School Lunch & Childhood Health in America

In 1946, the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) was enacted to provide free or reduced-price lunches for eligible students in school. Momentum for the initiative began when several men were rejected from World War II military service for poor health due to diet-related reasons, and Congress, military leaders, and President Harry S. Truman believed that lack of nutrition was a national security risk. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and reaches nearly 30 million children every day.

Today, America faces different health issues as public health experts contend that children are being ‘overfed yet undernourished’. While school lunches provide students with nutrition, they typically have more sugar and less fiber than is optimal. Even under the NSLA, some health problems among American children are increasing. The childhood obesity rate for children aged 2 to 19 is 21.1% compared to only 5.2% 50 years ago. However, high cholesterol levels have gone down in children between the years of 2007 and 2010, which experts attribute to bans on trans fats set during the Obama administration.

What is H.R. 5867?

To address concerns about childhood nutrition and school lunch, Representatives Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY) and Alma Adams (D-NC), introduced H.R. 5867, or the Plant-Powered School Meals Pilot Act, on October 28, 2025. The bill proposes a pilot opt-in program for school districts to provide a plant-based school lunch option, responding to the growing demand for plant-based meals among school-aged students. 

The bill would provide support for plant-based meal options by establishing a three-year $10 million grant program for 100% plant-based meals and a three-year $2 million grant program for plant-based milk options. School districts in which at least 50% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch would be eligible for grant funding for the plant-powered pilot program. These funds could be used toward menu curation, meal development, and implementation. 

Why Do Proponents Support H.R. 5867?

One core argument in favor of the Plant-Powered School Meals Pilot Act is that plant-based meal options provide more balanced nutrition than typical school lunches. Studies find that 90% of children do not get recommended amounts of vegetables daily and that only 2% of U.S. high schoolers are consuming recommended amounts of vegetables. When paired with research showing higher-than-optimal levels of sugar in many school lunches and that less than half of students who ate NSLP-funded lunches in one state met national standards for Vitamins A and C, these statistics suggest that the lunches themselves pose a health problem for students. Advocates argue that by explicitly prioritizing schools that will “incorporate organically produced 100 percent plant-based food options,” H.R. 5867 will improve health outcomes for students. 

Moreover, supporters highlight that the pilot program will provide options to student populations who do not consume meat or dairy for religious, cultural, or health reasons. They highlight that the $2 million authorized for plant-based milk options will be especially beneficial for students considering that about 36% of people in the United States have lactose malabsorption, which is more common among African American, Asian American, American Indian, and Hispanic/Latino populations. While the USDA already allows schools to offer non-dairy milk substitutes for students with medical or other dietary needs, schools are responsible for any costs related to non-dairy substitutes that exceed the federal reimbursement rate for dairy milk. By helping schools cover those costs while also expanding plant-based entrées, supporters argue that H.R. 5867 could give more students a school lunch that fits their dietary needs instead of requiring them to bring food from home.

The Plant-Powered School Meals Pilot Act has also received support from environmental advocates, as plant-based foods produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than typical livestock farming and processed meat production, industries that account for 14% to 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions globally. Advocates point to New York City’s Meatless Mondays and Plant-Powered Fridays initiatives as examples of the environmental progress that can happen when school districts incorporate plant-based meal options. The Plant-Powered Fridays program reduced NYC’s overall carbon emissions by 42% per student. By giving more school districts the funding to introduce plant-based options, supporters argue, H.R. 5867 has the potential to decrease carbon emissions per student at a national level.

In response to critics who argue that the plant-powered program is imposing the needs of a select few onto all students, advocates point out that H.R. 5867 only proposes a small pilot program for new options to be tested out in a handful of schools. The bill does not do anything to halt the implementation of status quo school lunches. Additionally, advocates highlight that the $10 million proposed for the pilot grant program is less than one percent of the roughly $18.9 billion that the NSLP receives in federal funding each year.

Why Do Critics Oppose H.R. 5867?

Opponents argue that the bill poses an undue burden on taxpayers to fill a gap that doesn’t exist. They note that the $10 million the bill authorizes for plant-based options is redundant and unnecessary, given that many schools across the country started implementing vegetarian options as early as 2009. Critics also contend that the additional $2 million authorized to subsidize alternative milk options acts in direct opposition to federal subsidies for dairy milk, and threatens to further harm the economic wellbeing of American farmers in a declining dairy milk industry. Taken together, critics see the $12 million authorized under H.R. 5867 as funds that are either obsolete or that would be better used expanding the status quo NSLP to reach more students. 

Another concern is that students will dislike the new plant-based food options. A study of students receiving NSLP lunches in Colorado showed that only 45% of elementary students and 34% of middle school students selected a vegetable. Critics point to this as evidence that H.R. 5867 will waste federal dollars implementing food options that few students will even select. Moreover, research shows that one-third of all vegetables served in schools go uneaten, which critics say further supports the potential for food waste and fiscal waste, even among children who select the new plant-powered options. This is supported by research that shows that students waste plant-based meals at higher rates than meat-based meals. Given that students already discard 530,000 tons of food every year, costing the system $1.7 billion annually, opponents argue that the Plant-Powered School Meals Pilot Act risks introducing even more waste, which will harm both the federal budget and the environment.

Critics also point to some aspects of the bill as unfeasible in low-resource school settings. In addition to funding development and implementation of plant-based meal options, H.R. 5867 requires grant recipient districts to develop thorough reports detailing how the funds are being used, how many schools in the district are participating, how many students were served, and how the number of plant-based meals served to students compares to the previous year. Given that 94% of schools in a 2025 national survey said that administrative and regulatory requirements already pose a moderate or serious challenge to their school lunch program, opponents argue that H.R. 5867’s reporting requirements will create additional burdens for already-struggling school nutrition staff. 

Future Outlook

The Plant-Powered School Meals Pilot Act has not progressed to a vote in the 119th Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce and is currently cosponsored entirely by Democrats, leading many to believe it will require more bipartisan support in order to progress out of committee and to a vote in the House. If the bill does not pass before the 119th Congress ends in January 2027, it would need to be reintroduced in a future Congress. The fate of H.R. 5867, and potential future introductions of similar bills, remains uncertain as the growing demand for plant-based school meals competes with a divided Congress and a strong meat and dairy lobby.

Frequently Asked Questions