SCHOOL LUNCH

Modifications Needed to 

Some of the New Nutrition 

Standards

Statement of Kay E. Brown, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary 

Education, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, June 27, 2013

GAO-13-708T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-708T, a report to 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives

June 27, 2013

SCHOOL LUNCH

Modifications Needed to Some of the New Nutrition 

Standards

Why GAO Did This Study

The National School Lunch Program 

served 31.6 million children in fiscal 

year 2012, in part through $11.6 billion 

in federal supports. The most recent 

reauthorization of the program, the 

Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 

required that nutrition standards for 

school lunches be updated. As a 

result, USDA issued final regulations 

aimed at providing lunches high in 

nutrients and low in calories that better 

meet the dietary needs of school 

children and required that they be 

implemented beginning in school year 

2012-2013. The new rules provide 

detailed requirements for meal 

components—fruits, vegetables, 

grains, meats, and milk; update 

requirements for calories, sodium, and 

fats; and require that each student’s 

lunch contain a fruit or vegetable. To 

provide information on challenges that 

school districts have faced, this 

testimony draws on work GAO 

conducted as part of its ongoing study 

of implementation of the changes. 

Specifically, GAO reviewed relevant 

federal laws, as well as USDA 

regulations, guidance, and studies; 

interviewed USDA officials and groups 

of food service officials and relevant 

industry representatives; and visited

eight school districts. The districts 

varied by geographic location, size, 

and certain student and food services 

characteristics. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that USDA 

permanently remove the meat and 

grain maximum requirements and 

allow flexibility to help districts comply 

with the lack of overlap in the calorie 

ranges for grades 6-8 and 9-12 

lunches. USDA generally agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations.

What GAO Found

School districts faced several challenges implementing the new lunch 

requirements in school year 2012-2013, according to the eight districts GAO 

visited and food service and industry officials GAO interviewed from across the 

country; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) response to some of 

these challenges has been limited. For example, because USDA regulations 

restrict the amounts of meats and grains that can be served in school lunches

each week, all eight districts GAO visited needed to modify or eliminate popular 

menu items. These changes sometimes led to negative student reactions. The 

meat and grain restrictions also led to smaller lunch entrees, making it difficult for 

some schools to meet minimum calorie requirements for lunches without adding 

items, such as gelatin, that generally do not improve the nutritional quality of 

lunches. In response to feedback from states and districts regarding operational 

challenges caused by the meat and grain restrictions, USDA lifted the limits 

temporarily, first for the remainder of school year 2012-2013 and then for school 

year 2013-2014. USDA officials said they did not see a problem making the 

temporary changes to help with implementation because the limits on meats and 

grains and the limits on the calories in lunches are somewhat redundant, as both 

address portion size. However, because the change was seen as temporary, the 

eight districts GAO visited made only marginal changes to their menus. Rather, 

several district food services officials, as well as relevant industry 

representatives, indicated the need for a permanent federal decision on these 

restrictions, which USDA has also acknowledged. 

The calorie range requirements for lunches also challenged some districts, 

particularly those with schools that include students from both grades 6-8 and 9-

12. Because the required lunch calorie ranges for these two grade groups do not 

overlap, districts with such schools face difficulties planning menus and serving 

lunches that comply with both requirements. For example, one food services 

official, whose district includes schools serving 7th through 12th graders, 

developed menus with calorie counts between the grades 6-8 maximum and the 

grades 9-12 minimum, leaving the lunches out of compliance with both sets of 

restrictions. Although USDA has acknowledged that menu planning in such 

schools can be challenging, USDA’s current guidance does not provide these 

districts flexibility to assist their efforts to comply. Rather, guidance suggests that 

students from different grades be provided with different lunches, a solution that 

may be impractical in schools in which students of different grades share lunch 

periods and serving lines. 

Although the eight districts GAO visited expressed support for the improvements 

to the nutritional quality of school lunch, they reported additional challenges 

meeting the new requirements, such as student acceptance, food waste, costs, 

and participation. For example, USDA requires that meals include whole grainrich products and certain vegetables, but most districts noted that obtaining 

student acceptance of foods like whole grain pasta and beans has been 

challenging. If students do not accept these items, the result may be increased 

food waste or decreased participation in the lunch program, which were concerns 

in most districts GAO visited. However, student acceptance of the changes will 

likely improve over time, as indicated by their positive comments about healthy 

food and consumption of fruits and vegetables in most districts GAO visited. 

View GAO-13-708T. For more information, 

contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov
Page 1 GAO-13-708T 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Rokita and Members of the Subcommittee,

I am pleased to participate in today’s discussion of school districts’ 

experiences implementing the new requirements for the National School 

Lunch Program. This program served 31.6 million children in fiscal year 

2012, supported in part through federal subsidies and commodities 

totaling $11.6 billion. Although federal requirements for the content of 

school lunches have existed since the program’s creation, the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010—the law that most recently reauthorized 

school meal programs—required that they be updated by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the National School 

Lunch Program. In response, USDA updated requirements for the content 

of lunches based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine.1

USDA issued final regulations defining these new requirements in 

January 2012, and required the implementation of many of these 

requirements beginning in school year 2012-2013. USDA’s updated 

regulations aim to provide lunches high in nutrients and low in calories 

that better meet the dietary needs of school children and protect their 

health. To that end, the regulations make several changes and additions 

to the previous requirements for the content of school lunches, such as 

the new requirement that each student’s lunch contain at least one fruit or 

vegetable. Under agreements with state agencies, local school food 

authorities (SFAs), which are generally aligned with school districts, serve 

meals to children in schools and are the entities responsible for 

implementing these requirements.

