[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 111 (Friday, June 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14092]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 10, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Food and Nutrition Service
_______________________________________________________________________
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220
National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition
Objectives for School Meals; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210 and 220
National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program:
Nutrition Objectives for School Meals
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the regulations outlining the
nutrition standards for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs. It is part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for promoting
the health of children. Specifically, this proposal would update the
current nutrition standards to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, which reflect medical and scientific consensus on proper
nutrition as a vital element in disease prevention and long-term health
promotion. This proposal would also adopt meal planning based on
analysis of key nutrients (Nutrient Standard Menu Planning) in lieu of
the current meal pattern. These changes would be implemented no later
than July 1, 1998. The Department will be providing State agencies and
school food authorities with technical assistance to enable them to
meet this implementation date.
In developing this proposed rule, the Department is responding to
an array of medical and scientific evidence linking improper diet with
increased incidence of heart disease, strokes and certain cancers.
These proposals acknowledge the positive role school programs must play
in establishing childhood eating patterns that influence lifelong
habits. The Department also considered extensive oral testimony
presented at four public hearings and meetings as well as written
comments submitted in response to a notice published in the Federal
Register on September 13, 1993.
In recognition of the importance of reinventing and streamlining
government programs, this proposal would also remove various paperwork
burdens associated with the school meal programs and would modify the
review requirements for the National School Lunch Program to ensure
adequate oversight of the proposed updated nutrition standards. The
overriding purpose behind this proposed rule is to serve more
nutritious and healthful meals to school children while maintaining
access to the meal programs for needy children, and to enhance the
flexibility of local schools to administer the programs.
DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on
or before September 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development
Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA,
3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Eadie at the above address
or by telephone at 703-305-2620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order
12866 and has been designated significant.
Included at the end of this proposal is the Regulatory Cost/Benefit
Assessment. The Assessment provides the background on the economic,
market and benefit impacts of this proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through
612). The Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. In the interest of furthering
efforts to reinvent government, this rule proposes a substantial
reduction in current State agency administrative burdens and a
technical adjustment in the recordkeeping burdens. Moreover, the
Department of Agriculture (the Department or USDA) does not anticipate
any adverse fiscal impact on local schools. A recent analysis by FNS
and the Department's Economic Research Service found that the menu
planning aspects of this proposal can be met at the current cost of
food in the National School Lunch Program. Therefore, food costs should
not be a barrier to implementation of this regulation.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program
are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos.
10.555 and 10.553, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of
Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. (7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and final
rule-related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive
effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies
which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its
full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the ``Effective Date''
section of this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the
provisions of this proposed rule or the application of the provisions,
all applicable administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the
National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the
administrative procedures are set forth under the following
regulations: (1) School food authority appeals of State agency findings
as a result of an administrative review must follow State agency
hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2)
School food authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of an
administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established
pursuant to 7 CFR 210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of State
Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR 235.11(b)) must follow the
FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR
235.11(f).
Information Collection
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The title, description, and respondent description of the information
collections are shown below with an estimate of the annual reporting
and recordkeeping burdens. Included in the estimate is the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The Department would like to note that the
description of burden hours represents full implementation of the
proposed regulation, which would be School Year 1998-9, and only
provides for the recordkeeping burden associated with the proposed
regulatory changes.
Title: National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program:
Nutrition Objectives for School Meals.
Description: Under this proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives, some
existing recordkeeping activities contained in 7 CFR 210 and 220 would
be affected. The OMB control numbers are 0584-006 and 0584-0012,
respectively.
Description of Respondents: State agencies, school food authorities
and schools doing on-site preparation of meals.
Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number Annual Average burden Annual burden
of respondents frequency per response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR 210.8 (a)(3):
Existing.................................... 20,249 12 2 hours 485,976
Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -485,976
7 CFR 210.10/210.10a:
Existing.................................... \1\71,176 180 .25 \1\3,202,920
Proposed.................................... 71,176 180 .333 4,266,289
Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. +1,063,369
7 CFR 210.15(b)(4):
Existing.................................... 20,249 12 52.333 12,716,291
Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -12,716,291
7 CFR 220.8/220.8a:
Existing.................................... \2\60,585 180 .083 \2\905,140
Proposed.................................... 60,585 180 .117 1,275,920
Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. +370,780
7 CFR 220.13(i):
Existing.................................... 5,658 12 34 2,308,464
Proposed.................................... 0 0 0 0
Difference.................................. .............. .............. .............. -2,308,464
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The current OMB approved burden is based on 70,455 schools. However, for the purposes of a more accurate
comparison, the current burden has been adjusted here to include the same number of schools used to determine
the proposed burden.
\2\The current OMB approved burden is based on 49,962 schools. However, for the purposes of a more accurate
comparison, the current burden has been adjusted here to include the same number of schools used to determine
the proposed burden.
As required by section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3504(h), FNS has submitted a copy of this proposed rule
to OMB for review of these information collection requirements. Other
organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments regarding
this burden estimate or any aspects of these information collection
requirements, including suggestions for reducing the burdens, should
direct them to the Policy and Program Development Branch, Child
Nutrition Division, (address above) and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Laura Oliven, Desk Officer for FNS.
Background
Nutrition Standards in the School Meal Programs
The primary purpose of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), as
originally stated by Congress in 1946 in section 2 of the National
School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. 1751, is ``to safeguard the health
and well-being of the Nation's children * * *.'' At that time,
nutritional concerns in the United States centered on nutrient
deficiencies and issues of underconsumption. Over time, meal
requirements for the NSLP, 7 CFR 210.10, were designed to provide foods
sufficient to approximate one-third of the National Academy of
Sciences' Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). Participating schools
were required to offer meals that complied with general patterns
established by the Department. These patterns were developed to provide
a balanced meal by focusing on minimum amounts of specific components
(meat/meat alternate, bread/bread alternate, vegetables, fruits and
dairy products) rather than on the nutrient content of the entire meal.
Over the years, virtually no substantive changes have been made to
these patterns.
An array of scientific data now augments our knowledge by
documenting that excesses in consumption are a major concern because of
their relationship to the incidence of chronic disease. The typical
diet in the United States is high in fat, saturated fat and sodium and
low in complex carbohydrates and fiber. The meal requirements for the
NSLP have not kept pace with the growing consensus of the need to
modify eating habits. Given the importance of school meals to the
nation's children, especially needy children, the Department is
committed to meeting its health responsibilities by updating the
nutrition standards for school meals to ensure that children have
access to a healthful diet as well as an adequate one. To accomplish
this task, the Department is proposing to have school meals conform to
the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (hereinafter referred to as
the Dietary Guidelines) as well as provide proper levels of nutrients
and calories.
Although this proposal would expressly incorporate the 1990 Dietary
Guidelines into the school meals programs' nutrition requirements, the
Department will consider incorporating into the regulations any updates
of the Dietary Guidelines or other scientific recommendations. Specific
use of the 1990 Dietary Guidelines will allow the Department to review
any revisions of the Dietary Guidelines to determine their
applicability to school programs, and will avoid any undue burden on
State agencies and school food authorities to make the changes without
the direction of implementing regulations.
Scientific Studies Leading to Development of the Dietary Guidelines
Over the past thirty years a large body of evidence based on
epidemiological, clinical and laboratory investigation has established
that dietary patterns in the United States are associated with an
increased risk of chronic disease including coronary heart disease,
stroke, diabetes and certain types of cancer (Surgeon General's Report
on Nutrition and Health, 1988; National Academy of Sciences, Diet and
Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, 1989). Research
summarized in the Surgeon General's Report indicates that five of the
ten leading causes of death in the United States are associated with
diet.
As a result of this accumulating body of scientific research
establishing diet/disease links, dietary recommendations for the United
States population were developed in the late 1970's. The first of these
developed in 1977 by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human
Needs, established Dietary Goals for the United States. This was
followed closely by The Surgeon General's Report: Healthy People
(1979). USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
released the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in 1980.
The Dietary Guidelines were subsequently updated in 1985 and again
in 1990. Also in 1990, Title III of the National Nutrition Monitoring
and Related Research Act of 1990 (NNMRRA) (Pub. L. 101-445), 7 U.S.C.
5301, et seq., was enacted. Section 301 of the NNMRRA, 7 U.S.C.
5341(a), requires that the Dietary Guidelines be reviewed at least
every five years by a panel of experts in the various fields that
contribute to nutrition guidance. The task of the panel is to decide
whether there is sufficient evidence for altering the existing Dietary
Guidelines and, if so, to recommend specific changes. The Secretaries
of the DHHS and USDA then make the final decision on whether or not to
incorporate the recommended changes.
The process was first established when the Senate Appropriations
Committee, in November, 1980, stipulated that a Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee be established to review the first edition of the
Dietary Guidelines and to make any recommendations deemed appropriate.
The committee consisted of nine members (three from USDA, three from
DHHS and three selected from a list of nominees recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences). In 1988, a second committee comprised of
nine prominent experts in nutrition and health was appointed by the
Secretaries of USDA and DHHS. Pursuant to Section 301(a) of the NNMRRA,
a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will be empaneled in 1995 to
determine whether the 1990 Guidelines should be modified.
As a result, the Dietary Guidelines are based on the best available
scientific and medical knowledge. Consequently, the Department is
proposing to use the Dietary Guidelines as the basis for the nutrition
standards for school meals. This established procedure enables medical
and scientific experts to continually review and recommend updating of
the Dietary Guidelines in light of the most current and highly-regarded
data in this area. Moreover, the private sector and general public have
widely endorsed and relied upon the Dietary Guidelines in nutrition
education programs, activities and marketing. Because of the widespread
acceptance of the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines, the
Department believes that the transition to using these recommendations
as the cornerstone for the school meal programs will be readily
accepted.
The 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health and a
1989 National Academy of Science Report: Diet and Health: Implications
for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk reinforce the Dietary Guidelines. One
common theme runs throughout each of the publications, that is, an
improved diet can have positive health consequences.
The most recent Diet and Health report issued by the Food and
Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences (1989) provides a
very thorough review of the scientific evidence linking diet to disease
and gives quantifiable goals for some of the Dietary Guidelines. The
report recommends that Americans reduce fat intake to 30% or less of
calories, reduce saturated fat intake to less than 10% of calories and
reduce the intake of cholesterol to less than 300 mg per day. The
report also recommends that sodium intake be limited to 2400 milligrams
or less per day.
School Meals' Lack of Compliance With Current Dietary Guidelines
The current Dietary Guidelines recommend that people eat a variety
of foods; maintain a healthy weight; choose a diet with plenty of
vegetables, fruits, and grain products; and use sugar and sodium in
moderation. The Dietary Guidelines also recommend diets low in fat,
saturated fat, and cholesterol so that over time, fat comprises 30 per
cent or less of caloric intake, and saturated fat less than 10 per cent
of total calories, for persons two years of age and older.
However, information available to the Department consistently shows
that children's diets, including meals served in schools, do not
conform to the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. For example,
according to data from the 1989 and 1990 Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals conducted by USDA, fat composed, on average, 35
per cent of calories for the diets of children ages six to nineteen.
Equally significant were the findings of a nationally
representative USDA study entitled the School Nutrition Dietary
Assessment (SNDA) Study. Released in October, 1993, the SNDA Study
presented findings on the nutrients and foods provided in school meals
and described the dietary intakes of students on a typical school day.
A total of 545 schools were surveyed, and approximately 3,350 students
in grades one through twelve (with assistance from parents for children
grades one and two) provided detailed information about foods and
beverages consumed in a day that included school attendance. The study
compared nutrients provided in school meals with the Dietary
Guidelines' recommendations on fat and saturated fat, the National
Research Council's (NRC) Diet and Health Recommendations on sodium,
cholesterol and carbohydrate intake, and the current objective that the
nutrients provided in the NSLP meet one-third of the RDA and that the
School Breakfast Program (SBP) meet one-fourth of the RDA.
The SNDA findings showed that, while school lunches meet or exceed
one-third of the RDA for key nutrients and food energy, they do not
meet the recommended levels of fat and saturated fat established by the
Dietary Guidelines. In fact, the report showed that school lunches
exceeded the Dietary Guidelines' recommendations for fat and saturated
fat. Specifically, the average percentage of calories from total fat
was 38 per cent compared with the recommended goal of 30 per cent or
less; and the percentage from saturated fat was 15 per cent, compared
with the recommended goal of less than 10 per cent. The report also
found that children who ate the school lunch consumed a significantly
higher amount of calories from fat than children who brought their
lunch from home or obtained a lunch from vending machines or elsewhere
at school. Further, the report showed that virtually no schools were in
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines. In over 40 percent of schools,
students could select a meal that met the Dietary Guidelines, but few
did so. The SNDA study also showed that while school meals met the NRC
recommendation on cholesterol, the meals did not meet the NRC
recommendations on sodium and carbohydrate levels. In fact, the level
for sodium, at 1,479 milligrams, was nearly two times the lunch target
of 800 milligrams.
Even though the SBP did meet most of the recommendations in the
Dietary Guidelines, the majority of school meals do not conform to
current scientific knowledge of what constitutes a healthful diet. The
SNDA findings underscore that the program has not adapted or changed
school meal patterns over the years to incorporate scientific knowledge
about diet. This situation is cause for concern because it demonstrates
the need for significant improvement if the programs are to play their
appropriate role in promoting long-term health through proper
nutrition.
As the first step toward achieving meaningful improvement in
children's diets and, thus, their health and future well being, the
Department considers it necessary to update the regulations which
establish the specific nutrition criteria for reimbursable school meals
to incorporate the RDA for key nutrients, energy allowances for
calories, and the most current nutritional standards as outlined in the
Dietary Guidelines. In this way, the school meal programs can provide
an example of nutritional achievement as well as ensuring that children
are served healthful meals.
Before proceeding with a rulemaking, however, the Department
recognized the importance of public input. The following is a
description of the Department's procedure for obtaining input and a
discussion of significant issues raised by commenters.
Providing a Public Forum
To obtain input from the public prior to drafting proposed
regulations, the Department solicited comments on nutrition objectives
for school meals through public hearings and written comments. In a
Notice published in the Federal Register (58 FR 47853, September 13,
1993), the Department announced a series of four public hearings. Any
person who was interested could register to speak at any of the
hearings. Persons unable to testify in person were invited to submit
written comments. The Notice identified the following four questions as
the focus areas for comments and suggestions:
I. What are the health consequences of children's current dietary
patterns?
II. How can the Dietary Guidelines for Americans be used to bring
about measurable nutritional improvements in school meals and in
children's diets?
III. What are the opportunities and obstacles in meeting current
nutrition recommendations in school meal programs?
IV. What actions can the USDA, parents, school food service, food
industry and other public and private organizations take to encourage
the implementation of current nutrition recommendations in local
schools?
The four hearings were held in Atlanta, Georgia on October 13,
1993; in Los Angeles, California on October 27, 1993; in Flint,
Michigan on November 12, 1993; and in Washington, DC on December 7,
1993. Each hearing was presided over jointly by officials from USDA and
officials from USDA's Federal partners in this effort--the Department
of Education (DOEd) and DHHS. The inclusion of representatives from
DOEd and DHHS is an important asset in modifying the school meal
programs both because of their expertise and their missions. The school
meal programs must be considered in the context of the educational
framework, as overseen by DOEd, and the national policies regarding
health care and disease prevention under the aegis of DHHS. Therefore,
USDA is very pleased that a partnership is being forged among all
Federal agencies responsible for assisting the nation's schoolchildren.
USDA is also pleased to be working with DOEd and DHHS to further their
policy initiatives--Goals 2000: Educate America Act (DOEd) and Healthy
People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Objectives (DHHS). Of particular concern are solutions to issues such
as increasing public awareness of the links between diet and health,
familiarizing the public with the need to establish good eating habits
in children that will be carried on through their lifetimes and finding
innovative ways to incorporate the school meal as a learning experience
into daily school curriculums.
A variety of witnesses from the fields of medicine, nutrition and
education, food service, production and processors and other food
industry representatives, as well as parents, students and other
consumers and the general public, testified at each of the hearings.
Witnesses were asked to focus their remarks on one of the four
questions stated above. A transcript of each hearing was prepared, and
witnesses could, if they wished, also submit written testimony and
copies of any materials used to prepare their remarks. As noted above,
the Federal Register Notice also solicited written comments from anyone
who could not attend one of the hearings. To be assured of
consideration, comments had to be submitted on or before December 15,
1993. The written testimony and all comment letters were reviewed and
analyzed by the Department prior to preparation of this proposed
regulation. This portion of the preamble provides a summary of the
comments.
Summary of Comments Received
The overwhelming majority of commenters, representing a broad range
of backgrounds and experiences, called for improvements to school
meals. Comments from the public, students, and parents, while
expressing serious concerns and supporting change, were general in
nature and provided few specific details. However, commenters from the
medical, nutrition, and food advocacy communities, State and local food
service professionals, and food industry representatives provided
detailed information and frequently recommended specific actions.
Commenter Categories
A total of 363 witnesses testified at the hearings, and an
additional 2,013 written comments were received by the Department. Of
the 2,376 commenters: 21% were medical professionals, nutritionists or
dietitians, representatives of public health, nutrition, or food
organizations; 21% were from the general public; 21% were parents and
students; 16% were school food service personnel, representatives of
school food service organizations or representatives from State
education/child nutrition agencies; 11% were teachers, school officials
or representatives from school associations; 7% were food industry
representatives; and 3% were representatives of other State or Federal
agencies or members of Congress.
The Department is very pleased that so many persons took the time
to testify or to submit written comments and would like to take this
opportunity to express its appreciation for their comments and
suggestions. The commenters represented an extensive cross-section of
perspectives and provided a great variety of opinions and
recommendations. Especially gratifying were the number of students and
parents who commented. These groups are, after all, the constituency
that the Department considers program ``customers,'' and it is these
groups the Department is seeking to serve better.
Comment Breakdown
The following number of commenters addressed some aspect of the
four basic questions: I. 796; II. 703; III. 752; IV. 1,464. Though
comments varied greatly in content, the following significant themes
emerged: (1) The need to improve school meals in order to improve the
health of children; (2) the need for school meals to reflect current
nutrition recommendations, specifically reductions in fat and saturated
fat as recommended in the Dietary Guidelines; (3) the importance of an
integrated nutrition education program that involves students, parents,
teachers, and school food service personnel; (4) the need to revise
current commodity programs to provide schools with more nutritious
foods; and (5) the need to incorporate nutritional improvements while
at the same time improving the appeal of meals offered to ensure that
nutritious meals are consumed.
The Department also notes that many commenters raised distinct
issues within the four stated questions. For example, many commenters
cited the need for vegetarian alternatives; others argued for inclusion
of fast food companies in the NSLP, and several specific commodity
issues were raised. Therefore, the Department has included an analysis
of several of these issues in this preamble. Following are the more
prevalent issues raised by the over 2,300 commenters and the number of
commenters who addressed them:
(1) Fat levels in school meals: 1,048;
(2) The need for more fruits and vegetables: 829;
(3) The importance of nutrition education: 794;
(4) Concerns about milk and dairy products including the statutory
requirement for whole milk and recommendations for a beverage
substitute: 687;
(5) The Department's Food Distribution Program and commodities:
493;
(6) The costs and operational difficulties of implementing the
Dietary Guidelines: 448;
(7) The need for whole grains in school meals: 387;
(8) Fast foods and fast food companies (both for and against
availability in schools): 385;
(9) Vegetarian alternatives for school meals: 263;
(10) Sodium levels in school meals: 213;
(11) The importance of breakfast: 200.
Readers should note that while all comments were taken into
consideration, this preamble does not generally discuss individual
comments. The preamble does, however, address the common themes which
emerged and responds to specific individual comments when they raised
significant issues.
Health Consequences Comments
Close to 800 commenters addressed some issue relevant to health
consequences and diet. The majority of commenters were from the public
and the medical communities. Generally speaking, all of the commenters
focused on the link between diet and disease, specifically,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, and cancer. The majority of these
commenters cited the high incidence of cardiovascular disease in the
United States, both among children and adults, and the need to improve
the diets of young children in order to prevent the development of
heart disease in adulthood.
Many commenters wrote in support of the positions taken by a number
of major medical associations. These commenters focused on the
importance of improving the diets of children, given the strong
evidence that heart disease begins early in life, and emphasized the
need to provide foods rich in fiber and complex carbohydrates for the
possible prevention of some cancers.
A number of commenters addressed the potential link between diet
and learning and behavioral difficulties. These comments ranged from
general observations regarding improper nutrition and lack of
concentration, to specific concerns addressing functional disabilities,
behavioral disturbances, fatigue, and cognitive disabilities.
Commenters also pointed out that nutritional issues are especially
vital for under-privileged and ethnic populations. Specifically,
commenters cited the poor nutritional intake among low income children
and certain minority populations. One commenter indicated that these
populations, who are most at risk, do not appear to associate
nutritional risk factors with leading causes of death. Commenters also
expressed concern over the high incidence of major diseases among low-
income, minority populations--specifically, the higher incidence of
heart disease and hypertension among African-Americans, obesity among
Hispanics and Native Americans, and diabetes among Native Americans.
Finally, a large number of commenters addressed the growing
incidence of obesity among children, and the threat this poses to
future health. A number of commenters expressed concern over the lack
of physical activity in schools as a factor leading to the increase of
obesity among school children. Several indicated the need to integrate
exercise with other components of good health including school meals.
