This month marks back-to-school season for millions of children around the nation. To celebrate this exciting time of year, Dr. Marlene Schwartz sat down for an interview about school meals.

Keep reading for your “crash course” on the importance of the National School Lunch Program, the nutritional quality of school meals, the status of Universal Free School Meals, and more.

---

Why do you care so much about the National School Lunch Program?

Marlene Schwartz: The National School Lunch Program is the federal government’s largest child nutrition program, reaching around 30 million children across 100,000 schools each school day. The reason I feel so passionately about school meals is because I believe it is the most powerful short-term lever available to improve the diets of children across the country.  Think about it: if you change school meal regulations, you can change children’s diets the day the new rules are implemented. That is why I put so much of my energy into studying school nutrition.

 

How healthy are school meals?

MS: The short answer is that they are healthier than most people think, and there is always room for improvement.  It’s interesting to remember that the school meal program was originally launched in the 1940s to ensure that children got enough to eat – so the focus was on setting minimums for food and calories.  Decades later, when the country saw a steep increase in childhood obesity, policymakers realized that children’s dietary needs had changed and school meal regulations needed to change as well.  The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010 established nutrition standards that were rolled out over the following years. These changes included new limits on calories, sodium, sugar, and saturated fats in meals; new rules about whole grains; and a requirement that fruits and vegetables must be served with every meal.  Since the HHFKA, research has found that the diets of children who eat school meals have improved. In addition, a study found that the food children get in school cafeterias is healthier than the food they get from any other source, including grocery stores and restaurants.

With all of that said, there is always room for improvement.  I am most excited about efforts to bring more locally produced food to schools and increase scratch cooking. I think there is a lot of public support for these ideas.

 

How often are the school nutrition standards updated?

MS: The NSLP is required to align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are updated every 5 years. However, it isn’t a quick process. The USDA is still working on implementing changes from the last DGAs.

In the meantime, the 2025-2030 DGAs came out earlier this year and contain more explicit guidance on limiting highly processed foods, also known as “ultraprocessed” or UPFs. I think it’s possible we’ll see restrictions on UPFs make their way to the school meal nutrition standards eventually. A team of us have written about what we think it will take to get this done.  In my mind, the two biggest barriers right now are: (1) the federal government must release its definition of UPF; and (2) we need realistic estimates about how much these changes will cost. The food costs are just one part – there is also labor and equipment.

 

What else did the HHFKA impact?

MS: In addition to stronger nutrition standards for school meals, the HHFKA set nutrition standards for foods sold outside the reimbursable school meal; these are known as “competitive foods.” The standards are referred to as Smart Snacks and they apply to all foods sold during the school day on campus, so that includes vending machines, school stores, and fundraising activities.

Additionally, the HHFKA established the Community Eligibility Provision (or CEP), which allows schools in high poverty areas to offer free school meals to all students. Beyond the primary benefit of increasing access to school meals, the CEP also reduces stigma and the administrative burden of determining eligibility for free or reduced-price meals for each student.

Finally, a change that’s extremely relevant to our work at the Rudd Center is that the HHFKA required districts to create even more comprehensive wellness policies and assess them every three years, appropriately called a Triennial Assessment. This requirement inspired us to update and expand the WellSAT, which now has a Triennial Assessment builder. This year, our site was accessed by over 13,000 unique users across 44 states.

 

What’s the status of Universal Free School Meals?

MS: School meals have traditionally used something called a “means-tested” pricing system. This means that meals are either free, reduced-price, or paid (i.e., full price) based on how the family’s household income compares to the federal poverty level.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Universal Free School Meals (UFSM) were offered nationwide to children at any income level, thanks to waivers funded by the federal government.  In the years since these waivers expired, 9 states have implemented policies that offer healthy school meals to all students: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont.

The status of UFSM in the other 41 states is more complicated. Some states lost UFSM for good when the federal waiver expired. Other states went back and forth between continuing free meals temporarily and reinstating the old system. Another strategy used by some states was changing the rules to provide free meals to more students by shifting the required income level or moving students from the “reduced-price” category into the “free” category. It has been a confusing time for families because the rules in some states have changed multiple times.

In the upcoming school year, a handful of states (including Connecticut) offer free breakfast for all, but not free lunches. Many other states have introduced UFSM legislation but have not yet passed it. If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, the Food Research and Action Center has a tracker on their website to help people stay up to date on this changing landscape.

 

What are the benefits of Universal Free School Meals?

MS: Here, the research is very clear: Universal Free School Meals are a win for children, families, and schools. For starters, UFSM expands access to the school meal program and increases participation. As I mentioned earlier, school meals are the healthiest meal that most children consume all day, so an increase in participation can have a huge impact on the health of our nation’s children!

However, increased participation is just the beginning. UFSM can eliminate the stigma that is sometimes associated of school meals; support food security; improve attendance; and support academic performance. They also help the whole family by saving them time and money, which is especially important when grocery prices are on the rise.  The way I see it, we provide free public education to our children and that includes all of the equipment and resources they need to succeed. I consider food just as important as the water, heat, and desks in the school buildings – it’s meeting a basic need that is necessary for students to succeed academically.

