National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Compliance With the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food-Based Menu Systems
Federal RegisterJan 27, 1995
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 requires,
for purposes of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast
Programs, that a variety of meal planning approaches be made available
to school food authorities, including ``food-based menu systems.'' The
food-based menu systems concept is intended to supplement the nutrient-
based menu planning provisions previously proposed by the Department of
Agriculture on June 10, 1994. In addition, the Act requires that school
meals comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as the
Department also proposed on that date. The proposal which follows
implements the requirement for a food-based menu systems planning
alternative. To ensure compliance with the requirements of the Dietary
Guidelines, this proposal expands the monitoring procedures in the
earlier proposal to provide a system appropriate for monitoring meals
served by school food authorities that choose the food-based menu
systems approach.
DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked or
transmitted on or before March 13, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Mr. Robert M. Eadie, Chief, Policy and Program Development
Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Consumer Service, USDA, 3101
Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Comments may be sent via
E-mail to: [email protected]. If comments are sent electronically,
commenters should designate ``receipt requested'' to be notified by E-
mail that the message has been received by USDA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Eadie at the above address
or by telephone at 703-305-2620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through
612). The Administrator of the Food and Consumer Service (FCS) has
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because of the variety of
options available to schools to comply with the proposed requirements.
The impacts of specific provisions have been considered by the
Department as part of the required Regulatory Assessment. Interested
parties should refer to this document which is published at the end of
this proposal.
Catalog of Federal Assistance
The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program
are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos.
10.555 and 10.553, respectively, and are subject to the provisions of
Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final
rule-related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is intended to have preemptive
effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies
which conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its
full implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Date section of
this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this proposed rule or the application of the provisions, all applicable
administrative procedures must be exhausted. In the National School
Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the administrative
procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1) school
food authority appeals of State agency findings as a result of an
administrative review must follow State agency hearing procedures as
established pursuant to 7 CFR 210.18(q); (2) school food authority
appeals of FCS findings as a result of an administrative review must
follow FCS hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR
210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of State Administrative
Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR 235.11(b)) must follow the FCS
Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7 CFR
235.11(f).
Information Collection
This proposed rule contains no new information collection
requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35).
Background
Section 106(b) of Pub. L. 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy
Americans Act of 1994, signed into law on November 2, 1994, amended
section 9 of the National School Lunch Act (NSLA), 42 U.S.C.
1758(b)(2)(C), to require meals that are served under the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) meet the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans by July 1, 1996, unless the State
agency grants a waiver under criteria established by the State agency.
Section 106(b) provides that a State agency waiver cannot delay
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines beyond July 1, 1998. Further,
section 112(c) of Pub. L. 103-448 amended section 12(k) of the NSLA, 42
U.S.C. 1760(k), to require that the Department develop ``food-based''
systems for school food authorities to follow when planning and
preparing meals. Food-based menu planning systems would provide local
food services with a third option, supplementing the Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning (NuMenus) and Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning
(Assisted NuMenus) systems originally included in the Department's June
10, 1994, proposal. This proposed rulemaking would implement these
statutory provisions. Other provisions of Pub. L. 103-448 will be
incorporated into later rulemakings, as appropriate. One such provision
requires disclosure of information about the nutritional content of
school meals and the consistency of the meals with the Dietary
Guidelines. The Department will consider a number of options for
implementing this provision. Of paramount concern is the development of
an approach that provides flexibility and alternatives for school food
authorities. In addition, the Department wants to ensure that any
recordkeeping or reporting requirements that are associated with the
requirement for nutrition disclosure are kept to a minimum.
Current Provisions
The NSLP was designed in 1946 to offer meals that provide foods
which, over time, are sufficient to approximate [[Page 5515]] one-third
of the National Academy of Sciences' Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDA) for key nutrients needed for growth and development for the 10-12
year old child. Historically, the Department has attempted to achieve
this goal by requiring that school lunches contain minimum amounts of
the following specific components: meat/meat alternate, breads/bread
alternates, two different vegetables/fruits and fluid milk. The pattern
for the SBP has the goal of providing 25 percent of the RDA and
requires minimum quantities of the following components: two servings
of any combination of meat/meat alternate or breads/bread alternates,
one serving of fruits or vegetables and fluid milk.
Proposed Updating of the Nutrition Standards
Overall, these meal patterns succeed in providing adequate levels
of key nutrients. However, they were never updated to reflect the broad
array of scientific data documenting that excesses in consumption are a
major concern because of their relationship to the incidence of chronic
disease. Consequently, school lunches typically fail to comply with the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published jointly by the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services. In
particular, school lunches fail to meet the Dietary Guidelines
recommended limits on percent of calories from fat (30%) and saturated
fat (10%).
To address these deficiencies, the Department issued a proposed
regulation on June 10, 1994, updating the nutrition standards of the
NSLP and SBP and requiring that school meals comply with the
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines no later than July 1, 1998.
Recognizing that the meal pattern did not provide sufficient
flexibility to enable a school food service to comply with these
requirements, that proposal also proposed to replace the current meal
patterns with NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus so that meals could be
evaluated and adjusted routinely through use of nutrition analysis.
Finally, realizing the need for oversight and technical assistance, the
Department proposed an appropriate system for State agency monitoring
of school food authority compliance with the nutrition standards.
The Department received over 14,000 comment letters in response to
the June 10, 1994, rulemaking. Over 5,000 commenters, primarily from
persons in the school food service community, recommended that a meal
pattern be retained and that it be designed to meet the requirements of
the Dietary Guidelines. A number of commenters recommended systems
currently in use in their areas, such as the Minnesota Lunch Power
program or the California SHAPE program. Many commenters indicated that
development of a new meal pattern based on the Dietary Guidelines would
result in speedier implementation of the updated nutrition standards
because meal planners were familiar with the meal pattern concept.
On November 2, 1994, Pub. L. 103-448, the Healthy Meals for Healthy
Americans Act of 1994, was signed into law. This law had no provisions
that would require changes to the June 10, 1994, proposal other than to
mandate implementation of the Dietary Guidelines two years earlier than
had been proposed and to require that food-based menu planning systems
be permitted as means to try to conform meals to the Dietary
Guidelines. The proposed provisions involving NuMenus and Assisted
NuMenus as well as the proposed nutrition standards for school meals,
including compliance with the applicable Dietary Guidelines, were not
affected. The Department considers, therefore, that the June 10, 1994,
proposal is consistent with Congressional intent on the issues
addressed in that rule.
The Department wishes to call attention to the fact that certain
provisions included in the June 10, 1994, proposal will be discussed in
this preamble to facilitate public review and comment on food-based
menu systems within the overall context of the Department's School
Meals Initiative for Healthy Children. These provisions such as NuMenus
and Assisted NuMenus are not, however, being reproposed, and the
Department will not consider additional comments on any provisions of
the June 10, 1994, proposed rule. The Department will issue a final
rule incorporating provisions from that proposal and this one, and at
that time the Department will address the comments received on both
proposals.
Meeting the Dietary Guidelines, RDA and Energy Levels
As originally proposed by the Department and now required by
section 9(f)(2)(C) of the NSLA, all reimbursable school meals,
regardless of the method used to plan those meals, will be required to
meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines including
the quantified standards established for fat and saturated fat over the
course of a school week.
To summarize the earlier proposals, located at 59 FR 30234-37,
school food authorities would be required to make an effort to reduce
sodium and cholesterol, increase dietary fiber, and serve a variety of
foods. However, the Department did not propose specific levels for
these components, since numeric targets are not established by the
current Dietary Guidelines. Nevertheless, progress in these areas is
expected and would be assessed. The RDA for the following nutrients
were proposed at minimum levels: protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron,
and calcium as well as the recommended energy intake for the specific
age/grade. It was also proposed that energy levels (calories) would be
established to provide, over the school week, an average of one-third
of the RDA for the NSLP and one-fourth for the SBP and the maximum
levels of calories from fat and saturated fat would be limited to 30
percent and 10 percent of calories, respectively.
Food-Based Menu Systems
In developing the proposed food-based menu planning systems, the
Department retained the structure of the current meal patterns for the
NSLP and SBP in terms of components. However, the Department could not
retain the current quantity requirements, because they are inadequate
to meet the goal of compliance with the Dietary Guidelines.
