[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38839-38844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18433]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38839]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Parts 210, 220, 225 and 226
RIN 0584-AC82
Modification of the ``Vegetable Protein Products'' Requirements
for the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer
Food Service Program and Child and Adult Care Food Program
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Nutrition Service is proposing to update the
requirements on using ``Vegetable Protein Products'' in the National
School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Summer Food Service
Program, and Child and Adult Care Food Program (the Child Nutrition
Programs) given changes in food technology since the current provisions
were adopted. The major changes proposed are to: rename ``Vegetable
Protein Products'' as ``Alternate Protein Products;'' remove the limit
on the amount of these products that can be used; eliminate the
requirement that alternate protein products be specially fortified; and
update the test used to determine protein quality. These proposed
changes would give menu planners more flexibility to incorporate these
products into their menus along with the traditional protein sources of
meat, poultry and seafood.
DATES: To be assured of consideration, comments must be postmarked on
or before September 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Mr. Robert M. Eadie, 3101 Park
Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. All written submissions will
be available for public inspection in Room 1007, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Alexandria, Virginia during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marion Hinners or Ms. Janice
Fabina, at the above address or by telephone at (703) 305-2590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
What Are Alternate Protein Products and How Are They Used?
In the 1960's, protein products processed from vegetable sources,
primarily soybeans, became more prevalent. Because of their low cost
and their protein quality, vegetable protein products could be used
with meat, poultry and seafood in food items. This blending enhanced
use of both meat and vegetable protein products. As the use of
alternate protein products increased, we felt that we needed to
determine how such products would be credited in the Child Nutrition
Programs (CN Programs) in order to give menu planners flexibility while
maintaining the nutritional quality of our meals.
Originally, our policies concerning alternate protein products were
delineated in informal guidance. In 1983, however, we amended our
regulations by adding a section entitled ``Alternate Foods for Meals--
Vegetable Protein Products'' which was located in Appendix A, to 7 CFR
Part 210, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP); 7 CFR Part 225, the
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); and 7 CFR Part 226, the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). Appendix A to Part 210 also applied to
7 CFR Part 220, the School Breakfast Program (SBP).
What Are Vegetable Protein Products (VPP)?
Appendix A to the various CFR Parts identified above defines
vegetable (plant) protein products as foods which are processed so that
some portion of the nonprotein constituents of the vegetable is
removed. These vegetable protein products (VPP) are safe and suitable
edible products produced from vegetable (plant) sources such as
soybeans, peanuts, wheat, and corn. Because they are both nutritious
and versatile, VPP may be included in meals offered in the various CN
Programs.
Currently, VPP fortified with iron and zinc may constitute up to 30
percent of the meat/meat alternate component of the food-based menu
planning approaches used in all of the CN Programs. However, the VPP
fortification and limitation requirements do not apply to menus planned
under the nutrient standard approaches of the NSLP and the SBP. The
nutrient standard menu planning approaches incorporate nutrient
analysis into the process and consequently do not need the assurances
provided by the fortification and limitation requirements applied to
the food-based approaches.
What are the Current Regulatory Provisions Concerning VPP?
These provisions, all contained in Appendix A to 7 CFR Parts 210,
225, and 226, are:
(1) use of the names and nutritional requirements for VPP developed
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
(2) use of VPP in the dry, partially hydrated form, or fully
hydrated form;
(3) establishment of appropriate hydration of dry VPP by setting
the protein quantity requirements for a product ``when hydrated or
formulated;''
(4) use of VPP only in combination with meat, poultry or seafood
for the meat/meat alternate component;
(5) use of up to 30 percent (by uncooked weight) of fully hydrated
VPP as a substitute for meat, poultry, or seafood; and
(6) use of fortified VPP meeting USDA-FNS specifications.
Why is the Amount of VPP Limited?
When the VPP requirements were originally incorporated into the
regulations, nutritionists felt that VPP should be limited to no more
than a 30 percent substitution level for raw or cooked meat, poultry,
or seafood. This limit was established because data from studies
available at that time indicated that the bioavailability of iron and
zinc decreased when foods were formulated with more than 30 percent
VPP. Given these findings, we adopted the 30 percent limitation on VPP
use as our policy.