In addition, the unique needs of children with special health problems,
the need for proper diet in the prevention of osteoporosis, and the
escalating cost of health care and the role of diet as a preventative
measure were identified as important concerns.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans' Comments
Over 700 commenters, many from the public and from the school food
service community, addressed the issue of school meals meeting
nutritional guidelines, the majority of which overwhelmingly agreed
that meals should comply with the Dietary Guidelines, especially the
recommended limits on fat and saturated fat. Most commenters agreed
with the need for school meals to meet the Dietary Guidelines; however,
several commenters indicated that compliance with the Dietary
Guidelines should be voluntary. With respect to the current meal
patterns, many school food service commenters indicated that they could
not meet the Dietary Guidelines within the meal pattern requirements,
and others indicated that the current meal pattern requirements make it
difficult to provide multi-cultural meals to children.
Many commenters supported the implementation of Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning (NSMP), a menu planning system that is based on the
analysis of nutrients. Commenters believed this system would provide
increased flexibility in meal planning as well as consistent analysis
of nutrients. Commenters also suggested that this NSMP approach can
assist in providing more culturally diverse meals. It must be noted
that some commenters expressed concern that some smaller schools may
not have or be able to afford the technical capability needed to
conduct the analysis. Some commenters also suggested that the
Department or State agencies should develop menus that meet the Dietary
Guidelines. These menus can be used by smaller and school districts
with fewer resources, which may initially have difficulty implementing
NSMP.
Nutrition Education Comments
Close to 800 commenters pointed to the need for nutrition education
for parents, teachers, children, food service staff, and school
administrators. Many commenters came from the nutrition and food
service arenas as well as the general public. Commenters supported the
idea that nutrition education should be included in comprehensive
health education curriculums and should begin at an early age.
Commenters also indicated the need for nutrition education to be
reinforced by healthful meals in the cafeteria. Commenters pointed to
the need for a national nutrition media campaign. Many school food
service commenters expressed their desire for national minimum
professional standards which food service personnel would be expected
to meet. In addition, a significant number of commenters urged health
promotion as a component of health care. Finally, many commenters
supported the need for increased funding for the Department's Nutrition
Education and Training (NET) program, 7 CFR Part 227.
Taste and Plate Waste Comments
Many commenters from a wide range of commenter categories were
quite critical of the current quality of school meals, noting that lack
of appeal leads to increased plate waste. Some cautioned, however, that
drastic changes in the kinds of food served may drive children away
from school meals. These commenters generally supported the need to
make meals both appealing to children and nutritious. A number of
commenters also cautioned that the increased amount of certain foods
that may be necessary to provide a nutritious diet may result in more
plate waste if children do not find the meals to be appetizing. Several
commenters supported the need to involve culinary institutes and chefs
in meal preparation as a way to improve taste and presentation.
Fat in Meals Comments
Nearly one out of two commenters discussed fat in school meals,
with most of these commenters coming from the general public and the
medical community. The large majority of commenters who addressed the
issue of fat content cited the need to lower fat and saturated fat
levels in school lunches. Some of the comments were general statements
such as ``need more low fat foods,'' while others made specific
recommendations detailing the levels of fat and saturated fat that
school meals should meet.
A number of medical, public health, and school food service related
organizations addressed this issue, all of which were in support of
lowering the fat content of meals. A number of commenters recommended
that the fat content of meals be set at between 10 to 20 percent of
total calories--lower than the current Dietary Guidelines
recommendation of 30 percent of calories from fat.
A number of food service workers and directors cautioned that
increasing portion sizes of certain foods and serving more expensive
fresh produce to meet a 30 percent limit on calories from fat may
result in higher costs. Some commenters also expressed concern that
lowering fat may result in decreased calories critical for growing
children. Several commenters advised that low fat meals need to be
appealing so children will consume them.
Several industry representatives indicated that industry is
responsive to the need to lower fat and is already making a number of
changes to provide more low fat products. A number of commenters,
including food service staff, parents and members of the general public
made specific recommendations on how to lower fat in school meals, such
as trimming or draining fat from meat, eliminating added fats from
vegetables, and serving soups more often.
Moreover, many commenters, primarily students and the general
public, suggested that the fat content in school meals could be reduced
by offering more vegetarian meals, eliminating the whole milk
requirement, revising the commodity system to encourage more purchases
of low fat items such as fruits and vegetables, and reducing the amount
of fast food items and processed foods in school meals.
Meat and Meat Related Comments
The Department received over 200 comments related to meat products,
with most comments coming from students, parents and the general
public. Many commenters indicated that the current serving size for the
meat/meat alternate component is too large and recommended that schools
cut down on the amount of meat served. Commenters also indicated that
more poultry and fish should be offered. Some commenters recommended
that tofu and isolated soy proteins, as well as yogurt, be added to the
list of allowable meat alternatives. (The Department wishes to call
attention to the fact that isolated soy proteins are currently
permitted with some limitations.) On the other hand, several industry
representatives cautioned against reducing the amount of meat too much
due to its nutritional contributions, specifically, essential amino
acids, iron, zinc, and vitamin B6. They also observed that children are
familiar with meat and will consume it more readily than some
alternative protein sources.
Menu Selection and Variety Comments
The Department received over 250 comments in support of offering
more vegetarian meals. Commenters supported the low fat nature of
vegetarian meals and their contribution to a healthful diet. Others
addressed the need to expose children to more vegetarian foods and
foods from diverse cultures at an early age. Some commenters provided
specific examples of non-meat items, such as tofu and other plant-based
sources, that could be used in school meals, while others simply
indicated a general need for more meat-free alternatives. Students as
well as school food service personnel indicated the need to offer
vegetarian choices as students are requesting them more.
The Department received over 800 comments in support of the use of
more fruits, vegetables, or grain products. Commenters gave specific
recommendations regarding preparation methods and serving ideas,
including offering salad bars more frequently, increasing the variety
of fruits and vegetables, and serving more whole grain items. Others
recommended the use of more grain and bean products, citing their
nutritional benefit as well as low cost. Many school food service
commenters expressed concern over serving more and a wider variety of
fruits and vegetables as children may not be familiar with them and,
therefore, may not consume them.
Breakfast Comments
About 200 commenters, primarily from the medical, school food
service, and education communities, addressed breakfast meal issues
with a number of these commenters supporting the importance of
breakfast to the health of children. A number of food service personnel
indicated their success with the SBP and desire to increase
participation. Others, while supporting the SBP, expressed concern with
the nutritional quality of breakfasts currently offered.
Financial, Paperwork, and Other Operational Obstacles Comments
Over 250 commenters addressed financial and paperwork obstacles,
with many of these comments coming from food service (local and State)
professionals, the general public, and the nutrition community. A
number of commenters indicated that the need to avoid operating at a
deficit has prevented food service staff from providing more nutritious
meals. Commenters also complained that the amount of paperwork required
to administer the feeding programs is excessive and that the review
system is cumbersome and inflexible. Specifically, commenters stressed
the need to focus more on nutrition and less on meal-by-meal
accountability, income verification, and review requirements.
Many commenters expressed concern over the cost of producing meals
under the current meal pattern system. Commenters indicated that
schools already find it difficult to provide meals within current
resources and maintained that any further nutritional requirements
placed on schools would result in additional financial hardship.
Commenters specifically noted obstacles such as the increased cost of
providing more foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, low fat and
low sodium ingredients, and the increased portion sizes needed to meet
the nutrition standards without exceeding the 30% fat limitation. On
the other hand, some parents and students indicated that they would be
willing to pay extra for more nutritious meals.
A number of commenters indicated that the school meal periods are
not adequate, thereby forcing students to throw food away, consume it
too quickly, or bring meals from home to prevent waiting in the lunch
line. Others expressed concern that more nutritious meals would require
larger portions or extra food items that children may not be able to
consume during short lunch periods.
Partnerships and Coordination Comments
A number of commenters expressed the need for the Department to
establish partnerships with other Federal agencies such as DOEd, DHHS,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as with
industry representatives, State agencies, school boards, nutrition
professionals, extension programs, parents, teachers, and especially
students. Commenters also addressed the need for Federal efforts to
support, not hamper, local efforts. Commenters indicated that the
Department should use its resources and purchasing power to promote
change and improve meal quality.
Commodity Comments
The Department received close to 500 comments on various aspects
connected with the donation of commodities to schools. The majority of
these commenters were from the general public as well as the school
food service and industry arenas. Over 250 commenters indicated that a
more healthful variety of USDA commodities should be made available to
States. The majority encouraged the Department to reduce the amount of
fat, cholesterol, and/or sodium in the commodities. These and a number
of closely related comments are perhaps best characterized by the
opinion of over 50 commenters that the commodities provided to the NSLP
should comply with the Dietary Guidelines.
The Department also notes that over 100 commenters addressed the
Department's September 1993 announcement of the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable initiative. Most of the comments were supportive of the
initiative. Twenty-five commenters stressed the need to use the funds
available to schools for direct food purchases as effectively as
possible.
Miscellaneous Comments
Some commenters indicated the need to upgrade school kitchens to
allow for the storage and preparation of more nutritious meals. In line
with this objective, some commenters urged reauthorization of Federal
funding for food service equipment. Commenters also pointed to the need
for schools to disclose nutrition information so that students can make
informed choices and parents and the community would have a basis by
which to assess progress. A number of commenters cautioned against
instituting changes too rapidly and encouraged the Department to take
gradual steps. Others recommended that the Department market successful
programs to serve as models. Several commenters recommended that the
Department allow for a reimbursable snack to be served as a way to
supply the extra foods that may be required to meet nutritional
standards.
Other Comments Not Addressed in This Proposal
Finally, the Department wishes to call attention to several issues
raised by commenters that are not germane to this proposal, either
because of statutory constraints or because they address areas in which
the Department believes State agencies and school food authorities need
flexibility.
Milk and Dairy Products
The Department received over 600 comments regarding milk and dairy
products, with most comments coming from the general public, parents
and the school food service community. The majority of commenters
recommended that schools not be required to offer whole milk, with a
large number of these comments coming from the food service community.
Commenters' reasons for eliminating the whole milk requirement included
the high fat content, the perceived conflict with the Dietary
Guidelines and its higher cost. Many commenters also recommended that
non-dairy alternatives be offered in place of milk, as dairy products
are high in fat, cholesterol, and protein; contain little iron and
fiber; and, commenters claimed, are not tolerated well by many
children. Commenters also recommended that more skim, one percent, and
two percent milk be offered.
A few commenters supported maintaining the whole milk requirement,
on the grounds that children may not consume low fat alternatives and
eliminating the requirement would be costly to the Federal dairy
program. Others, while not supporting the whole milk requirement, did
caution against reducing or eliminating dairy products, as they provide
necessary calcium for growing children.
The Department wishes to call attention to the fact that the
requirements that fluid milk be available as a beverage and that whole
milk be available as an option for the NSLP, are required by section
9(a)(2) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2). Therefore, the Department
cannot deviate from these provisions by regulatory action.
Free Meals to All Children
Over 140 commenters, primarily from the school food service
community, advocated a program in which meals would be served free of
charge to all children, regardless of their families' economic status.
Such a program would eliminate the income eligibility requirements, and
all children would receive meals free of charge, regardless of their
family's income. Many indicated that such a program would reduce
paperwork, increase time for necessary nutrition-related activities,
and reduce the stigma associated with participation.
Again, however, such a revision would require specific statutory
authority in light of the requirement of section 9(b)(1)(A) of the NSLA
42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1)(A), that school meals be provided at no cost only
to those children from households with incomes of less than 130% of the
Federal Income Poverty Guidelines. The Department also notes that such
a program, implemented fully in all schools, would increase the cost of
NSLP by $7 billion if fully implemented in School Year 1996. About one-
half of this increase would be spent on higher reimbursement for meals
currently reimbursed at the fully paid and reduced price rates. In
other words, about $3.5 billion of the additional funding would be
spent even before reaching any more children.
Fast Foods, Competitive Foods, Other Foods
Several commenters were concerned with the increase of fast food
companies, fast food-like items and competitive foods of low
nutritional value that are sold in schools. Others felt that, since
fast foods are popular, their use should be increased. The Department
is not proposing any specific provisions on fast foods or competitive
foods at this time. However, it should be noted that, under this
proposal, meals claimed for reimbursement which include such foods will
be required to comply with established nutritional standards over one
week. Further, school food authorities would be required to continue to
observe the restrictions currently in the regulations prohibiting the
sale of foods of minimal nutritional value in competition with the NSLP
and SBP.
Several commenters recommended that certain kinds of foods--
principally milk, meat and processed foods--be eliminated entirely from
program meals. These recommendations were based on the assumption that
some foods are good for people and some are intrinsically bad. However,
the Department does not share this view. The Department continues to
believe that it is important to obtain essential nutrients from a
variety of foods. The Department also emphasizes that foods,
particularly those high in fat, must be eaten in moderation, but there
are no plans to prohibit any foods from school meals other than the
foods of minimal nutritional value currently enumerated in appendix B
of part 210 for the NSLP and Sec. 220.12 for the SBP.
Minimum Professional Standards
Some commenters suggested that the Department establish minimum
professional standards for local food service workers. The Department
is aware that efforts are being made to address this issue. For
example, the American School Food Service Association has developed a
program to certify food service workers. However, given the wide range
of variances in needs and resources among the 20,000 school food
authorities and 92,000 schools operating under the NSLP, as well as
varying State requirements, the Department does not believe it is
feasible to propose uniform national standards. Nevertheless, the
Department does intend to continue to provide technical assistance and
guidance to both State agencies and local school food authorities on
ways to improve food service operations.
Cash in Lieu of Commodities/Commodity Letter of Credit
Under section 18(b) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1769(b), Congress
established the Cash in Lieu of Commodities (CASH) and Commodity Letter
of Credit (CLOC) demonstration projects as a means of examining
alternatives to the current commodity distribution system for schools.
Under CASH, schools receive their per-meal commodity support
entitlement (currently $.14) in the form of a direct cash payment. CLOC
provides commodity support through a Letter of Credit which must be
used to purchase specific commodities that mirror the Department's
commodity purchases. Fifty-nine school districts participate in the
CASH/CLOC demonstration. The current project authorization expires at
the end of Fiscal Year 1994.
Several commenters supported CASH/CLOC, while a small number
opposed it. Others implicitly favored the current commodity
distribution system if more healthful commodities can be provided.
These commenters would support alternatives only in the event that the
current commodity system cannot be strengthened and improved. The
Department intends to continue and expand efforts already underway to
improve the commodity program. Moreover, the Department does not have
the statutory authority to address the CASH/CLOC issue through the
rulemaking process.
Guiding Principles and Framework for Action
Improving the nutritional standards of school meals is our national
health responsibility. There is no question that diet is linked to
health and that chronic disease often begins in childhood. Since eating
habits are firmly established by age 12, it is essential that dietary
patterns be formed early. What children eat helps determine not only
how healthy they are as children, but how healthy they will be as
adults.
Updating our nutrition standards and streamlining the
administration of school meals programs reinforces President Clinton's
priorities for health care reform and government reinvention. Five
principles are at the core of our vision and grow out of our analysis
of public comments and the participation of those who hold a stake in a
healthy future for our children. These principles are:
Healthy children: Our goal is to provide our nation's children with
access to school meal programs that promote their health, prevent
disease, and meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Customer appeal: We understand that if food doesn't look good or
taste good, children will not eat it. We must involve students,
parents, teachers, and the food and agriculture community in any change
through a national nutrition education campaign, using the media that
children and parents understand and speaking in the language that they
speak.
Flexibility: We have to reduce the burden of paperwork, streamline
reporting systems, recognize regional and economic differences and
offer schools different approaches to designing menus that meet the
Dietary Guidelines. To do this, we must use technology more
effectively.
Investing in people: We must provide schools and school food
service directors with the training and technical assistance they need
to bring about nutrition changes in the school meals programs and build
the nutrition skills of our nation's children, and thereby improve
their health.
Building partnerships: To meet our national health responsibility
to American children and to increase cost effectiveness, we must forge
partnerships throughout the public and private sectors. This includes
continuing collaborative efforts with our federal partners at the
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and building
bridges to consumer and industry groups.
Guided by these five principles, USDA constructed a comprehensive,
integrated framework for action:
I. Eating for Health: Meeting the Dietary Guidelines. School meal
nutrition standards will be updated and expanded to include the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans with standards for fat and saturated fat as
well as required nutrients. The current meal planning system which
requires that certain types of foods be served in certain quantities
will be replaced by a more flexible system that allows schools to
concentrate on serving a variety of foods in amounts that are suitable
for children.
II. Making Food Choices: Nutrition Education, Training and
Technical Assistance. It is not enough to change the food on the plate.
We must also provide the knowledge that enables children to make
choices that lead to a nutritious diet and improved health. It also is
vital that local meal providers receive training on how to improve meal
quality. This dual initiative to educate children and assist meal
providers offers many opportunities to influence both what foods are
offered by schools and what foods are eaten by children.
III. Maximizing Resources: Getting the Best Value. By marshalling
all available resources and strengthening partnerships with our state
and local cooperators, we will stretch food dollars and cut costs while
improving the nutritional profile of commodities. We will enhance
access to locally grown commodities and better use regional
agricultural resources. And we will provide assistance, training and
the power of federal purchases to help school administrators manage
school meals programs in a more cost-effective manner.
IV. Managing for the Future: Streamlined Administration. It is
necessary to reduce paperwork and administrative burdens of local
administrators. We will streamline procedures and emphasize
administrative flexibility to free state and local food program
managers to concentrate on nutrition.
The Framework for Action
The regulatory proposals that follow are intended to support the
Department's goal of promoting the long term health of children through
updating nutrition standards to include the Dietary Guidelines. In
addition, several of the proposals reflect the Administration's desire
to streamline administration of government programs through increasing
State and local flexibility and making better use of advanced
technology.
It is important to recognize, however, that these regulatory
proposals are but one part of the Department's overall plan for
improving the quality of school meals. The Guiding Principles and
Framework for Action described above grew out of public comment and the
recognition that it is not enough just to change the food served to
children on their plates. What is required is a much broader approach
that includes significant administrative actions initiated by the
Executive Branch.
For example, the Department is committed to investing in people--
both the State and local professionals who operate the program and the
children who participate in it. This investment will take the form of
nutrition education to build the skills necessary to make healthful
food choices, training for food service workers and technical
assistance. The Department has already committed existing funds toward
the development of improved recipes for school meal service, a
computerized data bank of standard nutritional values for foods served
in the school meals program, and a demonstration project on the use of
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. On the nutrition education front, the
Department has already announced a strategy that includes challenge
grants to localities to develop community-based, comprehensive
approaches to nutrition education and a nutrition publication directed
at grade school children. The Department is also assisting local school
food service professionals in working with chefs, farmers and others to
harness all of their unique skills to make school meals appealing and
healthful, and to educate children about food and cooking.
Looking to the future, the Administration's budget proposal for
Fiscal Year 1995 contains a request for $18.4 million in additional
funds to support nutrition education and technical assistance. Plans
for these funds include extensive training for local school meal
providers on how to plan and prepare nutritious and appealing meals as
well as launching a national media campaign directed at building
children's skills at making wise food choices for life-long health.
All these initiatives are being undertaken with the support of
USDA's Federal partners at DHHS and DOE. This collaboration extends to
addressing issues of common concern such as reducing redundant
paperwork requirements, integrating nutrition education into school
curriculum and exploring ways to integrate the school meals program
more fully into the school environment and into school-based health
initiatives. Within the Department, there are also plans to strengthen
ties with the Food Service Management Institute and, indeed, with
private organizations so that as many resources and as much creativity
as possible can be brought to bear on this important issue of improving
children's health through sound nutrition.
Efficient and effective government requires that the use of the
finite resources available to administer the programs be maximized.
Therefore, part of the Department's Framework for Action is to maximize
resources wherever possible. One of the important avenues to pursue in
this regard is effective use of the USDA commodity program. The
Department recognizes that commodity foods are a significant component
of the meals that are served to children and, therefore, need to be as
nutritious as possible. A wide variety of foods ranging from grain
products to fruits and vegetables to meat, poultry and fish are already
being offered. The Department plans to continue to offer this wide
array of foods. Improvement is always possible, however, and the
Department intends to intensify its review of purchase specifications
to assure that products are as low in fat and sodium as possible while
still maintaining palatability for consumers.
In addition, the USDA agencies that are key partners in delivering
commodities are working with one another, as well as with industry, to
modify labels on commodities that go to the schools to include
nutrition information, and to develop new products, like low-fat
cheeses, that will provide the schools with more flexibility to meet
the Dietary Guidelines. This latter effort will have a salutary effect
not only on the commodity program, but could also prove useful in
providing schools with a larger array of healthful products to choose
from when they make their local purchases.
Because schools do purchase significant amounts of food independent
of the commodity program, the Department is also considering various
other strategies for improving the quality and effectiveness of those
purchases. For example, a pilot test is planned for School Year 1994
with the Department of Defense to procure produce for the school meal
programs. Through this project, schools can obtain a much wider variety
of fresh produce than USDA can provide directly. The Department is also
working to facilitate interaction among schools, State Departments' of
Agriculture, small resource farmers and farmers' markets. This has
great potential for improving the quality of the foods used by those
schools that are close to particular growing areas as well as providing
important new markets for small farmers.
