Constance Newman, Joanne Guthrie, Lisa Mancino, 

Katherine Ralston, and Melissa Musiker

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Meeting Total Fat Requirements 

for School Lunches

Infl uence of School Policies and Characteristics

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Research

Report

Number 87

November 2009
www.ers.usda.gov

You can find additional information about Food Assistance 

and Nutrition Program Outcomes at our website.

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Meeting total fat requirements for school lunches : influence of school 

policies and characteristics.

 (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of Agriculture.

 Economic Research Service); no. 87)

 1. School lunchrooms, cafeterias, etc.—United States. 

 2. Nutrition policy—United States. 

 3. National school lunch program. 

 4. Food—Fat content. 

 5. Obesity in children—United States—Prevention.

 6. School children—Food—United States.

 7. Vending machines.

 I. Newman, Constance.

 II. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 

 III. Title.

TX945.2

Photo credit: Jupiterimages

www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/programoutcomes
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Concerns about child obesity have raised questions about the quality of meals served in 

the National School Lunch Program. Local, State, and Federal policymakers responded 

to these concerns beginning in the mid-1990s by instituting a range of policies and 

standards to improve the quality of U.S. Department of Agriculture-subsidized meals. 

Schools have been successful in meeting USDA nutrient standards except those for total 

fat and saturated fat. This report uses school-level data from the School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment-III to calculate statistical differences between the fat content of NSLP 

lunches served by schools with different policies (e.g., menu planning) and characteristics like region and size. Positive associations are found between a meal’s fat content and 

the presence of a la carte foods and vending machines, which are thought to indirectly 

affect the nutrient content of USDA-subsidized meals.

Keywords: National School Lunch Program (NSLP), obesity, nutrition

Constance Newman, Joanne Guthrie, Lisa Mancino, 

Katherine Ralston, and Melissa Musiker

Meeting Total Fat Requirements 

for School Lunches 

Infl uence of School Policies and Characteristics

Economic

Research 

Report

Number 87

November 2009
ii

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

School Food Policies and Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Presence of Competitive Foods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Nutrition and Purchasing Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Participation in Special Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Programs . . . . . 8

 Menu and Food Preparation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

School Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Urbanicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 School Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Economic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Newman, Constance, Joanne Guthrie, Lisa Mancino, Katherine Ralston, 

and Melissa Musiker. Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches: 

Infl uence of School Policies and Characteristics. Economic Research Report 

87, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. November 2009.
iii

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Summary

Concerns about child obesity have raised questions about the quality of 

meals served in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Local, State, 

and Federal policymakers responded to these concerns beginning in the mid1990s by instituting a range of policies and standards to improve the quality 

of USDA-subsidized meals. While most of USDA’s nutrition standards have 

been met by schools, total fat and saturated fat as a percent of calories is an 

ongoing challenge. 

What Is the Issue?

The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, conducted by USDA’s Food 

and Nutrition Service, recently found that while most schools meet requirements for vitamins, protein, calcium, and iron, only one in fi ve schools 

served lunches that met the standard for total fat, set at 30 percent of calories 

or less. This report compares the characteristics and food policies of schools 

serving lunches that met total fat requirements to those serving lunches with 

fat content that was either 30-35 percent of calories (middle category) or over 

35 percent (high). Identifying the food practices and policies of conforming 

versus nonconforming schools may help to identify effective strategies for 

improving the nutritional quality of USDA school meals. 

What Did the Study Find?

The fat content of school lunches was statistically correlated with many 

school policies and characteristics in the spring of 2005. Some policies and 

practices, such as whether french fries are regularly served, can directly 

affect the nutritional content of USDA lunches. Other policies, such as a 

school’s allowance of “competitive” foods or foods that bypass nutritional 

standards, can indirectly affect the content of USDA lunches by offering 

choices that appeal to students’ taste preferences. Among the policies or 

practices that directly affect the fat content of USDA lunches:

• Promotion of fresh fruits and vegetables/local foods. Participation in 

at least one program that promotes the purchase of locally grown food 

or fresh fruit and vegetables was signifi cantly higher in elementary and 

middle/high schools that serve lunches in the lowest fat category, below 30 

percent of calories. 

• French fries or dessert. The provision of french fries or dessert as a part 

of the USDA lunch was signifi cantly higher among middle/high schools 

in the highest fat category.

• Low-fat milk only. Providing lowfat milk as the only milk choice was 

signifi cantly higher in the lowest fat category for both elementary and 

middle/high schools.

• Meal planning method. Historically, schools have used a food-based 

(“traditional”) method for planning menus where each meal must consist of certain food types such as a meat, vegetable, starch, etc. In recent 

years, some schools have adopted a nutrient-based method where lunches 

are planned according to the nutrient content of food items, or they 

use a mix of methods called the “enhanced traditional” method. The 
iv

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

traditional meal planning method was used signifi cantly more by schools 

in the highest fat category for both elementary and middle/high schools, 

whereas the enhanced traditional method was used more in the lowest fat 

category for middle/high schools. 

Other policies may affect lunch quality since they enable students to choose 

alternative foods. For example, the availability of a la carte foods in elementary schools was signifi cantly higher in the middle category of fat content 

than in the lowest category; no relationship across fat categories was found 

for middle/high schools. And the presence of vending machines was signifi -

cantly higher among middle/high schools in the highest fat category. 

