concentrateon improving school lunches first andthen focus on the breakfast changes. Italso allows USDA to meet the statutoryrequirement to offer meals that reflect

the Dietary Guidelines while beingresponsive to the concerns raised byprogram operators and otherstakeholders. However, SFAs that areable to implement the new mealrequirements concurrently in the SBPand NSLP are encouraged to do so withSA approval.

Section G of the Regulatory ImpactAnalysis discusses in greater detail thekey differences between the proposedand final rules. Most of the estimatedreduction in cost is due to the policychanges discussed above, including the

http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/


4/81


phased in breakfast meal patternrequirements and the elimination of aseparate meat component at breakfast,as well as more modest changes to thelunch meal pattern requirements grainand vegetable components. In additionto these policy changes, lower foodinflation since preparation of theproposed rule cost estimate contributes

to the reduction in the cost of the finalrule compared to the proposed rule.

The following is a summary of the keypublic comments on the proposed ruleand USDAs response. Public commentsunrelated to the specific provisions ofthe rule (e.g., standards for cholesterol,dietary fiber, artificial sweeteners,caffeine) are not discussed here but areaddressed in the Summary of PublicComments. For a more detaileddiscussion of the public comments seethe Summary of Public Commentsposted online at www.Regulations.gov.

Menu Planning Approach

Proposed Rule:Follow a single Food-Based Menu Planning (FBMP) approach.

Comments:Nutrition, health andchild advocates; communityorganizations; academia; parents; andSAs support the FBMP approach

because it helps children easily identifythe key food groups necessary for awell-balanced meal. According to ahealth advocate, FBMP also minimizesthe opportunity to offer unhealthy foodsthat have been fortified to meet thenutrient requirements. SAs support asingle menu planning approach as itsupports a more cost effective delivery

of training and technical assistanceresources.

However, a number of SFAs thatcurrently use the Nutrient StandardMenu Planning (NSMP) and someschool advocacy organizations, tradeassociations, food manufacturers,nutritionists, and other commenterssuggested that NSMP be allowed as anoption. SFAs that use NSMP claimedthat they would still have to conduct anutrient analysis to assess if they aremeeting the new dietary specifications(calories, sodium, and saturated fatlevels). Several commenters also

claimed that NSMP schools are betterable to control costs and that changingto FBMP would result in increasedtraining costs. Some stated thateliminating NSMP decreases menuplanning flexibility and menu variety.

USDA Response:To ensure thatschool meals reflect the key food groupsrecommended by the DietaryGuidelines, this final rule establishesFBMP as the single menu planningapproach for the NSLP (including forPre-K meals) in SY 20122013. A singlefood-based menu planning approach

simplifies menu planning, serves as ateaching tool to help children choose a

balanced meal, and assures thatstudents nationwide have access to keyfood groups recommended by theDietary Guidelines. It also makes iteasier for schools to communicate themeal improvements to parents and thecommunity-at-large. Simplifying

program management, training andmonitoring is expected to result inprogram savings. Over 70 percent of theprogram operators currently use FBMP,and training and technical assistanceresources will be available to help allschools successfully transition to thenew meal patterns.

In response to commenters concernsabout the estimated cost increase of the

breakfast meal, this final rule givesthose SBP program operators notcurrently using FBMP additional time toconvert to this planning approach. SBPoperators who are not currently using

FBMP may continue with their currentmenu planning approach through SY20122013. However, all SBP operatorsmust use a single FBMP approach

beginning SY 20132014 (the secondyear of implementation).

This final rule sets forth the new food-based meal patterns in 7 CFR 210.10 forlunches and 220.8 for breakfasts. Inorder to accommodate the extendedimplementation for non-FBMPoperators, this final rule creates a new 220.23 that restates the nutritionstandards and menu planningapproaches that apply to all SBP

operators in SY 20122013 only.Individual SFAs wishing to adopt theprovisions of 220.8 prior to therequired implementation date specifiedtherein may do so with the approval ofthe SA.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed FBMPapproach and codifies the proposalunder 210.10(a)(1)(i) of the regulatorytext for the NSLP and 220.8(a)(1) forthe SBP. Menu planning approachesapplicable to the SBP in SY 20122013are under 220.23(a)(5).

Age/Grade Groups

Proposed Rule:Plan lunches andbreakfasts using age/grade groups K5,68, and 912.

Comments:A number of nutrition,health and child advocates; anddietitians agreed that the proposedage/grade groups would result in moreage-appropriate school meals. They alsosupported the provision allowingschools to serve the same breakfast andlunch meal patterns for students ingrades K through 8, provided that themeals meet the calorie, saturated fat,

and sodium standards for each the ofthe age/grade groups.

Several commenters argued theproposed meal patterns offer too muchfood, especially for young children.Some commenters recommendeddifferent age/grade groups, and an SArecommended that USDA retain thecurrent age/grade groups. Some SFAs

requested flexibility in the use of theage/grade groups (e.g., a one-grade levelleeway). A number of commentersexpressed concerns regarding use of theage/grade groups in the SBP, as schoolsgenerally serve K12 students in thesame line.

USDA Response:This final rulerequires schools to use the age/gradegroups K5, 68, and 912 to planmenus in the NSLP uponimplementation of this rule in SY 20122013. These age/grade groups reflectpredominant school gradeconfigurations and are consistent withthe IOMs Dietary Reference Intake (DRI)groupings. This rule allows reasonableflexibility in the use of the age/gradegroups and permits a school to use onemeal pattern for students in grades Kthrough 8 as food quantity requirementsfor groups K5 and 68 overlap. In sucha case, the school continues to beresponsible for meeting the calorie,saturated fat, and sodium standards foreach of the age/grade groups receivingthe school meals. The followingexample illustrates this concept:

Example:A school could offer allstudents in grade groups K5 and 68the same lunch choices for the fruit,

vegetable, grains, meat/meat alternate,and milk components because thequantity requirements are the same oroverlap. Similarly, the calorierequirements for grades K5 (550650average calories per week) and grades 68 (600700 average calories per week)overlap. Therefore, a school could offer

both grade groups a range of 600650average calories per week to meet therequirement for each grade group. Whilethe saturated fat and trans fatrequirement are the same for both gradegroups, the school must carefullyconsider the sodium requirements. The

school would have to comply with thelower sodium standard that wasdeveloped for age/grades K5 but wouldalso meet the requirement for studentsin age/grades 68.

In the SBP, the new age/grade groupstake effect in SY 20132014 (the secondyear of implementation) to ease the

burden on program operators. Untilthen, schools have the option tocontinue the age/grade group K12 forplanning breakfasts. Meals planned forthe age/grade group K12 must meet thenutrition standards developed for that

http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/


5/81


age/grade group, which have beenmoved from 220.8 to a new 220.23 ofthe regulatory text.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed age/gradegroups and codifies the proposal under 210.10(c)(1) of the regulatory text forthe NSLP and 220.8(c)(1) for the SBP.Age/grade groups applicable to the SBP

in SY 20122013 are under 220.23(b)for nutrient standards menu planning,and under 220.23(g) for food basedmenu planning.

Meal Components

Fruits

Proposed Rule:Offer fruit as aseparate food component at lunch daily.Increase the fruit and vegetable amountsat lunch and double the minimumrequired fruit quantity at breakfast.Allow schools to offer a non-starchyvegetable in place of fruit/fruit juice at

breakfast. Allow frozen fruit without

added sugar only.Comments:There is general support

for the proposal to establish fruit asseparate food component. Stakeholderssuch as nutrition, health and childadvocates supported the proposal

because they are concerned thatchildren are not consuming therecommended intake of fruits. Onemajor health advocate noted that it ispossible to significantly increase thequantity of fruits and vegetables in theschool menu in a cost effective way,stating that many schools alreadyexceed the current NSLP meal

requirements, and noting that ofthousands of schools participating inthe Alliance for a Healthier GenerationsHealthy School Program, 85 percentprovide at least one fruit (fresh, canned,or frozen in fruit juice or light syrup) at

breakfast and 72 percent provide at leastfour non-fried, no-added-sugars fruit orvegetable options daily.

However, many commenters opposedthe proposed minimum required fruitquantities, and were particularlyconcerned about the fruit requirementfor breakfast. A number of commentersstated that one cup of fruit at breakfast

is too much for young children toconsume at one time and will result insignificant plate waste. Commentersalso emphasized that students usuallyhave very little time to eat breakfast atschool and are concerned about thelogistics of offering more food throughalternative breakfast delivery methodssuch as Breakfast in the Classroom or onthe bus. In general, these commentersargued that the proposal to double theamount of fruit at breakfast wouldcontribute to higher costs for food,labor, equipment, and storage.

Regarding the types of fruit to beoffered, several commenters supportedthe proposed limitation on added sugarin frozen fruit to limit the sources ofdiscretionary calories. Somecommenters recommended aprohibition on canned fruit in lightsyrup. Some program operators askedhow to credit whole fresh fruit, and

other commenters requested that thequantities in the meal patterns bechanged from cups to servings to betteraccount for fresh whole fruit. A fewsuggested that USDA adopt theHealthierUS School Challenge GoldLevel requirement to serve fresh fruittwice per week with school meals.

USDA Response:This final ruleestablishes fruits and vegetables asseparate food components in the NSLPand adds a fruits requirement at lunch

beginning SY 20122013. The intent ofthe new requirements is to promote theconsumption of these fruits, as

recommended by the DietaryGuidelines. Fruits (and vegetables) thatare prepared without added solid fats,sugars, refined starches, and sodium arenutrient rich foods and supplyimportant nutrients that are under-consumed by school children in theUnited States (including potassium anddietary fiber) with relatively littlecalories.

This rule also gives program operatorsadditional time to meet the requiredminimum fruit quantity increase in theSBP. Schools are required to offer 1 cupof fruit to all age/grade groups at

breakfast beginning in SY 20142015

(the third year of implementation). Thismodification gives program operatorsmore time to prepare for this importantchange to SBP menus. This rule alsogives schools the option to offervegetables in place of all or part of therequired fruit component for menuflexibility and as a potential cost controlmeasure. However, the first two cupsper week of any such substitution must

be from the dark green, red/orange,beans and peas (legumes) or othervegetable subgroups. These vegetablesubgroups have been identified as beingunder-consumed by school children,

according to the IOM report. Starchyvegetables may also be offered insubstitution of fruits, once the first twocups offering of non-starchy vegetableshave been met. This change to theproposed rule allows schools flexibilityand the option to offer vegetables inplace of fruit in accordance with thesubstitution protocol specified here.

Although schools must offer the fullamount of the required food component,to minimize the potential for food wastein the NSLP and SBP, all students areallowed to select 12 cup of fruit for a

reimbursable meal under Offer versusServe (OVS), instead of requiring themto take the full fruit component. Thischange in the application of OVS withregard to the fruits and vegetablescomponents is further discussed inStandards for Meals Selected by theStudent (Offer versus Serve).

Schools may meet the fruit

component at lunch and breakfast byoffering fruit that is fresh; canned infruit juice, water, or light syrup; frozenwithout added sugar, or dried. Throughits USDA Foods Programs, USDA offersschools a range of fresh, frozen withoutadded sugar, dried and canned fruits.Although 100 percent juice can beoffered, no more than half of the per-meal fruit component may be juice

because it lacks dietary fiber and whenconsumed in excess can contribute extracalories. Schools should offer fresh fruitwhenever possible.

Although some commenters suggestedthat the meal patterns set the fruit andother food requirements as servingsrather than cups, this final rule does notadopt this suggestion, as a serving can

be any amount of food determined bythe menu planner and does not ensureuniformity. The 2005 Dietary Guidelinesrecommended amounts were given incups and ounce equivalents (oz. eq.),which are standard defined amounts.Menu planners must continue to use theFood Buying Guide for Child NutritionPrograms to determine how to creditwhole fruit. USDA will update the FoodBuying Guide as soon as possible, andwill also develop other technical

assistance resources as needed.Accordingly, this final rule

implements the proposed fruitrequirements, with modifications, andcodifies them under 210.10(c) for theNSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP.Fruit requirements applicable to theSBP in SY 20122013 are under 220.23(g).

Vegetables

Proposed Rule:Offer vegetables as aseparate food component at lunch daily.Increase the variety of vegetables overthe week to include the following

subgroups: dark green, orange, legumes,and other as defined in the DietaryGuidelines. Limit starchy vegetables atlunch to 1 cup per week for all age/grade groups. Allow non-starchyvegetables in place of fruit at breakfast.

Comments:Nutrition, health andchild advocates; communityorganizations; academia; and parentswelcomed the proposal to divide fruitsand vegetables into two separatecomponents and expressed support forthe proposed weekly vegetablerequirements. Some of these



6/81


commenters stated the proposedincrease in vegetable variety andquantity should positively impactoverall consumption.

State and local program operators,however, suggested that the vegetablesubgroups be encouraged, rather thanrequired (similar to the approach in theHealthierUS School Challenge

guidelines). Some commenters statedthat the vegetable subgrouprequirements are too complicated.Others argued that children will not eatvegetables they are not familiar withand, therefore, the vegetable subgrouprequirements will result in plate waste.Several commenters expressed concernthat procuring some vegetablesubgroups will be difficult and costlyduring specific times of the year incertain parts of the country. Othersrequested clarification regarding when

beans should be considered a legumeversus a meat alternate.

Many State and local programoperators opposed the starchy vegetablelimit. They argued that all vegetablesshould be encouraged, and that a limiton starchy vegetables will lead to adecrease in vegetable consumption, or adecrease in participation in the NSLP.Some suggested that the weekly limitonly apply to potatoes. Severalsuggested that instead of limitingstarchy vegetables, USDA shouldprohibit French fries or deep-friedpreparation methods for all vegetables.Others requested gradual introductionof the weekly limit on starchyvegetables. Many program operators

argued that white potatoes areinexpensive and would need to bereplaced by more expensive fruits andvegetables, which will be a costly strainon school/state budgets. A few askedthat starchy vegetables in mixed dishes,such as soups, not count towards theweekly starchy vegetable limit.

Nutrition and health advocatesfavored allowing non-starchy vegetablesin place of fruit in the SBP. However,numerous commenters opposeddisallowing starchy vegetables at

breakfast. These commenters, includingSFAs, food industry, and some parents,

stated that starchy vegetables such aspotatoes are affordable and popular, andcomplement many breakfast dishes.They also noted that potatoes supplypotassium and other minerals, vitaminsand fiber, and are naturally low in fatand sodium. Many stakeholderssuggested that USDA ease the proposedrestrictions on starchy vegetables.

