[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5514-5527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2044]




[[Page 5513]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Food and Consumer Service



_______________________________________________________________________



7 CFR Parts 210 and 220



National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Compliance 
With the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food-Based Menu Systems; 
Proposed Rule and Notice of Public Meeting

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules   
[[Page 5514]] 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Parts 210 and 220

RIN 0584-AB94


National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: 
Compliance With the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food-Based 
Menu Systems

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.

ACTIONS: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 requires, 
for purposes of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs, that a variety of meal planning approaches be made available 
to school food authorities, including ``food-based menu systems.'' The 
food-based menu systems concept is intended to supplement the nutrient-
based menu planning provisions previously proposed by the Department of 
Agriculture on June 10, 1994. In addition, the Act requires that school 
meals comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as the 
Department also proposed on that date. The proposal which follows 
implements the requirement for a food-based menu systems planning 
alternative. To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Dietary 
Guidelines, this proposal expands the monitoring procedures in the 
earlier proposal to provide a system appropriate for monitoring meals 
served by school food authorities that choose the food-based menu 
systems approach.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked or 
transmitted on or before March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mr. Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development 
Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101 
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Comments may be sent via 
E-mail to: [email protected]. If comments are sent electronically, 
commenters should designate ``receipt requested'' to be notified by E-
mail that the message has been received by USDA.

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 has been determined to be significant and was 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866.

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 Consumer Service (FCS) has 
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because of the variety of 
options available to schools to comply with the proposed requirements. 
The impacts of specific provisions have been considered by the 
Department as part of the required Regulatory Assessment. Interested 
parties should refer to this document which is published at the end of 
this proposal.

Catalog of Federal 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 FCS findings as a result of an administrative review must 
follow FCS 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 FCS 
Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR 
235.11(f).

Information Collection

    This proposed rule contains no new 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).

Background

    Section 106(b) of Pub. L. 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy 
Americans Act of 1994, signed into law on November 2, 1994, amended 
section 9 of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C. 
1758(b)(2)(C), to require meals that are served under the National 
School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meet the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans by July 1, 1996, unless the State 
agency grants a waiver under criteria established by the State agency. 
Section 106(b) provides that a State agency waiver cannot delay 
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines beyond July 1, 1998. Further, 
section 112(c) of Pub. L. 103-448 amended section 12(k) of the NSLA, 42 
U.S.C. 1760(k), to require that the Department develop ``food-based'' 
systems for school food authorities to follow when planning and 
preparing meals. Food-based menu planning systems would provide local 
food services with a third option, supplementing the Nutrient Standard 
Menu Planning (NuMenus) and Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning 
(Assisted NuMenus) systems originally included in the Department's June 
10, 1994, proposal. This proposed rulemaking would implement these 
statutory provisions. Other provisions of Pub. L. 103-448 will be 
incorporated into later rulemakings, as appropriate. One such provision 
requires disclosure of information about the nutritional content of 
school meals and the consistency of the meals with the Dietary 
Guidelines. The Department will consider a number of options for 
implementing this provision. Of paramount concern is the development of 
an approach that provides flexibility and alternatives for school food 
authorities. In addition, the Department wants to ensure that any 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements that are associated with the 
requirement for nutrition disclosure are kept to a minimum.

Current Provisions

    The NSLP was designed in 1946 to offer meals that provide foods 
which, over time, are sufficient to approximate [[Page 5515]] one-third 
of the National Academy of Sciences' Recommended Dietary Allowances 
(RDA) for key nutrients needed for growth and development for the 10-12 
year old child. Historically, the Department has attempted to achieve 
this goal by requiring that school lunches contain minimum amounts of 
the following specific components: meat/meat alternate, breads/bread 
alternates, two different vegetables/fruits and fluid milk. The pattern 
for the SBP has the goal of providing 25 percent of the RDA and 
requires minimum quantities of the following components: two servings 
of any combination of meat/meat alternate or breads/bread alternates, 
one serving of fruits or vegetables and fluid milk.

Proposed Updating of the Nutrition Standards

    Overall, these meal patterns succeed in providing adequate levels 
of key nutrients. However, they were never updated to reflect the broad 
array of scientific data documenting that excesses in consumption are a 
major concern because of their relationship to the incidence of chronic 
disease. Consequently, school lunches typically fail to comply with the 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published jointly by the Department 
of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services. In 
particular, school lunches fail to meet the Dietary Guidelines 
recommended limits on percent of calories from fat (30%) and saturated 
fat (10%).
    To address these deficiencies, the Department issued a proposed 
regulation on June 10, 1994, updating the nutrition standards of the 
NSLP and SBP and requiring that school meals comply with the 
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines no later than July 1, 1998. 
Recognizing that the meal pattern did not provide sufficient 
flexibility to enable a school food service to comply with these 
requirements, that proposal also proposed to replace the current meal 
patterns with NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus so that meals could be 
evaluated and adjusted routinely through use of nutrition analysis. 
Finally, realizing the need for oversight and technical assistance, the 
Department proposed an appropriate system for State agency monitoring 
of school food authority compliance with the nutrition standards.
    The Department received over 14,000 comment letters in response to 
the June 10, 1994, rulemaking. Over 5,000 commenters, primarily from 
persons in the school food service community, recommended that a meal 
pattern be retained and that it be designed to meet the requirements of 
the Dietary Guidelines. A number of commenters recommended systems 
currently in use in their areas, such as the Minnesota Lunch Power 
program or the California SHAPE program. Many commenters indicated that 
development of a new meal pattern based on the Dietary Guidelines would 
result in speedier implementation of the updated nutrition standards 
because meal planners were familiar with the meal pattern concept.
    On November 2, 1994, Pub. L. 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy 
Americans Act of 1994, was signed into law. This law had no provisions 
that would require changes to the June 10, 1994, proposal other than to 
mandate implementation of the Dietary Guidelines two years earlier than 
had been proposed and to require that food-based menu planning systems 
be permitted as means to try to conform meals to the Dietary 
Guidelines. The proposed provisions involving NuMenus and Assisted 
NuMenus as well as the proposed nutrition standards for school meals, 
including compliance with the applicable Dietary Guidelines, were not 
affected. The Department considers, therefore, that the June 10, 1994, 
proposal is consistent with Congressional intent on the issues 
addressed in that rule.
    The Department wishes to call attention to the fact that certain 
provisions included in the June 10, 1994, proposal will be discussed in 
this preamble to facilitate public review and comment on food-based 
menu systems within the overall context of the Department's School 
Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. These provisions such as NuMenus 
and Assisted NuMenus are not, however, being reproposed, and the 
Department will not consider additional comments on any provisions of 
the June 10, 1994, proposed rule. The Department will issue a final 
rule incorporating provisions from that proposal and this one, and at 
that time the Department will address the comments received on both 
proposals.

Meeting the Dietary Guidelines, RDA and Energy Levels

    As originally proposed by the Department and now required by 
section 9(f)(2)(C) of the NSLA, all reimbursable school meals, 
regardless of the method used to plan those meals, will be required to 
meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines including 
the quantified standards established for fat and saturated fat over the 
course of a school week.
    To summarize the earlier proposals, located at 59 FR 30234-37, 
school food authorities would be required to make an effort to reduce 
sodium and cholesterol, increase dietary fiber, and serve a variety of 
foods. However, the Department did not propose specific levels for 
these components, since numeric targets are not established by the 
current Dietary Guidelines. Nevertheless, progress in these areas is 
expected and would be assessed. The RDA for the following nutrients 
were proposed at minimum levels: protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, 
and calcium as well as the recommended energy intake for the specific 
age/grade. It was also proposed that energy levels (calories) would be 
established to provide, over the school week, an average of one-third 
of the RDA for the NSLP and one-fourth for the SBP and the maximum 
levels of calories from fat and saturated fat would be limited to 30 
percent and 10 percent of calories, respectively.

Food-Based Menu Systems

    In developing the proposed food-based menu planning systems, the 
Department retained the structure of the current meal patterns for the 
NSLP and SBP in terms of components. However, the Department could not 
retain the current quantity requirements, because they are inadequate 
to meet the goal of compliance with the Dietary Guidelines. 
Consequently, portion sizes for some components have been realigned to 
place greater emphasis on providing vegetables/fruits and grains. In 
addition, the ways grains/breads products may contribute to the 
reimbursable meal would be expanded.
    The Department has revised the current meal pattern to better 
reflect the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. However, in the 
absence of ongoing nutrient analysis, there can be no absolute 
assurance that simple adherence to a meal pattern will result in meals 
that comply with these nutrition standards. Because of the vast 
differences in the nutrient value of various food items, especially 
given different cooking methods, meal planners must keep in mind the 
need to modify menus, recipes, product specifications, and preparation 
techniques. However, the Department recognizes that there may be some 
meal planning approaches that are designed to reflect the 
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. As discussed later in this 
preamble, the Department may allow such meal planning approaches as one 
way of demonstrating compliance with the applicable Dietary Guidelines 
and proposed nutrition standards [[Page 5516]] without requiring the 
State agency to conduct nutrient analysis as part of its oversight 
responsibilities.
    In designing the proposed changes, the Department employed a method 
that is consistent with that used to develop previous meal patterns and 
other food guides. Nutrient profiles were developed for each of the 
four food components. Then, using food consumption data from the School 
Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) Study (released in October, 1993), 
the Department estimated the type and frequency of foods consumed from 
each of the food components. With this information, the Department 
arrived at composites of estimated nutrient and caloric contributions 
of each component and calculated revised quantities for each component 
to achieve compliance with the nutrition standards for each age/grade 
group. (These groupings are discussed later in this preamble.)
    For developmental purposes, the nutrient profiles for each meal 
component were calculated based on their lowest fat forms and on the 
assumption that they contained no added sugars. The profiles also 
maintained the approximate proportions of the main ingredients which, 
according to SNDA, were used to satisfy each component. For example, in 
the meat/meat alternate component, the approximate relative proportions 
of meat, eggs, beans, and cheese were maintained. After establishing 
that the vitamin, mineral and protein needs were met for each age/grade 
grouping, the Department determined the calorie levels of each food 
component and calculated the difference between these levels and the 
calorie needs of each age/grade group.
    Data from SNDA demonstrates that typical school meals already 
substantially exceed the target for protein. There would be little 
benefit, therefore, to raising calorie levels by increasing the size of 
the meat/meat alternate or milk components. Instead, the additional 
calories needed to make up the difference between the calorie levels of 
the lowest-fat versions of the meal components and the required calorie 
levels should come from carbohydrates and by using meat/meat alternate 
and milk that are somewhat higher in fat than the low-fat products used 
in the model. Moreover, the Department's analysis shows that nutrition 
standards can be met while using a variety of items within each 
component while still remaining within the Dietary Guidelines' 
recommendations for limiting calories from total fat to 30 percent and 
to 10 percent for saturated fat and attaining the RDA for specific 
nutrients.
    For many schools, supplying one-third of the recommended energy 
allowance (calories) through lunches that provide no more than 30 
percent of calories from total fat and 10 percent from saturated fat 
will require replacement of calories from fat with calories from other 
sources. Fat yields nine calories of food energy per gram, more than 
twice the food energy per gram provided by carbohydrates and protein, 
which each yield four calories per gram. The Menu Modification 
Demonstration Projects, conducted by the Department in 1990-92, showed 
that a common shortcoming in efforts to provide meals with a lower 
percent of calories from fat is the failure to maintain total calories 
(Fox and St. Pierre, 1993). In this demonstration project, where 
Federal technical assistance was minimal, three of the four NSLP 
demonstration sites substantially reduced total fat, but did not 
replace the lost calories. As a result, they failed to achieve their 
target goals for percent of calories from fat for the NSLP meal, and 
they fell short of providing one-third of the RDA for food energy. It 
is therefore appropriate for food-based menu systems to include 
increased servings for food components which can provide additional 
calories from sources other than fat while calories from fat are being 
reduced. (REFERENCE: Fox, M.K., and R. St. Pierre (1993). Menu 
Modification Demonstration Grants: Evaluation Results, Volume 1: 
Summary. Prepared by Abt Associates, Inc, under contract to the 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.)

Age/Grade Groups for Nutrition Standards

    The Department proposes to use age/grade groupings of kindergarten 
through grade 6 and grades 7 through 12 with an optional grouping for 
kindergarten through grade 3. The two required groups are designed to 
reflect the grade structures of the majority of schools. But, as some 
schools enroll children in kindergarten through grade 3, an optional 
standard is also proposed.
    Establishing separate standards and meal patterns for younger 
versus older children recognizes the need to provide adequate energy 
and nutrients for growth based on their particular needs. Growth and 
maturation changes in adolescents require higher nutrient and energy 
levels than those for younger children. Nutrient and calorie levels 
designed for younger children are inappropriate for adolescents, as 
they fail to provide sufficient energy for adolescents, especially for 
boys, as well as sufficient iron for adolescent females. A single 
nutrient standard that meets the needs of the adolescent will provide 
too many calories and too much fat for the younger child promoting 
either plate waste or excessive intake. In developing the calorie 
levels, the Department was also mindful of the need to balance the 
reduction in energy from calories from fat and saturated fat as advised 
by the Dietary Guidelines, with the need to maintain energy levels 
overall. Energy lost from reduced fat meals must be replaced by energy 
from carbohydrates.
    To establish these levels, a table entitled ``Calorie and Nutrient 
Levels for School Lunch'' would be included at Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and 
one entitled ``Calorie and Nutrient Levels for School Breakfast'' in 
Sec. 220.8(a)(2). As discussed further, tables for the minimum 
quantities of the required food components are also proposed.

Changes to the NSLP Meal Components

    The following are the specific changes the Department is proposing 
to the current meal pattern components. The Department wishes to 
emphasize that the principal differences between the proposed meal 
patterns and the current patterns reflect increases in the quantities 
of vegetables/fruits and breads/grains products. The Department is 
proposing no reductions to the current minimum quantity requirements 
for any components.

Meat/Meat Alternate Component

    The Department is not proposing to change the minimum amounts of 
this component required for children in any age group. Nor are any 
changes being made to what constitutes the meat/meat alternate 
component. However, consistent with the Food Guide Pyramid, guidance 
materials issued by the Department in support of food-based menu 
planning systems will emphasize lower fat meat/meat alternates.

Vegetables/Fruits

    The Department is proposing to increase the amount of fruits and 
vegetables made available over the course of a week. The Dietary 
Guidelines and the Department's Food Pyramid recommend a diet with a 
variety of vegetables, fruits and grain products. Moreover, the 
Department recognizes that fiber levels should be increased and 
calories from non-protein sources must be provided to replace those 
lost from the reduction in fat. The Department is proposing that the 
minimum servings for the vegetables/fruits component would be three-
fourths of a cup (currently one-half cup for [[Page 5517]] children in 
kindergarten through grade 3 and three-fourths cup for grades 4-12) per 
lunch plus an additional one-half cup served over a five-day period for 
children in kindergarten through grade 6. Allowing a five-day period to 
serve the additional one-half cup provides schools with flexibility in 
meal planning. Because older children have greater need for calories 
and other nutrients, the proposed rule would increase the minimum 
serving for vegetables/fruits for children in grades 7 through 12 from 
three-fourths of a cup per day to one cup per day. No changes are being 
proposed, however, for the portion sizes for very young and preschool 
children nor are changes made to what constitutes this component. The 
Department is proposing to revise the chart, ``Minimum Quantities'' in 
Sec. 210.10(c) as well as the additional discussion about this 
component in Sec. 210.10(d)(3) to reflect the enhanced portion sizes.

