Findings from the Third School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-III)

Jay HirschmanPatricia McKinneyUSDA Food and Nutrition ServiceOffice of Research, Nutrition and Analysis

Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research (MPR)Project Director: Anne Gordon

2007 USDA/State Agency ConferenceNovember 28, 2007

SNDA-III Part of a Long Tradition

National Evaluation of the School Nutrition Programs (NESNP-I) in 1980 was the first national study by FNS to assess the effects of school mealsSNDA-I (SY 1991-92) highlighted high fat content of school meals and helped motivate SMI.SNDA-II (SY 1998-99) provided an early look at SMI implementationSince SNDA-II, growing concern about child obesity and changes in standards for healthy diet (DRIs and revised Dietary Guidelines)SNDA-III (SY 2004-05) provides updated data to assess SMI and directions for the future

Remember This??

Remember This??SY1991-92

NSLP Offered

38% total fat

15% saturated fat

SNDA-III Study Design

Nationally representative of all public schools participating in the NSLP in the 48 contiguous States and DC

Data on meals offered and meals served as well as students 24-hour dietary intake

129 SFAs in 36 States

398 Schools

Approximately 2300 Students in 287 of those schools

Data collected in Spring 2005

Thank You States and School Food Authorities

Well be presenting.Offered and Served

Average Meals as Offered -- Unweighted analyses-- Equal weight to items within menu choice

Average Meals as Served (Selected by students)-- Weighted analysis-- More weight to frequently selected items

NSLP/SBP: Current Requirements for Reimbursable MealsNutrientsNutrients in meals are averaged over a school week; weekly averages must meet regulatory standards

1/3 of 1989 RDA for protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A and vitamin C at lunch; 1/4 of RDA for these nutrients at breakfast

Appropriate level of calories for age/grade groups

Consistent with the 1995 DGALimit the percent of calories from total fat to 30% of the actual number of calories offered

Limit the percent of calories from saturated fat to less than 10% of the actual number of calories offered

Reduce sodium and cholesterol levels

Increase the level of dietary fiber

To make this presentation more interesting, we now bring you

Pat The Optimist McKinney as The Good Cop

Jay The Pessimist Hirschman asThe Bad Cop

Are School Lunches Meeting SMI Nutrition Standards?

Most Schools Serve Lunches that Meet Standards for Key Nutrients that Contribute to a Healthy DietPercentage of Schools Meeting StandardsSource:School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-2005.

OK, Pat, that showed results for each nutrient individually

Butwhat about schools meeting ALL of the SMI nutrient standards together?Please write down your best guess For percent as offered on average

Protein + Vitamin A + Vitamin C +Calcium + Iron +Total Fat + Saturated Fat +Calories

Few Schools Met All SMI Standards for a Reimbursable LunchSOURCE: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, school year 2004-05.Percentage of Schools Meeting StandardOnly 5.7% meet all SMI standards, even withthe waiver to used offered (unweighted) data

SOURCE: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, school year 2004-05.Seventy-nine Percent of Elementary SchoolsOffered Lunches that Met the Calorie StandardPercentage Meeting the Standard

Over Three-Fourths of High Schools Are Not Serving Lunches that Meet the Calorie Standards for Reimbursement

SOURCE: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, school year 2004-05.Percentage NOT Meeting Standard(tall bars =worse)

Percentage of Schools Offering Students Opportunity to Select Source: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-2005.Low Fat and Low Saturated Fat LunchOptions Were Widely Available

Less than One-Third of Schools Met Standards for Reimbursable Meals for Total Fat or Saturated FatPercentage of Schools Meeting StandardsSource:School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-2005.

Almost All Schools Satisfied the Benchmark for Cholesterol and FiberPercentage of Schools Meeting StandardsSource:School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-2005.Note: Benchmarks are not requirements under SMI.

Almost All Schools Failed to Satisfy the Benchmarks for SodiumPercentage of Schools NOT Meeting the Benchmarks(tall bars = worse)Source:School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-2005.Note: Benchmarks are not requirements under SMI.

Have Schools Made Progress Toward Meeting SMI Standards Since 1998-99?

A High Proportion of Elementary Schools Continue to Meet SMI Standards for Key Nutrients Served at LunchSources: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, and School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99 (Fox et al. 2001).Percentage of Elementary Schools Meeting Standards

There was No Improvement in the Proportion of Secondary Schools Meeting SMI Standards for Most Key Nutrients Served at LunchSignificantly Fewer Met the Vitamin A Standard in SNDA-IIISources: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and School Nutrition Dietary Assessment-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99 (Fox et al. 2001).*Difference is statistically significant at .05 level.Percentage of Secondary Schools Meeting Standards60%65%

Average Calories from Saturated Fat Declined between SY 1998-99 and SY 2004-05 in Lunches as ServedSOURCES: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and SNDA-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99.*Difference is statistically significant at 0.05 level.*

AND More Schools Met Saturated Fat Standard in Lunches Served in SY 2004-05SOURCES: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and SNDA-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99.*Difference is statistically significant at 0.05 level.

But More than Two-thirds of Schools Still Do Not Meet the Meal Reimbursement Standards for Saturated FatSOURCES: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and SNDA-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99.*Difference is statistically significant at 0.05 level.Percentage of Schools NOT Meeting Standard

Between SY 1998-99 and SY 2004-05, Average Calories from Total Fat in Lunches as Served Were UnchangedSOURCES: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and SNDA-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99.

There Was No Significant Difference in the Proportion of Schools Meeting the Total Fat Standard in Lunches Served Between SY1998-99 and SY2004-05SOURCES: SNDA-III, Menu Survey, SY 2004-05 and SNDA-II, Menu Survey, SY 1998-99.

SummaryIn SY 2004-05 . . .

