Department of Agriculture: Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 17 January 26, 2012

Vol.
77 Thursday,
No. 17 January 26, 2012
Part II
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220
Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs; Final Rule
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:44 Jan 25, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\26JAR2.SGM 26JAR2
4088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE requirements in a manner that reduces The proposed rule sought to increase
the estimated costs of breakfast changes, the availability of fruits, vegetables,
Food and Nutrition Service as compared to the proposed rule. As a whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat
result, the final rule is estimated to add fluid milk in the school menu; reduce
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220 $3.2 billion to school meal costs over the levels of sodium, saturated fat and
5 years, considerably less than the trans fat in school meals; and meet the
[FNS20070038]
estimated cost of the proposed rule. nutrition needs of school children
RIN 0584AD59 When considered in the context of within their calorie requirements. The
other related provisions of the Healthy intent of the proposed rule was to
Nutrition Standards in the National Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010, provide nutrient-dense meals (high in
School Lunch and School Breakfast sufficient resources are expected to be nutrients and low in calories) that better
Programs available to school food authorities to meet the dietary needs of school
cover the additional costs of updated children and protect their health. The
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service meal offerings to meet the new
(FNS), USDA. proposed changes, designed for meals
standards. offered to school children in grades
ACTION: Final rule. Specifically, in addition to improving Kindergarten (K) to 12, were largely
nutritional quality, the HHFKA based on the IOM recommendations set
SUMMARY: This final rule updates the mandated that beginning July 1, 2011,
meal patterns and nutrition standards forth in the report School Meals:
revenue streams for a la carte foods Building Blocks for Healthy Children
for the National School Lunch and relative to their costs be at least as high
School Breakfast Programs to align them (October 2009).
as the revenue streams for Program In summary, the January 2011
with the Dietary Guidelines for meals compared to their costs.
Americans. This rule requires most proposed rule sought to improve
Consequently schools should receive lunches and breakfasts by requiring
schools to increase the availability of over $1 billion a year in new food
fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat- schools to:
revenues beginning in School Year Offer fruits and vegetables as two
free and low-fat fluid milk in school 20112012. That will help schools work
meals; reduce the levels of sodium, separate meal components;
toward implementing the new standards Offer fruit daily at breakfast and
saturated fat and trans fat in meals; and effective the following year, i.e., July 1, lunch;
meet the nutrition needs of school 2012. In addition, USDA estimates that Offer vegetables daily at lunch,
children within their calorie the School Food Authorities revenues including specific vegetable subgroups
requirements. These improvements to rule will increase participation in weekly (dark green, orange, legumes,
the school meal programs, largely based school meal programs by 800,000 and other as defined in the 2005 Dietary
on recommendations made by the children. Guidelines) and a limited quantity of
Institute of Medicine of the National In addition, the six-cent per lunch starchy vegetables throughout the week;
Academies, are expected to enhance the performance-based reimbursement Offer whole grains: half of the
diet and health of school children, and increase included in the HHFKA will grains would be whole grain-rich upon
help mitigate the childhood obesity provide additional revenue beginning implementation of the rule and all
trend. October 1, 2012. The Congressional grains would be whole-grain rich two
DATES: Effective date: This rule is Budget Office estimated about $1.5 years post implementation;
effective March 26, 2012. billion over 5 years will be provided in Offer a daily meat/meat alternate at
Compliance date: Compliance with performance-based funding. breakfast;
the provisions of this rule must begin I. Background Offer fluid milk that is fat-free
July 1, 2012, except as otherwise noted (unflavored and flavored) and low-fat
The Richard B. Russell National (unflavored only);
on the implementation table provided in
School Lunch Act (NSLA) in Section Offer meals that meet specific
the preamble under SUPPLEMENTARY
9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requires calorie ranges for each age/grade group;
INFORMATION.
that school meals reflect the latest Reduce the sodium content of meals
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dietary Guidelines for Americans gradually over a 10-year period through
William Wagoner or Marisol (Dietary Guidelines). In addition, two intermediate sodium targets at two
Aldahondo-Aponte, Policy and Program section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free and four years post implementation;
Development Branch, Child Nutrition Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111296, Prepare meals using food products
Division, Food and Nutrition Service at HHFKA) amended Section 4(b) of the or ingredients that contain zero grams of
(703) 3052590. NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1753(b), to require the trans fat per serving;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Department of Agriculture (USDA) to Require students to select a fruit or
issue regulations to update the meal a vegetable as part of the reimbursable
Executive Summary patterns and nutrition standards for meal;
This final rule modifies several key school lunches and breakfasts based on Use a single food-based menu
proposed requirements to respond to the recommendations issued by the planning approach; and
commenter concerns and facilitate Food and Nutrition Board of the Use narrower age/grade groups for
successful implementation of the National Research Council of the menu planning.
requirements at the State and local National Academies of Science, part of In addition, the proposed rule sought
levels. The rule phases in many of the the Institute of Medicine (IOM). On to improve school meals by requiring
changes to help ensure that all January 13, 2011, USDA published a State agencies (SAs) to:
stakeholdersthe children, the schools, proposed rule in the Federal Register Conduct a nutritional review of
and their supply chainshave time to (76 FR 2494) to update the meal patterns school lunches and breakfasts as part of
adapt. Most notably, this final rule and nutrition standards for the National the administrative review process;
provides additional time for School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the Determine compliance with the
implementation of the breakfast School Breakfast Program (SBP) to align meal patterns and dietary specifications
requirements and modifies those them with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. based on a review of menu and
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 4089
production records for a two-week II. Public Comments and USDA and labor costs for each reimbursable
period; and Response breakfast in FY 2015, when all the
Review school lunches and USDA received comments from requirements will be in place as stated
breakfasts every 3 years, consistent with nutrition, health, and child advocates at in the proposed rule.
the national, state and local levels; SAs USDA has taken into consideration
the HHFKA. the different views expressed by
that administer the school meal
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines were commenters and seeks to be responsive
programs; school districts/boards;
released on January 31, 2011, after to the concerns raised by stakeholders,
schools; school food service staff;
USDA published the proposed rule. On superintendents, principals, and especially those responsible for the
March 21, 2011 USDA issued a Notice teachers; food manufacturers and management and day to day operation
in the Federal Register (76 FR 15225) of the school meal programs. At the
distributors; food industry
seeking public comment on the need to same time, we are mindful that the
representatives; food service
modify the proposed rule to reflect the overweight and obesity epidemic
management companies; academia;
2010 Dietary Guidelines affecting many children in America
nutritionists/dietitians; community
recommendations to consume red- requires that all sectors of our society,
organizations; parents and students; and
orange vegetables and protein including schools, help children make
many other interested groups and
subgroups: (1) Seafood; (2) meat, poultry significant changes in their diet to
individuals. Overall, the comments
and eggs, and (3) nuts, seeds, and soy improve their overall health and become
provided were generally more
productive adults. This final rule makes
products. The public comments to the supportive of the proposed rule than
significant improvements to the NSLP
Notice (76 FR 15225) were added to the opposed. Comments from nutrition, and SBP to facilitate successful
proposed rule docket and all comments health and child advocates; community implementation of the requirements at
associated with the proposed rule were organizations; academia; and parents the State and local levels. This final rule
considered in preparing this final rule. favor the proposed rule, citing concern modifies several key proposed
USDA received a total of 133,268 about the national childhood obesity requirements to respond to commenter
public comments during the comment problem and the increased likelihood of concerns as well as to address
preventable diseases such as requirements of the Consolidated and
period January 13April 13, 2011. This
cardiovascular disease, high blood Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
total included several single
pressure, high cholesterol, stroke, and 2012, Public Law 11255. Most notably,
submissions with thousands of
type 2 diabetes, all of which increase this final rule provides additional time
comments. The types of comments the cost of healthcare nationally. Many
received included 7,107 unique letters, for implementation of the SBP
comments enthusiastically supported requirements and modifies those
122,715 form letters from 159 mass mail the increase in fruits, vegetables, whole
campaigns, 3,353 non-germane letters, requirements in a manner that reduces
grains, fat-free milk/low-fat milk in the the estimated costs of breakfast changes,
and 93 duplicates. Comments were school menus, and most other proposed
analyzed using computer software that as compared to the proposed rule.
changes designed to improve the No changes to the SBP meal pattern
facilitated the identification of the key nutritional quality of school meals. take effect immediately upon
issues addressed by the commenters, as Comments from SAs and school food publication of this final rule, except
well as by USDA policy officials. authorities (SFAs), food industry, limiting flavor to fat-free milk, and
Although USDA considered all industry representatives, food service requiring the service of only fat-free and
comments, the description and analysis management companies, and others in low-fat milk (the latter is a statutory
in this final rule preamble focuses on the public and private sectors associated requirement codified in the NSLA in the
the most frequent comments and those with the operation of the school meals HHFKA. See the discussion on Milk
that influenced revisions to the programs also supported improving for further details). Furthermore, this
proposed rule, and discusses school meals but voiced strong concerns rule introduces selected requirements
modifications made to the proposed rule about some aspects of the proposed rule. into the SBP beginning SY 20132014
in response to public input. USDA The proposed food quantities, (the second year of implementation) to
greatly appreciates the public comments meat/meat alternate component at ease the estimated increase in breakfast
breakfast, weekly vegetable subgroup costs and minimize impact on SBP
as they have been essential in
requirement at lunch, starchy vegetables operations. This approach is intended to
developing a final rule that is expected
limit, sodium reductions, whole grains enable program operators to concentrate
to improve school meals in a sound and
requirement, and frequency of on improving school lunches first and
practical manner. To view all public administrative review were the parts of then focus on the breakfast changes. It
comments on the proposed rule go to the proposal that prompted most of their also allows USDA to meet the statutory
www.regulations.gov and search for concerns. Program operators also raised requirement to offer meals that reflect
public submissions under docket concerns about the rule cost and the Dietary Guidelines while being
number FNS20070038. A Summary of implementation timeline, the impact of responsive to the concerns raised by
Public Comments is available as the proposed changes on student program operators and other
supporting material under the docket participation in the meal programs, and stakeholders. However, SFAs that are
folder summary. the potential for increased plate waste if able to implement the new meal
Note: This final rule does not update the meals are not acceptable to students. A requirements concurrently in the SBP
Pre-K school meal patterns. These are under number of commenters suggested that and NSLP are encouraged to do so with
USDA conduct additional research or SA approval.
review and will be updated in a future

rulemaking amending regulations pilot test the proposed changes before Section G of the Regulatory Impact
implementing the USDAs Child and Adult implementation. All of the above Analysis discusses in greater detail the
Care Food Program. However, two provisions concerns are more prevalent in the SBP key differences between the proposed
in this final rule, menu planning approach than the NSLP. Schools that operate the and final rules. Most of the estimated
and fluid milk requirements, impact Pre-K SBP voiced significant concern about reduction in cost is due to the policy
meals as discussed later in this preamble. the estimated 50 cents increase in food changes discussed above, including the
phased in breakfast meal pattern simplifies menu planning, serves as a and sodium standards for each the of
requirements and the elimination of a teaching tool to help children choose a the age/grade groups.
separate meat component at breakfast, balanced meal, and assures that Several commenters argued the
as well as more modest changes to the students nationwide have access to key proposed meal patterns offer too much
lunch meal pattern requirements grain food groups recommended by the food, especially for young children.
and vegetable components. In addition Dietary Guidelines. It also makes it Some commenters recommended
to these policy changes, lower food easier for schools to communicate the different age/grade groups, and an SA
inflation since preparation of the meal improvements to parents and the recommended that USDA retain the
proposed rule cost estimate contributes community-at-large. Simplifying current age/grade groups. Some SFAs
to the reduction in the cost of the final program management, training and requested flexibility in the use of the
rule compared to the proposed rule. monitoring is expected to result in age/grade groups (e.g., a one-grade level
The following is a summary of the key program savings. Over 70 percent of the leeway). A number of commenters
public comments on the proposed rule program operators currently use FBMP, expressed concerns regarding use of the
and USDAs response. Public comments and training and technical assistance age/grade groups in the SBP, as schools
unrelated to the specific provisions of resources will be available to help all generally serve K12 students in the
the rule (e.g., standards for cholesterol, schools successfully transition to the same line.
dietary fiber, artificial sweeteners, new meal patterns. USDA Response: This final rule
caffeine) are not discussed here but are In response to commenters concerns requires schools to use the age/grade
addressed in the Summary of Public about the estimated cost increase of the groups K5, 68, and 912 to plan
Comments. For a more detailed breakfast meal, this final rule gives menus in the NSLP upon
discussion of the public comments see those SBP program operators not implementation of this rule in SY 2012
the Summary of Public Comments currently using FBMP additional time to 2013. These age/grade groups reflect
posted online at www.Regulations.gov. convert to this planning approach. SBP predominant school grade
operators who are not currently using configurations and are consistent with
Menu Planning Approach the IOMs Dietary Reference Intake (DRI)
FBMP may continue with their current
Proposed Rule: Follow a single Food- groupings. This rule allows reasonable
Based Menu Planning (FBMP) approach. menu planning approach through SY
flexibility in the use of the age/grade
Comments: Nutrition, health and 20122013. However, all SBP operators
groups and permits a school to use one
child advocates; community must use a single FBMP approach
meal pattern for students in grades K
organizations; academia; parents; and beginning SY 20132014 (the second
through 8 as food quantity requirements
SAs support the FBMP approach year of implementation).
for groups K5 and 68 overlap. In such
because it helps children easily identify This final rule sets forth the new food- a case, the school continues to be
the key food groups necessary for a based meal patterns in 7 CFR 210.10 for responsible for meeting the calorie,
well-balanced meal. According to a lunches and 220.8 for breakfasts. In saturated fat, and sodium standards for
health advocate, FBMP also minimizes order to accommodate the extended each of the age/grade groups receiving
the opportunity to offer unhealthy foods implementation for non-FBMP the school meals. The following
that have been fortified to meet the operators, this final rule creates a new example illustrates this concept:
nutrient requirements. SAs support a 220.23 that restates the nutrition Example: A school could offer all
single menu planning approach as it standards and menu planning students in grade groups K5 and 68
supports a more cost effective delivery approaches that apply to all SBP the same lunch choices for the fruit,
of training and technical assistance operators in SY 20122013 only. vegetable, grains, meat/meat alternate,
resources. Individual SFAs wishing to adopt the and milk components because the
However, a number of SFAs that provisions of 220.8 prior to the quantity requirements are the same or
currently use the Nutrient Standard required implementation date specified overlap. Similarly, the calorie
Menu Planning (NSMP) and some therein may do so with the approval of requirements for grades K5 (550650
school advocacy organizations, trade the SA. average calories per week) and grades 6
associations, food manufacturers, Accordingly, this final rule 8 (600700 average calories per week)
nutritionists, and other commenters implements the proposed FBMP overlap. Therefore, a school could offer
suggested that NSMP be allowed as an approach and codifies the proposal both grade groups a range of 600650
option. SFAs that use NSMP claimed under 210.10(a)(1)(i) of the regulatory average calories per week to meet the
that they would still have to conduct a text for the NSLP and 220.8(a)(1) for requirement for each grade group. While
nutrient analysis to assess if they are the SBP. Menu planning approaches the saturated fat and trans fat
meeting the new dietary specifications applicable to the SBP in SY 20122013 requirement are the same for both grade
(calories, sodium, and saturated fat are under 220.23(a)(5). groups, the school must carefully
levels). Several commenters also Age/Grade Groups consider the sodium requirements. The
claimed that NSMP schools are better school would have to comply with the
able to control costs and that changing Proposed Rule: Plan lunches and lower sodium standard that was
to FBMP would result in increased breakfasts using age/grade groups K5, developed for age/grades K5 but would
training costs. Some stated that 68, and 912. also meet the requirement for students
eliminating NSMP decreases menu Comments: A number of nutrition, in age/grades 68.
planning flexibility and menu variety. health and child advocates; and In the SBP, the new age/grade groups
USDA Response: To ensure that dietitians agreed that the proposed take effect in SY 20132014 (the second
school meals reflect the key food groups age/grade groups would result in more year of implementation) to ease the
recommended by the Dietary age-appropriate school meals. They also burden on program operators. Until
Guidelines, this final rule establishes supported the provision allowing then, schools have the option to
FBMP as the single menu planning schools to serve the same breakfast and continue the age/grade group K12 for
approach for the NSLP (including for lunch meal patterns for students in planning breakfasts. Meals planned for
Pre-K meals) in SY 20122013. A single grades K through 8, provided that the the age/grade group K12 must meet the
food-based menu planning approach meals meet the calorie, saturated fat, nutrition standards developed for that
age/grade group, which have been Regarding the types of fruit to be reimbursable meal under Offer versus
moved from 220.8 to a new 220.23 of offered, several commenters supported Serve (OVS), instead of requiring them
the regulatory text. the proposed limitation on added sugar to take the full fruit component. This
Accordingly, this final rule in frozen fruit to limit the sources of change in the application of OVS with
implements the proposed age/grade discretionary calories. Some regard to the fruits and vegetables
groups and codifies the proposal under commenters recommended a components is further discussed in
210.10(c)(1) of the regulatory text for prohibition on canned fruit in light Standards for Meals Selected by the
the NSLP and 220.8(c)(1) for the SBP. syrup. Some program operators asked Student (Offer versus Serve).
Age/grade groups applicable to the SBP how to credit whole fresh fruit, and Schools may meet the fruit
in SY 20122013 are under 220.23(b) other commenters requested that the component at lunch and breakfast by
for nutrient standards menu planning, quantities in the meal patterns be offering fruit that is fresh; canned in
and under 220.23(g) for food based changed from cups to servings to better fruit juice, water, or light syrup; frozen
menu planning. account for fresh whole fruit. A few without added sugar, or dried. Through
suggested that USDA adopt the its USDA Foods Programs, USDA offers
Meal Components HealthierUS School Challenge Gold schools a range of fresh, frozen without
Fruits Level requirement to serve fresh fruit added sugar, dried and canned fruits.
twice per week with school meals. Although 100 percent juice can be
Proposed Rule: Offer fruit as a
USDA Response: This final rule offered, no more than half of the per-
separate food component at lunch daily. establishes fruits and vegetables as meal fruit component may be juice
Increase the fruit and vegetable amounts separate food components in the NSLP because it lacks dietary fiber and when
at lunch and double the minimum and adds a fruits requirement at lunch consumed in excess can contribute extra
required fruit quantity at breakfast. beginning SY 20122013. The intent of calories. Schools should offer fresh fruit
Allow schools to offer a non-starchy the new requirements is to promote the whenever possible.
vegetable in place of fruit/fruit juice at consumption of these fruits, as Although some commenters suggested
breakfast. Allow frozen fruit without recommended by the Dietary that the meal patterns set the fruit and
added sugar only. Guidelines. Fruits (and vegetables) that other food requirements as servings
Comments: There is general support are prepared without added solid fats, rather than cups, this final rule does not
for the proposal to establish fruit as sugars, refined starches, and sodium are adopt this suggestion, as a serving can
separate food component. Stakeholders nutrient rich foods and supply be any amount of food determined by
such as nutrition, health and child important nutrients that are under- the menu planner and does not ensure
advocates supported the proposal consumed by school children in the uniformity. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines
because they are concerned that United States (including potassium and recommended amounts were given in
children are not consuming the dietary fiber) with relatively little cups and ounce equivalents (oz. eq.),
recommended intake of fruits. One calories. which are standard defined amounts.
major health advocate noted that it is This rule also gives program operators Menu planners must continue to use the
possible to significantly increase the additional time to meet the required Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition
quantity of fruits and vegetables in the minimum fruit quantity increase in the Programs to determine how to credit
school menu in a cost effective way, SBP. Schools are required to offer 1 cup whole fruit. USDA will update the Food
stating that many schools already of fruit to all age/grade groups at Buying Guide as soon as possible, and
exceed the current NSLP meal breakfast beginning in SY 20142015 will also develop other technical
requirements, and noting that of (the third year of implementation). This assistance resources as needed.
thousands of schools participating in modification gives program operators Accordingly, this final rule
the Alliance for a Healthier Generations more time to prepare for this important implements the proposed fruit
Healthy School Program, 85 percent change to SBP menus. This rule also requirements, with modifications, and
provide at least one fruit (fresh, canned, gives schools the option to offer codifies them under 210.10(c) for the
or frozen in fruit juice or light syrup) at vegetables in place of all or part of the NSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP.
breakfast and 72 percent provide at least required fruit component for menu Fruit requirements applicable to the
four non-fried, no-added-sugars fruit or flexibility and as a potential cost control SBP in SY 20122013 are under
vegetable options daily. measure. However, the first two cups 220.23(g).
However, many commenters opposed per week of any such substitution must
the proposed minimum required fruit be from the dark green, red/orange, Vegetables
quantities, and were particularly beans and peas (legumes) or other Proposed Rule: Offer vegetables as a
concerned about the fruit requirement vegetable subgroups. These vegetable separate food component at lunch daily.
for breakfast. A number of commenters subgroups have been identified as being Increase the variety of vegetables over
stated that one cup of fruit at breakfast under-consumed by school children, the week to include the following
is too much for young children to according to the IOM report. Starchy subgroups: dark green, orange, legumes,
consume at one time and will result in vegetables may also be offered in and other as defined in the Dietary
significant plate waste. Commenters substitution of fruits, once the first two Guidelines. Limit starchy vegetables at
also emphasized that students usually cups offering of non-starchy vegetables lunch to 1 cup per week for all age/
have very little time to eat breakfast at have been met. This change to the grade groups. Allow non-starchy
school and are concerned about the proposed rule allows schools flexibility vegetables in place of fruit at breakfast.
logistics of offering more food through and the option to offer vegetables in Comments: Nutrition, health and
alternative breakfast delivery methods place of fruit in accordance with the child advocates; community
such as Breakfast in the Classroom or on substitution protocol specified here. organizations; academia; and parents
the bus. In general, these commenters Although schools must offer the full welcomed the proposal to divide fruits
argued that the proposal to double the amount of the required food component, and vegetables into two separate
amount of fruit at breakfast would to minimize the potential for food waste components and expressed support for
contribute to higher costs for food, in the NSLP and SBP, all students are the proposed weekly vegetable
labor, equipment, and storage. allowed to select 12 cup of fruit for a requirements. Some of these
commenters stated the proposed strategy to increase childrens This final rule does not implement
increase in vegetable variety and consumption of these food groups. the proposed rule limitation on servings
quantity should positively impact However, they expressed concern that of starchy vegetables offered as part of
overall consumption. the proposed vegetable requirements the lunch and breakfast reimbursable
State and local program operators, increase challenges with or could meals. This change is in response to
however, suggested that the vegetable discourage the use of self-serve salad commenters concerns and the
subgroups be encouraged, rather than bars. Schools asked how to determine if requirements of the FY 2012 Agriculture
required (similar to the approach in the the required foods/portions are being Appropriations Act, which specifically
HealthierUS School Challenge served. prevented USDA from adopting the IOM
guidelines). Some commenters stated USDA Response: This final rule recommendation for setting maximum
that the vegetable subgroup establishes vegetables as a separate food limits on starchy vegetables, providing
requirements are too complicated. component in the NSLP, and requires for fiscal year 2012 USDA
Others argued that children will not eat schools to offer all the vegetable appropriations. Therefore, schools are
vegetables they are not familiar with subgroups identified by the 2010 allowed to offer any vegetable subgroup
and, therefore, the vegetable subgroup Dietary Guidelines (dark green, red/ identified by the 2010 Dietary
requirements will result in plate waste. orange, beans and peas (legumes), Guidelines to meet the vegetables
Several commenters expressed concern starchy, and other) over the course of component required for each
that procuring some vegetable the week at minimum required reimbursable school meal. The vegetable
subgroups will be difficult and costly quantities as part of the lunch menus in quantities in the lunch meal pattern
during specific times of the year in SY 20122013. As required by the have been modified to reflect this
certain parts of the country. Others Consolidated and Further Continuing change to the proposal while remaining
requested clarification regarding when Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law consistent with the Dietary Guidelines
beans should be considered a legume 11255 (FY 2012 Agriculture focus on increasing the intake of
versus a meat alternate. Appropriations Act), we are removing vegetables that are under-consumed.
Many State and local program the proposed rule limit on starchy Commenters asked USDA to clarify
operators opposed the starchy vegetable vegetables, and instead requiring when to credit beans and peas (legumes)
limit. They argued that all vegetables schools to offer at least minimum toward the vegetable component. Local
should be encouraged, and that a limit quantities of all vegetable subgroups in menu planners decide how to
on starchy vegetables will lead to a the NSLP over the course of the week. incorporate beans and peas (legumes)
decrease in vegetable consumption, or a This change encourages consumption into the school meal but may not offer
decrease in participation in the NSLP. from all vegetable subgroups, and is one serving of beans and peas (legumes)
Some suggested that the weekly limit consistent with the Dietary Guidelines to meet the requirements for both
only apply to potatoes. Several recommendation to increase variety in vegetables and meat/meat alternate
suggested that instead of limiting vegetable consumption. In addition, to components. Beans and peas (legumes)
starchy vegetables, USDA should be consistent with the 2010 Dietary can be credited toward the vegetable
prohibit French fries or deep-fried Guidelines classification of vegetable component because they are excellent
preparation methods for all vegetables. subgroups, this final rule expands the sources of dietary fiber and nutrients
Others requested gradual introduction proposed orange vegetable subgroup to such as folate and potassium. These
of the weekly limit on starchy include red/orange vegetables. USDA nutrients are often low in the diets of
vegetables. Many program operators asked commenters about this change in many Americans. Because of their high
argued that white potatoes are the vegetable subgroups in the Notice nutrient content and low cost, USDA
inexpensive and would need to be published by USDA in the Federal encourages menu planners to include
replaced by more expensive fruits and Register (76 CFR 15225) on March 21, beans and peas (legumes) in the school
vegetables, which will be a costly strain 2011 and there was no public menu regularly, either as a vegetable or
on school/state budgets. A few asked opposition. as a meat alternate (as discussed later).
that starchy vegetables in mixed dishes, This final rule also allows schools the Some foods commonly referred to as
such as soups, not count towards the option to offer vegetables in place of all beans and peas (e.g., green peas, green
weekly starchy vegetable limit. or part of the fruits requirement at lima beans, and green (string) beans) are
Nutrition and health advocates breakfast beginning July 1, 2014. This is not considered part of the beans and
favored allowing non-starchy vegetables consistent with the Dietary Guidelines peas subgroup because their nutrient
in place of fruit in the SBP. However, recommendation to eat a variety of profile is dissimilar. More information
numerous commenters opposed vegetables, especially dark green, red on the use and categorization of beans
disallowing starchy vegetables at and orange vegetables, and beans and and peas (legumes) is available online at
breakfast. These commenters, including peas (legumes). This recommendation is http://www.choosemyplate.gov/
SFAs, food industry, and some parents, applicable to the school meals because foodgroups/
stated that starchy vegetables such as most vegetables and fruits are major proteinfoods_beanspeas.html.
potatoes are affordable and popular, and contributors of nutrients that are under- In response to commenter questions
complement many breakfast dishes. consumed in the United States, about how to use salad bars to meet the
They also noted that potatoes supply including potassium and dietary fiber. new meal requirements, the Department
potassium and other minerals, vitamins Consumption of vegetables and fruits is would like to emphasize that schools
and fiber, and are naturally low in fat also associated with reduced risk of may continue to use salad bars to
and sodium. Many stakeholders many chronic diseases, including enhance the variety of vegetables in the
suggested that USDA ease the proposed obesity, heart attack, stroke, and cancer. school menu. See FNS memorandum SP
restrictions on starchy vegetables. By providing more and a variety of 022010Revised (January 21, 2011) for
Program operators also addressed the vegetables in a nutrient-dense form more information on how salad bars can
use of salad bars to meet the vegetable (without added solid fats, sugars, be used effectively as part of the
requirement. They stated that salad bars refined starches, and sodium), schools reimbursable meals. The memorandum
are good ways to serve a wide variety of help students obtain important nutrients is available online at http://
fruits and vegetables and are an effective and maintain a healthy weight. www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/
Policy-Memos/2011/SP02 whole cornmeal, and brown rice) are a identify whole grain-rich foods. This is
2011revised_os.pdf. source of nutrients such as iron, consistent with USDAs approach on
As with the proposed rule, this final magnesium, selenium, B vitamins, and whole grains in the HealthierUS School
rule allows schools to use fresh, frozen, dietary fiber. Evidence suggests that Challenge (HealthierUS School
and canned products to meet the eating whole grains in nutrient dense Challenge Whole-Grains Resource,
vegetable requirement. Schools have forms may lower body weight and http://teamnutrition.usda.gov/
access to nutritious vegetable choices reduce the risk of cardiovascular healthierUS/NFSMI/
through USDA Foods. For example, disease. Currently, schools may offer lesson2handouts.pdf). Therefore, until
USDA Foods offers only reduced enriched or whole grains, and are the whole grain content of food
sodium canned vegetables at no more allowed to offer enriched, refined grains products is required on a product label
than 140 mg of sodium per half-cup only. Therefore, this final rule by the Food and Drug Administration
serving, which is in line with the 2010 establishes a minimum whole grain-rich (FDA), schools must evaluate a grain
Dietary Guidelines. Schools also have requirement in the NSLP and SBP to product according to forthcoming FNS
the option to order frozen vegetables help children increase their intake of guidance as follows:
with no added salt, including green whole grains and benefit from the Element #1. A serving of the food item
beans, carrots, corn, peas, and sweet important nutrients they provide. must meet portion size requirements for
potatoes. For the NSLP, the whole grain the Grains/Breads component as defined
Accordingly, this final rule requirement takes effect upon in FNS guidance.
implements the proposed vegetables implementation of the rule. Therefore, And
requirements, with modifications, and in SY 20122013 and SY 20132014 Element #2. The food must meet at
codifies them under 210.10(c) for the (the first two years of implementation) least one of the following:
NSLP and under 220.8(c) for the SBP. whole grain-rich products must make a. The whole grains per serving (based
Vegetable requirements applicable to up half of all grain products offered to on minimum serving sizes specified for
the SBP in SY 20122013 are under students. During this time only, refined- grains/breads in FNS guidance) must be
220.23(g). grain foods that are enriched may be 8 grams. This may be determined from
Grains included in the lunch menu. In SY information provided on the product
20142015 (the third year of packaging or by the manufacturer, if
Proposed Rule: Offer at least a daily implementation) and beyond, schools available. Also, manufacturers currently
serving of grains at breakfast and lunch. must offer only whole grain-rich may apply for a Child Nutrition Label
When this rule is initially implemented, products. for qualifying products to indicate the
at least half of the grains offered during In the SBP, this final rule provides number of grains/breads servings that
the week must be whole grain-rich. Two that schools must offer the weekly grain are whole grain-rich.
years after implementation, all grains ranges and half of the grains as whole b. The product includes the following
offered during the week must be whole grain-rich beginning July 1, 2013 (SY Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-
grain-rich. In addition, allow schools 20132014, the second year of approved whole grain health claim on
the option to offer up to one serving of implementation). All grains offered in its packaging. Diets rich in whole grain
a grain-based dessert daily to meet part the SBP must be whole grain-rich in SY foods and other plant foods and low in
of the weekly grains requirement. 20142015 (the third year of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol
Comments: Many commenters, implementation) and beyond. Once may reduce the risk of heart disease and
primarily nutrition and health schools meet the daily minimum grain some cancers.
advocates, and parents, favored quantity required (1 oz. eq. for all age- c. Product ingredient listing lists
introducing a whole grains requirement grade groups) for breakfast, they are whole grain first, specifically:
in the NSLP and SBP. A number of allowed to offer a meat/meat alternate in I. Non-mixed dishes (e.g., breads,
program operators, however, objected to place of grains. The meat/meat alternate cereals): Whole grains must be the
the final whole grains requirement (that can count toward the weekly grains primary ingredient by weight (a whole
all grains offered must be whole grain- requirement (credited as 1 oz. eq. of grain is the first ingredient in the list).
rich), and stated that the initial meat/meat alternate is equivalent to 1 II. Mixed dishes (e.g., pizza, corn
requirement (at least half of grains oz. eq. of grain). This modification is dogs): Whole grains must be the primary
offered must be whole grain-rich) is intended to retain the flexibility that grain ingredient by weight (a whole
sufficient. These commenters asserted menu planners currently have to offer a grain is the first grain ingredient in the
that prohibiting all refined grains would combination of grains and meats/meat list).
restrict many grains that children and alternates at breakfast. This final rule For foods prepared by the school food
adolescents enjoy such as white rice and eliminates the proposed provision to service, the recipe is used as the basis
white bread. Other program operators require a meat/meat alternate daily at for a calculation to determine whether
that objected to the final whole grains breakfast due to the cost concerns the total weight of whole grain
requirement expressed concern with the voiced by program operators. (For more ingredients exceeds the total weight of
timeline and the higher food costs details, please see the discussion on non-whole grain ingredients.
associated with using only whole grain- meat/meat alternate.) Several commenters noted that the
rich products, which they argued are In this final rule, to receive credit in industry standard of identity for whole
generally more expensive than refined the meal programs, a whole grain-rich grain products is 14.75 grams, while the
grain products. Many commenters asked food must contain at least 51 percent IOM recommendations for school meals
that USDA clarify the criteria schools whole grains and the remaining grain were based on 16 grams per serving.
must use to identify whole grain-rich content of the product must be They suggested that schools be
products. enriched. Because current labeling permitted to round up to the nearest