In summary, the Department is committed to improving the quality of
school meals and the health of the nation's children through a variety
of approaches. There is complete recognition that success can only be
achieved over time and through the efforts of the Federal government
working in concert with State and local administering agencies,
industry, the Congress, a variety of private organizations and the
ultimate beneficiaries of the school meals programs--children and their
parents.
Proposed Regulatory Changes
Expanding and Updating Nutrition Requirements
The Department's mission continues to be to carry out the declared
policy of Congress to ``safeguard the health and well-being of the
Nation's children.'' In order to meet this goal, school meals must
change to reflect the scientific consensus that is articulated in the
Dietary Guidelines. Therefore, the Department believes that current
nutrition standards must be expanded to incorporate the Dietary
Guidelines in the NSLP and SBP regulations and is proposing to amend
Secs. 210.10 and 220.8 to require that school meals meet the applicable
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines including the quantified
standards established for fat and saturated fat. Proposed regulations
would also require schools to make an effort to reduce sodium and
cholesterol, increase dietary fiber and serve a variety of foods.
A more comprehensive discussion of implementation occurs later in
this preamble, including the time frames that would be followed for the
shift to the updated nutrition standards.
While the proposed regulations would include the basic provision
that school meals meet nutrition standards over a one week menu cycle,
the proposed revision would also require meals to provide a level of
nutrients for specified age groups rather than meet minimum amounts of
specific food items for each age group as is currently required.
Sections 210.10 and 220.8, therefore, would incorporate nutrition
standards for various age/grade groups based on the RDA for the
following nutrients: Protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, and calcium
as well as the energy allowances for calories. Sections 210.10 and
220.8 would also set the maximum levels of calories from fat and
saturated fat at 30 percent and 10 percent of calories, respectively.
Although RDA have been established for more nutrients than
indicated above, the Department has chosen to monitor only those listed
because these are key nutrients that promote growth and development
which are consistent with those required in the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-535). The proposal would also
require schools to decrease the levels of sodium and cholesterol and
increase the amount of dietary fiber in school meals. The Department is
not proposing specific levels for these components, since numeric
targets are not established by the current Dietary Guidelines. However,
progress in this area could be assessed through a variety of ways
including gradual reductions in sodium, and if necessary, cholesterol
levels, and increased use of vegetables, fruits and grain products.
The Department wishes to note that the Dietary Guidelines are
designed for persons aged two and over. The Department will maintain
current meal patterns for children in the zero to eleven months and one
to two year age groups. For children who are two years old, schools
will have the option of using the minimum calorie and nutrient
requirements for school meals for children ages three-six or developing
a separate set of nutrient and calorie levels for this age group.
Finally, because compliance with the Dietary Guidelines will not be
required until School Year 1998-1999, which begins July 1, 1998, the
current meal patterns and quantities will be retained temporarily and
will be redesignated Sec. 210.10a for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8a for the
SBP. This proposal does not apply to infant meal patterns and meal
supplements; therefore, the appropriate sections of the redesignated
Sec. 210.10a and Sec. 220.8a will continue to be followed by schools
serving infants and meal supplements.
New Approaches to Menu Planning: Nutrient Standard Menu Planning and
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning
Schools must currently meet a meal pattern which specifies minimum
amounts (by age group) of the five food items which must be offered in
order to receive reimbursement for meals. An alternate approach that
provides an excellent tool for improving the nutritional quality of
school meals is Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP). Under NSMP, the
menu is developed through the nutrient analysis of all foods offered
over a school week to ensure that meals meet specific nutrition
standards for key nutrients, and meet recommended levels of fat and
saturated fat. Other dietary components that will be analyzed are
cholesterol, sodium and dietary fiber. However, the Department
recognizes that some school food authorities may not have the computer
capability or the degree of access to technical support necessary to
independently conduct NSMP. In these circumstances, the Department is
proposing to allow school food authorities to use a modified form of
NSMP entitled Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP). Use of
ANSMP would allow development and analysis of menus by other entities
while still applying the essentials of NSMP. (A more complete
discussion of ANSMP may be found later in this preamble.)
Under NSMP, the menu planner is expected to use effective
techniques to provide menus that meet the updated nutrition standards.
All menu items (i.e., any single food or combination of food) or other
foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal will be counted toward
meeting the nutrition standards. An exception to this is foods of
minimal nutritional value, as provided for in Sec. 210.11(a)(2) or
Sec. 220.12(b), which are not offered as part of a menu item in a
reimbursable meal. A definition of ``menu item'' is proposed to be
added to Sec. 210.2 and Sec. 220.2 to expand upon the current
definitions of food item and food component that are used in various
sections of the regulations concerned with point of service meal
counts. The definition would also specify that one menu item offered
must be an entree and one must be fluid milk. Further, as discussed
later in this preamble, the Department is proposing that the entree
must be selected as part of a reimbursable lunch.
Menu items will be analyzed based on production levels to more
accurately reflect the overall nutritional composition of the menu.
Menus will be planned, analyzed for nutrient content and adjusted as
needed to ensure that production and selection trends are considered
and nutrition standards are met. A discussion of NSMP software programs
and the National Nutrient Database for Child Nutrition Programs is
provided later in this preamble.
The purpose of NSMP and ANSMP is two-fold: To provide a flexible
way to plan menus using certain nutrient levels, not on limited food
items and amounts, and to measure how well meals are meeting nutrition
standards. The Department is proposing to adopt NSMP and ANSMP by
amending Sec. 210.10(k) and (l) of the regulations to incorporate NSMP
and ANSMP for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(j) and (k) for the SBP.
While school meals will be expected to comply with the updated
nutrition standards and to be planned through NSMP or ANSMP, the
Department wishes to emphasize that compliance monitoring would stress
technical assistance to enable the school to achieve the standards.
While all meals offered during a menu cycle that fail to meet the
established nutrition standards could technically be subject to an
overclaim, the regulations will require State agencies to establish
claims only when school food authorities refuse, not simply fail, to
take corrective action. It is the Department's intent that every effort
be made to provide nutritious meals to children rather than taking
punitive actions which could undermine this initiative. Further
discussion on this point may be found later in this preamble in the
section on monitoring.
Nutrition Disclosure
Since information on the nutritional composition of the menu is
readily available as a result of NSMP/ANSMP, the Department is
proposing to amend Sec. 210.10(n) to encourage school food authorities
to make public disclosure of the nutrients contained in their meals.
Many school food authorities, recognizing the benefits of nutrition
disclosure, already make this information available in the classroom,
on menus or by notifying local media. These benefits include: (1) An
increased awareness on the part of students and parents on the
nutritional quality of school meals; (2) depending on how the
information is disclosed, an enhanced ability for students and parents
to make healthful choices, and; (3) increased support for the school
meal programs through recognition of the improved quality of school
meals.
The Department recognizes the differing needs of school food
authorities, and, therefore, is not proposing to mandate nutrition
disclosure. The Department believes this information should be readily
available to students and parents without their having to request it.
In providing this information, school food authorities would take into
account local factors such as nutrition analysis capabilities and
student/parent requests. For example, the school may disclose
information either: (1) Developed through the weekly nutrient analysis
of meals; (2) based on sample meals offered each day, or; (3) provided
along with food item(s) offered in the cafeteria.
The Department also wishes to emphasize that school food
authorities that make this disclosure would not experience an
additional administrative burden. The information being disclosed is a
product of NSMP/ANSMP, and the school food authority can determine, for
itself, the most efficient means of disclosure.
Although nutrition disclosure will not be required, the Department
recognizes that many school food authorities are already providing this
information to students and parents, and strongly encourages others to
make public such information. The Department would also like to solicit
comments regarding nutrition disclosure, particularly effective
nutrition disclosure approaches; which nutrition information to
disclose; and disclosure's value as a tool to help children choose
nutritious meals.
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning
As stated above, the Department recognizes that some school food
authorities may not have the resources or capacity to independently
conduct NSMP. For these school food authorities, the optional method of
ANSMP is an alternative approach to NSMP which is proposed in
Sec. 210.10(l) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(k) for the SBP. School food
authorities would draw on the expertise of others to provide menu
cycles, adjusted for local needs and preferences. The provided menu
would be analyzed to ensure that it meets the required nutrition
standards. The menu analysis must be consistent with the local
preferences, production records, preparation techniques and food
procurement specifications. The provided menu cycles could be developed
in a variety of ways--by States, consortiums of school food
authorities, by consultants or even by the Federal government.
To ensure consistency with the nutrient analysis of the provided
menu, the following components must be standardized: Recipes, food
product specifications, and preparation techniques. To accurately
reflect the nutrient analysis of the menu as offered, the provided menu
must be analyzed and adjusted to the quantities of food prepared and
served.
In addition, the school, in conjunction with the entity providing
the menu cycle, must periodically review their application of ANSMP to
ensure the suitability of the selected menu cycle and the accuracy with
which it is being managed. (i.e., Are the prescribed procurement
specifications and preparation techniques being followed and are on-
going production adjustments made to reflect student choices, thereby
resulting in reanalysis of the menu?) It is also possible that standard
menus, recipes and procurement specifications could be provided by the
Federal government, then adjusted and reanalyzed at the State or local
level as necessary. The Department is most interested in receiving
comments regarding the usefulness of this approach.
Reimbursable Meals
Schools currently receive reimbursement for each meal served to
children that meets the requirements of the lunch or breakfast meal
pattern and, if applicable, the offer versus serve option. Basically,
the required components (meat/meat alternate, two or more servings of a
vegetable and/or fruit, bread/bread alternate and milk) must be offered
and a minimum number of items must be selected. In order to determine
if the meal chosen by the child is reimbursable, the cashier observes,
at the point of service, if the proper number of components are taken.
Under NSMP and ANSMP, a meal will be reimbursable if at least three
menu items (one must be an entree and one fluid milk) are being
offered, and if at least three menu items are selected. For
reimbursable lunches, one of the menu items selected must be an entree.
If the school participates in offer versus serve, a meal will be
reimbursable if at least three menu items are offered and two menu
items are selected. Again, for reimbursable lunches, one of these two
menu items must be an entree. For the purpose of point of service
counts, this proposal will not change the basic concept of a
reimbursable meal. Cashiers will continue to determine if the proper
number of menu items was selected and, for the lunch service, that one
of the menu items is an entree.
The reason for requiring that one of the selected items for lunch
be an entree stems from the Department's concern that the school
lunches children consume provide an adequate amount of calories and
other essential nutrients. Traditionally, the most significant
nutrition contribution in a school lunch comes from the entree.
Therefore, this proposal is being offered as a way of assuring that
children (particularly those children that participate in offer versus
serve) select and, hopefully, consume the most nutritious lunch
possible.
The Department recognizes that this proposal deviates from current
requirements which do not stipulate that the child must select an
entree for lunch. The Department would be concerned if commenters
believe this restriction inhibits the flexibility that this proposed
rule was designed to promote. For example, if children were inhibited
from selecting lunches that were consistent with ethnic or vegetarian
preferences, or if plate waste was a potential by-product. Therefore,
the Department is particularly interested in receiving comments on and
alternatives to this proposed requirement, including comments on
whether the minimum number of menu items, both in terms of the standard
meal and the offer versus serve option, is adequate even with requiring
selection of an entree for lunch.
The Department is not proposing to extend the requirement that a
reimbursable meal contain an entree to the SBP. This decision was made
due to the nature of the breakfast meal and the possible confusion that
may result by trying to define an ``entree'' for the breakfast program.
Point of Service
While implementation of the updated nutrition standards affects the
content of meals, it will not affect basic counting methodology.
Cashiers will continue to take counts at the point of service on the
basis of the number of menu items selected. Consequently, food service
personnel will be able to recognize individual reimbursable meals, as
they will not differ substantially from current practice.
In fact, under NSMP/ANSMP, point of service identification of a
reimbursable meal may be easier as cashiers would no longer need to
determine which of the required components discussed above have been
meet by a particular food item, such as a pot pie, which contains a
number of different ingredients. Under NSMP/ANSMP, a pot pie would be
the entree which is simply a required one menu item for claiming
purposes.
Preparation for Implementation of NSMP and ANSMP
The Department is currently sponsoring a demonstration project to
evaluate the optimum use of NSMP as a way for school meals to meet the
Dietary Guidelines while ensuring that students also receive needed
nutrients and calories. One of the main objectives of this
demonstration is to assist the Department in identifying the technical
assistance necessary to most efficiently and effectively implement
NSMP. This approach shifts the focus from the traditional specifics of
a meal pattern to meals containing a combination of foods that meet the
nutritional needs of school-age children, by age group, over a school
week. Under NSMP and ANSMP, school food authorities will have more
flexibility in deciding what other foods will be offered as long as the
nutrition standards are met.
The Flexibility of NSMP and ANSMP
The proposed menu development and analysis system has a number of
advantages over the current meal pattern, and the Department believes
the proposed change to adopt NSMP and ANSMP will greatly assist local
school food authorities with implementation of the proposed nutrition
standards. With NSMP and ANSMP, there is greater flexibility in food
selections and portion sizes because meals are not limited to specific
types of foods in specified portions. Further, menus with cultural or
other special preferences will be easier to design.
NSMP and ANSMP would also eliminate the need for cumbersome and
often confusing food crediting decisions such as whether taco chips or
just taco pieces could be considered as a bread alternate or whether
yogurt can be allowed as part of a reimbursable meal. The complex Child
Nutrition labeling program, which requires the Department to determine
how commercial products are credited as food components under the meal
pattern, would be substantially reduced in scope or perhaps even
eliminated entirely. More nutrient dense items could be added to menus
under NSMP, and the nutritional contributions of all foods offered to
the child can be recognized. The Department also wishes to emphasize
that all nutrients offered to the child are counted in the analysis,
including those in foods such as yogurt and desserts which do not
presently count toward a reimbursable meal. Of course, the most
important aspect of both NSMP and ANSMP is that school food authorities
will have an accurate, practical on-going means of determining if the
nutrition standards are being met.
Fortification
This proposal does not require school food authorities to
distinguish between naturally occurring nutrients and those that are
added through fortification. However, the Department is committed to
the principle that the preferred source of adequate nutrition is a meal
comprised of a variety of conventional foods, as recommended in the
Dietary Guidelines, rather than one containing formulated fortified
foods.
The Department has been unable to develop a practical method for
regulating or monitoring fortification. For example, it is virtually
impossible to calculate the amounts of nutrients added to food items
and those naturally occurring, especially for food items with numerous
ingredients. Although a comparison could be made between a fortified
item and a similar item that had no added nutrients, there may not be
an identical product on which to base the comparison.
The Department believes the standards as outlined under NSMP that
meals contain adequate calories and that at least three menu items be
offered, as well as the higher expense of engineered foods, will
inhibit excessive reliance on highly fortified foods.
The Department welcomes commenters to address the use of fortified
foods in school meal programs, particularly whether there are practical
ways to control over-use of fortification, the degree to which this
should be a concern, and potential impacts on the character of school
meals.
It should be noted that if NSMP/ANSMP is implemented on a
nationwide basis, the current regulatory requirements on the use of
alternate foods would no longer be necessary. During the interim and
where the meal patterns are still in use, these regulations would
remain in force.
Operational Aspects of NSMP and ANSMP
National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition Programs
In order to conduct nutrient analysis, data on the nutrients
contained in a wide range of foods must be available. To meet this
need, the Department has developed a centralized National Nutrient
Database to allow for accurate nutrient analysis of the menus and
recipes used in the NSLP and SBP. The National Nutrient Database
contains information on the nutritional composition of: (1) Commodities
supplied through the Department; (2) standard reference food items
which are used in the SBP and NSLP; (3) Quantity Recipes for School
Food Service developed by the Department, and; (4) convenience,
processed and pre-prepared foods from food manufacturers. The
Department is working closely with the food industry to obtain nutrient
analysis of many common food products used by schools for inclusion in
the database.
The implementation of NSMP, as opposed to ANSMP, is dependent upon
the school or school food authority's ability to analyze the nutrient
content of foods. Therefore, the Department is proposing to require
that the National Nutrient Database be incorporated into all school
food service software systems used for menu and recipe analysis under
NSMP. Under ANSMP, the database would be used by the entity providing
assistance with nutrition analysis. The Department is making the
database available free of charge to participating school food
authorities and to computer software companies to develop school food
service software programs. The database will be regularly maintained
and updated to ensure that the information is as accurate and current
as possible. School food authorities would be expected to incorporate
these updates into their own software as they are made available. It
should be noted that a preliminary version of the Department's database
is now available. Information on how to obtain it can be secured from
the Department's Child Nutrition Database Hotline at (301) 436-3536.
School Food Service Software Systems
The computer software industry has many nutrient analysis software
programs on the market. Few of these, however, are specific to the
school programs and do not contain the types of foods, descriptions,
weights and measurements used in these programs. Moreover, the results
of nutrient analysis can vary dramatically depending on which software
package is being used. Nutrient analysis must be based on standardized
specifications to ensure accuracy. Therefore, the Department has also
developed software specifications for NSMP. The overall objective of
any software system used for this purpose is to adapt advanced data
automation technology to simplify completion of the mathematical and
analytical tasks associated with NSMP. The software specifications
include menu planning, nutritional analysis of menus and recipes, and
data management reports presented in a comprehensive, simplified and
user-friendly manner. To ensure that school food authorities are using
a software package which meets the Department's specifications, school
food authorities will be required to use a software system that has
been evaluated by FNS and, as submitted, been determined to meet the
minimum requirements established by FNS. However, such review does not
constitute endorsement by FNS or USDA. This proposed requirement is
found in Sec. 210.10(k)(1)(ii) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8(j)(1)(ii)
for the SBP.
Use of Weighted Averages
Some food items are more popular than others and, thus, will be
selected by school children more frequently. To accurately perform an
assessment of the nutritional composition of reimbursable meals
offered, nutrient analysis must be based on production levels of foods
offered, as production levels are an indication of foods actually
selected. For example, a menu item which is chosen frequently (and
therefore more portions are prepared) will contribute more nutrients to
the meal than a menu item chosen less frequently.
The calculation method for computing a weighted nutritional
analysis will require the school food authority to enter the following
information into the selected software program the menu item; portion
size; projected servings of each menu item; and the projected number of
reimbursable meals each day for the school week. It should be noted
that the software specifications discussed above are designed to easily
perform weighting calculations. This provision is proposed in
Sec. 210.10 (k)(2) and Sec. 210.10 (k)(4) for the NSLP and Sec. 220.8
(j)(2) and (j)(4).
Definition of School Week
A new definition would be added for ``school week'' to indicate
that, for NSMP and ANSMP, a minimum of three days and a maximum of
seven days must be included. This is because the nutrition analysis is
proposed to be an average of the reimbursable meals served over the
course of a week. To ensure common understanding of the terms NSMP and
ANSMP, a proposed definition would be added to Sec. 210.2 and
Sec. 220.2 explaining the term ``school week.''
Transition to NSMP and ANSMP
The Department recognizes that school food authorities will need
technical assistance in order to implement these changes efficiently.
The Department is conducting NSMP demonstration projects in several
school food authorities, and the ongoing experiences gained from these
will be shared as part of the overall assistance to school food
authorities to phase in NSMP and ANSMP.
The Department also plans to provide extensive training and
technical assistance to State and local agencies as they prepare to
implement NSMP and ANSMP. As noted earlier in this preamble, the
Department has requested specific funding in the Administration's
Fiscal Year 1995 budget for this purpose as well as to fund other
technical assistance and nutrition education activities. Other projects
to support the move towards updated nutrition standards are already
being undertaken within existing resources, including modification of
more than fifty recipes to include more fruits, vegetables, and grain
products and to decrease fat levels, and collaboration with the
National Food Service Management Institute. Finally, the Department is
committed to working with State agencies to target Nutrition Education
and Training (NET) resources more intensely toward implementation of
the Dietary Guidelines.
This proposed regulation would require school food authorities to
adopt the updated nutrition standards and NSMP or ANSMP no later than
July 1, 1998, the start of School Year 1998-99. However, school food
authorities are encouraged to begin working towards full implementation
of the updated nutrition standards as soon as practicable after
publication of a final rule or to even use NSMP, ANSMP, or nutrient-
based menu analysis in conjunction with the current meal patterns prior
to the effective date.
State agencies would need to determine when school food authorities
are ready to begin NSMP or ANSMP and would, of course, provide training
and technical assistance to help school food authorities whenever they
begin implementing this procedure. In determining when to begin NSMP in
a particular school or school food authority, States should evaluate
their capabilities both in terms of computer technology and
availability of other technical resources. States will also need to
evaluate implementation on an on-going basis to determine if any
adjustments are needed and to provide support when start-up
difficulties occur. The Department is not establishing a specific
procedure for determining the readiness of school food authorities to
phase in NSMP or ANSMP. Rather, the Department believes State agencies
are in the best position to determine if a school food authority is
ready to begin the shift to NSMP or ANSMP and will be able to respond
to the wide range of situations that may occur and to concentrate on
achieving the goal. This approach frees State agencies from assuring
that a particular process is followed and allows them the flexibility
to invest their time and efforts as they judge best.
