To investigate relationships of farm-to-school, school meal, and competitive food state laws with eating behaviors and weight status and to examine interaction between different types of state laws.
Design:
Observational cohort study.
Settings:
US adolescents.
Participants:
The NEXT study is a nationally representative sample of adolescents assessed annually for 7 years. Data (N = 2751) from students attending public schools from the first (W1) and third (W3) assessment waves (2010 and 2012), occurring during grades 10 and 12, respectively, of the NEXT study were included.
Measures:
Eating behaviors and weight status of adolescents were linked with Classification of Laws Associated with School Students scoring for state laws.
Analysis:
Regression analyses examined associations of laws with intake and weight status, accounting for complex survey design and school-level clustering.
Results:
Adolescents in states with strong farm-to-school laws had greater W1 whole fruit, lower soda, and snack intakes versus those in states with no laws. Strong school meal laws were associated with lower W1 soda intake. Adolescents in states with strong competitive food laws had lower soda intake and overweight/obesity odds than those in states with no laws in W3. Strong farm-to-school laws were inversely associated with W3 overweight/obesity odds only in states with strong competitive food laws.
Conclusions:
Stronger laws governing school nutrition were related to healthier eating behaviors and optimal weight status in this nationally representative sample of adolescents. Further, farm-to-school laws may be more effective in reducing obesity when combined with strong competitive food legislation.
GuXTuckerKL. Dietary quality of the US child and adolescent population: trends from 1999 to 2012 and associations with the use of federal nutrition assistance programs. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105(1):194–202.
3.
StoryMKaphingstKMFrenchS. The role of schools in obesity prevention. Future Child. 2006;16(1):109–142.
4.
StoryMNanneyMSSchwartzMB. Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):71–100.
5.
ClarkMAFoxMK. Nutritional quality of the diets of US public school children and the role of the school meal programs. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(suppl 2):S44–S56.
6.
CrepinsekMKGordonARMcKinneyPMCondonEMWilsonA. Meals offered and served in US public schools: do they meet nutrient standards?J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(suppl 2):S31–S43.
7.
LarsonNStoryM. Are ‘competitive foods’ sold at school making our children fat?Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(3):430–435.
8.
MillimetDTRHusainM. School nutrition programs and the incidence of childhood obesity. J Hum Resour. 2010;45(3):640–654.
9.
SchanzenbachD. Do school lunches contribute to childhood obesity?J Hum Resour. 2009;44(3):684–709.
10.
Haire-JoshuD FCSchermbeckR. The role of government in preventing obesity. In: KumanyikaSBrownsonR, eds. Handbook of Obesity Prevention: A Resource for Health Professionals. New York, NY: Springer; 2007;129–170.
11.
National Cancer Institute. Classification of laws associated with school students. http://class.cancer.gov/. Accessed July 16, 2018.
12.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA. Nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2012;77(17):4088–4167.
TaberDRChriquiJFChaloupkaFJ. Differences in nutrient intake associated with state laws regarding fat, sugar, and caloric content of competitive foods. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(5):452–458.
15.
CullenKWWatsonKZakeriI. Improvements in middle school student dietary intake after implementation of the Texas Public School Nutrition Policy. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(1):111–117.
16.
Woodward-LopezGGoslinerWSamuelsSECraypoLKaoJCrawfordPB. Lessons learned from evaluations of California’s statewide school nutrition standards. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2137–2145.
17.
Sanchez-VaznaughEVSanchezBNBaekJCrawfordPB. ‘Competitive’ food and beverage policies: are they influencing childhood overweight trends?Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(3):436–446.
18.
CradockALMcHughAMont-FergusonH, et al.Effect of school district policy change on consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages among high school students, Boston, Massachusetts, 2004-2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(4):A74.
19.
TaberDRStevensJEvensonKR, et al.State policies targeting junk food in schools: racial/ethnic differences in the effect of policy change on soda consumption. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(9):1769–1775.
20.
HennessyEOhAAgurs-CollinsT, et al.State-level school competitive food and beverage laws are associated with children’s weight status. J Sch Health. 2014;84(9):609–616.
21.
