Photo: Shutterstock

New York is leading a coalition of five states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision late last year to roll back Obama-era standards for school lunches, allowing higher levels of sodium and less whole grains, state Attorney General Letitia James announced Wednesday.

James said the Trump administration loosened those standards, which apply to 30 million schoolchildren, without public notice or the opportunity to comment, which allegedly violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

“Over a million children in New York—especially those in low-income communities and communities of color—depend on the meals served daily by their schools to be healthy, nutritious, and prepare them for learning,” James said. “The Trump administration has undermined key health benefits for our children—standards for salt and whole grains in school meals—with deliberate disregard for science, expert opinion, and the law.”

The rule, promulgated last year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, eliminated standards set under the Obama administration in 2012 that capped the amount of sodium and required more whole grains in school meals. The sodium limits were set to be phased in over time.

The new rule eliminated the final phase of the sodium cap and delayed the intermediate target that was supposed to be implemented for the upcoming school year. The rule also cut the whole grains requirement in half.

James alleged, in part, that the new changes were unlawful because the standards for school meals have to be based on the latest federal dietary guidelines set by the agency and research from the Food and Nutrition Board, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The board had found, in a 2009 study, that schoolchildren had higher levels of sodium and lower intake of whole grains than recommended under the dietary guidelines.

A spokesman for the USDA said the agency does not comment on pending litigation, but referred the New York Law Journal to the press release from last December in which the new standards were announced.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in the release that the standards from the Obama administration were presenting challenges to schools to serve meals that were both nutritious and appetizing. Rather than have the federal government set strict standards, Perdue said, the agency wanted to give more flexibility to local districts.

“If kids are not eating what is being served, they are not benefiting, and food is being wasted,” Perdue said at the time. “We all have the same goals in mind—the health and development of our young people. USDA trusts our local operators to serve healthy meals that meet local preferences and build bright futures with good nutrition.”

The states alleged that the change, regardless of intention, will not benefit school children and was implemented in a way that violated federal law. They said the changes will particularly disenfranchise students of color, who disproportionately participate in school lunch and breakfast programs.

“The programs are also critically important for students of color: according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own figures, a disproportionate share of students who participate in the national school lunch and breakfast programs are Black or Latino compared to their overall enrollment in schools,” the lawsuit said.

The complaint also claimed the rule could harm the states by having them foot the bill for higher health care costs. Weaker nutritional standards in school meals could reduce the overall health of schoolchildren, the states said. More sodium could lead to cardiovascular disease, for example. If those children are part of low-income families, there's a good chance the state pays at least part of their health care costs, according to the lawsuit.

“The states pay health care costs for eligible low-income and moderate income residents, including children, through a number of programs funded in whole or in part by the states,” the lawsuit said.

The states presented three main legal arguments in their lawsuit, all of which related to the federal Administrative Procedure Act,. That law controls how agencies promulgate regulations and standards.

The first argument claimed the USDA did not allow the states to offer any comment on the provisions of the rule regarding sodium and whole grain intake. The APA requires “interested persons” to have the opportunity to comment on such rules, the complaint said.

The second argument alleged that, even if the USDA went through the proper motions, the rule would still be unlawful because it didn't consider federal dietary guidelines or research, as is require under statute.

The third argument is along those same lines, but specifically focuses on claims that the Trump administration did not give a reasoned explanation as to why it was revising the requirements from the 2012 rule.

“Those provisions were issued without a reasoned explanation, including explanation of why USDA revised the sodium and whole grain requirements in the 2012 rule,” the complaint read.

The states requested, in the lawsuit, that the rule promulgated by the USDA last year be struck down. The complaint was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

READ MORE:

Judge Accuses US Labor Dept. of Making 'End-Run' Around ACA

NY AG Announces Country's 'Most Extensive' Lawsuit Against Opioid Companies

With Mueller Probe Complete, Focus Turns to NY Investigations Into Trump Circle and Entities