Monitoring Compliance With Updated Nutrition Standards
The Department also proposes to modify the monitoring requirements
to include compliance with the updated nutrition standards. Currently,
states monitor compliance with meal pattern components and quantities
on a per-meal basis. On the day of a review, the lunch service is
observed to ensure that all required food items are offered and, if
applicable, that children accept the minimum number of components
stipulated both under the standard meal service and the offer versus
serve option. Meal services that offer fewer than the five required
food items are disallowed for Federal reimbursement, as are meals for
which the child has not taken the minimum number of items under the
offer versus serve option. States also examine menus and production
records for the review period to ensure that all components were
available, and that sufficient quantities were offered. Thus, a direct
correlation exists between the meal service offered and the meals taken
on a given day and the allowable reimbursement for those meals.
Under NSMP and ANSMP, Federal reimbursement will continue to be
predicated upon similar factors. As noted earlier in this preamble,
under NSMP and ANSMP, schools will continue to offer a minimum number
of menu items, and children must accept a minimum number of items.
Meals which do not meet these requirements will not be eligible for
reimbursement. However, to allow school food authorities adequate time
to move towards full implementation of NSMP or ANSMP, school food
authorities that implement prior to School Year 1998-1999 will be
exempt from Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) Performance Standard 2 on
reimbursable meals containing the required food items/components in
Sec. 210.18(g)(2) if they are scheduled for an administrative review
prior to School Year 1998-1999.
Under this proposal, in addition to meeting the minimums for the
number of menu items, the reimbursable meals offered over a school week
must also collectively meet the updated nutrition standards
established. To determine compliance with the nutrition standards,
State agencies will need to closely examine school food authority's
nutrient analysis in the course of a review. While this is a much more
precise examination than in past practice, it continues the concept of
ensuring that the entire food service, not just an individual meal,
conforms to program requirements. State agencies must also observe the
meal service to determine if meals claimed for reimbursement contain
the appropriate number and type of menu items. The Department is
proposing to amend Sec. 210.19, Additional Responsibilities, to outline
review requirements for nutrition standards. The Department is
proposing to add the compliance requirements for the nutrition
standards to this section rather than to Sec. 210.18, Administrative
Reviews, in order to allow for operational experience and corrective
action prior to any imposition of fiscal action.
State Agency Responsibilities
The following summarizes the State agency's responsibilities under
the Department's proposal for general program management, including
taking fiscal action against school food authorities that consistently
refuse to meet program requirements. While State agencies would
probably combine a determination of how the nutrition standards and
NSMP/ANSMP are being met with the cyclical administrative review, the
Department is also proposing to provide State agencies with flexibility
to conduct these important evaluations at other times such as during
technical assistance visits or even as a separate, special assessment.
However, assessments of compliance with the nutrition standards must be
conducted no less frequently than administrative reviews.
As proposed by the Department, State agencies would assess the
nutrient analyses for the last completed school week. The purpose would
be to determine if the school food authority is applying the correct
methodology and is properly conducting the NSMP or ANSMP based on the
actual menu cycle including any substitutions. The State agency would
also review the menus and production records to determine if they
correspond to the information used to conduct NSMP or ANSMP.
Corrective Action
If it is indicated that the school food authority is not conducting
NSMP accurately or properly applying ANSMP, if the school week's meals,
as offered, do not comply with nutrition standards, or if the meal
observation identified a significant number of meals that did not meet
the definition of a reimbursable meal, the school food authority would
be required to take appropriate corrective action to achieve
compliance. However, at this time, no claim would be established if the
failure to comply was not intentional. (Intentional violations are
discussed later in this preamble.)
Pursuant to section 16(b) of the CNA, 42 U.S.C. 1785(b), the
Secretary of Agriculture is given authority to settle, adjust or waive
any claims under both the NSLA or the CNA if to do so would serve the
purposes of either Act. The Department recognizes that the transition
to NSMP and ANSMP will not in every instance be completed without
problems and unforeseen circumstances to be surmounted. The Department
expects State agencies to act quickly to rectify any problems found and
to monitor any corrective action undertaken. In the interests of
facilitating the transition to NSMP/ANSMP, the Secretary is proposing
to exercise his authority to settle, adjust and waive claims by not
requiring State agencies to disallow payment or collect overpayments
resulting from meals which do not meet the nutrition standards of the
regulations as long as State agencies are satisfied that such
deviations from the nutrition standards were not intentional and that
the school food authority is working towards successful completion of a
acceptable corrective action plan in a timely manner.
The Department stresses that this proposal does not establish
specific steps or time frames for corrective action. State agencies, as
a result of their evaluation of the school food authority, are in the
best position to establish corrective action goals and time frames,
working in partnership with local school food authorities. The
Department believes that State agencies and school food authorities
need flexibility in developing a corrective action plan and is,
therefore, providing such flexibility in this proposal. Further, in
recognition of the fact that timely and effective corrective action is
in the best interest of all, the Department intends to incorporate
review of this area into its management evaluation activities at the
State level.
The Department would like to once again emphasize that, under this
proposal, compliance with the updated nutrition standards is of
paramount importance. First, corrective action will be required if a
meal service does not meet the nutrition standards. The State agency
cannot overlook these shortcomings and must ensure that the meal
service is improved as stipulated in the corrective action plan.
Secondly, the State will be required to monitor the school's corrective
action efforts. In most cases, monitoring would include reviewing
production records, menus and computer analyses submitted by the school
food authority and providing any support indicated by such a review.
When a school food authority refuses to make a good faith effort to
comply with the terms of the corrective action plan, the State agency
would be required to establish a claim.
Exception to Claim Establishment
Under this proposal, State agencies would require corrective action
for meals not meeting the nutrition standards, but would receive
reimbursement for those meals. This procedure represents a significant
means of easing the transition to and operation of the updated
nutrition standards. Section 8 of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1757, and section
4(b)(1)(D) of the CNA, 42 U.S.C. 1773 (b)(1)(D), clearly provide that
reimbursement for meals served is available only for those meals that
meet Program requirements. Further, section 12(g) of the NSLA, 42
U.S.C. 1760(g), continues to provide for Federal criminal penalties for
certain intentional Program violations under either the NSLA or the
CNA. The Department is concerned that the corrective action provision
not be construed by State agencies or school food authorities as an
invitation to relax efforts to comply with the nutritional or
administrative review requirements of Secs. 210.10, 210.10a, 210.18 and
210.19. The institution of corrective action would not be a sufficient
remedy by itself in an instance in which a State agency determined that
school officials had intentionally failed to meet the nutrition
standards required by NSMP. In these situations, while the State agency
would initiate corrective action, it must also disallow claims for
reimbursement for the substandard meals and, in very severe cases,
consider referring the matter to the Department for criminal
prosecution.
While continued refusal to take corrective action could result in
loss of Federal funding, this provision is not intended to be punitive
when school food authorities are acting in good faith to comply with
the nutrition standards. The Department is far more concerned about
correcting these situations than it is with pursuing fiscal action. The
Department's foremost goal is to ensure that children are provided with
the most nutritious meals possible. Consequently, the emphasis in this
process is on corrective action and technical assistance. If school
food authorities implement appropriate corrective action and make
satisfactory progress toward compliance, no fiscal action would be
required.
Streamlined Administration
The Department is also proposing to streamline program
administration by allowing State agencies and school food authorities
flexibility in three important areas. The first provision would extend
the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE) review cycle from 4 to 5 years. The
Department's experience with CRE indicates that a one-year extension in
the cycle would not adversely affect accountability, but it would
result in a 20 percent decrease in the number of reviews currently
conducted in any given year. While the exact reduction in burden would
vary from State to State, the Department expects this decrease would
provide the States with additional flexibility to enable them to
continue to improve school meals. Section 210.18(c) is proposed to be
amended to include this change.
The second provision eliminates the regulatory requirement for a
specific type of edit check on daily meal counts contained in
Sec. 210.8(a)(2) for schools where the most recent CRE review did not
identify meal counting and claiming problems. Currently, the edit check
provision requires that each school food authority compare each
school's daily meal count with data such as the number of children
eligible for free, reduced price or paid meals multiplied by an
attendance factor. This check is intended to ensure that monthly claims
for reimbursement are based on reasonable and accurate counts of meals
offered on any day of operation to eligible children.
The Department believes, however, that school food authorities that
have demonstrated, through the CRE review, the accuracy of their meal
counts and claims should be provided an optional approach to specific
edit checks. This proposal would establish a system whereby these
school food authorities could develop and implement their own systems
of internal controls designed to ensure the accuracy of claims for
reimbursement. This system would then be submitted to the State agency
for review. If the State agency's review determined that the proposed
method constituted an accurate internal control, no further action
would be required, and the school food authority's own proposed
internal controls would remain in effect. However, if the State agency
concluded that the suggested system of internal controls was
inadequate, the school food authority would be required to modify its
procedures accordingly. In addition, if during the course of a CRE
review or other oversight activity of the school food authority, it is
determined that the internal controls were ineffective, the specific,
regulatory edit check would replace their system until a future
regularly scheduled CRE review indicates there are no meal count
problems.
This proposal would virtually eliminate the requirement for a
specific edit check for school food authorities with accurate meal
counts and claims measured by the CRE review and replace it with a more
flexible procedure to allow these school food authorities to design and
implement a system that is streamlined for their particular
circumstances. However, this proposal also maintains the necessary
specificity of an edit check for school food authorities found to have
meal counting and claiming violations. Further it provides for State
agency oversight of accountability procedures and a ready mechanism, if
needed, to substitute a Federally-defined procedure to ensure accurate
claims for reimbursement. The Department believes that program
integrity must be maintained by requiring specific criteria when review
results indicate problems or failure of the school food authority's
alternative system. Section 210.8(a)(2) and (a)(3) would be modified to
reflect these proposed changes.
The Department is especially interested in receiving comments on
this provision. Commenters should address the flexibility this proposed
provision allows well-managed school food authorities and any
implementation issues this poses. In addition, the Department would be
interested in receiving alternative proposals that would accomplish the
desired balance between local flexibility and sound accountability.
The third area that the Department is addressing to reduce
paperwork at the school food authority level is the requirement in
Sec. 210.15(b)(4) that distinct records be maintained to document the
nonprofit status of the school food service. These records are the
accounts which any enterprise needs to maintain in the normal course of
conducting business (i.e., receipts, costs, etc.). Therefore, since
these kinds of records are a necessary part of a school food
authority's own accountability system and, in many cases, are required
by State laws, the Department does not consider it necessary for the
program regulations to mandate this recordkeeping requirement. It is
important to emphasize that the school food authority would still have
to be operated on a nonprofit basis. This proposal is only amending the
requirements for documentation of nonprofitability. This proposal would
amend Sec. 210.14(c) and Sec. 210.15(b) to include this change. In the
event that a question or dispute arises in connection with whether a
nonprofit school food service has been properly operated, the burden of
proof still be upon the school food authority to demonstrate that the
school food service is being operated on a nonprofit basis.
Length of Meal Periods
As noted above, many commenters expressed concern that children be
given sufficient time in which to eat, particularly if larger portion
sizes are to be served. The Department also recognizes the need to
balance the time for academics with the time to receive and eat school
meals, especially lunch. Although the Department has no authority in
this area, school food service directors are strongly encouraged to
work with other school officials to ensure that adequate meal service
times and facilities are provided. Likewise, the Department will
continue to work with DOEd to solicit support in the education
community to ensure that educators and school administrators understand
the importance of students having adequate time to eat.
To indicate its concern in this area, the Department is proposing,
in Sec. 210.10(i), to recommend that school food authorities make every
effort to provide adequate meal service times and periods to ensure
that students can effectively participate in the school lunch program.
Changes to the School Breakfast Program Nutritional Requirements
In order to facilitate uniform implementation, the Department is
also proposing to amend the nutritional requirements of the SBP to
parallel the changes made to the nutritional requirements of the NSLP.
The current Sec. 220.8 would be redesignated as Sec. 220.8a to retain
the requirements that would be in effect until implementation of the
updated nutrition standards on July 1, 1998, while Sec. 220.8 would
contain provisions on nutrition standards, NSMP and ANSMP for the SBP.
The major differences for the SBP are that fewer calories are
required and one-fourth of the RDA are to be met. A new guide would be
incorporated into Sec. 220.8 to indicate the nutrition standards
required for the SBP. In addition, separate analyses for SBP and NSLP
would be required to meet the different nutrition standards for each
program. As previously discussed, a reimbursable meal under the SBP
will not be required to contain an entree.
Effective Dates
As discussed earlier, this proposal requires school food
authorities to serve meals through the use of NSMP or ANSMP and be in
compliance with updated nutrition standards by School Year 1998-1999
which begins on July 1, 1998. The Department believes this schedule
provides sufficient time to enable States to develop appropriate
technical assistance and guidance materials, to allow local food
service staff to become familiar with the updated requirements and to
make appropriate changes in meals. There would be no mandate for school
food authorities to implement the required changes prior to July 1,
1998. In the interest of promoting children's long-term health through
diet, the Department encourages State agencies to work with school food
authorities to implement as soon as possible and, in fact, as discussed
earlier, expects State agencies to approve plans for early
implementation. The Department considers that early implementation will
also provide both State agencies and school food authorities with
valuable experience before mandatory implementation.
To encourage early implementation, compliance activities described
above will not take effect before School Year 1998-1999. In the interim
period, reviews and oversight activities that focus on the food service
portion of program operations will provide excellent opportunities for
technical assistance and for State agencies to assess preparation for
full implementation. All other changes in this rule, including the
paperwork reductions and streamlined administration methods, could be
implemented 30 days after final publication of the final rule.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs,
Grants programs--social programs, National School Lunch Program,
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
7 CFR Part 220
Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--social
programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School
Breakfast Program.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210 and 220 are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.
2. In Sec. 210.2:
a. The definition of ``Food component'' is amended by adding the
words ``under Sec. 210.10a'' at the end of the sentence;
b. The definition of ``Food item'' is amended by adding the words
``under Sec. 210.10a'' at the end of the sentence;
c. The definition of ``Lunch'' is revised;
d. A new definition of ``Menu item'' is added in alphabetical
order;
e. A new definition of ``Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning'' is added in alphabetical order;
f. The definition of ``Reimbursement'' is amended by adding the
words ``or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable,'' after
``Sec. 210.10''; and
g. A new definition of ``School Week'' is added in alphabetical
order.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 210.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Lunch means a meal which meets the nutrient and calorie levels
designated in Sec. 210.10 or the school lunch pattern for specified
age/grade groups as designated in Sec. 210.10a.
Menu item means, under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, any single food or combination of
foods. All menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal
may be considered as contributing towards meeting the nutrition
standards provided in Sec. 210.10(a), except for those foods that are
considered as foods of minimal nutritional value as provided for in
Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not offered as part of a menu item in a
reimbursable meal. For the purposes of a reimbursable lunch, a minimum
of three menu items must be offered, one of which must be an entree (a
combination of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main
course) and one must be fluid milk. For the purposes of a reimbursable
lunch, one of the selected menu items must be an entree. Under the
offer versus serve option, three menu items must be offered and an
entree and one other menu item must be selected.
* * * * *
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning means a way to develop meals which is based on the analysis of
nutrients which would require school lunches, when averaged over a
school week, to meet specific levels for a set of key nutrients and
calories rather than a specific set of food categories. Analysis of the
menu items and foods shall be based on averages that will be weighted
by production quantities as offered to the students. Such analysis is
normally done by a school or a school food authority. However, for the
purposes of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, menu planning and
analysis are completed by other entities and shall incorporate the
production quantities needed to accommodate the specific service
requirements of a particular school or school food authority.
* * * * *
School week means the period of time used as the basis for
determining nutrient levels of the menu and for conducting Nutrient
Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for
lunches. The period shall be a minimum of three days and a maximum of
seven days. Weeks in which school lunches are offered less than three
times shall be combined with either the previous or the coming week.
* * * * *
Sec. 210.4 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 210.4, paragraph (b)(3) introductory text is amended by
removing the words ``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in
their place the words ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''.
Sec. 210.7 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 210.7:
a. Paragraph (c)(1)(v) is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10(b) of this part'' and adding in its place the words
``Sec. 210.10(a) or Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable,''; and
b. Paragraph (d) is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in its place the
reference ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''.
5. In Sec. 210.8:
a. The third sentence of paragraph (a)(2) is removed and new
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) are added;
b. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised;
c. The first sentence of paragraph (a)(4) is amended by removing
the words ``review process described in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of
this section'' and adding in their place the words ``the internal
controls used by schools in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this
section or the claims review process used by schools in accordance with
paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3) of this section''; and
d. The first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(i) is amended by removing
the reference to ``paragraph (a)(2)'' and adding in its place a
reference to ``paragraph (a)(3)'' and by adding at the end of the
sentence the words ``or the internal controls used by schools in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section''.
The revision and additions reads as follows:
210.8 Claims for reimbursement.
(a) Internal controls. * * *
(2) School food authority claims review process. * * *
(i) Any school food authority that was found by its most recent
administrative review conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18, to have
no meal counting and claiming violations may:
(A) Develop internal control procedures that ensure accurate meal
counts. The school food authority shall submit any internal controls
developed in accordance with this paragraph to the State agency for
approval and, in the absence of specific disapproval from the State
agency, shall implement such internal controls. The State agency shall
establish procedures to promptly notify school food authorities of any
modifications needed to their proposed internal controls or of denial
of unacceptable submissions. If the State agency disapproves the
proposed internal controls of any school food authority, it reserves
the right to require the school food authority to comply with the
provisions of paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or
(B) Comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this
section.
(ii) Any school food authority that was identified in the most
recent administrative review conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18,
or in any other oversight activity, as having meal counting and
claiming violations shall comply with the requirements in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section.
(3) Edit checks. (i) The following procedure shall be followed for
school food authorities identified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
section, by other school food authorities at State agency option, or,
at their own option, by school food authorities identified in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section: The school food authority shall compare each
school's daily counts of free, reduced price and paid lunches against
the product of the number of children in that school currently eligible
for free, reduced price and paid lunches, respectively, times an
attendance factor.
(ii) School food authorities that are identified in subsequent
administrative reviews conducted in accordance with Sec. 210.18 as not
having meal counting and claiming violations and that are correctly
complying with the procedures in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section
have the option of developing internal controls in accordance with
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 210.9 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 210.9:
a. Paragraph (b)(5) is amended by adding the words ``or
Sec. 210.10a, whichever is applicable'' at the end of the paragraph
before the semicolon;
b. Paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the
reference to ``Sec. 210.10(j)(1) of this part'' and adding in its place
the reference ``Sec. 210.10a(j)(1)''; and
c. Paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place the reference ``Sec. 210.10a''.
Sec. 210.10 [Redesignated as Sec. 210.10a]
7. Section 210.10 is redesignated as Sec. 210.10a.
8. A new section 210.10 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 210.10 Nutrition standards for lunches and menu planning systems.
(a) Nutrition standards for reimbursable lunches. School food
authorities shall ensure that participating schools provide nutritious
and well-balanced meals to children based on the nutrition standards
provided in this section or, if applicable, for very young children and
meal supplements, the appropriate provisions of Sec. 210.10a. For the
purposes of this section, the nutrition standards are:
(1) Provision of one-third of the Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDA) of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C to the
applicable age groups in accordance with the Minimum Nutrient Levels
for School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section;
(2) Provision of the lunchtime energy allowances for children based
on the four age groups provided for in the Minimum Nutrient Levels for
School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4) of this section;
(3) The applicable 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are:
(i) Eat a variety of foods;
(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of calories;
(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of calories;
(iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;
(v) Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain
products; and
(vi) Use salt and sodium in moderation; and
(4) The following measures of compliance with the 1990 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans:
(i) A limit on the percent of calories from total fat to 30 percent
based on the actual number of calories offered;
(ii) A limit on the percent of calories from saturated fat to less
than 10 percent based on the actual number of calories offered;
(iii) A reduction of the levels of sodium and cholesterol; and
(iv) An increase in the level of dietary fiber.
(b) General requirements for school lunches. (1) In order to
qualify for reimbursement, lunches, as offered by participating
schools, shall, at a minimum, meet the nutrition standards provided in
paragraph (a) of this section when averaged over each school week.
Except as otherwise provided herein, school food authorities shall
ensure that sufficient quantities menu items and foods are planned and
produced to meet, at a minimum, the nutrition standards in paragraph
(a) of this section.
(2) School food authorities shall ensure that each lunch is priced
as a unit and that lunches are planned and produced on the basis of
participation trends, with the objective of providing one reimbursable
lunch per child per day. Any excess lunches that are produced may be
offered, but shall not be claimed for general or special cash
assistance provided under Sec. 210.4.
(c) Requirements for meals served to infants and very young
children (birth to 24 months of age). Meals for infants from birth to 2
years of age shall meet the requirements in Sec. 210.10a (a), (c), (d)
and (h).
(d) Specific nutrient levels for children age 2. Schools with
children age 2 who participate in the program shall ensure that the
nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section are met except
that, such schools have the option of either using the RDA and calorie
levels for children ages 3-6 in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for
School Lunches, in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section, or developing
separate nutrient levels for this age group. The methodology for
determining such levels will be available in menu planning guidance
material provided by FNS.
(e) Requirements for meals for children ages 3-17--(1) General. In
order to receive reimbursement, school food authorities shall ensure
that participating schools offer lunches which meet the nutrition
standards provided in paragraph (a) of this section to children age
three and over.
(2) Nutrient levels. The nutrients of reimbursable lunches shall,
as offered and as averaged over each school week, meet the requirements
in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches, in paragraph
(e)(4)(i) of this section for children of the appropriate age group.
(3) Records. Production, menu and nutritional analysis records
shall be maintained by schools to demonstrate that lunches meet, when
averaged over each school week, the nutrition standards provided in
paragraph (a) of this section and the nutrient levels for children of
each age group in the table Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches
in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section.
(4) Specific nutrient levels for children ages 3-17. (i) Schools
that are able to offer meals to children based on nutrient levels
reflecting one of the four age levels in the table in this paragraph
should do so. Schools that cannot offer meals to children on the basis
of the age levels in the table in this paragraph shall, under Nutrient
Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,
adjust the established levels following guidance provided by FNS, or,
if only one age is outside the established level, use the levels
provided in the table for the majority of children. For example, a
school has grades one through five, but if some first graders are six,
the levels for Group II would be used as the majority of students are
in this age group. Schools shall ensure that lunches are offered with
the objective of providing the per lunch minimums for each age level as
specified in the following table:
Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Lunches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Group II Group III Group IV
Nutrients and energy ages 3-6 ages 7-10 ages 11-13 ages 14-17
allowances years years years years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy allowance/
Calories........... 558 667 783 846
Total Fat (as a
percent of actual
total food energy). (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Total Saturated Fat
(as a percent of
actual total food
energy)............ (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
RDA for protein (g). 7.3 9.3 15.0 16.7
RDA for calcium (mg) 267 267 400 400
RDA for iron (mg)... 3.3 3.3 4.5 4.5
RDA for vitamin A
(RE)............... 158 233 300 300
RDA for vitamin C
(mg)............... 14.6 15.0 16.7 19.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than or equal to 30% of actual calories offered.
\2\Less than 10% of actual calories offered.
(ii) A reimbursable lunch shall include a minimum of three menu
items as defined in Sec. 210.2; one menu item shall be an entree and
one shall be fluid milk as a beverage. An entree may be a combination
of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main course. All
menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal may be
considered as contributing towards meeting the nutrition standards in
paragraph (a) of this section, except for those foods that are
considered foods of minimal nutritional value as provided for in
Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not offered as part of a menu item in a
reimbursable meal. Reimbursable lunches, as offered, shall meet the
established nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section when
averaged over a school week.
(f) Milk requirement for children ages 2-17. Schools shall comply
with the requirements for offering milk as provided for in
Sec. 210.10a(d)(1).
(g) Offer versus serve. Each participating school shall offer its
students at least three menu items as required by paragraph (e)(4)(ii)
of this section. Under offer versus serve, senior high students are
required to take at least two of the three menu items offered; one menu
item selected must be an entree. At the discretion of the school food
authority, students below the senior high level may also participate in
offer versus serve. The price of a reimbursable lunch shall not be
affected if a student declines a menu item or accepts smaller portions.
State educational agencies shall define ``senior high.''
(h) Choice. To provide variety and to encourage consumption and
participation, schools should, whenever possible, offer a selection of
menu items, foods and types of milk from which children may make
choices. When a school offers a selection of more than one type of
lunch or when it offers a variety of menu items, foods and milk for
choice as a reimbursable lunch, the school shall offer all children the
same selection regardless of whether the children are eligible for free
or reduced price lunches or pay the school food authority's designated
full price. The school may establish different unit prices for each
type of lunch offered provided that the benefits made available to
children eligible for free or reduced price lunches are not affected.
(i) Lunch period. At or about mid-day schools shall offer lunches
which meet the requirements of this section during a period designated
as the lunch period by the school food authority. Such lunch periods
shall occur between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., unless otherwise exempted by
FNS. With state approval, schools that serve children 1-5 years old are
encouraged to divide the service of the meal into two distinct service
periods. Such schools may divide the quantities and/or menu items or
foods offered between these service periods in any combination that
they choose. Schools are also encouraged to provide an adequate number
of lunch periods of sufficient length to ensure that all students have
an opportunity to be served and have ample time to consume their meals.
(j) Exceptions. Lunches claimed for reimbursement shall meet the
school lunch requirements specified in this section. However, lunches
offered which accommodate the exceptions and variations authorized
under Sec. 210.10a(i) are also reimbursable.
(k) Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for children age 2-17. In order
to assure that school lunches meet the nutrition standards provided in
paragraph (a) of this section, nutrient analysis shall be conducted on
all menu items or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal,
except for those foods that are considered as foods of minimal
nutritional value as provided for in Sec. 210.11(a)(2) which are not
offered as part of a menu item in a reimbursable meal. Such analysis
shall be over the course of each school week. The school food authority
shall either independently conduct Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or
shall request that the State agency allow Assisted Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning.
(l) The National Nutrient Database and software specifications. (i)
Nutrient analysis shall be based on information provided in the
National Nutrient Database for Child Nutrition Programs. This database
shall be incorporated into software used to conduct nutrient analysis.
Upon request, FNS will provide information about the database to
software companies that wish to develop school food service software
systems.
(ii) Any software used to conduct nutrient analysis shall be
evaluated by FNS and, as submitted, been determined to meet the minimum
requirements established by FNS. However, such review does not
constitute endorsement by FNS or USDA. Such software shall provide the
capability to perform all functions required after the basic data has
been entered including calculation of weighted averages as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(2) Determination of weighted averages. (i) Menu items and foods
offered as part of a reimbursable meal shall be analyzed based on
portion sizes and projected serving amounts and shall be weighted based
on their proportionate contribution to the meals. Therefore, menu items
or foods more frequently selected will contribute more nutrients than
menu items or foods which are less frequently selected. Such weighting
shall be done in accordance with guidance issued by FNS as well as that
provided by the software used.
(ii) An analysis of all menu items and foods offered in the menu
over each school week shall be computed for calories and for each of
the following nutrients: protein; vitamin A; vitamin C; iron; calcium;
total fat; saturated fat; and sodium. The analysis shall also include
the dietary components of cholesterol and dietary fiber.
(3) Comparing average daily levels. Once the appropriate procedures
of paragraph (k)(2) of this section have been completed, the results
shall be compared to the appropriate age group level for each nutrient
and for calories in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for School
Lunch, in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section. In addition, comparisons
shall be made to the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (a) of
this section in order to determine the degree of conformity.
(4) Adjustments based on students' selections. The results obtained
under paragraph (k)(2) of this section shall be used to adjust future
menu cycles to accurately reflect production and student selections.
Menus may require further analysis and comparison, depending on the
results obtained in paragraph (k)(3) of this section when production
and selection patterns change. The school food authority may need to
consider modifications to the menu items and foods offered based on
student selections as well as modifications to recipes and other
specifications to ensure that the nutrition standards provided in
paragraph (a) of this section are met.
(5) Standardized recipes. Under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,
standardized recipes shall be developed and followed. A standardized
recipe is one that was tested to provide an established yield and
quantity through the use of ingredients that remain constant in both
measurement and preparation methods. USDA/FNS standardized recipes are
included in the National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition
Programs. In addition, local standardized recipes used by school food
authorities shall be analyzed for their calories, nutrients and dietary
components and added to the local database by that school food
authority in accordance with paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this section.
(6) Processed foods. Unless already included in the National
Nutrient Database, the calorie amounts, nutrients and dietary
components, in accordance with paragraph (k)(3) of this section, of
purchased processed foods and menu items used by the school food
authority shall be obtained by the school food authority or State
agency and incorporated into the database at the local level in
accordance with FNS guidance.
(7) Substitutions. If the need for serving a substitute food(s) or
menu item(s) occurs at least two weeks prior to serving the planned
menu, the revised menu shall be reanalyzed based on the changes. If the
need for serving a substitute food(s) or menu item(s) occurs two weeks
or less prior to serving the planned menu, no reanalysis is required.
However, to the extent possible, substitutions should be made using
similar foods.
(l) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) For school food
authorities without the capability to conduct Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning, as provided in paragraph (k) of this section, menu cycles
developed by other sources may be used. Such sources may include but
are not limited to the State agency, other school food authorities,
consultants, or food service management companies.
(2) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning shall establish menu
cycles that have been developed in accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)
through (k)(6) of this section as well as local food preferences and
local food service operations. These menu cycles shall incorporate the
nutrition standards in paragraph (a) of this section and the Minimum
Nutrient Levels for School Lunches in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this
section. In addition to the menu cycle, recipes, food product
specifications and preparation techniques shall also be developed and
provided by the entity furnishing Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning to ensure that the menu items and foods offered conform to the
nutrient analysis determinations of the menu cycle.
(3) If a school food authority requests Assisted Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning, the State agency shall determine if it is warranted. At
the inception of any approved use of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning, the State agency shall approve the initial menu cycle,
recipes, and other specifications to determine that all required
elements for correct nutrient analysis are incorporated. The State
agency shall also, upon request, provide assistance with implementation
of the chosen system.
(4) After initial service under the Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning menu cycle, the nutrient analysis shall be reassessed in
accordance with paragraph (k)(2) of this section and appropriate
adjustments made.
(5) Under Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, the school food
authority retains final responsibility for ensuring that all nutrition
standards established in paragraph (a) of this section are met.
(m) Compliance with the nutrition standards. If the analysis
conducted in accordance with paragraphs (k) or (l) of this section
shows that the menus offered are not meeting the nutrition standards in
paragraph (a) of this section, actions, including technical assistance
and training, shall be taken by the State agency, school food
authority, or school, as appropriate, to ensure that the lunches
offered to children comply with the nutrition standards established by
paragraph (a) of this section.
(n) Nutrition disclosure. School food authorities are encouraged to
make information available indicating efforts to meet the nutrition
standards in paragraph (a) of this section, such as publicizing the
results of the nutrient analysis of the school week menu cycle.
(o) Supplemental food. Eligible schools operating after school care
programs may be reimbursed for one meal supplement offered to an
eligible child (as defined in Sec. 210.2) per day. Meal supplements
shall conform to the provisions set forth in Sec. 210.10a(j).
(p) Implementation of the nutrition standards and Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) No later
than School Year 1998-99, school food authorities shall ensure that
lunches offered to children ages 2 and above by participating schools
meet the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) Further, no later than School Year 1998-99, school food
authorities shall ensure that Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, or
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, where applicable, is applied
to lunches offered by participating schools.
(3) Schools and/or school food authorities may begin to implement
any or all of the provisions of this section before School Year 1998-99
with prior approval of the State agency. In these situations, State
agencies shall evaluate the ability of school food authorities to begin
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning and provide start-up training and facilitate initial
implementation. However, school food authorities shall not be subject
to the provisions of Sec. 210.19(a) for failure to comply with the
nutrition standards established by paragraph (a) of this section or
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning established by paragraphs (k) and (l) of this section until
School Year 1998-99. In addition, school food authorities that
implement Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning prior to School Year 1998-99 shall be exempt from
Sec. 210.18(g)(2) until required implementation in School Year 1998-99.
(4) State agencies shall monitor implementation of Nutrient
Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning at
the school food authority level in order to ensure proper compliance.
Such monitoring shall include the State agency observation of the meal
service to determine if meals claimed for reimbursement contain the
appropriate number and type of menu items. FNS may review State agency
evaluation criteria and monitoring procedures as part of any management
evaluation review conducted during the implementation period.
(5) Beginning with School Year 1998-99, State agencies shall
monitor compliance by school food authorities with the nutrition
standards in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 210.19(a).
9. In the newly redesignated Sec. 210.10a:
a. The section heading is revised; and
b. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the ``Milk''
description under ``Food Components and Food Items''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 210.10a Lunch components and quantities for the meal pattern,
lunches for very young children and meal supplements.
* * * * *
(c) Minimum required lunch quantities. * * *
School Lunch Pattern-per Lunch Minimums
Food Components and Food Items
Milk (as a beverage):
Fluid whole milk and fluid unflavored lowfat milk must be offered;
(Flavored fluid milk, skim milk or buttermilk optional)
*****
* * * * *
10. In 210.14, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. Sec. 210.14 Resource management.
* * * * *
(c) Financial assurances. The school food authority shall meet the
requirements of the State agency for compliance with Sec. 210.19(a)
including any separation of records of nonprofit school food service
from records of any other food service which may be operated by the
school food authority as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
11. In 210.15:
a. Paragraph (b)(2) is revised;
b. Paragraph (b)(3) is amended by removing the reference to
``210.10(b) of this part'' and adding in its place the words
``Sec. 210.10(a) or Sec. 210.10a(b), whichever is applicable''; and
c. Paragraph (b)(4) is removed and paragraph (b)(5) is redesignated
as paragraph (b)(4).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 210.15 Reporting and recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(b) Recordkeeping summary. * * *
(2) Production and menu records as required under Sec. 210.10a and
production, menu and nutrition analysis records as required under
Sec. 210.10, whichever is applicable.
* * * * *
12. In 210.16:
a. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by adding the words ``developed in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. 210.10 or Sec. 210.10a,
whichever is applicable,'' after the words ``21-day cycle menu''
whenever they appear; and
b. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(3) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 210.16 Food service management companies.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) No payment is to be made for meals that are spoiled or
unwholesome at time of delivery, do not meet detailed specifications as
developed by the school food authority for each food component/menu
item specified in Sec. 210.10 or 210.10a, whichever is applicable, or
do not otherwise meet the requirements of the contract. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 210.18 [Amended]
13. In 210.18:
a. Paragraph (c) introductory text is amended by removing the
number ``4'' in the phrase ``4-year review cycle'' wherever it appears
and adding in its place the number ``5'';
b. The first sentence of paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing
the number ``4'' in the phrase ``4-year review cycle'' and adding in
its place the number ``5'' and by removing the number ``5'' in the
phrase ``every 5 years'' and adding in its place the number ``6'';
c. Paragraph (c)(2) is amended by removing the number ``4'' in the
phrase ``4-year cycle'' and adding in its place the number ``5'';
d. Paragraph (c)(3) is amended by removing the number ``5'' in the
phrase ``5-year review interval'' and adding the number ``6'' in its
place;
e. Paragraph (d)(3) is amended by removing the reference to
``210.19(a)(4)'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.19(a)(5)''; and
f. Paragraph (h)(2) is amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 210.10a''.
14. In 210.19:
a. Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are redesignated as paragraphs
(a)(2) through (a)(6), respectively, and a new paragraph (a)(1) is
added;
b. Newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2) is revised;
c. The last sentence in newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3) is
revised;
d. The number ``4'' in the second sentence of newly redesignated
paragraph (a)(6) is removed and the number ``5'' is added in its place;
e. The second sentence of paragraph (c) introductory text is
revised;
f. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (c)(1);
g. The reference to ``Sec. 210.10'' in paragraph (c)(6)(i) is
removed and a reference to ``Sec. 210.10a'' is added in its place; and
h. The word ``or'' is removed at the end of paragraph (c)(6)(i),
the period at the end of paragraph (c)(6)(ii) is removed and ``; or''
is added in its place, and a new paragraph (c)(6)(iii) is added.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 210.19 Additional responsibilities.
(a) General Program management. * * *
(1) Compliance with nutrition standards. At a minimum, beginning
with School Year 1998-99, school food authorities shall meet the
nutrition standards established in Sec. 210.10(a) for reimbursable
meals.
(i) Beginning with School Year 1998-99, State agencies shall
evaluate compliance with the established nutrition standards over a
school week. At a minimum, these evaluations shall be conducted once
every 5 years and may be conducted at the same time a school food
authority is scheduled for an administrative review in accordance with
Sec. 210.18. State agencies may also conduct these evaluations in
conjunction with technical assistance visits, other reviews, or
separately. The State agency shall assess the nutrient analysis for the
last completed school week to determine if the school food authority is
applying the methodology provided in Sec. 210.10 (k) or (l), as
appropriate. Part of this assessment shall be an independent review of
menus and production records to determine if they correspond to the
analysis conducted by the school food authority and if the menu, as
offered, over a school week, corresponds to the nutrition standards set
forth in Sec. 210.10(a).
(ii) If the menu for the school week fails to meet any of the
nutrition standards set forth in Sec. 210.10(a), the school food
authority shall develop, with the assistance and concurrence of the
State agency, a corrective action plan designed to rectify those
deficiencies. The State agency shall monitor the school food
authority's execution of the plan to ensure that the terms of the
corrective action plan are met.
(iii) If a school food authority fails to meet the terms of the
corrective action plan, the State agency shall determine if the school
food authority is working towards compliance in good faith and, if so,
may renegotiate the corrective action plan, if warranted. However, if
the school food authority has not been acting in good faith to meet the
terms of the corrective action plan and refuses to renegotiate the
plan, the State agency shall determine if a disallowance of
reimbursement funds as authorized under paragraph (c) of this section
is warranted.
(2) Assurance of compliance for finances. Each State agency shall
ensure that school food authorities comply with the requirements to
account for all revenues and expenditures of their nonprofit school
food service. School food authorities shall meet the requirements for
the allowability of nonprofit school food service expenditures in
accordance with this part and, as applicable, 7 CFR part 3015. The
State agency shall ensure compliance with the requirements to limit net
cash resources and shall provide for approval of net cash resources in
excess of three months' average expenditures. Each State agency shall
monitor, through review or audit or by other means, the net cash
resources of the nonprofit school food service in each school food
authority participating in the Program. In the event that net cash
resources exceed 3 months' average expenditures for the school food
authority's nonprofit school food service or such other amount as may
be approved in accordance with this paragraph, the State agency may
require the school food authority to reduce the price children are
charged for lunches, improve food quality or take other action designed
to improve the nonprofit school food service. In the absence of any
such action, the State agency shall make adjustments in the rate of
reimbursement under the Program.
(3) Improved management practices. * * * If a substantial number of
children who routinely and over a period of time do not favorably
accept a particular menu item; return foods; or choose less than all
food items/components or foods and menu items as authorized under
Sec. 210.10(e)(4)(ii) or Sec. 210.10a(e), poor acceptance of certain
menus may be indicated.
* * * * *
(c) Fiscal action. * * * State agencies shall take fiscal action
against school food authorities for Claims for Reimbursement that are
not properly payable under this part including, if warranted, the
disallowance of funds for failure to take corrective action in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. * * *
(1) Definition. * * * Fiscal action also includes disallowance of
funds for failure to take corrective action in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) Exceptions. * * *
(iii) When any review or audit reveals that a school food
authority's failure to meet the nutrition standards of Sec. 210.10 is
unintentional and the school food authority is meeting the requirements
of a corrective plan developed and agreed to under paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
of this section.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Part 210 [Amended]
15. In Appendix A to part 210, Alternate Foods for Meals, under
Enriched Macaroni Products with Fortified Protein, the first sentence
of paragraph 1(a) is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 210.10a''.
16. In Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, under Cheese
Alternate Products,
a. Introductory paragraph 1 is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 210.10a''; and
b. Paragraph 1(d) is amended by removing the reference to
``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 210.10a''.
17. In Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, under Vegetable
Protein Products:
a. Introductory paragraph 1 is amended by removing the reference to
``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to ``210.10a'';
b. The second sentence of paragraph 1(d) is amended by removing the
reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' ;
c. The first sentence of paragraph 1(e) is amended by removing the
reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' ; and
d. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is amended by removing the
reference to ``Sec. 210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 210.10a''.
18. In Appendix C to Part 210, Child Nutrition Labeling Program:
a. Paragraph 2(a) is amended by removing the reference to
``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to ``210.10a'';
b. The first sentence of paragraph 3(c)(2) is amended by removing
the reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in
its place a reference to ``220.8a''; and
c. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is amended by removing the
reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in
its place a reference to ``220.8a''.
PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.
2. In 220.2:
a. Paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words ``or Sec. 220.8a,
whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to ``Sec. 220.8'';
c. Paragraph (m), previously reserved, is added;
d. A new paragraph (p-1) is added;
e. Paragraph (t) is amended by adding the words ``or Sec. 220.8a,
whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to ``Sec. 220.8''; and
f. A new paragraph (w-1) is added.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 220.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(m) Menu item means, under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, any single food or
combination of foods. All menu items or foods offered as part of the
reimbursable meal may be considered as contributing towards meeting the
nutrition standards provided in Sec. 220.8(b), except for those foods
that are considered as foods of minimal nutritional value as provided
for in Sec. 220.2(i-1) which are not offered as part of a menu item in
a reimbursable meal. For the purposes of a reimbursable meal, a minimum
of three menu items must be offered, one of which must be an entree (a
combination of foods or a single food item that is offered as the main
course) and one must be fluid milk.
* * * * *
(p-1) Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning means a way to develop meals based on the analysis of
nutrients which would require school breakfasts, when averaged over a
school week, to meet specific levels for a set of key nutrients and
calories rather than a specific set of food categories. Analysis of the
menu items and foods shall be based on averages that will be weighted
by production quantities as offered to the students. Such analysis is
normally done by a school or a school food authority. However, for the
purposes of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, menu planning and
analysis is completed by other entities and shall incorporate the
production quantities needed to accommodate the specific service
requirements of a particular school or school food authority.
* * * * *
(w-1) School week means the period of time used as the basis for
determining nutrient levels of the menu and for conducting Nutrient
Standard Menu Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for
breakfasts. The period week shall be a minimum of three days and a
maximum of seven days. Weeks in which breakfasts are offered less than
three times shall be combined with either the previous or the coming
week.
* * * * *
Sec. 220.7 [Amended]
3. In 220.7, paragraph (e)(2) is amended by adding the words ``or
Sec. 220.8a, whichever is applicable,'' after the reference to
``Sec. 220.8''.
