Lifestyle
How the new dietary guidelines could impact school meals
Putting together a school meal isn’t easy.
“It is a puzzle essentially,” said Lori Nelson of the Chef Ann Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes scratch cooking in schools.
“When you think about the guidelines, there’s so many different pieces that you have to meet. You have to meet calorie minimums and maximums for the day and for the week. You have to meet vegetable subgroup categories.”

Districts that receive federal funding for school meals — through, for example, the National School Lunch Program — must follow rules set by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
And those rules may be changing soon.
In early January, the Department of Health and Human Services and the USDA unveiled new Dietary Guidelines for Americans, along with a new food pyramid.
The USDA sets school nutrition standards based on those dietary guidelines, which now place an emphasis on protein and encourage Americans to consume full-fat dairy products and limit highly processed foods.
Here’s what to know about how the new food pyramid could impact schools:
Cutting back on ready-to-eat school meals won’t be easy
Highly processed and ready-to-eat foods often contain added sugars and salt. Think mac and cheese, pizza, french fries and individually packaged peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
These foods are also a big part of many school meals, said Nelson. That’s because schools often lack adequate kitchen infrastructure to prepare meals from scratch.

“Many schools were built 40-plus years ago, and they were built to reheat food. So they weren’t built as commercial cooking kitchens,” said Nelson.
Even so, schools have been able to bring sodium and sugar levels down in recent years.
“They’ve been working with food companies to find a middle ground, to find recipes that meet [the current] standards and appeal to students and that schools can serve given the equipment that they have,” said Diane Pratt-Heavner, a spokesperson for the School Nutrition Association.
Bringing sugar and salt levels down further would likely require that food companies adapt their recipes and that schools prepare more meals from scratch, Pratt-Heavner said.
But leaning into scratch cooking won’t be easy. A recent survey of school nutrition directors by the School Nutrition Association found that most programs would need better equipment and infrastructure as well as more trained staff — and nearly all respondents said they would also need more money. “You cannot go from serving heavily processed, heat-and-serve items to scratch cooking immediately,” said Nelson. “It is a transition.”
Protein-rich school meals will come at a higher cost
At the top of the new food pyramid are animal products such as meat and cheese. The new guidelines prioritize consuming protein as a part of every meal and incorporating healthy fats.

