4.3 Article

The impact of the food-based and nutrient-based standards on lunchtime food and drink provision and consumption in secondary schools in England

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1052-1065

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S136898001300027X

关键词

Secondary schools; School meals; England; Food-based and nutrient-based standards

资金

  1. School Food Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess lunchtime provision of food and drink in English secondary schools and the choices and consumption of food and drink by pupils having school lunches, and to compare provision in 2011 with that in 2004. Design: Cross-sectional data collected between October 2010 and April 2011. In each school, food and drink provision, including portion weights and number of portions of each item served at lunchtime, were recorded over five consecutive days. Caterers provided recipe information. Setting: England. Subjects: A random selection of 5969 pupils having school lunches in a nationally representative sample of eighty secondary schools in England. Results: Compared with 2004, significantly more schools in 2011 provided main dishes, vegetables and salads, water, fruit juice and other drinks on 4 or 5 d/week (P<0.005). The number of schools offering items not permitted under the food-based standards for school food on 4 or 5 d/week fell significantly over time (P<0.005), while the number not offering these items on any day increased significantly (P<0.005). Meals eaten by pupils were well-balanced in relation to macronutrients. Conclusions: Lunchtime food provision and consumption in secondary schools have improved considerably since 2004, following the introduction of new compulsory standards for school food in 2009. To maximise their energy and nutrient intake at lunchtime, pupils should be encouraged to select a full meal, and to take and eat more fruit and vegetables. Schools also need continued support to increase the micronutrient content of menus and recipes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据