Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:00:09.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimizing child-focused nutrition policies: considerations and controversies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

Dana Lee Olstad
Affiliation:
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition ResearchDeakin University221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia Email: [email protected]
Kylie Ball
Affiliation:
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition ResearchDeakin University221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015 

Unhealthy dietary behaviours and obesity among children are among the most pressing public health issues worldwide, given their high prevalence and association with negative health outcomes( Reference Lim, Vos and Flaxman 1 ). Governments internationally are grappling with how to approach these issues from a policy perspective, ideally seeking solutions grounded in science. By enacting policy, it is anticipated that governments may be able to effectively and equitably address underlying nutrition and obesity-related risk factors at a population level, with limited effort on the part of individuals. Compared with individually targeted dietary interventions, population-level nutrition policies can offer larger and more sustained benefits for population health and at a lower cost to society( Reference Cobiac, Veerman and Vos 2 , Reference Moodie, Sheppard and Sacks 3 ). Policy is also enduring because it codifies change and survives transitions in leadership( Reference Graff, Kappagoda and Wooten 4 ). As such, it can become incorporated into social norms.

Schools have become a focal point for policy development as it pertains to children’s nutrition, given strong consensus that school food provision should support and not undermine child health. However, the impact of current school nutrition policies on children’s dietary behaviours and body weights has been mixed( Reference Chriqui, Pickel and Story 5 Reference Ganann, Fitzpatrick-Lewis and Ciliska 7 ), suggesting a need for more comprehensive policies that engage with additional aspects of school food environments and that also extend beyond schools. Controversies inevitably arise during policy development, however, and several papers in this issue of Public Health Nutrition tackle some of the more contentious issues pertaining to child nutrition policies, such as the need for, content, format and potential unintended negative consequences of policy.

The need for nutrition policy

One of the more polarizing debates in the nutrition policy literature, both scientific and lay, relates to personal v. collective responsibility for health. That is, do governments have the right and responsibility to intervene in the food-related decisions of private citizens to support public health? Although evidence of an identified need is not sufficient to justify government intervention in this area, it is nevertheless necessary. In this respect, evidence of accelerated weight gain( Reference von Hippel, Powell and Downey 8 Reference Franckle, Adler and Davison 10 ) among children during the summer months and speculation that this may be related to dietary intake prompted Tilley et al.( Reference Tilley, Beets and Jones 11 ) to systematically document the contents of home-packed lunches brought by children and staff to four large-scale summer day camps. Their findings, that few lunches contained fruits and vegetables while many contained unhealthy snacks, provide empirical verification that children’s diets during the summer months may indeed be nutritionally poor and support extension of nutrition policies to out-of-school settings. Such policies could bolster the impact of school nutrition policies by ensuring that school-based policies do not simply displace unhealthy dietary behaviours from school to community settings.

The content of nutrition policy

Tilley et al.’s( Reference Tilley, Beets and Jones 11 ) analysis addresses a second controversy within policy circles. Having established that a need for nutrition policies exists, the question then arises as to what the content of those policies should be. A particular tension pertains to regulation of home-packed meals. Although nutrition standards for institutionally provided meals are common, rarely have governments ventured to regulate the content of home-packed meals and snacks, despite evidence that they may be nutritionally poor( Reference Caruso and Cullen 12 , Reference Johnston, Moreno and El-Mubasher 13 ). By highlighting the nutritional shortcomings of home-packed meals brought to summer day camps, Tilley et al.’s( Reference Tilley, Beets and Jones 11 ) findings suggest that failure to at minimum disseminate voluntary guidelines constitutes a missed opportunity to support child health.

While nutrition policies commonly stipulate standards regarding the nutritional content of meals, they less often concern more peripheral environmental features that may also influence food choice. On the basis of data collected during the 2005/06 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Study in the UK, Townsend( Reference Townsend 14 ) demonstrates that shorter lunch breaks are independently associated with less healthy dietary behaviours among adolescents, suggesting that providing adequate time to eat may be an important area for policy development. Blondin et al.’s( Reference Blondin, Djang and Metayer 15 ) qualitative analysis echoes these findings, as inadequate time to eat, food accessibility, taste preferences, and other policy-, child- and food-related factors led children to discard, rather than to eat, healthy foods provided through a universal free school breakfast programme. Overall, these three studies suggest that consideration be given to broadening the reach of child-directed nutrition policies beyond institutionally provided meals and expanding their scope such that they engage with the myriad of individual, social and environmental factors that influence children’s dietary behaviours within an overall ecological approach( Reference Stokols 16 ).

