The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the final rule, Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments in the Federal Register (79 FR 71155) on Dec. 1, 2014.
USDA Food and Nutrition Service policy memo SP 26-2013, "Extending Flexibility in the Meat/Meat Alternate and Grains Maximums for School Year 2013-14" extends the flexibility regarding Meat/Meat Alternate (M/MA) maximums for SY 2013-13, allowing state agencies to assess compliance based on the minimum daily and weekly serving requirements only.
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit guidance regarding the sale of, or intent to sell, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children foods, benefits and/or EBT cards verbally, in print or online through websites such as Craigslist, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, etc.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 includes several provisions related to Electronic Benefit Transfer in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
This memorandum provides additional information on the new approval process and includes sample documents that will assist state agencies with their funding requests.
This memorandum provides guidance on reporting expenditures of SNAP benefits funds in order to comply with reporting requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133 and OMB guidance implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
This memorandum clarifies FNS policy regarding the calorie and nutrient requirements for meals planned using alternate menu planning approaches.
This policy memo provides clarification on terminating cases when a household does not spend their Food Stamps each month.
It has come to our attention that there may be some confusion concerning fluid milk, and how it is offered in reimbursable lunches. Under all menu planning approaches, fluid milk is a separate food component/menu item.
The head of household may not be held "automatically" responsible for trafficking the household's benefits if there is no direct evidence identifying him/her as the guilty party. However, OGC was also supportive of holding the head of household responsible when there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show his/her complicity in the violative act.