# Child Nutrition Programs: Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-08098

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** April 25, 2024
- **Citation:** 89 FR 31962

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, 225, and 226
[FNS-2022-0043]
RIN 0584-AE88
Child Nutrition Programs: Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rulemaking finalizes long-term school nutrition requirements based on the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025,
robust stakeholder input, and lessons learned from prior rulemakings. Notably, this rulemaking gradually phases in added sugars limits for the school lunch and breakfast programs and in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, updates total sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt to added sugars limits. As a reflection of feedback from stakeholders, this final rule implements a single sodium reduction in the school lunch and breakfast programs and commits to studying the potential associations between sodium reduction and student participation in the school lunch and breakfast programs. This rulemaking addresses a variety of other school meal requirements, including establishing long-term milk and whole grain requirements. Finally, this rule includes provisions that strengthen Buy American requirements. While this rulemaking takes effect school year 2024-2025, the Department is gradually phasing in required changes over time. Program operators are not required to make any changes to their menus as a result of this rulemaking until school year 2025-2026 at the earliest.

DATES:

This final rule is effective July 1, 2024. Phased-in implementation dates for required changes are addressed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this rule.

ADDRESSES:

Docket:
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov
for access to the rulemaking docket, including any background documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Farmer, Director, School Meals Policy Division—4th floor, Food and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone: 703-305-2054.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. Background

Phased-In Implementation

USDA Support for Child Nutrition Programs

Federal Strategies To Reduce Sodium and Added Sugars in the Food Supply

Overview of Public Comments

2. Added Sugars

3. Milk

3A: Flavored Milk

3B: Fluid Milk Substitutes: Responses to Request for Input

3C: Fluid Milk Substitutes: Nutrient Requirements

4. Whole Grains

5. Sodium

6. Meats/Meat Alternates at Breakfast

7. Substituting Vegetables for Grains in Tribal Communities

8. Traditional Indigenous Foods

9. Afterschool Snacks

10. Substituting Vegetables for Fruits at Breakfast

11. Nuts and Seeds

12. Beans, Peas, and Lentils at Lunch

13. Competitive Foods: Bean Dip Exemption

14. Meal Modifications

15. Clarification on Potable Water Requirements

16. Synthetic
Trans
Fats

17. Professional Standards: Hiring Exception for Medium and Large Local Educational Agencies

18. Buy American

18A: Limited Exceptions to the Buy American Requirement

18B: Exception Documentation and Reporting Requirements

18C: Procurement Procedures

18D: Definition of “Substantially”

18E: Clarification of Requirements for Harvested Farmed and Wild Caught Fish

19. Geographic Preference

20. Miscellaneous Changes

21. Summary of Changes

21A: Descriptive Summary of Changes

21B: Table of Changes by Program

22. Procedural Matters

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Table of Abbreviations

AFHK—Action for Healthy Kids

ADA—Americans with Disabilities Act

CACFP—Child and Adult Care Food Program

CNA—Child Nutrition Act

CN-OPS—Child Nutrition Operations Study

FAR—Federal Acquisitions Regulations

FDA—U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FNS—Food and Nutrition Service

HEI—Healthy Eating Index

HMI—Healthy Meals Incentives

ICN—Institute of Child Nutrition

NASEM—National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

NSLA—National School Lunch Act

NSLP—National School Lunch Program

SBP—School Breakfast Program

SFSP—Summer Food Service Program

SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SMP—Special Milk Program

SY—School Year

USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture

Section 1: Background

On February 7, 2023, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

1

(“2023 proposed rule”) to update the school meal pattern requirements based on a comprehensive review of the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
(Dietary Guidelines), robust stakeholder input on the school meal patterns, and lessons learned from prior rulemakings.
2

USDA is finalizing that proposed rule, with some modifications based on public input. This final rule is the next step in an ongoing effort toward healthier school meals that USDA and the broader school meals community have been partnering on for well over a decade.

1

Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
(88 FR 8050, February 7, 2023). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/07/2023-02102/child-nutrition-programs-revisions-to-meal-patterns-consistent-with-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-for.

2
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition.
December 2020. Available at:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/.

Separately, on January 23, 2020, USDA published a proposed rule,
Simplifying Meal Service and Monitoring Requirements in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs
(“the 2020 proposed rule”).
3

As noted in the 2023 proposed meal pattern rule, based on public comment, USDA is finalizing certain meal pattern provisions from the 2020 proposed rule in this final rule.
4

The following sections address rule provisions that were included in the 2020 proposed rule:

3

Simplifying Meal Service and Monitoring Requirements in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs
(85 FR 4094, January 23, 2020). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/23/2020-00926/simplifying-meal-service-and-monitoring-requirements-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school.

4
Other provisions of the 2020 proposed rule related to program monitoring were finalized in
Child Nutrition Program Integrity
(88 FR 57792, August 23, 2023). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/23/2023-17992/child-nutrition-program-integrity.

• Section 6: Meats/Meat Alternates at Breakfast

• Section 12: Beans, Peas, and Lentils at Lunch

• Section 14: Meal Modifications

• Section 15: Clarification on Potable Water Requirements

• Section 16: Synthetic
Trans
Fats

Through this rulemaking, USDA is exercising broad discretion authorized by Congress to administer the school

lunch and breakfast programs and ensure meal patterns “are consistent with the goals of the most recent”
Dietary Guidelines.
5

See 42 U.S.C. 1752, 1758(a)(1)(B), 1758(k)(1)(B), 1758(f)(1)(A), and 1758(a)(4)(B). Consistent with its historical position, USDA interprets “consistent with the goals of” the
Dietary Guidelines
to be a broad, deferential phrase that requires consistency with the ultimate objectives of
Dietary Guidelines
but not necessarily the adoption of the specific consumption requirements or specific quantitative recommendations in the
Dietary Guidelines.
Accordingly, through this final rule, USDA is working to ensure an appropriate degree of consistency between school meal patterns and the
Dietary Guidelines
by considering operational feasibility and the ongoing recovery from the impacts of COVID-19, while also ensuring schools can plan appealing meals that encourage consumption and intake of key nutrients that are essential for children's growth and development.

5
The
Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025
provide four overarching recommendations: (1) Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage. (2) Customize and enjoy nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect personal preferences, cultural traditions, and budgetary considerations. (3) Focus on meeting food group needs with nutrient-dense foods and beverages and stay within calorie limits. (4) Limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

This rulemaking updates current meal pattern requirements, which were most recently updated in SY 2022-2023 through the final rule,
Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium
(“the transitional standards rule”). USDA intended for the transitional standards rule to serve as a bridge, providing immediate relief as schools returned to traditional school meal service following extended use of COVID-19 meal pattern flexibilities. A detailed overview of the transitional standards rule, USDA's stakeholder engagement campaign, and other factors considered in the proposed rule development can be found in the 2023 proposed rule preamble.
6

With this rule, USDA intends to further align school meal nutrition requirements with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines, 2020-2025.
This effort is described in greater detail, as informed by public comments on the proposed rule, throughout this preamble.

6

Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
(88 FR 8050, February 7, 2023). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/07/2023-02102/child-nutrition-programs-revisions-to-meal-patterns-consistent-with-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-for.

Phased-In Implementation

For most children, school meals are the healthiest meals they consume in a day,
7

and USDA research has found that school meals contribute positively to the diet quality of all participating students.
8

However, there is still room for improvement. For example, the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
indicates that about 70 to 80 percent of school children exceed the recommended daily limit of added sugars.
9

Research suggests that among adolescents, certain poor dietary behaviors—such as skipping breakfast and infrequent consumption of fruits and vegetables—worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
10

Updating the school meal patterns is one strategy to increase healthy dietary behaviors among school children for the long term. Many children rely on school meals for more than half of their food each school day, so even small nutritional improvements can make a difference.
11

7
Liu J, Micha R, Li Y, Mozaffarian D.
Trends in Food Sources and Diet Quality Among US Children and Adults, 2003-2018.
JAMA. April 12, 2021. Available at:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778453?utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_term=040921.

8
“While USDA school meals were bigger contributors to the caloric intakes of students from less food-secure households, they contributed positively to the diet quality of all participating students . . . For both food-insecure and food-secure students, the average HEI scores for non-school foods were between 55 and 57, whereas school foods scored between 79 and 81. School foods were particularly noteworthy as sources of fruit, dairy, and whole grains.” U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA School Meals Support Food Security and Good Nutrition. May 3, 2021. Available at:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2021/may/usda-school-meals-support-food-security-and-good-nutrition/.

9
See “Percent Exceeding Limits of Added Sugars, Saturated Fat, and Sodium” on pages 79, 82, and 85. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition.
December 2020. Available at:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/.

10
Michael SL, Jones SE, Merlo CL, et al.
Dietary and Physical Activity Behaviors in 2021 and Changes from 2019 to 2021 Among High School Students—Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2021.
MMWR Suppl 2023;72(Suppl-1):75-83. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7201a9.

11
Karen Weber Cullen, Tzu-An Chen,
The contribution of the USDA school breakfast and lunch program meals to student daily dietary intake,
Preventive Medicine Reports. March 2017. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335516301516.

At the same time, USDA understands that changes to the meal patterns need to be gradual and predictable to give child nutrition program operators and children time to adapt, and to allow industry time to develop new products. This final rule responds to stakeholder input by building in plenty of time for State agencies, school nutrition professionals, and other program operators to successfully implement the required changes. For example, as discussed in
Section 2: Added Sugars,
USDA is gradually phasing in the product-based and weekly limits for added sugars in the school meal programs. As discussed in
Section 5: Sodium,
this final rule gives schools and manufacturers even more time to reduce sodium compared to the proposed rule. As recommended by numerous stakeholders, it also commits to examining sodium reduction in school meals and assessing the potential impact of these reductions on program operations and student participation. This rulemaking does not make changes to the current whole grain requirements for school meals and continues to allow schools to offer flavored milk, subject to new added sugars limits, to all K-12 students. Although USDA considered alternatives for the whole grain and flavored milk requirements, based on stakeholder input, USDA determined that maintaining the current requirements would best position schools and students for success.

Other changes in this rule simplify program regulations and provide child nutrition program operators more flexibility to successfully plan and prepare meals. These changes will be implemented on a quicker timeline, as they provide optional administrative or operational flexibilities but do not require operators to change menus or operations. For example, this rulemaking makes it easier for schools to offer meats/meat alternates at breakfast by removing the minimum grains requirement. It removes the limit for nut and seed crediting at breakfast, lunch, and supper in the child nutrition programs, making it easier for operators to offer vegetarian meals. This rulemaking also makes it easier for program operators to purchase local foods for the child nutrition programs by allowing “locally grown, raised, or caught” to be used as procurement specifications for unprocessed or minimally processed food items.

