Rebecca M. Schermbeck

The Extent to Which School District Competitive Food and Beverage Policies Align with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Implications for Federal Regulations

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 authorized the Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture to establish science-based nutrition standards for competitive foods and beverages sold in school that are, at a minimum, aligned with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), while still providing districts with discretion in regulating the competitive food and beverage environment. The objective of this study was to examine the extent to which district competitive food and beverage policies had specific and required limits aligned with 2010 DGA recommendations, and to inform US Department of Agriculture efforts as they develop competitive food and beverage standards. Competitive food and beverage policies were compiled for the 2009-2010 school year from a nationally representative sample of 622 districts. Each policy was double-coded for compliance with selected 2010 DGA recommendations (ie, restrictions on sugars, fats, trans fats, and sodium in foods and restrictions on regular soda, other sugar-sweetened beverages, and fat content of milk). Descriptive statistics were computed, clustered to account for the sample design, and weighted to account for districts nationwide. District nutrition policies were strongest for elementary schools. Nationwide, <5% of districts met or exceeded all of the previously mentioned nutrient requirements examined. Fat and sugar content of foods and soda availability were more commonly addressed. Areas that require attention include stronger nutrition standards at the secondary level, limits on trans fats, sodium, sugar-sweetened beverages other than soda, and fat content of milk, and greater availability of produce and whole grains at all sale locations.

Nutrition Recommendations and the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative’s 2014 Approved Food and Beverage Product List

We compare the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative’s (CFBAI’s) April 2014 list of food and beverage products approved to be advertised on children’s television programs with the federal Interagency Working Group’s nutrition recommendations for such advertised products. Products were assessed by using the nutrients to limit (saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, and sodium) component of the Interagency Working Group’s recommendations. Fifty-three percent of the listed products did not meet the nutrition recommendations and, therefore, were ineligible to be advertised. We recommend continued monitoring of food and beverage products marketed to children.

Children’s Exposure to Food and Beverage Advertising on Television: Tracking Calories and Nutritional Content by Company Membership in Self-regulation

American children have an energy imbalance that has contributed to current obesity rates of 10.4 % and 19.6 % for children aged 2–5 and 6–11, respectively (Ogden, Carroll, Curtin, Lamb, & Flegal, 2010). Whereas estimated energy requirements for moderately active children aged 2–5 and 6–11, respectively, are 1,300 kilocalories (kcal) and 1,733 kcal for boys and 1,250 kcal and 1,633 kcal for girls (United States Department of Agriculture, 2005), actual estimated daily intake for these respective age groups is 1,559 kcal and 2,151 kcal for boys and 1,393 kcal and 1,889 kcal for girls (Wright, Wang, Kennedy-Stephenson, & Ervin, 2003). This implies an energy gap based on moderate activity in the range of 143–418 kcal per day, on average, depending on age and gender. Recent estimates of top sources of energy show that children obtain significant empty calories from grain desserts (e.g., 138 kcal/day for ages 4–8 and 145 kcal for ages 9–13) and sugar sweetened beverages (e.g., 121 kcal/day for ages 4–8 and 169 kcal for ages 9–13) (Reedy & Krebs-Smith, 2010). It was estimated that approximately 40 % of children’s total energy intake (798 out of 2,027 kcal per day) came in the form of empty calories with 433 kcal from solid fat and 365 kcal from added sugar (Reedy et al., 2010). Children’s overall diets are less healthy than recommended and related high intakes of sugar, sugar sweetened beverages, fat, saturated fat, and sodium and have been associated with greater risk of obesity in addition to other negative health outcomes and other health consequences (Appel, Frohlich, Hall, Pearson, Sacco, Seals et al., 2011; Bray & Popkin, 1998; Gidding, Dennison, Birch, Daniels, Gillman, Lichtenstein et al., 2006; Guenther, Dodd, Reedy, & Krebs-Smith, 2006; Ludwig, Peterson, & Gortmaker, 2001).

Food Purchasing and Preparation at Child Day Care Centers Participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program in the United States, 2017

BACKGROUND More than 3.6 million children are served daily by the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)-participating child day care centers. This study provides a nationwide assessment of center-level responsibilities for menu, meal/snack preparation, meal preparer training, and food and beverage (F&B) purchasing. METHODS A nationally representative survey of 5483 CACFP child day care centers was conducted between August 22, 2017, and September 30, 2017. One thousand three hundred forty-three centers (25% response) in 47 states and the District of Columbia responded. Descriptive statistics describe center-level menu, meal, and purchasing practices and center characteristics. Multivariate logistic regressions examined characteristics associated with F&B purchasing sources. RESULTS Menus were primarily prepared by directors/assistant directors and on-site food manager/cooks, while site staff primarily prepared meals/snacks. Fifty-two percent of meal preparers held a food sanitation license, but only 5% had formal nutrition training (e.g., Registered Dietician). Most centers purchased F&B from food service providers (63%), local grocery stores (59%), warehouse stores (40%), or from 2+ sources (50%). Independent centers were more likely to purchase F&B from local grocery stores or 2+, while free or state-subsidized sites were more likely to purchase from a food service provider and less likely to purchase from other sources than were centers charging between

Facilitating Fresh: State Laws Supporting School Gardens Are Associated With Use of Garden-Grown Produce in School Nutrition Services Programs

101 and

Trends in the Nutritional Content of Television Food Advertisements Seen by Children in the United States Analyses by Age, Food Categories, and Companies

201.99 per week. Centers where an on-site cook/food manager prepared the menus were significantly more likely to purchase their F&B from local grocery and/or warehouse stores and/or from 2+ sources. CONCLUSIONS Opportunities exist to target CACFP training to specific roles within and specific types of CACFP-participating child day care centers to facilitate compliance with the updated CACFP standards.

Nutritional content of food and beverage products in television advertisements seen on children's programming.

Objective: To examine whether state laws are associated with the presence of school gardens and the use of garden‐grown produce in school nutrition services programs. Design: Nationally representative data from the School Health Policies and Practices Study 2014 were combined with objectively coded state law data regarding school gardens. Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes were: (1) the presence of a school garden at each school (n = 419 schools), and (2) the use of garden‐grown items in the school nutrition services program. Analysis: Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine each outcome. Contextual covariates included school level, size, locale, US Census region, student race/ethnic composition, and percentage of students eligible for free and reduced‐priced meals. Results: State law was not significantly associated with whether schools had a garden, but it was associated with whether schools used garden‐grown items in nutrition services programs (odds ratio, 4.21; P < .05). Adjusted prevalence of using garden‐grown items in nutrition services programs was 15.4% among schools in states with a supportive law, vs 4.4% among schools in states with no law. Conclusions and Implications: State laws that support school gardens may facilitate the use of garden‐grown items in school nutrition service programs. Additional research is needed regarding the types of messaging that might be most effective for motivating school administrators to appreciate the value of school gardens. In addition, another area for further research pertains to scaling garden programs for broader reach.