Implementation of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (P.L. 119-69): In Brief

Contents

• Introduction
• Brief History of Milk in School Meals
• Changes to NSLP in the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act
• Types of Milk
• Nondairy Beverages and Milk Substitutes
• Other Policies and Estimated Costs
• Implementation Status of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025
• NSLP-Only Guidance
• Final Rule: NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and SMP
• Policy Considerations

Introduction

The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 (P.L. 119-69) was enacted on January 14, 2026, following passage in the Senate via unanimous consent and House passage via voice vote under suspension of the rules.¹ The act allows whole and reduced-fat (2%) fluid milk² in federally funded school lunches and exempts milk from federal saturated fat limits. Such milks were previously prohibited from the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) following a change made by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296) to align milk served in NSLP with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).³ P.L. 119-69 also allows for the expansion of nondairy milk alternatives in the program and requires annual food allergy-related safety training for school nutrition professionals.

After publishing initial implementation guidance for NSLP in January 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) (now the Food and Nutrition Administration [FNA]⁴) published a final rule on May 8, 2026, implementing the milk-fat related provisions in the law (not the nondairy or food allergy-related provisions).⁵ In addition to NSLP, the final rule allows whole and 2% milk in other child nutrition programs including the School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Special Milk Program (SMP), citing the updated 2025-2030 DGAs (released in January 2026) as a basis for the change.⁶

This report begins with a brief history of milk in the school meals programs. It then summarizes the provisions in P.L. 119-69, discusses USDA's implementation of the law, and concludes with some considerations for this policy area.

Brief History of Milk in School Meals

Milk has been a required component of federally funded school lunches since NSLP's authorization in 1946.⁷ For three decades, whole milk was the only permissible type of milk in the program—until the 1970s, when concerns over fat in school meals and the desire to increase flexibilities for schools prompted USDA to expand options to include fat-free (skim), low-fat, and buttermilk varieties.⁸ In 1979, USDA went further, requiring schools to provide one of the lower-fat options to students and making whole milk optional. In response to concerns about declining milk consumption and the effect on milk producers, P.L. 99-591 (enacted in 1986) reversed that policy, instead requiring whole milk and making other varieties optional. However, public health concerns over fat consumption persisted, as did schools' advocacy for flexibilities, and in 1989 the law was changed again to require NSLP-participating schools to offer both whole and low-fat milk (P.L. 101-147).

Amid efforts to align school meals with the DGAs and reduce children's fat intake, the 1994 child nutrition reauthorization act (P.L. 103-448) allowed schools to remove milk varieties that were consumed by less than 1% of students in the prior year (largely affecting whole milk).⁹ The 2004 child nutrition reauthorization (P.L. 108-265) further expanded flexibilities—enabling schools to "offer students fluid milk in a variety of fat contents." In 2010, P.L. 111-296 formalized the connection between milk served in NSLP and the DGAs. Starting in school year (SY) 2011-2012 (based on the 2010 DGAs), USDA limited milk in school lunches to low-fat (1%) and skim milk varieties (flavored and unflavored).¹⁰ In SY2012-2013, USDA removed flavored 1% milk from the programs.¹¹ Following the changes, some schools reported issues with student acceptance and increased waste. Subsequent appropriations acts and USDA rulemaking restored flavored 1% milk to the programs.¹²

Although milk is a required component of school lunches in NSLP, under offer versus serve policies, students may decline certain components of their meals, including milk.¹³

Changes to NSLP in the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act

Types of Milk

P.L. 119-69 removes the tie between milk in NSLP lunches and the DGAs and specifies that whole, reduced-fat (2%), low-fat (1%), fat-free, and lactose-free milk can be provided. The law also specifies that milks can be flavored or unflavored and organic or nonorganic, and retains a requirement that schools offer students a variety of fluid milk. In addition, it exempts fluid milk from counting toward a requirement that NSLP lunches must, on average over the school week, provide less than 10% of total calories from saturated fat (however, milk still counts toward calorie, sodium, and added sugar limits).¹⁴

Nondairy Beverages and Milk Substitutes

P.L. 119-69 also allows schools to offer, to all students, nondairy beverages that are "nutritionally equivalent" to fluid milk and meet nutrition standards set by the Secretary of Agriculture.

