ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To reveal students' experiences and perspectives related to Universal School Meals (USM) under the federal coronavirus disease 2019 waivers during school years 2021-22. DESIGN: Qualitative; 17 focus groups in June-July 2022. SETTING: Virtual; students from 9 California regions in public and charter schools. PARTICIPANTS: 67 students (n = 31 in high school, n = 36 in middle school) from a racially and economically diverse sample. PHENOMENON OF INTEREST: Students' perceived benefits and drawbacks of USM. ANALYSIS: Thematic analysis using an immersion-crystallization approach. RESULTS: Students appreciated USM for increasing school meals' accessibility, promoting food security by financially supporting families, reducing the stigma associated with school meals, simplifying the payment system, and enhancing school meals convenience. An increase in school meal participation was observed. However, concerns emerged regarding a perceived decline in food quality and quantity and increased food waste. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Universal School Meals showed promise in increasing access to meals, reducing food insecurity, stigma, and increasing participation. Addressing food quality, quantity, and waste concerns is critical for its sustained success. Policymakers need to advocate for the expansion and continuous refinement of USM, prioritizing stakeholder feedback. Ensuring adequate funding to balance meal quality and quantity while minimizing waste is essential for an adequate school meal policy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The duration and frequency of eating occasions has been identified as a factor contributing to poor dietary quality among U.S. adults. The objective of this study is to examine whether grazing, defined as eating more than three times a day, affects total daily caloric intake and dietary quality measured by the 2015 Healthy Eating Index (HEI-2015). METHODS: We used a multivariate individual fixed-effects model to compare the caloric intake and dietary quality of individuals who grazed on 1 day but not another. This allowed us to control for differences in individual food intake and diet quality preferences among study participants. We use the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2007-2018, and include data for adults aged 18 years or older who reported 2 days of dietary intake and were not pregnant or lactating (n = 27,775). RESULTS: Grazing increased total daily caloric intake by 205 cal and increased the daily HEI score by 0.59 points. Grazing increased HEI component scores for total fruit, whole fruit, and refined grains, and decreased HEI component scores for saturated fats. Morning grazing increased total daily caloric intake by 159 cal and increased the daily HEI score by 0.87 points - primarily by increasing component scores for total fruit, whole fruit, whole grains, total dairy, seafood and plant proteins, and sodium. Evening grazing increased daily caloric intake by 76 cal and decreased the daily HEI score by 0.41 points - primarily by decreasing the component scores for total fruit, whole grains, fatty acids, and saturated fats. Evening grazing increased HEI component scores for sodium and refined grains. CONCLUSIONS: Grazing increases daily caloric intake and can decrease dietary quality (particularly when grazing in the evening).
Subject(s)
Energy Intake , Lactation , Adolescent , Adult , Diet , Diet, Healthy , Female , Humans , Nutrition Surveys , PregnancyABSTRACT
Participants in SNAP have always been allowed to use their taxpayer-funded benefit to purchase Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs). Despite an acute public health crisis surrounding the consumption of unhealthy products including SSBs, especially among the low-income citizens who also qualify for SNAP benefits, this policy has yet to be changed. Interviews with policy participants in Washington, D.C., reveal that change is being blocked by a culture of "personal responsibility" in America, plus three specific political forces: corporate lobbying primarily by the beverage and food retail industries; a desire by liberals to defend SNAP as income support for the poor even if nutrition outcomes are sub-optimal; and institutional inertia within the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural committees of Congress. In the 2018 farm bill debate, this "iron triangle" of bipartisan resistance to change was strong enough to block even a pilot study of SSB restrictions in SNAP.