USDA Response: While children regulations and practices may limit the quarter on gram equivalents in products.
generally eat enough total grains, most schools ability to determine the actual USDA will continue to provide SAs and
of the grains they consume are refined whole grain content of many grain schools guidance on this subject.
grains rather than whole grains. Whole products, schools would use both Many program operators expressed
grains (e.g., whole-wheat flour, oatmeal, elements of the following criterion to concern about the increased quantity of
food offered to children. The weekly commenters, however, indicated that a methodology for crediting
grains quantity for the NSLP is reduced applying a weekly meat/meat alternate commercially prepared tofu as a meat
to 89 oz. eq. for age/grade group K5, requirement, rather than a daily source alternate. The predominant approach
to 810 oz. eq. for age/grade group 6 of protein, might decrease the estimated suggested is that USDA credit tofu based
8, and to 1012 oz. eq. for age/grade meal cost and increase menu planning on the grams of protein per ounce
group 912. This grains requirement flexibility. equivalent.
still reflects the Dietary Guidelines Many of the public comments focused USDA Response: This final rule
recommendation to increase on the proposed requirement to offer a implements the meat/meat alternate
consumption of whole grains as half of meat/meat alternate daily at breakfast. requirements for the NSLP as proposed.
all grains offered must be whole grain- Commenters who favored the proposal Schools must offer at least a minimum
rich during the first two years of stated that a breakfast with a meat/meat amount of meat/meat alternate daily (2
implementation, and all grains must be alternate would provide greater satiety oz eq. for students in grades 912, and
whole grain-rich thereafter. and help increase the protein intake for 1 oz eq. for younger students), and
Commenters also expressed concerns children that do not drink milk. They provide a weekly required amount for
regarding the cost and availability of said the protein requirement would each age/grade group. Offering a meat/
whole grain-rich products. USDA would result in a more nutritious and balanced meat alternate daily as part of the school
like to emphasize that such products are breakfast. lunch supplies protein, B vitamins,
now available through USDA Foods, However, many school districts vitamin E, iron, zinc, and magnesium to
including: brown rice; parboiled brown expressed concerns about offering a the diet of children, and also teaches
rice; rolled oats; whole-wheat flour; daily meat/meat alternate at breakfast. them to recognize the components of a
whole-grain kernel corn; and whole- Several of these commenters argued that balanced meal. Menu planners are
grain rotini, spaghetti, and macaroni. there is insufficient scientific support encouraged to offer a variety of protein
This final rule modifies the provision for the proposed meat/meat alternate foods (e.g., lean or extra lean meats,
in the proposed rule to allow schools requirement at breakfast. Others seafood, and poultry; beans and peas;
the option to meet part of the weekly asserted that the daily requirement fat-free and low-fat milk products; and
grains requirement with grain-based would be costly, create logistical unsalted nuts and seeds) to meet the
desserts. USDA had proposed to allow difficulties and food safety challenges meat/meat alternate requirement.
up to one serving of grain-based dessert for schools, make it difficult for schools The Department is mindful of the cost
per day to allow additional to achieve the new sodium limits, and and operational concerns expressed by
opportunities to incorporate whole discourage new breakfast modalities and schools and other stakeholders
grains in the lunch menu. However, the school participation in the SBP. Some regarding the proposed meat/meat
2010 Dietary Guidelines cite grain-based also noted that children in most schools alternate component in the SBP.
desserts as a significant source of solid have very limited time to eat breakfast Previously, schools have had the
fats and added sugars in Americans and offering more food would result in flexibility to offer one serving each of
diets. Therefore, this final rule reduces increased plate waste. grains and meat/meat alternate, or two
the number of allowable grain-based A few commenters also expressed servings of either one at breakfast. We
desserts from five to two per school concerns about the availability of meat/ have seen a steady increase in the
week, as recommended by several meat alternate products that will enable number of schools participating in the
commenters. schools to offer meals that meet the SBP and more schools are offering
Accordingly, this final rule dietary specifications for sodium, breakfast in the classroom and other
implements the proposed grains saturated fat, and trans fat. A creative delivery options. Therefore, this
requirements and codifies them under commenter asked whether USDA Foods final rule retains some flexibility offered
210.10(c) for the NSLP and under is able to provide low-sodium processed by the grains and meat/meat alternate
220.8(c) for the SBP. Grains meats, cheeses, and other meat/meat combination available in the current
requirements applicable to the SBP in alternate products. SBP meal pattern, and does not require
SY 20122013 are under 220.23(g). Commenters had different opinions a daily meat/meat alternate in the SBP.
on whether or not the meal pattern Menu planners may offer a meat/meat
Meats/Meat Alternates should require that schools offer the alternate in place of grains after the
Proposed Rule: Offer a meat/meat specific protein food subgroups minimum daily grains requirement is
alternate at lunch and breakfast daily to identified in the 2010 Dietary met. For example, for the K5 age-grade
meet weekly requirements. Solicit Guidelines. Those in favor stated that it group, the SBP minimum daily grain
comments on whether or not the meat/ would diversify students diet and requirement is 1 oz. eq. As long as at
meat alternate component should provide health benefits. Those against it least 1 oz. eq. of grain is served as part
include the three protein food said that requiring protein food of the breakfast menu, a meat/meat
subgroups recommended by the 2010 subgroups would be cost-prohibitive to alternate may also be served. The meat/
Dietary Guidelines: (1) Seafood; (2) many schools and that it might not be meat alternate may count toward
meat, poultry, and eggs; and (3) nuts, feasible in certain geographical areas. meeting the weekly grains requirement.
seeds, and soy products. Solicit They also indicated that many parents For crediting, 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat
comments on whether or not tofu do not recognize nuts, seeds, and soy alternate is equivalent to 1 oz. eq. of
should be an allowable meat alternate products as a substitute for meats. grains.
and a methodology for crediting Many commenters suggested that As suggested by many stakeholders,
commercially prepared tofu. USDA allow schools to offer tofu as a this final rule gives schools the option
Comments: A few commenters, meat/meat alternate. A range of to offer commercially prepared tofu as a
primarily health advocates, expressed stakeholders, including SAs, nutrition meat alternate in the NSLP and SBP.
support for the overall meat/meat professionals, advocacy organizations, This provision, which is codified under
alternate requirement. They supported and individual commenters, expressed 210.10(c)(2)(i)(D) of the regulatory text
the proposed rules emphasis on lean support for allowing commercially for the NSLP, allows schools to diversify
sources of protein and on lower-sodium prepared tofu in the school meal the sources of protein available to
meats/meat alternates. Several programs. Some commenters suggested students and better meet the dietary
needs of vegetarians and culturally offer the protein food subgroups non-dairy milk substitutes (e.g., soy
diverse groups in schools. Although tofu recommended by the 2010 Dietary drinks) and other miscellaneous topics
does not have an FDA standard of Guidelines. In response to program related to the milk component,
identity, the Dietary Guidelines operators concerns, this final rule does including OVS.
recognize plant-based sources of protein not require the three protein food USDA Response: This final rule
such as tofu. USDA will continue to subgroups recommended by the 2010 allows flavor in fat-free milk only, and
provide SAs and schools guidance on Dietary Guidelines. However, USDA is fat-free and low-fat choices only
this issue. developing technical assistance to assist (consistent with Dietary Guidelines
USDA wishes to clarify that schools schools in offering students a variety of recommendations and the NSLA as
have the option to offer mature beans protein foods consistent with the amended by the HHFKA). Flavored low-
and dry peas (e.g., kidney beans, pinto Dietary Guidelines. fat (1 percent or 12 percent) milk is not
beans, black beans, garbanzo beans/ Accordingly, this final rule allowed in the NSLP or the SBP upon
chickpeas, black-eyed peas, split peas implements the proposed meat/meat implementation of the rule in SY 2012
and lentils) as meat alternates. Mature alternate requirements, with 2013 because it contributes added
beans and peas dry longer on the plant, modifications, and codifies them under sugars and fat to the meal and would
fix more nitrogen, and have a higher 210.10(c) for the NSLP and under make it more difficult for schools to
protein content, which makes them 220.8(c) for the SBP. Meat/meat offer meals that meet the limits on
nutritionally comparable to protein alternate requirements applicable to the calories and saturated fat. We anticipate
foods. They are also excellent sources of SBP in SY 20122013 are under that the new calorie limits will lead
other nutrients such as iron and zinc. 220.23(g). menu planners to select milk with the
Because beans and peas are similar to lowest levels of added sugar.
Fluid Milk
meats, poultry, and fish in their Implementing calorie maximums gives
contribution of these nutrients, they can Proposed Rule: Offer plain or flavored menu planners more flexibility than
be credited as a meat alternate. fat-free milk and unflavored low-fat limiting added sugar.
Note that a serving of beans and peas milk (1 percent milk fat or less), and Schools already have the option to
must not be offered as a meat alternate include variety that is consistent with offer lactose-free and reduced-lactose
and as a vegetable in the same meal. Dietary Guidelines recommendations. milk (fat-free and/or low-fat) as part of
Some foods commonly referred to as Comments: Many parents and the reimbursable meal. Offering lactose
beans and peas (e.g., green peas, green nutrition and health advocates favored free/reduced milk (fat-free or low-fat) is
lima beans, and green (string) beans) are the proposed requirement to limit flavor allowed and counts toward the milk
not considered part of the beans and to fat-free milk. They believe that variety requirement established by in
peas subgroup because their nutrient saturated fat and sugar in childrens the NSLA by the HHFKA. For the NSLP
profile is dissimilar. For more diets can be reduced by restricting milk and SBP, variety (at least two choices of
information about the use and choices to fat-free and low-fat, and by milk) can be accomplished by offering
categorization of beans and peas see limiting flavor to fat-free milk. Several different allowable fat levels (fat-free
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ commenters stated that schools have and low-fat) and milk flavor in fat-free
foodgroups/ already limited flavor to fat-free milk milk only. For additional guidance on
proteinfoods_beanspeas.html. and student acceptability has been good. milk variety, please see the FNS
Schools also have discretion to offer Some commenters recommended a total memorandum SP292011, Child
ready-to-eat foods such as cold cuts, ban on flavored milk and argued that Nutrition Reauthorization: Nutrition
cheese, and yogurt to meet the meat/ several states are in the process of Requirements for Fluid Milk, dated
meat alternate component. Regardless of banning flavored milk. April 14, 2011.)
the protein foods offered, schools must However, more commenters stated The milk fat restriction established by
plan all meals with the goal to meet the that flavored low-fat (1 percent or 12 this final rule also applies to the meals
dietary specifications for sodium, percent) milk should be allowed. Many for children in the age group 34 even
saturated fat, trans fat, and calories. of these cited a lack of availability of though the meal patterns for
When selecting protein foods that are flavored fat-free milk. Others were preschoolers will be updated later
affordable and easy to prepare, we concerned that poor student through a separate rule. The
strongly encourage menu planners to acceptability of flavored fat-free milk amendments made to the NSLA by the
use low-fat and low-sodium products could result in lower milk consumption HHFKA require fat-free and low-fat milk
that contribute to improved nutrient or participation in the school meal for all school lunches. Although this
intake and health benefits (e.g., fat-free/ programs. Some commenters said that change was not addressed in the
low-fat yogurt and unsalted nuts and the amount of extra calories and fat in proposed rule due to the timing of
seeds). low-fat flavored milk is not significant publication, USDA notified program
To support school meal enough to warrant allowing only operators of this requirement for all
improvements, USDA Foods has flavored fat-free milk. A few asked that school meals through implementation
reduced the upper salt limit on USDA phase in the limit on flavored memorandum SP292011. The milk
mozzarella cheese from 2 percent to 1.6 milk, and others suggested that USDA flavor restriction also extends to the
percent. The current range for set a maximum level of added sugar in milk offered to children in age
mozzarella is 130175 mg of sodium per flavored milk instead of allowing flavor group 34.
28 g (1 oz.) serving. The sodium in only in fat-free milk. As requested by commenters, we wish
processed and blended cheeses has been Several commenters addressed the to clarify that this final rule does not
reduced from 450 milligrams or more, to need to accommodate lactose-intolerant change the nutrition standards for the
between 200 and 300 milligrams per students and, others requested USDA to optional non-dairy drinks offered to
28 g (1 oz.) serving, which is closer to clarify milk variety in school meals. students with special dietary needs (not
the sodium levels found in natural Also, although the proposed rule did disabilities) in place of milk at the
cheeses. not address meal variations for special request from parents. Those products
USDA had solicited comments on dietary reasons, some commenters (e.g., soy, rice and almond drinks) are
whether schools should be required to discussed the nutrition standards for offered as meal exceptions on a case by
case basis and are not intended for commenters about the ability of schools menu planners to select nutrient dense
general consumption with the school to adhere to the minimum and foods and ingredients to prepare meals,
meal. The nutrition standards for non- maximum calorie limits in the absence and avoid products that are high in fats
dairy milk substitutes for children of a nutritional analysis. and added sugars. In addition, this final
without disabilities were established In order to control calorie intake, rule includes other provisions that limit
through a separate final rule Fluid some commenters suggested that USDA the sources of discretionary calories.
Milk Substitutions in the School establish limits on added sugars for We also wish to clarify that the calorie
Nutrition Program, which was products such as such ready-to-eat standards established for each age/grade
published in the Federal Register (73 cereal, grain-based desserts, and dairy- group are to be met on average over the
FR 52903) on September 12, 2008. based desserts to improve the diet of course of the week. On any given school
Those standards do not include fat or school children. A few commenters, day, the calorie level for the meal may
flavor/sugar restrictions. including an advocacy organization, fall outside of the minimum and
We also wish to clarify that although suggested adopting the World Health maximum levels as long as the average
fluid milk must be offered with every Organizations recommendation to limit number of calories for the week is
school meal, students may decline milk added sugars to no more than 10 within the required range. This provides
under OVS. In addition, water may not percent of a persons daily caloric some flexibility to menu planners, but
be offered in place of fluid milk as part intake. An advocacy organization and careful procurement, planning and
of the reimbursable meal, but must be a professional association of health preparation are important to stay within
available in the food service area for nutrition directors suggested adopting the calorie ranges.
students who wish to drink it in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Accordingly, this final rule
accordance with the NSLA as amended Program for Women, Infants and implements the proposed calorie
by the HHFKA and as discussed in the Children (WIC) breakfast standard, requirements and codifies them under
memorandum SP282011 Revised which sets the added sugars limit to no 210.10(f) for the NSLP and under
Child Nutrition Reauthorization 2010: more than 6 grams of sugars per ounce 220.8(f) for the SBP. Calorie
Water Availability During National of dry cereal. requirements applicable to the SBP in
School Lunch Program Meal Service USDA Response: This final rule is SY 20122013 are under 220.23(b) and
dated July 12, 2011. intended to respond to serious concerns 220.23(c).
Accordingly, this final rule about childhood obesity, and the
Saturated Fat
implements the proposed milk importance for children to consume
nutritious school meals within their Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and
requirements and codifies them under
calorie needs. Therefore, this rule breakfasts that supply, on average over
210.10(d) for the NSLP and under
implements the proposed minimum and the school week, less than 10 percent of
220.8(d) for the SBP.
maximum calorie levels for each grade total calories from saturated fat.
Dietary Specifications group. In the NSLP, the calorie limits for Comments: Most commenters
each age/grade group take effect upon concerned about childhood obesity also
Calories expressed general support for limiting
implementation of this final rule. In the
Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and SBP, however, calorie limits are not saturated fat in school meals at less than
breakfasts that supply, on average over implemented until the SY 20132014 10 percent of total calories. This is the
the school week, a number of calories (the second year of implementation). same as the current saturated fat
that is within the established minimum This modification from the proposed restriction and the 2010 Dietary
and maximum levels for each age/grade rule is intended to give program Guidelines did not change this
group. operators additional time to implement recommendation. A small number of
Comments: Many commenters agreed the new meal requirements in the SBP. commenters (a health care professional,
in general with the proposal to establish USDA acknowledges the school meal a member of academia, and an advocacy
minimum and maximum calorie levels, programs provide a nutrition safety net organization) suggested a more
and were particularly supportive of the for food-insecure children and agrees restrictive standard, recommending that
maximum calorie levels. These with commenters that meals must USDA require less than 7 percent of
commenters included advocacy supply adequate calories for growth and total calories from saturated fat. This
organizations, food banks, a health development. IOM considered this limit is listed in the Dietary Guidelines
department, a professional association, aspect of the Child Nutrition Program Advisory Committee report but was not
and an industry association. Many missions when developing the adopted as a recommendation in the
stated that setting minimum and minimum and maximum calorie levels 2010 Dietary Guidelines.
maximum calorie levels along with for various age/grade groups in the USDA Response: This final rule
providing nutrient dense meals will NSLP and SBP. They also took into implements the proposed saturated fat
help address food insecurity and obesity consideration other opportunities for standard, which is the same as the
concerns. food intake available to most children restriction currently in place in the
A few commenters said many outside of school, and the role of NSLP and SBP. Schools must continue
students are not active enough and community organizations and other to limit saturated fat in the school meals
recommended lower calorie limits. groups in supporting the nutritional to help reduce childhood obesity and
Others, however, indicated that the needs of low-income children. childrens risk of cardiovascular disease
proposed maximum calorie limits for Although some commenters suggested later in life. Many schools are still
school lunch might not be adequate to setting a limit on added sugars for having difficulty meeting this
meet the dietary needs of taller and products such as flavored milk, USDA, requirement in the NSLP. Several major
active students. Several commenters consistent with the Institute of Medicine sources of saturated fat in the American
asserted that the calorie levels must be recommendations, does not believe a diet are popular items in the lunch
adequate enough to support the dietary standard is necessary and would menu.
needs of children who may not have unnecessarily restrict menu planning This final rule implements two new
access to sufficient food outside of flexibility. The required maximum requirements set forth in the proposed
school. There is also a concern among calorie levels are expected to drive rule and are anticipated to encourage
schools to reduce the saturated fat in years and older, African American Some school districts and a child
meals: allowing only fat-free and low-fat children and adults, and persons of any nutrition consultant stated that there is
milk, and establishing maximum calorie age that have hypertension, diabetes, or not enough scientific data linking
limits. USDAs technical assistance will chronic kidney disease limit sodium sodium consumption with health issues
continue to emphasize the need to intake to 1,500 mg per day (compared to in children, and did not agree with
purchase and prepare foods in ways that the 2,300 mg per day recommended for claims that childrens early exposure to
help reduce the saturated fat level in the general population). sodium leads them to develop a
school meals (e.g., procuring skinless However, many commenters were preference for salty foods. A child
chicken or using meat from which fat concerned that schools will likely nutrition consultant, a school nutrition
has been trimmed, and using vegetable struggle to meet the proposed directors association, a professional
oils that are rich in monounsaturated intermediate sodium limits and fail to association, and a school district argued
and polyunsaturated fatty acids such as achieve the final target within 10 years. that further studies should be conducted
canola and corn oils). Some commenters asserted that the final so that the final target levels are science-
This rule does not require schools to targets for each age/grade group are based.
meet a total fat standard under current lower than the therapeutic levels set for USDA Response: Reducing the
regulations. The IOM report did not certain high-risk populations and sodium content of school meals is a key
recommend that USDA require a total should be increased. A school advocacy objective of this final rule reflecting the
fat standard for school meals. The organization and school districts argued Dietary Guidelines recommendation for
expectation is that the new meal that it would be difficult for schools to children and adults to limit sodium
requirements, including the dietary prepare palatable foods at the proposed intake to lower the risk of chronic
specifications for calories, saturated fat final sodium targets and, therefore, diseases. USDA has encouraged schools
and trans fat, will enable schools to students would be motivated to drop to reduce sodium since the
offer meals that are low in total fat. from the meal program and pack implementation of the School Meals
Accordingly, this final rule lunches that contain high levels of Initiative in 1995. According to the
implements the proposed saturated sodium. SNDAIII study, the average sodium
requirement and codifies it under Some commenters expressed concerns content of school lunches (for all
210.10(f) for the NSLP and under about the potential use of sodium schools) remains high: More than 1400
220.8(f) for the SBP. substitutes in schools. Commenters also mg. Therefore, this final rule requires
indicated that industry needs time for schools to make a gradual reduction in
Sodium
product development and testing, and the sodium content of the meals, as
Proposed Rule: Offer lunches and schools need time for procurement recommended by IOM and consistent
breakfasts that supply, on average over changes, menu development, sampling, with the requirements of the FY 2012
the school week, no more than the and to foster student acceptance. Two Agriculture Appropriations Act.
maximum sodium levels set for each food manufacturers commented that Schools will be required to meet the
age/grade group. Meet the intermediate pizza manufacturers would need to first intermediate sodium target for each
sodium targets (two and four years post complete research in order to secure low age/grade group (target 1 in the chart) in
implementation of the rule), and the sodium cheeses that adhere to the the NSLP and SBP no later than July 1,
final sodium targets (ten years post proposed final target and that children 2014 (SY 20142015), two years post
implementation of the rule; changes like. Some argued that many schools implementation of this final rule. To
represent a sodium reduction of rely on canned and processed food meet target 1, schools are expected to
approximately 2550 percent in items and have limited access to modify menus and recipes promptly to
breakfasts and lunches). The proposed reduced-sodium products. reduce the sodium content of school
targets aimed to help reduce students School food service staff, a food lunches by approximately 510 percent
sodium intakes to less than the manufacturer, a nutrition professional from their baseline.
Tolerable Upper Intake Levels and individual commenters suggested Prior to the implementation of the
established in the Dietary Reference that USDA lengthen the time to reach second (target 2) and final sodium
Intakes, which range from 1,9002,300 the intermediate sodium targets, and targets contained in this rule, USDA
milligrams per day for children ages eliminate or reevaluate the final target. will evaluate relevant studies on sodium
418. Commenters also encouraged USDA to intake and human health, as required by
Comments: Nutrition and health monitor the progress of sodium Section 743 of the FY 2012 Agriculture
advocates, community-action groups, reductions toward targets before moving Appropriations Act. The scheduled
individuals, and some school districts forward. Some offered various compliance date for target 2 is no later
expressed support for the proposed alternatives to the proposed sodium than July 1, 2017 (SY 20172018), five
sodium restrictions and timeline. A limits and timeline (e.g., a food years post implementation of the final
medical association and an advocacy manufacturer suggested 33 percent rule for both meal programs. In response
organization supported the proposed reduction over ten years and a school to stakeholders concerns, and the
sodium restriction to help address the food service staff member suggested 30 provisions of Section 743 of the FY 2012
health risks associated with high percent over ten years). Several Agriculture Appropriations Act, this
sodium intake. A professional commenters suggested a 1020 percent final rule lengthens the time to reach the
association recommended that USDA reduction over ten years to allow second intermediate targets from 4 to 5
consider further reductions in sodium schools to continue purchasing years. This modification to the sodium
limits after progress has been assessed. affordable processed foods while proposal is intended to allow food
An advocacy organization suggested working on recipe modification, in manufacturers additional time to
that USDA base the proposed order to reduce food costs and potential reformulate products and schools more
restrictions on the Dietary Guidelines loss of student participation. Others time to build student acceptance of
recommendation of 1,500 mg of sodium recommended establishing daily limits lower sodium meals. To meet target 2,
per day for special population groups. for each school meal (e.g., 1,0001,200 schools have to reduce sodium in school
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines mg/day for lunch and 1,000 mg/day for lunches by approximately 1530
recommend that persons who are 51 breakfast). percent from their baseline. We
anticipate schools will have to will require innovation on the part of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines
incorporate new low-sodium products product manufacturers in the form of recommendation to limit sodium intake
and ingredients in meals offered in new technology and/or food products. to less than 2,300 mg per day. Nearly all
order to meet this target. As required by Section 743 of the FY schools have to reduce the sodium
The scheduled compliance date for 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, content of school meals to meet final
the final sodium targets is no later than USDA will certify that it has evaluated sodium targets, but the extent of the
July 1, 2022 (SY 20222023), ten years relevant data on sodium intake and needed reduction varies by school/
post implementation of the final rule. human health prior to requiring district as sodium limits for school
To meet the final sodium target, schools compliance with the second and final meals do not currently exist. The
will have to reduce the sodium content sodium targets.
following chart illustrates the sodium
of the meals by approximately 2550 Meeting the final sodium targets will
percent from the school baseline. This enable schools to offer meals that reflect reduction in school meals:
Sodium reduction: Timeline and amount

Baseline: Current Percent change
Age/grade group average sodium levels Target 1: meet by July Target 2: meet by July Final target: 2 Meet by (current levels
as offered 1 (mg) 1, 2014 (SY 20142015) 1, 2017 (SY 20172018) July 1, 2022 (SY 2022 vs. final
(mg) (mg) 2023) (mg) targets)
School Breakfast Program
K5 .................... 573 (elementary) ........... 540 (28.4% of UL) ..... 485 (25.5% of UL) ..... 430 (22.6% of UL) ..... 25
68 .................... 629 (middle) .................. 600 (27.3% of UL) ..... 535 (24.3% of UL) ..... 470 (21.4% of UL) ..... 25
912 .................. 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) ..... 54
68 .................... 1,520 (middle) ............... 1,360 (61.8% of UL) .. 1,035 (47.0% of UL) .. 710 (32.3% of UL) ..... 53
912 .................. 1,588 (high) ................... 1,420 (61.7% of UL) .. 1,080 (47.0% of UL) .. 740 (32.2% of UL) ..... 53
1 Current Average Sodium Levels as Offered are from the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Study-III. Data were collected in the 2004
05 school year.
2 The 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 final
sodium 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 and
lunches are slightly higher than 21.5% and 32% 32%, respectively, of the UL because this proposed elementary school group spans part of two
DRI age groups (ages 48 and 913 years).
USDA is committed to helping Tracking Calories, Saturated Fat, and commenters stated that SAs have
program operators reduce sodium in Sodium limited time and resources to conduct
school menus. USDAs Team Nutrition Proposed Rule: State agencies must more frequent administrative reviews
and the National School Food Service monitor compliance with the dietary and provide technical assistance to all
Management Institute have developed specifications (calories, saturated fat SFAs. In addition, school districts, SAs,
guidance for reducing sodium. USDA and sodium levels) by conducting a trade associations, advocacy
also continues to make low-sodium weighted nutrient analysis for the organizations and others opposed
USDA Foods available to schools. For schools selected for administrative removing responsibility to conduct a
example, USDA offers only reduced review every 3 years. The analysis must nutrient analysis from the SFAs,
sodium canned beans and vegetables at cover menu and production records for believing this change limit the SFAs
no more than 140 mg per half-cup a 2-week period. ability to assess their own efforts to
serving, including spaghetti sauce, salsa, Comments: Commenters did not reduce sodium and saturated fat, and
specifically address the proposal to comply with the calorie ranges. Other
and tomato paste. Canned whole kernel
combine the nutritional assessment of commenters also opposed the
corn, whole tomatoes, and diced
school meals with the administrative requirement for a weighted nutrient
tomatoes are being offered with no analysis because it would not identify
added salt. Frozen vegetables, including review for stronger program
accountability. Overall, health and child issues in menu planning or reflect what
green beans, carrots, corn, peas, and students actually consume. Several
nutrition advocates welcomed the new
sweet potatoes are available with no commenters requested that a tool be
SA requirement to conduct
added salt. USDA has also reduced the administrative reviews every 3 years, developed for SAs to identify issues and
upper salt limit on mozzarella cheese which is codified through this final rule. help implement the new meal
(current range is 130175 mg of sodium They also agreed in general that requirements for schools.
per 1 oz. serving) and chicken fajita reviewing menu and production records USDA Response: The HHFKA
strips (220 mg per 2 oz serving). for a 2-week period and conducting a amended the NSLA to require
weighted nutrient analysis offer a more improvements to school meals and more
Accordingly, this final rule

implements the proposed sodium limits, accurate assessment of school meals frequent monitoring of school meals to
with modifications, and codifies them than current regulations. facilitate transition to the new meal
under 210.10(f) for the NSLP and However, State and local program requirements. This rule requires SAs to
under 220.8(f) for the SBP. operators expressed concern about the begin the 3-year Coordinated Review
requirement to conduct administrative Effort (CRE) cycle on July 1, 2013 (SY
reviews every 3 years. Several 20132014) for the NSLP and SBP. To
help SAs meet this requirement, USDA by limiting other solid fats. Therefore, to consultant, a food manufacturer, food
will develop technical assistance tools safeguard childrens health, this final service industry firms, nutrition
to facilitate monitoring of school meals. rule requires that food products and professionals, and individuals.
This rule requires SAs to conduct the ingredients used to prepare school Generally, these commenters argued the
nutrient analysis of school lunches and meals contain zero grams of added trans proposed requirement that a
breakfasts as part of the administrative fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams per reimbursable meal include a fruit or a
review, but does not limit SFA serving as defined by FDA) according to vegetable would result in increased
discretion to conduct a nutrient analysis the nutrition labeling or manufacturers plate waste and increased cost by
of the school meals to determine if they specifications. This requirement takes requiring students to choose a food they
are in line with the dietary effect in the NSLP on July 1, 2012 (SY do not intend to eat. School food service
specifications. We understand that 20122013). In the SBP, the requirement staff also argued that indirect costs such
many SFAs currently have the ability to is effective on July 1 2013 (SY 2013 as more frequent trash collection would
conduct a nutrient analysis. 2014, the second year of increase if the students throw away
USDA is mindful of SA concerns implementation). more food. These commenters asserted
about increased administrative burden. This requirement is intended to that this proposed requirement would
In response to concerns about the restrict synthetic trans fatty acids and negate the purpose of OVS.
requirement to conduct a nutrient does not apply to naturally occurring Commenters asked USDA to clarify
analysis of school meals using menus trans fats, which are present in meat the minimum amount of fruit or
for a two-week period, this final rule and dairy products. Synthetic trans fatty vegetable that a student must take for a
reduces the time period to one-week, acids are found in partially reimbursable meal. Many commenters
which is the current requirement. This hydrogenated oils used in some suggested that USDA allows students to
modification to the proposed rule is margarines, snack foods, and prepared select less than the full fruit or vegetable
expected to lessen the information desserts. See USDA Foods guidance on component under OVS. Suggestions
collection burden on SAs without trans fat at http://www.fns.usda.gov/ included a minimum of 12 cup, 14 cup,
affecting their ability to assess the fdd/facts/nutrition/TransFatFactSheet. and 18 cup of fruit or vegetable for a
nutritional integrity of the meals offered pdf. reimbursable meal.
and the general quality of the food Accordingly, this final rule USDA Response: Increased vegetable
service operation. implements the proposed trans fat and fruit intake is a key
Accordingly, this final rule restriction and codifies it under recommendation of the Dietary
implements the proposed monitoring 210.10(g) 210.10(h) and 210.10(j), Guidelines. This recommendation
requirements, with modifications, and for the NSLP and under 220.8(g), applies to the NSLP and SBP because
codifies them under 210.18(c), 220.8(h), and 220.8(j) for the SBP. these programs are intended to nourish
210.18(g)(2), 210.18(i)(3), children but also help them develop
Standards for Meals Selected by the
210.18(m), and 210.19(c) for the healthy eating patterns. By requiring
Student (Offer versus Serve (OVS)
NSLP and under 220.8(h), 220.8(i), students to take a fruit or a vegetable,
and 220.8(j) for the SBP. Proposed Rule: Under OVS, students schools emphasize food choices that are
may not decline more than two food high in nutrients and low in calories.
Tracking Trans Fat items at lunch and one food item at Therefore, consistent with the Dietary
Proposed Rule: Food products and breakfast, and must select a fruit or a Guidelines and the IOM
ingredients used to prepare school vegetable at each meal. recommendations, this final rule
lunches and breakfasts must contain Comments: Many commenters requires that the reimbursable lunch
zero grams of trans fat per serving (less expressed their views about this selected by the student includes a fruit
than 0.5 grams per serving) according to proposed requirement. Nutrition and or a vegetable beginning SY 20122013.
the nutrition labeling or manufacturers health advocates, a professional In the SBP, this requirement is effective
specifications. association, a State department of in SY 20142015 (the third year of
Comments: Many commenters, health, some school districts and food implementation), when the fruit
including advocacy organizations, service staff, and individuals expressed quantities for breakfast are required to
schools, health care professionals, support for the proposed requirement to increase.
community organizations and others require a fruit or a vegetable as part of However, in response to the
expressed support for the proposal to the reimbursable meal. They viewed commenters concerns about potential
restrict trans fat in school meals. Several this requirement as a means to food waste and cost increases, this final
of them asked that naturally-occurring encourage children to eat more fruits rule allows students to take 12 cup of a
trans fat be excluded from the trans fat and vegetables. An advocacy group fruit or a vegetable as suggested by
limit. A few commenters suggested that commented that requiring students to several commenters, rather than the full
the trans fat limit be greater than zero take a fruit or a vegetable should help component, to have a reimbursable meal
due to concerns over potential increased increase actual fruit and vegetable under OVS. For example, if a school is
use of hydrogenated oils and saturated consumption citing a pilot study in offering 12 cup of fruit pieces and 12
fats in school meals. No commenters which more students consumed fruit cup fruit juice to meet the 1 cup fruit
opposed the proposal to restrict trans when prompted to take a fruit item. component at lunch, the student must
fat. However, many commenters select at least one of those two items to
USDA Response: A number of studies expressed concerns about potential food have a reimbursable lunch under OVS.
suggest an association between trans waste and overall costs associated with This rule continues the current OVS
fatty acid intake and increased risk of this proposed requirement. The practice under FBMP to allow students
cardiovascular disease. The Dietary commenters that opposed this proposal to decline up to two food components
Guidelines recommend that all persons included a State department of at lunch (preferred OVS option
keep trans fatty acid consumption as education, school districts, school food presented in the IOM report). Some
low as possible by limiting foods that service staff, school advocacy commenters suggested that USDA
contain synthetic sources of trans fats, organizations, a teachers union, implement the second OVS option
such as partially hydrogenated oils, and students, a child nutrition industry identified in the IOM report to allow
students to decline more food menu and production records for a two- more time to provide training and
components and, thus, have greater week meal period. technical assistance to the SFAs. They
control of the amount of food on their State agencies must take immediate indicated that SAs would not have the
plate. USDA is not adopting this fiscal action if a required food staff to handle the increased workload
suggestion. Although the second option component is not offered. of a 3-year review cycle and, therefore,
would give school districts greater For repeat violations of the the quality of the reviews could suffer.
flexibility, it could negatively affect the vegetable subgroup and milk Regarding the proposal to review
nutritional integrity of the meal. requirements, State agencies must take menu and production records for a two-
In the SBP, OVS applies to food items fiscal action if technical assistance and week meal period, most commenters
rather than food components because of corrective action have not resolved expressed opposition. These
the flexibility to substitute meats/meat these violations. commenters, including State and local
alternates for grains (once the daily For repeat violations of the food operators, school food service staff,
grain requirement is met). In SBP, quantity and whole grain requirements, school advocacy organizations,
schools must offer fruit, milk, and grains and the dietary specifications (calorie, professional associations, trade
daily. On multiple days per week, sodium, saturated fat and trans fat), associations, and other groups argued
schools will need to offer more than the State agencies have discretion to take that reviewing menus for one week is a
minimum daily grains requirement of 1 fiscal action if technical assistance and reasonable amount of time to determine
oz. eq. per day to meet the weekly grain corrective action have not resolved if an SFA is meeting the meal
requirement. To accomplish this, these violations. requirements. Some commenters
Comments: Various commenters, estimated that the increased paperwork
schools will need to offer at least three
including a health care association, of a 3-year review cycle and a 2-week
or four food items on the breakfast
State department of education, trade review of menus would triple the cost
menu. When a school offers four food association, nutrition professional, food
items at breakfast, students may decline of completing the administrative review.
service staff, and advocacy There was a mixed response to the
one food item. If only three food items organizations supported the proposal to
are offered, students must take all the proposal to include breakfast in the
eliminate the School Meals Initiative administrative reviews. Commenters
food items to preserve the nutritional (SMI) review and monitor the that agreed school breakfasts should be
integrity of the breakfast. More details nutritional quality of school meals included argued that these meals often
about OVS will be provided in through the scheduled administrative contain less nutrient-dense foods than
guidance. review. Although a few commenters lunch. A similar number of commenters
Schools that offer salad bars must expressed concern with eliminating the opposed the proposal because of cost
follow the OVS requirements. To ensure SMI review, several commenters voiced concerns. The latter group stated that
that students actually take the minimum support for a single monitoring system. the reviews should only include lunch
required portion size from a salad bar, However, numerous commenters said to offset the increased time and effort
foods may be pre-portioned to allow that this proposal would not simplify involved in conducting reviews every 3
staff to quickly identify if the student monitoring because it increases the years rather than every 5 years.
has a reimbursable meal under OVS. If frequency of the review cycle and the There were few and mixed opinions
not pre-portioning, then the cashier meal review period, and requires SAs to about the use of fiscal action. School
must be trained to judge accurately the conduct a nutrient analysis for the SFAs food service staff argued that fiscal
quantities of self-serve items on student to determine compliance with the penalties are counterproductive and
trays, to determine if the food item can dietary specifications. Some create an adversarial relationship
count toward a reimbursable meal. For commenters argued that SFAs would between the SA and the SFA. They
more information, see FNS still have to conduct their own nutrient recommended that more emphasis be
memorandum SP 022010Revised, analysis to plan meals that meet the placed on providing technical
dated January 21, 2011. calorie, saturated fat, and sodium assistance, not fiscal action. Other
Accordingly, this final rule restrictions. They expressed concern commenters favored increasing
implements the proposed requirements, that many food-based SFAs do not have accountability to improve meal quality.
with modifications, and codifies them the specialized tools to ensure Commenters offered some suggestions
under 210.10(e) for the NSLP and compliance with the dietary regarding monitoring procedures,
under 220.8(e) for the SBP. The OVS specifications, and that SAs do not have including that SAs monitoring report be
requirements applicable to the SBP in enough time or resources to provide made available on-line to the public.
SY 20122013 are under 220.23(e)(2) technical assistance to all SFAs. Another suggested that SAs target
and 220.23(g)(4). Although some commenters schools with prior non-compliance
supported establishing a 3-year review rather that assess a broad sample of
Monitoring Procedures
cycle, most commenters opposed schools.
Proposed Rule: increasing the frequency of the USDA Response: Section 207 of the
State agencies must review school administrative reviews. Those in favor HHFKA amended the NSLA to require
lunches and breakfasts every three years of the proposal (health and nutrition USDA to establish a unified monitoring
during scheduled administrative advocates and providers) stated that it system. Accordingly, this final rule
reviews to monitor compliance with the would increase opportunities to provide eliminates the SMI review and
meal requirements (meal patterns and technical assistance to the SFAs and strengthens the administrative review to
dietary specifications for calories, result in improved meals. Those assess compliance with the new meal
saturated fat, sodium and trans fats). opposed included school districts, food requirements. As required by this rule,
State agencies must conduct a service management companies, school SAs must monitor compliance with the
weighted nutrient analysis for the food service staff, a school advocacy meal patterns and the dietary
schools selected for an administrative organization, State departments of specifications (calories, saturated fat,
review to monitor compliance with the education, and nutrition professionals. sodium and trans fat) under the
specifications for calories, saturated fat, These commenters argued that retaining administrative review responsibilities
and sodium. The analysis must cover the 5-year review cycle would give SAs established in 7 CFR 210.18. This
change is intended to focus more requirements. As currently done, SAs on the serving line. Implementing this
attention on the importance of must apply immediate fiscal action if requirement must not result in overt
providing lunches and breakfasts that the meals offered are completely identification of any student
reflect the science-based meal missing one of the required food participating in the NSLP or SBP
requirements, in accordance with 9 of components. SAs must also take fiscal through use of a separate serving line for
the NSLA and 201 of the HHFKA. action for repeated violations of the the reimbursable meal or other
In addition to observing the serving vegetable subgroup and milk type segregation of certified students.
line and the meals counted at point of requirements when technical assistance Accordingly, this final rule
service during the administrative efforts and required corrective action implements the proposed requirement
review, the SAs must conduct a nutrient have not resolved these violations. and codifies it under 210.10(a)(2) for
analysis to ensure that the average levels However, SAs have discretion to take the NSLP, and under 220.8(h) and
of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in fiscal action for repeated violations of 220.8(j) for the SBP.
the meals offered over the school week the food quantity and whole grain Crediting
are within the values specified in this requirements, and for repeated
final rule. However, in response to violations of the dietary specifications Proposed Rule:
commenters concerns, this final rule (calories, saturated fat, sodium and Disallow the crediting of any snack-
requires SAs to review menu and trans fats). type fruit or vegetable products (such as
production records for one week only A commenter suggested public fruit strips and fruit drops), regardless of
within the review period, instead of the disclosure of the administrative review their nutrient content, toward the fruits
two weeks stated in the proposed rule. findings. The NSLA, as amended by the component or the vegetables
This modification reduces the HHFKA, requires schools to post review component.
information collection burden for SAs. final findings and make findings Require that all fruits and
USDA is reviewing potential alternative available to the public. Also, the NSLA vegetables (and their concentrates,
approaches to nutrient analysis and will requires local education agencies to purees, and pastes) be credited based on
provide further guidance to SAs. report on the school nutrition volume as served with two exceptions:
This final rule changes the environment to USDA and to the public, (1) Dried whole fruit and dried whole
administrative review cycle from 5 to 3 including information on food safety fruit pieces would be credited for twice
years in accordance with the NSLA, as inspections, local wellness policies, the volume served; and (2) leafy salad
amended by 207 of the HHFKA. This school meal program participation, and greens would be credited for half the
change takes effect in SY 20132014, nutritional quality of program meals. volume served.
after the current 5-year review cycle These statutory requirements will be Comments: Comments in favor of
ends. More frequent monitoring is implemented through a separate rule. disallowing snack-type fruit or vegetable
intended to increase opportunities for Accordingly, this final rule products exceeded the comments
the SAs to provide guidance and implements the proposed monitoring opposed. Those in favor stated that
technical assistance to the SFAs during requirements, with the modification permitting such products sends the
implementation of the new meal discussed above, and codifies them wrong nutrition message to children.
requirements. USDA is aware of under 210.18(a), 210.18(c), Others said that children should be
program operators concerns regarding 210.18(g) and 210.18(m) for the offered a variety of whole fruits and
increased monitoring and will provide NSLP and under 220.8(h) and vegetables. However, some commenters
technical assistance resources and 220.8(j) for the SBP. opposed the requirement due to
guidance to SAs to facilitate transition concerns over the cost of providing
to the 3-year review cycle. Identification of Reimbursable Meal whole fruit. They suggested that USDA
This final rule also makes several Proposed Rule: Identify the foods that allow products made with 100 percent
improvements to the SBP to bring those are part of the reimbursable meal(s) for fruit.
meals closer to the recommendations of the day at or near the beginning of the Many commenters opposed the
the Dietary Guidelines. Therefore, and serving line(s). proposal that all fruits and vegetables
in accordance with the NSLA as Comments: Most of the commenters (and their concentrates, purees, and
amended by the HHFKA, beginning SY that addressed this proposal supported pastes) be credited based on volume as
20132014, SAs must monitor it because they believe it helps students served. These commenters included
breakfasts under the administrative avoid unintentional purchase of food school districts, school advocacy
review. However, because the new meal items not included in the reimbursable organizations, trade associations, food
requirements (other than limiting types meal. A few commenters opposed the manufacturers, a food service
of milk) are being implemented proposed requirement and argued that it management company, a State
gradually in the SBP, part of the will overtly identify students that department of education and others.
compliance assessment must be based receive free and reduced price meals. They expressed concern over the
on prior nutrition standards (which are USDA Response: Beginning July 1, potential cost increase due to product
now in 220.23) until new requirements 2012 (SY 20122013), this final rule reformulation and reduced product
in the SBP regulations at 220.8 take requires schools to identify the acceptability. Many commenters
effect. The requirement to conduct a components of the reimbursable meal at recommended that USDA keep the
nutrient analysis of breakfast menu or near the beginning of the serving current practice to credit tomato paste
records for one-week period begins July line(s) as students and parents often are and puree based on their whole-food
1, 2013 (SY 20132014). not aware of what is included in the equivalency using the percent natural
SAs must continue to use technical school meal. Identifying the tomato soluble solids in paste and
assistance and corrective action as the components of the reimbursable meal puree.
primary strategies to help schools also reinforces nutrition education USDA Response: One of the goals of
comply with the meal requirements. messages that emphasize selecting the School Meal Programs is to help
However, this final rule gives SAs the healthy choices for a balanced meal. children easily recognize the key food
ability to use fiscal action to enforce Schools have discretion to determine groups that contribute to a balanced
compliance with specific meal the best way to present this information meal, including fruits and vegetables.
Effective July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), Comments: Most commenters were in highly-fortified food products is
reimbursable meals must not include favor of removing formulated grain-fruit inconsistent with the Dietary
snack-type fruit products that have been products from the School Meal Guidelines.
previously credited by calculating the Programs. They indicated that such Accordingly, this final rule amends
whole-fruit equivalency of the products do not support the Dietary Appendix A to 7 CFR part 220 by
processed fruit in the product using the Guidelines recommendation to removing Formulated Grain-Fruit
FDAs standards of identity for canned consume fruits as a separate food group. Products in its entirety. It also makes a
fruit nectars (21 CFR 146.113). FDA However, some commenters opposed technical change to Appendix B to 7
revoked the standard of identity for the removal of formulated grain-fruit CFR part 210 by removing the statement
canned fruit nectars through a final rule products, and claimed that these that affirms that Appendix B will be
published in the Federal Register (60 products are cost-effective and updated to exclude individual foods
FR 56513) on November 9, 1995; convenient in new breakfast delivery that have been determined to be
therefore, there is no regulatory basis for systems such as Grab and Go and exempted from the categories of Foods
allowing the crediting of these snack- Breakfast in the Classroom. of Minimal Nutritional Value. Although
type fruit products. USDA Response: This final rule USDA has published Federal Register
As a result of Section 743 of the FY Notices in the past to inform the public
disallows the use of formulated grain-
2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act, of exempted foods, Appendix B has not
fruit products to meet the grain and fruit
this final rule does not adopt the been amended subsequently to reflect
components in the SBP beginning July
proposed crediting change for tomato these exemptions. A list of these
paste and puree. USDA will credit 1, 2012 (SY 20122013). Formulated
grain-fruit products, as defined in exempted foods is maintained and
tomato paste and puree as a calculated available to all State agencies
volume based on the whole food Appendix A to 7 CFR part 220, are (1)
grain-type products that have grain as participating in the Programs. There
equivalency. Although this specific have been no changes to the categories
proposal was intended to promote the primary ingredient, and (2) grain-
fruit type products that have fruit as the of exempted foods and USDA is
consistency and improved nutrition by maintaining the requirement to publish
crediting all fruits and vegetables (and primary ingredient. Both types of
products must have at least 25 percent a Federal Register Notice and update
their concentrates, purees, and pastes)
of their weight derived from grain. the regulations to reflect any changes to
based on volume as served, this final
These products typically contain high the categories.
rule must comply with the statutory
provision. levels of fortification, rather than Accordingly, this final rule
Accordingly, this final rule disallows naturally occurring nutrients, and are implements the proposed change by
the crediting of any snack-type fruit or high in sugar and fat. Furthermore, they removing the Formulated Grain-Fruit
vegetable products, and continues the no longer meet a need in the school Products from Appendix A to 7 CFR
crediting of tomato paste and puree as meal programs because schools can part 220.
a calculated volume under procure more nutrient-dense breakfast
III New Meal Patterns and Dietary
210.10(c)(2)(iii) of the regulatory text. options with a similar shelf-life. This
Specifications
rule does not prohibit the use of
Fortification fortified cereals or cereals with fruit The following meal patterns must be
Proposed Rule: Disallow the use of (e.g., ready-to-eat cereals) which may implemented in SY 20122013 for the
formulated grain-fruit products as provide good sources of whole grains, NSLP, and phased-in the SBP as
defined in Appendix A to 7 CFR part fiber, and other important nutrients. In specified in the footnotes and regulatory
220. most instances, however, the use of text.
Breakfast meal pattern Lunch meal pattern

Meal pattern Grades Grades Grades Grades Grades Grades
K5 a 68 a 912 a K5 68 912
Amount of food b per week (minimum per day)
Fruits (cups) c d ..................................... 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 212 (12) 212 (12) 5 (1)
Vegetables (cups) c d ............................ 0 0 0 334 (34) 334 (34) 5 (1)
Dark green f ............................. 0 0 0 12 12 12
Red/Orange f ............................ 0 0 0 34 34 114

Beans/Peas (Legumes) f .......... 0 0 0 12 12 12
Starchy f ......................................... 0 0 0 12 12 12
Other f g .......................................... 0 0 0 12 12 34
Additional Veg to Reach Total h ........... 0 0 0 1 1 112

Grains (oz eq) i ..................................... 710 (1) j 810 (1) j 910 (1) j 89 (1) 810 (1) 1012 (2)
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ............. 0k 0k 0k 810 (1) 910 (1) 1012 (2)
Fluid milk (cups) l .................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week
Min-max calories (kcal) m n o ................. 350500 400550 450600 550650 600700 750850
Saturated fat % of total calories) n o ..... < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Sodium (mg) n p ..................................... 430 470 500 640 710 740
Trans fat n o ........................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving.
a In the SBP, the above age-grade groups are required beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 201314). In SY 20122013 only, schools may continue to
use the meal pattern for grades K12 (see 220.23).
b Food items included in each food group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 18 cup.
c One quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 12 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 12 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or
vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength.
d For breakfast, vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green,
red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or Other vegetables subgroups as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii).
e The fruit quantity requirement for the SBP (5 cups/week and a minimum of 1 cup/day) is effective July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015).
f Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served.
g This category consists of Other vegetables as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, Other vegetables require-
ment may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined in
210.10(c)(2)(iii).
h Any vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement.
i At least half of the grains offered must be whole grain-rich in the NSLP beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), and in the SBP beginning
July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014). All grains must be whole grain-rich in both the NSLP and the SBP beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 201415).
j In the SBP, the grain ranges must be offered beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014).
k There is no separate meat/meat alternate component in the SBP. Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), schools may substitute 1 oz. eq.
of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met.
l Fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored).
m The average daily amount of calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the max-
imum values).
n Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, satu-
rated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed.
o In the SBP, calories and trans fat specifications take effect beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014).
p Final sodium specifications are to be reached by SY 20222023 or July 1, 2022. Intermediate sodium specifications are established for SY
20142015 and 20172018. See required intermediate specifications in 210.10(f)(3) for lunches and 220.8(f)(3) for breakfasts.
IV Implementation Timeline the required implementation dates in

The following chart provides a the NSLP and SBP. Refer to the
summary of the new requirements and regulatory text for details.
Implementation (school year) for NSLP (L) and SBP (B)