Sec. 220.8 [Redesignated as Sec. 220.8A]
4. Section 220.8 is redesignated as Sec. 220.8a and a new
Sec. 220.8 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 220.8 Nutrition standards for breakfast and menu planning
systems.
(a) Breakfasts for very young children. Meals for infants and very
young children (ages birth to 24 months) who are participating in the
Program shall meet the requirements in Sec. 220.8a(a), (b) and (c).
(b) Nutrition standards for breakfasts for children age 2 and over.
School food authorities shall ensure that participating schools provide
nutritious and well-balanced breakfasts to children age 2 and over
based on the nutrition standards provided in this section. For the
purposes of this section, the nutrition standards are:
(1) Provision of one-fourth of the Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDA) of protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C to the
applicable age groups in accordance with the Minimum Nutrient Levels
for School Breakfasts in paragraph (e)(1) of this section;
(2) Provision of the breakfast energy allowances for children in
accordance with the age groups in the Minimum Nutrient Levels for
School Breakfasts in paragraph (e)(1) of this section;
(3) The applicable 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are:
(i) Eat a variety of foods;
(ii) Limit total fat to 30 percent of calories;
(iii) Limit saturated fat to less than 10 percent of calories;
(iv) Choose a diet low in cholesterol;
(v) Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits, and grain
products; and
(vi) Use salt and sodium in moderation; and
(4) The following measures of compliance with the 1990 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans:
(i) A limit on the percent of calories from total fat to 30 percent
based on the actual number of calories offered;
(ii) A limit on the percent of calories from saturated fat to less
than 10 percent based on the actual number of calories offered;
(iii) A reduction of the levels of sodium and cholesterol; and
(iv) An increase in the level of dietary fiber.
(c) General requirements for school breakfasts for children age 2
and over. (1) In order to qualify for reimbursement, breakfasts, as
offered by participating schools, shall, at a minimum, meet the
nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section when averaged over
each school week.
(2) School food authorities shall ensure that each breakfast is
priced as a unit. Except as otherwise provided herein, school food
authorities shall ensure that sufficient quantities of menu items and
foods are planned and produced so that breakfasts meet, at a minimum,
the nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) School food authorities shall ensure that breakfasts are
planned and produced on the basis of participation trends, with the
objective of providing one reimbursable breakfast per child per day.
Any excess breakfasts that are produced may be offered, but shall not
be claimed for reimbursement under Sec. 220.9.
(d) Nutritional criteria for breakfasts for children age 2 and
over. In order to receive reimbursement, school food authorities shall
ensure that participating schools provide breakfasts to children age
two and over in accordance with the nutrition standards in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(1) The nutrients of breakfasts shall, when averaged over each
school week, meet the requirements in the table Minimum Nutrient Levels
for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of this section for children
of each age group.
(2) Production, menu and nutritional analysis records shall be
maintained by schools to demonstrate that breakfasts as offered meet
the nutrition standards provided in paragraph (b) of this section and
the nutrient levels for children of each age group in the table,
Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section.
(3) Schools with children age 2 who participate in the program
shall ensure that the nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this
section are met except that, such schools have the option of either
using the RDA and calorie levels for children ages 3-6 in the table,
Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section or developing separate requirements for this age group.
The methodology for determining such levels will be available in menu
planning guidance material provided by FNS.
(e) Requirements for meals for children ages 3-17. (1) Schools that
are able to offer meals to children based on nutrient levels reflecting
one of the four age level in the table in this paragraph should do so.
Schools that cannot offer meals to children on the basis of age levels
in the table in this paragraph shall, under Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, adjust the
established levels following guidance by FNS or, if only one age is
outside the established level, use the level provided for the majority
of children. Schools shall ensure that breakfasts are offered with the
objective of providing the per breakfast minimums for each age level as
specified in the following table:
Minimum Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Group II Group III Group IV
Nutrients and Energy ages 3-6 ages 7-10 ages 11-13 ages 14-17
Allowances years years years years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy allowances/
calories........... 419 500 588 625
Total fat (as a
percent of actual
total food energy). (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
Total saturated fat
(as a percent of
actual total food
energy)............ (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
RDA for protein (g). 5.50 7.00 11.25 12.50
RDA for calcium (mg) 200 200 300 300
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 12.50 14.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than or equal to 30% of actual calories offered.
\2\Less than 10% of actual calories offered.
(2) A reimbursable breakfast shall include a minimum of three menu
items as defined in Sec. 220.2(m), one of which shall be fluid milk as
a beverage, offered on cereal, or a combination of both. All menu items
or foods offered as part of the reimbursable meal may be considered as
contributing towards meeting the nutrition standards, except for those
foods that are considered foods of minimal nutritional value as
provided for in Sec. 210.2(i-1) which are not offered as part of a menu
item in a reimbursable meal. Breakfasts, as offered, shall
independently meet the established nutrient standards when averaged
over a school week.
(f) Milk requirement for children ages 2-17. A serving of milk as a
beverage or on cereal or used in part for each purpose shall be a menu
item for school breakfasts. Schools shall comply with the minimum
required serving sizes for milk in Sec. 220.8a(a)(2) and with the other
requirements for milk in Sec. 220.8a(d) and Sec. 220.8a(g).
(g) Offer versus serve. Each participating school shall offer its
students at least three menu items as required by paragraph (e)(2) of
this section. Under offer versus serve, senior high students are
required to take at least two of the three menu items. At the
discretion of the school food authority, students below the senior high
level may also participate in offer versus serve. The price of a
reimbursable breakfast shall not be affected if a student declines menu
items or accepts smaller portions. State educational agencies shall
define ``senior high.''
(h) Choice. To provide variety and to encourage consumption and
participation, schools should, whenever possible, provide a selection
of foods and types of milk from which children may make choices. When a
school offers a selection of more than one type of breakfast or when it
offers a variety of foods and milk for choice as a reimbursable
breakfast, the school shall offer all children the same selection
regardless of whether the children are eligible for free or reduced
price breakfasts or pay the school food authority designated full
price. The school may establish different unit prices for each type of
breakfast offered provided that the benefits made available to children
eligible for free or reduced price breakfasts are not affected.
(i) Substitutions. Schools shall make substitutions for students
who are considered to have disabilities under 7 CFR part 15b in
accordance with Sec. 220.8a(f).
(j) Nutrient Standard Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning for children age 2-17. In order to assure that school
breakfasts meet the nutritional standards provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, nutrient analysis shall be conducted on all foods offered
as part of a reimbursable meal. Such analysis shall be over the course
of each school week. The school food authority shall either
independently conduct Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or shall request
that the State agency allow Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning.
(1) The National Nutrient Database and software specifications. (i)
Nutrient analysis shall be based on information provided in the
National Nutrient Database for Child Nutrition Programs. This database
shall be incorporated into software used to conduct nutrient analysis.
Upon request, FNS will provide information about the database to
software companies that wish to develop school food service software
systems.
(ii) Any software used to conduct nutrient analysis shall be
evaluated and, as submitted, been determined to meet the minimum
requirements established by FNS. However, such review does not
constitute endorsement by FNS or USDA. Such software shall provide the
capability to perform all functions required after the basic data has
been entered including calculation of weighted averages as required by
(j)(2) of this section.
(2) Determination of weighted averages. (i) Foods offered as part
of a reimbursable meal shall be analyzed based on menu items, portion
sizes, and projected serving amounts and shall be weighted based on
their proportionate contribution to the meals. Therefore, foods more
frequently selected will contribute more nutrients than foods which are
less frequently selected. Such weighting shall be done in accordance
with guidance issued by FNS as well as that provided by the software
used.
(ii) An analysis of all menu items and foods offered in the menu
over each school week shall be computed for calories and for each of
the following nutrients: Protein; vitamin A; vitamin C; iron; calcium;
total fat; saturated fat; and sodium. The analysis shall also include
the dietary components of cholesterol and dietary fiber.
(3) Comparing average daily levels. Once the procedures of
paragraph (j)(2) of this section have been completed, the results shall
be compared to the appropriate age group level for each nutrient and
for calories in the table, Minimum Nutrient Levels for School
Breakfasts, in paragraph (e)(1) of this section. In addition,
comparisons shall be made to the nutrition standards provided in
paragraph (b) of this section in order to determine the degree of
conformity.
(4) Adjustments based on students' selections. The results obtained
under paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall be used to adjust future
menu cycles to accurately reflect production and student selections.
Menus will require further analysis and comparison, depending on the
results obtained in paragraph (j)(2) of this section when production
and selection patterns change. The school food authority may need to
consider modifications to the menu items and foods offered based on
student selections as well as modifications to recipes and other
specifications to ensure that the nutrition standards in paragraph (b)
of this section are met.
(5) Standardized recipes. Under Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,
standardized recipes shall be developed and followed. A standardized
recipe is one that was tested to provide an established yield and
quantity through the use of ingredients that remain constant in both
measurement and preparation methods. USDA/FNS standardized recipes are
included in the National Nutrient Database for the Child Nutrition
Programs. In addition, local standardized recipes used by school food
authorities shall be analyzed for their calories, nutrients and dietary
components and added to the local database by that school food
authority.
(6) Processed foods. Unless already included in the National
Nutrient Database, the calorie amounts, nutrients and dietary
components, in accordance with paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of this section, of
purchased processed foods and menu items used by the school food
authority shall be obtained by the school food authority or State
agency and incorporated into the database at the local level in
accordance with FNS guidance.
(7) Substitutions. If the need for serving a substitute food(s) or
menu item(s) occurs at least two weeks prior to serving the planned
menu, the revised menu shall be reanalyzed based on the changes. If the
need for serving a substitute food(s) or menu item(s) occurs two weeks
or less prior to serving the planned menu, no reanalysis is required.
However, to the extent possible, substitutions should be made using
similar foods.
(k) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) For school food
authorities without the capability to conduct Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning, as provided in paragraph (j) of this section, menu cycles
developed by other sources may be used. Such sources may include but
are not limited to the State agency, other school food authorities,
consultants, or food service management companies.
(2) Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning shall establish menu
cycles that have been developed in accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(6) of this section as well as local food preferences and
local food service operations. These menu cycles shall incorporate the
nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section and the Minimum
Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts in paragraph (e)(1) of this
section. In addition to the menu cycle, recipes, food product
specifications and preparation techniques shall also be developed and
provided by the entity furnishing Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning to ensure that the menu items and foods offered conform to the
nutrient analysis determinations of the menu cycle.
(3) If a school food authority requests Assisted Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning, the State agency shall determine if it is warranted. At
the inception of any approved use of Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning, the State agency shall approve the initial menu cycle,
recipes, and other specifications to determine that all required
elements for correct nutrient standards and analysis are incorporated.
The State agency shall also, upon request, provide assistance with
implementation of the chosen system.
(4) After the initial service, the nutrient analysis shall be
reassessed in accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this section and
appropriate adjustments made.
(5) Under Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, the school food
authority retains final responsibility for ensuring that all nutrient
standards established in paragraph (b) of this section are met.
(l) Compliance with the nutrition standards. If the analysis
conducted in accordance with paragraphs (j) and (k) of this section
shows that the menus offered are not in compliance with the nutrition
standards established in paragraph (b) of this section, actions,
including technical assistance and training, shall be taken by the
State agency, school food authority, or school, as appropriate, to
ensure that the breakfasts offered to children comply with the
established nutrition standards.
(m) Nutrition disclosure. School food authorities are encouraged to
make information available indicating efforts to meet the nutrition
standards in paragraph (b) of this section, such as publicizing the
results of the nutrient analysis of the school week menu cycle.
(n) Implementation of nutrition standards and Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning/Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning. (1) At a
minimum, the provisions of this section requiring compliance with the
nutrition standards in paragraph (b) of this section shall be
implemented no later than the beginning of School Year 1998-99.
However, schools and/or school food authorities may begin to implement
any or all of the provisions in this section with prior approval of the
State agency.
(2) Prior to School Year 1998-99, State agencies shall require
school food authorities/schools to implement Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning for the School
Breakfast Program at the same time it is implemented for the National
School Lunch Program and in accordance with the terms of Sec. 210.10(o)
of this chapter.
5. The section heading of newly redesignated Sec. 220.8a is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 220.8a Breakfast components and quantities for the meal pattern
and for very young children.
* * * * *
Sec. 220.9 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 220.9, the first sentence of paragraph (a) is amended by
adding the words ``or 220.8a, whichever is applicable,'' after the
reference to ``Sec. 220.8''.
Sec. 220.14 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 220.14, paragraph (h) is amended by removing the
reference to ``Sec. 220.8 (a)(1)'' and adding in its place a reference
to ``Sec. 220.8a(a)(1)''.
Appendix A to Part 220 [Amended]
8. In Appendix A to part 220, Alternate Foods for Meals, under
Formulated Grain-Fruit Products, paragraph 1(a) is amended by removing
the reference to ``Sec. 220.8'' and adding in its place a reference to
``Sec. 220.8a''.
Appendix C to Part 220 [Amended]
9. In Appendix C to part 220, Child Nutrition (CN) Labeling
Program:
a. Paragraph 2(a) is amended by removing the reference to
``210.10'' and replacing it with a reference to ``210.10a'';
b. The first sentence of paragraph 3(c)(2) is amended by removing
the reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in
its place a reference to ``220.8a''; and
c. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is amended by removing the
reference to ``210.10'' and adding in its place a reference to
``210.10a'' and by removing the reference to ``220.8'' and adding in
its place a reference to ``220.8a''.
Dated: June 6, 1994.
Ellen Haas,
Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services.
Regulatory Cost/Benefit Assessment
1. Title: National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program:
Nutrition Objectives for School Meals.
2. Background: This rule proposes to amend the regulations
outlining the nutrition standards for the National School Lunch and
School Breakfast Programs. Specifically, this proposal would update the
current nutrition standards to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, which reflect medical and scientific consensus on proper
nutrition as a vital element in disease prevention and long term health
promotion.\1\ This proposal would also adopt meal planning based on
analysis of key nutrients (Nutrient Standard Menu Planning or Assisted
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning) in lieu of the current meal pattern.
These changes would be implemented no later than July 1, 1998. In
recognition of the importance of reinventing and streamlining
government programs, this proposal would also reduce various burdens
associated with the school meal programs and would modify the review
requirements for the National School Lunch Program to ensure adequate
oversight of the proposed updated nutrition standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Footnotes appear at end of docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Statutory Authority: National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-
1760, 1779) and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779).
4. Cost/Benefit Assessment of Economic and Other Effects:
a. Costs To Produce a Meal:
A nationally representative sample included in the School Lunch and
Breakfast Cost Study found an average food cost of $0.72 for school
meals prepared under the current meal pattern, rounded to the nearest
whole cent. Cost data from this study were used to estimate the cost of
two weeks of sample menus developed under the requirements for Nutrient
Standard Menu Planning in the proposed rule. The analysis found an
average food cost of $0.72 per meal when rounded to the nearest whole
cent2. These sample menus were developed for elementary and high
school students using foods and recipes common to the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP). When planning the sample menus, milk was
constrained to provide eight fluid ounces with each meal, to include
milks of various fat levels and a mix of flavored and unflavored milk.
Additional weeks of menus could have been developed at similar cost,
but analysis of two weeks of sample menus was deemed sufficient to
demonstrate that nutrient targets could be met at current food cost. It
would also have been possible to have further reduced the cost of the
sample menus, for example by substituting lower cost items or using
smaller portions of relatively expensive items such as yogurt and fish
sticks. The lower end of the cost range of sample menus was about 28
percent below the two week average food cost. The sample menus were
developed using foods and recipes already in common use in NSLP, such
as those from ``Quantity Recipes for School Food Service''3. They
did not reflect the potential savings which may be realized when market
forces stimulate development of new lower fat foods and recipes.
Increased demand for foods lower in fat, saturated fat, sodium and
cholesterol are expected to increase availability of these foods in the
future. Such new foods and recipes should provide greater flexibility
to NSLP menu planners, and may facilitate further moderation of meal
cost and food components such as sodium and cholesterol where
appropriate.
The sample menus include ingredients that are fresh and those that
are processed into more convenient, labor saving forms, such as frozen.
Examples of processed foods used in the sample menus include popular
food items, pizza and chicken nuggets. Although these items were used
less often than currently offered, by using foods and recipes common to
the NSLP, the sample menus look similar to meals currently offered to
students. By their preexisting use in NSLP, school food service
personnel have already demonstrated that these food items can be
prepared in the time available to prepare current school lunches, and
similarly indicate that the staff with the skills needed to prepare
these foods are already available. In addition, the equipment needed
for food storage and preparation is either already available, or
schools operating under the present rules have demonstrated that such
equipment can be obtained within the existing reimbursement rates.
Therefore, even though the costs of labor, equipment, and
administration were not specifically analyzed, the manner in which the
sample menus were developed provides confidence that non-food costs of
the NSMP sample menus are expected to be similar to those already
experienced in NSLP operation. FNS will continue to explore cost
impacts. The evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning
Demonstration will examine the reported costs of school food service
operations associated with implementing NSMP. This evaluation will
examine total meal production costs and will analyze separate
components (food, labor, other costs).
By definition, the average results reported above mean that some
school districts would be expected to experience food costs for the
sample menus that vary considerably from those reported above. This is
not different from the current situation because there is already a
wide range of food costs due to factors such as economies of size,
geographic variation in delivery and labor costs, and local market
conditions.
b. Market Effects
To estimate market effects a mathematical model was developed to
incorporate information on the kinds, amounts, nutrient content, and
costs of foods served in schools lunches. The model uses all of this
information and seeks a solution which minimizes the changes in current
amounts of foods served in NSLP meals and also meets the nutrition
objectives set forth in the Dietary Guidelines and adds no additional
costs to food purchases. The model constrains food offerings and
recipes to those actually used in schools. However, the meal pattern is
allowed to deviate from the current regulations regarding food groups
and portion sizes as long as it meets at least one-third the RDA for
all nutrients. In keeping with the principles of the Dietary
Guidelines, the meals are also restricted to no more than 30 percent of
calories from total fat and less than 10 percent of calories from
saturated fat.
The model can be specified to allow the amounts of all foods to
vary, which permits substitution between high and low-fat beef as well
as across other food groups such as pork, poultry, vegetables, and
fruits. There are a vast number of possible scenarios which can be
explored through this model, and the three discussed below have been
selected as most useful in understanding the impacts of the proposed
rule. In several of these scenarios the model is constrained to
maintain the amounts or types of foods. In all three scenarios the
volume of beverage milk is held constant at current consumption levels.
This was done because milk will remain a required item under the
proposed nutrition based menu planning system. The model minimizes the
changes in the quantity of each item served and satisfies the nutrition
and cost goals.
The model includes the following constraints for all scenarios:
Food ingredient cost at average cost for NSLP meals; calories (\1/3\ of
average energy allowance listed in the RDA report); total fat (not more
than 30 percent of calories); saturated fat (less than 10 percent of
calories); carbohydrate (not less than 50 percent of calories);
cholesterol (not more than 100 mg); \1/3\ of RDA level for the
following select nutrients: protein, vitamins (vitamins A, B6, B12 and
C, niacin, riboflavin, thiamin, folate), and minerals (calcium, iron,
magnesium, phosphorus, and zinc); and milk (total volume and mix by fat
content held constant at current levels). As described in greater
detail below, scenario one is the basic model using these constraints,
scenario two constrains all chicken to have the nutrient profile of
low-fat chicken, and scenario three constrains the model to retain
current levels for major commodity groups. The estimated changes in
food items are then aggregated to national estimates based on the total
number of school lunches served in FY-1993. Subsequently, the impact of
these changes on agricultural markets are estimated using commodity
market models developed by economists in the Economic Research Service.
Data
The study is based on the most recently available data on quantity
and frequency of foods actually served in NSLP meals, detailed nutrient
content of those foods, estimated food ingredient costs, and
Recommended Dietary Allowances for micronutrients and Dietary
Guidelines recommendations for fat and saturated fat.
Data on actual foods served in the NSLP were obtained from the 1993
USDA School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) study conducted by
Mathematica Policy Research for FNS. The study included a survey of
about 3550 students in grades 1 through 12 in 545 schools throughout
the country. The students reported detailed information on the kinds
and amounts of foods and beverages they consumed during a 24-hour
period. The impact analysis uses only the portion of the data on foods
served to children as part of credited school lunches. It includes
plate waste but excluded a la carte items, such as desserts, purchased
in addition to the school lunch. The SNDA survey contained detailed
information on over 600 food items served in the school lunch program.
These items were aggregated into over 50 food groups based on the
primary ingredient and the percent of calories from fat. For example,
there were two beef categories: high-fat and low-fat beef; two poultry
categories; etc.
Food items costs are estimated from ingredient cost data obtained
in the 1993 School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study conducted by Abt for
FNS and recipes for school lunch items. The recipes were necessary for
two reasons: Aggregation of ingredient costs to costs of food served,
and for estimating the change in usage of the various agricultural
commodities.
With respect to the agricultural economy, the amount of most foods
served in NSLP meals is a small part of the total U.S. supply of
agricultural commodities. For example, USDA and school district
purchases of beef products account for less than two percent of the U.
S. beef supply. Therefore, even the anticipated changes in the amounts
of different foods served in the meals are expected to have minimal or
no change in farm level prices.
Three alternative scenarios were examined to gauge market effects
with alternative specific recommendations which could be implemented
into the meals. All three scenarios meet dietary recommendations and
the milk requirement with no change from the current per meal average
food cost. Table 1 shows the total U.S. market in millions of pounds
for various groups of commodities and the corresponding current school
market size.
