Dataset Information

Healthy Food Policies Documented in University Food Service Contracts.

ABSTRACT: In the United States, there is an opportunity to improve the nutritional health of university students through the campus food environment. This project used a content analysis approach to investigate whether healthy food standards and policies were incorporated into the contract agreements between North Carolina (NC) public universities and their food service management companies. Food service contracts were collected from 14 NC public universities using food service management companies on campus. Each contract was evaluated using the 35-item North Carolina Food Service Policy Guidelines Assessment to examine four elements of the campus food environment: Beverages, Packaged Snacks, Prepared Foods, and Other (e.g., strategic placement of healthier food). Five university food service contracts incorporated no North Carolina Food Service Policy Guidelines, three university contracts included one to five guidelines, and six university contracts included six to nine guidelines. Altogether, 13 of the 35 guidelines were incorporated into at least one university food service contract. This project presents a cost and time-effective assessment method for determining if evidence-based nutrition guidelines have been included in university food service contracts. This approach and findings may lead to contract revisions to improve the campus food environment and, subsequently, the nutritional health of college populations.

SUBMITTER: Fandetti SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10454280 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Healthy Food Policies Documented in University Food Service Contracts.

Fandetti Stacy M SM Dahl Alicia Anne AA Webster Caitlan C Bably Morium Barakat MB Coffman Maren J MJ Racine Elizabeth F EF

International journal of environmental research and public health 20230821 16

In the United States, there is an opportunity to improve the nutritional health of university students through the campus food environment. This project used a content analysis approach to investigate whether healthy food standards and policies were incorporated into the contract agreements between North Carolina (NC) public universities and their food service management companies. Food service contracts were collected from 14 NC public universities using food service management companies on cam ...[more]

PMID: 37623200

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe majority of large public universities have exclusive pouring rights contracts with beverage companies that produce and market sugar-sweetened beverages. Pouring rights contracts contain provisions that conflict with recommendations from major public health organizations that institutions reduce sugar-sweetened beverage availability, marketing, and consumption. This study assessed the following among students at 3 public universities: student perception of pouring rights contracts (the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts), the association between student socioeconomic characteristics and perception of pouring rights contracts, student estimates of pouring rights contract revenue, and the association between student pouring rights contract revenue estimates and perception of pouring rights contracts. To contextualize results, actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues was estimated.MethodsA cross-sectional exploratory study was conducted among a convenience sample of 1,311 undergraduate sugar-sweetened beverages-consuming students recruited from 3 large and diverse public universities in Northern California. On an online questionnaire, undergraduate students indicated the extent to which they favored or opposed pouring rights contracts on a 10-point scale (oppose=1-5, favor=6-10) and provided a numeric estimate of the percentage of total university revenue they thought their university's pouring rights contract generated. Regression models were used to analyze differences in perception of pouring rights contracts by student socioeconomic characteristics and estimates of university revenues generated by pouring rights contracts. In addition, pouring rights contracts and financial reports were obtained from the 3 universities to estimate actual pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total revenues. Survey data were collected between August and November 2018 and analyzed in August 2022.ResultsA large majority of students (81%) opposed pouring rights contracts, and the opposition did not significantly differ by student socioeconomic characteristics, including by levels of food security, need-based financial aid, participation in federal food assistance or healthcare programs, parental education, or parental income (all ps>0.14). The median student estimate for pouring rights contract revenue as a percentage of total university revenue was 10%. In contrast, the estimated actual annual revenue generated from the pouring rights contracts ranged from 0.01% to 0.04% at these schools. Revenue estimates were not significantly associated with participants' opposition or favoring of pouring rights contracts (p=0.65).ConclusionsA large majority of students opposed pouring rights contracts, and this opposition was similar regardless of student socioeconomic characteristics or student estimates of pouring rights contract revenues. Students markedly overestimated (by >100-1,000-fold) the percentage of university revenue that came from pouring rights contracts. University administration should consider student views on pouring rights contracts when deciding whether to exit or continue with pouring rights contracts.

Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking the implementation of healthy food environment public policies against international best practices may accelerate the government response to prevent obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the countries. The aim of the study was to determine the extent of food environment policy implementation in Guatemala and to identify and prioritize actions for the government to accelerate their implementation.MethodsThe INFORMAS Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI from the International Network for Food and Obesity/NCDs Research, Monitoring and Action Support) was used. Evidence of implementation for 50 good practice indicators within the seven food policies and six infrastructure support domains was compiled, and subsequently validated by Guatemalan government officials. A national civil society expert panel on public health and nutrition performed an online assessment of the implementation of healthy food environment policies against best international practices. The level of agreement among evaluators was measured using the Gwet second order agreement coefficient (AC2). The expert panel recommended actions for each indicator during on-site workshops and those actions were prioritized by importance and achievability.ResultsThe expert panel rated implementation at zero for 26% of the indicators, very low for 28% of indicators, low for 42%, and medium for 4% of indicators (none were rated high). Indicators at medium implementation were related to the use of evidence for developing policies and ingredient list/nutrition information panels on packaged foods. Seventy-seven actions were recommended prioritizing the top 10 for immediate action. The Gwet AC2 was 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.80), indicating a good concordance among experts.ConclusionsIn the Food-EPI of Guatemala, almost all indicators of good practice had a low or less level of implementation. The expert panel proposed 12 priority actions to accelerate policy implementation to tackle obesity and NCDs in the country.

Project description:BackgroundThe INFORMAS [International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases (NCDs) Research, Monitoring and Action Support] Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI) was developed to evaluate the degree of implementation of widely recommended food environment policies by national governments against international best practice, and has been applied in New Zealand in 2014, 2017 and 2020. This paper outlines the 2020 Food-EPI process and compares policy implementation and recommendations with the 2014 and 2017 Food-EPI.MethodsIn March-April 2020, a national panel of over 50 public health experts participated in Food-EPI. Experts rated the extent of implementation of 47 "good practice" policy and infrastructure support indicators compared to international best practice, using an extensive evidence document verified by government officials. Experts then proposed and prioritized concrete actions needed to address the critical implementation gaps identified. Progress on policy implementation and recommendations made over the three Food-EPIs was compared.ResultsIn 2020, 60% of the indicators were rated as having "low" or "very little, if any" implementation compared to international benchmarks: less progress than 2017 (47%) and similar to 2014 (61%). Of the nine priority actions proposed in 2014, there was only noticeable action on one (Health Star Ratings). The majority of actions were therefore proposed again in 2017 and 2020. In 2020 the proposed actions were broader, reflecting the need for multisectoral action to improve the food environment, and the need for a mandatory approach in all policy areas.ConclusionsThere has been little to no progress in the past three terms of government (9 years) on the implementation of policies and infrastructure support for healthy food environments, with implementation overall regressing between 2017 and 2020. The proposed actions in 2020 have reflected a growing movement to locate nutrition within the wider context of planetary health and with recognition of the social determinants of health and nutrition, resulting in recommendations that will require the involvement of many government entities to overcome the existing policy inertia. The increase in food insecurity due to COVID-19 lockdowns may provide the impetus to stimulate action on food polices.

Dataset Information

Healthy Food Policies Documented in University Food Service Contracts.

Publications

Healthy Food Policies Documented in University Food Service Contracts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets