Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, 2494-2570 [2011-485]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Food and Nutrition Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2494-2570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-485]



[[Page 2493]]

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

Part III





Department of Agriculture





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



7 CFR Parts 210 and 220



Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast 
Programs; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2494]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Parts 210 and 220

[FNS-2007-0038]
RIN 0584-AD59


Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Programs

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to revise the meal patterns and nutrition 
requirements for the National School Lunch Program and the School 
Breakfast Program to align them with the 2005 ``Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans,'' as required by the Richard B. Russell National School 
Lunch Act. The proposed changes are based on recommendations from the 
National Academies' Institute of Medicine set forth in the report 
``School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children.'' This proposed 
rule would increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole 
grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid milk in school meals; reduce the 
levels of sodium and saturated fat in meals; and help meet the 
nutrition needs of school children within their calorie requirements. 
Implementation of this proposed rule would result in more nutritious 
school meals that improve the dietary habits of school children and 
protect their health.

DATES: To be assured of consideration, written comments must be 
postmarked on or before April 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, invites interested 
persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be 
submitted through one of the following methods:
     Preferred method: Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Comments should be addressed to Julie Brewer, Chief, 
Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food 
and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to the Food and 
Nutrition Service, Child Nutrition Division, 3101 Park Center Drive, 
Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-1594, during normal business hours 
of 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be 
included in the record and will be made available to the public. Since 
USDA is anticipating a large volume of comments, we request that 
commenters submit comments through only one of the methods listed 
above. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the 
identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be 
subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly 
available on the Internet via https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wagoner or Marisol Benesch, 
Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food 
and Nutrition Service at (703) 305-2590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The 2005 ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans'' (referred to as the 
Dietary Guidelines from here on) recommend that a person's diet supply 
all of the nutrients needed for growth and development, and emphasize 
the consumption of a variety of nutrient-dense foods. To align the 
meals served under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the 
School Breakfast Program (SBP) with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, this 
proposed rule would require schools to offer more fruits, vegetables 
and whole grains; offer only fat-free or low-fat fluid milk; reduce the 
sodium content of school meals substantially over time; control 
saturated fat and calorie levels; and minimize trans fat. These 
proposed changes, based on the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report 
``School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children,'' are intended to 
result in school meals that are nutrient-rich and supply appropriate 
calorie levels. This proposed rule is expected to bring about several 
positive outcomes:
     Update the NSLP and SBP meal requirements according to the 
latest nutrition science;
     Increase the availability of key food groups (fruits, 
vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free and low-fat fluid milk and milk 
products) in school menus;
     Allow the NSLP and SBP to better meet the nutritional 
needs of children, improve their eating habits, and safeguard their 
health;
     Simplify the administration and operation of the NSLP and 
SBP; and
     Reinforce the nutrition education messages provided by 
schools.
    This proposed rule also alerts the public about possible additional 
changes to the school meal requirements based on the upcoming 2010 
Dietary Guidelines, and invites public comments on how to incorporate 
those possible changes into the NSLP and SBP. Three areas addressed by 
the advisory committee for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines that may have 
significant impact on the meal requirements are sodium, saturated fat, 
and vegetable subgroups. The ``Report of the Dietary Guidelines 
Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010'' 
(which precedes the release of the Dietary Guidelines' policy) 
recommends:
     Lower saturated fat consumption (<7% of total calories),
     Lower sodium consumption (<1500 mg per day), and
     A new red/orange vegetable subgroup.
    Because the 2010 Dietary Guidelines policy was not available to IOM 
for consideration, USDA has decided to issue this proposed rule and 
seek public comments on ways to incorporate the above possible 
recommendations (without including them in the proposed regulatory 
text). Delaying the many critical updates necessary to align school 
meals with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines would undermine nationwide 
efforts to improve the health of school children. Public comments on 
the areas identified above are requested as part of this proposed 
rulemaking. USDA will also publish a notice in the Federal Register 
when the 2010 Dietary Guidelines official policy is issued to 
facilitate comment on how it may impact this proposal.

II. Background

    The NSLP was established in 1946 upon enactment of the National 
School Lunch Act (NSLA), now the Richard B. Russell National School 
Lunch Act, to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation's 
children. At that time, nutritional concerns in the United States 
(U.S.) centered on nutrient deficiencies and issues of under 
consumption. To facilitate the planning of well-balanced meals in 
schools across the nation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
established meal patterns with minimum food component requirements 
based on nutrition science at that time. The Type A lunch, designed to 
provide one-third to one-half of the daily food requirements of a 10- 
to 12-year-old child, was the primary meal pattern for all children for 
the first three decades of the lunch program. This meal pattern allowed 
school foodservice managers to choose from a wide variety of foods, and

[[Page 2495]]

served as a tool for teaching children about nutrition and good eating 
habits.
    Over time, the NSLP changed to ensure that children receive 
adequate nutrition for proper growth and development. The Type A lunch 
was updated to reflect new knowledge about the nutritional needs of 
children and their consumption habits. In 1975, the SBP was established 
as a permanent program. By 1980, USDA phased out the Type A lunch and 
specified different portion sizes for different age/grade groups of 
children.
    In the late 1980s, scientific evidence showed that diets high in 
fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol have adverse health consequences. 
USDA's ``School Nutrition Dietary Assessment'' (SNDA-I), published in 
1993, indicated that the meals served under the NSLP and SBP were 
effective in delivering micronutrients but exceeded recommended intakes 
of total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium. (See the SNDA-I 
report at https://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/Published/CNP/cnp-archive.htm.) Consequently, Section 106(b) of the Healthy Meals for 
Healthy Americans Act of 1994, Public Law 103-448, added section 
9(f)(1) to the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1758(f)(1), to require that school meals 
not only provide a percentage of the Recommended Dietary Allowances 
(RDAs) \1\ but are also consistent with the goals of the most recent 
Dietary Guidelines. In 2004, the NSLA was again amended by Section 103 
of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 
108-265, which added Section 9(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(4), requiring 
the Secretary to promulgate rules revising nutrition standards, based 
on the most recent Dietary Guidelines, that reflect specific 
recommendations, expressed in serving recommendations, for increased 
consumption of foods and food ingredients offered in school nutrition. 
The Dietary Guidelines reflect the current science-based consensus on 
proper nutrition, a vital element in promoting health and preventing 
chronic disease, and provide the nutritional basis for Federal domestic 
nutrition assistance programs such as the NSLP and SBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RDAs, developed by the Food and Nutrition Board of the 
Institute of Medicine, reflect the average daily dietary nutrient 
intake levels sufficient for meeting the nutrient requirements of 
nearly all (97 to 98 percent) healthy individuals in particular age 
and sex groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to section 9(f)(1) of the NSLA, USDA adopted the School 
Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI), a comprehensive plan to 
promote the health of school children. On June 13, 1995, USDA issued 
program regulations (60 FR 31188) that required school meals to reflect 
the 1990 Dietary Guidelines and established three menu planning options 
that schools may choose from, including two methods based on 
computerized nutrient analysis (Nutrient Standard Menu Planning and 
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning) and a food-based menu 
planning system. On May 9, 2000, USDA issued program regulations (65 FR 
26904) that further expanded the existing menu planning approaches to 
the five current options. At present, the five menu planning approaches 
are:
     The traditional and the enhanced food-based menu planning 
(FBMP) approaches, which follow specific meal patterns;
     The nutrient standard menu planning and the assisted 
nutrient standard menu planning (NSMP) \2\ approaches, which are based 
primarily on a computer analysis of the nutrient and energy 
contributions of planned meals; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NSMP approach requires a School Food Authority to 
conduct a weighted analysis to assess the nutrient profile of the 
meals selected by students. Weighted analysis gives more weight to 
nutrients supplied by more frequently selected food items and 
correspondingly less weight to nutrients supplied by items less 
frequently selected. This requirement is currently waived until 
September 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     One alternate menu planning approach that is an 
individualized modification of either FBMP or NSMP.
    Currently, schools using any of the five menu planning approaches 
must offer lunches and breakfasts that provide one-third and one-
fourth, respectively, of the 1989 RDAs. Program regulations require 
that school meals provide at least minimum calorie and nutrient levels 
for protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin C. These are key 
nutrients that promote growth and development and are readily 
identifiable on the nutrition labels of all food products. In addition, 
schools must decrease the levels of sodium and cholesterol, increase 
the amount of dietary fiber, and limit meals to not more than 30 
percent of total calories from fat and less than 10 percent of total 
calories from saturated fat consistent with the 1995 Dietary 
Guidelines. Compliance with these nutrition standards is determined by 
averaging nutrients in meals offered over a school week. This allows 
menu planners flexibility to plan nutritious and appealing meals that 
vary from day to day, but that provide appropriate levels of nutrients 
and calories over a five-day school week.
    School lunches and breakfasts were not updated when the 2000 
Dietary Guidelines were issued because those recommendations did not 
require significant changes to the school meal patterns.

III. Need To Revise the Nutrition and Meal Requirements

    The current nutrition standards and meal requirements for the NSLP 
and SBP are inconsistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. Further, as 
noted, section 9(a)(4) of the NSLA was amended in 2004 requiring that 
meals be consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines, so 
modifications are needed to align school meal patterns with the Dietary 
Guidelines. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines call for significant changes in 
dietary habits for persons ages 2 years and older, and emphasize the 
importance of a nutritious diet to maintain health and reduce the risk 
of chronic diseases, such as overweight and obesity. New dietary 
concerns have emerged since the establishment of the NSLP. The overt 
nutritional deficiencies in children's diets that led to the NSLP's 
inception have largely been eliminated. In turn, overweight and obesity 
are now major health concerns affecting children and adolescents. 
Studies indicate that excess food consumption, poor food choices, and 
decreased physical activity are contributing to childhood overweight 
and obesity, and related chronic health conditions. According to 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2003-2006 National Health 
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data, almost 32 percent of 
children 6 to 19 years of age are overweight or obese. NHANES data 
indicate that 17 percent of children age 6-11 are obese, while 17.6 
percent of adolescents age 12-19 are obese. Obese children and 
adolescents are at risk for health problems during their youth and as 
adults. They are more likely to have risk factors associated with 
cardiovascular disease (such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, 
and Type 2 diabetes) than other children and adolescents.
    A basic premise of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines is that nutrient 
needs should be met primarily by consuming a variety of nutrient-dense 
foods from the basic food groups. In comparison with the 2005 Dietary 
Guidelines, current school menus are not required to offer the 
recommended quantities of fruits, vegetables (including vegetable 
subgroups), and whole grains. These foods, along with low-fat fluid 
milk and milk products, supply many of the key nutrients of concern for 
children: Calcium, fiber, potassium, magnesium and vitamin E.

[[Page 2496]]

    Current regulations also allow schools to offer whole and reduced-
fat (2 percent milk fat) fluid milk as part of a reimbursable school 
lunch or breakfast. Those types of milk may contribute to high 
saturated fat in school meals. The SNDA-III report issued by USDA in 
2007 indicates that less than one-third of school lunches offered in 
school year 2004-2005 under the current menu planning approaches met 
the requirement of less than 10 percent of total calories from 
saturated fat.
    SNDA-III also shows that school lunches are high in sodium. This is 
consistent with IOM's findings. With regard to fiber intake, the IOM 
report indicates that children's consumption of whole grains is 
extremely low in comparison with the Dietary Guidelines recommendation 
that half of all grains consumed are whole grains, which are excellent 
sources of fiber.
    Another reason for updating the school meals is that new 
applications for dietary planning are available. RDAs, which are 
currently used as the basis for requirements in the School Meal 
Programs, are no longer a primary value for planning the diets of 
groups and individuals. Beginning in 2000, IOM issued the Dietary 
Reference Intake (DRI) reports providing new guidance for planning 
dietary intakes for individuals and groups. The DRI reports for 
vitamins, minerals, energy, and macronutrients provide recommended 
intake levels aimed at improving long-term health by preventing typical 
nutritional deficiencies and reducing the risk of chronic disease 
through nutrition. The DRIs represent a more comprehensive 
recommendation for appropriate nutrient levels than the former RDAs and 
are the recommended tool for dietary planning.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The DRIs for vitamins and minerals consist of four reference 
standards that include the RDAs as well as Estimated Average 
Requirements (EAR), Adequate Intake levels (AI), and the Tolerable 
Upper Intake Level (UL). For energy and macronutrients, the DRIs are 
expressed as Estimated Energy Requirements (EERs) and Acceptable 
Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the changes in nutrition science and current dietary 
concerns, USDA is seeking significant improvements in the NSLP and SBP 
to ensure that these programs continue to meet their goal to safeguard 
the health of school children. The changes proposed in this rule are 
necessary to align school lunches and breakfasts with the 2005 Dietary 
Guidelines and be consistent with the DRIs. Implementation of the 
proposed changes would amend program regulations in 7 CFR 210 for the 
NSLP and 7 CFR 220 for the SBP as stated in the regulatory text.
    The 2009 IOM report that serves as the basis for the nutritional 
provisions of this proposed rule provides recommendations for the meals 
planned for school-aged children only (grades K and above). This rule 
addresses the proposed meal requirements for school-aged children in 
Sec.  210.10 and Sec.  220.8 of the regulatory text. However, this 
proposed rule would retain the current meal requirements for children 
in preschool (ages 1-2 and 3-4) and infants pending changes to the 
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Consistent with the IOM's 
selection of a food-based meal pattern for Kindergarten and above, this 
rule would allow only the traditional FBMP approach to plan meals for 
preschoolers. This rule allows a school serving meals to school-aged 
children and preschoolers to use a single menu planning approach to 
plan meals for all children. The meal requirements for preschoolers are 
addressed separately in Sec.  210.10(p) and Sec.  220.8(n) of the 
proposed regulatory text.

IV. IOM Recommendations for Implementing the 2005 Dietary Guidelines

    This proposed rule seeks to update the school meals for school-aged 
children to align them with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and make them 
consistent with the DRIs, as described in the IOM final report ``School 
Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children,'' which was published 
October 20, 2009 (see the report at https://www.nap.edu). As recommended 
by IOM, this proposed rule focuses on revising the meal requirements 
for the NSLP and SBP. The new meal requirements seek to ensure that the 
meals planned by school foodservice providers and selected by students 
reflect the food groups emphasized by the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and 
meet the nutrient targets identified by IOM.
    The IOM final report on school meals was issued in response to 
USDA's request for recommendations to align lunches and breakfasts with 
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. Prior to the IOM study, USDA had explored 
a range of alternatives to implement the 2005 Dietary Guidelines in the 
School Meal Programs in a scientifically sound and practical manner. 
Due to the complexity of this task, USDA decided to seek help from IOM. 
USDA had previously sought IOM's expertise to update the food package 
for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and 
Children and that expertise proved extremely valuable.
    To conduct a review of the School Meals Programs, IOM assembled a 
committee of scientists in various disciplines and school foodservice 
professionals. The committee conducted an independent review and 
assessment of the nutritional needs of school-aged children in the U.S. 
using the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and the DRIs. The committee used that 
scientific review as the basis for recommending revisions to the NSLP 
and SBP meal requirements.
    In the course of the study, IOM analyzed scientific evidence, 
deliberated in closed sessions, and held open meetings (July 8, 2009 
and January 28, 2009) to obtain stakeholders' input. Representatives 
from many entities provided oral testimony, including nutrition 
advocates, health professionals, and many others listed in the final 
IOM report. In addition to the oral testimony, the committee received 
written comments from numerous stakeholders.
    IOM issued two reports during the study. ``Nutrition Standards and 
Meal Requirements for National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs: 
Phase I, Proposed Approach for Recommending Revisions'' was issued 
December 17, 2008. The Phase I report describes the approach used by 
the IOM committee to make recommendations for revising the School Meal 
Programs. The final report ``School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy 
Children,'' dated October 20, 2009, provides the scientific basis for 
this proposed rule. It contains recommendations for meal requirements, 
nutrient targets, and implementation and monitoring. In addition, the 
report explains the rationale for each of the committee's 
recommendations and includes several appendices that provide technical 
justification. Appendix D of the final report provides a summary of the 
public comments received in response to the Phase I report.

V. Proposed Meal Requirements for NSLP and SBP

    The IOM final report recommends that emphasis be placed on revising 
the NSLP and SBP meal requirements to align school lunches and 
breakfasts with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. The IOM report addresses 
standards for menu planning and standards for meals as selected by the 
student.

Standards for Menu Planning

    The proposed standards for menu planning improve the school meals' 
alignment with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines by offering more fruits at 
breakfast; increasing the amount and variety of vegetables at lunch; 
offering

[[Page 2497]]

more whole-grain rich foods; limiting fluid milk choices to fat-free 
(unflavored or flavored) and unflavored fluid low-fat milk; 
establishing minimum and maximum calorie levels for each age/grade 
group; increasing the emphasis on limiting saturated fat; seeking 
gradual but major reductions in the sodium content; and minimizing 
trans fat. The intent of these proposed changes is to offer school 
meals that are nutrient-rich and calorie-appropriate.
    In developing its recommendations, IOM set targets for 24 nutrients 
and other dietary components that serve as a scientific basis for the 
proposed standards for menu planning. To align the school meals with 
the Dietary Guidelines, the IOM committee found it necessary to 
consider a large number of nutrients and replace the concept of 
nutrition standards with a new concept of ``nutrient targets.'' IOM 
established nutrient targets for the school meals based on the DRIs.
    Compared to the current nutrition standards, the nutrient targets 
identified by IOM are higher for protein, and selected vitamins and 
minerals. The recommended nutrient targets were set at 32 percent of 
the School Meal-Target Median Intake for lunches and at 21.5 percent of 
the School Meal-Target Median Intake for breakfasts. (These percentages 
correspond to the means of the values used by IOM for the minimum and 
maximum calorie levels.) The Target Median Intake method combines 
information about a population group's nutrient requirements (Estimated 
Average Requirements or Adequate Intakes) and Tolerable Upper Intake 
Levels. The selected Target Median Intake distribution aims to minimize 
predicted prevalence of nutrient inadequacy and excessive intakes. (See 
chapter 4 of the IOM final report for additional information on the 
development of the nutrient targets.)
    Schools would not use these 24 nutrient targets for planning or 
monitoring menus. Instead, they would follow the food-based meal 
patterns developed by IOM, as set forth in the following table. Meals 
that meet the proposed meal patterns and other meal requirements are 
expected to supply most of the nutrient targets set by IOM.
    The proposed meal patterns designed by IOM and set forth in this 
proposed rule offer more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains 
consistent with the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. As the 
following table indicates, the proposed meal pattern for breakfast 
would consist of fruits, grains, meats/meat alternates, and fluid milk. 
The proposed meal pattern for lunch would consist of fruits, 
vegetables, grains, meats/meat alternates, and fluid milk.
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P

[[Page 2498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA11.001

BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    The greatest change in breakfast foods is the increase in fruits, 
which doubles from the current requirement. In addition, grains 
increase by nearly 80 percent over current levels, with a shift to 
whole grains. For lunch, the greatest change is the increase in fruits 
and vegetables, an increase of nearly four half-cup servings a week. 
The following tables compare the types and amounts of foods required 
under the current and the proposed meal patterns for breakfast and 
lunch.

[[Page 2499]]



         Changes in Minimum Amounts and Types of Food: Breakfast
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current            Proposed
                                      requirement         requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit...........................  \1/2\ cup per day.  1 cup per day.
Grains and Meat/Meat Alternate..  2 grains or 2 meat/ 1.4-2 grains per
                                   meat alternates     day plus:
                                   or 1 of each per
                                   day.
                                                      ..................
                                                      1-2 meat/meat
                                                       alternates per
                                                       day.
                                                      ..................
                                                      (Range reflects
                                                       difference by
                                                       grade group.)
Whole Grains....................  Encouraged........  At least half of
                                                       the grains to be
                                                       whole grain-rich.
Milk............................  1 cup.............  1 cup, fat content
                                                       of milk to be 1%
                                                       or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Changes in Minimum Amounts and Types of Food: Lunch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current            Proposed
                                      requirement         requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit and Vegetables............  \1/2\-1 cup of      \3/4\-1 cup of
                                   fruit and           vegetables plus
                                   vegetables          \1/2\-1 cup of
                                   combined per day.   fruit per day.
Vegetables......................  No specifications   Weekly requirement
                                   as to type of       for dark green
                                   vegetable.          and orange
                                                       vegetables and
                                                       legumes and
                                                       limits on starchy
                                                       vegetables.
Meat/Meat Alternate.............  1.5-3 oz            1.6-2.4 oz
                                   equivalents         equivalents
                                   (daily average      (daily average
                                   over 5-day week).   over 5-day week).
Grains..........................  1.8-3 oz            1.8-2.6 oz
                                   equivalents         equivalents
                                   (daily average      (daily average
                                   over 5-day week).   over 5-day week).
Whole Grains....................  Encouraged........  At least half of
                                                       the grains to be
                                                       whole grain-rich.
Milk............................  1 cup.............  1 cup, fat content
                                                       of milk to be 1%
                                                       or less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA recognizes that these proposed changes are significant and may 
pose a particular challenge to implement. We solicit comments on how 
these changes may affect take-up and participation rates.

Menu Planning Approach and Age/Grade Groups

    The 2005 Dietary Guidelines stress the importance of increasing the 
consumption of key food groups: Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and 
fat-free/low-fat fluid milk or milk products. Consistent with the 
Dietary Guidelines' emphasis on food groups, IOM developed a food-based 
meal pattern for each of the School Meal Programs. This proposed rule 
would require that all schools follow a food-based menu planning 
approach to plan school lunches and breakfasts for all children. No 
alternate menu planning approaches would be allowed.
    Currently, approximately 70 percent of schools use the FBMP 
approach. Using a single FBMP approach would simplify program 
management, training, and monitoring by State agencies (SAs). It would 
also give schools a practical and easy tool to plan well-balanced and 
nutritious meals. More importantly, this change would ensure that all 
school children participating in the NSLP and SBP nationwide have 
access to more healthy foods in key food groups that contribute to a 
nutritious diet and protect health.
    Another change proposed in this rule involves the age/grade groups 
used for menu planning. Today, childhood overweight and obesity are 
major public health concerns. To avoid excessive calories and provide 
age-appropriate meals, new age/grade groups recommended by IOM would be 
established. All schools would be required to use the following age/
grade groups to plan lunches and breakfasts:

 Grades K-5 (ages 5-10 years)
 Grades 6-8 (ages 11-13 years)
 Grades 9-12 (ages 14-18 years)

    These age/grade groups are consistent with the current age-gender 
categories used in the DRIs and with widely used school grade 
configurations. Use of these age/grade groups would enable schools 
operating under a food-based menu planning system to provide meals that 
meet the nutrition needs of school children in various grade groups and 
are conducive to healthy weight.
    IOM recognizes that some schools have different grade 
configurations and numerous logistical problems that may interfere with 
the reasonable use of the proposed age/grade groups. Those schools 
would be allowed to use the same breakfast and lunch meal patterns for 
students in grades K through 8 as food quantity requirements for the 
proposed age/grade group K-5 and 6-8 are comparable. However, schools 
choosing to use one meal pattern for students in these two age/grade 
groups would continue to be responsible for meeting the calorie, 
saturated fat, and sodium standards for each of the proposed age/grade 
groups. This would mean meals would have to meet very precise targets 
for calories and sodium.
    For example, a school could offer all students in grade groups K-5 
and 6-8 the same breakfast choices for the fruit, meat/meat alternate, 
and milk components because the quantity requirements are the same. The 
requirements for the grains component are not the same but they overlap 
(for grades K-5 is 7-10 oz eq per week, and for grades 6-8 is 8-10 oz 
eq per week). A school could offer 8-10 oz eq per week to meet the 
requirements for both grade groups. Similarly, the calorie requirements 
for grades K-5 (350-500 average calories per week) and grades 6-8 (400-
550 average calories per week) overlap. Therefore, a school could offer 
both grade groups a range of 400-500 average calories to meet the 
requirement for each grade group. While the saturated fat and trans fat 
requirement are the same for both grade groups, the school must 
carefully consider the sodium requirements. The school would have to 
comply with a standard of <430 mg, which was developed for grades K-5, 
but would also meet the requirement for students in grades 6-8.
    USDA acknowledges that schools offering the SBP may face barriers 
when grouping students by age/grade group for breakfast service. 
Children typically participate in the breakfast service as they arrive 
at school, rather than by grade level. In addition, some schools

[[Page 2500]]

provide breakfasts by methods such as ``grab-and-go breakfasts'' from 
kiosks. In instances where schools serve K-12 students on the same 
line, the IOM committee suggests that the SFA work with the SA to find 
a solution that ensures that basic elements of the meal requirements 
are maintained: Inclusion of required food components and food 
subgroups, moderate calorie levels, and an emphasis on reducing 
saturated fat and sodium. USDA will provide technical assistance to the 
SAs to assist them with this issue. Schools in these situations have 
the option to serve breakfast in the classroom to each grade group, use 
one meal pattern for grades K to 8 that meets the standards for each 
age/grade group, or work with the SA to find a feasible solution that 
meets the meal requirements.

Fruits and Vegetables

    The proposed food-based meal patterns for the NSLP and SBP were 
designed by IOM to improve the nutrient density of school meals and the 
nutrient intake by students, especially with regard to nutrients of 
concern. The proposed meal patterns offer fruits and vegetables as 
separate components and increase the quantities of these key food 
groups to promote children's intake of fiber and other important 
nutrients such as potassium and magnesium.
    To facilitate school's compliance with the fruits requirement, 
schools would be allowed to offer fruit that is fresh, frozen without 
sugar, dried, or canned in fruit juice, water, or light syrup. To 
confer fiber benefits, it is important to meet the fruits component 
with whole fruit whenever possible. However, schools would be able to 
offer pasteurized, full-strength (100 percent) fruit juice, as 
currently defined, to meet up to one-half of the fruits requirement. 
Products that contain less than 100 percent juice would not be allowed. 
The volume of products that would be necessary to meet the fruits 
requirement may be relatively large for consumption by children and can 
displace the intake of nutrient-rich foods in the meal. Requiring 100 
percent fruit juice in the NSLP would be consistent with the current 
requirements in the SBP and the Child and Adult Care Food Program.
    For breakfast, schools would have the option to offer non-starchy 
vegetables in place of fruits. For some schools, vegetables may be more 
affordable than whole fruit. For example, schools may add tomatoes and 
green peppers to a breakfast omelet or a breakfast burrito.
    In addition to establishing fruits and vegetables as separate food 
components in the NSLP, this proposed rule would require that schools 
offer specific vegetable subgroups at lunch over the school week to 
encourage variety in children's diets. Schools would be required to 
offer weekly at lunch at least \1/2\ cup equivalent of each of the 
following vegetable subgroups: Dark green, orange, and legumes (dry 
beans). As recommended by IOM, starchy vegetables (e.g., white 
potatoes, corn, lima beans, and green peas) would be limited to 1 cup 
per week to encourage students to try new vegetables in place of the 
familiar starchy ones. In addition, schools would be allowed to offer 
other vegetables (as defined in Appendix A-2 of the 2005 Dietary 
Guidelines) over the course of the week as specified in the proposed 
meal pattern. Schools using canned vegetables would have to select 
products with low sodium to stay within the proposed sodium limits.

Whole Grains

    The Dietary Guidelines recommend that all age groups consume at 
least half their grains as whole grains.\4\ In light of concerns such 
as whole grain product availability, product labeling, and student 
acceptability, IOM recommends the following staged approach to align 
school meals with the Dietary Guidelines' whole grains recommendation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Whole grains are (1) grain foods whose grain ingredients are 
whole grains only (100 percent whole grains), or (2) whole grain 
ingredients, such as rye flour, and whole wheat flour. (Virginia A. 
Stallings, Carol West Suitor, and Christine L. Taylor, Editors; 
Committee on Nutrition Standards for National School Lunch and 
Breakfast Programs; Institute of Medicine. School Meals: Building 
Blocks for Healthy Children.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Upon implementation of the proposed rule, at least half of 
the grains servings offered in the NSLP and SBP should be whole grain-
rich.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Whole grain-rich foods may contain less than 100 percent 
whole grains but, generally, contain at least 51 percent whole 
grains. IOM's recommended criterion requires that whole grain-rich 
foods meet serving size requirements defined in the Grains/Breads 
Instruction for Child Nutrition Programs, and can be easily 
identified as containing at least 51 percent whole grains. Please 
see Box 7-1 in the IOM report for details on the recommended 
temporary criterion for whole grain-rich foods (available at: https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12751&page=124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Within three years post-implementation, menu planning 
standards should be revised so that the proportion of whole grains to 
refined grains will exceed 50 percent.
    This proposed rule is consistent with IOM's recommended temporary 
criterion for whole grain-rich foods, which encompasses the HealthierUS 
School Challenge criteria. However, this rule slightly modifies IOM's 
suggested timeline to minimize the frequency of changes to menus and 
vendor requirements. This proposed rule would align the whole grains 
implementation timeline with the phased-in sodium reductions. 
Therefore, this proposed rule would implement the IOM whole grains 
recommendation as follows:
     Upon implementation of the final rule, half of the grains 
offered during the school week must be whole grain-rich.
     Two years post-implementation of the final rule, all 
grains offered during the school week must be whole grain-rich.
    The IOM report also recommends that the FDA take action to require 
labeling for the whole grain content of food products. USDA will 
provide support to FDA to help implement the labeling recommendation. 
In the interim, the criteria used to identify whole grain-rich foods 
served in school meals would be established in FNS guidance, and could 
be revised in policy as more information becomes available on the food 
label by the voluntary addition of whole grain information by industry 
or by FDA action to require labeling for the whole grain content of 
food products. USDA will also work with industry and other stakeholders 
to ensure that program operators can identify and purchase whole 
grains.
    IOM expects that the availability of whole grain-rich products will 
increase over time nationwide. At the Federal level, USDA commodity 
foods (now known as USDA Foods) will continue to expand the list of 
whole grain products available to schools. USDA Foods now include brown 
rice, and whole grain tortillas, pancakes, and pasta. In addition, USDA 
will issue an updated Grains/Breads Instruction and develop practical 
guidance to help schools incorporate more whole grain-rich products 
into school menus.
    This proposed rule would continue to allow schools the option to 
meet part of the weekly grains requirement with a grain-based dessert. 
Up to one serving per day of a grains-based dessert would be allowed as 
part of the grains component. When offered in moderation, grain-based 
desserts may present an opportunity to add variety to the grains 
component, incorporate more whole grains into the menu, and encourage 
student participation. Schools would need to refer to the Grains/Breads 
Instruction to identify creditable grain-based desserts.
    To accommodate cultural food preferences and due to product 
availability concerns, current regulations allow schools in outlying 
areas (American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) to serve a 
vegetable such as yams, plantains, or sweet potatoes to meet the grains 
requirement. This proposed rule would

[[Page 2501]]

continue to permit this meal pattern exception.

Meats/Meat Alternates

    The Dietary Guidelines recommend selecting and preparing lean meat 
and poultry, or low-fat and fat-free meat alternates, and limiting the 
intake of saturated fats, trans fat, and cholesterol. The meal pattern 
designed by IOM includes meats and meat alternates (such as beans, 
cheese, whole eggs, nuts, seeds, peanut butter, other nut or seed 
butters, and yogurt) and the recommendation to control saturated fat 
and trans fat. To meet this food component as well as the dietary 
specifications for saturated fat and trans fat, schools would have to 
offer lean meats/meat alternates. The use of processed meats would be 
discouraged because those available at this time are usually high in 
sodium. If offered, processed meats would have to be low in fat. USDA 
guidance and technical assistance materials will emphasize strategies 
for purchasing, planning, and preparing lean meats/meat alternates.
    As currently done, the quantity of meats/meat alternates offered 
daily could vary if at least a minimum amount (1 ounce) is provided 
daily and the total offered over the school week meets the weekly 
component requirement. This proposed rule would also retain the current 
requirement that all creditable meats/meat alternates be offered in the 
main dish or as part of the main dish and up to one other food item 
other than a dessert.
    USDA is aware of a growing interest to expand the list of allowable 
meat alternates to include tofu, a whole soybean food. We recognize 
that soybean foods are increasingly being incorporated in the American 
diet as nutrient-dense meat alternatives. This rule is not proposing to 
credit commercially prepared tofu as an allowable meat alternate at 
this time. However, USDA is interested in receiving comments from the 
child nutrition community proposing a methodology that could be used 
for crediting commercially prepared tofu.
    A longstanding concern regarding tofu is the lack of an FDA 
standard of identity. An FDA standard of identity defines what a given 
food product is, its name, and the ingredients that must be used or may 
be used in the manufacture of the food product. Without a standard of 
identity, USDA cannot assure nutritional consistency across brands and 
types of tofu in a food-based menu planning approach. Although tofu 
does not have a standard of identity, the USDA National Nutrient 
Database for Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009) provides nutrient 
profiles for different types of tofu.
    Other soy-based products are currently allowed as alternate protein 
products (APP) if they meet the requirements in Appendix A to 7 CFR 
part 210, and Appendix A to 7 CFR part 220. Examples of allowable APPs 
include products that are formulated with ingredients such as soy 
concentrates, soy isolates, soy flours, whey protein concentrate, or 
casein. Tofu is not an allowable APP because it does not meet the 
established minimum requirement to consist of at least 18 percent 
protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated.

Fluid Milk

    As recommended by IOM, only fat-free fluid milk (unflavored or 
flavored) and unflavored low-fat fluid milk (1 percent milk fat or 
less) would be allowed in the School Meal Programs in order to reduce 
the saturated fat and calorie content of school meals. Flavored low-fat 
fluid milk would not be allowed because it increases both saturated fat 
and calories. However, flavored fat-free fluid milk would be allowed 
because calcium is a nutrient of concern for children and the use of 
flavors to encourage children to drink more fluid milk could help 
mitigate this problem. USDA anticipates that the proposed calorie 
maximum would drive schools to select flavored fat-free fluid milk with 
the lowest sugar content.
    This proposed rule would no longer allow schools to offer whole 
milk or reduced-fat (2 percent milk fat) fluid milk as part of the 
reimbursable meal. This rule would also remove the existing regulatory 
requirement that schools offer milk in a variety of fat content. 
Section 203 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Act of 2010, which amended the 
NSLA, requires that schools offer a variety of milk consistent with the 
Dietary Guidelines recommendations.

Calories, Saturated Fat, Sodium, and Trans Fat

    Because the proposed meal pattern alone cannot ensure appropriate 
amounts of calories, saturated fat, sodium and trans fat, IOM 
recommended specific standards for these dietary components. This 
proposed rule would implement the IOM-recommended standards for 
calories, saturated fat, sodium, and trans fat as follows:

Calories

    When recommending the calorie levels that should be provided by 
school meals, the IOM committee was mindful of the childhood obesity 
trend and the food choices available to school children outside of the 
NSLP and SBP. The committee recommended minimum and maximum calories 
for lunches and breakfasts based on evidence about children's intakes 
at meals and snacks. The proposed minimum and maximum calorie levels to 
be required for each age grade group on average over the course of the 
week are:

           Lunch--Proposed Minimum and Maximum Calorie Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Grades K-5               Grades 6-8              Grades 9-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          550-650                  600-700                750-850
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average daily amount for a 5-day school week is not to be less
  than the minimum or exceed the maximum.
\b\ Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may
  be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for
  calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium.


         Breakfast--Proposed Minimum and Maximum Calorie Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Grades K-5               Grades 6-8              Grades 9-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          350-500                  400-550                450-600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The average daily amount for a 5-day school week is not to be less
  than the minimum or exceed the maximum.
\b\ Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may
  be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for
  calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium.

