Premium
Variation in Nutritional Quality of School Lunches with Implementation of National School Lunch Program Guidelines
Author(s) -
Joyce Jillian,
Rosenkranz Sara
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.787.1
Subject(s) - medicine , meal , micronutrient , environmental health , calorie , food group , reimbursement , serving size , health care , pathology , economic growth , economics , endocrinology
BACKGROUND In order to receive reimbursement, schools must meet nutrition standards that are based on the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) are improving, however they leave open the possibility for significant variation in overall nutrition. OBJECTIVE Thus, the objective of this study was to determine whether there are significant differences in nutrient content and nutritional quality between a typical school lunch menu (TM) and a nutritionally focused school lunch menu (NFM). METHODS Using a cross‐sectional content analysis, we compared a typical school lunch menu (TM) from an actual school district to a nutritionally focused school lunch menu (NFM) created by a Registered Dietitian with the goal of optimizing nutrition regardless of feasibility. The NFM was based on best practices from the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and recommendations for a healthy meal pattern from the 2015 DGA. Menus were chosen from the fall season and portioned for analysis for the sixth to eighth grade NSLP requirements. Daily nutrient content of all macro‐ and micronutrients was determined for each portioned menu system using Nutritionist Pro ™ Diet Analysis Software. Nutritional quality was computed for each day of each menu system using the Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI). Independent t‐tests of mean differences were used to determine differences between menu conditions for macro‐ and micronutrient content as well as HEI scores. RESULTS For NSLP nutrients required for analysis, the NFM were lower in calories (mean±SD, NFM=637.6±31.1kcals, TM=733.7±154.3kcals, p=0.001), saturated fat (NFM=6.6±3.1g, TM=11.3±6.0g, p<0.001), and sodium (NFM=562.8±139.6mg, TM=1223.1±519.6mg, p<0.001) and higher in fiber (NFM=16.0±11.7, TM=7.4±2.8g, p<0.001). For other nutrients of concern, the NFM were lower in total fat (NFM=18.4±5.6g, TM=26.9±14.0g, p=0.003) and higher for vitamin A (NFM=6674.7±6867.8IU, TM=2305.9±2236.8IU, p<0.001) and magnesium (NFM=154.4±32.2mg, TM=100.8±24.7mg, p<0.001). The NFM had higher overall nutritional quality according to the HEI scores (NFM=91.8±5.1, TM=75.1±5.8, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Based on the significant differences in nutrient content and overall nutritional quality, it is possible for significant variation in nutrition provided by school lunches meeting NSLP requirements. Using best practices from the CACFP and recommendations for a healthy meal pattern from the 2015 DGA may have a significant impact on the overall dietary quality of school lunches meeting NSLP requirements.