TheNational School Lunch Act (79 P.L. 396, 60 Stat. 230) is a 1946United States federal law that created theNational School Lunch Program (NSLP) to provide low-cost or freeschool lunch meals to qualified students through subsidies to schools.[1] Prior to the passage of the Act, direct support of school lunches were done on the state level, or it was provided through federal aid that was not specifically designed for school lunches.
The program was established as a way to prop upfood prices by absorbing farm surpluses, while at the same time providing food to school-age children.[2] The Act was signed into law by PresidentHarry S. Truman in 1946[3] and entered the federal government into schools' dietary programs on June 4, 1946.[1] In 1999, the act's name was changed to honorRichard Russell Jr., senator from Georgia, who championed its passage.
Since its passage, it has received many amendments and updates due to price, safety, and health concerns, and it continues to be a subject of debate today.
The majority of the support provided to schools participating in the program comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served. Schools are also entitled to receive commodity foods and additional commodities as they are available from surplus agricultural stocks. The National School Lunch Program served nearly 29.4 million students as of the 2023-2024 school year, with 21.1 million receiving free or reduced-price lunches.[4]
School feeding in the United States underwent the same evolution as in Europe, beginning with sporadic food services undertaken by private societies and associations interested in child welfare and education.
TheChildren's Aid Society of New York initiated a program in 1853, serving meals to students attending the vocational school.[5]
At the end of 1914, more than 24,000 children were offered a homemade lunch. There was also a morning snack of crackers and hot milk offered for three cents to children who were considered weak or crippled.[6]
In 1894, the Starr Center Association in Philadelphia began serving penny lunches in one school, later expanding the service to another. Soon a lunch committee was established within the Home and School League, and lunches were extended to include nine schools in the city.[5]
In 1909, Dr. Cheesman A. Herrick, who was principal of the William Penn High School for Girls was credited with accomplishing the transfer of responsibilities for the operation and support of the lunch program from charitable organizations to the Philadelphia School Board. He requested that a system be established to ensure that the lunches served would be based upon sound principles of nutrition and required that the program be under the direction of a home economics graduate. The Board granted his request on an experimental basis and on the condition that the program would be self-supporting. The experiment proved successful, and the following year lunch services were extended to the Southern Manual Training School and later to three additional units.[5]
In the spring of 1912, the School Board established a Department of High School Lunches and directed that the food services be inaugurated in all the high schools of the city. During all this time the Home and School League had continued operating the feeding program in the nine elementary schools and continued to do so until May 1915, when it reported to the Board that the need for a lunch system had been clearly demonstrated and that it could not be successfully operated by an organization outside the school system. As a result, the School Board placed the operation of both high school and elementary lunch programs under the supervision of the Department of High School Lunches and authorized the extension of the program to other elementary schools.[7]
The New England Kitchen began offering school lunches in Boston as early as the 1890s, despite opposition from school janitors who supplemented their income with snack tables.[6]
In September 1908, theWomen's Educational and Industrial Union in Boston began to supply hot lunches to high schools that were under the supervision of the Boston School Committee. A central kitchen system was used and lunches were transported to the participating schools.[5]
In January 1910, an experimental program for elementary schools took the form of a mid-morning lunch prepared by the class in Home Economics three days each week. On two days of each week, sandwiches and milk were served. The children ate their meals at their desks, there being no lunchroom in the building. Before the end of the school year (1909–10) five additional schools were benefiting from the program, and a total of 2,000 pupils were being served each day, according to a report submitted by Ellen H. Richards in the "Journal of Home Economics" for December 1910.[5]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "National School Lunch Act" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(October 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
As schools began to expand their food services, school lunch funding, which was primarily done through local means, was no longer enough. Governments, school boards, and outside institutions could no longer support school cafeterias; it was evident that Federal support was necessary if schools wanted to continue the progression of their lunch programs. The first instance of broader support came from theReconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932 and 1933, which provided loans to towns in Southwestern Missouri to cover the cost of labor involved in school lunches.[8] Similar aid was provided elsewhere in 1933 and 1934 by theCivil Works Administration and theFederal Emergency Relief Administration, which covered labor costs in 39 states.[8]
At the same time, the United States was suffering from theGreat Depression. There was a lack of markets for farmers to sell in, and when they did, their profit margins were barely enough to sustain them. Families struggled to provide food at home, and many children could not afford school lunches, leading to child malnutrition.[8] Public Law 320, or theAgricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935, passed by the 74th congress allowed theSecretary of Agriculture to allocate funds from customs receipts; much of the funds were used to purchase food for school lunches on behalf of the schools, benefiting the struggling farmers and malnourished children.[8]
The act continued due to its success, seeing more funding being allocated as a result. Funding decreased once the United States joined the Allies' effort inWorld War II, and schools' access to food decreased with the military needing more supplies from farmers. School lunch program participation declined, and the 78th Congress amended the act in 1943 in order to ensure that the funding was being used to buy food, rather than pay for labor or equipment, and participation once again increased.[8]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion with: Information regarding circumstances surrounding the act's creation and how it became law, along with any immediate effects it had after becoming law. You can help byadding to it.(November 2021) |
Since the Act passed, Congress has modified several aspects of the policy. Congress amended the NSLP in 1962 to adjust fund distribution. They decided that the budget allocated to each state should be influenced by the state's need for further assistance. Rather than just factoring in the number of participants, Congress took into account the state poverty level compared to the national poverty level. Then, in 1968, Congress improved the NSLP food options to accommodate students with special dietary needs.[9]
More recently, in 2012, First Lady Michelle Obama took on the issue of school lunches. Changes that she initiated primarily focused on more specific nutritional requirements. The changes include updated food group nutrition standards, such as vegetable subgroups, re-adjusted meat, and grain serving sizes to reflect different school grade ranges, an implemented requirement for whole grains, and milk-fat restrictions. Lower calorie ranges and a 10-year progressive sodium reduction plan also started in 2012.[10] The alterations received criticism after implementation in 2014. Critics argued that the increased costs that would be a result would be a waste of resources and deter families from participating in the program if they were not eligible for free lunches. They also argued that it could lead to increased food waste because children would not enjoy the healthier options. Economic concerns faded once it was made clear that concerns arose due to a recent recession, and the changes remained primarily in order to combat rising rates of childhood obesity.[11]
As of 2025, President Trump implemented changes to the NSLP through hisMake America Healthy Again executive order; he has restricted the percentage of food that schools can purchase from other countries to ten percent.[12] Greater sugar restrictions are also being instituted, and by 2027, the amount of calories students can consume weekly from sugar will be restricted to ten percent.[12] Schools are also focused on eliminating artificial dyes from their menus and making food from scratch.[12]
Nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program and National School Breakfast Program were updated in 2012.[13] This update in nutritional standards was funded through a federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama; TheHealthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 funds free lunch programs in public schools for the next five years.[14] The new guidelines require students to choose either a serving of fruit or vegetables every meal. Also, the portions must now be larger.[15]
Along with larger portions of fruits and vegetables, the National School Lunch Program now enforces a variety of other nutritional requirements. Food products and ingredients used to prepare school meals must contain zero grams of addedtrans fat per serving (less than 0.5 grams per serving as defined by the FDA). Furthermore, a meal can provide no more than 30 percent of calories from fat and less than 10 percent fromsaturated fat.[16]
In late 2009, theInstitute of Medicine of the National Academies releasedSchool Meals: Building Blocks For Healthy Children.[17] This report reviews and provides recommendations to update the nutrition standard and the meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program.School Meals also sets standards for menu planning that focus on food groups, calories, saturated fat, and sodium, and that incorporate Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Dietary Reference Intakes.
