| Literature DB >> 30591040 |
Carolina Pérez-Ferrer1, Tonatiuh Barrientos-Gutierrez1, Juan A Rivera-Dommarco2, Francisco Javier Prado-Galbarro1, Alejandra Jiménez-Aguilar3, Carmen Morales-Ruán3, Teresa Shamah-Levy4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mexico approved mandatory nutrient-based standards for foods sold in schools in 2011. The aim of this study was to analyse the association between compliance with nutrition standards for foods sold in schools and children's school snacks.Entities:
Keywords: Mexico; Nutrient-based standards; Obesity; Policy; Schools
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30591040 PMCID: PMC6307217 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6330-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Nutrition criteria according to each stage of the standards
| Food categories | No. | Description | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prepared (fried and non-fried) foods | 1 | Portion per package | 1 | 1 | NAa |
| 2 | Portion (kcal) | ≤180 | ≤180 | NA | |
| 3 | Proteins (% of calories) | ≥10 (4.5 g) | ≥10 (4.5 g) | NA | |
| 4 | Total fats (% of calories) | ≤35 | ≤30 | NA | |
| 5 | Saturated fats (%of calories) | ≤15 | ≤10 | NA | |
| 6 | Trans-fatty acids (g/portion) | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | NA | |
| 7 | Sodium (mg/portion) | ≤230 | ≤220 | NA | |
| Milk | 1 | Portion per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (ml) | ≤250 | ≤250 | ≤250 | |
| 3 | Calories per 100 g | ≤50 | ≤50 | ≤50 | |
| 4 | Total fats (g/100 g) | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | |
| Solid yogurt | 1 | Portion per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (g) | ≤150 | ≤150 | ≤150 | |
| 3 | Total fats (g/100 g) | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | |
| 4 | Total sugars (%) | NA | NA | ≤30 | |
| Drinkable yogurt and fermented dairy products | 1 | Portion per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (g) | ≤250 | ≤200 | ≤200 | |
| 3 | Total fats (g/100 g) | ≤1.6 | ≤1.4 | ≤1.4 | |
| 4 | Total sugars (%) | NA | NA | ≤30 | |
| Fruit juices and vegetable juices | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (ml) | ≤200 | ≤125 | ≤125 | |
| 3 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤110 | ≤70 | ≤70 | |
| Sweetened fruit juices | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (ml) | ≤200 | ≤125 | ≤125 | |
| 3 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤110 | ≤70 | ≤70 | |
| Soy-based beverages | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Portion (ml) | ≤200 | ≤125 | ≤125 | |
| 3 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤60 | ≤40 | ≤40 | |
| 4 | Sodium (mg/100 ml) | ≤110 | ≤105 | ≤105 | |
| 5 | Total fats (g/100 ml) | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | ≤2.5 | |
| 6 | Saturated fats (%) | ≤21% of total fats | ≤21% of total fats | ≤21% of total fats | |
| Snacks | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤130 | ≤130 | ≤130 | |
| 3 | Total fats (% of calories) | ≤40 | ≤35 | ≤35 | |
| 4 | Saturated fats (%of calories) | ≤25 | ≤15 | ≤15 | |
| 5 | Trans-fatty acids (g/portion) | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | |
| 6 | Sodium (mg/portion) | ≤200 | ≤180 | ≤180 | |
| 7 | Total sugars (% of calories) | NA | NA | ≤10 | |
| Cookies, snack cakes, candies and desertes | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤130 | ≤130 | ≤130 | |
| 3 | Total fats (% of calories) | ≤40 | ≤35 | ≤35 | |
| 4 | Saturated fats (%of calories) | ≤20 | ≤15 | ≤15 | |
| 5 | Trans-fatty acids (g/portion) | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | |
| 6 | Sodium (mg/portion) | ≤200 | ≤180 | ≤180 | |
| 7 | Total sugars (% of calories) | NA | NA | ≤20 | |
| Nuts and dry legumes | 1 | Portions per package | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Calories per portion (kcal) | ≤130 | ≤130 | ≤130 | |
| 3 | Saturated fats (%of calories) | ≤25 | ≤15 | ≤15 | |
| 4 | Trans-fatty acids (g/portion) | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | ≤0.5 | |
| 5 | Sodium (mg/portion) | ≤200 | ≤180 | ≤180 | |
| 6 | Total sugars (% of calories | NA | NA | ≤10 |
aPrepared foods (foods that are prepared from fresh ingredients in the school, for example sandwiches and tacos) are discouraged in stage 4 of the standards
Fig. 1Sample selection procedures and response rates for each implementation stage data collection. *In stages 2 and 4 school level information was obtained from a larger sample of schools (N = 122 and N = 110 respectively). Only in a subsample of those were children observed. This diagram describes the sampling process starting from said subsample. Ɨ Funds for this stage allowed for a larger number of schools to be sampled following the same procedures as stages 2 and 4
Descriptive characteristics of the children who participated in the study
| Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 123 | 357 | 165 | 645 |
| Age (mean, sd) | 11.0 (1.0) | 9.9 (1.3) | 9.7 (1.2) | 10.1 (1.3) |
| Girls, N(%) | 69 (56.1) | 188 (52.7) | 88 (53.3) | 345 (53.5) |
| Grade, N (%) | ||||
| 3rd | 1 (0.8) | 86 (24.1) | 52 (31.5) | 138 (21.4) |
| 4th | 44 (35.8) | 112 (31.4) | 46 (27.9) | 202 (31.3) |
| 5th | 45 (36.6) | 85 (23.8) | 35 (21.2) | 165 (25.6) |
| 6th | 33 (26.8) | 74 (20.7) | 32 (19.4) | 139 (21.6) |
| Shift, N(%) | ||||
| Morning | 95 (77.2) | 245 (68.6) | 128 (77.6) | 468 (72.6) |
| Afternoon | 28 (22.8) | 112 (31.4) | 37 (22.4) | 177 (27.4) |
| Healthy snack | 19 (15.5) | 62 (17.4) | 36 (21.8) | 117 (18.1) |
| Snack origin N(%) | ||||
| Home | 56 (45.5) | 135 (37.8) | 69 (41.8) | 260 (40.3) |
| School | 51 (41.5) | 109 (30.5) | 57 (34.6) | 217 (33.6) |
| Home and school | 16 (13.0) | 113 (31.7) | 39 (23.6) | 168 (26.1) |
Odds ratio (95% CI) of a healthy snack for a 10% increase in school compliance with standards, stratified by snack origin (n = 477)
| Unadjusted model | Adjusted modela | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | Effect mod. p b | OR (95%CI) | Effect mod. p b | |
| Snack from home | 0.97 (0.77,1.22) | 0.10 | 1.01 (0.81,1.26) | 0.05 |
| Snack from school | 1.21 (1.02,1.44) | 1.32 (1.09,1.61) | ||
aAdjusted for time, sex, grade, shift, free drinking water, area level education and area level extreme poverty b For the null hypothesis that the association between school compliance to standards and healthy snack is the same regardless of whether the snack was brought from home or purchased in school
Odds ratio of consumption of a healthy snack for a one period increase in time stratified by change in compliance to the standards (n = 154)
| Unadjusted model | Adjusted modela | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | Effect mod. pb | OR (95%CI) | Effect mod. pb | |
| Compliance decreases | 0.77 (0.37,1.62) | 0.2579 | 0.57 (0.19,1.70) | 0.006 |
| Compliance stable | 0.63 (0.32,1.22) | 0.58 (0.25,1.37) | ||
| Compliance increases | 2.33 (0.91,5.98) | 3.89 (1.47,10.31) | ||
aAdjustments: sex, grade, shift, area level extreme poverty, area level education and free drinking water. bFor the null hypothesis that the odds of a healthy snack over time is the same regardless of whether school’s compliance with the standards increases, is stable or decreases