Why Does FNS Require VPP to be Fortified?
Even with the limited use of VPP, we were still concerned that
children would not receive adequate levels of certain nutrients.
Therefore, as an added precaution, we required that VPP used in the CN
Programs be fortified with iron and zinc. We did this so that the fully
hydrated VPP was similar to meat
[[Page 38840]]
in both nutrients and the bioavailability of minerals.
Why is FNS Proposing to Change the Provisions on VPP?
A lot of progress has been made in the areas of nutrition science,
food technology and analysis in the 25 years that have elapsed since
the initial formulation of our policies on use of VPP. We need to
update our requirements on VPP in conjunction with the continued use of
animal sources of protein.
We are also looking for ways to enhance flexibility for menu
planners and to assist them in meeting the 1995 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. Additional ways are especially needed to help menu planners
reduce fat and saturated fat in meals while still maintaining calorie
levels and cost-effectiveness.
We also received requests from schools, sponsors and the food
industry to allow food items with as much as 100 percent VPP.
Unrestricted use of VPP would increase the variety of food items and
products that could be offered and would assist schools and sponsors in
accommodating the vegetarian and ethnic preferences of the participants
in our programs.
Is Crediting of VPP Consistent Among the Menu Planning Approaches?
As a result of recent efforts to improve the meals offered to
children, schools now have a variety of menu planning approaches from
which to choose. However, the policies for crediting VPP are not
consistent among the various menu planning approaches. Two such
approaches allow food based menu planning and two others employ
nutrient standard menu planning which are based on nutrient analysis of
menus. Another option, proposed in a May 15, 1998 rulemaking (63 FR
27162), would permit schools to develop their own ``reasonable
approach'' to menu planning and will be available after publication of
a final rule in 1999. However, the limitations and crediting policies
for VPP only apply to the food-based menu planning approaches. Schools
using one of the nutrient standard menu planning approaches do not have
to apply the VPP provisions in the Alternate Foods for Meals
provisions. This proposal will alleviate these inconsistencies among
the various menu planning approaches.
Which Programs Would be Affected by the Proposed Changes?
The current VPP provisions and the proposed changes apply to all CN
Programs. However, their greatest impact is on the school meals
programs which have the most participants. The SFSP and the CACFP would
also benefit from the greater selection of menu items that would result
from these proposed changes. However, we understand that these changes
may present some new challenges to operators of these programs.
Comments related specifically to how these two programs will adopt
these proposed modifications are requested.
What are the Proposed Changes to Appendix A?
We are proposing to:
(1) change the name from vegetable protein products (VPP) to
alternate protein products (APP) and remove the requirement that APP
only be of plant origin;
(2) remove the limitation of 30 percent (by weight) maximum
substitution for meat, seafood, or poultry;
(3) remove the fortification requirement; and
(4) update the protein quality test to the Protein Digestibility
Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) from the currently required Protein
Efficiency Ratio (PER) test.
Why Change the Name From VPP to APP?
We are proposing to remove the requirement that protein products
used in our programs be derived only from plant protein sources.
Instead of the term ``Vegetable Protein Products,'' we are proposing
the term ``Alternate Protein Products'' to indicate that alternate
protein products are no longer only vegetable-based. Under our
proposal, APP may be derived from animal sources such as whey-based
protein products. (Therefore, VPP will be referred to as APP for the
remainder of the preamble.)
Why is FNS Proposing to Eliminate the Limit on the Amount of APP That
may be Used?
We are proposing to remove the requirement that APP be used only in
combination with meat, poultry and seafood by eliminating the
requirement that APP be no more than 30 percent (by weight) of the food
item. The 30 percent limitation was based on the best data available at
the time. That data indicated that alternate protein products appeared
to inhibit the absorption of iron and other nutrients.