Grains/Breads

    As with the fruits/vegetables component, the Department is 
proposing a significant increase in the amount of grains/breads made 
available during a school week. Both the Dietary Guidelines and the 
Department's Food Pyramid place emphasis on the consumption of grains. 
In keeping with the use of the term ``grains'' in the Dietary 
Guidelines, this proposal would amend the chart, ``Minimum Quantities'' 
in Sec. 210.10(c) and the additional discussion about this component in 
Sec. 210.10(d)(4) to rename the component currently titled ``Bread/
Bread Alternate.'' The new title would be ``Grains/Breads.'' In 
addition, the Department is proposing an increase in the number of 
servings of grains and breads for school children to augment dietary 
fiber and to provide an additional low-fat source of calories to 
balance the loss of calories from fat. Again, it should be noted that 
the servings for very young and preschool children have not been 
changed. However, for children in kindergarten through grade 6, the 
number of servings per week of grains and breads would be increased 
from 8 to 12. For children in grades 7 through 12, the number of 
servings would be increased from 10 to 15 servings per week. The 
Department is also proposing to revise Sec. 210.10(d)(4)(ii) to permit 
one serving per day of grains/breads in the form of a dessert. This 
proposed change is designed to provide flexibility to assist menu 
planners in meeting energy needs.
    Current guidance (FNS Instruction 783-12), issued in 1983, 
established the requirements and the minimum weights for the current 
breads/bread alternates component. The Department plans to reissue this 
Instruction when final regulations are published to revise the criteria 
for determining acceptable grains/breads products so that some 
additional items may be credited to this group. However, no changes are 
being made in the regulations regarding what constitutes this 
component.

Milk

    As with the meat/meat alternate component, this proposal does not 
change the current minimum serving sizes for fluid milk for any of the 
age/grade groups. Readers should note that section 107 of Pub. L. 103-
448 included a provision modifying the requirement that fluid whole 
milk and fluid unflavored low-fat milk be offered as part of all 
reimbursable lunches. The new statutory milk requirement at section 
9(a)(2) of the NSLA, 42 USC 1758(a)(2), will be addressed in a separate 
rulemaking.

School Lunch Component Chart

    To reflect these proposed changes to the school lunch pattern, the 
proposed rule would make a number of revisions to the table entitled 
``School Lunch Pattern-Per Lunch Minimums'' in Sec. 210.10(c). First, 
the title of the chart would be renamed ``Minimum Quantities,'' since 
some of the quantity requirements are cumulative over the course of the 
school week. Secondly, the age/grade groups are the same as discussed 
above for the nutrition standards, except that the minimum portions for 
children ages one to two who may participate are included for easy 
reference. (Readers should note that these minimums are the same as 
those now in use.) Furthermore, school-age children have been separated 
into two groups: (a) kindergarten through grade 6 and (b) grades 7 
through 12. School food authorities also have the option of using 
alternate portion sizes established for children in kindergarten 
through grade 3. Readers should note, however, that the current 
recommendation to provide children in grades 7 through 12 with three 
ounces of meat/meat alternate would be deleted. This revision is 
intended to ensure that the chart reflects only the proposed regulatory 
revisions. It has no effect on the minimum portions that schools must 
offer. In addition, the chart has been revised to incorporate the 
proposed increases in the minimum portions of fruits and vegetables and 
the number of servings of grains/breads.

Changes to the School Breakfast Program

    In the June 10, 1994, rulemaking, the Department also proposed to 
amend the nutrition requirements for the SBP. As under the NSLP, the 
SBP would be required to comply with the Dietary Guidelines and with 
the RDA and calories levels adjusted appropriately. Breakfasts would be 
required to meet one-fourth of the RDA (consistent with the current 
design of the breakfast meal pattern) and would have to provide fewer 
calories than lunches. The current age/grade group for breakfast is 
retained because of its familiarity. Again, only the chart reflecting 
the RDA and calorie levels for the SBP is proposed herein. The chart 
``Calorie and Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts'' is contained in 
Sec. 220.8(a)(2).

Changes to the SBP Meal Components

    As with the proposed school lunch pattern, the Department is not 
proposing to reduce the portion size for any of the components of 
school breakfasts. The following are the specific changes the 
Department is proposing to the current meal pattern components for 
school breakfasts:

Meat/Meat Alternate or Grains/Breads (the New Name for Bread/Bread 
Alternate)

    The current requirement for two servings of meat/meat alternate or 
two servings of grains/breads or one serving of each remains the same. 
However, school food authorities are encouraged to offer children in 
grades 7 through 12 an additional serving of the grains/breads 
component per day. This optional increase in the number of servings is 
intended to provide sufficient calories to meet the needs of the 
adolescent child, especially adolescent males, when the fat content of 
the breakfast is modified to be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines. 
To this end, the Department emphasizes that meeting the nutrient 
requirements of the grades 7 through 12 with the single pattern for 
kindergarten through grade 12 will be difficult. It is important that 
school food authorities recognize this and make an effort to offer high 
calorie, nutrient dense foods in the breakfast menu.

Vegetables/Fruits

    There are no proposed changes in the minimum portions currently 
required for children in any age group.

Milk

    There are no proposed changes in the requirements for the amount of 
fluid [[Page 5518]] milk that is served either as a beverage or on 
cereal.

School Breakfast Component Chart

    The table entitled ``School Breakfast Pattern-Per Breakfast 
Minimums'' currently in Sec. 220.8(a) would be amended to reflect the 
above proposed revisions. As with the NSLP, no changes are being 
proposed to the minimum quantities for infants and young children and 
the title has been changed to ``Minimum Quantities'' to be consistent 
with the corresponding chart for the NSLP.

Compliance Monitoring

    The Department proposes to monitor compliance with the nutritional 
standards of the food-based menu systems in a manner consistent with 
the compliance process proposed for NuMenus, Assisted NuMenus and with 
the current regulations. Compliance with meal components and quantities 
on a per-meal basis for the food-based menu systems remain unchanged. 
The requirements in Sec. 210.18(g)(2) for Performance Standard 2 under 
the administrative review system would continue to apply to those 
review elements; i.e., on the day of a review, the lunch service must 
be observed to ensure that all required meal components are offered and 
that children accept the minimum number of items stipulated both under 
the standard meal service and the offer versus serve option.
    The requirement that program meals meet all nutrition standards, 
including the Dietary Guidelines, necessitates an additional review 
methodology for State agencies. While the compliance method for NuMenus 
and Assisted NuMenus was addressed in the June 10, 1994, rulemaking, 
this proposal addresses how this same basic compliance method would 
apply to food-based menu systems. Since, by law, these schools may not 
be required to conduct their own nutrient analysis, State agencies will 
not have nutrient analysis records to review to verify that the meals 
offered actually met the nutrition standards. Therefore, the Department 
is proposing to amend Sec. 210.19, General Areas, to require that State 
agencies conduct a nutrient analysis of one week's meals using the 
school's production records.
    This proposal would also authorize the Department to approve 
alternative methodologies proposed by the States if they provide the 
same degree of assurance that school meals are in compliance with all 
nutrition standards. The proposed provision on monitoring is consistent 
with a statement from the Committees' Analysis accompanying S. 1614 
that ``. . . nutrient analysis may be used by schools, State agencies 
or the Secretary as part of audit and compliance activities.''
    In order to provide maximum flexibility for States to use an 
alternative methodology to nutrient analysis as part of an 
administrative review, the Department will review any approaches 
proposed by State agencies or by school food authorities with the 
approval of their State agency to meet both the applicable Dietary 
Guidelines and the standards for calories and nutrients as detailed in 
the June 10, 1995, proposed rule at 59 FR 30234-5 and 59 FR 30239-40, 
for the NSLP and SBP, respectively. If the school food authority has 
used an approved alternative to the food-based menu systems option and 
has precisely followed it to meet the Dietary Guidelines and nutrition 
standards, the State agency would not be required to conduct a separate 
nutrient analysis.
    The Department solicits comments on alternative methodologies that 
would support the production of meals that adhere to the Dietary 
Guidelines. The Department is particularly interested in methodologies 
that are easily implemented and could be shared with other States and 
is prepared to facilitate the sharing of information on such 
methodologies among States and school food authorities.
    As part of its on-going efforts to implement the Dietary 
Guidelines, the Department has been in contact with State agencies to 
determine their training and technical assistance needs. As a result of 
information obtained from State agencies, a plan is being developed to 
provide a variety of resources in the areas of training modules and 
materials, recipes, product specifications, menu planning guides, 
videos and workshops in ways that are compatible with existing State 
training procedures. In addition, the Department will be soliciting 
applications for grants totalling approximately $4,400,000 to fund 
State-level activities. The Department is again requesting State and 
local administrators to comment on what types of training and technical 
assistance are needed to best implement this proposed rule.
    Compliance reviews would be conducted on the meals offered by the 
school food authority and/or the schools selected for review, depending 
on the level at which menus are planned and meals provided. For 
example, if a school food authority provides meals from satellite 
kitchens to schools, the State agency would use information from the 
production records at those kitchens to prepare the nutrient analysis. 
However, if an individual school with its own menu planning and food 
production was selected for review, the State agency would use 
production records from that school's kitchen for nutrient analysis.
    The State agency's nutrient analysis would be conducted using the 
same requirements and methodology employed by school food authorities 
choosing to use NuMenus or Assisted NuMenus. The Department proposed 
criteria for menu analysis in the June 10, 1994 proposed rule and is 
currently considering comments on those provisions for future adoption 
as a final rule.
    The Department also recognizes that some schools or school food 
authorities may choose to use food-based menu systems and to conduct 
their own nutrient analysis. In these situations, the State agency may 
employ the analysis prepared by the local entity in lieu of conducting 
a separate nutrient analysis, provided that the nutrition analysis is 
done in accordance with the Department's criteria.

