scholarly journals Nutrition Supports Deconstructed and Disrupted: An Evaluation of a Multilevel School-Based Intervention during the Time of COVID

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11006
Author(s):  
Rachael D. Dombrowski ◽  
Bree Bode ◽  
Kathryn A. G. Knoff ◽  
James Mallare ◽  
E. Whitney G. Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Eating Behaviors ◽  
School Meal ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
School Breakfast Program ◽  
Experimental Time Series ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Meal Programs ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Lunch Program

The Best Food Forward (BFF) project aims to provide multiple nutrition supports and interventions to improve family food security (FS) and health outcomes associated with FS within two metropolitan school districts. A quasi-experimental time-series design guided a multilevel evaluation for BFF through surveys, biometric screenings, focus groups, and observations among a random sample of caregiver–child dyads. FS, utilization of school meal programs, and nutrition behaviors were observed and analyzed at three time points: preintervention, postintervention pre-COVID-19, and postintervention post-COVID-19. Participants included 122 parents and 162 youth. Families reported (1) an income less than $35,000 annually (48.8%) and (2) a COVID-19-related job loss (36.9%). Parents used Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs or Women, Infants, Children benefits prior to (51.1%) and following COVID-19 (50.0%). No significant differences in FS were found. RM-ANOVA indicated an increase in breakfast consumption at home and a decrease in use of the school breakfast program (F(1.78, 74) = 19.64, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.21) and school lunch program (F(1.51, 74) = 23.30, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.24). Rates of FS and eating behaviors did not change significantly over time. Correlations of program usage and eating behaviors demonstrate the importance of promoting participation in school meal programs. BFF may have prevented significant decreases in FS during COVID-19.

Microbiological Testing Results of Boneless and Ground Beef Purchased for the U.S. National School Lunch Program, School Years 2015 to 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (10) ◽  
pp. 1761-1768
Author(s):  
SCOTT L. VIAL ◽  
DARIN R. DOERSCHER ◽  
CRAIG W. HEDBERG ◽  
WILLIAM A. STONE ◽  
STEPHEN J. WHISENANT ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Beef ◽  
School Lunch ◽  
National School Lunch Program ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
E Coli ◽  
School Lunch Program ◽  
National School ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Lunch Program

ABSTRACT The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases beef for the National School Lunch Program and other federal nutrition assistance programs. For beef that will be delivered to food service facilities raw, each ca. 900-kg lot of boneless beef raw material and each ca. 4,500-kg sublot of resultant ground beef is tested for standard plate count (SPC) organisms, coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and E. coli O157:H7. In addition, 1 of every 10 lots of boneless beef, randomly selected, is tested for E. coli O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145. For beef that will be cooked using a validated lethality step at a federally inspected establishment before delivery, each lot of boneless beef and each sublot of ground beef is tested for SPC organisms, coliforms, and E. coli only. Any lot or sublot exceeding predefined critical limits (CLs) of 100,000 CFU g−1 for SPC organisms, 1,000 CFU g−1 for coliforms, or 500 CFU g−1 for E. coli or for beef containing Salmonella or any of previously mentioned E. coli serotypes is rejected for purchase. For school years 2015 through 2018 (July 2014 through June 2018), 220,497,254 kg of boneless beef and 189,347,318 kg of ground beef were produced for AMS. For boneless beef, 133 (0.06%), 164 (0.07%), and 106 (0.04%) of 240,488 lots exceeded CLs for SPC organisms, coliforms, and E. coli, respectively; 2,038 (1.30%) and 116 (0.07%) of 156,671 lots were positive for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, respectively; and 59 (0.36%) of 16,515 lots were positive for non-O157 Shiga toxin–producing E. coli. For ground beef, 46 (0.10%), 27 (0.06%), and 19 (0.04%) of 45,769 sublots exceeded CLs for SPC organisms, coliforms, and E. coli, respectively; and 329 (1.40%) and 18 (0.08%) of 23,475 sublots were positive for Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, respectively. All lots and sublots found to exceed indicator organism CLs or to contain pathogens were identified, rejected for purchase, and diverted from federal nutrition assistance programs.

Microbiological Testing Results of Boneless and Ground Beef Purchased for the National School Lunch Program, 2011 to 2014

2015 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 1656-1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
DARIN R. DOERSCHER ◽  
TERRY L. LUTZ ◽  
STEPHEN J. WHISENANT ◽  
KERRY R. SMITH ◽  
CRAIG A. MORRIS ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ground Beef ◽  
National School Lunch Program ◽  
Critical Limit ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
E Coli ◽  
School Lunch Program ◽  
National School ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Lunch Program

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) purchases boneless and ground beef for distribution to recipients through federal nutrition assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, which represents 93% of the overall volume. Approximately every 2,000 lb (ca. 907 kg) of boneless beef and 10,000 lb (ca. 4,535 kg) of ground beef are designated a “lot” and tested for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, standard plate count organisms (SPCs), E. coli, and coliforms. Any lot of beef positive for E. coli O157:H7 or for Salmonella, or any beef with concentrations of organisms exceeding critical limits for SPCs (100,000 CFU g−1), E. coli (500 CFU g−1), or coliforms (1,000 CFU g−1) is rejected for purchase by AMS and must be diverted from federal nutrition assistance programs. From July 2011 through June 2014, 537,478,212 lb (ca. 243,795,996 kg) of boneless beef and 428,130,984 lb (ca. 194,196,932 kg) of ground beef were produced for federal nutrition assistance programs. Of the 230,359 boneless beef samples collected over this period, 82 (0.04%) were positive for E. coli O157:H7, 924 (0.40%) were positive for Salmonella, 222 (0.10%) exceeded the critical limit for SPCs, 69 (0.03%) exceeded the critical limit for E. coli, and 123 (0.05%) exceeded the critical limit for coliforms. Of the 46,527 ground beef samples collected over this period, 30 (0.06%) were positive for E. coli O157:H7, 360 (0.77%) were positive for Salmonella, 20 (0.04%) exceeded the critical limit for SPCs, 22 (0.05%) exceeded the critical limit for E. coli, and 17 (0.04%) exceeded the critical limit for coliforms. Cumulatively, these data suggest beef produced for the AMS National School Lunch Program is done so under an adequate food safety system, as indicated by the low percentage of lots that were pathogen positive or exceeded critical limits for indicator organisms.

Bright Futures Nutrition, Pocket Guide

2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Middle Childhood ◽  
Eating Behaviors ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Bright Futures ◽  
Screening Assessment ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Key Indicators

Handy pocket guide to accompany the new 3rd edition of Bright Futures Nutrition. Handy go-anywhere tool provides ready access to key points from the comprehensive Bright Futures: Nutrition. Bulletted format highlights the essentials of nutritional screening, assessment, and supervision for each developmental period. Contents includes: Building Bright Futures: Nutrition, Bright Futures: Vision and goals, About Bright Futures: Nutrition, Infancy (Prenatal - Age 11 Months), Early Childhood ( Ages 1-4), Middle Childhood (Ages 5-10), Adolescence (Ages 11-21), Key Indicators of Nutrition Risk for Children and Adolescents, Strategies for Health Professionals to Promote Healthy Eating Behaviors, Tips for Fostering a Positive Body Image Among children and Adolescents, Basics for Handling Food Safety, Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs.

scholarly journals Racial, Gender, and Age Dynamics in Michigan’s Urban and Rural Farmers Markets: Reducing Food Insecurity, and the Impacts of a Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 000276422110133
Author(s):  
Dorceta E. Taylor ◽  
Alliyah Lusuegro ◽  
Victoria Loong ◽  
Alexis Cambridge ◽  
Claire Nichols ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Food Assistance ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
Farmers Markets ◽  
Farmers Market ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Number Of Customers

In recent decades, the number of farmer’s markets has increased dramatically across the country. Though farmers markets have been described as White spaces, they can play important roles in reducing food insecurity. This is particularly true in Michigan where farmer’s markets were crucial collaborators in pioneering programs such as Double-Up Food Bucks that help low-income residents and people of color gain access to fresh, healthy, locally grown food. This article examines the questions: (1) What are the demographic characteristics of the farmers market managers, vendors, and customers and how do these influence market activities? (2) To what extent do farmers markets participate in programs aimed at reducing food insecurity? (3) To what extent do farmers markets serve low-income residents and people of color? and (4) How has the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) affected the operations of farmers markets. This article discusses the findings of a 2020 study that examined the extent to which Michigan’s farmer’s markets served low-income customers and people of color and participated in food assistance programs. The study examined 79 farmers markets and found that 87.3% of the farmer’s market managers are White. On average, roughly 79% of the vendors of the markets are White and almost 18% are people of color. Most of the vendors in the markets participate in nutrition assistance programs. Market managers estimate that about 76% of their customers are White and about 23% are people of color. Farmers markets operated by people of color attract higher numbers of customers and vendors of color than those operated White market managers. Almost half of the farmer’s markets started operations later than usual in 2020 because of the pandemic. More than a third of the markets reported that their funding declined during the pandemic. Moreover, the number of vendors declined at two thirds of the markets and the number of customers dipped at more than 40% of the markets. On the other hand, the number of people requesting food assistance during the pandemic increased in more than half of the markets.

scholarly journals Food Insecurity and Dietary Quality in Older Adults: Do Nutrition Assistance Programs Play a Protective Role?

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1379-1379
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bishop ◽  
Sarah Ullevig ◽  
Krystle Zuniga ◽  
Kaipeng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Food Insecurity ◽  
Healthy Eating Index ◽  
Dietary Quality ◽  
Linear Modeling ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Supplemental Food ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives The emergence of food insecurity as a primary nutrition-related health issue among older adults suggests a need to examine how nutritional assistance programs are related to food insecurity and dietary quality in aging populations. This project examines food insecurity and dietary quality in US adults age 65 and older and the impact of nutrition assistance programs. Methods The sample was drawn from the 2012 Health and Retirement Study and 2013 Health Care and Nutrition Study and included 3779 respondents representing a population of 37,217,566 adults aged 65 and older. Food insecurity was a binary measure based on the USDA six-item US Adult Food Security Survey Module. Two forms of nutritional assistance included receipt of supplemental food from sources such as food banks and Meals-on-Wheels (1 = yes, 0 = no) and reported receipt of SNAP benefits (1 = yes, 0 = no). Dietary quality was measured using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 based on a food frequency questionnaire. General linear modeling adjusting for covariates and complex sampling design was used to test if nutritional assistance moderated the association between food insecurity and AHEI-2010. Results Around 10% of the sample was food insecure, 14% reported receipt of supplemental food, and 6.4% were SNAP benefit recipients. In covariate-adjusted models, food insecurity and receipt of SNAP benefits were not associated with AHEI-2010, but receipt of supplemental food was (b = −1.39, SE = 0.67, P = 0.038). Receipt of supplemental food moderated the association between AHEI-2010 and food insecurity (P = 0.001). Simple effect estimates suggested that among those not receiving supplemental food, the food insecure had lower AHEI-2010 scores than the food secure (b = −2.15, SE = 0.88, P = 0.014). Among those receiving supplemental food, the food insecure had greater AHEI-2010 scores than the food secure (b = 2.62, SE = 1.25, P = 0.035) and similar AHEI-2010 scores as the food secure not receiving supplemental food. Conclusions Preliminary analysis suggests that receipt of supplemental food appears to be associated with better dietary quality among food-insecure older adults and confirms the importance of food assistance programs in combating the negative effect of food insecurity on dietary quality. Funding Sources This work is supported by the Texas State University Research Enhancement Program.

scholarly journals Attitudes toward Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs in Caregivers of Children with Moderate–Acute Malnutrition Younger than 5 Years in Denpasar, Bali: A Qualitative Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-474
Author(s):  
K. Desak Ketut Dewi Satiawati ◽  
Pande Putu Januraga
Keyword(s):  
Health Workers ◽  
Acute Malnutrition ◽  
Supplemental Nutrition ◽  
Supplementary Food ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Malnourished Children ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Moderate Acute Malnutrition

Background: Providing additional nutriment represents one strategy for overcoming moderate–acute malnutrition (MAM) in children younger than 5 years. However, it is important to examine how well received such Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) are by caregivers in order to ensure optimal results. Objective: This study explores SNAP’s reception by caregivers of MAM children younger than 5 years. Methods: Qualitative research was conducted through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 16 selected caregivers and 5 Nutritional Executives from October to November, 2016 at 4 health centers in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. The results are presented to highlight the underlying patterns of SNAP’s acceptance. Results: Overall, the informants responded negatively to SNAP, reporting that it was of limited usefulness. The results show 4 main themes relating to the receipt of SNAP. The first relates to the caregiver’s preferences in terms of the types of supplementary food on offer. Second, caregiver’s perceptions that the child was not, in fact, in a state of illness or disease due to a medical issue. Third, that the caregiver does not require supplementary food as they maintain that they are able to buy it independently. Fourth, factors related to the lack of support for health-care workers working with malnourished children. Conclusion: The study finds that strengthening the role of health workers in terms of enabling them to effectively communicate the benefits of supplementary food to caregivers as well as adjusting the range of foods available according to the recipient’s preferences is critical in overcoming malnutrition in children younger than 5 years.

scholarly journals Socio-Ecological Barriers to Dry Grain Pulse Consumption among Low-Income Women: A Mixed Methods Approach

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelly Palmer ◽  
Donna Winham ◽  
Ann Oberhauser ◽  
Ruth Litchfield
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Grocery Stores ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Low Socioeconomic ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Ecological Barriers ◽  
Detailed Instruction ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Federal Assistance

The purpose of this study was to determine the socio-ecological influences on dry grain pulse consumption (beans, peas, lentils, chickpeas) among low-socioeconomic women in Iowa. Seven focus groups were conducted, with 36 women who qualified for income-based federal assistance. Data were collected from October 2017 to January 2018. Participants completed a survey that gathered individual demographics, assessed perceptions of dry grain pulses, and level of food security. Fifty-eight percent of the women were non-Hispanic white, and 39% were African American, all with an average age of 34.7 years. Thirty-three percent of the women consumed pulses less than once per week. Over 80% agreed that beans were healthful and satiating. Some health benefits of beans were unknown by more than 33% of the population, e.g., lower cancer risk, lower LDL, maintain blood glucose. Only 30% of the women were food secure. Focus group audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed by two researchers, using the grounded theory approach. At the policy level, participants knew pulses were included in USA federal nutrition assistance programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Pulses were widely available in grocery stores in communities. Interpersonally, women felt that male partners preferred meats, and children needed animal-source proteins. Individually, women perceived uncooked dry pulses were challenging to prepare. Conclusively, more detailed instruction on pulse preparation, different pulse varieties, and offering canned pulses through WIC may increase consumption.

Confounding Role of Salmonella Serotype Dublin Testing Results of Boneless and Ground Beef Purchased for the National School Lunch Program, October 2013 to July 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 628-636
Author(s):  
SCOTT L. VIAL ◽  
DARIN R. DOERSCHER ◽  
CARL M. SCHROEDER ◽  
ALI J. STRICKLAND ◽  
CRAIG W. HEDBERG
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Shiga Toxin ◽  
Ground Beef ◽  
Agricultural Marketing ◽  
Assistance Programs ◽  
Salmonella Dublin ◽  
E Coli ◽  
Nutrition Assistance ◽  
Nutrition Assistance Programs ◽  
Marketing Service

ABSTRACT The Agricultural Marketing Service procures boneless and ground beef for federal nutrition assistance programs. It tests procured beef for concentrations of standard plate counts (SPCs), coliforms, and Escherichia coli and for the presence of Salmonella and Shiga toxin–producing E. coli. Any lot exceeding predefined critical limits (100,000 CFU g−1 for SPCs, 1,000 CFU g−1 for coliforms, and 500 CFU g−1 for E. coli) or positive for Salmonella or Shiga toxin–producing E. coli is rejected for purchase. Between 1 October 2013 and 31 July 2017, 166,796 boneless beef lots (each approximately 900 kg) and 25,051 ground beef sublots (each approximately 4,500 kg) were produced. Salmonella was detected in 1,955 (1.17%) boneless beef lots and 219 (0.87%) ground beef sublots. Salmonella sample size increased from an individual 25-g sample to a co-enriched 325-g sample on 1 March 2015. Salmonella presence was associated with season (lowest in spring), larger sample size, and increased log SPC in boneless and ground beef. Increased log E. coli was associated with Salmonella presence in boneless beef, but not ground beef. Salmonella Dublin was the most common serotype in boneless beef (743 of 1,407, 52.8%) and ground beef (35 of 171, 20.5%). Salmonella Dublin was generally associated with lower indicator microorganism concentrations compared with other Salmonella serotypes as a group. Relative to other Salmonella, Salmonella Dublin was associated with season (more common in spring) and smaller sample size in boneless and ground beef. Decreased log SPCs and log coliforms were associated with Salmonella Dublin presence in boneless beef, but not in ground beef. Differential associations between Salmonella Dublin and other serotypes with indicator microorganisms were strong enough to cause confounding and suggest that the presence of Salmonella Dublin needs to be accounted for when evaluating indicator performance to assess Salmonella risk in boneless and ground beef. HIGHLIGHTS

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document