Program operators also addressed theuse of salad bars to meet the vegetablerequirement. They stated that salad barsare good ways to serve a wide variety offruits and vegetables and are an effective

strategy to increase childrensconsumption of these food groups.However, they expressed concern thatthe proposed vegetable requirementsincrease challenges with or coulddiscourage the use of self-serve salad

bars. Schools asked how to determine ifthe required foods/portions are beingserved.

USDA Response:This final ruleestablishes vegetables as a separate foodcomponent in the NSLP, and requiresschools to offer all the vegetablesubgroups identified by the 2010Dietary Guidelines (dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes),starchy, and other) over the course ofthe week at minimum requiredquantities as part of the lunch menus inSY 20122013. As required by theConsolidated and Further ContinuingAppropriations Act, 2012, Public Law11255 (FY 2012 AgricultureAppropriations Act), we are removing

the proposed rule limit on starchyvegetables, and instead requiringschools to offer at least minimumquantities of all vegetable subgroups inthe NSLP over the course of the week.This change encourages consumptionfrom all vegetable subgroups, and isconsistent with the Dietary Guidelinesrecommendation to increase variety invegetable consumption. In addition, to

be consistent with the 2010 DietaryGuidelines classification of vegetablesubgroups, this final rule expands theproposed orange vegetable subgroup toinclude red/orange vegetables. USDAasked commenters about this change in

the vegetable subgroups in the Noticepublished by USDA in the FederalRegister (76 CFR 15225) on March 21,2011 and there was no publicopposition.

This final rule also allows schools theoption to offer vegetables in place of allor part of the fruits requirement at

breakfast beginning July 1, 2014. This isconsistent with the Dietary Guidelinesrecommendation to eat a variety ofvegetables, especially dark green, redand orange vegetables, and beans andpeas (legumes). This recommendation isapplicable to the school meals because

most vegetables and fruits are majorcontributors of nutrients that are under-consumed in the United States,including potassium and dietary fiber.Consumption of vegetables and fruits isalso associated with reduced risk ofmany chronic diseases, includingobesity, heart attack, stroke, and cancer.By providing more and a variety ofvegetables in a nutrient-dense form(without added solid fats, sugars,refined starches, and sodium), schoolshelp students obtain important nutrientsand maintain a healthy weight.

This final rule does not implementthe proposed rule limitation on servingsof starchy vegetables offered as part ofthe lunch and breakfast reimbursablemeals. This change is in response tocommenters concerns and therequirements of the FY 2012 AgricultureAppropriations Act, which specificallyprevented USDA from adopting the IOM

recommendation for setting maximumlimits on starchy vegetables, providingfor fiscal year 2012 USDAappropriations. Therefore, schools areallowed to offer any vegetable subgroupidentified by the 2010 DietaryGuidelines to meet the vegetablescomponent required for eachreimbursable school meal. The vegetablequantities in the lunch meal patternhave been modified to reflect thischange to the proposal while remainingconsistent with the Dietary Guidelinesfocus on increasing the intake ofvegetables that are under-consumed.

Commenters asked USDA to clarifywhen to credit beans and peas (legumes)toward the vegetable component. Localmenu planners decide how toincorporate beans and peas (legumes)into the school meal but may not offerone serving of beans and peas (legumes)to meet the requirements for bothvegetables and meat/meat alternatecomponents. Beans and peas (legumes)can be credited toward the vegetablecomponent because they are excellentsources of dietary fiber and nutrientssuch as folate and potassium. Thesenutrients are often low in the diets ofmany Americans. Because of their high

nutrient content and low cost, USDAencourages menu planners to include

beans and peas (legumes) in the schoolmenu regularly, either as a vegetable oras a meat alternate (as discussed later).Some foods commonly referred to as

beans and peas (e.g., green peas, greenlima beans, and green (string) beans) arenot considered part of the beans andpeas subgroup because their nutrientprofile is dissimilar. More informationon the use and categorization of beansand peas (legumes) is available online athttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/

foodgroups/

proteinfoods_beanspeas.html.In response to commenter questionsabout how to use salad bars to meet thenew meal requirements, the Departmentwould like to emphasize that schoolsmay continue to use salad bars toenhance the variety of vegetables in theschool menu. See FNS memorandum SP022010Revised (January 21, 2011) formore information on how salad bars can

be used effectively as part of thereimbursable meals. The memorandumis available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.html


7/81


Policy-Memos/2011/SP022011revised_os.pdf.

As with the proposed rule, this finalrule allows schools to use fresh, frozen,and canned products to meet thevegetable requirement. Schools haveaccess to nutritious vegetable choicesthrough USDA Foods. For example,USDA Foods offers only reduced

sodium canned vegetables at no morethan 140 mg of sodium per half-cupserving, which is in line with the 2010Dietary Guidelines. Schools also havethe option to order frozen vegetableswith no added salt, including green

beans, carrots, corn, peas, and sweetpotatoes.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed vegetablesrequirements, with modifications, andcodifies them under 210.10(c) for theNSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP.Vegetable requirements applicable tothe SBP in SY 20122013 are under 220.23(g).

Grains

Proposed Rule:Offer at least a dailyserving of grains at breakfast and lunch.When this rule is initially implemented,at least half of the grains offered duringthe week must be whole grain-rich. Twoyears after implementation, all grainsoffered during the week must be wholegrain-rich. In addition, allow schoolsthe option to offer up to one serving ofa grain-based dessert daily to meet partof the weekly grains requirement.

Comments:Many commenters,primarily nutrition and health

advocates, and parents, favoredintroducing a whole grains requirementin the NSLP and SBP. A number ofprogram operators, however, objected tothe final whole grains requirement (thatall grains offered must be whole grain-rich), and stated that the initialrequirement (at least half of grainsoffered must be whole grain-rich) issufficient. These commenters assertedthat prohibiting all refined grains wouldrestrict many grains that children andadolescents enjoy such as white rice andwhite bread. Other program operatorsthat objected to the final whole grains

requirement expressed concern with thetimeline and the higher food costsassociated with using only whole grain-rich products, which they argued aregenerally more expensive than refinedgrain products. Many commenters askedthat USDA clarify the criteria schoolsmust use to identify whole grain-richproducts.

USDA Response:While childrengenerally eat enough total grains, mostof the grains they consume are refinedgrains rather than whole grains. Wholegrains (e.g., whole-wheat flour, oatmeal,

whole cornmeal, and brown rice) are asource of nutrients such as iron,magnesium, selenium, B vitamins, anddietary fiber. Evidence suggests thateating whole grains in nutrient denseforms may lower body weight andreduce the risk of cardiovasculardisease. Currently, schools may offerenriched or whole grains, and are

allowed to offer enriched, refined grainsonly. Therefore, this final ruleestablishes a minimum whole grain-richrequirement in the NSLP and SBP tohelp children increase their intake ofwhole grains and benefit from theimportant nutrients they provide.

For the NSLP, the whole grainrequirement takes effect uponimplementation of the rule. Therefore,in SY 20122013 and SY 20132014(the first two years of implementation)whole grain-rich products must makeup half of all grain products offered tostudents. During this time only, refined-

grain foods that are enriched may beincluded in the lunch menu. In SY20142015 (the third year ofimplementation) and beyond, schoolsmust offer only whole grain-richproducts.