Although school characteristics (rural vs. urban, region, size) are not subject 

to policy change, they may be useful for targeting lunch improvement efforts. 

For both elementary and middle/high schools, urban schools were more 

highly represented in the lowest fat category, and rural schools were more 

predominant in the highest fat category. Elementary and middle/high schools 

in the Southeast were more predominant in the two higher fat categories than 

in the lowest category, whereas Southwest schools were more predominant in 

the two lower fat categories. Elementary schools in the West were more predominant in the lowest fat category than in the two higher fat categories. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

We used nationally representative school-level data from the School 

Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III to calculate the statistical effect of school 

policies and characteristics on the fat content of NSLP lunches served by 397 

schools. Schools were divided into three categories based on the average fat 

content of reimbursable school lunches served and chosen by students over 

a week. The fat content categories were (1) no more than 30 percent of calories from fat, (2) 30 to 35 percent of calories from fat, and (3) more than 35 

percent of calories from fat. We compared the policies, practices, and characteristics of schools within each fat category to those in the other two fat categories. Using a student’s t-test and school-level sample weights, we indicate 

mean differences between subgroups that vary with a 90-percent level of signifi cance or above. This threshold was chosen because of small sample size, 

especially among specifi c fat content subcategories. 
1

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Introduction

Every weekday, schools around the country strive to provide students with 

a healthy lunch. To qualify for Federal subsidies under the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP), school meals must meet USDA nutrition requirements. At the same time, to fulfi ll the nutrition goals of the program and 

maintain the fi nancial viability of the program, these meals must be suffi -

ciently appealing for students to select them. 

Since the development of new school meal nutrition standards in the mid1990s, USDA has emphasized lowering the fat content of school meals. Yet 

meeting standards for fat and saturated fat remains a problem. A recent study 

sponsored by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment-III (SNDA-III), found that most schools meet the requirements 

for vitamins, protein, calcium, and iron. However, few schools meet the total 

fat and saturated fat requirements (fi g. 1).1 One in fi ve schools served lunches 

that met the standard for total fat and almost a third met the standard for saturated fat in 2005. 

What do we know about the schools that did meet or failed to meet these 

requirements? This report uses SNDA-III data to compare the food policies, 

practices, and characteristics of schools that met total fat requirements to 

those that did not. Identifying such correlations may help to devise strategies 

for improving the nutritional quality of USDA school meals. 

We use SNDA-III school-level data collected from 397 schools in the spring 

of 2005. Schools fall into one of three categories based on the average fat 

content of reimbursable school lunches served and chosen by students over a 

week (henceforth referred to as “served”). An analysis of lunches offered 

would not fully account for the fact that students usually have some choices, 

such as the choice between higher or lower fat milk, so this analysis is based 

on the lunches chosen by students. This measure provides an estimate that 

1 Whereas the majority of NSLP 

guidelines describe minimum values for 

essential nutrients, the guidelines for 

fat and saturated fat suggest maximum 

values, as a share of calories.

Figure 1

Most schools meet USDA nutrition standards for National School

Lunch Program lunches except for total fat and saturated fat, 2005

Percent of schools meeting USDA standards

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, 

Menu Survey, Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, November 2007.

Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron Total fat Saturated fat

100

88

73

88

73

99

92

86 83

19 21

28 30

Chosen by students

Offered to students
2

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

considers both the nutritional quality of the items offered by schools and their 

acceptability to students.2

The fat content categories are (1) no more than 30 percent of calories from 

fat, (2) 30 to 35 percent of calories from fat, and (3) more than 35 percent 

of calories from fat. Current NSLP total fat standards are based on the 

Dietary Guideline for Americans released in 2000, which recommend keeping fat intake below 30 percent of calories. The 2005 Dietary Guideline for 

Americans relaxed the standard for fat intake to between 25 and 35 percent 

of calories. Assuming that the NSLP standards will be updated to refl ect the 

change, we identify schools that would meet a requirement of 35 percent but 

not 30 percent total fat. We report nationally representative results using the 

school-level sample weights. 

This work complements research that analyzes the effect of school environments on children’s dietary outcomes (Briefel et al., 2009) and children’s 

obesity (Fox et al., 2009) and research that summarizes the characteristics 

of school environments (Finkelstein et al., 2008; GAO, 2005). Clark and 

Fox (2009) fi nd that the total fat intake over 24 hours was not higher among 

NSLP participants than nonparticipants, but that for all children, 24-hour 

total fat intake exceeded 2005 Dietary Guidelines. 

Almost two-thirds of the schools in the weighted sample are elementary 

schools (63 percent), while 37 percent are middle schools and high schools 

combined (table 1). Elementary schools were more likely to comply with fat 

requirements than were middle and high schools, and the differences are statistically signifi cant, meaning they are unlikely to be due to chance. Among 

elementary schools, 26 percent served lunches that met the requirement (less 

than 30 percent fat), 43 percent served lunches in the middle category of fat 

content (between 30 and 35 percent fat), and 31 percent served lunches in 

the highest fat content category (over 35 percent fat). Among middle/high 

schools, 12 percent served lunches with the lowest fat content, 36 percent 

served lunches in the middle category of fat content, and 52 percent served 

lunches in the highest fat content category. 