Nutrition plays a critical role in cognitive development and academic performance for children; undernourished children are more likely to be less energetic and less able to concentrate.[18] The day-to-day observation of teachers and administrators of the relationship between inadequate nutrition and behavior and the ability to learn is substantiated by scientific studies. TwentyCape Town, South Africa, children were studied for 11 years, beginning in 1955. The study was based on the hypothesis "that the ill effects of under-nutrition are determined by (1) its occurrence during the period of maximum growth and (2) the duration of under-nutrition relative to the total period of growth ... Evidence is cumulative and impressive that severe under-nutrition during the first 2 years of life, whenbrain growth is most active, results in a permanent reduction of brain size and restricted intellectual development."[19] Some basicmicronutrients are necessary for children to maintain a good status of learning, such asiron andvitamin B12.[20]Iron deficiency puts a child at risk of cognitive delay and lower math scores.[18]
In December 2009, a report was released that showed thatfast food restaurants were far more rigorous in checking forbacteria and dangerouspathogens inbeef andchicken than the school lunch program.[21]
A 2018 study by USDA andUniversity of Connecticut researchers compared data from mandatory safety inspections for ground beef for the NSLP and separate data from random USDA inspections. The study found that the beef destined for the NSLP had fewer levels of test failures than beef for the market generally, although a study author noted that "ground beef that fails the National School Lunch Program’s inspection can be sold to other vendors and eventually make its way onto consumers' plates."[22] Between 2005 and 2014, there were no outbreaks ofSalmonella andE. coli linked to beef provided to the NSLP, although there were dozens of such outbreaks in commercially sold ground beef over the same period.[22]
In December 2014,Indian Country Today reported that 68 percent ofNative American andAlaska Native students "are eligible for free and reduced-price school lunches, compared with 28 percent ofwhite students. USDA data indicate that 70 percent of children receiving free lunches through the NSLP are children of color, as are 50 percent of students receiving reduced-price lunches."[23] The article expressed concern regarding efforts to undercut nutrition standards and notes that several Native American schools are working to improve the quality of school lunches by using produce from school gardens, or tribally grownbuffalo meat.[23]
 | This articleis missing information about the COVID-19 response. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on thetalk page.(May 2021) |
For some time, the measurement on which the NSLP based its cash reimbursements and meal provisions largely came from caloric requirements. However, while this worked at a time whenmalnutrition plagued the nation's poor, a continuing focus on caloric intake ignores the growing national obesity epidemic. Balancing nutrition and calories has always been a challenge for the NSLP and its participating schools. This struggle can undermine schools that wish to comply with the national standards while still advocating healthy lifestyles.[24]
Another problem that contributes to this challenge is that nutritious food is often considered less favorable than competitive food that is available to students. Given the choice, students will often prefer competitive foods that are not required to meet federal minimum nutrition standards.[25]
In the US, the termcompetitive foods refers to any food source that competes with a lunch program's offerings. Such competitive foods include fast food offerings,a la carte food lines, and vending machines.[26] A study was done in the 2009–2010 school year across 47 states and 622 districts to examine how much of the districts' competitive food and drink policy complied withDietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) recommendations.[26] One of the major reasons for this study to be done is theHealthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act which requires schools to establish science-based nutrition standards for competitive foods called a wellness plan. These provisions for competitive food and drinks included limits on specific nutrients in the food, such as sodium and fats.[26] Less than 5% of districts met or exceeded DGA requirements.[26] Only about 4% of districts across the nation required fruits and vegetables to be sold within the competitive foods which in no way helps the fruit and vegetable intake of students that is already sub-par.[26][27][28][29]
In a study of the Boston Public Schools, "on average, students discarded roughly 19 percent of their entrées, 47 percent of their fruit, 25 percent of their milk, and 73 percent of their vegetables." "It was estimated that $432,349.05 worth of food is wasted annually at lunch by students in Grades 6–8 in [Boston Public Schools]." Overall, this sum makes up 26.1 percent of these three schools' food budgets, excluding labor and supplies. If translated nationally, Cohen estimates that roughly $1,238,846,400 in food is wasted on an annual basis.[30]
One reason that students discard this amount of food has to do with à la carte lines and vending machines. In a 1998 study of 16 randomly selected schools inSt. Paul, Minnesota, the authors discovered a negative correlation between à la carte lines, vending machine use, and fruit and vegetable consumption. On average, students from schools without an à la carte line consumed nearly an entire serving more of fruit and vegetables than did students with such programs. Furthermore, students from all schools exceeded the daily USDA recommended calories from saturated fat, and students from schools with à la carte lines exceeded the recommendations by one percent more, on average. Concerning snack vending machines, the authors determined that with each vending machine present, "students' mean intake of fruit servings decreased by 11 percent." Beverage machines showed no significant impact.[31]
A challenge for schools that take part in the NSLP is the rising costs of producing lunch. According to the School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study (SLBCS), one in four school districts reported costs for school lunches above the program reimbursement rate. The additional cost must then be supplemented by school district general funds, and this puts a strain on school district budgets. Additional costs also make it difficult to meet federally mandated nutrition requirements because using the best palatable foods for students becomes too expensive.[32]
According to the 2008 USDA report on the NSLP, "other sources of increasing costs include increases in health care costs for employees and, more recently, rising food costs."[25] For example, in 2008, some school systems in Alabama, California, and Texas raised meal prices to keep up with "steep increases in food costs."[33] The school districts raised prices for paying students while keeping prices the same for students that qualified for reduced-price or free lunches. This method of cost adjustment leaves either the school district or paying students to bear the burden of the price increase.
National School Lunch Week takes place on the second Sunday in October.[34] Each year since October 9, 1962,[35] theUnited States Congress requests thepresident to issue a proclamation calling the country to observe the week.[36]
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
