6984 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

7 CFR Parts 210, 215, 220, and 226 

[FNS–2020–0038] 

RIN 0584–AE81 

Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional 

Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and 

Sodium 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: USDA is finalizing its 

November 25, 2020, proposed 

rulemaking regarding child nutrition 

meal pattern requirements. This final 

rule will establish transitional standards 

to support the continued provision of 

nutritious school meals as schools 

respond to and recover from the 

pandemic and while USDA engages in 

notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

update the meal pattern standards to 

more comprehensively reflect the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020– 

2025. This final rule will provide 

immediate relief to schools during the 

return to traditional school meal service 

following extended use of COVID–19 

meal pattern flexibilities. This rule 

finalizes the proposed milk provision by 

allowing local operators of the National 

School Lunch Program and School 

Breakfast Program to offer flavored, lowfat milk (1 percent fat) for students in 

grades K through 12 and for sale as a 

competitive beverage. It will also allow 

flavored, low-fat milk in the Special 

Milk Program for Children and in the 

Child and Adult Care Food Program for 

participants ages 6 and older. Beginning 

in SY 2022–2023, this final rule will 

require at least 80 percent of the weekly 

grains in the school lunch and breakfast 

menus to be whole grain-rich. Lastly, 

this final rule will modify the proposed 

sodium standards and establish Sodium 

Target 1 as the sodium limit for school 

lunch and breakfast in SY 2022–2023 as 

proposed, but implement a Sodium 

Interim Target 1A effective for school 

lunch beginning in SY 2023–2024. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This final rule will 

become effective July 1, 2022. 

Comment date: Written comments on 

this final rule should be received on or 

before March 24, 2022, to receive 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition 

Service, USDA, invites interested 

persons to submit written comments on 

the provisions of this final rule. 

Interested persons are also invited to 

comment on considerations for future 

rulemaking related to the school 

nutrition requirements. In the coming 

months, the public will have an 

additional opportunity to comment 

when the Food and Nutrition Service 

publishes a new proposed rule related 

to the school meal pattern requirements. 

Comments related to this final rule may 

be submitted in writing by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Send comments to Tina 

Namian, Chief, School Programs 

Branch, Policy and Program 

Development Division—4th Floor, Food 

and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock 

Place, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone: 

703–305–2590. 

All written comments submitted in 

response to this final rule will be 

included in the record and will be made 

available to the public. Please be 

advised that the substance of the 

comments and the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be subject to public 

disclosure. The Food and Nutrition 

Service will make the written comments 

publicly available on the internet via 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina 

Namian, Chief, School Programs 

Branch, Policy and Program 

Development Division—4th Floor, Food 

and Nutrition Service, 1320 Braddock 

Place, Alexandria, VA 22314; telephone: 

703–305–2590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Abbreviations 

APA—Administrative Procedure Act 

CACFP—Child and Adult Care Food Program 

FDA—U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

FFCRA—Families First Coronavirus 

Response Act 

FNS—Food and Nutrition Service 

HEI—Healthy Eating Index 

ICN—Institute of Child Nutrition 

NSLP—National School Lunch Program 

SBP—School Breakfast Program 

SFA—School Food Authority 

SFSP—Summer Food Service Program 

SMP—Special Milk Program 

SY—School Year 

USDA—United States Department of 

Agriculture 

I. Background 

This final rule establishes transitional 

standards for the Child Nutrition 

Program requirements related to milk, 

whole grains, and sodium to support 

schools after more than two years of 

serving meals under pandemic 

conditions. This final rule will apply as 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) works to strengthen the school 

meal pattern requirements through 

another notice-and-comment 

rulemaking based on a comprehensive 

review of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2020–2025 (Dietary 

Guidelines). As described further below, 

USDA plans to promulgate a new rule 

for long-term meal pattern requirements 

to be effective starting in school year 

(SY) 2024–2025. The standards in this 

final rule are intended to be transitional 

and in effect for only two school years 

(SY 2022–2023 and SY 2023–2024). In 

case of a delay, the standards in this 

rule will remain effective until 

subsequent standards are promulgated. 

Nevertheless, because USDA intends to 

establish new meal pattern requirements 

for SY 2024–2025 and beyond, the 

standards in this rule will be referred to 

as ‘‘transitional.’’ 

This rule finalizes the proposed rule 

Restoration of Milk, Whole Grains, and 

Sodium Flexibilities (85 FR 75241, 

November 25, 2020) with some 

modifications based on review of the 

comments received, circumstances 

caused by the COVID–19 pandemic, and 

current dietary science. Although the 

proposed rule would have implemented 

permanent changes to the school meal 

standards, USDA agrees with public 

comments that making permanent 

changes in response to circumstances 

created by COVID–19 is not a viable 

long-term solution. However, public 

comments also asserted that due to the 

financial and operational impacts of the 

pandemic, it would be unrealistic for 

USDA to expect schools to fully meet 

certain meal standard requirements in 

the immediate term, and supported 

allowing more time for product 

innovation and implementation. As 

noted, following publication of this final 

rule, USDA intends to propose a new 

rulemaking to continue to support 

successful, science-based meal pattern 

requirements based on a comprehensive 

review of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2020–2025 and meaningful 

stakeholder input. USDA will develop 

updated standards through the new 

rulemaking for implementation in SY 

2024–2025 and beyond, based on 

current nutrition science and public 

input on how to build on the success of 

school meals in supporting healthy 

eating and improved dietary outcomes. 

In 2012, the USDA updated the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

and School Breakfast Program (SBP) 

meal requirements, as required by the 

National School Lunch Act in Section 

4(b)(3)(A), 42 U.S.C. 1753(b)(3)(A). 

These new meal requirements were a 

key component of the Healthy, HungerVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:50 Feb 04, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07FER2.SGM 07FER2

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6985 

1Nutrition Standards in the National School 

Lunch and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088, 

January 26, 2012). Available at: https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/ 

2012-1010/nutrition-standards-in-the-nationalschool-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs. 2Sodium reduction timeline and amounts in the 

National School Lunch Program, from final rule 

Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch 

and School Breakfast Programs (77 FR 4088, 

January 26, 2012). 3Liu J, Micha R, Li Y, Mozaffarian D. Trends in 

Food Sources and Diet Quality Among US Children 

and Adults, 2003–2018. JAMA. April 12, 2021. 

Available at: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ 

jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778453?utm_

source=For_The_Media&utm_

medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_

term=040921. 

4For more information about the Healthy Eating 

Index, see How the HEI Is Scored: https://

www.fns.usda.gov/how-hei-scored. 

5School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study findings 

suggest that the updated nutrition standards have 

had a positive and significant influence on the 

nutritional quality of school meals. Between SY 

2009–2010 and SY 2014–2015, ‘‘Healthy Eating 

Index-2010’’ (HEI) scores for NSLP and SBP 

increased significantly, suggesting that the updated 

standards significantly improved the nutritional 

quality of school meals. Over this period, the mean 

HEI score for NSLP lunches increased from 57.9 to 

81.5, and the mean HEI score for SBP breakfasts 

increased from 49.6 to 71.3. The study is available 

at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-andmeal-cost-study. (OMB Control Number 0584–0596, 

expiration date 07/31/2017.) 

6These include Section 743 of the Consolidated 

and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 

(Pub. L. 112– 55); Sections 751 and 752 of the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113–235); 

Section 733 of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114–113); Section 747 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 

115– 31) (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017). 

For a more detailed discussion, please see the 

interim final rule Child Nutrition Programs: 

Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium 

Requirements (82 FR 56703, at 56704, November 

30, 2017). Available at: https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/30/ 

2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilitiesfor-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements. 

7These include SP 20–2015, Requests for 

Exemption from the School Meals’ Whole GrainRich Requirement for School Years 2014–2015 and 

2015–2016; SP 33–2016, Extension Notice: Requests 

for Exemption from the School Meals’ Whole GrainRich Requirement for School Year 2016–2017; and 

SP 32–2017, School Meal Flexibilities for School 

Year 2017–2018. 

8SP 32–2017, May 22, 2017, School Meal 

Flexibilities for School Year 2017–2018. 

Free Kids Act, (Pub. L. 111–296), and 

raised school meal nutrition standards 

for the first time in more than 15 years. 

The updated requirements were largely 

based on recommendations issued by 

the National Academy of Medicine 

(formerly the Institute of Medicine), 

which, in turn, were based on the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines. The implementing 

regulations 1 increased the availability 

of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and 

fat-free and low-fat milk in school 

meals; limited sodium and saturated fat 

and eliminated trans fat in the weekly 

school menu; and established calorie 

ranges intended to meet part of the ageappropriate calorie needs of children. 

Regarding the milk, grains, and 

sodium requirements, the regulations 

implemented in 2012: 

• Allowed flavoring only in fat-free 

milk in the NSLP and SBP; 

• Required that at least half of the 

grains offered in the NSLP be whole 

grain-rich (meaning the grain product 

contains at least 50 percent whole grains 

and the remaining grain content of the 

product must be enriched) in SY 2012– 

2013 and one year later in the SBP; and 

required that effective SY 2014–2015, 

all grains offered in both programs be 

whole grain-rich; and 

• Required schools participating in 

the NSLP and SBP to reduce the sodium 

content of meals offered on average over 

the school week by meeting 

progressively lower sodium targets over 

a 10-year period (Target 1, Target 2, and 

the Final Target).2

Age/grade group 

Target 1 (mg) 

July 1, 2014 

(SY 2014–2015) 

Target 2 (mg) 

July 1, 2017 

(SY 2017–2018) 

Final Target (mg) 

July 1, 2022 

(SY 2022–2023) 

K–5 ............................................................................................................................. <1,230 <935 <640 

6–8 ............................................................................................................................. <1,360 <1,035 <710 

9–12 ........................................................................................................................... <1,420 <1,080 <740 

Before and after the regulations were 

implemented in 2012, USDA offered 

guidance, technical assistance 

resources, and tailored trainings for 

schools in collaboration with the 

Institute of Child Nutrition (ICN) 

(formerly the National Food Service 

Management Institute). Program 

advocates, the food industry, and other 

stakeholders also collaborated with 

USDA in different ways to assist schools 

with implementation. This enabled 

many schools to adopt most of the 

changes to the NSLP and SBP meal 

patterns. USDA acknowledges the 

significant efforts and progress these 

schools have achieved, and is 

committed to further meal pattern 

improvements to address children’s 

nutritional needs. 

Many components of the 2012 

regulations were successfully 

implemented, and had measurable, 

positive impacts, as demonstrated by 

the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores 

associated with school meals and recent 

research showing that U.S. children get 

their healthiest meals of the day at 

school.3 The HEI is a measure of diet 

quality used to assess how well a set of 

foods aligns with key recommendations 

of the Dietary Guidelines, with scores 

ranging from 0 to 100. An ideal overall 

HEI score of 100 reflects that the set of 

foods aligns with key dietary 

recommendations from the Dietary 

Guidelines.4 For example, the school 

lunch average total HEI score increased 

by 24 points (57.9 to 81.5) from SY 

2009–2010 to SY 2014–2015. For school 

breakfast, the average total HEI score 

increased by 21 points (49.6 to 71.3) 

over the same time period.5 Many 

schools had great success in 

implementing the updated nutrition 

standards in a way that encourages 

healthy eating and participation. 

However, full implementation of the 

2012 meal pattern requirements for 

milk, whole grains, and sodium has 

been delayed due to legislative and 

administrative actions. Through 

multiple annual appropriations bills,6

Congress directed USDA to provide 

flexibilities for these specific 

requirements. Mainly in response to this 

congressional direction, USDA issued 

several policy memoranda addressing 

the affected nutritional requirements for 

each specified time period.7 For 

example, as required by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 

(Pub. L. 115–31), USDA issued policy 

guidance providing milk, whole grains, 

and sodium flexibilities for SY 2017– 

2018.8 This guidance allowed State 

agencies to grant exemptions to allow 

flavored, low-fat milk in the NSLP and 

SBP and as a competitive food if schools 

demonstrated hardship by documenting 

a reduction in student milk 

consumption or an increase in school 

milk waste. For whole grains, the 

guidance allowed State agencies to offer 

exemptions to the whole grain-rich 

requirements if SFAs could demonstrate 

hardship in procuring, preparing, or 

serving compliant products that were 

accepted by students. Finally, for 

sodium, the guidance allowed schools 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6986 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

9USDA’s COVID–19 nationwide waivers are 

available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/fns-disasterassistance/fns-responds-covid-19/child-nutritioncovid-19-waivers. 

10On October 1, 2020, the FFCRA was extended 

by the Continuing Appropriations Act 2021 and 

Other Extensions Act (Pub. L. 116–159). 

11See Nationwide Waiver to Allow Specific 

School Meal Pattern Flexibility for School Year 

2021–2022: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/childnutrition-response-90. 

to continue to meet Sodium Target 1 in 

SY 2017–2018. 

USDA’s policy guidance for SY 2017– 

2018 was followed by the interim final 

rule Child Nutrition Programs: 

Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and 

Sodium Requirements (82 FR 56703, 

November 30, 2017), which established 

regulations that extended school meal 

flexibilities through SY 2018–2019 and 

applied the flavored milk flexibility to 

the Special Milk Program for Children 

(SMP) and the Child and Adult Care 

Food Program (CACFP) for participants 

age 6 and older in SY 2018–2019 only. 

As a result, the regulations applicable in 

SY 2018–2019 provided flexibility in 

three specific areas while retaining 

other essential meal requirements from 

the 2012 rule (for example, fruit and 

vegetable quantities, saturated and trans 

fat limits, and calorie ranges) that 

contribute to heathy meals. In brief, for 

SY 2018–2019, the interim final rule: 

• Provided NSLP and SBP operators 

the option to offer flavored, low-fat (1 

percent fat) milk with reimbursable 

meals in grades K through 12 and as a 

beverage for sale during the school day, 

and applied the flexibility in the SMP 

and CACFP for participants age 6 and 

older; 

• Allowed State agencies to continue 

granting school food authority (SFA) 

exemption requests to use specific 

alternative grain products if the SFA 

could demonstrate hardship(s) in 

procuring, preparing, or serving specific 

products that were acceptable to 

students and compliant with the whole 

grain-rich requirement; and 

• Retained Sodium Target 1 in the 

NSLP and SBP. 

USDA issued a final rule in December 

2018 (83 FR 63775, December 12, 2018). 

In general, the 2018 final rule, which 

became effective on July 1, 2019, 

generally codified the flexibilities 

offered in the 2017 interim final rule but 

made some key modifications. The 

optional flexibilities codified in the 

2018 final rule included the following 

targeted changes with the balance of the 

meal pattern remaining intact: 

• Allowing schools in the NSLP and 

SBP to offer flavored, low-fat milk at 

lunch and breakfast for grades K 

through 12 and as a beverage for sale a`

la carte, and requiring that unflavored 

milk (fat-free or low-fat) be available at 

each school meal service, as well as 

allowing flavored, low-fat milk in the 

SMP and CACFP for participants ages 6 

and older, for consistency across the 

Child Nutrition Programs; 

• Requiring that at least half of the 

weekly grains in the NSLP and SBP be 

whole grain-rich and that the remaining 

weekly grains offered be enriched; and 

• Retaining Sodium Target 1 through 

SY 2023–2024, moving Target 2 to SY 

2024–2025, and eliminating the Final 

Target. 

On April 3, 2019, the Center for 

Science in the Public Interest 

challenged the 2018 final rule claiming 

the regulation was unlawful under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

On April 13, 2020, the District of 

Maryland, in Center for Science in the 

Public Interest v. Perdue, 438 F. Supp. 

3d 546 (D. Md. 2020), vacated the rule. 

The court found that while the 

standards finalized by that rule were 

reasonable interpretations of relevant 

statutory language that gave discretion 

to USDA to promulgate standards 

‘‘based on’’ the Dietary Guidelines but 

not necessarily matching the Dietary 

Guidelines, 438 F. Supp. 3d at 562–64, 

the 2018 final rule was not a logical 

outgrowth of the 2017 interim final rule, 

and therefore violated the APA. 

When the 2018 final rule was vacated, 

the meal pattern requirements 

immediately reverted to the 2012 

regulations. USDA published a notice in 

the Federal Register that removed the 

regulatory text that was changed by the 

2018 final rule and replaced it with the 

regulatory text from the 2012 final rule 

(85 FR 74847, November 24, 2020). In 

addition, on November 25, 2020, USDA 

issued a new proposed rule that would 

have codified the operational 

flexibilities included in the 2018 final 

rule (85 FR 75241, November 25, 2020). 

The vacatur of the 2018 rule 

coincided with the COVID–19 

pandemic. Beginning in March 2020, 

using authority provided by the 

Families First Coronavirus Response 

Act (FFCRA) (Pub. L. 116–127), which 

was not at issue in the court ruling, 

USDA published a series of nationwide 

waivers to provide flexibility to a 

variety of program requirements so that 

children continued to have access to 

nutritious meals during the pandemic.9

Along with several other waivers, meal 

pattern waivers provided by USDA 

facilitated the service of grab-and-go 

meals, which helped schools provide a 

safe and socially distanced meal service 

for the remainder of SY 2019–2020. For 

example, under the standard NSLP and 

SBP requirements, meals must meet age/ 

grade group requirements and children 

must have a choice (at least two 

different options) for fluid milk. The 

waivers gave schools flexibility for these 

and other requirements that were more 

difficult to meet when serving prepackaged meals, bulk meals, or to-go 

meals that parents or guardians took 

home to their children. During SY 

2020–2021, using FFCRA authority,10

USDA provided waivers to allow 

schools to operate the Summer Food 

Service Program (SFSP), which operates 

under separate, simpler meal pattern 

requirements, and which was not 

affected by the court ruling. For SY 

2021–2022, USDA focused on 

supporting the safe reopening of schools 

and moving toward meals that meet the 

NSLP and SBP standards. To this end, 

USDA issued a nationwide waiver based 

on the FFCRA authority allowing 

schools to operate the NSLP Seamless 

Summer Option, which follows the 

NSLP and SBP meal patterns, during the 

regular school year. Under another 

nationwide waiver, schools that were 

unable to meet the NSLP and SBP 

standards due to the pandemic could 

request targeted meal pattern waivers 

from their State agency, including those 

providing flexibility for the milk, whole 

grains, and sodium requirements.11

Therefore, the new, independent 

statutory authority that Congress 

provided in response to COVID–19 

authorized significant but temporary 

flexibilities from the 2012 standards for 

milk, whole grains, and sodium. USDA 

recognizes that schools may not be 

prepared to immediately implement the 

2012 meal standards for milk, whole 

grains, and sodium when the current 

COVID–19 meal pattern waiver expires 

on June 30, 2022. With this rule, USDA 

intends to provide a transitional 

approach in these areas while also 

acknowledging that a return to stronger 

nutrition standards is imperative to 

support healthy eating and improved 

dietary outcomes. 

Establishing Strong School Meal 

Nutrition Standards 

Throughout the pandemic, the critical 

role of the school meal programs has 

become increasingly clear. Food 

hardship increased in spring 2020 and 

has remained high during the public 

health emergency. In March 2021, 

households with children were more 

likely to report that their household did 

not get enough to eat (11 percent, 

compared to 7 percent of households 

without children). Black and Latino 

households also experienced 

disproportionate rates of food hardship; 

in March 2021, 16 percent of Black and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6987 

12Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Number 

of Families Struggling to Afford Food Rose Steeply 

in Pandemic and Remains High, Especially Among 

Children and Households of Color, April 27, 2021. 

Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/ 

files/4-27-21fa2.pdf. 

13See School Meals Are More Nutritious After 

Updated Nutrition Standards. Available at: https:// 

fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/SNMCS_infographic2_NutritionalQualityof

School%20Meals.pdf. 

14See Lunches Consumed From School Are the 

Most Nutritious. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/SNMCS_infographic5_SchoolLunchesArethe

MostNutritious.pdf. 

15 Kinderknecht K, Harris C, Jones-Smith J. 

Association of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 

With Dietary Quality Among Children in the US 

National School Lunch Program. JAMA. July 28, 

2020. Available at: https://jamanetwork.com/ 

journals/jama/article-abstract/2768807. 

16Liu J, Micha R, Li Y, Mozaffarian D. Trends in 

Food Sources and Diet Quality Among US Children 

and Adults, 2003–2018. JAMA. April 12, 2021. 

Available at: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ 

jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778453?utm_

source=For_The_Media&utm_

medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_

term=040921. 17 Karen Weber Cullen, Tzu-An Chen, The 

contribution of the USDA school breakfast and 

lunch program meals to student daily dietary 

intake, Preventive Medicine Reports. March 2017. 

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ 

science/article/pii/S2211335516301516. 18According to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, in 2017–2018, the prevalence of 

obesity was 19.3 percent among children and 

adolescents, aged 2–19. Childhood obesity is also 

more common among certain populations. See 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

Childhood Obesity Facts—Prevalence of Childhood 

Obesity in the United States. Available at: https:// 

www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html. 

19Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalizations 

Attributable to Cardiometabolic Conditions in the 

United States: A Comparative Risk Assessment 

Analysis. O’Hearn M, Liu J, Cudhea F, Micha R, 

Mozaffarian D. J Am Heart Assoc. February 2021. 

Available at: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nihresearch-matters/most-covid-19-hospitalizationsdue-four-conditions. 

20 Government Accountability Office, Chronic 

Health Conditions—Federal Strategy Needed to 

Coordinate Diet-Related Efforts. August 17, 2021. 

Available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21- 

593. 

21Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Child Nutrition Facts. Available at: https://

www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/facts.htm. 

22Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

CDC’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community 

Health Program. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ 

chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/ 

reach.htm. 

23Overall, 70 percent of Hispanic and nonHispanic Black students participated in the NSLP 

on the target day, compared with about half of nonHispanic white students. See: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 

Policy Support, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study, Final Report Volume 4: Student 

Participation, Satisfaction, Plate Waste, and Dietary 

Intakes, by Mary Kay Fox, Elizabeth Gearan, 

Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, Katherine Niland, 

Liana Washburn, Nora Paxton, Lauren Olsho, 

Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. Project Officer: 

John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available 

at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/resource-files/SNMCS-Volume4.pdf. (OMB 

Control Number 0584–0596, expiration date 07/31/ 

2017.) 

Latino households reported that their 

household did not get enough to eat 

compared to 6 percent of White 

households.12 Federal nutrition 

programs, including the school meal 

programs, have played a critical role in 

supporting individuals, families, and 

children facing food and nutrition 

insecurity during this challenging time. 

In response to the COVID–19 pandemic, 

it was essential for USDA to provide 

schools with broad flexibility to support 

families in need. It is equally critical 

now to establish the pathway to return 

to strong school nutrition standards 

consistent with current dietary science. 

School meals are one of the most 

powerful tools for ensuring children 

have access to healthy and nutritious 

food, and evidence shows that strong 

school nutrition standards are effective. 

After the 2012 rule went into effect, the 

HEI component scores for fruits jumped 

from 77 percent to 95 percent of the 

maximum score, and the scores for 

vegetables jumped from 75 percent to 82 

percent. The updated standards also 

reduced empty calories, with the HEI 

component score for empty calories 

improving from 73 percent to 96 percent 

of the maximum possible score.13 USDA 

research on implementation of the 2012 

standards also found that students who 

ate school lunches were more likely to 

consume milk, fruits, and vegetables at 

lunch, and less likely to consume 

desserts, snack items, and non-milk 

beverages at lunch, compared to 

students who ate lunches from home or 

other places.14 Another study found 

higher diet quality associated with the 

2012 rule extended to low-income, lowmiddle-income, and middle-highincome students participating in the 

school lunch program.15 Recent 

research shows that U.S. children get 

their healthiest meals of the day at 

school,16 and for many children, the 

meals they receive from school are a 

primary source of food, providing up to 

half their dietary intake every school 

day.17

Improving nutrition is a critical 

element in preventing childhood 

obesity, which puts children at risk for 

poor health,18 and in combatting the 

serious effects of diet-related disease. 

The pandemic has added urgency to the 

already critical issue of nutrition 

insecurity, as diet-related chronic 

diseases including diabetes, 

hypertension, and heart failure made 

people more vulnerable to COVID–19.19

Further, these conditions are costly; 

total spending to treat cardiovascular 

disease, cancer, and diabetes in the 

United States was $383.6 billion in 

2018, which was 18 percent higher than 

in 2009. According to the Government 

Accountability Office, government 

spending accounted for the majority (54 

percent) of spending for treatment of 

cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and 

diabetes in 2018. Total government 

spending for diet-related health 

conditions increased 30 percent from 

2009 through 2018.20 Children facing 

nutrition insecurity are at a higher risk 

for diet-related chronic diseases. By 

contrast, healthy eating can reduce an 

individual’s risk of developing high 

blood pressure, heart disease, type 2 

diabetes, cancer, and other harmful 

conditions.21

Research also shows that chronic 

health conditions can be more common 

or severe for some racial and ethnic 

groups. For example, from 2013 to 2016, 

total age-adjusted diabetes was higher 

among Hispanic (18 percent) and nonHispanic Black (17 percent) adults 

compared to non-Hispanic White (10 

percent) adults. Further, from 2017 to 

2018, American Indian and Alaska 

Native adults had the highest ageadjusted prevalence rates of diagnosed 

diabetes by race/ethnicity.22 While 

many complex factors drive health 

disparities, increasing access to healthy 

foods is an important part of the 

solution. USDA research suggests that 

Black and Hispanic children participate 

in the school meal programs at higher 

rates than White children,23 meaning 

that the school meal nutrition standards 

are an important tool in addressing 

health disparities and supporting racial 

equity. This makes it all the more 

important that USDA, in partnership 

with State agencies, schools, and other 

stakeholders, raises the bar on meal 

quality for children. School nutrition 

professionals have demonstrated their 

commitment to serving our children 

throughout the pandemic, and USDA 

applauds their efforts. As we 

collectively respond to and recover from 

COVID–19, it is important to provide 

children with the most nutritious food 

possible. 

USDA is committed to working with 

its partners at all levels to achieve this 

shared goal. However, as acknowledged 

in the proposed rule, the menu planning 

challenges experienced by some 

schools, which have become 

significantly more difficult during the 

ongoing global pandemic and supply 

chain disruptions, necessitates a balance 

between nutrition science, practical 

application of requirements, and the 

need to ensure that children receive 

school meals they will eat. Accordingly, 

this final rule establishes transitional 

standards that apply only to the milk, 

whole grains, and sodium requirements. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6988 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

24USDA–FNS Listening Session with Nutrition 

Advocacy Groups, June 29, 2021. Available at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FNS-2020- 

0038/document. 

25USDA fully expects to have new standards in 

place for SY 2024–2025 and beyond. However, in 

case of an unanticipated delay, the standards set by 

this rule will remain legally effective until 

subsequent standards are promulgated. 

26Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium in 

School Meals. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/Approaches-ReduceSodium-Volume2.pdf. 

27School Nutrition Association. Back to School 

2021 Report: A Summary of Survey Results. 

Available at: https://schoolnutrition.org/ 

uploadedFiles/News_and_Publications/Press_

Releases/Press_Releases/Back-to-School-Report2021.pdf. 

Further, after considering public 

comments, in this final rule, USDA has 

modified the whole grains and sodium 

provisions to provide measured 

improvements in these areas during this 

transition period, as USDA develops 

longer-term standards that are 

achievable and aligned with the Dietary 

Guidelines. The other components of 

the 2012 regulations will remain in 

place. 

As described in the next section, 

USDA will build on this final rule with 

a new rulemaking that comprehensively 

incorporates the updated Dietary 

Guidelines and nutrition science. The 

Dietary Guidelines provide sciencebased recommendations on what to eat 

and drink to promote health, reduce risk 

of chronic disease, and meet nutrient 

needs. The goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines, 2020–2025 include a 

healthy dietary pattern that consists of 

nutrient-dense forms of foods and 

beverages across all food groups, in 

recommended amounts, and within 

calorie limits. They note the core 

elements that make up a healthy dietary 

pattern include vegetables and fruits of 

all types, grains, dairy, protein foods, 

and oils. The guidelines also 

recommend limiting foods and 

beverages that are higher in added 

sugars, saturated fat, and sodium. 

Stakeholders have emphasized the 

importance of aligning school meal 

nutrition standards with the Dietary 

Guidelines, as well as the importance of 

supporting schools in meeting stronger 

standards.24 USDA is committed to its 

statutory obligation to develop school 

meal nutrition standards that are 

consistent with the goals of the latest 

Dietary Guidelines, and is committed to 

working toward this effort immediately 

following this rule. 