“That could cause a change in school breakfast standards,” said Pratt-Heavner. “Right now, there’s no mandate that breakfasts include a protein.”
A typical school breakfast today might include fruit, milk and a cereal cup or muffin; some schools may serve breakfast burritos or sandwiches.
She said schools would “absolutely need more funding,” should they be required to provide protein under the USDA’s School Breakfast Program.
Current standards allow for schools to serve either grains or meats/meat alternates for breakfast, and Pratt-Heavner said, “Protein options … are more expensive than grain options.”
She said it’s unclear whether the USDA would require protein under its own category or whether the agency would consider milk to be sufficient to meet any new protein requirements.
Whole milk is getting a lot of attention
Schools that participate in federal school meal programs are required to offer milk with every meal, though students don’t have to take it. Up until recently, an Obama-era rule allowed for only low-fat and nonfat milk in schools.
But the new food pyramid emphasizes whole fat dairy, like whole milk. At the same time, recent federal legislation reversed that Obama-era rule and now allows schools to serve reduced-fat and full-fat milk.
One more thing to know about milk: Federal law also limits saturated fats in school meals — and whole milk has more of those than low-fat and nonfat varieties. But the recent federal legislation now exempts milk fat from those limits.
What does all this mean for schools? They’re now able to start serving whole milk, and they won’t have to worry about whole milk pushing them past the limits on saturated fats.
It’ll be a while before these changes trickle down to schools
While the USDA sets regulations for schools based on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, it takes time to draft and implement new rules after new guidelines are released.
“The current school nutrition standards that we’re operating under were proposed in February 2023, finalized in April 2024,” said Pratt-Heavner. “The first menu changes in school cafeterias were not required until July 2025.” Other changes are still rolling out.
Which is to say: The new dietary guidelines won’t bring immediate changes to school cafeterias. They’re only the first step in a regulatory process that will take time.
“We’re going to have to see what USDA proposes,” said Pratt-Heavner.
Then, she said, “the public will comment on those regulations, and then final rules will be drafted and issued.”
The USDA then gives schools and school food companies time to update recipes and implement the new nutrition standards.
Lifestyle
Consider This from NPR
How the Epstein files are upending U.K. politics
Lifestyle
Nate Diaz Hoping For UFC Return, Wants White House Card
Nate Diaz
Ready to Throw Hands for America
… I Want In On White House Card!!!
Published
TMZSports.com
Nate Diaz has his sights set on kickin’ ass on one of the most unexpected stages possible: the White House.
The MMA star tells TMZ Sports he’s all-in if talk of a potential fight card tied to the nation’s capital ever becomes reality … making it clear the idea of scrapping under a red, white and blue spotlight has his full attention.
“Yeah, that’d be dope, too,” Diaz said. “America gang, baby. You already know what’s popping.”
While Diaz is hyped about the possibility of fighting on a patriotic mega-card, he says he’s not picky about who he faces — as long as it’s a legit, high-level fight.
And if he gets his way, the White House event could feature some familiar names from his past.
Diaz says he wants to run back his legendary rivalry with Conor McGregor for a trilogy bout — a fight that would instantly become one of the biggest attractions possible for a blockbuster event.
He also called out Dustin Poirier as another potential opponent, though Diaz didn’t exactly extend the olive branch … saying he’d be down to fight him “if he stops being such a p****.”
Diaz even floated Mike Perry as another name he’d gladly throw down with … making it clear he’s ready for whatever matchup gets him back into what he calls “real action.”
The 40-year-old last fought in the UFC in 2022, but his message now is loud and clear: he’s ready to return.
Lifestyle
What makes a good book-to-film adaptation? We have thoughts (and favorites)
Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet in 2019’s Little Women, written and directed by Greta Gerwig.
Moviestore Collection Ltd/Alamy
hide caption
toggle caption
Moviestore Collection Ltd/Alamy
“Wuthering Heights” is in theaters, so we’re thinking about the best book to film adaptations of all time.
What’s your favorite movie that started life as a book — and what makes for a great book-to-film adaptation, anyway? Do you want filmmakers to stay as rigorously true to the book as possible? Or are you okay with bold departures, big swings, out-of-left-field choices that evoke the essence of the book, if not every last detail?
“Wuthering Heights,” for example, takes a middle road. Writer/director Emerald Fennell’s film keeps the familiar plot beats firmly in place, and casts actors who embody all the stuff that fans of the book need them to, but steeps them in the delirious hormones of a teenage fever-dream. Thus, Margot Robbie’s Cathy is headstrong, impetuous … and horny, while Jacob Elordi’s Heathcliff is broody, Byronic … and horny. The two spend most of the movie trading lusty looks in the soaking rain as peals of thunder roll over the moors. Every set, every costume is styled to the gods. It’s a breathlessly over-the-top take that’s divided critics and is about to do the same for audiences this weekend.
We’ve got four examples of other beloved books that made the transition to the big screen. Here’s why we think each of them works, and why we believe they’re the best of all time.
Little Women (2019)
YouTube
This movie version of Louisa May Alcott’s 1868 story about the March sisters is adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig. Gerwig does the impossible task of contemporizing the story while staying so faithful to the book. She does two things that haven’t worked in any other Little Women adaptations: She makes me tolerate the love story between Laurie and Amy. (I still have PTSD from the 1994 version.) And Gerwig allows for Jo — the protagonist, a liberated author who is writing her own story along the way — to have her cake and eat it too.
In the 19th century approach to this story, the woman has to have a man at the end. That’s just a given for these kinds of books and for these kinds of adaptations. But Gerwig made a decision that the writing of the book is essential to the plot line, and that within the book, Jo’s character ends up with a man — a scholar named Bhaer. But in reality, the book is the man — getting her first book published is the win — and that is her love. It’s so rich and smart. I just love it. — B.A. Parker, host of NPR’s Code Switch podcast
Nickel Boys (2024)
YouTube
Nickel Boys was originally Colson Whitehead’s book about a boy wrongly sent to an abusive boys school in Florida during the Jim Crow era. It becomes a story about his friendship with another boy there. Within five minutes of watching the movie, I was hooked and felt like I was seeing something really new. Not just new in that it was different from the book, which I really respect. But because the whole thing is told from this immersive camera point of view — and because you are in the head, really in the head of the person experiencing it, it is somehow more immersive even than the book. Sometimes, watching narratives that have descriptions of truly awful things — like Boys Don’t Cry and 12 Years a Slave — I find myself covering my eyes. But because of the point of view in Nickel Boys, I couldn’t. It not only showed me what it was, it showed me what it felt.