New requirements
2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2022/23
Fruits Component:
Offer fruit daily ...................................................................... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Fruit quantity increase to 5 cups/week (minimum 1 cup/ .............. .............. B ........... .............. .............. ..............
day).
Vegetables Component:
Offer vegetables subgroups weekly ..................................... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Grains Component:
Half of grains must be whole grain-rich ............................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
All grains must be whole-grain rich ...................................... L, B ...... .............. .............. ..............
Offer weekly grains ranges .................................................. L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Meats/Meat Alternates Component:
Offer weekly meats/meat alternates ranges (daily min.) ..... L ........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Milk Component:
Offer only fat-free (unflavored or flavored) and low-fat L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
(unflavored) milk.
Dietary Specifications (to be met on average over a week):
Calorie ranges ...................................................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Saturated fat limit (no change) ............................................. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Sodium Targets 1 .................................................................. .............. .............. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. L, B
Target 1.
Target 2.
Final target.
Zero grams of trans fat per portion ...................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Menu Planning:
A single FBMP approach ..................................................... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Age-Grade Groups:
Establish age/grade groups: K5, 68, and 912 ............... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Offer vs. Serve:
Reimbursable meals must contain a fruit or vegetable L ........... B ........... .............. .............. ..............
(12 cup minimum).
Monitoring:
3-year adm. review cycle ..................................................... .............. L, B ...... .............. .............. .............. ..............
Conduct weighted nutrient analysis on 1 week of menus ... L ........... B ........... .............. .............. .............. ..............
1 Target 2 and the final target will only be required after USDA evaluates relevant data on sodium intake and human health, as required by
Section 743 of the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Implementation Resources billion in non-Federal revenues over 5 and over $1.9 billion in additional
years to the food service accounts of revenue schools resulting from making
With respect to resources for the
local school districts. This includes over school meals more competitive with a la
changes, USDA estimates suggest that
the common-sense revenue reforms for $5.3 billion in additional revenue from carte foods.
school food businesses included in the a la carte foods, over $300 million in Since the statute mandated that
HHFKA will provide an additional $7.5 additional payments from paid lunches, revenue streams from non-Program
foods relative to the costs of those foods, V. Procedural Matters considered to implement the Dietary
should be at least as high as the revenue Guidelines in the school meal programs.
Executive Order 12866 and Executive
stream for Program meals bears to costs Order 13563 USDA sought the assistance of the
beginning July 1, 2011, schools should Institute of Medicine of the National
receive over $1 billion in new revenues Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 Academies to recommend changes to
in School Year 20112012. That will direct agencies to assess all costs and school meal standards in the least
help schools work toward implementing benefits of available regulatory burdensome and costly manner
the new standards effective the alternatives and, if regulation is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines.
following year, i.e., July 1, 2012. In necessary, to select regulatory However, this final rule contains
addition, USDA estimates that the approaches that maximize net benefits Federal mandates (under the regulatory
interim rule National School Lunch (including potential economic, provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that
Program: School Food Service Account environmental, public health and safety could result in costs to State, local, or
effects, distributive impacts, and tribal governments or to the private
Revenue Amendments Related to the
equity). Executive Order 13563 sector of $100 million or more in any
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
emphasizes the importance of one year. The HHFKA authorizes $50
will increase participation in school
quantifying both costs and benefits, of million over two years to help State
meals programs by 800,000 children. reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, agencies implement the new meal
The six-cent performance-based and of promoting flexibility. This rule pattern requirements. These funds,
reimbursement increase included in the has been designated an economically combined with increases in State
HHFKA will provide additional revenue significant regulatory action under Administrative Expense funding, should
beyond this amount. The Congressional section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. assist States and local operators in
Budget Office estimated about $1.5 Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed implementing the requirements
billion over the same period in by the Office of Management and established by this final rule. Local
performance-based funding. Budget. program operators need to optimize the
USDA will work with the SAs to Regulatory Flexibility Act use of USDA Foods and adopt other
facilitate transition to the new meal cost-savings strategies in various areas
requirements. USDA and the National This final rule has been reviewed of the food service operation, including
Food Service Management Institute are with regard to the requirements of the procurement, menu planning, and meal
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 production to meet the rule
developing technical assistance
U.S.C. 601612). Pursuant to that requirements in a cost-effective manner.
resources and training to help school
review, it has been determined that this
foodservice staff improve menus, order Executive Order 12372
rule will have a significant impact on a
appropriate foods to meet the new meal substantial number of small entities. The NSLP is listed in the Catalog of
requirements, and control costs while
The requirements established by this Federal Domestic Assistance under No.
maintaining quality. Resources and 10.555 and the SBP is listed under No.
final rule will apply to school districts,
training materials being developed 10.553. For the reasons set forth in the
which meet the definitions of small
include identifying and purchasing governmental jurisdiction and small final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart
whole grain-rich foods, lowering the entity in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. V and related Notice published at 48 FR
sodium on menus, and meeting the new A Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is 29114, June 24, 1983, these Programs
meal pattern requirements. Training included in the preamble. are included in the scope of Executive
will be available through a variety of Order 12372, which requires
methods including webinars and online Unfunded Mandates Reform Act intergovernmental consultation with
learning modules. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates State and local officials.
We are updating the Child Nutrition Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Since the NSLP and SBP are State-
Database and will reevaluate nutrient Law 1044, establishes requirements for administered, federally funded
analysis software systems available from Federal agencies to assess the effects of programs, FNS headquarters staff and
industry to assist SAs with monitoring their regulatory actions on State, local, regional offices have formal and
calories, saturated fat, and sodium in and tribal governments and the private informal discussions with State and
the meals offered to students in grades sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, local officials, including ITO
K through 12 during the administrative USDA generally must prepare a written representatives, on an ongoing basis
review. The Child Nutrition Labeling statement, including a cost/benefit regarding program requirements and
Program is being updated to report analysis, for proposed and final rules operation. This structure allows FNS to
whole grain-rich contributions to the with Federal mandates that may receive regular input which contributes
grains component and to provide result in expenditures by State, local, or to the development of meaningful and
standardized claims for the vegetable tribal governments, in the aggregate, or feasible Program requirements.
subgroups consistent with the 2010 to the private sector, of $100 million or
Federalism Summary Impact Statement
Dietary Guidelines. more in any one year. When such a
statement is needed for a rule, section Executive Order 13132 requires
In addition, the HHFKA provides 205 of the UMRA generally requires Federal agencies to consider the impact
USDA $50 million for each of the first USDA to identify and consider a of their regulatory actions on State and
two years of the new meal requirements reasonable number of regulatory local governments. Where such actions
for use in assisting SAs implement the alternatives and adopt the most cost- have federalism implications, agencies
new requirements. These funds, effective or least burdensome alternative are directed to provide a statement for
combined with increases in State that achieves the objectives of the rule. inclusion in the preamble to the
Administrative Expense funding, should The Regulatory Impact Analysis regulations describing the agencys
assist States and local operators in conducted by FNS in connection with considerations in terms of the three
improving the quality of school meals this final rule includes a cost/benefit categories called for under section
provided to children. analysis and explains the options (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132.
Prior Consultation With State Officials breakfast as required by the FY 2012 rules intent and provisions, FNS has
FNS staff received informal input Agriculture Appropriations Act, determined that this final rule is not
from various stakeholders while Allow students to select 12 cup of expected to affect the participation of
participating in various State, regional, a fruit or a vegetable to reduce food protected individuals in the NSLP and
national, and professional conferences. waste, SBP. This final rule is intended to
Various departments of education, Allow more time to comply with improve the nutritional quality of
boards of education, departments of the second intermediate sodium targets, school meals and is not expected to
Remove the daily meat/meat limit program access or otherwise
health, and other state and local
alternate requirement at breakfast to adversely impact the protected classes.
organizations provided input during the
reduce food cost,
public comment period. The School Provide additional time for Executive Order 13175Consultation
Nutrition Association, School Food implementation of the breakfast and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Industry Roundtable, National Alliance Governments
requirements, and
for Nutrition and Activity, Association Reduce the administrative burden USDA is unaware of any current
of State and Territorial Public Health by requiring State agencies to conduct a Tribal laws that could be in conflict
Nutrition Directors, and the Center for nutrient analysis of school meals using with the requirements of this final rule.
Science in the Public Interest shared one week of menus, rather than two However, we have made special efforts
their views about changes to the school weeks as proposed. to reach out to Tribal communities. We
meals. Numerous stakeholders also
Executive Order 12988 held five consultations (webinars and
provided input at the public meetings
conference calls) with Indian Tribal
held by the Institute of Medicine in This final rule has been reviewed Organizations in 2011 to discuss
connection with its school meals study. under Executive Order 12988, Civil implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-
Nature of Concerns and the Need to Justice Reform. This final rule is Free Kids Act of 2010. These sessions
Issue This Rule intended to have preemptive effect with provided the opportunity to address
respect to any State or local laws, Tribal concerns related to school meals,
State Agencies and school food
regulations or policies which conflict clarify that traditional foods and local
authorities want to provide the best
with its provisions or which would products can be incorporated into the
possible school meals through the NSLP
otherwise impede its full and timely school meals, and highlight the
and SBP but are concerned about
implementation. This rule would permit proposed changes to the meal pattern
program costs, food waste, and
State or local agencies operating the (increase in whole grains, fruits and
increasing administrative burden. While
National School Lunch and School vegetables) that are expected to support
FNS is aware of these concerns, section
Breakfast Programs to establish more Tribal efforts to reduce diabetes in the
9(a)(4) and section 9(f)(1) of the National
School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4) rigorous nutrition requirements or community.
and (f)(1), require that school meals additional requirements for school In addition, USDA will undertake,
reflect the most recent Dietary meals that are not inconsistent with the within 6 months after this final rule
Guidelines for Americans and promote nutritional provisions of the rule. Such implementation, a series of Tribal
the intake of the food groups additional requirements would be consultation sessions to gain input by
recommended by the Dietary permissible as part of an effort by a State elected Tribal officials or their designees
Guidelines. or local agency to enhance the school concerning the impact of this rule on
meals and/or the school nutrition Tribal governments, communities and
Extent To Which We Meet Those environment. To illustrate, State or local individuals. These sessions will
Concerns agencies would be permitted to establish a baseline of consultation for
Although there is general support for establish more restrictive saturated fat future actions, should any be necessary,
the meal requirements established by and sodium limits. For these regarding this rule. Reports from these
this final rule, State and local program components, quantities are stated as sessions for consultation will be made
operators, food industry, and others maximums (e.g., ) and could not be part of the USDA annual reporting on
associated with the operation of the exceeded; however, lesser amounts than Tribal Consultation and Collaboration.
school meals programs expressed the maximum could be offered. USDA will respond in a timely and
concern about the proposed increase in Likewise, State or local agencies could meaningful manner to all Tribal
food quantities, limit on starchy accelerate implementation of the government requests for consultation
vegetables, sodium reductions, and breakfast requirements in an effort to concerning this final rule and will
implementation timeline, as well as the improve all school meals promptly. This provide additional venues, such as
estimated meal costs. USDA has taken rule is not intended to have a retroactive webinars and teleconferences, to
into consideration these concerns, and effect. Prior to any judicial challenge to periodically host collaborative
the requirements of the FY 2012 the provisions of this rule or the conversations with Tribal leaders and
Agriculture Appropriations Act, and has application of its provisions, all their representatives concerning ways to
modified several of the key meal applicable administrative procedures improve this rule in Indian country.
requirements to be responsive to the under 210.18(q) or 235.11(f) must be
Paperwork Reduction Act
concerns of State and local program exhausted.
operators. This final rule makes The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Civil Rights Impact Analysis (44 U.S.C. chap. 35; see 5 CFR 1320)
significant improvements to the school
meals, while modifying the following FNS has reviewed this final rule in requires the Office of Management and
accordance with USDA Regulation Budget (OMB) approve all collections of
provisions to facilitate successful

implementation of the final rule at the 43004, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, information by a Federal agency before
State and local levels: to identify and address any major civil they can be implemented. Respondents
Reduce the proposed grains rights impacts the rule might have on are not required to respond to any
quantities at lunch to reduce food cost, program participants on the basis of age, collection of information unless it
Remove the proposed starchy race, color, national origin, sex or displays a current valid OMB control
vegetable restrictions at lunch and disability. After a careful review of the number. This rule contains information
collection requirements subject to collection burden has not yet been Respondents for this rule: State
approval by OMB under the Paperwork approved by OMB. FNS will publish a Education Agencies (57) and School
Reduction Act of 1995. FNS will merge document in the Federal Register once Food Authorities (6,983).
these burden hours into National School these requirements have been approved. Estimated Number of Respondents for
Lunch Program, OMB # 05840006 The current total estimated annual
this rule: 7040.
which is currently under review. A 60- burden for OMB No. 05840006 is now
11,880,415 hours, rather than the Estimated Number of Responses per
day notice was published in the Federal
11,882,408 indicated in the proposed Respondent for this rule: 3.87217.
Register at 76 FR 2509 on January 13,
2011 which provided the public an rule. Estimated Total Annual Responses:
The average burden per response and 27,260.
opportunity to submit comments on the
the annual burden hours are explained
information collection burden resulting Estimated Total Annual Burden on
below and summarized in the chart
from this rule. This information which follows: Respondents for this rule: 73,849 hours.
ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN FOR 0584NEW, NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, 7 CFR 210
Estimated Average Average
Frequency of Annual
Section number of annual burden per
response burden hours
respondents responses response
Reporting:
SA shall verify compliance with critical and general 7 CFR 210.18(g) & 57 1 57 33 1,881
areas of review. 210.18(h).
SFA shall submit to SA documented corrective ac- 7 CFR 210.18(k)(2) ............ 6,983 1 6,983 6 41,898
tion, no later than 30 days from the deadline for
completion, for violations of critical or general
area identified on administrative follow-up review.
Total Reporting for DGA rule ........................... ............................................ 7,040 ...................... 7,040 6.2186 43,779
Total Existing Reporting Burden for Part 210 .. ............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2,912,745
Total Reporting Burden for Part 210 with DGA ............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 2,956,524
rule.
Recordkeeping:
SA establishes guidelines and approves School 7 CFR 210.10 (1) ............... 0 0 0 0 * (57)
Food Authorities menu planning alternatives.
(Burden removed by proposed rule).
SA modifies menu planning alternatives or devel- 7 CFR 210.10 (1) ............... 0 0 0 0 * (100)
ops menu planning alternatives. (Burden re-
moved by proposed rule).
SA records document the details of all reviews and 7 CFR 210.18 (k), 210.18 57 93.23 5,314 2.0 10,628
the degree of compliance with the critical and (p), & 210.20 (b)(6).
general areas of review. To include documented
action on file for review by FNS.
SA documentation of fiscal action taken to disallow 7 CFR 210.19 (c ) & 57 139 7,923 0.50 3,962
improper claims submitted by SFAs, as deter- 210.18 (p).
mined through claims processing, CRE reviews,
and USDA audits. Contracts awarded by SFAs
to FSMCs.
SFAs adopt menu planning alternatives, modify 7 CFR 210.10(1) ................ 0 0 0 0 * (26,261)
menu planning alternatives or develop menu
planning alternatives and submit them to the
State agency for approval at SFA level. (Burden
removed by proposed rule.).
SFA documentation of corrective action taken on 7 CFR 210.18 (k)(2) .......... 6,983 1 6,983 6 41,898
program disclosed by review or audit.
Total Recordkeeping for New burden .............. ............................................ 7,040 ...................... 20,220 1.4871 30,070
Total Existing Recordkeeping Burden for ............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 8,893,821
05840006, Part 210.
Total Recordkeeping Burden for 05840006, ............................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 8,923,891
Part 210 with proposed rule.
* Indicates reduced burden hours due to changes in proposed DGA rule.
SUMMARY OF BURDEN (OMB #0584 Guidelines and the 1989 RDAs. School economic costs, and the epidemic is
NEW) lunches and breakfasts were not associated with an estimated $3 billion
updated when the 2000 Dietary in direct medical costs. Perhaps more
Total No. Respondents ......... 7,040 Guidelines were issued because those significantly, obese children and
Average No. Responses Per recommendations did not require adolescents are more likely to become
Respondent ....................... 3.87217 significant changes to the school meal obese as adults. In 2008, medical
Total Annual Responses ...... 27,260 patterns. The 2005 and 2010 Dietary spending on adults that was attributed
Average Hours Per Re- Guidelines, provide more prescriptive to obesity increased to an estimated
sponse ............................... 2.70 and specific nutrition guidance than $147 billion.
Total Annual Burden Hours Because of the complexity of factors
earlier releases, and require significant
Requested ......................... 11,880,415
Current OMB Inventory ........ 11,806,566 changes to school meal requirements.
that contribute both to overall food
Difference ............................. 73,849 consumption and to obesity, we are not
Benefits able to define a level of disease or cost
Reporting: Affected citation is 7 CFR The United States Department of reduction that is attributable to the
210.18(g) and 7 CFR 210.18(h)Based Agricultures Food and Nutrition changes in meals expected to result
on the comments received, this final Service (FNS) contracted with the from implementation of the rule. As the
rule changed the requirement to analyze National Academies Institute of rule is projected to make substantial
two weeks worth of menus to one week. Medicine (IOM) in 2008 to examine improvements in meals served to more
Hence, average burden time per current NSLP and SBP nutrition than half of all school-aged children on
response is reduced from 40 hours to 33 requirements. IOM formed an expert an average school day, we judge that the
hours for this citation. committee tasked with comparing likelihood is reasonable that the benefits
Recordkeeping: 7 CFR 210.18 (k) and current school meal requirements to the of the rule exceed the costs, and that the
(p) and 210.20 (b)(6). As the record 2005 Dietary Guidelines and to current final rule thus represents a cost-effective
keeping time related to administrative Dietary Reference Intakes. The means of conforming NSLP and SBP
review documents is reduced, average committee released its regulations to the statutory requirements
burden time per response is reduced recommendations in late 2009 (IOM for school meals. Beyond these changes
from 2.3 hours to 2 hours. The current 2009). a number of qualitative benefits
total estimated annual burden for OMB In developing its recommendations, including alignment between Federal
No. 05840006 is now 11,880,415 hours, the IOM sought to address low intakes program benefits and national nutrition
rather than the 11,882,408 indicated in of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains policy, improved confidence of parents
the proposed rule. among school-age children, and and families in the nutritional quality of
excessive intakes of sodium and school meals, and the contribution that
E-Government Act Compliance discretionary calories from solid fats improved school meals can make to the
The Food and Nutrition Service is and added sugar. The final rule overall school nutrition environment,
committed to complying with the E- addresses these concerns by increasing are expected from the rule.
Government Act, 2002 to promote the the amount of fruit, the amount and the
variety of vegetables, and the amount of Costs
use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide whole grains offered each week to This final rule will increase the
increased opportunities for citizen students who participate in the school amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole
access to Government information and meals programs. The rule also replaces grains offered to participants in the
services, and for other purposes. higher fat fluid milk with low-fat and NSLP and SBP. The final rule will also
skim fluid milk in school meals. And it limit certain fats and reduce calories
Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary limits the levels of calories, sodium, and and sodium in school meals. Because
As required for all rules that have saturated fat in those meals. some foods that meet these
been designated significant by the Office A proposed rule, published by USDA requirements are more expensive than
of Management and Budget, a in January 2011, made only small foods served in the school meal
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was changes to the IOM recommendations. programs today, the food cost
developed for this final rule. The The final rule makes additional changes. component of preparing and serving
following is a summary of the RIA. The These changes respond primarily to school meals will increase.
complete RIA appears later in this comments received from school and The biggest contributors to this
document. State officials, nutrition and child increase are the costs of serving more
advocates, industry groups, parents of vegetables and more fruit, and replacing
Need for Action schoolchildren, and the general public. refined grains with whole grains. We
Under Section 9(a)(4) and Section The most significant of these changes estimate that food costs will increase by
9(f)(1) of the NSLA, schools that reduce the immediate and long-term 2.5 cents per lunch served, as compared
participate in the NSLP or SBP must costs of implementing the rule. with prior requirements, on initial
offer lunches and breakfasts that are Additional changes respond to implementation of the final rule
consistent with the goals of the most recommendations contained in the 2010 requirements. There is no immediate
recent Dietary Guidelines for Dietary Guidelines which were released increase in breakfast food costs. Two
Americans. School lunches must after development of the proposed rule. years after implementation, when the
provide one-third of the Recommended The linkage between poor diets and fruit requirement is phased in for
Dietary Allowances (RDA) for protein, health problems such as childhood breakfast, and when all grains served at
calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C, on obesity are a matter of particular policy breakfast and lunch must be whole grain
average over the course of a week; concern, given their significant social rich, we estimate that food costs will
school breakfasts must satisfy one- costs. One in every three children (31.7 increase by 5 cents per lunch served and
fourth of the RDAs for the same percent) ages 219 is overweight or 14 cents per breakfast, as compared with
nutrients. Current nutrition obese. Along with the effects on our prior requirements.
requirements for school lunches and childrens health, childhood overweight Compliance with this rule is also
breakfasts are based on the 1995 Dietary and obesity imposes substantial likely to increase labor costs. Serving
healthier school meals that are nearly equal amounts relative to current meal patterns. The analysis estimates
acceptable to students may require more costs. that total costs may increase by $3.2
on-site preparation, and less reliance on The estimated overall costs of billion from fiscal year (FY) 2012
prepared foods. For purposes of this compliance are summarized below. through fiscal year (FY) 2016, or roughly
impact analysis, labor costs are assumed Increased food and labor costs will be 8 percent when the rules food group
to grow so that they maintain a constant incurred by the local and State agencies requirements are fully implemented in
ratio with food costs, consistent with that control school food service FY 2015. The estimated increases in
findings from a national study of school accounts. The rule will also increase the food and labor costs are equivalent to
lunch and breakfast meal costs (USDA administrative costs incurred by the about 10 cents for each reimbursable
2008). In practice, this suggests that State agencies responsible for reviewing school lunch and about 27 cents for
food and labor costs may increase by school district compliance with the new each reimbursable breakfast in FY 2015.
Alternatives consistent with Dietary Guidelines Action

One alternative to the final rule is to recommendations. The added flexibility a. Nature: Final Rule.
retain the proposed rule without and reduced cost of the final rule b. Need: Section 103 of the Child
change. The proposed rule closely relative to the proposed rule should Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act
followed IOMs recommendations. IOM increase schools ability to comply with of 2004 inserted Section 9(a)(4) into the
the new meal patterns. The final rules National School Lunch Act requiring
developed its recommendations to
less costly breakfast patterns will make
encourage student consumption of foods the Secretary to promulgate rules
it easier for schools to maintain or
recommended by the Dietary Guidelines revising nutrition requirements, based
expand current breakfast programs, and
in quantities designed to provide on the most recent Dietary Guidelines
may encourage other schools to adopt a
necessary nutrients without excess for Americans, that reflect specific
breakfast program. These changes
calories. The final rule still achieves recommendations, expressed in serving
reduce the estimated 5-year cost of the
that goal. Students will still be recommendations, for increased
final rule, relative to the proposed rule,
presented with choices from the food consumption of foods and food
by $2.9 billion.
groups and vegetable subgroups A second alternative would ingredients offered in school nutrition.
recommended by the Dietary implement the final rules lunch meal This final rule amends Sections 210 and
Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, pattern changes, but retain the proposed 220 of the regulations that govern the
like the proposed rule, will help rules breakfast meal pattern National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
children recognize and choose foods recommendations. Adopting all of the and the School Breakfast Program (SBP).
consistent with a healthy diet. lunch provisions contained in the final The rule implements many of the
The most significant differences rule, but retaining the proposed rules recommendations of the National
between the proposed and final rules breakfast provisions, would cost an Academies Institute of Medicine (IOM).
are in the breakfast meal patterns, and estimated $5.9 billion over 5 years, or Under contract to the United States
those differences are largely a matter of $2.7 billion more than the final rule. Department of Agriculture (USDA), IOM
timing. The final rule allows schools This alternative responds less proposed changes to NSLP and SBP
more time to phase-in key IOM effectively than the final rule to meal pattern requirements consistent
recommendations on fruit and grains at comments received by USDA from SFA with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and
breakfast. Once fully implemented, the and school administrators who IOMs Dietary Reference Intakes. The
most important difference between the expressed concerns about the cost of the final rule advances the mission of the
final and proposed rule breakfast meal proposed rule. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to
patterns is the elimination of a separate An alternative that implements the provide children access to food, a
meat/meat alternate requirement. That final rules breakfast meal pattern healthful diet, and nutrition education
change preserves current rules that changes, but retains the proposed rules in a manner that promotes American
allow the substitution of meat for grains lunch meal pattern recommendations, agriculture and inspires public
at breakfast. It also responds to general would cost $3.4 billion over 5 years, confidence.
public comments on cost, and on the c. Affected Parties: The programs
about $180 million more than the final

need to preserve schools flexibility to rule. affected by this rule are the NSLP and
serve breakfast outside of a traditional the SBP. The parties affected by this
cafeteria setting. Regulatory Impact Analysis regulation are USDAs Food and
Even with these changes, and with the Title: Nutrition Standards in the Nutrition Service, State education
less significant changes to the proposed National School Lunch and School agencies, local school food authorities,
lunch standards, the final rule remains Breakfast Programs schools, students, and the food
ER26JA12.000</GPH>
production, distribution and service IV. Alternatives USDA United States Department of
industry. V. Accounting Statement Agriculture
VI. References
Contents VII. Appendix A I. Background
Abbreviations Abbreviations The National School Lunch Program
I. Background (NSLP) is available to over 50 million
The following abbreviations are used
II. Summary of Final Rule Meal children each school day; an average of
throughout this document:
Requirements
III. Cost/Benefit Assessment CN Child Nutrition Programs 31.7 million children per day ate a
A. Summary CPI Consumer Price Index reimbursable lunch in fiscal year (FY)
1. Costs CRE Coordinated Review Effort 2010. The School Breakfast Program
2. Benefits DRI Dietary Reference Intake (SBP) served an average of 11.7 million
B. Food and Labor Costs FNS Food and Nutrition Service children daily. Schools that participate
1. Baseline Cost Estimate FY Fiscal Year
in the NSLP and SBP receive Federal
2. Final Rule Cost Estimate IOM Institute of Medicine
NSLA National School Lunch Act reimbursement and USDA Foods
3. Food Cost Drivers
4. Comparison of FNS and IOM Cost NSLP National School Lunch Program (donated commodities) for lunches and
Estimates RDA Recommended Dietary Allowance breakfasts that meet program
C. Administrative Impact SA State Agency requirements. In exchange for this
D. Food Service Equipment SBP School Breakfast Program assistance schools serve meals at no cost
E. Comments on Proposed Rule SY School Year or at reduced price to income-eligible
F. Uncertainties SFA School Food Authority children. Federal meal reimbursements
G. Comparison of Proposed Rule and Final SLBCSII School Lunch and Breakfast Cost
Study II
and USDA Foods totaled $13.7 billion
Rule Costs
H. Implementation of Final RuleSFA SMI USDA School Meals Initiative for in FY 2010. FNS projections of the
Resources Healthy Children number of meals served and Federal
I. Impact on Participation SNDAIII School Nutrition Dietary program costs are summarized in Table
J. Benefits Assessment III 1.1
TABLE 1PROJECTED NUMBER OF MEALS SERVED AND TOTAL FEDERAL PROGRAM COSTS
[In millions]
Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NSLP:
Lunches Served .................................................... 5,386.7 5,465.3 5,530.9 5,586.2 5,630.9 5,675.9
Program Cost ........................................................ $11,822.8 $12,373.0 $12,499.8 $12,584.9 $12,679.3 $12,782.4
SBP:
Breakfasts Served ................................................. 2,090.9 2,187.0 2,252.7 2,297.7 2,332.2 2,367.2
Program Cost ........................................................ $3,115.3 $3,337.7 $3,469.8 $3,556.7 $3,628.6 $3,721.0
In FY 2010, schools served 2.9 billion Reimbursement rates for meals served percent free and reduced price lunches
free NSLP lunches, 0.5 billion reduced under the current meal patterns are was $2.77. Schools that participate in
price lunches, and 1.8 billion full price established by law and are adjusted the NSLP also receive USDA Foods for
or paid lunches. Schools served 1.5 annually for inflation.3 For school year each free, reduced price, and paid lunch
billion free breakfasts, 0.2 billion (SY) 20112012, the Federal served, as provided by Section 6 of the
reduced price breakfasts, and 0.3 billion reimbursement for a free breakfast for Richard B. Russell National School
paid breakfasts. These figures do not schools in the contiguous United States Lunch Act (NSLA). Table 2 provides a
include non-Federally reimbursable a la and not in severe need is $1.51; the breakdown of breakfast and lunch
carte meals or other non-program Federal reimbursement for a free lunch reimbursements in SY 20112012,
foods.2 to schools in SFAs in the contiguous including USDA Foods.
United States that served fewer than 60
1 The figures in Table 1 are USDA projections of of serving meals that satisfy current program 4(b)(2) and 11(a)(2) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C.
the number of program meals served and the value requirements. 1753(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(2)). Breakfast
of USDA reimbursements for those meals. These 2 USDA program data. reimbursement rates are specified in Section
figures are baseline Federal government costs of the 3 Reimbursement rates and annual inflation 4(b)(1)(B) of the Child Nutrition Act (42 U.S.C.
NSLP and the SBP estimated for the Presidents adjustments are set by statute, not regulation. The 1773(b)(1)(B)). Both lunch and breakfast
budget proposal for FY 2012. Elsewhere in this final rule does not alter current reimbursement reimbursement rates are subject to the annual
rates. Reimbursement rates for school lunch under inflation adjustment prescribed by Section 11(a)(3)
document, baseline costs refer to the cost to schools
current nutrition standards are specified in Sections of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(3)).
TABLE 2FEDERAL PER-MEAL REIMBURSEMENT AND MINIMUM VALUE OF USDA FOODS, SY 20112012 4
Minimum value
Breakfast reimbursement Lunch reimbursement of donated foods
SFAs that serve Additional

SFAs that serve fewer than 60% Federal
Schools in Schools not in at least 60% of of lunches free assistance for
severe need severe need lunches free or or at reduced each NSLP lunch
at reduced price price served
Contiguous States:
Free ....................................................... $1.80 $1.51 $2.79 $2.77 $0.2225
Reduced Price ....................................... 1.50 1.21 2.39 2.37 0.2225
Paid ....................................................... 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.2225
Alaska:
Free ....................................................... 2.88 2.41 4.52 4.50 0.2225
Reduced Price ....................................... 2.58 2.11 4.12 4.10 0.2225
Paid ....................................................... 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.2225
Hawaii:
Free ....................................................... 2.10 1.76 3.27 3.25 0.2225
Reduced Price ....................................... 1.80 1.46 2.87 2.85 0.2225
Paid ....................................................... 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.2225
Under Section 9(a)(4) and Section National Academies Institute of Dietary Guidelines which were released
9(f)(1) of the NSLA, schools that Medicine (IOM) in 2008 to examine after development of the proposed rule.
participate in the NSLP or SBP must current NSLP and SBP nutrition As a group, these changes reduce
offer lunches and breakfasts that are requirements. IOM formed an expert program costs relative to the proposed
consistent with the goals of the most committee tasked with comparing rule. The final rule is effective at the
recent Dietary Guidelines for current school meal requirements to the start of SY 20122013.
Americans. School lunches must 2005 Dietary Guidelines and to current The final rule, like the proposed rule,
provide one-third of the Recommended Dietary Reference Intakes. The makes the following changes to current
Dietary Allowances (RDA) for protein, committee released its NSLP and SBP meal standards:
calcium, iron, and vitamins A and C, on recommendations in late 2009 (IOM Increases the amount and variety of
average over the course of a week; 2009). For a summary discussion of the fruits, vegetables, and whole grains;
school breakfasts must satisfy one- scientific standards that guided the Sets minimum and maximum levels
fourth of the RDAs for the same committee, and the development of of calories; and
nutrients. Current nutrition recommended targets for micro- and Increases the focus on reducing the
requirements for school lunches and macronutrients, see the preamble to the amounts of saturated fat and sodium
breakfasts are based on the 1995 Dietary proposed rule.5 provided in school meals.
Guidelines and the 1989 RDAs. (School Table 3 summarizes the breakfast and
II. Summary of Final Rule Meal
lunches and breakfasts were not lunch meal standards with all
Requirements
updated when the 2000 Dietary provisions fully phased in. The
Guidelines were issued because those The proposed rule, published in following provisions are subject to a
recommendations did not require January 2011, made only minor changes phased implementation; all other
significant changes to the school meal to the IOM recommendations. This final provisions are effective July 1, 2012:
patterns.) The 2005 and 2010 Dietary rule makes more significant changes. Minimum breakfast fruit
Guidelines, provide more prescriptive These changes respond primarily to requirement is effective July 1, 2014,
and specific nutrition guidance than comments received from school and Minimum breakfast grain
earlier releases, and require significant State officials, nutrition and child requirement is effective July 1, 2013,
changes to school meal requirements. advocates, industry groups, parents of Intermediate sodium targets take
The United States Department of schoolchildren, and the general public. effect on July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2017;
Agricultures Food and Nutrition Additional changes respond to the final sodium target (in Table 3) takes
Service (FNS) contracted with the recommendations contained in the 2010 effect on July 1, 2022. (See Table 3a.)
TABLE 3SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6

Meal pattern Grades K Grades 6 Grades 9 Grades 9
Grades K5 Grades 68
5a 8a 12 a 12
Amount of food b per week (minimum per day)

Fruits (cups) c d ................................................................. 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 5 (1) e 212 (12) 212 (12) 5 (1)
Vegetables (cups) c d ........................................................ 0 0 0 334 (34) 334 (34) 5 (1)
Dark green f ............................................................... 0 0 0 12 12 12
4 School year 20112012 NSLP and SBP Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 139, pp. 43256 and 5 Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 9, pp. 24942570.
reimbursement rates, and the minimum value of 43258. 6 Table taken from preamble to the final rule.
donated foods, can be found in the July 20, 2011
TABLE 3SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6Continued

Meal pattern Grades K Grades 6 Grades 9 Grades K5 Grades 68 Grades 9
5a 8a 12 a 12
Red/Orange f ............................................................. 0 0 0 34
34 114
Beans/Peas (Legumes) f ........................................... 0 0 0 12
12 12
Starchy f .................................................................... 0 0 0 12 12 12
Other f g ..................................................................... 0 0 0 12 12 34
Additional Veg to Reach Total h ....................................... 0 0 0 1 1 112

Grains (oz eq) i ................................................................. 710 (1) j 810 (1) j 910 (1) j 89 (1) 810 (1) 1012 (2)
Means/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ....................................... 0k 0k 0k 810 (1) 910 (1) 1012 (2)
Fluid milk (cups) l ............................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Min-max calories (kcal) m n o

............................................. 350500 400500 450600 550650 600700 750850
Saturated fat (% of total calories) n o ................................ < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10
Sodium (mg) n p ................................................................ 430 470 500 640 710 740
Trans fat o ......................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must indicate zero grams of trans fat per
serving.
a In the SBP, the above age-grade groups are required beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 201314). In SY 20122013 only, schools may continue to
use the meal pattern for grades K12 (See 220.23).
b Food items included in each food group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 18 cup.
c One quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 12 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 12 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or
d For breakfast, vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green,
red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or Other vegetables subgroups, as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii).
e The fruit quantity requirement for the SBP (5 cups/week or a minimum of 1 cup/day) is effective July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015).
f Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served.
g This category consists of Other vegetables as defined in Section 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, the Other vegetables
requirement may be met with any additional this category also includes any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas
(legumes) as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii) vegetable subgroups.
h Any vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement.
i At least half of the grains offered must be whole grain-rich in the NSLP beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), and in the SBP beginning
July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014). All grains must be whole grain-rich in both the NSLP and the SBP beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 201415).
j In the SBP, the grain ranges must be offered beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014).
k There is no separate meat/meat alternate component in the SBP. Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), schools may substitute 1 oz. eq.
of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met.
l Fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored).
m The average daily amount of calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the max-
imum values).
n Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, satu-
rated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed.
o In the SBP, calories and trans fat specifications take effect beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014).
p Final sodium specifications are to be reached by SY 20222023 or July 1, 2022. Intermediate sodium specifications are established for SY
20142015 and 20172018. See required intermediate specifications in 210.10(f)(3) for lunches and 220.8(f)(3) for breakfasts.
TABLE 3AINTERMEDIATE AND FINAL SODIUM TARGETS

Sodium reduction: timeline and amount
Age/grade group Target 1: July 1, 2014 Target 2: July 1, 2017 Final target: July 1, 2022
(SY 20142015) (SY 20172018) (SY 20222023)
(mg) (mg) (mg)
K5 ....................................................................... 1,230 935 640

68 ....................................................................... 1,360 1,035 710
912 ..................................................................... 1,420 1,080 740
Key differences between current meal offered both fruits and vegetables every vegetables in the previous orange
pattern requirements and the final rule day. category.
include: A minimum number of vegetable Initially, half of grains offered to
The number of fruit and vegetable servings would be required from each of students would have to be whole grain
servings offered to students over the 5 vegetable subgroups. The proposed rich. Two years after implementation,
course of a week would double at rule included tomatoes in the other all grain products offered would have to
breakfast and would rise substantially at vegetable category, consistent with the be whole grain rich.
lunch. 2005 Dietary Guidelines. The 2010 Schools would be required to
Schools would no longer be Dietary Guidelines and this final rule substitute low fat and fat free milk for
permitted to substitute between fruits create a new red/orange group that higher fat content milk. This is a
and vegetables; each has its own combines tomatoes with all of the separate requirement of the Healthy
requirement, ensuring that students are Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA).
Section 202 of HHFKA requires schools recent Dietary Guidelines for percent milkfat) for children ages 2 and
to offer a variety of fluid milk consistent Americans. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines older.
with the recommendations of the most recommends fat free or low fat milk (1
ER26JA12.001</GPH>
III. Cost/Benefit Assessment 14 cents per breakfast, as compared with costsprincipally because of increased
prior requirements.8 In aggregate, we use of on-site preparation.10.
A. Summary
estimate that the rule may increase SFA For purposes of this impact analysis,
1. Costs food costs by $1.6 billion from FY 2012 labor costs are assumed to grow so that
The final rule will more closely align through FY 2016. The annual increase they maintain a constant ratio with food
school meal pattern requirements with in food costs relative to current costs, consistent with findings from a
the science-based recommendations of standards is estimated to be about $0.6 national study of school lunch and
the 2005 and 2010 Dietary Guidelines. billion by FY 2015. breakfast meal costs (USDA 2008). In
These changes will increase the amount The rule sets sodium targets that will practice, this suggests that food and
of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains not be fully implemented in the five labor costs may increase by nearly equal
offered to participants in the NSLP and year period covered by this analysis. amounts relative to current costs.
SBP.7 The final rule meal patterns will The rules initial sodium targets take Additional costs of compliance with the
also limit certain fats and reduce effect in SY 20142015. Our cost rule are discussed in subsections III C
calories and sodium in school meals. estimate does not include an explicit and III D of this analysis.11
Because some foods that meet these adjustment to meet those targets. The
rules initial sodium targets impose The estimated overall costs of
requirements are more expensive than
relatively modest reductions from levels compliance are summarized in Table 6.
foods served in the school meal
observed in SY 20042005.9 Our For purposes of this analysis, the rule is
programs today, the food cost
estimate assumes that schools will meet assumed to take effect on July 1, 2012,
component of preparing and serving
the rules initial targets as they the start of school year (SY) 20122013.
school meals will increase.
The biggest contributors to this reformulate recipes to meet the rules The additional requirement to offer only
increase are the costs of serving more food group requirements; that cost is whole grain rich grain products is
vegetables and more fruit, and replacing contained in our estimates food group assumed to begin in SY 20142015.
refined grains with whole grains. We and labor components. The analysis estimates that total costs
estimate that food costs will increase by Compliance with this rule is likely to may increase by $3.2 billion through
2.5 cents per lunch served, as compared increase labor costs. Serving healthier fiscal year (FY) 2016, or roughly 8
with prior requirements, on initial school meals that are acceptable to percent when the rules food group
implementation of the final rule students may require more on-site requirements are fully implemented in
requirements. There is no immediate preparation, and less reliance on FY 2015. The estimated increases in
increase in breakfast food costs. Two prepared foods. IOM did not estimate food and labor costs are equivalent to
years after implementation, when the the overall required increase in labor about 10 cents for each reimbursable
fruit requirement is phased in for costs to implement its recommended school lunch and about 27 cents for
breakfast, and when all grains served at changes in meal requirements, but noted each reimbursable breakfast in FY 2015.
breakfast and lunch must be whole grain an analysis of data from some These costs would be incurred by the
rich, we estimate that food costs will Minnesota school districts that showed local and State agencies that control
increase by 5 cents per lunch served and that healthier meals had higher labor school food service accounts.
TABLE 6PROJECTED COST OF FINAL RULE

[Dollars in Millions]
Fiscal year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Food Costs ............................... $20.8 $135.4 $178.7 $612.8 $642.8 $1,590.5

Labor Costs .............................. 20.7 141.9 174.4 598.0 627.2 1,562.3
State Agency Administrative 0.1 8.9 9.1 9.4 9.7 37.1
Costs.
Total .................................. $41.6 $286.2 $362.1 $1,220.2 $1,279.7 $3,189.9
Percent Change Over Baseline 2.0% 2.0% 2.5% 8.0% 8.1% 5.2%
7 Although a separate rulemaking will propose K children. In addition to that change, the rule would require a change to FBMP. But that change
changes to the meal patterns for preschoolers, this requires that schools serving meals to pre-K is required for meals served to older children as
rule makes one significant change for that age/grade children adopt food-based menu planning (FBMP) well, and the administrative cost of that change is
group. Section 202 of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids for consistency with the rules FBMP requirement incorporated into the labor cost estimate of this
Act (Pub. L. 11296) requires that schools offer a for meals served to older children. Because the analysis.
variety of milk, and that the milk offered comply switch to FBMP, where necessary, makes no 8 The 2.5 cent per lunch figure is an estimate for
with the recommendations of the most recent substantive change to the pre-K meal requirements, the end of FY 2012 (the start of SY 20122013). The
Dietary Guidelines. Consistent with that statutory our analysis assumes that this provision of the rule
higher numbers are for FY 2015.

requirement, this rule requires that schools serve has no impact on the cost of serving meals to these 9 USDA 2008, volume 1, pp. 162 and 196.
only fat-free and low-fat milk in school lunches and children. More than 23 of elementary schools used
10 IOM 2009, p. 148.
breakfasts. That requirement applies to meals traditional or enhanced FBMP in SY 20042005
11 The SLBCSII found that costs other than food
served by schools to children ages 34 as well as (USDA 2008, vol. 1, p. 36) and would need to make
to older children in grades K12. Because low-fat no changes at all to comply with the rules pre-K and labor accounted for 9.9 percent of reported SFA
and fat-free milk tend to cost less than milk with menu planning requirement. For elementary costs. These costs include supplies, contract
higher fat content, that change will have a small schools that serve meals to pre-K children using a services, capital expenditures, indirect charges by
negative effect on the cost of meals served to pre- nutrient based menu planning system, the rule the school district, etc. (USDA 2008, pp. 35).
2. Benefits dairy products with low-fat varieties. It food to meet the rules food-based meal
also results in a number of additional requirements. The estimated increase in
The primary benefit of this rule is to benefits, including alignment between food cost is the difference between the
align the regulations with the Federal program benefits and national cost of serving the quantities and types
requirements placed on schools under nutrition policy, improved confidence of foods used to meet current
NSLA to ensure that meals are by parents and families in the requirements and the cost of serving the
consistent with the goals of the most nutritional quality of school meals, and quantities and types of foods outlined in
recent Dietary Guidelines and the the contribution that improved school the rule.
Dietary Reference Intakes. In increasing meals can make to the overall school
access to children for such meals it will Figure 1: Baseline Food Cost Estimate
nutrition environment.
address key inconsistencies between the Under Current Requirements and
diets of school children and Dietary B. Food and Labor Costs Practices
Guidelines by (1) Increasing servings of 1. Baseline Cost Estimate Objective: Use price and quantity data
fruits and vegetables, (2) replacing collected from schools to compute the
refined-grain foods with whole-grain Food Costs: The analysis begins with total cost of NSLP and SBP meals served
rich foods, and (3) replacing higher-fat an assessment of the cost of purchasing under current program rules.
The data sources that we use in this food cost estimate, are summarized in
analysis, and their contribution to our Table 7.
TABLE 7SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCES

Data source Contribution to food cost estimate
School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Food codes and descriptions and food quantities served to students in SY 200405. Prices are ap-
Study III (USDA 2007). plied to these food quantities to determine baseline food costs.
Meals served, quantities served, and quantities offered (offer weights) by food type, by school
type (elementary, middle, and high). Used to determine students inclinations to take an offered
menu item (take rates). Take rates are applied to the types and quantities of food that must be
offered to students under the rule to estimate quantities served.
School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study Food codes and descriptions, number of servings, average gram weight per serving, total grams
II (USDA 2008). served, cost per serving. These are used, along with other data sources, to estimate the cost per
cup or ounce equivalent of each of the rules required food types and combination entrees.
Also used to estimate the relative cost of food group subtypes: whole versus refined grain prod-
ER26JA12.003</GPH>
ucts, and the various vegetable varieties with separate serving requirements under the rule.
TABLE 7SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCESContinued

Data source Contribution to food cost estimate
USDA Child Nutrition Food Labels .......... USDA food labels contain information on food group crediting for child nutrition program administra-
tors. USDA maintains a collection of food labels for thousands of commercially-prepared entrees.
Food group crediting information is used to determine the cup or ounce equivalents of meat, meat
alternate, grain, vegetable, and fruit that may be credited by schools for a particular entree.
Food group crediting is used to determine how much of the rules food group requirements are sat-
isfied by prepared foods offered by schools, and how much remains to be met with single food or
non-entree items.
USDA, National Food Service Manage- The recipe database is used to supplement the information from USDA food labels. The recipe
ment Institute, Recipe Database. records, like the food labels, contain food group crediting information used to determine how much
of the rules food group requirements are satisfied by particular food items.
USDA Food Buying Guide ...................... The Food Buying Guide also contains information on food group crediting. The crediting information
for various grain products is used in this estimate.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, The SR22 is used to supplement the other food group crediting resources listed above. SR22 infor-
National Nutrient Database for Stand- mation was used to estimate food credits for food items without a CN food label, or a USDA recipe.
ard Reference, SR22. SR22 provides protein and fiber content per given volume of a particular food. That information is
used to estimate the food group credits for foods that are similar, but not identical, to foods with
CN labels or USDA recipe records.
SR22 data is also used to compute the proper conversion factor from grams to cups for various
school foods.
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Used to determine the relative share of vegetables in combination foods and entrees by each of
MyPyramid Equivalents Database for the varieties with separate serving requirements under the rule.
USDA Food Codes, Version 1.0.
School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Average food group crediting information for school salad bars is taken from SNDAII.
Study II (USDA 2001).
We first totaled the value of food provides information on the number of heavily with cereal at breakfast) we
served by food group, as reported by servings, the average gram weight per computed two sets of food group
schools in a national school nutrition serving, total grams served, and the cost inflators. Through August 2011, these
assessment (SNDAIII), separately for per serving for a comprehensive list of inflators are constructed with actual CPI
lunch and breakfast. SNDAIII provides single foods and combination entrees. values.13 For years after 2011, the food
an estimate of the amount or quantity The SLBCSII dataset provides group inflators rely on historic 7-year
(in grams) of foods offered and served in sufficient information to estimate averages.
the school lunch and breakfast programs weighted average prices for the same Our proposed rule analysis computed
for SY 20042005, based on a nationally broad food categories identified in 5-year historic averages through FY
representative sample of all SNDAIII. 2009. Price inflation for most major food
participating public schools.12 SNDA We computed preliminary per-meal groups in the two years since FY 2009
III provides quantities of both minimally baseline costs for breakfast and lunch as was lower than inflation in the 5 years
processed single foods (such as whole the product of the food quantities ending in September 2009. For our final
fruit, fruit juice, milk, and vegetables) reported in SNDAIII and the unit rule cost analysis we use a 7-year
and combination foods or entrees (such prices computed from the SLBCSII. average to project future prices. This 7-
as beef stew, macaroni and cheese, and Because the food prices available for year average adds the most recent 2
breakfast burritos). We summed the this analysis are from SY 20052006, we years of price data to the 5 years used
quantities of foods served to generate inflated our estimates by the actual and in the proposed rule methodology. We
total gram weights for each single food projected increase in prices since that use a 7-year average, retaining all of the
and combination food category. We then time. We computed a set of food group 5 years used in the proposed rule
divided these sums by SNDAIIIs count inflators weighted by SNDAIIIs methodology, to avoid giving too much
of total meals served to generate average relative mix of foods served by schools weight to the reduction in price
per-meal gram amounts for the same in SY 20042005. We used the inflation observed during the most
broad food categories. Consumer Price Index (CPIU) for the recent two years, a period of weak
We estimated the cost per gram specific food items in our weighted economic growth and consumer
within each food category using detailed group averages. Because the mix of demand. Use of a 5-year average ending
price and quantity information collected foods served in school breakfasts differs in FY 2011 would produce a lower cost
as part of another nationally from the mix served at lunch (the grain estimate than the one presented here.14
representative sample of public schools group, for example, is weighted more Food group inflation factors are
in SY 20052006 (SLBCSII). SLBCSII heavily with bread at lunch, and more summarized in Table 8.
12 If patterns of student selection of foods are program data). Because public schools account for 13 We used index values for the 11 months ending
different in private schools than they are in public such a large share of total enrollment by in August 2011 to estimate average index values for
schools, then the reliance on public school data participating schools, we expect that any all of FY 2011.
alone may bias our results. However, enrollment in differences in selection patterns between public and 14 If, instead, we entirely discount the most recent
public schools accounts for 97 percent of total private schools would have little impact on our two years of inflation, and instead used a 5-year
enrollment in NSLP participating schools. Public analysis. average ending in FY 2009 to project future food
schools account for more than 98 percent of total prices, then our cost estimate would be higher. That
enrollment in SBP participating schools (USDA scenario is discussed in Section F.
TABLE 8FOOD GROUP PRICE INFLATORS 15