In the SBP, this final rule providesthat schools must offer the weekly grainranges and half of the grains as wholegrain-rich beginning July 1, 2013 (SY20132014, the second year ofimplementation). All grains offered inthe SBP must be whole grain-rich in SY20142015 (the third year ofimplementation) and beyond. Onceschools meet the daily minimum grain

quantity required (1 oz. eq. for all age-grade groups) for breakfast, they areallowed to offer a meat/meat alternate inplace of grains. The meat/meat alternatecan count toward the weekly grainsrequirement (credited as 1 oz. eq. ofmeat/meat alternate is equivalent to 1oz. eq. of grain). This modification isintended to retain the flexibility thatmenu planners currently have to offer acombination of grains and meats/meatalternates at breakfast. This final ruleeliminates the proposed provision torequire a meat/meat alternate daily at

breakfast due to the cost concerns

voiced by program operators. (For moredetails, please see the discussion onmeat/meat alternate.)

In this final rule, to receive credit inthe meal programs, a whole grain-richfood must contain at least 51 percentwhole grains and the remaining graincontent of the product must beenriched. Because current labelingregulations and practices may limit theschools ability to determine the actualwhole grain content of many grainproducts, schools would use bothelements of the following criterion to

identify whole grain-rich foods. This isconsistent with USDAs approach onwhole grains in the HealthierUS SchoolChallenge (HealthierUS SchoolChallenge Whole-Grains Resource,http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdf). Therefore, untilthe whole grain content of food

products is required on a product labelby the Food and Drug Administration(FDA), schools must evaluate a grainproduct according to forthcoming FNSguidance as follows:

Element #1. A serving of the food itemmust meet portion size requirements forthe Grains/Breads component as definedin FNS guidance.And

Element #2. The food must meet atleast one of the following:

a. The whole grains per serving (basedon minimum serving sizes specified forgrains/breads in FNS guidance) must be

8 grams. This may be determined frominformation provided on the productpackaging or by the manufacturer, ifavailable. Also, manufacturers currentlymay apply for a Child Nutrition Labelfor qualifying products to indicate thenumber of grains/breads servings thatare whole grain-rich.

b. The product includes the followingFood and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved whole grain health claim onits packaging. Diets rich in whole grainfoods and other plant foods and low intotal fat, saturated fat and cholesterolmay reduce the risk of heart disease andsome cancers.

c. Product ingredient listing listswhole grain first, specifically:

I. Non-mixed dishes (e.g., breads,cereals):Whole grains must be theprimary ingredient by weight (a wholegrain is the first ingredient in the list).

II. Mixed dishes (e.g., pizza, corndogs):Whole grains must be the primarygrain ingredient by weight (a wholegrain is the first grain ingredient in thelist).

For foods prepared by the school foodservice, the recipe is used as the basisfor a calculation to determine whetherthe total weight of whole grain

ingredients exceeds the total weight ofnon-whole grain ingredients.Several commenters noted that the

industry standard of identity for wholegrain products is 14.75 grams, while theIOM recommendations for school mealswere based on 16 grams per serving.They suggested that schools bepermitted to round up to the nearestquarter on gram equivalents in products.USDA will continue to provide SAs andschools guidance on this subject.

Many program operators expressedconcern about the increased quantity of

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP02%E2%80%932011revised_os.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdfhttp://teamnutrition.usda.gov/healthierUS/NFSMI/lesson2handouts.pdf


8/81


food offered to children. The weeklygrains quantity for the NSLP is reducedto 89 oz. eq. for age/grade group K5,to 810 oz. eq. for age/grade group 68, and to 1012 oz. eq. for age/gradegroup 912. This grains requirementstill reflects the Dietary Guidelinesrecommendation to increaseconsumption of whole grains as half of

all grains offered must be whole grain-rich during the first two years ofimplementation, and all grains must bewhole grain-rich thereafter.

Commenters also expressed concernsregarding the cost and availability ofwhole grain-rich products. USDA wouldlike to emphasize that such products arenow available through USDA Foods,including: brown rice; parboiled brownrice; rolled oats; whole-wheat flour;whole-grain kernel corn; and whole-grain rotini, spaghetti, and macaroni.

This final rule modifies the provisionin the proposed rule to allow schoolsthe option to meet part of the weeklygrains requirement with grain-baseddesserts. USDA had proposed to allowup to one serving of grain-based dessertper day to allow additionalopportunities to incorporate wholegrains in the lunch menu. However, the2010 Dietary Guidelines cite grain-baseddesserts as a significant source of solidfats and added sugars in Americansdiets. Therefore, this final rule reducesthe number of allowable grain-baseddesserts from five to two per schoolweek, as recommended by severalcommenters.

Accordingly, this final rule

implements the proposed grainsrequirements and codifies them under 210.10(c) for the NSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP. Grainsrequirements applicable to the SBP inSY 20122013 are under 220.23(g).

Meats/Meat Alternates

Proposed Rule:Offer a meat/meatalternate at lunch and breakfast daily tomeet weekly requirements. Solicitcomments on whether or not the meat/meat alternate component shouldinclude the three protein foodsubgroups recommended by the 2010

Dietary Guidelines: (1) Seafood; (2)meat, poultry, and eggs; and (3) nuts,seeds, and soy products. Solicitcomments on whether or not tofushould be an allowable meat alternateand a methodology for creditingcommercially prepared tofu.

Comments:A few commenters,primarily health advocates, expressedsupport for the overall meat/meatalternate requirement. They supportedthe proposed rules emphasis on leansources of protein and on lower-sodiummeats/meat alternates. Several

commenters, however, indicated thatapplying a weekly meat/meat alternaterequirement, rather than a daily sourceof protein, might decrease the estimatedmeal cost and increase menu planningflexibility.

Many of the public comments focusedon the proposed requirement to offer ameat/meat alternate daily at breakfast.

Commenters who favored the proposalstated that a breakfast with a meat/meatalternate would provide greater satietyand help increase the protein intake forchildren that do not drink milk. Theysaid the protein requirement wouldresult in a more nutritious and balanced

breakfast.However, many school districts

expressed concerns about offering adaily meat/meat alternate at breakfast.Several of these commenters argued thatthere is insufficient scientific supportfor the proposed meat/meat alternaterequirement at breakfast. Othersasserted that the daily requirementwould be costly, create logisticaldifficulties and food safety challengesfor schools, make it difficult for schoolsto achieve the new sodium limits, anddiscourage new breakfast modalities andschool participation in the SBP. Somealso noted that children in most schoolshave very limited time to eat breakfastand offering more food would result inincreased plate waste.

A few commenters also expressedconcerns about the availability of meat/meat alternate products that will enableschools to offer meals that meet thedietary specifications for sodium,

saturated fat, and trans fat. Acommenter asked whether USDA Foodsis able to provide low-sodium processedmeats, cheeses, and other meat/meatalternate products.

Commenters had different opinionson whether or not the meal patternshould require that schools offer thespecific protein food subgroupsidentified in the 2010 DietaryGuidelines. Those in favor stated that itwould diversify students diet andprovide health benefits. Those against itsaid that requiring protein foodsubgroups would be cost-prohibitive to

many schools and that it might not befeasible in certain geographical areas.They also indicated that many parentsdo not recognize nuts, seeds, and soyproducts as a substitute for meats.

Many commenters suggested thatUSDA allow schools to offer tofu as ameat/meat alternate. A range ofstakeholders, including SAs, nutritionprofessionals, advocacy organizations,and individual commenters, expressedsupport for allowing commerciallyprepared tofu in the school mealprograms. Some commenters suggested

a methodology for creditingcommercially prepared tofu as a meatalternate. The predominant approachsuggested is that USDA credit tofu basedon the grams of protein per ounceequivalent.

