"Salt and Eat It or No Salt and Trash It?" Shifts in Support for School Meal Program Flexibilities in Public Comments.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrients Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.3390/nu17050839
Sarah Moreland-Russell, Natasha Zimmermann, Jessica Gannon, Dan Ferris, Charles Alba, Rebekah R Jacob
{"title":"\"Salt and Eat It or No Salt and Trash It?\" Shifts in Support for School Meal Program Flexibilities in Public Comments.","authors":"Sarah Moreland-Russell, Natasha Zimmermann, Jessica Gannon, Dan Ferris, Charles Alba, Rebekah R Jacob","doi":"10.3390/nu17050839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed in 2010 to update nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs to be in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. In 2017 and 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture proposed flexibilities to the nutrition standards for milk, whole grains, and sodium. <b>Objective:</b> This study examines the positions used by stakeholders in support for or opposition to the proposed rules. <b>Methods:</b> We conducted a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of public comments posted to the U.S. Federal Register in response to the USDA's proposed rules in 2017 and 2020. All public comments submitted by individuals and organizations were analyzed (n = 7323, 2017 and n = 2513, 2020). <b>Results</b>: Results indicated three categories of arguments: (1) comments favoring the original law, (2) comments favoring flexibilities, and (3) other. In both comment periods, constituents opposed the implementation of flexibilities, while schools and manufacturers/industry predominately supported them. Academic and advocacy organizations opposed the original proposed change (2017) but relaxed their position in 2020. <b>Conclusions</b>: Any flexibility to the required nutritional standards of school meals has the potential to affect the health trajectory of youth. It is imperative to understand how stakeholders view this issue and inform policy change.</p>","PeriodicalId":19486,"journal":{"name":"Nutrients","volume":"17 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11901703/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrients","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17050839","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed in 2010 to update nutrition standards in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs to be in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. In 2017 and 2020, the United States Department of Agriculture proposed flexibilities to the nutrition standards for milk, whole grains, and sodium. Objective: This study examines the positions used by stakeholders in support for or opposition to the proposed rules. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of public comments posted to the U.S. Federal Register in response to the USDA's proposed rules in 2017 and 2020. All public comments submitted by individuals and organizations were analyzed (n = 7323, 2017 and n = 2513, 2020). Results: Results indicated three categories of arguments: (1) comments favoring the original law, (2) comments favoring flexibilities, and (3) other. In both comment periods, constituents opposed the implementation of flexibilities, while schools and manufacturers/industry predominately supported them. Academic and advocacy organizations opposed the original proposed change (2017) but relaxed their position in 2020. Conclusions: Any flexibility to the required nutritional standards of school meals has the potential to affect the health trajectory of youth. It is imperative to understand how stakeholders view this issue and inform policy change.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“吃盐还是不吃盐然后扔掉?”公众意见中对学校膳食计划灵活性支持的转变。
背景:2010年通过的《健康、无饥饿儿童法案》更新了全国学校午餐和早餐计划的营养标准,使其符合循证指南。2017年和2020年,美国农业部提议对牛奶、全谷物和钠的营养标准进行灵活调整。目的:本研究考察了利益相关者在支持或反对拟议规则时所使用的立场。方法:我们对2017年和2020年针对美国农业部拟议规则发布在美国联邦公报上的公众评论进行了纵向定性内容分析。分析个人和组织提交的所有公众意见(n = 7323, 2017年和n = 2513, 2020年)。结果:结果显示了三类论点:(1)支持原始法律的评论,(2)支持灵活性的评论,以及(3)其他。在两个评论期间,选民反对实施灵活性,而学校和制造商/行业主要支持他们。学术和倡导组织反对最初提出的改变(2017年),但在2020年放松了立场。结论:学校膳食营养标准的任何灵活性都有可能影响青少年的健康轨迹。必须了解利益相关者如何看待这一问题并为政策变化提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrients
Nutrients NUTRITION & DIETETICS-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
15.30%
发文量
4599
审稿时长
16.74 days
期刊介绍: Nutrients (ISSN 2072-6643) is an international, peer-reviewed open access advanced forum for studies related to Human Nutrition. It publishes reviews, regular research papers and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced.
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Inflexibility and Eating Disorders According to the Theory of Control by Justifications and Immediate Consequences (TJC). Standardized Berry Extract Improves Selected Visual Function Outcomes in Presbyopia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial with Exploratory Biomarker Analysis. Epicardial and Visceral Adipose Tissue and Global Longitudinal Strain: A Review of Cardiac Imaging Insights in Subclinical Myocardial Dysfunction. From Phytochemical Characterization to Energy Metabolism-Driven Molecular Responses: The Anticancer Potential of Lactarius deliciosus (L.) Gray in Breast Cancer Cells. Tooth Loss, Denture Use, and Risk of Malnutrition in Older Adults in Poland: Evidence from the National PolSenior2 Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1