Most schools offered and served lunches meeting SMI standards for vitamins, minerals and protein

Significantly more schools served lunches meeting standard for saturated fat than in SY 1998-99

Less than one-third of schools offered or served lunches consistent with SMI standards for fat or saturated fat

Sodium levels in lunches served remained high

Top Sources of Total Fat and Saturated Fat in NSLP LunchesTotal fat

Salad dressings

Condiments/spreads

Pizza products

Peanut butter sandwiches

French friesSaturated fat

Pizza products

Condiments/spreads 2% milk

Salad plates/salad bars

Hamburgers and cheeseburgers

SNDA-III has much more informationThree volumes and a separate Consumer-friendly SummaryVolume I: School Foodservice Operations, School Environment and Meals Offered and Served menu planning system used, characteristics of school environment (school policies on lunch time, open campus)availability of competitive foods (vending, a la carte, other)Volume II: Student Participation and Dietary IntakesReasons for participation, satisfaction with school meals, characteristics of participants-nonparticipantsDietary intake at lunch and breakfast and over 24 hoursTypes of foods consumed, food sources of calories/nutrientsFrequency and sources of competitive foodsAppendicesVolume III: Sampling and Data Collection

Office of Research, Nutrition and Analysis (ORNA)The SNDA-III Summary of Findings and Full Report (3 volumes) are now available on the FNS we site

81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaThe web version of report is up today. Well send you a copy of the printed version when its ready. All 1000 so pages of full technical reports are now online and contain LOTS more findings than were presenting today.Anthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaSNDA I- Collected information on Menus as Offered and data on Student IntakeSNDA II- Collected information on meals as offered and as served

Anthony81582 MathematicaTo determine whether school meals met SMI nutrient standards, we first computed the weekly average calorie and nutrient content of each schools meals using two different methods:The first is referred to as an . . .Unweighted analysis which gives equal weight to all food items within each meal component offered. An UW analysis provides an estimate of average meal as offered to students. A . . .Weighted analysis uses data on students actual food selections, giving more weight to the most frequently selected items. A W analysis provides an estimate of average meal as served to or selected by students.

We then compared the unweighted and weighted averages for each school to the nutrient standards.

Anthony81582 MathematicaBecause of time constraints, Ill be providing some highlights of our findings and will focus on findings for school lunches. In general, results for school breakfasts were somewhat more positive than for lunches.

The next set of slides presents preliminary results for all school levels combined, although analyses were conducted separately for E, M and HS and schools using different types of menu planning systems.

Anthony81582 Mathematica

A lot of variability by school level with elementary most likely to meet standards and secondary schools less so.Anthony81582 MathematicaFrom too much fat

Too much saturated fat

Or

Too few caloriesAnthony81582 Mathematicap. 167 ..Table VI.3 offeredp.176Table VI.6 served

Anthony81582 Mathematicap. 167 ..Table VI.3 offeredp.176Table VI.6 served

Anthony81582 MathematicaIn most schools, lunches offered and served did not satisfy the standards for fat or saturated fat. About 1 in 5 schools met total fat standard and 1 in three met sat fat standard.

On average, lunches offered and served provided about 34% of calories from fat and 11% of calories from sat fat.---student selection patterns made little difference.

The 2005 DGs recommend a range of 25 to 35% of calories from total fat for school-aged childrenanother 1/4th to 1/3rd of schools served lunches with total fat in that range.

In contrast to lunch, over two-thirds of schools offered and served breakfasts that met the total fat and saturated fat standards.Anthony81582 MathematicaAlmost all schools offered and served lunches consistent with the benchmarks for chol and fiber.

Almost no schools satisfied the benchmark for sodium. Average sodium levels were almost twice the benchmark of 800 mg per lunch.

Although the age plus 5 fiber benchmark was achieved, the 2005 DGA recommendation for adequate fiber intake is considerably higher [25 to 31 gm per day for school-aged children.our analysis of foods offered found only about 5% of lunch menus offering foods made from whole grains or dried beansexcellent sources of fiber.On the other hand, almost three-quarters of schools offered more than two fruit/vegetables at lunch on a daily basis. Anthony81582 MathematicaAlmost all schools offered and served lunches consistent with the benchmarks for chol and fiber.

Almost no schools satisfied the benchmark for sodium. Average sodium levels were almost twice the benchmark of 800 mg per lunch.

Although the age plus 5 fiber benchmark was achieved, the 2005 DGA recommendation for adequate fiber intake is considerably higher [25 to 31 gm per day for school-aged children.our analysis of foods offered found only about 5% of lunch menus offering foods made from whole grains or dried beansexcellent sources of fiber.On the other hand, almost three-quarters of schools offered more than two fruit/vegetables at lunch on a daily basis. Anthony81582 MathematicaTo assess progress in meeting SMI requirements since the last SNDA study, we compared the percentages of schools meeting standards in lunches as served at both time periods. These analyses were conducted separately for elementary and all secondary schools.

Anthony81582 MathematicaThis slide shows the comparison between school lunches in SY 1998-99 and 2004-05 for key SMI nutrients. No differences in the likelihood of meeting standards.Anthony81582 MathematicaResults are very similar for secondary schools, with the exception of vitamin A where school lunches were less likely to meet the standard in 04-05 than 98-99. Anthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaTable VIII.1 p. 241Anthony81582 MathematicaIn summary, as of SY 2004-05,

Most schools offered and served lunches that satisfied SMI standards for targeted nutrients, but not for fat or saturated fat. - Progress was made in lowering the saturated fat content of school lunches, but there is still plenty of room for improvement if school meals are to meet Dietary Guidelines goals. Anthony81582 MathematicaAnthony81582 MathematicaSNDA I- Collected information on Menus as Offered and data on Student IntakeSNDA II- Collected information on meals as offered and as served

Anthony