School meals: types of foods offered to and consumed by children at lunch and breakfast.
ABSTRACT Children's food intakes do not meet dietary recommendations. Meals offered through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program make substantial contributions to school-aged children's diets.
This article describes foods offered in school meals and consumed by children at lunch and breakfast, and differences in foods consumed by children who did and did not participate in the school meal programs.
Data were collected as part of the third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, a cross-sectional, nationally representative study conducted in 2005. School menu surveys were used to identify the foods offered in school meals, and 24-hour dietary recalls were used to assess the foods children consumed.
Foodservice managers in 398 public schools and 2,314 children (grades 1 to 12) from 287 of these schools participated in the study.
Descriptive tabulations report percentages of daily menus that offered and percentages of children that consumed specific food groups and foods at lunch and breakfast. Two-tailed t tests were used to assess differences between school meal program participants and nonparticipants.
Most school menus offered nonfat or 1% milk, fruit or 100% juice, and vegetables daily. Starchy vegetables were more common than dark green/orange vegetables or legumes. School lunch participants were significantly more likely than nonparticipants to consume milk, fruit, and vegetables, and significantly less likely to consume desserts, snack items, and beverages other than milk or 100% juice. At breakfast, participants were significantly more likely than nonparticipants to consume milk and fruit (mainly 100% juice), and significantly less likely to consume beverages other than milk or 100% juice.
Consumption of school meals is positively related to children's intakes of key food groups at lunch and breakfast. Offering more fresh fruit, whole grains, and a greater variety of vegetables could lead to additional health benefits.
SourceAvailable from: Ariun Ishdorj[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: School environment and policies may affect childrens ability to make healthy food choices both at and away from school. Using data from the third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study conducted in 2005 we estimate the effect of environment and policies on childrens fruit and vegetable intakes. We use an instrumental variable approach to control for the endogeneity of participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). On an average school day, school lunch participants consume more fruits and vegetables, including relatively more at school and less away from school compared to nonparticipants. Meal policies had little effect on NSLP participation itself. Policies that restrict high fat milks or desserts and restrict the sale of competitive foods are associated with greater fruit and/or vegetable intake at school; some policies affected consumption at home as well.Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 05/2013; 35(2). DOI:10.1093/aepp/ppt003 · 1.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: School Nutrition Programs (SNPs) may have positive effects on children’s food choices through high nutritional quality meals. This cross-sectional & descriptive study was conducted to determine nutritional quality of school lunch and to compare lunch consumption of students who participated in SNP and who did not, at the first governmental school serving school lunch in Kayseri, Turkey. Methods: One hundred and sixteen students aged 9-14 years were divided into two groups after being matched according to gender, age, grade; 58 participants (school lunch group; SL-G) and 58 nonparticipants (school canteen group; SC-G) were recruited. Energy-nutrient content of 5-day school lunch was determined by recipes. Socio-demographic data and lunch consumption on 5 consecutive weekdays with weighed left overs were obtained. Lunch energy-nutrient intakes and anthropometric measurements were compared. Results: School lunch was adequate for vitamins (E & C), fibre, iron, inadequate for energy, carbohydrate, folate, calcium. Contribution of fat (36.6±6.8%) and saturated fat (12.2±3.5%) to energy and sodium content was high (1001 mg) in school lunch. SL-G consumed significantly higher protein, vitamin C, thiamine, vitamin B6, potassium, magnesium, iron, zinc (p<0.001 for each) than SC-G. Energy (p<0.001), carbohydrate (p<0.001), fat (p<0.05), vitamin E (p<0.001) intakes of SC-G were significantly higher than SL-G. Body weights, height, body mass index of groups were similar. Conclusions: Foodservice at school should be revised with collaboration of school management, catering firm, dietetic professionals. Policy should focus on reducing fat, saturated fat, sodium content and meeting energy-nutrient requirements of school aged children.Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences Online 05/2014; 30(3):549-53. DOI:10.12669/pjms.303.4651 · 0.10 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many people want to eat healthier, but they often fail in these attempts. We report two field studies in an elementary school cafeteria that each demonstrate children eat more of a vegetable (carrots, broccoli) when we provide it first in isolation versus alongside other more preferred foods. We propose this healthy first approach succeeds by triggering one's inherent motivation to eat a single food placed in front of them, and works even though they have prior knowledge of the full menu available and no real time constraints. Consistent with this theory, and counter to simple contrast effects, an additional lab study found that presenting a food first in isolation had the unique ability to increase intake whether the food was healthy (carrots) or less healthy (M&M's). Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of this simple intervention in promoting healthier eating, which should interest consumers, food marketers, health professionals, and policy makers.PLoS ONE 01/2015; 10(4):e0121283. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121283 · 3.53 Impact Factor