Scratch Cooked Meals for Students Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 20, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to improve the nutritional quality of school meals by funding scratch cooking initiatives, with a focus on supporting SFAs that prioritize employee representation and self-operation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a competitive grant pilot program within the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to help school food authorities (SFAs) implement scratch cooking. Grants can be used for professional development, equipment, employee compensation, technical assistance, and procurement systems. It prioritizes SFAs serving high proportions of low-income students, those that are self-operated or commit to becoming so, and those with collective bargaining agreements or committing to negotiate one.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that scratch cooking leads to healthier, more appealing school meals, improving student nutrition and reducing reliance on processed foods. They also contend that supporting self-operated SFAs and those with collective bargaining agreements strengthens the school food workforce and ensures fair labor practices, which are essential for successful scratch cooking programs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the specific priority criteria related to self-operation and collective bargaining introduce extraneous requirements that could limit the reach of the program or favor certain types of SFAs over others, potentially hindering broader adoption of scratch cooking. Some may also raise concerns about the administrative burden of transitioning to scratch cooking for smaller or less resourced SFAs, even with grant funding.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and thorough review.
Section 2, amending Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769)
Establishment of Scratch Cooking Pilot Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a competitive grant program within 180 days of enactment. The program will award grants to school food authorities (SFAs) to promote 'scratch cooking,' defined as preparing food using unprocessed or minimally processed ingredients. Grants will be for a period of two school years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing this pilot program is a crucial step towards improving the nutritional quality of school meals nationwide by encouraging a shift away from highly processed foods. They believe it will empower SFAs to innovate and provide healthier options for students.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the general establishment of a pilot program for scratch cooking, as the concept is widely supported for its health benefits. Potential concerns might arise regarding the specific criteria for grant selection, rather than the program's existence itself.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing the desire for healthier meals with the practical challenges and costs associated with transitioning to scratch cooking for SFAs, which this grant program aims to address.
Section 2, amending Section 18(a)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
Eligible Uses of Grant Funds
This section specifies how grant funds can be used by school food authorities. Eligible uses include professional development for staff, purchasing new kitchen equipment or making infrastructure modifications, compensating employees for additional food preparation time, providing technical assistance and culinary education to students, investing in procurement software, and other activities that help meet or exceed nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs.
Section 2, amending Section 18(a)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
Grant Priority Criteria
This provision outlines the criteria the Secretary must use when evaluating grant applications, giving highest priority to school food authorities that: (A) serve the greatest proportion of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; (B) are self-operated or commit to becoming self-operated within one year before the end of the grant period; and (C) have employees represented by a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding, or commit to negotiating one within one year before the end of the grant period.
The bill gives highest priority for grants to school food authorities that are self-operated or commit to becoming self-operated, and those whose employees are represented by a collective bargaining agreement or commit to negotiating one. These commitments must be made by one year before the last day of the grant period.
Section 2, amending Section 18(a)(4)(B) and (C) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
Why it matters:While not intentionally evasive, these conditions are specific programmatic requirements that might be considered secondary to the main policy goal of promoting scratch cooking, yet they carry significant implications for SFA operations and labor relations. They represent a specific policy choice about how the program's benefits should be distributed.
Case for: Proponents argue that these criteria ensure grants support SFAs with stable, accountable operations and a valued workforce, which are essential for the long-term success and quality of scratch cooking initiatives. They believe these conditions lead to better outcomes for both students and staff.
Case against: Critics might argue that these criteria introduce political considerations into a nutrition program, potentially excluding SFAs that could otherwise effectively implement scratch cooking but do not meet these specific operational or labor conditions. They might contend it limits flexibility and could be seen as an attempt to influence labor practices through federal funding.
Estimated impact: These criteria will significantly influence which school food authorities receive grant funding, potentially directing millions of dollars to SFAs that align with specific operational and labor models over the five-year authorization period.