TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21

Poster Session: Wellness and Public Health

Evaluation and Improvement to the Nutritional Value of Meals and StudentSatisfaction with Menu Changes at an Extended Learning Site

Author(s): D.O. Urcuyo1, A. Wagle1, L. Sweeney2; 1Nutrition and Food Science,San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 2Santa Clara Public Heath Department,Santa Clara, CA

Learning Outcome: Participants will be able to improve satisfaction withnutritionally modified reduced-calorie versions of hot meals.

Over 10% of people in Santa Clara County live in poverty and many low-income young adults are eligible to attend Job Corps, an extended learningsite for free. Since food insecurity has often been linked to obesity, foodserved at the cafeteria may impact students’ health. This study seeks toexamine: (1) Can the nutrient value of the hot meals served at the facility beimproved and considered satisfactory by the students? (2) Are studentsovereating at lunch because they are food insecure and does their foodinsecurity relate to obesity? Seventy-four students participated in a two-partsurvey conducted to evaluate meal satisfaction for both versions of food itemsserved and their potential food insecurity status (hunger related to lack offood available at home). Body Mass Index (BMI) was also measured for allparticipants. Original versions of food items along with modified versionswere served at the meals and plate waste was measured. Results indicatedthat out of 74 participants, over half reported food insecurity. Fifty-three(72.6%) participants were considered overweight (BMI� 25), 28 of those 53(38%) were considered obese (BMI�30) and 19 (26%) had healthy BMI range(18.5-24.9). Sixty-one percent of the participants reported preferring theoriginal versions over the reduced-calorie versions; however the difference inconsumption between both versions was only 8.5%. The level of obesity, re-ported food insecurity status and the percentage intake could indicate thatthis population may be overeating due to food insecurity and the need forhealthier, modified foods remained high.

Funding Disclosure: None

Assessing the Capability of a Median Household in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, toPurchase a Healthy Diet

Author(s): J. Ramdial, A.B. Marietta, G. Syler; Human Environmental Studies:Dietetics, Southeast Missouri State Univ., Cape Girardeau, MO

Learning Outcome: After attending this presentation, participants will be ableto analyze differences between the cost of purchasing a healthy diet and adiet composed of processed foods.

Consumers frequently believe a healthy diet is too expensive, and cite theassociated cost as one reason for choosing energy dense, processed foodsover nutrient dense choices. This study compared the cost of purchasing ahealthy menu to the average monthly food expenditure of Cape Girardeau,MO residents, and to the cost of two menus of processed food items. Ahealthy menu was represented by the Sample Menus for a 2000 Calorie FoodPattern from choosemyplate.gov. The second menu consisted of single serv-ings of processed meals adapted from the meals in the healthy menu. Costand nutritional data were collected for healthy menu items (n ¼ 510) andprocessed menu items (n ¼ 339) using a market basket analysis at threegrocery stores: ALDI, Schnucks Supermarket, and Wal-Mart Supercenter. Thethird menu consisted of the same processed items (n ¼ 339), but with eachmeal equalized to the same weight as corresponding meals from the healthymenu. The mean monthly cost of the healthy menu was $415.60. According to2012 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and 2011 data from the U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics, average monthly food expenditure of area residents was$459.95. The mean monthly cost of the original processed menu was leastexpensive ($341.52), but when all meals were equal in weight, the processedmenu was the most expensive ($436.53). Results indicated the healthy menuwas affordable for area residents and cost less than the processed menu withmeals of an equal weight.

Funding Disclosure: None

September 2014 Suppl 2—Abstracts Volume 114 Number 9

Identifying Factors, Barriers and Solutions Related to Food Insecurity inLackawanna County Pennsylvania

Author(s): J. Christaldi1, D. Cuy Castellanos2; 1Nutrition, West Chester Univ.,West Chester, PA, 2Health and Sport Sciences, Univ. of Dayton, Dayton, OH

Learning Outcome: Discuss the factors, barriers and solutions related to foodinsecurity and possible solutions to alleviating the problem.

In recent years, Lackawanna County Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate hasclimbed and salaries have been historically lower compared to the state.Given these hard economic times, an increasing number of residents haveexperienced food insecurity. However, the true extent of food security in theCounty was not known. The purpose of this study was to explore contributingfactors and barriers related to food insecurity and discuss possible solutionsand was part of a larger needs assessment examining food insecurity in theCounty. Ten focus groups were conducted with residents (N¼89) who receivefood assistance and/or emergency foods. Focus groups were held in zip codeswith the highest prevalence of food insecurity. The focus groups targetedhousehold food security, household food assistance and food shopping pat-terns and question guides were obtained from the USDA Community FoodSecurity Assessment Toolkit. Coding, horizontilization and clustering ofmeanings were used for data analysis. Three main themes emerged: 1) foodaccessibility exists amid local food assistance; 2) the economy has an enor-mous impact on food insecurity and 3) food shopping follows similar pat-terns. Additionally, subthemes were identified that related to all of the mainthemes. This study provides pertinent insight into food insecurity from theperspective of individuals who receive food assistance. These findings willinform the development of a comprehensive plan to become a hunger-freecommunity and to serve as a model for other food insecure communities.

Funding Disclosure: USDA

Classroom Administration versus One-on-One-Interview Administration: 4th-Grade Children’sResponses to a 5-item Food-Security Survey

Author(s): S.D. Baxter1, A.L. Smith1, M.P. Puryear1, K.K. Vaadi1, K.L. Collins1,C.H. Guinn1, A.F. Smith2, P.H. Miller3, D.B. Hitchcock4, C.J. Finney5; 1College of SocialWork, Institute for Families in Society, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia, SC,2Department of Psychology, Cleveland State Univ., Cleveland, OH, 3Department ofPsychology, San Francisco State Univ., San Francisco, CA, 4Department of Statistics, Univ.of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 5College of Social Work, Institute for Families in Society,Univ. of South Carolina and South Carolina Budget and Control Board Div. of Res. andStatistics, Columbia, SC

Learning Outcome: Explainwhether 4th-grade children’s responses to a 5-item food-securitysurvey (used by the National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES] with chil-dren ages 12-15) differed by administration mode—classroom versus one-on-one interview.

We investigated administration mode and 4th-grade children’s responses to NHANES’s 5food-security questions. In spring, 2014, children from 21 classes in 5 schools in 4 districtswere randomized to administration mode within classes and schools. For classroom-administration (n¼81; 36 girls; 44 Black, 29 White, 8 Other), researchers distributedsurveys, then read questions and response options to classes; children marked surveys. Forone-on-one-interview-administration (n¼77; 36 girls; 36 Black, 36 White, 5 Other), aresearcher read questions and response options to individual children in a private locationat school; children responded verbally, and researchers marked surveys. The questions,which began “In the last 30 days.” and ended “.because your family didn’t have enoughmoney for food” (except #3 excluded “money for”), were #1.was the size of your mealscut., #2.did you eat less than you thought you should., #3.were you hungry butdidn’t eat., #4.did you skip a meal., and #5.did you not eat for a whole day..Response options were “a lot”, “sometimes”, “never”, “refuse to answer”, and “don’t know”

(except #5 substituted “once/twice” for “a lot”). Affirmative responses (“a lot”, “some-times”, “once/twice”) were coded 1; other responses were coded 0. We summed binary-coded responses to create scores, and categorized 4-5 as very low food secure, 1-3 aslow food secure, and 0 as food secure. Means did not differ significantly between class-room-administered (1.16�1.39 [mean�standard deviation]) and one-on-one-interview-administered (1.57�1.34) surveys (two-sided p-value¼0.0607; independent samplest-test), and indicated low food security. Administration mode needs further examinationbecause the difference was nearly significant.

Funding Disclosure: Grant R01HL103737 (Principal Investigator e SD Baxter) from theNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS A-95