Do Environmental Interventions Impact Elementary School Students' Lunchtime Milk Selection?

Abstract

This research examines whether environmentally based intervention strategies increase elementary students' selection of white milk. At intervention school one, white milk was easily accessible, but students had to ask for chocolate milk. As an outcome, students increased their selection of white milk compared to control school students (p≤0.001). At intervention school two, the visual cue of a threefold greater quantity of white compared to chocolate milk did not significantly alter selection patterns. This research indicates that requiring students to ask for an item rather than self-serve can help modify food selections and serve as a tool for obesity prevention. AbstractThis research examines whether environmentally based intervention strategies increase elementary students' selection of white milk. At intervention school one, white milk was easily accessible, but students had to ask for chocolate milk. As an outcome, students increased their selection of white milk compared to control school students (p≤0.001). At intervention school two, the visual cue of a threefold greater quantity of white compared to chocolate milk did not significantly alter selection patterns. This research indicates that requiring students to ask for an item rather than self-serve can help modify food selections and serve as a tool for obesity prevention.

Determinants of how individuals choose, eat and waste: Providing common ground to enhance sustainable food consumption out‐of‐home

“…Following the assumptions on order and isolation effects, a different possibility for increasing the choice of specific food options has been the manipulation of defaults in a menu. For school children, the creation of white milk as a default option—in contrast to the ineffective ban of chocolate milk discussed in Subsection 3.1.1—was effective in increasing its choice compared to chocolate milk significantly without increasing leftovers (Goto, Waite, Wolff, Chan, & Giovanni, ). The effectiveness of a default for influencing food consumption nevertheless seems to decrease when options become too different with respect to their attractiveness since Wansink and Just () found that apple slices as default option for a kids fast‐food menu were mainly levered out from children's strong preferences for the other option, French fries and the resulting active choice against the default.…”

A Systematic Review to Assess Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Interventions for Children and Adolescents across the Socioecological Model

“…About half of the 55 studies were randomized controlled trials 46,49–55,57–63,65–71,73–75,77–80, 83–85, 96–98, 109–110, 112–118, 121–124, 127–129, 133 (29; 53%). The remaining studies utilized quasi-experimental designs, with either a two-group 64,76,86–90,104,106,111,119–120,125,130–132 (11; 20%), or one-group pretest-posttest 47–48,56,72,81–82,91–95,99–103,105,107–108,126 (15; 27%) design.…”

“…Additional settings included home 66–67,109,112–113 (4; 7%), clinic 47–48,56,65,68–69,73–75,77–79 (7; 13%), and community-based organizations 81–85,103 (5; 9%). Twenty of 55 (36%) studies identified SSB as their sole focus 56, 62–64, 70–72, 84–85, 90, 96, 98–99, 105–106, 109, 112–113, 120–125, 133 . Of the 55 studies, a third (19; 35%) were conducted internationally 46, 49–54, 57–60, 62–64, 77–80, 100, 106, 109–110, 115–124, 127–129, 133 .…”

“…Of these, 15 (79%) were conducted in countries similar in economic development to the U.S. 46,49–54, 57–60,62–64,77–79,106,115–124,127–129,133 . Twenty-two reported using a behavioral theory during development (40%) 46–54, 57–61, 64–68, 77–79, 82–83, 96–98, 110, 114–118, 121–124, 127–129, 133 . Finally, 21 (38%) reported focusing their programs or policies toward one or more at-risk groups: those of low socioeconomic status 54,108,120–124,133 (5; 9%), racial and/or ethnic minorities 47 (1; 2%), those who are overweight or obese 55,65,68,73–75,77–79,109,112,113 (8; 15%), those living in rural areas 56,72,98 (3; 5%), or multiple at-risk groups 66–67,81,84–85 (4; 19%).…”

Chocolate Milk Consequences: A Pilot Study Evaluating the Consequences of Banning Chocolate Milk in School Cafeterias

“…In response, many school districts have begun to limit or ban the sale of chocolate milk in hopes of reducing students' total caloric and sugar intake. [1] In contrast, the predominant view of nutrition and medical researchers is that milk has nutrients essential for bone growth and development, [2,3,4,5,6] leading other school districts to take the position that any milk is better than no milk. [7,8,9] What is not known, however, is whether or not changing the availability of chocolate milk would influence other behaviors such as within-meal compensation [10] or after-school snacking patterns.…”