The three scenarios illustrate a range of market effects that could
occur under alternative implementation assumptions. The first and third
options demonstrate the range of market impacts associated with either
minimizing the change in current food offerings or minimizing the
change in commodity markets. The second scenario was designed to show
how the results could change if lower fat preparation techniques were
followed in only one of the commodity groups. Although chicken is used
in this example, other commodities, such as beef or pork, might show
similar changes if substitutions were made between high and low fat
alternatives. Additional information on the constraints on the model
imposed in each of the three scenarios is described in more detail
below.
The three scenarios estimate impacts using current market prices
for foods available and in use by schools. To the extent that products
are reformulated to provide additional lower-fat products or lower-fat
products become more widely available and affordable, the market
impacts would change. The scenarios do not assume any product
innovations. Similarly, food preparation techniques will play an
important role in how the proposal would be implemented. Using lower
fat preparation techniques would enable schools to continue to use
foods at current levels because fat added during preparation would be
reduced.
No single set of assumptions can adequately describe impacts under
the proposed regulation. Schools have tremendous flexibility under
nutrient standard menu planning to meet the dietary guidelines using
the methods most appropriate to their circumstances. Schools can alter
the mix of foods served within and among commodity groups. Changes in
food preparation techniques could produce significant improvements in
the nutritional profile of meals without any changes in the types of
foods served. The model and the three scenarios examined show that
changes in food preparation techniques for one commodity group can
alter the results for other commodity groups. This occurs because the
nutrient and cost targets are fixed. Nutritional improvement for one
commodity group, such as a reduction in fat, both leaves more
flexibility for other commodity groups to provide that food component
within the established target, and, in the case of reduction of fat,
required additional calories from some source to meet the calorie
target.
The first scenario, ``Minimum change in current offerings'',
established the amounts of foods from each of 52 groups required to
meet the dietary, cost, and milk requirements with as little deviation
as possible from the current eating choices of the children. It also
required the consumption of low-fat, medium-fat and whole milk to stay
at the same levels as current consumption. The 52 groups include
separate groups for high and low fat versions of food items and dishes.
This scenario allows for substitutions among these and other groups.
The second scenario, using poultry as the example, shows how the
results change if lower fat preparation techniques were used in one
food category while holding food preparation techniques in other
categories constant. High-fat poultry preparation techniques (such as
chicken nuggets) were entirely replaced with lower fat techniques (such
as baked or broiled chicken parts). As noted previously, other
commodities might show similar changes if substitutions were made
between high and low fat alternatives.
For the third scenario, the analysis model was modified to present
a ``No change in commodity markets'' scenario where food commodity
groups were restricted to their current level of use in the NSLP (with
the exception of butter). The consumption of the various foods served
were allowed to fluctuate within the commodity groups. For example,
beef could be consumed alone or in a mixture such as lasagna, but the
total level of beef served was required to be the same as is currently
being served. In general, this adaptation required that low-fat foods
be chosen within food groups. Notable exceptions included serving high-
fat chicken and potatoes, probably due to the need to obtain sufficient
calories. Also, the cost became more of a constraining factor in this
scenario. Many of the higher fat or costly foods were eliminated from
the solution. Some of the changes included:
Serving milk containing less than 17 percent of
kilocalories from fat (skim and one-percent);
Serving beef in mixtures such as chili rather than as
roasts, steaks, or hamburger patties;
Serving low-fat pork products such as ham instead of ribs
or bacon;
Serving more meal mixtures such as chili and fewer grain
mixtures such as pizza; and
Serving more fruits and less fruit juices.
This analysis shows that the impact of the school lunch proposed
rule on the major commodity markets and related farm programs would be
minimal. Commodity prices, producer marketings and receipts, and farm
program outlays under any of the scenarios would not vary significantly
from the levels projected in the USDA 10-year Baseline Projections.
The proposed rule's limited impact reflects several factors
including:
The share of commodities used in the school lunch program
is typically quite small compared to total U.S. disappearance. Hence
changes in school lunch offerings have to be very large before they
affect the commercial market.
For the first scenario, changes in school lunch menus were
designed both to meet the nutritional guidelines and to minimize
changes in children's food choices. While this was done to reflect
children's taste/preference, it has a moderating effect on changes in
the commodity composition of school lunches as well as a minimum change
in food service offerings.
The second and third scenarios demonstrate that there is
considerable potential for substitutions within food groups (e.g.,
shifting from conventional to healthier products in the same food
group) and for changing food preparation techniques to improve
nutritional value (e.g., shifting from fried to roasted chicken). The
modified menus took advantage of these options. Changes in food
preparation techniques and use of healthier products in the same food
group would minimize agricultural impacts.
Individual commodity market impacts of scenarios one and two are
described in greater detail below. These should be interpreted with the
understanding that scenario three shows that it is possible to achieve
the dietary, food cost and milk requirements with no change in
commodity markets other than butter. The information presented reflects
estimates of market impacts under full implementation of the proposed
regulation.
Dairy Impacts
The impacts of the proposed rule differ across the fluid milk,
butter, and cheese components of the dairy sector. The modified menus
hold milk offerings constant but reduce cheese and eliminate butter.
Hence, the major impacts would be in the processed product markets
rather than the fluid market.
School lunch use of butter is eliminated in the three scenarios;
the modified menus would annually displace 50-55 million pounds of
butter in a 1.0 billion pound U.S. market. The dairy program activity
expected under the baseline projections would keep the impact of this
decline on producer prices, incomes, and government farm programs
minimal. Virtually all of the displaced butter is donated by the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) from stocks acquired as part of its
price support operations; purchases occur at the levels needed to
support manufacturing milk prices at legislated levels and minimize
stock holding. The school lunch volume is small enough compared to
total CCC purchases and other disposal programs that the butter in
question would continue to be acquired under the proposed rule but be
donated to other institutions or sold concessionally or donated abroad.
Hence, butter impacts would ultimately be minimal.
The impact of the proposed rule on the cheese market could be more
pronounced but still limited. This is because the volume differences in
the use of cheese between the baseline and the scenarios one and two is
larger and most of the cheese used in the school lunch program is
bought on the open market rather than donated from CCC stocks. But the
annual 80-90 million pound decline in cheese disappearance associated
with these scenarios would account for less than a 1 percent drop in
U.S. cheese disappearance. This would lower farm milk prices 7 to 8
cents per hundredweight causing a decline in production and lower farm
revenues from milk by $150-$200 million annually (from a 1990-93 base
of $19.5 billion). CCC dairy program costs would increase by an
estimated $20 to $25 million annually. Hence, even for cheese, the
impacts on the dairy sector and the budget would be relatively small.
As scenario two demonstrates for chicken, a more pronounced shift
towards use of lower fat cheese or other lower fat items in schools
could further moderate these impacts. Under scenario 3 there would be
no reduction in cheese.
Meat Sector Impacts: Broilers and Turkeys
The impact of the proposed school lunch rule on the broiler market
is expected to be modest under the first and second scenarios. Broiler
offerings in the school lunch program would decline 120 million pounds
under the first scenario and increase 38 million pounds under the
second. The current school lunch use of 245 million pounds is a small
share of the total U.S. market of 19.9 billion pounds. Hence, a 120
million pound reduction would lower broiler prices 1.8 percent and
reduce farm revenues by 1.2 percent. The second scenario uses chicken
as an example of how a large shift towards low-fat preparation (e.g.,
from fried to broiled) could moderate shifts in commodity usage. If
purchases are increased by 38 million pounds as provided for under the
second scenario, broiler prices would increase 0.4 percent and revenues
rise by 0.2 percent. There are no direct government programs for the
industry.
The impact of the proposed rule on the turkey market is expected to
be modest under scenarios 1 and 2. Total use of turkey meat would
decline 52 million pounds under one scenario and increase 16 million
pounds under the other. The current school lunch use of 105 million
pounds is a small share of the total U.S. market of 4.6 billion pounds.
Hence, turkey prices would decrease 2 percent under the first scenario
and increase 0.5 percent under the second. Producer revenues decrease
by $36 million under the first scenario and increase $4 million under
the second scenario--less than 0.01 percent in either case. There are
no direct government programs for the turkey industry. Again, under
scenario 3 there would be no change in either broilers or turkey.
Meat Sector Impacts: Beef and Pork
The impact of the proposed rule on the beef market is expected to
be minimal under the first and second scenarios. School lunch offerings
of beef would decline 100-126 million pounds from 485 million pounds
currently, in a total U.S. market of 24 billion pounds. This school
lunch decline would reduce the farm level market price for beef by less
than 1 percent and result in a 0.5 percent reduction in beef producers'
revenues. A slightly larger reduction (126 million pounds) in beef
offerings under the second scenario would result in approximately the
same reduction in wholesale beef prices and farm revenues. There are no
direct government programs related to the beef industry; hence, the
changes likely under the proposed rule have no direct federal budget
implications. As scenario two demonstrates for chicken, a more
pronounced shift towards the use of lower-fat beef, lower-fat beef
preparation, or other lower-fat items in schools could further moderate
impacts. Under scenario 3 there would be no impact at all.
The impact of the proposed school lunch rule on the pork market is
also expected to be minimal under the first and second scenarios. This
is because much of the pork already in use in the school lunch program
is lean pork such as ham. Total use of pork in the school lunch program
would increase 16 million pounds or remain the same in the first and
second scenarios. The school lunch program's current use of 280 million
pounds represents a small fraction of the total U.S. market of 17.3
billion pounds. Hence, the 16 million pound increase would boost prices
a minimal 0.2 percent. Farm revenues would increase $11 million or 0.1
percent of their existing revenues. There are no government support
programs directly associated with the pork industry and hence no budget
implications.
Fruit, Vegetable, and Potato Market Impacts
The impacts of the proposed rule on the fruit, vegetable, and
potato markets would be small under the first and second scenarios.
Schools use these products in a variety of forms, including fresh,
frozen, canned, and as components of commercially processed mixtures.
Total usage of fruits in the school lunch program would increase 718
million pounds under the first scenario and over 1.1 billion pounds
under the second. Both represent less than 2 percent of the 61.1
billion pound U.S. fruit market. Under scenario one, prices would
increase 0.1 percent and farm revenues increase 1.2 percent or $124
million in a $10.2 billion market. Impacts under the second scenario
are slightly larger, with prices up 0.2 percent and revenues up $200
million.
Use of vegetables in the program would increase 89 million pounds
under the first scenario and 35 million pounds under the second in a 71
billion pound U.S. market. Under the first and second scenarios, price
increases would be negligible and farm revenue gains would be $5-12
million or less than 0.1 percent of industry revenues. Use of potatoes
in the program would decline 298 million pounds under the first and
second scenarios in response to fewer french fry offerings. These
reductions are expected to have a little or no impact on the 34 billion
pound U.S. potato market. Reduced potato usage would result in 0.1
percent decline in potato prices and a comparable $20 million reduction
in farm revenues. The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study found
that potatoes are often fried or prepared with a significant amount of
added fat. The sample menus developed for the food cost analysis show
that lower-fat potato dishes can be readily used under nutrient
standard menu planning. As with chicken in scenario two, a more
pronounced shift towards use of lower-fat potato preparation or other
lower-fat items by schools could further moderate the impacts on the
potato market.
Field Crop Impacts
The major impact of the proposed rule on the field crop markets
would be in the wheat market. Menu changes would increase the wheat
used in various forms in the school lunch program from 16.5 million
bushels currently to 28-30 million bushels, under the first two
scenarios, in a total U.S. market of 2.5 billion bushels. While the
difference between scenarios is insignificant, an increase in wheat
demand of 10 to 15 million bushels could spark a small adjustment in
the market. After offsetting changes in production, feed use and
exports are taken into account, the net increase in total use would be
roughly 5 million bushels and generate a 2 cent per bushel higher farm
price. This would reduce deficiency payments by about $35 million (from
a 1990-93 base of $1.9 billion) and would increase farmers' market
receipts by about $45 million (from a 1990-93 base of $7.3 billion),
more than offsetting the lost deficiency payments.
Rice use would increase roughly 1 million hundred weight under the
first and second scenarios in a national market of 180 million hundred
weight. This would generate less than a 1 percent change in the farm
price of rice, a $7-9 million increase in market revenues, and an
offsetting $6-8 million reduction in government payments.
The proposed rule could also reduce use of oilseeds and related
products. Changes in menu items as well as preparation techniques would
decrease use of vegetable oils for frying and salad dressings.
But the decreases would be too small to measurably affect prices;
moreover, with government support for oilseeds limited to a loan
program with rates set well below forecast market prices, there would
be no budget implications.
Peanut Impacts
In the agricultural impact models developed for this analysis,
peanuts are part of a group including legumes and nuts. This group
shows some increases under the first and second scenarios, although the
direct impact on peanuts is less clear. Even if the findings for the
group as a whole are assumed to similarly impact peanuts, the impacts
of the proposed rule on the peanut market would be small under the
first and second scenarios. Under the first and second scenarios, total
usage of peanuts in the school lunch program would increase about 6
million pounds from its current school lunch base of about 44 million
pounds. This increase represents less than 0.3 percent of the total
U.S. peanut market of 2 billion pounds. Farm prices of peanuts are
expected to rise about 0.1 percent and farm revenues increase about
$1.0 million. There would be no impact on the government cost of the
peanut program.
Table 1.--Annual Quantity Impacts for Major Agricultural Markets
[In millions of pounds]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 market size Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One: Minimum
Commodity group U.S. total change Two: Lower Three: No
farm-level School within fat chicken change in
disappearance lunches current preparation commodity
offerings markets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butter................................... 1,007 55 0 0 0
Cheese................................... 6,633 135 53 47 135
Broilers................................. 19,855 245 125 283 245
Turkey................................... 4,591 105 53 121 105
Beef..................................... 24,040 485 385 359 485
Pork..................................... 17,268 280 296 280 280
Fruits and juices........................ 61,055 1,097 1,815 2,234 1,097
Vegetables............................... 71,018 1,218 1,307 1,253 1,218
Potatoes................................. 34,079 674 376 372 674
Peanuts.................................. 2,050 44 50 50 44
Rice (million cwt)....................... 180 1.3 2.3 2.2 1.3
Wheat (million bu)....................... 2,500 16 30 28 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three scenarios illustrate that minimizing the change in
current offerings creates market impacts that would not occur if lower-
fat substitutions are offered or the mix of commodities within category
is allowed to change. They also emphasize that school menus would have
to change in order to avoid any impacts in the commodity market.
Table 2.--Farm Price, Revenue, and Program Impacts for Major Agricultural Markets
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One: Minimum change in Two: Lower fat chicken Three: No change in commodity
Total current offerings preparation markets
farm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
receipts Farm Farm Farm
Commodity (in Revenues program Revenues program Revenues program
billions (in costs (in costs (in costs
of Prices millions (in Prices millions (in Prices millions (in
dollars) (percent) of millions (percent) of millions (percent) of millions
dollars) of dollars) of dollars) of
dollars) dollars) dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheese (milk equivalent)......................... \1\19.4 -0.6 -166 23 -0.6 -178 25 0.0 0 0
Butter (milk equivalent)......................... \1\19.4 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Broilers......................................... 11.0 -1.8 -134 0 0.4 19 0 0.0 0 0
Turkey........................................... 2.9 -2.1 -36 0 0.5 4 0 0.0 0 0
Beef............................................. 28.3 -0.9 -143 0 -0.9 -103 0 0.0 0 0
Pork............................................. 10.7 0.2 11 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
Fruits........................................... 10.2 0.1 124 0 0.2 200 0 0.0 0 0
Vegetables....................................... 9.4 0.0 12 0 0.0 5 0 0.0 0 0
Potatoes......................................... 2.0 -0.1 -20 0 -0.1 -20 0 0.0 0 0
Peanuts.......................................... 1.0 0.1 1 0 0.1 1 0 0.0 0 0
Rice............................................. 1.3 0.6 9 -8 0.5 7 -6 0.0 0 0
Wheat............................................ 7.3 0.7 45 -35 0.7 45 -35 0.0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total farm receipts from milk.
USDA Commodities
USDA for a number of years has made adjustments to improve the
nutritional content of commodities provided, however, the basic types
and quantities of foods offered to schools have not changed
significantly. The analysis conducted indicates that schools can
provide meals that meet the dietary guidelines without significant
changes in the types of food provided and the Department can continue
to make improvements to the commodities provided without diminishing
agricultural market support to farmers. In total, USDA commodities
account for less than one-sixth of all foods used by schools; the
overall average is 16.4 percent. Although there is some variation among
schools in the amount of USDA commodities they receive, USDA
commodities make up between 10 and 25 percent of the food used for the
vast majority (96 percent) of the school food authorities.
The market analysis for scenario one and the sample menus developed
for the NSMP food cost analysis reflect an expected shift toward
increased use of vegetables, fruits and grains. Such a shift is
consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Food Guide
Pyramid.4 This shift can occur without causing significant impacts
in overall food markets, however, or in the amounts and types of food
USDA provides to schools, with the exception of butter.
USDA continues to make improvements that reduce the proportion of
calories from fat in donated commodities: Reducing fat levels in ground
beef; acquiring lower-fat cheeses and salad dressings; and providing
foods in lower-fat forms (chicken vs. chicken nuggets). Because USDA
provides a significant proportion of a small number of foods schools
use (cheese--45 percent; beef--30 percent; turkey--70 percent;
chicken--29 percent) efforts to lower the percentage of calories from
fat for these commodities can have a substantial impact on the overall
nutrient profile of foods used in the program. Even if there are some
shifts in the types of foods that schools serve, there is likely to be
little change in the overall amount of USDA acquisitions of cheese,
beef and poultry because the Department's purchasing power would
provide the best leverage for securing lower-fat versions of these
products at the lowest price.
c. Benefits
No near-term cost savings due to health improvement from the
nutritional update are projected. However, longer term savings in
health care costs and years of life may result. The Continuing Survey
of Food Intake by Individuals, 1989-91 found that school-age children
have average daily intakes of 33.7 to 34.7 percent of calories from
fat, and 12.6 to 13.3 percent of calories from saturated fat, depending
upon the age-sex group. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends
limiting total fat intake to not more than 30 percent of total
calories, and limiting saturated fat intake to less than 10 percent of
total calories. The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA)
found the average daily consumption by NSLP participants on school days
to be 35 percent of calories from fat and 13 percent of calories from
saturated fat, compared to 33 percent of calories from fat and 12
percent of calories from saturated fat for non-participants.5 SNDA
also found that students consume fat and saturated fat from school
meals at about the same levels as those offered to them. SNDA found
schools offering NSLP meals which averaged 38 percent of calories from
fat and 15 percent of calories from saturated fat, and participants
consumed NSLP meals with 37 percent of calories from fat and 14 percent
of calories from saturated fat. Implementation of the proposed rule
would reduce the fat levels at school meals to the Dietary Guidelines
levels. Using these figures along with the average percent of school-
age children receiving a USDA meal (51%) and the average number of
school days per year (182), we estimate that, on average, the proposed
rule will achieve about 12 percent of the change needed to reach the
Dietary Guidelines levels for percent of calories from fat and
saturated fat for all U.S. children ages 5 to 18 years. Since school
meal participation rates are higher for low-income children than for
higher income children, the health benefits will be concentrated in the
population at greatest risk of nutrition-related chronic diseases--
those with low income. Healthy People 2000: The National Health
Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives reports that low income is
a special risk factor for both heart disease and cancer.6
The long term savings in health care costs and increase in years of
life could result to the extent that lower intakes of fat, saturated
fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and increased intakes of grains, fruits
and low-fat vegetables either throughout the school years or over a
more extended period of time could reduce the risk of diet-related
chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
atherosclerosis. These diseases accounted for almost 65 percent of all
deaths in the U.S. in 1991.7 McGinnis and Foege, in an analysis of
actual causes of death in the U.S., reported about 300,000 deaths per
year, 14 percent of the total deaths, as the lower bound estimate for
deaths related to diet and activity patterns.8 These factors
cannot be readily separated due to their interdependence in determining
obesity.
The savings in years of life and the value associated with a
population reduction of fat, saturated fat and cholesterol has been
estimated for the U.S. adult population. These estimates were
incorporated into the regulatory impact analysis for the food labeling
regulatory proposal published on November 27, 1991, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).9 While no comparable estimates are currently
available for dietary changes by school-age children, it is useful to
consider the magnitude of effects expected from the proposed changes in
the school meal programs with that projected for food labeling.
The study by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) developed for
the food labeling proposal estimated the following changes in fat,
saturated fat and cholesterol for male and women due to the labeling
changes:10
Table 3.--Average Daily Estimated Changes in Fat, Saturated Fat and
Cholesterol for the U.S. Adult Population Due to FDA Food Labeling
Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men Women Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in fat intake:
Grams........................ -1.49 -0.67 -1.08
Percent...................... -1.4% -1.1% -1.25%
Changes in saturated fat intake:
Grams........................ -0.48 -0.16 -0.31
Percent...................... -1.3% -0.7% -1.0%
Changes in cholesterol intake:
Milligrams................... -0.42 -0.26 -0.34
Percent...................... -0.1% -0.1% -0.1%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Food and Drug Administration regulatory impact analysis
statement for the proposed food labeling regulations, Federal
Register, November 27, 1991. Average assumes equal numbers of men and
women.
