The development and adoption of the first statewide comprehensive policy on food service guidelines (Washington State Executive Order 13-06) for improving the health and productivity of state employees and institutionalized populations

Rice, Lauren; Benson, Christine; Podrabsky, Mary; Otten, Jennifer J.

doi:10.1093/tbm/ibx069

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research of barriers to FSG policy adoption at the state level identified prioritization of other policies, perceived high cost of implementation, perceived difficulty with compliance, and initial lack of support and collaboration between stakeholders. 35 Further research may help to elucidate barriers and facilitators to FSG policy development at the local level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Service Guideline Policies on Local Government–Controlled Properties

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Local governments can implement food service guideline (FSG) policies, which, in large cities, may reach millions of people. This study identified FSG policies among the 20 largest US cities and analyzed them for key FSG policy attributes. Design: Quantitative research. Setting: Local government facilities. Participants: Twenty largest US cities. Measures: Frequency of FSG policies and percent alignment to tool. Analysis: Using municipal legal code libraries and other data sources, FSG policies enacted as of December 31, 2016, were identified. Full-text reviews were conducted of identified policies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. Included policies were analyzed for key policy attributes specific to nutrition, behavioral design, implementation, and facility efficiency. Results: Searches identified 469 potential FSG policies, of which 6 policies across 5 cities met inclusion criteria. Five policies met a majority of criteria assessed by the classification tool. Overall alignment to the tool ranged from 17% to 88%. Of the 6 policies, 5 met a majority of the nutrition attributes and 5 met at least 50% of attributes associated with implementation. No policies met the attributes associated with facility efficiency. Conclusion: The FSG policies were identified in 5 of the 20 US cities. Policy alignment was high for nutrition and implementation attributes. This analysis suggests that when cities adopt FSG policies, many develop policies that align with key policy attributes. These policies can serve as models for other jurisdictions to create healthier food access through FSGs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Service Guideline Policies on Local Government–Controlled Properties

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 Similarly, in 2013, Washington passed its first statewide FSG policy (Executive Order 13-06) which sought to improve the health and productivity of its workforce and increase healthy food options in stategovernment facilities for ∼75 000 employees. 15 As state-and local-level FSG policies continue to evolve, it is important that researchers evaluate how well they align to national nutrition recommendations and promote population health over time. In a previous study, authors examined the attributes of state FSG policies adopted 2007-2014.…”

Section: Use Of Policy Interventions To Promote Healthy Food Environm...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Use Of Policy Interventions To Promote Healthy Food Environm...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing Healthy Food Service in the United States: State Food Service Guidelines Policy Adoption and Implementation Supports, 2015-2019

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Food service guidelines (FSG) policies can impact the nutritional quality of millions of meals sold or served to government employees, citizens in public places, or institutionalized persons. This study examines state FSG policies adopted January 1, 2015 to April 1, 2019, and uses a FSG Classification Tool (FSG Tool) to quantify alignment with nutrition recommendations for public health impact. Design Quantitative Content Analysis Setting State Government Worksites and Facilities Participants 50 states and District of Columbia (D.C.) in the United States. Measures Frequency of policies and percent alignment to FSG tool. Analysis FSG policies were identified using legal databases to assess state statutes, regulations, and executive orders. Content analysis and coding determined attributes of policies across 4 FSG Tool domains, (1) nutrition standards referenced; (2) behavioral design strategies encouraging selection of healthier offerings; (3) facility efficiency and environmental sustainability; and (4) FSG implementation supports. Results From 2015-2019, 5 FSG policies met study inclusion criteria. Four out of 5 policies earned a perfect nutrition score (100%) by referencing nutrition standards that align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and are operationalized for use in food service venues. Four out of 5 policies included at least 1 implementation supports provision, such as naming an implementing agency, and 2 included provisions that encourage local food sourcing. Conclusion From 2015-2019, overall FSG policy comprehensiveness scores ranged from 24% to 73%, with most policies referencing food and nutrition standards that align to national nutrition recommendations. Public health practitioners can educate decision makers on the potential impact of FSG policies on diet-related health outcomes and associated cost savings, as well as other important co-benefits that support locally grown products and environmental sustainability practices.

show abstract

“…Implementing policies in food environments can influence the characteristics of food and drinks sold within retail outlets such as nutritional quality, availability, and affordability, but also product promotion, placement and point-of-sale nutrition information [ 15 ]. Due to the availability of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods (i.e., unhealthy food products) in many retail food outlets in government-controlled settings, there is a need for large-scale food environment policy interventions that can have an impact on the population [ 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Schools have received much attention as an intervention setting, being a relatively closed environment where children consume a significant part of their daily food intake.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Food Environment Policies at Scale: What Helps? What Hinders? A Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers

Nguyen

Cranney

Bellew

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Policies that support healthier food environments, including healthy retail food availability and promotion, are an important strategy for obesity prevention. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence for barriers and enablers to successful implementation of healthy food and drink policies, delivered at scale. Methods: MEDLINE, SCOPUS and INFORMIT were searched to May 2019 for peer-reviewed studies. Google and Google Scholar were searched for grey literature. Studies of any design relating to a healthy food and drink policy delivered at scale (≥10 sites) in non-commercial food settings, for specific retail outlets (e.g., vending machines, cafes, cafeterias, school canteens), and that reported on implementation barriers and/or enablers were included. Studies in commercial food retail environments (e.g., supermarkets) were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality and key information was extracted and summarised. Extracted information on barriers and enablers was further grouped into overarching themes relating to perceptions of the policy itself, organisational and contextual factors influencing policy implementation, stakeholder responses to the implemented policy and perceived policy impacts. Results: Of 19 studies, 16 related to policies implemented in schools, two in hospital/health facilities and one in a sport/recreation setting. Most studies were conducted in North America or Australia, and policy implementation occurred mainly at state/regional or federal levels. The most commonly cited barriers across overarching themes and intervention settings were: lack of stakeholder engagement or prioritisation of the policy (11 studies); resistance to change from school stakeholders or customers (8 studies); and concern over profitability, revenue and/or commercial viability (8 studies). Few studies reported on mitigation of barriers. Enablers most commonly raised were: stakeholder engagement, whole-school approach and/or prioritisation of the policy (9 studies); policy level or higher-level support in the form of information, guidance and/or training (5 studies); and leadership, school/policy champion, management commitment and/or organisational capacity (4 studies). Conclusions: Key considerations for policy implementation ranged from building stakeholder support, prioritising policy implementation within organisations, to implementing strategies that address financial concerns and implementation barriers.

show abstract

The development and adoption of the first statewide comprehensive policy on food service guidelines (Washington State Executive Order 13-06) for improving the health and productivity of state employees and institutionalized populations

Cited by 8 publications

References 12 publications

Food Service Guideline Policies on Local Government–Controlled Properties

Food Service Guideline Policies on Local Government–Controlled Properties

Advancing Healthy Food Service in the United States: State Food Service Guidelines Policy Adoption and Implementation Supports, 2015-2019

Implementing Food Environment Policies at Scale: What Helps? What Hinders? A Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About