Using the Results of Nutrient Analysis To Measure Compliance

    The results of the nutrient analysis from each production source 
would be used to determine compliance with the Dietary Guidelines' 
recommendation for limiting the calories from fat and saturated fat as 
well as the calories and the nutrient levels for the age/grade groups. 
In addition, the levels of sodium, cholesterol and dietary fiber would 
also be determined. These figures would be used for future reviews to 
determine if the school food authority had progressed toward meeting 
the nutrition standards.
    School food authorities found to be out of compliance with the 
nutrition standards would be required to initiate corrective action. 
This requirement is consistent with what was proposed for 
implementation of NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus in the June 10, 1994, 
proposed regulation. School food authorities would be required to 
develop an acceptable corrective action plan in collaboration with the 
State agency. For school food authorities making good faith efforts to 
comply with the terms of the corrective action plan, the State agency 
would provide technical assistance and training to help them meet the 
nutrition standards and Dietary Guidelines. However, consistent with 
the June 10, 1994, proposal, 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 is warranted. [[Page 5519]] 

Miscellaneous Revisions

School Week

    Sections 106(b) and 201(a) of Pub. L. 103-448 mandate that the 
nutritional requirements for school meals be based on a weekly average. 
The use of a weekly average was proposed by the Department on June 10, 
1994 to establish a time frame for analyzing nutrients under NuMenus 
and Assisted NuMenus. The Department is proposing to add a more general 
definition of ``School week'' to Sec. 210.2 and to Sec. 220.2 to 
clarify the appropriate time period for determining compliance with the 
required nutrition standards. As proposed here, ``School week'' would 
be a minimum of three days and a maximum of seven days, and the days 
would be consecutive.

Food Component, Food Item

    The definitions in Sec. 210.2 of ``Food component'' and ``Food 
Item'' would be revised to reflect the new title of the grains/breads 
component that would replace the current title of bread/bread 
alternate. The Department would also like to note that no changes are 
being proposed to the number of items that comprise a reimbursable 
meal. Five items will continue to be required for a reimbursable lunch, 
and under the offer versus serve option, three of the five items must 
be taken.

Lunch

    The definition of ``Lunch'' in Sec. 210.2 would be revised to 
incorporate a reference to the nutrition standards as part of the 
elements that reimbursable meals must meet. Readers should note that 
this proposal repeats the definition of ``Lunch under NuMenus and 
Assisted NuMenus'' and under the current meal pattern, as proposed in 
the June 10, 1994, rulemaking. The Department is repeating this 
provision in order to provide readers with a complete definition of 
``Lunch'' under all meal planning systems. However, since the 
Department has already received comments on the earlier definition, the 
Department will not accept additional comments on the definition of 
lunch under NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus.

Milk Component

    In Sec. 210.10(d)(1) there is a special exemption for schools that, 
prior to May 1, 1980, served six fluid ounces instead of the currently 
required eight fluid ounces to children ages 5-8 in grades kindergarten 
through grade 3. This proposal would remove this obsolete reference.

Effective Dates

    Section 106(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103-448 requires that schools 
implement the Dietary Guidelines by July 1, 1996, unless a State agency 
grants a waiver to postpone implementation. Waivers may delay 
implementation to no later than July 1, 1998.
    The statute also permits the Secretary to establish a date for 
implementation later than July 1, 1998. The Department does not 
presently envision extending this deadline because of the need to begin 
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines in an expeditious manner.
    In addition, section 112(c)(3) of Pub. L. 103-448, 42 U.S.C. 
1760(k)(3), requires the Department to issue a final regulation on this 
subject by June 1, 1995, incorporating the results of this proposed 
rulemaking as well as those concerning NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus 
that were proposed in the June 10, 1994, rule. Further, the Department, 
in compliance with section 112(c)(2) of Pub. L. 103-448, 42 USC 
1760(k)(2), will be issuing a notice in the Federal Register to 
announce a public meeting to discuss this proposed action. This meeting 
will be held within 45 days of publication of this rulemaking and will 
be open to all interested parties and organizations. The Department 
encourages persons reviewing this proposed rule to watch for the 
Federal Register announcement of the public meeting.
    While compliance with the updated nutrition standards is not 
required until July 1, 1996 (or later if waived by the State agency), 
school food authorities are encouraged to work towards meeting the 
Dietary Guidelines as well as the appropriate levels of nutrients and 
calories as soon as feasible.

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 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 revised;
    b. the definition of ``Food item'' is revised;
    c. the definition of ``Lunch'' is revised; and
    d. a new definition of ``School week'' is added in alphabetical 
order. The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec. 210.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Food component means one of the four food groups which compose the 
reimbursable school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, grains/
breads and vegetables/fruits.
    Food item means one of the five required foods that compose the 
reimbursable school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, grains/
breads, and two (2) servings of vegetables, fruits, or a combination of 
both.
* * * * *
    Lunch means a meal which meets the nutrient and calorie levels 
designated in Sec. 210.10(c) and, if applicable, the school lunch 
pattern for specified age/grade groups as designated in Sec. 210.10.
* * * * *
    School week means the period of time used as the basis for 
determining compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
and the calorie and nutrient levels in Sec. 210.10(c)(2). The period 
shall be a minimum of three consecutive days and a maximum of 
consecutive seven days. Weeks in which school lunches are offered less 
than three times shall be combined with either the previous or the 
coming week.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 210.10:
    a. The section heading is revised;
    b. The heading of paragraph (a) is revised;
    c. Paragraph (c) is revised;
    d. The last two sentences of the concluding text following 
paragraph (d)(1) are removed;
    e. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (d)(3);
    f. The heading of paragraph (d)(4) is revised; and
    g. The second through fifth sentences of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) are 
removed and one new sentence is added in their place.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec. 210.10  Nutrition standards for lunches and menu planning methods.