The format of nutrition policy

Governments have a variety of policy options available to them, ranging from relatively less (i.e. voluntary guidelines) to more coercive measures (i.e. mandated policies). More coercive measures are more intrusive and accordingly require more justification( Reference Hunt 17 ). For this reason, governments commonly prefer to enact the least coercive measures( Reference Hunt 17 ). Voluntary guidelines may lack the potency of mandatory policies, however, and are therefore often decried as ineffective( Reference Brownell 18 ). Morin et al.’s( Reference Morin, Demers and Robitaille 19 ) analysis lends support to this notion, as shortly following dissemination of a voluntary Framework Policy to support healthy eating in schools in the Canadian province of Quebec, just 5·1 % and 42·2 % of primary- and secondary-school cafeterias, respectively, provided foods from all four recommended food groups in adequate serving sizes. In addition, the vast majority of secondary schools offered unhealthy foods and beverages that were specifically recommended for elimination by the policy.

Dubuisson et al.’s( Reference Dubuisson, Lioret and Dufour 20 ) findings also support the notion that voluntary school nutrition guidelines, in this case those issued by the French national government, may have limited effectiveness. More specifically, their analysis showed that foods consumed by French schoolchildren from school canteens differed qualitatively from those consumed in other locations. Some of these nutritional differences reflected more favourable dietary patterns that were in accordance with the national school food recommendations, whereas others were negative, pointing to deficiencies in guideline formulation, uptake or implementation. The authors propose that mandatory national policies, such as those that were introduced in France following their study, have the potential to yield more favourable dietary outcomes for students. However, it is important to note that if policies are not monitored, or when there are no penalties for non-compliance, adherence to even mandated policies may be suboptimal( Reference Crepinsek, Gordon and McKinney 21 ).

Farmer et al.( Reference Farmer, Nikolopoulos and McCargar 22 ), however, show that voluntary government nutrition guidelines can succeed and describe organizational characteristics and processes that supported voluntary adoption of provincial nutrition guidelines in two child-care facilities in Alberta, Canada. Notably, although the organizational structures of the child-care centres diverged, they nevertheless both voluntarily adopted the nutrition standards. These divergent organizational structures did, however, impact the availability of resources and capacity to implement guidelines, such that implementation in one facility was greater than in the other. By contrast, common organizational processes supported adoption of the guidelines in both cases. These processes included strong leadership, a supportive culture and strong communication networks. Given the importance of early adopters in instigating and perpetuating processes of policy diffusion( Reference Rogers 23 ), this analysis can help to identify receptive contexts in which to pioneer novel legislative solutions and catalyse policy diffusion.

Finally, Bell et al.( Reference Bell, Davies and Finch 24 ) demonstrate the importance of capacity-building initiatives to improve implementation of voluntary nutrition policies within centre-based child-care services. Findings from a controlled implementation intervention in 240 child-care centres in Australia showed that supported centres were more likely to offer healthier foods and beverages, to engage parents in policies and programmes, and to have nutrition policies on home-packed food. Thus, policy-related outcomes may be improved through provision of resources and support. It may be particularly important to tailor resources and support to identified barriers and to offer them early on, when resistance to policy may be higher.

Potential unintended negative consequences of nutrition policy

An important caveat in policy-related deliberations is that the impact of nutrition policies – be they voluntary or mandatory – may not be uniformly positive. Three articles in this issue of Public Health Nutrition describe potential unintended negative consequences that even the most well-intentioned policies can engender. Blondin et al.( Reference Blondin, Djang and Metayer 15 ) find that certain policy provisions exacerbated the problem of food waste within a school breakfast programme; for instance, policies required children to have certain healthy items on their trays regardless of whether they intended to eat them. Policies regarding the time allotted for eating were also problematic in this respect, as children had 10 minutes to eat and were then often directed to discard uneaten items. Townsend’s( Reference Townsend 14 ) analysis similarly points to the negative nutritional consequences of providing inadequate time to eat. These findings underscore the need to thoroughly investigate the potential impacts of policies prior to scale-up and widespread implementation.

One of the chief advantages of mandated policies is their broad reach, as they apply to all individuals regardless of their socio-economic circumstances. By contrast, a potential unintended consequence of voluntary policy-based approaches is that they may widen inequalities if organizations that are better resourced adopt more and/or stronger policies. Morin et al.( Reference Morin, Demers and Robitaille 19 ), however, show that although some aspects of school food environments were more favourable in larger and more advantaged schools, there were few disparities in the availability of healthy and unhealthy foods in Quebec schools. This is an important finding, as the study was conducted in the context of a voluntary province-wide nutrition policy initiative. Given that disparities were observed in other areas (e.g. menus designed by Registered Dietitians, food assistance programmes) and availability of healthy foods was low overall, it is, however, essential to remain mindful of the limitations of voluntary policies in particular.

Conclusion

The papers presented in this issue of Public Health Nutrition suggest new avenues worthy of investigation related to the need for, content, format and potential unintended negative consequences of child-focused nutrition policies prior to their implementation. Scientific evidence is only one type of evidence considered by policy makers during their deliberations, however, and therefore other types of evidence must also inform policy making in this area. In particular, many of the issues raised in this Editorial invoke value judgements that require consideration of social, ethical and other concerns. Finally, although policy is an important tool in addressing unhealthy dietary behaviours and body weights among children, it is not a panacea. A constellation of mutually reinforcing approaches spanning all levels of the ecological model will be essential to optimize children’s dietary patterns.