Multi-Stage Approach to Nutrition 

Standards 

USDA’s long-term goal is to establish 

regulations that align school meal 

nutrition standards with the Dietary 

Guidelines, 2020–2025 and support the 

successful provision of appealing and 

nutritious meals to millions of students 

each day. However, in response to the 

proposed rule, USDA received 

comments from a variety of 

stakeholders, including State agencies, 

advocacy and industry groups, and 

school nutrition professionals, noting 

the unprecedented disruptions that 

schools have faced over the last several 

years, particularly due to the COVID–19 

pandemic. For example, public 

comments from two State agencies 

expressed support for a transitional 

approach to the sodium standards, 

noting that it would be challenging for 

schools to move directly to Target 2 

immediately following the pandemicrelated flexibilities. A school nutrition 

professional respondent agreed, arguing 

that requiring schools to comply with 

the 2012 standards following 

administrative flexibilities and COVID– 

19 operations is unreasonable; this 

respondent also hoped that future 

regulations could work towards 

continuing to improve the nutritional 

value of school meals. A respondent 

representing large school districts 

pointed out that due to COVID–19, 

school meal programs are in 

‘‘operational and financial crisis,’’ and 

asserted that it is likely to take years for 

school meal programs to recover and 

achieve program sustainability. In light 

of these comments and experience 

administering the school meal programs 

during the pandemic, USDA recognizes 

that updating the standards to reflect the 

latest dietary recommendations will 

require thoughtfully addressing the 

challenges stakeholders face as a result 

of the public health emergency and the 

subsequent supply chain and meal 

service disruptions, as well as the 

impacts of the multiple delays in 

implementing specific elements of the 

milk, whole grains, and sodium 

standards prior to the pandemic. 

Therefore, USDA is taking a two-stage 

approach to updating the school meal 

nutrition standards. This final rule, 

which will establish transitional 

standards for milk, whole grains, and 

sodium, is the first stage. This final rule 

is intended for two school years only: 

SY 2022–2023 and SY 2023–2024.25

These transitional standards will 

balance the needs of schools as they 

recover from the challenges noted 

above, with measured steps towards 

improving nutritional quality. 

This transitional approach will also 

allow industry additional time to 

reformulate and develop products 

needed to meet stronger standards, 

particularly products lower in sodium 

that students enjoy. As a food industry 

respondent noted, consumer 

acceptability, and specifically 

schoolchildren’s acceptance, is critical 

to sodium reduction efforts. Other food 

industry respondents emphasized the 

need to maintain student acceptance 

when reformulating products, and 

highlighted some specific challenges 

with maintaining palatability and food 

safety when reducing sodium. A June 

2019 USDA study titled Successful 

Approach to Reducing Sodium in 

School Meals, which was referenced in 

the proposed rule and in public 

comments, identified several barriers to 

meeting Sodium Target 2 and the Final 

Sodium Target, including a low-level of 

demand for these products outside of 

the school system, the costs and time 

involved in reformulating existing 

products, limited capacity among 

schools to achieve the targets, and 

challenges with replacing sodium in 

some foods given its functionality.26

More recently, a 2021 survey of school 

nutrition directors found that 62 percent 

of respondents considered product or 

ingredient availability to be a significant 

challenge in working towards meeting 

Sodium Target 2 limits, while another 

33 percent considered product or 

ingredient availability to be a moderate 

challenge. Only 5 percent did not 

consider product or ingredient 

availability to be a challenge in meeting 

Sodium Target 2 limits.27 These 

concerns were also raised in in public 

comments, where some respondents 

noted how the pandemic has 

exacerbated issues with product 

availability. For example, respondents 

were unsure about industry’s ability to 

meet demand for lower sodium 

products, due to supply chain and other 

challenges, and expressed concern 

about how product shortages and cost 

constraints could impact schools. 

In the second stage, USDA intends to 

issue a proposed rule in fall 2022 which 

will address school meal nutrition 

standards for SY 2024–2025 and 

beyond. The new rulemaking will 

advance permanent standards that 

further demonstrate USDA’s 

commitment to nutritious school meals. 

It will thoughtfully consider the areas 

addressed through this final rule and 

ensure that the long-term standards are 

consistent with the goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines, 2020–2025 and nutrition 

science, as required by the National 

School Lunch Act. The new rulemaking 

will incorporate meaningful stakeholder 

input, and will meet the nutritional 

needs of America’s schoolchildren. 

USDA intends for the new rule to be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6989 

finalized in summer 2023, well in 

advance of procurement cycles for SY 

2024–2025. USDA invites comments on 

the milk, whole grain, and sodium 

standards discussed in this final rule. 

USDA also welcomes comments on all 

other aspects of the meal pattern; these 

comments will help inform USDA’s 

work to permanently update the school 

meal nutrition standards through the 

new rulemaking. USDA encourages the 

public to provide comments with the 

recommendations of the Dietary 

Guidelines in mind. As noted, the 

public will also submit comments on 

the proposed rule USDA intends to 

publish in fall 2022. 

II. 2020 Proposed Rule Comment 

Summary 

This final rule follows the proposed 

rule Restoration of Milk, Whole Grains, 

and Sodium Flexibilities (85 FR 75241, 

November 25, 2020). As noted, this final 

rule is an important step in USDA’s 

longer-term effort to update the school 

nutrition requirements. With this final 

rule, USDA is making meaningful, 

achievable improvements in the 

nutritional quality of school meals for 

the short-term. Following this rule, 

USDA will engage in a longer-term 

effort to further strengthen the school 

meal pattern regulations, consistent 

with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines 

and nutrition science. 

USDA appreciates public interest in 

the proposed rule. During the 30-day 

comment period (November 25, 2020– 

December 28, 2020), USDA received a 

total of 7,493 comments, including 3 

non-germane or duplicate comments. Of 

the total, 7,041 comments were form 

letter copies from five form letter 

campaigns. USDA received 449 unique 

submissions, including 101 unique 

submissions that provided substantive 

comments on issues specific to the rule, 

including the milk, whole grain, and 

sodium standards. 

Approximately 2,500 of the comments 

addressed the length of the comment 

period and requested an extension of 

the 30-day public comment period. The 

comment period was not extended; 

however, USDA carefully considered 

the comments received on the proposed 

rule, the Dietary Guidelines, 2020–2025, 

and current challenges stemming from 

the pandemic. Further, as explained, 

this rule implements transitional 

standards; USDA will build upon this 

rule by issuing another notice-andcomment rulemaking to address 

standards for SY 2024–2025 and 

beyond. 

Several respondents noted the impact 

of COVID–19 on the school meal 

programs. One respondent stated that 

the COVID–19 pandemic resulted in 

budget readjustments, food and supply 

shortages, and staffing emergencies for 

school meal programs. A State agency 

emphasized that schools may need 

additional time to transition back to 

providing meals that meet the 2012 

standards, and noted that it seemed 

appropriate to temporarily extend the 

implementation of certain requirements, 

like sodium reductions, given the public 

health emergency. Several other 

respondents argued that USDA should 

not use the pandemic to make 

permanent changes to nutrition 

standards. Instead, they argued that 

USDA should issue temporary waivers, 

as needed, to respond to pandemicrelated challenges. 

In addition to specific comments 

about the milk, whole grains, and 

sodium standards, which are outlined 

within the section-by-section analysis of 

this preamble, respondents provided 

general feedback on the proposed rule. 

Proponents argued that the proposed 

rule would provide more menu 

planning options for schools, enhancing 

their ability to offer healthy and 

appealing meals. They stated the 

proposed changes would lead to 

increased meal consumption and better 

health outcomes for children. 

Proponents argued that the changes 

represent a permanent solution to 

operational challenges, rather than 

temporary rules and annual waivers. 

Some proponents stated that the 

proposed changes would provide a more 

readily available supply of food 

products. A professional association 

asserted that the changes would 

preserve important nutrition guidelines, 

including limits on calories and fat. 

Several proponents stated that the 

proposed changes would not prevent 

school districts from having stricter 

nutrition guidelines, would not remove 

fruit and vegetable requirements, and 

still would encourage whole grains and 

lower sodium. 

Opponents argued that the proposed 

changes are not needed because most 

schools are in compliance with the meal 

pattern requirements, and that the 

changes could restrain schools’ progress 

in increasing whole grain consumption 

and reducing sodium intake. They 

argued that students eventually become 

accustomed to whole grain foods and 

foods with less sodium. Several 

opponents stated that the proposed 

changes are not in the best interest of 

children’s health; citing the 2019 School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, they 

suggested that nutritious school meals 

lead to improved health outcomes. 

Other opponents asserted that healthy 

school meals improve academic 

performance. Many opponents cited 

USDA research that found that the 2012 

rule did not result in increased food 

waste. Some opponents stated that 

school meals should have high nutrition 

standards because they can be a source 

of more than 50 percent of a child’s 

daily caloric intake. Multiple opponents 

suggested that the proposed rule would 

widen disparities in access to healthy 

meals for children of color, who are 

disproportionately impacted by food 

insecurity and diet-related chronic 

conditions, such as diabetes and 

hypertension. Several opponents argued 

that the 2012 meal pattern requirements 

promote child nutrition, are reasonable 

and supported by the science, and are 

effective at improving the nutritional 

quality of school meals. Many 

opponents stressed the importance of 

helping children develop positive 

dietary habits for life. 

The following table shows tallies of 

the general comments received in 

support of and against the proposed 

changes. Tables outlining specific 

comments regarding the milk, whole 

grains, and sodium standards are 

included in the section-by-section 

analysis. 

GENERAL FEEDBACK ON PROPOSED MILK, WHOLE GRAIN-RICH, AND SODIUM STANDARDS

Themes 

Count of total 

comments 

received 

(including 

form letters) 

Percent of 

all comments 

received 

(7,493) 

Count of 

unique 

comments 

received 

Percent of 

all unique 

comments 

received 

(449) 

General Support 

Positive health impacts for children ............................................................... 36 0.5 36 8.0 

Increase meal consumption and decrease food waste ................................. 128 1.7 124 27.6 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6990 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

28See footnote 41 of Restoration of Milk, Whole 

Grains, and Sodium Flexibilities, November 25, 

2020. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2020/11/25/2020-25761/restoration-ofmilk-whole-grains-and-sodiumflexibilities#footnote-41-p75252. See also: ‘‘All 

Grains are Whole Grain Rich: Percentage Meeting 

Requirement and Percentage Below Requirement’’ 

in Tables C.14 and E.14 of School Nutrition and 

Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 2: 

Nutritional Characteristics of School Meals by 

Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, Katherine Niland, 

Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, Patricia Connor, 

Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. Project Officer: 

John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available 

at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/resource-files/SNMCS-Volume2.pdf. (OMB 

Control Number 0584–0596, expiration date 07/31/ 

2017.) 

29See: ‘‘All Grains are Whole Grain Rich: 

Percentage Meeting Requirement’’ in Table C.14 of 

School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/ 

sites/default/files/resource-files/SNMCSVolume2.pdf. (OMB Control Number 0584–0596, 

expiration date 07/31/2017.) Note: In SY 2014– 

2015, all grains were supposed to be whole grainrich. However, State agencies had the option of 

granting exemptions to this requirement if an SFA 

demonstrated hardship in procuring compliant 

whole grain-rich products that were acceptable to 

students. 

30See: ‘‘Sodium: Percentage Meeting 

Requirement’’ in Tables C.14 and C.16 of School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

GENERAL FEEDBACK ON PROPOSED MILK, WHOLE GRAIN-RICH, AND SODIUM STANDARDS—Continued 

Themes 

Count of total 

comments 

received 

(including 

form letters) 

Percent of 

all comments 

received 

(7,493) 

Count of 

unique 

comments 

received 

Percent of 

all unique 

comments 

received 

(449) 

Relieve industry of meal pattern compliance challenges (such as product 

development) .............................................................................................. 15 0.2 15 3.3 

Reduce compliance burden for Program operators ...................................... 42 0.6 42 9.1 

Other general support .................................................................................... 31 0.4 31 6.9 

General Opposition 

Negative health impacts for children ............................................................. 2,553 34.1 85 18.9 

Negative impacts on children’s ability to access healthy meals ................... 4,609 61.5 53 11.8 

Changes are not needed (such as widespread compliance with existing 

standards) .................................................................................................. 21 0.3 21 4.7 

Inconsistent with Dietary Guidelines ............................................................. 2,506 33.4 38 8.5 

Other general opposition ............................................................................... 16 0.2 16 3.6 

USDA worked in collaboration with a 

data analysis company to code and 

analyze the public comments using a 

commercial web-based software product 

and obtained data showing support for 

or opposition to each proposed change. 

The Summary of Public Comments 

report is available under the Supporting 

Documentation tab in docket FNS– 

2020–0038. All comments are posted 

online at www.regulations.gov. See 

docket FNS–2020–0038, Restoration of 

Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium 

Flexibilities. 

III. Transitional Standards 

USDA recognizes the importance of 

promoting strong nutrition standards, 

while also providing necessary support 

to schools as they respond to and 

recover from the public health and 

economic crisis. The challenges created 

by COVID–19 and supply chain 

constraints, raised by public comments, 

require a near-term response from 

USDA, which is achieved through this 

final rule. Although the proposed rule 

would have implemented permanent 

changes to the school meal standards, 

USDA agrees that making permanent 

changes in response to temporary 

circumstances created by COVID–19 is 

not a viable long-term solution. 

Following publication of this rule, 

USDA intends to work towards even 

stronger nutritional standards for 

reasons described further below, namely 

more positive health outcomes for 

children. Therefore, USDA will engage 

in another full notice-and-comment 

rulemaking in the near future which 

will consider, among other things, the 

current Dietary Guidelines. However, 

until such rulemaking is accomplished, 

schools need transitional standards that 

improve the nutritional content of 

school meals in an achievable manner 

for the short-term. 

USDA appreciates comments on the 

proposed rule that emphasized the 

importance of strong nutrition standards 

and the value of the 2012 requirements. 

USDA agrees that improving the school 

meal pattern standards is critical for 

ensuring nutrition security, which 

considers not only food access, but 

specifically, access to nutritious food 

that promotes health and wellbeing. As 

noted in the proposed rule, many 

schools have made significant progress 

towards achieving the 2012 standards; 

for example, the proposed rule noted 

that 70 percent of the weekly menus 

offered at least 80 percent of the grain 

items as whole grain-rich.28 However, 

USDA also must consider comments 

emphasizing the widespread and 

ongoing impact of COVID–19 on 

schools. 

The pandemic has impacted the entire 

Nation, and schools faced challenges 

adjusting to widespread closures, online 

and hybrid learning, and supply chain 

issues that affected the school meal 

service and the broader school 

environment. In public comments, 

respondents noted that the challenges 

facing schools are ongoing, and some 

schools are not prepared to fully meet 

the milk, whole grains, and sodium 

requirements from the 2012 rule. While 

USDA does not have current 

comprehensive data on schools that 

would not be prepared to fully meet 

these three standards in the absence of 

this final rule, USDA does have data on 

schools that faced challenges with 

initial implementation of the milk, 

whole grains, and sodium standards 

after the 2012 rule took effect. 

According to a study conducted in SY 

2014–2015, the most recent USDA data 

available, only 27 percent of NSLP 

menus were offering 100 percent of 

grains as whole grain-rich.29 The same 

study found that about 72 percent of 

weekly lunch menus met the Sodium 

Target 1 requirement; however, this 

varied by type of school. For example, 

about 56 percent of weekly lunch menus 

in rural schools met Sodium Target 1, 

compared to 84 percent of urban 

schools.30 Since then, there have been 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6991 

2019. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/ 

sites/default/files/resource-files/SNMCSVolume2.pdf. (OMB Control Number 0584–0596, 

expiration date 07/31/2017.) 

31A 2021 survey of school nutrition directors 

found that about 46 percent of survey respondents 

had reduced staffing, through reduction in hours, 

layoffs, or deferred hiring, since March 2020. 

School Nutrition Association. Back to School 2021 

Report: A Summary of Survey Results. Available at: 

https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/News_

and_Publications/Press_Releases/Press_Releases/ 

Back-to-School-Report-2021.pdf. 

32U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/CNOPS-II-SY2016-17.pdf. 

33USDA issued a series of nationwide waivers to 

allow non-congregate meal service, flexible meal 

times, parent or guardian meal pick-up, and other 

flexibilities. These waivers are available at: https:// 

www.fns.usda.gov/fns-disaster-assistance/fnsresponds-covid-19/child-nutrition-covid-19-waivers. 

34Congress instructed the Secretary to provide 

State agencies this flexibility through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 

115–31). Schools were required to demonstrate 

hardship by documenting a reduction in student 

milk consumption or increase in milk waste. 

several years of Congressional and 

administrative interventions, followed 

by two years of meal pattern waivers 

authorized by Congress in response to 

the public health emergency. As a result 

of these interventions, the 2012 whole 

grain-rich requirement and Sodium 

Target 2 have never been fully 

implemented; many operators would 

need to significantly adapt to return 

fully to the 2012 nutrition standards. 

Moreover, the 2012 milk requirements 

have not been fully implemented in 

more than five years. After careful 

consideration of the proposed rule and 

public comments, USDA believes that it 

is prudent to provide transitional 

standards in the near-term while further 

revisions to the meal pattern are 

considered and established through a 

new notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

To ensure children were safely fed 

during the pandemic, schools served 

meals in ways they never had before, 

such as providing curbside meal service 

and delivering meals to children’s 

homes. As noted in many comments, 

the pandemic has caused huge 

disruptions to the meal service, and 

school nutrition programs are stretched 

thin financially and limited in staff; 

respondents argued that children and 

staff both will need time to return to 

standard operations. They also noted 

that the pandemic has created 

temporary challenges, making it 

difficult for manufacturers and 

distributors to meet the demand for 

specific products, such as individually 

wrapped foods that many schools have 

relied on to provide a safe meal service 

during COVID–19. Vendors have 

unexpectedly canceled contracts 

because they could not fulfill product 

orders, or products have been redirected to other food service sectors. 

Schools have reported difficulty 

obtaining responses to food bid 

solicitations and have experienced 

unpredictable pricing, inadequate 

substitutions, and food outages. While 

USDA expects that these challenges will 

ultimately be transitory, USDA agrees 

that the school marketplace will require 

time to recover. 

Schools have also reported staff 

shortages and hiring challenges,31

which have made it more difficult to 

safely prepare and serve meals that are 

compliant with certain meal pattern 

requirements. For example, staffing 

issues may make it harder to do scratch 

cooking. Altering recipes (59 percent) 

and increasing scratch cooking (28 

percent) were two practices that SFAs 

planned to implement to meet sodium 

requirements, according to a USDA 

survey published in June 2021. Many 

SFAs (44 percent) also reported altering 

recipes as a practice to meet the whole 

grain-rich standard.32 Current staffing 

and hiring issues may make it difficult 

to implement these strategies to meet 

meal pattern requirements in the nearterm. 

Throughout the pandemic, USDA’s 

priorities shifted to focusing on 

ensuring children continued to be fed 

while schools were closed and 

modifying the programs to be 

responsive to changing school 

environments, such as social distancing 

needs, staffing shortages, and supply 

chain disruptions, when schools 

reopened. This has primarily been 

accomplished through a series of 

nationwide waivers. The latest set of 

nationwide waivers, which includes the 

targeted school meal pattern waiver for 

SY 2021–2022, will expire on June 30, 

2022.33

Finalizing these transitional standards 

is also critical because according to 

public comments received, if the 2012 

rule requirements apply beginning in 

SY 2022–2023, USDA has heard that the 

milk, whole grain, and sodium 

requirements would be extraordinarily 

difficult for all schools to implement 

successfully. As noted, previous 

implementation of these requirements 

was halted for years prior to the 

pandemic, and particularly in the case 

of sodium, go well beyond what is 

achievable given the current range of 

products available in the marketplace. 

In addition, in the near-term, schools 

are facing difficulties in procuring food 

and supplies due to manufacturer 

changes, canceled vendor or distributor 

contracts, product unavailability, 

unexpected and lower quality product 

substitutions, increased product pricing, 

and supply chain disruptions; it is not 

clear how long it will take to fully 

recover from these disruptions. This 

final rule balances the need to allow 

adequate time to recover from these 

disruptions and prior implementation 

challenges, with the need to begin 

transitioning to stronger nutrition 

standards. This transitional standards 

approach will provide schools with the 

ability to make menu adjustments, 

procurement revisions, and personnel 

training necessary to transition back to 

traditional meal service after COVID–19 

operations. 

Therefore, after thoughtful 

deliberation of the current 

circumstances, review of comments 

received in response to the proposed 

rule as well as during stakeholder 

meetings, and consideration of the 

current Dietary Guidelines, USDA 

believes that school nutrition operators 

need the transitional standards outlined 

in this rule in the near-term, as the 

Department works diligently to further 

strengthen the school meal pattern 

requirements. The following sections 

explain the transitional standards made 

available through this final rule, which 

are effective until long-term standards 

are promulgated. 

A. Milk Standards 

As established by the 2012 final rule, 

current regulations at 7 CFR 

210.10(d)(1)(i) and 220.8(d) permit only 

fat-free milk to be flavored in the NSLP 

and SBP; low-fat milk (1 percent fat) 

must be unflavored. However, for SY 

2017–2018, Congress directed USDA to 

allow State agencies to grant exemptions 

allowing flavored, low-fat milk through 

the NSLP and SBP and as a competitive 

food available for sale, provided that 

schools demonstrated hardship.34 For 

SY 2018–2019 and SY 2019–2020, the 

2017 interim final rule and 2018 final 

rule allowed NSLP, SMP, SBP, and 

CACFP operators the option to serve 

flavored, low-fat milk as part of the 

reimbursable meal, and for schools, as a 

competitive beverage for sale on campus 

during the school day. Moreover, during 

the pandemic, USDA permitted schools 

to operate SFSP at the end of SY 2019– 

2020 and in SY 2020–2021; the SFSP 

does not include any limitations on 

milkfat or flavoring. For SY 2021–2022, 

USDA provided nationwide meal 

pattern waivers, which allowed SFAs to 

request targeted and justified waivers to 

serve flavored, low-fat milk. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6992 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Additionally, Congress has directed 

USDA that it cannot restrict the offering 

of flavored, low-fat milk through 

Section 747 of Division A of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 

(Pub. L. 115–31), and Section 789 of 

Division A of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116– 

260). 

2020 Proposed Rule and Public 

Comments 

In the 2020 proposed rule, USDA 

proposed to continue to allow schools 

the option to offer flavored, low-fat milk 

in reimbursable school meals. As 

described previously, this option has 

been available to schools in some form 

since SY 2017–2018. The proposed rule 

would have maintained the requirement 

that unflavored milk be offered at each 

meal service. For consistency, the 

flavored, low-fat milk option would 

have been extended to competitive 

beverages for sale on campus during the 

school day and would apply in the SMP 

and CACFP for participants ages 6 and 

older. USDA also proposed a technical 

correction to clarify in CACFP 

regulations that lactose-free and 

reduced-lactose fluid milk meet the 

CACFP meal pattern requirements for 

fluid milk. In response to the 2020 

proposed rule, USDA received 4,685 

comments regarding the milk standard. 

The following table shows tallies of the 

total and unique comments received in 

response to the proposed milk standard: 

2020 PROPOSED MILK STANDARD

Respondent position 

Total milk 

comments 

(including 

form letters) 

Percent of 

total milk 

comments 

Unique milk 

comments 

Percent of 

unique milk 

comments 

Support .......................................................................................................... 91 2 91 69 

Mixed ............................................................................................................. 8 <1 8 6 

Oppose .......................................................................................................... 4,585 97 33 25 

Total ........................................................................................................ 4,684 100 132 100 

Comments in Support 

A total of 91 comments supported the 

proposed milk standard. Proponents 

generally expressed concern related to 

the decline in children’s milk 

consumption. They argued that allowing 

flavored, low-fat milk would provide 

schools more menu planning options, 

promote milk consumption, and lead to 

better health outcomes. State agency 

proponents argued that allowing 

additional variety in student milk 

choices may increase overall milk 

consumption. Proponents stated that 

increased milk consumption could 

result in greater intake of essential 

nutrients, such as vitamins A and D, 

magnesium, potassium, and calcium. A 

national nutrition advocacy group noted 

that flavored milk is an effective tool in 

encouraging milk consumption by 

school-aged children, and that schoolaged children who drink flavored milk 

do not consume more added sugars, fat, 

or calories compared to non-milk 

drinkers. Proponents also stated that the 

minor increase in calories from flavored, 

low-fat milk could be offset with 

appropriate menu planning. They noted 

that the net increase in calories between 

fat-free and low-fat, flavored milk is 

small, due to progress made by dairy 

processors in reducing the calories in 

flavored milk. A national industry group 

noted that because flavored, low-fat 

milk is less likely to be wasted, more 

milk and more essential nutrients are 

consumed when flavored, low-fat milk 

is offered. 

A national industry group also 

expressed support for the proposed 

change to clarify that lactose-free and 

reduced-lactose milk is an acceptable 

option in the CACFP. They noted that 

milk with lower lactose provides the 

same important nutrients as 

conventional milk and is an important 

offering for individuals with lactose 

intolerance. Lactose-free and reducedlactose milk are also supported by the 

Dietary Guidelines. 

Comments in Opposition 

A total of 4,585 comments opposed 

the proposed milk standard. Opponents 

argued that allowing flavored, low-fat 

milk contradicts scientific literature 

regarding the known relationships 

between diet quality, overweight and 

obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, 

dental caries, and other negative health 

outcomes. One opponent cited a recent 

study that stated, ‘‘Excess added sugars, 

particularly in the form of sugar 

sweetened beverages, is a leading cause 

of tooth decay in U.S. children.’’ 

Opponents also argued that the added 

calories from low-fat chocolate milk 

could increase the already alarming 

childhood obesity rates, and that 

research indicates there is very little 

room in the diet for calories from added 

sugars, providing additional reason not 

to allow flavored, low-fat milk. One 

opponent urged USDA to require 

schools to offer unflavored milk in the 

NSLP afterschool snack service, SMP, 

and CACFP. Some opponents stated that 

the proposed change is inconsistent 

with the Dietary Guidelines. 

A State agency asserted that the 

proposed milk standard is not needed 

due to widespread acceptance of fat-free 

flavored milk and noted that with high 

levels of student acceptance for fat-free 

flavored milk, this change is unlikely to 

impact participation. Another opponent 

noted that virtually all SFAs have 

employed strategies to encourage milk 

consumption and encouraged USDA to 

address any remaining challenges 

through training and technical 

assistance instead of the proposed 

change. 

Mixed Response 

Eight respondents expressed 

conditional support or opposition or 

offered suggestions for improving the 

proposed milk standard. For example, 

an individual respondent advised USDA 

to establish limits for sugar in flavored 

milk. Similarly, a healthcare 

professional noted that sweetened 

beverages and added sugars are areas of 

concern for child nutrition and 

recommended that USDA adopt 

nutrition standards consistent with 

those findings. Several opponents 

recommended that if USDA allows 

flavored, low-fat milk, a calorie limit of 

no more than 130 calories per 8 ounce 

serving should be established, 

consistent with the Robert Wood 

Johnson’s Healthy Eating Research 

Healthier Beverage Guidelines. A 

number of respondents also suggested 

that USDA allow whole milk for health 

reasons. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6993 

35The Office of Management and Budget’s 

implementing memorandum, M–11–10, for 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’,’’ 

discusses the importance of consistency for 

regulatory requirements. February 2, 2011. 

Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2011/m11- 

10.pdf. 

36U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. 2020– 

2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 9th Edition. 

December 2020. Available at: https://

www.dietaryguidelines.gov/. 

37Cohen JFW, Richardson S, Rimm EB. Impact of 

the Updated USDA School Meal Standards, ChefEnhanced Meals, and the Removal of Flavored Milk 

on School Meal Selection and Consumption. J Acad 

Nutr Diet. May 29, 2019 May 29. Available at: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31153957/. 

38Fayet-Moore F. (2016). Effect of flavored milk 

vs plain milk on total milk intake and nutrient 

provision in children. Nutrition Reviews; 74(1). 

Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ 

nutritionreviews/article/74/1/1/1905542. 

39Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools: 

Leading the Way Toward Healthier Youth (‘‘IOM 

Report’’), Institute of Medicine, page 58. Available 

at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/ 

Reports/2007/Nutrition-Standards-for-Foods-inSchools-Leading-the-Way-toward-HealthierYouth.aspx. See also: Mary M. Murphy et al., 

Drinking Flavored or Plain Milk is Positively 

Associated with Nutrient Intake and Is Not 

Associated with Adverse Effects on Weight Status 

in U.S. Children and Adolescents. 

40A USDA study found that the mean percentage 

of wasted milk was highest for unflavored, fat-free 

and low-fat milks, and lowest for flavored, fat-free 

and low-fat milk. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/SNMCS-Volume4.pdf. (OMB Control Number 

0584–0596, expiration date 07/31/2017.) 