If a school does not offer nondairy beverages, or if a student has a disability that requires a specific type of milk, a student may still obtain a milk substitute in one of two ways (outlined in statute and regulations):

• Disability-related milk substitutes: Schools are required to provide milk substitutes for students with a disability that restricts their diet (e.g., a milk allergy or, in some cases, lactose intolerance¹⁵). These do not have to align with federal nutrition standards. P.L. 119-69 makes a change to the request process, requiring schools to fulfill disability-related requests from parents and guardians (in addition to medical authorities, as previously allowed).
• Milk substitutes for non-disability reasons: Schools have the option, but are not required, to provide milk substitutes for other students upon request. Substitutes for non-disability reasons must be "nutritionally equivalent" to fluid milk (usually resulting in lactose-free or soy milk).

Other Policies and Estimated Costs

P.L. 119-69 requires annual food allergy training for school food service personnel as part of the lunch and breakfast programs. Under existing law and policy, school food service staff are required to complete annual training in a number of topics, including health and food safety—but such trainings are not required to include food allergy safety training.¹⁶ According to a nationally representative study of public schools participating in NSLP in SY2014-2015, nearly 90% of schools reported having policies and procedures to accommodate students with food allergies, and 60% reported having special training in food allergies for school nutrition staff.¹⁷

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated no changes in benefit costs and "insignificant" implementation costs under S. 222 as reported by committee (identical to the enacted law).¹⁸

Implementation Status of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025

NSLP-Only Guidance

On the date of enactment of P.L. 119-69 (January 14, 2026), USDA issued guidance to regional and state nutrition directors regarding implementing the law's changes in the NSLP. Generally, the guidance directed that the law's new flexibilities were to be effective immediately for the NSLP, including the nondairy beverage and milk substitutes (but not the food allergy training) policies.¹⁹

Final Rule: NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and SMP

On May 8, 2026, USDA published a final rule in the Federal Register implementing expanded fluid milk options for program participants ages two years and older across four programs: NSLP, SBP, CACFP, and SMP. The final rule pertains to fluid milk only and states that "additional provisions of this law are addressed in FNS guidance and will be codified in future rulemaking."²⁰ Table 1 summarizes changes in the milk requirements as a result of the final rule. The rule also specified that school food authorities participating in NSLP and SBP may exclude the saturated fat in fluid milk from counting toward weekly average saturated fat limits.²¹

USDA cited the NSLP changes in P.L. 119-69 as a basis for this rulemaking as well as other statutory authorities. The others include program-specific authorities and authorities that indicate SBP and CACFP meals are to meet the most recent version of the DGAs.²² As USDA notes in the final rule, the updated 2025-2030 DGAs (published on January 7, 2026) recommend including full-fat dairy as part of a healthy diet.²³

Policy Considerations

P.L. 119-69 allows—but does not require—NSLP schools to offer whole milk, 2% milk, and certain nondairy beverages to students. USDA's final rule extends the new fluid (but not nondairy) milk options to SBP, CACFP, and SMP. It remains to be seen how many schools and program operators will utilize the new options and what children's reactions will be. The effort involved in implementation, costs associated with different milk options, and other nutrition standards (such as calorie limits) may play a role in operators' decisions to offer new milk varieties or not. Schools are currently implementing limits on added sugars for flavored milks per a 2024 change by USDA to align with recommendations in the DGAs, which could affect the types of milks that are offered and children's milk consumption in the coming years as well.²⁴ In addition, USDA has said that it is in the process of updating nutrition standards for child nutrition programs to reflect the 2025-2030 DGAs, which program operators may be tasked with implementing in the coming years.²⁵

Debates about milk in school lunches often center on what is best for children's health, which has not been fully answered by the research literature. Some recent studies have shown no difference in health outcomes for children who consume higher- versus lower-fat dairy, but none have examined a nationally representative population.²⁶ Proponents of higher-fat milks (including some dairy industry representatives) argue that these are nutrient-dense beverages that can help reverse a trend of declining milk consumption among children.²⁷ Meanwhile, some public health advocates argue that higher-fat milks contribute to overconsumption of saturated fat—increasing the risk of obesity and heart disease.²⁸

While there may be continued debates about the merits of different milk varieties (and their nondairy counterparts), the bipartisan passage of P.L. 119-69 suggests that milk, on the whole, still occupies a prominent place in child nutrition policy.

Alyse Minter, CRS Research Librarian, contributed to this report's legislative history. Alice Choi, CRS Research Assistant, also provided assistance.

Footnotes