Each provision of this rule, along with its implementation date, is discussed in greater detail throughout this preamble. A chart outlining each regulatory change and its implementation date is included in
Section 21: Summary of Changes.

USDA Support for Child Nutrition Programs

USDA is incredibly grateful for the dedication of child nutrition program operators who serve children healthy meals with kindness and care. USDA understands that some program operators continue to face high food costs and supply chain issues. The Department is committed to continuing to provide program operators with support to help them succeed.

USDA is making a $100 million
12

investment in the Healthy Meals Incentives (HMI) Initiative, which is dedicated to improving the nutritional quality of school meals through food systems transformation, school food authority recognition and technical assistance, the generation and sharing of innovative ideas and tested practices, and grants. As part of a cooperative agreement to develop and implement USDA's HMI Initiative, Action for Healthy Kids (AFHK) has awarded nearly $30 million in grants to 264 small and/or rural school food authorities across 44 States and the District of Columbia. These school food authorities will use funding to modernize their operations and provide more nutritious meals to students. Additionally, AFHK is offering Recognition Awards to celebrate and spotlight school food authorities who use innovative practices, student and community engagement activities, and other strategies to provide meals that are consistent with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025.

12
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
USDA Launches $100 Million Healthy School Meals Initiative, Announces Grant Program for Rural Schools.
September 23, 2022. Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0010.22.

USDA also provides support to schools through its annual Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grant Program. These funds support a wide range of farm to school activities designed to improve access to local foods in eligible schools from training, planning, and developing partnerships to creating new menu items, expanding local supply chains, offering taste tests to children, purchasing equipment, planting school gardens, and organizing field trips to agricultural operations.

Finally, USDA will continue to provide technical assistance to State agencies, schools, and other program operators to ensure they have the guidance and support they need to successfully implement this rule. USDA will release updated policy guidance and will host a series of webinars to provide a detailed overview of this rulemaking. In addition, communications resources related to this rulemaking are available on the USDA Food and Nutrition Service website.
13

13
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/.

Federal Strategies To Reduce Sodium and Added Sugars in the Food Supply

USDA recognizes that schools and child and adult care institutions are part of the broader food environment. In order to successfully make improvements to the child nutrition program meal patterns, stakeholders have emphasized that similar improvements must be made to the broader food environment. For example, stakeholders have suggested that children are more likely to accept lower sodium school meals if the meals they consume outside of school are lower in sodium. Research has shown that consumer preferences and expectations for salty tastes can adjust as dietary intake changes.
14

14
The Food and Drug Administration.
Memo: Salt Taste Preference and Sodium Alternatives.
2016. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2014-D-0055-0152.

To that end, other Federal agencies are supporting efforts to improve dietary behaviors among the U.S. population. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking an iterative approach to gradually reduce sodium in the U.S. food supply that includes establishing voluntary sodium targets for industry, monitoring and evaluating progress, and engaging with stakeholders. The FDA is especially encouraging adoption of the voluntary targets by food manufacturers whose products make up a significant proportion of national sales in one or more food categories and restaurant chains that are national and regional in scope.
15

These efforts are discussed in greater detail in
Section 5: Sodium.

15
The Food and Drug Administration.
Sodium Reduction.
Available at:
www.fda.gov/SodiumReduction.

The FDA is also committed to reducing added sugars in the U.S. food supply and in individual's diets. In 2016, FDA issued a final rule
16

updating the Nutrition Facts label, which requires, in part, a declaration of the added sugars in a serving of a product and the percent Daily Value (% DV) for added sugars. Manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual sales were required to update their labels by January 1, 2020; manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales were required to update their labels by January 1, 2021.

16

Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
(81 FR 33742, May 27, 2016). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11867/food-labeling-revision-of-the-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels.

Additionally, following the 2022 White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, the White House released a National Strategy
17

that highlighted that the intake of added sugars for most Americans is higher than what is recommended by the
Dietary Guidelines
and included several FDA initiatives to accelerate efforts to empower individuals with information and create a healthier food supply. In November 2023, FDA, in collaboration with USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, held a virtual public meeting and listening sessions entitled, “Strategies to Reduce Added Sugars Consumption in the United States.” This public meeting was a commitment made in the National Strategy and connected Federal agencies, communities, and private industry to explore different tactics for reducing added sugars in the U.S. food supply and in individuals diets. Presentations during this meeting provided a background on added sugars, discussed strategies for reducing added sugars by other countries, and highlighted approaches to increase engagement and education on added sugars. This meeting was accompanied by two days of facilitated listening sessions where participants offered feedback and recommendations for next steps on proposed strategies.

17

Biden-Harris Administration National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health,
September 2022. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/White-House-National-Strategy-on-Hunger-Nutrition-and-Health-FINAL.pdf.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion's Healthy People 2030 initiative also includes a focus on reducing consumption of added sugars and sodium in individuals aged 2 years and older.
18

As detailed in
Section 2: Added Sugars
and
Section 5: Sodium,
the
Dietary Guidelines,
which are updated and jointly released by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, recommend limiting foods and beverages higher in added sugars and sodium. Specifically, the
Dietary Guidelines
recommend that added sugars make up less than 10 percent of calories per day for individuals age 2 years and older. The
Dietary Guidelines
also recommend consuming less than 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day—

and even less for children younger than age 14.
19

18
U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
Health People 2030.
Available at:
https://health.gov/healthypeople.

19
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition.
December 2020. Available at:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/.

In addition, the historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health inspired actions to support a whole of society approach to improving nutrition and health. Over $8 billion in public- and private-sector commitments were made to improve food and nutrition security, promote healthy choices, and improve physical activity. USDA expects that, when carried through, the commitments made as part of the White House Conference will support improvements to the broader food environment, thereby supporting efforts to improve nutrition in school and child and adult care settings.

For example, the private sector made the following commitments in fall 2022:
20

20
The White House.
FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Administration Announces More Than $8 Billion in New Commitments as Part of Call to Action for White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.
September 28, 2022. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/28/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-announces-more-than-8-billion-in-new-commitments-as-part-of-call-to-action-for-white-house-conference-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/.

• Danone North America committed to prioritizing new reduced-sugar, low-sugar, and no-added-sugar options in its children's products and pledged that 95 percent of these products will contain less than 10 grams of total sugar per 100 grams of food product by 2030.

• The National Restaurant Association committed to expand its Kids Live Well program to 45,000 additional restaurants and food service locations. Kids Live Well is a voluntary initiative to help restaurants offer healthier meal options for children that meet added sugars, sodium, and calories thresholds established by the latest nutrition science.

• Tyson Foods committed to reformulating and improving the nutritional value of its prepared foods portfolio, with a focus on reducing sodium.

• Walgreens committed to increasing the selection of fresh food in its stores by 20 percent, including a greater variety of fresh produce, and implementing new solutions to highlight healthy ingredients and further reduce harmful ones.

The strides made in school nutrition over the past decade demonstrate that healthier school meals are possible when everyone who plays a part—food industry, school nutrition professionals, USDA, and others—work together toward the common goal of improving children's health. This includes USDA continuing to do its part to ensure schools and other child nutrition program operators have the support they need to successfully implement this rulemaking. USDA recognizes that child nutrition program operators have a challenging job and appreciates their tireless dedication to the children in their care. USDA is continually looking for ways to better support program operators who provide our Nation's children with nutritious meals and snacks. The Department welcomes input from stakeholders on what additional guidance and support State agencies, schools, and other program operators will need to successfully implement this rulemaking.

Overview of Public Comments and USDA Response

USDA appreciates public interest in the proposed rule. USDA initially provided a 60-day public comment period (February 7, 2023, through April 10, 2023). Based on stakeholder requests
21

for additional time to review the rule and assess its impact, USDA extended the public comment period by 30 days. During the 90-day comment period (February 7, 2023, through May 10, 2023), USDA received more than 136,000 comments. Of the total, about 125,000 were form letters from 46 form letter campaigns, and about 5,000 were unique submissions. An additional 6,400 were duplicate or non-germane submissions. USDA received public comments from State agencies, school nutrition professionals, advocacy groups, industry respondents, professional associations, school districts, CACFP sponsoring organizations, dietitians, and individuals, including students, parents and guardians, grandparents, and other caregivers. Overall, over 23,000 respondents, including over 700 unique submissions, supported the proposed rule in its entirety. Over 6,000 respondents, including over 1,000 unique submissions, opposed the proposed rule in its entirety.

21
USDA received requests to extend the proposed rule comment period from the American Commodity Distribution Association and the Urban School Food Alliance and from Senator Boozman and Representative Foxx. The letters are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FNS-2022-0043-2915
and
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FNS-2022-0043-12391.

Many school nutrition professionals supported provisions of the rule that provide menu planners more flexibility, and provisions that maintain requirements that menu planners have already successfully implemented. For example, a national organization representing tens of thousands of school nutrition professionals offered support for the following provisions that USDA ultimately finalized or committed to in this final rule:

• Maintaining the current requirement allowing all schools to offer fat-free and low-fat milk, flavored and unflavored, to K-12 students.

• Maintaining the current requirement that at least 80 percent of weekly grains offered in school meals are whole grain-rich.

• Committing to conducting a study on potential associations between sodium reduction and student participation.

• Allowing schools more flexibility to offer meats/meat alternates in place of grains at breakfast.

• Allowing tribally operated schools, schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Education, and schools serving primarily American Indian or Alaska Native children to serve vegetables to meet the grains requirement.

• Codifying in regulation that traditional Indigenous foods may be served in reimbursable school meals.

• Allowing nuts and seeds to credit for the full meats/meat alternates component in all child nutrition programs and meals.

• Exempting bean dip from the total fat standard in Smart Snacks regulations.

• Allowing State agencies discretion to make exceptions to the degree requirement for school nutrition directors hired in medium and large districts.

USDA worked in collaboration with a data analysis company to code and analyze the public comments using a commercial, web-based software product. The Summary of Public Comments report is available under the Browse Documents tab in docket FNS-2022-0043. All comments are posted online at
https://www.regulations.gov.
22

22
See: Docket FNS-2022-0043.
Child Nutrition Programs: Revisions to Meal Patterns Consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FNS-2022-0043.

The following paragraphs describe general themes from the public comments. Many respondents also provided feedback on the specific proposals. This specific feedback is included in the subsequent sections of the preamble, as applicable.

Public Comments: Dedication of School Nutrition Professionals

Several respondents expressed appreciation for the efforts of school

nutrition professionals. An advocacy group noted that school nutrition professionals provide balanced, nutritious meals to children, promoting academic success and supporting the entire school community's efforts to enrich the lives of students. Another respondent emphasized that school nutrition professionals are deeply caring people who are invested in children's health and wellbeing. An advocacy group agreed, noting that school nutrition professionals go “above and beyond” to keep children nourished; as an example, one respondent described efforts at their school to create menus that are nutritionally balanced, flavorful, and cater to student preferences. When considering options for the final rule, one dietitian urged USDA to listen to the school nutrition professionals who “do the work” every day by providing meals to children.

Respondents also commended successful implementation of school meal pattern improvements established under the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. For example, one advocacy group reported that the updated nutrition standards enhanced the nutritional quality of meals and increased student participation. Another advocacy group noted that school nutrition professionals have worked tirelessly to reduce sodium, calories, and fat; to introduce students to whole grain foods; and to increase fruits and vegetables in school meals. Another respondent was proud of efforts made by school nutrition professionals thus far, emphasizing that school meals are the healthiest meals that most students receive each day. A joint response from several elected officials stated that strong school nutrition requirements are “one of the most important public health achievements in a generation.” This response also noted that school cafeterias across the country are “leading the way to serving healthy, delicious, and culturally relevant foods” to children.

USDA Response:
USDA appreciates and agrees with public comments that cited the important work of school nutrition professionals. The Department values the vital work that school nutrition professionals and other child nutrition program operators do every day to keep our Nation's children nourished and healthy. In this final rule, USDA incorporated feedback from individuals with firsthand experience operating the child nutrition programs. For example, this feedback is reflected in
Section 3A: Flavored Milk,
where USDA considered operational challenges that respondents raised in response to the proposal that would have applied different milk requirements across grade levels. USDA also considered child nutrition program operator feedback when determining implementation dates for the provisions of this rule, including in
Section 5: Sodium.

Public Comments: Nutrition and Health

Over 11,000 respondents cited the need for strong nutrition requirements. For example, an advocacy group suggested that aligning the school meal nutrition requirements with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines
“sets our students up for lifelong success.” Other respondents emphasized the importance of strong nutrition requirements to children's academic achievement and overall wellbeing. A form letter campaign stated that strong nutrition requirements can help to address health disparities and improve nutrition equity. Another respondent agreed, maintaining that the child nutrition programs are important tools in addressing health disparities and advancing nutrition security among communities of color. An advocacy group emphasized the importance of nutritious meals in schools and child care settings, noting that these meals often represent a significant portion of children's food intake. This respondent argued that continued improvement in the meal patterns could reduce children's risk for diet-related diseases. Another advocacy group agreed, stating that the school meal programs provide more than half of some students' calories and are often the healthiest sources of food for school children. An industry respondent described school meals as a nutrition “success story” and stated that good nutrition is essential to children's growth, learning, and development. An advocacy group emphasized that the proposed evidence-based standards will “make school meals even healthier.”

Some respondents, including a form letter campaign, encouraged USDA to go further; for example, by implementing sodium reductions beyond those proposed in the rule. Respondents also encouraged USDA to strengthen the whole grains proposal, by requiring all grains offered in school meals to be whole grain-rich.
23

Others urged USDA to adopt a swifter timeline for implementation; for example, one advocacy group recommended that USDA “implement the strongest nutrition standards on the fastest timeline possible.” A few respondents, including an advocacy group, encouraged USDA to update the Summer Food Service Program meal patterns to more closely align with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines,
including by serving more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. These respondents emphasized the importance of providing children with healthy, high-quality meals year-round.

23
To meet USDA's whole grain-rich criteria, a product must contain at least 50 percent whole grains, and the remaining grain content of the product must be enriched.

USDA Response:
USDA appreciates public comments that discussed the importance of strong, science-based nutrition requirements and the positive impact on children's health. The Department agrees with respondents that asserted that meals served in child nutrition programs contribute to healthy dietary patterns and improved dietary outcomes. In this final rule, USDA has considered these important factors, along with the importance of ensuring that the meal patterns are practical and achievable for schools. For example, this final rule will continue to reduce sodium in school meals, while taking a gradual approach to implementation to give schools, students, and the food industry time to adapt to the changes. The Department also acknowledges comments that requested more whole grains in school meals; instead, this final rule continues the requirement that the majority of grains offered be whole grain-rich, while providing schools some flexibility to offer other grains. USDA remains committed to its statutory obligation to establish nutrition requirements for school meals that are consistent with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines
in efforts to improve the nutritional quality of program meals serve to the Nation's children. While USDA appreciates public comments regarding the Summer Food Service Program, extensive updates to the Summer Food Service Program meal pattern are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Public Comments: Student Participation

Many respondents expressed concern that the proposed changes could negatively impact student participation and consumption of meals. Some respondents suggested that, if the proposed rule was finalized, students would choose to consume a lunch from home or elsewhere instead of participating in the school meal programs. These respondents argued that this would result in non-participating students consuming a meal that is less nutritious than school meals offered under the current requirements. Other respondents maintained that school nutrition programs would suffer if student participation declines.

Respondents also raised concerns that the proposed limits for added sugars and sodium could make school meals less appealing to students. For example, an industry respondent asserted that the proposed added sugars and sodium limits would negatively impact the taste of foods that children enjoy. However, an advocacy group noted that students and families support improving the nutritional quality of school meals, citing the role school meals play in student academic achievement and health. A joint comment from several elected officials suggested that children enjoy healthier school meals, and that the amount of food wasted in schools has not changed since the nutrition requirements were updated in 2012.

USDA Response:
Although USDA does not expect that updated nutrition requirements would negatively impact student participation in the school meal programs,
24

the Department acknowledges respondent concerns about the importance of maintaining student participation. The Department strives to advance nutrition security while also ensuring that school meals are appealing and enjoyable to students. The changes finalized in this rule thoughtfully consider both concerns by gradually phasing in required changes, such as the added sugars limits and sodium reduction. This phased-in approach will give program operators and children time to implement and adapt to the changes. Additionally, as noted in
Section 5: Sodium,
as part of this rulemaking, USDA has committed to conducting a study on potential associations between sodium reduction and student participation.

24
According to USDA research conducted following implementation of the 2012 final rule, “There was a positive and statistically significant association between student participation in the NSLP and the nutritional quality of NSLP lunches, as measured by the HEI-2010. Rates of student participation were significantly higher in schools with HEI-2010 scores in the third and highest quartiles (that is, the top half) of the distribution compared to the lowest quartile.” See page 38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support,
School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study Summary of Findings.
Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study.

Public Comments: Product Availability

Numerous respondents argued that the proposed meal pattern changes would force vendors out of the child nutrition market, making it more difficult for schools to find products needed to comply with USDA meal requirements. Several respondents expressed concern about increased costs, procurement challenges, and reduced options for school breakfast under the proposed rule. A joint comment from a group of elected officials agreed, arguing that the proposed changes could lead to “increased complexity” in school food purchasing, decreasing the number of options available to schools and forcing schools to compete for a limited supply of specialized foods. Respondents also expressed concern about ongoing supply chain issues and food-price inflation. One industry respondent suggested that rather than implementing new requirements, USDA should maintain the current requirements and teach students how to make healthy choices through nutrition education.

A school food service director stated that procurement would be a challenge under the proposed rule and suggested that it takes “a few years” for manufacturers to catch up with new regulations. This respondent also suggested manufacturers do not dedicate as much space to school-specific items in their warehouses, which impacts product availability. An advocacy group argued that it takes industry three to five years, and a significant amount of money, to reformulate “any given product.” This respondent also pointed out that the K-12 sector tends to be the least lucrative market for the food industry. Another advocacy group agreed, arguing that the cost of producing and stocking specialized K-12 menu items is “too high,” and the demand for these products on the commercial market is “too low.” A State agency also expressed concern about proposed implementation timeframes, noting that manufacturer and distributor capabilities have not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. A form letter campaign encouraged USDA to work with the food industry to ensure product availability, particularly for lower sodium products. One respondent stated that school kitchens are understaffed, and school nutrition professionals rely heavily on food manufacturers to provide meals for students. A school district raised concerns about increased pressure for scratch cooking; while this respondent acknowledged they would “love for more scratch options to be served,” they did not view this as a realistic option given current staffing challenges.

Respondents also cited the importance of supporting local farmers and producers and helping children learn about where their food comes from. One advocacy group cited the benefits of local food systems, which they argued stimulate local economies and provide reliable product availability during supply chain disruptions. Respondents encouraged USDA to consider equity and inclusion in establishing regulatory requirements; for example, an advocacy group suggested that USDA consider the broader food system and supply chains, including farm workers and other people employed in the food system. This respondent supported efforts to create a fair and sustainable agricultural economy. Another respondent advocated for policies that encourage child nutrition operators to source from socially disadvantaged producers. An advocacy group suggested that purchases made through the child nutrition programs should prioritize respect, equity, and inclusion across the food supply chain. This respondent asserted that supporting local and regional foods systems, including by strengthening support for locally owned agricultural and food processing operations, may create more diversified and resilient supply chains. While offering support for the proposed geographic preference provision, some respondents suggested operators would need more financial support to purchase local foods, especially in the CACFP.

USDA Response:
USDA recognizes that many stakeholders expressed concerns about product availability and understands the impact of product availability and cost on the operation of the child nutrition programs, as well as challenges posed by staffing constraints. At the same time, the Department appreciates public comments that cited continuous industry efforts to develop nutritious foods for child nutrition programs, and many of the provisions of this rule incorporate input from industry respondents. For example, USDA agrees with public comments that stated there are products already available that meet the product-based limits for added sugars, which aligns with data collected by USDA.
25

USDA expects that ongoing industry efforts to develop nutritious foods will support product availability for child nutrition programs. USDA considered each of these factors when developing this final rule; for example, by moving forward with important changes while providing ample time for implementation. As detailed in
Section 2: Added Sugars
and
Section 5: Sodium,
USDA is providing about three years for implementation of the weekly added sugars limit and sodium reduction in response to public comments that suggested it takes about

three years for manufacturers to reformulate products.

25
U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support data collection of nutrition label information from major cereal and yogurt manufacturer K-12 and food service catalogs. Data were collected on 191 total cereal products and 110 total yogurt products. See
Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Public Comments: Financial Challenges

Many respondents emphasized the importance of investing in school nutrition programs financially. For example, respondents cited concerns about food cost, inflation, meal debt, and supply chain challenges. An advocacy group noted that many stakeholder concerns about the proposed rule are related to resource constraints. This respondent suggested financial pressures undermine the program's goals. Another advocacy group expressed appreciation for the HMI Initiative to support small and rural schools, and supported USDA's plans to provide technical assistance, share best practices, and encourage collaboration with the food industry. One State agency supported increased meal reimbursements, investments in kitchen equipment and infrastructure, and more training opportunities. Another respondent agreed, stating that the program reimbursement rates are “simply not enough” to cover food and labor costs, while others suggested schools would need extra supplies or funding to implement the updated meal patterns.

USDA Response:
USDA acknowledges public comments from program operators that emphasized that financial sustainability is critical for successful child nutrition program operations. USDA understands that schools and other program operators need support to succeed in implementing updated requirements. As part of this effort, USDA continues to provide high-quality, cost-effective foods through USDA Foods and various grant-funded opportunities. USDA has also provided significant additional financial resources to address specific needs, such as the $3.8 billion in supply chain assistance funds provided in fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 to address product shortages and price increases experienced after the pandemic.
26

While increasing the Federal reimbursement rates is beyond USDA's authority and would require Congressional action, the Department remains committed to providing support to child nutrition program operators.

26
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
FNS Actions to Address COVID-19 Related Supply Chain Disruptions.
Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/supply-chain.

Public Comments: Practical and Durable Standards

Numerous respondents discussed the need for attainable nutrition requirements. Some respondents asserted that certain proposals are impractical, or that the school nutrition programs cannot move beyond current meal pattern requirements. A handful of respondents suggested maintaining the transitional standards as the permanent school nutrition requirements, suggesting the transitional standards represent a “middle ground.” Many respondents recommended that USDA study the impact of the current meal pattern requirements prior to making any further changes.

Respondents cited concerns about the broader food environment, arguing that schools are not solely to blame for children's excess consumption of added sugars and sodium. One respondent pointed out that when considering the full calendar year, many children consume more meals outside of school than in school. This respondent agreed that school meals contribute to children's health but emphasized the importance of improving food choices in other settings. Another respondent recommended that USDA focus on the “food system as a whole” and engage in a public health initiative to reduce added sugars and sodium in grocery store foods.

Regarding implementation dates, one dietitian recommended that USDA delay implementation of any new requirements until 2027. This respondent suggested that additional time would allow school nutrition directors to educate staff on upcoming changes and allow industry to develop new food products. A school district agreed, describing the implementation timeframes for added sugars and sodium as “a little rushed.” Several respondents specifically recommended delaying implementation of any provisions that would impact CACFP. These respondents raised concerns about a lack of CACFP stakeholder engagement and the importance of providing the CACFP community ample time to prepare for the changes.

Other respondents felt the proposed implementation timeframes were adequate. An advocacy group argued that the food industry could adapt to incremental implementation, which they noted was built into the proposed rule. A State agency agreed, suggesting that the proposed phased-in implementation would provide the opportunity to revise menu offerings, manage inventory, and offer technical assistance. A second State agency affirmed that the proposed implementation dates provide adequate lead time; however, this respondent also noted that timely publication of the final rule would be “critical” to allow for product reformulation, procurement, and menu planning. An advocacy group described USDA's phased-in approach as “reasonable,” stating that the proposed rule would improve school meals “in a practical way.” This respondent suggested that the proposed sodium limits, for example, would give schools time to plan, source, and test meals that meet the proposed limits. Another advocacy group that described the rule as “scientifically sound and practical” argued that the proposed rule would give schools time to implement the new requirements while also prioritizing children's health. A joint response from several elected officials maintained that the proposed rule included a “common-sense incremental approach to implementation, making it feasible for schools and the food industry to have success.” An advocacy group supported the phased-in implementation for sodium but noted it would be “incumbent” upon manufacturers to reformulate products to ensure the limits would be effective.

USDA Response:
USDA recognizes that meaningful improvement in the nutritional quality of school meals is best achieved by nutrition requirements that are both ambitious and feasible. The Department also acknowledges public comments that suggested child nutrition program operators need time to successfully implement new requirements, and that feedback is reflected in this final rule. For example, this final rule gradually phases in certain requirements, such as the added sugars limits, to provide program operators time to make menu changes. Additionally, this final rule includes several provisions that provide menu planners with more options to create healthy meals; for example, by making it easier for schools to offer meats/meat alternates at breakfast (see
Section 6: Meats/Meat Alternates at Breakfast
). By incorporating valuable feedback from stakeholders into this final rule, the Department continues to put children's health at the forefront while also ensuring that the program requirements are achievable and set up schools and child and adult care institutions for success.

Public Comments: Other School Nutrition Comments

Some respondents recommended other meal pattern requirements or offered suggestions for USDA to consider. One respondent suggested adding a requirement for “healthy fats” in school meals, while another recommended establishing a minimum fiber standard. Another respondent encouraged USDA to provide recipes, training, and nutrition education to

encourage schools to offer more seafood in school meals. Numerous respondents recommended that USDA restrict or limit the use of artificial or non-nutritive sweeteners in school meals. Others encouraged USDA to provide incentives for fresh fruits and vegetables, rather than restricting certain foods. A form letter campaign and numerous other respondents supported expanding access to vegetarian, vegan, or plant-based school meals. One respondent suggested implementing a plant-based protein requirement in school meals, while another encouraged schools to adopt a “meat-free day.” A few respondents noted that Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) are three times as likely to follow a plant-based diet than white people and suggested that providing more plant-based meals would support equity in the school meal programs. Respondents also cited the importance of meeting cultural food preferences. For example, one advocacy group noted that food is “socially and emotionally nurturing” and emphasized the importance of meeting nutrition requirements as well as food preferences. Another advocacy group cited a research brief that suggested that “enhancing the palatability and cultural appropriateness of meals” offered would improve meal consumption.

A few respondents, particularly those who operate multiple child nutrition programs, supported stronger alignment of the nutrition requirements for all program meal patterns. A student encouraged USDA to seek student perspectives on meal pattern requirements. This respondent suggested students who participate in the school meal programs would provide important perspectives on food waste, cultural relevance, and nutrition. Although outside the scope of this rulemaking, several respondents supported expanding access to free school meals and providing students with more time to eat school lunch. For example, one respondent noted that studies have shown that even modest increases in time to eat result in “improved consumption, particularly of fruit and vegetables, and reduced food waste.”

USDA Response:
USDA appreciates public comments that provided additional feedback and suggestions for new requirements beyond what was proposed. Certain suggestions, such as adjusting the eligibility requirements for free meals or providing more time for children to eat their meals, are beyond USDA's authority. While USDA does not have authority to regulate the length of school meal periods, USDA encourages schools to provide children adequate seat time to consume their meals. USDA acknowledges public comments encouraging more plant-based meals as a strategy to support equity in school meals. Meal pattern requirements are established to provide the foundation of well-balanced meals, and USDA encourages program operators to develop menus that meet the needs of their diverse communities. This rulemaking provides more opportunities for schools to offer plant-based meals. In response to requests to streamline program requirements, USDA has endeavored to better align child nutrition program requirements in this rulemaking; for example, by aligning nut and seed crediting across all child nutrition programs and meals (see
Section 11: Nuts and Seeds
). While other suggestions outside the scope of this rulemaking, such as developing requirements for “healthy fats” and artificial sweeteners, are not included in the final rule, the Department remains committed to providing the technical assistance needed to enable schools to serve diverse, culturally diverse meals to meet the unique needs and preferences of their students.

Public Comments: Child and Adult Care Food Program

Although the proposed rule primarily focused on revisions to the school meal patterns, the following proposals applied to CACFP:

•
Added Sugars:
USDA proposed updating the current CACFP
total
sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt to
added
sugars limits, consistent with the proposed limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt in the school meal programs.

•
Whole grains definition:
USDA proposed adding a definition of “whole grain-rich” to CACFP regulations, consistent with the definition USDA proposed adding in school meal regulations.

•
Menu Planning Options for American Indian and Alaska Native Students:
USDA proposed to allow CACFP institutions and facilities serving primarily American Indian or Alaska Native children to substitute vegetables for grains. This proposal also applied to NSLP, SBP, and SFSP.

•
Nuts and Seeds:
USDA proposed to allow nuts and seeds to credit for the full meats/meat alternates component in all child nutrition program meals and snacks. This proposal applied to NSLP, SBP, SFSP, and CACFP.

•
Geographic Preference:
USDA proposed to expand geographic preference options by allowing “locally grown, raised, or caught” as procurement specifications for unprocessed or minimally processed food items in the child nutrition programs. This proposal applied to NSLP, SBP, SFSP, and CACFP.

•
Miscellaneous Changes:
USDA proposed to change the name of the “meats/meat alternates” meal component to “protein sources” in CACFP, consistent with the proposed change in NSLP and SBP. USDA also proposed a few other minor terminology changes and meal pattern table revisions that impact CACFP.

•
Proposals from Prior USDA Rulemaking:
USDA signaled its intent to finalize a prior proposal that would update meal modification regulations for disability and non-disability reasons, impacting NSLP, SBP, and CACFP. USDA signaled its intent to finalize a prior proposal regarding a technical correction for nutrient requirements for fluid milk substitutes, impacting NSLP, SMP, SBP, and CACFP.

With the exception of the proposal to change the name of the “meats/meat alternates” meal component to “protein sources” in CACFP, which is not finalized, all of the proposed changes to CACFP are finalized in this rulemaking.

USDA received over 90 comments from CACFP sponsoring organizations. USDA also received comments from advocacy groups representing the CACFP community, and hundreds of form letters from individuals who are a part of the CACFP community. An advocacy group recommended that USDA engage CACFP stakeholders before finalizing and implementing the rule. This respondent argued such engagement is necessary to understand the rule's impacts on CACFP, including costs, product availability, and nutritional quality. Another advocacy group emphasized the importance of supporting efforts to stabilize the CACFP workforce. This respondent recommended delaying implementation to ensure that the CACFP community has time to prepare for implementation and provide input on the proposed changes.

Specific feedback from the CACFP community is detailed in the relevant sections throughout this preamble. At a high level, concerns raised by the CACFP community include:

• Potential impact on training, technical assistance, and resource development, especially related to the proposed terminology change for the meats/meat alternates component.

• Potential costs associated with updating websites, materials, menus, and recipes.

• The need for implementation support for the proposed changes, such as the need for tools and resources to

successfully implement the proposed added sugars limits for yogurt and cereal. Specifically, one advocacy group recommended USDA develop an “approved” list of products that could be offered under the added sugars limits.

• An overall concern that the proposed rule lacked a “CACFP lens,” and therefore did not adequately consider its potential impact on the CACFP community.

The CACFP community also raised concerns about other challenges facing operators that were outside the scope of the proposed rule. For example, respondents noted ongoing pandemic recovery, staff shortages, and vendor losses, and the loss of pandemic-era funding and flexibilities. Respondents emphasized the importance of supporting CACFP, which one advocacy group described as a “financial and nutritional lifeline” for many children and families. Other respondents agreed, noting that CACFP plays a “vital role in supporting good nutrition” and providing “quality affordable child care” for families.

USDA Response:
USDA appreciates public comments received on behalf of the CACFP community and agrees that CACFP operators play a vital role in supporting the goals of child nutrition programs. USDA acknowledges that the listening sessions conducted prior to the development of the proposed rule were primarily focused on nutrition requirements for school meal programs, given that the majority of the provisions in the proposed rule relate to NSLP and SBP. However, many of the organizations that USDA engaged with through these listening sessions also advocate on behalf of CACFP and/or SFSP operators, in addition to school meals. USDA also received over 8,000 comments on the transitional standards rule, including comments related to CACFP, which were considered in the development of the proposed rule. Public comments submitted in response to the 2023 proposed rule, including those submitted by the CACFP community, were also crucially important to the development of this final rule. As emphasized throughout the proposed rule, USDA greatly values this feedback. USDA has responded to the CACFP community's feedback in the subsequent sections of the rule, especially
Section 2: Added Sugars
and
Section 20: Miscellaneous Changes.

Public Comments: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Several respondents raised concerns about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a USDA Federal assistance program. While comments related to SNAP are outside the scope of this rulemaking, USDA is providing a summary of the comments here. Respondents were concerned that SNAP does not impose the same nutrition requirements as USDA's child nutrition programs. These respondents asserted that students, including those participating in SNAP, are exposed to unhealthy food outside of school. Some respondents argued that all Federal nutrition programs, including SNAP, should have the same nutrition requirements. For example, a dietitian suggested that if USDA finalizes added sugars limits for school meals, those limits should also apply to SNAP.

USDA Response:
USDA appreciates public comments about SNAP and its relation to the Department's other Federal assistance programs, including the child nutrition programs. USDA's mission is to increase food security and reduce hunger by providing children and income eligible people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a way that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence. Within that mission, USDA administers 16 critical nutrition assistance programs, one of which is SNAP, the Nation's largest domestic food and nutrition assistance program for income eligible Americans. SNAP is the primary source of nutrition assistance for millions of people each month, and SNAP participants can purchase a variety of eligible foods items, as defined by statute.
27

USDA is committed to helping SNAP participants and all Americans make healthier food choices through evidenced-based nutrition education. SNAP-Ed is an evidenced-based, federally funded grant program that supports SNAP participants with nutrition education to help participants maximize benefits and make healthy food choices to promote nutrition security. In USDA's most recent analysis of food purchases by SNAP and non-SNAP households,
28

SNAP households and non-SNAP households purchased similar types of foods, such as fruit, vegetables, and milk. This affirms that SNAP households are purchasing similar types of nutrient-dense foods compared to non-SNAP households. Additionally, USDA encourages healthy eating for SNAP participants through incentive programs, which provide additional ways to make healthy choices, such as purchasing fruits and vegetables, easier for SNAP participants. Recent research
29

shows that participants of the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) reported greater fruit and vegetable intake and improvements in food security. Similarly, in a Healthy Incentive Pilot (HIP) report,
30

participants spent more SNAP benefits on fruits and vegetables than non-HIP households. SNAP incentive programs, along with all USDA Federal nutrition assistance programs, play an important role in making nutritious foods more accessible and affordable. While there are differences across the programs, each of USDA's Federal nutrition assistance programs are critical to advancing nutrition security and promoting healthy dietary patterns.

27
See: Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2012(k)).

28
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Foods Typically Purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Households.
November 18, 2016. Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/foods-typically-purchased-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-households.

29

GusNIP NTAE. Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP): Impact Findings Y3: September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture; 2023. Available at:
https://nutritionincentivehub.org/gusnip-ntae-y3-impact-findings.

30
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Evaluation of the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) Final Report.
September 2014. Available at:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/hip/final-evaluation-report.

Section 2: Added Sugars

Current Requirement

Currently, there are no added sugars limits in the school meal programs. Under the current regulations, schools may choose to serve some menu items and meals that are high in added sugars, provided they meet average weekly calorie limits (7 CFR 210.10(f)(1) and 220.8(f)(1)).

The
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025
recommends limiting intake of added sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per day. School meal data from school year (SY) 2014-2015 found that the average percentage of calories from added sugars in school meals was approximately 11 percent in school lunch and 17 percent in school breakfast.
31

The
Dietary Guidelines
further indicate that 70 to 80 percent of all school-aged children exceed the recommended limit for added sugars.
32

The current calorie requirements for the school meal programs are intended to encourage schools to choose nutrient-dense foods and beverages. However,

USDA determined that a specific added sugars requirement would more effectively reduce added sugars in school meals, consistent with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines.

31
Fox MK, Gearan EC, Schwartz C.
Added Sugars in School Meals and the Diets of School-Age Children.
Nutrients. 2021; 13(2):471. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020471.

32
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition.
December 2020. Available at:
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/.

Proposed Rule

USDA proposed to reduce added sugars in school meals through a gradual, phased-in, two-step approach:
product-based limits
followed by a
weekly dietary limit.
First, beginning in SY 2025-2026, USDA proposed to implement quantitative limits for leading sources of added sugars in school meals. The proposed product-based limits were as follows:

•
Grain-based desserts:
would be limited to no more than 2 ounce equivalents per week in school breakfast, consistent with the current limit for school lunch. Examples of grain-based desserts include cereal bars, doughnuts, sweet rolls, toaster pastries, coffee cakes, and fruit turnovers.
33

33
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs.
Available at:
https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG.
See: Section 4—Grains, Exhibit A: Grain Requirements for Child Nutrition Programs, for a list of grain-based desserts.

•
Breakfast cereals:
would be limited to no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce.

•
Yogurt:
would be limited to no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces.

•
Flavored milk:
would be limited to no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces or, for flavored milk sold as a competitive food
34

for middle and high schools, 15 grams of added sugars per 12 fluid ounces.
35

34
Competitive food is a term to define all food and beverages that are available for sale to students on the school campus during the school day. (7 CFR 210.11(a)(2))

35
For clarification, USDA proposed a higher added sugars limit for flavored milk sold as a competitive food in middle and high schools due to the larger serving size. The serving size for milk offered as part of a reimbursable meal is 8 fluid ounces. Milks sold to middle and high school students as a competitive food may be up to 12 fluid ounces.

For the second step, beginning in SY 2027-2028, USDA proposed to implement a dietary specification for added sugars. The dietary specification would limit added sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per week in the school lunch and breakfast programs. This weekly limit would be in addition to the product-based limits described above.

USDA requested public input on both steps as well as the following questions:

• USDA is proposing product-specific limits on the following foods to improve the nutritional quality of meals served to children: grain-based desserts, breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milk. Do stakeholders have input on the products and specific limits included in this proposal?

• Do the proposed implementation timeframes provide appropriate lead time for food manufacturers and schools to successfully implement the new added sugars standards? Why or why not?

• What impact will the proposed added sugars standards have on school meal menu planning and the foods schools serve at breakfast and lunch, including the overall nutrition of meals served to children?

For consistency across child nutrition programs, USDA also proposed to apply the product-based added sugars limits to breakfast cereals and yogurt served in the CACFP; under the proposed rule, the
added
sugars limits would replace the current
total
sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt in CACFP. The proposed product-based limits for CACFP aligned with the proposed limits for school breakfast and lunch, and were as follows:

•
Breakfast cereals:
would be limited to no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce.

•
Yogurt:
would be limited to no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces.

Public Comments

USDA received tens of thousands of comments on added sugars, with most in support of reducing added sugars in school meals. State agencies, school nutrition professionals, advocacy groups, industry respondents, professional organizations, CACFP sponsoring organizations, dietitians, and individual respondents, such as parents and students, provided input on the proposals for added sugars. At a high-level, respondents provided the following feedback on added sugars requirements:

• Limiting added sugars in school meals is important for children's health and academic performance.

• Product-based limits would incentivize the food industry to reformulate products to help schools meet the weekly added sugars limit.

• Many respondents expressed a preference for one type of limit over the other:

• Some respondents suggested that product-based limits would be easier and less burdensome for program operators to implement compared to the weekly limit.

• Other respondents asserted that weekly limits align with recommendations from the
Dietary Guidelines
and would allow more flexibility for menu planners compared to the product-based limits.

The following paragraphs describe specific feedback on the proposal as well as feedback on each step of the proposal: product-based limits and weekly limits.

Reducing Added Sugars and Children's Health

Numerous respondents, including advocacy groups, school districts, school nutrition professionals, parents, and a few form letter campaigns, supported added sugars limits in school meals. Several advocacy groups justified limits on added sugars based on the recommendations from the
Dietary Guidelines.
One advocacy group asserted that reducing added sugars is “urgent” because children's current intake of added sugars is high. Other proponents reasoned that implementing added sugars limits in school meals would be beneficial to children's health. An advocacy group applauded the proposal because it makes a distinction between naturally occurring and added sugars and creates an incentive to reduce added sugars in “hyper-processed products.” A few parents emphasized that reducing added sugars is a top health priority. One parent strongly supported the proposed limits, stating that currently, “children who rely on school meals [have] no option but to eat sugary breakfasts.” An individual cited multiple studies demonstrating the negative impacts of added sugars on health, and an advocacy group noted that consuming too many added sugars can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. A few individuals and a form letter campaign affirmed that reducing added sugars may help address health disparities by improving the overall nutritional quality of school meals.

Challenges With Reducing Added Sugars

Other respondents cited challenges with reducing added sugars in school meals. A school district appreciated USDA's efforts but voiced concerns that an added sugars limit would drastically reduce schools' buying options. One school food service director claimed that school meals are already low in sugar and that tracking added sugars would be another standard to monitor. An industry respondent noted that if the proposed rule is finalized, added sugars would be the only element in the meal pattern “with two prongs of compliance monitoring,” as it would be subject to both product-based and weekly limits. A dietitian expressed concern about the palatability of meals, adding that

limiting added sugars could negatively impact student participation. One individual supported reducing added sugars, but expressed concern that students will not like the food, which could increase food waste.

One industry respondent argued that the existing calorie ranges “adequately control for sugar” and schools “should not be further regulated” with added sugars limits. Another industry respondent opposed the proposed added sugars limits due to the cost of product reformulation. An advocacy group also raised concerns about product reformulation, noting that each time a food producer needs to change the specifications of a product, it can take up to three years and cost as much as $750,000 per item. This respondent was concerned that some manufacturers may choose to stop making school-specific items instead of reformulating their products.

Proposed Approach: Product-Based Limits

Over 86,000 respondents, including 96 unique comments, supported the proposed product-based limits in general; comment counts specific to each product-based limit are detailed in each product-based comment summary section, below. A school district suggested that product-based limits would provide helpful benchmarks for initial added sugars reductions. An industry respondent asserted that product-based limits would help reduce added sugars in breakfast items. An individual agreed, stating that limiting high-sugar breakfast items would support children in the classroom as well. This respondent explained that breakfasts that are high in sugar do not provide sustainable energy for students to focus in the classroom. A professional organization stated that product-based limits would promote “progress toward more nutrient dense” foods, and that the phased-in approach would allow schools and manufacturers time to “learn and adapt.”

Other respondents supported the product-based limits but did not support the weekly limit. For example, an advocacy group affirmed that the product-based limits would be easier for schools operationally, noting that CACFP sponsoring organizations have successfully implemented product-based limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt. This advocacy group stated that product-based limits would better align child nutrition program requirements and reduce administrative burden. A State agency suggested that the proposed product-based limits would help to educate the public about the health impacts of added sugars. However, this State agency did not support the weekly limit, asserting that it may be burdensome for schools. A school district also preferred the product-based limits over the weekly limit, suggesting that product-based limits would be easier to implement after schools overcome the initial burden of identifying compliant products. An advocacy group agreed, maintaining that the product-based limits are necessary to reduce added sugars at breakfast, but noting that the weekly limit would “negatively impact school meal menu planning.” An industry respondent described the product-based limits as “appropriate tools to reduce consumption of added sugars,” and argued that an additional weekly limit would be “duplicative.”

About 100 respondents, including 81 unique comments, opposed proposed product-based limits in general; comment counts specific to each product-based limit are detailed in each product-based comment summary section, below. A food service director opposed the proposed limits for school breakfast specifically, describing breakfast as an important meal and suggesting that some added sugar encourages students to eat breakfast. An individual stated that product-based limits would decrease the availability of grab-and-go meals and would reduce overall breakfast participation. Several respondents, including industry respondents, school districts, and dietitians, added that product-based limits would hinder alternative breakfast models (
e.g.,
breakfast in the classroom) because pre-packaged, grain-based desserts are more commonly offered in these models. A dietitian claimed that even though some popular whole grain products served at breakfast contain added sugars, the nutritional benefits of these foods “outweigh the sugar content.” A State agency agreed that breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milks provide “numerous essential nutrients” and raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of decreased consumption under the product-based limits. A few school districts expressed concerns about increased costs. An industry respondent asserted that product-based limits are “too prescriptive and unnecessarily complicate the nutrition standards.” Instead of requiring the product-based limits, a State agency suggested USDA partner with K-12 food manufacturers to work toward implementation of voluntary, product-based added sugars limits.

Proposed Product-Based Limit: Grain-Based Desserts at Breakfast

Over 900 respondents supported the proposed limit for grain-based desserts in school breakfast, including 20 unique comments. A parent applauded limits for grain-based desserts at breakfast, suggesting that they would “encourage more nutrient-dense choices.” An individual supported limits on grain-based desserts, asserting that schools can “find healthier ways to serve breakfast.” A school nutrition professional agreed, supporting a limit on “desserts [and] sweet entrées during breakfast.” An advocacy group explained that applying the current school lunch limit for grain-based desserts to school breakfasts (
i.e.,
the ability to offer up to 2 ounce equivalents of grain-based desserts per week) would help simplify menu requirements.

Over 700 respondents opposed the proposed limit for grain-based desserts in school breakfast, including 85 unique comments. Many opponents stated that grain-based desserts are popular among students and that limiting these foods may impact student breakfast participation. An individual raised concerns that schools have few options at breakfast and reducing grain-based desserts would further limit menus. An advocacy group noted that currently, schools offer a variety of grain items at breakfast to promote participation, for example, by including whole grain-rich toaster pastries and whole grain-rich cereal bars daily, along with whole grain donuts and whole grain cinnamon rolls on occasion. This respondent maintained that the proposed rule would severely limit schools' ability to serve these popular items at breakfast. A school district noted that convenient, on-the-go grain items are important options for students who attend morning tutoring to recover from learning loss following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several respondents cited confusion about the definition of “grain-based dessert” as described in
Exhibit A: Grain Requirements for Child Nutrition Programs
of the
Food Buying Guide.
36

An industry respondent argued that under current policy, grain-based desserts are a “list of foods with no explanation of what sets them apart from other grain foods.” This respondent noted this list includes a wide range of foods that can differ

vastly in added sugars content. Additionally, this respondent suggested that under the proposed rule, manufacturers would have little incentive to reduce added sugars in grain-based desserts, since these products would still face “strict limitations,” regardless of their added sugars content. A State agency noted that items such as cereal bars are not typically identified as “desserts” outside of the child nutrition programs and encouraged USDA to reevaluate the food items that are considered grain-based desserts. A form letter campaign agreed, pointing out that many items considered to be grain-based desserts are offered as part of a balanced breakfast at school or at home. A State agency requested clarification on what the proposed grain-based dessert limit for school breakfast would mean for preschool meals, noting that the meal pattern currently does not allow any grain-based desserts to be offered to preschoolers.

36
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs.
Available at:
https://foodbuyingguide.fns.usda.gov/Appendix/DownLoadFBG.
See: Section 4—Grains, Exhibit A: Grain Requirements for Child Nutrition Programs, for a list of grain-based desserts.

Proposed Product-Based Limit: Breakfast Cereals

Over 900 respondents supported the proposed product-based added sugars limit for breakfast cereals, including 20 unique comments. Many respondents supported the proposal for breakfast cereals without providing additional rationale. A State agency affirmed that there are plenty of breakfast cereals that already meet the proposed product-based limit. This State agency also suggested that the implementation date would provide sufficient time for manufacturers to decrease added sugars in non-compliant breakfast cereals. Another State agency supported limiting added sugars in breakfast cereals but recommended increasing the limit to 8 or 9 grams per dry ounce, instead of the proposed 6 grams per dry ounce.

About 50 respondents opposed the proposed product-based limit for breakfast cereals, including 33 unique comments. A school nutrition professional and several school districts expressed concern that the product-based limit for breakfast cereals would severely limit variety. An industry respondent claimed that they provide numerous breakfast cereal options that are inexpensive, convenient, and popular with students, and argued that the product-based limit is not necessary because the weekly limit would effectively limit breakfast cereals that are high in added sugars. This respondent stated that their school breakfast cereals provide less than 8 grams of added sugars per serving, but that the product-based limit would limit their options for schools to only two cereals. A school district argued that the breakfast cereals that meet the proposed product-based limit are not preferred by students.

Proposed Product-Based Limit: Yogurt

Nearly 1,000 respondents supported the proposed product-based added sugars limit for yogurt, including 24 unique comments. An industry respondent suggested that “many options on the market meet the proposed limit” for yogurt (12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces). This respondent noted that manufacturers have greater ability to formulate yogurts that meet a product-based limit, as opposed to a weekly limit. Another industry respondent suggested that some yogurts would meet the proposed product-based limit, while others would not, potentially requiring reformulation. A parent who supported the product-based limit suggested that yogurt could be sweetened with fruit instead of added sugars. A professional organization noted that most yogurt served in their program already meets the proposed product-based limit and described it as “realistic for manufacturers and programs.”

Forty respondents opposed the proposed product-based added sugars limit for yogurt, including 21 unique comments. A CACFP sponsoring organization asserted that it would limit the yogurt that program operators can offer and only allow varieties that “children will not want to eat.” A State agency described the proposed limit as “confusing,” noting that most yogurt comes in 4-ounce packages and schools would need to “do culinary math” to determine how to apply the limit, which was for 6-ounce packages. An industry respondent suggested that yogurt products should be allowed to have various levels of sugars so that schools have more flexibility in selecting products. One school district shared that yogurt varieties that are currently popular with students at breakfast would not meet the product-based limit. This respondent raised concerns that, under the proposed limit, certain varieties of yogurt would be eliminated from their menus and there would be “limited choices for replacements.”

Proposed Product-Based Limit: Flavored Milk

Over 900 respondents supported the proposed product-based limit for flavored milks, including 44 unique comments. A State agency maintained that they did not expect the flavored milk limit to be an issue, as dairy suppliers are already working to reduce added sugars in flavored milks. Another State agency and two professional associations also supported the proposed limits, and one of these professional associations noted that most milk producers already meet the proposed limit. A school district confirmed that flavored milks currently offered in their district meet the proposed added sugars limit. An industry respondent suggested that the proposed product-based limit for flavored milks is “likely achievable” but cautioned that some reformulation efforts to reduce added sugars have started to impact palatability. An advocacy group recommended applying the added sugars limits for flavored milks to SMP and CACFP “to ensure maximum positive impact on child health.”

Fifty respondents opposed the proposed product-based limit for flavored milks, all of which were unique comments. A State agency suggested that the product-based limit for flavored milks “may not be necessary and may cause difficulties for schools lacking access to multiple options.” This State agency pointed to existing efforts in the dairy industry to reduce added sugars in flavored milks, including the International Dairy Foods Association's recent commitment to lower added sugars in flavored milks available in schools.
37

While acknowledging the great improvement, the State agency noted that, depending on their location, some rural schools may not have access to flavored milk options that meet the proposed limit. Another State agency expressed concern about the proposed limit, noting that producers in their State currently offer a fat-free, flavored milk with 11 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces. This State agency questioned whether it would be worth the financial burden for this producer to reformulate their product to reduce added sugars by 1 gram and meet the proposed 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces limit. Another State agency mentioned a milk distributor

that currently has a flavored milk option with 13 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces. Numerous respondents provided additional input on flavored milks, which is detailed in
Section 3A: Flavored Milk.

37
In April 2023, the International Dairy Foods Association announced its “Healthy School Milk Commitment.” According to a press release from the International Dairy Foods Association, “[b]eginning with the 2025-2026 school year, 37 school milk processors representing more than 90% of the school milk volume in the United States commit to provide healthy, nutritious school milk options with no more than 10 grams of added sugar per 8 fluid ounce serving.” See: International Dairy Foods Association.
IDFA Announces `Healthy School Milk Commitment' to Provide Nutritious Milk with Less Added Sugar for Students in Public Schools, Surpassing USDA Standards.
April 5, 2023. Available at:
https://www.idfa.org/news/idfa-announces-healthy-school-milk-commitment-to-provide-nutritious-milk-with-less-added-sugar-for-students-in-public-schools-surpassing-usda-standards.

Product-Based Limits: Impact on Child and Adult Care Food Program

USDA also received feedback from the CACFP community about how the proposed product-based limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt would affect CACFP. Several respondents opposed any changes to current CACFP total sugars limits, citing the potential burden of implementing the change and the operational differences between school meals and CACFP. For example, an advocacy group suggested that USDA's review of breakfast cereals and yogurt, which focused on products for K-12 schools, did not necessarily reflect the yogurt products available to CACFP operators. An industry respondent agreed, adding that there may be “little to no demand for these products in grocery stores,” and products that are commonly served in schools may not be available in the broader food supply. Another industry respondent suggested that the proposed change for yogurt could impact the type of yogurt available in CACFP, resulting in “less preferred yogurt types” offered in the Program.

An advocacy group asserted that making major changes to CACFP nutrition requirements to “streamline” work for schools is “a mistake” and recommended USDA further engage the CACFP community prior to finalizing the proposed breakfast cereal and yogurt added sugars limits in CACFP. This respondent added that CACFP providers use other Federal assistance programs, rather than school meals, as their point of reference. Another advocacy group noted that for breakfast cereals, the proposed change from 6 grams of
total
sugars per dry ounce to 6 grams of
added
sugars per dry ounce would effectively increase the total sugar allowance. This respondent raised concerns about children's health and did not support what they considered to be a more lenient requirement. A State agency suggested applying the current CACFP total sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt to school meals, instead of finalizing the proposed changes.

Other respondents supported applying the added sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt to CACFP. An industry respondent supported transitioning total sugars limits to added sugars limits, arguing that it “appropriately reflects updated nutrition guidance.” A dietitian noted that CACFP operators have successfully implemented total sugars limits and supported updating to added sugars limits because added sugars are now consistently listed on the Nutrition Facts label. An advocacy group agreed, suggesting that the updated Nutrition Facts label provides the information CACFP providers would need to select products, adding that there are numerous products in the marketplace that meet the proposed added sugars limits. Another advocacy group suggested that applying the proposed change to CACFP “will simplify standards for both industry and program operators.”

A form letter campaign supported the product-based limit for breakfast cereals only if CACFP providers can continue to use a list of allowable products provided by the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Program to identify breakfast cereals that are allowed in the CACFP. Respondents explained that each State agency administering the WIC program provides a list of allowable foods (WIC list) that meet program nutrition requirements. A few advocacy groups highlighted the importance of the WIC list, with one noting that the majority of CACFP providers shop in retail stores and use the WIC list to easily identify cereals that meet CACFP total sugars requirements. A State agency agreed, describing the WIC list of approved breakfast cereals as “an important resource used by both the State agency and CACFP sponsoring organizations.” An advocacy group also highlighted the importance of collaboration between CACFP and WIC, including shared materials and messaging. An individual suggested that USDA develop its own “approved list” of breakfast cereals and yogurt that child care providers participating in CACFP could use to easily identify compliant products.

Respondents also offered additional suggestions for how USDA could support the CACFP community in implementing the proposed changes, if finalized. An advocacy group recommended that USDA provide tools and resources to help CACFP providers identify allowable products. A CACFP sponsoring organization encouraged USDA to provide flexibility to operators and sites as they transition from current total sugars limits to the proposed added sugars limits. An advocacy group noted that CACFP sponsoring organizations would need ample time to retrain providers and suggested that USDA provide additional funding to support nutrition education, training, and material revisions at the local level. Another advocacy group noted that family child care providers often run small programs where they take on multiple roles including owner, caregiver, meal preparer, and more. This respondent suggested that child care providers may need additional time to implement the added sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt, noting that the changes will require time, training, money, and technical assistance. However, a State agency suggested that the proposed rule would provide adequate lead time for CACFP operators to successfully implement the changes, noting that the State would have time to train sponsoring organizations and update technical assistance resources. However, the State agency recommended that USDA implement the CACFP changes at the beginning of the fiscal year, rather than the beginning of the school year, to match the start of the CACFP program year.

Proposed Approach: Weekly Limits

Over 76,000 respondents, including 114 unique comments, supported a weekly added sugars limit in the school lunch and breakfast programs—the second step of USDA's proposal to reduce added sugars. A dietitian supported the weekly limit, stating that it gives “menu planners creative freedom” to develop a menu that incorporates foods that are currently available in the K-12 market. Another respondent explained that the weekly limit would give schools flexibility to occasionally offer foods that are higher in added sugars, provided they are balanced with foods that are lower in added sugars throughout the week.

Some respondents supported a weekly limit only and did not support the product-based limits. For example, an advocacy group suggested that a weekly limit would be easier to monitor, require less training, and provide more flexibility for operators, while still reducing overall intake of added sugars. This respondent suggested that all foods can fit into a healthy diet, just in different amounts and frequencies. An industry respondent also supported the weekly limit only, claiming that product-based limits would cause additional burden to monitor and limit student choice, which could reduce participation. Another industry respondent agreed, suggesting that a 10 percent weekly limit in lunch and breakfast programs provides flexibility for operators, maintains options for students, and gives manufacturers time to reformulate. This respondent argued that the product-based limits would “reduce opportunities for whole grain intake” due to the limitation of popular

grains items that contain added sugars, such as granola bars. A school district indicated that the weekly limit would be easier to implement and track and allow schools to decide “where to spend” their added sugars in lunch and breakfast menus. An advocacy group supported the weekly limit and suggested the two-step approach would “cause a lot of confusion and be difficult to manage and document.”

Forty-eight respondents opposed the weekly limit, the majority of which were unique comments. A school district argued that the weekly limit would “significantly increase administrative burden.” A State agency agreed, citing specific concern about the potential burden on small, rural districts that do not use menu planning software and may not have the staff capacity to calculate additional dietary specifications. An industry respondent suggested that a weekly limit may “inadvertently lower the amount of yogurt and dairy” offered in school meals, which they asserted could decrease “the nutritiousness of meals.”

Two-Step Approach: Product-Based and Weekly Limits

Some respondents supported both steps of USDA's phased-in approach to reduce added sugars in school meals and emphasized the importance of the product-based and weekly limits. An advocacy group strongly supported both proposals, noting that product-based limits alone would not achieve dietary recommendations for added sugars. This respondent emphasized the importance of implementing a weekly limit, while also pointing out the benefits of product-based added sugars limits—particularly for foods that are commonly served in school meals. A professional association also supported the two-step approach, suggesting that it would allow “schools, food manufacturers, and distributors time to learn and adapt.” An advocacy group supported both added sugars proposals, but acknowledged that between the two, a weekly limit would be “more effective” to meet the
Dietary Guidelines
recommendations. Another advocacy group described USDA's two-step approach as “balanced and practical” and supported phasing in the product-based limits, followed by the weekly limit. A group of Federal elected officials applauded USDA's proposed “gradual, phased-in approach” to reducing added sugars in school meals. An advocacy group added that the “combination of product-based and weekly limits are especially important” given children's current, excessive intake of added sugars.

Proposed Implementation Timeframes

Over 300 respondents addressed the proposed implementation timeframes, including 96 unique comments. Several respondents suggested that USDA provide schools and industry more time for implementation. A dietitian and a school nutrition director asserted that the product-based limits do not provide manufacturers enough lead time and emphasized that reformulating products takes time and money. A school district stated that they “have faith” that manufacturers can reduce added sugars over time and students will adapt, but they do not think two years is adequate. This respondent was concerned about the potential impact on student participation, noting the importance of providing breakfast cereals and other food items that students enjoy. A respondent who supported the proposals expressed concern that the implementation timeline may not be long enough for small or rural school districts that rely on smaller food distributors. One State agency conducted a survey of child nutrition directors and NSLP stakeholders and found that 75 percent of respondents did not feel the proposed implementation dates were sufficient due to limited product availability, supply chain challenges, and student acceptance.

A dietitian recommended lengthening the implementation timeline and providing funding to manufacturers. This respondent was concerned that manufacturers would “quit the K-12 segment if they cannot comply” with the limits. An industry respondent argued that, if manufacturers do not have additional lead time, student participation may decrease due to “inadequate options.” This respondent added that “the school nutrition ecosystem is simply too fragile” to follow the proposed timeline. A joint response from three industry respondents argued that the proposed implementation dates would not provide enough time for reformulation that ensures product quality and safety, given the functional role sugar plays as an ingredient (
e.g.,
preventing spoilage, improving texture, and adding bulk). This response raised concerns about student acceptability, student participation, and food waste under the proposed implementation timeline. A dietitian suggested that if manufacturers are not able to create products to meet the proposed product-based limits, then the implementation dates should be delayed.

An industry respondent maintained that added sugar reductions must be tailored for each individual product, suggesting that timelines can range from 12 to 16 months. This respondent added that schools typically solicit bids for products one year in advance, adding at least 12 months to the process. This industry respondent noted that additional time for implementation would allow schools to update meal planning databases, provide time to develop menu planning tools, and help students gradually adjust to foods containing less added sugars. A State agency relayed that manufacturers have expressed that SY 2027-2028 would be a more realistic timeframe to implement breakfast cereal and yogurt limits. An advocacy group acknowledged that timelines for research and development vary and suggested that K-12 food companies typically report needing 3 years to reformulate products. A State agency also recommended providing at least 3 years after release of the final rule to allow adequate time to update trainings, materials, product formulations, and school menus. An individual suggested that industry would need a minimum of 3-5 years to reformulate or develop food items that meet the proposed limits. A State agency and an industry respondent expected product reformulation to take up to 5 years. Another industry respondent asserted that the proposed implementation dates for added sugars are too short and suggested the reductions occur more gradually over the next 20 years or more.

Other respondents suggested the proposed implementation timeframes were adequate, and some recommended accelerating timeframes in the interest of children's health. An advocacy group affirmed that phased-in implementation would allow adequate time to implement the new requirements. Another advocacy group recommended implementing the weekly added sugars limit alongside the product-based limits in SY 2025-2026. A State agency also suggested implementing the product-based limits and the weekly limit at the same time, suggesting that 12-18 months would be a reasonable amount of time for industry and schools to prepare for changes. A parent suggested implementing the added sugars limits on a quicker timeframe, suggesting that the limits “need to happen now” due to what they consider to be an excessive amount of sugar in school meals. An advocacy group agreed, suggesting that USDA implement the added sugars limits “as soon as is feasible,” noting that these updates will be beneficial to children's health. Similarly, a second advocacy group stated that USDA

should implement the weekly limit in the school year immediately following release of the final rule. A local government supported both added sugars limits and the proposed implementation timeline; this respondent did not recommend extensions “due to the urgency needed in reducing consumption of added sugars among children.” An advocacy group and a few individuals asserted that “there is no credible reason for USDA to delay achieving the reduction in sugar consumption,” requesting implementation of the added sugars limits by fall 2023.

A school nutrition professional suggested that the proposed implementation date for the product-based limits would provide “plenty of time” but claimed the weekly limit would be “much harder” to achieve. This respondent noted that many rural districts currently do not have nutrition software to facilitate implementation of a weekly limit for added sugars. Similarly, a dietitian suggested that the implementation date for product-based limits is achievable, provided that the final rule is published at least one year in advance of implementation (by July 1, 2024). The respondent suggested that this timing would allow USDA and State agencies to provide technical assistance and training. However, this respondent recommended delaying implementation of the weekly added sugars limit to allow additional time for product reformulation and menu revisions.