41Please note, while operators of NSLP 

afterschool snack, SMP, and CACFP are not 

required to offer a variety of fluid milk to all 

participants, operators of the Child Nutrition 

Programs are required to provide meal 

modifications to ensure that participants with 

disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate 

in and benefit from the programs. This would 

include providing participants with a substitute for 

milk, as needed, due to a disability. See: 

Accommodating Disabilities in the School Meal 

Programs: Guidance and Q&As, https://

www.fns.usda.gov/cn/accommodating-disabilitiesschool-meal-programs-guidance-qas and 

Modifications to Accommodate Disabilities in 

CACFP and SFSP, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/ 

modifications-accommodate-disabilities-cacfp-andsfsp. 

42According to the National Institute of Diabetes 

and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in the United 

States, African Americans, American Indians, Asian 

Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos are more likely 

to have the symptoms of lactose intolerance. 

Lactose intolerance is least common among people 

who are from, or whose families are from, Europe. 

Definition & Facts for Lactose Intolerance. Available 

at: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/ 

digestive-diseases/lactose-intolerance/definitionfacts. 

Transitional Standard and 

Considerations for Future Rulemaking 

This final rule will provide NSLP and 

SBP operators with the transitional 

option to offer flavored, low-fat (1 

percent fat) milk in reimbursable school 

meals and require that unflavored milk 

be offered at each meal service. For 

consistency, the flavored, low-fat milk 

option will be extended to competitive 

beverages for sale on the school campus 

during the school day and will also 

apply in the SMP and CACFP for 

participants ages 6 and older. USDA 

recognizes that regulatory consistency 

across programs, a long-time goal at 

USDA, facilitates program 

administration and operation at the 

State and local levels, fosters support, 

and meets stakeholder expectations.35

The final rule’s adoption of the 

proposed milk standards balances 

various factors, including the lack of full 

implementation of the 2012 rule milk 

standards in recent years and the 

current Dietary Guidelines. Section 

9(f)(1) of the National School Lunch 

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1758(f)(1), 

requires that school meals are consistent 

with the goals of the latest Dietary 

Guidelines.36 Milk is a popular item 

among children and is an important 

source of calcium, vitamin D, and 

potassium—nutrients under consumed 

by the U.S. population.37 Flavored milk 

has received high palatability ratings 

from children 38 and has been shown to 

encourage milk consumption among 

school-aged children.39 Studies indicate 

that children drink more flavored milk 

than unflavored milk, and that flavored 

milk served in the school meal programs 

is wasted less than unflavored milk.40

USDA appreciates concerns raised by 

comments regarding flavored milk, and 

as detailed below, will consider them in 

greater detail in the subsequent 

rulemaking. While USDA appreciates 

comments on whole milk, allowing 

whole milk in the school meal programs 

would not align with recommendations 

in the Dietary Guidelines, 2020–2025. 

USDA is committed to ensuring that 

school meals provide children with 

nutrient-dense foods that are consistent 

with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines. 

Flavored milks (both fat-free and lowfat) contain added sugars, and USDA 

will consider their contribution to the 

overall amount of added sugars in 

school meals as it develops subsequent 

meal pattern regulations to follow this 

final rule. The Dietary Guidelines, 2020– 

2025 recommend that intake of 

beverages high in added sugars be 

limited, and that added sugars consist of 

no more than 10 percent of total calories 

per day for children aged 2 years and 

older. Although there are currently no 

added sugars limits in the school meal 

programs, because the NSLP and SBP 

calorie limits apply to the meals offered 

on average over the school week, SFAs 

that choose to offer flavored, low-fat 

milk will need to plan menus carefully 

to ensure that they stay within the 

required calorie limits. SFAs should 

consult with their State agency as 

necessary to make proper menu 

adjustments. 

Consistent with the proposed rule, 

this final rule also requires that NSLP 

and SBP operators that choose to offer 

flavored milk must also offer unflavored 

milk (fat-free or low-fat) at the same 

meal service. This requirement ensures 

that milk variety in the NSLP and SBP 

is not limited to flavored milk choices, 

and that the most nutrient-dense form of 

milk is always available. USDA 

recognizes the importance of having 

unflavored milk as a choice for students 

at each lunch and breakfast service. The 

requirement to ensure that unflavored 

milk is available on the school menu 

will not apply in the NSLP afterschool 

snack service, the SMP, or the CACFP, 

consistent with existing requirements; 

these programs do not have a 

requirement to offer a variety of fluid 

milk as they are smaller in size and 

resources than the school lunch and 

breakfast programs.41

It is important to note that offering 

flavored milk (low-fat and/or fat-free) is 

an option, not a requirement, and 

operators may choose not to offer 

flavored milk. For example, the local 

school wellness policy provides 

students, parents and guardians, and 

interested community members the 

opportunity to influence the school 

nutrition environment at large (see 7 

CFR 210.31). Some individual schools 

and school districts have opted to 

remove all flavored milk from school 

meal menus via local wellness policies 

to reduce students’ added sugars 

consumption. Schools may also 

consider placing unflavored milk in 

visible locations in the school cafeteria 

to encourage children to select it instead 

of flavored milk. 

This final rule also makes a technical 

correction in SMP and CACFP 

regulations to clarify that lactose-free 

and reduced-lactose fluid milk meet the 

SMP and CACFP requirements for fluid 

milk; no written request or statement is 

required for a school, institution, or 

facility to offer lactose-free or reducedlactose fluid milk. This language aligns 

with other Program regulations, which 

state that lactose-free and reducedlactose fluid milk may be served to meet 

the fluid milk requirement (see 7 CFR 

210.10(d)(1)(i) (NSLP) and 220.8(d) 

(SBP)). Allowing lactose-free milk is 

consistent with the Dietary Guidelines. 

It also helps to increase access to the 

nutritional benefits of milk among 

populations that are more likely to 

experience lactose intolerance.42 This 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6994 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

43U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/CNOPS-II-SY2016-17.pdf. 

44See: ‘‘All Grains are Whole Grain Rich: 

Percentage Meeting Requirement’’ in Table C.14 of 

School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/ 

sites/default/files/resource-files/SNMCSVolume2.pdf. (OMB Control Number 0584–0596, 

expiration date 07/31/2017.) Note: In SY 2014– 

2015, the most recent school year that USDA data 

is available, all grains were supposed to be whole 

grain-rich. However, State agencies had the option 

of granting exemptions to this requirement if an 

SFA demonstrated hardship in procuring compliant 

whole grain-rich products that were acceptable to 

students. 

clarification builds greater consistency 

in Program regulations and is expected 

to reduce confusion for SMP and 

CACFP operators, as well as families. 

Accordingly, this final rule amends 7 

CFR 210.10(d)(1)(i); 210.11(m)(1)(ii), 

(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(3)(ii); 215.7a(a); 

220.8(d); 226.20(a)(1)(iii); and 

226.20(c)(1), (2), and (3), to allow NSLP 

and SBP operators to offer flavored, lowfat milk as part of a reimbursable meal 

and for sale as a competitive beverage, 

and allow flavored, low-fat milk in the 

SMP and in the CACFP for participants 

ages 6 and older. It also clarifies that 

lactose-free and reduced-lactose fluid 

milk meet the SMP and CACFP 

requirements for fluid milk. USDA 

invites public comments on the milk 

standards discussed in this final rule. 

These public comments will help to 

inform USDA’s future rulemaking. 

B. Whole Grain-Rich Standards 

As established by the 2012 final rule, 

current NSLP and SBP regulations at 7 

CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv) and 220.8(c)(2)(iv) 

require all grains offered in school 

meals to meet the USDA whole grainrich criteria. To meet USDA’s whole 

grain-rich criteria, a product must 

contain at least 50 percent whole grains, 

and the remaining grain content of the 

product must be enriched. However, 

successive legislative and 

administrative action beginning in 2012 

prevented full implementation of the 

whole grain-rich requirement. Prior to 

the vacatur of the 2018 final rule, in SY 

2019–2020, at least 50 percent of the 

weekly grains offered in the NSLP and 

SBP were required to be whole grainrich. 

The requirement to offer exclusively 

whole grain-rich products proved 

challenging for some school districts. 

For example, while some schools have 

successfully implemented the whole 

grain-rich requirement, others have 

cited student acceptance, higher costs, 

and a lack of available products as 

barriers to meeting the requirement.43

As noted, in SY 2014–2015, only 27 

percent of NSLP menus were offering 

100 percent of grains as whole grainrich.44 Due to a long history of 

administrative and legislative actions 

allowing exemptions, this requirement 

was never fully implemented 

nationwide. Seeking to assist schools, 

USDA allowed enriched pasta 

exemptions for SY 2014–2015 and SY 

2015–2016, and Congress expanded the 

pasta flexibility to include other grain 

products. Through successive legislative 

action, Congress directed USDA to 

allow State agencies to grant individual 

whole grain-rich exemptions (Section 

751 of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 

(Pub. L. 113–235); and Section 733 of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2016 (Pub. L. 114–113). In addition, 

Section 747 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115– 

31) (2017 Appropriations Act) provided 

flexibilities related to whole grains for 

SY 2017–2018. More recently, Section 

101(a)(1) of Division D of the 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 

and Supplemental Appropriations for 

Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017 

(Pub. L. 115–56), enacted September 8, 

2017, extended the flexibilities provided 

by Section 747 of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 through 

December 8, 2017. The 2017 

Appropriations Act provided authority 

for whole grain-rich exemptions through 

the end of SY 2017–2018, and the 

interim final rule (82 FR 56703, 

November 30, 2017) extended the 

availability of exemptions through SY 

2018–2019. 

For SY 2017–2018, a total of 4,297 

SFAs (about 23 percent of SFAs 

operating the school meal programs) 

submitted whole grain-rich exemption 

requests for specific products based on 

hardship, and nearly all (4,124) received 

exemption approval from their State 

agency. In addition, during the 

pandemic, USDA permitted schools to 

operate SFSP at the end of SY 2019– 

2020 and in SY 2020–2021; the SFSP 

meal standards do not include a whole 

grain-rich requirement. USDA also 

provided nationwide meal pattern 

waivers through SY 2021–2022, which 

allowed SFAs to request flexibility for 

the whole grain-rich requirements on a 

case-by-case basis. 

2020 Proposed Rule and Public 

Comments 

In the 2020 proposed rule, USDA 

proposed to require that at least half of 

the weekly grains offered in the NSLP 

and SBP meet the whole grain-rich 

criteria specified in USDA guidance, 

and that the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. In response to 

the 2020 proposed rule, USDA received 

4,710 comments regarding the whole 

grain-rich standard. The following table 

shows tallies of the total and unique 

comments received in response to the 

proposed whole grain-rich standard: 

2020 PROPOSED WHOLE GRAIN-RICH STANDARD

Respondent position 

Total whole 

grain-rich 

comments 

(including 

form letters) 

Percent of 

total whole 

grain-rich 

comments 

Unique whole 

grain-rich 

comments 

Percent of 

unique whole 

grain-rich 

comments 

Support .......................................................................................................... 112 2 108 70 

Mixed ............................................................................................................. 6 <1 6 4 

Oppose .......................................................................................................... 4,592 97 40 26 

Total ........................................................................................................ 4,710 100 154 100 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6995 

Comments in Support 

There were 112 comments in support 

of the proposed whole grain-rich 

standard. Several proponents reasoned 

that a reduction in the whole grain-rich 

requirement was needed because many 

products (such as pasta, bread, sushi 

rice, and tortillas), including some 

regional products (such as grits and 

biscuits), are not acceptable to students 

in a whole grain-rich form. A State 

agency agreed with the proposal, 

arguing that it would provide the right 

balance of whole grain-rich and 

enriched grain products. That State 

agency also affirmed the proposed 

standard would allow SFAs to serve 

grain products that children would 

enjoy, while still exposing children to 

more whole grain-rich products. 

A food industry proponent suggested 

that whole, fortified, and enriched 

grains provide shelf-stable and costefficient options; they argued that all 

grains, including those that are refined 

but fortified and enriched, are a reliable 

choice for schools. Another food 

industry proponent agreed, asserting 

that a variety of grain choices, both 

whole and enriched, have the potential 

to increase consumption of shortfall 

nutrients identified by the Dietary 

Guidelines, particularly dietary fiber, 

folate, and iron. Other proponents stated 

that more time is necessary for the food 

industry and school food service 

professionals to develop whole grainrich products and recipes that students 

enjoy. Several proponents asserted that 

whole grain versions of certain foods, 

including tortillas, pizza crust, and 

pasta, suffer from quality issues (for 

example, crumbly, dry, or poor 

consistency) that make them difficult to 

serve in a school meal setting. 

Some proponents noted that there are 

currently not enough options for whole 

grain-rich products, and that whole 

grain-rich products are not always 

available in the necessary quantities. 

One advocacy group asserted that 

requiring all grain items on school 

menus to be whole grain-rich is costly 

and unrealistic. Proponents suggested 

that requiring only 50 percent of grains 

offered to be whole grain-rich would 

ease procurement concerns in rural 

school districts, where they suggested 

some whole grain-rich items are 

difficult to obtain. 

Comments in Opposition 

A total of 4,592 comments opposed 

the proposed whole grain-rich standard. 

Some opponents voiced concern that 

the proposed change would make it 

more difficult for schools to procure 

whole grain-rich products, because 

there would be less incentive for the 

food industry to develop compliant 

products. One advocacy group 

suggested that without this incentive, 

fewer companies would choose to 

produce whole grain-rich products, 

meaning that whole grain-rich products 

would be less widely available and 

more expensive for schools that wish to 

serve them. 

Several policy advocacy groups, a 

professional association, and a State 

agency asserted that most schools had 

met the stricter 100 percent whole grainrich requirement—with some States not 

needing any whole grain-rich waivers, 

some States requesting waivers for only 

one product type (such as pasta), and 

other States not allowing waivers. These 

opponents remarked that all schools 

should be able to meet the 100 percent 

whole grain-rich standard. A State 

agency opponent maintained that 

schools in their State have continued to 

offer 100 percent whole grain-rich 

products, and they are seeing high rates 

of student acceptance. 

Several opponents argued that the 

proposed change is inconsistent with 

the Dietary Guidelines and does not 

support children’s health. Many 

opponents noted that eating more whole 

grains is associated with reduced risk of 

heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and 

diabetes, and provides more nutrients 

and fiber. Opponents also stated that 

USDA’s 2019 School Nutrition and Meal 

Cost Study found one of the factors most 

highly correlated with improved school 

lunch nutritional quality was having 

met the 100 percent whole grain-rich 

requirement. 

A State agency opponent described 

their experience implementing the 100 

percent whole grain-rich requirement, 

asserting that despite initial challenges 

that involved additional training, 

implementation of the standard was 

ultimately successful, and the State now 

sees very high rates of compliance. 

Another State agency opponent argued 

that the proposed standard would be 

more difficult for SFAs to track and for 

the State agency to monitor, compared 

to the 2012 whole grain-rich 

requirement, and would therefore create 

additional administrative burden for 

both SFAs and State agencies. 

Mixed Response 

Six respondents expressed 

conditional support or opposition, or 

offered suggestions for improving the 

proposed whole grain-rich standard. For 

example, one State agency opposed the 

proposed change, but suggested USDA 

allow exceptions for quality and 

availability issues. This State agency 

also emphasized the importance of 

ensuring USDA standards expand 

access to and consumption of whole 

grain-rich foods. 

Some respondents offered an 

approach in between the proposed 

standard and the 2012 standard. For 

example, a nutritionist noted that most 

schools in their State already exceed the 

50 percent threshold and recommended 

an 80 percent whole grain-rich 

requirement. They argued that this 

approach would be consistent with the 

science of the Dietary Guidelines, while 

allowing schools to serve certain 

products, such as pasta and biscuits, in 

a form students find more appealing. 

Similarly, two respondents expressed 

support for a 75 percent threshold, 

maintaining that it would appropriately 

balance the goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines with the importance of 

meeting student preferences and 

encouraging student participation. A 

State agency also supported a 75 percent 

threshold, arguing that the proposed 50 

percent threshold would cause the 

nutritional integrity of the meals to 

suffer. Another State agency 

recommended USDA allow schools to 

serve one item per week that is not 

whole grain-rich. One respondent noted 

the benefits of whole grains but 

suggested an in between approach 

where USDA require half of grains to be 

whole grain, and one quarter to be 

enriched grains. 

One food industry respondent 

opposed the proposed change, and 

instead expressed support for returning 

to the 2012 standard. However, they 

recommended delaying implementation 

of the 100 percent whole grain-rich 

standard to SY 2024–2025. The food 

industry respondent argued that 

delaying implementation would allow 

SFAs adequate time to develop menus 

and recipes with whole grain-rich foods 

and would enable industry to continue 

to invest in the development and 

manufacturing of whole grain-rich foods 

that are acceptable to children. This 

respondent recommended delaying 

implementation to SY 2024–2025 in 

recognition of the impact of COVID–19 

on schools. 

Transitional Standard and 

Considerations for Future Rulemaking 

As recommended by comments, this 

rulemaking adopts a balanced approach 

that recognizes the need for transitional 

meal pattern improvements in the shortterm. As noted by a State agency and 

other respondents, setting a standard 

between the proposed rule and the 2012 

rule allows schools to serve foods their 

students enjoy and find palatable, 

which could increase student 

satisfaction and participation, while 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6996 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

45See footnote 41 of Restoration of Milk, Whole 

Grains, and Sodium Flexibilities, November 25, 

2020. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2020/11/25/2020-25761/restoration-ofmilk-whole-grains-and-sodiumflexibilities#footnote-41-p75252. See also: ‘‘All 

Grains are Whole Grain Rich: Percentage Meeting 

Requirement and Percentage Below Requirement’’ 

in Tables C.14 and E.14 of School Nutrition and 

Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 2: 

Nutritional Characteristics of School Meals by 

Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, Katherine Niland, 

Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, Patricia Connor, 

Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. Project Officer: 

John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available 

at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/ 

files/resource-files/SNMCS-Volume2.pdf. (OMB 

Control Number 0584–0596, expiration date 07/31/ 

2017.) 

46As noted by the court in CSPI, the statutory 

language requiring that meals be ‘‘consistent with’’ 

Dietary Guidelines and that regulatory meal pattern 

standards be ‘‘based on’’ the Dietary Guidelines (see 

42 U.S.C. 1758(f)(1)(A) and (a)(4)(B)) is sufficiently 

general to allow for meal pattern standards that use 

the Dietary Guidelines as a starting point and align 

with general recommended goals, rather than 

exactly replicating specific quantitative standards. 

See 438 F. Supp. 3d at 562–63. 

47School Nutrition Association. Back to School 

2021 Report: A Summary of Survey Results. 

Available at: https://schoolnutrition.org/ 

uploadedFiles/News_and_Publications/Press_

Releases/Press_Releases/Back-to-School-Report2021.pdf. 

48U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/CNOPS-II-SY2016-17.pdf. 

49Temporary authority provided by Congress has 

permitted USDA to issue whole grain-rich 

exemptions or meal pattern waivers in the past; for 

example, in response to the COVID–19 public 

health emergency. However, USDA does not have 

the authority to issue these waivers without 

Congressional intervention. 

50Biing-Hwan Lin, Joanne F. Guthrie, Travis A. 

Smith, Dietary Guidance and New School Meal 

Standards: Schoolchildren’s Whole Grain 

Consumption Over 1994–2014, American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, Volume 57, Issue 1, July 2019. 

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ 

article/pii/S0749379719300546. 

helping to advance the nutritional 

integrity of school meals. Respondents 

noted that schools have successfully 

incorporated many whole grain-rich 

items on their menus, and 

manufacturers have improved many 

whole grain-rich products, but 

currently, there are still some products 

that students have trouble accepting. 

USDA agrees with comments 

suggesting a transitional standard in 

between the proposed rule and 2012 

rule is appropriate. In addition, after 

considering comments, USDA agrees 

that increasing the whole grain-rich 

standard beyond what was proposed is 

achievable and appropriate and is an 

important step in advancing nutrition 

security. A standard between 50 and 

100 percent will balance the importance 

of strengthening the whole grain-rich 

requirements with the difficulties 

currently facing some schools, such as 

supply chain disruptions, financial 

challenges, and staffing limitations 

related to COVID–19. This rule will 

serve as a middle-ground bridge until 

the notice-and-comment rulemaking for 

SY 2024–2025 and beyond is complete. 

In determining what the transitional 

standard should be, USDA looked for an 

achievable standard that still moved 

meaningfully forward. As mentioned, 

comments suggested a variety of 

middle-ground thresholds, including 80 

percent. The proposed rule also noted 

that, according to a study conducted in 

SY 2014–2015, the most recent USDA 

data available, 70 percent of weekly 

school menus offered at least 80 percent 

of the grain items as whole grain-rich.45

Therefore, USDA finds that requiring at 

least 80 percent of the weekly grains 

offered in the NSLP and SBP to be 

whole grain-rich is an appropriate 

transitional standard. The remaining 

grain items offered must be enriched. 

Under this whole grain-rich 

requirement, SFAs are expected to 

procure and incorporate a significant 

amount of whole grain-rich product into 

their NSLP and SBP menus, but will 

have the ability to serve enriched grains 

when whole grain-rich products are not 

available or when certain products are 

not acceptable to students in whole 

grain-rich form. 

The current Dietary Guidelines 

recommend that at least half of total 

grains consumed should be whole 

grains. The Dietary Guidelines also note 

that while school-age children, on 

average, meet the recommended intake 

of total grains, they do not meet the 

recommendation to make half of their 

grains whole grains. With this final rule, 

USDA is continuing to advance the 

important progress made in improving 

school nutrition standards. Compared to 

the nutrition requirements that were in 

effect prior to COVID–19, this 

transitional rule provides meaningful, 

achievable improvements in the whole 

grain-rich standard, while continuing to 

be responsive to the current needs of 

schools. The 80 percent requirement is 

consistent with and based on the 

Dietary Guidelines, 2020–2025 

recommendation regarding 

consumption of more whole grains and 

is intended to be a transitional threshold 

as USDA works to enhance the meal 

pattern standards in a way that reflects 

the latest nutrition science.46

The requirement that at least 80 

percent of the weekly grains offered in 

the NSLP and SBP are whole grain-rich 

is a minimum standard, not a 

maximum. It reflects a practical and 

feasible way to work towards the 

Dietary Guidelines’ emphasis on 

increasing whole grain consumption as 

USDA considers further changes in a 

future rulemaking. Requiring at least 80 

percent—as opposed to the proposed 50 

percent—of the weekly grains offered in 

the NSLP and SBP to be whole grainrich is a standard that many schools 

were able to accomplish prior to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. This achievable, 

transitional standard gives schools the 

ability to plan healthy meals that reflect 

regional and cultural student 

preferences and allows the food 

industry time to develop more whole 

grain-rich products that students find 

acceptable. A 2021 survey of school 

nutrition directors found that 49 percent 

of respondents considered product or 

ingredient availability to be a significant 

challenge in meeting the whole grainrich requirement. Another 44 percent of 

respondents considered product or 

ingredient availability to be a moderate 

challenge.47 This is consistent with 

USDA research that found that 45 

percent of SFA respondents identified 

lack of available products as a challenge 

to meeting the whole grain-rich 

requirement. SFAs also identified 

purchasing whole grain-rich products as 

the top strategy to meet this 

requirement, suggesting that product 

availability is key to success in meeting 

the whole grain-rich standard.48

Schools already offering all grains as 

whole grain-rich do not have to change 

their menus as a result of this final rule 

and are encouraged to continue 

exceeding the minimum regulatory 

standard. For other schools, 7 CFR 

210.12(a) allows students, parents and 

guardians, and community members to 

influence menu planning at the local 

level; USDA encourages the school 

community to provide ideas on how to 

incorporate more whole grain-rich 

products in the breakfast and lunch 

menus at their local school. USDA 

appreciates comments that suggested 

allowing exceptions or waivers to the 

whole grain-rich requirement on an asneeded basis; however, USDA’s waiver 

authority under the National School 

Lunch Act does not allow the Secretary 

to issue individual or statewide waivers 

related to the meal pattern 

requirements. Therefore, USDA does not 

have the authority to waive the whole 

grain-rich requirement on an as-needed 

basis.49

Studies have demonstrated the 

importance of school meals in 

improving children’s overall diets, 

including their whole grain 

consumption.50 51 Whole grains are a 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6997 

51Aune D, Keum N, Giovannucci E, Fadnes LT, 

Boffetta P, Greenwood DC, Tonstad S, Vatten LJ, 

Riboli E, Norat T. Whole grain consumption and 

risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause 

and cause specific mortality: systematic review and 

dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. 

BMJ. June 2016. Available at: https://

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27301975/. 

52 Institute of Medicine (IOM 2010). School 

Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/ 

default/files/SchoolMealsIOM.pdf. 

good source of dietary fiber, and 

consumption of whole grains is 

associated with reduced risk of 

cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, 

and certain cancers. In 

acknowledgement of the health benefits 

of whole grains, USDA encourages 

schools to incorporate whole grain-rich 

products in their menus as often as 

possible, especially in popular foods 

such as pizza or sandwich rolls. USDA 

will continue to provide training and 

technical assistance to assist in these 

efforts. In addition, USDA Foods will 

continue to make whole grain-rich 

products available to schools. For 

example, whole grain-rich USDA Foods 

available to schools for SY 2021–2022 

included flour, rolled oats, pancakes, 

tortillas, and several varieties of pasta 

and rice. 

Accordingly, this final rule amends 7 

CFR 210.10(c)(2)(iv)(B) and 

220.8(c)(2)(iv)(B), to require that at least 

80 percent of the weekly grains offered 

in the NSLP and SBP meet the whole 

grain-rich criteria specified in USDA 

guidance. USDA invites public 

comments on the whole grain-rich 

standards discussed in this final rule. 

These public comments will help 

inform USDA’s future rulemaking. 

C. Sodium Standards 

To avoid excessive sodium intake in 

school meals, the 2012 final rule 

established sodium target limits at 7 

CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 220.8(f). These 

targets were developed through a review 

of scientific literature; consultation with 

public health professionals, industry, 

and other entities involved in sodium 

reduction efforts; and recommendations 

from the National Academy of Medicine 

(formerly the Institute of Medicine). 

Based on this research, the 2012 final 

rule included three transitional targets 

to gradually reduce sodium intake over 

a 10-year period. The initial target, 

Sodium Target 1 for NSLP, was 

determined as a 10 percent reduction 

from the average sodium content offered 

for lunch in SY 2004–2005.52 Similarly, 

Sodium Target 1 for SBP was 

determined as a 5 percent reduction 

from the average sodium content offered 

for breakfast. The Final Sodium Target 

was developed using the 2005 Tolerable 

Upper Intake Levels (UL) for sodium in 

the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for 

each age group at the current time. The 

Final Sodium Target would require 

significant efforts by the food industry 

to reformulate and develop new 

products lower in sodium. Sodium 

Target 2 represented an intermediate 

target achievable with product 

reformulations using technology 

available to industry when the 2012 rule 

was under development. 

Prior to the vacatur of the 2018 final 

rule, successive legislative and 

administrative action delayed 

implementation of the sodium reduction 

targets. At the time of the court vacatur, 

schools were required to meet Sodium 

Target 1; with the court vacatur, Sodium 

Target 2 immediately went into effect. 

However, during the pandemic, USDA 

permitted schools to operate SFSP, 

which does not have a sodium limit, at 

the end of SY 2019–2020 and in SY 

2020–2021. USDA also provided 

nationwide targeted meal pattern 

waivers through SY 2021–2022, which 

allowed SFAs to serve meals that did 

not meet the sodium targets, throughout 

that period. As a result, schools have 

never had to implement Sodium Target 

2. 

