PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5787-5788)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 6, 2003
Better Nutrition for School Children Act of 2003 - Amends the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (CNA) to revise nutritional requirements for the school breakfast program under CNA and the school lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA).Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to base regulations for the school breakfast and lunch programs on sound nutritional science.Authorizes the Secretary, through such Federal regulations, to prohibit the sale of certain competitive foods in food service facilities or areas during the time of school breakfast or school lunch program service (by eliminating a provision of current law that bars such regulations from prohibiting such sale of competitive foods approved by the Secretary during such time).Requires Federal regulations relating to service of foods in schools participating in the breakfast or lunch programs to apply throughout the entire school, including the school grounds, until the end of the time of service of food under the school lunch program.Directs the Secretary, in promulgating such regulations, to consider: (1) the nutritional needs of students in various grade levels; (2) the proximity of any area where foods of minimal nutritional value may be sold, donated, or served without charge to the food service facilities or areas; (3) the extent to which students will likely substitute consumption of foods of minimal nutritional value for other food served in participating schools; and (4) the benefits to a school of permitting the sale, donation, or service without charge of foods of minimal nutritional value, including the extent to which the proceeds of such sales inure to the benefit of a school or an organization of students approved by a school.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5787-5788)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5787)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1007 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1007 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1007 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1007 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.