BACKGROUND: It is often assumed that children avoid fruit in school cafeterias because of higher relative prices and preferences for other foods. Interviews with children reveal that eating whole fresh fruit can be difficult for those with small mouths or braces. Older girls find whole fruits messy and unattractive to eat. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of offering pre-sliced fruit in schools on selection and intake. DESIGN: Three of six schools were assigned randomly to serve apples in slices. Three control schools served apples whole. Selection, consumption, and waste of apples were measured prior to and during treatment. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cafeterias in six public middle schools in Wayne County NY in 2011. Participants included all students who purchased lunch on days when data were collected. INTERVENTION: Treatment schools were provided with a standard commercial fruit slicer, and cafeteria staff members were instructed to use it when students requested apples. Trained researchers recorded how much of each apple was consumed and how much was wasted in both control and treatment schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily apple sales, percentage of an apple serving consumed per student, and percentage of an apple serving wasted per student. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2012. Schools that used fruit slicers to pre-slice fruit increased average daily apple sales by 71% compared to control schools (p<0.01). The percentage of students who selected apples and ate more than half increased by 73% (p=0.02) at schools that served pre-sliced fruit, and the percentage that wasted half or more decreased by 48% (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Sliced fruit is more appealing to children than whole fruit because it is easier and tidier to eat. This study applies the principle of convenience from behavioral economics and provides an example of a scalable, low-cost environmental change that promotes healthy eating and decreases waste.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is often assumed that children avoid fruit in school cafeterias because of higher relative prices and preferences for other foods. Interviews with children reveal that eating whole fresh fruit can be difficult for those with small mouths or braces. Older girls find whole fruits messy and unattractive to eat. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of offering pre-sliced fruit in schools on selection and intake. DESIGN: Three of six schools were assigned randomly to serve apples in slices. Three control schools served apples whole. Selection, consumption, and waste of apples were measured prior to and during treatment. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Cafeterias in six public middle schools in Wayne County NY in 2011. Participants included all students who purchased lunch on days when data were collected. INTERVENTION: Treatment schools were provided with a standard commercial fruit slicer, and cafeteria staff members were instructed to use it when students requested apples. Trained researchers recorded how much of each apple was consumed and how much was wasted in both control and treatment schools. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily apple sales, percentage of an apple serving consumed per student, and percentage of an apple serving wasted per student. RESULTS: Data were analyzed in 2012. Schools that used fruit slicers to pre-slice fruit increased average daily apple sales by 71% compared to control schools (p<0.01). The percentage of students who selected apples and ate more than half increased by 73% (p=0.02) at schools that served pre-sliced fruit, and the percentage that wasted half or more decreased by 48% (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Sliced fruit is more appealing to children than whole fruit because it is easier and tidier to eat. This study applies the principle of convenience from behavioral economics and provides an example of a scalable, low-cost environmental change that promotes healthy eating and decreases waste.
Authors: Michael W Beets; R Glenn Weaver; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Jennifer Huberty; Dianne S Ward; Russell R Pate; Darcy Freedman; Brent Hutto; Justin B Moore; Matteo Bottai; Jessica Chandler; Keith Brazendale; Aaron Beighle Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Leah Frerichs; Jeri Brittin; Dina Sorensen; Matthew J Trowbridge; Amy L Yaroch; Mohammad Siahpush; Melissa Tibbits; Terry T-K Huang Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Helena H Laroche; Christopher Ford; Kate Hansen; Xueya Cai; David R Just; Andrew S Hanks; Brian Wansink Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Michael W Beets; R Glenn Weaver; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; Jennifer Huberty; Dianne S Ward; Darcy A Freedman; Ruth Saunders; Russell R Pate; Aaron Beighle; Brent Hutto; Justin B Moore Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 2.226