Director RaMell Ross is saying something about the experience of reading about these two boys being so badly abused in Jim Crow-era Florida. He’s also saying something about the way that we view it. He is saying something about how anyone who wants to see these things on screen should really think about how we have them in our heads, how they are portrayed to us, and how we react to that portrayal. It’s stunning, and I was absolutely jaw dropped about it. — Barrie Hardymon, editor, NPR investigations
Blade Runner (1982)
YouTube
Philip K. Dick’s 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? became the 1982 film Blade Runner. Both the movie and the book are set in a future where androids are used as slave labor. Six androids escape, and a cop named Rick Deckard — how’s that for a perfect, hard-nosed, noirish name? — has to hunt them down.
Look, there are book people and there are movie people. I’ve visited the Reddit threads; I know that a lot of book people/Philip K. Dick fans hate this movie. But I would argue that the book does what books do well, and the film does what films do well. When you read a book, you live inside it — you’re intellectually and emotionally invested, because you create its world in your mind. And in this book, the author dutifully outfits you with absolutely everything you need to know, and somehow more: You learn about the nuclear war that left big areas of the planet uninhabitable. You learn about this fallout called dust. You learn a lot about how class and status works, and why people are headed to off-world colonies. There is also a tremendous lot about a religion called Mercerism, which is founded on the notion of empathy as the highest human attribute.
The movie carves out the thinnest possible slice of the book — the action, the hunting androids part. And while it pays deference to some of the book’s big ideas, it doesn’t concern itself with all that weighty lore and backstory. It doesn’t need to, that’s not what it’s for. After all, you’re not living in this dystopian future, as you are when you read the book. You’re just visiting it for a couple hours. Androids builds the world, but Blade Runner trots you nimbly through it, doing what films do: Swapping out all those blocks of prose for the fluid visual language of cinematic mood, action and performance. — Glen Weldon, critic and host of NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast
Starship Troopers (1997)
YouTube
My pick is a movie in which the director, Paul Verhoeven, straight up hates the source material, detests it and makes fun of it: 1997’s Starship Troopers. The 1959 book by Robert Heinlein is about space cadets and a guy named Johnny Rico going through cadet school and learning the philosophies of being in the military, and why it’s cool to live in a society in which only people who fight in the military can vote. The movie takes that premise and says — this idea: kind of fascist, right? It’s a hilarious parody of Heinlein’s book.
And yet, if you are a mouth breather, not fully understanding how it’s working on a metatextual level, the movie itself kind of rocks as propaganda, as a piece of action filmmaking. It feels like I’m watching Top Gun. Everybody’s extraordinarily good looking. It came out in the late nineties, but I first watched it on TV, and have always thought of it as a post-9/11 movie, in the context of being in school where people were trying to recruit us to join the military. It feels like an extension of Verhoeven’s RoboCop in a lot of ways, how everybody is acting not quite stiff, but extra. Everybody’s got a little asterisks on all of their lines. — Andrew Limbong, culture reporter and host of NPR’s Book of the Day podcast
This piece also appeared in NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what’s making us happy.
Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

-
Alabama1 week agoGeneva’s Kiera Howell, 16, auditions for ‘American Idol’ season 24
-
Illinois7 days ago2026 IHSA Illinois Wrestling State Finals Schedule And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Technology1 week agoApple might let you use ChatGPT from CarPlay
-
World1 week ago‘Regime change in Iran should come from within,’ former Israel PM says
-
Culture7 days agoTry This Quiz on Passionate Lines From Popular Literature
-
News1 week ago
Hate them or not, Patriots fans want the glory back in Super Bowl LX
-
Politics1 week agoVirginia Dems take tax hikes into overtime, target fantasy football leagues
-
Technology1 week agoWe found 20 Verge-approved gifts on sale ahead of Valentine’s Day