    (a) Definitions for infant meals. * * *
* * * * * [[Page 5520]] 
    (c) Minimum quantities/nutrient levels for food-based menu systems.
    (1) At a minimum, schools shall serve meals in the quantities 
provided in the following chart:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   MINIMUM QUANTITIES                                                                   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     REQUIRED FOR                                                                  OPTION FOR                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  AGES 1-2              PRESCHOOL            GRADES K-6            GRADES 7-12           GRADES K-3     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAL COMPONENT:                                                                                                                                         
    MILK..................................  6 OUNCES............  6 OUNCES............  8 OUNCES............  8 OUNCES............  8 OUNCES.           
    MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATE................  1 OUNCE.............  1\1/2\ OUNCES.......  2 OUNCES............  2 OUNCES............  1\1/2\ OUNCES.      
    FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.................  \1/2\ CUP...........  \1/2\ CUP...........  \3/4\ CUP PLUS        1 CUP...............  \3/4\ CUP.          
                                                                                         ADDITIONAL \1/2\                                               
                                                                                         CUP OVER A WEEK.                                               
    GRAINS AND BREADS.....................  l5 SERVINGS PER       l8 SERVINGS PER       l12 SERVINGS PER      15 SERVINGS PER       10 SERVINGS PER WEEK-
                                             WEEK--MINIMUM OF \1/  WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1    WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1    WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1    MINIMUM OF 1 PER   
                                             2\ PER DAY.\1\        PER DAY.\1\           PER DAY.\1\\2\        PER DAY.\1\\2\        DAY.\1\\2\         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHART, WEEK EQUALS FIVE DAYS.                                                                                               
\2\UP TO ONE GRAINS/BREADS SERVING PER DAY MAY BE A DESSERT.                                                                                            

    (2) At a minimum, schools shall provide the following calorie and 
nutrient levels over a school week:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              CALORIE AND NUTRIENT LEVELS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH              
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                GRADES K-
                                 PRESCHOOL  GRADES K- GRADES 7- 3 OPTION
                                                6        12             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY ALLOWANCES (CALORIES)...      517       664       825       633  
TOTAL FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF                                           
 ACTUAL TOTAL FOOD ENERGY).....    (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)  
TOTAL SATURATED FAT (AS A                                               
 PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL TOTAL                                             
 FOOD ENERGY)..................    (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)  
PROTEIN (g)....................        7        10        16         9  
CALCIUM (mg)...................      267       286       400       267  
IRON (mg)......................        3.3       3.5       4.5       3.3
VITAMIN A (RE).................      150       224       300       200  
VITAMIN C (mg).................       14        15        18       15   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NOT TO EXCEED 30 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.                         
\2\NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.                         

    (3) School food authorities shall comply with 1990 Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans and the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section no later than July 1, 1996 except that State agencies may grant 
waivers to postpone implementation until no later than July 1, 1998. 
Such waivers shall be granted by the State agency using guidance 
provided by the Secretary.
    (d) Lunch components. * * *
    (3) Vegetable or fruit. * * * For children in kindergarten through 
grade six, the requirement for this component is based on minimum daily 
servings and an additional 1/2 cup in any combination over a five day 
period.
    (4) Grains and breads. * * *
    (ii) * * * The requirement for this component is based on minimum 
daily servings plus total servings over a five day period. * * *
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 210.19, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are 
redesignated as paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) respectively, and a 
new paragraph (a)(1) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 210.19  Additional responsibilities.

    (a) General Program management. * * *
    (1) Compliance with nutrition standards. Unless waived in 
accordance with Sec. 210.10(c)(3), beginning with School Year 1996-97, 
school food authorities shall comply with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in 
Sec. 210.10(c) for reimbursable meals.
    (i) Beginning with School Year 1996-97, 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. Except as provided in this paragraph (a)(1)(i), the State 
agency shall conduct nutrient analysis on the menu(s) served during the 
review period to determine if the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and 
[[Page 5521]] Sec. 220.8(a)(2) of this chapter were met. However, the 
State agency may:
    (A) Use the nutrient analysis of any school or school food 
authority that offers meals using the food-based menu systems 
approaches provided in Sec. 210.10(c) and/or Sec. 220.8(b) of this 
chapter and that conducts its own nutrient analysis under criteria 
established by USDA of those meals; or
    (B) Develop its own method for compliance review, subject to USDA 
approval.
    (ii) if the menu for the school week fails to comply with the 1990 
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and/or to meet the calorie and 
nutrient levels specified in Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and/or Sec. 220.8(a)(2) 
of this chapter, 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 failed 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.
* * * * *

PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 220 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779.

    2. In Sec. 220.2, a new paragraph (w-1) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 220.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (w-1) School week means the period of time used as the basis for 
determining compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 
and the calorie and nutrient levels in Sec. 220.8(a)(2). The period 
shall be a minimum of three consecutive days and a maximum of seven 
consecutive days. Weeks in which school breakfasts are offered less 
than three times shall be combined with either the previous or the 
coming week.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 220.8, the section heading and paragraph (a) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 220.8  Nutrition standards for school breakfasts and menu planning 
methods.

    (a) Minimum quantities/nutrient levels for food-based menu systems.
    (1) At a minimum, schools shall serve meals in the quantities 
provided in the following chart:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               MINIMUM QUANTITIES                                               
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       REQUIRED FOR                                              OPTION FOR     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              AGES 1-2              PRESCHOOL             GRADES K-12            GRADES 7-12    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAL COMPONENT:                                                                                                 
    MILK (FLUID)\1\..  1\1/2\ CUP...........  \3/4\ CUP............  8 OUNCES.............  8 OUNCES.           
    MEAT OR MEAT       \1/2\ OUNCE PLUS.....  \1/2\ OUNCE PLUS.....  1 OUNCE PLUS.........  2 OUNCES PLUS       
     ALTERNATE.                                                                                                 
    GRAINS/BREADS....  \1/2\ SERVING EACH OF  \1/2\ SERVING EACH OF  ONE SERVING EACH OF    ONE SERVING EACH OF 
                        GRAINS/BREADS AND      GRAINS/BREADS AND      GRAINS/BREADS AND      GRAINS/BREADS AND  
                        MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE    MEAT/MEAT              MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE    MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE
                        (\1/2\ OUNCE) OR.      ALTERNATE(\1/2\        (1 OUNCE) OR.          (2 OUNCES) OR      
                       2 GRAINS/BREADS OR...   OUNCE) OR.            2 GRAINS/BREADS OR...  2 GRAINS/BREADS OR  
                       2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE  2 GRAINS/BREADS OR...  2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE  2 MEAT/MEAT         
                        (1 OUNCE).            2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE   (2 OUNCES).            ALTERNATE (4       
                                               (1 OUNCE).                                    OUNCES) PLUS       
                                                                                            ADDITIONAL 1 OUNCE  
                                                                                             PER DAY OF GRAINS/ 
                                                                                             BREADS.            
    VEGETABLES/        \1/4\ CUP............  \1/2\ CUP............  \1/2\ CUP............  \1/2\ CUP.          
     FRUITS\2\.                                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A SERVING OF FLUID MILK SERVED AS A BEVERAGE OR ON CEREAL OR USED IN PART FOR EACH PURPOSE.                  
\2\A SERVING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES OR BOTH, OR FULL-STRENGTH FRUIT OR VEGETABLE JUICE.                        

    (2) At a minimum, schools shall provide the following calorie and 
nutrient levels over a school week:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            CALORIE AND NUTRIENT LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFAST            
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 OPTION 
                                                      GRADES K-    FOR  
                                           PRESCHOOL     12     GRADES 7-
                                                                   12   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY ALLOWANCES (CALORIES).............      388       554       618  
TOTAL FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL                                    
 TOTAL FOOD ENERGY)......................    (\1\)     (\1\)     (\1\)  
TOTAL SATURATED FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF                                 
 ACTUAL TOTAL FOOD ENERGY)...............    (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)  
PROTEIN (g)..............................        5        10        12  
CALCIUM (mg).............................      200       257       300  
IRON (mg)................................        2.5       3.0       3.4
[[Page 5522]]                                                           
                                                                        
VITAMIN A (RE)...........................      113       197       225  
VITAMIN C (mg)...........................       11        13        14  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NOT TO EXCEED 30 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.                         
\2\NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.                         

    (3) School food authorities shall comply with 1990 Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans and the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section at the same time such provisions are implemented for the 
National School Lunch Program in accordance with Sec. 210.10 (c)(3) of 
this chapter.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 220.13, paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) are redesignated as 
paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5), respectively and a new paragraph (f)(3) 
is added to read as follows:


Sec. 220.13  Special responsibilities of State agencies.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) For the purposes of compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in 
Sec. 220.8(a)(2), the State agency shall follow the provisions 
specified in Sec. 210.19(a)(1) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    Dated: January 18, 1995.
Ellen Haas
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

Appendix A--Regulatory Cost/Benefit Assessment: Food-Based Menu Systems

    1. Title: National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program: Food-
Based Menu Systems.
    2. Background: The proposed rule for food-based menu systems is an 
extension of the proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives for School Meals 
which was published in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register at 59 FR 
30218 (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 1994).
    This cost/benefit assessment extends the cost/benefit assessment 
which was developed for the proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives for 
School Meals to encompass the proposed food-based menu systems. That 
analysis was published in the Federal Register along with the rule.
    The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, P.L. 103-448, 
November 2, 1994, requires USDA to provide within the National School 
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs an option for planning meals using 
a food-based system. This proposed rule amends the current meal patter 
requirements and defines the food components and the minimum quantities 
for each component for various ages or grade levels. It also defines 
the nutrient requirements for school meals for each of the age or grade 
levels, using levels derived from the most recent (1989) Recommended 
Dietary Allowances (RDAs) published by the National Research Council 
and from the quantitative recommendations for the maximum levels of fat 
and saturated fat as a percent of calories contained in the most recent 
(1990) USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These changes would 
be implemented by July 1, 1996 as required by law.
    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:

Synopsis

    This assessment finds that the proposed food-based menu system 
requirements can be met within current food costs and with market 
impacts at levels presented for the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning 
system proposed in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register. Compared to 
current school food service practice, improvement in food preparation 
techniques and food selections within food categories would be needed 
to meet the proposed food-based menu system requirements and RDA/
Dietary Guidelines-derived nutrient targets for NSLP. While average 
food cost need not change, there will be a cost at the state level for 
establishing and conducting nutrient analysis as a routine component of 
local reviews. The national total for this cost is estimated to be less 
than $2 million per year, and is offset by continuation of the 
previously proposed 20 percent reduction in state monitoring 
requirements.

a. Costs To Produce a Meal

    The cost/benefit analysis accompanying the June 10, 1994 regulatory 
proposal ``Nutrition Objectives for Healthy School Meals'' determined 
that by using the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning approach it is 
possible within the current cost to provide school meals which meet 
defined nutrient targets derived from RDAs and the Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans. Since the food-based menu planning system is being 
proposed as a system which may be used in lieu of Nutrient Standard 
Menu Planning (NSMP) and Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning, 
school food authorities will be able to select the planning approach 
which best fits their needs, including consideration of the cost of 
planning and providing meals under the various available methods. This 
document extends the previously published analysis and discussion to 
cover the food-based menu planning option. Since the proposed meal 
pattern for the School Breakfast Program retains the existing pattern, 
this analysis focuses on the lunch meal.

Data

    A nationally representative sample included in the School Lunch and 
Breakfast Cost Study conducted for FNS by Abt Associates found an 
average food cost of $0.72 for school lunch meals prepared under the 
current meal pattern, rounded to the nearest whole cent (Abt 
Associates, 1994). This includes costs for all foods served as part of 
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) reimbursable meal and is not 
limited to the cost of items which are credited towards the current 
meal pattern requirement, but excludes items offered for sale as a la 
carte. For example, if a school included a condiment bar and a cookie 
dessert along with the NSLP meal without an additional charge, the cost 
of the ingredients in the condiment bar and the cookie dessert were 
included in the overall average food cost determination, even though 
these items were not credited towards meeting the meal pattern minimum 
requirements. [[Page 5523]] Similarly, if a school included in its NSLP 
meal more than the minimum amount of vegetable and fruit required by 
the current meal pattern, the cost of the ingredients in the full 
amount included in the NSLP meal was included in the overall average 
food cost determination.
    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 (Mathematica Policy Research, 
1993). 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 used only 
the portion of the data on foods served to children as part of credited 
school lunches. It included 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 52 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 costs were estimated from ingredient cost data obtained in the 
1993 School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study 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.
    The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) developed a computer model 
incorporating the above data to assist in estimating the possible range 
of market impacts from the changes in the June 10, 1994 proposed rule. 
For the current analysis, this model was extended to reflect the food 
component crediting used in food-based menu planning. Crediting for 
each of the 52 food groups towards the four food components of the 
existing NSLP meal pattern was estimated by FNS using information 
contained in the ``Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs.'' 
This extended model was then used to determine the average NSLP 
crediting of the NSLP meals included in the SNDA data.

Findings

    Table 1 shows in abbreviated form the current meal pattern 
requirements for NSLP for grades K-12. For consistency with the 
proposed regulation the current ``Bread or Bread Alternate'' component 
will be referred to as ``Grains/Breads'' as proposed. This table is 
accompanied in program guidance with the recommendation that ``portions 
be adjusted by age/grade group to better meet the food and nutritional 
needs of children according to their ages * * *. If portions are not 
adjusted, the Group IV portions are the portions to serve all 
children.''

                       Table 1.--School Lunch Meal Patterns for Grades K-12 (Abbreviated)                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Minimum quantities                Recommended   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     quantities    
                                                                                             -------------------
                                                      Grades K-3, ages 5- Grades 4-12, age 9   Grades 7-12, age 
    Food components               Food items             8 (group III)      and over (group   12 and over (group
                                                                                  IV)                 V)        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate....  Lean meat, poultry, or       1.5 oz............  2 oz..............  3 oz.             
                          fish, or cheese, or                                                                   
                          equivalent from eggs,                                                                 
                          cooked dried beans or                                                                 
                          peas, peanut butter or                                                                
                          other nut or seed butters                                                             
                          or certain other                                                                      
                          alternates.                                                                           
Vegetables/Fruits......  2 or more servings of        .5 cups...........  .75 cups..........  .75 cups.         
                          vegetables or fruits or                                                               
                          both to total.                                                                        
Grains/Breads..........  Servings of grains/breads    8 per week........  8 per week........  10 per week.      
                          of which a minimum or 1                                                               
                          per day must be enriched                                                              
                          or whole-grain.                                                                       
Milk (as a beverage)...  Fluid whole milk, and fluid  8 fl.oz...........  8 fl.oz...........  8 fl.oz.          
                          unflavored lowfat milk,                                                               
                          skim milk, or buttermilk.                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the findings derived from the School Nutrition 
Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA) data for each of the four required food 
components in the units used for the school meal patterns. These SNDA 
data show that, on average, NSLP meals served for grades K-12 exceed 
the existing minimum meal pattern requirements for meat/meat 
alternates; grains/breads; and vegetables/fruits. The average for fluid 
milk is slightly below the 8 fluid ounce minimum (7.5 fl. oz.), which 
is expected due to NSLP offer versus serve (OVS) rules. The proposed 
rule maintains the current meal pattern requirements for offering 8 
fluid ounces of milk as a beverage.

 Table 2.--Average Amount of Each Potentially Creditable Food Component 
                     as Found in School Year 1991-92                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Estimated
                                                                average 
                                                               amount in
                                                                  NSLP  
                        Food component                           meals, 
                                                                 school 
                                                               year 1991-
                                                                   92   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.)....................................       2.8 
Vegetables/Fruits (cups).....................................       1.0 
Grains/Breads (servings).....................................       2.5 
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.)...................................       7.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the extended school meals model, the average cost of each 
food component was estimated. Under both the existing meal pattern 
system and the proposed food-based menu system, the oldest age/highest 
grade group always requires the largest quantity of food from each food 
component. Tables 3 and 4 compare the SNDA findings on meals served by 
food component to the largest quantities of the meal pattern 
requirements currently in place (Table 3) and as proposed (Table 4).
    These tables show that within the existing reimbursement structure, 
schools already provide meals which, on average:
     For Meat/meat alternate, exceed the oldest age/grade 
minimums of both the current and proposed rules.
     For Vegetables/fruits, exceed the minimum of the current 
meal pattern for the oldest age/grade group, and are on average equal 
to the minimum for the oldest age/grade group of the proposed rule. 
[[Page 5524]] 
     For Grains/breads, exceed the minimum of the current meal 
pattern for the oldest age/grade group, and are on average about 0.5 
servings per day less than the minimum for the oldest age/grade group 
of the proposed rule.
    The proposed grains/breads minimum for the largest group of NSLP 
participants, grades K-6, is 12 servings per week, compared to the 
proposed 15 servings per week for grades 7-12. When weighted by 
historical student participation, the overall weighted average proposed 
minimum for grains/breads is equal to about 2.6 servings per day. 
Therefore, the current NSLP meals serve only slightly less (0.1 
servings per day) than the proposed weighted average minimum. Grains/
breads is the least expensive food component on a per serving basis, 
averaging 3.2 cents per serving.
    In summary, compared to the current meal pattern minimums, the 
proposed food-based menu system holds milk and meat/meat alternate 
constant and requires an increase in the minimum grains/breads and 
vegetables/fruits, but does not require an increase on average over 
current serving practices except for 0.5 servings of bread per week.

  Table 3.--Difference Between Actual NSLP Food and the Highest Minimum 
                Requirements of the Current Meal Pattern                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Largest  Estimated            
                                         quantity   average             
                                         required  amount in  Difference
                                            by        NSLP      (actual 
             Food component               current    meals,      minus  
                                           NSLP      school    required)
                                           meal    year 1991-           
                                          pattern      92               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.)..............      2.0        2.8   +0.8      
Vegetables/Fruits (cups)...............       .75       1.0   +0.25     
Grains/Breads (average servings per          1.6        2.5   +0.9      
 day).                                                                  
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.).............      8.0        7.5   \1\-0.5   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Probably not zero due to OVS effect.                                 


  Table 4.--Difference Between Actual NSLP Food and the Highest Minimum 
           Requirements of the Proposed Food-based Menu System          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Largest                       
                                         quantity  Estimated            
                                         required   average             
                                            by     amount in  Difference
                                         proposed     NSLP      (actual 
             Food component                NSLP      meals,      minus  
                                           food-     school    proposed)
                                           based   year 1991-           
                                           menu        92               
                                          system                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.)..............       2.0       2.8   +0.8      
Vegetables/Fruits (cups)...............       1.0       1.0   no        
                                                               differenc
                                                               e        
Grains/Breads (average servings per           3.0       2.5   -0.5      
 day).                                                                  
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.).............       8.0       7.5   -0.5\1\   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Probably not zero due to OVS effect.                                 

Reanalysis of Market Impact Scenarios

    The three scenarios for potential market impacts described in the 
June 10, 1994 proposal were reanalyzed, incorporating the extended data 
on food component crediting. These three example market impact 
scenarios were developed using a model that constrained NSLP food cost 
to remain at the average per meal cost level determined by the School 
Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study and meet the proposed nutrient targets. 
The first scenario minimized change from current eating choices for 
specific commodities, but allows substitution among the 52 food groups. 
The second scenario is the same as the first, but demonstrates the 
effect of shifting all chicken to lower fat chicken to show how change 
in preparation or commercial availability can affect a particular 
commodity. The third scenario required that there be no change in the 
total quantities of the various major commodities used (except for 
butter), and tended to increase the relative use of the lower fat 
versions of the commodities (e.g., lower fat pork such as ham instead 
of ribs or bacon). In addition, the extended school lunch model was 
used to determine the average food cost for each of the four food 
components. The following describes the findings from these analyses.
    Table 5 shows the results of applying the NSLP crediting rules to 
the three impact scenarios. The quantities shown in table 5 are daily 
averages across all grades K-12.

Meat/Meat Alternate

    The proposed average minimum servings of meat/meat alternate is not 
met in Scenario 1, but is exceeded in Scenarios 2 and 3. Scenario 1 
provides 1.9 ounces of meat/meat alternate, which is not sufficient to 
meet the 2 ounces minimum requirement for grades K-6 and 7-12. This 
scenario was developed to show the effect of minimizing the change in 
current food offerings (e.g., trying to maintain the percentage of 
meat/meat alternate from lower fat chicken and higher fat chicken). 
Since the grades K-3 meat/meat alternate requirement is 1.5 ounces, the 
actual average minimum requirement for grades K-12 will be slightly 
less than 2.0 ounces. However, at least 20 percent of the school meals 
would need to be provided using the K-3 pattern for the overall average 
minimum requirement to be 1.9 ounces. While more than 20 percent of all 
NSLP meals are served to children in grades K-3, for administrative 
efficiency these are often served using the meal pattern for older 
students, so the overall average minimum requirement is likely to be 
above 1.9 ounces.

Grains/breads

    The proposed average grains/breads minimum servings is met or 
exceeded by all three scenarios. All three scenarios exceed the minimum 
requirement for grains/breads for grades K-6. Scenarios 1 and 2 also 
exceed the minimum requirement for grades 7-12. Scenario 3 provides 2.6 
servings of grains/breads, which as discussed above, is equal to the 
overall weighted average proposed minimum for grains/breads.

Vegetables/fruits

    The proposed average vegetables/fruits minimum servings is met or 
exceeded by all three scenarios. Scenarios 2 and 3, which allow for 
somewhat larger shifts in food preparation methods, provide more than 
the largest minimum requirement of the proposed food-based menu systems 
except for vegetables/fruits in scenario 3. The amount of vegetables/
fruits in scenario 3, 0.9 cups, exceeds the amount required for grades 
K-6 (average 0.85 cups per day), and is approximately equal to the 
expected average minimum requirement across all NSLP meals. Over 60 
percent of the meals are served to students in grades K-6, and some of 
these will be served in schools using the grades K-3 pattern, which 
requires only 0.75 cups [[Page 5525]] vegetables/fruits, so the overall 
average minimum requirement across all NSLP meals is approximately 0.9 
cups.

   Table 5.--Average Daily NSLP Servings: Baseline and Three Scenarios  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Meat/meat    Grains/   Vegetables/    Milk 
                             alternate    breads       fruits      (fl. 
                               (oz.)    (servings)     (cups)      oz.) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (SNDA)............       2.8         2.5         1.0        7.5
Scenario 1 (no change of                                                
 preparation techniques)...       1.9         4.2         1.3        7.5
Scenario 2 (lower fat                                                   
 chicken preparation)......       2.1         4.1         1.2        7.5
Scenario 3 (shifts of                                                   
 selections within                                                      
 components; no change in                                               
 commodity markets)........       2.9         2.6         0.9        7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost for Food Components

    The extended school lunch model was used to estimate the average 
cost for each food component at baseline and for the three market 
impact scenarios. The cost for non-creditable foods which are sometimes 
served with lunch, such as non-fruit desserts, was also estimated. The 
average cost for a 2 ounce serving meat/meat alternate increased by 
about \1/2\ cent in scenarios 1 and 2, and by 1 cent in scenario 3. 
This is consistent with the expectation of some food personnel that 
leaner selections from the meat/meat alternate component may increase 
unit cost for this component. The per serving cost also increased for 
vegetables/fruits. The average cost of \1/2\ cup of vegetables/fruits 
increased by \1/2\ cent in scenarios 1 and 2, and by 0.2 cents in 
scenario 3. The cost of 8 fluid ounces of milk remained the same in 
scenarios 1 and 2, and increased by 0.2 cents in scenario 3.
    In contrast, the average cost of a serving of grains/breads 
decreased by 0.4 cents in scenarios 1 and 2 and by 0.7 cents in 
scenario 3. In scenarios 1 and 2, there was no change in the total 0.6 
cents per meal available for non-creditable items, but in scenario 3, 
about 0.1 cents of this was shifted to creditable items.
    This cost-per-component-serving analysis shows that the cost of 
food for the NSLP meals can be maintained, even when the average cost 
for some components increases, without severely diminishing the funds 
available for non-creditable foods which help flavor meals to meet 
individual preferences. The ability to select slightly less expensive 
items from the grains/breads component can effectively offset both the 
modest per serving cost increases in other components and the slightly 
increased average minimum requirement (+0.5 servings per week) for 
grains/breads.
    By definition, the average results reported above mean that some 
school districts would be expected to experience food costs 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. Similarly, 
average quantities served also vary among schools and sometimes within 
schools. If a school currently serving less than the average portions 
of grains/breads or vegetables/fruits opts for the proposed food-based 
menu planning system, they may have to increase the quantities offered.

