| Literature DB >> 30925763 |
Anne D Lassen1, Lene M Christensen2, Max P Spooner3, Ellen Trolle4.
Abstract
Policy actions to improve the nutritional environment include the provision of official food service guidelines. This study aimed to examine compliance with food service guidelines for hot meals as well as self-evaluated focus on food waste reduction across settings, i.e., elementary schools, upper secondary schools and workplaces, and different canteen characteristics. The same five criteria for hot meals were applied for all settings with regard to serving of fruit and vegetables, fish, wholegrain product and high fat meat and dairy products. A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted as a cross-sectional study among 680 Danish canteens. Canteens having a high degree of organic food procurement were more likely to comply with the five criteria for hot meals combined (OR 2.00 (Cl 1.13,3.53)). Also, the use of organic food together with having a meal policy was associated with reported focus on food waste reduction (OR 1.91 (CI 1.12,3.25) and 1.84 (Cl 1.31,2.59), respectively). Compliance with individual criteria varied across settings with elementary schools being more likely to comply with criteria on, e.g., maximum serving of non-wholegrain products, whereas workplaces were more likely to comply with criteria on, e.g., minimum fruit and vegetable content and serving of fish. In addition, specific characteristics, e.g., serving system, were found to predict compliance with some of the criteria. These findings highlight the need to address differences in canteen characteristics when planning implementation support for both guideline and food waste reduction initiatives.Entities:
Keywords: UN Sustainable Development Goals; elementary schools; food and nutritional environment; hot meals; organic food; upper secondary schools; workplace
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30925763 PMCID: PMC6479865 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Danish food service guidelines for hot meals served at lunch in elementary schools, upper secondary schools and workplaces [24,25].
| Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Minimum fruit and vegetable content in the meals | Fruit and vegetables account for at least ⅓ of the whole hot meal. Once a week 1, fruit and vegetables can account for less than ⅓ of the hot meals if a buffet of salad is offered as part of the lunch options. |
| Minimum frequency of serving fish and fish products | Fish must be served at least once a week 1 |
| Maximum frequency of serving high-fat meat (main protein component) 2 | Meat products with a high content of fat (>10% fat) can be served in up to 1 of 5 hot meals as main protein component of the meal. |
| Maximum frequency of serving non-wholegrain products | Grain products with little or no wholegrain (non-wholegrain products) can be served in up to 1 of 5 hot meals. |
| Maximum frequency of using high-fat dairy/meat products in the meals (limited quantities) 2 | High-fat meat and dairy based products (meat > 10% fat, cheese > 17% fat, milk > 5% fat) in limited quantities can be served in up to 2 of 5 hot meals. |
1 As most canteens serve hot meals 5 days a week this most often equals 1 in 5 days; 2 There are two criteria for serving high-fat meat. One for meat as a main protein component and one for meat used in limited quantities, e.g., bacon.
Figure 1Question on the relative content of fruit and vegetables in the hot meals (Monday to Friday).
Characteristics of the participating canteens.
| Characteristics | Elementary Schools | Upper Secondary Schools | Workplaces | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | N | % | n | % | |
| Number of daily lunch meals (<100) | 91 | 54 | 39 | 41 | 198 | 48 | 328 | 48 |
| Outsourced to external contractors (yes) | 8 | 5 | 22 | 23 | 124 | 30 | 154 | 23 |
| Written canteen meal policy (yes) | 97 | 57 | 45 | 48 | 161 | 39 | 303 | 45 |
| Serving system (buffet style) | 46 | 28 | 64 | 69 | 374 | 91 | 484 | 71 |
| Organic food procurement (>50%) | 38 | 22 | 8 | 9 | 46 | 11 | 92 | 14 |
Compliance with the guidelines for hot meals.
| Criteria | Elementary Schools | Upper Secondary Schools | Workplaces | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Minimum fruit and vegetable content | 45 | 38 | 27 | 31 | 171 | 45 | 243 | 41 |
| Minimum frequency of serving fish | 74 | 62 | 43 | 50 | 315 | 82 | 432 | 73 |
| Maximum frequency of serving high- fat meat as main protein component | 106 | 88 | 70 | 81 | 266 | 69 | 442 | 75 |
| Maximum frequency of serving non-whole-grain products | 96 | 80 | 57 | 66 | 250 | 65 | 403 | 68 |
| Maximum frequency of using high-fat dairy/meat products in the meals | 74 | 62 | 46 | 53 | 172 | 45 | 292 | 50 |
| All (5 criteria combined) | 23 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 49 | 13 | 81 | 14 |
Variables significantly (P ≤ 0.05) associated with compliance with guidelines for hot meals 1.
| Criteria | Significant Variables | OR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum fruit and vegetable content ( | Setting overall | 0.004 | |
| Workplace v. elementary school | 1.84 (1.16,2.90) | 0.009 | |
| Workplace v. upper secondary school | 1.98 (1.17,3.34) | 0.011 | |
| Elementary school v. upper secondary school | 1.08 (0.58,2.01) | 0.818 | |
| Organic food procurement >50% v. <50% | 1.88 (1.14,3.11) | 0.014 | |
| Minimum frequency of serving fish as main protein component ( | Setting overall | <0.0001 | |
| Workplace v. elementary school | 3.58 (2.19,5.84) | <0.0001 | |
| Workplace v. upper secondary school | 5.63 (3.35,9.45) | <0.0001 | |
| Elementary school v. upper secondary school | 1.57 (0.87,2.84) | 0.133 | |
| Maximum frequency of serving high-fat meat as main protein component ( | Setting overall | 0.000 | |
| Workplace v. elementary school | 0.18 (0.08,0.43) | <0.0001 | |
| Workplace v. upper secondary school | 0.50 (0.26,0.97) | 0.042 | |
| Elementary school v. upper secondary school | 2.77 (1.08,7.11) | 0.035 | |
| Organic food procurement >50% v. <50% | 2.78 (1.27,6.09) | 0.011 | |
| Meal policy v. no meal policy | 0.62 (0.40,0.96) | 0.033 | |
| Buffet v. no buffet style | 2.06 (1.08,3.92) | 0.029 | |
| Maximum frequency of serving non-wholegrain products ( | Setting overall | 0.005 | |
| Workplace v. elementary school | 0.34 (0.18,0.66) | 0.001 | |
| Workplace v. upper secondary school | 0.89 (0.52,1.53) | 0.681 | |
| Elementary school v. upper secondary school | 2.62 (1.28,5.37) | 0.009 | |
| Buffet v. no buffet style | 2.47 (1.44,4.24) | 0.001 | |
| Outsourced v. not outsourced | 0.50 (0.33,0.75) | 0.001 | |
| Maximum frequency of using high-fat dairy/meat products in the meals ( | Setting overall | 0.004 | |
| Workplace v. elementary school | 0.47 (0.30,0.74) | 0.001 | |
| Workplace v. upper secondary school | 0.73 (0.45,1.19) | 0.210 | |
| Elementary school v. upper secondary school | 1.56 (0.86,2.84) | 0.144 | |
| All (5 guidelines combined) ( | Organic food procurement >50% v. <50% | 2.00 (1.13,3.53) | 0.017 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 1 Canteens serving hot meals at lunch at least 3 times a week were included in the analysis (n = 589); 2 Tested using multiple logistic regression. Variables included: Setting, number of daily lunch meals, outsourced to external contractors, written canteen meal policy, serving system, organic food procurement.
Canteens’ focus on food waste reduction.
| Response Categories | Elementary Schools | Upper Secondary School | Workplaces | All | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| To what extent does the canteen focus on food waste reduction? | ||||||||
| To a very low degree | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 3 | 20 | 3 |
| To a low degree | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| Somewhat | 13 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 35 | 8 | 55 | 8 |
| To a high degree | 35 | 21 | 28 | 30 | 117 | 28 | 180 | 26 |
| To a very high degree | 106 | 62 | 55 | 59 | 242 | 58 | 403 | 59 |
| Do not know | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| Unanswered | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 11 | 2 |
Variables significantly (p ≤ 0.05) associated with a very high focus on food waste reduction.
| Focus Point | Significant Variables | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Food waste ( | Organic food procurement >50% v. <50% | 1.91 (1.12,3.25) | 0.017 |
| Meal policy v. no meal policy | 1.84 (1.31,2.59) | 0.000 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; 1 Tested using multiple logistic regression. Variables included: Setting, number of daily lunch meals, outsourced to external contractors, written canteen meal policy, serving system, organic food procurement.
Figure 2Food waste reduction priorities among canteens in elementary schools, upper secondary schools and workplaces that focus on food waste reduction “somewhat”, to “a high degree” or “a very high degree” (%) (n = 638).