One respondent encouraged USDA to remove the product-based limits and implement the weekly limit no later than 2025. By accelerating implementation of the weekly limit in school lunch and breakfast programs, this respondent suggested USDA could support healthier meals for children who are currently in school. An industry respondent also recommended removing the product-based limits while maintaining the proposed implementation of SY 2027-2028 for the weekly limit.

Alternative Approaches Suggested by Comments

Some respondents offered alternatives to the proposals, or suggested changes. For example, an industry respondent suggested that USDA determine the product-based limits using the average added sugars content of currently available products. A professional organization recommended that USDA establish total sugars limits, rather than added sugars limits, for breakfast cereals and yogurt because of the naturally occurring sugar content of those foods. An individual suggested that USDA reduce sugar content in school breakfast by following Smart Snacks in School requirements for sugar.
38

A few advocacy groups suggested USDA require or recommend product-based limits for condiments and toppings, noting that these products contribute to children's intake of added sugars, especially at breakfast.

38
Regulations for competitive food service and standards are found at 7 CFR 210.11.

Some respondents suggested alternatives to the proposed limit on grain-based desserts in school breakfasts. A professional organization and another respondent suggested that USDA prohibit (rather than limit) grain-based desserts in the school meal programs to promote more nutrient dense foods. A State agency recommended phasing in the grain-based dessert limit by age/grade group, starting with K-5 children. This State agency suggested this could help prevent a drastic drop in participation among older students. A school nutrition professional suggested that grain-based desserts should not be defined by the product name, but by the amount of added sugars in the product. An advocacy group also encouraged USDA to establish a quantitative added sugars limit for grain-based desserts and suggested further reducing the proposed added sugars limit for breakfast cereals.

An industry respondent suggested that if yogurt and flavored milks are subject to product-based limits, they should be excluded from the overall weekly limit. This respondent expressed concern that counting yogurt and flavored milks in the overall weekly limit could create “perverse and unintended incentives” to remove these items from meals. Another industry respondent suggested that USDA exempt the added sugars in dried cranberries from the weekly added sugars limit. This respondent argued that not providing an exemption for cranberry products could discourage the consumption of products like cranberries that include added sugar for processing and palatability.

A few respondents offered alternative suggestions for the weekly added sugars limit. For example, a school nutrition director suggested starting with a higher weekly dietary specification, such as 15 percent, and adjusting the percentage down as needed. This respondent stated that a more gradual approach for the weekly limit would mirror the proposed sodium reductions. Similarly, an advocacy group recommended removing the product-based limits and instead, gradually phasing in the weekly limit for lunch and breakfast meals. This respondent recommended starting in SY 2025-2026 with a dietary specification limiting meals to less than 25 percent of calories from added sugars, and then implementing a 10 percent limit in SY 2027-2028. A school district supported finalizing a 25 percent weekly limit in SY 2026-2027 and did not recommend further reductions. Another school district recommended a weekly dietary limit of 35 percent of calories from added sugars, with no product-based limits, beginning SY 2025-2026.

However, an advocacy group stated that USDA “should reject any calls to set a limit higher than 10 percent” because most children would benefit from a diet with even fewer added sugars, as low as 4 to 8 percent. Another respondent argued that the proposed 10 percent limit is “still very high.” An advocacy group agreed, recommending that USDA take “swifter and more far-reaching action” by implementing a 6 percent weekly limit for added sugars. A local government recommended that USDA apply the limit to both meals together (breakfast and lunch) instead of applying the 10 percent weekly limit to each meal separately. This respondent suggested this would increase the feasibility of implementation, since breakfast foods typically contribute larger amounts of added sugars. A school nutrition professional suggested incentivizing—but not requiring—schools to meet the 10 percent weekly limit.

Several respondents, including a national organization representing tens of thousands of school nutritional professionals, recommended that USDA make it easier for schools to offer meats/meat alternates in place of grains at breakfast, which they argued would support reducing added sugars in school breakfasts. This includes options suitable for grab-and-go breakfast, such as protein-rich breakfast sandwiches and wraps. A school district suggested many schools “would love to be able to offer eggs and sausage, or fruit and yogurt parfaits for breakfast,” and requested that USDA remove the requirement to offer a minimum amount of grains daily for breakfast. A dietitian recommended that USDA require a meat/meat alternate at breakfast. A few industry respondents maintained that the added sugars limit would “create a drive in the market to increase the protein content of breakfast items,” noting that the current grain minimum and cost constraints present a barrier to offering meats/meat alternates at breakfast. Additional comments on this topic, received in response to a prior

rulemaking, can be found in
Section 6: Meats/Meat Alternates at Breakfast.

Other Comments About Added Sugars

Respondents also submitted other comments about added sugars, including comments related to sweeteners, which respondents used a variety of terms to describe. A school nutrition professional raised concerns that manufacturers would replace added sugars with “artificial sweeteners” when reformulating products to meet the proposed limits. Similarly, a dietitian stated that while they support reducing added sugars, food manufacturers would face challenges to meet this requirement without using “sugar substitutes.” A school nutrition professional suggested prohibiting “non-caloric sweeteners (both natural and artificial)” in school meals, noting that there is limited research on their long-term effects and expressed concern these additives may cause stomach problems in young children. An individual voiced similar concerns about “low calorie sweeteners” and suggested prohibiting or labeling products so that parents or students can avoid those food items, if desired.

A school district requested that the added sugars limits be accompanied by an increase in reimbursement rates. This respondent anticipated an increase in product costs as added sugars are replaced with more expensive and healthier ingredients. One industry respondent also shared financial concerns, suggesting that schools would need to adjust menus by adding food items or increasing portion sizes to meet calorie ranges if added sugars are reduced. This respondent suggested one solution to this challenge would be to increase Federal funding. Another industry respondent described the “chronic underfunding of school breakfasts” and encouraged adequate resources to facilitate schools offering nutritious breakfast items, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Although this respondent acknowledged their comment was outside the scope of this rulemaking, they emphasized that funding plays an important role in the types of foods that schools can offer students.

A few advocacy groups encouraged USDA to provide sufficient time, menu planning resources, and technical assistance to support implementation of the added sugars limits. Specifically, some respondents suggested USDA update its Team Nutrition resources for reducing sugars in CACFP, if this requirement is finalized. A State agency requested that USDA update Administrative Review guidance and assessment tools, along with guidance on how schools can assess compliance with the weekly limit. An advocacy group recommended that, during implementation, schools should not be penalized and suggested that USDA prioritize additional technical assistance and training for schools that are struggling with compliance. A State agency provided similar input, suggesting that USDA provide schools a “grace period” for corrective actions during the first Administrative Review cycle, following implementation of the added sugars limits.

Final Rule

This final rule codifies the proposed added sugars limits in the school lunch and breakfast programs, as follows:

•
Product-based limits:
By SY 2025-2026, schools must implement quantitative limits for breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milks. As explained below, this rule does not finalize the proposed product-based limit for grain-based desserts at breakfast. The product-based limits that are finalized in this rule are as follows:

•
Breakfast cereals
are limited to no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce.

•
Yogurt
is limited to no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces (2 grams of added sugars per ounce).

•
Flavored milk
is limited to no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounces. Flavored milk sold as a competitive food for elementary school students will follow the 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounce limit, while flavored milk sold as a competitive food for middle and high school students will be limited to 15 grams of added sugars per 12 fluid ounces.
39

39
For clarification, the added sugars limit for flavored milk sold as a competitive food in middle and high schools due to the larger serving size. The serving size for milk offered as part of a reimbursable meal is 8 fluid ounces. Milks sold to middle and high school students as a competitive food may be up to 12 fluid ounces. Milks sold to elementary school students as a competitive food may be up to 8 fluid ounces, and so will follow the 10 grams of added sugars per 8 fluid ounce limit.

•
Weekly dietary limit:
By SY 2027-2028, schools must implement a dietary specification limiting added sugars to less than 10 percent of calories per week in the school lunch and breakfast programs; this weekly limit will be in addition to the product-based limits described above.

As proposed, this final rule also updates CACFP total sugar limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt to align with the product-based added sugars limits established for NSLP and SBP as stated above. Because CACFP operates on a fiscal year calendar, these changes must be implemented by October 1, 2025. For CACFP, the product-based added sugars limits are as follows:

•
Breakfast cereals
are limited to no more than 6 grams of added sugars per dry ounce.

•
Yogurt
is limited to no more than 12 grams of added sugars per 6 ounces (2 grams of added sugars per ounce).

The existing total sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt in CACFP will remain in place until October 1, 2025, when the new added sugars limits must be implemented. With State agency approval, CACFP operators may choose to implement the added sugars limits for breakfast cereals and yogurt early.

Two-Step Approach To Reduce Added Sugars in School Meals

USDA is committed to improving the nutritional quality of school meals by establishing requirements that align with the goals of the most recent
Dietary Guidelines
. USDA also acknowledges stakeholders' concerns about added sugars in school meals and the harmful effects on children's health. The two-step approach to reducing added sugars finalized in this rule is expected to set schools up for success by gradually decreasing added sugars over the next several years. USDA acknowledges that, as noted in public comments, program operators need sufficient time to prepare and plan menus to meet the new added sugars limits. By first phasing in the product-specific limits for breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milk, USDA expects that schools will be better positioned to successfully meet the weekly limits for added sugars, which will take effect two school years after the effective date of the product-based limits.

USDA intends for the product-based limits for breakfast cereals, yogurt, and flavored milk to have a meaningful impact on the added sugars offered in school meals. However, USDA recognizes that there are other foods offered in school meals that contribute to children's overall intake of added sugars, which makes the weekly dietary limit an important second step to align school meals more closely with the goals of the
Dietary Guidelines
. For example, USDA expects that added sugars in condiments and toppings will be addressed through the weekly added sugars limit, upon implementation. While USDA appreciates public comments recommending product-based limits for condiments and toppings, such limits were not included in the proposed rule and this final rule does not establish product-based added

sugars limits for these items. USDA expects that the overall weekly limit will help to reduce the amount of added sugars offered in condiments and toppings. Additionally, although this rule does not finalize the grain-based dessert limit at breakfast, USDA expects that schools will select grains with less added sugars to meet the weekly added sugars limit at breakfast and, as explained below, USDA will provide resources to support more nutrient-dense choices at breakfast. USDA is also interested in additional stakeholder input on how to improve and simplify its grain-based desserts requirements and will solicit stakeholder input on grain-based desserts in the coming months.

USDA also acknowledges respondent concerns regarding the palatability of meals with less added sugars and related concerns about plate waste and student participation. However, USDA expects that gradually phasing in these requirements will give schools time to adjust menus and help children gradually adapt to meals with fewer added sugars over

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-08098. Public record. Not legal advice.