New policies that eliminate sugary beverages and junk foods from schools may help slow childhood obesity, but the effects of such policies are unclear, according to a study in Health Affairs that compared BMI trends in California in the years preceding the enactment of such legislation with the years following enactment.
Between 2003 and 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 677, SB 965 and SB 12 into law, a set of statewide policies to eliminate sodas and other highly sweetened beverages and restrict the sale of junk foods in all of California's public schools. Although many other states subsequently enacted similar standards, potential effects on childhood obesity were uncertain.
Researchers used eight years of body mass index (BMI) data from fifth and seventh grade students collected as part of California's annual Physical Fitnessgram testing.
The data show that before the policies took effect, the rate of overweight students was increasing among all groups in the study (girls and boys in fifth and seventh grades). However, in the three year period after the policies became effective, the increase in the number of overweight children was significantly reduced among fifth-grade boys and seventh-grade students of both sexes throughout California. The pre- and post-policy trends in overweight were not significantly different among fifth-grade girls.
The researchers also looked at children in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) separately, because the district passed slightly stricter, but otherwise similar policies in their district the year before the passage of California's SB 677.
Prior to the implementation of the policy there was an upward trend of overweight fifth and seventh-grade students in the Los Angeles area. When the researchers compared these trends in the period after the new policies were implemented, they found that the increasing trend in the number of overweight fifth-grade students in the Los Angeles significantly slowed. There were no significant changes among seventh-grade students in Los Angeles.
"Although policymakers cannot directly influence student behavior, our study shows that governmental policies can help define the environment in which children learn to make food choices and thus shape the food behaviors, influencing overweight trends in entire student populations," lead author Emma V. Sanchez-Vaznaugh said. She also cautions that there is still a lot to do to stem obesity in California's public schools.
She cites school campus proximity -- particularly in poorer neighborhoods -- to stores selling unhealthful foods and beverages that stand in opposition to nutritional objectives set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Limited resources and budget cuts hamper schools from offering both healthful, good-tasting alternatives and physical education programs. "Only about 40 percent of children in our study were considered physically fit," Sanchez-Vaznaugh said.
Citation: Sanchez-Vaznaugh et al., 'Competitive' Food And Beverage Policies: Are They Influencing Childhood Overweight Trends?', Health Affairs, March 2010, 29(3): 436; doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0745
Comments
How about educating the kids about healthy living? That would make more sense, since they can always get junk food from one place or another.
Ed (not verified) | 03/03/10 | 19:32 PM
How about educating the kids about healthy living?
Unfortunately regardless of what most people think, education is insufficient to achieve such an objective. Every time there is some social situation, the solution is always "education", as if people just don't understand.
Is there anyone that truly doesn't understand that eating sweets and fatty foods will make you gain weight? Does anyone truly not understand that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy and STD's? Does anyone not understand that hard drugs like cocaine and heroin can lead to addictions?
Are these problems truly the result of an inadequate education?
In many cases, it is also necessary to avoid temptations for which the business community also needs to step up and take responsibility. Just as cigarettes are unhealthy, we cannot simply turn a blind eye to fast food and unhealthy foods, simply because there's a large profit being made. We make drugs illegal because we recognize that having them available would create more problems than it may solve, so it can hardly be argued that we never deny people what they may desire (regardless of the economic potential). Therefore, it is foolish to argue that somehow we should expect people to behave more sensibly simply because we "educate" them. If we don't want kids to eat unhealthy foods, then perhaps we need to do the same things we do to ensure that they don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Let those choices be made by independent adults and not by corporations that think it is fine to market to 8 year olds.
Gerhard Adam | 03/03/10 | 20:56 PM
If we don't want kids to eat unhealthy foods, then perhaps we need to do the same things we do to ensure that they don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Let those choices be made by independent adults and not by corporations that think it is fine to market to 8 year olds.
Like what? Prohibit the sale of twinkies to minors? And what prevents parents from controlling what their children eat right now?
Cameron J English | 03/04/10 | 14:53 PM
Gerhard Adam | 03/04/10 | 14:54 PM
Parents can't control all aspects of childhood thinking and never could - the siren call of temptation. But we don't let schools sell guns and rely on parents to keep them from being bought and that should go for junk food and porn on primetime television.
Hank Campbell | 03/04/10 | 15:24 PM
The same thing that prevents parents from controlling their kids drinking, smoking, and doing drugs.
That would be?
Cameron J English | 03/04/10 | 15:56 PM
So, society can't claim that it has unbridled freedom and hasn't elected to use the law to control substances and the access that various segments have. Similarly, simply being an adult doesn't grant unrestrained access in some cases.
It seems amazing that when it comes to access by kids that suddenly we should be balking as if some fundamental right is being violated. It has already been established that kids do not arbitrarily enjoy the same rights as adults because they don't have the corresponding responsibility nor legal authority to consent. In addition, there are many aspects of schools acting "in loco parentis" which places a responsibility on their behavior.
Therefore the only question that remains, is on what basis has the school been absolved of their responsibility towards kids? If the argument is that kids are entitled to twinkies because they like them, well .... sorry but that has no legal basis in fact. In truth, if we can make the argument that schools have a responsibility to ensure that their food is healthy from the perspective of mold, spoilage, etc. We can easily extend that argument that the need to provide a standard healthy meal is also part of their responsibility since it cannot be argued that twinkies are a part of any nutritional requirements. While we can't require the school to actively promote a healthier lifestyle, we can certainly ensure that the school isn't in a position to undermine such an effort by the parents.
Gerhard Adam | 03/04/10 | 17:13 PM
Stop slandering the Twinkie! If kids ate 50 Twinkies a day, they would get 100% of their daily recommended calcium and iron intake.
Adam (not verified) | 03/04/10 | 17:58 PM
http://cchronicle.com/2010/02/msg-by-any-other-name/
http://cchronicle.com/2010/02/msg-by-any-other-name-part-ii/
Please do your part to educate yourselves about the ingredients in our food and then read labels before buying or eating food that contains these poisons.