As school year 2012-2013 has progressed, both USDA and the media 

have reported that states, SFAs, school officials, parents, and students 

have expressed some concerns about the school lunch changes. While 

the changes to school lunch are the primary school food changes 

required to be implemented in school year 2012-2013, the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 also required similar updates to nutrition 

standards for the School Breakfast Program and other foods sold in 

schools—or competitive foods—which will be implemented in future 

 

1 Pub. L. No. 111-296 § 201, 124 Stat. 3183, 3214. As required by the law, USDA updated 

the nutrition standards based on recommendations issued by the Food and Nutrition 

Board of the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, part of the 

Institute of Medicine. Throughout this report, we refer to these as the Institute of 

Medicine’s recommendations. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-708T 

school years. As a result, issues that have arisen because of 

implementation of the school lunch changes may have implications for 

future changes.

My remarks today will generally address challenges that school districts 

faced implementing the new school lunch requirements in school year 

2012-2013. This information was gathered using several methods, 

including reviews of relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance; 

interviews of USDA officials, a group of eight SFA directors representing 

both their own districts and their regions of the country, and a group of 

eleven relevant industry representatives;2 and site visits conducted to 

eight school districts across the country. This work was conducted as part 

of our current study of implementation of the school lunch changes, in 

which we are assessing the extent to which school lunch participation 

changed during school year 2012-2013, implementation challenges, and 

USDA’s assistance with implementation of the new requirements.3 Our 

site visits were conducted between March and May 2013, and my 

remarks represent some of our findings from these visits. The school 

districts selected for these visits provide variation across geographic 

location, district size, and certain characteristics of the student population 

and district food services.4 For example, we visited districts that generally 

prepare school lunches in one central kitchen before delivering them to 

schools, districts that prepare lunches in kitchens on-site in each school, 

and others that use alternative approaches for lunch preparation. Seven 

of the school districts we visited manage their own food service 

operations, while one district contracts with food service management 

companies. In each district, we met with SFA staff at the district and 

 

2 The School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national non-profit organization representing 

55,000 members involved in serving meals to children in schools, assisted our efforts to 

speak with these groups. The eight SFA directors we spoke with were representatives on 

SNA’s public policy and legislation committee, which includes representatives from each 

region of the country, as well as SNA’s board of directors. None of these SFA directors 

were responsible for administering the National School Lunch Program in districts that we 

selected for site visits, and only one of the SFA directors was from a state in which we 

conducted a site visit. The 11 industry representatives we spoke with were members of 

SNA, and some serve on the Association’s industry advisory board.

3 We anticipate issuing a final report on this study in late 2013.

4 We conducted site visits to Caddo Parish Public Schools (LA), Carlisle Area School 

District (PA), Chicago Public Schools (IL), Coeur d’Alene School District (ID), Fairfax 

County Public Schools (VA), Irving Independent School District (TX), Mukwonago Area 

School District (WI), and Spokane Public Schools (WA). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-708T 

school levels, school administrators, and students, and we observed 

lunch in at least two schools of different grade levels. We also interviewed 

the eight state child nutrition program directors overseeing these districts. 

Although both public and non-profit private elementary and secondary 

schools, as well as residential child care institutions, participate in the 

National School Lunch Program, all of the districts we visited were public. 

We cannot generalize our findings from the site visits beyond the school 

districts we visited.

My remarks also reflect our reviews of relevant USDA data and studies. 

For example, we reviewed USDA’s School Nutrition Dietary Assessment 

Study IV (2012), which provides information on school lunches and other 

foods sold in schools nationwide in school year 2009-2010.5 Further, 

because it is the basis for USDA’s revised regulations on the content of 

school lunches, we reviewed the Institute of Medicine’s report, School 

Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children (2010).6 We assessed the 

methodologies and findings of the studies we reviewed and determined 

that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this testimony.

We conducted this work as part of our ongoing performance audit on 

implementation of the new school lunch requirements from February 2013 

through June 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The National School Lunch Program, established in 1946, is intended to 

safeguard the health and well-being of the nation’s children. The program 

provides nutritionally balanced low-cost or free lunches in participating 

schools to about 31 million children each month. At the federal level, 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service oversees the program, which is 

 

5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and 

Analysis, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV (Alexandria, VA: November 

2012).

6 Institute of Medicine, School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children (Washington, 

D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2010). 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-708T 

administered by states and local SFAs. In fiscal year 2012, the federal 

government spent over $11 billion on the National School Lunch 

Program. Specifically, USDA provides reimbursement in the form of cash 

subsidies and donated commodities based on the number of lunches 

served that meet certain federal requirements. Although federal 

requirements for the content of school lunches have existed since the 

program’s inception, as research has documented changes in the diets of 

Americans and the increasing incidence of overweight and obesity in the 

U.S., federal lunch requirements have become increasingly focused on 

improving the nutritional content of lunches.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which most recently 

reauthorized the National School Lunch Program, required changes to the 

federal lunch requirements with the intention of reducing childhood 

obesity and improving children’s diets. Since 1994, federal law has 

required SFAs to serve school lunches that are consistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans,7 and in 2004, federal law required 