7-year Historic
Cumulative in- average (for
crease 2006 to years after
2011 2011)
(percent) (percent)
Lunch inflators:
Milk ................................................................................................................................................................ 12.33 2.03
Meat or Meat Alternate ................................................................................................................................. 17.54 2.75
Fruit Juice ..................................................................................................................................................... 19.18 2.82
Fruit (non-juice) ............................................................................................................................................. 12.39 2.82
Vegetables .................................................................................................................................................... 18.52 3.97
Refined and Whole Grains ........................................................................................................................... 25.16 3.85
Combination Foods/Entrees ......................................................................................................................... 15.62 2.67
Breakfast inflators:
Milk ................................................................................................................................................................ 12.33 2.03
Meat or Meat Alternate ................................................................................................................................. 16.52 2.63
Fruit Juice ..................................................................................................................................................... 19.18 2.82
Fruit (non-juice) ............................................................................................................................................. 10.38 2.66
Vegetables .................................................................................................................................................... 19.81 4.83
Refined and Whole Grains ........................................................................................................................... 17.39 2.50
Combination Foods/Entrees ......................................................................................................................... 15.62 2.67
the Farm Service Agency, is driven by school demand towards a greater

The value of USDA Foods and the school demand for particular products emphasis on these new offerings as
value of cash in lieu of such food as well as by current prices, available schools introduce new menus. We
donations enters into both our baseline funds, and the variable nature of assume that the contribution of USDA
and final rule cost estimates; we treat agricultural surpluses.16 Foods to the cost of preparing school
them as food costs in both estimates. In large measure, USDA Foods offered meals will not change after
This is the same approach used in the to schools are already well positioned to implementation of the rule.
SLBCSII to estimate the cost of support the final rules requirements. In
preparing and serving school meals. recent years USDA has purchased The final step in constructing the
We assume in the analysis that the relatively more canned foods and meats baseline cost estimate was to multiply
types of commodities offered to schools with reduced levels of fat, sodium, and the per-meal cost estimates by the
in future years may satisfy the food sugar for school distribution. As projected number of breakfasts and
group requirements of the final rule as products such as butter and shortening lunches served through our 5-year
effectively as they do now. USDAs have been removed from the USDA forecast period. Projected growth in the
annual commodity purchase plan, Foods available to schools, new number of NSLP and SBP meals served
developed by FNS in consultation with products such as whole grain pasta have in the absence of the rule is shown in
the Agricultural Marketing Service and been added. The rule is likely to move Table 9.
TABLE 9PROJECTED BASELINE GROWTH IN REIMBURSABLE MEALS SERVED 17

Fiscal year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Lunches:
Meals (billions) .................................................................................. 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.7
Percent change ................................................................................. 2.4% 1.5% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Breakfasts:
Meals (billions) .................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4
Percent change ................................................................................. 6.8% 4.6% 3.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5%
Note that our baseline per-meal cost therefore vary at the school level. The
Appendix A contains a set of tables estimates are averages. They reflect the use of an average baseline cost estimate
that detail the calculations described variety of meals served across all NSLP is appropriate, however, for estimating
above. The appendix tables present and SBP participating schools. Some the aggregate cost of compliance across
baseline and final rule food prices, food schools may be much closer than others all schools.
quantities, and meals served for each to serving meals that meet the
year from FY 2012 through FY 2016. requirements of the rule, and the costs
of compliance with the rule may
15 Computed by USDA from CPI figures from the 16 For more information see http:// Presidents Budget and actual meals served in FY
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figures for www.commodityfoods.usda.gov/fd_purchasing.htm. 2010. The remaining percentages are FNS
17 The projected growth above in meals served
combination foods are based on the CPI values for projections prepared for the FY 2012 Presidents
the Food at Home series. through FY 2011 reflects the difference between Budget.
FNS estimates for FY 2011 prepared for the 2012
2. Final Rule Cost Estimate midpoints of the rules food group manufacturers and USDA. Because the
Food Costs: Both our baseline and requirements, expressed in servings sources for program-creditable servings
final rule food cost estimates rely on rather than grams, to estimate the per gram are different for single foods
quantity and price information reported quantities of food that schools must and combination foods, we need to
by schools in SNDAIII and SLBCSII. purchase.18 For single foods, the separate single foods from combination
These datasets contain detailed number of program-creditable food foods and estimate their costs
information on the quantity, variety, group servings per gram is a function of separately.
and unit prices of foods offered and the foods themselves (density and fat A basic assumption underlying the
served to students. Many of the records content, for example) and whether the estimated cost of reimbursable meals
on these datasets describe single item foods (primarily vegetables) are served under the final rule is that schools will
foods that are served alone or are used raw or cooked. We relied on several continue to serve entrees that have
in school recipes. But other records sources for this information, including proven popular with students on
describe prepared or heat-and-serve the USDA Food Buying Guide and the current school menus. Some of these
entrees and other combination foods. National Nutrient Database for entrees may be modified to replace a
As described above, we developed our Standard Reference. For combination portion of their refined grains with
baseline cost estimate by multiplying foods we relied on the USDAs child whole grains, or starchy vegetables with
the gram weight of food items served by nutrition food labels and the USDAs other vegetable varieties. But, because
their cost per gram. For both single item recipe database; these sources contain pizza, burritos, and salad bars are
foods and combination foods, prices and the result of analyses performed by food successful items today, this impact
quantities are given in SLBCSII and analysis assumes that they will remain
SNDAIII; our baseline cost estimate
18 The rules food group requirements are
on school menus after implementation
expressed in servings per week. Because we are of the rule.
required limited processing of these developing an average cost per meal we divide
datasets. these weekly figures by 5. Some of the rules Figure 2: Food Costs Under Final Rule
For the final rule cost estimate we requirements are given in ranges of servings, such
continue to rely on prices per gram from as 1012 meat or meat alternate servings (for Objective: Use price data collected
lunches) per high school child per week (see Table from schools and new meal pattern
SLBCSII. But for quantities served we 3). FNSs primary cost estimate targets the
need to look to the requirements of the midpoints of the rules food group requirements
requirements to estimate the cost of
rule rather than to SNDAIII. We use the where requirements are expressed as ranges. serving meals under the final rule.
We separated combination foods from from USDAs Child Nutrition food label varieties within each combination food
single food items in the SNDAIII and collection (CN labels). category to generate representative food
SLBCSII datasets.19 Using USDA food CN labels are affixed to many of the credits for the category.
codes and the descriptive food labels commercially prepared and processed CN labels are not available for some
found on the records of both datasets, foods purchased by school food combination foods. However, foods with
we divided the combination foods into authorities. The labels provide similar descriptions are often found in
sub-categories such as chili, beef dishes, information on serving size and the USDAs recipe database. The USDA
lasagna, chicken sandwiches, macaroni number of cup and ounce equivalents of recipe database provides the same type
and cheese, and peanut butter and jelly. meat, meat alternate (such as cheese,
of food crediting information found on
Recognizing that there is variation eggs, legumes, or soy protein), grains, or
CN labels. We used the crediting
within these groups, we selected a vegetables that schools may credit
information from the recipe database
sample of the most commonly served toward current reimbursable meal

pattern requirements.20 We averaged the when CN labels were unavailable for
varieties, and retrieved paper food
labels with matching USDA food codes crediting information for several sampled combination foods. FNS
averaged the crediting information from
19 As with the baseline estimate, we prepared 20 Many large commercial food vendors prepare
labels and recipes when both sources
separate estimates of meals served under the final their own CN labels to help market their foods to returned data for particular combination
foods.
ER26JA12.004</GPH>
rule for breakfast and lunch. SFAs. Other labels are developed by USDA.
CN labels and USDA recipes do not These adjusted requirements are behind this assumption is that the likely
indicate whether creditable grain estimates of what elementary, middle, effect of these reformulations on the cost
servings are refined or whole grains, nor and high schools are likely to serve to of combination foods is uncertain.
do they specify what fraction of students after implementation of the While some varieties of combination
creditable vegetable servings are rule. The unadjusted requirements are foods may help schools meet the new
satisfied by dark green, deep yellow, what schools must offer to their requirements at lower cost than single
starchy, or other varieties. But, USDAs students to be in compliance. foods, others may be developed to
MyPyramid database breaks down total The take-rate adjusted requirements provide greater student acceptance or
grain and vegetable content for given not satisfied by combination foods must ease of preparation than single items.
foods into those subcategories or be met with single offerings of meat or These products could command higher
varieties. We matched USDA food codes meat alternates, grains, fruit, vegetables, prices. We thus assume that, on average,
for the sample of combination foods and milk. We computed weighted these two propensities combine to result
against the MyPyramid database in order average prices for these broad food in no net difference in the cost of whole
to estimate relative shares of whole and groups, and for dark green, deep yellow grains and vegetable varieties as
refined grains, and vegetable varieties and other vegetable varieties, from the combination foods or as single items.24
for the combination foods served.21 SLBCSII dataset. We estimated the cost The final rule requires that no more
With these average food credits, and of whole grains relative to all grain and than half of the fruit requirement be met
with unit prices from the SLBCSII, we bread products with information with fruit juice because juice lacks fiber
estimated a price per creditable ounce contained in a food price database and may contribute to excessive calorie
or cup equivalent of meat, grain, developed by USDAs Center for consumption. Schools may therefore
vegetable, and fruit for each Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The find it necessary to offer more whole or
combination food served. We then prices per unit of these foods, cut-up fruit relative to fruit juice than
computed a weighted average price per multiplied by the balance of the rules they offer today. For this reason, this
food credit for combination foods as a requirements that are not met by cost estimate assumes that the rules
whole, using the SLBCSIIs relative combination foods, give a total cost per entire increase in the fruit group
gram weight of each item. Finally, we meal for single item foods. requirement will be satisfied with
multiplied the average price and food Note that this analytic framework uses additional servings of whole or cut-up
credit per gram by SNDAIIIs total an identical set of combination foods in fruit; the estimate assumes that schools
gram weight of combination foods the baseline and final rule cost will serve no more fruit juice to students
served per reimbursable meal at the estimates; we do not attempt to under the final rule than they serve
elementary, middle, and high school construct a reformulated set of today. As a result, there is no added cost
levels. combination foods to satisfy the rules for fruit juice in Table 11.
These steps generate a price, and a set requirements for whole grains or dark The methodology outlined above
of food group credits, contributed by green, yellow, and other vegetable generates a set of per-meal cost
combination foods to the average varieties. The deficits in whole grains estimates for breakfast and lunch under
elementary, middle, and high school and in dark green and other vegetable the requirements of the final rule. Like
lunch and breakfast. varieties are satisfied entirely through our baseline estimates, these are
We subtracted the food credits increased offerings of single foods.23 As multiplied by weighted food group
accrued by combination foods from a set a result, the cost per unit of combination inflation factors, then multiplied by the
of school-level food group targets that foods served is unchanged in the projected number of meals served to
represent the requirements of the rule baseline and under the final rule, and generate projected aggregate costs
after adjustment for student selection. the entire cost of meeting the new rules through FY 2016.
Under the final rule, as under current requirements is reflected in the cost of Labor costs: Compliance with this
program rules, students need not take single foods. rule is also likely to increase labor costs
all of the food items offered to them in In practice, we expect manufacturers because of the need for more on-site
will offer reformulated versions of preparation, and less reliance on
order for their lunch or breakfast to
popular combination foods, and that prepared foods, than current
qualify for Federal reimbursement. The
schools will incorporate more whole requirements. The challenge faced by
difference between what is offered to
grains and vegetable varieties in their schools in reducing the sodium content
students and what they select is the
entree recipes, so that students will not of school meals, one element of both the
take rate. We computed average take
be expected to consume all of their IOM recommendations and this rule,
rates by school level for milk, meat/meat
whole grains and healthier vegetables as illustrates the need for additional labor
alternate, fruit, vegetables, and grains
single foods. Implicit in this modeling hours by school kitchen staff.
from SNDAIII and applied those rates, More local food preparation and the
unchanged, to the final rules food approach is the assumption that the cost
of serving more whole grains and use of a greater proportion of fresh foods
group requirements from Tables 4 and and frozen vegetables could result in
5.22 vegetable varieties is similar, whether
those foods are part of combination acceptable school meals with a lower
21 Because CN crediting values and MyPyramid recipes or single items. The reasoning sodium content. However, many food
equivalents are not the same, information from the production kitchens are designed to
MyPyramid database was used only to determine those foods are served separately or as part of a heat and hold food items rather than to
relative shares of vegetable or grain subtypes. FNS combination entree. We cap individual school take prepare them.25
also used the MyPyramid database to determine if rates for any food group at 100%. We assume that In addition to the implied need for
particular combination foods contained any dark these take rates remain unchanged after
new kitchen equipment, IOM notes that
green vegetables, orange vegetables, etc. implementation of the rule for two primary reasons:
22 Our take rates are weighted averages computed lack of an evidence-based alternative, and to avoid
from all school level records on SNDAIII. SNDA understating the costs of the rule. 24 Note that we are only referring to the
data allows the computation of take rates for single 23 The amount of refined grains in combination incremental cost of foods above the quantities
food items and combination entrees. We use foods in excess of final rule requirements are offset already purchased by schools (singly or in
estimates of the component foods contained in by subtracting the value of an equivalent amount of combination items), not the overall cost of all foods
combination entrees to estimate overall take rates single food refined grain products from the rules in the final rules meal patterns.
for each of the final rules food groups, whether per-meal cost. 25 IOM 2009, p. 110.
switching from heat and hold to food labor costs. One is the requirement that Although labor costs relative to food
production requires the addition of staff. schools offer more vegetables, from a costs have held steady over many
Those districts that estimate meals per variety of vegetable subgroups, than years,32 this approach may overstate
labor hour (MPLH) to monitor schools tend to offer today. Some labor costs. We explore the potential
productivity may see an unfavorable schools may choose to meet those effect of labor costs growing at a
decrease in their numbers. 26 targets by offering vegetables in school somewhat lower rate in section F.
If schools choose to prepare more salad bars. It is possible that the cost of Food and Labor Cost Summary: Table
meals on-site to meet new requirements, installing and maintaining a salad bar 10 summarizes the estimated increase in
IOM sees the need for greater could increase the overall cost of school food and labor costs associated with the
managerial skill, and more skilled meal production. Similarly, to meet the
labor and/or training. 27 At the same final rule through FY 2016.33 (The final
rules calorie and fat requirements, two rows of Table 10 also include the
time, lesser reliance on prepared foods schools may find it necessary to rely
offers some opportunity for offsetting estimated administrative costs to State
less on pre-purchased entrees, and hire agencies.) Overall, we estimate that the
savings. more central kitchen or cafeteria
An empirical analysis of data from rule may increase the total cost of
workers to prepare healthier meals from
330 Minnesota school districts found reimbursable school meals by $3.2
scratch.
that healthier meals had higher labor billion over five years; the cost of food
SLBCSII data show that the cost of
costs (for on-site preparation) but lower would increase by $1.6 billion, and the
purchasing food accounted for 45.6
costs for processed foods (Wagner, et al., cost of labor would increase by $1.6
percent of SFA reported costs, on
2007). The authors call for funds to be average. Labor accounted for an billion. In the first year of full
made available for labor training and additional 44.5 percent of reported SFA implementation (FY 2015),34 the
kitchen upgrades. They suggest that costs. The remaining 9.9 percent of combined cost of food and labor is
higher federal meal reimbursement rates reported costs are attributable to expected to be about 8 percent higher
may be unnecessary (under the supplies, contract services, capital under the final rule than under existing
assumption that the meals do not cost expenditures, indirect charges by the requirements. The estimated additional
more to produce because lower food school district, etc. 29 Labor costs are cost of food for a reimbursable lunch
costs offset higher labor costs).28 broadly defined in the SLBCSII to increases from about 2.5 cents in FY
The effect of the final rules meal include the costs of foodservice 2012 to 5.4 cents in FY 2016; food costs
requirements on the mix of food and administrative tasks such as planning, for a reimbursable breakfast grow to 14.1
labor costs is unclear. The rule requires budgeting, and management, and cents in FY 2016. These per meal
schools to offer relatively more foods foodservice equipment maintenance.30 increases roughly doubleto 11 cents
with higher unit costs than schools now and 28 cents by FY 2016when the
Some of these tasks are detailed in
offer to their students. The rule requires, estimated cost of labor is included.
section III.C.1. These tasks include
for example, that schools replace many
training food preparation staff, servers,
of their refined grain foods with whole 32 Labor costs as a share of the total costs of
and cashiers. They also include the
grain substitutes. Because prices for preparing school meals were found to be 43.8
work of individuals who plan menus percent in FNSs SY 19921993 School Lunch and
whole grain products tend to exceed the
and prepare recipes. Breakfast Cost Study I, and 44.5 percent in the SY
prices of similar products made with
For purposes of this analysis, we 20052006 School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study
refined grains, savings from eliminating II (a statistically insignificant difference). Food
assume that the relative contributions of
a particular refined grain product is costs as a percent of total costs grew slightly from
food and labor to the total cost of 45.6 percent in SY 19921993 to 48.3 percent in SY
more than offset by the cost of its whole
preparing reimbursable school meals 20052006. But this change, too, is statistically
grain counterpart. Where pre-baked
will remain fixed at the levels observed insignificant. USDA 2008, p. 92.
whole grain foods are simply 33 The new standards will take effect at the start
in the SLBCSII. As a result, we
substituted for pre-baked refined grain of SY 20122013. Because the 20122013 school
estimate that labor costs increase on a
products, or whole grain flour is year begins in July 2012, there is just a small cost
nearly dollar for dollar basis with in Federal FY 2012. Note that these figures assume
substituted for refined flour in existing
estimated food costs.31 We estimate that no effect on student participation. We discuss the
recipes, the added cost of serving these possible effects of the rule on student participation
the rule may increase schools food
new foods is strictly a food cost; labor in section III.F. We examine the effect of alternate
costs by about 8 percent by FY 2015.
costs may not increase at all. participation assumptions in section F.
But the rule includes other provisions 29 USDA
34 Two years after implementation of the rule, in
2008, p. 35 SY 20142015, all grains servings offered to meet
that are likely to increase both food and 30 USDA 2008, p. 39 meal pattern requirements must be whole grain
31 The estimates contained in this analysis rich. The new minimum fruit requirement at
26 Ibid.
assume labor costs equal to food costs multiplied breakfast also takes effect in SY 20142015; this is
27 IOM 2009, p. 148. by (44.5/45.6), the ratio of reported labor to food the last of the rules major changes to the breakfast
28 Ibid. costs in the SLBCSII. meal patterns.
3. Food Cost Drivers with the Dietary Guidelines, the rule Changes in school demand also
will require schools to offer more fruits, impact food producers. The figures in
Table 11 provides a breakdown in the vegetables, and whole grains than they Table 11 indicate that the economic
estimated food costs of the final rule by currently offer today. costs and benefits of the rule may not be
seven broad food categories. Consistent shared equally by producer groups.
ER26JA12.005</GPH>
Milk: This impact analysis estimates Grains: The rule initially requires that quantities served, its methodology
that the amount of milk served to half of grains offered to students be differs from ours in several ways.
students will not change after whole grain rich. Beginning in SY 2014 Perhaps the most significant
implementation of the rule.35 However, 2015, the rule requires that all grains difference is in the establishment of
the rule does require schools to serve served be whole grain rich. This baselines. We used all records on the
only low-fat or fat-free milk in the transition is reflected in the large SNDAIII dataset to estimate baseline
school meals programs.36 Because the changes in both the whole grain and quantities of food served and student
per-unit cost of low-fat and fat-free milk refined grain figures between FY 2014 take rates. IOM limited its analysis to a
is less than the average per-unit cost of and FY 2016. set of six representative baseline menus
the mix of milk products now served in selected from the SNDAIII dataset.
This analysis estimates that the total
schools, the estimated cost of serving IOM selected one 5-day lunch menu and
amount of grain products served will be
milk under the rule is reduced. Some one 5-day breakfast menu for each of
less after implementation of the final
comments on the proposed rule noted three age-grade groups (elementary,
rule than the amount served in our
that schools had already made the middle, and high school) at random
baseline (the per-meal amount taken by
transition to fat-free and low-fat milk, from a subset that excluded practices
students according to SNDAIII). The
and that there would be no savings as identified as uncommon.37 The goal of
effect of this net reduction in total
a result of this provision. We discuss both methodologies is to estimate a
grains served is reflected in figures for
this and other comments in Section E. baseline food cost representative of all
fiscal years 2012 to 2014, where the cost
Fruit Juice: The estimate assumes that schools that participate in the Federal
decrease for refined grains is school meals programs. We have not
schools will satisfy the rules increased substantially greater than the cost
fruit requirement entirely through attempted to isolate and quantify the
increase for whole grains. Throughout effect of this methodological difference
additional servings of whole or cut-up the estimation period, we assume that
fruit, not fruit juice. We expect that on our cost estimates. Another
the unit cost of whole grains exceeds the important difference between the IOM
schools will have to encourage unit cost of comparable refined grain
consumption of additional whole or cut- and FNS estimates is our use of different
products. Despite this, the net reduction student take rates in preparing food cost
up fruit in order to satisfy this in total grain products served through
requirement. The cost estimate assumes estimates for the recommended meal
FY 2014 more than offsets the increased patterns. We computed take rates from
that the amount of fruit juice served to unit cost of whole grains. After FY 2014,
students will not increase above the SNDAIII and applied them, largely
when the rules 100 percent whole grain unchanged, to the food group serving
levels assumed in the baseline estimate. rich requirement takes effect, the added
As a result, the relative share of whole requirements of the final rule.38 We do
cost of serving higher priced whole not increase take rates in anticipation of
or cut-up fruit to fruit juice servings grain products about equals the savings
offered to (and taken by) students will greater demand for better meals, nor
from a reduction in grains products reduce take rates in anticipation of a
increase after implementation of the served.
rule. decline in student acceptance of new
4. Comparison of FNS and IOM Cost vegetable varieties, whole grains, or low
35 See section F. for an examination of the cost Estimates fat milk relative to the starchy
implications of altering this assumption.
36 This provision is required by Section 202 of the IOM prepared its own food cost 37 IOM excluded menus that did not offer a
HHFKA and has already taken effect. Through estimate for its recommended meal reduced fat or fat free unflavored milk, offered only
implementation memo SP292011, dated April one entree, offered 15 or more entree options,
pattern changes. The methodology
14, 2011, schools were required to offer a variety offered juice drinks rather than 100% fruit juice, or
of milk that meets Dietary Guidelines behind that estimate is discussed in offered dessert every day. IOM 2009, p. 307
recommendations. The USDA implementation School Meals: Building Blocks for 38 FNS caps individual school take rates at the
memo clarifies that schools must offer at least two Healthy Children (IOM 2009). While food group category to 100 percent. We also attempt
fat-free or low-fat (1 percent milkfat) varieties to include the contribution of component foods in
effective with the start of SY 20112012. This final
IOM relies on SLBCSII and SNDAIII, combination entrees in our estimates of take rates
rule includes the additional requirement that the same primary sources used by FNS, for the major food groups (fruit, milk, vegetables,
to estimate unit costs and baseline
ER26JA12.006</GPH>
flavored milk be offered in fat-free form only. grains, and meat/meat alternates).
vegetables, refined grains, and higher fat rather than two reviews (one CRE and new meal patterns. SAs may also review
milk on current school menus.39 IOM one SMI) every five years. SFA contracts with food service
modified observed take rates from FNS expects these additional burdens management companies (FSMCs). We
SNDAIII where the expert judgment of on SFA staff time and budgets may be have not estimated this cost, but expect
committee members and school meal offset by other benefits. For instance, that it will be small.
practitioners deemed it appropriate.40 new age/grade groupings would require Monitoring and compliance: SAs
Additional differences in FNS and IOM school districts to offer different portion will be required to conduct
take rates can be attributed to IOMs use sizes instead of the same portions to all administrative reviews (formerly CREs
of six representative school menus in its ages/grades. While this could be an and SMIs) more frequently, once every
analysis; IOM computed its take rates additional burden to some SFAs, it 3 years for each SFA beginning in SY
from those schools alone. FNS take rates could also reduce plate waste with use 20132014. Nutrient analysis will be
are computed from all schools on the of more appropriate age/grade required for all SFAs and will become
SNDAIII dataset. groupings. Moreover, it is expected that, an additional component of each review
as food service workers gain experience (separate SMIs will be eliminated).
C. Administrative Impact and become comfortable with the new Nutrient-based menus will be
1. School Food Authorities (SFA) requirements, administrative efforts eliminated and only food-based menu
associated with implementation may planning will be permitted. The final
An initial increase in administrative decline. Therefore, although an initial rule drops the proposed rule
staff time for training and administrative impact is anticipated, requirement to require administrative
implementation is anticipated at the FNS does not expect any significant reviews to cover two weeks of menus
SFA level. Most of these impacts will be long-term increase in administrative and production records; instead, the
limited to the transition to the rules burden. final rule keeps the current one week
new requirements as a result of: review requirement. The final rule, like
Training staff on the required 2. State Agencies the proposed rule, would include
components of reimbursable lunches State Child Nutrition Agencies (SAs) breakfast in SA administrative
and breakfasts; play a key role in the implementation of reviews.41
Changes to menus and portion size school meal programs through their SAs are currently required to conduct
may necessitate revisions to menus and agreements and partnership with local a CRE for each SFA once every 5 years;
recipes currently used by SFAs; SFAs. FNS anticipates that SAs that to conduct a nutrient analysis via SMI
Changes to food purchasing and administer the school meals programs review for only those SFAs with food-
commodity food use (for example, will work closely with SFAs to meet the based menu planning systems (although
increasing purchases for fresh fruit and requirements of the rule, and to remove approximately 30 percent of these SFAs
vegetables, whole grain products, and barriers that may hinder compliance. elect to conduct the nutrient analysis
lower sodium products), as well as Many changes associated with themselves); to review menus from a
changes in the methods of preparation implementation of the rule may result in one-week period preceding the review
of food, may be necessary for many an increased burden and additional date; and to review a breakfast meal
schools; required level of effort from States, such only in the case of a follow-up CRE
Changes in SFA financial structure, as: (which is only conducted in those cases
as SFAs may need to review finances in Training and technical assistance: in which problems are noted in the
order to determine how to deal with any SAs will provide training and technical initial CRE). Total costs for each SA to
cost changes associated with the rules assistance to SFAs on new calorie and complete a CRE include costs for staff
requirements; meal pattern requirements, age/grade labor, travel (including transportation,
Forging new relationships with groupings, and revised nutrient accommodations, and meals/incidental
local farmers to supply fresh produce requirements. Moving to a single, food- expenses), and possible printing costs
appealing to the tastes of school based menu planning system may for those SAs that provide CRE results
children; and simplify the meal service for some to SFAs and FNS in hard copy rather
Modifying a la carte foods and other schools and will likely streamline the than electronically.
foods at school to maintain NSLP and meal planning process, but may require Limited discussion with a small
SBP participation rates. initial training to accomplish. number of SA and FNS Regional Office
The rule also increases the scope of Although SAs may meet most of this officials suggest that a typical CRE or
State Agency administrative reviews of demand by modifying current training SMI review costs about $2,000 in 2010,
SFAs by combining the current and technical assistance efforts, we with about half of that cost used for staff
Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) with recognize that SAs may incur additional travel. Because travel is a largely fixed
the requirements of School Meals costs assisting SFAs with the transition cost, SAs that previously conducted
Initiative (SMI) reviews, and increases to the final rule requirements. Our cost separate CRE and SMI reviews should
their frequency to once every three estimate provides for an additional 80 realize some savings once SMIs are
years. SFAs that previously held hours per SA in each of fiscal years ended and the nutrient analysis is made
separate CREs and SMIs may experience 2012 and 2013, for a total of $0.2 part of the consolidated administrative
a decrease in burden, because they will million. review. That may help offset some of the
undergo just one State Agency Systems assistance: SAs may assist cost of increased review frequency. A
administrative review every three years, SFAs with any changes in the meal mid-sized State that now conducts 100
planning process occurring as a result of CRE reviews might incur annual
this rule. This is included in our $0.2
39 As discussed elsewhere in this impact analysis,
our take rate assumptions are intended to avoid million estimate for training and 41 FNS estimated in 1994 that extending the SFA
understating the cost of the rule given the uncertain technical assistance. review cycle from four to five years would decrease
response of both students and school foodservice Food procurement and preparation: costs associated with this effort by 20 percent. (June
workers to the new meal pattern requirements. We 10, 1994, Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 111, p.
test the cost implications of adopting different take More fruits, vegetables, whole grains, 30234) A similar, but opposite, effect might be
rates in section F. and foods that are lower in sodium may expected from shortening the cycle from five to
40 IOM 2009, p. 136. be necessary to align meals with the three years.
expenses of $200,000. Under the final end of its useful lifea cost that is reimbursable breakfasts under the SBP.
rule, that SA could expect to conduct 23 appropriately covered by USDA meal Other commenters suggested that
more administrative reviews, or roughly reimbursements and other sources of schools might even stop serving
167 per year. If we assume food service revenue. Although some reimbursable NSLP lunches.
conservatively that the SA realizes no schools may need additional upgrades In response to these comments, the
savings from elimination of SMI to prepare meals that meet the new final rule modifies the proposed rules
reviews, its review costs would increase standards, we do not have the data
meal pattern requirements. The effect of
by $134,000 per yearan upper-bound necessary to assess that need or to
those modifications is to reduce the cost
estimate. If all SAs incurred this same estimate the associated cost. The $125
to schools and SFAs of implementing
expense, the total cost would be roughly million in kitchen equipment grants
$8 million per year by FY 2013. distributed to schools through ARRA the rule. The modifications are
funds and the FY 2010 appropriation discussed in detail in the rule, and
3. USDA/FNS summarized in Section II of this impact
should have addressed much of the
FNS will assist State Agencies by most pressing need. For these reasons, analysis. The modifications offer
providing nutrition education, training, we do not include additional schools short term savings, relative to
guidance, and technical assistance to incremental equipment costs in our the proposed rule, by phasing in the
facilitate their work with local school final rule estimate. rules breakfast fruit and grain
food professionals. This may include Our decision not to include an requirements. As a result of elimination
developing training standards, additional equipment cost in our of the proposed rules breakfast meat
materials, updated measures for proposed rule estimate generated requirement, the ongoing cost of the
nutrition analysis, and revisions to the comments from school officials and final rule after full implementation is
food buying guide. foodservice industry representatives. also reduced.
While we expect a small increase in Those comments do not provide enough Eliminating the proposed limit on the
administrative burden for FNS under information on which to base a reliable amount of starchy vegetables that
the rule because of the need to provide estimate of the need for additional schools may offer at lunch has little
additional training and technical kitchen equipment as a result of the
assistance to SAs, and to support their effect on the cost of the final rule
rule. The comments confirm that the relative to the proposed rule. Significant
role in the administrative review need, where it exists, will vary
process, this may largely be met by savings are realized through a reduction
significantly. Although we cannot
adapting existing efforts to the new in the lunch patterns grain requirement.
reliably estimate the aggregate cost of
requirements. meeting the need for additional Part of the difference in the estimated
equipment, we provide one estimate in 5-year costs of the proposed and final
D. Food Service Equipment
the Section F below. Additional detail rules is due to lower projected food cost
Changes in meal pattern requirements on the comments received from schools inflation and increased student
may require some SFAs to replace or and the foodservice industry on this participation since preparation of the
purchase additional foodservice point is discussed in Section E. proposed rule estimate. To facilitate
equipment. For example, some SFAs comparison of the estimated costs of the
may need to replace fryers with ovens E. Comments on Proposed Rule
proposed and final rules, we prepared
or steamers. In FY 2009, FNS solicited As noted in the preamble to the final two estimates of the final rules
requests from SFAs for food service rule, USDA received more than 130,000 provisions. The first uses the most
equipment grants. In response to its comments on the proposed rule. current food inflation and student
solicitation, FNS received a total of Comments on the content of the rule participation figures; this is our primary
approximately $600 million in grant itself are discussed in the preamble. estimate summarized in Table 6. The
requests from SFAs. FNS awarded Other comments, addressed specifically
grants for such purposes totaling $125 second applies the same food inflation
to the proposed rules impact analysis, and student participation estimates that
million, using $100 million from funds are discussed here.
provided by the 2009 American we used in our proposed rule cost
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) a. Proposed Rule is Too Costly estimate. That is, we use the projections
and $25 million provided by the FY Many commenters expressed concern of food inflation for years after FY 2009
2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act. that the proposed rule was too costly. that we developed for the proposed rule.
The strong response to these grant Schools and school districts would not (Our primary estimate for the final rule
programs indicates that schools could be able to meet the proposed rules meal uses actual inflation through August
make productive use of an even greater standards without additional resources 2011, and an updated projection for
investment in kitchen equipment. FNS from Federal, State, or local years after FY 2011.) The difference
awarded grants for such purposes governments. Some of these between this second estimate and the
totaling $125 million, using $100 commenters noted that the cost of the estimated cost of the proposed rule
million from funds provided by the proposed rule exceeded the 6 cents per provides a more direct measure of the
2009 American Recovery and lunch that would follow adoption of the reduction in cost due to changes in the
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and $25 new meal requirements. Many also content of the proposed and final rules.
million provided by the FY 2010 noted that State and local governments Using that difference as our basis of
Agriculture Appropriations Act. were not in a position to provide school comparison, the final rule reduces costs
However, much of that demand is districts with additional funding. The over the first 5 years by almost $3
associated with the routine need to result, some commenters warned, was billion, or 44 percent, as compared to
replace equipment that is nearing the that schools might stop serving the proposed rule.
TABLE 12REDUCTION IN ESTIMATED COST OF FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED RULE

Fiscal year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2

Final ruleprimary estimate ............................................ 41.6 286.2 362.1 1,220.2 1,279.7 3,189.9
Difference .................................................................. 139.8 960.6 1,039.7 703.6 761.6 3,605.3

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2
Final rulewith proposed rule inflation and participation
estimates ...................................................................... 53.5 376.0 474.8 1,419.0 1,511.1 3,834.5
Difference .................................................................. 127.9 870.6 927.0 504.8 530.2 2,960.7
In response to comments that an several years old, presents a greater risk 51% of districts are increasing
additional 6 cents per reimbursable of overstatement than understatement of vegetarian options.46
lunch 42 falls short of our estimated per the cost of the rule, holding other factors Our use of SNDAIII data means that
meal cost of the proposed rule, we point constant. The Dietary Guidelines our cost estimate does not reflect the
out that the HHFKA contains a Advisory Committee completed its 2005 most recent progress that schools have
comprehensive package of school lunch report in August 2004, just as SY 2004 made toward adoption of Dietary
and breakfast reforms. These reforms are 2005 began. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines recommendations. At least
intended to both increase the quality of Guidelines policy document was one non-profit organization offered a
school meals and competitive school released by the U.S. Department of comment on the proposed rule that
foods offered to students, and to address Health and Human Services and USDA concurs with that assessment. The
financial and funding issues. These in January 2005. These documents were commenters primary point was that we
latter provisions are expected to released as SNDAIII data was being overstate the savings from replacing
increase the amount of revenue collectedtoo soon for substantial more expensive high fat milk with less
generated by SFAs while eliminating changes prompted by the Dietary expensive low fat and fat free varieties;
the subsidization of paid lunches and Guidelines to be reflected in meals the commenter notes that many schools
non-program foods with Federal funds offered to students. have already made that transition. We
meant to support reimbursable meals In the years since data was collected acknowledge that the potential savings
generally, and meals served to free and for SNDAIII, schools and USDA have of the final rules milk provision may be
reduced-price eligible children in taken steps to bring school meals into overstated in our cost estimate. But that
particular. The impact analysis closer compliance with the 2005 Dietary savings is potentially overstated for the
contained in the interim final rule Guidelines. One example, cited by IOM, same reason that the costs of meeting
prepared for Sections 205 and 206 of is the recent improvement in USDA the rules other food group requirements
HHFKA estimates that those provisions Foods offered to schools through the may be overstated. Schools have taken
will increase SFA revenues by $7.5 USDAs commodity programs.44 These recent steps to adopt Dietary Guidelines
billion through FY 2015.43 HHFKA changes provide schools with an recommendations on vegetables, fruit,
section 205 is designed to gradually increased variety of whole grain, low whole grains, and sodium; schools
reduce the disparity in per-meal school fat, and low sodium products for use in gradual adoption of Dietary Guidelines
revenue from reimbursable paid lunches healthier school meals. Other changes recommendations has not been limited
relative to the per-meal Federal to milk. Because our projected savings
have been initiated by schools. The
reimbursement for free lunches. Section from the rules milk provision is much
School Nutrition Associations 2010
206 requires schools to increase the lower than our projected cost of the
Back to School Trends Report
share of SFA revenue generated by rules vegetable, fruit, and whole grains
highlights some of the most recent
nonprogram foods to a level at least as provisions, we believe that the risk that
changes that schools are making in
great as nonprogram foods contribution we overstate the cost of the rule exceeds
anticipation of new Federal
to total SFA food costs. the risk that we understate its cost.
standards: 45
b. Costs Are Understated 95% of schools districts are increasing c. Analysis Does Not Capture Full Effect
Some commenters felt that the cost offerings of whole grain products. of Recent Food Inflation
estimate presented in the proposed rule 90.5% are increasing availability of Some commenters argued that we
is understated. As we describe in fresh fruits/vegetables. understated or did not adequately
Section III.B.2., our methodology relies 69% of districts are reducing or account for food inflation in our
primarily on data collected by USDA in eliminating sodium in foods. proposed rule cost estimate. Both our
SNDAIII to estimate the types and
66% of districts are reducing or proposed and final rule cost estimates
quantities of food offered by schools to
limiting added sugar. use food group specific inflation figures
program participants. SNDAIII
from the BLS to estimate current year
collected information from schools in 44 The [USDA] Commodity Program has made prices (FY 2011 prices for the final rule
SY 20042005. We believe that our use
substantial improvements in its offerings in recent analysis) from a set of baseline prices
of the data from that study, which is years to become better aligned with Dietary paid by schools in SY 20052006 (taken
Guidelines for Americans and to be more
42 Section 201 of HHFKA provides an additional responsive to its customers. (IOM 2009, p. 188) from the SLBCSII). Both analyses use
6 cents to schools for each NSLP lunch that meets 45 This is just a summary of recent changes
this rules meal pattern requirements. adopted by schools. Schools have been moving 46 Figures taken from the SNAs Web site
43 Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 117, pp. 35301 toward 2005 Dietary Guidelines standards over (http://www.schoolnutrition.org/
35318. several years. Content.aspx?id=6926, accessed 10/10/11).
those current year estimates to project met with the help of the food industry that relies more on on-site preparation.
prices through FY 2016. through changes that can be met with Our proposed rule analysis discussed
In our final rule estimate we use a 7- current food processing technology. The the $125 million for school foodservice
year historic average of food inflation, proposed rule analysis stated that a equipment provided to schools through
by food group, to project prices. Our reduction in sodium can be achieved at the 2009 American Recovery and
proposed rule estimate used a 5-year minimal cost, at least over the short Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the FY
historic average to inflate food costs. In term, when sodium requirements are 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
developing our final rule estimate we only partially phased-in. But the Although the proposed rule analysis
recognized that actual food price analysis also noted that meeting the recognized that the demand for ARRA
inflation since we prepared our rules sodium targets would likely grants greatly exceeded the amount
proposed rule estimate was require replacing some packaged foods available, the analysis noted that much
substantially lower than inflation over with foods prepared from scratch. To of that demand was driven by the
the previous 5 years. We adopted a 7- clarify, we recognize that meeting even routine need to replace aging
year historic average in our final rule the first sodium target has some cost; equipment, costs that are appropriately
cost projections in order to temper the however, we do not estimate that as a covered by USDA meal reimbursements
effects of relatively low recent food separate component cost in either the and other sources of food service
price inflation. This yields a slightly proposed or final rule analyses. Much of revenue. The proposed rule analysis did
higher estimate for our final rule than the cost of meeting the proposed and not include an additional cost tied
we would have gotten had we used an final rules short term sodium targets is specifically to meeting the proposed
updated 5-year average projection contained in the cost of substituting rule meal patterns.
factor. We do this to avoid the risk of prepared foods for foods cooked from
understating the cost of the final rule. Some commenters offered estimates of
scratch in schools or central kitchens.
the cost required to equip schools to
d. Analysis Does Not Account for We account for this in our labor cost
produce more foods on site. These costs
Higher Costs of Healthier Foods estimate. Our proposed and final rule
ranged from $4,000 per school for new
analyses estimate that labor costs will
Some commenters referred equipment, to $500,000 or more for a
rise nearly dollar for dollar with food
specifically to the higher costs of whole full kitchen and serving site renovation
costs. Over 5 years, the final rule
grains and vegetables emphasized by the (an estimate given by a foodservice
estimates that labor costs will increase
rule. Others referred to the additional industry representative). Commenters
by $1.6 billion.
costs necessary to produce low-sodium indicated that preparing more meals on-
Our cost estimate extends only
school meals. We address these site would require investment in
through FY 2016, two years before the
separately. additional refrigeration equipment,
final rules second sodium target takes
Higher Prices for Food Groups effect. As a result, we do not estimate microwaves and combination ovens,
Emphasized by the Rule the cost of meeting that target in SY storage space, sinks, cutting boards and
20172018, or the rules final sodium knives. What these comments cannot
Our proposed rule and final rule cost tell us is the percent of schools in need
estimates develop separate prices for target in SY 20222023. However, two
provisions in the final rule respond to of new equipment, or the average per-
each of the food subgroups with specific school cost to meet that need. If fully
standards in the rule. For example, we the challenge of meeting those targets.
The first is a delay in the second half of all schools require investments
estimate separate prices for whole grains averaging $5,000, then the total cost of
and refined grains, for whole fruit and intermediate target from 4 years post-
implementation in the proposed rule to new equipment necessary to prepare
fruit juice, and for the dark green, red- meals that meet the final rule standards
orange, starchy, and other vegetable 5 years in the final rule. Lengthening the
transition to lower sodium foods is would be $250 million. In the end, we
subgroups. In each of these cases, we do not have the data necessary to
estimate higher unit prices for the food intended, in part, to facilitate student
acceptance. But it also gives industry develop a reliable estimate of need in
subgroups emphasized by the rule. In excess of the routine costs of replacing
some cases the price premium for these more time to develop products that meet
the rules standards. To the extent that outdated equipment. In Section F we
food subgroups may reflect lower present an alternate cost estimate of the
supply in the school food marketplace. limited supply is a school cost issue,
delaying the second intermediate target final rule under a different assumption
As industry increases the supply of about the need for additional
these products in response to higher to 5 years should help reduce costs. The
final rule also promises USDA review of investment in school kitchen
school demand, economies of scale may equipment.
reduce their cost. Our cost estimates for schools progress toward the rules final
both the proposed and final rules sodium target, and allows for F. Uncertainties
discount the possibility that prices for modifications to the sodium targets if
these foods may moderate over time. necessary. We made several simplifying
Again, we do this to avoid understating assumptions in developing this cost
e. Analysis Understates Need for estimate, reflecting gaps in available
the cost of the rule. Additional Equipment and data and evidence. The most significant
Added Cost of Producing Meals With Infrastructure simplifications are discussed in Table
Less Sodium School officials and others 13. In most cases, our primary estimate
The proposed rules first intermediate commented that our proposed rule reflects conservative assumptions, to
sodium targets were designed to be met analysis understated the need for avoid understating the costs of the rule.
by schools through menu and recipe additional investment in food In this section, we describe the impact
changes using currently available foods. preparation and storage equipment as of several alternative assumptions on
The proposed rules second schools move away from a heat and the estimate. The cost impacts of these
intermediate target was designed to be hold foodservice model, to a model alternatives are presented in Table 14.
TABLE 13SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS

Item Explanation and Implications of Simplifying Assumptions
Take Rates ......................... For each of several food groups, we used SNDAIII data to compute average take rates equal to the percentage
of food servings taken by students for each serving offered to them. Take rates under current program rules
vary by school, grade level, and menu planning system. They are, at best, a rough predictor of student behavior
under the new rule, which imposes a single food-based meal planning system across all schools, and requires
schools to offer a mix of foods somewhat different than many students are accustomed to. We apply these take
rates to generate our final rule cost estimate. Different take rate assumptions could produce higher or lower cost
estimates. Take rates higher than the ones used in our estimate imply that students will select more foods from
menus that meet final rule standards than they now select from more familiar current school menus; we believe
that risk is reasonably low, at least in the short term. It may be more likely that actual take rates will fall below
our estimates. However, the possibility of lower take rates is constrained by the requirement that students select
enough components to constitute a reimbursable meal.
Student Participation .......... The cost estimate assumes no change in student participation following introduction of the rules new meal pattern
requirements. However, we recognize that participation may increase due to better meals or decrease when fa-
vorite school foods are replaced with unfamiliar or less appealing options. We chose not to estimate a participa-
tion effect given the uncertainty about how schools will incorporate new foods into their menus, and what
changes schools will make to a la carte and other non-NSLP/SBP competitive foods, factors known to affect
NSLP/SBP participation. Schools have a financial interest in preserving the revenue stream that comes with
serving Federally-reimbursable school meals. It is also unclear whether participation effects, if any, may prove
temporary or permanent. We estimate the cost of the rule under an assumption of increased and reduced stu-
dent participation in the uncertainties section.
USDA Foods ...................... We include USDA Foods (formerly USDA commodities) in both the quantity and value of food served in its base-
line and final rule cost estimates. This treatment of USDA Foods is consistent with the SLBCSII which includes
the value of USDA Foods in its computation of the cost of producing a school meal. We assume that USDA
Foods will contribute comparably to the overall cost of preparing school meals under current rules and under the
new rule. We believe it is reasonable to ignore the value of USDA Foods in computing the estimated cost in-
crease of the rule.
Whole Grains ...................... We apply a single take rate to both whole grain rich and refined grain products. A less conservative approach
would have applied a lower take rate to whole grain foods, at least when offered singly, rather than as part of a
combination entree. Further, this take rate is the same take rate observed in SNDAIII where the relative share
of whole grain rich products is lower than the 50 percent share that schools must offer in the first two years of
implementation, and much lower than the 100 percent share that must be offered thereafter. Testimony before
the IOM expert committee by University of Minnesota Professor Leonard Marquart documented steps SFAs can
take to phase in whole grains in a manner that promotes high take rates.
Labor Rates ........................ We assume that the relative contributions of food and labor to the total cost of preparing reimbursable school
meals will remain fixed at the levels observed in the SLBCSII study. The study found that the cost of pur-
chasing food accounted for 45.6 percent of SFA reported costs on average, while labor accounted for 44.5 per-
cent of reported costs. We therefore estimate that labor costs will increase on a nearly dollar for dollar basis
with estimated food costs. Our assumption leads to a substantial increase in estimated labor costs, one that as-
sumes schools may rely less on prepared foods and more on on-site preparation. Nevertheless, USDA received
comments from some individuals and organizations indicating that our proposed rule understates the likely in-
crease in labor costs. To respond to these comments, we re-estimate the cost of the proposed rule assuming a
bigger increase in labor costs in Section F. The cost estimate developed in this impact analysis is based entirely
on the cost of adding or deleting foods from particular food groups.
The cost estimate accounts for current price differences in whole grains compared to refined grain products, fat
free and low fat milk compared to 2 percent or whole milk, whole fruit compared to fruit juice, and vegetables by
subgroup. But it does not account directly for differences in the costs of comparable combination entrees with
different levels of sodium, fat, or calories. SNDAIII found that school lunches offered to students in SY 2004
2005 provided, on average, about 11 percent of calories from saturated fat. The final rule would limit this to 10
percenta relatively modest reduction.
Macronutrient Require- Our cost estimate does take into account the added cost of more fruits and vegetables. It also takes into account
ments and Calories. the cost of shifting to a wider variety of vegetables.
Finally, the estimate accounts for the replacement of higher fat content milk with low fat and skim milk. All of these
steps implicitly incorporate the cost of offering lower calorie and lower fat content meals into our estimate. We
mention above that that the first intermediate sodium target can be achieved with changes to school menus and
preparation methods using foods already available in the marketplace. To the extent that the rules first sodium
target requires more on-site preparation of meals, we account for that in our labor cost estimate. We estimate
that the additional cost of acquiring lower sodium versions of processed foods to meet the rules initial sodium
target will be minimal. This is one of the very few assumptions that, if wrong, tends to understate the cost of the
rule. But, given the decision to err on the side of overstating costs when making most other assumptions, we
believe that the upside risk to an error on this assumption is small.
a. Change in Participation2 Percent Table 14 Sections A and B model the all meals served under our baseline
Increase effects of altering that assumption. assumption plus an additional 2
Section A estimates the effect of a two percent; the costs are not just limited to
As discussed in Table 13 above, we percent increase in student participation the incremental per-meal costs of the
assumed that student participation on the cost of the rule relative to our final rule. The additional meals are
would not change following the primary cost estimate in Table 6. The eligible for USDA reimbursement at the
introduction of new meal requirements. dollar figures in Section A are the appropriate free, reduced price, or paid
estimated cost to schools of preparing rates. However, the figures shown in
Section A are not offset by these addition, schools are likely to incur III.B.1. That discussion notes that
increased Federal reimbursements. The additional expense to train foodservice inflation over the most recent 2 years
net cost to schools, after accounting for workers on the new meal requirements. was lower for most food subgroups than
Federal reimbursements, would be However, commercial suppliers can be inflation over the five years prior to
lower. Because these costs reflect the expected to develop and introduce those two. Our proposed rule estimate
provision of improved meals to healthier products for the school market used a 5-year historic average to project
additional children, we would expect a ahead of implementation of a final rule; food costs through FY 2016. In an effort
commensurate increase in the benefits other products may be introduced after to limit the effects of low recent
resulting from addition of more fruits, implementation. Schools may find that inflation on our cost estimate, our final
vegetables, and whole grains to the diets new training replaces some training rule methodology uses a 7-year average
of participating children. This planned in existing budgets. to project food costs, rather than a
participation assumption would result At least one change reflected in the revised 5-year estimate using only the
in a $1.3 billion increase over the cost final rule is intended, in part, to help most recent food inflation figures. This
of our primary estimate. reduce labor costs relative to the
methodology retains all of the 5 years of
b. Change in Participation2 Percent proposed rule. The proposed rule
relatively high food inflation that we
Decrease included a separate meat standard for
used in our proposed rule methodology.
breakfast. The final rule drops that
Table 14, Section B models the effect We took this step to minimize the risk
requirement, preserving schools ability
of a two percent decrease in to serve meat as a substitute for grains of understating the cost of the final rule.
participation upon implementation of at breakfast, but not requiring schools to It is possible, nevertheless, that food
the new rule. A reduction in offer meat. USDA expects that this inflation will accelerate in the short
participation reduces the cost of change will support schools that serve term. If food prices from fiscal years
compliance with the rule, relative to the breakfast in the classroom, a model that 2012 through 2016 match the rate of
primary cost estimate in Table 6.47 may require less labor cost than inflation over the five years that ended
Again, because the cost reduction breakfast served in the school cafeteria. in FY 2009, then the cost of the final
reflects the provision of improved meals Although we believe that the risk that rule would increase by $240 million.48
to fewer children, we would expect a we overstate the labor costs necessary to
proportionate decrease in the rules e. Additional Need for Foodservice
implement the rule is as likely as the Equipment
benefits for participating children. This risk that we understate labor costs,
reduction in cost is a reduction in the comments received from school officials The cost estimate in our proposed
entire cost of serving 2 percent fewer and foodservice and nutrition
meals, not just the incremental per-meal rule (and the primary estimate in this
professionals argue that our labor cost final rule analysis) does not include an
cost of complying with the final rule. estimate may be too low. Commenters
Schools would realize a partially additional cost for new foodservice
cited the need to hire new kitchen staff equipment. As we discuss in section E
offsetting decrease in Federal meal to prepare more meals from scratch as
reimbursements; that offset is not shown above, commenters offer much different
a factor that might change the current estimates of the need for new kitchen
in Table 14. The effect of a 2 percent ratio of labor to food costs.
decrease in student participation would equipment to prepare more foods on site
Our primary labor cost estimate relies as a means of complying with the rule.
be to decrease the cost of implementing on the observation that the ratio of labor
the final rule by $1.3 billion. These figures do not allow us to
to food costs was about the same at two
estimate the dollar value of that need
c. Higher Rate of Increase in Labor Costs points measured 13 years apart. We
with any certainty. Table 14 includes a
than Food Costs acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in
revised final rule estimate that assumes
Our primary cost estimate assumes the assumption that this ratio will
remain unchanged even as substantial half of all schools will need to invest
that the ratio of labor to food costs will $5,000 in new kitchen equipment soon
remain fixed at the ratio observed in the changes to the meal patterns are
implemented by schools. And we after implementation of the rule. We
SLBCSII. Because we estimate a show half of this $250 million cost as an
substantial increase in school food therefore recognize the risk that the
absolute dollar cost for labor in our final upfront expense, and the other half as
costs, our fixed labor to food cost an expense incurred in the first full year
assumption leads to a substantial rule estimate is too low. If the cost of
labor needed to implement the final rule of implementation of the rule.
increase in labor costs.
Some increase in labor costs is likely. exceeds the amount in our primary Table 14 below assumes that State
Schools may find it necessary to prepare estimate by 10 percent, then the cost of administrative costs are not impacted by
more meals on site to incorporate added the final rule would rise by $160 any of the alternate assumptions (ae)
vegetables and whole grains, and to million. listed above.
reduce levels of sodium and fat. In d. Higher Food Inflation
48 This estimate includes a proportionate increase
47 Thisreduction in cost comes at the expense of The final rule estimates food inflation in labor costs to remain consistent with our labor
reduced federal meal reimbursements. methodology in described section cost methodology.
G. Comparison of Proposed Rule and ending in August 2011 was lower for $730 million reduction in the cost of the
Final Rule Costs most of the food groups affected by the final rule relative to the proposal.
rule than it was in the five previous Breakfast Meal Patterns
The key differences between our
proposed rule and final rule cost years. This reduces our baseline cost of
food as well as our projection of food The most significant reduction in the
estimates are discussed in previous estimated cost of the final rule relative
sections of this RIA. Most of the prices through the RIAs forecast period.
The final rule also uses USDA to the proposed rule is due to changes
estimated reduction in cost is due to in the final rules breakfast provisions.
policy changes, but a significant projections of school meal participation
The final rules phased implementation
reduction is also realized by lower food contained in the 2012 Presidents
of the meal patterns fruit and grain
inflation since preparation of the budget. The proposed rule relied on requirements, and elimination of the
proposed rule cost estimate. data in the 2011 Presidents budget. The proposed rules separate meat and meat
more recent participation projections alternate requirement reduce the cost of
Inflation and Other Economic slightly increase the cost of the breakfast
Assumptions the rule by $2.7 billion over 5 years.

meal patterns and reduce the cost of the
The proposed rule used actual food lunch meal patterns relative to the Lunch Meal Patterns
price inflation through the end of FY proposed rule. The net effect of changes Additional savings are realized
2009. The final rule incorporates nearly to our food inflation and student through a reduction in the final rules
two additional years of actual food price participation projections is a 5-year lunch meal pattern grain requirement
inflation. Inflation over the two years relative to the proposed rule. The final
ER26JA12.007</GPH>
rule also includes changes to the group that now includes tomatoes. tomatoes, and increases the requirement
vegetable component of the proposed Replacement of the orange vegetable for red/orange vegetables relative to the
rules lunch meal pattern. The final rule subgroup with a red/orange subgroup proposed rule requirement for orange
eliminates the proposed rules 1 cup per was prompted by the 2010 Dietary vegetables. The net effect of changes to
week limit on starchy vegetables, and it Guidelines. The final rule reduces the the vegetable and grain requirements at
replaces the proposed rules orange weekly requirement for other lunch is a relatively modest $150
vegetable subgroup with a red/orange vegetables, which previously included million reduction in cost over 5 years.
TABLE 15CHANGES IN COST OF THE FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED RULE
Fiscal year
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2

Updated economic and participation projections ..... 15.9 114.8 141.1 211.3 248.2 731.2
Changes to breakfast meal pattern requirements .... 120.5 822.7 871.4 446.4 465.6 2,726.7
Changes to lunch meal pattern requirements .......... 3.4 23.0 27.1 45.8 47.8 147.3
Final rule .......................................................................... 41.6 286.2 362.1 1,220.2 1,279.7 3,189.9
H. Implementation of Final RuleSFA amount equal to the Federal toward implementation of the rule can
Resources reimbursement for free lunches. That even be achieved with existing
We estimate that the new meal revenue could come from student resources. USDAs HealthierUS Schools
patterns may raise the average cost of payments or State or local sources. The Challenge (HUSSC) recognizes
producing and serving school lunches second requires that the revenue elementary schools that meet voluntary
by about 5 cents on initial generated from non-program foods as a school meal and physical activity
implementation of the rule. By FY 2015, percent of food costs match the revenue standards. HUSSC school meal
when the food group components are to food cost ratio of program meals. standards exceed NSLP requirements on
fully phased in, the cost per lunch may USDA estimates that these two several levels, including requirements
be 10 cents higher than our baseline provisions will raise a combined $7.5 for a variety of vegetables each week,
estimate; the cost per breakfast may be billion in the 5 years following their including dark green and orange
27 cents higher than our baseline. July 1, 2011 effective date.50 vegetables and legumes; a variety of
As we discuss in Section E, the Schools will face different costs to whole fruits, and limits on fruit juice;
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act contains implement this final rule. Schools with and whole grain and low fat milk
a comprehensive package of school meal menus that already emphasize fruits, a requirements. USDA has certified more
reforms that call for an update to the variety of vegetables, and whole grains than 2,161 HUSSC schools since 2004.
meal patterns and provide for increased may need to make fewer changes, and HUSSC schools have demonstrated an
SFA revenue. USDA estimates that the the costs of implementation in those ability to operate cost-effective school
$3.2 billion 5-year cost of this rule is schools may be lower than average. meals programs that emphasize many of
more than offset by the impact of other Because the per-meal costs of complying the same foods required by the final
HHFKA provisions on SFA revenues. with the new requirements are much rule. These schools receive no financial
HHFKAs meal pattern and revenue higher for breakfast than for lunch, the assistance from USDA beyond the meal
raising provisions are linked directly in overall costs of implementation in reimbursements and USDA Foods
the performance-based increase in schools that serve more school available to other schools that
Federal financing for school lunches. breakfasts relative to lunches may be participate in the Federal school lunch
Schools that successfully implement the higher than the costs faced by schools and breakfast programs. Like other
final rule standards will receive an that do not serve breakfast. service businesses, schools may need to
additional 6 cent reimbursement for Schools will also benefit differently consider changes to their operations to
each lunch served. The Congressional from HHFKAs revenue provisions. increase efficiency and meet the
Budget Office estimates that an Schools with relatively few students requirements of the rule. HUSSC
additional 6 cents per lunch would raise who pay full price for program meals schools have demonstrated an ability to
$1.5 billion for SFAs in the first 5 years stand to gain little from HHFKAs paid operate cost-effective school meals
after implementation of the rule.49 lunch provision. Similarly, schools that programs that meet many of the final
HHFKA contains two additional sell few a la carte items will realize little rules requirements. These schools may
provisions to ensure that Federal revenue from an increase in a la carte offer models for others as
reimbursements are used as intended to prices. At the same time, schools that implementation moves forward.
provide quality meals to program serve mostly free and reduced-price
participants. The first requires schools students and sell little a la carte can rely I. Impact on Participation
to gradually raise the per-meal revenue on significant Federal funding for each As noted in Table 13, the cost
generated from paid lunches to an SFA dollar spent to purchase and estimate in this analysis assumes no net
prepare school foods. change in student participation
49 $1.5 billion is CBOs estimate of additional
The experience of some schools following introduction of the rules new
budget authority for HHFKAs Performance-Based suggests that substantial progress

Rate Increase through FY 2016, less $100 million meal pattern requirements. This
($50 million for administrative expenses in fiscal assumption reflects uncertainties in a
years 2012 and 2013) . See Table 2 in CBOs April 50 See the interim final rule and regulatory impact
number of areas, including how schools
20, 2010 cost estimate for HHFKA. http:// analysis for School Food Service Account Revenue
www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11451/ Amendments Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free
will reflect the new requirements in
HealthyHungerFreeKidsAct.pdf (accessed 11/06/ Kids Act of 2010, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. menus, the acceptance of those changes
11). 117, pp. 3530135318. by students, and potential changes in
prices for reimbursable paid meals to education for children and their J. Benefits
provide additional revenue. These caregivers, and school and community As noted in the preamble to this final
factors are discussed below. support for healthy eating and physical rule, NSLA requires that schools serving
1. Acceptance of Meals activity. Similarly, in 2004 Congress lunches and breakfasts under its
required all school districts to establish program authority ensure that those
Any revision to the content of school local wellness policies. Through these
meals or the method of preparation may meals are consistent with the goals of
policies schools have made changes to the most recent Dietary Guidelines for
have an effect on the acceptance of their school nutrition environments and
school meals. Concerns are often raised Americans and the Dietary Reference
improved the quality of foods offered to Intakes. The final rule, by updating
that students may react negatively to students. In the context of these
changes designed to improve nutrition. program regulations consistent with
initiatives, implementation of the final Dietary Guidelines goals and aligning
USDA launched the School Meals rule is only the next step in a process
Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI) in the regulations with the requirements
of ongoing local, State, and Federal placed on schools under the statute, will
1995 to help schools improve the efforts to promote childrens nutrition
nutritional quality of NSLP and SBP ensure that school meal nutrition
and health. requirements reflect current nutrition
meals. The SMI offers an opportunity to
examine how students react to 2. Impact of Price on Participation science, increase the availability of key
substantial changes in school meal food groups, better meet the nutritional
patterns. FNS estimates that the average cost of needs of children, and foster healthy
As a result of the SMI many school preparing and serving school meals may eating habits.
food service directors reported making increase by 8 percent by FY 2015. Some In so doing, it also provides a clear
changes in procurement and preparation SFAs may raise student prices for paid means of meeting the statutory
practices (Abraham, 2002). For example, meals (above the paid lunch revenue requirements through a food-based meal
they reported increased purchases of target required by HHFKA) to pattern designed with the particular
low-fat/reduced-fat foods (81 percent) compensate for some of this increase in circumstances and challenges of school
and fresh fruits and vegetables (75 cost. We recognize that increased paid food service in mind, to ensure that it
percent). The majority reported no meal prices may reduce NSLP paid meal is feasible for school foodservice
change in food waste. However, to the participation. Mathematica, Inc. operators and does not jeopardize
extent that there was change in the modeled the effect of paid meal prices student and school participation in the
amount of food wasted, more on student participation as part of the meal programs. A related benefit of the
respondents reported a reduction rather SNDAIII study.52 All else equal, rule is that it simplifies meal
than an increase in food waste (with the students who were not income-eligible requirements to create a single, food-
exception of cooked vegetables). School for free or reduced-price meals were less based approach to meal planning. This
food service directors report that the likely to participate in the program approach helps to simplify menu
SMI has generally had a neutral-to- when the full price of the meals was planning and monitoring, and
positive impact on program higher. For lunch, the model estimates streamline training and technical
performance. a 0.11 percent decrease in participation assistance needs.
SNDAIII found that [c]haracteristics for each 1 cent increase in paid lunch Once implemented by schools, USDA
of NSLP lunches offered, including prices.53 For breakfast, the model projects that this rule will change the
percent of calories from fat, whether estimates a 0.12 percent decrease in types and quantities of foods prepared,
dessert or French fries were frequently participation per 1 cent increase in offered and served through the school
offered, and average number of fresh price. meals programs (the sources of the costs
fruits and vegetables offered per day, described in this analysis). The rule is
The models predicted student expected to result in (1) increased
were generally not significantly participation rate was 54 percent in
associated with NSLP participation. 51 servings of fruits and vegetables, (2)
schools that charged $2.00 for an NSLP replacement of refined-grain foods with
This suggests that changes in meal lunch, compared to 59 percent in
patterns that enhance nutrition can be whole-grain rich foods, and (3)
schools that charged $1.50. The study replacement of higher-fat dairy products
well received by students. Furthermore, also predicts lower breakfast
the increased emphasis on a healthy with low-fat varieties. As documented
participation in schools that charged in the IOM recommendations, each of
school nutrition environment in recent higher prices. Predicted participation
years, and greater awareness of the these changes corresponds to an
was 10.3 percent in schools that charged inconsistency between the typical diets
importance of healthy eating habits in $0.70 for an SBP breakfast versus 7.2
schools, may help to support student of school-aged children in the United
percent in schools that charged $1.00. States and the Dietary Guidelines/
acceptance of changes in program Since meals meeting the new
meals. MyPyramid recommendations. In
requirements will be improved in particular, the report cited an analysis of
There is also a strong and growing
nutritional content it is not clear how NHANES 19992002 data that showed
school nutrition effort and infrastructure
this factor would balance against the that:
already in place.
effects of higher meal prices. Although Total vegetable intake was only
For example, Team Nutrition is an
price changes may be a necessary option about 40 percent of the MyPyramid
FNS initiative to support healthier
for some SFAs, FNS expects that efforts levels, with intake of dark green and
meals through training and technical
designed to maintain participation orange vegetables less than 20 percent
assistance for food service, nutrition
would be concurrently implemented. of MyPyramid levels.
51 For breakfast, the study estimated that Total fruit intake was about 80
projected participation rates were higher in 52 USDA 2007, vol. II, pp. 116117, 123124. percent of the MyPyramid levels for
schools that offered a greater percentage of calories 53 This relationship between price and children ages 58, with far lower levels
from fat in the SBP breakfast; however, these participation applies to prices in the range of $1.50
differences were not statistically significant at to $2.00 in SY 20042005 dollars. A much bigger
for older children.
conventional levels. USDA 2007, vol. II, pp. 113 price increase might trigger a bigger reduction in Intake of whole grains was less than
and 127. participation. one-quarter of MyPyramid levels,
although total grain intake was at or Committee notes, evidence is changes in meals expected to result
above MyPyramid levels. accumulating that selecting diets that from implementation of the rule. As the
Intake of dairy products varied by comply with the Guidelines reduces the rule is projected to make substantial
age, with the intakes of the youngest risk of chronic disease and promotes improvements in meals served to more
children exceeding MyPyramid levels, health. 58 The report describes and than half of all school-aged children on
while those of older children were below synthesizes the evidence linking diet an average school day, we judge that the
those levels. However, most dairy and different chronic disease risks, likelihood is reasonable that the benefits
consumed contained 2 percent or more including cardiovascular disease and of the rule exceed the costs, and that the
milk fat, while the Dietary Guidelines blood pressure, as well as the effects of final rule thus represents a cost-effective
recommend fat-free or low-fat dairy dietary patterns on total mortality. means of conforming NSLP and SBP
products.54 Children are a subpopulation of regulations to the statutory requirements
In addition, the rule would make particular focus for the Committee; the for school meals.
significant changes to the level of report emphasizes the increasing There are other, corollary benefits to
sodium in school meals over time. common evidence of chronic disease improvement in school meals that are
Research suggests that modest risk factors, such as glucose intolerance worthy of note. The changes could
population-wide reductions in dietary and hypertension, among children, and increase confidence by parents and
salt could substantially reduce explains that [e]vidence documents the families in the nutritional quality of
cardiovascular events and medical importance of optimal nutrition starting school meals, which may encourage
costs.55 More specifically, a forthcoming during the fetal period through more families to opt for them as a
study suggests that reducing dietary salt childhood and adolescence because this reliable source of nutritious food for
in adolescents could yield substantial has a substantial influence on the risk their children. Improved school meals
health benefits by decreasing the of chronic disease with age. 59 can reinforce school-based nutrition
number of teenagers with hypertension In response, the report notes education and promotion efforts and
and the rates of cardiovascular disease improvements in food at schools as a contribute significantly to the overall
and death as these teenagers reach critical strategy to prevent obesity, and effectiveness of the school nutrition
young and middle age adulthood.56 related health risks, among children. environment in promoting healthful
The rule also makes substantial Indeed, the Committee recommends food and physical activity choices.
changes in the calorie targets for meals [i]mprov[ing] foods sold and served in Finally, the new requirements provide a
that are designed to promote healthful schools, including school breakfast, clearer alignment between Federal
energy balance for the children served lunch, and after-school meals and program benefits and national nutrition
by these programs. For the first time, the competitive foods so that they meet the policy, which can help to reinforce
rule sets maximum as well as minimum recommendations of the IOM report on overall understanding of the linkages
calorie targets, and creates a finer school meals (IOM, 2009) and the key between diet and health.
gradation of calorie levels by age. As a findings of the 2010 DGAC. This
result, minimum calorie requirements includes all age groups of children, from IV. Alternatives
for some groups are reduced by as much preschool through high school. 60 1. Make No Changes to Proposed Rule
as 225 calories per lunch.57 The linkage between poor diets and
Implemented consistent with other health problems such as childhood The proposed rule closely followed
requirements that ensure that lunches obesity are also a matter of particular the recommendations contained in the
provide appropriate nutrient content, policy concern, given their significant 2010 report of the IOM committee
these changes in calorie levels can help social costs. One in every three children commissioned by USDA to propose
to reduce the energy imbalance that (31.7 percent) ages 219 is overweight changes to the NSLP and SBP meal
contributes to obesity among the or obese.61 Along with the effects on our patterns. Those recommendations were
Nations children, without childrens health, childhood overweight designed to reflect current nutrition
compromising nutrition to support and obesity imposes substantial science, the Dietary Guidelines, and
healthy growth and development. economic costs, and the epidemic is IOMs Dietary Reference Intakes. The
This approach is fully consistent with associated with an estimated $3 billion reforms contained in the proposed rule
the recommendations of the Dietary in direct medical costs.62 Perhaps more were well received by health and
Guidelines for Americans. Recognizing significantly, obese children and nutrition professionals, child advocates,
that the Dietary Guidelines apply to a adolescents are more likely to become academics, and parents. But, as
total diet, rather than a specific meal or obese as adults.63 In 2008, medical summarized in the preamble to the final
portion of an individuals consumption, spending on adults that was attributed rule and in this analysis, school and
the intention of the rule is to make to obesity increased to an estimated SFA officials, other public sector
changes to school meals nutrition $147 billion.64 officials, and the food industry
requirements to promote diets more Because of the complexity of factors expressed concern about the cost and
consistent with the Guidelines among that contribute both to overall food feasibility of the proposed rule. The
program participants. Such diets, in consumption and to obesity, we are not final rule reflects those concerns by
turn, are useful behavioral contributors able to define a level of disease or cost scaling back the quantity of food
to health and well-being. As the report reduction that is attributable to the contained in the proposal, especially at
of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory breakfast, eliminating the proposed
58 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, p. B1 rules limitations on starchy vegetables,
54 IOM 2009, pp. 4953. 2. phasing in some provisions, and
59 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, pp.
extending target dates for meeting the
55 See, for example, Smith-Spangler, 2010;

B12, B13.
Bibbins-Domingo, 2010.
60 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, p. B3
proposed rules sodium standards.
56 Bibbins-Domingo, 2010b.
6. Those changes result in a significantly
57 The minimum calorie level for a lunch served
61 Ogden et al., 2010. less costly final rule.
to Grade 7 students is 825 calories under current
standards (Grades 712); this would change to a
62 Trasande et al., 2009. One alternative to the final rule is to
range of 600 calories minimum, 700 calories 63 Whitaker et al., 1997; Serdula et al., May 1993. retain the proposed rule without
maximum under the new standards (Grades 68). 64 Finkelstein et al., 2009 change. The proposed rule closely
followed IOMs recommendations. IOM most important difference between the may encourage other schools to adopt a
developed its recommendations to final and proposed rule breakfast meal breakfast program.
encourage student consumption of foods patterns is the elimination of a separate Table 16 estimates the cost of the
recommended by the Dietary Guidelines meat/meat alternate requirement. That proposed rule using updated projections
in quantities designed to provide change preserves current rules that
of student participation and food
necessary nutrients without excess allow the substitution of meat for grains
inflation. The estimated 5-year cost of
calories. The final rule still achieves at breakfast. It also responds to general
that goal. Students will still be public comments on cost, and on the the final rule, from Table 6, is $2.9
presented with choices from the food need to preserve schools flexibility to billion lower than this updated cost
groups and vegetable subgroups serve breakfast outside of a traditional estimate of the proposed rule.
recommended by the Dietary cafeteria setting. [Note that the estimate in Table 16 is
Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, Even with these changes, and with the about 10 percent lower than our cost
like the proposed rule, will help less significant changes to the proposed estimate for the same set of provisions
children recognize and choose foods lunch standards, the final rule remains in the proposed rule Regulatory Impact
consistent with a healthy diet. consistent with Dietary Guidelines Analysis. The difference between the
The most significant differences recommendations. The added flexibility two estimates reflects lower food
between the proposed and final rules and reduced cost of the final rule inflation for most food groups since
are in the breakfast meal patterns, and relative to the proposed rule should preparation of the proposed rule
those differences are largely a matter of increase schools ability to comply with
estimate.65 As we discuss in Section
timing. The final rule allows schools the new meal patterns. The final rules
III.B.1., lower recent inflation also
more time to phase-in key IOM less costly breakfast patterns will make
recommendations on fruit and grains at it easier for schools to maintain or reduces our projection of future price
breakfast. Once fully implemented, the expand current breakfast programs, and increases.]
2. Adopt Final Rule Lunch Meal Pattern proposed rule. Table 17 makes clear that $5.9 billion over 5 years, or $2.7 billion
Changes; Retain Proposed Rule most of this reduction is due to the final more than final rule. This alternative
Breakfast Patterns rules breakfast meal pattern changes. responds less effectively than the final
Adopting all of the lunch provisions rule to comments received by USDA
From Alternative 1, above, we contained in the final rule,66 but from SFA and school administrators
estimate that cost of the final rule is $2.9 retaining the proposed rules breakfast who expressed concerns about the cost
billion lower than the cost of the provisions, would cost an estimated of the proposed rule.
ER26JA12.009</GPH>
65 Table 16 also includes the effect of reclassifying contained in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Moving 66 For purposes of this estimate, reclassifying
tomatoes as a red/orange vegetable. Tomatoes tomatoes back to the other vegetable subgroup for tomatoes as a red/orange vegetable is considered
were included in the other vegetable subgroup in school meals was not considered by USDA and is to be one of the final rules lunch meal pattern
our proposed rule cost estimate. Moving tomatoes therefore not reflected in this alternative to the final changes.
from the other vegetable subgroup to the new
rule.
ER26JA12.008</GPH>
red/orange subgroup is one of the changes
3. Adopt Final Rule Breakfast Meal the proposed and final rule lunch vegetable subgroups have the effect of
Pattern Changes; Retain Proposed Rule provisions have largely offsetting costs. increasing the cost of the final rule
Lunch Patterns The combined effect of moving tomatoes relative to the proposed rule. The final
This alternative highlights the to the new red/orange vegetable rules reduction in the lunch meal
relatively small difference in the cost of subgroup, and the associated changes in patterns grain ounce equivalent
the proposed and final rule lunch the minimum cup requirements of the requirement reduces the cost of the final
provisions. The two key differences in red/orange, starchy, and other rule relative to the proposed rule.
V. Accounting Statement www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ estimates of benefits, costs and transfers

omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a- associated with the provisions of this
As required by OMB Circular A4 4.pdf), we have prepared an accounting final rule.
(available at http:// statement showing the annualized
VI. References Medicine, 2010 Feb 18;362(7):5909. www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-

Epub 2010 Jan 20. DGACReport.htm).
Abraham, S., M. Chattopadhyay, M. Bibbins-Domingo K. (Bibbins-Domingo, Finkelstein, E., Trogdon, J., Cohen J., Dietz,
Montgomery, D. M. Steiger, L. Daft, B. 2010b) Abstract 18899: Cardiovascular W. (2009). Annual Medical Spending
Wilbraham. (Abraham, 2002) The School Benefits of Dietary Salt Reduction for US Attributable to Obesity: Payer-And
Meals Initiative Implementation Study- Adolescents. Presented at: American Service-Specific Estimates. Health
Third Year Report. U.S. Department of Affairs, 28(5).

Heart Association Scientific Sessions
ER26JA12.011</GPH>
Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Institute of Medicine (IOM 2009). School
2010; Nov. 1317; Chicago.
Bibbins-Domingo K et al. (Bibbins-Domingo, Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Children. Washington, D.C: The National
2010) Projected effect of dietary salt Report of the Dietary Guidelines
reductions on future cardiovascular Academies Press. http://
Advisory Committee on the Dietary www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/
disease. New England Journal of Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (http://
ER26JA12.010</GPH>
CNP/FILES/SchoolMealsIOM.pdf.
Institute of Medicine (IOM 2009). Nutrition SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, the impact analysis. The tables develop
Standards for Foods in Schools: Leading and Certification StudyErroneous both a baseline food cost estimate and
the Way toward Healthier Youth. Payments in the NSLP and SBP, by an estimate under the proposed rule.
Washington, D.C: The National Michael Ponza, et al. http://
Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/ www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ Table A1 contains total food and
openbook.php?record_id=11899. CNP/FILES/apecvol1.pdf. labor cost estimates for the baseline and
Maurer, K. The National Evaluation of School U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dietary under the proposed rule. The difference
Nutrition Programs: Program Impact on Guidelines Advisory Committee (USDA is summarized in the shaded panel at
Family Food Expenditures. The 2004). Report of the Dietary Guidelines
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Advisory Committee on the Dietary
the bottom of the table. That difference
40: August 1984, pp 448453. Guidelines for Americans, 2005 http:// is the estimated cost of the rule, as
Ogden, C.L., Carroll, M., Curtin, L., Lamb, M., www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/ presented in Table 6 in section III.A.1.
Flegal, K. (2010). Prevalence of High dga2005/report/. Table A2 shows each of the major
Body Mass Index in US Children and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Adolescents 20072008. Journal of inputs into our baseline cost estimate.
Nutrition Service (USDA 2001). School
American Medical Association, 303(3), Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II by The first 5 columns give the estimated
242249. Mary Kay Fox, et al. http:// food cost per school meal served. We
Smith-Spangler CM et al. (2010) Population www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/ inflate each of the meal components by
strategies to decrease sodium intake and CNP/FILES/SNDAIIfind.pdf. historic and projected changes in food
the burden of cardiovascular disease: a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and group specific prices to estimate per
cost-effectiveness analysis. Annals of Nutrition Service. The Impact of the
Internal Medicine, 2010 Apr
meal costs through FY 2016. Inflation
School Nutrition Programs on Household
20;152(8):4817, W1703. Epub 2010 factors, not shown in Table A2, are
Food Expenditures. Prepared by
Mar 1. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., weighted averages, computed from CPI
Serdula MK, Ivery D, Coates RJ, Freedman October 30, 1987. U data from the Bureau of Labor
DS. Mayiamson DF. Byers T. Do obese U.S. Department of Health and Human Statistics. The next set of columns
children become obese adults? A review Services (HHS 2010). The Surgeon contains projections of meals served
of the literature. Prev Med 1993;22:167 Generals Vision for a Healthy and Fit through FY 2016. Total baseline costs,
177. Nation. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
Trasande, L., Chatterjee, S. (2009). in the five rightmost columns of Table
library/obesityvision/
Corrigendum: The Impact of Obesity on A2, are the product of the estimated
obesityvision2010.pdf
Health Service Utilization and Costs in U.S. Department of Health and Human costs per meal and FNS projections of
Childhood. Obesity, 17(9). Services and U.S. Department of the number of meals served.
Whitaker RC, Wright JA, Pepe MS, Seidel KD, Agriculture (HHS/USDA 2005). Dietary
Dietz WH. Predicting obesity in young Our estimate of total cost under the
Guidelines for Americans, 6th Edition. proposed rule is developed in Table A
adulthood from childhood and parental http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/
obesity. N Engl J Med 1997; 37(13):869 DietaryGuidelines/2005/
3. Table A3 summarizes the steps that
873; 2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf. we took to estimate a per-meal food cost
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. in FY 2012, the year in which the rule
Nutrition Service (USDA 2008). School Department of Health and Human is expected to take effect, and shows our
Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study-II, Final Services. (USDA/HHS 2010) Dietary
Report, by Susan Bartlett, et al.http:// projection of total costs through FY
Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th 2016.
www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/
Edition. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/
CNP/FILES/MealCostStudy.pdf. Table A3 resembles Table A2. It
Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and takes the weighted average prices per
PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.pdf.
Nutrition Service (USDA 2007). School
Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III
Wagner, B., B. Senauer, and F. C. Runge. meal by meal component for FY 2012,
(Wagner, 2007). An Empirical Analysis projects them through FY 2016 using
by Anne Gordon, et al. http://
of and Policy Recommendations to food group specific inflation factors,
www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/
Improve the Nutritional Quality of
CNP/FILES/SNDAIII
School Meals. Review of Agricultural
then multiplies those inflated per meal
SummaryofFindings.pdf. figures by FNS projections of meals
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Economics 29(4):672688.
served. The final estimated cost of meals
Nutrition Service (USDA 2007a). White VII. Appendix A served under the proposed rule is
Paper: USDA Commodities in the
National School Lunch Program. The following tables detail the major displayed in the last five columns of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and steps in the computation of food cost table.
Nutrition Service (USDA 2007b). NSLP/ estimates described in the main body of BILLING CODE 341030P
ER26JA12.012</GPH>
ER26JA12.013</GPH>
BILLING CODE 341030C