2020 Proposed Rule and Public 

Comments 

The 2020 proposed rule sought to 

maintain Sodium Target 1 requirements 

through SY 2023–2024 (June 30, 2024); 

to delay required compliance with 

Target 2 requirements to SY 2024–2025 

(July 1, 2024); and to remove the Final 

Target. In response to the 2020 proposed 

rule, USDA received 4,710 comments 

regarding the sodium standards. The 

following table shows tallies of the total 

and unique comments received in 

response to the proposed sodium 

standards: 

2020 PROPOSED SODIUM STANDARDS

Respondent position 

Total sodium 

comments 

(including 

form letters) 

Percent of 

total sodium 

comments 

Unique 

sodium 

comments 

Percent of 

unique sodium 

comments 

Support ............................................................................................................ 94 2 90 58 

Mixed ............................................................................................................... 34 <1 34 22

Oppose ............................................................................................................ 4,582 97 30 19 

Total .......................................................................................................... 4,710 100 154 99

Comments in Support 

Ninety-four comments supported the 

proposed sodium standards. Many 

proponents discussed the work done by 

school food service professionals, 

manufacturers, and vendors in striving 

to meet Sodium Targets 1 and 2 and 

their commitment toward gradual 

sodium reduction over time. However, 

proponents also expressed concern 

about student acceptance of lower 

sodium meals because students are 

accustomed to eating foods with higher 

sodium content outside of school. Some 

proponents predicted Sodium Target 2 

would create more food waste, or that 

decreasing sodium to the Final Target 

would result in lower student 

participation. One proponent suggested 

the proposed sodium standards provide 

schools with ‘‘desperately needed time’’ 

for gradual sodium reduction by 

temporarily retaining Target 1, 

continuing to Target 2 in SY 2024–2025, 

and eliminating the Final Target; this 

respondent also acknowledged the 

considerable work already done by 

schools to meet Target 1. 

One proponent reasoned it does not 

make sense to move to a lower sodium 

target until manufacturers find a way to 

make low-sodium foods taste better. 

Several proponents stated sodium 

naturally occurs in some foods, such as 

meat and milk, and it would be difficult 

to reduce sodium levels without 

removing these items from menus. A 

national industry group and a food 

manufacturer argued that some foods 

require certain levels of sodium for 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
6998 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

53USDA fully expects to have new standards in 

place for SY 2024–2025 and beyond. However, in 

case of an unanticipated delay, the standards set by 

this rule will remain legally effective until such 

time as subsequent standards are promulgated. 

functional and food safety reasons, 

making it particularly difficult to 

formulate lower sodium options without 

increasing food safety risk, increasing 

food waste, and decreasing shelf-life. 

Comments in Opposition 

A total of 4,582 comments opposed 

the proposed sodium standards. Several 

opponents were concerned that the 

proposed changes are not consistent 

with current nutrition science and may 

exacerbate the already high rates of 

nutrition-related chronic disease in the 

United States. Some opponents, 

including advocacy groups and 

professional associations, argued the 

delay of Target 2 and the elimination of 

the Final Target would conflict with the 

dietary reference intake guidelines for 

sodium. They cited a 2019 report 

warning that exceeding recommended 

sodium levels could increase chronic 

disease risk within a healthy 

population. These opponents noted that 

the National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine had pursued 

even stronger sodium recommendations 

for younger children than those levels 

established when the 2012 rule was 

finalized. The Dietary Guidelines, 2020– 

2025 were not yet published during the 

proposed rule comment period, but a 

joint comment from advocacy groups 

and professional associations expected 

the updated Dietary Guidelines to 

recommend that children consume a 

level of sodium below that achieved by 

Target 2. The respondents asked that 

USDA wait until after Dietary 

Guidelines, 2020–2025 were issued to 

address sodium levels, and 

recommended USDA set a ‘‘realistic’’ 

timetable for achieving sodium 

reduction in the long-term based on the 

updated Dietary Guidelines. 

Opponents noted excess sodium 

intake is associated with higher risk of 

high blood pressure, heart disease, 

stroke, atrial fibrillation, aortic 

dissection, and osteoporosis. They 

stated the proposed targets could result 

in children ages 4–13 years old who 

participate in the NSLP and SBP 

exceeding the current recommended 

daily limits for sodium intake. Multiple 

opponents cited a Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention report that 

found 9 in 10 children consume too 

much sodium. An advocacy group 

stated that delaying further sodium 

reduction is inconsistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines, tested nutritional 

research, and nutrition 

recommendations. A professional 

association argued that the delay of 

Target 2 and the elimination of the Final 

Target would harm children’s health, 

citing several sources describing the 

health risks associated with excess 

sodium consumption. Several State 

attorneys general expressed concern that 

the proposed changes to the sodium 

limits could worsen health disparities 

for racial and ethnic minority groups. 

Opponents noted many schools have 

already made healthy and appealing 

meals with less sodium. They argued 

the proposed standards would reduce 

demand for low-sodium products, 

making it harder for schools to find lowsodium products because the school 

food industry will be slower to develop 

and market them. Several opponents 

argued that schools have successfully 

reduced sodium in meals to meet 

Sodium Target 1, and products are 

already on the market to help schools 

meet Target 2 and the Final Target. One 

opponent claimed that popular school 

pizza brands have reduced sodium 

levels. They also noted that food 

manufacturers are engaged in voluntary 

sodium reduction efforts, and expected 

these efforts to intensify when the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

releases voluntary sodium reduction 

targets for processed, packaged, and 

restaurant foods. FDA’s voluntary 

sodium reduction targets were released 

in October 2021. Some opponents 

encouraged USDA to continue to 

support schools’ efforts to reduce 

sodium through enhanced training and 

technical assistance. 

Mixed Response 

Thirty-four respondents expressed 

conditional support or opposition, or 

offered suggestions for improving the 

proposed sodium standards. Trade 

associations, State agency employees, a 

nutritionist, and a couple of individual 

respondents expressed support for 

delaying the sodium targets to allow 

schools and industry more time to 

achieve gradual sodium reduction. One 

respondent stressed the importance of 

acting upon nutrition research related to 

sodium, but agreed it was appropriate to 

afford schools more time to reduce 

sodium. One State agency supported 

extending Target 1 through SY 2023– 

2024 and delaying Target 2 to SY 2024– 

2025, noting that this would allow the 

food industry more time for product 

development and reformulation, 

provide SFAs more time to procure and 

introduce lower sodium food products, 

and give students more time to adjust to 

school meals with lower sodium 

content. Another State agency 

supported postponing Target 2 

implementation, and supported a 

‘‘reexamination,’’ but not full removal, 

of the Final Target. This State agency 

also encouraged USDA to continue 

working with the food industry to 

improve the nutritional profile of foods 

across the board, not just to the K–12 

market, noting that some school districts 

and residential child care institutions 

purchase foods through smaller markets 

and may not have access to major food 

distributors. An advocacy group 

expressed a similar view, 

recommending that Target 2 become the 

Final Target, pending the final 

evaluation of FDA’s voluntary sodium 

reduction targets at a later date. Other 

State agencies expressed similar support 

for temporarily delaying 

implementation of Target 2, to allow 

more time for product reformulation 

and COVID–19 recovery, but did not 

comment on the proposal to eliminate 

the Final Target. One of these State 

agencies applauded the work by school 

nutrition professionals in their State to 

decrease the sodium content of school 

meals over the past decade, noting that 

schools continue to develop and utilize 

recipes that support the gradual 

reduction of sodium over time. 

Several respondents recognized the 

need to reduce sodium in school meals, 

but argued that the sodium targets and 

reduction timelines in the 2012 

proposed rule are too aggressive. For 

example, a school district employee 

stated their district was able to meet 

Sodium Target 1, but asserted that 

Sodium Target 2 would be more 

difficult to meet, or potentially, 

unattainable. Some respondents 

suggested USDA retain Sodium Target 1 

indefinitely, or argued that Sodium 

Target 2 was overly restrictive. A food 

manufacturer noted that, while it could 

adjust its formulas to reduce sodium, 

taste would be compromised. 

Transitional Standards and 

Considerations for Future Rulemaking 

USDA agrees with comments that 

noted the importance of gradually 

moving towards lower sodium meals in 

a way that is achievable for schools and 

the food industry. This final rule 

maintains Sodium Target 1 for NSLP 

and SBP through SY 2022–2023, retains 

Sodium Target 1 for SBP in SY 2023– 

2024, and institutes a modified Sodium 

Interim Target 1A for NSLP beginning in 

SY 2023–2024.53 These standards, 

which are meant to be transitional, are 

shown in the charts below. USDA 

recognizes the importance of decreasing 

sodium in school meals, for which the 

majority of comments advocated. The 

approach in this final rule positions 

SFAs on an achievable path toward 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 6999 

54U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Sodium 

Reduction. Available at: www.fda.gov/ 

SodiumReduction. 

55U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Voluntary 

Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper 

Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially 

Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods. October 

2021. Available at: www.fda.gov/SodiumReduction. 

56U.S. Food and Drug Administration: To 

Improve Nutrition and Reduce the Burden of 

Disease, FDA Issues Food Industry Guidance for 

Voluntarily Reducing Sodium in Processed and 

Packaged Foods. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ 

news-events/press-announcements/improvenutrition-and-reduce-burden-disease-fda-issuesfood-industry-guidance-voluntarily-reducing. 

57 Institute of Medicine 2010. Strategies to Reduce 

Sodium Intake in the United States. Washington, 

DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/12818. 

further sodium reduction in school 

meals, and responds to school concerns 

about product availability, discussed in 

detail later in this section. As discussed 

earlier, USDA will promulgate a new 

rulemaking to address sodium standards 

in SY 2024–2025 and beyond. Since 

USDA intends the standards in this final 

rule as transitional standards, this rule 

eliminates Target 2 or any stricter 

sodium standard for SY 2024–2025 and 

beyond. However, this does not mean 

USDA intends to permanently eliminate 

stricter sodium standards in the longterm. Rather, this rule implements 

transitional sodium standards until 

USDA develops long-term standards 

that will further advance nutrition 

security. 

NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TRANSITIONAL SODIUM TIMELINE & LIMITS

Age/grade group 

Target 1: 

Effective July 1, 2022 

(mg) 

Interim Target 1A: 

Effective July 1, 2023 

(mg) 

K–5 ....................................................................................................................................... <1,230 <1,110 

6–8 ....................................................................................................................................... <1,360 <1,225 

9–12 ..................................................................................................................................... <1,420 <1,280 

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM TRANSITIONAL SODIUM TIMELINE & LIMITS

Age/grade group 

Target 1: 

Effective July 1, 2022 

(mg) 

K–5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... <540 

6–8 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... <600 

9–12 ................................................................................................................................................................................... <640 

The sodium limits apply to the 

average lunch and breakfast offered 

during the school week; they do not 

apply per day, per meal, or per menu 

item. This allows menu planners to 

occasionally offer higher sodium meals 

or menu items, if these meals or menu 

items are balanced out with lower 

sodium meals and menu items 

throughout school the week. 

These transitional standards align 

with FDA’s recent voluntary sodium 

reduction targets for the food industry. 

The FDA’s goal of supporting reductions 

in sodium intake is consistent with the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020– 

2025 and the 2019 National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

Dietary Reference Intakes Report on 

Sodium and Potassium.54 FDA’s 

guidance provides short-term (2.5 year) 

voluntary sodium reduction targets for 

food manufacturers, chain restaurants, 

and food service operators for 163 

categories of processed, packaged, and 

prepared foods.55 The targets in FDA’s 

guidance, issued in October 2021, seek 

to support decreasing average U.S. 

population sodium intake from 

approximately 3,400 mg to 3,000 mg per 

day, about a 12 percent reduction. These 

reductions are anticipated to support a 

gradual sodium reduction strategy in 

NSLP and SBP. While FDA is 

recommending the voluntary targets be 

met in 2.5 years (April 2024), in 

advance of that timeframe schools are 

anticipated to be able to procure 

additional options that are lower in 

sodium as the food industry continues 

reformulation efforts and develops new 

food products that align with FDA’s 

voluntary targets. The gradual steps 

schools will take to lower sodium intake 

in the short term are important to 

further support reducing children’s 

average sodium intake as recommended 

by the Dietary Guidelines. When issuing 

its guidance, FDA noted that modest 

sodium reductions can reduce the risk 

of diet-related diseases and improve 

health.56

USDA considered FDA’s sodium 

reduction guidance in the context of the 

school meal standards, which include 

dietary specifications for specific age/ 

grade groups. USDA also relied on the 

Dietary Guidelines, 2020–2025 and the 

2009 National Academy of Medicine 

report, which informed the sodium 

targets in the 2012 rule. USDA also 

considered the timeframe for FDA’s 

voluntary short-term sodium reduction 

targets, as noted above. When 

examining the daily sodium allocation 

attributed to each meal, USDA 

determined that sodium reductions are 

most needed at lunch. Therefore, USDA 

is maintaining Sodium Target 1 for 

breakfast during the two-year timeframe 

of this transitional rule, which will 

allow schools to focus their sodium 

reduction efforts on school lunch. 

Noting some commenters’ concerns 

with the palatability of lower sodium 

school meals and to establish feasible 

sodium reductions in school lunches, 

USDA set the near-term (Target 1A) 

reduction at 10 percent, which also 

aligns with research indicating gradual 

sodium reductions are less noticeable to 

consumers.57

On average, under Sodium Target 1A, 

daily sodium amounts for school lunch 

will be reduced as follows: 

• Grades K–5: 120 mg reduction (<1,230 

mg to <1,110 mg) 

• Grades 6–8: 135 mg reduction (<1,360 

mg to <1,225 mg) 

• Grades 9–12: 140 mg reduction 

(<1,420 mg to <1,280 mg) 

A 10 percent sodium reduction for 

NSLP is a reasonable approach in the 

near-term given a variety of factors, 

including COVID–19 response and 

recovery, in school settings, school 

staffing challenges, and current product 

availability. It represents an achievable 

goal that supports gradual sodium 

reduction. A variety of factors, 

including implementation of FDA’s 

voluntary reduction targets, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7000 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

58U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th Edition. 

December 2020. Available at DietaryGuidelines.gov. 

59School Nutrition Association. Back to School 

2021 Report: A Summary of Survey Results. 

Available at: https://schoolnutrition.org/ 

uploadedFiles/News_and_Publications/Press_

Releases/Press_Releases/Back-to-School-Report2021.pdf. 

60U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/CNOPS-II-SY2016-17.pdf. 

61Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium in 

School Meals. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/Approaches-ReduceSodium-Volume2.pdf. 

62U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. 

63U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. Nutrition and Healthy Eating. Available 

at: https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-anddata/browse-objectives/nutrition-and-healthyeating. 

64U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th Edition. 

December 2020. Available at DietaryGuidelines.gov. 

developments in food science, and 

feedback from State and local 

stakeholders, will inform USDA’s 

decisions regarding sodium moving 

forward. As lower sodium products 

become more widely available in the 

broader food market and children grow 

more accustomed to lower sodium 

foods, issues of palatability may not be 

as significant a factor in setting NSLP 

and SBP sodium standards. 

Consistent with statutory 

requirements, USDA’s intention is to 

ensure that the sodium targets for school 

meals reflect the goals of the current 

Dietary Guidelines, which recommend 

reducing average sodium intake from 

current levels. The Dietary Guidelines 

also suggest that small changes matter, 

and can significantly improve the 

overall nutritional profile of a meal.58

USDA considered the sodium 

recommendations in the current Dietary 

Guidelines among other factors, such as 

the COVID-related operational and 

implementation challenges, and 

determined that the transitional 

standards in this rule will allow schools 

to gradually progress toward further 

sodium reduction in school meals. This 

approach reflects the sodium targets, 

which were achieved prior to the 

pandemic, and includes a moderate 

further reduction in the NSLP targets, 

consistent with FDA’s guidance for the 

food industry. 

USDA acknowledges that sodium 

targets must be achievable for most 

schools based on product availability, 

and must allow schools to plan 

appealing meals that encourage 

consumption and intake of key nutrients 

that are essential for children’s growth 

and development. This final rule 

responds to school food professionals, 

who are concerned about their ability to 

procure foods that comply with Sodium 

Target 2 and the Final Sodium Target in 

the near-term. A 2021 survey of school 

nutrition directors found that 62 percent 

of respondents considered product or 

ingredient availability to be a significant 

challenge in meeting Sodium Target 2, 

and 75 percent considered it to be a 

significant challenge in meeting the 

Final Sodium Target. Respondents also 

expressed concern about sodium levels 

in specific foods and products. For 

example, when citing challenges in 

meeting Sodium Target 2, 55 percent of 

respondents described naturally 

occurring sodium in foods such as milk, 

low-fat cheese, and meat as a significant 

challenge, and 64 percent considered 

sodium levels in condiments to be a 

significant challenge.59 A USDA study 

found that 70 percent of SFAs planned 

to purchase lower sodium products in 

order to meet sodium standards, 

suggesting availability of products is an 

important factor in their ability to meet 

the standards.60

Looking ahead, USDA recognizes the 

need for further sodium reduction. The 

changes in this final rule, which are 

intended as transitional standards, will 

encourage the re-introduction of lower 

sodium foods and meals to students, 

and give the food industry additional 

time to develop and test lower sodium 

products that are palatable to students. 

It will allow more time for school food 

professionals to engage in student taste 

tests, which help SFAs to make 

informed decisions regarding wellaccepted food products. A USDA study 

found that obtaining feedback from 

students via taste testing was the most 

often-employed strategy for product 

selection and recipe refinement, 

according to SFAs.61 Further, about 

three-quarters of school food service 

directors reported that gaining student 

acceptance of the meal pattern 

standards was moderately to extremely 

challenging with respect to maintaining 

student participation; this makes 

additional time for recipe refinement 

important.62

These transitional standards are 

especially needed after COVID–19 

operations when many schools were 

offering grab-and-go meals that included 

processed, individually wrapped food 

products to ensure the safe distribution 

of food to children. Additionally, 

limited staffing, which made it harder to 

cook meals from scratch, likely 

contributed to increased sodium levels 

during SY 2020–2021 and SY 2021– 

2022 compared to just prior to the 

pandemic. A 2021 survey of school 

nutrition directors found that 47 percent 

of respondents considered scratch 

cooking limitations (e.g., staffing, 

infrastructure, schedule) to be a 

significant challenge in working 

towards meeting Sodium Target 2, and 

58 percent considered it to be a 

significant challenge in working 

towards meeting the Final Sodium 

Target. USDA recognizes that response 

and eventual recovery from the effects 

of the pandemic will take time; SFAs 

continue to face many challenges that 

impact the school meal service, 

including increased food costs, supply 

chain disruptions, labor shortages, and 

transportation issues. 

USDA is committed to supporting 

long-term sodium reduction, which is 

consistent with the goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines, 2020–2025 and Healthy 

People 2030 63 and critical to the 

healthy development of our Nation’s 

children. As noted, this rule does not 

implement Sodium Target 2 or the Final 

Sodium Target for the near-term because 

this rule represents transitional 

standards which meaningfully move 

nutritional standards forward as part of 

an overall process—which will include 

further notice-and-comment 

rulemaking—to continually enhance 

nutritional security of the school meal 

programs. However, immediate 

implementation of significant sodium 

reduction could potentially lower 

student acceptance of school meals. 

Currently, students may be accustomed 

to eating higher-sodium foods outside of 

school, and potentially, higher-sodium 

school meals that may have been served 

during pandemic operations. Extending 

Sodium Target 1 and instituting Sodium 

Interim Target 1A for the NSLP is 

important for practical reasons. Setting 

a more practicable approach to sodium 

reduction allows more time for product 

reformulation, school menu 

adjustments, recipe development, 

personnel training, and changes in 

student preferences; as noted by 

comments, these factors are important to 

successful implementation of further 

sodium reduction in school meals. 

The Dietary Guidelines note that taste 

preferences for salty foods may be 

established early in life, and that early 

food preferences can influence later 

food choices.64 However, palates can 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7001 

65 IOM (Institute of Medicine). Strategies to 

Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States. 

Washington, DC The National Academies Press; 

2010. 

66 Juliana F.W. Cohen, Scott Richardson, 

Christina A. Roberto, Eric B. Rimm, Availability of 

Lower-Sodium School Lunches and the Association 

with Selection and Consumption among Elementary 

and Middle School Students, Journal of the 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2020. 

Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ 

article/pii/S2212267220309710. 

also adjust to lower sodium foods.65

Because the preference for salty foods is 

a learned preference, the transitional 

standards in this final rule provide 

additional time for the overall food 

marketplace and community public 

health messaging to take steps to also 

reduce sodium in the food supply, 

while encouraging moderate reductions 

in school lunches. Allowing sodium 

reduction in schools to be on pace with 

community sodium reduction strategies, 

and implementation of the FDA’s 

voluntary short-term sodium reduction 

targets, will yield a higher likelihood of 

success. This approach also will allow 

the opportunity for input from key 

stakeholders on how sodium reduction 

in schools can be coordinated with a 

larger public health effort and with 

industry research and development, so 

that children’s preference for sodium in 

foods can gradually change without 

noticeable changes to the palatability of 

school meals. In addition, this final rule 

will provide USDA with additional time 

to thoughtfully propose a new rule that 

offers a permanent, achievable 

reduction in sodium in school meals 

that continues to be consistent with the 

goals of the Dietary Guidelines. 

USDA appreciates that, since 2012, 

schools have made significant progress 

in reducing the sodium content of 

meals. A study published in 2020 66

provides evidence that schools have the 

ability to provide lower sodium meals 

that are acceptable to students and do 

not increase food waste. The study also 

notes that 9 in 10 children in the United 

States consume sodium at levels that 

exceed Dietary Guidelines and National 

Academy of Medicine (formerly the 

Institute of Medicine) 

recommendations, and that 1 in 6 

children have pre-high blood pressure 

or high blood pressure, putting them at 

risk for cardiovascular disease as adults. 

Because of these health risks, it is 

important for schools that have the 

ability to reduce the sodium content of 

meals to do so. Further, USDA 

encourages families and communities to 

support schools’ efforts by taking 

gradual steps to reduce the sodium 

content of meals offered to children 

outside of schools when possible. 

Wholesome school meals are only a part 

of children’s daily food intake, and 

children will be more likely to eat them 

if the foods available to them outside of 

school are also lower in sodium. 

Helping students adjust their taste 

preferences requires collaboration 

between schools, parents and guardians, 

and communities. 

USDA’s Team Nutrition and the 

Institute of Child Nutrition have 

developed a range of resources and tools 

for reducing sodium; USDA will 

continue to provide schools with 

technical assistance, training resources, 

recipes, and mentoring to help them 

offer healthy, lower sodium meals. To 

support schools, USDA will engage 

public health organizations to 

collaborate on messages to educate 

families and communities about the 

need for sodium reduction in school 

meals. Further, USDA will gather 

feedback on how sodium reduction 

impacts schools’ ability to offer foods 

from a variety of cultures and regions to 

avoid negatively impacting the diversity 

of school meal menus. In addition, 

USDA Foods will continue to provide 

food products with no added salt and/ 

or low sodium content for inclusion in 

school meals. As noted previously, at 

the local level, 7 CFR 210.12(a) allows 

students, parents and guardians, and 

community members to influence menu 

planning; USDA encourages the school 

community to provide ideas on sodium 

reduction strategies. USDA also 

encourages schools to communicate the 

importance of reducing sodium in 

school meals, for example, by sharing 

nutrition education messages with 

students in the school cafeteria. 

Accordingly, this final rule amends 7 

CFR 210.10(f)(3) and 220.8(f) to 

maintain Sodium Target 1 for NSLP and 

SBP through SY 2022–2023, as well as 

for SBP in SY 2023–2024, and 

implement Sodium Target 1A for NSLP 

no later than SY 2023–2024. USDA 

invites public comments on the USDA 

sodium standards discussed in this final 

rule, including comments about how 

USDA can support implementation of 

those sodium standards. These public 

comments will help to inform USDA’s 

future rulemaking. 

IV. Good Cause 

While USDA has extensively 

considered public comments on this 

final rule, USDA would have good cause 

to issue this rule even without soliciting 

public comment. 

USDA believes that good cause exists 

to implement these transitional 

standards as an interim final rule due to 

the immediate need of school operators 

to begin procurement activities for 

school meal programs. Since March 

2020, USDA and Child Nutrition 

Program operators have worked 

tirelessly to ensure children’s access to 

nutritious meals throughout the 

pandemic, safe reopening of schools, 

and steps towards resumption of 

traditional meal service. Most resources 

have been devoted to such efforts and as 

explained above, the 2012 standards 

were not applicable during such period 

due to COVID-related flexibilities 

granted by Congress. However, Congress 

recently revised such flexibilities to end 

after SY 2021–2022. See Section 3102(a) 

of the Extending Government Funding 

and Delivering Emergency Assistance 

Act (Pub. L. 117–43) (amending Section 

2202(e) of the Families First 

Coronavirus Response Act). 

In addition, many SFAs plan school 

menus months in advance of the new 

school year. For SFAs to make menu 

planning, procurement, and contract 

decisions in advance of the school year, 

they need advance notice of the meal 

pattern requirements. As shown in the 

chart below, due to the numerous steps 

involved, the ICN estimates that the 

entire procurement process may take up 

to a year to complete. 

PROCUREMENT TIMELINE FOR SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATORS

Month(s) Task(s) 

August–September ............................... • Begin preparing for procuring items. Planning approximately one year in advance provides sufficient 

time for preparation for all parties in the food chain. 

October–December .............................. • Write specifications. 

• Project USDA Foods needs. 

• Fall and winter breaks may impact timeline. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7002 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

67 Karen Weber Cullen, Tzu-An Chen, The 

contribution of the USDA school breakfast and 

lunch program meals to student daily dietary 

intake, Preventive Medicine Reports. March 2017. 

Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ 

science/article/pii/S2211335516301516. 

68School Nutrition Association. Back to School 

2021 Report: A Summary of Survey Results. 

Available at: https://schoolnutrition.org/ 

uploadedFiles/News_and_Publications/Press_

Releases/Press_Releases/Back-to-School-Report2021.pdf. Continued pandemic-related supply 

chain disruptions, staff, shortages, and financial 

sustainability/losses were identified as the top three 

‘‘serious concerns’’ among survey respondents. 

69School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study findings 

suggest that the updated nutrition standards have 

had a positive and significant influence on the 

nutritional quality of school meals. Between SY 

2009–2010 and SY 2014–2015, ‘‘Healthy Eating 

Index-2010’’ (HEI) scores for NSLP and SBP 

increased significantly, suggesting that the updated 

standards significantly improved the nutritional 

quality of school meals. Over this period, the mean 

HEI score for NSLP lunches increased from 57.9 to 

81.5, and the mean HEI score for SBP breakfasts 

increased from 49.6 to 71.3. The study is available 

at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-andmeal-cost-study. School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study (OMB Control Number 0584–0596, expiration 

date 07/31/2017.) 

70 Lunches Consumed From School Are the Most 

Nutritious. Available at: https://fnsprod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/SNMCS_infographic5_SchoolLunchesArethe

MostNutritious.pdf. 

71Updated Nutrition Standards Posed Challenges 

but Achieved Underlying Goals. Available at: 

https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ 

resource-files/SNMCS_infographic1_Challengeswith

NutritionStandards.pdf. 

PROCUREMENT TIMELINE FOR SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE OPERATORS—Continued 

Month(s) Task(s) 

January ................................................. • Develop solicitation document. Include pertinent information about the district; date and time for presolicitation conference and solicitation submission; scope of work; time period for the solicitation; any 

common legalities; ability for price escalations; name brand items; substitutions; discounts, rebates, 

and applicable credits; communication instructions with the district prior to the closing date; solicitation evaluation criteria. 

• Plan accordingly to have solicitation document and agenda item at school board meeting. 

• Modify proposal based on legal counsel’s directives. Remember fall and winter breaks may impact 

the timeline. 

February–March ................................... • Propose solicitation document to school board. 

• Follow internal procedures. 

• Communicate to distributors and manufacturer and publicly announce the solicitation. 

• Publicize the solicitation document. 

• Conduct the solicitation meeting. 

• Allow a minimum of four weeks for vendors to respond. 

• Evaluate solicitations based on pre-established criteria and select vendors. 

April–May .............................................. • Receive School Board approval for the selection of vendor. 

• Provide information to distributor and/or manufacturer. 

• Allow longer time for specialty items and name brand items. 

June ...................................................... • Communicate with stakeholders, determine delivery dates, and discuss school opening logistics. 

July–August .......................................... • Receive products for upcoming school year. 

Planning and acting in advance saves 

time, helps avoid repetitive tasks, and 

implements cost-effective inventory 

management, according to the ICN. 

Once menu planning is complete, 

schools need lead time to screen 

products, forecast required food 

quantities, write product specifications, 

create solicitation documents, announce 

the solicitation, and award the contract 

for the next school year. This final rule 

is necessary and timely, because for 

schools to successfully plan and 

adequately prepare for SY 2022–2023, 

they need to know the meal pattern 

requirements immediately. Planning 

and preparing for the new school year 

is important not only from an 

administrative standpoint; it also allows 

school nutrition professionals to better 

serve the children who rely on school 

breakfast and lunch for up to half their 

dietary intake each school day.67

Supporting schools’ ability to plan 

ahead is especially important at a time 

when schools are still facing pandemicrelated concerns, such as supply chain 

disruptions, staff shortages, and 

financial losses.68 Importantly, if 

schools do not have sufficient time to 

procure foods that comply with the 

meal pattern standards, they may 

choose not to participate in the 

programs or, if they do participate, may 

be found noncompliant and, depending 

on the meal pattern violation, ineligible 

for reimbursement. 

