One of the best things about my career is that it’s a great way to start a debate. When I’m chatting with strangers at a dinner party, happy hour, or other social setting, if somebody asks what I do for a living, my response (“I study laws targeting childhood obesity”) usually elicits more than a token “Oh that’s nice” response. For better or worse, government policies related to obesity are a topic that everybody – liberal, conservative, or independent – has an opinion on.
Nobody gets more fired up than educators. Much of my research focuses specifically on laws related to school nutrition standards, and when I’m discussing my career with someone who has worked in public schools, they frequently get upset as they talk about how unhealthy foods in schools can be. Soda, candy bars, high-fat chips, etc. – that’s what they see their students buying at school every day, educators tell me. It’s hardly a surprise to them that nearly one-fifth of adolescents in the U.S. are obese.
Many states and school districts have recognized this problem and passed policies to require nutrition standards for foods and beverages that are sold outside of federal school meal programs, so-called ‘competitive foods’. California, for example, has banned soda and set very specific limits on the fat, sugar, and calorie content of competitive foods sold in vending machines and other school venues. Skeptics have questioned the impact of these laws, however, by arguing that students can easily compensate for laws. (“No soda machine? Fine, I’ll go to the convenience store down the road.”) Even I was skeptical of competitive food laws for awhile because I thought it was too easy for kids to get junk food elsewhere.
So I was excited when my colleagues and I found that strong competitive food laws can, in fact, reduce weight gain among children. We studied 6,300 students in 40 states, analyzing their changes in body mass index (BMI) between 5th and 8th grade, to determine if BMI change was lower in states with stronger competitive food laws. We found that students experienced less BMI change if they lived in states with competitive food laws containing specific, required nutrition standards. Furthermore, students who were obese or overweight in 5th grade were more likely to achieve a healthier weight status by 8th grade if they lived in states with specific and required standards for competitive foods.
Laws also needed to be consistent over time and across grade levels. That is, no matter how strong standards were when students were in 5th grade, if the standards were not reinforced as students progressed to 8th grade, the students experienced the same BMI change compared to students in states with no laws at all. BMI change was lowest in states with competitive food laws that were specific, required, and consistent. Consistency is critical because some states have primarily targeted competitive foods in elementary schools while keeping standards relatively lax for middle and high schools. Our evidence suggests that this approach is not likely to reduce obesity.
Our study appeared in hundreds of media outlets when it was released last week, including the New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, and NPR. I was flooded with calls and emails from journalists, researchers, and policymakers in the U.S. and abroad. But my favorite email was from a mother in Arizona. She wrote that she appreciated us studying these issues because it would help her convince policymakers that change is needed in schools. Some critics say that preventing obesity is not the government’s business because it should be “left up to the parents,” and this parent was taking action to prevent obesity by trying to convince the government that they needed to make school foods healthier.
Ironically, the need for school nutrition reform is a rare topic that liberals and conservatives can agree upon. One fact that surprises many people is that states with strong competitive food laws are often in the South, including states that are politically conservative; one of the earliest, most progressive efforts to improve school nutrition at the state level came in Arkansas when Mike Huckabee was Governor. Arkansas leaders recognized that childhood obesity was a public health crisis and that reducing obesity was going to require involvement from everyone, including schools.
As Lisa Creighton wrote 3 weeks ago, the USDA is in the process of developing national competitive food nutrition standards as part of the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act. These standards have not been released yet, however, and they may not equal the standards set by states such as Arkansas and California. Therefore, it’s important to continue to work with state and local policymakers to develop tougher nutrition standards at all grade levels. If you are interested in knowing how strong the laws are in your state, visit the National Cancer Institute website: “Classification of Laws Associated with School Students (CLASS)”. It includes state profiles of school nutrition and physical education laws for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Remember, too, that competitive food laws are just one way that schools can help reduce obesity by improving students’ diet or increasing their physical activity. Other examples include:
• Farm to School programs
• Safe Routes to School
• Increasing opportunities for students to be physically active during the school day
• Providing healthier school meals
• Selling low-fat, low-sugar snacks at school fundraisers
The goal of these programs is not only for students to eat a few less calories or get a little more activity. It’s about creating a culture that revolves around healthy eating and active living. Personally, I think that reducing obesity will require that kind of cultural shift in how we live. Schools are a major part of students’ culture and need to be at the center of it.
Dr. Daniel Taber is a Research Scientist at the Institute for Health Research and Policy (IHRP) at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he specializes in studying the effects of school-based policies on diet, physical activity, and weight status among children.
|
|