Current expert opinion (Messina, Bothwell, Cook, et al.) is that
moderate intakes of APP will not have a negative affect on the levels
of iron and other nutrients in the body. We also believe that removing
the limit on use of APP will not adversely affect a child's diet if
menu planners follow the recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines on
moderation and on offering a variety of foods. If menus with APP, like
any foods offered in our programs, are planned with the key elements of
moderation and variety in mind, any risk to dietary status should be
eliminated.
Why is FNS Proposing to Remove the Requirement for Fortification?
We established the requirement that only fortified VPP be used as
an additional safeguard to further assure that children received
adequate nutrients. We now can remove this requirement as the
additional fortification is unnecessary. In fact, scientific evidence
indicates that unrestricted use of fortified APP could actually result
in excessive intakes of iron and zinc.
Eliminating the requirement on fortification would allow the food
industry to directly market their existing products to schools and
sponsors as they would no longer need to develop and maintain a special
product exclusively for the CN Programs. This would reduce the burden
on the food manufacturing industry. Schools and institutions would have
a greater selection of products to incorporate into their menus to
assist them with meeting our nutrition goals as well with cost
effectiveness.
Why is FNS Proposing a Different Test for Protein Quality?
Currently, a Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) is the only method for
protein quality evaluation specified in our regulations. We permitted
use of other tests on an exception basis only if the test provided
similar information and results as the PER method. The PER method was,
at the time of publication of current regulations, in agreement with
FDA's prescribed method of determining protein quality. However, in
1993, FDA revised its regulations to require use of the Protein
Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) for all ages except
for infants. For children under one, PER remains the best method.
In addition to being more accurate, efficient, and less costly,
PDCAAS has generally been recognized as the most appropriate for
evaluating protein quality. In order to achieve consistency with FDA
regulations and to reflect the latest scientific advances, we are
proposing that PDCAAS be our standard method of determining protein
quality for APP. Should FDA accept or require
[[Page 38841]]
another test in the future, we will update our regulations to reflect
that change.
As we noted, the PER test is still the preferred method for
determining protein quality of APP for infants. We are not, however,
requiring that the PER test be conducted as our infant meal pattern is
based on specific foods, not the more general food components.
Consequently, menu planners are unlikely to offer APP to infants.
Will Protein Quality be Compromised?
In considering possible changes to current requirements, we were
concerned about protein quality given the unrestricted levels of APP in
food items. There is general scientific agreement that protein quality
need not be a major concern, provided that fluid milk continues to be a
part of the CN Programs. A study conducted by Reeds and Stuff in 1993
compared meals with several combinations of meat and plant-based
proteins. That study found both the protein and specific amino acid
contribution of meatless lunches that included milk was adequate. Since
fluid milk continues to be a requirement for all menu planning
approaches, we do not believe that protein quality poses any
significant problems.
There is, however, a current proliferation of protein isolates
being developed by the food industry, some of which may be very low in
protein quality. Consequently, we intend to maintain a requirement that
protein quality of an APP be determined through testing. Further, in
order to maintain protein quality, we are not proposing to change the
requirement for APP that the biological quality of the protein in the
APP be at least 80 percent that of casein (milk protein). This is the
established benchmark for a high quality protein product.
In the interests of further maintaining protein quality, we are
also retaining the requirement that the protein content of the fully
hydrated APP be a minimum of 18 percent by weight. We also retained the
requirement that the equivalent of 18 percent protein be provided for
dry or partially hydrated forms. The 18 percent protein requirement,
use of a more accurate test to determine the protein quality, and
requiring a 80 percent PDCAAS score as compared to casein for an
acceptable APP all combine to assure the quality of the food items
offered to participating children.
How Will Schools and Institutions Know if the APP Meet the
Requirements?
We currently require that VPP be labeled in accordance with
regulations published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These
regulations have since been withdrawn, so we are removing any
provisions related to the FDA regulations.
In order to assure that APP used in our programs meet the protein
quality standards, we are proposing that manufacturers document that
their products meet the following requirements:
1. the APP is processed so that some portion of the non-protein
constituents of the food is removed;
2. the biological quality of the protein in the alternate protein
product must be at least 80 percent that of casein, determined by
performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS);
and
3. the APP contains at least 18 percent protein by weight when
fully hydrated or formulated.
We are not specifying the form of documentation required. For
example, the manufacturer could provide specification sheets, a letter
attesting the requirements were met, or could put a label on the
product. While we want to assure that the APP used in our programs meet
our nutritional standards, we do not want to impose a burden on
manufacturers to individually label their products unless they choose
to do so.
What APP Will Be Used in the CN Programs?
Currently, the most widely used type of APP used in our programs
are soy-based. Because this proposed rule will increase the varieties
of products that could be used, we are particularly interested in
learning what sorts of APP are available and how they could be used in
our programs as well as any future trends for APP. This information
will assist us in developing any guidance that may be needed for
schools and institutions on how APP can be used to meet all or part of
the meat/meat alternate component of the food-based menu planning
approaches.
What Technical Amendments Are Being Proposed?
The flexibility provided to school food authorities participating
in the NSLP under Appendix A, Alternate Foods for Meals, Alternate
Protein Products (formerly entitled ``Vegetable Protein Products'') (7
CFR part 210, Appendix A) has always been extended to the School
Breakfast Program. This rule proposes to formalize this flexibility by
adding to 7 CFR Part 220, Appendix A, a new section entitled
``Alternate Protein Products.''
We are also using this opportunity to redraft the section on APP in
Appendix A to each part in plain language as directed by the Vice
President. Therefore, the paragraphs in each Appendix A on APP to each
section are reorganized for clarity as well as amended to reflect the
revisions discussed in this preamble. We would appreciate comments on
the format and on other ways in which we can make this information more
useful to those who apply these provisions.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be non-significant and is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866.
Public Law 104-4
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) generally prepares a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a
statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires FNS to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 through
612). The Administrator of FNS has certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. First, there are relatively few companies
[[Page 38842]]
that supply alternate protein products to the Child Nutrition Programs.
Secondly, removing the fortification requirement eliminates the burden
on manufacturers to develop and market a product specially for use in
the Child Nutrition Programs. Lastly, menu planners would have greater
flexibility to incorporate alternate protein products into their menus
along with the traditional protein sources of meat, poultry and
seafood.
Executive Order 12372
The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program
are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Nos.
10.555 and 10.553, respectively. The Child and Adult Care Food Program
and the Summer Food Service Program are listed under Nos. 10.558 and
No. 10.559, respectively. Each is subject to the provisions of
Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation
with State and local officials. (7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V and final
rule related notice at 48 FR 29112, June 24, 1983.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed 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 implementation. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect unless so specified in the Effective Date section of
this preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this proposed rule or the application of the provisions, all applicable
administrative procedures must be exhausted. This includes any
administrative procedures provided by State or local governments and,
for disputes involving procurements by State agencies and sponsors, any
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR Part
3016.
In the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program,
the administrative procedures are set forth under the following
regulations: (1) school food authority appeals of State agency findings
as a result of an administrative review must follow State agency
hearing procedures as established pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 210.18(q); (2)
school food authority appeals of FNS findings as a result of an
administrative review must follow FNS hearing procedures as established
pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 210.30(d)(3); and (3) State agency appeals of
State Administrative Expense fund sanctions (7 CFR Sec. 235.11(b)) must
follow FNS Administrative Review Process as established pursuant to 7
CFR Sec. 235.11(f).
In the Summer Food Service Program, the administrative procedures
are set forth under the following regulations: (1) program sponsors and
food service management companies must follow State agency hearing
procedures issued pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 225.13; and (2) disputes
involving procurement by State agencies and sponsors must follow
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR
Sec. 225.17 and 7 CFR Part 3015.
In the Child and Adult Care Food Program, the administrative
procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1)
institution appeal procedures in 7 CFR Sec. 226.6(k); and (2) disputes
involving procurement by State agencies and institutions must follow
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR
Sec. 226.22 and 7 CFR 3015.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new paperwork burdens or information
collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507).
References/Sources
1. Vernon R. Young; ``Soy Protein in Relation to Human Protein
and Amino Acid Nutrition''; Journal of the American Dietetic
Association; 1991.
2. Peter Reeds, Janice Stuff; ``Protein Quality and Amino Acid
Requirements of Children''; USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research
Center; 1993.
3. Joanne Slavin; ``Nutritional Benefits of Soy Protein and Soy
Fiber''; Journal of the American Dietetic Association; 1991.
4. Mark Messina, Virginia Messina; SoyFacts, Soy Foods and Iron;
Number 6.
5. T. H. Bothwell, F. M. Clydesdale, J. D. Cook et al; Report of
the International Nutritional Anemia Consultative Group (INACG);
Nutrition Foundation, Washington, DC.
6. J. D. Cook; ``Adaptation in Iron Metabolism''; American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition; 1990.
1. The Soy Connection. Health and Nutrition News about Soy; Volume 1,
Number 3; United Soybean Board, Chesterfield, MO, 63017.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 210
Children, Commodity School Program, Food assistance programs,
Grants programs-social programs, National School Lunch Program,
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
7 CFR Part 220
Children, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-social programs,
Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, School Breakfast
Program.
7 CFR Part 225
Food and Nutrition, Food assistance programs, Grant programs-
health, Infants and children, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 226
Accounting, Aged, Day care, Food and Nutrition Service, Food
assistance programs, Grant programs, Grant programs--health, Indians,
Individuals with disabilities, Infants and children, Intergovernmental
relations, Loan programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Surplus agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 210, 220, 225 and 226 are proposed to be
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 Sec. 210.10, amend the first sentence of paragraph (k)(3)(i)
by removing the words ``Vegetable protein products'' and adding the
words ``Alternate protein products'' in their place.
3. In Sec. 210.10a, amend the first sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(i)
by removing the words ``Vegetable protein products'' and adding the
words ``Alternate protein products'' in their place.
4. In Appendix A to part 210, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals,
revise the undesignated centerheading ``Enriched Macaroni Products with
Fortified Protein'' to read ``I. Enriched Macaroni Products with
Fortified Protein.''
5. In Appendix A to part 210, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals,
revise the section entitled ``Vegetable Protein Products'' to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Part 210--Alternate Foods for Meals
* * * * *
II. Alternate Protein Products
A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used
in the National School Lunch Program?
1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the
food-based menu
[[Page 38843]]
planning approaches in Sec. 210.10(k) or Sec. 210.10a, whichever is
applicable, must meet all of the criteria in this section.
2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following
criteria:
a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed.
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible
products produced from plant or animal sources.
b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein,
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other
substances which have been added).
d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a. through c
above.
e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as
prepared basis.
f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide
information on:
(1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the
package;
(2) hydration instructions; and
(3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or
seafood.
B. How are Alternate Protein Poducts Used in the National School
Lunch Program?
1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat
alternate component discussed in Sec. 210.10 or Sec. 210.10a,
whichever is applicable.
2. The following terms and conditions apply:
a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf,
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).
C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the National
School Lunch Program?
Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product
that contains only alternate protein products.
PART 220--SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 220 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1773, 1779, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Appendix A to part 220, entitled Alternate Foods for Meals,
revise the undesignated centerheading ``Formulated Grain-Fruit
Products'' to read ``I. Formulated Grain-Fruit Products''.
3. Add a new section to Appendix A of part 220 entitled, ``II.
Alternate Protein Products'' following the table at the end of the
Appendix to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 220--Alternate Foods for Meals
* * * * *
II. Alternate Protein Products
A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used
in the National School Breakfast Program?
1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the
food-based menu planning approaches in Sec. 220.8(g) or Sec. 220.8a,
whichever is applicable, must meet all of the criteria in this
section.
2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following
criteria:
a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed.
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible
products produced from plant or animal sources.
b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein,
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other
substances which have been added).
d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as
prepared basis.
f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide
information on:
(1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the
package;
(2) hydration instructions; and
(3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or
seafood.
B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the National School
Breakfast Program?
1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat
alternate component discussed in Sec. 220.8 or Sec. 220.8a,
whichever is applicable. The following terms and conditions apply:
a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf,
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).
C. How are Commercially Prepared Products used in the National
School Breakfast Program?
Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product
that contains only alternate protein products.
* * * * *
PART 225-SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 225 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).
2. In 225.16, amend the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3) by
removing the words ``Textured vegetable'' and adding the word
``alternate'' in their place.
3. Revise Appendix A to Part 225, entitled Alternate Foods for
Meals, to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 225--Alternate Foods for Meals
Alternate Protein Products
A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used
in the Summer Food Service Program?
1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the
provisions in Sec. 225.16 must meet all of the criteria in this
section.
2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following
criteria:
a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed.
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible
products produced from plant or animal sources.
[[Page 38844]]
b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein,
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other
substances which have been added).
d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as
prepared basis.
f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide
information on:
(1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the
package;
(2) hydration instructions; and
(3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or
seafood.
B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the Summer Food
Service Program?
1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat
alternate component discussed in Sec. 225.20.
2. The following terms and conditions apply:
a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf,
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).
C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the Summer Food
Service Program?
Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product
that contains only alternate protein products.
PART 226--CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 225 continues to read:
Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, National School Lunch
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a, 1765, and 1766).
2. Revise Appendix A to Part 226, entitled Alternate Foods for
Meals, to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 226--Alternate Foods for Meals
Alternate Foods for Meals
A. What are the Criteria for Alternate Protein Products (APP) Used
in the Child and Adult Care Food Program?
1. An alternate protein product used in meals planned under the
provisions in Sec. 226.20 must meet all of the criteria in this
section.
2. An alternate protein product whether used alone or in
combination with meat, poultry or seafood must meet the following
criteria:
a. The alternate protein product must be processed so that some
portion of the non-protein constituents of the food is removed.
These alternate protein products must be safe and suitable edible
products produced from plant or animal sources.
b. The biological quality of the protein in the alternate
protein product must be at least 80 percent that of casein,
determined by performing a Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score (PDCAAS).
c. The alternate protein product must contain at least 18
percent protein by weight when fully hydrated or formulated. (``When
hydrated or formulated'' refers to a dry alternate protein product
and the amount of water, fat, oil, colors, flavors or any other
substances which have been added).
d. Manufacturers supplying an alternate protein product to
participating schools or institutions must provide documentation
that the product meets the criteria in paragraphs a through c above.
e. Manufacturers should provide information on the percent
protein contained in the dry alternate protein product and on an as
prepared basis.
f. For an alternate protein product mix, manufacturers provide
information on:
(1) the amount by weight of dry alternate protein product in the
package;
(2) hydration instructions; and
(3) instructions on how to combine the mix with meat, poultry or
seafood.
B. How are Alternate Protein Products Used in the Child and Adult
Care Food Program?
1. Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use
alternate protein products to fulfill all or part of the meat/meat
alternate component discussed in Sec. 226.20.
2. The following terms and conditions apply:
a. The alternate protein product may be used alone or in
combination with other food ingredients. Examples of combination
items are beef patties, beef crumbles, pizza topping, meat loaf,
meat sauce, taco filling, burritos, and tuna salad.
b. Alternate protein products may be used in the dry form
(nonhydrated), partially hydrated or fully hydrated form. The
moisture content of the fully hydrated alternate protein product (if
prepared from a dry concentrated form) must be such that the mixture
will have a minimum of 18 percent protein by weight or equivalent
amount for the dry or partially hydrated form (based on the level
that would be provided if the product were fully hydrated).
C. How are Commercially Prepared Products Used in the Child and Adult
Care Food Program?
Schools, institutions, and service institutions may use a
commercially prepared meat, poultry or seafood product combined with
alternate protein products or use a commercially prepared product that
contains only alternate protein products.
Dated: July 14, 1999.
Samuel Chambers, Jr.,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
[FR Doc. 99-18433 Filed 7-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