    The intent of this proposed change is not to reduce children's 
intake of food, but to avoid excessive calories. The meal patterns 
proposed in this rulemaking would require increased amounts of fruits, 
vegetables, and whole grains. Combined with calorie maximums, USDA 
believes that these increased food requirements leave relatively few 
discretionary calories for fats and added sugars. Therefore, to stay 
within the calorie ranges specified in this proposed rule, schools 
would have to offer lean meats/meat alternates, fat-free or low-fat 
fluid milk, and other nutrient-dense foods, as recommended by the 2005 
Dietary Guidelines.
    While the 2005 Dietary Guidelines do not recommend discrete limits 
on added sugars, they do encourage the consumption of foods and 
beverages low in added sugars.

Saturated Fat

    The 2005 Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend that all 
individuals consume less than 10 percent of total calories from 
saturated fat. This is the current standard in both the NSLP and SBP 
and this proposed rule would retain it as recommended by IOM.

[[Page 2502]]

Schools have made a recognizable effort to reduce the saturated fat 
levels of meals. SNDA-III data indicate that, on average, three-
quarters of schools offered breakfasts that met the requirement to 
provide less than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fat. At 
lunch, however, only one-third of schools offered meals that met this 
required level.
    A variety of food sources contribute to saturated fat levels in 
school meals; however, fluid milk is a primary contributor. As stated 
earlier, this proposed rule would no longer allow schools to offer 
whole fluid milk or reduced-fat fluid milk as part of a reimbursable 
lunch or breakfast for children ages five and older. To meet the new 
statutory requirement that schools offer a variety of milk consistent 
with the Dietary Guidelines (established by the Healthy, Hunger-Free 
Act of 2010), schools would have to offer students at least two fluid 
milk options. For example, schools could offer fat-free milk (both 
unflavored and flavored), or fat-free milk (unflavored and/or flavored) 
along with low-fat milk (unflavored). By limiting the choices to fat-
free and low-fat milk, schools would limit saturated fat in the school 
meals while maintaining key nutrients for growth and development found 
in fluid milk.

Sodium

    Reducing the sodium content of school meals is one of the key 
objectives of this proposed rule. Research suggests that modest 
population-wide reductions in dietary salt could substantially reduce 
cardiovascular events and medical costs (see, for example, Smith-
Spangler, 2010; Bibbins-Domingo, 2010). More specifically, a 
forthcoming study suggests that reducing dietary salt in adolescents 
could yield substantial health benefits by decreasing the number of 
teenagers with hypertension and the rates of cardiovascular disease and 
death as these teenagers reach young and middle age adulthood (Bibbins-
Domingo, 2010b).
    USDA has encouraged schools to reduce sodium since the 
implementation of SMI in 1995. According to the SNDA-III study, the 
average sodium content of school lunches (for all schools) is more than 
1400 mg. IOM recommended a gradual but significant reduction in sodium 
over time and suggested that USDA establish intermediate targets to 
help schools progress to the final sodium standards developed by the 
IOM expert committee for each age/grade group. This proposed rule would 
require that schools meet the final sodium standards established by IOM 
no later than ten years after the final rule is implemented by reaching 
intermediate sodium targets as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA11.002


[[Page 2503]]


    USDA recognizes that there are barriers to reducing the sodium 
content of meals to the levels recommended by IOM without having an 
impact on student acceptance and participation, practicality, and cost. 
The proposed intermediate sodium targets were developed after carefully 
reviewing scientific literature, consulting with U.S. and international 
public health professionals involved in sodium reduction efforts, and 
applying information from expert presentations by industry 
representatives at the IOM Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake 
information gathering session in March 2009. Findings showed that 
school menu planners can reduce sodium by approximately 10 percent 
through menu modification. Industry can reduce sodium in school food 
products by approximately 20 to 30 percent using current technology. 
The remaining reduction requires innovation.
    Establishing intermediate targets was complicated because two 
intermediate targets set at 10 percent and 20 percent reductions from 
baseline levels yield reductions for school breakfasts beyond IOM 
recommendations (school breakfasts require a sodium reduction of 
approximately 25 percent). If applied to school breakfasts, this 
strategy also places a disproportionate responsibility for reduction on 
school menu planners. Industry reductions and innovation necessary to 
meet school lunch targets will affect all foods served in all school 
meals, and the intermediate targets must account for this and 
distribute reductions required more evenly across the 10-year period. 
Therefore, simply applying 10 percent and 20 percent reductions to 
baseline levels was not an ideal way to establish intermediate targets.
    Instead, USDA applied the same proportional reductions (20 percent 
and 40 percent, respectively, for the first and second intermediate 
targets) to the total amount of sodium reduction required for each age/
grade group. This method distributes reductions more evenly across the 
10-year period and yields reasonable intermediate targets that align 
with feasible reductions for menu planners (approximately 10 percent) 
and industry (approximately 20-30 percent), and sodium reduction 
efforts currently underway.
    Taking baseline measures from SNDA III, intermediate targets were 
established two years and four years post-implementation to initiate 
change using current resources:
    (1) Two years post implementation of the final rule, schools would 
need to reduce sodium in school lunches by approximately 5-10 percent 
from baseline levels (SNDA-III). This is the estimated amount that 
schools can reduce sodium through menu and recipe modification using 
currently available foods and technology.
    (2) Four years post implementation of the final rule, schools would 
need to reduce sodium by approximately 15-30 percent from the baseline. 
This is the estimated amount industry can reduce sodium in foods using 
currently available technology.
    (3) Ten years post implementation of the final rule, school lunches 
would need to meet the final targets recommended by IOM. This would 
require schools to reduce sodium in school meals by approximately 25-50 
percent from the baseline. A significant amount of time is allotted for 
this final reduction, which will likely require innovation, such as new 
technology and/or food products.
    These reductions are consistent with public health initiatives 
aiming to reduce sodium in the nation's food supply over the next 10 
years, or a reduction of approximately 5 percent per year. Such 
reductions are widely supported by the American Public Health 
Association and by efforts such as New York City's National Sodium 
Reduction Initiative.
    Nearly all schools would need to reduce the sodium content of 
school meals to meet the proposed intermediate and final sodium 
targets. The changes necessary will vary by school/district because 
currently there is no sodium limit for school meals and each school/
district will be starting from a different baseline. Schools can use 
SMI data or review their meals to determine changes needed to meet the 
sodium targets.
    It is important to note that approximately 75 percent of the sodium 
in foods consumed in the U.S. comes from salt (sodium chloride) added 
to processed foods. Processed foods and convenience items are often 
used in the school food service operation to save time and labor. 
Gradual implementation of the sodium restriction is intended to give 
schools and industry time to lower the sodium content of the foods used 
in the school meals.
    The availability of high sodium foods in and outside of the School 
Meal Programs has resulted in a preference for salty foods at a young 
age. The proposed intermediate standards should help children reduce 
their salt preference and develop healthier eating habits. However, a 
simultaneous reduction of sodium levels in foods available outside the 
NSLP would be important to foster a change in students' taste 
preference.
    USDA plans to develop practical guidance and technical assistance 
resources to help schools achieve the proposed sodium standards while 
avoiding a negative impact on student participation. USDA resources 
would also emphasize strategies for increasing potassium in schools 
meals. Adequate potassium intake can help offset some of the adverse 
health effects of high sodium levels.
    USDA will continue to make low-sodium USDA Foods available to 
schools. USDA has targeted specific commodities to be made available at 
lower sodium levels, including canned items (beef, pork, poultry, 
salmon, and tuna), chicken fajita strips, and ready-to-eat cereal. Most 
commodity canned vegetables already meet FDA's requirements for use of 
the term ``healthy,'' which means that, in addition to meeting other 
requirements, these foods contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 
labeled serving. USDA plans to gradually phase-in low sodium canned 
vegetables for donation to all of the domestic nutrition assistance 
programs. USDA Foods now offer low sodium canned tomato products and 
canned dry beans. In school year 2010, the sodium levels in all USDA 
canned vegetables are being reduced to 140 mg per serving.
    While the proposed regulatory requirements discussed above are in 
line with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines and the IOM final sodium targets, 
USDA acknowledges further reductions in recommended sodium levels are 
possible in the upcoming 2010 Dietary Guidelines. The 2010 ``Dietary 
Guidelines Advisory Committee Report'' recommends that both children 
and adults should reduce their sodium intake to 1,500 mg per day 
(compared to the 2,300 mg per day recommended in the 2005 Guidelines).
    USDA is seeking public comment on how to address further reductions 
in recommended sodium levels, in the event that the 2010 Dietary 
Guidelines include sodium targets lower than those reflected in this 
proposed rule. USDA invites public comments on how possible further 
reductions could be incorporated into the NSLP and SBP, including the 
timeline for achieving reductions; how intermediate targets, if any, 
should be established; and the impact that further reductions may have 
on participation levels, implementation feasibility, and costs.

Tracking Calories, Saturated Fat, and Sodium

    Under this proposal, all schools would plan lunches and breakfasts 
using the food-based meal patterns

[[Page 2504]]

developed by IOM. Similar to the current FBMP system, schools would be 
responsible for offering meals that meet the meal pattern, as well as 
specific standards for calories, saturated fat, and sodium for each 
age/grade group on average over the school week. However, this rule 
would not require that schools conduct a nutrient analysis to determine 
compliance with the standards for calories, saturated fat, and sodium. 
SAs would be responsible for monitoring compliance with these three 
dietary specifications in schools selected for administrative reviews. 
(Currently, SAs conduct nutrient analysis for FBMP schools to determine 
the levels of eleven dietary specifications (calories, protein, vitamin 
A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, total fat, saturated fat, sodium, 
cholesterol, and dietary fiber). This proposal would support IOM's 
recommendation to limit and monitor calories, saturated fat, and sodium 
in school meals without burdening schools or SAs.
    Although not required, schools that have the resources to conduct a 
nutrient analysis would be able to continue to do so to assess how well 
they are meeting calorie, saturated fat, and sodium standards. SNDA III 
found that, in school year 2004-2005, about two-thirds of schools were 
in districts that conducted ongoing nutrient analysis of their menus. 
This finding suggests that many districts have the capability to 
conduct nutrient analysis.
    USDA intends to develop practical tools to help schools calculate 
the levels of calories, saturated fat, and sodium in school meals. The 
SAs are encouraged to develop practical calculation methods and provide 
technical assistance to schools when they are developing school menus 
to help align the planned meals with these three dietary 
specifications.

Trans fat

    This proposed rule would require schools to minimize trans fat in 
school meals to be consistent with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines. The IOM 
report provides a practical method to minimize the trans fat content of 
school meals. To help schools reach the goal of zero grams of trans fat 
per serving, IOM recommended that schools only be allowed to use food 
products or ingredients that contain zero grams of trans fat per 
serving, as indicated on the nutrition label (FDA defines zero as less 
than 0.5 grams per serving) or manufacturer's specifications. Foods 
that contain minimal amounts of naturally-occurring trans fat (such as 
beef and lamb) would be excluded from this requirement. Schools would 
also be required to add the trans fat specification and request the 
necessary documentation in their procurement contracts.
    If a product or ingredient used to prepare school meals has no 
nutrition labeling (e.g., institutional products) schools would be 
responsible for obtaining information, such as manufacturer or 
nutrition specifications, that confirms that the product contains zero 
grams of trans fat per serving. The trans fat information would be 
examined during an administrative review.

Standards for Meals Selected by the Student (Offer Versus Serve)

    To achieve a reasonable balance between the goals of reducing food 
waste and preserving the nutritional integrity of school meals, the IOM 
committee recommended standards for meals as selected by the student. 
The committee formulated two offer versus serve options: A preferred 
option and a secondary option.
    Under IOM's preferred option, a student may decline 1 food item at 
breakfast but must select 1 fruit or juice. For lunch, the student may 
decline 2 food items but must select 1 fruit or vegetable.
    The secondary option formulated by IOM also requires the student to 
select 1 fruit or juice at breakfast and 1 fruit or vegetable at lunch 
but allows the student to decline more food items. Under the secondary 
option, the student may decline 2 food items at breakfast and 3 food 
items at lunch.
    Although both options formulated by IOM promote the selection of 
fruits and vegetables, the preferred option is more conducive to 
preserving the nutritional integrity of the school meal. We are 
concerned that the secondary option allows the student to decline more 
food items than the current offer versus serve regulations. Therefore, 
this proposed rule w