RTI and FDA then used the changes for men and women in a computer
model developed by Dr. Warren Browner to estimate the effects on years
of life over a period of 20 years. The increased years of life
estimates were then used to estimate a value for the added years of
life. These changes were found to result in an estimated 20-year
reduction of 35,179 cases of cancer, and a reduction of 4,028 cases of
coronary heart disease. As a result they estimated avoiding 12,902
deaths and increasing life-years by 80,930.
FDA used two different approaches to estimating the total value of
the food labeling changes, a remaining years of life approach and a
mean value approach (see November 27, 1991 Federal Register, pages
60871-0872, for a more detailed description). They also estimated
totals using two different dollar values for consumer willingness to
pay for risk reduction--a conservative estimate of $1.5 million and a
higher estimate of $3.0 million. The value of the benefits from
increased life-years was estimated to be $3.6 billion (discounted at 5
percent over a 20 year period). When benefits were valued based upon
the number of early deaths prevented and the higher willingness to pay
figure of $3.0 million, the estimate (similarly discounted) increased
to $21 billion. In January 6, 1993, when publishing the final food
labeling rule with a comment analysis, FDA updated their 20-year value
estimates to between $4.4 billion and $26.5 billion.11
USDA agrees with FDA that for government policy evaluation,
society's willingness to pay for risk reduction is an appropriate
concept to use in evaluating the impact of government actions which
will reduce risks. The FDA estimates of $1.5 million and $3.0 million
used in their analysis are quite conservative. Economists have three
decades of experience in estimating the value of reducing the risk of
fatalities using labor market data. Fisher, Chestnut and Violette
(1989) evaluated the merits of these studies of the extra wages that
would have to be paid for accepting a higher risk of fatality on the
job; concluded that the results from the studies without obvious design
flaws were reasonable consistent; and reported that the studies implied
a value-per-statistical-life of $1.6 million to $8.5 million (in 1986
dollars).12 This range of value-per-statistical-life becomes $2
million to $10.4 million in 1993 dollars (updated using the change in
Bureau of Labor Statistics' average weekly earnings paid to
nonagriculture nonsupervisory workers).
Viscusi (1993) also surveyed risks of death and concluded that
``the most reasonable estimates of the value of life are clustered in
the $3 million to $7 million range'' (p. 1942). However, he cautions
that these estimates may be low, because the populations of exposed
workers in these studies generally have lower incomes than individuals
being protected by government risk regulations.13 (The positive
income elasticity for risk reduction means that higher values for
lifesaving should be used when evaluating many risk reduction programs,
such as airline safety programs). Fisher, Chestnut, and Violette also
caution that to the individual's valuation of the risk reduction should
be added the value loved ones and altruistic others also would be
``willing to pay for reducing the fatality risk for those exposed to
it'' (p. 97).
The values for risk reduction may be greater when risks are
involuntarily assumed than when the risks are voluntarily chosen. This
is relevant to the school lunch situation where a limited array of
choices are offered in the lunch program. Thus, the higher estimates
may be most appropriate for evaluating the school lunch programs'
healthier diet and its contribution to reducing risk per-statistical-
life.
In comparison to the dietary changes predicted by FDA for food
labeling, the improvements in fat and saturated fat estimated for the
school meal program proposed regulation are substantial. The School
Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study found that dietary intake from NSLP
lunches provides 37 percent of calories from fat and 14 percent of
calories from saturated fat. Reducing these lunchtime intakes to the
Dietary Guidelines levels proposed in the regulation would reduce an
NSLP participant's intake by 5.9 grams of fat and 3.4 grams of
saturated fat on each day school lunch is eaten. Allowing for 182
school days per year and the percent of total U.S. children age 5
through 18 years who receive a meal on any school day (51%), it is
estimated that the average daily reduction across all school-aged youth
would be 1.5 grams fat and 0.86 grams saturated fat.
These estimates are significantly above those estimated for the FDA
food labeling changes for fat and saturated fat. For cholesterol,
school meals already provide a moderate intake and no further reduction
will be required by the proposed regulation. To further compare the
aggregate effect to that estimated for the food labeling regulations,
consider the situation where the adult population reduces fat by 1.5
grams, reduces saturated fat by 0.86 grams, and does not reduce dietary
cholesterol intake. This is necessary because there are no commonly
accepted equations to relate changes in children's intakes of fat,
saturated fat, and cholesterol to chronic disease reduction. The
Browner model assumes that the relative risk of cancer is a function of
total fat. The reduction of 1.5 grams of fat is about 39 percent
greater than the reduction of 1.08 grams average for males and females
estimated for FDA's food labeling, so a larger reduction in cancer
incidence and deaths would be expected. For coronary heart disease, the
Browner model assumes that all change is mediated through changes in
serum cholesterol, which is affected by total fat, the type of fat, and
dietary cholesterol. FDA used the following equation from Hegsted
(1986) to estimate the change in serum cholesterol:
Change in serum cholesterol in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) =
2.16S - 1.65P + 0.097C
Where
S = change in percentage of total calories represented by saturated
fat,
P = change in percentage of total calories represented by
polyunsaturated fat, and
C = change in dietary cholesterol measured in milligrams per 1000
kilocalories.
The Hegsted equation shows that the greatest effect on serum
cholesterol is due to saturated fat, and that changes in dietary
cholesterol only play a small part.14
The NSLP changes result in an average reduction in saturated fat of
0.86 grams, which is 2.77 times the reduction of 0.31 grams estimated
for FDA's food labeling. Since the estimated change in polyunsaturated
fat levels is only slightly greater for food labeling than for the
proposed regulation, the overall estimated change in serum cholesterol
for the adult example based upon changes at the levels which are
proposed for school lunch would be considerably greater than that
projected for labeling, driven by the large decline in saturated fat.
In summary, if the reductions in fat and saturated fat intake
instituted during the school years are continued into adulthood, the
increase in life-years and the value in dollars based upon willingness
to pay would be of a magnitude similar to or exceeding that estimated
for the food labeling changes, which were $4.4 to $26.5 billion over 20
years. However, the lag time to realize this level of benefits over a
20 year period might be greater since FDA's estimates apply to the U.S.
adult population and the proposed rule on school meals will begin to
have effect with those children in school at the time of
implementation.
The fat and saturated fat reductions estimated to accompany the
proposed regulation assume that: (1) Students do not replace school
meal fat and saturated fat reductions by increasing fat intake at other
times of the day or on non-school days, (2) that the dietary
improvements at USDA school meals do not result in similar improvements
at other meals or on non-school days and (3) that the improvements by
program participants do not result in changes by non-program
participants. If students did replace fat and saturated fat at other
eating occasions, a smaller health benefit would result. If
improvements on school days serve as a positive models which, when
combined with nutrition education, result in improvements to non-USDA
school meal, a larger improvement would result. The findings from the
Menu Modification Demonstrations indicate that the daily fat intakes of
NSLP participants would decline if their fat intakes at lunch were
lower, but the effect on non-school meals is less clear.15 Four
sites at geographically dispersed locations (Chattanooga, TN; Denver,
CO; Princeton City, OH; and San Bernadino, CA) received grants to test
reduction in the fat content of NSLP meals. Dietary intakes of fifth
grade NSLP participants at lunch and over 24 hours were collected both
at baseline and after the reduction of fat in the NSLP meals. The
demonstration found that the percent of calories from fat over 24 hours
declined either significantly or marginally at all sites for both boys
and girls. In addition, the reduction of intake in grams of total fat
over 24 hours was greater than or equal to the reduction at the NSLP
meal at three of the four sites. At the fourth site (Princeton City),
despite an NSLP reduction in fat, 24-hour calories and grams of fat
increased. At the San Bernardino site, which achieved the largest
reduction in fat at the NSLP meals, the reduction of grams of fat over
24 hours was significantly greater than the NSLP reduction. On balance,
the results of this demonstration indicate that when fat at the NSLP
meal is reduced, students usually do not replace these calories by
increasing fat intake at other eating occasions. While there is some
indication that an accompanying reduction in fat at other eating
occasions may be more common than an increase in fat at other eating
occasions, findings are mixed and therefore not robust enough to
influence benefit projections. Accordingly, the analysis in this
section assumes that changes in NSLP fat levels do not affect fat
intake at other occasions.
The fat and saturated fat reductions discussed in the impact
analysis above relate only to the lunch meal. The proposed regulation
will also reduce fat and saturated fat in school breakfasts, from 28 to
25 percent of total calories from fat, and from 11 to 10 percent of
total calories from saturated fat. This will increase the overall
reduction in average fat and saturated fat for the student population,
but to a lesser extent than NSLP due to the smaller reductions and
because fewer students participate in the School Breakfast Program.
The food labeling regulations are not expected to reduce U.S. fat
and saturated fat levels by the full amount needed to achieve the
Dietary Guidelines. This indicates that there will be room for the fat
and saturated fat reductions which would result from the proposed rule
to generate health improvement.
d. Effects on Participation
It is anticipated that the rule will have minimal effect on NSLP
participation because implementation of the rule is not expected to
increase meal prices or decrease meal acceptability. On a typical day,
25 million children participate in the National School Lunch Program.
About 14 million of these meals are served to children receiving free
or reduced price lunches. USDA has analyzed both the impact of meeting
the dietary guidelines on meal price and meal acceptability and the
implications for program participation.
Lunch price is an important factor in determining the level of
participation among these students, with students participating at
higher rates in schools with lower prices. Research indicates that
price increases can cause substantial decreases in student
participation. A key factor in maintaining participation among paid
students while implementing the dietary guidelines is minimizing the
meal cost. Food cost analysis demonstrated that nutritional targets can
be reached within current food cost constraints. Minimizing cost
impacts removes upward pressure on student fees which would result in
decreased student participation.
USDA's efforts to test the effect of reducing fat and sodium and
increasing the nutritional quality of meals has shown that improvements
can be made without affecting participation. Although the SNDA study
found that schools that served meals with a low proportion of calories
from fat (less than 32 percent) had lower than average program
participation, this information needs to be viewed in the larger
context of efforts specifically designed to examine improvements in
school meals.
The Department sponsored demonstration projects in five school food
authorities from school year 1989-90 to 1991-92 to evaluate the extent
to which menus planned to meet the NSLP meal pattern could be modified
to better reflect the dietary guidelines.16 Through the Menu
Modification Demonstration Project, USDA examined the process involved
in modifying school meals, including the impact on program
participation. The demonstration found that fat could be decreased
significantly without decreasing program participation. The percentage
decrease in grams of fat ranged from 12 to 31 percent in the four
sites. In all schools, average daily participation remained stable or
increased slightly. In addition, the improvements were made with
relatively minor changes in the types of foods offered. Although the
districts were not able to make comparable improvements in the
percentage of calories from fat, because overall calories decreased,
the results demonstrate that fat can be cut without losing
participation.
California is operating a State-wide demonstration of nutrient
standard menu planning. The State reported that the nutrient-based
system they implemented did not result in any decreases in gross meal
participation between 1990 and 1992.
SNDA did find lower student participation in very low-fat schools,
however, the study also indicated that it is possible to reduce the
average fat content of lunches offered to well below the national
average of 38 percent of food energy without adversely affecting
participation in the NSLP. Participation rates were similar in schools
whose lunches provide a moderate percentage of food energy from fat (32
percent to 35 percent) and in those whose meals provide a high or very
high percentage of food energy from fat. It is important to note that
the SNDA finding of low participation among low-fat schools is not
based on experience with schools altering the nutrient content of food
but rather on a point-in-time cross-sectional observation of schools
with low-fat meals. The study did not collect information on how the
schools implemented low-fat meals and what consequences these would
have had on participation.
USDA recognizes that significant efforts must be undertaken to
ensure that participation is maintained as meals are improved. If a
meal does not taste good or look good then children will not eat it.
The proposed regulation recognizes that food changes alone will not
bring schools meals in line with the dietary guidelines. The results of
SNDA and the two demonstrations suggest that reductions in calories
from fat must be accompanied by nutrition education and promotional
activities to maintain student participation. Gradual implementation of
the Dietary Guidelines in school meals will allow for incremental
changes in food offerings, minimizing the impact on current
participation in the school meal programs. School food service is a
nonprofit business that must meet student preferences to stay viable.
This requires maintenance of participation by meeting food preferences,
and accomplishing nutritional improvements through changes to recipes,
food preparation techniques and purchasing specifications that are
consistent with these preferences.
e. Implementation Costs
Initial implementation costs faced by schools will vary depending
on existing capabilities and resources within districts and will take
many forms. Local, State and Federal resources are available for
implementation. USDA has already initiated a number of improvements:
Updated and improved recipes for schools, a computerized data bank of
standard nutritional values of meals served and a demonstration project
on NSMP. The demonstration will incur much of the developmental cost of
the basic system framework and identify cost effective strategies for
implementation. The Department has announced the availability of
nutrition education cooperative agreements to develop comprehensive
community-based approaches to nutrition education and is working on a
national publication directed at grade school children. The Department
is assisting school food service professionals in working with chefs,
farmers and others to make school meals appealing and healthful.
The President's FY 1995 budget contains a request of over $20
million to support extensive training for school meal providers on how
to plan and prepare nutritious and appealing meals as well as launching
a national media campaign directed at building children's skills at
making wise food choices for life.
States receive over $90 million annually from the Federal level in
State Administrative Expense (SAE) funds for program oversight. A
portion of these resources are available to assist in implementation.
In addition, the proposed regulation would reduce the level of State
resources devoted to local school food authority reviews, which is
described in more detail below.
At the local level, implementing nutrient standard menu planning
will require computer capabilities. Many schools currently make
extensive use of computers for management activities and have the
facilities and capabilities to undertake nutrient standard menu
planning. One of the goals of the initiative is to use the technology
more effectively.
A study of school food authorities in the mid-Atlantic region found
that 60 percent of SFAs employ computers for some functions.17
Over one-fourth of these districts had comprehensive systems that
allowed them to do menu management and nutritional evaluations. The
menu modification demonstrations found that the lack of appropriate
computer software limited the feasibility of monitoring the nutritional
quality of menus. More recently developed software has greatly enhanced
the ability to perform these analyses, which will now be supported by a
USDA developed data base. Schools with microcomputers should be able to
use this software.
Schools without sufficient computer capability or necessary access
to technical assistance may opt for Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning, which will allow development and analysis of menus by other
entities, such as State agencies, consortiums of school districts,
consultants or the Federal government, while still applying the
essentials of NSMP.
The per meal reimbursement provided to schools was designed to
cover both the food and administrative costs (labor and operations) of
providing meals to students and can be used to acquire computer
hardware and software. Enhanced computing abilities offer significant
improvements in other areas of food service management beyond nutrient
standard menu planning. The potential for additional improvements in
food service operations beyond menu planning, for example, inventory
control, should help offset the cost of acquiring this capability for
NSMP.
The cost analysis found that the nutrient requirements of NSMP can
be met at about the current cost of food in the National School Lunch
Program. Because the foods used in the sample menus were drawn from
what is currently being served, USDA does not anticipate the need for
significant changes in meal preparation practices that would affect the
cost to prepare meals. The administrative cost of conducting NSMP
should be about the same as current operations once the system is fully
implemented in a school. An evaluation of costs in the California
nutrient standard demonstration reported that most schools experienced
slight cost changes that ranged from 4 percent savings to 1.5 percent
increased costs and concluded that most districts can expect to
experience very little change in overall food service costs when
implementing a nutrient-based system.18
f. Other Significant Effects
The Food and Nutrition Service believes that implementation of
nutrient-based menus will require extensive training and technical
assistance, especially at the school food authority level. In addition,
the acquisition of computers (for schools that do not already have
them) or contracting for computer or assistance with the revised menu
planning system may involve some local level expenditures during the
implementation period. While implementation will require a dedicated
effort on the part of our agency, the state agencies and local school
food authorities, the ongoing operation and maintenance of nutrient-
based menu planning will be indistinguishable from the current meal
pattern based system in terms of efforts.
To provide for the resources needed for implementation, the
regulation proposes a twenty per cent reduction in state monitoring
requirements. This reduction will enhance the level of resources
available to focus on training and technical assistance efforts. Many
school food authorities will no longer have the requirement for
specific edit checks to review claims submitted for reimbursable meals.
Rather, these school food authorities will have flexibility to develop
their own internal controls for such review. This provision is largely
intended to streamline program administration, but will also provide
some relief from program management burdens.
Other Regulatory Changes
The regulation proposes to streamline some existing administrative
procedures of State agencies and school districts. This will permit
States and school districts to implement NSMP and focus on the
nutritional needs of children. At the State level the school food
authority review cycle will be extended from four to five years,
reducing by 20 percent the resources devoted to this effort. While this
will extend the time period between formal reviews, most districts are
currently visited more frequently than the current four year cycle. The
States will continue to have a significant presence at the local level.
Although the focus of attention will be on implementing NSMP there
should be no perceived reduction in State oversight.
5. Reason for Selection of Proposed Alternative: The overriding
purpose behind this rule is to serve more nutritious and healthful
meals to school children while maintaining access to the meal programs
for needy children and enhancing the flexibility of local schools to
administer the programs.
The nutrient targets selected are derived from the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and the Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDAs).19 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans encompass the
Federal government policy on nutrition. They are developed in
consideration of scientific sources such as The Surgeon General's
Report on Nutrition and Health20 and the National Academy of
Sciences reports Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic
Disease Risk21 and Recommended Dietary Allowances. They are based
upon the recommendations of an expert committee, the Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee, specifically appointed to assist in developing
Dietary Guidelines for use across Federal government. There are no
alternative policy documents with official sanction by the government
departments responsible for domestic nutrition which could provide
alternative dietary targets for the general population. Other
government publications in this area, such as ``Building for the
Future: Nutrition Guidance for the Child Nutrition Programs''22
are based upon the Dietary Guidelines.
6. Public Comments: The Department also considered extensive oral
testimony presented at four public hearings and meetings as well as
written comments submitted in response to a notice published in the
Federal Register on September 13, 1993. A summary of the comments is
included in the preamble to the proposed rule.
7. References:
Footnotes
1USDA/DHHS (1990). Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232, third
edition, 1990.
2Hirschman, J., D. Smallwood, and L. Conneen (1994). ``Food
Cost of Healthy School Meals''. USDA Food and Nutrition Service and
Economic Research Service, 1994.
3USDA (1988). ``Quantity Recipes for School Food Service''.
Program Aid No. 1371. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Nutrition and
Technical Services Division.
4USDA Human Nutrition Information Service (1992). ``The
Food Guide Pyramid''. USDA Home and Garden Bulletin No. 252, August,
1992.
5Devaney, B., A. Gordon and J. Burghardt (1993). The School
Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: Dietary Intakes of Program
Participants and Nonparticipants. October 1993.
6DHHS (1990). Healthy People 2000: National Health
Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. DHHS Publication No.
(PHS) 91-50213.
7National Center for Health Statistics (1993). ``Advance
Report of Final Mortality Statistics, 1991''. Monthly Vital
Statistics Report, Vol. 142, No. 2 (Supplement).
8McGinnis, J.M. and W.H. Foege (1993). ``Actual Causes of
Death in the United States''. Journal of the American Medical
Association, Nov. 10, 1993, Vol 270, No. 16:2207.
9Food and Drug Administration (1991). ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Proposed Rules to Amend the Food Labeling
Regulations''. Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 229:60856-60877,
November 27, 1991.
10Research Triangle Institute (1991). ``Estimated Health
Benefits of Nutrition Label Changes, Final Report, Vol 1 and 2''.
RTI Project Number 233U-3972-05. Prepared for Richard Williams, Food
and Drug Administration, April 1991.
11Food and Drug Administration (1993). ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Final Rules to Amend the Food Labeling
Regulations''. Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 3:2927-2941, January 6,
1993.
12Fisher, Ann, Lauraine G. Chestnut, Daniel M. Violette
(1989) ``The Value of Reducing Risks of Death: A Note on New
Evidence,'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 8, No.
1, pp. 88-100.
13W. Kip Viscusi (1993) ``The Value of Risks to Life and
Health'', Journal of Economic Literature Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1912-
1946.
14Hegsted, D.M. (1986). ``Serum-Cholesterol Response to
Dietary Cholesterol: A Re-evaluation''. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 44:299-305.
15Fox, M.K. and R. St. Pierre (1993). Menu Modification
Demonstration Grants: Evaluation Results, Volume I: Summary. July
1993.
16Fox, M.K., R. St. Pierre (1993). Menu Modification
Demonstration Grants: Evaluation Results. Abt. Associates Inc. July
1993.
17Brewer, K.P., F.J. DeMicco and R.E. Conn (1993).
``Computer Hardware and Software Use in School Food Service
Operations''. School Food Service Research Review, Volume 17, Number
2.
18Duerr Evaluation Resources (1992). Evaluation of the
Regional Model Products Networks 1991/92 Year-End Report. December
1992.
19National Research Council (1989). Recommended Dietary
Allowances, 10th edition. National Academy of Sciences, 1989.
20HHS (1988). The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and
Health. DHHS (PHS) Publication No. 88-50210.
21National Research Council (1989). Diet and Health:
Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. National Academy of
Sciences, 1989.
22USDA (1992). ``Building for the Future: Nutrition
Guidance for the Child Nutrition Programs''. Publication No. FNS-
279. Food and Nutrition Service, April 1992.
[FR Doc. 94-14092 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P