Last May, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told a Cabinet meeting that “major, dramatic” changes were coming for the federal school meal programs. Those programs, which set nutrition standards for lunch, breakfast, and snacks served at schools, have been funded through Congress since 1946. But they had “deteriorated,” Kennedy said, with the bulk of items served for school lunch being ultra-processed foods.
“It is poison,” Kennedy said. “We need to stop poisoning our kids and making sure that Americans are once again the healthiest kids on the planet.”
Since then, states have passed laws banning certain food dyes and chemicals from school meals. The administration has also continued to promise reforms to the food system, culminating in the highly anticipated release of the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs), which promoted “real foods” and discouraged highly processed items.
To go further in reducing ultra-processed foods and increasing whole foods, the people working inside schools say additional investment is necessary.
School nutrition directors contend the meals served at schools are some of the healthiest children receive on a daily basis, and already they are working to lower added sugar and sodium levels.
But to go further in reducing ultra-processed foods and increasing whole foods, the people working inside schools say additional investment is necessary. And they worry that under the Trump administration, rules will change faster than schools can keep up.
Last week, hundreds of school nutrition professionals gathered at the School Nutrition Association (SNA) legislative action conference. There they met with members of Congress and representatives of the White House to convey the work already underway to make school meals healthier, and to discuss the barriers in going further.
“We’re challenged with what we receive for reimbursement, through our funding programs and platforms,” said Ashley Powell, child nutrition director for Auburn City Schools in Alabama. “We just need more money to continue to offer fresh fruits and vegetables.”
Upcoming Rules on School Meals
The Dietary Guidelines have a direct impact on the National School Lunch Program and the National School Breakfast Program (NSLP/NSBP). Since 1995, these meals have been required to meet federal nutrition standards that adhere to the DGAs, and have been periodically updated with federal rule making, the most notable being the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has suggested it would propose a rule updating nutrition standards for school meals based on the latest guidelines as early as April. This would come as many schools are still working to implement the school meal rule released by then-President Joe Biden’s administration.
The rule came out April 2024 and set a gradual implementation date between fall 2025 and fall 2027. For the first time, it set limits on the level of added sugars served in school meals. By fall 2025, schools were to limit added sugars in cereals, yogurt, and milk. By fall 2027, schools must keep added sugars to less than 10 percent of the weekly calories.
Also under the Biden-era rule, schools are expected to reduce sodium in breakfast by 10 percent and 15 percent for lunch by fall 2027.
But schools are expecting that upcoming Trump administration school meal rules will go further on added sugars. The latest iteration of the guidelines, released in January, recommended no levels of added sugar to children under 10; raising questions the added sugar limits could increase. .
Schools that rely more heavily on scratch cooking, or meals that are prepared on site, have more control over the levels of added sugar or sodium. But many schools don’t have access to a full kitchen, and use satellite kitchens to prepare and deliver food, or offer pre-made meals.
Many schools also provide food through vending machines or to-go stations that offer snacks and beverages that must adhere to the USDA’s Smart Snacks nutrition standards, which since 2014 have set limits on calories, sodium, fat, and more. Following this Obama-era rule, food manufacturers reformulated some of their products to meet the new standards.
“Manufacturers are working to bring down the sugar levels in their foods as well . . . I think it’s super important, but we want to make sure that the food is actually getting into the kids’ mouths as well.”
During a question-and-answer session with USDA officials at the School Nutrition Association (SNA) legislative action conference, Kaitlin Tauriainen, a child nutrition coordinator for a Wisconsin school district, said schools use revenue from Smart Snacks to boost funding for scratch cooking, staff, and equipment. Although these snacks are healthier than what children can buy at grocery stores, she said, there’s concern now that the USDA will revise the rule and make it more stringent, which could cut off a revenue stream.
“School breakfast and lunch is some of the healthiest foods that kids get in the country,” Tauriainen said. “Manufacturers are working to bring down the sugar levels in their foods as well . . . I think it’s super important, but we want to make sure that the food is actually getting into the kids’ mouths as well.”
USDA officials are looking at the Smart Snacks regulations, but they have said any proposed regulation would be open to public comment and potential impacts to revenue would be considered.
A Push Against Processed Foods
More broadly, school nutrition officials are anxious to see how an updated school meal rule would address ultra-processed foods. During a presentation for SNA members, Eve Stoody, chief policy officer at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, said the DGA goal for highly processed foods is to discourage items high in salt and sugar, such as potato chips, soda, or candy.
But there’s currently no federal definition of ultra-processed foods. Last year the USDA issued a request for information, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, to create the first definition. In recent appearances, Kennedy has suggested the proposed definition could be released in April.
Tauriainen said it’s important to have a clear definition of ultra-processed foods so schools can identify ways to reduce them in their offerings. But they also face a number of challenges serving food that meets today’s standards, mostly about costs. A SNA survey found that 98 percent of school meal program operators are challenged by food costs, and more than 90 percent of respondents also said they needed more staff, culinary training, equipment, and infrastructure.
While schools are reimbursed by the federal government for school lunches, with the most money going toward free school lunches, 70 percent of survey respondents said that the reimbursement rate is not enough to cover the costs of making a school lunch. The highest amount schools are reimbursed for a school meal is $4.60. On top of covering the cost of a meal, that reimbursement must cover staff, employee benefits, equipment, and other overhead attached to the kitchen.
“Kitchens aren’t necessarily equipped to cook everything from scratch,” Tauriainen said. “Some schools in the country don’t even have a kitchen space, they have maybe like a little corner of the gym that they serve lunch out of.”
“Any school nutrition director you’ll talk to wishes we could feed every kid that comes in.”
The USDA said it would announce $20 million in equipment grants this year for schools to revamp kitchens and boost scratch cooking. But this is unlikely to meet the needs of schools. One audience member at the SNA conference pointed to a study from UC Berkeley that found California alone needs more than $5 billion to get all school kitchens at scratch cooking capacity.
The NSLP equipment grants are annually appropriated by Congress, and USDA representatives encouraged the school officials to raise this issue with lawmakers. The grants’ total amounts have varied each year, typically ranging between $10 million and $30 million. In 2022, a second round of grant funding through the American Rescue Plan added $50 million.
“Any school nutrition director you’ll talk to wishes we could feed every kid that comes in,” Tauriainen said. “I would say the hardest thing for us to do is serve the food that we want to serve to our kids in that tiny little, budget that we have.”
More Meat, More Money
Looking ahead to the upcoming rule-making, school nutrition directors and school districts are worried about the added costs that will arise from anticipated requirements to increase meat consumption and lower processed foods.
The latest DGAs encourage Americans to prioritize protein at every meal, substantially increase the recommended daily intake of protein, and emphasize animal-based protein in the revamped food pyramid.
More than 900 school districts and school nutrition professionals signed onto a letter urging the USDA to avoid increases in the meat and meat-alternative category in an upcoming rule. They argue students already consume more than the recommended protein levels in the latest DGAs but do not get enough fiber, and a required increase in the meat category could create a further imbalance between the two nutrients.
USDA surveys of NSLP participants show that elementary school students consume 73 grams of protein per day, while high schoolers consume 92 grams. These meet or exceed the new guideline recommendations for 1.2 grams to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight daily.
If school meals are required to include more meat or meat alternatives, schools may have to reallocate funds from other parts of the plate like fresh produce, local sourcing, or scratch cooking.
On top of the nutritional concerns, school representatives said this move would add more costs, in both labor and food prices. As with more overall scratch cooking, it takes more staff to prepare more protein-intensive dishes from scratch.
The meat and meat-alternative part of the plate is often the most expensive. Prices for animal proteins like beef remain high, and the overall cost remains volatile because of market factors.
If school meals were required to include more meat or meat alternatives, schools would have to reallocate funds from other parts of the plate like fresh produce, local sourcing, or scratch cooking, according to the letter.
“Requiring more of the most expensive tray component would further strain already thin school meal budgets,” said Amanda Warren, director of school nutrition for Virginia’s Staunton City Schools. “Rather than changing sensible meal patterns, the focus should be on improving school meal quality by removing harmful ingredients, limiting ultra-processed foods, supporting local and whole foods, investing in the professionalism of school meal programs, and increasing reimbursement rates so districts can meet these goals sustainably.”
Following the legislative conference, SNA leaders met with White House representatives to explain the needs and challenges of school meals. If the USDA proposes a rule updating school meal nutrition standards, it will then be open to a public comment period before being finalized.
The post School Nutrition Experts Wary as Government Considers New Policies appeared first on Civil Eats.
From Civil Eats via This RSS Feed.