Acknowledgements

Financial support: This work received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. D.L.O. is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship and an Endeavour Research Fellowship. K.B. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship (ID 1042442). Conflict of interest: None. Authorship: D.L.O. drafted and edited the manuscript; K.B. critically revised and edited the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

1. Lim, SS, Vos, T, Flaxman, AD et al. (2012) A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 22242260.Google Scholar
2. Cobiac, LJ, Veerman, L & Vos, T (2013) The role of cost-effectiveness analysis in developing nutrition policy. Annu Rev Nutr 33, 373393.Google Scholar
3. Moodie, M, Sheppard, L, Sacks, G et al. (2013) Cost-effectiveness of fiscal policies to prevent obesity. Curr Obes Rep 2, 211224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Graff, SK, Kappagoda, M, Wooten, HM et al. (2012) Policies for healthier communities: historical, legal, and practical elements of the obesity prevention movement. Annu Rev Public Health 33, 307324.Google Scholar
5. Chriqui, JF, Pickel, M & Story, M (2014) Influence of school competitive food and beverage policies on obesity, consumption, and availability: a systematic review. JAMA Pediatr 168, 279286.Google Scholar
6. Chriqui, JF (2013) Obesity prevention policies in US states and localities: lessons from the field. Curr Obes Rep 2, 200210.Google Scholar
7. Ganann, R, Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D, Ciliska, D et al. (2014) Enhancing nutritional environments through access to fruit and vegetables in schools and homes among children and youth: a systematic review. BMC Res Notes 7, 422.Google Scholar
8. von Hippel, PT, Powell, B, Downey, DB et al. (2007) The effect of school on overweight in childhood: gain in body mass index during the school year and during summer vacation. Am J Public Health 97, 696702.Google Scholar
9. Gillis, L, McDowell, M & Bar-Or, O (2005) Relationship between summer vacation weight gain and lack of success in a pediatric weight control program. Eat Behav 6, 137143.Google Scholar
10. Franckle, R, Adler, R & Davison, K (2014) Accelerated weight gain among children during summer versus school year and related racial/ethnic disparities: a systematic review. Prev Chronic Dis 11, E101.Google Scholar
11. Tilley, F, Beets, MW, Jones, S et al. (2015) Evaluation of compliance to national nutrition policies in summer day camps. Public Health Nutr 18, 16201625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Caruso, ML & Cullen, KW (2015) Quality and cost of student lunches brought from home. JAMA Pediatr 169, 8690.Google Scholar
13. Johnston, CA, Moreno, JP, El-Mubasher, A et al. (2012) School lunches and lunches brought from home: a comparative analysis. Child Obes 8, 364368.Google Scholar
14. Townsend, N (2015) Shorter lunch breaks lead secondary-school students to make less healthy dietary choices: multilevel analysis of cross-sectional national survey data. Public Health Nutr 18, 16261634.Google Scholar
15. Blondin, SA, Djang, HC, Metayer, N et al. (2015) ‘It’s just so much waste.’ A qualitative investigation of food waste in a universal free School Breakfast Program. Public Health Nutr 18, 15651577.Google Scholar
16. Stokols, D (1992) Establishing and maintaining healthy environments. Toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol 47, 622.Google Scholar
17. Hunt, P (2012) Health and well-being: the role of government. Public Health 126, Suppl. 1, S19S23.Google Scholar
18. Brownell, KD (2012) Thinking forward: the quicksand of appeasing the food industry. PLoS Med 9, e1001254.Google Scholar
19. Morin, P, Demers, K, Robitaille, E et al. (2015) Do schools in Quebec foster healthy eating? An overview of associations between school food environment and socio-economic characteristics. Public Health Nutr 18, 16351646.Google Scholar
20. Dubuisson, C, Lioret, S, Dufour, A et al. (2015) The relationship between school lunch attendance and the food intakes of French schoolchildren aged 3–17 years. Public Health Nutr 18, 16471657.Google Scholar
21. Crepinsek, MK, Gordon, AR, McKinney, PM et al. (2009) Meals offered and served in US public schools: do they meet nutrient standards? J Am Diet Assoc 109, 2 Suppl., S31S43.Google Scholar
22. Farmer, AP, Nikolopoulos, H, McCargar, L et al. (2015) Organizational characteristics and processes are important in the adoption of the Alberta Nutrition Guidelines for Children and Youth in child-care centres. Public Health Nutr 18, 15931601.Google Scholar
23. Rogers, E (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
24. Bell, AC, Davies, L, Finch, M et al. (2015) An implementation intervention to encourage healthy eating in centre-based child-care services: impact of the Good for Kids Good for Life programme. Public Health Nutr 18, 16101619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed