WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 687

CPS PORK PRODUCT BAN

104th Regular Session Introduced by Jason Bunting and 12 co-sponsors

Illinois House urges CPS to review its all-pork ban, seek transparent nutrition/cost analyses, consult experts and stakeholders, and consider limited pork pilots.

Resolution Adopted
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 687

Summary of HR 687 (104th General Assembly, Illinois) – CPS Pork Product Ban

Primary purpose

  • To urge the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Board of Education to conduct a formal review of the district’s Local School Wellness Policy prohibition on pork products in all CPS breakfast and lunch offerings.
  • The measure seeks transparency and broad consideration of the rationale behind the pork ban, along with expert input and stakeholder engagement.
  • It also encourages CPS to consider limited menu testing or pilot programs that would allow pork products if they align with nutrition science, fiscal stewardship, and use of USDA foods.

Key provisions and changes proposed

  • A formal call to CPS to review the Local School Wellness Policy provision that bans pork in breakfast and lunch meals across CPS schools.
  • The review should include:
    • Identification and disclosure of the original rationale for the pork prohibition.
    • Documentation or analysis supporting that rationale (nutrition analysis, cost analysis, and CPS Board deliberations).
    • Consultation with nutrition experts and food service professionals.
    • Consideration of input from stakeholders (likely including families, students, and community groups).
  • The bill further asks CPS to evaluate whether limited menu testing or pilot programs permitting pork could improve alignment with:
    • Current nutrition science.
    • Cultural inclusion and dietary needs of CPS students.
    • Fiscal stewardship and optimal use of USDA-provided foods (including USDA foods available under the Section 32 program).

Who or what would be affected

  • Chicago Public Schools (CPS) district operations, specifically the Board of Education and the school food service program.
  • Students and families within CPS, by potentially broadening meal options if pork products were permitted in a pilot or broader menu.
  • CPS’s access to and use of USDA-provided foods (which may include pork products under federal programs).

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • The bill is a House Resolution requesting a review and does not by itself mandate policy change or allocate funds.
  • Action history indicates it has been referred to the Rules Committee and assigned to the Elementary & Secondary Education: Administration, Licensing & Charter Schools committee for consideration.
  • The resolution includes a scheduling/decision-making impetus but does not provide a specific deadline within the text provided.
  • It lists multiple co-sponsors, signaling broad legislative interest and support.

Context and rationale highlights (from bill text)

  • CPS is a large district (over 325,000 students; ~350,000 meals served daily via federal programs).
  • The current policy, adopted December 2020, prohibits pork in all CPS meals.
  • The bill notes a lack of public documentation explaining the rationale or cost/nutrition analyses behind the ban.
  • It emphasizes pork’s role in nutrition (as described in the bill, pork is nutrient-dense and provides essential nutrients) and pork’s economic significance to Illinois (large production, jobs, and state GDP contribution).
  • It points to cultural relevance of pork for many CPS families and the district’s participation in USDA programs that may include pork products.

Overall takeaway

HR 687 is an Illinois House resolution urging CPS to reassess its all-pork prohibition by conducting a transparent policy review, incorporating nutrition and cost analyses, engaging experts and stakeholders, and exploring limited pilot opportunities for pork to better reflect current nutrition science, cultural inclusion, and efficient use of federal (USDA) foods. It does not directly change CPS policy but seeks to open a structured reconsideration process.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.