USDA Response:This final ruleimplements the meat/meat alternaterequirements for the NSLP as proposed.

Schools must offer at least a minimumamount of meat/meat alternate daily (2oz eq. for students in grades 912, and1 oz eq. for younger students), andprovide a weekly required amount foreach age/grade group. Offering a meat/meat alternate daily as part of the schoollunch supplies protein, B vitamins,vitamin E, iron, zinc, and magnesium tothe diet of children, and also teachesthem to recognize the components of a

balanced meal. Menu planners areencouraged to offer a variety of proteinfoods (e.g., lean or extra lean meats,seafood, and poultry; beans and peas;

fat-free and low-fat milk products; andunsalted nuts and seeds) to meet themeat/meat alternate requirement.

The Department is mindful of the costand operational concerns expressed byschools and other stakeholdersregarding the proposed meat/meatalternate component in the SBP.Previously, schools have had theflexibility to offer one serving each ofgrains and meat/meat alternate, or twoservings of either one at breakfast. Wehave seen a steady increase in thenumber of schools participating in theSBP and more schools are offering

breakfast in the classroom and other

creative delivery options. Therefore, thisfinal rule retains some flexibility offered

by the grains and meat/meat alternatecombination available in the currentSBP meal pattern, and does not requirea daily meat/meat alternate in the SBP.Menu planners may offer a meat/meatalternate in place of grains after theminimum daily grains requirement ismet. For example, for the K5 age-gradegroup, the SBP minimum daily grainrequirement is 1 oz. eq. As long as atleast 1 oz. eq. of grain is served as partof the breakfast menu, a meat/meatalternate may also be served. The meat/

meat alternate may count towardmeeting the weekly grains requirement.For crediting, 1 oz. eq. of meat/meatalternate is equivalent to 1 oz. eq. ofgrains.

As suggested by many stakeholders,this final rule gives schools the optionto offer commercially prepared tofu as ameat alternate in the NSLP and SBP.This provision, which is codified under 210.10(c)(2)(i)(D) of the regulatory textfor the NSLP, allows schools to diversifythe sources of protein available tostudents and better meet the dietary



9/81


needs of vegetarians and culturallydiverse groups in schools. Although tofudoes not have an FDA standard ofidentity, the Dietary Guidelinesrecognize plant-based sources of proteinsuch as tofu. USDA will continue toprovide SAs and schools guidance onthis issue.

USDA wishes to clarify that schools

have the option to offer mature beansand dry peas (e.g., kidney beans, pinto

beans, black beans, garbanzo beans/chickpeas, black-eyed peas, split peasand lentils) as meat alternates. Mature

beans and peas dry longer on the plant,fix more nitrogen, and have a higherprotein content, which makes themnutritionally comparable to proteinfoods. They are also excellent sources ofother nutrients such as iron and zinc.Because beans and peas are similar tomeats, poultry, and fish in theircontribution of these nutrients, they can

be credited as a meat alternate.Note that a serving of beans and peas

must not be offered as a meat alternateand as a vegetable in the same meal.Some foods commonly referred to as

beans and peas (e.g., green peas, greenlima beans, and green (string) beans) arenot considered part of the beans andpeas subgroup because their nutrientprofile is dissimilar. For moreinformation about the use andcategorization of beans and peas seehttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/

foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.html.

Schools also have discretion to offerready-to-eat foods such as cold cuts,

cheese, and yogurt to meet the meat/meat alternate component. Regardless ofthe protein foods offered, schools mustplan all meals with the goal to meet thedietary specifications for sodium,saturated fat, trans fat, and calories.When selecting protein foods that areaffordable and easy to prepare, westrongly encourage menu planners touse low-fat and low-sodium productsthat contribute to improved nutrientintake and health benefits (e.g., fat-free/low-fat yogurt and unsalted nuts andseeds).

To support school meal

improvements, USDA Foods hasreduced the upper salt limit onmozzarella cheese from 2 percent to 1.6percent. The current range formozzarella is 130175 mg of sodium per28 g (1 oz.) serving. The sodium inprocessed and blended cheeses has beenreduced from 450 milligrams or more, to

between 200 and 300 milligrams per28 g (1 oz.) serving, which is closer tothe sodium levels found in naturalcheeses.

USDA had solicited comments onwhether schools should be required to

offer the protein food subgroupsrecommended by the 2010 DietaryGuidelines. In response to programoperators concerns, this final rule doesnot require the three protein foodsubgroups recommended by the 2010Dietary Guidelines. However, USDA isdeveloping technical assistance to assistschools in offering students a variety of

protein foods consistent with theDietary Guidelines.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed meat/meatalternate requirements, withmodifications, and codifies them under 210.10(c) for the NSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP. Meat/meatalternate requirements applicable to theSBP in SY 20122013 are under 220.23(g).

Fluid Milk

Proposed Rule:Offer plain or flavoredfat-free milk and unflavored low-fatmilk (1 percent milk fat or less), andinclude variety that is consistent withDietary Guidelines recommendations.

Comments:Many parents andnutrition and health advocates favoredthe proposed requirement to limit flavorto fat-free milk. They believe thatsaturated fat and sugar in childrensdiets can be reduced by restricting milkchoices to fat-free and low-fat, and bylimiting flavor to fat-free milk. Severalcommenters stated that schools havealready limited flavor to fat-free milkand student acceptability has been good.Some commenters recommended a total

ban on flavored milk and argued that

several states are in the process ofbanning flavored milk.

However, more commenters statedthat flavored low-fat (1 percent or 12percent) milk should be allowed. Manyof these cited a lack of availability offlavored fat-free milk. Others wereconcerned that poor studentacceptability of flavored fat-free milkcould result in lower milk consumptionor participation in the school mealprograms. Some commenters said thatthe amount of extra calories and fat inlow-fat flavored milk is not significantenough to warrant allowing only

flavored fat-free milk. A few asked thatUSDA phase in the limit on flavoredmilk, and others suggested that USDAset a maximum level of added sugar inflavored milk instead of allowing flavoronly in fat-free milk.

Several commenters addressed theneed to accommodate lactose-intolerantstudents and, others requested USDA toclarify milk variety in school meals.Also, although the proposed rule didnot address meal variations for specialdietary reasons, some commentersdiscussed the nutrition standards for

non-dairy milk substitutes (e.g., soydrinks) and other miscellaneous topicsrelated to the milk component,including OVS.

USDA Response:This final ruleallows flavor in fat-free milk only, andfat-free and low-fat choices only(consistent with Dietary Guidelinesrecommendations and the NSLA as

amended by the HHFKA). Flavored low-fat (1 percent or 12 percent) milk is notallowed in the NSLP or the SBP uponimplementation of the rule in SY 20122013 because it contributes addedsugars and fat to the meal and wouldmake it more difficult for schools tooffer meals that meet the limits oncalories and saturated fat. We anticipatethat the new calorie limits will leadmenu planners to select milk with thelowest levels of added sugar.Implementing calorie maximums givesmenu planners more flexibility thanlimiting added sugar.

Schools already have the option tooffer lactose-free and reduced-lactosemilk (fat-free and/or low-fat) as part ofthe reimbursable meal. Offering lactosefree/reduced milk (fat-free or low-fat) isallowed and counts toward the milkvariety requirement established by inthe NSLA by the HHFKA. For the NSLPand SBP, variety (at least two choices ofmilk) can be accomplished by offeringdifferent allowable fat levels (fat-freeand low-fat) and milk flavor in fat-freemilk only. For additional guidance onmilk variety, please see the FNSmemorandum SP292011, ChildNutrition Reauthorization: Nutrition

Requirements for Fluid Milk, datedApril 14, 2011.)

The milk fat restriction established bythis final rule also applies to the mealsfor children in the age group 34 eventhough the meal patterns forpreschoolers will be updated laterthrough a separate rule. Theamendments made to the NSLA by theHHFKA require fat-free and low-fat milkfor all school lunches. Although thischange was not addressed in theproposed rule due to the timing ofpublication, USDA notified programoperators of this requirement for all

school meals through implementationmemorandum SP292011. The milkflavor restriction also extends to themilk offered to children in agegroup 34.

As requested by commenters, we wishto clarify that this final rule does notchange the nutrition standards for theoptional non-dairy drinks offered tostudents with special dietary needs (notdisabilities) in place of milk at therequest from parents. Those products(e.g., soy, rice and almond drinks) areoffered as meal exceptions on a case by

http://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.htmlhttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/foodgroups/proteinfoods_beanspeas.html


10/81


case basis and are not intended forgeneral consumption with the schoolmeal. The nutrition standards for non-dairy milk substitutes for childrenwithout disabilities were establishedthrough a separate final rule FluidMilk Substitutions in the SchoolNutrition Program, which waspublished in the Federal Register (73

FR 52903) on September 12, 2008.Those standards do not include fat orflavor/sugar restrictions.

We also wish to clarify that althoughfluid milk must be offered with everyschool meal, students may decline milkunder OVS. In addition, water may not

be offered in place of fluid milk as partof the reimbursable meal, but must beavailable in the food service area forstudents who wish to drink it inaccordance with the NSLA as amended

by the HHFKA and as discussed in thememorandum SP282011 RevisedChild Nutrition Reauthorization 2010:

Water Availability During NationalSchool Lunch Program Meal Servicedated July 12, 2011.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed milkrequirements and codifies them under 210.10(d) for the NSLP and under 220.8(d) for the SBP.

Dietary Specifications

Calories

Proposed Rule:Offer lunches andbreakfasts that supply, on average overthe school week, a number of caloriesthat is within the established minimum

and maximum levels for each age/gradegroup.Comments:Many commenters agreed

in general with the proposal to establishminimum and maximum calorie levels,and were particularly supportive of themaximum calorie levels. Thesecommenters included advocacyorganizations, food banks, a healthdepartment, a professional association,and an industry association. Manystated that setting minimum andmaximum calorie levels along withproviding nutrient dense meals willhelp address food insecurity and obesity

concerns.A few commenters said manystudents are not active enough andrecommended lower calorie limits.Others, however, indicated that theproposed maximum calorie limits forschool lunch might not be adequate tomeet the dietary needs of taller andactive students. Several commentersasserted that the calorie levels must beadequate enough to support the dietaryneeds of children who may not haveaccess to sufficient food outside ofschool. There is also a concern among

commenters about the ability of schoolsto adhere to the minimum andmaximum calorie limits in the absenceof a nutritional analysis.

In order to control calorie intake,some commenters suggested that USDAestablish limits on added sugars forproducts such as such ready-to-eatcereal, grain-based desserts, and dairy-

based desserts to improve the diet ofschool children. A few commenters,including an advocacy organization,suggested adopting the World HealthOrganizations recommendation to limitadded sugars to no more than 10percent of a persons daily caloricintake. An advocacy organization anda professional association of healthnutrition directors suggested adoptingthe Special Supplemental NutritionProgram for Women, Infants andChildren (WIC) breakfast standard,which sets the added sugars limit to nomore than 6 grams of sugars per ounce

of dry cereal.USDA Response:This final rule isintended to respond to serious concernsabout childhood obesity, and theimportance for children to consumenutritious school meals within theircalorie needs. Therefore, this ruleimplements the proposed minimum andmaximum calorie levels for each gradegroup. In the NSLP, the calorie limits foreach age/grade group take effect uponimplementation of this final rule. In theSBP, however, calorie limits are notimplemented until the SY 20132014(the second year of implementation).This modification from the proposed

rule is intended to give programoperators additional time to implementthe new meal requirements in the SBP.

USDA acknowledges the school mealprograms provide a nutrition safety netfor food-insecure children and agreeswith commenters that meals mustsupply adequate calories for growth anddevelopment. IOM considered thisaspect of the Child Nutrition Programmissions when developing theminimum and maximum calorie levelsfor various age/grade groups in theNSLP and SBP. They also took intoconsideration other opportunities for

food intake available to most childrenoutside of school, and the role ofcommunity organizations and othergroups in supporting the nutritionalneeds of low-income children.

Although some commenters suggestedsetting a limit on added sugars forproducts such as flavored milk, USDA,consistent with the Institute of Medicinerecommendations, does not believe astandard is necessary and wouldunnecessarily restrict menu planningflexibility. The required maximumcalorie levels are expected to drive

menu planners to select nutrient densefoods and ingredients to prepare meals,and avoid products that are high in fatsand added sugars. In addition, this finalrule includes other provisions that limitthe sources of discretionary calories.

We also wish to clarify that the caloriestandards established for each age/gradegroup are to be met on average over the

course of the week. On any given schoolday, the calorie level for the meal mayfall outside of the minimum andmaximum levels as long as the averagenumber of calories for the week iswithin the required range. This providessome flexibility to menu planners, butcareful procurement, planning andpreparation are important to stay withinthe calorie ranges.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed calorierequirements and codifies them under 210.10(f) for the NSLP and under 220.8(f) for the SBP. Calorierequirements applicable to the SBP inSY 20122013 are under 220.23(b) and 220.23(c).

Saturated Fat

Proposed Rule:Offer lunches andbreakfasts that supply, on average overthe school week, less than 10 percent oftotal calories from saturated fat.

Comments:Most commentersconcerned about childhood obesity alsoexpressed general support for limitingsaturated fat in school meals at less than10 percent of total calories. This is thesame as the current saturated fatrestriction and the 2010 Dietary

Guidelines did not change thisrecommendation. A small number ofcommenters (a health care professional,a member of academia, and an advocacyorganization) suggested a morerestrictive standard, recommending thatUSDA require less than 7 percent oftotal calories from saturated fat. Thislimit is listed in the Dietary GuidelinesAdvisory Committee report but was notadopted as a recommendation in the2010 Dietary Guidelines.

USDA Response:This final ruleimplements the proposed saturated fatstandard, which is the same as the

restriction currently in place in theNSLP and SBP. Schools must continueto limit saturated fat in the school mealsto help reduce childhood obesity andchildrens risk of cardiovascular diseaselater in life. Many schools are stillhaving difficulty meeting thisrequirement in the NSLP. Several majorsources of saturated fat in the Americandiet are popular items in the lunchmenu.

This final rule implements two newrequirements set forth in the proposedrule and are anticipated to encourage



11/81


schools to reduce the saturated fat inmeals: allowing only fat-free and low-fatmilk, and establishing maximum calorielimits. USDAs technical assistance willcontinue to emphasize the need topurchase and prepare foods in ways thathelp reduce the saturated fat level inschool meals (e.g., procuring skinlesschicken or using meat from which fat

has been trimmed, and using vegetableoils that are rich in monounsaturatedand polyunsaturated fatty acids such ascanola and corn oils).

This rule does not require schools tomeet a total fat standard under currentregulations. The IOM report did notrecommend that USDA require a totalfat standard for school meals. Theexpectation is that the new mealrequirements, including the dietaryspecifications for calories, saturated fatand trans fat, will enable schools tooffer meals that are low in total fat.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed saturatedrequirement and codifies it under 210.10(f) for the NSLP and under 220.8(f) for the SBP.

Sodium

Proposed Rule:Offer lunches andbreakfasts that supply, on average overthe school week, no more than themaximum sodium levels set for eachage/grade group. Meet the intermediatesodium targets (two and four years postimplementation of the rule), and thefinal sodium targets (ten years postimplementation of the rule; changesrepresent a sodium reduction of

approximately 2550 percent inbreakfasts and lunches). The proposedtargets aimed to help reduce studentssodium intakes to less than theTolerable Upper Intake Levelsestablished in the Dietary ReferenceIntakes, which range from 1,9002,300milligrams per day for children ages418.

Comments:Nutrition and healthadvocates, community-action groups,individuals, and some school districtsexpressed support for the proposedsodium restrictions and timeline. Amedical association and an advocacy

organization supported the proposedsodium restriction to help address thehealth risks associated with highsodium intake. A professionalassociation recommended that USDAconsider further reductions in sodiumlimits after progress has been assessed.An advocacy organization suggestedthat USDA base the proposedrestrictions on the Dietary Guidelinesrecommendation of 1,500 mg of sodiumper day for special population groups.The 2010 Dietary Guidelinesrecommend that persons who are 51

years and older, African Americanchildren and adults, and persons of anyage that have hypertension, diabetes, orchronic kidney disease limit sodiumintake to 1,500 mg per day (compared tothe 2,300 mg per day recommended forthe general population).

However, many commenters wereconcerned that schools will likely

struggle to meet the proposedintermediate sodium limits and fail toachieve the final target within 10 years.Some commenters asserted that the finaltargets for each age/grade group arelower than the therapeutic levels set forcertain high-risk populations andshould be increased. A school advocacyorganization and school districts arguedthat it would be difficult for schools toprepare palatable foods at the proposedfinal sodium targets and, therefore,students would be motivated to dropfrom the meal program and packlunches that contain high levels of

sodium.Some commenters expressed concernsabout the potential use of sodiumsubstitutes in schools. Commenters alsoindicated that industry needs time forproduct development and testing, andschools need time for procurementchanges, menu development, sampling,and to foster student acceptance. Twofood manufacturers commented thatpizza manufacturers would need tocomplete research in order to secure lowsodium cheeses that adhere to theproposed final target and that childrenlike. Some argued that many schoolsrely on canned and processed food

items and have limited access toreduced-sodium products.

School food service staff, a foodmanufacturer, a nutrition professionaland individual commenters suggestedthat USDA lengthen the time to reachthe intermediate sodium targets, andeliminate or reevaluate the final target.Commenters also encouraged USDA tomonitor the progress of sodiumreductions toward targets before movingforward. Some offered variousalternatives to the proposed sodiumlimits and timeline (e.g., a foodmanufacturer suggested 33 percent

reduction over ten years and a schoolfood service staff member suggested 30percent over ten years). Severalcommenters suggested a 1020 percentreduction over ten years to allowschools to continue purchasingaffordable processed foods whileworking on recipe modification, inorder to reduce food costs and potentialloss of student participation. Othersrecommended establishing daily limitsfor each school meal (e.g., 1,0001,200mg/day for lunch and 1,000 mg/day for

breakfast).

Some school districts and a childnutrition consultant stated that there isnot enough scientific data linkingsodium consumption with health issuesin children, and did not agree withclaims that childrens early exposure tosodium leads them to develop apreference for salty foods. A childnutrition consultant, a school nutrition

directors association, a professionalassociation, and a school district arguedthat further studies should be conductedso that the final target levels are science-

based.USDA Response:Reducing the

sodium content of school meals is a keyobjective of this final rule reflecting theDietary Guidelines recommendation forchildren and adults to limit sodiumintake to lower the risk of chronicdiseases. USDA has encouraged schoolsto reduce sodium since theimplementation of the School MealsInitiative in 1995. According to the

SNDAIII study, the average sodiumcontent of school lunches (for allschools) remains high: More than 1400mg. Therefore, this final rule requiresschools to make a gradual reduction inthe sodium content of the meals, asrecommended by IOM and consistentwith the requirements of the FY 2012Agriculture Appropriations Act.

Schools will be required to meet thefirst intermediate sodium target for eachage/grade group (target 1 in the chart) inthe NSLP and SBP no later than July 1,2014 (SY 20142015), two years postimplementation of this final rule. Tomeet target 1, schools are expected to

modify menus and recipes promptly toreduce the sodium content of schoollunches by approximately 510 percentfrom their baseline.

Prior to the implementation of thesecond (target 2) and final sodiumtargets contained in this rule, USDAwill evaluate relevant studies on sodiumintake and human health, as required bySection 743 of the FY 2012 AgricultureAppropriations Act. The scheduledcompliance date for target 2 is no laterthan July 1, 2017 (SY 20172018), fiveyears post implementation of the finalrule for both meal programs. In response

to stakeholders concerns, and theprovisions of Section 743 of the FY 2012Agriculture Appropriations Act, thisfinal rule lengthens the time to reach thesecond intermediate targets from 4 to 5years. This modification to the sodiumproposal is intended to allow foodmanufacturers additional time toreformulate products and schools moretime to build student acceptance oflower sodium meals. To meet target 2,schools have to reduce sodium in schoollunches by approximately 1530percent from their baseline. We



12/81


anticipate schools will have toincorporate new low-sodium productsand ingredients in meals offered inorder to meet this target.

The scheduled compliance date forthe final sodium targets is no later than

July 1, 2022 (SY 20222023), ten yearspost implementation of the final rule.To meet the final sodium target, schools

will have to reduce the sodium contentof the meals by approximately 2550percent from the school baseline. This

will require innovation on the part ofproduct manufacturers in the form ofnew technology and/or food products.As required by Section 743 of the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act,USDA will certify that it has evaluatedrelevant data on sodium intake andhuman health prior to requiringcompliance with the second and final

sodium targets.Meeting the final sodium targets will

enable schools to offer meals that reflect

the 2010 Dietary Guidelinesrecommendation to limit sodium intaketo less than 2,300 mg per day. Nearly allschools have to reduce the sodiumcontent of school meals to meet finalsodium targets, but the extent of theneeded reduction varies by school/district as sodium limits for schoolmeals do not currently exist. Thefollowing chart illustrates the sodiumreduction in school meals:

Age/grade groupBaseline: Current

average sodium levelsas offered 1 (mg)

Sodium reduction: Timeline and amount

Target 1: meet by July1, 2014 (SY 20142015)

(mg)

Target 2: meet by July1, 2017 (SY 20172018)

(mg)

Final target: 2 Meet byJuly 1, 2022 (SY 2022

2023) (mg)

Percent change(current levels

vs. finaltargets)

School Breakfast Program

K5 .................... 573 (elementary) ........... 540 (28.4% of UL) ..... 485 (25.5% of UL) ..... 430 (22.6% of UL) ..... 2568 .................... 629 (middle) .................. 600 (27.3% of UL) ..... 535 (24.3% of UL) ..... 470 (21.4% of UL) ..... 25912 .................. 686 (high) ...................... 640 (27.8% of UL) ..... 570 (24.8% of UL) ..... 500 (21.7% of UL) ..... 27

National School Lunch Program

K5 .................... 1,377 (elementary) ........ 1,230 (64.8% of UL) .. 935 (49.2% of UL) ..... 640 (33.7% of UL) ..... 5468 .................... 1,520 (middle) ............... 1,360 (61.8% of UL) .. 1,035 (47.0% of UL) .. 710 (32.3% of UL) ..... 53912 .................. 1,588 (high) ................... 1,420 (61.7% of UL) .. 1,080 (47.0% of UL) .. 740 (32.2% of UL) ..... 53

1Current Average Sodium Levels as Offered are from the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Study-III. Data were collected in the 200405 school year.

2The IOM final targets are based on the Tolerable Upper Intake Limits (ULs) for sodium, established in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI)(IOM, 2004). The sodium ULs for school-aged children are 2,300 mg (ages 1418), 2,200 mg (ages 913), and 1,900 mg (ages 48). The finalsodium targets represent the UL for each age/grade group multiplied by the percentage of nutrients supplied by each meal (approximately 21.5%for breakfast, 32% for lunch), as recommended by IOM. IOMs recommended final sodium targets for the K5 age/grade group breakfasts andlunches are slightly higher than 21.5% and 32% 32%, respectively, of the UL because this proposed elementary school group spans part of twoDRI age groups (ages 48 and 913 years).

USDA is committed to helpingprogram operators reduce sodium in

school menus. USDAs Team Nutritionand the National School Food ServiceManagement Institute have developedguidance for reducing sodium. USDAalso continues to make low-sodiumUSDA Foods available to schools. Forexample, USDA offers only reducedsodium canned beans and vegetables atno more than 140 mg per half-cupserving, including spaghetti sauce, salsa,and tomato paste. Canned whole kernelcorn, whole tomatoes, and dicedtomatoes are being offered with noadded salt. Frozen vegetables, includinggreen beans, carrots, corn, peas, and

sweet potatoes are available with noadded salt. USDA has also reduced theupper salt limit on mozzarella cheese(current range is 130175 mg of sodiumper 1 oz. serving) and chicken fajitastrips (220 mg per 2 oz serving).

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed sodium limits,with modifications, and codifies themunder 210.10(f) for the NSLP andunder 220.8(f) for the SBP.

Tracking Calories, Saturated Fat, andSodium

Proposed Rule:State agencies mustmonitor compliance with the dietaryspecifications (calories, saturated fatand sodium levels) by conducting aweighted nutrient analysis for theschools selected for administrativereview every 3 years. The analysis mustcover menu and production records fora 2-week period.

Comments:Commenters did notspecifically address the proposal tocombine the nutritional assessment ofschool meals with the administrativereview for stronger programaccountability. Overall, health and child

nutrition advocates welcomed the newSA requirement to conductadministrative reviews every 3 years,which is codified through this final rule.They also agreed in general thatreviewing menu and production recordsfor a 2-week period and conducting aweighted nutrient analysis offer a moreaccurate assessment of school mealsthan current regulations.

However, State and local programoperators expressed concern about therequirement to conduct administrativereviews every 3 years. Several

commenters stated that SAs havelimited time and resources to conduct

more frequent administrative reviewsand provide technical assistance to allSFAs. In addition, school districts, SAs,trade associations, advocacyorganizations and others opposedremoving responsibility to conduct anutrient analysis from the SFAs,

believing this change limit the SFAsability to assess their own efforts toreduce sodium and saturated fat, andcomply with the calorie ranges. Othercommenters also opposed therequirement for a weighted nutrientanalysis because it would not identifyissues in menu planning or reflect whatstudents actually consume. Severalcommenters requested that a tool bedeveloped for SAs to identify issues andhelp implement the new mealrequirements for schools.

USDA Response:The HHFKAamended the NSLA to requireimprovements to school meals and morefrequent monitoring of school meals tofacilitate transition to the new mealrequirements. This rule requires SAs to

begin the 3-year Coordinated ReviewEffort (CRE) cycle on July 1, 2013 (SY20132014) for the NSLP and SBP. To



13/81


help SAs meet this requirement, USDAwill develop technical assistance toolsto facilitate monitoring of school meals.

This rule requires SAs to conduct thenutrient analysis of school lunches and

breakfasts as part of the administrativereview, but does not limit SFAdiscretion to conduct a nutrient analysisof the school meals to determine if they

are in line with the dietaryspecifications. We understand thatmany SFAs currently have the ability toconduct a nutrient analysis.

USDA is mindful of SA concernsabout increased administrative burden.In response to concerns about therequirement to conduct a nutrientanalysis of school meals using menusfor a two-week period, this final rulereduces the time period to one-week,which is the current requirement. Thismodification to the proposed rule isexpected to lessen the informationcollection burden on SAs without

affecting their ability to assess thenutritional integrity of the meals offeredand the general quality of the foodservice operation.

Accordingly, this final ruleimplements the proposed monitoringrequirements, with modifications, andcodifies them under 210.18(c), 210.18(g)(2), 210.18(i)(3), 210.18(m), and 210.19(c) for theNSLP and under 220.8(h), 220.8(i),and 220.8(j) for the SBP.

Tracking Trans Fat

Proposed Rule:Food products andingredients used to prepare school

lunches and breakfasts must containzero grams oftrans fat per serving (lessthan 0.5 grams per serving) according tothe nutrition labeling or manufacturersspecifications.

Comments:Many commenters,including advocacy organizations,schools, health care professionals,community organizations and othersexpressed support for the proposal torestrict trans fat in school meals. Severalof them asked that naturally-occurringtrans fat be excluded from the trans fatlimit. A few commenters suggested thatthe trans fat limit be greater than zero

due to concerns over potential increaseduse of hydrogenated oils and saturatedfats in school meals. No commentersopposed the proposal to restrict transfat.

USDA Response:A number of studiessuggest an association between transfatty acid intake and increased risk ofcardiovascular disease. The DietaryGuidelines recommend that all personskeep trans fatty acid consumption aslow as possible by limiting foods thatcontain synthetic sources oftrans fats,such as partially hydrogenated oils, and

by limiting other solid fats. Therefore, tosafeguard childrens health, this finalrule requires that food products andingredients used to prepare schoolmeals contain zero grams of added transfat per serving (less than 0.5 grams perserving as defined by FDA) according tothe nutrition labeling or manufacturersspecifications. This requirement takes

effect in the NSLP on July 1, 2012 (SY20122013). In the SBP, the requirementis effective on July 1 2013 (SY 20132014, the second year ofimplementation).

This requirement is intended torestrict synthetic trans fatty acids anddoes not apply to naturally occurringtrans fats, which are present in meatand dairy products. Synthetic trans fattyacids are found in partiallyhydrogenated oils used in somemargarines, snack foods, and prepareddesserts. See USDA Foods guidance ontrans fat at http://www.fns.usda.gov/

fdd/facts/nutrition/TransFatFactSheet.pdf.Accordingly, this final rule

implements the proposed trans fatrestriction and codifies it under 210.10(g) 210.10(h) and 210.10(j),for the NSLP and under 220.8(g), 220.8(h), and 220.8(j) for the SBP.

Standards for Meals Selected by theStudent (Offer versus Serve (OVS)

Proposed Rule:Under OVS, studentsmay not decline more than two fooditems at lunch and one food item at

breakfast,

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	statesman-journal
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

Documents