Conclusion

    In summary, the findings for the three scenarios indicate that the 
proposed NSLP food-based menu system requirements can be met within 
current food costs and with market impacts at levels presented in the 
June 10, 1994 Federal Register. At least some improvement in food 
preparation techniques and food selections within food categories would 
be needed to meet the proposed menu system requirements and RDA/Dietary 
Guidelines-derived nutrient targets for NSLP. Efforts which may 
influence the speed and direction of these shifts, such as training and 
technical assistance for school food service personnel in improved menu 
planning and food preparation techniques, development of improved 
recipes, and production of lower fat products by industry, could help 
to simplify implementation when the food-based menu planning system is 
selected.

b. Implementation Costs

    This section expands upon the Section e. Implementation Cost 
contained in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register cost/benefit assessment 
to cover the food-based menu planning system option. As stated there, 
initial implementation costs faced by schools will vary depending on 
existing capabilities and resources within districts and will take many 
forms. This proposal provides schools with a new option, so they would 
have the option of selecting among NSMP, Assisted-NSMP, or the food-
based menu planning system. Schools are expected to consider 
implementation costs in making their selection.
    Local, State and Federal resources are available for 
implementation. USDA has already initiated a number of improvements 
which will assist in implementation, some of which apply to a specific 
planning system option and others which will assist schools in 
selecting the option best suited to their needs. These include 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 NSMP system framework and identify cost effective strategies for 
implementation.
    The Department believes that implementation of meal improvements 
will be facilitated if students are receptive to the changes in foods. 
A number of efforts will help encourage students to accept such 
changes. Central to this effort is the Department's Children's 
Nutrition Campaign, a multi-faceted national effort designed to 
motivate children to make healthier food choices by getting them 
excited about making choices and giving them the skills to do so. It is 
designed to deliver nutrition messages through multiple and reinforcing 
channels to maximize impact and credibility. Core components will be 
mass media and in-school efforts, supplemented by strategic public-
private partnerships to leverage USDA investments and extend reach. The 
FY 1995 federal budget includes over $20 million to launch this 
campaign and to provide extensive training for school meal providers on 
how to plan and prepare nutritious and appealing meals. The Department 
has [[Page 5526]] awarded nutrition education cooperative agreements to 
develop comprehensive community-based approaches to nutrition 
education. The Department is also assisting school food service 
professionals by working with chefs, farmers and others to make school 
meals appealing and healthful.
    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. 
Some of the FY 1995 federal funds for training will be used to train 
states on implementation of the management systems needed to support 
food-based menu planning, including the requirement for periodic 
nutrient analysis of school meals by the State as a component of local 
reviews. In addition, since the review cycle has been extended from 
four years to five years, 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, if the proposed food-based menu planning system 
is selected, it may require training and technical assistance for some 
staff. The continuation of the historical food component definitions 
and crediting rules (with one improvement for grains in desserts) will 
simplify this implementation. However, meals must, on average over a 
week, meet the RDA/Dietary Guidelines-based nutrient targets, and 
achieving this through a food-based menu system requires a considerably 
greater level of nutrition knowledge than that required to fulfill a 
meal pattern only. For example, the meal planner must know which 
combinations of food choices over each week are acceptable to students 
and are likely to result in meals that offer at least the food 
component minimums and provide adequate calories, iron and other 
nutrients without exceeding the fat and saturated fat limits as a 
percent of calories.
    A study of school food authorities in the mid-Atlantic region found 
that under the existing meal pattern system, 60 percent of school food 
authorities (SFAs) employ computers for some functions (Brewer, DeMicco 
and Conn, 1993). 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, and may opt to use it to assist in 
food-based menu planning, for example, to analyze the recipes of some 
popular entrees.
    The cost analysis found that the nutrient requirements can be met 
at about the current cost of food in the National School Lunch Program. 
Because the foods used in the market impact analysis were drawn from 
what is currently being served, and various adjustments in preparation 
practices and frequency of food use can meet the food component 
minimums and nutrient requirements, 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 the 
proposed food-based menu planning should be about the same as current 
operations once the system is fully implemented in a school.
    In summary, since at the local level schools should make reasonable 
economic decisions and this proposal serves to increase their options, 
the Department does not anticipate increased local implementation cost 
due to this proposal. At the Federal and State levels, there will be 
increased cost to provide training and technical assistance for an 
additional option and to implement systems for management of this 
option in the event that some locals select food-based menu planning, 
with the majority of this cost being State implementation. The Federal 
component of this will be covered through revised budgeting for the 
funding available for Dietary Guidelines implementation in FY 1995 and 
subsequent years. At the State level, the initial planning and set-up 
for this additional food-based menu planning option is estimated to 
take about 80 hours of staff time for each State administrative unit 
(the time for ongoing operation is addressed in the following section). 
Therefore, at an estimated average rate of $25 per hour, the Department 
projects an average cost of $2,000 per State for initial planning and 
set-up. This cost would be covered by part of the savings from the 
reduction in administrative burden due to the previously proposed 
extension of the review cycle from four to five years.

c. Ongoing Costs and Other Significant Effects

    Under this proposed rule, States will be required to perform 
nutrient analyses as a routine component of reviews of school food 
authorities using the food-based menu planning system, increasing the 
cost of ongoing program management. It is estimated that on average an 
additional 12 hours will be required for nutrient analysis for each 
food-based menu planning school reviewed. The actual total cost for 
these reviews will vary depending upon the percent of school food 
authorities selecting the food-based menu planning option. Since this 
percentage is unknown, a range of cost is projected including the upper 
bound of 100 percent. In consideration of the comments received from 
the food service community, the lower bound has been set at 25 percent. 
Given this range, and assuming an average rate of $25 per hour, the 
Department projects an increase in national aggregate State ongoing 
management cost for these reviews of $0.4 to $1.7 million. States can 
reduce the percent of schools using food-based menu planning by 
providing enhanced levels of training and technical assistance for NSMP 
and Assisted-NSMP.
    To provide for the resources needed, this proposal continues the 
twenty per cent reduction in state monitoring requirements previously 
proposed. This reduction will enhance the level of resources available 
at the State level to focus on training and technical assistance 
efforts and nutrition reviews of food-based menu planning systems.
    While implementation will require a dedicated effort on the part of 
the Department, the state agencies and local school food authorities, 
the cost of ongoing operation and maintenance of a food-based menu 
planning system at the local level will be indistinguishable from the 
current meal pattern based system.

d. Benefits

    The health benefits and value due to risk reduction of improving 
school meals to be consistent with the principles of the Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans were discussed in the June 10, 1994 cost/
benefit assessment. The addition of the food-based menu planning option 
retains the benefits as previously presented.
    The SNDA study found that NSLP lunches significantly exceed the 
Dietary Guidelines recommendations for fat, saturated fat and sodium. 
Diet-related diseases accounted for almost 65 percent of all deaths in 
the U.S. in 1991 (National Center for Health Statistics, 1993). About 
300,000 deaths per year, or about 14 percent of all deaths, has been 
estimated as the lower bound for deaths due to diet and activity 
patterns (McGinnis and Foege, 1993). The previous analysis concluded 
that if the [[Page 5527]] 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 and Drug Administration (FDA) food labeling changes, which 
were $4.4 to $26.5 billion over 20 years. 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. Since the food-based menu planning option 
requires that RDA and Dietary Guideline-based calorie and nutrient 
levels be provided, the health benefits should be the same as those of 
NSMP and Assisted-NSMP.

References

Abt Associates, Inc. (1994). ``School Lunch and Breakfast Cost 
Study.'' Prepared under contract to: USDA Food and Nutrition 
Service.
Brewer, 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.
Mathematica Policy Research (1993). ``School Nutrition Dietary 
Assessment Study.'' Prepared under contract to: USDA Food and 
Nutrition Service.
McGinnis, 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.
National Center for Health Statistics (1993). ``Advance Report of 
Final Mortality Statistics, 1991''. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 
Vol. 142, No. 2 (Supplement).
National Research Council (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 
10th Edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service (1994). ``National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Objectives for School Meals; 
Proposed Rule.'' Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 111 (June 10, 1994).
USDA/DHHS (1990). ``Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines 
for Americans.'' Third Edition. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232.

[FR Doc. 95-2044 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P