DatarANicosiaN. The effect of state competitive food and beverage regulations on childhood overweight and obesity. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(5):520–527.
22.
TaberDRChriquiJFChaloupkaFJ. State laws governing school meals and disparities in fruit/vegetable intake. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):365–372.
23.
TaberDRChriquiJFPowellLChaloupkaFJ. Association between state laws governing school meal nutrition content and student weight status: implications for new USDA school meal standards. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(6):513–519.
24.
PalakshappaDFiksAGFaerberJAFeudtnerC. Association between state school nutrition laws and subsequent child obesity. Prev Med. 2016; 90:107–113.
25.
LipskyLMHaynieDLLiuD, et al.Trajectories of eating behaviors in a nationally representative cohort of U.S. adolescents during the transition to young adulthood. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:138.
MâsseLCFroshMMChriquiJF, et al.Development of a School Nutrition-Environment State Policy Classification System (SNESPCS). Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(suppl 4):S277–S291.
28.
TaberDRChriquiJFPernaFMPowellLMChaloupkaFJ. Weight status among adolescents in states that govern competitive food nutrition content. Pediatrics. 2012;130(3):437–444.
29.
TaberDRChriquiJFPowellLMPernaFMRobinsonWRChaloupkaFJ. Socioeconomic differences in the association between competitive food laws and the school food environment. J Sch Health. 2015;85(9):578–586.
30.
EatonDKKannLKinchenS, et al.Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2010; 59(5):1–142.
31.
VereeckenCADe HenauwSMaesL. Adolescents’ food habits: results of the health behaviour in school-aged children survey. Br J Nutr. 2005;94(3):423–431.
32.
Centers for Disease Control. A SAS Program for the 2000 CDC Growth Charts (ages 0 to <20 years). Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control; 2000.
CurrieCMolchoMBoyceWHolsteinBTorsheimTRichterM. Researching health inequalities in adolescents: the development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(6):1429–1436.
35.
SpriggsALIannottiRJNanselTRHaynieDL. Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41(3):283–293.
36.
HermansRCJDe BruinHLarsenJKMensinkFHoekAC. Adolescents’ responses to a school-based prevention program promoting healthy eating at school. Front Public Health. 2017;5:309.
37.
DurandCP. Does raising type 1 error rate improve power to detect interactions in linear regression models? A simulation study. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71079.
38.
LazicSE. Why we should use simpler models if the data allow this: relevance for ANOVA designs in experimental biology. BMC Physiol. 2008;8:16.
39.
CampbellMJSwinscowTD. Statistics at Square One. 11th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
40.
KrølnerRRasmussenMBrugJKleppKIWindMDueP. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part II: qualitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:112.
41.
JoshiAAzumaAMFeenstraG. Do farm-to-school programs make a difference? Findings and future research needs. J Hunger Environ Nut. 2008;3(2-3):229–246.
42.
CullenKWWatsonKZakeriIRalstonK. Exploring changes in middle-school student lunch consumption after local school food service policy modifications. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(6):814–820.
43.
RiisJGrasonHStrobinoDAhmedSMinkovitzC. State school policies and youth obesity. Matern Child Health J. 2012;16(suppl 1):S111–S118.
44.
NicholsonLTurnerLSchneiderLChriquiJChaloupkaF. State farm-to-school laws influence the availability of fruits and vegetables in school lunches at US public elementary schools. J Sch Health. 2014;84(5):310–316.
45.
CohenJFWGorskiMTHoffmanJA, et al.Healthier standards for school meals and snacks: impact on school food revenues and lunch participation rates. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(4):485–492.
46.
JohnsonDBPodrabskyMRochaAOttenJJ. Effect of the healthy hunger-free kids act on the nutritional quality of meals selected by students and school lunch participation rates. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(1):e153918.
BergeJMWallMLarsonNForsythABauerKWNeumark-SztainerD. Youth dietary intake and weight status: healthful neighborhood food environments enhance the protective role of supportive family home environments. Health & Place. 2014;26:69–77.
49.
RobinsonKADennisonCRWaymanDMPronovostPJNeedhamDM. Systematic review identifies number of strategies important for retaining study participants. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(8):757–765.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