---

Dr. Marlene Schwartz is the Director of the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health and a Professor in the UConn Department of Human Development and Family Sciences. She is an expert on school meals and has been studying the school wellness environment for over twenty years. Her research examines how nutrition and wellness policies implemented in schools, food banks, and local communities can improve food security, diet quality, and health outcomes.

To stay connected with the Rudd Center’s work, you can subscribe to our monthly newsletter, connect with us on LinkedIn, or follow us on Bluesky.

Takeaways from the Updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a new edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). The DGAs are updated every five years and are designed to reflect current science to help Americans make healthy dietary choices. Although individuals may (or may not) change their own personal eating patterns, the regulations for the federal food programs (like National School Breakfast and Lunch) are required to reflect the DGAs. This process to update regulations sometimes takes years, but this is how the system is supposed to work.

Now for the million-dollar question: Are the 2025-2030 updates to the DGAs a step in the right direction or not?

The answer is – it’s complicated. There are some clear messages we can all get behind – no one is going to argue with the advice to eat real, whole foods. On the other hand, clearly promoting red meat, butter, and full-fat dairy while also telling people to limit their saturated fat intake is confusing. Thus, it’s difficult to predict what the impact of this report will be in the long run.

Below, we’ve outlined some of our takeaways on what’s good, what’s bad, and what’s still unknown after this update.

The Good, The Bad, and The Unknown

In December 2024, the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Committee submitted a scientific report based on two years of meetings and public comments to the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This report was created by a committee of researchers and health professionals led by Drs. Sarah Booth (Tufts University) and Angela Odoms-Young (Cornell University). It was designed to serve as the basis for the update to the DGAs. However, because the report incorporated “a health equity lens,” the current administration decided to start again with a new set of scientific reviews. This Scientific Foundation report provides a helpful table that shows where the original committee’s review of the evidence was fully accepted, partially accepted, or rejected from the new report.

A few takeaways:

The Good

• Prioritize Whole Foods: The tagline of the new DGAs is “Eat Real Food.” This is a solid message and consistent with the first part of Michael Pollan’s 2007 quote: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” We support strategies to limit intake ultra-processed (or their term, “highly processed”) foods and have written recently on how this can realistically be achieved in schools.

• Limit Added Sugars and Non-Nutritive Sweeteners: Another area where we applaud the new DGAs is the message that children should stay away from added sugars, specifically soft drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks, and non-nutritive (i.e., artificial) sweeteners. Couldn’t agree more.

The Bad

• An Inverted Food Guide Pyramid: Perhaps the buzziest update to the DGAs is that the food guide pyramid from 1992 (over three decades ago!) was resurrected and flipped upside-down. Our take is that they needed to dig into the archives of DGA graphics to find one that they could claim was the opposite of the new advice. Indeed, the messaging that “for decades we’ve been misled” reminds me of a lesson in graduate school about popular diet books: you always start off saying “The medical establishment has been lying to you! They don’t want you to know the truth about how to lose weight! Buy this book with all the answers!” A more accurate adjustment of the MyPlate graphic would have been to keep the dairy; keep half of the plate vegetables and fruits; and shift the line on the other half of the plate to have more protein and fewer grains. But that would have been much less dramatic. Rest in peace, MyPlate.

• Mixed Messaging about Saturated Fats: The updated DGAs maintain the current, evidence-based recommendation that saturated fat consumption should not exceed more than 10% of total daily calories. However, the guidance and visuals contradict this recommendation by heavily promoting products high in saturated fat, like butter, whole milk, and beef tallow.

• Animal instead of Plant-Based Proteins: There isn’t a chickpea or lentil to be found in the upside-down pyramid (although, to be fair, there are a few nuts and some beans on top of the (white?!) rice). The heavy-handed promotion of animal proteins and fats is a win for the dairy and meat industries, with whom some of the second set of experts have financial ties (see the last part of the Scientific Foundation report).

The Unknown

• Environmental Guidance: Perhaps unsurprisingly in light of previous controversies, the new DGAs do not mention the environmental impact of our diet. To learn more about the importance of thinking about food and the environment together, see work by the EAT-Lancet Commission.

• Access and Affordability: The fact sheet says that these guidelines prioritize health outcomes, not health equity, and are for all Americans. They also say that “our culture and food procurement programs must change to enable Americans to access affordable, healthy, real food,” and they “welcome all stakeholders to be part of this conversation in the coming year.” How this administration plans to use federal policy to improve access and lower prices remains an unanswered question.

—

The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health at the University of Connecticut promotes solutions to food insecurity, poor diet quality, and weight bias through research and policy. To stay connected with the Rudd Center’s work, please connect with us on LinkedIn, follow us on Bluesky, and subscribe to our monthly mailing list.