V. Summary 

In 2012, USDA published a final rule 

that raised school meal nutrition 

standards for the first time in more than 

15 years. The updated meal patterns 

were a key component of implementing 

the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 

which significantly enhanced school 

meal standards to meet the nutritional 

needs of children and to safeguard their 

health and well-being. Most elements of 

the 2012 regulations have been 

successfully implemented with 

measurable, positive effect.69 Under the 

updated standards, USDA research 

found that school lunches were more 

nutritious compared to lunches from 

home or other places. For example, 

students who ate school lunches were 

more than twice as likely to consume 

vegetables at lunch compared to 

students who ate lunches from home or 

other sources.70 USDA also found that a 

majority of SFA directors agreed that the 

updated standards were helpful in 

decreasing sodium, increasing dark 

green and red/orange vegetables, 

meeting calorie requirements, and 

increasing whole grains in school 

meals.71

Yet, for several years after publication 

of the 2012 rule, administrative and 

legislative action provided flexibility to 

the milk, whole grains, and sodium 

requirements. In 2018, USDA published 

a final rule to revise the requirements 

for milk, whole grains, and sodium. In 

April 2020, due to a court decision 

vacating the 2018 rule, the meal pattern 

requirements for milk, whole grains, 

and sodium immediately reverted to the 

2012 regulations. 

Nevertheless, nationwide meal 

pattern waivers provided flexibility to 

allow safe meal service during the 

COVID–19 pandemic, so the court 

decision had little practical effect on 

schools at the time. These waivers will 

expire on June 30, 2022. However, many 

schools are not ready to immediately 

serve meals that meet the milk, whole 

grains, and sodium requirements from 

the 2012 rule. Reverting to these 

requirements, some of which have never 

been fully in effect, immediately after 

the waivers expire would be unrealistic 

and impose unreasonable difficulties on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7003 

schools, undermining their ability to 

comply with Program requirements. 

Additionally, schools need more time to 

respond to and recover from the 

economic and transformational impacts 

of meal service during the pandemic. 

Considering the comments received 

on the November 2020 proposed rule, 

circumstances affecting schools, and the 

current Dietary Guidelines, USDA is 

finalizing the November 2020 proposed 

rule with standards targeting three meal 

requirements for the near-term, which 

will provide schools with a measured 

transition to healthier meals. The 

transitional standards offered in this 

final rule apply only to the milk, whole 

grains, and sodium requirements. This 

final rule will allow NSLP and SBP 

operators, and some CACFP and SMP 

operators, to offer flavored, low-fat milk; 

require at least 80 percent of the weekly 

grains in the school lunch and breakfast 

menus to be whole grain-rich; and retain 

Sodium Target 1 for NSLP and SBP 

through the end of SY 2022–2023, as 

well as for SBP beginning in SY 2023– 

2024, and make a Sodium Interim 

Target 1A effective for NSLP beginning 

in SY 2023–2024. 

Schools that can meet or exceed these 

standards do not have to change their 

menus because of this final rule, and are 

encouraged to continue exceeding the 

regulatory standard to provide students 

with the healthiest meals possible. At 

the local level, 7 CFR 210.12(a) allows 

students, parents and guardians, and 

community members to influence menu 

planning. The local school wellness 

policy (7 CFR 210.31) also provides an 

important opportunity to influence the 

school nutrition environment at large; 

USDA encourages community members 

to support their local school’s efforts to 

provide students with nutritious school 

meals. In addition, 7 CFR 210.19(e) 

allows State agencies discretion to set 

additional requirements that are not 

inconsistent with the minimum 

nutrition standards for school meals. 

Looking ahead, USDA will 

promulgate a new rulemaking regarding 

nutritional requirements for school 

meals that comprehensively considers 

the goals of the Dietary Guidelines, 

2020–2025, recent nutrition science, and 

the needs of children who may 

experience food and nutrition 

insecurity. USDA also commits to 

providing stakeholders with a 

meaningful opportunity to offer 

comments on a new proposed rule and 

will fully consider all comments. USDA 

intends to propose and finalize a new 

rule that demonstrates the Department’s 

commitment to nutrition to be effective 

by SY 2024–2025. 

Meanwhile, USDA will continue to 

provide schools with technical 

assistance, training resources, and 

mentoring to help them offer nutritious 

meals that students enjoy. In addition, 

USDA Foods will continue to provide 

whole grain-rich products and products 

with no added salt and/or low sodium 

content for inclusion in school meals. 

USDA invites the public to comment on 

the content of this final rule, as well as 

provide comments that will inform the 

future rulemaking that will offer the 

next steps towards better nutrition for 

America’s school children. 

Procedural Matters 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This final 

rule has been determined to be 

economically significant and was 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) in conformance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

As required for all rules that have 

been designated as Significant by the 

Office of Management and Budget, a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was 

developed for this final rule. It follows 

this rule as an Appendix. The following 

summarizes the conclusions of the 

regulatory impact analysis: 

Need for Action: This final rule will 

establish transitional standards to 

support the continued provision of 

nutritious school meals while USDA 

updates the meal pattern standards to 

reflect the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2020–2025, and as schools 

recover from the pandemic. USDA will 

develop updated standards through a 

new rulemaking for implementation in 

school year (SY) 2024–2025 and 

beyond, based on current nutrition 

science and public input on how to 

build on the success of school meals in 

supporting healthy eating and improved 

dietary outcomes. The COVID–19 

pandemic impacted the entire Nation, 

but schools faced challenges adjusting 

to widespread closures, online and 

hybrid learning, and supply chain 

issues that affected the school meal 

service and the broader school 

environment. Many operators will need 

to reacquaint themselves with the 2012 

standards after several years of 

Congressional, regulatory, and 

administrative interventions, followed 

by two years of meal pattern flexibilities 

provided in response to the public 

health emergency. As a result of these 

interventions and COVID–19 

nationwide waivers, the 2012 whole 

grain-rich requirement and Sodium 

Target 2 have not been fully 

implemented, and the 2012 milk 

requirements have not been fully 

implemented in over five years. This 

final rule establishes transitional 

requirements for milk whole grains, and 

sodium to respond to the needs of 

schools as they recover from the 

challenges of COVID–19, while also 

taking measured steps towards 

improving nutritional quality of meals 

offered. 

Benefits: This rule builds on the major 

achievements schools have already 

made improving school meals to 

support healthy diets for school 

children. Schools would face extreme 

challenges immediately returning to the 

2012 standards from COVID–19 

operations, which would be 

compounded by supply chain 

disruptions and staffing concerns. This 

rule will implement a modified Sodium 

Target 1A for NSLP, which will support 

schools with a gradual transition to 

lower sodium meals. USDA also 

increased the percentage of whole grainrich offerings required from 50 percent 

in the proposed rule to 80 percent in 

this final rule to recognize the need to 

continued progress in school meal 

nutrition. This rule provides achievable 

standards while USDA engages in more 

comprehensive long-term rulemaking to 

further update the meal standards. 

Costs: USDA estimates this final rule 

will save schools $0.15 cent per meal or 

$1.1 billion annually compared to 

directly moving to the 2012 standards 

for milk, whole grains, and sodium in 

SY 2022–2023. Absent this rule it is 

estimated to cost $1.3 billion annually 

or $0.18 per meal for schools to move 

immediately to the 2012 milk, whole 

grains, and sodium requirements. The 

increased costs to schools under the 

2012 standards are primarily due to the 

requirement to procure entirely whole 

grain-rich offerings, which are estimated 

to be more expensive than enriched 

items, and the stricter sodium 

standards, which require additional 

food and labor costs to support scratch 

cooking as industry currently does not 

offer enough compliant products. 

Relative to current school year 

operations, this rule is estimated to 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7004 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

potentially increase costs to schools by 

$187 million annually or about $0.03 

per meal. These are mostly driven by 

the move to the requirement that at least 

80 percent of grains offered must be 

whole grain-rich and increases in food 

and labor costs for schools that still 

need to meet Sodium Target 1 and 

Target 1A. Costs to offer low-fat, 

flavored milk as an option are due to 

low-fat, flavored milk being slightly 

more expensive than fat-free, flavored 

varieties. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601–612) requires agencies to 

analyze the impact of rulemaking on 

small entities and consider alternatives 

that would minimize any significant 

impacts on a substantial number of 

small entities. Pursuant to that review, 

it has been certified that this rule would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Because this interim final rule adds 

flexibility to current Child Nutrition 

Program regulations, the changes 

implemented through this final rule are 

expected to benefit small entities 

operating meal programs under 7 CFR 

parts 210, 215, 220, and 226. 

Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

designated this rule as a major rule, as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local 

and tribal governments, and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the Department generally must prepare 

a written statement, including a cost 

benefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local or 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector, of $146 million or 

more (when adjusted for inflation; GDP 

deflator source: Table 1.1.9 at http://

www.bea.gov/iTable) in any one year. 

When such a statement is needed for a 

rule, Section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires the Department to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

most cost effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. 

This final rule does not contain 

Federal mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local and Tribal governments, or 

the private sector of $146 million or 

more in any one year. Thus, the rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12372 

The NSLP, SMP, SBP, and the CACFP 

are listed in the Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance under NSLP No. 

10.555, SMP No. 10.556, SBP No. 

10.553, and CACFP No. 10.558, 

respectively, and are subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials (see 2 CFR 

chapter IV). Since the Child Nutrition 

Programs are State-administered, 

USDA’s FNS Regional Offices have 

formal and informal discussions with 

State and local officials, including 

representatives of Indian Tribal 

Organizations, on an ongoing basis 

regarding program requirements and 

operations. This provides USDA with 

the opportunity to receive regular input 

from program administrators and 

contributes to the development of 

feasible program requirements. 

Federalism Summary Impact Statement 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under Section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132. 

The Department has considered the 

impact of this final rule on State and 

local governments and has determined 

that this rule does not have federalism 

implications. Therefore, under section 

6(b) of the Executive Order, a federalism 

summary is not required. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is intended to 

have preemptive effect with respect to 

any State or local laws, regulations, or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions or which would otherwise 

impede its full and timely 

implementation. This rule is not 

intended to have retroactive effect. Prior 

to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of the interim final rule, all 

applicable administrative procedures 

must be exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed the final rule, in 

accordance with Department Regulation 

4300–004, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, 

to identify and address any major civil 

rights impacts the final rule might have 

on minorities, women, and persons with 

disabilities. A comprehensive Civil 

Rights Impact Analysis (CRIA) was 

conducted on the final rule, including 

an analysis of participant data and 

provisions contained in the final rule. 

The CRIA outlines outreach and 

mitigation strategies to lessen any 

possible civil rights impacts. The CRIA 

concludes by stating that FNS believes 

the promulgation of this final rule will 

impact SFAs and CACFP institutions 

and facilities by adding transitional 

meal pattern standards. Additionally, 

participants in the NSLP, SBP, SMP, 

and CACFP may be impacted if 

transitional meal pattern standards are 

taken by SFAs and CACFP institutions 

and facilities. However, FNS finds that 

the implementation of mitigation 

strategies and monitoring by the FNS 

Civil Rights Division and FNS Child 

Nutrition Programs may lessen these 

impacts. If deemed necessary, the FNS 

Civil Rights Division will propose 

further mitigation and outreach to 

alleviate impacts that may result from 

the implementation of the final rule. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 requires 

Federal agencies to consult and 

coordinate with Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis on 

policies that have Tribal implications, 

including regulations, legislative 

comments, or proposed legislation. 

Additionally, other policy statements or 

actions that have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian Tribes, the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes also 

require consultation. 

After reviewing the final rule, the 

Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) has 

determined that there are multiple 

issues that could warrant tribal 

consultation such as the milk 

requirement and not allowing flexibility 

for complete exclusion of dairy (not just 

lactose-free dairy) products and 

inclusion of completely different 

traditional sources of calcium, and the 

grain requirement not having flexibility 

for having certain indigenous foods for 

carbohydrates that are not grains (such 

as wild rice, amaranth, etc.). 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7005 

Recognizing that there have been 

difficulties associated with the COVID– 

19 pandemic and because these are 

transitional standards, OTR approves 

the final rule on the condition that there 

is robust consultation on the 

forthcoming proposed rule related to 

school nutrition standards to ensure that 

indigenous views and dietary concerns 

are fully taken into account. 

If a tribe requests consultation in the 

future, FNS will work with the Office of 

Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful 

consultation is provided. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; 5 CFR part 1320) 

requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to approve all collections 

of information by a Federal agency 

before they can be implemented. 

Respondents are not required to respond 

to any collection of information unless 

it displays a current valid OMB control 

number. 

Send comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, 

Washington, DC 20503. Comments are 

invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

This rule contains information 

collections that have been approved by 

OMB under OMB #0584–0006 (7 CFR 

part 210, National School Lunch 

Program), expires 7/31/2023; OMB 

#0584–0012 (7 CFR part 220, School 

Breakfast Program), expires 4/30/2022; 

OMB #0584–0005 (7 CFR part 215, 

Special Milk Program for Children), 

expires 7/31/2022; and OMB #0584– 

0055 (7 CFR part 226, Child and Adult 

Care Food Program), expired 2/29/2020. 

Although the CACFP information 

collection has expired, USDA is 

planning to reinstate it and has 

published a 60-Day Notice. Revisions 

are underway and USDA expects to 

submit it to OMB for review soon. The 

provisions of this rule do not impose 

new or existing information collection 

requirements subject to approval by the 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1994. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Department is committed to 

complying with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, to promote the use of the 

internet and other information 

technologies to provide increased 

opportunities for citizen access to 

Government information and services, 

and for other purposes. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 210 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, School 

breakfast and lunch programs, Surplus 

agricultural commodities. 

7 CFR Part 215 

Food assistance programs, Grant 

programs—education, Grant program— 

health, Infants and children, Milk, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 220 

Grant programs—education, Grant 

programs—health, Infants and children, 

Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, School breakfast and 

lunch programs. 

7 CFR Part 226 

Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food 

assistance programs, Grant programs, 

Grant programs—health, Individuals 

with disabilities, Infants and children, 

Intergovernmental relations, Loan 

programs, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surplus agricultural 

commodities. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 210, 215, 

220, and 226 are amended as follows: 

PART 210—NATIONAL SCHOOL 

LUNCH PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 210 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1751–1760, 1779. 

■ 2. In § 210.10: 

■ a. Revise the table in paragraph (c) 

introductory text; and 

■ b. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B), 

(d)(1)(i), and (f)(3). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 210.10 Meal requirements for lunches 

and requirements for afterschool snacks. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) INTRODUCTORY TEXT—LUNCH MEAL PATTERN

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Food components Amount of Food a per Week 

(minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) b ............................................................................................................................... 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 21⁄2 (1⁄2) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) b ...................................................................................................................... 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 33⁄4 (3⁄4) 5 (1) 

Dark green c .......................................................................................................................... 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Red/Orange c ........................................................................................................................ 3⁄4 3⁄4 11⁄4

Beans and peas (legumes) c ................................................................................................ 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Starchy c ................................................................................................................................ 1⁄2 1⁄2 1⁄2

Other c d ........................................................................................................................................ 1⁄2 1⁄2 3⁄42

Additional Vegetables to Reach Total e ....................................................................................... 1 1 11⁄2

Grains (oz eq)f ............................................................................................................................ 8–9 (1) 8–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) .................................................................................................... 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 10–12 (2) 

Fluid milk (cups) g ........................................................................................................................ 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

Min-max calories (kcal) h ............................................................................................................. 550–650 600–700 750–850 

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h ............................................................................................. <10 <10 <10 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7006 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) INTRODUCTORY TEXT—LUNCH MEAL PATTERN—Continued 

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

(minimum per day) 

Sodium Interim Target 1 (mg) h ................................................................................................... ≤1,230 ≤1,360 ≤1,420 

Sodium Interim Target 1A (mg) h i ............................................................................................... ≤1,110 ≤1,225 ≤1,280 

Trans fat h .................................................................................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications 

must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving. 

aFood items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. bOne-quarter cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or 

vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. c Larger amounts of these vegetables may be served. 

dThis category consists of ‘‘Other vegetables’’ as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(E) of this section. For the purposes of the NSLP, the ‘‘Other 

vegetables’’ requirement may be met with any additional amounts from the dark green, red/orange, and beans/peas (legumes) vegetable subgroups as defined in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. eAny vegetable subgroup may be offered to meet the total weekly vegetable requirement. 

fAt least 80 percent of grains offered weekly must meet the whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. gAll fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be flavored or flavored, provided that unflavored milk is offered 

at each meal service. h Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent are not allowed. iSodium Interim Target 1A must be met no later than July 1, 2023 (SY 2023–2024). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. The 

grains component is based on minimum 

daily servings plus total servings over a 

5-day school week. Schools serving 

lunch 6 or 7 days per week must 

increase the weekly grains quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each 

additional day. When schools operate 

less than 5 days per week, they may 

decrease the weekly quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each 

day less than 5. The servings for 

biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/ 

bread varieties are specified in FNS 

guidance. Eighty (80) percent of grains 

offered weekly must meet the whole 

grain-rich criteria specified in FNS 

guidance, and the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Schools must offer students a 

variety (at least two different options) of 

fluid milk. All milk must be fat-free 

(skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). 

Milk with higher fat content is not 

allowed. Low-fat or fat-free lactose-free 

and reduced-lactose fluid milk may also 

be offered. Milk may be unflavored or 

flavored, provided that unflavored milk 

is offered at each meal service. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Sodium. School lunches offered to 

each age/grade group must meet, on 

average over the school week, the levels 

of sodium specified in the following 

table within the established deadlines: 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(3)—NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM SODIUM TIMELINE & LIMITS

Age/grade group 

Target 1: 

effective July 1, 2022 

(mg) 

Interim target 1A: 

effective July 1, 2023 

(mg) 

K–5 ....................................................................................................................................... ≤1,230 ≤1,110 

6–8 ....................................................................................................................................... ≤1,360 ≤1,225 

9–12 ..................................................................................................................................... ≤1,420 ≤1,280 

* * * * * 

§ 210.11 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 210.11, in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii), 

(m)(2)(ii), and (m)(3)(ii) add the words 

‘‘flavored or’’ before the word 

‘‘unflavored’’. 

PART 215—SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM 

FOR CHILDREN 

■ 4. The authority for part 215 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1772 and 1779. 

■ 5. In § 215.7a, revise paragraphs (a) 

introductory text and (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 215.7a Fluid milk and non-dairy milk 

substitute requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Types of fluid milk. All fluid milk 

served in the Program must be 

pasteurized fluid milk which meets 

State and local standards for such milk, 

have vitamins A and D at levels 

specified by the Food and Drug 

Administration, and must be consistent 

with State and local standards for such 

milk. Lactose-free and reduced-lactose 

milk that meet the fat content and flavor 

specifications for each age group may 

also be offered. Fluid milk must also 

meet the following requirements: 

* * * * * 

(3) Children 6 years old and older. 

Children 6 years old and older must be 

served low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or 

fat-free (skim) milk. Milk may be 

flavored or unflavored. 

* * * * * 

PART 220—SCHOOL BREAKFAST 

PROGRAM 

■ 6. The authority citation for part 220 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 7. In § 220.8, revise the table in 

paragraph (c) introductory text and 

revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(B), (d), and 

(f)(3) to read as follows: 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7007 

§ 220.8 Meal requirements for breakfasts. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (c) INTRODUCTORY TEXT—BREAKFAST MEAL PATTERN

Grades K–5 Grades 6–8 Grades 9–12 

Food components Amount of Food a per Week 

(minimum per day) 

Fruits (cups) b c ............................................................................................................................. 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Vegetables (cups) b c .................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Dark green ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Red/Orange .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Beans and peas (legumes) .................................................................................................. 0 0 0

Starchy .................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Other ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Grains (oz eq) d ............................................................................................................................ 7–10 (1) 8–10 (1) 9–10 (1) 

Meats/Meat Alternates (oz eq) e .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Fluid milk f (cups) ......................................................................................................................... 5 (1) 5 (1) 5 (1) 

Other Specifications: Daily Amount Based on the Average for a 5-Day Week 

Min-max calories (kcal) g h ........................................................................................................... 350–500 400–550 450–600 

Saturated fat (% of total calories) h ............................................................................................. <10 <10 <10 

Sodium Target 1 (mg) ................................................................................................................. ≤540 ≤600 ≤640 

Trans fat h .................................................................................................................................... Nutrition label or manufacturer specifications 

must indicate zero grams of trans fat per serving. 

aFood items included in each group and subgroup and amount equivalents. Minimum creditable serving is 1⁄8 cup. bOne-quarter cup of dried fruit counts as 1⁄2 cup of fruit; 1 cup of leafy greens counts as 1⁄2 cup of vegetables. No more than half of the fruit or 

vegetable offerings may be in the form of juice. All juice must be 100% full-strength. cSchools must offer 1 cup of fruit daily and 5 cups of fruit weekly. Vegetables may be substituted for fruits, but the first two cups per week of 

any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans/peas (legumes), or ‘‘Other vegetables’’ subgroups, as defined in 

§ 210.10(c)(2)(iii) of this chapter. dAt least 80 percent of grains offered weekly must meet the whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS guidance, and the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. Schools may substitute 1 oz. eq. of meat/meat alternate for 1 oz. eq. of grains after the minimum daily grains requirement is met. eThere is no meat/meat alternate requirement. 

fAll fluid milk must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less). Milk may be unflavored or flavored, provided that unflavored milk is offered at each meal service. gThe average daily calories for a 5-day school week must be within the range (at least the minimum and no more than the maximum values). h Discretionary sources of calories (solid fats and added sugars) may be added to the meal pattern if within the specifications for calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium. Foods of minimal nutritional value and fluid milk with fat content greater than 1 percent milk fat are not allowed. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) Daily and weekly servings. The 

grains component is based on minimum 

daily servings plus total servings over a 

5-day school week. Schools serving 

breakfast 6 or 7 days per week must 

increase the weekly grains quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each 

additional day. When schools operate 

less than 5 days per week, they may 

decrease the weekly quantity by 

approximately 20 percent (1⁄5) for each 

day less than 5. The servings for 

biscuits, rolls, muffins, and other grain/ 

bread varieties are specified in FNS 

guidance. At least 80 percent of grains 

offered weekly must meet the whole 

grain-rich criteria specified in FNS 

guidance, and the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. 

* * * * * 

(d) Fluid milk requirement. Breakfast 

must include a serving of fluid milk as 

a beverage or on cereal or used in part 

for each purpose. Schools must offer 

students a variety (at least two different 

options) of fluid milk. All fluid milk 

must be fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 

percent fat or less). Milk with higher fat 

content is not allowed. Low-fat or fatfree lactose-free and reduced-lactose 

fluid milk may also be offered. Milk 

may be flavored or unflavored, provided 

that unflavored milk is offered at each 

meal service. Schools must also comply 

with other applicable fluid milk 

requirements in § 210.10(d) of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Sodium. School breakfasts offered 

to each age/grade group must meet, on 

average over the school week, the levels 

of sodium specified in the following 

table: 

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(3)— 

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM SODIUM LIMITS

Age/grade group Target 1 

(mg) 

K–5 ....................................... ≤540 

6–8 ........................................ ≤600 

9–12 ...................................... ≤640 

* * * * * 

PART 226—CHILD AND ADULT CARE 

FOOD PROGRAM 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 226 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, 

Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 

1762a, 1765 and 1766). 

■ 9. In § 226.20, revise paragraph (a)(1) 

and the tables to paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (3) to read as follows: 

§ 226.20 Requirements for meals. 

(a) * * * 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7008 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Fluid milk. Fluid milk must be 

served as a beverage or on cereal, or a 

combination of both. Lactose-free and 

reduced-lactose milk that meet the fat 

content and flavor specifications for 

each age group may also be offered. 

(i) Children 1 year old. Unflavored 

whole milk must be served. 

(ii) Children 2 through 5 years old. 

Either unflavored low-fat (1 percent) or 

unflavored fat-free (skim) milk must be 

served. 

(iii) Children 6 years old and older. 

Low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or fat-free 

(skim) milk must be served. Milk may 

be unflavored or flavored. 

(iv) Adults. Low-fat (1 percent fat or 

less) or fat-free (skim) milk must be 

served. Milk may be unflavored or 

flavored. Six ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup 

(volume) of yogurt may be used to fulfill 

the equivalent of 8 ounces of fluid milk 

once per day. Yogurt may be counted as 

either a fluid milk substitute or as a 

meat alternate, but not as both in the 

same meal. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (c)(1)—CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM BREAKFAST

[Select the appropriate components for a reimbursable meal] 

Food components and food items 1

Minimum quantities 

Ages 1–2 Ages 3–5 Ages 6–12 

Ages 13–18 2

(at-risk afterschool 

programs and 

emergency shelters) 

Adult 

participants 

Fluid Milk 3 ........................................................... 4 fluid ounces .......... 6 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces. 

Vegetables, fruits, or portions of both 4 ............... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Grains (oz. eq.) 5678 ........................................... 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1 ounce equivalent .. 1 ounce equivalent .. 2 ounce equivalents. 

Endnotes: 

1 Must serve all three components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool participants. 

2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs. 

3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for children two through 

five years old. Must be unflavored or flavored fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less) milk for children 6 years old and older and adults. For adult participants, 

6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal. 4Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day. 5At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards meeting the grains requirement. 

6 Meat and meat alternates may be used to meet the entire grains requirement a maximum of three times a week. One ounce of meat and meat alternates is equal 

to one ounce equivalent of grains. 7 Refer to FNS guidance for additional information on crediting different types of grains. 

8Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal). 

(2) * * * 

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (c)(2)—CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM LUNCH AND SUPPER

[Select the appropriate components for a reimbursable meal] 

Food components and food items 1

Minimum quantities 

Ages 1–2 Ages 3–5 Ages 6–12 

Ages 13–18 2

(at-risk afterschool 

programs and 

emergency 

shelters) 

Adult participants 

Fluid Milk 3 ........................................................... 4 fluid ounces .......... 6 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces.4

Meat/meat alternates (edible portion as served): 

Lean meat, poultry, or fish ........................... 1 ounce ................... 11⁄2 ounces .............. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces. 

Tofu, soy products, or alternate protein 

products 5.

1 ounce ................... 11⁄2 ounces .............. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces. 

Cheese ......................................................... 1 ounce ................... 11⁄2 ounces .............. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces .................. 2 ounces. 

Large egg ..................................................... 1⁄2 ............................. 3⁄4 ............................. 1 .............................. 1 .............................. 1. 

Cooked dry beans or peas ........................... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 3⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2cup ....................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Peanut butter or soy nut butter or other nut 

or seed butters.

2 Tbsp ..................... 3 Tbsp ..................... 4 Tbsp ..................... 4 Tbsp ..................... 4 Tbsp. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored unsweetened or 

sweetened 6.

4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup 6 ounces or 3⁄4 cup 8 ounces or 1 cup ... 8 ounces or 1 cup ... 8 ounces or 1 cup. 

The following may be used to meet no 

more than 50% of the requirement: 

Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, or seeds, 

as listed in program guidance, or an 

equivalent quantity of any combination of the above meat/meat alternates (1 ounce of nuts/seeds = 1 

ounce of cooked lean meat, poultry, 

or fish).

1⁄2 ounce = 50% ...... 3⁄4 ounce = 50% ...... 1 ounce = 50% ........ 1 ounce = 50% ........ 1 ounce = 50%. 

Vegetables 7 8 ...................................................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Fruits 7 8 ............................................................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Grains (oz eq) 9 10 11 ............................................ 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1 ounce equivalent .. 1 ounce equivalent .. 2 ounce equivalents. 

Endnotes: 

1 Must serve all five components for a reimbursable meal. Offer versus serve is an option for at-risk afterschool and adult participants. 2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs. 

3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for children two through 

five years old. Must be unflavored or flavored fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less) milk for children 6 years old and older and adults. For adult participants, 

6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal. 4A serving of fluid milk is optional for suppers served to adult participants. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7009 

72As noted in the preamble, standards in this rule 

will be effective only during the interim period 

before the new standards are promulgated. USDA 

intends the new rulemaking to be completed in 

time for SY2024–2025, but in the unlikely event of 

a delay, the standards in this final rule would 

remain in effect until such new rulemaking is 

completed. Since USDA intends to establish new 

meal pattern requirements for SY 2024–2025 and 

beyond, the standards in this will be referenced to 

as ‘‘transitional’’ in this rule. 

73 Federal Register: Nutrition Standards in the 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast 

Programs. 

5Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to Part 226 of this chapter. 