These results are consistent with other research fi ndings that older students 

face a less healthy school food environment (Finkelstein et al., 2008; Briefel 

et al., 2009). Given these large differences and the fact that school food envi2 For space considerations, we made 

a choice between using meals that 

are offered by schools (referred to in 

SNDA-III as “offered”) versus those 

that are then chosen by students (or 

“served”). We chose “served” for the 

reasons mentioned. But we also conducted the analysis using the “offered” 

version of the variable, and the results 

were very similar. That work is available upon request from cnewman@ers.

usda.gov.

Table 1

School lunch fat categories by school type, 2005

 Sample shares Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

Unweighted sample N = 397 n = 76 n = 172 n = 149

Percent

Weighted sample 100 21 40 39

School type

• Elementary school (63%) 100 26* 43 31*

• Middle/high school (37%) 100 12* 36 52*

* Signifi cant difference between elementary and middle/high schools at the 99% level. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.
3

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

ronments differ greatly by school type, we examine elementary and middle/

high schools separately.

Table 2 shows the distribution (mean, median, range) of our main variable 

of interest—the percent of calories from total fat in served meals—within 

each of the three fat categories. The grouping of the variable helps to identify 

thresholds that are relevant to USDA requirements, but it is also important 

to ensure that the underlying distributions of each group can be credibly differentiated. The means refl ect a spread of 28 to 37 percent of calories from 

fat across the three categories for elementary schools and a spread of 28 to 39 

percent of calories from fat for middle and high schools. 

Table 2

Percent energy from total fat by fat category and school type, 2005

 Mean Median Minimum Maximum

Elementary Total fat < 30% (kcals) 28.1 28.0 22.6 29.9

 Total fat 30-35% (kcals) 32.6 32.6 30.3 35.0

 Total fat > 35% (kcals) 37.3 36.7 35.0 43.8

Middle/High Total fat < 30% (kcals) 28.2 28.5 23.1 29.9

 Total fat 30-35% (kcals) 32.9 33.1 30.0 34.9

 Total fat > 35% (kcals) 39.0 37.8 35.0 69.5

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.
4

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

School Food Policies and Environments

Many school food policies are determined at the State and local levels. In 

recent years, concerns about obesity and school nutrition have led to a variety 

of new policies. For example, in 2004 Congress required NSLP-participating 

schools to establish “Local Wellness Policies,” which set locally defi ned 

nutrition and physical activity goals for improving student health. Such policies have included the introduction of new nutrition education activities or 

the removal of access to less healthy foods (such as those found in vending 

machines). And district- or school-level policy changes have occurred independently in schools where local wellness policies may not be fully established. 

Some States have also entered the child nutrition policy arena by establishing 

laws for food purchases by school food managers and the availability of competitive foods (i.e., foods that are not served as part of the reimbursable lunch).

We examine policies and practices that can directly affect USDA lunches, 

such as whether french fries are ever served, and others that can indirectly 

affect USDA lunches, such as the presence of competitive foods. We divide 

school policies, whether indirect or direct, into four general types: 

• Competitive food policies include the presence of vending machines 

and/or a la carte foods, which may indirectly affect the fat content of 

USDA lunches by providing students with alternative lunches.

• Nutrition and purchasing policies, such as whether the school has a local 

wellness policy, nutrition education, or nutrient-related food purchasing, 

may directly or indirectly affect the fat content of USDA lunches.

• Participation in special programs, such as programs that promote fresh 

fruit and vegetables or locally produced foods, is thought to directly 

affect the fat content of USDA lunches. 

• Menu and food preparation characteristics, such as whether the 

menus are planned at the district level or whether food is prepared onsite, 

directly affect the fat content of the USDA lunch.

We examine how each type of policy may be linked to lunch fat content and 

the fi ndings for both elementary and middle/high schools. All differences 

across lunch fat categories are statistically signifi cant differences, unless otherwise noted. We use a signifi cance level of 90 percent (rather than 95 percent) because of the relatively small sample size.

Information about school-level policies was obtained from different sources: 

the school principal, the school foodservice manager, or a school food 

authority/SFA (or district) representative. In the few cases where answers 

differed among sources, we use data developed by the researchers who conducted the survey. They identifi ed the best sources by comparing responses 

to checklist surveys that they conducted on school grounds.

Presence of Competitive Foods

The presence of competitive foods in schools has recently come under scrutiny amid concern about children’s diets. Of special concern are vending 
5

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

machines and a la carte foods, offered alongside NSLP lunches, that are lownutrition and energy-dense.3 Competitive foods are usually offered as a way 

to raise revenue for SFAs who operate as nonprofi t providers of the NSLP 

meals. Most SFAs operate on a break-even basis, and they say that competitive food sales are necessary to cover their costs. School principals, athletic 

departments, and clubs may also decide to raise revenue through vending 

machines, school stores, or bake sales.

Competitive foods are so named because they are widely thought to deter 

NSLP participation by providing an alternative, usually less healthy, lunch 

for students to choose. To attract students to the NSLP lunch, schools may 

provide lunches with a higher fat content than would be offered if competitive foods were not available. Also, students may choose reimbursable lunch 

items with higher fat content than they would choose if competitive foods 

were not available. The availability of snacks or sweets at school through 

small stores or bake sale-type fundraising activities has raised similar concerns that the NSLP lunch must “compete” with these foods to be attractive 

to students. Access to soft drinks and other sweetened beverages is also 

under scrutiny in schools because of their possible links to obesity. The 

existence of “pouring contracts,” where a school gives exclusive sales rights 

to a beverage company, is thought to be associated with greater access to 

sweetened beverages. That access may also work against the attractiveness of 

a lower-fat NSLP lunch. To combat this, some schools have restrictions on 

food and beverage availability. 

To test the relationship between a lunch’s fat content and access to competitive 

food, we examine the correlations between the fat content of lunches served 

and the availability of: a la carte food of any kind; a la carte food that is lownutrition, energy-dense; vending machines; vending machines in the foodservice area; pouring contracts; snack bars; school stores; fundraising activities 

that include sweets or snacks; and food/beverage restrictions (table 3). Large 

differences in competitive food policy are apparent between elementary and 

middle/high schools. For example, fewer than 1 in 5 elementary schools have 

vending machines, whereas 9 out of 10 middle and high schools do. And 

some policies are adopted much more than others. For example, 78 percent of 

elementary schools serve a la carte food, while only 9 percent of them have a 

snack bar or school store.

Elementary Schools

The share of elementary schools selling a la carte food is signifi cantly lower 

for schools in the lowest fat category (65 percent) than in the middle category 

(90 percent). Also the share of schools selling low-nutrition, energy-dense 

foods a la carte was signifi cantly lower in the lowest fat category (23 percent) 

than in the middle category (50 percent).

Other signifi cant differences were found for the presence of a school store 

and fundraising activities. Schools with lunches in the lowest fat category 

had the lowest share of school stores or snack bars (though not signifi cantly 

lower than schools in the highest fat category). Schools in the middle fat category had the highest share of fundraising activities that sell sweets or snacks 

(though not signifi cantly higher than schools in the highest fat category). 

3 Foods and beverages were classifi ed 

as low-nutrient, energy-dense (LNED) 

items if they were low in nutrients but 

high in energy or caloric density per 

unit volume or mass, or were defi ned as 

foods of minimal nutritional value by 

USDA school meal regulations. Sugarsweetened beverages and the following 

solid food categories were considered 

to be LNED items: (1) higher fat baked 

goods, including muffi ns and desserts 

such as cakes, cookies, and brownies; (2) dairy-based desserts (e.g., ice 

cream); (3) candy (all types) and sweetened gum; (4) french fries and similar 

potato products; and (5) high-fat chips 

and other salty snacks (e.g., potato 

chips, corn chips) (Gordon et al., 2009).
6

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

We found no signifi cant differences among fat categories by vending 

machine policy. However, this is likely due to small sample size. Only 16 

percent of elementary schools had vending machines present in schools. 

Middle and High Schools

Among middle and high schools, schools in the highest fat category were signifi cantly more likely to have vending machines (96 percent) than were schools 

in the other two categories (table 3). Contrary to expectations, however, schools 

in the highest fat category were signifi cantly less likely to have low-nutrition, 

energy-dense food in the a la carte line (43 percent) than schools in either of 

the other two categories (77 percent low and 62 percent middle). Surprisingly, 

schools did not differ much in fat content by the other competitive food policies, 

such as pouring rights or presence of vending in the foodservice area.

Nutrition and Purchasing Policies

With increasing interest in school nutrition, schools have instituted various 

types of nutrition promotion policies that may be correlated with the provision and acceptance of lower fat lunches. We compare lunch fat content 

across schools with different nutrition policies, such as whether they have 

nutrient requirements for food purchases, schoolwide wellness policies,4

nutrition education, and/or nutrition and health advisory councils. Another 

4 Wellness policies are policies that 

are formed by local stakeholders (e.g., 

parents, students, interested health and 

school professionals) in an effort to improve school nutrition. In 2004, Congress 

required school food authorities to implement “local wellness policies” to improve 

nutrition policies with local input. 

Table 3

Presence of competitive foods by fat category and school type, 2005

 Sample share Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 or mean < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

Elementary schools – unweighted sample N = 144 n = 42 n = 69 n = 33

Percent

A la carte food sold 78 6512 9012 72

Low-nutrition, energy-dense food sold a la carte (if any sold) 40 2312 5012 41

Vending machines present 16 11 18 19

Vending machines in foodservice area (if vending present) 11 10 7 18

Pouring contracts 46 51 47 39

School store or snack bar sells snacks 9 312 1112 9

Fundraising activities that sell sweets or snacks 36 31 4623 2523

Restrictions on type of food or snacks sold 39 43 42 33

Restrictions on type of sweet beverages sold 49 52 54 41

Middle and high schools - unweighted sample N = 253 n = 34 n = 103 n = 116

Percent

A la carte food sold 82 81 89 77

Low-nutrition, energy-dense food sold a la carte (if any sold) 55 7713 6223 4313,23

Vending machines present 88 6713 8423 9613,23

Vending machines in foodservice area (if vending present) 44 41 41 46

Pouring contracts 71 69 68 74

School store or snack bar sells snacks 21 31 20 19

Fundraising activities that sell sweets or snacks 53 57 45 59

Restrictions or ban on type of food or snacks sold 37 36 41 34

Restrictions or ban on type of sweet beverages sold 50 57 52 46

12 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 2 at the 90% level.

23 Signifi cant difference between category 2 and 3 at the 90% level.

13 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 3 at the 90% level.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.
7

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

variable that we consider is whether schools use “Child Nutrition (CN) label 

foods,” a class of foods—mainly pre-prepared foods such as pizzas, burritos, 

etc.—that are specially marketed for USDA school meals and carry a label 

indicating how they meet the traditional food group requirements of a meal 

(how much of the required serving of meat, grain, etc.). CN labels, unlike the 

standard nutrition labels found on foods in supermarkets, do not contain 

information on fat or saturated fat content. 

Elementary Schools

Elementary schools in the middle fat category were signifi cantly more likely 

to have district purchases based on nutrition requirements than were schools 

in the highest fat category (table 4), and were signifi cantly more likely to 

be in districts requiring CN labels than schools in the lowest fat category. 

Other nutrition-related policies did not differ signifi cantly across the lunch 

fat categories, and in many cases, the differences were the opposite of those 

expected. For example, schools with nutrition education and a nutrition advisory council were not signifi cantly more likely to be in the lowest fat category. And schools serving foods from chain restaurants were not more likely 

to be in the highest fat category.

Middle and High Schools

The only statistically signifi cant nutrition and purchasing policy difference 

across lunch fat categories was whether schools make nutrition information 

available to parents on a routine basis, such as sending home daily menus 

Table 4

Nutrition and purchasing policies by fat category and school type, 2005

 Sample share Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 or mean < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

 (1) (2) (3)

Elementary schools – unweighted sample N = 144 n = 42 n = 69 n = 33

Percent

School has a wellness policy 48 44 54 37

School has nutrition education at every grade 80 78 76 87

School has a nutrition or health advisory council 18 15 19 23

School routinely makes nutrition info available to parents 60 61 67 53

District purchases are based on nutrient requirements 52 48 6123 3823

District requires Child Nutrition* label for some or all foods 63 4912 7112 69

Some foods offered from chain restaurants 30 39 30 23

Middle and high schools - unweighted sample N = 253 n = 34 n = 103 n = 116

Percent

School has a wellness policy 37 46 38 34

School has nutrition education at every grade 53 57 50 46

School has a nutrition or health advisory council 21 25 26 27

School routinely makes nutrition info available to parents 58 7512 5412 58

District purchases are based on nutrient requirements 56 55 65 53

District requires CN* label for some or all foods 64 67 71 60

Some or all foods offered from chain restaurants 27 39 26 21

* CN = Child Nutrition.

12 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 2 at the 90% level.

23 Signifi cant difference between category 2 and 3 at the 90% level.

13 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 3 at the 90% level.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.
8

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

(table 4). Schools in the lowest fat category were signifi cantly more likely to 

have this policy (75 percent) than schools in the middle category (54 percent).

Participation in Special Fruit 

and Vegetable Purchasing Programs

We examine differences in lunch fat content based on schools’ participation 

in programs designed to increase the availability of fresh food, and in particular, fresh fruit and vegetables. These policies include whether the school 

district participated in a State or local farm-to-school program,5 whether the 

district participated in the U.S. Department of Defense’s Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Program,6 and whether the State or district has regulations that 

require purchase of locally produced foods or fresh produce.

Elementary Schools

Schools that participated in at least one of the special programs (table 5) were 

signifi cantly more likely to be in the lowest fat category (62 percent) and 

middle category (63 percent) than in the highest fat category (37 percent). 

Across individual programs, there were few signifi cant differences, but in 

three out of four programs, the schools in the middle fat category were the 

most highly represented. 

Middle and High Schools

Similar to the elementary school results, participation in at least one special 

program was signifi cantly higher for middle/high schools in the lowest and 

middle fat categories (68 and 61 percent, respectively) than in the highest fat 

category (43 percent) (table 5). 

Table 5

Participation in special programs by fat category and school type, 2005

 Sample share Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 or mean < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

 (1) (2) (3)

Elementary schools – Unweighted sample N = 144 n = 42 n = 69 n = 33

Percent

District participates in, or has, any of the programs below 58 6213 6323 3712,23

District has guidelines for buying locally grown 17 28 11 13

District has guidelines for buying fresh produce 11 10 12 10

District buys from Dept. of Defense Fresh program 39 38 5223 2123

District participates in State farm-to-school program 14 15 16 9

Middle and high schools - Unweighted sample N = 253 n = 34 n = 103 n = 116

Percent

District participates in, or has, any of the programs below 53 6813 6123 4313,23

District has guidelines for buying locally grown 15 21 20 10

District has guidelines for buying fresh produce 8 312 1312 6

District buys from Dept. of Defense Fresh program 33 41 33 31

District participates in State farm-to-school program 15 16 16 14

12 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 2 at the 90% level.

23 Signifi cant difference between category 2 and 3 at the 90% level.

13 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 3 at the 90% level.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.

5 “Farm to school” is a generic term 

that refers to any local or State-level 

program that links local or regional 

farmers directly to school food services.

6 The U.S. Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 

Program is a program through which 

USDA commodity funds are used 

for reimbursable school meal food 

purchases in the DOD’s procurement 

network, which has superior access to 

fresh fruits and vegetables.
9

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Menu and Food Preparation Characteristics

Menu and food preparation characteristics include the planning of lunches, 

the features of lunches (such as whether french fries are served), the average 

total calorie content, and the share of calories from sources other than fat. In 

planning meals, some schools have moved from the traditional “food-based” 

method (where each meal must consist of certain food item types—meat, 

vegetable, starch, etc.) to a nutrient-based method where meals are planned 

according to the nutrient content of food items. In theory, this latter method 

may be a more precise way to meet nutrient requirements, but it also requires 

more time and sophistication. Less than a third of schools used the nutrientbased method in school year 2004-05. Some schools (22 percent) had opted 

for the intermediary option of “enhanced” traditional meal planning, which is 

the food-based method with more fruits, vegetables, grains, and breads. 

We hypothesize that schools that have taken specifi c measures such as not 

serving either whole or 2-percent milk, not serving french fries, or serving fresh produce daily will be better able to reduce the fat content of their 

lunches. However, since school lunches are encouraged to provide one-third 

of students’ total daily calories, school lunch providers may add ingredients 

that are low in fat but still calorie dense, such as simple carbohydrates and 

added sugars, for which there are currently no specifi c guidelines. 

We also check for correlations between fat content of lunches and various food preparation policies, such as whether the kitchen uses fully plated 

lunches from offsite. The offsite preparation of food and the use of processed 

foods are thought to produce higher fat meals (Miller, 2009). 

Elementary Schools

In terms of menu planning methods, there were large and signifi cant differences across elementary schools (table 6). Elementary schools in the lowest 

fat category had a signifi cantly lower share of traditional menu planning (32 

percent) than did schools in the highest fat category (67 percent). This is 

some evidence in favor of nutrient-based planning. Schools in the middle fat 

category were signifi cantly more likely to have menus planned at the district 

level (58 percent) than were schools in the highest fat category (35 percent). 

Limiting milk offerings to low-fat only was the only other menu variable that 

showed signifi cant differences among fat categories. Elementary schools in 

the lowest fat category were signifi cantly more likely to serve only low-fat 

milk (56 percent) than schools in either of the two other categories.

Elementary schools that served higher fat lunches served more caloric 

lunches, on average, as well. This was not surprising as fat has more calories 

per gram than either carbohydrates or protein. We also found that protein 

and carbohydrate content varied signifi cantly across the three fat categories. Because a calorie is made of fat, protein, or carbohydrate, a lower 

fat lunch will also contain more protein, carbohydrates or both. However, 

across fat categories, the variation in carbohydrates was more pronounced 

than the variation in protein across fat categories. Also, more than half of 

carbohydrates came from sugars, suggesting schools may fi nd it easier to 

lower fat (and maintain total calories) by adding more sugar than by adding 

more complex carbohydrates such as vegetables and whole grains. This also 
10

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 6

Menu and food preparation characteristics by fat category and school type, 2005

 Sample share Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 or mean < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

 (1) (2) (3)

Elementary schools – unweighted sample N = 144 n = 42 n = 69 n = 33

Percent

Type of menu planning

• Nutrient based 30 39 33 19

• Enhanced 21 29 20 15

• Traditional 49 3213 47 6713

Menus planned at district-level 55 56 5823 3523

Menus planned by foodservice management company 9 3 7 15

Fries are offered 1 or more days per week 71 73 67 67

Dessert is offered 1 or more days per week 73 69 80 59

Fresh fruit and vegetables are offered daily 50 39 46 60

Whole milk and 2% milk are not offered 31 5612,13 3012 2013

Mean total calories 676 66013 65823 71413,23

Mean share of calories from protein 16.6 17.312,23 16.812,23 15.913,23

Mean share of calories from carbohydrates 52.0 56.412,23 52.112,23 48.313,23

Mean share of calories from added sugars* 26.7 29.612,23 26.712,23 24.313,23

Which of the following describes your kitchen? 

• Onsite, meals prepared for this site only 67 60 69 70

• Base kitchen, meals prepared for many schools 8 9 7 9

• Receiving kitchen, meals prepared offsite 25 31 24 20

Receive fully plated meals from offsite 9 7 12 6

Middle and high schools - unweighted sample N = 253 n = 34 n = 103 n = 116

Percent

Type of menu planning

• Nutrient based 28 36 22 31

• Enhanced 22 4013 24 1613

• Traditional 50 2412,13 5412 5313

Menus planned at district-level 46 44 48 46

Menus planned by food service management company 7 17 9 4

Fries are offered 1 or more days per week 83 6212,13 8312 8613

Dessert is offered 1 or more days per week 77 6413 6923 8423,13

Fresh fruit and vegetables are offered daily 56 48 52 60

Whole milk and 2% milk are not offered 34 6912,13 2912 2813

Mean total calories 765 68813 71923 81413,23

Mean share of calories from protein 15.8 16.613 16.523 15.113,23

Mean share of calories from carbohydrates 50.2 57.012,23 52.012,23 47.313,23

Mean share of calories from added sugars* 23.7 30.112,23 24.712,23 21.613,23

Which of the following describes your kitchen? 