USDA to issue federal rules providing SFAs with specific 

recommendations for lunches consistent with the most recently published 

version of the Guidelines. As a result of that requirement, USDA asked 

the Institute of Medicine to review the food and nutritional needs of 

school-aged children in the United States using the 2005 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans and provide recommended revisions to meal 

requirements for the National School Lunch Program. The Institute 

published its final report in 2010, and also in that year, the Healthy, 

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 required USDA to update the lunch 

requirements based on these recommendations. The Institute’s report 

recommended changes to the lunch component and nutrition 

requirements in place at the time. Regarding the lunch components—

fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, and milk—the Institute recommended 

offering both fruits and vegetables daily, increasing whole grain-rich 

foods, offering only fat-free and low-fat milk, and limiting the amount of 

grains and meats/meat alternates served each week. Regarding the 

nutrition requirements, the Institute recommended including both 

minimum and maximum calorie levels for lunches, increasing the 

emphasis on limiting saturated fat and minimizing trans fat, and reducing 

 

7 The Dietary Guidelines for Americans were first issued in 1980, and most recently 

issued in 2010. The Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services are 

required, at least every 5 years, to publish a report entitled “Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans” based on current scientific and medical knowledge. 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-708T 

sodium content. USDA issued a proposed rule on the new lunch 

requirements in January 20118 and a final rule in January 2012.9 The final 

rule required implementation of many of the new lunch requirements 

beginning in school year 2012-2013. Since the final rule was issued, 

USDA has provided extensive guidance, as well as technical assistance 

and training, to states and SFAs to assist with implementation of the new 

requirements. 

Because regulations issued in January 2012 by USDA placed limits on 

the amounts of meats/meat alternates and grains that can be included in 

a school lunch, all eight SFAs we visited modified or eliminated some 

popular menu items, leading to negative student reactions in some 

districts. USDA’s new regulations specify the minimum and maximum 

weekly number of ounces of meats, cheese, or other meat alternates and 

the minimum and maximum weekly number of ounces of grains to be 

served with lunch, which differ by grade level.10 In comparison, the 

previous regulations only specified the minimum number of ounces of 

meats and grains required to be served with lunch each week. (See table 

1.) Officials in one of the districts we visited told us that, in response to 

the new limits, cheeseburgers were removed from the elementary and 

 

8 Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, 76 

Fed. Reg. 2494 (proposed Jan.13, 2011) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220).

9 Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, 77

Fed. Reg. 4088 (Jan. 26, 2012) (codified at 7 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220).

10 The new regulations also specify the minimum number of ounces of meats and grains 

that must be served each day but do not specify the maximum number of ounces of meats 

and grains that must be served each day. 

The Eight SFAs We 

Visited Faced Several 

Challenges 

Implementing the 

New Lunch 

Requirements 

All Were Challenged by 

Meat and Grain Limits
 

Page 6 GAO-13-708T 

middle school lunch menus because adding cheese to the district’s 

burger patties would have made it difficult to stay within the weekly meat 

maximums. In another district, the SFA reported that it switched from 

using shredded cheese on the chili dog to processed cheese sauce 

because it does not count as a meat alternate. A similar type of switch 

occurred in one of the districts we visited because of the grain 

maximums. That SFA reported that it changed from serving a whole grain 

chip to a potato chip because the potato chip did not count as a grain. 

The grain maximums also affected popular lunch items, such as 

sandwiches. For example, four districts we visited reduced certain grain 

options used for sandwiches, such as the sub roll and the tortilla wrap, 

and two districts stopped serving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a 

daily option in elementary schools because the weekly grain maximum 

did not allow for a sandwich to be served every day. SFAs in four of the 

districts we visited noted that student reactions to these menu item 

changes were generally negative, and some said the changes had 

impacts on participation, that is, the number of students purchasing 

school lunches. For example, the tortilla wrap size change in one district 

was followed by a significant decrease in the number of students 

selecting their lunches from the previously popular deli sandwich line in 

the high schools, as well as a decrease in the overall percentage of 

students purchasing school lunches in those schools. Another district’s 

change to its sub roll contributed to a middle and high school student 

boycott of school lunch that lasted for 3 weeks.

Table 1: The Previous Federal Requirements for Weekly Meat and Grain Portions in School Lunches Compared to School 

Year 2012-2013 Requirements 

Grade Levels

Previous Federal Requirements - Minimums

School Year 2012-2013 Requirements – 

Minimums and Maximums

K-3 4-12 7-12 K-5 a 6-8 9-12

Meat (in ounces) 7.5 10 10 or 15b 8-10 9-10 10-12

Grain (in ounces) 8 or 10 8 or 12 b 8 or 15 b b 8-9 8-10 10-12

Source: USDA Analysis of Previous and Current Requirements, 77 Fed. Reg. 4088, 4113.

a

This was an optional grade configuration allowed under the previous federal requirements.

b

To comply with both the meat and grain maximums and the required 

calorie minimums for lunches, some districts added foods that generally 

did not improve the nutritional value of lunches. In the new requirements, 

Under the previous federal requirements for school lunch, SFAs could choose to use one of five 

approved approaches to plan their menus. Three of these approaches focused on nutrient 

requirements and did not specify portion size requirements. The two approaches that included portion 

sizes requirements differed in the minimum requirements for certain grade levels, as shown in the 

table.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-708T 

USDA specified daily minimum and maximum calorie levels for school 

lunches by grade group (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12), which lunch menus must 

meet on average over the school week. However, because the entrée, 

typically consisting of meat and grain, generally provides the majority of 

the calories in the meal, the weekly meat and grain maximums that limit 

the size of entrées in effect also limited the calories of the lunches. As a 

result, five SFAs we visited reported that the meat and grain maximums 

made it difficult to plan menus that met the minimum calorie requirement 

for grade 9-12 lunches—750 calories. To comply, some SFAs added 

foods to the menus that, while allowable, generally do not improve the 

nutritional value of lunches. For example, in three of the districts we 

visited, the SFAs reported adding pudding to certain high school menus 

to bring the menus into compliance with the calorie minimum. Some SFAs 

also added gelatin, ice cream, or condiments such as butter, jelly, ranch 

dressing, or cheese sauce to become compliant, according to the districts 

we visited and the SFA and industry groups we spoke with. While these 

additional menu items provided needed calories to lunches, they also 

likely increased the amount of sugar, sodium, or fat in the meal, 

potentially undercutting the federal law’s goal of improving the nutritional 

quality of lunches.11

Some SFAs noted that obtaining meat and grain products from food 

vendors that complied with the new requirements was a continual and 

evolving process during school year 2012-2013 because vendors were 

continually modifying products throughout the year. For example, four 

SFAs we visited said they met regularly with vendors during school year 

2012-2013 as vendors worked to bring their products into compliance. 

One of those SFAs reported working closely with food manufacturers and 

vendors throughout the summer of 2012 to find appropriate products, 

including a 1.5 ounce burger patty—which is less than half the size of a 1⁄4 

pound burger—that allowed the district to continue to serve 

cheeseburgers to all students. Representatives from a group of food 

manufacturers and other relevant industries we spoke with indicated that 

the meat and grain maximums were challenging to respond to in part 

because the grain maximums had unexpectedly changed between the 

proposed and final rules, and the time between issuance of the final 

 

11However, lunches in which these menu items are added must still comply with the new 

nutrition requirements, which currently include limits on the amount of fat in school 

lunches. Beginning in school year 2014-2015, the new nutrition requirements also limit the 

amount of sodium in lunches. 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-708T 

regulations and required implementation was short.12 Some noted that 

while they were eventually able to reformulate their products to comply 

with the new requirements, the process took longer than the 6 months 

available between issuance of the final rule and the required 

implementation date.13

In response to feedback from states and SFAs regarding operational 

challenges caused by the meat and grain maximums, USDA lifted the 

maximums temporarily. First, in December 2012, USDA issued guidance 

allowing states to consider SFAs to be in compliance with the 

requirements for school year 2012-2013 if their menus exceeded the 

weekly meat and grain maximums. A few months later, in February 2013, 

USDA provided the same flexibility for school year 2013-2014, 

acknowledging that SFAs needed guidance to help with meal planning 

and food procurement for the coming school year, as SFAs often plan 

menus and order or contract for food beginning in the winter of the 

previous school year. The February guidance also stated that USDA 

understands the need for longer term guidance on this issue and is 

considering options for addressing the meat and grain maximums beyond 

school year 2013-2014. In May 2013, USDA officials told us that the 

Department wanted to be responsive to the challenges they had heard 

about, and they did not see a problem making the temporary change to 

help with implementation because the meat and grain maximums and the 

calorie maximums both accomplish the goal of addressing portion size, 

 

12 The weekly grain maximums for grades K-5 and 9-12 were higher in the proposed rule 

than in the final rule, as they changed from 10 to 9 ounces and 13 to 12 ounces, 

respectively. USDA officials explained that they made the change because they could not 

implement the proposed rule’s limit on starchy vegetables due to a provision in the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–55, 

which prevented USDA from implementing any maximum limits on vegetables. USDA 

officials said that they lowered the maximum weekly ounces of grains to limit the overall 

starchy items served with lunch. Concerning timing, the final rule was issued January 26, 

2012 with implementation required by July 1, 2012, which was the beginning of school 

year 2012-2013.

13 Some industry representatives noted that because of the need to focus on product 

reformulation throughout the school year, they have been unable to direct efforts to new 

product development to provide districts with additional food options that comply with the 

new requirements. 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-708T 

making them somewhat redundant.14 Although this implies that USDA 

may permanently remove the meat and grain maximums, USDA officials 

told us that the Department is still considering options for a long-term 

solution to the meat and grain maximums and has not yet made a 

permanent decision.

None of the eight SFAs we visited made substantial changes to their 

menus in response to USDA’s temporary removal of the weekly meat and 

grain maximums. Reasons that SFAs cited for this decision included: the 

flexibility was temporary, districts had already modified their menus to 

comply with the new requirements, products were already ordered for 

those menus, staff were already trained, and students had been educated 

about the new requirements. Instead, those SFAs that made some 

modifications after the flexibility was allowed focused on marginal 

changes that would ease menu planning and improve student acceptance 

of lunches. For example, in the district in which students reacted strongly 

to the decreased size of the tortilla wrap for sandwiches, the SFA brought 

in a larger wrap, though it was still smaller than the wrap used previously. 

Further, in the district that experienced a student boycott of lunch in part 

because of the change to the sub roll, the sub roll used in prior school 

years returned to the high school lunch menus. In another district that had 

decreased the amount of mini corn dogs they provided to each 

elementary school student because of the maximums, additional mini 

corn dogs were added to each student’s portion.

SFA directors, food manufacturers, and other relevant industry 

representatives indicated the need for a timely and permanent federal 

decision on these maximums. Specifically, some SFA directors we visited 

told us that it is difficult to know how to proceed with menu planning under 

the new requirements when the flexibility provided over the maximums 

continues to be temporary. The School Nutrition Association, which 

represents SFAs across the country, has indicated that it supports the 

 

14 The Institute of Medicine report on which USDA based the new lunch requirements 

states that both the food component and calorie requirements are needed to achieve 

alignment with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is why they recommended 

including both the calorie ranges and the weekly amounts for each food component, 

including meats and grains. However, although the Institute attempted to analyze the 

recommendations with respect to likely benefits and negative consequences, its report 

noted that the evidence on which to base such predictions is limited. As a result, the 

Institute may not have foreseen the operational challenges associated with the meat and 

grain maximums. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-708T 

permanent elimination of the meat and grain maximums, because their 

removal will give cafeterias more flexibility to design healthy menus that 

meet nutrition standards and student tastes. Although the flexibility exists 

for school year 2013-2014, because USDA has given SFAs mixed 

messages regarding the Department’s future plans for the meat and grain 

maximums, SFAs are currently left guessing about the future outcome, 

making planning future budgets and food ordering difficult. Several 

industry representatives said that because some SFAs are planning 

menus that comply with the maximums, while others are planning menus 

that include larger meat and grain portion sizes, industry is experiencing 

difficulties forecasting demand, which leads to food production, inventory, 

and storage challenges. This situation will soon become more 

complicated because of the impending federal changes to the content of 

meals served through the School Breakfast Program and other foods sold 

in schools.

Because the required calorie ranges for grades 6-8 and 9-12 do not 

overlap, schools with students in both these grade groups faced 

challenges complying with the calorie requirements. While the grades K-5 

and 6-8 average daily calorie ranges for school lunches overlap at 550-

650 and 600-700, the grades 6-8 and 9-12 ranges, which are 600-700 

and 750-850, do not.15 This creates a challenge for schools that include 

students from both grade groups, including schools in two of the districts 

we visited. One SFA director, whose district includes schools serving 7th 

through 12th graders, noted that complying with both of the calorie range 

requirements is particularly difficult when students in different grades use 

the same serving lines and share a lunch period. The director noted that 

cashiers at the point-of-sale may not know each student’s grade level, 

which complicates the accurate identification of a meal that complies with 

the requirements. In addition, if certain food items are offered to some 

students and not to others depending on their grade, students may react 

negatively to the differential treatment. Because of these implementation 

issues, this district planned its menus to generally provide 725 calorie 

 

15 The Institute of Medicine report used data-based methods to provide a basis for the 

calculation of appropriate values for mean total daily calorie requirements for students in 

the three grade groups. Specifically, the report indicates that calorie range 

recommendations are based on reference growth chart data for healthy weights and 

heights, objective data on physical activity, and data on how calories are distributed 

among meals and snacks consumed by schoolchildren. 

Calorie Requirements for 

Middle and High Schools 

Also Challenged Some 

SFAs 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-708T 

lunches for all students in these schools, which are not in compliance with 

either of the required ranges, and could potentially result in fiscal action 

against the SFA in the future.16

USDA’s response to this issue, provided in part through the Department’s 

guidance on menu planning under the new lunch requirements, has been 

limited. In the proposed rule on the new lunch requirements, USDA 

indicated that the new requirements are expected to bring about positive 

outcomes, including simplification of school lunch administration and 

operations. However, in comments on the proposed rule, some school 

districts expressed concerns that the lack of overlap in the calorie ranges 

may lead to increased costs and administrative burden. Although USDA 

did not change the ranges in the final rule, in its guidance on the new 

requirements, the Department acknowledges that the lack of overlap in 

the calorie ranges for these grade groups can be challenging. Because of 

this, USDA’s guidance suggests that districts serve a menu appropriate 

for the lower grade level and add a few additional foods for students in 

the upper grade level. This differs from the previous requirements, which 

allowed schools to comply with meal requirements for the predominant 

grade group in schools that included students from two different groups. 

USDA’s guidance also differs to some extent from the approach 

recommended by the Institute of Medicine in its report on which the 

federal requirements are based. The report’s authors suggested that, for 

schools serving students from multiple grade groups on the same serving 

line, the SFA should work with the state agency to find a solution that 

ensures the basic elements of the standards for menu planning will be 

maintained, including moderate calorie values.

While all eight SFAs we visited expressed support for the goal of 

improving the nutritional quality of lunches and felt the new requirements 

were moving in that direction, all eight experienced various challenges 

related to student acceptance of some of the foods served to comply with 

the requirements. Under the new requirements, lunches must include 

 

16 Under USDA regulations, an SFA found to have served meals not in compliance with 

requirements is potentially subject to fiscal action, such as the recovery of federal 

reimbursements for those meals. 

Student Acceptance Has 

Been a Challenge to Some 

Extent 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-708T 

whole grain-rich products and vegetables from 5 sub-groups each week,17

and districts we visited noted that obtaining student acceptance of some 

whole grain-rich products and vegetables in the beans and peas 

(legumes) and red-orange sub-groups have been challenging. For 

example, six districts mentioned student acceptance of whole grain 

breads or pasta as being a challenge. Regarding vegetable sub-groups, 

five districts we visited said that they have had difficulty obtaining student 

acceptance of the beans and peas (legumes) sub-group, and two districts 

expressed difficulty with sweet potatoes, in the red-orange sub-group. 

Some noted that they have continued to try new recipes throughout the 

year to address these challenges, but acceptance has been limited. 

Challenges with student acceptance of these foods were foreseen by the 

Institute of Medicine in its report recommending they be required 

components of school lunch, as national data showed that few students 

reported eating these types of foods. The researchers noted that 

implementation of effective educational, marketing, and food preparation 

strategies, as well as the increased availability of suitable and appetizing 

products, may improve student acceptance of these foods.

Some districts reported that, if the past is an indicator, student 

acceptance of these foods may improve over time, and student 

comments regarding other healthy foods they like suggest this as well. In 

four of the districts we visited, SFA directors noted that they had begun 

adding whole grains into their menus before the current school year, and 

they have seen student acceptance of whole grain products improve over 

time. In addition, one district’s SFA director also noted that acceptance of 

foods in the beans and peas (legumes) sub-group has improved over 

time. When we talked to students in the schools we visited and asked 

them about lunch foods they do not like, these specific foods were 

mentioned by some students in four of the eight districts, but most 

students focused their comments on other vegetables or specific entrees. 

Further, most of the students we talked to indicated that they like to eat 

healthy and nutritious foods, and they think that school lunches generally 

 

17 Regarding the grains component of the lunch, federal regulations require that all grain 

products must be made with enriched and whole grain meal or flour, and whole grain-rich 

products must contain at least 51 percent whole grains. Beginning July 1, 2012, half of the 

grain products offered during the school week must meet the whole grain-rich criteria, and 

beginning July 1, 2014, all grain products must meet these criteria. Regarding the 

vegetables component of the lunch, federal regulations define the minimum weekly 

serving sizes for each of the vegetable sub-groups—dark green vegetables, red-orange 

vegetables, beans and peas (legumes), starchy vegetables, and other vegetables. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-708T 

provide such foods. Although school year 2012-2013 is the first year that 

students were required to take a fruit or a vegetable with school lunch 

nationwide, when we asked students what they like about school lunch 

this year, students in 13 of the 17 schools we visited to observe lunch 

reported liking certain fruit and vegetable options.

Food waste is also an indicator of lack of student acceptance of the new 

lunch requirements. Students may take the food components they are 

required to as part of the school lunch, but they may then choose not to 

consume them. Although none of the districts we visited had fully 

analyzed food waste over the past few years to determine if it changed 

during school year 2012-2013,18 six of the SFAs we visited told us they 

believe food waste has increased because of the new lunch 

requirements. In particular, SFAs said that the fruits and vegetables 

students are now required to take sometimes end up thrown away, and in 

our lunch period observations in 7 of 17 schools, we saw many students 

throw some or all of their fruits and vegetables away. However, at the 

same time, we observed other students take and consume sizable 

quantities of fruits and vegetables and the other lunch components in the 

remaining 10 schools in which we observed lunch, resulting in minimal 

food waste. Four of the SFAs we visited talked about food waste being 

more of an issue with the youngest elementary school students, possibly 

because of the amount of food served with the lunch and the amount of 

time they have to consume it. The Institute of Medicine report 

acknowledged differences in food intake among elementary students, 

noting that the amounts of food offered under the new recommendations 

may be too large for some of the younger elementary school children 

because they are more likely to have lower energy needs than the older 

children in the same grade group. In USDA’s final rule, the Department 

discussed the offer versus serve policy, which has been required for 

senior high schools and optional for all other schools since 1975, as a 

way to minimize food waste. Under the current regulations, this policy 

allows students to decline two of the five meal components offered with 

the lunch, rather than requiring students to be served all five 

components.19 However, the SFA director in one of the districts we visited 

 

18 One of the districts we visited has been working with a university researcher on a plate 

waste study, but a final report has yet to be issued. 

19 However, under the current regulations, students must select at least 1⁄2 cup of the fruit 

or vegetable component with their lunches.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-708T 

noted that the district has chosen not to implement the offer versus serve 

policy for the youngest students because they have difficulty making 

choices, which extends the time spent in the serving line and decreases 

the time students have to consume their lunch.

Student participation in lunch has decreased to some extent in school 

year 2012-2013, which is another indicator that student acceptance of 

school lunches may have declined since the changes. Most of the SFAs 

we visited reported that they experienced decreases in lunch participation 

in school year 2012-2013 in part because of the new lunch requirements 

and other factors.20 USDA’s national data, which do not account for 

adjustments related to changes in monthly serving days or student 

enrollment across years, also generally show that student lunch 

participation was lower in school year 2012-2013 than it was the year 

before. Later this year, when we complete our study of the school lunch 

changes, we plan to provide additional information on lunch participation 

trends.

SFAs also faced concerns in school year 2012-2013 that the new lunch 

requirements were leaving some students hungry—an issue raised in five 

of the districts we visited. For example, in one district, a high school 

principal told us that during school year 2012-2013, athletic coaches 

expressed concerns that student athletes were hungrier after school than 

they were in previous years, and staff reported that more students were 

distracted during the final period of the school day than in previous years. 

In the district we visited in which middle and high school students 

boycotted school lunch at the beginning of the year, the boycott was led 

by two student athletes in part because they indicated that the lunches 

were leaving them hungry. These concerns were likely related to 

decreased entrée sizes. During our visits to schools, students in six 

schools mentioned that they have been hungry this year after eating 

school lunch because of various reasons. For example, students in three 

schools attributed this to the smaller entrees, and students in one of those 

schools also noted that it may be related to the timing of their lunch 

periods, as their school’s first lunch period began around 10:30 a.m. and 

the school day ended at about 2:30 p.m. In another school, students 

 

20 While we obtained some lunch participation data from the districts we visited, we have 

not yet fully analyzed the changes they experienced.

SFAs Faced Other 

Challenges, Including 

Hunger Concerns and 

Increased Costs
 

Page 15 GAO-13-708T 

acknowledged that they had not taken or eaten all of the items offered 

with the lunch, which we observed resulted in a smaller sized lunch. (See 

figure 1.) In contrast, when students served themselves all of the lunch 

components in the districts that we visited, their lunches were 

substantially larger in size, primarily because of the large amounts of 

fruits and vegetables they selected. (See figure 2.)

Figure 1: Three Food Component Lunches

Note: Food components included in the lunches shown are: grain, fruit, and milk in the lunch on the 

left; and grain, fruit, and meat alternate (yogurt) in the lunch on the right.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-708T 

Figure 2: Five Food Component Lunches

 

Note: Food components included in both the lunches shown are grain, meat/meat alternate, fruit, 

vegetable, and milk.

School lunches generally provide fewer calories under the new 

requirements than in past years, likely because of smaller entrée sizes. 

Specifically, the new required lunch calorie maximums for each grade 

group are either lower or comparable to the calorie minimums previously 

required. As a result, school lunches generally provided more calories in 

the past, according to national data, than they are allowed to in school 

year 2012-2013, particularly for younger students.21 Although the 

previous nutrition standards were developed to align school lunches with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, they were developed in the mid 

1990s. Since then, the percentage of children who are overweight and 

obese has increased, and research has shown that excess food 

consumption, poor food choices, and decreased physical activity 

contribute to these trends. The Institute of Medicine’s 2010 

recommendations for the lunch pattern were developed using a data-

 

21 National data from school year 2009-2010 show that the average calorie content of 

school lunch offered was 726 in elementary schools, 785 in middle schools, and 843 in 

high schools; see School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV, 2012. The average daily 

maximum calorie content for lunches under the new federal requirements is: 650 for 

grades K-5, 700 for grades 6-8 and 850 for grades 9-12. 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-708T 

based approach, which assessed data on healthy weights and heights, 

physical activity, and the distribution of calories among meals, and the 

authors indicate that the recommended lunches are appropriate for the

level of physical activity of most children.

SFAs also expressed concerns about the impact of compliance with the 

new lunch requirements on food costs and their budgets. All eight SFAs 

we visited reported that they have incurred increases in fruit and 

vegetable costs this year because of the requirement that students take 

at least one fruit or vegetable with lunch. Further, most indicated that 

overall costs for school lunch were greater in school year 2012-2013 than 

in the past, and three expressed concerns about the impact of these 

changes on their overall financial stability. Because we conducted our 

visits before the end of the school year, we have not yet obtained data 

from these SFAs on how they ended the year financially, though we plan 

to provide information on those results in our final report.

All eight SFAs we visited also discussed other challenges implementing 

the lunch changes during school year 2012-2013, such as additional 

menu planning issues, food procurement, new requirements related to the

price of lunches, the pace of implementation, and USDA’s assistance with 

the changes. When we complete our study of the lunch changes later this 

year, we will provide additional information about implementation 

challenges and USDA’s assistance to states and SFAs with 

implementation.

In addition to the school lunch changes, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids 

Act of 2010 required that USDA specify and require nutrition standards for 

all foods and beverages sold outside the school meals programs on the 

school campus during the school day, which are commonly referred to as 

competitive foods because they compete with school meal programs. 

Competitive foods are often sold through vending machines, school 

stores, and fundraisers, and also include SFA sales of a la carte items in 

the cafeteria. In school year 2009-2010, competitive foods were sold in an 

estimated 93 percent of schools nationwide, according to a recent USDA 

study.22 The proposed rule containing these standards was published by 

 

22 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study IV (2012). 

SFAs Noted Concerns 

about the Proposed 

Competitive Foods 

Changes
 

Page 18 GAO-13-708T 

USDA in February 2013,23 and during our visits to SFAs, many expressed 

concerns that certain aspects of the proposed rule would be challenging 

to implement, if finalized.24

Specifically, seven of the eight SFAs we visited expressed concerns 

about what they viewed as a lack of clarity in the proposed rule regarding 

how the nutrition standards for competitive food sales administered by 

entities other than the SFA will be enforced. In our 2005 report on 

competitive foods,25 we found that many different people made decisions 

about competitive food sales, but no one person commonly had 

responsibility for all sales in a school. At that time, in a majority of schools 

nationwide, district officials made competitive food policies, while SFA 

directors and principals made decisions about specific sales. Other 

groups, such as student clubs and booster groups, also made competitive 

food decisions through their direct involvement in sales. The number and 

variety of groups involved in these sales typically increased as the school 

level increased. For example, an estimated 48 percent of middle schools 

nationwide had three or more groups involved in these sales compared to 

an estimated 83 percent of high schools. Although a 2004 law required 

districts to implement wellness policies in school year 2006-2007 that 

addressed nutritional guidelines for all foods available in schools during 

the school day, some of the SFAs we recently visited told us that these 

policies have generally not been enforced, in part because no one person 

was granted enforcement responsibility over all such sales.26

 

23 National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for 

All Foods Sold In School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, 78 

Fed. Reg. 9530 (proposed Feb. 8, 2013) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. pts. 210 and 220).

24 USDA sought public comments on the proposed rule and will consider these comments 

in finalizing the rule. For purposes of this testimony, we did not review or analyze the 

comments submitted in response to the proposed rulemaking. To view the comments that 

were submitted in response to the proposed rule, visit www.regulations.gov. The 

comments described in this testimony were shared with us by SFAs during our site visits 

and may or may not echo themes that were raised by those officially commenting on the 

proposed rule. 

25 GAO, School Meal Programs: Competitive Foods are Widely Available and Generate 

Substantial Revenues for Schools, GAO-05-563 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 2005).

26 Recognizing this, as part of a broader city campaign on health and wellness, one of the 

districts we visited recently created a separate department responsible for health and 

wellness initiatives, including enforcement of the district’s wellness policy and nutritional 

guidelines for all foods sold in schools.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-708T 

SFAs we visited also expressed concern that the proposed rule’s 

inclusion of differing nutrition standards based on the type of competitive 

foods sale will put the SFA at a competitive disadvantage relative to other 

food sales within a school. For example, five SFA directors expressed 

concerns about the proposed rule’s provision allowing states discretion to 

make decisions about fundraisers that are exempt from the federal 

nutrition standards for competitive foods. Some SFA directors expressed 

concerns that this would potentially result in inconsistent treatment, 

whereby SFAs’ competitive food sales would be required to follow the 

nutrition standards and fundraisers would not. Similarly, some SFAs 

expressed concerns about the proposed rule’s inclusion of different 

standards for beverages sold in food service areas during meal periods—

which are typically sold through SFA a la carte sales—and beverages 

sold outside of meal service areas—such as those through vending 

machines. Specifically, although the proposed rule allows the sale of milk, 

water, and juice through any competitive food venue at any time, the rule 

also allows the sale of other beverages, except for in food service areas 

during meal periods. However, this restriction is somewhat similar to the 

current federal requirements on competitive food sales.27

Across the country, more nutritious school lunches likely were provided to 

students during school year 2012-2013. All eight SFAs we visited 

expressed support for the goal of improving the nutritional quality of 

lunches and felt the new federal requirements were moving in that 

direction. Many students’ positive comments on healthy foods, their views 

that school lunches generally provide such foods, and their consumption 

of sizeable quantities of fruits and vegetables in the majority of schools 

we visited indicate that acceptance of the new lunch requirements will 

improve over time. However, as the first year of implementation of the 

new requirements for the content of school lunches has unfolded, the 

SFAs we visited also faced a variety of challenges.

While some of the challenges SFAs faced this year have been addressed 

and others may become less difficult as time elapses, those caused by 

the required weekly maximum amounts of meats and grains permitted in 

lunches and the lack of overlap in the allowable calorie ranges for grades 

 

27 Currently, federal regulations prohibit the sale of certain competitive foods, known as 

foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV), during meal periods in school cafeterias and 

other food service areas. FMNV, as defined by USDA, include soda, chewing gum, and 

hard candy, for example. 

Conclusions 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-708T 

6-8 and 9-12 likely will not. Because of the meat and grain maximums, 

some districts made menu decisions that are inconsistent with the goal of 

improving children’s diets, as they added desserts and condiments that 

increased the amount of sugar, salt, or fat in lunches in order to comply 

with the required calorie minimums. Acknowledging that the meat and 

grain maximums created challenges for SFAs, USDA lifted them through 

school year 2013-2014 and indicated that the maximums may not be 

needed to accomplish the nutrition goals of the new requirements. 

However, although USDA has acknowledged the need for a permanent 

decision on the maximums, they have yet to provide one, hindering the 

ability of school districts to plan menus, food purchases, budgets, staff 

training, and student education because they do not know whether the 

meat and grain restrictions will be reinstated in the future or not. In 

addition, the requirements that lunches served to students in grades 6-8 

provide different amounts of calories than lunches served to students in 

grades 9-12—even in schools that serve students in both grade groups—

is inconsistent with past practices, expert recommendations, and USDA’s 

intent of simplifying the administration and operations of the school lunch 

program. Most significantly, the inflexibility of these calorie requirements 

substantially hinders certain SFAs’ ability to comply, which may 

potentially result in fiscal action against SFAs in future years. Absent a 

permanent USDA decision to remove the meat and grain maximums and 

increase flexibility for schools that serve meals to students in both the 6-8 

and 9-12 grade groupings, SFAs will continue to face challenges 

implementing the regulations, potentially impeding their efforts to meet 

their key goals—healthier foods in school for healthier students.

To improve SFAs’ ability to design menus that comply with the new lunch 

requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture:

• permanently remove the weekly meat/meat alternate and grain 

maximums for school lunch defined in federal regulations, and

• modify federal regulations or guidance to allow school districts 

flexibility in complying with the defined calorie ranges for schools with 

students in both the grades 6-8 and 9-12 groups.

We provided a draft of this testimony to USDA for review and comment. 

In oral comments, USDA officials indicated that they generally agreed 

with our recommendation regarding meats and grains, and they are 

currently developing an approach for permanently lifting the meat and 

grain maximums. Officials added that while they recognize the need to 

address the challenges posed by lack of overlap in the calorie ranges for 

Recommendations 
 

Page 21 GAO-13-708T 

grades 6-8 and 9-12, it is important to identify a solution to this issue that 

ensures calorie ranges remain appropriately targeted to students based 

on their ages—a point emphasized by the Institute of Medicine. USDA 

officials also said that they have been collecting information on 

implementation of the new lunch requirements throughout the year from 

many school districts and have heard about implementation challenges. 

However, according to USDA officials, official reporting by states 

indicates that a majority of districts have been able to comply with the 

new requirements. USDA also expressed concern that the findings in the 

testimony did not reflect a nationally representative sample of school 

districts. We continue to believe that our site visits to eight school districts 

and our interviews with eight SFA directors from across the country, state 

officials, and industry representatives enabled us to identify some of the 

challenges school districts are facing in implementing the new nutrition 

standards. Our final report will provide additional information and data to 

inform these issues.

Chairman Rokita and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

statement. I would be pleased to respond to questions you may have.

For further questions on this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-

7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this 

statement include Jessica Botsford, Robert Campbell, Rachel Frisk, 

Kathy Larin, Jean McSween, Dan Meyer, and Zachary Sivo.

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131263)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.