6Yogurt must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces. 

7Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day. 8A vegetable may be used to meet the entire fruit requirement. When two vegetables are served at lunch or supper, two different kinds of vegetables must be 

served. 9At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains requirement. 

10 Refer to FNS guidance for additional information on crediting different types of grains. 11Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal). 

(3) * * * 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (c)(3)—CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM SNACK

[Select the appropriate components for a reimbursable meal] 

Food components and food items 1

Minimum quantities 

Ages 1–2 Ages 3–5 Ages 6–12 

Ages 13–18 2

(at-risk afterschool 

programs and 

emergency 

shelters) 

Adult participants 

Fluid Milk 3 ........................................................... 4 fluid ounces .......... 4 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces .......... 8 fluid ounces. 

Meat/meat alternates (edible portion as served): 

Lean meat, poultry, or fish ........................... 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce 

Tofu, soy products, or alternate protein 

products 4.

1⁄2 ounce .................. 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce. 

Cheese ......................................................... 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce. 

Large egg ..................................................... 1⁄2 ............................. 1⁄2 ............................. 1⁄2 ............................. 1⁄2 ............................. 1⁄2. 

Cooked dry beans or peas ........................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄8 cup ...................... 1⁄8 cup. 

Peanut butter or soy nut butter or other nut 

or seed butters.

1 Tbsp ..................... 1 Tbsp ..................... 2 Tbsp ..................... 2 Tbsp ..................... 2 Tbsp. 

Yogurt, plain or flavored unsweetened or 

sweetened 5.

2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup 2 ounces or 1⁄4 cup 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup 4 ounces or 1⁄2 cup. 

Peanuts, soy nuts, tree nuts, or seeds ........ 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1⁄2 ounce .................. 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce ................... 1 ounce. 

Vegetables 6 ......................................................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 3⁄4 cup ...................... 3⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Fruits 6 .................................................................. 1⁄2 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup ...................... 3⁄4 cup ...................... 3⁄4 cup ...................... 1⁄2 cup. 

Grains (oz. eq.) 789 ............................................. 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1⁄2 ounce equivalent 1 ounce equivalent .. 1 ounce equivalent .. 1 ounce equivalent. 

Endnotes: 

1Select two of the five components for a reimbursable snack. Only one of the two components may be a beverage. 

2 Larger portion sizes than specified may need to be served to children 13 through 18 years old to meet their nutritional needs. 

3 Must be unflavored whole milk for children age one. Must be unflavored low-fat (1 percent fat or less) or unflavored fat-free (skim) milk for children two through 

five years old. Must be unflavored or flavored fat-free (skim) or low-fat (1 percent fat or less) milk for children 6 years old and older and adults. For adult participants, 

6 ounces (weight) or 3⁄4 cup (volume) of yogurt may be used to meet the equivalent of 8 ounces of fluid milk once per day when yogurt is not served as a meat alternate in the same meal. 4Alternate protein products must meet the requirements in Appendix A to part 226 of this chapter. 

5Yogurt must contain no more than 23 grams of total sugars per 6 ounces. 

6Pasteurized full-strength juice may only be used to meet the vegetable or fruit requirement at one meal, including snack, per day. 7At least one serving per day, across all eating occasions, must be whole grain-rich. Grain-based desserts do not count towards the grains requirement. 

8 Refer to FNS guidance for additional information on crediting different types of grains. 

9Breakfast cereals must contain no more than 6 grams of sugar per dry ounce (no more than 21.2 grams sucrose and other sugars per 100 grams of dry cereal). 

* * * * * 

Cynthia Long, 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Appendix 

Note: This appendix will not appear in the 

Code of Regulations. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs and 

benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing 

rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final 

rule has been determined to be economically 

significant and was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in 

conformance with Executive Order 12866. 

I. Statement of Need 

USDA is finalizing its November 25, 2020, 

proposed rulemaking regarding child 

nutrition meal pattern requirements. 

Considering comments received, 

circumstances caused by the COVID–19 

pandemic, and current dietary science, this 

final rule will establish transitional 72

standards to support the continued provision 

of nutritious school meals while USDA 

updates the meal pattern standards to more 

comprehensively reflect the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025 and as 

schools recover from the pandemic. USDA 

will develop updated standards through a 

new rulemaking for implementation in 

school year (SY) 2024–2025 and beyond, 

based on current nutrition science and public 

input on how to build on the success of 

school meals in supporting healthy eating 

and improved dietary outcomes. This final 

rule will implement three transitional 

standards to provide immediate relief to 

schools during the return to traditional 

school meal service following extended use 

of COVID–19 flexibilities. The COVID–19 

pandemic impacted the entire Nation, but 

schools faced challenges adjusting to 

widespread closures, online and hybrid 

learning, and supply chain issues that 

affected the school meal service and the 

broader school environment.While USDA is 

committed to the service of nutritious meals 

through its programs, USDA also appreciates 

that the challenges facing schools are 

ongoing, and some schools are not prepared 

to fully meet the milk, whole grains, and 

sodium requirements from the 2012 rule in 

SY 2022–2023.73 Many operators will need to 

reacquaint themselves with the 2012 

standards after several years of 

Congressional, regulatory, and administrative 

interventions, followed by two years of meal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7010 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

74As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, 

USDA considers the final rule to be a logical 

outgrowth of the proposed rule. However, even 

without the proposed rule and logical outgrowth, 

USDA determines there is good cause to publish 

these transitional standards as an interim final rule 

and is requesting comments on the transitional 

standards. Publication of these transitional 

standards by January 2022 is necessary for SY 

2022–2023. Schools need to know the meal pattern 

requirements to procure the appropriate foods. 

75To learn more about the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration’s efforts to lower sodium in the U.S. 

food supply, visit: www.fda.gov/SodiumReduction. 

76Except where noted in the participation 

impacts, the terms ‘‘costs’’ and ‘‘savings’’ are used 

in this analysis to describe the school level shifts 

in food purchases and labor associated with school 

meal production. 

77The 2012 standards do not permit flavored lowfat milk, require all grains to be whole grain-rich, 

and require schools to meet the Sodium Final 

Target in SY 2022–2023. 

78 If all flavored fat-free milk is substituted with 

flavored low-fat milk, and schools regressed in 

whole grain-rich progress compared to SY 2014– 

2015, this rule is estimated to cost $665 million the 

first year or $0.09 more per meal. 

79The 2012 standards do not permit low fat 

flavored milk which USDA estimates to be slightly 

more expensive than fat free flavored varieties. This 

slightly reduces the savings generated due to this 

rule as this rule permits low fat flavored. Voluntary 

incurring of a cost is likely associated with benefits 

that are difficult to quantify—potentially, in this 

case, including reduced food waste. 

pattern flexibilities provided in response to 

the public health emergency. As a result of 

these interventions and COVID–19 

nationwide waivers, the 2012 whole grainrich requirement and Sodium Target 2 have 

not been fully implemented, and the 2012 

milk requirements have not been fully 

implemented in over five years. To meet this 

need, USDA is taking a two-stage approach 

to updating the school meal nutrition 

standards: 74

1. This final rule, which will establish 

standards for milk, whole grains, and 

sodium, is the first stage. These standards 

will respond to the needs of schools as they 

recover from the challenges of COVID–19, 

while also taking measured steps towards 

improving nutritional quality of meals 

offered. 

2. USDA intends to issue a proposed rule 

in fall 2022 which will address school meal 

nutrition standards for SY 2024–2025 and 

beyond. The new rulemaking will advance 

permanent standards that further 

demonstrate USDA’s commitment to 

nutritious school meals and that are 

consistent with the goals of the Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025 and 

nutrition science, as required by the National 

School Lunch Act. 

The revised standards in this final rule are 

intended to be transitional, and apply only to 

the milk, whole grains, and sodium 

requirements. This final rule: 

• Allows NSLP and SBP operators and 

some CACFP and SMP providers to offer 

flavored, low-fat milk. 

• Requires at least 80 percent of the 

weekly grains in the school lunch and 

breakfast menus to be whole grain-rich. 

• Maintains Sodium Target 1 for NSLP and 

SBP through SY 2022–2023, as well as for 

SBP in SY 2023–2024, and implements 

Sodium Target 1A for NSLP no later than SY 

2023–2024. 

Schools that can meet or exceed these 

transitional standards do not have to change 

their menus because of this final rule. USDA 

invites the public to comment on the content 

of this final rule, as well as provide 

comments to inform the future rulemaking. 

This includes comments that may assist in a 

comprehensive assessment of impacts of the 

areas addressed in this rule. 

II. Comments 

USDA received four substantive comments 

on the economic summary from the proposed 

rule. All comments expressed concern that a 

full analysis of long-term health impacts of 

the proposed changes was not included. 

Respondents also voiced concerns about 

USDA not engaging with medical 

stakeholders to fully understand the health 

impacts of changing the 2012 standards for 

milk, whole grains, and sodium. There was 

particular concern with the proposed sodium 

changes. 

USDA Response: USDA recognizes the 

need for updated standards to align with the 

goals of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2020–2025. The two-stage 

regulatory process will allow time for USDA 

to engage with a variety of medical 

stakeholders. This final rule will serve as a 

transition to updated nutrition standards; a 

new rulemaking will include input from 

various stakeholders through public 

comments to assist in an in-depth assessment 

of potential impacts. Additionally, in SY 

2023–2024, this rule will implement Sodium 

Target 1A for NSLP, which will support 

schools with a gradual transition to lowersodium meals. This target is a 10 percent 

reduction from Sodium Target 1 for NSLP 

and represents an achievable goal while 

acknowledging the importance of gradual 

sodium reduction. A variety of factors, 

including implementation of FDA’s 

voluntary reduction targets, developments in 

food science, and feedback from State and 

local stakeholders, will inform USDA’s 

decisions regarding sodium moving 

forward.75 USDA also increased the 

percentage of whole grain-rich offerings 

required from 50 percent in the proposed 

rule to 80 percent in this final rule. This 

recognizes the importance of whole grains in 

a nutritious diet while also acknowledging 

the near-term challenges of offering all whole 

grain-rich items. 

III. Summary of Impacts 

The estimated impacts of this rule reflect 

shifts in food purchases and labor resources 

incurred by schools for school meal 

production. There are no additional Federal 

revenues provided in this rule and schools 

will need to make menu modifications 

within current resources. The impacts of 

these shifts are quantified for this analysis to 

demonstrate the potential food and labor 

costs to schools as well as markets due to 

changes in purchasing patterns. The analyses 

provide the impact to schools of moving 

straight to the 2012 standards, which absent 

this rule would go into effect in SY 2022– 

2023 as well as the impact to schools of 

moving to the standards in this rule from 

current operations. 

USDA estimates this final rule will save 76

schools $0.15 cent per meal or $1.1 billion 

annually compared to directly moving to the 

2012 standards for milk, whole grains, and 

sodium in SY 2022–2023.77 Absent this rule 

it is estimated to cost $1.3 billion annually 

or $0.18 per meal for schools to move 

immediately to the 2012 milk, whole grains, 

and sodium requirements. The costs to 

schools are due to increased costs to procure 

entirely whole grain-rich offerings as well as 

increases in both food and labor costs to 

support scratch cooking to immediately 

comply with the Sodium Final Target. 

Currently in SY 2021–2022, schools unable 

to meet the NSLP and SBP standards due to 

the pandemic can request targeted meal 

pattern waivers from their State agency, 

including for the milk, whole grains, and 

sodium requirements. Schools will need to 

transition from operating under the COVID– 

19 waivers to meeting the milk, whole grain 

and sodium requirements in this rule starting 

in SY 2022–2023. Relative to the current 

school year operations, this rule is estimated 

to potentially increase costs to schools by 

$187 million annually or about $0.03 per 

meal.78 Most of these estimated costs are due 

to the requirement to offer at least 80 percent 

of grain offerings as whole grain-rich and for 

some schools that still need to meet Sodium 

Target 1 and Sodium Target 1A. USDA 

estimates whole grain-rich items to be more 

expensive than enriched items as schools 

shift to purchase more whole grain-rich 

items. Estimated costs associated with 

sodium are a result of increases in food and 

labor costs for schools that still need to meet 

Sodium Target 1 and Target 1A. Costs to offer 

low fat flavored milk as an option are due to 

low fat flavored milk being slightly more 

expensive than fat free flavored varieties. 

The $0.15 per meal savings provided by 

this rule is the cost of $0.18 per meal to 

return to the 2012 standards minus the $0.03 

per meal costs associated with the 

requirements in this rule.79 The changes in 

this rule are achievable and realistic for 

schools and recognize the need for strong 

nutrition standards in school meals. USDA 

intends to have updated regulations that 

further align school meal nutrition standards 

with the goals of the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, 2020–2025 in place by SY 2024– 

2025. This analysis provides five-year cost 

streams to project potential impacts. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7011 

80USDA started to collect data for the next 

iteration of the School Nutrition Meal Cost study 

which is the comprehensive assessment of the 

school meal program in SY 2019–2020. Data 

collection was stopped due to COVID–19 pandemic 

and the resulting school closures. The study is now 

planned to collect data in SY 2022–2023. 

TABLE 1—STREAM OF QUANTIFIABLE COSTS TO SCHOOLS

Fiscal Year 

($ millions) 

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Total 

NOMINAL COST STREAM 

MILK ......................................................... $2 $13 $13 $14 $14 $56 

80% WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ..................... ¥48 ¥303 ¥309 ¥315 ¥321 ¥1,296 

SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A ................. ¥125 ¥780 ¥795 ¥811 ¥827 ¥3,338 

TOTAL .............................................. ¥171 ¥1,069 ¥1,090 ¥1,112 ¥1,134 ¥4,577 

DISCOUNTED COST STREAM 

3 PERCENT ............................................. ¥171 ¥1,038 ¥1,028 ¥1,018 ¥1,008 ¥4,263 

7 PERCENT ............................................. ¥171 ¥999 ¥952 ¥908 ¥865 ¥3,896 

As required by OMB Circular A–4, in Table 

2 below, the Department has prepared an 

accounting statement showing the 

annualized estimates of benefits, costs, and 

transfers associated with the provisions of 

this final rule. In the next section, an impact 

analysis is provided of each change. 

TABLE 2—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

Range Estimate Year dollar Discount rate 

(percent) Period covered 

Benefits: 

Qualitative: Provides achievable updates to the milk, whole grain-rich, and sodium standards to transition from COVID–19 operations. 

Annualized Monetized (millions/year) ........................................ n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. FY 2022–2026 

Costs incurred by schools: 

Qualitative: This final rule provides updates to the milk, whole grain-rich and sodium requirements for schools. The changes in this rule are 

achievable standards as schools move from COVID–19 operations to typical meal service. The estimated savings are generated from schools 

moving to the standards in this rule instead of moving to the 2012 meal standards. The estimated potential impacts are provided to quantify 

the changes in purchasing patterns and labor hours to meet these requirements. 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ...................................... Total ¥$830 

¥877 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

FY 2022–2026 

Federal costs: 

Qualitative and Quantitative: There are no estimated change in Federal reimbursement levels associated with this rule. It is assumed participation will not measurably change from the baseline approximated by the status quo. However, if this rule is not issued then (reflecting the 

same analytic baseline against which the school cost savings, above, are estimated) there is an estimated reduction due to schools leaving 

the NSLP and SBP due to difficulties returning to the 2012 standards. These figures are presented in the impact analysis. 

Annualized Monetized ($millions/year) ...................................... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. FY 2022–2026 

IV. Section by Section Analysis 

This final rule provides standards related 

to milk, whole grains, and sodium that will 

set clear programmatic parameters as schools 

return to traditional meal service after over 

two years of serving meals under pandemic 

conditions. The Administration plans to 

propose new standards later in the year, after 

a robust engagement process with program 

stakeholders. Absent this rule, schools must 

return to the milk, whole grains, and sodium 

regulations from the 2012 rule, which: 

• Allowed flavoring only in fat-free milk in 

the NSLP and SBP. 

• Required that at least half of the grains 

offered in the NSLP be whole grain-rich 

(meaning the grain product contains at least 

50 percent whole grains and the remaining 

grain content of the product must be 

enriched) in SY 2012–2013 and one year later 

in the SBP; and required that effective SY 

2014–2015, all grains offered in both 

programs be whole grain-rich; and 

• Required schools participating in the 

NSLP and SBP to reduce the sodium content 

of meals offered on average over the school 

week by meeting progressively lower sodium 

targets over a 10-year period. The 2012 rule 

directed SFAs to meet Sodium Target 1 by 

SY 2014–2015, Sodium Target 2 by SY 2017– 

2018, and the Sodium Final Target by SY 

2022–2023. 

As noted earlier, full implementation of the 

2012 meal pattern requirements for milk, 

whole grains, and sodium has been delayed 

due to legislative, regulatory, and 

administrative actions, and the COVID–19 

pandemic. This section assesses the impact 

of this rule as well as the impact absent this 

rule, which would restore the above 2012 

standards for milk, whole grains, and 

sodium. 

A. Key Assumptions 

USDA conducted a comprehensive study 

on the school meal programs in SY 2014– 

2015 called the School Nutrition and Meal 

Cost Study. Data from this study are the most 

current available on the status of schools 

meeting the nutrition standards.80 The 

following impact analyses use SY 2014–2015 

data as applicable and more recent 

information to make assumptions to estimate 

the status. Additionally, data on the value of 

school district acquisitions are from the 

School Food Purchase Study reflecting SY 

2009–2010. This is the most current school 

district food acquisition data available and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7012 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

81These improvements were made with on 

average schools offering 70 percent of grain 

offerings as whole grain-rich. In SY 2014–2015, one 

quarter (27 percent) of weekly lunch menus met the 

new requirement, which was first implemented in 

SY 2014–2015. The majority (87 percent) of weekly 

lunch menus met the requirements from the prior 

school year—that at least 50 percent of grains be 

whole grain-rich. 

82U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

83U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate 

Waste, and Dietary Intakes by Mary Kay Fox, 

Elizabeth Gearan, Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, 

Katherine Niland, Liana Washburn, Nora Paxton, 

Lauren Olsho, Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 

84A higher percentage of income-eligible NSLP 

participants consumed any items from the 

vegetables, fruit, milk products, and mixed dish 

categories compared with income-eligible 

nonparticipants: Unreleased USDA report using 

2011–2016 National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey (NHANES) data to examine the 

relationship between estimated program 

participation, diet quality, indicators of nutrition 

and health, food consumption patterns, and 

nutrient intakes. 

85 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 

86 Gordon, E.L., Morrissey, N., Adams, E., 

Wieczorek, A. Glenn, M.E., Burke, S. & Connor, P. 

(2019). Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium 

in School Meals Final Report. Prepared by 2M 

Research under Contract No. AG–3198–P–15–0040. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. 

figures from this study are inflated to reflect 

current prices. However, the distribution of 

the types of foods school districts purchase 

may have shifted during the implementation 

of the 2012 standards and more recently due 

to COVID–19 operations. 

The analyses assume Congress will not 

override these final standards for the milk, 

whole grains, and sodium requirements in 

the near-term. The base analyses also assume 

that after two and one-half years of serving 

meals through COVID–19 waivers, school 

meal participation will normalize to be 

consistent with service levels in FY 2019. 

Simulation of different participation levels 

are presented in the Uncertainty Section. 

This analysis also assumes that due to the 

plan to revise these standards via another 

rulemaking that there will not be any 

measurable health or nutritional impact of 

the changes in this rule. This rule builds on 

the major achievements schools already 

made improving school meals to support 

healthy diets for school children. Schools 

have made significant progress towards 

healthier school meals. Between SY 2009– 

2010 and SY 2014–2015, ‘‘Healthy Eating 

Index–2010’’ (HEI–2010) scores of diet 

quality for NSLP and SBP increased 

significantly. Over this period, the mean 

HEI–2010 score for NSLP lunches increased 

from 57.9 to 81.5 out of a possible 100 points, 

and the mean HEI–2010 score for SBP 

breakfasts increased from 49.6 to 71.3 out of 

a possible 100 points. These significant 

increases in HEI are driven by the full suite 

of the 2012 standards including higher scores 

for fruits and vegetables and reduction in 

empty calories. 

HEI–2010 scores also greatly improved for 

whole grains. In SY 2014–2015, the HEI– 

2010 component score for whole grains in 

NSLP lunches served improved significantly 

from SY 2009–2010 to SY 2014–2015, by 71 

percentage points (from 25 to 95 percent of 

the maximum score). Similarly, for SBP 

breakfasts served, the score for whole grains 

increased by 58 percentage points (from 38 

to 96 percent of the maximum score) over the 

same timeframe.81

In SY 2014–2015, the HEI–2010 score for 

sodium improved significantly from a score 

of 10 percent of the maximum score to 27 

percent of the maximum score, which reflects 

the majority of schools meeting Sodium 

Target 1 in the first-year schools were 

required to meet Sodium Target 1. From SY 

2009–2010 to SY 2014–2015, the average 

sodium content of NSLP lunches decreased 

between 15 percent and 21 percent and SBP 

breakfasts decreased between 10 percent to 

15 percent. By comparison, from SY 2004– 

2005 to SY 2009–2010, sodium levels for 

NSLP lunches and SBP breakfasts decreased 

by 2 percent and 11 percent, respectively.82

While the HEI–2010 scores for meals 

offered significantly improved after 

implementation of the 2012 meal standards, 

the HEI–2010 scores for the lunches and 

breakfasts consumed by students 

participating in NSLP and SBP in SY 2014– 

2015 were significantly higher than 

nonparticipants. Students who ate a school 

lunch were more likely to consume milk, 

fruits, and vegetables and less likely to 

consume desserts, snack items, and non-milk 

beverages at lunch than students who ate 

lunch from home or other places. NLSP 

lunches consumed had significantly higher 

HEI–2010 scores compared to lunches 

consumed from home or other places (80 

percent versus 65 percent out of a possible 

100 points). The lunches consumed by NSLP 

participants received significantly higher 

scores than the lunches consumed by 

matched nonparticipants for total vegetables 

(52 percent of the maximum score versus 38 

percent), whole grains (100 percent versus 63 

percent), and dairy (100 percent versus 69 

percent). Additionally, lunches consumed by 

NSLP participants were lower in calories, 

total fat, and saturated fat than lunches 

consumed by matched nonparticipants. 

Breakfasts consumed by SBP participants 

contained significantly larger amounts of 

fruit and whole grains than breakfasts 

consumed by matched nonparticipants and 

had a significantly higher HEI–2010 score 

than breakfasts consumed by matched 

nonparticipants (66.1 percent versus 58.9 

percent).83 School meals serve as a critical 

source of nutrition for the nation’s children 

especially for children in low-income 

households.84

The HEI measures alignment with the 

Dietary Guidelines of Americans, which are 

set based on nutrition recommendations and 

evidence of health benefits. Research has 

shown that closer alignment with the Dietary 

Guidelines reduces the risk of obesity related 

chronic diseases.85 The improvements in HEI 

scores further demonstrate the extension of 

the current health benefits realized by the 

2012 standards to date and the importance of 

starting healthy eating habits early. 

Early in the COVID–19 pandemic, many 

schools transitioned to serving meals under 

the Summer Food Service Program, which 

operates under a separate, simpler meal 

pattern. In SY 2021–2022, schools were still 

able to offer all meals free, but through the 

Seamless Summer Option, which uses the 

NSLP and SBP meal patterns. This 

transitioned schools back to the healthier 

school meals that are traditionally offered 

during the school year. However, supply 

chain disruptions created additional 

challenges, and many schools needed 

waivers for specific meal pattern 

requirements, including milk, whole grains, 

and sodium. It is expected that the overall 

positive nutritional impacts of the 2012 meal 

standards will continue to benefit school 

children as this rule makes achievable 

adjustments to strengthen the meal standards 

while balancing the need to support schools 

during transition from COVID–19 operations 

and supply chain disruptions. This rule 

builds on the significant progress schools 

already made in implementing the 2012 

standards. 

Absent this rule, schools would be 

required to meet the 2012 standards, which 

would not permit flavored low-fat milk, 

require all grains to be whole grain-rich, and 

require schools to meet the Sodium Final 

Target in SY 2022–2023. While these 

requirements would further nutritional 

improvements in school meals, many schools 

would not be able to fully meet these 

requirements in the near term. This is 

particularly true for the Sodium Final Target. 

The time needed to successfully lower 

sodium levels in school meals will vary 

considerably. For certain products, lowering 

sodium levels in school meals may be 

quicker and for other products it may require 

more time. This transitional rule will give 

schools more time to work to identify student 

preferences through combination of practices 

including taste tests, tailoring menu options, 

promoting healthy choices, and making 

incremental menu changes.86

Implementing the Sodium Final Target 

would require a significant reduction over an 

extremely short period of time, which would 

not be achievable for both industry and 

schools. The 2012 sodium reduction timeline 

was never fully implemented due to a long 

history of administrative and legislative 

actions that delayed implementation of 

Sodium Target 2. It is unrealistic to expect 

full implementation of the 2012 standards for 

milk, whole grains, and sodium and the 

associated nutritional improvement to be 

realized in SY 2022–2023 due to the 

significant challenges facing schools and 

industry in the near term. As USDA 

commences subsequent rulemaking to 

propose and finalize long-term standards, the 

nutritional impacts resulting from changes to 

the milk, whole grains, and sodium 

requirements will be reexamined and 

included in the process. USDA welcomes any 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7013 

87https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-11-30/ 

pdf/2017-25799.pdf. 

88U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et.al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

89U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, 

School Food Purchase Study-III, by Nick Young et 

al. Project Officer: John R. Endahl, Alexandria, VA: 

March 2012. 

90Based on unpublished USDA data: Child 

Nutrition Program Operations study year 3. 91There were no significant characteristics of 

these school district suggesting that smaller or 

larger districts requesting the exemption. This 

analysis assumes that about 57 percent of children 

enrolled in the 8 percent of districts requesting an 

exemption participate in the NSLP and about 30 

percent participate in the SBP. 92 Voluntary incurring of a cost is likely 

associated with benefits that are difficult to 

quantify—potentially, in this case, including 

reduced food waste. 

93Based on an internal USDA analysis using data 

from: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et. al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

94Footnote in the CACFP rule provides the 

citation for the 34% as it was based on an internal 

USDA analysis and it is not in the published 2012 

meal standards rule https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FNS-2011-0029-4304. 

95These were the items that school districts 

requested exemptions to serve based on informal 

USDA data. 

additional information that should be 

considered on the nutritional impacts of the 

milk, whole grains, and sodium requirements 

in this rule. 

B. Impacts 

Milk Standard 

In this final rule, USDA allows NSLP and 

SBP operators the option to offer flavored 

low-fat milk and requires unflavored milk to 

be offered at each meal service. This flavored 

milk standard will be extended to beverages 

for sale during the school day and will also 

apply in the SMP and CACFP for participants 

ages 6 years and older. The decision to allow 

flavored low-fat milk reflects concerns about 

declining milk consumption and the 

importance of the key nutrients provided by 

milk for school-aged children.87 Menu 

planners must make necessary adjustments 

in the weekly menu to account for the 

additional calories and fat content associated 

with offering flavored low-fat milk. This final 

rule does not change the upper caloric and 

fat limits specified in the 2012 rule or the 

requirement to offer a variety (at least two 

choices) of fluid milk in the NSLP and SBP. 

Unflavored low-fat and flavored fat-free 

milks were the most frequently offered 

varieties on daily menus in SY 2014–2015. 

The change in this rule may result in SFAs 

substituting flavored fat-free milk varieties 

with flavored low-fat varieties. About 91 

percent of daily NSLP menus and 76 percent 

of daily SBP menus offered flavored fat-free 

milk.88 The cost for eight ounces of flavored 

low-fat milk is on average about $0.02 higher 

than flavored fat-free milk.89 If across all 

NSLP and SBP menus, all flavored low-fat 

milk was substituted with flavored fat-free 

milk, it would cost about $126 million more 

a year. Not all schools will want to make this 

substitution as the change must be made 

within current resources and caloric and fat 

limits. Based on the most current data 

available, about 8 percent of school districts 

requested an exemption to serve flavored 

low-fat milk.90 Using the average number of 

children per school district,91 it is estimated 

that about 9 percent of daily NSLP and SBP 

menus include flavored low-fat milk through 

exemptions or flexibilities. USDA estimates 

this to be about $13 million more a year in 

the value spent on milk. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF PURCHASING LOW FAT FLAVORED MILK

[Millions] 

Substitution level Estimated 

annual cost 

MAXIMUM—REPLACE ALL FAT FREE FLAVORED WITH LOW FAT FLAVORED ........................................................................ $126 

MINIMUM—9 PERCENT OF DAILY MENUS REPLACED FAT FREE WITH LOW FAT FLAVORED (BASED ON EXEMPTION 

DATA) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Most milk producers likely supply both 

varieties, which minimizes actual industry 

impacts. The additional cost of flavored lowfat milk may result in purchasing pattern 

shifts in school districts choosing to serve 

flavored low-fat milk. USDA estimates that 

this final rule will increase the milk cost and/ 

or transfers from anywhere between $13 

million and $126 million. Absent this rule, 

there would be a reduction in milk costs of 

the same range due to the restriction on 

offering flavored low-fat milk.92

Whole Grain-Rich Standard 

Starting in SY 2022–2023, this final rule 

will require that at least 80 percent of the 

grains offered in the NSLP and SBP meet the 

whole grain-rich criteria specified in FNS 

guidance, and the remaining grain items 

offered must be enriched. The 2012 final rule 

required all grains to be whole grain-rich by 

SY 2014–2015; however, this requirement 

was never fully implemented due to a long 

history of administrative and legislative 

actions, including exemptions that began in 

the first year of implementation. In SY 2014– 

2015, the first year in which all grains were 

required to be whole grain-rich, only 27 

percent of weekly lunch menus met this 

requirement. However, the majority (87 

percent) of weekly lunch menus offered at 

least 50 percent of the grains as whole grainrich. In SBP, about half of all weekly 

breakfast menus offered only whole grainrich grains, while 95 percent offered at least 

50 percent of the grains as whole grain-rich. 

Despite some challenges, schools have made 

considerable progress offering whole grainrich products. On average, in SY 2014–2015, 

70 percent of the weekly menus offered at 

least 80 percent of the grain items as whole 

grain-rich for both breakfast and lunch.93

This rule recognizes this progress and the 

nutritional importance of whole grains, while 

still providing support for schools facing 

challenges serving all grain items as whole 

grain-rich. 

This analysis is based on the price 

difference between whole grain-rich items 

and enriched grain items to calculate the 

impact associated with changing the whole 

grain-rich requirement. The 2012 final meal 

standards rule Regulatory Impact Analysis 

estimated that whole grain-rich items cost 34 

percent more than enriched grain items.94

While this is an older analysis, it is still the 

most current available. However, there are 

other more recent data points that suggest 

that this price difference is likely lower due 

to wider availability of whole grain-rich 

items. Over 85 percent of the grain offerings 

in NSLP and SBP in SY 2014–2015 were 

whole grain-rich. This suggests most items 

are whole grain-rich, but certain grains may 

be more difficult to find in acceptable whole 

grain-rich form, including commonly offered 

items such as croutons, biscuits, and rolls.95

Additionally, during the period in which 

schools needed an exemption if they were 

unable to meet the requirement to offer all 

grains as whole grain-rich, use of the 

exemption was relatively low. According to 

an unpublished USDA study, as of SY 2017– 

2018, 28 percent of SFAs requested an 

exemption for the whole grain-rich 

requirement in at least one school year. In SY 

2017–2018, 24 percent requested an 

exemption. The availability of whole grainrich products through USDA Foods and the 

commercial market has increased 

significantly since the implementation of the 

2012 meal standards. Additionally, there was 

no consistent significant difference in the 

cost per meal between schools that offered at 

least 50 percent whole grain-rich items and 

schools that offered under 50 percent. There 

was also no significant difference in the meal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7014 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

96U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 3: School Meal Costs and Revenues by 

Christopher Logan, Vinh Tran, Maria Boyle, Ayesha 

Enver, Matthew Zeidenberg, and Michele 

Mendelson. Project Officer: John Endahl. 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. 97U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, 

School Food Purchase Study-III, by Nick Young et 

al. Project Officer: John R. Endahl, Alexandria, VA: 

March 2012. 

98This assumes a 5-day school week and the 

daily quantity for K–5 and 6–8 age/grade groups is 

1 oz equivalents and the weekly requirement is 8 

oz equivalents for NSLP and 7 oz equivalents for 

SBP. 

costs for schools meeting the overall grain 

quantity requirement.96

For these reasons, this analysis estimates a 

price increase of 15 percent for whole grainrich items over enriched grain items to 

estimate the impact of serving more whole 

grain-rich items. Using data from the SY 

2009–2010 School Food Purchase Study III, 

which collects data on the value of school 

district food acquisitions,97 a weighted 

average price per ounce of grains is 

calculated. This price per ounce is then 

adjusted by the Producer Price Index for 

grains to account for inflation since these 

data were collected. The adjusted price per 

ounce is $0.10. As noted, this analysis 

assumes whole grain-rich items are estimated 

to cost 15 percent more than the estimated 

$0.10 per ounce of grain. This means that it 

costs $0.015 more on average for an ounce of 

whole grain-rich grains compared to an 

ounce of enriched grains. 

TABLE 4—PRICE PER POUND FOR GRAIN ITEMS FROM SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY III 

Grain item group $ Value 

purchased 

Pounds 

purchased 

Price per 

pound Price per oz 

BREAD & ROLLS ............................................................................................ $465,505,505 406,629,005 $1.1448 $0.0715 

PASTA & NOODLES ....................................................................................... 22,795,477 24,500,911 0.9304 0.0581 

RICE, BARLEY & OTHER GRAINS ................................................................ 17,626,092 18,115,017 0.9730 0.0608 

TOTAL WEIGHTED .................................................................................. 505,927,074 449,244,933 1.1262 0.0704 

Schools must offer a minimum quantity of 

grains daily and weekly for both lunch and 

breakfast; these requirements vary for the 

three age/grade groups. For the 9–12 age/ 

grade group, the minimum quantity of grain 

that must be offered per week is 10 oz 

equivalent, which is the sum of the daily 

quantity requirement of 2 oz equivalents. For 

the K–5 and 6–8 age/grade groups, the 

required weekly quantity is higher than the 

daily totals summed across the week.98 The 

average weighted daily quantity of grains 

necessary to meet the average weekly 

requirement across all age/grade groups and 

NSLP and SBP is 1.68 oz equivalents (or 8.44 

oz equivalents across the week). The 1.68 oz 

equivalents of whole grain-rich grains a day 

is estimated to cost $0.025 (1.68 × $0.015) 

more than the cost of 1.68 oz equivalents of 

enriched grain items. This price difference 

applied to the number of additional grain oz 

equivalents that schools will need to offer as 

whole grain-rich to meet the requirements of 

this final rule, multiplied by the number of 

meals, provides an estimated value of the 

cost to transition more offerings to whole 

grain-rich. 

TABLE 5—OUNCE EQUIVALENTS AT EACH WHOLE GRAIN-RICH LEVEL

Whole grain-rich requirement percentage 

Total weekly 

ounce 

equivalents 

required 

100 PERCENT (2012 REQUIREMENT) ............................................................................................................................................. 8.44 

80 PERCENT (THIS FINAL RULE) ..................................................................................................................................................... 6.75 

50 PERCENT (PRIOR REQUIREMENT) ............................................................................................................................................ 4.22 

75 PERCENT (ESTIMATED CURRENT LEVEL) ............................................................................................................................... 6.33 

The range of costs are built on two separate 

sets of assumptions. The high estimated cost 

level assumes that because the 2012 whole 

grain-rich requirement was never fully 

implemented, all schools moved back to the 

requirement to offer half of grains as whole 

grain-rich which was the requirement in the 

proposed rule. This is likely an overestimate 

due to the significant progress schools and 

the food industry have made since SY 2012– 

2013. The low estimated scenario, which is 

the expected scenario, uses the information 

to-date on whole grain-rich progress and 

assumes that on average schools are currently 

offering 75 percent grain items as whole 

grain-rich. This uses the information that 70 

percent of weekly menus at schools were 

already offering at least 80 percent of grain 

items as whole grain-rich in SY 2014–2015. 

These estimated costs may be incurred by 

the school district and/or within the grain 

market in the form of purchases of additional 

whole grain-rich varieties. Schools may shift 

away from items that are not preferred as 

whole grain-rich and substituting different 

whole grain-rich items. This could 

potentially reduce variety and impact the 

manufacturers of these items, possibly 

resulting in loss of some of the school market 

or increased costs to develop successful 

whole grain-rich options. 

Table 6 shows the costs associated with 

moving fully to 2012 standard that all grains 

are whole grain-rich and moving to the 80 

percent threshold in this rule from both 

estimated starting points (75 percent and 50 

percent of grains as whole grain-rich). These 

are the costs if this rule is not issued, and 

schools must return to the 2012 standard of 

exclusively offering whole grain-rich items. 

The costs associated with moving to the 80 

percent threshold are the costs of this rule. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED COSTS OF INCREASING WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS

[Millions] 

Whole grain-rich requirement 

Expected annual cost 

(increasing from 

75 percent WGR) 

High annual cost 

(increasing from 

50 percent WGR) 

INCREASING TO 80 PERCENT ..................................................................................................... $76 $454 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7015 

99U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et.al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

100 Gordon, E.L., Morrissey, N., Adams, E., 

Wieczorek, A. Glenn, M.E., Burke, S & Connor, P. 

(2019). Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium 

in School Meals Final Report. Prepared by 2M 

Research under Contract No. AG–3198–P–15–0040. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. 

101Standing, Kim, Joe Gasper, Jamee Riley, Laurie 

May, Frank Bennici, Adam Chu, and Sujata DixitJoshi. Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: 

State and School Food Authority Policies and 

Practices for School Meals Programs School Year 

2012–13. Project Officer: John R. Endahl. Prepared 

by Westat for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, October 2016. 

102U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 3: School Meal Costs and Revenues by 

Christopher Logan, Vinh Tran, Maria Boyle,Ayesha 

Enver, Matthew Zeidenberg, and Michele 

Mendelson. Project Officer: John Endahl. 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. 

103U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Child 

Nutrition Program Operations Study (CN–OPS–II): 

SY 2016–17. Beyler, Nick, Jim Murdoch, and 

Charlotte Cabili. Project Officer: Holly Figueroa. 

Alexandria, VA: June 2021. 

104Percent decreases are based on the sum of 

Sodium Target lunch and breakfast requirements. 

105U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 

106U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Voluntary 

Sodium Reduction Goals: Target Mean and Upper 

Bound Concentrations for Sodium in Commercially 

Processed, Packaged, and Prepared Foods. October 

2021 https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/

search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industryvoluntary-sodium-reduction-goals. 

107 Gordon, E.L., Morrissey, N., Adams, E., 

Wieczorek, A. Glenn, M.E., Burke, S & Connor, P. 

(2019). Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium 

in School Meals Final Report. Prepared by 2M 

Research under Contract No. AG–3198–P–15–0040. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED COSTS OF INCREASING WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS—Continued 

[Millions] 

Whole grain-rich requirement 

Expected annual cost 

(increasing from 

75 percent WGR) 

High annual cost 

(increasing from 

50 percent WGR) 

INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT ................................................................................................... 379 757 

Without this final rule, schools would be 

required to meet the 2012 requirement to 

offer all grains as whole grain-rich. Compared 

to the 2012 requirement, this rule is 

estimated to save $303 million annually by 

instead requiring 80 percent of grains offered 

to be whole grain-rich. 

Sodium Standard 

The 2012 Final Rule directed schools to 

meet Sodium Target 1 by SY 2014–2015, 

Sodium Target 2 by SY 2017–2018, and the 

Sodium Final Target by SY 2022–2023. This 

rule extends Sodium Target 1 through the 

end of SY 2022–2023 for both NSLP and SBP 

and requires compliance with Sodium Target 

1A for NSLP starting in SY 2023–2024. In the 

absence of this rule, schools would be 

required to implement the Sodium Final 

Target for both NSLP and SBP in SY 2022– 

2023. 

In SY 2014–2015, the first year Target 1 

was scheduled to take effect, 72 percent of all 

average weekly NSLP menus, and 67 percent 

of all average weekly SBP menus, met Target 

1.99 According to the USDA study on 

Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium in 

School Meals,100 schools, Food Service 

Management Companies, and manufacturers 

noted that it was possible to meet Target 1 

with foods already developed but to 

implement the subsequent targets, schools 

will likely need to move to more scratch 

cooking. Almost 80 percent of schools do 

some scratch cooking and 70 percent of 

schools do on-site preparation, where the 

school prepares meals on-site for serving 

only at that school.101 This suggests that 

schools in general have the structure to 

conduct some scratch cooking, but that 

reductions in sodium may result in more 

labor-intensive food preparations and/or 

additional infrastructure needs. 

There was no significant difference 

between the cost per meal for schools that 

were meeting Target 1 and those that were 

not meeting Target 1.102 Given that most 

schools were able to meet Target 1 with 

available food or with few changes to mealpreparation, this finding is not surprising, 

but may not be sustained as further sodium 

Targets are implemented. The need for more 

labor-intensive food preparation, including 

scratch cooking, would likely continue until 

lower sodium products are more readily 

available in the school food market, which 

will take time. 

Industry members reported in the USDA 

study on Successful Approaches to Reduce 

Sodium in School Meals that to be successful 

in reducing sodium, taste tests with students 

are critical before mass production. Industry 

reported that this process can take time and 

if not done correctly may result in increased 

plate waste or students choosing not to 

participate in school meals. If school meals 

taste markedly different than foods that 

students eat outside of school, which may 

have much more sodium, it can be difficult 

to gain their acceptance of the foods served 

in schools. 

About three-quarters of school food service 

directors reported in SY 2016–2017 that 

gaining student acceptance of the new 

standards was moderately to extremely 

challenging with respect to maintaining 

student participation.103 Returning to the 

2012 standards in SY 2022–2023 will not 

allow for sufficient time for industry to 

continue to successfully reduce sodium 

levels in products for the school market. 

The Final Sodium Target in the 2012 

standards was meant to be achieved over a 

period of ten years while meeting two 

interim sodium Targets. Sodium Target 2 was 

a 20 percent reduction from Sodium Target 

1. The Sodium Final Target was another 25 

percent reduction from Sodium Target 2 and 

a 40 percent reduction from Sodium Target 

1.104 Like the 2012 whole grain-rich 

requirement, schools were never required to 

fully adhere to the 2012 sodium reduction 

timeline due to a long history of 

administrative and legislative actions. The 

immediacy of going straight to the Sodium 

Final Target when the gradual sodium 

reduction did not occur as intended, 

compounded by the COVID–19 pandemic, 

will likely be extremely difficult due to the 

drastic reduction required over a short period 

of time. Meeting the Sodium Final Target 

would be a 35 percent drop on average for 

NSLP and SBP from sodium levels in 

prepared meals in SY 2014–2015.105

Industry has made great strides in 

producing lower sodium products since the 

implementation of the 2012 standards and 

USDA Foods increased lower sodium 

offerings; however, additional time is 

necessary for industry to adjust and continue 

to formulate lower sodium products. The 

FDA, in October 2021, released voluntary 

sodium reduction targets for the food 

industry. The FDA’s guidance provides 

voluntary short-term (2.5 year) sodium 

reduction targets for food manufacturers, 

chain restaurants, and food service operators 

for 163 categories of processed, packaged, 

and prepared foods. The targets in the FDA’s 

guidance seek to support decreasing average 

U.S. population sodium intake from 

approximately 3,400 mg to 3,000 mg per day, 

about a 12 percent reduction. While FDA is 

recommending the voluntary targets be met 

in 2.5 years, in advance of that timeframe 

schools are anticipated to be able to procure 

additional options that are lower in sodium 

as the food industry continues reformulation 

efforts and develops new food products that 

align with FDA’s voluntary targets.106

The USDA study on Successful 

Approaches to Reduce Sodium in School 

Meals also noted that reducing sodium can 

be challenging, especially when using prepackaged products, which may result in 

schools no longer purchasing these items.107

Combination entrees and accompaniments 

contributed the most (61 percent) to the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7016 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

108U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 

109As noted in the preamble, when examining the 

daily sodium allocation attributed to each meal, 

USDA determined that sodium reductions are most 

needed at lunch. Therefore, USDA is maintaining 

Sodium Target 1 for breakfast during the two-year 

timeframe of this transitional rule, which will allow 

schools to focus their sodium reduction efforts on 

school lunch. 

110 Institute of Medicine 2010. Strategies to 

Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/12818. 

111U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 112U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et.al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 113U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, School Nutrition and Meal Cost 

Study Final Report Volume 2: Nutritional 

Characteristics of School Meals, by Elizabeth 

Gearan et.al. Project Officer, John Endahl, 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

114U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 3: School Meal Costs and Revenues by 

Christopher Logan, Vinh Tran, Maria Boyle, Ayesha 

Enver, Matthew Zeidenberg, and Michele 

Mendelson. Project Officer: John Endahl. 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. 

115This distribution of food, labor, and other has 

remained consistent between the two study time 

periods (SY 2005–2006 and SY 2015–2015). The 

School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study—II in SY 

2005–2006 and School Nutrition Meal Cost study in 

SY 2014–2015. 

116Bobronnikov, E. et al. (2021). Farm to School 

Grantee Report. Prepared by Abt Associates, 

Contract No. AG–3198–B–16–0015. Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: 

Ashley Chaifetz. 

117Applying this distribution to schools assumes 

no significant variation in scratch cooking by school 

district characteristics. 

sodium levels of prepared foods, specifically 

sandwiches with plain meat and poultry, 

condiments, and toppings.108 This may 

financially impact the manufacturers of these 

products if they are not able to successfully 

reduce the sodium levels of products sold to 

schools. 

This final rule maintains Sodium Target 1 

for NSLP and SBP through SY 2022–2023, 

retains Sodium Target 1 for SBP in SY 2023– 

2024, and institutes a modified Sodium 

Interim Target 1A for NSLP beginning in SY 

2023–2024.109 USDA set the near-term Target 

1A reduction at 10 percent, which also aligns 

with research indicating gradual sodium 

reductions are less noticeable to 

consumers.110 Target 1A is about a 1 percent 

to 5 percent decrease from sodium levels in 

prepared meals in SY 2014–2015 for K–5 and 

9–12 age grade groups and a 2 percent 

increase for 6–8 age/grade group.111

TABLE 8—SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A AND AVERAGE WEEKLY SODIUM LEVELS FOR PREPARED MEALS

Age/grade group Sodium Target 1 

NSLP 

SY 2014–2015 

NSLP average 

sodium levels 112

% Difference from 

Sodium Target 1 Target 1A NSLP % Difference from Sodium Target 1A 

K–5 ............................................... 1,230 1,125 ¥9 1,110 ¥1 

6–8 ............................................... 1,360 1,200 ¥12 1,225 2 

9–12 ............................................. 1,420 1,345 ¥5 1,280 ¥5 

Sodium Target 1 

SBP 

SY 2014–2015 

SBP average 

sodium levels 113

% Difference from 

Sodium Target 1 

 

K–5 ............................................... 540 505 ¥6 

6–8 ............................................... 600 564 ¥6 

9–12 ............................................. 640 584 ¥9 

To estimate the impacts associated with 

additional sodium reduction, this analysis 

focuses on the increased need for scratch 

cooking due to immediate sodium reduction 

timeframe which does not allow for sufficient 

time for product development as noted 

earlier. Scratch cooking is one method to 

reduce sodium levels and over time can be 

successfully integrated into a comprehensive 

sodium reduction plan along with 

incorporating more lower sodium products 

into menus. Schools would be able to balance 

scratch cooking with lower sodium products 

as industry continues to formulate lower 

sodium foods. The requirement of the 

Sodium Final Target going into effect 

immediately in SY 2022–2023 absent this 

rule will require schools to move straight to 

cooking more recipes from scratch. As 

schools prepare more foods on site, labor 

costs will increase as prepackaged foods are 

substituted with scratch cooked foods and 

schools will need to increase time spent on 

food preparation. This may require hiring 

more school food service staff and/or 

reallocating responsibilities. In addition to 

labor impacts, the types of foods schools 

purchase will likely change due to reducing 

the prepackaged foods and increasing 

ingredient-based items to support sodium 

reduction. For example, the USDA study on 

Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium in 

School Meals found that school districts in 

the study reported serving more fresh fruits 

and vegetables to reduce sodium content. 

This may cause a reduction in food costs if 

items purchased to scratch cook are less 

expensive; however, these costs may be offset 

by the quantity needed or additional foods 

purchased to prepare meals from scratch. 

Food and labor costs account for the vast 

majority (45 percent each for a total of 90 

percent) of the average cost to produce a 

school lunch for a school district. Other 

reported direct costs are the remaining 10 

percent. This distribution is similar for SBP 

breakfasts.114 To simulate the potential 

increase in costs due to changes to the 

Sodium Targets, this analysis focuses on the 

estimated increase in labor costs, however 

food costs are also estimated to 

proportionally increase based on the 

distribution of food and labor costs in a 

school meal.115

To capture current scratch cooking 

practices to estimate the potential increase in 

scratch cooking and the corresponding 

impacts, data from USDA’s Farm to School 

Census 116 are used. While the Farm to 

School Census does not represent all school 

districts, it does encompass the majority: 65 

percent of school districts reported that they 

participated in at least one Farm to School 

activity in SY 2018–2019. The distribution of 

prevalence of scratch cooking from the Farm 

to School Census is assumed across the 

97,000 schools for this analysis.117 In this 

respect, these estimates may overstate the 

current scratch cooking levels with the 

assumption that school districts participating 

in Farm to School activities may be more 

likely to prepare more recipes from scratch. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7017 

118This is just for the base analysis. The 

Uncertainties section provides a sensitivity analysis 

of other labor hour options. The additional 2 hours 

is for preparing breakfasts and lunches. It is likely 

that lunch preparation will account for a larger 

share of the 2 hours. The two hours is loosely 

modeled from the higher average of 51 minutes 

spent of food preparation from the American Time 

Use Survey. American Time Use Survey Home Page 

(bls.gov). 

119Full compensation series is less granular that 

wage series, the two closest series are used to 

estimate the labor rates for additional food service 

staff dedicated to cooking. 

TALBE 7—PERCENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY PERCENT OF SCRATCH COOKED RECIPES

[Farm to School Census data] 

Prevalence Percent of schools 

<25% RECIPES MADE FROM SCRATCH ............................................................................................................................. 40 

26–50% RECIPES MADE FROM SCRATCH ......................................................................................................................... 32 

51–75% RECIPES MADE FROM SCRATCH ......................................................................................................................... 19 

76–100% RECIPES MADE FROM SCRATCH ....................................................................................................................... 10 

This analysis assumes that 2 hours a day 

of additional labor is needed to increase 

scratch cooking to meet the Sodium Final 

Target.118 This could be achieved by hiring 

a new employee for 10 hours a week or 

shifting staff for schools already conducting 

some scratch cooking. Using the average of 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics series on total 

compensation for service occupations related 

to leisure and hospitality and the 

accommodation and food service workers 

series, an hourly rate of $15.43 is used to 

estimate the wage rate of the additional food 

service staff to perform the additional scratch 

cooking.119 This is an additional $30.85 a 

school day for scratch cooking or $5,553 a 

year for one school. Multiplying this across 

all schools provides an estimated $538 

million for all schools to increase labor for 

scratch cooking for 2 additional hours a day. 

This calculates to $0.07 more a meal for the 

increase in labor. This $0.07 per meal cost is 

then scaled by prevalence of scratch cooking 

across recipes and the estimated labor costs 

are then doubled to account for the 

proportional increase in food costs. This 

analysis assumes that about 7.5 billion school 

meals (5 billion lunches and 2.5 billion 

breakfasts) are served in SY 2022–2023. It is 

assumed that about 10 percent of these meals 

are served in schools that are already cooking 

76 percent to 100 percent of their recipes 

from scratch and will not have measurable 

costs associated with moving to the Sodium 

Final Target in SY 2022–2023. The remaining 

90 percent of meals are served in schools that 

must incur some additional labor and food 

costs to reduce current sodium levels. 

This analysis assumes, based on early 

implementation progress, most schools are 

already meeting Sodium Target 1 and can 

meet Target 1A with reasonable menu 

changes. In SY 2014–2015, the first year the 

Sodium Target 1 went into effect, 72 percent 

of the schools were meeting this requirement 

for NSLP and 13 percent were within 10 

percent of meeting Target 1 for NSLP. For 

SBP, 67 percent were meeting Target 1 and 

just over 10 percent were within 10 percent 

of meeting Target 1. Average prepared 

sodium levels were already 5 percent to 12 

percent lower than the Target 1 limits for 

NSLP and 6 percent to 9 percent lower for 

SBP. Average NSLP sodium levels in SY 

2014–2015 were also very close to Target 1A. 

To capture any schools that are not 

currently meeting Target 1 or Target 1A, this 

analysis assumes that 10 percent of meals are 

served in schools that will need to make 

changes to their current menus to incorporate 

lower sodium products. Target 1 was meant 

to be mostly met with products currently 

available, but these schools may also need to 

slightly increase scratch cooking or change 

preparation practices. This analysis assumes 

that these schools will need to allow for one 

more labor hour a day to facilitate the menu 

changes needed to achieve Target 1 and 

Target 1A. This is estimated to cost about $98 

million more in labor and food to bring these 

schools to Targets 1 and 1A in SY 2022– 

2023. 

Absent this rule, schools would be 

required to move to the Sodium Final Target. 

For this analysis it is assumed if schools are 

cooking more than 75 percent of recipes from 

scratch, the Sodium Final Target is 

achievable. This is supported by the 

assumption that scratch cooking would 

reduce combination entre ́es and condiments, 

which USDA research finds contribute the 

most sodium to school meals. Based on the 

prevalence of scratch cooking, it is assumed 

that about 80 percent meals are served in 

schools that will need to increase labor by 

two full hours per day. The remaining 20 

percent of meals are served in schools that 

will need to increase labor by one hour per 

day, because these schools are already 

making between 51 percent and 75 percent 

of recipes from scratch. It is estimated that 

it would cost about $975 million in food and 

labor costs to achieve the Sodium Final 

Target in SY 2022–2023. This is a per meal 

increase of $0.13. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED COSTS BY SODIUM TARGET

[Millions] 

Target 

Average hours 

of additional 

labor per day 

Estimated 

labor costs 

Estimated food 

costs 

Estimated total 

costs 

TARGET 1 IN SY 2022–2023; TARGET 1A IN SY 2023–2024 ................... 1.0 $49 $49 $98 

FINAL TARGET IN SY 2022–2023 ............................................................... 1.8 438.5 438.5 877 

This analysis does not take into 

consideration the costs of purchasing 

additional equipment and/or kitchen 

renovations to support scratch cooking or the 

challenges of immediately moving to the 

Sodium Final Target without enough time to 

implement successful strategies to reduce 

sodium. The school districts in the USDA 

study on Successful Approaches to Reduce 

Sodium in School Meals reported that 

scratch cooking and fresh produce 

preparation required space for preparing 

foods, adequate storage space including 

freezer and refrigeration space, proper 

cafeteria line display and service equipment, 

and maintenance or upgrading of kitchen 

equipment for efficient mass preparation of 

items. Smaller SFAs and those with older 

cafeteria equipment especially noted these 

challenges. It is unlikely that schools would 

be able to procure the necessary equipment 

to support the increases in scratch cooking in 

time for SY 2022–2023 due to the 

procurement process timeframe, which has 

been further delayed by supply chain 

disruptions. School size and urbanicity were 

also associated with SFAs’ abilities to 

procure lower sodium foods and to utilize 

effective menu planning strategies. Small, 

rural SFAs reported fewer resources available 

for purchasing and preparing lower sodium 

foods, while large, urban SFAs were able to 

procure more low-sodium items at a lower 

cost and reported having access to a larger 

number of suppliers, which enabled them to 

use more effective menu planning strategies. 

This is further supported by smaller school 

districts (less than 500 students enrolled) and 

rural school districts on average serving 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7018 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

120U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 2: Nutritional Characteristics of School 

Meals by Elizabeth Gearan, Mary Kay Fox, 

Katherine Niland, Dallas Dotter, Liana Washburn, 

Patricia Connor, Lauren Olsho, and Tara Wommak. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 

121 Gordon, E.L., Morrissey, N., Adams, E., 

Wieczorek, A. Glenn, M.E., Burke, S. & Connor, P. 

(2019). Successful Approaches to Reduce Sodium 

in School Meals Final Report. Prepared by 2M 

Research under Contract No. AG–3198–P–15–0040. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. 

122Reducing sodium intakes above the CDRR is 

expected to reduce the risk of chronic disease. 123Unreleased USDA report using 2011–2016 

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES) data to examine the relationship 

between estimated program participation, diet 

quality, indicators of nutrition and health, food 

consumption patterns, and nutrient intakes. 124Employment in leisure and hospitality is 

down by 1.4 million, or 8.2 percent, since February 

2020. The Employment Situation—October 2021 

(bls.gov). 

125U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 1: School Meal Program Operations and 

School Nutrition Environments by Sarah Forrestal, 

Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, Christopher W. 

Logan, Patricia Connor, Maria Boyle, Ayseha Enver, 

and Hiren Nissar. Project Officer: John Endahl. 

Alexandria, VA: April 2019. 

126According to FNS administrative data on 

meals served across NSLP, SBP, and SFSP, October 

2020 meals were only 65 percent of total October 

2019 meals. May 2021 meals were 86 percent of 

May 2019 meals service. 

127Based on an internal USDA analysis using 

nationally representative data from the School 

Nutrition Meal Cost study on school characteristics. 

128Using national participation rates of 57 

percent for NSLP and 30 percent for SBP. 

meals with significantly higher sodium levels 

in SY 2014–2015.120

As noted, sodium reduction must be 

implemented over time to allow for 

successful product reformulation while 

balancing increased scratch cooking. Taste 

testing was the most used approach for 

gaining student acceptance of lower sodium 

items. School districts reported experiencing 

challenges in gaining student acceptance, but 

indicated that they were often successful 

when using a combination of supportive 

approaches such as performing taste tests to 

identify student preferences, tailoring menu 

options to cultural and regional preferences, 

promoting healthy food choices through 

education and communication materials, and 

implementing menu changes incrementally. 

Many districts also engaged parents, staff, 

and community members in taste tests, 

nutrition education, and other promotional 

activities to increase buy-in.121 According to 

an analysis of 2011–2016 National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Survey 

(NHANES) data, almost all school children 

(94 percent) had usual sodium intakes that 

exceed the Chronic Disease Risk Reduction 

(CDRR) level.122 123 This is a widespread 

issue and strategies must be implemented by 

industry and schools over time for success. 

Given that these strategies are meant to be 

implemented over time, schools will not be 

able to pivot quickly to these strategies in SY 

2022–2023, particularly given the challenges 

they will face in shifting off of COVID–19 

operations. This is also compounded by the 

current labor shortages school districts and 

the entire food service industry are facing as 

employees left jobs during the pandemic.124

Prior to the pandemic schools expressed 

concerns about staffing levels especially in 

smaller school districts where staff may be 

responsible for multiple jobs.125 The 

pandemic intensified staffing issues for 

schools and many are currently experiencing 

shortages and increases in labor rates. 

Additional burden is currently placed on 

schools due to the time needed to manage 

procurement and menu changes in response 

to the supply chain disruptions. The 

immediacy of moving to the Sodium Final 

Target in SY 2022–2023 does not allow 

schools sufficient time to set up the 

necessary infrastructure to achieve the 

sodium reduction required for the Sodium 

Final Target. 

Participation Impacts 

This final rule is not anticipated to 

measurably impact school meal participation 

due to the changes to the milk, whole grains, 

and sodium requirements. As noted earlier, 

this rule provides realistic goals for schools 

still transitioning from COVID–19 operations 

and encountering supply chain issues. The 

COVID–19 meal service levels were lower 

than typical in the early part of the pandemic 

when most schools shut down and 

transitioned to grab-and-go sites to ensure 

continuity of school meals for children. As 

schools opened and more children attended 

school in person, meals served started to 

move closer to pre-pandemic levels.126

Through the COVID–19 nationwide waivers, 

schools have been able to offer free meals to 

all children to facilitate COVID–19 safety 

precautions. As schools transition back to 

typical operations, there may be some 

uncertainty in participation levels, which 

may pose challenges in projecting quantities 

of foods to purchase. This rule is sensitive to 

the types of foods schools already typically 

have available to purchase to meet the meal 

standards. While this rule is not expected to 

significantly impact program participation, it 

does support schools and allows additional 

time for schools to gauge meal program 

participation post-COVID. 

Absent this rule, schools would be 

required to meet the 2012 standards, most 

notably meeting the Sodium Final Target 

requirement, which is a significant reduction 

in sodium levels. This would pose an 

extreme challenge for most schools as the full 

sodium reduction timeline from the 2012 

standards was never fully implemented and 

schools were never required to meet targets 

below Sodium Target 1. Without this rule, 

some schools may leave the programs, as the 

benefits of participation are outweighed by 

the resources needed to meet program 

requirements. 

It is unlikely that schools will leave the 

programs due to the milk and whole grainrich requirements in the 2012 standards due 

to improved product availability and current 

progress. However, moving straight to the 

Sodium Final Target without gradual 

reduction in sodium levels through product 

availability and increased scratch cooking is 

unrealistic and may result in schools 

dropping out the programs. As noted earlier, 

smaller (less than 500 enrolled students) and 

rural schools had significantly higher sodium 

levels and face additional challenges due to 

insufficient resources and lack of product 

availability. Schools that already receive low 

levels of federal reimbursement due to less 

free and reduced-price-certified students may 

not find the benefits of the programs worth 

the additional resources needed to abruptly 

meet the Sodium Final Target. To assess the 

potential number of schools that would drop 

out of the school meal programs if the 2012 

standards immediately went into effect next 

school year, smaller schools with low levels 

of free and reduced-price-certified children 

(less than 25 percent) are targeted in 

estimating this unintentional impact. 

Just under 5 percent of schools nationwide 

have less than 500 students enrolled and less 

than 25 percent free and reduced-pricecertified children. This is about 4,500 schools 

estimated to drop out of the school meal 

programs absent this rule. About 25 percent 

of these schools are in rural areas. There are 

estimated to be about 1.4 million children 

enrolled in these schools with about 214,000 

children approved for free and reduced-price 

meals.127 USDA estimates there are about 

814,000 daily NSLP participants and 428,000 

daily SBP participants in these schools.128

Federal reimbursements are estimated to 

decrease by an estimated $180 million the 

first year (or about 1 percent of total NSLP 

and SBP meal reimbursements) due to 

schools dropping out of the NSLP and SBP 

and children losing access to school meal 

benefits. 

TABLE 10—ANNUAL REDUCTION IN FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS DUE TO SCHOOLS LEAVING NSLP AND SBP 

[Millions] 

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 5-Year 

¥$3 ¥$179 ¥$184 ¥$190 ¥$195 ¥$751 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7019 

129U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate 

Waste, and Dietary Intakes by Mary Kay Fox, 

Elizabeth Gearan, Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, 

Katherine Niland, Liana Washburn, Nora Paxton, 

Lauren Olsho, Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. 

130The new final rule is anticipated to be in effect 

in time for SY 2024–2025. 

131 Voluntary incurring of a cost is likely 

associated with benefits that are difficult to 

quantify—potentially, in this case, including 

reduced food waste. 

While this is a savings for the Federal 

government in meal reimbursements, it 

transfers the costs of preparing school meals 

to the households. Given the time it takes to 

prepare meals and higher food costs due to 

inflation and not being able to purchase 

foods in bulk, it is likely that the costs to the 

households would be higher than just the 

Federal reimbursement levels. Lunches 

consumed from school are, on average, the 

most nutritious compared to lunches from 

home or other places, and students 

consuming school lunch were more likely to 

consume milk, fruits, vegetables than 

students who did not eat a school lunch.129

It would take additional time and resources 

for households to prepare lunches that are 

equivalent in nutritional value. This could 

pose hardships for households, especially for 

those with children approved for free or 

reduced-price meals. 

Summary 

As noted earlier, this rule is intended to 

support the transition from COVID–19 

operations and to allow time for a more longterm comprehensive rulemaking process to 

further update the standards to reflect the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020– 

2025.130 This rule makes adjustments from 

the proposed rule to continue efforts to 

improve the nutrition of school meals while 

maintaining operational feasibility. Most of 

the impacts associated with this rule are in 

the form of shifts in purchasing patterns and 

costs incurred by the schools to procure 

additional products to meet the standards 

and increases in labor. Costs in this section 

may not actually be incurred but reflect the 

potential value of the changes in this rule 

and impacts absent this rule. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCREASE AND REDUCTION IN SCHOOL COSTS

[Millions] 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS MOVING TO 2012 STANDARDS 

MILK (NO LOW FAT FLAVORED) ...................................................................................................................................................... ¥$13 

100 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ................................................................................................................................................ 378 

SODIUM FINAL TARGET ................................................................................................................................................................... 975 

TOTAL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,341 

PER MEAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.18 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS OF FINAL RULE 

MILK (LOW FAT FLAVORED ALLOWED) ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

80 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH .................................................................................................................................................. 76 

SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A ............................................................................................................................................................. 98 

TOTAL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 187 

PER MEAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.03 

ESTIMATED ANNUAL REDUCTIONS WITH FINAL RULE COMPARED TO 2012 STANDARDS 

MILK (LOW FAT FLAVORED ALLOWED) ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

80 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH .................................................................................................................................................. ¥303 

SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A ............................................................................................................................................................. ¥780 

TOTAL .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ¥1,069 

PER MEAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ ¥0.15 

If the 2012 standards for milk, whole grain, 

and sodium are fully implemented in SY 

2022–2023, it will cost schools $0.18 cents 

per lunch and breakfast in food and labor 

costs. Impacts to the market will be similar 

in magnitude as purchasing patterns shift to 

encompass more whole grain-rich items and 

ingredients for scratch cooking. The shifts 

would primarily occur from enriched to 

whole grain-rich products to the meet the 

grain requirement and from prepackaged 

foods with higher sodium levels to other 

food, such as more fruits and vegetables and 

ingredients to support more scratch cooking. 

The milk purchases will shift away from 

flavored low-fat to flavored fat-free varieties, 

which will offset total costs since flavored 

low-fat varieties are slightly more expensive 

than flavored fat-free varieties. Total annual 

costs associated with restoring the 2012 

standards in SY 2022–2023 are estimated at 

$1.3 billion the first year to make this 

transition based on progress to-date in 

implementing the 2012 standards. If progress 

regressed from SY 2014–2015 due to 

uncertainty in the requirements over the 

years and COVID–19 impacts, costs are 

estimated to be closer to $1.7 billion the first 

year or $0.24 more per breakfast and lunch. 

Estimated annual costs associated with 

moving to the requirements in this rule are 

$187 million the first year or $0.03 more per 

lunch and breakfast. These costs are 

associated with purchasing flavored low-fat 

milk and more whole grain-rich products. 

There are also some costs associated with 

schools that still need to move to Target 1 for 

NSLP and SBP and Target 1A for NSLP in SY 

2023–2024 through purchasing shifts to 

lower sodium products and increases in 

scratch cooking. If all flavored fat-free milk 

is substituted with flavored low-fat milk, and 

schools regressed in whole grain-rich 

progress compared to SY 2014–2015, this 

rule is estimated to cost $665 million the first 

year or $0.09 more per meal. 

This rule is estimated to reduce impacts to 

schools by $0.15 per meal or $1.1 billion in 

the first year by reducing the requirement 

from serving exclusively whole grain-rich 

products to 80 percent whole grain-rich 

products and holding Sodium Target 1 for SY 

2022–2023 for NSLP and SBP and moving to 

Target 1A for NSLP in SY 2023–2024. There 

is an increase in costs due to allowing 

flavored low-fat milk, which tends to cost 

slightly more than flavored fat-free milk.131

This rule provides achievable standards 

while USDA engages in more comprehensive 

long-term rulemaking to further update the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7020 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

meal standards. These costs assume 

relatively stable participation over the 5- 

years with SY 2022–2023 projected to return 

to pre-pandemic meal service levels. 

TABLE 12—ESTIMATED 5-YEAR COSTS AND REDUCTION

[Millions] 

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 5-Year 

ESTIMATED COSTS MOVING TO 2012 STANDARDS 

MILK (NO FLAVORED LOW-FAT) .......... ¥$2 ¥$13 ¥$13 ¥$14 ¥$14 ¥$56 

100 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH .... 61 378 386 394 402 1,620 

SODIUM FINAL TARGET ........................ 156 975 995 1,015 1,035 4,176 

TOTAL .............................................. $214 $1,341 $1,367 $1,395 $1,423 $5,740 

ESTIMATED COSTS OF FINAL RULE 

MILK (FLAVORED LOW-FAT ALLOWED) ............................................... 2 13 13 14 14 56 

80 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ...... 12 76 77 79 80 324 

SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A ................. 16 98 100 102 104 421 

TOTAL .............................................. 30 187 191 195 199 802 

ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN COSTS DUE TO FINAL RULE 

MILK (FLAVORED LOW-FAT ALLOWED) ............................................... 2 13 13 14 14 56 

80 PERCENT WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ...... ¥48 ¥303 ¥309 ¥315 ¥321 ¥1,296 

SODIUM TARGET 1 AND 1A ................. ¥125 ¥780 ¥795 ¥811 ¥827 ¥3,338 

TOTAL .............................................. ¥171 ¥1,069 ¥1,090 ¥1,112 ¥1,134 ¥4,577 

The number of schools dropping out of the 

programs will reduce the number of meals 

served if 2012 standards are restored. This 

will reduce the costs associated with 

returning to the 2012 standards by 3 percent 

or an annual reduction of $40 million due to 

schools dropping out of the school meal 

programs and less children participating. 

TABLE 13—INTERACTION BETWEEN 2012 STANDARDS COST AND SCHOOLS LEAVING NSLP AND SBP 

[Millions] 

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 5-Year 

$208 $1,300 $1,326 $1,354 $1,382 $5,362 

Uncertainties 

School Meal Student Participation 

As noted earlier, participation for the base 

estimates is assumed to mirror pre-pandemic 

levels and then stabilize at a rate of about a 

2 percent increase from year to year. Longterm participation impacts of the pandemic 

are unknown, and a full rebound may not 

occur. There is also the chance participation 

will increase as most schools have been 

offering meals at no charge to students. 

Households may have realized the benefits of 

school meals during the pandemic, which 

may cause children to participate at higher 

rates even as schools return to standard 

operations. This sensitivity analysis assumes 

a participation increase and decrease of 5 

percent to measure the impact of 

participation changes on the estimated 

impacts of this rule and returning to the 2012 

standards absent this rule. This analysis does 

not take into consideration potential 

economies of scale: As more meals are 

served, schools may be able to reduce costs 

through bulk purchasing and preparing meals 

at a lower per meal cost. These costs are 

compared to the base analysis costs for the 

first year of $1.3 billion to return to the 2012 

standards and $187 million for this final rule. 

TABLE 14—PROJECTED COSTS BY PARTICIPATION CHANGE

[Millions] 

1-Year 5-Year 

ESTIMATED COSTS MOVING TO 2012 STANDARDS 

5 PERCENT PARTICIPATION INCREASE ................................................................................................ $1,408 $6,292 

5 PERCENT PARTICIPATION DECREASE ............................................................................................... 1,274 4,928 

ESTIMATED COSTS OF FINAL RULE 

5 PERCENT PARTICIPATION INCREASE ................................................................................................ 197 879 

5 PERCENT PARTICIPATION DECREASE ............................................................................................... 178 689 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7021 

132Table A–1. Time spent in detailed primary 

activities and percent of the civilian population 

engaging in each activity, averages per day by sex, 

2019 annual averages (bls.gov). 

133USDA internal analysis of the Census 

Household Pulse data: Household Pulse Survey 

Data Tables (census.gov). 134 Gearan EC, Monzella K, Jennings L, Fox MK. 

Differences in Diet Quality between School Lunch 

Participants and Nonparticipants in the United 

States by Income and Race. Nutrients. 

2021;12(12):3891. https://www.mdpi.com/2072- 

6643/12/12/3891. 

Grain Cost Difference 

The base analysis assumed that there is 

currently about a 15 percent price increase 

for whole grain-rich items compared to 

enriched grain items. This assumption was 

based on decreasing the 34 percent assumed 

mark up in whole grain-rich prices in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2012 rule. 

Most of the grain items offered in school 

meals in SY 2014–2015 were whole grainrich, as USDA Foods and the broader school 

food industry have increased whole grain 

offerings over the years. This reduction was 

assumed to be about half the 34 percent; 

however, this was adjusted based on data 

supporting a reduction in the 34 percent but 

unable to be quantified. The impacts 

estimated below are based on a 30 percent 

and 5 percent price increase for whole grainrich products compared to enriched grain 

products. This gives a sense of the potential 

range of costs associated with the whole 

grain-rich requirements in this rule, and in 

the 2012 rule. These estimates are compared 

to the base analysis estimates of $379 million 

to go to the 2012 standards and $76 million 

for this rule. 

TABLE 15—ESTIMATED COSTS OF INCREASING WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS BY WHOLE GRAIN-RICH COST INCREASE LEVEL

[Millions] 

Requirement change 

Expected annual 

cost 

(increasing from 

75 percent WGR) 

High annual cost 

(increasing from 

50 percent WGR) 

ASSUMING A 30 PERCENT COST INCREASE FOR WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS 

INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT ............................................................................................................... $757 $1,513 

INCREASING TO 80 PERCENT ................................................................................................................. $151 908 

ASSUMING A 5 PERCENT COST INCREASE FOR WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS 

INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT ............................................................................................................... 126 252 

INCREASING TO 80 PERCENT ................................................................................................................. 25 151 

Labor Hours for Scratch Cooking 

As noted, until lower sodium products are 

more readily available in the school food 

market, USDA expect that schools would rely 

on more labor-intensive food preparation, 

including scratch cooking, to meet lower 

sodium standards. The assumption that it 

would take about 2 hours a day to increase 

scratch cooking to support sodium reduction 

was based on a general concept that about an 

hour is spent on food preparation and clean 

up a day.132 For the sake of the base analysis, 

this time is doubled to two hours to reflect 

the average increased time for bulk scratch 

cooking across schools. This may be an 

underestimate especially absent this rule and 

requiring schools to quickly pivot to scratch 

cooking possibly for the first time. It may 

take longer to plan recipes and successfully 

prepare meals as well as obtain the necessary 

equipment, resources, and staff to support 

additional scratch cooking. This analysis 

increases the labor hours to 20 hours per 

week or 4 hours per day to estimate the 

increased costs for additional hours 

dedicated to scratch cooking. 

TABLE 16—ESTIMATED INCREASE IN SODIUM COSTS FOR 4 HOURS/DAY

Target Estimated labor 

costs 

Estimated 

food costs 

Estimated total 

costs 

TARGET 1 IN SY 2022–2023; TARGET 1A IN SY 2023–2024 ............................... $97 $97 $194 

FINAL TARGET IN SY 2022–2023 ........................................................................... 877 877 1,754 

D. Benefits 

This final rule aligns with progress 

implementing the 2012 meal standards and 

provides schools the ability to transition from 

COVID–19 operations. It is not expected 

schools will need to make significant 

modifications to their typical operations and 

resources to meet the requirements in this 

final rule. This rule is to support schools 

recovering from significant supply chain 

disruptions, which have made it difficult to 

obtain food needed to meet certain meal 

pattern requirements and provide the 

necessary time for USDA to make long term 

changes to continue to improve the 

nutritional content of school meals. 

School meals are an important source of 

food for almost 30 million children each 

school day and have served as critical 

nutrition support during the COVID–19 

pandemic. During the COVID–19 pandemic, 

about 1 in 10 adults (25 million) reported 

that they or their families have sometimes or 

often not had enough food to eat in the last 

7 days. Food hardship rates were higher for 

Black and Hispanic adults, with 1 and 5 

Black adults, and 1 in 6 Hispanic adults, 

reporting that they or their families have 

sometimes or often not had enough to eat in 

the last 7 days. Families with children were 

also more likely to experience hardship, with 

49 percent more frequent reports of food 

insufficiency compared to those without 

children. Schools served an important source 

of food assistance during the pandemic. 

Families reporting receiving free meals or 

groceries during the last 7 days reported 

schools as the most common source of this 

assistance.133

The nutrition content of school meals has 

already significantly increased and is leading 

to long term dietary improvements among 

school children. As noted earlier, total HEI– 

2010 scores for lunches consumed were 

higher for NSLP participants, regardless of 

income, compared to nonparticipants, and 

NSLP participants’ lunches had higher scores 

for of dairy, whole grains, and vegetables and 

lower concentrations of refined grains and 

empty calories.134 Another study that 

evaluated diet quality trends by food source 

among U.S. children and adults and by 

different sociodemographic subgroups found 

that the quality of foods (meals, snacks, and 

beverages) consumed from school improved 

significantly without population disparities. 

These findings suggest that the 2012 meal 

standards produced significant, specific, and 

equitable changes in dietary quality of school 

foods. The increase in dietary quality of 

foods consumed from school was primarily 

driven by significant improvement in scores 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
7022 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

135Liu J, Micha R, Li Y, Mozaffarian D. Trends 

in Food Sources and Diet Quality Among US 

Children and Adults, 2003–2018. JAMA Netw 

Open. 2021;4(4):e215262. doi:10.1001/ 

jamanetworkopen.2021.5262. 

136National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine 2019. Dietary Reference Intakes for 

Sodium and Potassium. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/ 

10.17226/25353. 

137U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, School 

Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report 

Volume 4: Student Participation, Satisfaction, Plate 

Waste, and Dietary Intakes by Mary Kay Fox, 

Elizabeth Gearan, Charlotte Cabili, Dallas Dotter, 

Katherine Niland, Liana Washburn, Nora Paxton, 

Lauren Olsho, Lindsay LeClair, and Vinh Tran. 

Project Officer: John Endahl. Alexandria, VA: April 

2019. Available online at: www.fns.usda.gov/ 

research-and-analysis. 

138Andrew G. Rundle1,2, Yoosun Park3, Julie B. 

Herbstman4, Eliza W. Kinsey1, and Y. Claire Wang, 

COVID–19–Related School Closings and Risk of 

Weight Gain Among Children. 

139Lange SJ, Kompaniyets L, Freedman DS, et al. 

Longitudinal Trends in Body Mass Index Before 

and During the COVID–19 Pandemic Among 

Persons Aged 2–19 Years—United States, 2018– 

2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 

2021;70:1278–1283. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 

10.15585/mmwr.mm7037a3. 

for whole grains, saturated fat, and 

sodium.135

This final rule maintains and advances 

these nutritional improvements while USDA 

works to further strengthen the school meal 

pattern requirements through a permanent 

rulemaking based on a comprehensive review 

of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 

2020–2025. Taking time to incorporate the 

latest science is imperative. The Dietary 

Guidelines note that taste preference for salty 

foods may be established early in life, and 

that early food preference can influence later 

food choices. In adults, there is moderate to 

strong evidence for a causal and intakeresponse relationship between sodium intake 

and cardiovascular risk factors, including 

hypertension.136 Reducing daily sodium 

intake down to the CDRR reduces these risks 

and would particularly benefit groups with 

higher prevalence and risk for hypertension 

and cardiovascular disease, including older 

adults and certain racial and ethnic groups, 

particularly non-Hispanic Black groups. In 

SY 2014–2015 about 73 percent of NonHispanic Black children usually participated 

in NSLP and about 46 percent participated in 

SBP. On average, elementary school 

participation was higher than middle and 

high school participation in both the NSLP 

and SBP 137 stressing the importance of 

building on the success of school meals in 

supporting healthy eating. 

Returning to the 2012 standards in SY 

2022–2023 would be unrealistic for schools, 

with an estimated $1.3 billion in food and 

labor costs to support more scratch cooking 

and food purchases shifts but also from an 

operational standpoint. Standing up 

increased scratch cooking takes time to 

execute successfully, including time for 

students to provide feedback through taste 

tests and other activities to increase 

acceptance. Manufacturers need time to test 

and reformulate whole grain-rich and lower 

sodium products for the school market for 

schools to employ a comprehensive sodium 

reduction plan. 

The COVID–19 nationwide waivers 

significantly changed program operations, 

and time is needed to transition back to 

typical meal service. The timing of this rule 

is important as it provides time for schools 

to transition, but also leverages the important 

lessons from the pandemic on the importance 

of strong nutrition standards. The COVID–19 

pandemic and corresponding school closures 

greatly disrupted the lives of children, likely 

resulting in increased stress, irregular 

mealtimes, less access to nutritious foods, 

increased screen time, and fewer 

opportunities for physical activity. Families 

already disproportionally affected by obesity 

risk factors likely had additional 

interruptions in income, food, and other 

social factors that impact obesity risk and 

health 138 139 This rule is estimated to 

potentially require $187 million in additional 

resources or changes in purchasing patterns 

to implement; however, it saves an estimated 

$0.15 per meal if schools were required to 

fully meet all 2012 standards in SY 2022– 

2023. Schools would face extreme challenge 

immediately returning to the 2012 standards 

from COVD–19 operations which would be 

compounded by the supply chain 

disruptions. This rule strikes the necessary 

balance in operational feasibility and 

recognizing the critical need to maintain 

strong achievable school nutrition standards 

during this transition period to continue to 

improve the diets of school children. 

E. Alternatives 

Whole Grain-Rich Requirement at 60 Percent 

One consideration when developing this 

rule was to set a requirement that schools 

must offer at least 60 percent of grain 

offerings as whole grain-rich instead of 80 

percent. As noted earlier, in SY 2014–2015, 

schools were on average serving about 70 

percent of grains as whole grain-rich. While 

the 60 percent threshold would likely be 

easier to meet, it could be a step back in 

whole grain-rich progress. If all schools 

regressed back to the requirement that only 

half of grain offerings had to be whole grainrich, the 60 percent would have slightly 

increased progress. USDA has no evidence to 

suggest that schools regressed in whole grainrich offerings before the pandemic and 

recognizes the important role whole grains 

play in a nutritious diet. Using the same 

methodology as the base whole grain-rich 

analysis, it would cost about $151 million for 

schools to move to 60 percent of grain 

offerings as whole grain-rich. This estimate 

assumes that all schools moved back to the 

requirement of just half of grains offering as 

whole grain-rich. This is equivalent to the 

$454 million for all schools to move from 

half of grain offerings as whole grain-rich to 

80 percent whole grain-rich offerings. 

TABLE 17—ESTIMATED COSTS OF INCREASING WHOLE GRAIN-RICH ITEMS

[Millions] 

Threshold 

Expected annual 

cost 

(increasing from 

75 percent WGR) 

High annual cost 

(increasing from 

50 percent WGR) 

INCREASING TO 100 PERCENT ............................................................................................................... $378 $757 

INCREASING TO 80 PERCENT ................................................................................................................. 76 454 

INCREASING TO 60 PERCENT ................................................................................................................. 0 151 

Sodium Target 1 for SY 2022–2023 and 

Sodium Target 2 for SY 2023–2024 

Another consideration during the decision 

process for this rule was to require schools 

to meet Sodium Target 1 in SY 2022–2023 

and move to Sodium Target 2 in SY 2023– 

2024. As noted earlier, the sodium timeline 

from the 2012 standards was never fully 

implemented and schools have only been 

required to reach Sodium Target 1. Sodium 

Target 2 for SBP is about a 10 percent 

reduction from Sodium Target 1 and a 24 

percent reduction for NSLP. Average sodium 

levels for prepared SBP breakfasts in SY 

2014–2015 were about 2 percent to 5 percent 

higher than Sodium Target 2, and average 

sodium levels for NSLP lunches were about 

14 percent to 20 percent higher than Sodium 

Target 2. This would still be a substantial 

reduction for schools to achieve in one 

school year. Originally, Sodium Target 2 was 

meant to go into effect 3 years after schools 

were required to meet Sodium Target 1. 

These difficulties would be compounded by 

prolonged uncertainty regarding the Sodium 

Targets, industry needing more time to 

reformulate products with lower sodium 

levels, and the challenges schools may face 

transitioning from COVID–19 operations and 

supply chain disruptions. Using the same 

methodology as the base sodium estimates, it 

is estimated that schools would require at 

least 1 hour a day of additional scratch 

cooking to meet Sodium Target 2 as well as 

the equivalent amount to support changes in 

purchasing patterns. It is estimated to cost 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 7023 

about $244 million in labor and the same 

amount in food costs for a total of $488 

million for schools to reach Sodium Target 2. 

Along with the costs to reach Target 2, it 

would cost an additional $98 million for 10 

percent of schools to comply with Target 1. 

This is an annual total of $585 million for 

food and labor costs for schools to meet 

Sodium Target 2. The base analysis estimate 

for this rule only included the $98 million for 

the 10 percent of meals to reach Target 1 and 

Target 1A. 

TABLE 18—ESTIMATED COSTS BY SODIUM TARGET

[Millions] 

Target 

Average hours 

of additional 

labor per day 

Estimated 

labor costs 

Estimated 

food costs 

Estimated 

total costs 

TARGET 1 IN SY 2022–2023; TARGET 1A IN SY 2023–2024 ................... 1.0 $49 $49 $98 

FINAL TARGET IN SY 2022–2023 ............................................................... 1.8 438.5 438.5 877 

TARGET 2 IN SY 2023–2024 ....................................................................... 1.0 244 244 488 

[FR Doc. 2022–02327 Filed 2–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES2