State Regulations to Support Children’s Cultural and Religious Food Preferences in Early Care and Education

Abstract

Objective In July 2018 the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics released a benchmark encouraging early care and education (ECE) programs, including child care centers and family child care homes, to incorporate cultural and religious food preferences of children into meals. We examined the extent to which states were already doing so through their ECE licensing and administrative regulations prior to the release of the benchmark. This review may serve as a baseline to assess future updates, if more states incorporate the benchmark into their regulations. Methods For this cross-sectional study, we reviewed ECE regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (hereafter states) through June 2018. We assessed consistency with the benchmark for centers and homes. We conducted Spearman correlations to estimate associations between the year the regulations were updated and consistency with the benchmark. Results Among centers, eight states fully met the benchmark, 11 partially met the benchmark, and 32 did not meet the benchmark. Similarly for homes, four states fully met the benchmark, 13 partially met the benchmark, and 34 did not meet the benchmark. Meeting the benchmark was not correlated with the year of last update for centers (P = 0.54) or homes (P = 0.31). Conclusions Most states lacked regulations consistent with the benchmark. Health professionals can help encourage ECE programs to consider cultural and religious food preferences of children in meal planning. And, if feasible, states may consider additional regulations supporting cultural and religious preferences of children in future updates to regulations.

US state variations in food bank donation policy and implications for nutrition

“…We identified 252 state policies, 68 (27.0%) of which were regulations and 184 (73.0%) of which were statutes and legislation. We then sorted identified policies into 10 categories based on existing literature and themes that emerged in the policy review ( Benjamin-Neelon et al, 2017 , Ayers Looby et al, 2020 , Gonzalez-Nahm et al, 2017 ): liability protection, tax incentive, donation of certain food(s) that would not otherwise be eligible, donation via schools, grant program or fund, government programs, food safety, date labeling, waste diversion, and game donation. Categories were not mutually exclusive, and eleven policies fit into more than one category.…”

“…Next, because of their background in and familiarity with food policy and a priori knowledge of certain policy categories, reviewers conducted targeted online searches for specific policies not identified via the Boolean search string. Finally, we reviewed each policy and assessed whether the policy directly or indirectly promoted the donation of nutrient-rich foods, consistent with our approach in prior policy reviews ( Benjamin-Neelon et al, 2017 , Ayers Looby et al, 2020 , Gonzalez-Nahm et al, 2017 ). The Institutional Review Board at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health determined this study to be non-human subjects research and deemed it exempt from review.…”

Obesity Prevention within the Early Childhood Education and Care Setting: A Systematic Review of Dietary Behavior and Physical Activity Policies and Guidelines in High Income Countries

“…Additionally, there were few recommendations around tailoring dietary behavior and physical activity opportunities to be more culturally appropriate. Given the broad reach and diversity of children attending such settings, future guidelines should consider the inclusion of culturally competent guidance, as cultural and religious preferences are increasingly acknowledged as an important mediator for child access, acceptability and preferences for certain health behaviors known to influence child health outcomes [ 83 ].…”

Childcare Food Provision Recommendations Vary across Australia: Jurisdictional Comparison and Nutrition Expert Perspectives

“…Other studies have compared childcare food provision or menus to jurisdictional or national guidelines [ 18 , 21 , 24 , 52 , 53 ], and one US study compared state regulations with national standards but focussed more on menu documentation than food quality [ 54 ]. Further related examples are a US study which collectively considered jurisdictional guidelines compared with a national benchmark on cultural and religious food incorporation [ 55 ] and another which compared US jurisdictional infant feeding regulations [ 56 ]. However, no other studies in Australia or elsewhere are known to have compared food provision quantity guidelines with each other or to have assessed alignment of childhood nutrition expert opinions with those guidelines.…”