ER26JA12.014</GPH>
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis implementation, and the need for (RCCIs).69 We focus on the impact at the
Final rule: Nutrition Standards in the flexibility in administration at the SFA level in this document, rather than
National School Lunch and School school district level. the school level, because SFAs are
Breakfast Programs responsible for the administration of the
[RIN 0584AD59] Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
NSLP and the SBP.
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, Final Rule Food service management
USDA. Under Section 9(a)(4) and Section companies (FSMCs) that prepare school
Background: The Regulatory 9(f)(1) of the NSLA, schools that meals or menus under contract to SFAs
Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies participate in the NSLP or SBP must are affected indirectly by the proposed
to consider the impact of their rules on offer lunches and breakfasts that are rule. Thirteen percent of public school
small entities and to evaluate consistent with the goals of the most SFAs contracted with FSMCs in school
alternatives that would accomplish the recent Dietary Guidelines for year (SY) 20042005.70 Of the 2,460
objectives of the rules without unduly Americans. Current nutrition firms categorized as food service
burdening small entities when the rules requirements for school lunches and contractors under NAICS code 72231,
impose a significant economic impact breakfasts are based on the 1995 Dietary 96 percent employ fewer than 500
on a substantial number of small Guidelines and the 1989 RDAs. (School workers.71
entities. Inherent in the RFA is lunches and breakfasts were not
Congress desire to remove barriers to Response to Public Comments on Initial
updated when the 2000 Dietary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
competition and encourage agencies to Guidelines were issued because those
consider ways of tailoring regulations to recommendations did not require USDA received comments on the
the size of the regulated entities. significant changes to the school meal Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The RFA does not require that patterns.) The 2005 and 2010 Dietary from school, SFA, and State education
agencies necessarily minimize a rules Guidelines provide more prescriptive officials, advocacy organizations, and
impact on small entities if there are and specific nutrition guidance than foodservice industry representatives.
significant legal, policy, factual, or other earlier releases and require significant Most of those individuals were
reasons for the rules having such an changes to school meal requirements. concerned with the cost of complying
impact. The RFA requires only that with the rule. Commenters pointed to
agencies determine, to the extent Number of Small Entities To Which the the particular cost challenges faced by
feasible, the rules economic impact on Final Rule Will Apply small schools with few foodservice
small entities, explore regulatory This rule directly regulates the 55 employees, limited space for storage and
alternatives for reducing any significant State education agencies and 2 State on-site meal preparation, and the
economic impact on a substantial Departments of Agriculture (SAs) that inability to purchase food in quantities
number of such entities, and explain the operate the NSLP and SBP pursuant to necessary to get the lowest prices. These
reasons for their regulatory choices. agreements with USDAs Food and comments are discussed in the relevant
Nutrition Service (FNS); in turn, its sections below.
Reasons That Action Is Being
Considered provisions apply to entities that prepare Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and
and provide NSLP and SBP meals to Other Compliance Requirements
Section 103 of the Child Nutrition and
students. While SAs are not small
WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 The analysis below covers only those
entities under the RFA as State
inserted Section 9(a)(4) into the organizations impacted by the final rule
populations exceed the 50,000 threshold
National School Lunch Act requiring that were determined to be small
for a small government jurisdiction,
the Secretary to promulgate rules entities.
many of the service-providing
revising nutrition requirements, based
institutions that work with them to School Food Authorities (SFA)/Schools
on the most recent Dietary Guidelines
implement the program do meet
for Americans, that reflect specific Increased Cost To Produce School Meals
definitions of small entities:
recommendations for increased There are currently about 19,000 USDA estimates that the proposed
consumption of foods and food School Food Authorities (SFAs) rule will raise the average cost of
ingredients offered in school meal participating in NSLP and SBP. More producing and serving school lunches
programs. In addition, Section 201 of than 99 percent of these have fewer than by 5 cents on initial implementation.
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 50,000 students.67 About 26 percent of Phased implementation of the rules
2010 (HHFKA) requires the Secretary to SFAs with fewer than 50,000 students breakfast meal patterns results in no
issue regulations to update the school are private. However, private school first year costs. By FY 2015, when all of
meal patterns based on SFAs account for only 3 percent of all the lunch and breakfast food group
recommendations of the Institute of students in SFAs with enrollments requirements are in place, the cost per
Medicine. This final rule amends under 50,000.68 lunch will be about 10 cents higher than
Sections 210 and 220 of the regulations Nearly 102,000 schools and our baseline estimate; the cost per
that govern the National School Lunch residential child care institutions breakfast will be about 27 cents higher.
Program (NSLP) and the School participate in the NSLP. These include Across all SFAs we estimate that the
Breakfast Program (SBP). USDA more than 90,000 public schools, 6,000 total cost of compliance will be $3.2
published a proposed rule in the private schools, and about 5,000 billion over five years. Although about
Federal Register on January 13, 2011 residential child care institutions 99 percent of SFAs enroll fewer than
(76 FR 2494) that closely followed
IOMs recommendations. USDA
67 FNS 742 School Food Verification Survey, 69 FNS program data for FY 2010.
received and processed more than School Year 20092010. This number is 70 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
130,000 comments on the proposed approximate, not all SFAs are required to submit Nutrition Service, Office of Research, Nutrition and
rule. USDA considered those comments the 742 form. Analysis, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment
68 Ibid. RCCIs include but are not limited to Study-III, Vol. I, 2007, p. 34 http://
in developing a final rule that continues juvenile detention centers, orphanages, and medical www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/CNP/
to advance the goals of the IOM while institutions. We do not have information on the FILES/SNDAIII-Vol1.pdf.
responding to concerns about the cost of number of children enrolled in these institutions. 71 Ibid.
50,000 students, they enroll only about for food on a per-unit basis.73 But the Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Equipment
80 percent of all students. If they serve study also found that the relationship Grants and an additional $25 million in
about 80 percent of all meals (we do not [between small SFA size and higher one-time funds included in the FY 2010
have data on meals served by SFA size) food costs] is weak for districts of less Appropriations Act. In response to their
then these small entities would incur than 5,000 enrollment. Although SFPS solicitations for these funds, State
roughly 80 percent of estimated costs. found that small districts tend to pay agencies received a total of
With exceptions for individual more for food, it also found that small approximately $600 million in grant
schools, USDA expects that the cost of districts charge students the least for requests from SFAs. The strong
the rule will increase with meals served full-price school meals.74 response to these grant programs
and will not be proportionately higher indicates a substantial demand for
Increased Cost of Administering School
for small schools. Small schools that investment in kitchen equipment.
Meals Programs We do not have the data necessary to
face average labor and food costs, and USDA expects that SFAs will incur measure the remaining unmet demand
have menus typical of the average additional administrative costs for staff in smaller SFAs or in SFAs that did not
school are expected to incur per-meal training during implementation of the receive grants. However, much of that
costs comparable to larger schools. We new standards. The final rule replaces demand is driven by the routine need to
expect that those costs will equal our the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) replace equipment that is nearing the
estimated cost per meal multiplied by and School Meals Initiative (SMI) with end of its useful lifea cost that is
the number of meals served. a combined State Agency administrative appropriately covered by USDA meal
The most important factors that review. The new review will be held reimbursements and other sources of
separate schools with higher than once every 3 years, instead of once food service revenue. For recipient
average per-meal costs from those with every 5 years. The increased frequency SFAs, the grants temporarily freed some
lower than average costs are not of the combined review will increase of those revenue sources for other
necessarily associated with the size of administrative costs for many SFAs. priorities. In the absence of additional
the SFA. For instance, schools with However, SFAs that previously had Congressional action, SFAs must again
menus that already emphasize fruits, separate CREs and SMIs may experience turn to those sources to meet their
non-starchy vegetables, and whole a decrease in burden, because they will ongoing equipment needs.
grains will need to make fewer changes, undergo just one CRE every three years, Data from the SLBCS confirm that
and the costs of implementation in rather than two reviews (one CRE and small SFAs spend more, on average, to
those schools should be lower than one SMI) every five years. produce a school breakfast than do large
average. Also, because the per-meal cost USDA estimates that the proposed SFAs.76 SLBCS found that higher per-
of complying with the proposed rule will result in an average 8.2 hour meal breakfast costs in small SFAs are
requirements is much higher for net increase in the annual reporting and due, in part, to the fixed costs of
breakfast than for lunch, the overall recordkeeping burden for each of 7,000 operating a breakfast program. For
costs of implementation in schools that SFAs. That increase appears to fall example, schools that choose to offer
serve the most school breakfasts relative below the threshold for recognition as a breakfast must pay staff to serve meals,
to lunches will be higher than the costs significant impact for RFA purposes.75 no matter how few students participate.
faced by schools that do not serve Increased Equipment Costs As schools serve more breakfasts,
breakfast. SLBCS data show that the cost per unit
SFAs may need to purchase new decreases; this is the case for both small
Some commenters note that small equipment to prepare and serve meals
districts pay more for food than larger and large SFAs.77
that comply with the proposed If the fixed costs of starting up a
districts that benefit from volume standards. For example, some SFAs may
discounts. Others suggest that prices for breakfast program were the only factors
need to replace fryers with ovens or responsible for higher average breakfast
whole grain and reduced fat products steamers. In FY 2009, FNS solicited
are higher in small, rural communities. costs in small school districts, then we
requests from SFAs for food service would not expect the final rule to have
USDAs School Lunch and Breakfast equipment grants, awarding $100
Cost Study II (SLBCS) finds that the per- a disproportionate effect on those
million in 2009 American Recovery and districts. The main costs of the rule are
meal costs of producing school
breakfasts are higher in small districts 73 The study could not conclude whether the
variable rather than fixed: Schools must
than in large districts.72 But the study price advantage of large districts was a result of an offer a greater variety and additional
finds no statistically significant economy of scale based on the volume of food they quantities of certain foods to each
are purchasing, the use of highly centralized student. Some commenters point out,
difference by SFA size in the cost of procurement systems or formal procurement and
producing a school lunch. pricing methods typically found in large school
though, that the rule might require
districts, the accessibility to more vendors leading additional investment in food
SLBCS finds that at least some of the preparation and storage equipment, and
to a more competitive marketplace, or a
higher cost incurred by small districts to combination of factors. U.S. Department of that this imposes a special burden on
produce a school breakfast is due to the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of
smaller districts. But these costs are
fixed costs of operating a small program. Analysis and Evaluation, School Food Purchase
Study Final Report (Executive Summary), by Lynn variable too; larger districts will spend
The study does not, however, address Daft, et al., 1998 http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/ more than smaller districts on similar
how much might be due to higher food MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SFPSExecsum.pdf. types of equipment to handle a greater
prices. USDAs School Food Purchase 74 School Food Purchase Study Final Report, pp.
volume of food. Of course, kitchen
Study (SFPS) found that large districts III14III15.
equipment is not variable in the same
75 SBAs A Guide for Government Agencies
do tend to pay less than small districts
identifies several examples of significant impact: A sense as food. Small districts may have
rule that provides a strong disincentive to seek to purchase new equipment as a result
72 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
capital; 175 staff hours per year for recordkeeping; of the final rule that they may not use
Nutrition Service, Office of Research, Nutrition and impacts greater than the $500 fine (in 1980 dollars)
Analysis, School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study- imposed for noncompliance; new capital
76 School Food Purchase Study Final Report, p.
II, Final Report, by Susan Bartlett, et al., 2008, pp. requirements beyond the reach of the entity; and
3235. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/ any impact less cost-efficient than another VII1.
Published/CNP/FILES/MealCostStudy.pdf. reasonable regulatory alternative. 77 Ibid.
as intensively as districts that prepare reimbursement for each lunch served. meals programs that emphasize many of
more meals. In that way, expenditures The Congressional Budget Office the same foods required by the final
on kitchen equipment may add more to estimates that an additional 6 cents per rule. These schools receive no financial
per-meal costs in small districts than in lunch would raise $1.5 billion for SFAs assistance from USDA beyond the meal
bigger districts. in the first 5 years after implementation reimbursements and USDA Foods
of the rule.79 available to other schools that
USDA Response to Public Comments on HHFKA contains two additional participate in the Federal school lunch
the Cost of the Proposed Rule provisions to ensure that Federal and breakfast programs. Like other
USDA considered all comments reimbursements are used as intended to service businesses, schools may need to
submitted by the public on the proposed provide quality meals to program consider changes to their operations to
rule. Comments from school district and participants. The first requires SFAs to increase efficiency and meet the
school officials, foodservice industry gradually raise the per-meal revenue requirements of the rule. HUSSC
professionals, and others concerned generated from paid lunches to an schools have demonstrated an ability to
with the cost of the proposed rule were amount equal to the Federal operate cost-effective school meals
instrumental in guiding USDAs reimbursement for free lunches. That programs that meet many of the final
development of a less costly final rule. revenue could come from student rules requirements. These schools may
The modifications offer schools short payments or State or local sources. The offer models for others as
term savings, relative to the proposed second requires that the revenue implementation moves forward.
rule, by phasing in the rules breakfast generated from non-program foods as a We recognize that small SFAs, like
fruit and grain requirements. As a result percent of food costs match the revenue others, will face substantial costs and
of elimination of the proposed rules to food cost ratio of program meals. potential challenges in implementing
breakfast meat requirement, the ongoing USDA estimates that these two the proposed rule. These costs should
cost of the final rule after full provisions will raise a combined $7.5 not be significantly greater for small
implementation is also reduced. billion in the 5 years following their SFAs than for larger ones, as
Eliminating the proposed limit on the July 1, 2011 effective date.80 implementation costs are driven
amount of starchy vegetables that SFAs will benefit differently from primarily by factors other than SFA size.
schools may offer at lunch has little HHFKAs revenue provisions. SFAs Nevertheless, we do not discount the
effect on the cost of the final rule with relatively few students who pay special challenges that may face some
relative to the proposed rule. Significant full price for program meals stand to smaller SFAs. As a group, small SFAs
savings are realized through a reduction gain little from HHFKAs paid lunch may have less flexibility to adjust
in the lunch patterns grain requirement. provision. Similarly, schools that sell resources in response to immediate
USDA estimated that the proposed few a la carte items will realize little budgetary needs. Phased
rule would increase the costs of revenue from an increase in a la carte implementation of the final rules
preparing and serving school meals by prices. At the same time, schools that breakfast provisions, which will reduce
$6.8 billion over 5 years. With the serve mostly free and reduced-price up-front costs of implementation, may
changes discussed above, the 5-year cost students and sell little a la carte can rely be particularly valuable to small SFAs.
of the rule is reduced to $3.2 billion.78 on significant Federal funding for each
The reduction in cost will benefit SFAs SFA dollar spent to purchase and Food Service Management Companies
of any size that might have had prepare school foods. FSMCs are potentially indirectly
difficulty implementing the proposed The experience of some schools affected by the proposed rule. FSMCs
rule standards. suggests that substantial progress that provide school meals under
toward implementation of the rule can contract to SFAs will need to alter those
Options for Addressing Increased Costs even be achieved with existing products to conform to the proposed
Although changes to the final rule resources. USDAs HealthierUS Schools changes in meal requirements. In
significantly reduce the implementation Challenge (HUSSC) recognizes addition, FSMCs may find new
costs faced by SFAs, the rule still elementary schools that meet voluntary opportunities to work with SFAs that
requires a substantial investment by school meal and physical activity currently do not contract for food
schools and school districts to improve standards. HUSSC school meal service assistance. Consistent with SBA
the nutritional quality of school meals. standards exceed NSLP requirements on
guidance, which notes that [t]he courts
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of several levels, including requirements
have held that the RFA requires an
2010 (HHFKA), which is one of the 2 for a variety of vegetables each week,
agency to perform a regulatory
statutory directives behind this including dark green and orange
flexibility analysis of small entity
rulemaking, also contains provisions vegetables and legumes; a variety of
impacts only when a rule directly
intended to reform school meal whole fruits, and limits on fruit juice;
regulates them,81 we do not attempt to
financing. USDA estimates that those and whole grain and low fat milk
quantify the economic effect of the
provisions will increase SFA revenues requirements. USDA has certified more
proposed rule on FSMCs.
enough to fully offset the cost of this than 1,600 HUSSC schools since 2004.
HUSSC schools have demonstrated an Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
rule.
HHFKAs meal pattern and revenue ability to operate cost-effective school Overlap or Conflict With the Final Rule
raising provisions are linked directly in 79 See Table 2 in CBOs April 20, 2010 cost
FNS is unaware of any such Federal
the performance-based increase in estimate for HHFKA. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/ rules or laws.
Federal financing for school lunches. 114xx/doc11451/HealthyHungerFreeKidsAct.pdf.
Significant Alternatives
Schools and SFAs that successfully The total increase in budget authority through FY
implement the final rule standards will 2016 includes $100 million for administrative One alternative to the final rule is to
expenses ($50 million in each of the first 2 years). retain the proposed rule without
receive an additional 6 cent 80 See the interim final rule and regulatory impact
analysis for School Food Service Account Revenue change. The proposed rule closely
78 Part of the reduction in cost is due to a recent Amendments Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free
reduction in food inflation. See the Regulatory Kids Act of 2010, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 81 SBA, A Guide for Government Agencies,
Impact Analysis for additional detail. 117, pp. 3530135318. p. 20.
followed IOMs recommendations. IOM requirements, School breakfast and into cakes. Basic ingredients are whole
developed its recommendations to lunch programs. soybeans, one or more food-grade
encourage student consumption of foods Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 coagulants (typically a salt or an acid),
recommended by the Dietary Guidelines are amended as follows: and water. Tofu products must conform
in quantities designed to provide to FNS guidance to count toward the
necessary nutrients without excess PART 210NATIONAL SCHOOL meats/meat alternates component.
calories. The final rule still achieves LUNCH PROGRAM Whole grains means grains that
that goal. Students will still be consist of the intact, ground, cracked, or
presented with choices from the food 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR flaked grain seed whose principal
groups and vegetable subgroups part 210 continues to read as follows: anatomical componentsthe starchy
recommended by the Dietary Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17511760, 1779. endosperm, germ and branare present
Guidelines. In that way, the final rule, in the same relative proportions as they
like the proposed rule, will help 2. In 210.2: exist in the intact grain seed. Whole
a. Revise the definition of Food grain-rich products must conform to
children recognize and choose foods
component; FNS guidance to count toward the
consistent with a healthy diet.
b. Revise the definition of Food item; grains component.
The most significant differences c. Amend the definition of Lunch by
between the proposed and final rules removing the words applicable * * * * *
are in the breakfast meal patterns, and nutrition standards and portion sizes 3. Revise 210.10 to read as follows:
those differences are largely a matter of and adding in their place the words
timing. The final rule allows schools 210.10 Meal requirements for lunches
meal requirements; and requirements for afterschool snacks.
more time to phase-in key IOM d. Remove the definition of Menu
recommendations on fruit and grains at (a) General requirements. (1) General
item; nutrition requirements. Schools must
breakfast. Once fully implemented, the e. Remove the definition of Nutrient
most important difference between the offer nutritious, well-balanced, and age-
Standard Menu Planning/Assisted appropriate meals to all the children
final and proposed rule breakfast meal Nutrient Standard Menu Planning;
patterns is the elimination of a separate they serve to improve their diets and
f. Revise the definition of School
meat/meat alternate requirement. That safeguard their health.
week; and (i) Requirements for lunch. School
change preserves current rules that g. Add definitions of Tofu and Whole
allow the substitution of meat for grains lunches offered to children age 5 or
grains. older must meet, at a minimum, the
at breakfast. It also responds to general The revisions and additions read as meal requirements in paragraph (b) of
public comments on cost, and on the follows: this section. Schools must follow a food-
need to preserve schools flexibility to
210.2 Definitions. based menu planning approach and
serve breakfast outside of a traditional
produce enough food to offer each child
cafeteria setting. * * * * *
the quantities specified in the meal
Even with these changes, and with the Food component means one of the
pattern established in paragraph (c) of
less significant changes to the proposed five food groups which comprise
this section for each age/grade group
lunch standards, the final rule remains reimbursable meals. The five food
served in the school. In addition, school
consistent with Dietary Guidelines components to be offered to students in
lunches must meet the dietary
recommendations. The added flexibility grades K5 are: Meats/meat alternates,
specifications in paragraph (f) of this
and reduced cost of the final rule grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk.
section. Schools offering lunches to
relative to the proposed rule should Meals offered to preschoolers must
children ages 1 to 4 and infants must
increase schools ability to comply with consist of four food components: Meats/
meet the meal pattern requirements in
the new meal patterns. The final rules meat alternates, grains, vegetables/fruits,
paragraph (p) of this section.
less costly breakfast patterns will make and fluid milk. (ii) Requirements for afterschool
it easier for schools to maintain or Food item means a specific food snacks. Schools offering afterschool
expand current breakfast programs, and offered within the five food snacks in afterschool care programs
may encourage other schools to adopt a components: Meats/meat alternates, must meet the meal pattern
breakfast program. grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk. requirements in paragraph (o) of this
Implementing the proposed rule, * * * * * section. Schools must plan and produce
without changes, would increase the School week means the period of time enough food to offer each child the
cost to SFAs of implementing the new used to determine compliance with the minimum quantities under the meal
meal patterns, relative to the final rule, meal requirements in 210.10. The pattern in paragraph (o) of this section.
by an estimated $2.9 billion over 5 period shall be a normal school week of The component requirements for meal
years. five consecutive days; however, to supplements served under the Child
List of Subjects accommodate shortened weeks resulting and Adult Care Food Program
from holidays and other scheduling authorized under part 226 of this
7 CFR Part 210 needs, the period shall be a minimum chapter also apply to afterschool snacks
Grant programseducation, Grant of three consecutive days and a served in accordance with paragraph (o)
programshealth, Infants and children, maximum of seven consecutive days. of this section.
Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and Weeks in which school lunches are (2) Unit pricing. Schools must price
recordkeeping requirements, School offered less than three times shall be each meal as a unit. Schools need to
combined with either the previous or consider participation trends in an effort
breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus

agricultural commodities. the coming week. to provide one reimbursable lunch and,
* * * * * if applicable, one reimbursable
7 CFR Part 220 Tofu means a soybean-derived food, afterschool snack for each child every
Grant programseducation, Grant made by a process in which soybeans school day. If there are leftover meals,
programshealth, Infants and children, are soaked, ground, mixed with water, schools may offer them to the students
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping heated, filtered, coagulated, and formed but cannot get Federal reimbursement
for them. Schools must identify, near or analysis of the school menus conducted components required for a reimbursable
at the beginning of the serving line(s), by the State agency. Production and meal and include at least one fruit or
the food items that constitute the unit- menu records must be maintained in vegetable.
priced reimbursable school meal(s). The accordance with FNS guidance. (2) Over a 5-day school week: (i)
price of a reimbursable lunch does not (b) Meal requirements for school Average calorie content of meals offered
change if the student does not take a lunches. School lunches for children to each age/grade group must be within
food item or requests smaller portions. ages 5 and older must reflect food and the minimum and maximum calorie
(3) Production and menu records. nutrition requirements specified by the levels specified in paragraph (f) of this
Schools or school food authorities, as Secretary. Compliance with these section;
applicable, must keep production and requirements is measured as follows: (ii) Average saturated fat content of
menu records for the meals they (1) On a daily basis: (i) Meals offered the meals offered to each age/grade
produce. These records must show how to each age/grade group must include group must be less than 10 percent of
the meals offered contribute to the the food components and food total calories; and
required food components and food quantities specified in the meal pattern (iii) Average sodium content of the
quantities for each age/grade group in paragraph (c) of this section; meals offered to each age/grade group
every day. Labels or manufacturer (ii) Food products or ingredients used must not exceed the maximum level
specifications for food products and to prepare meals must contain zero specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
ingredients used to prepare school grams of trans fat per serving or a (c) Meal pattern for school lunches.
meals must indicate zero grams of trans minimal amount of naturally occurring Schools must offer the food components
fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams). trans fat; and and quantities required in the lunch
Schools or school food authorities must (iii) The meal selected by each meal pattern established in the
maintain records of the latest nutritional student must have the number of food following table:
Lunch meal pattern

Meal pattern
Grades K5 Grades 68 Grades 912
Amount of food a per week

(minimum per day)
Fruits (cups) b ................................................................................................................... 212 (12) 212 (12) 5 (1)

Vegetables (cups) b .......................................................................................................... 334 (34) 334 (34) 5 (1)
Dark green c .............................................................................................................. 12 12 12
Red/Orange c ............................................................................................................ 34 34 114

Beans and peas (legumes) c .................................................................................... 12 12 12
Starchy c .................................................................................................................... 12 12 12
Other c d ............................................................................................................................ 12 12 34
Additional Veg to Reach Total e ...................................................................................... 1e 1e 112 e

Grains (oz eq) f ................................................................................................................ 89 (1) 810 (1) 1012 (2)
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) ........................................................................................ 810 (1) 910 (1) 1012 (2)
Fluid milk (cups) g ............................................................................................................ 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Min-max calories (kcal) h ................................................................................................. 550650 600700 750850

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h ................................................................................. < 10 < 10 < 10
Sodium (mg) h i ................................................................................................................. 640 710 740
Trans fat h ........................................................................................................................ Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must

indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving.
a Food items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 18 cup.
b One quarter-cup of dried fruit counts as 12 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 12 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or
c Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served.
d This category consists of Other vegetables as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii)(E). For the purposes of the NSLP, the Other vegetables re-
quirement may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined
in 210.10(c)(2)(iii).
e Any vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement.
f Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), at least half of grains offered must be whole grain-rich. Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 201415), all
grains must be whole grain-rich.
g Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), all fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or flavored).
h Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, satu-
rated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent are not allowed.
i Final sodium targets must be met no later than July 1, 2022 (SY 20222023). The first intermediate target must be met no later than SY
20142015 and the second intermediate target must be met no later than SY 20172018. See required intermediate specifications in
210.10(f)(3).
(1) Age/grade groups. Schools must prevents the use of these established customization of the established age/
plan menus for students using the age/grade groups, students in grades K grade groups is allowed.
following age/grade groups: Grades K5 5 and grades 68 may be offered the (2) Food components. Schools must
(ages 510), grades 68 (ages 1113), same food quantities at lunch provided offer students in each age/grade group
and grades 912 (ages 1418). If an that the calorie and sodium standards the food components specified in
unusual grade configuration in a school for each age/grade group are met. No paragraph (c) of this section.
(i) Meats/meat alternates component. (D) Tofu and soy products. (C) Beans and peas (legumes). This
Schools must offer meats/meat Commercial tofu and soy products may subgroup includes vegetables such as
alternates daily as part of the lunch be used to meet all or part of the meats/ black beans, black-eyed peas (mature,
meal pattern. The quantity of meats/ meat alternates component in dry), garbanzo beans (chickpeas), kidney
meat alternates must be the edible accordance with FNS guidance. beans, lentils, navy beans pinto beans,
portion as served. This component must Noncommercial and/or non- soy beans, split peas, and white beans;
be served in a main dish or in a main standardized tofu and soy products are (D) Starchy vegetables. This subgroup
dish and only one other food item. not creditable. includes vegetables such as black-eyed
Schools without daily choices in this (E) Beans and Peas (legumes). Cooked peas (not dry), corn, cassava, green
component should not serve any one dry beans and peas (legumes) may be bananas, green peas, green lima beans,
meat alternate or form of meat (for used to meet all or part of the meats/ plantains, taro, water chestnuts, and
example, ground, diced, pieces) more meat alternates component. Beans and white potatoes; and
than three times in the same week. If a peas (legumes) are identified in this (E) Other vegetables. This subgroup
portion size of this component does not section and include foods such as black includes all other fresh, frozen, and
meet the daily requirement for a beans, garbanzo beans, lentils, kidney canned vegetables, cooked or raw, such
particular age/grade group, schools may beans, mature lima beans, navy beans, as artichokes, asparagus, avocado, bean
supplement it with another meats/meat pinto beans, and split peas. sprouts, beets, Brussels sprouts,
alternates to meet the full requirement. (F) Other Meat Alternates. Other meat cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers,
Schools may adjust the daily quantities alternates, such as cheese and eggs, may eggplant, green beans, green peppers,
of this component provided that a be used to meet all or part of the meats/ iceberg lettuce, mushrooms, okra,
minimum of one ounce is offered daily meat alternates component in onions, parsnips, turnips, wax beans,
to students in grades K8 and a accordance with FNS guidance. and zucchini.
minimum of two ounces is offered daily (ii) Fruits component. Schools must (iv) Grains component. (A) Enriched
to students in grades 912, and the total offer fruits daily as part of the lunch and whole grains. All grains must be
menu. Fruits that are fresh; frozen made with enriched and whole grain
weekly requirement is met over a five-
without added sugar; canned in light meal or flour, in accordance with the
day period.
syrup, water or fruit juice; or dried may most recent grains FNS guidance. Whole
(A) Enriched macaroni. Enriched grain-rich products must contain at least
be offered to meet the requirements of
macaroni with fortified protein as this paragraph. All fruits are credited 51 percent whole grains and the
defined in Appendix A to this part may based on their volume as served, except remaining grains in the product must be
be used to meet part of the meats/meat that 14 cup of dried fruit counts as 12 enriched.
alternates requirement when used as cup of fruit. Only pasteurized, full- (B) Daily and weekly servings. The
specified in Appendix A to this part. An strength fruit juice may be used, and grains component is based on minimum
enriched macaroni product with may be credited to meet no more than daily servings plus total servings over a
fortified protein as defined in Appendix one-half of the fruits component. five-day school week. Beginning July 1,
A to this part may be used to meet part (iii) Vegetables component. Schools 2012 (SY 20122013), half of the grains
of the meats/meat alternates component must offer vegetables daily as part of the offered during the school week must
or the grains component but may not lunch menu. Fresh, frozen, or canned meet the whole grain-rich criteria
meet both food components in the same vegetables and dry beans and peas specified in FNS guidance. Beginning
lunch. (legumes) may be offered to meet this July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015), all grains
(B) Nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds requirement. All vegetables are credited must meet the whole grain-rich criteria
and their butters are allowed as meat based on their volume as served, except specified in FNS guidance. The whole
alternates in accordance with FNS that 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 12 grain-rich criteria provided in FNS
guidance. Acorns, chestnuts, and cup of vegetables and tomato paste and guidance may be updated to reflect
coconuts may not be used because of puree are credited based on calculated additional information provided
their low protein and iron content. Nut volume of the whole food equivalency. voluntarily by industry on the food label
and seed meals or flours may be used Pasteurized, full-strength vegetable juice or a whole grains definition by the Food
only if they meet the requirements for may be used to meet no more than one- and Drug Administration. Schools
Alternate Protein Products established half of the vegetables component. serving lunch 6 or 7 days per week must
in Appendix A to this part. Nuts or Cooked dry beans or peas (legumes) may increase the weekly grains quantity by
seeds may be used to meet no more than be counted as either a vegetable or as a approximately 20 percent (1/5) for each
one-half (50 percent) of the meats/meat meat alternate but not as both in the additional day. When schools operate
alternates component with another same meal. Vegetable offerings at lunch less than 5 days per week, they may
meats/meat alternates to meet the full over the course of the week must decrease the weekly quantity by
requirement. include the following vegetable approximately 20 percent (1/5) for each
(C) Yogurt. Yogurt may be used to subgroups, as defined in this section in day less than five. The servings for
meet all or part of the meats/meat the quantities specified in the meal biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/
alternates component. Yogurt may be pattern in paragraph (c) of this section: bread varieties are specified in FNS
plain or flavored, unsweetened or (A) Dark green vegetables. This guidance.
sweetened. Noncommercial and/or non- subgroup includes vegetables such as (C) Desserts. Schools may count up to
standardized yogurt products, such as bok choy, broccoli, collard greens, dark two grain-based desserts per week
frozen yogurt, drinkable yogurt green leafy lettuce, kale, mesclun, towards meeting the grains requirement
products, homemade yogurt, yogurt mustard greens, romaine lettuce,
as specified in FNS guidance.

flavored products, yogurt bars, yogurt spinach, turnip greens, and watercress; (v) Fluid milk component. Fluid milk
covered fruits and/or nuts or similar (B) Red-orange vegetables. This must be offered daily in accordance
products are not creditable. Four ounces subgroup includes vegetables such as with paragraph (d) of this section.
(weight) or 12 cup (volume) of yogurt acorn squash, butternut squash, carrots, (3) Food components in outlying
equals one ounce of the meats/meat pumpkin, tomatoes, tomato juice, and areas. Schools in American Samoa,
alternates requirement. sweet potatoes; Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may
serve vegetables such as yams, low-fat fluid milk must be unflavored. offer the nondairy beverage(s) that it has
plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the Low fat or fat-free lactose-free and identified as allowable fluid milk
grains component. reduced-lactose fluid milk may also be substitutes according to the following
(4) Adjustments to the school menus. offered. chart.
Schools must adjust future menu cycles (ii) All fluid milk served in the
to reflect production and how often the Program must be pasteurized fluid milk Nutrient Per cup
food items are offered. Schools may which meets State and local standards (8 fl oz)
need to change the foods offerings given for such milk. All fluid milk must have
Calcium .......................................... 276 mg.
students selections and may need to vitamins A and D at levels specified by Protein ............................................ 8 g.
modify recipes and other specifications the Food and Drug Administration and Vitamin A ........................................ 500 IU.
to make sure that meal requirements are must be consistent with State and local Vitamin D ........................................ 100 IU.
met. standards for such milk. Magnesium ..................................... 24 mg.
(5) Standardized recipes. All schools (2) Inadequate fluid milk supply. If a Phosphorus .................................... 222 mg.
must develop and follow standardized school cannot get a supply of fluid milk, Potassium ....................................... 349 mg.
recipes. A standardized recipe is a it can still participate in the Program Riboflavin ........................................ 0.44 mg.
recipe that was tested to provide an under the following conditions: Vitamin B12 .................................. 1.1 mcg.
established yield and quantity using the (i) If emergency conditions
same ingredients for both measurement temporarily prevent a school that (4) Restrictions on the sale of fluid
and preparation methods. Standardized normally has a supply of fluid milk milk. A school participating in the
recipes developed by USDA/FNS are in from obtaining delivery of such milk, Program, or a person approved by a
the Child Nutrition Database. If a school the State agency may allow the school school participating in the Program,
has its own recipes, they may seek to serve meals during the emergency must not directly or indirectly restrict
assistance from the State agency or period with an alternate form of fluid the sale or marketing of fluid milk (as
school food authority to standardize the milk or without fluid milk. identified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
recipes. Schools must add any local (ii) If a school is unable to obtain a section) at any time or in any place on
recipes to their local database as supply of any type of fluid milk on a school premises or at any school-
outlined in FNS guidance. continuing basis, the State agency may sponsored event.
(6) Processed foods. The Child approve the service of meals without (e) Offer versus serve. School lunches
Nutrition Database includes a number of fluid milk if the school uses an must offer daily the five food
processed foods. Schools may use equivalent amount of canned milk or components specified in the meal
purchased processed foods that are not dry milk in the preparation of the meals. pattern in paragraph (c) of this section.
in the Child Nutrition Database. Schools In Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Under offer versus serve, students must
or the State agency must add any locally Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin be allowed to decline two items at
purchased processed foods to their local Islands, if a sufficient supply of fluid lunch, except that the students must
database as outlined in FNS guidance. milk cannot be obtained, fluid milk select at least 12 cup of either the fruit
The State agencies must obtain the includes reconstituted or recombined or vegetable component. Senior high
levels of calories, saturated fat, and fluid milk, or as otherwise allowed by schools (as defined by the State
sodium in the processed foods. FNS through a written exception. educational agency) must participate in
(7) Menu substitutions. Schools (3) Fluid milk substitutes. If a school offer versus serve. Schools below the
should always try to substitute chooses to offer one or more substitutes senior high level may participate in
nutritionally similar foods. for fluid milk for non-disabled students offer versus serve at the discretion of the
(d) Fluid milk requirement. (1) Types with medical or special dietary needs, school food authority.
of fluid milk. (i) Schools must offer the nondairy beverage(s) must provide (f) Dietary specifications. (1) Calories.
students a variety (at least two different the nutrients listed in the following School lunches offered to each age/
options) of fluid milk. All milk must be table. Fluid milk substitutes must be grade group must meet, on average over
fat-free or low-fat. Milk with higher fat fortified in accordance with fortification the school week, the minimum and
content is not allowed. Fat-free fluid guidelines issued by the Food and Drug maximum calorie levels specified in the
milk may be flavored or unflavored, and Administration. A school need only following table:
Calorie ranges for lunch
Min-max calories (kcal) ab ................................................................................................ 550650 600700 750850

a The average daily amount for a 5-day school week must fall within the minimum and maximum levels.
b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, satu-
rated fat, trans fat, and sodium.
(2) Saturated fat. School lunches less than 10 percent of total calories average over the school week, the levels
offered to all age/grade groups must, on from saturated fat. of sodium specified in the following
average over the school week, provide (3) Sodium. Schools lunches offered table within the established deadlines:
to each age/grade group must meet, on
National school lunch program Sodium reduction: Timeline & amount
Baseline: Target 1: Target 2: Final Target:

Average current sodium levels in meals July 1, 2014 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2022
Age/grade group as offered 1 (SY 20142015) (SY 20172018) (SY 20222023)
(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
K5 ......................................................... 1,377 (elementary) ................................ 1,230 935 640

68 ......................................................... 1,520 (middle) ....................................... 1,360 1,035 710
912 ....................................................... 1,588 (high) ........................................... 1,420 1,080 740
1 SNDAIII.
(4) Trans fat. Food products and of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per State agencies conduct the nutrient
ingredients used to prepare school serving. analysis and calculate weighting as
meals must contain zero grams of trans (i) State agencys responsibilities for indicated by FNS guidance.
fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving. nutrient analyses. (1) Conducting the (ii) Analyzed nutrients. The analysis
Schools must add the trans fat nutrient analyses. State agencies must determines the average levels of
specification and request the required conduct a weighted nutrient analysis of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in
documentation (nutrition label or the reimbursable meals offered to the meals offered over a school week. It
manufacturer specifications) in their children in grades K and above by a includes all food items offered by the
procurement contracts. Documentation school selected for administrative reviewed school over a one-week
for food products and food ingredients review under 210.18 of this chapter. period.
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per The nutrient analysis must be (4) Comparing the results of the
serving. Meats that contain a minimal conducted in accordance with the nutrient analysis. Once the procedures
amount of naturally-occurring trans fats procedures established in paragraph in paragraph (i)(3) of this section are
are allowed in the school meal (i)(3) of this section. The purpose of the completed, State agencies must compare
programs. nutrient analysis is to determine the the results of the analysis to the calorie,
(g) Compliance assistance. The State average levels of calories, saturated fat, saturated fat, and sodium levels
agency and school food authority must and sodium in the meals offered over a established in 210.10 or 220.8, as
provide technical assistance and school week within the review period. appropriate, for each age/grade group to
training to assist schools in planning Unless offered as part of a reimbursable evaluate the schools compliance with
lunches that meet the meal pattern in meal, foods of minimal nutritional value the dietary specifications.
paragraph (c) of this section and the (see appendix B to part 210) are not (j) State agencys responsibilities for
calorie, saturated fat, sodium, and trans included in the nutrient analysis. compliance monitoring. Compliance
fat specifications established in (2) Software elements. (i) The Child with the meal requirements in
paragraph (f) of this section. Compliance Nutrition Database. The nutrient paragraph (b) of this section, including
assistance may be offered during analysis is based on the USDA Child dietary specifications for calories,
trainings, onsite visits, and/or Nutrition Database. This database is part saturated fat, sodium and trans fat, will
administrative reviews. of the software used to do a nutrient be monitored by the State agency
(h) State agency responsibilities for analysis. Software companies or others through administrative reviews
monitoring dietary specifications. (1) developing systems for schools may authorized in 210.18 of this chapter.
Calories, saturated fat and sodium. As contact FNS for more information about (k) Menu choices at lunch. (1)
part of the administrative review the database. Availability of choices. Schools may
authorized under 210.18 of this (ii) Software evaluation. FNS or an offer children a selection of nutritious
chapter, State agencies must conduct a FNS designee evaluates any nutrient foods within a reimbursable lunch to
weighted nutrient analysis for the analysis software before it may be used encourage the consumption of a variety
school(s) selected for review to evaluate in schools. FNS or its designee of foods. Children who are eligible for
the average levels of calories, saturated determines if the software, as submitted, free or reduced price lunches must be
fat, and sodium of the lunches offered meets the minimum requirements. The allowed to take any reimbursable lunch
to students in grades K and above approval of software does not mean that or any choices offered as part of a
during one week of the review period. FNS or USDA endorses it. The software reimbursable lunch. Schools may
The nutrient analysis must be must be able to perform a weighted establish different unit prices for each
conducted in accordance with the average analysis after the basic data is reimbursable lunch offered provided
procedures established in paragraph entered. The combined analysis of the that the benefits made available to
(i)(3) of this section. If the results of the lunch and breakfast programs is not children eligible for free or reduced
nutrient analysis indicate that the allowed. price lunches are not affected.
school lunches are not meeting the (3) Nutrient analysis procedures. (i) (2) Opportunity to select. Schools that
specifications for calories, saturated fat, Weighted averages. State agencies must choose to offer a variety of reimbursable
and sodium specified in paragraph (f) of include in the nutrient analysis all foods lunches, or provide multiple serving
this section, the State agency or school offered as part of the reimbursable meals lines, must make all required food
food authority must provide technical during one week within the review components available to all students, on
assistance and require the reviewed period. Foods items are included based every lunch line, in at least the
school to take corrective action to meet on the portion sizes and projected minimum required amounts.
the requirements. serving amounts. They are also (l) Requirements for lunch periods. (1)
(2) Trans fat. State agencies must weighted based on their proportionate Timing. Schools must offer lunches
review product labels or manufacturer contribution to the meals offered. This meeting the requirements of this section
specifications to verify that the food means that food items offered more during the period the school has
products or ingredients used by the frequently are weighted more heavily designated as the lunch period. Schools
reviewed school(s) contain zero grams than those not offered as frequently. must offer lunches between 10 a.m. and
2 p.m. Schools may request an guardian revokes such request in flours shall not be used as a meat
exemption from these times from the writing, or until such time as the school alternate except as allowed under
State agency. changes its substitution policy for non- appendix A of this part;
(2) Adequate lunch periods. FNS disabled students. (iii) A serving of vegetable(s) or
encourages schools to provide sufficient (3) Variations for ethnic, religious, or fruit(s) or full-strength vegetable or fruit
lunch periods that are long enough to economic reasons. Schools should juice, or an equivalent quantity of any
give all students adequate time to be consider ethnic and religious combination of these foods. Juice may
served and to eat their lunches. preferences when planning and not be served when fluid milk is served
(m) Exceptions and variations allowed preparing meals. Variations on an as the only other component;
in reimbursable meals. (1) Exceptions experimental or continuing basis in the (iv) A serving of whole-grain or
for disability reasons. Schools must food components for the meal pattern in enriched bread; or an equivalent serving
make substitutions in lunches and paragraph (c) of this section may be of a bread product, such as cornbread,
afterschool snacks for students who are allowed by FNS. Any variations must be biscuits, rolls, or muffins made with
considered to have a disability under 7 consistent with the food and nutrition whole-grain or enriched meal or flour;
CFR 15b.3 and whose disability restricts requirements specified under this or a serving of cooked whole-grain or
their diet. Substitutions must be made section and needed to meet ethnic, enriched pasta or noodle products such
on a case by case basis only when religious, or economic needs. as macaroni, or cereal grains such as
supported by a written statement of the (4) Exceptions for natural disasters. If enriched rice, bulgur, or enriched corn
need for substitution(s) that includes there is a natural disaster or other grits; or an equivalent quantity of any
recommended alternate foods, unless catastrophe, FNS may temporarily allow combination of these foods.
otherwise exempted by FNS. Such schools to serve meals for (3) Afterschool snacks served to
statement must be signed by a licensed reimbursement that do not meet the infants ages birth through 11 months
physician. requirements in this section. must meet the requirements in
(2) Exceptions for non-disability (n) Nutrition disclosure. To the extent paragraph (o)(3)(iv) of this section.
reasons. Schools may make that school food authorities identify
substitutions for students without Foods offered as meal supplements
foods in a menu, or on the serving line must be of a texture and a consistency
disabilities who cannot consume the or through other communications with
regular lunch or afterschool snack that are appropriate for the age of the
program participants, school food infant being served. The foods must be
because of medical or other special authorities must identify products or
dietary needs. Substitutions must be served during a span of time consistent
dishes containing more than 30 parts with the infants eating habits. For those
made on a case by case basis only when fully hydrated alternate protein
supported by a written statement of the infants whose dietary needs are more
products (as specified in appendix A of individualized, exceptions to the meal
need for substitutions that includes this part) to less than 70 parts beef,
recommended alternate foods, unless pattern must be made in accordance
pork, poultry or seafood on an uncooked with the requirements found in
otherwise exempted by FNS. Except basis, in a manner which does not
with respect to substitutions for fluid paragraph (m) of this section.
characterize the product or dish solely (i) Breastmilk and iron-fortified
milk, such a statement must be signed as beef, pork, poultry or seafood.
by a recognized medical authority. formula. Either breastmilk or iron-
Additionally, FNS encourages schools fortified infant formula, or portions of
(i) Fluid milk substitutions for non- to inform the students, parents, and the
disability reasons. Schools may make both, must be served for the entire first
public about efforts they are making to year. Snacks containing breastmilk and
substitutions for fluid milk for non- meet the meal requirements for school
disabled students who cannot consume snacks containing iron-fortified infant
lunches. formula served by the school are eligible
fluid milk due to medical or special (o) Afterschool snacks. Eligible
dietary needs. A school that selects this for reimbursement. However, infant
schools operating afterschool care
option may offer the nondairy formula provided by a parent (or
programs may be reimbursed for one
beverage(s) of its choice, provided the guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by
afterschool snack served to a child (as
beverage(s) meets the nutritional the infants mother, during a visit to the
defined in 210.2) per day.
standards established under paragraph school, contribute to a reimbursable
(1) Eligible schools means schools
(d) of this section. Expenses incurred snack only when the school supplies at
that:
when providing substitutions for fluid (i) Operate school lunch programs least one component of the infants
milk that exceed program under the Richard B. Russell National snack.
reimbursements must be paid by the School Lunch Act; and (ii) Fruit juice. Juice should not be
school food authority. (ii) Sponsor afterschool care programs offered to infants until they are 6
(ii) Requisites for fluid milk as defined in 210.2. months of age and ready to drink from
substitutions. (A) A school food (2) Afterschool snacks shall contain a cup. Fruit juice served as part of the
authority must inform the State agency two different components from the meal pattern for infants 8 through 11
if any of its schools choose to offer fluid following four: months must be full-strength and
milk substitutes other than for students (i) A serving of fluid milk as a pasteurized.
with disabilities; and beverage, or on cereal, or used in part (iii) Solid foods. Solid foods of an
(B) A medical authority or the for each purpose; appropriate texture and consistency are
students parent or legal guardian must (ii) A serving of meat or meat required only when the infant is
submit a written request for a fluid milk alternate. Nuts and seeds and their developmentally ready to accept them.
substitute identifying the medical or butters listed in FNS guidance are The school should consult with the
other special dietary need that restricts nutritionally comparable to meat or infants parent (or guardian) in making
the students diet. other meat alternates based on available the decision to introduce solid foods.
(iii) Substitution approval. The nutritional data. Acorns, chestnuts, and Solid foods should be introduced one at
approval for fluid milk substitution coconuts are excluded and shall not be a time, on a gradual basis, with the
must remain in effect until the medical used as meat alternates due to their low intent of ensuring the infants health
authority or the students parent or legal protein content. Nut or seed meals or and nutritional well-being.
(iv) Infant meal pattern. Meal breastmilk must be offered if the infant supplements follow. Select two different
supplements for infants must include, at is still hungry. Some infants may be components from the four listed in the
a minimum, breastmilk or iron-fortified developmentally ready to accept an Supplements for Infants table (Juice may
infant formula, or portions of both, in additional food component. Meal not be served when fluid milk is served
the appropriate amount indicated for supplements are reimbursable when as the only other component). A serving
the infants age. For some breastfed schools provide all of the components of bread/bread alternate must be made
infants who regularly consume less than in the Supplements for Infants table that from whole-grain or enriched meal or
the minimum amount of breastmilk per the infant is developmentally ready to flour. It is required only when the infant
feeding, a serving of less than the accept. is developmentally ready to accept it.
minimum amount of breastmilk may be (4) The minimum amounts of food
offered. In these situations, additional components to be served as meal
SUPPLEMENTS FOR INFANTS

Birth through 3 months 4 through 7 months 8 through 11 months
Supplement (snack) ....................... 46 fl. oz. breastmilk 1 2 or for- 46 fl. oz. breastmilk 1 2 or for- 24 fl. oz. breastmilk 1 2, formula 3,
mula 3. mula 3. or fruit juice 4;
01/2 bread 5 or
02 crackers 5.
1 It
is recommended that breastmilk be served in place of formula from birth through 11 months.
2 For some breastfed infants who regularly consume less than the minimum amount of breastmilk per feeding, a serving of less than the min-
imum amount of breastmilk may be offered with additional breast milk offered if the infant is still hungry.
3 Infant formula must be iron-fortified.
4 Fruit juice must be full-strength and pasteurized.
5 Bread and bread alternates must be made from whole grain or enriched meal or flour. A serving of this component must be optional.
(p) Lunches for preschoolers and calorie and nutrient requirements for (D) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;
infants. (1) Requirements for the children served. Schools or school (E) Choose a diet with plenty of grain
preschoolers lunch pattern. (i) General. food authorities must maintain records products, vegetables, and fruits; and
Until otherwise instructed by the of the latest nutritional analysis of the (F) Choose a diet moderate in salt and
Secretary, lunches for children ages 1 to school menus conducted by the State sodium.
4 must meet the nutrition standards in agency. (iv) The following measures of
paragraph (p)(2) of this section, the (2) Nutrition standards for compliance:
nutrient and calorie levels in paragraph preschoolers lunches. Children ages 1 (A) Limit the percent of calories from
(p)(3) of this section, and meal pattern to 4 must be offered lunches that meet total fat to 30 percent of the actual
in paragraph (p)(4) of this section. the following nutrition standards for number of calories offered;
(ii) Unit pricing. Schools must price their age group:
each meal as a unit. Schools need to (B) Limit the percent of calories from
(i) Provision of one-third of the
consider participation trends in an effort saturated fat to less than 10 percent of
Recommended Dietary Allowances
to provide one reimbursable lunch for the actual number of calories offered;
(RDAs) for protein, calcium, iron,
each child every day. If there are vitamin A, and vitamin C in the (C) Reduce sodium and cholesterol
leftover meals, schools may offer them appropriate levels for the ages/grades levels; and
to the students but cannot receive (see paragraph (p)(3) of this section). (D) Increase the level of dietary fiber.
Federal reimbursement for them. (ii) Provision of the lunchtime energy (v) Compliance with the nutrition
(iii) Production and menu records. allowances (calories) in the appropriate standards and the appropriate nutrient
Schools must keep production and levels (see paragraph (p)(3) of this and calorie levels is determined by the
menu records for the meals they section); State agency in accordance with the
produce. These records must show how (iii) The following dietary procedures in paragraph (p)(10) of this
the meals contribute to the required recommendations: section.
food components and quantities every (A) Eat a variety of foods; (3) Nutrient and calorie levels. The
day. In addition, these records must (B) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total minimum levels of nutrients and
show how the lunches contribute to the calories; calories that lunches for preschoolers
nutrition standards in paragraph (p)(2) (C) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 must offer are specified in the following
of this section and the appropriate percent of total calories; table:
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR LUNCHESTRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH 1
Group II preschool
ages 34
Nutrients and energy allowances
School week averages
Energy allowances (calories) ............................................................................................................................................... 517

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ....................................................................................................... (2)
Saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ............................................................................................... (2)
RDA for protein (g) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
RDA for calcium (mg) .......................................................................................................................................................... 267
RDA for iron (mg) ................................................................................................................................................................ 3.3
RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ....................................................................................................................................................... 150
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR LUNCHESTRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH 1
Continued
Group II preschool
ages 34
School week averages
RDA for Vitamin C (mg) ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

1 Current
regulations only specify minimum nutrient and calorie levels for lunches for children ages 34.
2 The1995 Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age,
contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.
(4) Meal pattern for preschoolers approach to plan lunches for children components and quantities specified in
lunches. Schools must follow the ages 12 and ages 34. the following meal pattern:
traditional food-based menu planning (i) Food components and quantities.
Lunches must offer the food
TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACHMEAL PLAN FOR LUNCHES
Group I ages 12 preschool Group II ages 34 preschool
Food components and food items Minimum quantities
Fluid milk (as a beverage) ...................................................................... 6 fluid ounces ................................ 6 fluid ounces.1
Meat or Meat Alternates:
Lean meat, poultry, or fish ............................................................... 1 ounce .......................................... 112 ounces.
Alternate Protein Products 2 ............................................................. 1 ounce .......................................... 112 ounces.
Cheese .................................................................................................... 1 ounce .......................................... 112 ounces.
Large egg ................................................................................................ 12 ................................................... 34.
Cooked dry beans and peas ................................................................... 14 cup ............................................ 38 cup.
Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters ............................................. 2 tablespoons ................................ 3 tablespoons.
Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened ........................... 4 ounces or 12 cup ........................ 6 ounces or 34 cup.
The following may be used to meet no more than 50% of the require-
ment and must be used in combination with any of the above:
Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, or seeds, as listed in program guid- ounce = 50% ............................
12 ounce = 50%.
34
ance, or an equivalent quantity of any combination of the above

meat/meat alternate (1 ounce of nuts/seeds = 1 ounce of
cooked lean meat, poultry or fish).
Vegetable or Fruit: 2 or more servings of vegetables, fruits or both ...... cup ............................................
12 12 cup.
Grains/Breads (servings per week): Must be enriched or whole grain. 5 servings per week 3minimum 8 servings per week 3minimum
A serving is a slice of bread or an equivalent serving of biscuits, of 12 serving per day. of 1 serving per day.
rolls, etc., or 12 cup of cooked rice, macaroni, noodles, other pasta
products or cereal grains.
1 Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), fluid milk for children Ages 34 must be fat-free (unflavored or flavored) or low-fat (unflavored only).
2 Must meet the requirements in Appendix A of this part.
3 For the purposes of this table, a week equals five days.
(ii) Meat/meat alternate component. (A) Enriched macaroni.Enriched meet no more than one-half of the meat/
The quantity of the meat/meat alternate macaroni with fortified protein as meat alternate component with another
component must be the edible portion defined in appendix A to this part may meat/meat alternate to meet the full
as served. If the portion size of a food be used to meet part of the meat/meat requirement.
item for this component is excessive, alternate requirement when used as (C) Yogurt. Yogurt may be used to
the school must reduce that portion and specified in appendix A to this part. An meet all or part of the meat/meat
supplement it with another meat/meat enriched macaroni product with alternate requirement. Yogurt may be
alternate to meet the full requirement. fortified protein as defined in appendix plain or flavored, and unsweetened or
This component must be served in a A to this part may be used to meet part sweetened. Noncommercial and/or non-
main dish or in a main dish and only of the meat/meat alternate component or standardized yogurt products, such as
one other food item. Schools without the grains/breads component but not as frozen yogurt, homemade yogurt, yogurt
daily choices in this component should both food components in the same flavored products, yogurt bars, yogurt
lunch. covered fruit and/or nuts or similar
not serve any one meat alternate or form
(B) Nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds products are not creditable. Four ounces
of meat (for example, ground, diced,
and their butters are allowed as meat (weight) or 12 cup (volume) of yogurt
pieces) more than three times in the
alternates in accordance with FNS equals one ounce of the meat/meat
same week. Schools may adjust the alternate requirement.

guidance. Acorns, chestnuts, and
daily quantities of this component (iii) Vegetable/fruit component. Full
coconuts must not be used because of
provided that a minimum of one ounce their low protein and iron content. Nut strength vegetable or fruit juice may be
is offered daily and the total weekly and seed meals or flours may be used used to meet no more than one-half of
requirement is met over a five-day only as allowed under appendix A to the vegetable/fruit requirement. Cooked
period. this part. Nuts or seeds may be used to dry beans or peas may be counted as
either a vegetable or as a meat alternate other applicable milk requirements in fortified infant formula prior to
but not as both in the same meal. 210.10(d)(2) through (4) of this part. consumption.
(iv) Grains/breads component. (A) (6) Menu choices. FNS encourages (B) Infant formula means any iron-
Enriched or whole grains. All grains/ schools to offer children a selection of fortified formula intended for dietary
breads must be enriched or whole grain foods at lunch. Choices provide variety use solely as a food for normal, healthy
or made with enriched or whole grain and encourage consumption. Schools infants. Formulas specifically
meal or flour. may offer choices of reimbursable formulated for infants with inborn
(B) Daily and weekly servings. The lunches or foods within a reimbursable errors of metabolism or digestive or
requirement for the grain/bread lunch. Children who are eligible for free absorptive problems are not included in
component is based on minimum daily or reduced price lunches must be this definition. Infant formula, when
servings plus total servings over a five allowed to take any reimbursable lunch served, must be in liquid state at
day period. Schools serving lunch 6 or or any choices offered as part of a recommended dilution.
7 days per week should increase the reimbursable lunch. Schools may (ii) Feeding lunches to infants.
weekly quantity by approximately 20 establish different unit prices for each Lunches served to infants ages birth
percent (1/5th) for each additional day. lunch offered provided that the benefits through 11 months must meet the
When schools operate less than 5 days made available to children eligible for requirements in paragraph (k)(5) of this
per week, they may decrease the weekly free or reduced price lunches are not section. Foods included in the lunch
quantity by approximately 20 percent affected. must be of a texture and a consistency
(1/5th) for each day less than five. The (7) Requirements for lunch periods. (i) that are appropriate for the age of the
servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and Timing. Schools must offer lunches infant being served. The foods must be
other grain/bread varieties are specified meeting the requirements of this section served during a span of time consistent
in FNS guidance. during the period the school has with the infants eating habits. For those
(C) Minimums under the traditional designated as the lunch period. Schools infants whose dietary needs are more
food-based menu planning approach. must offer lunches between 10 a.m. and individualized, exceptions to the meal
Schools must offer daily at least one- 2 p.m. Schools may request an pattern must be made in accordance
half serving of the grain/bread exemption from these times only from with the requirements found in
component to children in Group I and FNS. 210.10(m) of this part.
at least one serving to children in Group (ii) Lunch periods for young children. (iii) Breastmilk and iron-fortified
II. Schools which serve lunch at least 5 With State agency approval, schools are formula. Either breastmilk or iron-
days a week shall serve a total of at least encouraged to serve children ages 1 fortified infant formula, or portions of
five servings of grains/breads to through 4 over two service periods. both, must be served for the entire first
children in Group I and eight servings Schools may divide the quantities and/ year. Meals containing breastmilk and
per week to children in Group II. or the menu items, foods, or food items meals containing iron-fortified infant
(D) Offer versus serve. Schools must offered each time any way they wish. formula served by the school are eligible
offer all five required food items. At the (iii) Adequate lunch periods. FNS for reimbursement. However, infant
school food authoritys option, students encourages schools to provide sufficient formula provided by a parent (or
in preschool may decline one or two of lunch periods that are long enough to guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by
the five food items. The price of a give all students enough time to be the infants mother, during a visit to the
reimbursable lunch does not change if served and to eat their lunches. school, contribute to a reimbursable
the student does not take a food item or (8) Exceptions and variations allowed lunch only when the school supplies at
requests smaller portions. in reimbursable meals. Schools must least one component of the infants
(E) Meal pattern exceptions for comply with the requirements in meal.
outlying areas. Schools in American 210.10(m) of this part. (iv) Solid foods. For infants ages 4
Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin (9) Nutrition disclosure. If applicable, through 7 months, solid foods of an
Islands may serve vegetables such as schools must follow the provisions on appropriate texture and consistency are
yams, plantains, or sweet potatoes to disclosure of Alternate Protein Products required only when the infant is
meet the grain/bread requirement. in 210.10(n) of this part. developmentally ready to accept them.
(5) Fluid milk requirement. Schools (10) State agencys responsibilities for The school should consult with the
must offer students in age group 12 monitoring lunches. As part of the infants parent (or guardian) in making
fluid milk in a variety of fat contents, administrative review authorized under the decision to introduce solid foods.
flavored or unflavored. Schools may 210.18(g)(2) of this part, State agencies Solid foods should be introduced one at
also offer this age group lactose-free or must evaluate compliance with the meal a time, on a gradual basis, with the
reduced-lactose fluid milk. For students pattern requirements (food components intent of ensuring the infants health
in age group 34, schools must offer fat- and quantities) in paragraph (d) of this and nutritional well-being.
free milk (unflavored or flavored) and section. If the meals for preschoolers do (v) Infant meal pattern. Infant lunches
low-fat milk (unflavored only). Schools not meet the requirements of this must include, at a minimum, each of the
may also offer this age group lactose-free section, the State agency or school food food components indicated in Lunch
and reduced-lactose milk that is fat-free authority must provide technical Pattern for Infants table in the amount
or low-fat. Students in age group 34 assistance and require the reviewed that is appropriate for the infants age.
must be offered a variety (at least two school to take corrective action. In For some breastfed infants who
different options) of fluid milk. All fluid addition, the State agency may take regularly consume less than the
milk served must be pasteurized fluid fiscal action as authorized in minimum amount of breastmilk per
milk which meets State and local 210.18(m) and 210.19(c) of this part. feeding, a serving of less than the
standards for such milk. All fluid milk (11) Requirements for the infant lunch minimum amount of breastmilk may be
must have vitamins A and D at levels pattern. (i) Definitions. (A) Infant cereal offered. In these situations, additional
specified by the Food and Drug means any iron-fortified dry cereal, breastmilk must be offered if the infant
Administration and must be consistent specially formulated and generally is still hungry. Lunches may include
with State and local standards for such recognized as cereal for infants, that is portions of breastmilk and iron-fortified
milk. Schools must also comply with routinely mixed with breastmilk or iron- infant formula as long as the total
number of ounces meets, or exceeds, the and fruits, portions of both may be Infants table that the infant is
minimum amount required of this food served. Infant lunches are reimbursable developmentally ready to accept.
component. Similarly, to meet the when schools provide all of the
component requirements for vegetables components in the Lunch Pattern for
LUNCH PATTERN FOR INFANTS

46 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3 .... 48 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 68 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3;
and and
03 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4; and 24 tablespoons of infant cereal 1; and/or
03 tablespoons of fruits or vegetables or 14 tablespoons of meat, fish, poultry, egg
both 4. yolk, cooked dry beans or peas; or
122 ounces of cheese, or
14 ounces (volume) of cottage cheese; or

14 ounces (weight) of cheese food or
cheese spread; and
14 tablespoons of fruits or vegetables or
both.
1 Infant formula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified.
2 Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served from birth through 11
months.
imum amount of breastmilk may be offered, with additional breastmilk offered if the infant is still hungry.
4 A serving of this component is required only when the infant is developmentally ready to accept it.
4. In 210.18: (1) Administrative reviews. At a all food components and food quantities
a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2)(ii), (c), minimum, State agencies must conduct required under 210.10, as applicable,
(g)(2), (i)(3)(ii), and (m); and administrative reviews of all school and 220.8 and 220.23, as applicable,
b. Remove paragraph (h)(2) and food authorities at least once during are offered.
redesignate paragraph (h)(3) through (6) each 3-year review cycle, provided that (ii) For the day of the review, observe
as paragraphs (h)(2) through (5), each school food authority is reviewed a significant number of the Program
respectively. at least once every 4 years. The on-site meals counted at the point of service for
c. Amend paragraph (i)(4)(iv) by portion of the administrative review each type of serving line to determine
removing the words the School must be completed during the school whether the meals selected by the
Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220) and/ year in which the review was begun. students contain the food components
or. (2) Exceptions. FNS may, on an and food quantities required for a
The revisions read as follows: individual school food authority basis, reimbursable meal under 210.10, as
approve written requests for 1-year applicable, and 220.8 and 220.23, as
210.18 Administrative reviews. extensions to the 3-year review cycle applicable. If visual observation
(a) General. Each State agency must specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this suggests that quantities offered are
follow the requirements of this section section if FNS determines this 3-year insufficient or excessive, the State
to conduct administrative reviews of cycle requirement conflicts with agency must require the reviewed
school food authorities serving meals efficient State agency management of school(s) to provide documentation
under parts 210 and 220 of this chapter. the Programs. demonstrating that the required
(b) * * * (3) Follow-up reviews. The State amounts of each food component were
(2) * * * agency is encouraged to conduct first available for service for each day of the
(ii) Performance Standard 2Meal follow-up reviews in the same school review period.
Requirements. Reimbursable lunches year as the administrative review. The (iii) Review menu and production
meet the meal requirements in 210.10 first follow-up review must be records for a minimum of five operating
of this chapter, as applicable to the age/ conducted no later than December 31 of days (specified by the State agency);
grade group reviewed. Reimbursable the school year following the such review must determine whether all
breakfasts meet the meal requirements administrative review. Subsequent food components and food quantities
in 220.8 and 220.23 of this chapter, follow-up reviews must be scheduled in required under 210.10, as applicable,
as applicable to the age/grade group accordance with paragraph (i)(5) of this and 220.8 and 220.23, as applicable,
reviewed. section. of this chapter have been offered.
* * * * * * * * * * (iv) Conduct a weighted nutrient
(c) Timing of reviews. State agencies (g) * * * analysis of the meals for students in age/
must conduct administrative reviews of (2) Performance Standard 2 grade groups K and above to determine
all school food authorities participating (Reimbursable lunches meet the meal whether the meals offered meet the
in the National School Lunch Program requirements in 210.10 of this chapter, calorie, sodium, and saturated fat
and/or School Breakfast Program at least as applicable to the age/grade group requirements in 210.10 and 220.8
once during a 3-year review cycle. For reviewed. Reimbursable breakfasts meet and 220.23 of this chapter, as
each State agency, the first 3-year the meal requirements in 220.8 and applicable. The State agency must
review cycle will start the school year 220.23 of this chapter, as applicable to conduct the nutrient analysis in
that begins on July 1, 2013 and ends on the age/grade group reviewed. When accordance with the procedures
June 30, 2014. Administrative reviews reviewing meals, the State agency must: established in 210.10(i) of this part.
and follow-up reviews must be (i) For the day of the review, observe Until instructed by the Secretary, a
conducted as follows: the serving line(s) to determine whether nutrient analysis for the meals offered to
preschoolers is not required. The State cited under paragraph (g)(2) of this contain Supplemental Nutrition
agency must also review nutrition section and for violations of calorie, Assistance Program or TANF case
labeling or manufacturer specifications saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat numbers or FDPIR case numbers or
for products or ingredients used to requirements cited under paragraph other FDPIR identifiers but the
prepare school meals to verify they (g)(2)(iv) of this section, the State agency applications are missing the information
contain zero grams (less than 0.5 grams) has discretion to apply fiscal action specified in paragraph (1)(ii) of the
of trans fat per serving. provided that: definition of Documentation in 245.2
* * * * * (A) Technical assistance has been of this chapter.
(i) * * * given by the State agency; * * * * *
(3) * * * (B) Corrective action has been
(ii) For Performance Standard 210 previously required and monitored by 210.21 [Amended]
percent or more of the total number of the State agency; and 6. In 210.21, amend paragraph (e) by
Program lunches or Program breakfasts (C) The school food authority remains removing the phrase paragraph
observed in a school food authority are in noncompliance with the meal (m)(1)(ii) of this section and adding in
missing one or more of the food requirements established in parts 210 its place the phrase 210.10(d)(4) of
components required under parts 210 and 220 of this chapter. this chapter.
and 220. * * * * * 7. Revise 210.30 to read as follows:
* * * * * 5. In 210.19:
(m) Fiscal action. Fiscal action for a. Remove paragraph (a)(1) and 210.30 State agency and Regional office
violations identified during an redesignate paragraphs (a)(2) through (6) addresses.
administrative review or any follow-up as paragraph (a)(1) through (5); and School food authorities and schools
reviews must be taken in accordance b. Revise paragraphs (c) introductory desiring information about the Program
with the provisions in 210.19(c) of this text, (c)(1), and (c)(6) to read as follows: should contact their State educational
part. agency or the appropriate FNS Regional
210.19 Additional responsibilities. Office at the address or telephone
(1) Performance Standard 1
violations. A State agency is required to * * * * * number listed on the FNS Web site
take fiscal action for all violations of (c) Fiscal action. State agencies are (www.fns.usda.gov/cnd).
Performance Standard 1. The State responsible for ensuring Program 8. In Appendix B to part 210:
agency may limit fiscal action from the integrity at the school food authority a. Amend paragraph (b)(1) by
point corrective action occurs back level. State agencies must take fiscal removing from the fourth sentence the
through the beginning of the review action against school food authorities words
period for errors identified under for Claims for Reimbursement that are , and the public by notice in the
paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of not properly payable, including, if Federal Register as indicated below
this section, provided corrective action warranted, the disallowance of funds for under paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
occurs. failure to take corrective action to b. Amend paragraph (b)(2) by
(2) Performance Standard 2 comply with the meal requirements in removing the words as indicated under
violations. A State agency is required to Parts 210 and 220 of this chapter. In paragraph (b)(3) of this section from
take fiscal action for violations of taking fiscal action, State agencies must the last sentence.
Performance Standard 2 as follows: use their own procedures within the c. Remove paragraph (b)(3) and
(i) For food component violations constraints of this Part and must redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as
cited under paragraph (g)(2) of this maintain all records pertaining to action paragraph (b)(3); and
section, the State agency must take taken under this section. The State d. Revise the first sentence of newly
fiscal action and require the school food agency may refer to FNS for assistance redesignated paragraph (b)(3) to read as
authority and/or school reviewed to take in making a claim determination under follows:
corrective action for the missing this part.
* * * * *
component. If a corrective action plan is (1) Definition. Fiscal action includes,
in place, the State agency may limit but is not limited to, the recovery of Appendix B to Part 210Categories of
fiscal action from the point corrective overpayment through direct assessment Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value
action occurs back through the or offset of future claims, disallowance * * * * *
beginning of the review period for errors of overclaims as reflected in unpaid (b) * * *
identified under paragraph (g)(2) of this Claims for Reimbursement, submission (3) Written petitions should be sent to the
section. of a revised Claim for Reimbursement, Chief, Nutrition Promotion and Technical
(ii) For repeated violations involving and correction of records to ensure that Assistance Branch, Child Nutrition Division,
vegetable subgroups and milk type cited unfiled Claims for Reimbursement are FNS, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room
under paragraph (g)(2) of this section, corrected when filed. Fiscal action also 632, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. * * *
the State agency must take fiscal action includes disallowance of funds for * * * * *
provided that: failure to take corrective action to meet
(A) Technical assistance has been the meal requirements in Parts 210 and PART 220SCHOOL BREAKFAST
given by the State agency; 220 of this chapter. PROGRAM
(B) Corrective action has been * * * * * 9. The authority citation for 7 CFR
previously required and monitored by (6) Exceptions. The State agency need
part 220 continues to read as follows:
the State agency; and not disallow payment or collect an
(C) The school food authority remains overpayment when any review or audit Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779.
in noncompliance with the meal reveals that a school food authority is 10. In 220.2:
requirements established in parts 210 approving applications which indicate a. Amend the definition of Breakfast
and 220 of this chapter. that the households incomes are within by removing the phrase nutritional
(iii) For violations involving food the Income Eligibility Guidelines issued requirements set out in 220.8 and
quantities and whole grain-rich foods by the Department or the applications adding in its place the phrase meal
requirements set out in 220.8 and FNS guidance to count toward the every day. Labels or manufacturer
220.23, grains component. specifications for food products and
b. Amend the definition of Menu item * * * * * ingredients used to prepare school
by removing the citation 220.8 and 11. Revise 220.8 to read as follows: meals must indicate zero grams of trans
adding in its place the citation fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams).
220.23, 220.8 Meal requirements for breakfasts. Schools or school food authorities must
c. Remove the definition of Milk; (a) General requirements. This section maintain records of the latest nutritional
contains the meal requirements analysis of the school menus conducted
d. Amend the definition of Nutrient
applicable to school breakfasts for by the State agency. Production and
Standard Menu Planning/Assisted
students in grades K to 12. With the menu records must be maintained in
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning by
exception of the milk component, the accordance with FNS guidance.
removing the citations 220.8(e)(5)
meal requirements must be (b) Meal requirements for school
and 220.8(f) and adding in their
implemented beginning July 1, 2013 or breakfasts. School breakfasts for
place the citations 220.23(e)(5) and
as otherwise specified. School food children ages 5 and older must reflect
220.23(f), respectively;
authorities wishing to adopt the food and nutrition requirements
e. Revise the definition of School provisions of this section prior to the specified by the Secretary. Compliance
week; and required date of compliance may do so with these requirements, once fully
f. Add definitions for Tofu and Whole with the approval of the State agency. In implemented as specified in paragraphs
grains. general, school food authorities must (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (j) of this
The revisions and additions read as ensure that participating schools section, is measured as follows:
follows: provide nutritious, well-balanced, and (1) On a daily basis:
age-appropriate breakfasts to all the (i) Meals offered to each age/grade
220.2 Definitions. children they serve to improve their diet group must include the food
* * * * * and safeguard their health. components and food quantities
School week means the period of time (1) General nutrition requirements. specified in the meal pattern in
used to determine compliance with the School breakfasts offered to children age paragraph (c) of this section;
meal requirements in 220.8 and 5 and older must meet, at a minimum, (ii) Food products or ingredients used
220.23. The period must be a normal the meal requirements in paragraph (b) to prepare meals must contain zero
school week of five consecutive days; of this section. Schools must follow a
grams of trans fat per serving or a
however, to accommodate shortened food-based menu planning approach
minimal amount of naturally occurring
weeks resulting from holidays and other and produce enough food to offer each
trans fat as specified in paragraph (f) of
scheduling needs, the period must be a child the quantities specified in the
this section; and
minimum of three consecutive days and meal pattern established in paragraph
(iii) Meal selected by each student
a maximum of seven consecutive days. (c) of this section for each age/grade
group served in the school. In addition, must have the number of food
Weeks in which school breakfasts are components required for a reimbursable
offered less than three times must be school breakfasts must meet the dietary
specifications in paragraph (f) of this meal and include at least one fruit or
combined with either the previous or vegetable.
the coming week. section. Schools offering breakfasts to
children ages 1 to 4 and infants must (2) Over a 5-day school week:
* * * * * (i) Average calorie content of the
meet the meal pattern requirements in
Tofu means a soybean-derived food, paragraph (o) of this section. meals offered to each age/grade group
made by a process in which soybeans (2) Unit pricing. Schools must price must be within the minimum and
are soaked, ground, mixed with water, each meal as a unit. The price of a maximum calorie levels specified in
heated, filtered, coagulated, and formed reimbursable lunch does not change if paragraph (f) of this section;
into cakes. Basic ingredients are whole the student does not take a food item or (ii) Average saturated fat content of
soybeans, one or more food-grade requests smaller portions. Schools must the meals offered to each age/grade
coagulants (typically a salt or an acid), identify, near or at the beginning of the group must be less than 10 percent of
and water. Tofu products must conform serving line(s), the food items that total calories as specified in paragraph
to FNS guidance to count toward the constitute the unit-priced reimbursable (f) of this section;
meats/meat alternates component. school meal(s). (iii) Average sodium content of the
Whole grains means grains that (3) Production and menu records. meals offered to each age/grade group
consist of the intact, ground, cracked, or Schools or school food authorities, as must not exceed the maximum level
flaked grain seed whose principal applicable, must keep production and specified in paragraph (f) of this section;
anatomical componentsthe starchy menu records for the meals they (c) Meal pattern for school breakfasts.
endosperm, germ and branare present produce. These records must show how A school must offer the food
in the same relative proportions as they the meals offered contribute to the components and quantities required in
exist in the intact grain seed. Whole required food components and food the breakfast meal pattern established in
grain-rich products must conform to quantities for each age/grade group the following table:
Breakfast meal pattern

Meal pattern Amount of food a per week

(Minimum per day)
Fruits (cups) b c ................................................................................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)

Vegetables (cups) b c ........................................................................................................ 0 0 0
Dark green ................................................................................................................ 0 0 0
Red/Orange .............................................................................................................. 0 0 0
Breakfast meal pattern
Beans and peas (legumes) ...................................................................................... 0 0 0

Starchy ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 0
Other ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0
Grains (oz eq) d ................................................................................................................ 710 (1) 810 (1) 910 (1)
Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) e ...................................................................................... 0 0 0
Fluid milk f (cups) ............................................................................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1)
Min-max calories (kcal) g h ................................................................................................ 350500 400550 450600

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h .................................................................................. < 10 < 10 < 10
Sodium (mg) h i ................................................................................................................. 430 470 500
Trans fat h j ....................................................................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications must

indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving.
a Food items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 18 cup.
b One quarter cup of dried fruit counts as 12 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 12 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit
or vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength.
c Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015) schools must offer 1 cup of fruit daily and 5 cups of fruit weekly. Vegetables may be substituted for
fruits, but the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or Other
vegetables subgroups, as defined in 210.10(c)(2)(iii).
d Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), at least half of grains offered must be whole-grain-rich and schools must meet the grain ranges.
Schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. By July 1,
2014 (SY 201415) all grains must be whole-grain-rich.
e There is no meat/meat alternate requirement.
f Beginning July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013) all fluid milk must be low-fat (1 percent milk fat or less, unflavored) or fat-free (unflavored or fla-
vored).
g Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), the average daily calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum
and no more than the maximum values).
h Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories,
saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not al-
lowed.
i Final sodium targets must be met no later than July 1, 2022 (SY 20222023). The first intermediate targets must be met no later than July 1,
2014 (SY 20142015) and the second intermediate targets must be met no later than July 1, 2017 (SY 20172018).
j Trans fat restrictions must be implemented on July 1, 2013 (SY 201314).
(1) Age/grade groups. Effective July 1, (A) Enriched macaroni. Enriched standardized yogurt products, such as
2013 (SY 20132014), schools must plan macaroni with fortified protein as frozen yogurt, drinkable yogurt
menus for students using the following defined in Appendix A to Part 210 may products, homemade yogurt, yogurt
age/grade groups: Grades K5 (ages 5 be used to meet part of the meats/meat flavored products, yogurt bars, yogurt
10), grades 68 (ages 1113), and grades alternates requirement when used as covered fruits and/or nuts or similar
912 (ages 1418). If an unusual grade specified in Appendix A to Part 210. An products are not creditable. Four ounces
configuration in a school prevents the enriched macaroni product with (weight) or 12 cup (volume) of yogurt
use of the established age/grade groups, fortified protein as defined in Appendix equals one ounce of the meats/meat
students in grades K5 and grades 68 A to Part 210 may be used to meet part alternates requirement.
may be offered the same food quantities of the meats/meat alternates component (D) Tofu and soy products.
at breakfast provided that the calorie or the grains component but may not Commercial tofu and soy products may
and sodium standards for each age/ meet both food components in the same be used to meet all or part of the meats/
grade group are met. No customization lunch. meat alternates component in
of the established age/grade groups is (B) Nuts and seeds. Nuts and seeds accordance with FNS guidance.
allowed. and their butters are allowed as meat Noncommercial and/or non-
alternates in accordance with program standardized tofu and products are not
(2) Food components. Schools must guidance. Acorns, chestnuts, and creditable.
offer students in each age/grade group coconuts may not be used because of (E) Beans and peas (legumes). Cooked
the food components specified in meal their low protein and iron content. Nut dry beans and peas (legumes) may be
pattern in paragraph (c). Food and seed meals or flours may be used used to meet all or part of the meats/
component descriptions in 210.10 of only if they meet the requirements for meat alternates component. Beans and
this chapter apply to this Program. Alternate Protein Products established peas (legumes) are identified in this
(i) Meats/meat alternates component. in Appendix A to Part 220. Nuts or section and include foods such as black
Schools are not required to offer meats/ seeds may be used to meet no more than beans, garbanzo beans, lentils, kidney
meat alternates as part of the breakfast one-half (50 percent) of the meats/meat beans, mature lima beans, navy beans,
menu. Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 2013 alternates component with another pinto beans, and split peas.
2014), schools may substitute meats/ meats/meat alternates to meet the full (F) Other meat alternates. Other meat
meat alternates for grains, after the daily requirement. alternates, such as cheese and eggs, may
grains requirement is met, to meet the (C) Yogurt. Yogurt may be used to be used to meet all or part of the meats/
weekly grains requirement. One ounce meet all or part of the meats/meat meat alternates component in
equivalent of meat/meat alternate is alternates component. Yogurt may be accordance with FNS guidance.
equivalent to one ounce equivalent of plain or flavored, unsweetened or (ii) Fruits component. Effective July 1,
grains. sweetened. Noncommercial and/or non- 2014 (SY 20142015), schools must
offer daily the fruit quantities specified meal or flour, in accordance with the plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the
in the breakfast meal pattern in most recent FNS guidance on grains. grains component.
paragraph (c) of this section. Fruits that Whole grain-rich products must contain (d) Fluid milk requirement. A serving
are fresh; frozen without added sugar; at least 50 percent whole grains and the of fluid milk as a beverage or on cereal
canned in light syrup, water or fruit remaining grains in the product must be or used in part for each purpose must
juice; or dried may be offered to meet enriched. Effective July 1, 2013 (SY be offered for breakfasts. Schools must
the fruits component requirements. 20132014), schools may substitute
offer students a variety (at least two
Vegetables may be offered in place of all meats/meat alternates for grains, after
different options) of fluid milk. Effective
or part of the required fruits at breakfast, the daily grains requirement is met, to
July 1, 2012 (SY 20122013), all milk
but the first two cups per week of any meet the weekly grains requirement.
such substitution must be from the dark One ounce equivalent of meat/meat must be fat-free or low-fat. Milk with
green, red/orange, beans and peas alternate is equivalent to one ounce higher fat content is not allowed. Fat-
(legumes) or other vegetable subgroups, equivalent of grains. free fluid milk may be flavored or
as defined in this section. All fruits are (B) Daily and weekly servings. unflavored, and low-fat fluid milk must
credited based on their volume as Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), be unflavored. Low fat or fat-free
served, except that 14 cup of dried fruit the grains component is based on lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid
counts as 12 cup of fruit. Only minimum daily servings plus total milk may also be offered. Schools must
pasteurized, full-strength fruit juice may servings over a five-day school week. also comply with other applicable fluid
be used, and may be credited to meet no Beginning July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), milk requirements in 210.10(d)(1)
more than one-half of the fruit half of the grains offered during the through (4) of this chapter.
component. school week must meet the whole grain- (e) Offer versus serve. School
(iii) Vegetables component. Schools rich criteria specified in FNS guidance. breakfast must offer daily at least the
are not required to offer vegetables as Beginning July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015), three food components required in the
part of the breakfast menu but may, all grains must meet the whole grain- meal pattern in paragraph (c) of this
effective July 1, 2014 (SY 20142015), rich criteria specified in FNS guidance. section. To exercise the offer versus
offer vegetables to meet part or all of the The whole grain-rich criteria provided serve option at breakfast, a school food
fruit requirement. Fresh, frozen, or in FNS guidance may be updated to authority or school must offer a
canned vegetables and dry beans and reflect additional information provided minimum of four food items daily as
peas (legumes) may be offered to meet voluntarily by industry on the food label part of the required components. Under
the fruit requirement. All vegetables are or a whole grains definition by the Food offer versus serve, students are allowed
credited based on their volume as and Drug Administration. Schools to decline one of the four food items,
served, except that 1 cup of leafy greens serving breakfast 6 or 7 days per week provided that students select at least 12
counts as 12 cup of vegetables and must increase the weekly grains cup of the fruit component for a
tomato paste and tomato puree are quantity by approximately 20 percent reimbursable meal beginning July 1,
credited based on calculated volume of (15) for each additional day. When
2014 (SY 20142015). If only three food
the whole food equivalency. schools operate less than 5 days per
items are offered at breakfast, school
Pasteurized, full-strength vegetable juice week, they may decrease the weekly
food authorities or schools may not
may be used to meet no more than one- quantity by approximately 20 percent
exercise the offer versus serve option.
half of the vegetable component. Cooked (15) for each day less than five. The
dry beans or peas (legumes) may be servings for biscuits, rolls, muffins, and (f) Dietary specifications. (1) Calories.
counted as either a vegetable or as a other grain/bread varieties are specified Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014),
meat alternate but not as both in the in FNS guidance. school breakfasts offered to each age/
same meal. (3) Food components in outlying grade group must meet, on average over
(iv) Grains component. (A) Enriched areas. Schools in American Samoa, the school week, the minimum and
and whole grains. All grains must be Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may maximum calorie levels specified in the
made with enriched and whole grain serve a vegetable such as yams, following table:
CALORIE RANGES FOR BREAKFASTEFFECTIVE SY 20132014

Minimum-maximum calories (kcal) a b .............................................................................. 350500 400550 450600

a The average daily amount for a 5-day school must fall within the minimum and maximum levels.
b Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, satu-
rated fat, trans fat, and sodium.
(2) Saturated fat. Effective July 1, less than 10 percent of total calories average over the school week, the levels
2012 (SY 20122013), school breakfasts from saturated fat. of sodium specified in the following
offered to all age/grade groups must, on (3) Sodium. School breakfasts offered table within the specified deadlines:
average over the school week, provide to each age/grade group must meet, on
SODIUM REDUCTION: TIMELINE & AMOUNT

Target 1: Target 2: Final Target:
Baseline: average current sodium levels July 1, 2014 July 1, 2017 July 1, 2022
Age/grade group as offered 1 SY 20142015 SY 20172018 SY 20222023
(mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)
School Breakfast Program
K5 ............................................................ 573 (elementary) ...................................... 540 485 430

68 ............................................................ 629 (middle) ............................................. 600 535 470
912 .......................................................... 686 (high) ................................................. 640 570 500
1 SNDAIII.
(4) Trans fat. Effective July 1, 2013 product labels of manufacturer vitamin A and vitamin C in the
(SY 20132014), food products and specifications to verify that the food appropriate levels (see paragraph (o)(2)
ingredients used to prepare school products or ingredients used by the of this section);
meals must contain zero grams of trans reviewed school(s) contain zero grams (ii) Provision of the breakfast energy
fat (less than 0.5 grams) per serving. of trans fat (less than 0.5 grams) per allowances (calories) for children in the
Schools must add the trans fat serving. appropriate levels (see paragraph (o)(2)
specification and request the required (i) State agency responsibilities for of this section);
documentation (nutrition label or nutrient analysis. State agencies must (iii) The following dietary
manufacturer specifications) in their conduct a weighted nutrient analysis of recommendations:
procurement contracts. Documentation all foods offered in a reimbursable (A) Eat a variety of foods;
for food products and food ingredients breakfast by a school selected for (B) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total
must indicate zero grams of trans fat per administrative review to determine the calories;
serving. Meats that contain a minimal average levels of calories, saturated fat, (C) Limit saturated fat to less than 10
amount of naturally-occurring trans fats and sodium in the meals offered over a percent of total calories;
are allowed in the school meal school week within the review period. (D) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;
programs. The analysis must be conducted in (E) Choose a diet with plenty of grain
(g) Compliance assistance. The State accordance with the procedures products, vegetables, and fruits; and
agency and school food authority must established in 210.10(i) of this chapter. (F) Choose a diet moderate in salt and
provide technical assistance and (j) State agencys responsibilities for sodium.
training to assist schools in planning compliance monitoring. Effective SY (iv) The following measures of
breakfasts that meet the meal pattern in 20132014, compliance with the compliance:
paragraph (c) of this section and the applicable meal requirements in (A) Limit the percent of calories from
dietary specifications for calorie, paragraph (b) will be monitored by the total fat to 30 percent of the actual
saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat State agency through administrative number of calories offered;
established in paragraph (f) of this reviews authorized in 210.18 of this (B) Limit the percent of calories from
section. Compliance assistance may be chapter. saturated fat to less than 10 percent of
offered during training, onsite visits, (k) Menu choices at breakfast. The the actual number of calories offered;
and/or administrative reviews. requirements in 210.10(k) of this (C) Reduce sodium and cholesterol
(h) State agency responsibilities for chapter also apply to this Program. levels; and
monitoring dietary specifications. (1) (l) Requirements for breakfast period. (D) Increase the level of dietary fiber.
Calories, saturated fat, and sodium. (1) Timing. Schools must offer (v) School food authorities must
Effective July 1, 2013 (SY 20132014), breakfasts meeting the requirements of follow the traditional food-based menu
as part of the administrative review this section at or near the beginning of planning approach to plan breakfasts for
authorized under 210.18 of this the school day. preschoolers and provide daily the food
chapter, State agencies must conduct a (2) [Reserved]. components and quantities specified in
weighted nutrient analysis for the (m) Exceptions and variations allowed paragraph (o)(3) of this section.
school(s) selected for review to evaluate in reimbursable meals. The (vi) Schools must keep production
the average levels of calories, saturated requirements in 210.10(m) of this and menu records for the breakfasts they
fat, and sodium of the breakfasts offered chapter also apply to this Program. produce. These records must show how
during one week within the review (n) Nutrition disclosure. The the breakfasts contribute to the required
period. The nutrient analysis must be requirements in 210.10(n) of this food components and food quantities
conducted in accordance with the chapter also apply to this Program. every school day. In addition, these
procedures established in 210.10(i) of (o) Breakfasts for preschoolers and records must show how the breakfasts
this chapter. If the results of the review infants. (1) Nutrition standards for contribute to the nutrition standards in
indicate that the school breakfasts are breakfasts for children age 1 to 4. Until paragraph (o)(1) of this section and the
not meeting the standards for calories, otherwise instructed by the Secretary, appropriate calorie and nutrient levels
saturated fat, or sodium specified in breakfasts for preschoolers, when in paragraph (o)(2) of this section over
paragraph (f) of this section, the State averaged over a school week, must meet the school week. Schools or school food
agency or school food authority must the nutrition standards and the authorities must maintain records of the
provide technical assistance and require appropriate nutrient and calorie levels latest nutritional analysis of the school
the reviewed school to take corrective in this section. The nutrition standards menus conducted by the State agency.
action to meet the requirements. are: (2) Nutrient and calorie levels for
(2) Trans fat. Effective SY 20132014, (i) Provision of one-fourth of the breakfasts for preschoolers. Under the
State agencies conducting an Recommended Dietary Allowances traditional food-based menu planning
administrative review must review (RDA) for protein, calcium, iron, approach, the required levels are:
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

[Traditional Food-Based Menu Planning Approach]
Age 2 1 Ages 34
Nutrients and energy allowances School week averages
Energy allowances (calories) ........................................................................................................................... 325 388

Total fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ................................................................................... (2) (2)
Saturated fat (as a percentage of actual total food energy) ........................................................................... (2) (2)
RDA for protein (g) .......................................................................................................................................... 4 5
RDA for calcium (mg) ...................................................................................................................................... 200 200
RDA for iron (mg) ............................................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.5
RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ................................................................................................................................... 100 113
RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .................................................................................................................................. 10 11
1 Nutrient
and calorie levels start at age 2 because the Dietary Guidelines for Americans apply to ages 2 and older.
2 The1995 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend that after 2 years of age children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5
years of age, contains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.
(3) Meal pattern for preschoolers. (i) (B) A serving of fruit or vegetable or (2) Meat/meat alternate.
Food items. Schools must offer these both, or full-strength fruit or vegetable (ii) Quantities for the traditional food-
food items in at least the portions juice; and based menu planning approach. At a
required for each age group: (C) Two servings from one of the minimum, schools must offer the food
(A) A serving of fluid milk as a following components or one serving items in the quantities specified for the
beverage or on cereal or used partly for from each component: appropriate age/grade group in the
both; (1) Grains/breads; and/or following table:
TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH MEAL PLAN FOR BREAKFASTS

Ages 12 Ages 34
Food components and food items School week averages
Fluid milk (as a beverage, on cereal, or both) ........................................ 4 fluid ounces ................................ 6 fluid ounces1.
Juice/Fruit/Vegetable: Fruit and/or vegetable; or full-strength fruit or 14 cup ............................................ 12 cup.
vegetable juice.
Select one serving from each of the following components, two from one component, or an equivalent combination:
Grains/Breads:
Whole grain or enriched bread ............................................................... slice ...........................................
12 slice.
12
Whole grain or enriched bread product, such as biscuit, roll, muf- serving ......................................
12 serving.
12
fin.
Whole grain, enriched or fortified cereal .......................................... cup or 13 ounce ........................
14 cup or 12 ounce.
13
Meat or Meat Alternates:

Meat/poultry or fish .......................................................................... ounce ........................................
12 ounce.
12
Alternate protein products 2 .............................................................. ounce ........................................

12 ounce
12
Cheese ............................................................................................. 12 ounce ........................................ 12 ounce.
Large egg ......................................................................................... 12 ................................................... 12
Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters ...................................... 1 tablespoon .................................. 1 tablespoon.
Cooked dry beans and peas ............................................................ 2 tablespoons ................................ 2 tablespoons.
Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in program guidance) 3 ...................... 12 ounce ........................................ 12 ounce.
Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened .................... 2 ounces or 14 cup ........................ 2 ounces or 14 cup.
1 Fluild
milk for children ages 34 must be fat-free (unflavored or flavored) or low-fat (unflavored only)
2 Mustmeet the requirements in appendix A of this part.
3 No more than 1 ounce of nuts and/or seeds may be served in any one breakfast.
(iii) Offer versus serve. Schools must (4) Fluid milk requirement. A serving reduced-lactose milk that is fat-free or
offer all four required food items. At the of fluid milk as a beverage or on cereal low-fat. Students in age group 34 must
school food authoritys option, students or used in part for each purpose must be offered a variety (at least two
in preschool may decline one of the four be offered for breakfasts. Schools must different options) of fluid milk. All milk
food items. The price of a reimbursable offer students in age group 12 fluid served in the Program must be
breakfast does not change if the student milk in a variety of fat contents, flavored pasteurized fluid milk which meets
does not take a menu item or requests or unflavored. Schools may also offer State and local standards for such milk.
smaller portions. this age group lactose-free or reduced- All fluid milk must have vitamins A and
(iv) Exceptions and variations allowed lactose fluid milk. For students in age D at levels specified by the Food and
in reimbursable breakfasts. Schools group 34, schools must offer fat-free Drug Administration and must be
must follow the requirements in milk (unflavored or flavored) and low- consistent with State and local
210.10(m) of this chapter. fat milk (unflavored only). Schools may standards for such milk. Schools must
also offer this age group lactose-free and also comply with other applicable milk
requirements in 210.10(d)(2), the infants eating habits. For those is still hungry. Breakfasts may include
210.10(d)(3), and 210.10(d)(4) of this infants whose dietary needs are more portions of breastmilk and iron-fortified
chapter. individualized, exceptions to the meal infant formula as long as the total
(5) Additional foods. Schools may pattern must be made in accordance number of ounces meets, or exceeds, the
offer additional foods with breakfasts to with the requirements found in minimum amount required of this food
children over one year of age. 210.10(m) of this chapter. component. Similarly, to meet the
(6) Menu choices at breakfast. Schools (ii) Breastmilk and iron-fortified component requirement for vegetables
must follow the requirements in formula. Either breastmilk or iron- and fruit, portions of both may be
210.10(l) of this chapter. fortified infant formula, or portions of served.
(7) Exceptions and variations allowed both, must be served for the entire first (A) Birth through 3 months. 4 to 6
in reimbursable meals. Schools must year. Meals containing breastmilk and fluid ounces of breastmilk or iron-
follow the requirements in 210.10(m) meals containing iron-fortified infant fortified infant formulaonly
of this chapter. formula supplied by the school are
(8) Nutrition disclosure. Schools must breastmilk or iron-fortified formula is
eligible for reimbursement. However, required to meet the infants nutritional
follow the requirements in 210.10(n) infant formula provided by a parent (or
of this chapter. needs.
guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by
(9) State agencys responsibilities for (B) 4 through 7 months. Breastmilk or
the infants mother, during a visit to the
monitoring breakfasts. As part of the iron-fortified formula is required. Some
school, contribute to a reimbursable
administrative review authorized under breakfast only when the school supplies infants may be developmentally ready
210.18(g)(2) of this chapter, State at least one component of the infants for solid foods of an appropriate texture
agencies must evaluate compliance with meal. and consistency. Breakfasts are
the meal pattern requirements (food (iii) Solid foods. For infants ages 4 reimbursable when schools provide all
components and quantities) in through 7 months, solid foods of an of the components in the meal pattern
paragraph (o)(3) of this section. If the appropriate texture and consistency are that the infant is developmentally ready
meals do not meet the requirements of required only when the infant is to accept.
this section, the State agency or school developmentally ready to accept them. (1) 4 to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk
food authority must provide technical The school should consult with the or iron-fortified infant formula; and
assistance and require the reviewed infants parent (or guardian) in making (2) 0 to 3 tablespoons of iron-fortified
school to take corrective action. In the decision to introduce solid foods. dry infant cereal.
addition, the State agency must take Solid foods should be introduced one at (C) 8 through 11 months. Breastmilk
fiscal action as authorized in a time, on a gradual basis, with the or iron-fortified formula and solid foods
210.18(m) and 210.19(c) of this intent of ensuring the infants health of an appropriate texture and
chapter. and nutritional well-being. consistency are required.
(10) Requirements for the infant (iv) Infant meal pattern. Infant (1) 6 to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk
breakfast pattern. (i) Feeding breakfasts breakfasts must have, at a minimum,
or iron-fortified infant formula; and
to infants. Breakfasts served to infants each of the food components indicated,
ages birth through 11 months must meet in the amount that is appropriate for the (2) 2 to 4 tablespoons of iron-fortified
the requirements described in paragraph infants age. For some breastfed infants dry infant cereal; and
(o)(11)(iv) of this section. Foods who regularly consume less than the (3) 1 to 4 tablespoons of fruit or
included in the breakfast must be of a minimum amount of breastmilk per vegetable.
texture and a consistency that are feeding, a serving of less than the (v) Infant meal pattern table. The
appropriate for the age of the infant minimum amount of breastmilk may be minimum amounts of food components
being served. The foods must be served offered. In these situations, additional to serve to infants, as described in
during a span of time consistent with breastmilk must be offered if the infant paragraph (o)(11)(iv) of this section, are:
BREAKFAST PATTERN FOR INFANTS

46 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3 48 fluid ounces of formula1 or breastmilk;2 3 68 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk;2 3
and and
03 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4 24 tablespoons of infant cereal;1 and
14 tablespoons of fruit or vegetable or both.
1 Infant formula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified.
2 Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served from birth through 11
months.
12. Paragraph 220.13(f) is amended as 220.13 Special responsibilities of State 210.18(g)(2) of this chapter, as
follows: agencies. applicable.
a. Amend paragraph (f)(2) by (f) * * * * * * * *
removing the words 210.30(d) (3) For the purposes of compliance 13. Add 220.23 to read as follows:
wherever it appears and adding in its with the meal requirements in 220.8
place the words 210.29; and 220.23 Nutrition standards and menu
and 220.23, the State agency must planning approaches for breakfasts.
b. Revise paragraph (f)(3) to read as follow the provisions specified in
follows: (a) What are the nutrition standards
for breakfasts for children age 2 and
over? This section contains the (iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol; (iv) Enhanced food-based menu
requirements applicable to school (v) Choose a diet with plenty of grain planning (see paragraphs (c) and (g)(2)
breakfasts for children age 2 and over in products, vegetables, and fruits; and of this section); or
school years 20122013 through 2013 (vi) Choose a diet moderate in salt and (v) Alternate menu planning as
14. All of the requirements of this sodium. provided for in paragraph (h) of this
section will be superseded by the (4) These measures of compliance section.
requirements in 220.8 beginning July with the applicable recommendations of (6) Schools must keep production and
1, 2013 (school year 201314), with the the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for menu records for the breakfasts they
exceptions noted in paragraph (n) of this Americans: produce. These records must show how
section. School food authorities must (i) Limit the percent of calories from the breakfasts contribute to the required
ensure that participating schools total fat to 30 percent of the actual food components, food items or menu
provide nutritious and well-balanced number of calories offered; items every day. In addition, these
breakfasts. For children age 2 and over, records must show how the breakfasts
(ii) Limit the percent of calories from
breakfasts, when averaged over a school contribute to the nutrition standards in
saturated fat to less than 10 percent of
week, must meet the nutrition standards paragraph (a) of this section and the
the actual number of calories offered;
and the appropriate nutrient and calorie appropriate calorie and nutrient levels
(iii) Reduce sodium and cholesterol (see paragraphs (c), (d), or (h) of this
levels in this section. The nutrition
levels; and section, depending on the menu
standards are:
(1) Provision of one-fourth of the (iv) Increase the level of dietary fiber. planning approach used) over the
Recommended Dietary Allowances (5) School food authorities have school week. If applicable, schools or
(RDA) for protein, calcium, iron, several ways to plan menus. The school food authorities must maintain
vitamin A and vitamin C in the minimum levels of nutrients and nutritional analysis records to
appropriate levels (see paragraphs (b), calories that breakfasts must offer demonstrate that breakfasts, when
(c), (e)(1), or (h) of this section); depends on the menu planning averaged over each school week, meet:
(2) Provision of the breakfast energy approach used and the age/grades (i) The nutrition standards provided
allowances (calories) for children in the served. The menu planning approaches in paragraph (a) of this section; and
appropriate levels (see paragraphs (b), are: (ii) The nutrient and calorie levels for
(c), (e)(1), or (h) of this section); (i) Nutrient standard menu planning children for each age or grade group in
(3) These applicable (see paragraphs (b) and (e) of this accordance with paragraphs (b) and
recommendations of the 1995 Dietary section); (e)(1) of this section or developed under
Guidelines for Americans: (ii) Assisted nutrient standard menu paragraph (h) of this section.
(i) Eat a variety of foods; planning (see paragraphs (b) and (f) of (b) What are the levels for nutrients
(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of total this section); and calories for breakfasts planned
calories; (iii) Traditional food-based menu under the nutrient standard or assisted
(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 planning (see paragraphs (c) and (g)(1) nutrient standard menu planning
percent of total calories; of this section); approaches? (1) The required levels are:
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING APPROACHES
(SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)
Minimum requirements Optional
Preschool Grades K12 Grades 712
Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 388 554 618

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1, 2) (2)
Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1, 3) (3)
RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 5 10 12
RDA for calcium (mg) .................................................................................................................. 200 257 300
RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 3 3.4
RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ............................................................................................................... 113 197 225
RDA for Vitamin C (mg) .............................................................................................................. 11 13 14
1 The Dietary Guidelines recommend that after 2 years of age * * * children should gradually adopt a diet that, by about 5 years of age, con-
tains no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.
2 Not to exceed 30 percent over a school week.
3 Less than 10 percent over a school week.
(2) Optional levels are:
OPTIONAL MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING
APPROACHES (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)
Ages 14 and
Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 36 Ages 710 Ages 1113 above
Calories (kcal) .................................................................................................. 419 500 588 625

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ........................................................................... (1, 2) (2) (2) (2)
Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ................................................................... (1, 3) (3) (3) (3)
RDA for protein (g) .......................................................................................... 5.5 7 11.25 12.5
RDA for calcium (mg) ...................................................................................... 200 200 300 300
OPTIONAL MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS NUTRIENT STANDARD MEAL PLANNING
APPROACHES (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)Continued
Ages 14 and
Nutrients and energy allowances Ages 36 Ages 710 Ages 1113 above
RDA for iron (mg) ............................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 3.4 3.4

RDA for Vitamin A (RE) ................................................................................... 119 175 225 225
RDA for Vitamin C (mg) ................................................................................... 11.00 11.25 12.5 14.4
(3) Schools may also develop a set of (c) What are the nutrient and calorie planning approach, the required levels
nutrient and calorie levels for a school levels for breakfasts planned under the are:
week. These levels are customized for food-based menu planning
the age groups of the children in the approaches?(1) Traditional approach.
particular school. For the traditional food-based menu
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING
APPROACH (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)
Nutrients and energy allowances Age 2 Ages 3, 4, 5 Grades K12
Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 325 388 554

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1) (1, 2)
Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1) (1, 3)
RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 4 5 10
RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 3
(2) Enhanced approach. For the

enhanced food-based menu planning
approach, the required levels are:
MINIMUM NUTRIENT AND CALORIE LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFASTS ENHANCED FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING
APPROACH (SCHOOL WEEK AVERAGES)
Required for Option for
Preschool Grades K12 Grades 712
Calories (kcal) .............................................................................................................................. 388 554 618

Total fat (as % of total kcals) ...................................................................................................... (1) (1, 2) (2)
Saturated fat (as % of total kcals) ............................................................................................... (1) (1, 3) (3)
RDA for protein (g) ...................................................................................................................... 5 10 12
RDA for iron (mg) ........................................................................................................................ 2.5 3 3.4
(d) Exceptions and variations allowed restricts their diet. Substitutions must Such statement must be signed by a
in reimbursable breakfasts. (1) be made on a case by case basis only licensed physician.
Exceptions for disability reasons. when supported by a written statement (2) Exceptions for non-disability
Schools must make substitutions in of the need for substitutions that reasons. Schools may make
breakfasts for students who are includes recommended alternate foods, substitutions for students without
considered to have a disability under 7 unless otherwise exempted by FNS. disabilities who cannot consume the
CFR part 15b.3 and whose disability breakfast because of medical or other
special dietary needs. Substitutions standards in paragraph (a) of this (4) Software elements(i) The Child
must be made on a case by case basis section and the preschool nutrient and Nutrition Database. The nutrient
only when supported by a written calorie levels in paragraph (b)(1) of this analysis is based on the Child Nutrition
statement of the need for substitutions section over a school week. Schools may Database. This database is part of the
that includes recommended alternate also use the preschool nutrient and software used to do a nutrient analysis.
foods, unless otherwise exempted by calorie levels in paragraph (b)(2) of this Software companies or others
FNS. Except with respect to section or may calculate nutrient and developing systems for schools may
substitutions for fluid milk, such calorie levels for two year olds. FNS has contact FNS for more information about
statement must be signed by a a method for calculating these levels in the database.
recognized medical authority. menu planning guidance materials. (ii) Software evaluation. FNS or an
(i) Milk substitutions for non- (ii) Minimum levels for nutrients. FNS designee evaluates any nutrient
disability reasons. Schools may make Breakfasts must at least offer the analysis software before it may be used
substitutions for fluid milk for non- nutrient and calorie levels for the in schools. FNS or its designee
disabled students who cannot consume required grade groups in the table in determines if the software, as submitted,
fluid milk due to medical or special paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Schools meets the minimum requirements. The
dietary needs. A school that selects this may also offer breakfasts meeting the approval of software does not mean that
option may offer the nondairy nutrient and calorie levels for the age FNS or USDA endorses it. The software
beverage(s) of its choice, provided the groups in paragraph (b)(2) of this must be able to do all functions after the
beverage(s) meet the nutritional section. If only one grade or age group basic data is entered. The required
standards established in paragraph (i)(3) is outside the established levels, schools functions include weighted averages
of this section. Expenses incurred in may follow the levels for the majority of and the optional combined analysis of
providing substitutions for fluid milk the children. Schools may also the lunch and breakfast programs.
that exceed program reimbursements customize the nutrient and calorie (5) Nutrient analysis procedures(i)
must be paid by the school food levels for the children they serve. FNS Weighted averages. Schools must
authority. has a method for calculating these levels include all menu items and foods
(ii) Requisites for milk substitutions. in guidance materials for menu offered in reimbursable breakfasts in the
(A) A school food authority must inform nutrient analysis. Menu items and foods
planning.
the State agency if any of its schools are included based on the portion sizes
(2) Reimbursable breakfasts(i)
choose to offer fluid milk substitutes and projected serving amounts. They are
Contents of a reimbursable breakfast. A
other than for students with disabilities; also weighted based on their
reimbursable breakfast must include at
and proportionate contribution to the
(B) A medical authority or the least three menu items. All menu items breakfasts offered. This means that
students parent or legal guardian must or foods offered in a reimbursable menu items or foods more frequently
submit a written request for a fluid milk breakfast contribute to the nutrition offered are weighted more heavily than
substitute, identifying the medical or standards in paragraph (a) of this those not offered as frequently. Schools
other special dietary need that restricts section and to the levels of nutrients calculate weighting as indicated by FNS
the students diet. and calories that must be met in guidance and by the guidance provided
(iii) Substitution approval. The paragraphs (c) or (e)(1) of this section. by the software.
approval for fluid milk substitution Unless offered as part of a menu item in (ii) Analyzed nutrients. The analysis
must remain in effect until the medical a reimbursable breakfast, foods of includes all menu items and foods
authority or the students parent or legal minimal nutritional value (see appendix offered over a school week. The analysis
guardian revokes such request in B to part 220) are not included in the must determine the levels of: Calories,
writing, or until such time as the school nutrient analysis. Reimbursable protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron,
changes its substitution policy for non- breakfasts planned under the nutrient calcium, total fat, saturated fat, sodium,
disabled students. standard menu planning approach must cholesterol and dietary fiber.
(3) Variations for ethnic, religious, or meet the nutrition standards in (6) Comparing the results of the
economic reasons. Schools should paragraph (a) of this section and the nutrient analysis. Once the procedures
consider ethnic and religious appropriate nutrient and calorie levels in paragraph (i)(5) of this section are
preferences when planning and in paragraph (b) or (e)(1) of this section. completed, schools must compare the
preparing breakfasts. Variations on an (ii) Offer versus serve. Schools must results of the analysis to the appropriate
experimental or continuing basis in the offer at least three menu items. At their nutrient and calorie levels, by age/grade
food components for the food-based option, school food authorities may groups, in paragraph (b) of this section
menu planning approaches in paragraph allow students to select only two menu or those developed under paragraph
(g) of this section may be allowed by items and to decline a maximum of one (e)(1) of this section. This comparison
FNS. Any variations must be menu item. The price of a reimbursable determines the school weeks average.
nutritionally sound and needed to meet breakfast does not change if the student Schools must also make comparisons to
ethnic, religious, or economic needs. does not take a menu item or requests the nutrition standards in paragraph (a)
(4) Exceptions for natural disasters. If smaller portions. of this section to determine how well
there is a natural disaster or other (3) Doing the analysis. Schools using they are meeting the nutrition standards
catastrophe, FNS may temporarily allow nutrient standard menu planning must over a school week.
schools to serve breakfasts for conduct the analysis on all menu items (7) Adjustments to the menus. Once
reimbursement that do not meet the and foods offered in a reimbursable schools know the results of the nutrient
requirements in this section. breakfast. The analysis is conducted analysis based on the procedures in
(e) What are the requirements for the over a school week within the review paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) of this section,
nutrient standard menu planning period. Unless offered as part of a menu they must adjust future menu cycles to
approach? (1) Nutrient levels(i) item in a reimbursable breakfast, foods reflect production and how often the
Adjusting nutrient levels for young of minimal nutritional value (see menu items and foods are offered.
children. Schools with children who are appendix B to part 220) are not included Schools may need to reanalyze menus
age 2 must at least meet the nutrition in the nutrient analysis. when the students selections and,
consequently, production levels change. food authority or by the school as developed under the assisted nutrient
Schools may need to change the menu needed. standard menu planning approach, the
items and foods offered given the (12) Other Child Nutrition Programs nutrient analysis must be reassessed and
students selections and may need to and nutrient standard analysis menu appropriate adjustments made as
modify the recipes and other planning. School food authorities that discussed in paragraph (e)(7) of this
specifications to make sure that the operate the Summer Food Service section.
nutrition standards in paragraph (a) and Program (part 225 of this chapter) and/ (5) Final responsibility for meeting the
either paragraph (b) or (e)(1) of this or the Child and Adult Care Food nutrition standards. The school food
section are met. Program (part 226 of this chapter) may, authority using the assisted nutrient
(8) Standardized recipes. If a school with State agency approval, prepare standard menu planning approach
follows the nutrient standard menu breakfasts for these programs using the retains final responsibility for meeting
planning approach, it must develop and nutrient standard menu planning the nutrition standards in paragraph (a)
follow standardized recipes. A approach for children age two and over. of this section and the applicable calorie
standardized recipe is a recipe that was FNS has program guidance on the levels and nutrient levels in paragraphs (b) or
tested to provide an established yield of nutrient and calories for adult (e)(1) of this section.
and quantity using the same ingredients breakfasts offered under the Child and (6) Adjustments to the menus. If the
for both measurement and preparation Adult Care Food Program. nutrient analysis shows that the
methods. Any standardized recipes (f) What are the requirements for the breakfasts offered are not meeting the
developed by USDA/FNS are in the assisted nutrient standard menu nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of
Child Nutrition Database. If a school has planning approach?(1) Definition of this section and the applicable calorie
its own recipes, they must be assisted nutrient standard menu and nutrient levels in paragraphs (b) or
standardized and analyzed to determine planning. Some school food authorities (e)(1) of this section, the State agency,
the levels of calories, nutrients, and may not be able to do all of the school food authority or school must
dietary components listed in paragraph procedures necessary for nutrient take action to make sure the breakfasts
(e)(5)(ii) of this section. Schools must standard menu planning. The assisted offered meet these requirements.
add any local recipes to their local nutrient standard menu planning Actions needed include technical
database as outlined in FNS guidance. approach provides schools with menu assistance and training.
(9) Processed foods. The Child cycles developed and analyzed by other (7) Other Child Nutrition Programs
Nutrition Database includes a number of sources. These sources include the State and assisted nutrient analysis menu
processed foods. Schools may use agency, other schools, consultants, or planning. School food authorities that
purchased processed foods and menu food service management companies. operate the Summer Food Service
items that are not in the Child Nutrition (2) Elements of assisted nutrient Program (part 225 of this chapter) and/
Database. Schools or the State agency standard menu planning. School food or the Child and Adult Care Food
must add any locally purchased authorities using menu cycles Program (part 226 of this chapter) may,
processed foods and menu items to their developed under assisted nutrient with State agency approval, prepare
local database as outlined in FNS standard menu planning must follow breakfasts for these programs using the
guidance. Schools or State agencies the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) assisted nutrient standard menu
must obtain the levels of calories, through (10) of this section. The menu planning approach for children age two
nutrients, and dietary components listed cycles must also incorporate local food and over. FNS has guidance on the
in paragraph (e)(5)(ii) of this section. preferences and accommodate local levels of nutrients and calories for adult
(10) Menu substitutions. Schools may food service operations. The menu breakfasts offered under the Child and
need to substitute foods or menu items cycles must meet the nutrition Adult Care Food Program.
in a menu that was already analyzed. If standards in paragraph (a) of this (g) What are the requirements for the
the substitution(s) occurs more than two section and meet the applicable nutrient food-based menu planning
weeks before the planned menu is and calorie levels for nutrient standard approaches?(1) Food items. There are
served, the school must reanalyze the menu planning in paragraphs (b) or two menu planning approaches based
revised menu. If the substitution(s) (e)(1) of this section. The supplier of the on meal patterns, not nutrient analysis.
occurs two weeks or less before the assisted nutrient standard menu These approaches are the traditional
planned menu is served, the school does planning approach must also develop food-based menu planning approach
not need to do a reanalysis. However, and provide recipes, food product and the enhanced food-based menu
schools should always try to substitute specifications, and preparation planning approach. Schools using one
similar foods. techniques. All of these components of these approaches must offer these
(11) Meeting the nutrition standards. support the nutrient analysis results of food items in at least the portions
The schools analysis shows whether the menu cycles used by the receiving required for various age/grade groups:
their menus are meeting the nutrition school food authorities. (i) A serving of fluid milk as a
standards in paragraph (a) of this (3) State agency approval. Prior to its beverage or on cereal or used partly for
section and the appropriate levels of use, the State agency must approve the both;
nutrients and calories in paragraph (b) initial menu cycle, recipes and other (ii) A serving of fruit or vegetable or
of this section or customized levels specifications of the assisted nutrient both, or full-strength fruit or vegetable
developed under paragraph (e)(1) of this standard menu planning approach. The juice; and
section. If the analysis shows that the State agency needs to make sure all the (iii) Two servings from one of the
menu(s) are not meeting these steps required for nutrient analysis were following components or one serving
standards, the school needs to take followed. School food authorities may
from each component:

action to make sure that the breakfasts also ask the State agency for assistance (A) Grains/breads; and/or
meet the nutrition standards and the with implementation of their assisted (B) Meat/meat alternate.
calorie, nutrient, and dietary component nutrient standard menu planning (2) Quantities for the traditional food-
levels. Actions may include technical approach. based menu planning approach. At a
assistance and training and may be (4) Required adjustments. After the minimum, schools must offer the food
taken by the State agency, the school initial service of the menu cycle items in the quantities specified for the
appropriate age/grade group in the

following table:
TRADITIONAL FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACHMEAL PATTERN FOR BREAKFASTS

Food components and food items 12 Ages 3, 4 and 5 Grades K12
MILK (fluid) (as a beverage, on cereal, or both) ................................................................ 4 fluid ounces ... 6 fluid ounces ... 8 fluid ounces.
JUICE/FRUIT/VEGETABLE: Fruit and/or vegetable; or full-strength fruit juice or vege- 14 cup ............... 12 cup ............... 12 cup.
table juice.
SELECT ONE SERVING FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS, TWO
FROM ONE COMPONENT, OR AN EQUIVALENT COMBINATION:
GRAINS/BREADS:
Whole-grain or enriched bread .................................................................................... slice .............
12 slice .............
12 1 slice.
Whole-grain or enriched biscuit, roll, muffin, etc ......................................................... serving .........
12 serving .........
12 1 serving.
Whole-grain, enriched or fortified cereal ..................................................................... 14 cup or 13 13 cup or12 34 cup or 1
ounce. ounce. ounce.

MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATIVES:
Meat/poultry or fish ...................................................................................................... ounce ...........
12 ......................
12 1 ounce.
Alternate protein products1 .......................................................................................... ounce ...........
12 ounce ...........
12 1 ounce.
Cheese ........................................................................................................................ 12 ounce ........... ounce ...........
12 1 ounce.
Large egg .................................................................................................................... 12 ...................... 12 ...................... 12.
Peanut butter or other nut or seed butters .................................................................. 1 tablespoon ..... 1 tablespoon ..... 2 tablespoons.
Cooked dry beans and peas ....................................................................................... 2 tablespoons ... 2 tablespoons ... 4 tablespoons.
Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in program guidance) 2 .................................................. 12 ounce ........... 12 ounce ........... 1 ounce.
Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened ................................................ 2 ounces or 14 2 ounces or 14 4 ounces or 12
cup. cup. cup.
1 Must meet the requirements in appendix A of this part.
(3) Quantities for the enhanced food- minimum, schools must offer the food appropriate age/grade group in the
based menu planning approach. At a items in the quantities specified for the following table:
ENHANCED FOOD-BASED MENU PLANNING APPROACH-MEAL PATTERN FOR BREAKFASTS

Required for Option for
Food components and food items
Ages 12 Preschool Grades K12 Grades 712
MILK (fluid) (as a beverage, on cereal, or 4 fluid ounces ........... 6 fluid ounces ........... 8 fluid ounces ............ 8 fluid ounces.
both).
JUICE/FRUIT/VEGETABLE: Fruit and/or cup .......................
14 cup .......................
12 cup .......................
12 cup.
12
vegetable; or full-strength fruit juice or

vegetable juice.
SELECT ONE SERVING FROM EACH OF
THE FOLLOWING COMPONENTS,
TWO FROM ONE COMPONENT, OR
AN EQUIVALENT COMBINATION:
GRAINS/BREADS:
Whole-grain or enriched bread ............. slice .....................
12 slice .....................
12 1 slice ........................ 1 slice.
Whole-grain or enriched biscuit, roll, serving .................
12 serving .................
12 1 serving ................... 1 serving.
muffin, etc..
Whole-grain, enriched or fortified ce- cup or 1/3 ounce
14 cup or 12 ounce ...
13 cup or 1 ounce .....
34 cup or 1 ounce plus an
34
real. additional serving of

one of the Grains/
Breads above.
MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATIVES:
Meat/poultry or fish ............................... ounce ...................
12 ounce ...................
12 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce.
Alternate protein products 1 .................. ounce ...................
12 ounce ...................
12 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce.
Cheese .................................................. 12 ounce ................... 12 ounce ................... 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce.
Large egg .............................................. 12 .............................. 12 .............................. 12 .............................. 12.
Peanut butter or other nut or seed but- 1 tablespoon ............. 1 tablespoon ............. 2 tablespoons ............ 2 tablespoons.
ters.
Cooked dry beans and peas ................ 2 tablespoons ........... 2 tablespoons ........... 4 tablespoons ............ 4 tablespoons.
Nuts and/or seeds (as listed in pro- ounce ...................
12 ounce ...................
12 1 ounce ..................... 1 ounce.
gram guidance) 2.
Yogurt, plain or flavored, unsweetened 2 ounces or 14 cup .. 2 ounces or 14 cup .. 4 ounces or 12 cup ... 4 ounces or
or sweetened. cup.
12
1 Must meet the requirements in appendix A of this part.

(4) Offer versus serve. Each school (B) The State agency maintains on- this section must indicate what
must offer all four required food items going oversight of the operation and constitutes a reimbursable breakfast,
listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. evaluation of the approach and makes including the number and type of items
At the option of the school food any needed adjustments to its policies (and, if applicable, the quantities for the
authority, each school may allow and procedures to ensure that the items) which comprise the breakfast,
students to refuse one food item from appropriate guidelines in paragraph and how a reimbursable breakfast is to
any component. The refused food item (h)(3) of this section are met. be identified at the point of service.
may be any of the four items offered to (3) Elements for major changes or new (vii) Explain how the alternate menu
the student. A students decision to approaches. Any alternate menu planning approach can be monitored
accept all four food items or to decline planning approach must: under the applicable provisions of
one of the four food items must not (i) Offer fluid milk, as provided in 210.18 of this chapter, including a
affect the charge for a reimbursable paragraph (i) of this section; description of the records that will be
breakfast. (ii) Include the procedures for offer maintained to document compliance
(5) Meal pattern exceptions for versus serve if the school food authority with the programs administrative and
outlying areas. Schools in American chooses to implement the offer versus nutritional requirements. However, if
Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin serve option. Alternate approaches the procedures under 210.18 of this
Islands may serve a starchy vegetable should follow the offer versus serve chapter cannot be used to monitor the
such as yams, plantains, or sweet procedures in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and alternate approach, a description of
potatoes to meet the grain/bread (g)(4) of this section, as appropriate. If review procedures which will enable
requirement. these requirements are not followed, the the State agency to assess compliance
(h) What are the requirements for approach must indicate: with the nutrition standards in
alternate menu planning approaches? (A) The affected age/grade groups; paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this
(1) Definition. Alternate menu planning (B) The number and type of items section must be included; and
approaches are those adopted or (and, if applicable, the quantities for the (viii) Follow the requirements for
items) that constitute a reimbursable weighted analysis and for approved
developed by school food authorities or
breakfast under offer versus serve; software for nutrient standard menu
State agencies that differ from the
(C) How such procedures will reduce planning as required by paragraphs
standard approaches established in
plate waste; and (e)(4) and (5) of this section unless a
paragraphs (e) through (g) of this
(D) How a reasonable level of calories State agency-developed approach meets
section.
and nutrients for the breakfast as taken the criteria in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of
(2) Use and approval of major
is provided. this section.
changes or new alternate approaches. (iii) Meet the Recommended Dietary (i) What are the requirements for
Within the guidelines established for Allowances and breakfast energy offering milk?(1) Serving milk. A
developing alternate menu planning allowances (nutrient levels) and serving of fluid milk as a beverage or on
approaches, school food authorities or indicate the age/grade groups served cereal or used in part for each purpose
State agencies may modify one of the and how the nutrient levels are met for must be offered for breakfasts. Schools
established menu planning approaches those age/grade groups; must offer students a variety (at least
in paragraphs (e) through (g) of this (iv) Follow the requirements for two different options) of fluid milk
section or may develop their own menu competitive foods in the definition of daily. All milk must be fat-free or low-
planning approach. The alternate menu Foods of minimal nutritional value in fat. Milk with higher fat content is not
planning approach must be available in 220.2, in 220.12, and in appendix B allowed. Fat-free fluid milk may be
writing for review and monitoring of this part; flavored or unflavored, and low-fat fluid
purposes. No formal plan is required; (v) Follow the requirements for milk must be unflavored. Low fat or fat-
guidance material, a handbook or counting food items and products free lactose-free and reduced-lactose
protocol is sufficient. As appropriate, towards meeting the meal patterns. fluid milk may also be offered. Schools
the material must address how the These requirements are found in must also comply with other applicable
guidelines in paragraph (h)(3) of this paragraphs (g) and (i) of this section, in fluid milk requirements in
section are met. A State agency that appendices A through C to this part, and 210.10(d)(1) through (4) of this
develops an alternate approach that is in instructions and guidance issued by chapter.
exempt from FNS approval under FNS. This only applies if the alternate (2) Inadequate milk supply. If a school
paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of this section must approach is a food-based menu planning cannot get a supply of milk, it can still
notify FNS in writing when approach. participate in the Program under the
implementing the alternate approach. (vi) Identify a reimbursable breakfast following conditions:
(i) Approval of local level plans. Any at the point of service. (i) If emergency conditions
school food authority-developed menu (A) To the extent possible, the temporarily prevent a school that
planning approach must have prior procedures provided in paragraph normally has a supply of fluid milk
State agency review and approval. (e)(2)(i) of this section for nutrient from obtaining delivery of such milk,
(ii) Approval of State agency plans. standard or assisted nutrient standard the State agency may allow the school
Unless exempt under paragraph menu planning approaches or for food- to serve breakfasts during the emergency
(h)(2)(iii) of this section, any State based menu planning approaches period with an alternate form of milk or
agency-developed menu planning provided in paragraph (g) of this section without milk.
approach must have prior FNS must be followed. Any instructions or (ii) If a school is unable to obtain a
approval. guidance issued by FNS that further supply of any type of fluid milk on a
(iii) State agency plans not subject to defines the elements of a reimbursable continuing basis, the State agency may
approval. A State agency-developed breakfast must be followed when using allow schools to substitute canned or
menu planning approach does not need the existing regulatory provisions. dry milk in the required quantities in
FNS approval if: (B) Any alternate approach that the preparation of breakfasts. In Alaska,
(A) Five or more school food deviates from the provisions in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto
authorities in the State use it; and paragraph (e)(2)(i) or paragraph (g) of Rico, and the Virgin Islands, if a
sufficient supply of fluid milk cannot be infants whose dietary needs are more is still hungry. Breakfasts may include
obtained, milk includes reconstituted individualized, exceptions to the meal portions of breastmilk and iron-fortified
or recombined milk, or otherwise as pattern must be made in accordance infant formula as long as the total
allowed by FNS through a written with the requirements found in number of ounces meets, or exceeds, the
exception. paragraph (d)(1) of this section. minimum amount required of this food
(3) Milk substitutes. If a school (2) Breastmilk and iron-fortified component. Similarly, to meet the
chooses to offer one or more substitutes formula. Either breastmilk or iron- component requirement for vegetables
for fluid milk for non-disabled students fortified infant formula, or portions of and fruit, portions of both may be
with medical or special dietary needs, both, must be served for the entire first served.
the nondairy beverage(s) must provide year. Meals containing breastmilk and (i) Birth through 3 months. 4 to 6 fluid
the nutrients listed in the following meals containing iron-fortified infant ounces of breastmilk or iron-fortified
table. Milk substitutes must be fortified formula supplied by the school are infant formulaonly breastmilk or iron-
in accordance with fortification eligible for reimbursement. However, fortified formula is required to meet the
guidelines issued by the Food and Drug infant formula provided by a parent (or infants nutritional needs.
Administration. A school need only guardian) and breastmilk fed directly by (ii) Four through 7 months.
offer the nondairy beverage(s) that it has the infants mother, during a visit to the Breastmilk or iron-fortified formula is
identified as allowable fluid milk school, contribute to a reimbursable required. Some infants may be
substitutes according to this paragraph breakfast only when the school supplies developmentally ready for solid foods of
(i)(3). at least one component of the infants an appropriate texture and consistency.
meal. Breakfasts are reimbursable when
Nutrient Per cup (3) Solid foods. For infants ages 4 schools provide all of the components
through 7 months, solid foods of an in the meal pattern that the infant is
Calcium ....................................... 276 mg. appropriate texture and consistency are
Protein ........................................ 8 g. developmentally ready to accept.
required only when the infant is
Vitamin A .................................... 500 IU. (A) Four to 8 fluid ounces of
developmentally ready to accept them.
Vitamin D .................................... 100 IU. breastmilk or iron-fortified infant
Magnesium ................................. 24 mg.
The school should consult with the
formula; and
Phosphorus ................................. 222 mg. infants parent (or guardian) in making
the decision to introduce solid foods. (B) 0 to 3 tablespoons of iron-fortified
Potassium ................................... 349 mg.
Solid foods should be introduced one at dry infant cereal.
Riboflavin .................................... 0.44 mg.
Vitamin B12 .............................. 1.1 mcg. a time, on a gradual basis, with the (iii) Eight through 11 months.
intent of ensuring the infants health Breastmilk or iron-fortified formula and
(j) What are the requirements for the and nutritional well-being. solid foods of an appropriate texture
infant breakfast pattern? (1) Feeding (4) Infant meal pattern. Infant and consistency are required.
breakfasts to infants. Breakfasts served breakfasts must have, at a minimum, (A) Six to 8 fluid ounces of breastmilk
to infants ages birth through 11 months each of the food components indicated, or iron-fortified infant formula; and
must meet the requirements described in the amount that is appropriate for the (B) Two to 4 tablespoons of iron-
in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. Foods infants age. For some breastfed infants fortified dry infant cereal; and
included in the breakfast must be of a who regularly consume less than the (C) One to 4 tablespoons of fruit or
texture and a consistency that are minimum amount of breastmilk per vegetable.
appropriate for the age of the infant feeding, a serving of less than the (5) Infant meal pattern table. The
being served. The foods must be served minimum amount of breastmilk may be minimum amounts of food components
during a span of time consistent with offered. In these situations, additional to serve to infants, as described in
the infants eating habits. For those breastmilk must be offered if the infant paragraph (j)(4) of this section, are:
BREAKFAST PATTERN FOR INFANTS

46 fluid ounces of formula1 or breastmilk 2 3 48 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3; 68 fluid ounces of formula 1 or breastmilk 2 3;
and and
03 tablespoons of infant cereal 1 4 24 tablespoons of infant cereal 1; and
14 tablespoons of fruit or vegetable or both
1 Infantformula and dry infant cereal must be iron-fortified.
2 Breastmilk or formula, or portions of both, may be served; however, it is recommended that breastmilk be served in place of formula from
birth through 11 months.
(k) What about serving additional of reimbursable breakfasts or foods breakfasts or must pay the designated
foods? Schools may offer additional within a reimbursable breakfast. When a full price. The school may establish
foods with breakfasts to children over school offers a selection of more than different unit prices for each type of
one year of age. one type of breakfast or when it offers breakfast offered provided that the
(l) Must schools offer choices at a variety of food components, menu benefits made available to children
breakfast? FNS encourages schools to items or foods and milk for choice as a eligible for free or reduced price
offer children a selection of foods and reimbursable breakfast, the school must breakfasts are not affected.
menu items at breakfast. Choices offer all children the same selection(s) (m) What must schools do about
provide variety and encourage regardless of whether the child is nutrition disclosure? To the extent that
consumption. Schools may offer choices eligible for free or reduced price school food authorities identify foods in
a menu, or on the serving line or efforts they are making to meet the Appendix A to Part 220 [Amended]
through other available means of nutrition standards (see paragraph (a) of
communicating with program this section) for school breakfasts. 14. Amend Appendix A to part 220 by
participants, school food authorities (n) Implementation timeframes. All removing section I. Formulated Grain-
must identify products or dishes the requirements in this section will be Fruit Products in its entirety, and by
containing more than 30 parts fully superseded by the requirements in removing the Roman numeral II. from
hydrated alternate protein products (as 220.8 beginning July 1, 2013 (SY the words II. Alternate Protein
specified in appendix A of this part) to 20132014) with the following Products.
exceptions:
less than 70 parts beef, pork, poultry or Kevin Concannon,
(1) Fruits and vegetables component.
seafood on an uncooked basis, in a The fruits and vegetables requirements Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and
manner which does not characterize the in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) will be Consumer Services.
product or dish solely as beef, pork, superseded July 1, 2014; and [FR Doc. 20121010 Filed 12512; 8:45 am]
poultry or seafood. Additionally, FNS (2) Sodium specification. The sodium BILLING CODE 341030P
encourages schools to inform the requirements in (a)(3)(vi) will be
students, parents, and the public about superseded July 1, 2014.

Department of Agriculture: Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 17 January 26, 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Department of Agriculture: Vol. 77 Thursday, No. 17 January 26, 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Vol.

review and will be updated in a future

products. enriched. Because current labeling permitted to round up to the nearest

Sodium reduction: Timeline and amount

School Breakfast Program

National School Lunch Program

Accordingly, this final rule

Breakfast meal pattern Lunch meal pattern

Amount of food b per week (minimum per day)

Red/Orange f ............................ 0 0 0 34 34 114

Additional Veg to Reach Total h ........... 0 0 0 1 1 112

IV Implementation Timeline the required implementation dates in

Implementation (school year) for NSLP (L) and SBP (B)

provisions to facilitate successful

Alternatives consistent with Dietary Guidelines Action

about $180 million more than the final

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

SFAs that serve Additional

TABLE 3SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6

Amount of food b per week (minimum per day)

TABLE 3SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE MEAL REQUIREMENTS 6Continued

Additional Veg to Reach Total h ....................................... 0 0 0 1 1 112

Min-max calories (kcal) m n o

TABLE 3AINTERMEDIATE AND FINAL SODIUM TARGETS

K5 ....................................................................... 1,230 935 640

TABLE 6PROJECTED COST OF FINAL RULE

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Food Costs ............................... $20.8 $135.4 $178.7 $612.8 $642.8 $1,590.5

Total .................................. $41.6 $286.2 $362.1 $1,220.2 $1,279.7 $3,189.9

higher numbers are for FY 2015.

TABLE 7SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCES

TABLE 7SUMMARY OF FOOD COST ESTIMATE DATA SOURCESContinued

TABLE 8FOOD GROUP PRICE INFLATORS 15

the Farm Service Agency, is driven by school demand towards a greater

TABLE 9PROJECTED BASELINE GROWTH IN REIMBURSABLE MEALS SERVED 17

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

of compliance with the rule may

sample of the most commonly served toward current reimbursable meal

39 As discussed elsewhere in this impact analysis,

TABLE 12REDUCTION IN ESTIMATED COST OF FINAL RULE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED RULE

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2

Difference .................................................................. 139.8 960.6 1,039.7 703.6 761.6 3,605.3

Difference .................................................................. 127.9 870.6 927.0 504.8 530.2 2,960.7

TABLE 13SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions the rule by $2.7 billion over 5 years.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Proposed rule ................................................................... $181.5 $1,246.8 $1,401.9 $1,923.8 $2,041.3 $6,795.2

budget authority for HHFKAs Performance-Based suggests that substantial progress

55 See, for example, Smith-Spangler, 2010;

red/orange subgroup is one of the changes

V. Accounting Statement www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ estimates of benefits, costs and transfers

VI. References Medicine, 2010 Feb 18;362(7):5909. www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-

Third Year Report. U.S. Department of Affairs, 28(5).

BILLING CODE 341030C

Impact Analysis for additional detail. 117, pp. 3530135318. p. 20.

breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus

Lunch meal pattern

Amount of food a per week

Fruits (cups) b ................................................................................................................... 212 (12) 212 (12) 5 (1)

Red/Orange c ............................................................................................................ 34 34 114

Additional Veg to Reach Total e ...................................................................................... 1e 1e 112 e

Min-max calories (kcal) h ................................................................................................. 550650 600700 750850