USDA Snack Food and Beverage Standards: How Big of a Stretch for the States? Jamie F. Chriqui, PhD, MHS, 1 Elizabeth Piekarz, JD, 1 and Frank J. Chaloupka, PhD 1,2 Abstract Background: The USDA snack food and beverage standards take effect in school year (SY) 2014–2015. Although the USDA standards will provide nationwide requirements, concerns exist about compliance. This study examined whether existing state laws are aligned with the USDA standards to determine whether some states may be better positioned to facilitate compliance. Methods: Codified state statutory and regulatory laws effective for SY 2012–2013 for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were identified through Boolean keyword searches using the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases. Laws were analyzed for alignment with 18 snack food and beverage provisions contained within the USDA standards. Results: Thirty-eight states had snack food and beverage standards; 33 states’ laws exceeded restrictions on foods of minimal nutritional value. Of the 33 states, no states’ laws fully met the USDA’s standards, 16 states’ laws fully met and 10 states’ laws partially met at least one USDA provision, and seven states’ laws met no USDA provisions. One state’s law met 9 of 18 provisions. On average, states met 4 of 18 provisions. States were more likely to meet individual USDA beverage than snack provisions. Conclusions: Implementation and compliance with the USDA standards may be facilitated in states with laws already containing provisions aligned with the USDA standards and may be more difficult in states with fewer or no provisions in alignment, suggesting possible geographic areas for the USDA to target with technical assistance and training efforts and for advocates to work in to facilitate compliance. Introduction T he sale of foods and beverages that are high in fats, sugars, calories, and/or sodium in US schools is relatively common. 1–3 Also known as ‘‘competitive foods and beverages’’ because these items are sold in ‘‘competition with’’ the school meal programs, their sale has primarily been regulated by state and district policies. 4–6 Before the enactment of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), 7 the only federal regulation governing what items may be sold outside of meal pro- grams prohibited the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV; i.e., carbonated beverages and certain can- dies) in competition with the meal programs. 8 With the passage of the HHFKA in December 2010, Congress gave the USDA the authority to regulate the sale of foods and beverages sold outside of meal programs well beyond the FMNV rule. 7 On June 28, 2013, the USDA issued an interim final rule to provide the first nationwide standards governing the sale of foods and beverages in schools outside of school meal programs, including items sold through a ` la carte lines in the cafeteria, vending ma- chines, school stores, canteens and snack bars, and in-school fundraisers on campus during the school day. 9 Table 1 summarizes the main provisions of the USDA rule. 9 One of the chief concerns expressed in the public com- ments submitted in response to the USDA’s initial proposed rule related to compliance. 9 One factor that may facilitate compliance with the USDA standards is whether the state law governing school foods previously contained standards comparable to (if not stronger than) the USDA standard(s). Evidence from one study suggests, for example, that having both state and district policies governing competitive foods and beverages facilitated elementary school compliance by virtue of the reinforcing effect of the policy. 10 Thus, taken a step further, one might expect that compliance with specific USDA standards may be easier in states whose laws were already aligned with or equivalent to the USDA standards. This article seeks to provide baseline information on state law alignment with the USDA standards. Methods Codified state statutory and administrative laws for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia (hereafter referred to collectively as ‘‘states’’) were compiled using 1 Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 2 Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL. CHILDHOOD OBESITY June 2014 j Volume 10, Number 3 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/chi.2014.0008 1 CHI-2014-0008-ver9-Chriqui_2P.3d 05/09/14 5:58pm Page 1