Consequently, portion sizes for some components have been realigned to
place greater emphasis on providing vegetables/fruits and grains. In
addition, the ways grains/breads products may contribute to the
reimbursable meal would be expanded.
The Department has revised the current meal pattern to better
reflect the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. However, in the
absence of ongoing nutrient analysis, there can be no absolute
assurance that simple adherence to a meal pattern will result in meals
that comply with these nutrition standards. Because of the vast
differences in the nutrient value of various food items, especially
given different cooking methods, meal planners must keep in mind the
need to modify menus, recipes, product specifications, and preparation
techniques. However, the Department recognizes that there may be some
meal planning approaches that are designed to reflect the
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines. As discussed later in this
preamble, the Department may allow such meal planning approaches as one
way of demonstrating compliance with the applicable Dietary Guidelines
and proposed nutrition standards [[Page 5516]] without requiring the
State agency to conduct nutrient analysis as part of its oversight
responsibilities.
In designing the proposed changes, the Department employed a method
that is consistent with that used to develop previous meal patterns and
other food guides. Nutrient profiles were developed for each of the
four food components. Then, using food consumption data from the School
Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) Study (released in October, 1993),
the Department estimated the type and frequency of foods consumed from
each of the food components. With this information, the Department
arrived at composites of estimated nutrient and caloric contributions
of each component and calculated revised quantities for each component
to achieve compliance with the nutrition standards for each age/grade
group. (These groupings are discussed later in this preamble.)
For developmental purposes, the nutrient profiles for each meal
component were calculated based on their lowest fat forms and on the
assumption that they contained no added sugars. The profiles also
maintained the approximate proportions of the main ingredients which,
according to SNDA, were used to satisfy each component. For example, in
the meat/meat alternate component, the approximate relative proportions
of meat, eggs, beans, and cheese were maintained. After establishing
that the vitamin, mineral and protein needs were met for each age/grade
grouping, the Department determined the calorie levels of each food
component and calculated the difference between these levels and the
calorie needs of each age/grade group.
Data from SNDA demonstrates that typical school meals already
substantially exceed the target for protein. There would be little
benefit, therefore, to raising calorie levels by increasing the size of
the meat/meat alternate or milk components. Instead, the additional
calories needed to make up the difference between the calorie levels of
the lowest-fat versions of the meal components and the required calorie
levels should come from carbohydrates and by using meat/meat alternate
and milk that are somewhat higher in fat than the low-fat products used
in the model. Moreover, the Department's analysis shows that nutrition
standards can be met while using a variety of items within each
component while still remaining within the Dietary Guidelines'
recommendations for limiting calories from total fat to 30 percent and
to 10 percent for saturated fat and attaining the RDA for specific
nutrients.
For many schools, supplying one-third of the recommended energy
allowance (calories) through lunches that provide no more than 30
percent of calories from total fat and 10 percent from saturated fat
will require replacement of calories from fat with calories from other
sources. Fat yields nine calories of food energy per gram, more than
twice the food energy per gram provided by carbohydrates and protein,
which each yield four calories per gram. The Menu Modification
Demonstration Projects, conducted by the Department in 1990-92, showed
that a common shortcoming in efforts to provide meals with a lower
percent of calories from fat is the failure to maintain total calories
(Fox and St. Pierre, 1993). In this demonstration project, where
Federal technical assistance was minimal, three of the four NSLP
demonstration sites substantially reduced total fat, but did not
replace the lost calories. As a result, they failed to achieve their
target goals for percent of calories from fat for the NSLP meal, and
they fell short of providing one-third of the RDA for food energy. It
is therefore appropriate for food-based menu systems to include
increased servings for food components which can provide additional
calories from sources other than fat while calories from fat are being
reduced. (REFERENCE: Fox, M.K., and R. St. Pierre (1993). Menu
Modification Demonstration Grants: Evaluation Results, Volume 1:
Summary. Prepared by Abt Associates, Inc, under contract to the
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.)
Age/Grade Groups for Nutrition Standards
The Department proposes to use age/grade groupings of kindergarten
through grade 6 and grades 7 through 12 with an optional grouping for
kindergarten through grade 3. The two required groups are designed to
reflect the grade structures of the majority of schools. But, as some
schools enroll children in kindergarten through grade 3, an optional
standard is also proposed.
Establishing separate standards and meal patterns for younger
versus older children recognizes the need to provide adequate energy
and nutrients for growth based on their particular needs. Growth and
maturation changes in adolescents require higher nutrient and energy
levels than those for younger children. Nutrient and calorie levels
designed for younger children are inappropriate for adolescents, as
they fail to provide sufficient energy for adolescents, especially for
boys, as well as sufficient iron for adolescent females. A single
nutrient standard that meets the needs of the adolescent will provide
too many calories and too much fat for the younger child promoting
either plate waste or excessive intake. In developing the calorie
levels, the Department was also mindful of the need to balance the
reduction in energy from calories from fat and saturated fat as advised
by the Dietary Guidelines, with the need to maintain energy levels
overall. Energy lost from reduced fat meals must be replaced by energy
from carbohydrates.
To establish these levels, a table entitled ``Calorie and Nutrient
Levels for School Lunch'' would be included at Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and
one entitled ``Calorie and Nutrient Levels for School Breakfast'' in
Sec. 220.8(a)(2). As discussed further, tables for the minimum
quantities of the required food components are also proposed.
Changes to the NSLP Meal Components
The following are the specific changes the Department is proposing
to the current meal pattern components. The Department wishes to
emphasize that the principal differences between the proposed meal
patterns and the current patterns reflect increases in the quantities
of vegetables/fruits and breads/grains products. The Department is
proposing no reductions to the current minimum quantity requirements
for any components.
Meat/Meat Alternate Component
The Department is not proposing to change the minimum amounts of
this component required for children in any age group. Nor are any
changes being made to what constitutes the meat/meat alternate
component. However, consistent with the Food Guide Pyramid, guidance
materials issued by the Department in support of food-based menu
planning systems will emphasize lower fat meat/meat alternates.
Vegetables/Fruits
The Department is proposing to increase the amount of fruits and
vegetables made available over the course of a week. The Dietary
Guidelines and the Department's Food Pyramid recommend a diet with a
variety of vegetables, fruits and grain products. Moreover, the
Department recognizes that fiber levels should be increased and
calories from non-protein sources must be provided to replace those
lost from the reduction in fat. The Department is proposing that the
minimum servings for the vegetables/fruits component would be three-
fourths of a cup (currently one-half cup for [[Page 5517]] children in
kindergarten through grade 3 and three-fourths cup for grades 4-12) per
lunch plus an additional one-half cup served over a five-day period for
children in kindergarten through grade 6. Allowing a five-day period to
serve the additional one-half cup provides schools with flexibility in
meal planning. Because older children have greater need for calories
and other nutrients, the proposed rule would increase the minimum
serving for vegetables/fruits for children in grades 7 through 12 from
three-fourths of a cup per day to one cup per day. No changes are being
proposed, however, for the portion sizes for very young and preschool
children nor are changes made to what constitutes this component. The
Department is proposing to revise the chart, ``Minimum Quantities'' in
Sec. 210.10(c) as well as the additional discussion about this
component in Sec. 210.10(d)(3) to reflect the enhanced portion sizes.
Grains/Breads
As with the fruits/vegetables component, the Department is
proposing a significant increase in the amount of grains/breads made
available during a school week. Both the Dietary Guidelines and the
Department's Food Pyramid place emphasis on the consumption of grains.
In keeping with the use of the term ``grains'' in the Dietary
Guidelines, this proposal would amend the chart, ``Minimum Quantities''
in Sec. 210.10(c) and the additional discussion about this component in
Sec. 210.10(d)(4) to rename the component currently titled ``Bread/
Bread Alternate.'' The new title would be ``Grains/Breads.'' In
addition, the Department is proposing an increase in the number of
servings of grains and breads for school children to augment dietary
fiber and to provide an additional low-fat source of calories to
balance the loss of calories from fat. Again, it should be noted that
the servings for very young and preschool children have not been
changed. However, for children in kindergarten through grade 6, the
number of servings per week of grains and breads would be increased
from 8 to 12. For children in grades 7 through 12, the number of
servings would be increased from 10 to 15 servings per week. The
Department is also proposing to revise Sec. 210.10(d)(4)(ii) to permit
one serving per day of grains/breads in the form of a dessert. This
proposed change is designed to provide flexibility to assist menu
planners in meeting energy needs.