• Onsite, meals prepared for this site only 77 5713 7023 8713,23

• Base kitchen, meals prepared for many schools 15 13 22 11

• Receiving kitchen, meals prepared offsite 8 3012,13 812,13 312,13

Receive fully plated meals from offsite 3 5 3 2

* Percent of energy from sugar was calculated by the authors, using variables from SNDA as: 

Percent Energy from Sugar =100* (4*Total Sugar)/Total Energy 

12 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 2 at the 90% level.

23 Signifi cant difference between category 2 and 3 at the 90% level.

13 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 3 at the 90% level.

Source: SDA, Economic Research Service, based on calculations from SNDA III.
11

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

illuminates a possible unintended consequence of focusing guidelines too 

narrowly on fat content alone. 

Middle and High Schools

Menu planning and food preparation policies seem to differ more at the middle 

and high school level (table 6). As with elementary schools, schools in the lowest fat category were signifi cantly less likely to use traditional menu planning 

(24 percent) than were schools in the other two categories (53-54 percent), 

and they were signifi cantly more likely to use enhanced menu planning (40 

percent) than were schools in the highest fat category (16 percent). The offering of french fries at least once during the week observed was signifi cantly less 

likely in the lowest fat category (62 percent) than in the other two categories 

(83-86 percent), and the offering of dessert at least once a week was signifi -

cantly lower in the lowest fat category (64 percent) and the middle category 

(69 percent) than in the highest fat category (84 percent). Offering only lowfat 

milk was also signifi cantly more likely in schools in the lowest fat category (69 

percent) than in the other two categories (28-29 percent).

As with elementary schools, lower fat lunches in middle and high schools 

contained signifi cantly more protein and carbohydrates (table 6). While 

the protein content of middle/high school lunches varied less compared to 

elementary school lunches, the variation in carbohydrates and sugars was 

more pronounced. As middle and high school students have more freedom to 

choose (and higher caloric requirements), school cafeteria managers may fi nd 

it especially diffi cult to abide by fat recommendations, and thus add fl avor 

and calories by adding sugars. 

Surprisingly, middle and high schools in the lowest fat category were signifi cantly less likely to cook lunches onsite and signifi cantly more likely to 

receive lunches prepared elsewhere. Fifty-seven percent of schools in the 

lowest fat category had lunches prepared onsite for their site only, versus 70 

and 87 percent of the middle and highest fat category schools. Three out of 

10 schools in the lowest fat category received lunches prepared offsite, while 

fewer than 1 in 10 schools in the middle and highest fat categories did so.
12

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

School Characteristics

Identifying characteristics associated with the likelihood of serving lunches 

that meet fat standards can help to target fat-reduction strategies to the 

schools most likely to benefi t from them. Some differences may refl ect 

regional and cultural food preferences. Other differences—such as the share 

of students certifi ed to receive a free or a reduced-price lunch or child poverty rates—may suggest the role of economic factors.

Urbanicity

With 46 percent of the lowest fat lunches served in an urban area, urban 

elementary schools were statistically more highly represented in the lowest 

fat category (table 7). And with 73 percent of the highest fat lunches, rural 

elementary schools (“not near a city”) were most highly represented in the 

highest fat category. Similar to elementary schools, urban middle and high 

schools were signifi cantly more likely to serve lunches in the lowest or middle fat category than in the highest fat category.

Regions

Some regional differences were also statistically signifi cant across elementary schools. Elementary schools in the Southeast were more likely to serve 

lunches in either the middle or highest fat category than in the lowest fat 

category. Elementary schools in the West were more likely to serve lunches 

in the lowest fat category than in the middle or highest fat category. MidAtlantic schools were more likely to serve lunches in the middle category 

than to serve lunches in the lowest fat category (table 7). 

Regional differences were found to be signifi cant for middle and high schools 

in the Southwest, Mountain, and Southeast (table 7). As with elementary 

schools, middle/high schools in the Southeast were signifi cantly more likely 

to be in the middle and highest fat categories than in the lowest fat category. 

The Southwest also had a relatively high share of schools in the middle fat 

category, which was signifi cantly different from its share in the highest fat 

category. Middle/high schools in the Mountain region had high shares in both 

the lowest and the highest fat categories, and both were signifi cantly different 

from the Mountain’s share in the middle fat category. 

School Size

The smallest elementary schools (fewer than 400 students) were signifi cantly 

more likely to serve lunches in the highest (than the middle) fat category, 

while the next size schools, with 400-500 students, were most likely to serve 

lunches in the middle fat category (table 7). The only other signifi cant differences by size were among schools with 725 to 1,000 students: they were 

more likely to serve lunches in the lowest or middle categories than in the 

highest fat category.

School size differences were not as signifi cant for middle and high schools as 

they were for elementary schools. The only differences were among schools 

with 725 to 1,000 students: they were signifi cantly more likely to serve 

lunches in the middle fat category than in the highest fat category. 
13

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 7

School characteristics by fat category and school type, 2005

 Sample share Total fat Total fat Total fat 

 or mean < 30% (kcals) 30-35% (kcals) > 35% (kcals)

 (1) (2) (3)

Elementary schools – Unweighted sample N = 144 n = 42 n = 69 n = 33

Percent

Urbanicity: 

 In a city 34 4613 4123 1013,23

 Suburb of a city 20 14 26 17

 Not near a city 46 4013 3323 7313,23

Region: 

 Mid-Atlantic 11 212 1712 10

 Midwest 19 20 23 14

 Mountain 13 16 8 17

 Northeast 11 11 7 16

 Southeast 18 612,13 2412 2113

 Southwest 16 22 12 14

 West 12 2312, 13 912 813

School size: 

 < 400 35 36 2523 4823

 400-500 23 1312 2912 22

 500-725 31 37 31 25

 725-1,000 8 1213 1023 313,23

 > 1,000 3 2 5 2

Percent of free or reduced-price students 47 48 49 42

District child poverty rate: 

 < 20 percent 62 66 58 63

 20-30 percent 31 24 34 33

 > 30 percent 7 10 8 4

Middle and high schools – Unweighted sample N = 253 n = 34 n = 102 n = 115

Percent

Urbanicity:

 In a city 29 4513 3723 1813,23

 Suburb of a city 18 15 17 21

 Not near a city 53 40 46 61

Region: 

 Mid-Atlantic 9 9 8 10

 Midwest 17 17 23 13

 Mountain 19 2212 212,23 3123

 Northeast 8 9 8 8

 Southeast 19 212,13 2612 1913

 Southwest 14 27 1823 923

 West 12 14 15 10

School size: 

 < 400 28 20 25 33

 400-500 12 18 14 9

 500-725 21 19 17 23

 725-1,000 19 23 2623 1323

 > 1,000 20 20 18 22

Percent of free or reduced-price students 42 40 46 40

District child poverty rate: 

 < 20 percent 62 57 63 63

 20-30 percent 31 33 32 30

 > 30 eprcent 6 10 5 7

12 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 2 at the 90% level.

23 Signifi cant difference between category 2 and 3 at the 90% level.

13 Signifi cant difference between category 1 and 3 at the 90% level.

Source: SDA, Economic Research Service, based oncalculations from SNDA III.
14

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Economic Characteristics 

We found no statistically signifi cant differences between fat content of 

school lunches and the two economic characteristics variables: the average 

share of students receiving free/reduced-price meals and the district’s child 

poverty rate. The lack of statistical differences among these variables may be 

partially attributed to the small sample size that this survey provides.
15

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

Conclusion

Our fi ndings show that the average fat content of lunches served in schools 

does differ across various school policies and characteristics. The presence 

of a la carte foods and vending machines seems to indirectly affect the fat 

content of USDA lunches, though there was no evidence of a relationship 

between lunch fat content and other competitive food policies such as pouring rights, food and beverage restrictions, and other sources of snacks. 

Nutrition and food-purchasing policies—such as wellness policies, nutrition 

and health councils, and nutrition education—did not correlate with the fat 

content in school lunches. Many lunch planning characteristics—such as menu 

planning method; the offering of french fries, desserts, or fruits/vegetables; and 

offering only low-fat milk—were signifi cant, especially for high schools. 

As a caveat to all of the fi ndings, we may be understating the statistical signifi cance of the associations due to the relatively small sample size. However, 

these data are unique in providing very high-quality nutrition information as 

well as good detail on school characteristics, and they document many relevant 

correlations between school characteristics, policies, and the fat content of 

school lunches. A la carte provision of foods, vending machines, and traditional meal planning are all signifi cantly associated with higher fat lunches. 

And elementary or middle/high schools with the lowest fat lunches are more 

likely to participate in at least one program that promotes school purchases of 

fresh fruits and vegetables or locally produced food. 
16

Meeting Total Fat Requirements for School Lunches / ERR-87

Economic Research Service / USDA

References

Briefel, Ronette R., Mary Kay Crepinsek, Charlotte Cabili, Ander Wilson, 

and Philip Gleason. 2009. “School Food Environments and Practices 

Affect Dietary Behavior of US Public School Children,” Journal of 

American Dietetic Association 109(suppl 1): S91-S107.

Clark, Melissa, and Mary Kay Fox. 2009. “Nutritional Quality of the Diets of 

the US Public School Children and the Role of the School Meal Programs,” 

Journal of American Dietetic Association 109(suppl 1): S44-S56.

Finkelstein, Daniel M., Elaine L. Hill, and Robert Whitaker. 2008. 

“School Food Environments and Policies in US Public Schools,” 

Pediatrics 122: e251-e259.

Fox, Mary Kay, Allison Hedley Dodd, Ander Wilson, and Philip Gleason. 

2009. “Association Between School Food Environment and Practices and 

Body Mass Index of US Public School Children,” Journal of American 

Dietetic Association 109(suppl 1): S108-S117.

Gordon, Anne, Elizabeth Condon, Melissa Clark, Karin Zeller, Elaine Hill, 

Ander Wilson, and Ronette Briefel. 2009. School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment Study-III: Public-Use File Documentation, Version 2. 

February (.pdf fi le, unpublished).

Miller, Clare H. 2009. “Commentary: A Practice Perspective on the Third 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study,” Journal of American 

Dietetic Association 109(suppl 1): S14-S17.

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce. 2005. School Meals Programs: 

Competitive Foods Are Widely Available and Generate Substantial 

Revenue for Schools. GAO-05–563.