Premium
The case for school lunch: comparison of diet quality among National School Lunch Program Participants vs. Income‐Eligible Non‐Participants
Author(s) -
Vernarelli Jacqueline A
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.314.5
Subject(s) - environmental health , national health and nutrition examination survey , medicine , socioeconomic status , saturated fat , meal , obesity , supplemental nutrition assistance program , childhood obesity , household income , gerontology , food insecurity , geography , population , overweight , agriculture , food security , archaeology , pathology , cholesterol
Childhood obesity is an ongoing public health program. As such, a major public health research objective is to examine nutritional intake among US children as a strategy of identifying potential targets for intervention; one such area is school lunches (SL). The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) serves over 31 million children each day; the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) can comprehensively capture nutritional intake and diet quality among non‐institutionalized US residents, including federal nutrition assistance program participants. The objective of the study was to investigate whether lunches provided by schools provide different nutritional value than lunches obtained elsewhere; and, to compare nutrient intakes, food choices, and the diet quality of NSLP program free and reduced price lunch participants with those of income‐eligible nonparticipants and higher income individuals. In a nationally representative sample of 2,190 children in the 2011–2012 NHANES, consumption of a school‐provided lunch (SL) was associated with greater nutritional quality compared to lunches obtained elsewhere across both age and income categories; in children 4–8 and 9–13y, SL consumers reported 25% less energy, as well as significantly lower meal energy density, fewer carbohydrates, less total and saturated fat, as well as less sodium and added sugars than non‐consumers. When examining intake by socioeconomic status, children who were eligible for no‐cost school lunch, but did not participate in the NSLP consumed approximately 60% more energy, 58% more total fat, 60% more saturated fat, 50% more solid fat, 61% more sodium, double the amount of added sugars and less than half the amount of fruit than NSLP participants (all p<0.001). The results of this study suggest that though widely criticized, school lunches provide superior nutritional quality than lunches obtained from other sources, particularly for low‐income children.Nutritional Intake of Students Consuming School‐Provided Lunch (SL) vs. Lunch Obtained Elsewhere (Other lunch) by Age GroupNutritional Intake of Students Consuming Free School‐Provided Lunch (SL) vs. Lunch Obtained Elsewhere In Low Income Children (Comparing Free Lunch Program Participants and Income‐Eligible Non‐Participants)