Current guidance (FNS Instruction 783-12), issued in 1983,
established the requirements and the minimum weights for the current
breads/bread alternates component. The Department plans to reissue this
Instruction when final regulations are published to revise the criteria
for determining acceptable grains/breads products so that some
additional items may be credited to this group. However, no changes are
being made in the regulations regarding what constitutes this
component.
Milk
As with the meat/meat alternate component, this proposal does not
change the current minimum serving sizes for fluid milk for any of the
age/grade groups. Readers should note that section 107 of Pub. L. 103-
448 included a provision modifying the requirement that fluid whole
milk and fluid unflavored low-fat milk be offered as part of all
reimbursable lunches. The new statutory milk requirement at section
9(a)(2) of the NSLA, 42 USC 1758(a)(2), will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.
School Lunch Component Chart
To reflect these proposed changes to the school lunch pattern, the
proposed rule would make a number of revisions to the table entitled
``School Lunch Pattern-Per Lunch Minimums'' in Sec. 210.10(c). First,
the title of the chart would be renamed ``Minimum Quantities,'' since
some of the quantity requirements are cumulative over the course of the
school week. Secondly, the age/grade groups are the same as discussed
above for the nutrition standards, except that the minimum portions for
children ages one to two who may participate are included for easy
reference. (Readers should note that these minimums are the same as
those now in use.) Furthermore, school-age children have been separated
into two groups: (a) kindergarten through grade 6 and (b) grades 7
through 12. School food authorities also have the option of using
alternate portion sizes established for children in kindergarten
through grade 3. Readers should note, however, that the current
recommendation to provide children in grades 7 through 12 with three
ounces of meat/meat alternate would be deleted. This revision is
intended to ensure that the chart reflects only the proposed regulatory
revisions. It has no effect on the minimum portions that schools must
offer. In addition, the chart has been revised to incorporate the
proposed increases in the minimum portions of fruits and vegetables and
the number of servings of grains/breads.
Changes to the School Breakfast Program
In the June 10, 1994, rulemaking, the Department also proposed to
amend the nutrition requirements for the SBP. As under the NSLP, the
SBP would be required to comply with the Dietary Guidelines and with
the RDA and calories levels adjusted appropriately. Breakfasts would be
required to meet one-fourth of the RDA (consistent with the current
design of the breakfast meal pattern) and would have to provide fewer
calories than lunches. The current age/grade group for breakfast is
retained because of its familiarity. Again, only the chart reflecting
the RDA and calorie levels for the SBP is proposed herein. The chart
``Calorie and Nutrient Levels for School Breakfasts'' is contained in
Sec. 220.8(a)(2).
Changes to the SBP Meal Components
As with the proposed school lunch pattern, the Department is not
proposing to reduce the portion size for any of the components of
school breakfasts. The following are the specific changes the
Department is proposing to the current meal pattern components for
school breakfasts:
Meat/Meat Alternate or Grains/Breads (the New Name for Bread/Bread
Alternate)
The current requirement for two servings of meat/meat alternate or
two servings of grains/breads or one serving of each remains the same.
However, school food authorities are encouraged to offer children in
grades 7 through 12 an additional serving of the grains/breads
component per day. This optional increase in the number of servings is
intended to provide sufficient calories to meet the needs of the
adolescent child, especially adolescent males, when the fat content of
the breakfast is modified to be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines.
To this end, the Department emphasizes that meeting the nutrient
requirements of the grades 7 through 12 with the single pattern for
kindergarten through grade 12 will be difficult. It is important that
school food authorities recognize this and make an effort to offer high
calorie, nutrient dense foods in the breakfast menu.
Vegetables/Fruits
There are no proposed changes in the minimum portions currently
required for children in any age group.
Milk
There are no proposed changes in the requirements for the amount of
fluid [[Page 5518]] milk that is served either as a beverage or on
cereal.
School Breakfast Component Chart
The table entitled ``School Breakfast Pattern-Per Breakfast
Minimums'' currently in Sec. 220.8(a) would be amended to reflect the
above proposed revisions. As with the NSLP, no changes are being
proposed to the minimum quantities for infants and young children and
the title has been changed to ``Minimum Quantities'' to be consistent
with the corresponding chart for the NSLP.
Compliance Monitoring
The Department proposes to monitor compliance with the nutritional
standards of the food-based menu systems in a manner consistent with
the compliance process proposed for NuMenus, Assisted NuMenus and with
the current regulations. Compliance with meal components and quantities
on a per-meal basis for the food-based menu systems remain unchanged.
The requirements in Sec. 210.18(g)(2) for Performance Standard 2 under
the administrative review system would continue to apply to those
review elements; i.e., on the day of a review, the lunch service must
be observed to ensure that all required meal components are offered and
that children accept the minimum number of items stipulated both under
the standard meal service and the offer versus serve option.
The requirement that program meals meet all nutrition standards,
including the Dietary Guidelines, necessitates an additional review
methodology for State agencies. While the compliance method for NuMenus
and Assisted NuMenus was addressed in the June 10, 1994, rulemaking,
this proposal addresses how this same basic compliance method would
apply to food-based menu systems. Since, by law, these schools may not
be required to conduct their own nutrient analysis, State agencies will
not have nutrient analysis records to review to verify that the meals
offered actually met the nutrition standards. Therefore, the Department
is proposing to amend Sec. 210.19, General Areas, to require that State
agencies conduct a nutrient analysis of one week's meals using the
school's production records.
This proposal would also authorize the Department to approve
alternative methodologies proposed by the States if they provide the
same degree of assurance that school meals are in compliance with all
nutrition standards. The proposed provision on monitoring is consistent
with a statement from the Committees' Analysis accompanying S. 1614
that ``. . . nutrient analysis may be used by schools, State agencies
or the Secretary as part of audit and compliance activities.''
In order to provide maximum flexibility for States to use an
alternative methodology to nutrient analysis as part of an
administrative review, the Department will review any approaches
proposed by State agencies or by school food authorities with the
approval of their State agency to meet both the applicable Dietary
Guidelines and the standards for calories and nutrients as detailed in
the June 10, 1995, proposed rule at 59 FR 30234-5 and 59 FR 30239-40,
for the NSLP and SBP, respectively. If the school food authority has
used an approved alternative to the food-based menu systems option and
has precisely followed it to meet the Dietary Guidelines and nutrition
standards, the State agency would not be required to conduct a separate
nutrient analysis.
The Department solicits comments on alternative methodologies that
would support the production of meals that adhere to the Dietary
Guidelines. The Department is particularly interested in methodologies
that are easily implemented and could be shared with other States and
is prepared to facilitate the sharing of information on such
methodologies among States and school food authorities.
As part of its on-going efforts to implement the Dietary
Guidelines, the Department has been in contact with State agencies to
determine their training and technical assistance needs. As a result of
information obtained from State agencies, a plan is being developed to
provide a variety of resources in the areas of training modules and
materials, recipes, product specifications, menu planning guides,
videos and workshops in ways that are compatible with existing State
training procedures. In addition, the Department will be soliciting
applications for grants totalling approximately $4,400,000 to fund
State-level activities. The Department is again requesting State and
local administrators to comment on what types of training and technical
assistance are needed to best implement this proposed rule.
Compliance reviews would be conducted on the meals offered by the
school food authority and/or the schools selected for review, depending
on the level at which menus are planned and meals provided. For
example, if a school food authority provides meals from satellite
kitchens to schools, the State agency would use information from the
production records at those kitchens to prepare the nutrient analysis.
However, if an individual school with its own menu planning and food
production was selected for review, the State agency would use
production records from that school's kitchen for nutrient analysis.
The State agency's nutrient analysis would be conducted using the
same requirements and methodology employed by school food authorities
choosing to use NuMenus or Assisted NuMenus. The Department proposed
criteria for menu analysis in the June 10, 1994 proposed rule and is
currently considering comments on those provisions for future adoption
as a final rule.
The Department also recognizes that some schools or school food
authorities may choose to use food-based menu systems and to conduct
their own nutrient analysis. In these situations, the State agency may
employ the analysis prepared by the local entity in lieu of conducting
a separate nutrient analysis, provided that the nutrition analysis is
done in accordance with the Department's criteria.
Using the Results of Nutrient Analysis To Measure Compliance
The results of the nutrient analysis from each production source
would be used to determine compliance with the Dietary Guidelines'
recommendation for limiting the calories from fat and saturated fat as
well as the calories and the nutrient levels for the age/grade groups.
In addition, the levels of sodium, cholesterol and dietary fiber would
also be determined. These figures would be used for future reviews to
determine if the school food authority had progressed toward meeting
the nutrition standards.
School food authorities found to be out of compliance with the
nutrition standards would be required to initiate corrective action.
This requirement is consistent with what was proposed for
implementation of NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus in the June 10, 1994,
proposed regulation. School food authorities would be required to
develop an acceptable corrective action plan in collaboration with the
State agency. For school food authorities making good faith efforts to
comply with the terms of the corrective action plan, the State agency
would provide technical assistance and training to help them meet the
nutrition standards and Dietary Guidelines. However, consistent with
the June 10, 1994, proposal, if the school food authority has not been
acting in good faith to meet the terms of the corrective action plan
and refuses to renegotiate the plan, the State agency shall determine
if a disallowance of reimbursement funds is warranted. [[Page 5519]]
Miscellaneous Revisions
School Week
Sections 106(b) and 201(a) of Pub. L. 103-448 mandate that the
nutritional requirements for school meals be based on a weekly average.
The use of a weekly average was proposed by the Department on June 10,
1994 to establish a time frame for analyzing nutrients under NuMenus
and Assisted NuMenus. The Department is proposing to add a more general
definition of ``School week'' to Sec. 210.2 and to Sec. 220.2 to
clarify the appropriate time period for determining compliance with the
required nutrition standards. As proposed here, ``School week'' would
be a minimum of three days and a maximum of seven days, and the days
would be consecutive.
Food Component, Food Item
The definitions in Sec. 210.2 of ``Food component'' and ``Food
Item'' would be revised to reflect the new title of the grains/breads
component that would replace the current title of bread/bread
alternate. The Department would also like to note that no changes are
being proposed to the number of items that comprise a reimbursable
meal. Five items will continue to be required for a reimbursable lunch,
and under the offer versus serve option, three of the five items must
be taken.
Lunch
The definition of ``Lunch'' in Sec. 210.2 would be revised to
incorporate a reference to the nutrition standards as part of the
elements that reimbursable meals must meet. Readers should note that
this proposal repeats the definition of ``Lunch under NuMenus and
Assisted NuMenus'' and under the current meal pattern, as proposed in
the June 10, 1994, rulemaking. The Department is repeating this
provision in order to provide readers with a complete definition of
``Lunch'' under all meal planning systems. However, since the
Department has already received comments on the earlier definition, the
Department will not accept additional comments on the definition of
lunch under NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus.
Milk Component
In Sec. 210.10(d)(1) there is a special exemption for schools that,
prior to May 1, 1980, served six fluid ounces instead of the currently
required eight fluid ounces to children ages 5-8 in grades kindergarten
through grade 3. This proposal would remove this obsolete reference.
Effective Dates
Section 106(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103-448 requires that schools
implement the Dietary Guidelines by July 1, 1996, unless a State agency
grants a waiver to postpone implementation. Waivers may delay
implementation to no later than July 1, 1998.
The statute also permits the Secretary to establish a date for
implementation later than July 1, 1998. The Department does not
presently envision extending this deadline because of the need to begin
compliance with the Dietary Guidelines in an expeditious manner.
In addition, section 112(c)(3) of Pub. L. 103-448, 42 U.S.C.
1760(k)(3), requires the Department to issue a final regulation on this
subject by June 1, 1995, incorporating the results of this proposed
rulemaking as well as those concerning NuMenus and Assisted NuMenus
that were proposed in the June 10, 1994, rule. Further, the Department,
in compliance with section 112(c)(2) of Pub. L. 103-448, 42 USC
1760(k)(2), will be issuing a notice in the Federal Register to
announce a public meeting to discuss this proposed action. This meeting
will be held within 45 days of publication of this rulemaking and will
be open to all interested parties and organizations. The Department
encourages persons reviewing this proposed rule to watch for the
Federal Register announcement of the public meeting.
While compliance with the updated nutrition standards is not
required until July 1, 1996 (or later if waived by the State agency),
school food authorities are encouraged to work towards meeting the
Dietary Guidelines as well as the appropriate levels of nutrients and
calories as soon as feasible.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs,
Grants programs-social programs, National School Lunch Program,
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
7 CFR Part 220
Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--social
programs, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School
Breakfast Program.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 210 and 220 are proposed to amended as
follows:
PART 210--NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 210 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751-1760, 1779.
2. In Sec. 210.2:
a. the definition of ``Food component'' is revised;
b. the definition of ``Food item'' is revised;
c. the definition of ``Lunch'' is revised; and
d. a new definition of ``School week'' is added in alphabetical
order. The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 210.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Food component means one of the four food groups which compose the
reimbursable school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, grains/
breads and vegetables/fruits.
Food item means one of the five required foods that compose the
reimbursable school lunch, i.e., meat or meat alternate, milk, grains/
breads, and two (2) servings of vegetables, fruits, or a combination of
both.
* * * * *
Lunch means a meal which meets the nutrient and calorie levels
designated in Sec. 210.10(c) and, if applicable, the school lunch
pattern for specified age/grade groups as designated in Sec. 210.10.
* * * * *
School week means the period of time used as the basis for
determining compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
and the calorie and nutrient levels in Sec. 210.10(c)(2). The period
shall be a minimum of three consecutive days and a maximum of
consecutive seven days. Weeks in which school lunches are offered less
than three times shall be combined with either the previous or the
coming week.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 210.10:
a. The section heading is revised;
b. The heading of paragraph (a) is revised;
c. Paragraph (c) is revised;
d. The last two sentences of the concluding text following
paragraph (d)(1) are removed;
e. A new sentence is added at the end of paragraph (d)(3);
f. The heading of paragraph (d)(4) is revised; and
g. The second through fifth sentences of paragraph (d)(4)(ii) are
removed and one new sentence is added in their place.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 210.10 Nutrition standards for lunches and menu planning methods.
(a) Definitions for infant meals. * * *
* * * * * [[Page 5520]]
(c) Minimum quantities/nutrient levels for food-based menu systems.
(1) At a minimum, schools shall serve meals in the quantities
provided in the following chart:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM QUANTITIES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUIRED FOR OPTION FOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGES 1-2 PRESCHOOL GRADES K-6 GRADES 7-12 GRADES K-3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAL COMPONENT:
MILK.................................. 6 OUNCES............ 6 OUNCES............ 8 OUNCES............ 8 OUNCES............ 8 OUNCES.
MEAT OR MEAT ALTERNATE................ 1 OUNCE............. 1\1/2\ OUNCES....... 2 OUNCES............ 2 OUNCES............ 1\1/2\ OUNCES.
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES................. \1/2\ CUP........... \1/2\ CUP........... \3/4\ CUP PLUS 1 CUP............... \3/4\ CUP.
ADDITIONAL \1/2\
CUP OVER A WEEK.
GRAINS AND BREADS..................... l5 SERVINGS PER l8 SERVINGS PER l12 SERVINGS PER 15 SERVINGS PER 10 SERVINGS PER WEEK-
WEEK--MINIMUM OF \1/ WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1 WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1 WEEK--MINIMUM OF 1 MINIMUM OF 1 PER
2\ PER DAY.\1\ PER DAY.\1\ PER DAY.\1\\2\ PER DAY.\1\\2\ DAY.\1\\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHART, WEEK EQUALS FIVE DAYS.
\2\UP TO ONE GRAINS/BREADS SERVING PER DAY MAY BE A DESSERT.
(2) At a minimum, schools shall provide the following calorie and
nutrient levels over a school week:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALORIE AND NUTRIENT LEVELS FOR SCHOOL LUNCH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADES K-
PRESCHOOL GRADES K- GRADES 7- 3 OPTION
6 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY ALLOWANCES (CALORIES)... 517 664 825 633
TOTAL FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF
ACTUAL TOTAL FOOD ENERGY)..... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
TOTAL SATURATED FAT (AS A
PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL TOTAL
FOOD ENERGY).................. (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
PROTEIN (g).................... 7 10 16 9
CALCIUM (mg)................... 267 286 400 267
IRON (mg)...................... 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.3
VITAMIN A (RE)................. 150 224 300 200
VITAMIN C (mg)................. 14 15 18 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NOT TO EXCEED 30 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.
\2\NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.
(3) School food authorities shall comply with 1990 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section no later than July 1, 1996 except that State agencies may grant
waivers to postpone implementation until no later than July 1, 1998.
Such waivers shall be granted by the State agency using guidance
provided by the Secretary.
(d) Lunch components. * * *
(3) Vegetable or fruit. * * * For children in kindergarten through
grade six, the requirement for this component is based on minimum daily
servings and an additional 1/2 cup in any combination over a five day
period.
(4) Grains and breads. * * *
(ii) * * * The requirement for this component is based on minimum
daily servings plus total servings over a five day period. * * *
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 210.19, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) are
redesignated as paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(6) respectively, and a
new paragraph (a)(1) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 210.19 Additional responsibilities.
(a) General Program management. * * *
(1) Compliance with nutrition standards. Unless waived in
accordance with Sec. 210.10(c)(3), beginning with School Year 1996-97,
school food authorities shall comply with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in
Sec. 210.10(c) for reimbursable meals.
(i) Beginning with School Year 1996-97, State agencies shall
evaluate compliance with the established nutrition standards over a
school week. At a minimum, these evaluations shall be conducted once
every 5 years and may be conducted at the same time a school food
authority is scheduled for an administrative review in accordance with
Sec. 210.18. State agencies may also conduct these evaluations in
conjunction with technical assistance visits, other reviews, or
separately. Except as provided in this paragraph (a)(1)(i), the State
agency shall conduct nutrient analysis on the menu(s) served during the
review period to determine if the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and
[[Page 5521]] Sec. 220.8(a)(2) of this chapter were met. However, the
State agency may:
(A) Use the nutrient analysis of any school or school food
authority that offers meals using the food-based menu systems
approaches provided in Sec. 210.10(c) and/or Sec. 220.8(b) of this
chapter and that conducts its own nutrient analysis under criteria
established by USDA of those meals; or
(B) Develop its own method for compliance review, subject to USDA
approval.
(ii) if the menu for the school week fails to comply with the 1990
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and/or to meet the calorie and
nutrient levels specified in Sec. 210.10(c)(2) and/or Sec. 220.8(a)(2)
of this chapter, the school food authority shall develop, with the
assistance and concurrence of the State agency, a corrective action
plan designed to rectify those deficiencies. The State agency shall
monitor the school food authority's execution of the plan to ensure
that the terms of the corrective action plan are met.
(iii) If a school food authority failed to meet the terms of the
corrective action plan, the State agency shall determine if the school
food authority is working towards compliance in good faith and, if so,
may renegotiate the corrective action plan, if warranted. However, if
the school food authority has not been acting in good faith to meet the
terms of the corrective action plan and refuses to renegotiate the
plan, the State agency shall determine if a disallowance of
reimbursement funds as authorized under paragraph (c) of this section
is warranted.
* * * * *
PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 220 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779.
2. In Sec. 220.2, a new paragraph (w-1) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 220.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(w-1) School week means the period of time used as the basis for
determining compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
and the calorie and nutrient levels in Sec. 220.8(a)(2). The period
shall be a minimum of three consecutive days and a maximum of seven
consecutive days. Weeks in which school breakfasts are offered less
than three times shall be combined with either the previous or the
coming week.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 220.8, the section heading and paragraph (a) are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 220.8 Nutrition standards for school breakfasts and menu planning
methods.
(a) Minimum quantities/nutrient levels for food-based menu systems.
(1) At a minimum, schools shall serve meals in the quantities
provided in the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM QUANTITIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUIRED FOR OPTION FOR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGES 1-2 PRESCHOOL GRADES K-12 GRADES 7-12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAL COMPONENT:
MILK (FLUID)\1\.. 1\1/2\ CUP........... \3/4\ CUP............ 8 OUNCES............. 8 OUNCES.
MEAT OR MEAT \1/2\ OUNCE PLUS..... \1/2\ OUNCE PLUS..... 1 OUNCE PLUS......... 2 OUNCES PLUS
ALTERNATE.
GRAINS/BREADS.... \1/2\ SERVING EACH OF \1/2\ SERVING EACH OF ONE SERVING EACH OF ONE SERVING EACH OF
GRAINS/BREADS AND GRAINS/BREADS AND GRAINS/BREADS AND GRAINS/BREADS AND
MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE MEAT/MEAT MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE
(\1/2\ OUNCE) OR. ALTERNATE(\1/2\ (1 OUNCE) OR. (2 OUNCES) OR
2 GRAINS/BREADS OR... OUNCE) OR. 2 GRAINS/BREADS OR... 2 GRAINS/BREADS OR
2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE 2 GRAINS/BREADS OR... 2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE 2 MEAT/MEAT
(1 OUNCE). 2 MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATE (2 OUNCES). ALTERNATE (4
(1 OUNCE). OUNCES) PLUS
ADDITIONAL 1 OUNCE
PER DAY OF GRAINS/
BREADS.
VEGETABLES/ \1/4\ CUP............ \1/2\ CUP............ \1/2\ CUP............ \1/2\ CUP.
FRUITS\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A SERVING OF FLUID MILK SERVED AS A BEVERAGE OR ON CEREAL OR USED IN PART FOR EACH PURPOSE.
\2\A SERVING OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES OR BOTH, OR FULL-STRENGTH FRUIT OR VEGETABLE JUICE.
(2) At a minimum, schools shall provide the following calorie and
nutrient levels over a school week:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALORIE AND NUTRIENT LEVELS FOR SCHOOL BREAKFAST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPTION
GRADES K- FOR
PRESCHOOL 12 GRADES 7-
12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY ALLOWANCES (CALORIES)............. 388 554 618
TOTAL FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL
TOTAL FOOD ENERGY)...................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
TOTAL SATURATED FAT (AS A PERCENTAGE OF
ACTUAL TOTAL FOOD ENERGY)............... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
PROTEIN (g).............................. 5 10 12
CALCIUM (mg)............................. 200 257 300
IRON (mg)................................ 2.5 3.0 3.4
[[Page 5522]]
VITAMIN A (RE)........................... 113 197 225
VITAMIN C (mg)........................... 11 13 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\NOT TO EXCEED 30 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.
\2\NOT TO EXCEED 10 PERCENT OVER A SCHOOL WEEK.
(3) School food authorities shall comply with 1990 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and the provisions in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section at the same time such provisions are implemented for the
National School Lunch Program in accordance with Sec. 210.10 (c)(3) of
this chapter.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 220.13, paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) are redesignated as
paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5), respectively and a new paragraph (f)(3)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 220.13 Special responsibilities of State agencies.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For the purposes of compliance with the 1990 Dietary Guidelines
for Americans and the calorie and nutrient levels specified in
Sec. 220.8(a)(2), the State agency shall follow the provisions
specified in Sec. 210.19(a)(1) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Dated: January 18, 1995.
Ellen Haas
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
Appendix A--Regulatory Cost/Benefit Assessment: Food-Based Menu Systems
1. Title: National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program: Food-
Based Menu Systems.
2. Background: The proposed rule for food-based menu systems is an
extension of the proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives for School Meals
which was published in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register at 59 FR
30218 (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 1994).
This cost/benefit assessment extends the cost/benefit assessment
which was developed for the proposed rule on Nutrition Objectives for
School Meals to encompass the proposed food-based menu systems. That
analysis was published in the Federal Register along with the rule.
The Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994, P.L. 103-448,
November 2, 1994, requires USDA to provide within the National School
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs an option for planning meals using
a food-based system. This proposed rule amends the current meal patter
requirements and defines the food components and the minimum quantities
for each component for various ages or grade levels. It also defines
the nutrient requirements for school meals for each of the age or grade
levels, using levels derived from the most recent (1989) Recommended
Dietary Allowances (RDAs) published by the National Research Council
and from the quantitative recommendations for the maximum levels of fat
and saturated fat as a percent of calories contained in the most recent
(1990) USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans. These changes would
be implemented by July 1, 1996 as required by law.
3. Statutory Authority: National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-
1760, 1779) and Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779).
4. Cost/Benefit Assessment of Economic and Other Effects:
Synopsis
This assessment finds that the proposed food-based menu system
requirements can be met within current food costs and with market
impacts at levels presented for the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning
system proposed in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register. Compared to
current school food service practice, improvement in food preparation
techniques and food selections within food categories would be needed
to meet the proposed food-based menu system requirements and RDA/
Dietary Guidelines-derived nutrient targets for NSLP. While average
food cost need not change, there will be a cost at the state level for
establishing and conducting nutrient analysis as a routine component of
local reviews. The national total for this cost is estimated to be less
than $2 million per year, and is offset by continuation of the
previously proposed 20 percent reduction in state monitoring
requirements.
a. Costs To Produce a Meal
The cost/benefit analysis accompanying the June 10, 1994 regulatory
proposal ``Nutrition Objectives for Healthy School Meals'' determined
that by using the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning approach it is
possible within the current cost to provide school meals which meet
defined nutrient targets derived from RDAs and the Dietary Guidelines
for Americans. Since the food-based menu planning system is being
proposed as a system which may be used in lieu of Nutrient Standard
Menu Planning (NSMP) and Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning,
school food authorities will be able to select the planning approach
which best fits their needs, including consideration of the cost of
planning and providing meals under the various available methods. This
document extends the previously published analysis and discussion to
cover the food-based menu planning option. Since the proposed meal
pattern for the School Breakfast Program retains the existing pattern,
this analysis focuses on the lunch meal.
Data
A nationally representative sample included in the School Lunch and
Breakfast Cost Study conducted for FNS by Abt Associates found an
average food cost of $0.72 for school lunch meals prepared under the
current meal pattern, rounded to the nearest whole cent (Abt
Associates, 1994). This includes costs for all foods served as part of
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) reimbursable meal and is not
limited to the cost of items which are credited towards the current
meal pattern requirement, but excludes items offered for sale as a la
carte. For example, if a school included a condiment bar and a cookie
dessert along with the NSLP meal without an additional charge, the cost
of the ingredients in the condiment bar and the cookie dessert were
included in the overall average food cost determination, even though
these items were not credited towards meeting the meal pattern minimum
requirements. [[Page 5523]] Similarly, if a school included in its NSLP
meal more than the minimum amount of vegetable and fruit required by
the current meal pattern, the cost of the ingredients in the full
amount included in the NSLP meal was included in the overall average
food cost determination.
Data on actual foods served in the NSLP were obtained from the 1993
USDA School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) study conducted by
Mathematica Policy Research for FNS (Mathematica Policy Research,
1993). The study included a survey of about 3550 students in grades 1
through 12 in 545 schools throughout the country. The students reported
detailed information on the kinds and amounts of foods and beverages
they consumed during a 24-hour period. The impact analysis used only
the portion of the data on foods served to children as part of credited
school lunches. It included plate waste but excluded a la carte items,
such as desserts, purchased in addition to the school lunch. The SNDA
survey contained detailed information on over 600 food items served in
the school lunch program. These items were aggregated into 52 food
groups based on the primary ingredient and the percent of calories from
fat. For example, there were two beef categories: high-fat and low-fat
beef; two poultry categories; etc.
Food costs were estimated from ingredient cost data obtained in the
1993 School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study and recipes for school lunch
items. The recipes were necessary for two reasons: aggregation of
ingredient costs to costs of food served, and for estimating the change
in usage of the various agricultural commodities.
The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) developed a computer model
incorporating the above data to assist in estimating the possible range
of market impacts from the changes in the June 10, 1994 proposed rule.
For the current analysis, this model was extended to reflect the food
component crediting used in food-based menu planning. Crediting for
each of the 52 food groups towards the four food components of the
existing NSLP meal pattern was estimated by FNS using information
contained in the ``Food Buying Guide for Child Nutrition Programs.''
This extended model was then used to determine the average NSLP
crediting of the NSLP meals included in the SNDA data.
Findings
Table 1 shows in abbreviated form the current meal pattern
requirements for NSLP for grades K-12. For consistency with the
proposed regulation the current ``Bread or Bread Alternate'' component
will be referred to as ``Grains/Breads'' as proposed. This table is
accompanied in program guidance with the recommendation that ``portions
be adjusted by age/grade group to better meet the food and nutritional
needs of children according to their ages * * *. If portions are not
adjusted, the Group IV portions are the portions to serve all
children.''
Table 1.--School Lunch Meal Patterns for Grades K-12 (Abbreviated)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum quantities Recommended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quantities
-------------------
Grades K-3, ages 5- Grades 4-12, age 9 Grades 7-12, age
Food components Food items 8 (group III) and over (group 12 and over (group
IV) V)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate.... Lean meat, poultry, or 1.5 oz............ 2 oz.............. 3 oz.
fish, or cheese, or
equivalent from eggs,
cooked dried beans or
peas, peanut butter or
other nut or seed butters
or certain other
alternates.
Vegetables/Fruits...... 2 or more servings of .5 cups........... .75 cups.......... .75 cups.
vegetables or fruits or
both to total.
Grains/Breads.......... Servings of grains/breads 8 per week........ 8 per week........ 10 per week.
of which a minimum or 1
per day must be enriched
or whole-grain.
Milk (as a beverage)... Fluid whole milk, and fluid 8 fl.oz........... 8 fl.oz........... 8 fl.oz.
unflavored lowfat milk,
skim milk, or buttermilk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 shows the findings derived from the School Nutrition
Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA) data for each of the four required food
components in the units used for the school meal patterns. These SNDA
data show that, on average, NSLP meals served for grades K-12 exceed
the existing minimum meal pattern requirements for meat/meat
alternates; grains/breads; and vegetables/fruits. The average for fluid
milk is slightly below the 8 fluid ounce minimum (7.5 fl. oz.), which
is expected due to NSLP offer versus serve (OVS) rules. The proposed
rule maintains the current meal pattern requirements for offering 8
fluid ounces of milk as a beverage.
Table 2.--Average Amount of Each Potentially Creditable Food Component
as Found in School Year 1991-92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
average
amount in
NSLP
Food component meals,
school
year 1991-
92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.).................................... 2.8
Vegetables/Fruits (cups)..................................... 1.0
Grains/Breads (servings)..................................... 2.5
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.)................................... 7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the extended school meals model, the average cost of each
food component was estimated. Under both the existing meal pattern
system and the proposed food-based menu system, the oldest age/highest
grade group always requires the largest quantity of food from each food
component. Tables 3 and 4 compare the SNDA findings on meals served by
food component to the largest quantities of the meal pattern
requirements currently in place (Table 3) and as proposed (Table 4).
These tables show that within the existing reimbursement structure,
schools already provide meals which, on average:
For Meat/meat alternate, exceed the oldest age/grade
minimums of both the current and proposed rules.
For Vegetables/fruits, exceed the minimum of the current
meal pattern for the oldest age/grade group, and are on average equal
to the minimum for the oldest age/grade group of the proposed rule.
[[Page 5524]]
For Grains/breads, exceed the minimum of the current meal
pattern for the oldest age/grade group, and are on average about 0.5
servings per day less than the minimum for the oldest age/grade group
of the proposed rule.
The proposed grains/breads minimum for the largest group of NSLP
participants, grades K-6, is 12 servings per week, compared to the
proposed 15 servings per week for grades 7-12. When weighted by
historical student participation, the overall weighted average proposed
minimum for grains/breads is equal to about 2.6 servings per day.
Therefore, the current NSLP meals serve only slightly less (0.1
servings per day) than the proposed weighted average minimum. Grains/
breads is the least expensive food component on a per serving basis,
averaging 3.2 cents per serving.
In summary, compared to the current meal pattern minimums, the
proposed food-based menu system holds milk and meat/meat alternate
constant and requires an increase in the minimum grains/breads and
vegetables/fruits, but does not require an increase on average over
current serving practices except for 0.5 servings of bread per week.
Table 3.--Difference Between Actual NSLP Food and the Highest Minimum
Requirements of the Current Meal Pattern
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest Estimated
quantity average
required amount in Difference
by NSLP (actual
Food component current meals, minus
NSLP school required)
meal year 1991-
pattern 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.).............. 2.0 2.8 +0.8
Vegetables/Fruits (cups)............... .75 1.0 +0.25
Grains/Breads (average servings per 1.6 2.5 +0.9
day).
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.)............. 8.0 7.5 \1\-0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Probably not zero due to OVS effect.
Table 4.--Difference Between Actual NSLP Food and the Highest Minimum
Requirements of the Proposed Food-based Menu System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largest
quantity Estimated
required average
by amount in Difference
proposed NSLP (actual
Food component NSLP meals, minus
food- school proposed)
based year 1991-
menu 92
system
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/Meat Alternate (oz.).............. 2.0 2.8 +0.8
Vegetables/Fruits (cups)............... 1.0 1.0 no
differenc
e
Grains/Breads (average servings per 3.0 2.5 -0.5
day).
Milk (as a beverage) (oz.)............. 8.0 7.5 -0.5\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Probably not zero due to OVS effect.
Reanalysis of Market Impact Scenarios
The three scenarios for potential market impacts described in the
June 10, 1994 proposal were reanalyzed, incorporating the extended data
on food component crediting. These three example market impact
scenarios were developed using a model that constrained NSLP food cost
to remain at the average per meal cost level determined by the School
Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study and meet the proposed nutrient targets.
The first scenario minimized change from current eating choices for
specific commodities, but allows substitution among the 52 food groups.
The second scenario is the same as the first, but demonstrates the
effect of shifting all chicken to lower fat chicken to show how change
in preparation or commercial availability can affect a particular
commodity. The third scenario required that there be no change in the
total quantities of the various major commodities used (except for
butter), and tended to increase the relative use of the lower fat
versions of the commodities (e.g., lower fat pork such as ham instead
of ribs or bacon). In addition, the extended school lunch model was
used to determine the average food cost for each of the four food
components. The following describes the findings from these analyses.
Table 5 shows the results of applying the NSLP crediting rules to
the three impact scenarios. The quantities shown in table 5 are daily
averages across all grades K-12.
Meat/Meat Alternate
The proposed average minimum servings of meat/meat alternate is not
met in Scenario 1, but is exceeded in Scenarios 2 and 3. Scenario 1
provides 1.9 ounces of meat/meat alternate, which is not sufficient to
meet the 2 ounces minimum requirement for grades K-6 and 7-12. This
scenario was developed to show the effect of minimizing the change in
current food offerings (e.g., trying to maintain the percentage of
meat/meat alternate from lower fat chicken and higher fat chicken).
Since the grades K-3 meat/meat alternate requirement is 1.5 ounces, the
actual average minimum requirement for grades K-12 will be slightly
less than 2.0 ounces. However, at least 20 percent of the school meals
would need to be provided using the K-3 pattern for the overall average
minimum requirement to be 1.9 ounces. While more than 20 percent of all
NSLP meals are served to children in grades K-3, for administrative
efficiency these are often served using the meal pattern for older
students, so the overall average minimum requirement is likely to be
above 1.9 ounces.
Grains/breads
The proposed average grains/breads minimum servings is met or
exceeded by all three scenarios. All three scenarios exceed the minimum
requirement for grains/breads for grades K-6. Scenarios 1 and 2 also
exceed the minimum requirement for grades 7-12. Scenario 3 provides 2.6
servings of grains/breads, which as discussed above, is equal to the
overall weighted average proposed minimum for grains/breads.
Vegetables/fruits
The proposed average vegetables/fruits minimum servings is met or
exceeded by all three scenarios. Scenarios 2 and 3, which allow for
somewhat larger shifts in food preparation methods, provide more than
the largest minimum requirement of the proposed food-based menu systems
except for vegetables/fruits in scenario 3. The amount of vegetables/
fruits in scenario 3, 0.9 cups, exceeds the amount required for grades
K-6 (average 0.85 cups per day), and is approximately equal to the
expected average minimum requirement across all NSLP meals. Over 60
percent of the meals are served to students in grades K-6, and some of
these will be served in schools using the grades K-3 pattern, which
requires only 0.75 cups [[Page 5525]] vegetables/fruits, so the overall
average minimum requirement across all NSLP meals is approximately 0.9
cups.
Table 5.--Average Daily NSLP Servings: Baseline and Three Scenarios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat/meat Grains/ Vegetables/ Milk
alternate breads fruits (fl.
(oz.) (servings) (cups) oz.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (SNDA)............ 2.8 2.5 1.0 7.5
Scenario 1 (no change of
preparation techniques)... 1.9 4.2 1.3 7.5
Scenario 2 (lower fat
chicken preparation)...... 2.1 4.1 1.2 7.5
Scenario 3 (shifts of
selections within
components; no change in
commodity markets)........ 2.9 2.6 0.9 7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for Food Components
The extended school lunch model was used to estimate the average
cost for each food component at baseline and for the three market
impact scenarios. The cost for non-creditable foods which are sometimes
served with lunch, such as non-fruit desserts, was also estimated. The
average cost for a 2 ounce serving meat/meat alternate increased by
about \1/2\ cent in scenarios 1 and 2, and by 1 cent in scenario 3.
This is consistent with the expectation of some food personnel that
leaner selections from the meat/meat alternate component may increase
unit cost for this component. The per serving cost also increased for
vegetables/fruits. The average cost of \1/2\ cup of vegetables/fruits
increased by \1/2\ cent in scenarios 1 and 2, and by 0.2 cents in
scenario 3. The cost of 8 fluid ounces of milk remained the same in
scenarios 1 and 2, and increased by 0.2 cents in scenario 3.
In contrast, the average cost of a serving of grains/breads
decreased by 0.4 cents in scenarios 1 and 2 and by 0.7 cents in
scenario 3. In scenarios 1 and 2, there was no change in the total 0.6
cents per meal available for non-creditable items, but in scenario 3,
about 0.1 cents of this was shifted to creditable items.
This cost-per-component-serving analysis shows that the cost of
food for the NSLP meals can be maintained, even when the average cost
for some components increases, without severely diminishing the funds
available for non-creditable foods which help flavor meals to meet
individual preferences. The ability to select slightly less expensive
items from the grains/breads component can effectively offset both the
modest per serving cost increases in other components and the slightly
increased average minimum requirement (+0.5 servings per week) for
grains/breads.
By definition, the average results reported above mean that some
school districts would be expected to experience food costs that vary
considerably from those reported above. This is not different from the
current situation because there is already a wide range of food costs
due to factors such as economies of size, geographic variation in
delivery and labor costs, and local market conditions. Similarly,
average quantities served also vary among schools and sometimes within
schools. If a school currently serving less than the average portions
of grains/breads or vegetables/fruits opts for the proposed food-based
menu planning system, they may have to increase the quantities offered.
Conclusion
In summary, the findings for the three scenarios indicate that the
proposed NSLP food-based menu system requirements can be met within
current food costs and with market impacts at levels presented in the
June 10, 1994 Federal Register. At least some improvement in food
preparation techniques and food selections within food categories would
be needed to meet the proposed menu system requirements and RDA/Dietary
Guidelines-derived nutrient targets for NSLP. Efforts which may
influence the speed and direction of these shifts, such as training and
technical assistance for school food service personnel in improved menu
planning and food preparation techniques, development of improved
recipes, and production of lower fat products by industry, could help
to simplify implementation when the food-based menu planning system is
selected.
b. Implementation Costs
This section expands upon the Section e. Implementation Cost
contained in the June 10, 1994 Federal Register cost/benefit assessment
to cover the food-based menu planning system option. As stated there,
initial implementation costs faced by schools will vary depending on
existing capabilities and resources within districts and will take many
forms. This proposal provides schools with a new option, so they would
have the option of selecting among NSMP, Assisted-NSMP, or the food-
based menu planning system. Schools are expected to consider
implementation costs in making their selection.
Local, State and Federal resources are available for
implementation. USDA has already initiated a number of improvements
which will assist in implementation, some of which apply to a specific
planning system option and others which will assist schools in
selecting the option best suited to their needs. These include updated
and improved recipes for schools, a computerized data bank of standard
nutritional values of meals served and a demonstration project on NSMP.
The demonstration will incur much of the developmental cost of the
basic NSMP system framework and identify cost effective strategies for
implementation.
The Department believes that implementation of meal improvements
will be facilitated if students are receptive to the changes in foods.
A number of efforts will help encourage students to accept such
changes. Central to this effort is the Department's Children's
Nutrition Campaign, a multi-faceted national effort designed to
motivate children to make healthier food choices by getting them
excited about making choices and giving them the skills to do so. It is
designed to deliver nutrition messages through multiple and reinforcing
channels to maximize impact and credibility. Core components will be
mass media and in-school efforts, supplemented by strategic public-
private partnerships to leverage USDA investments and extend reach. The
FY 1995 federal budget includes over $20 million to launch this
campaign and to provide extensive training for school meal providers on
how to plan and prepare nutritious and appealing meals. The Department
has [[Page 5526]] awarded nutrition education cooperative agreements to
develop comprehensive community-based approaches to nutrition
education. The Department is also assisting school food service
professionals by working with chefs, farmers and others to make school
meals appealing and healthful.
States receive over $90 million annually from the Federal level in
State Administrative Expense (SAE) funds for program oversight. A
portion of these resources are available to assist in implementation.
Some of the FY 1995 federal funds for training will be used to train
states on implementation of the management systems needed to support
food-based menu planning, including the requirement for periodic
nutrient analysis of school meals by the State as a component of local
reviews. In addition, since the review cycle has been extended from
four years to five years, the proposed regulation would reduce the
level of State resources devoted to local school food authority
reviews, which is described in more detail below.
At the local level, if the proposed food-based menu planning system
is selected, it may require training and technical assistance for some
staff. The continuation of the historical food component definitions
and crediting rules (with one improvement for grains in desserts) will
simplify this implementation. However, meals must, on average over a
week, meet the RDA/Dietary Guidelines-based nutrient targets, and
achieving this through a food-based menu system requires a considerably
greater level of nutrition knowledge than that required to fulfill a
meal pattern only. For example, the meal planner must know which
combinations of food choices over each week are acceptable to students
and are likely to result in meals that offer at least the food
component minimums and provide adequate calories, iron and other
nutrients without exceeding the fat and saturated fat limits as a
percent of calories.
A study of school food authorities in the mid-Atlantic region found
that under the existing meal pattern system, 60 percent of school food
authorities (SFAs) employ computers for some functions (Brewer, DeMicco
and Conn, 1993). Over one-fourth of these districts had comprehensive
systems that allowed them to do menu management and nutritional
evaluations. The menu modification demonstrations found that the lack
of appropriate computer software limited the feasibility of monitoring
the nutritional quality of menus. More recently developed software has
greatly enhanced the ability to perform these analyses, which will now
be supported by a USDA developed data base. Schools with microcomputers
should be able to use this software, and may opt to use it to assist in
food-based menu planning, for example, to analyze the recipes of some
popular entrees.
The cost analysis found that the nutrient requirements can be met
at about the current cost of food in the National School Lunch Program.
Because the foods used in the market impact analysis were drawn from
what is currently being served, and various adjustments in preparation
practices and frequency of food use can meet the food component
minimums and nutrient requirements, USDA does not anticipate the need
for significant changes in meal preparation practices that would affect
the cost to prepare meals. The administrative cost of conducting the
proposed food-based menu planning should be about the same as current
operations once the system is fully implemented in a school.
In summary, since at the local level schools should make reasonable
economic decisions and this proposal serves to increase their options,
the Department does not anticipate increased local implementation cost
due to this proposal. At the Federal and State levels, there will be
increased cost to provide training and technical assistance for an
additional option and to implement systems for management of this
option in the event that some locals select food-based menu planning,
with the majority of this cost being State implementation. The Federal
component of this will be covered through revised budgeting for the
funding available for Dietary Guidelines implementation in FY 1995 and
subsequent years. At the State level, the initial planning and set-up
for this additional food-based menu planning option is estimated to
take about 80 hours of staff time for each State administrative unit
(the time for ongoing operation is addressed in the following section).
Therefore, at an estimated average rate of $25 per hour, the Department
projects an average cost of $2,000 per State for initial planning and
set-up. This cost would be covered by part of the savings from the
reduction in administrative burden due to the previously proposed
extension of the review cycle from four to five years.
c. Ongoing Costs and Other Significant Effects
Under this proposed rule, States will be required to perform
nutrient analyses as a routine component of reviews of school food
authorities using the food-based menu planning system, increasing the
cost of ongoing program management. It is estimated that on average an
additional 12 hours will be required for nutrient analysis for each
food-based menu planning school reviewed. The actual total cost for
these reviews will vary depending upon the percent of school food
authorities selecting the food-based menu planning option. Since this
percentage is unknown, a range of cost is projected including the upper
bound of 100 percent. In consideration of the comments received from
the food service community, the lower bound has been set at 25 percent.
Given this range, and assuming an average rate of $25 per hour, the
Department projects an increase in national aggregate State ongoing
management cost for these reviews of $0.4 to $1.7 million. States can
reduce the percent of schools using food-based menu planning by
providing enhanced levels of training and technical assistance for NSMP
and Assisted-NSMP.
To provide for the resources needed, this proposal continues the
twenty per cent reduction in state monitoring requirements previously
proposed. This reduction will enhance the level of resources available
at the State level to focus on training and technical assistance
efforts and nutrition reviews of food-based menu planning systems.
While implementation will require a dedicated effort on the part of
the Department, the state agencies and local school food authorities,
the cost of ongoing operation and maintenance of a food-based menu
planning system at the local level will be indistinguishable from the
current meal pattern based system.
d. Benefits
The health benefits and value due to risk reduction of improving
school meals to be consistent with the principles of the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans were discussed in the June 10, 1994 cost/
benefit assessment. The addition of the food-based menu planning option
retains the benefits as previously presented.
The SNDA study found that NSLP lunches significantly exceed the
Dietary Guidelines recommendations for fat, saturated fat and sodium.
Diet-related diseases accounted for almost 65 percent of all deaths in
the U.S. in 1991 (National Center for Health Statistics, 1993). About
300,000 deaths per year, or about 14 percent of all deaths, has been
estimated as the lower bound for deaths due to diet and activity
patterns (McGinnis and Foege, 1993). The previous analysis concluded
that if the [[Page 5527]] reductions in fat and saturated fat intake
instituted during the school years are continued into adulthood, the
increase in life-years and the value in dollars based upon willingness
to pay would be of a magnitude similar to or exceeding that estimated
for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food labeling changes, which
were $4.4 to $26.5 billion over 20 years. The lag time to realize this
level of benefits over a 20 year period might be greater since FDA's
estimates apply to the U.S. adult population and the proposed rule on
school meals will begin to have effect with those children in school at
the time of implementation. Since the food-based menu planning option
requires that RDA and Dietary Guideline-based calorie and nutrient
levels be provided, the health benefits should be the same as those of
NSMP and Assisted-NSMP.
References
Abt Associates, Inc. (1994). ``School Lunch and Breakfast Cost
Study.'' Prepared under contract to: USDA Food and Nutrition
Service.
Brewer, K.P., F.J. DeMicco and R.E. Conn (1993). ``Computer Hardware
and Software Use in School Food Service Operations.'' School Food
Service Research Review, Volume 17, Number 2.
Mathematica Policy Research (1993). ``School Nutrition Dietary
Assessment Study.'' Prepared under contract to: USDA Food and
Nutrition Service.
McGinnis, J.M. and W.H. Foege (1993). ``Actual Causes of Death in
the United States''. Journal of the American Medical Association,
Nov. 10, 1993, Vol 270, No. 16:2207.
National Center for Health Statistics (1993). ``Advance Report of
Final Mortality Statistics, 1991''. Monthly Vital Statistics Report,
Vol. 142, No. 2 (Supplement).
National Research Council (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances,
10th Edition. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service (1994). ``National School Lunch and
School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Objectives for School Meals;
Proposed Rule.'' Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 111 (June 10, 1994).
USDA/DHHS (1990). ``Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines
for Americans.'' Third Edition. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232.
[FR Doc. 95-2044 Filed 1-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.