Study: Junk food laws may help curb kids' obesity
CHICAGO (AP) — Laws strictly curbing school sales of junk food and sweetened drinks may play a role in slowing childhood obesity, according to a study that seems to offer the first evidence such efforts could pay off.
The results come from the first large national look at the effectiveness of the state laws over time. They are not a slam-dunk, and even obesity experts who praised the study acknowledge the measures are a political hot potato, smacking of a "nanny state" and opposed by industry and cash-strapped schools relying on food processors' money.
But if the laws have even a tiny effect, "what are the downsides of improving the food environment for children today?" asked Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital. "You can't get much worse than it already is."
Children in the study gained less weight from fifth through eighth grades if they lived in states with strong, consistent laws versus no laws governing snacks available in schools. For example, kids who were 5 feet tall and 100 pounds gained on average 2.2 fewer pounds if they lived in states with strong laws in the three years studied.
Also, children who were overweight or obese in fifth grade were more likely to reach a healthy weight by eighth grade if they lived in states with the strongest laws.
The effects weren't huge, and the study isn't proof that the laws influenced kids' weight. But the results raised optimism among obesity researchers and public health experts who generally applaud strong laws to get junk food out of schools.
"This is the first real evidence that the laws are likely to have an impact," said Dr. Virginia Stallings, director of the nutrition center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Stallings chaired an Institute of Medicine panel that urged standards for making snack foods and drinks sold in schools more healthful but was not involved in the new research.
The authors of the study, released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, analyzed data on 6,300 students in 40 states. Their heights and weights were measured in spring 2004, when they were finishing fifth grade and soon to enter middle school, and in 2007, during the spring of eighth grade.
The researchers also examined several databases of state laws on school nutrition during the same time. The states were not identified in the study because of database license restrictions that protect the students' confidentiality, the authors said.
The laws governed food and drinks sold in public school vending machines and school stores, outside of mealtime. Laws were considered strong if they included specific nutrition requirements, such as limits on sugar and fats. Laws were rated weak if the requirements were vague and merely urged sales of "healthy" food without specifics.
The results show that for these laws to be effective, they need to be consistently strong in all grades, said lead author Daniel Taber, a health policy researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
In late 2003, 27 of the states studied had no relevant laws affecting middle-schoolers, seven had weak laws and six had strong laws. Several states and school districts enacted tougher laws affecting middle-schoolers and younger kids during the next few years as national concern rose over obesity rates.
Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese, and the rate among teens is only slightly lower.
In states with consistently strong laws in elementary and middle school, almost 39 percent of fifth-graders were overweight when the study began. That fell to 34 percent in eighth grade. Also, almost 21 percent of fifth-graders were obese, declining to about 18 percent in the eighth grade.
In states with no relevant laws, almost 37 percent of fifth-graders were overweight and 21 percent were obese, and those numbers barely budged by eighth grade.
Boston University statistician Mark Glickman said the study design makes it difficult to reach any convincing conclusions. It's possible, for example, that stronger laws might be more prevalent in Democratic-leaning states with better-educated residents, and less obesity. But the study authors said they found stronger laws in states that had high levels of obesity.
The authors accounted for gender, race, income and school location.
Taber noted that several Southern states have been the most aggressive at targeting school junk food, "probably because they have the highest rates of obesity."
Ludwig, the Boston obesity specialist, praised the researchers for trying to "tackle a complicated question."
"The challenge is that there are a great many factors that coalesce to influence body weight," Ludwig said. "Disentangling these influences and looking at the independent effects of just one is a methodological nightmare."
The results come from the first large national look at the effectiveness of the state laws over time. They are not a slam-dunk, and even obesity experts who praised the study acknowledge the measures are a political hot potato, smacking of a "nanny state" and opposed by industry and cash-strapped schools relying on food processors' money.
But if the laws have even a tiny effect, "what are the downsides of improving the food environment for children today?" asked Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital. "You can't get much worse than it already is."
Children in the study gained less weight from fifth through eighth grades if they lived in states with strong, consistent laws versus no laws governing snacks available in schools. For example, kids who were 5 feet tall and 100 pounds gained on average 2.2 fewer pounds if they lived in states with strong laws in the three years studied.
Also, children who were overweight or obese in fifth grade were more likely to reach a healthy weight by eighth grade if they lived in states with the strongest laws.
The effects weren't huge, and the study isn't proof that the laws influenced kids' weight. But the results raised optimism among obesity researchers and public health experts who generally applaud strong laws to get junk food out of schools.
"This is the first real evidence that the laws are likely to have an impact," said Dr. Virginia Stallings, director of the nutrition center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Stallings chaired an Institute of Medicine panel that urged standards for making snack foods and drinks sold in schools more healthful but was not involved in the new research.
The authors of the study, released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, analyzed data on 6,300 students in 40 states. Their heights and weights were measured in spring 2004, when they were finishing fifth grade and soon to enter middle school, and in 2007, during the spring of eighth grade.
The researchers also examined several databases of state laws on school nutrition during the same time. The states were not identified in the study because of database license restrictions that protect the students' confidentiality, the authors said.
The laws governed food and drinks sold in public school vending machines and school stores, outside of mealtime. Laws were considered strong if they included specific nutrition requirements, such as limits on sugar and fats. Laws were rated weak if the requirements were vague and merely urged sales of "healthy" food without specifics.
The results show that for these laws to be effective, they need to be consistently strong in all grades, said lead author Daniel Taber, a health policy researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
In late 2003, 27 of the states studied had no relevant laws affecting middle-schoolers, seven had weak laws and six had strong laws. Several states and school districts enacted tougher laws affecting middle-schoolers and younger kids during the next few years as national concern rose over obesity rates.
Recent data suggest that almost 20 percent of elementary school children nationwide are obese, and the rate among teens is only slightly lower.
In states with consistently strong laws in elementary and middle school, almost 39 percent of fifth-graders were overweight when the study began. That fell to 34 percent in eighth grade. Also, almost 21 percent of fifth-graders were obese, declining to about 18 percent in the eighth grade.
In states with no relevant laws, almost 37 percent of fifth-graders were overweight and 21 percent were obese, and those numbers barely budged by eighth grade.
Boston University statistician Mark Glickman said the study design makes it difficult to reach any convincing conclusions. It's possible, for example, that stronger laws might be more prevalent in Democratic-leaning states with better-educated residents, and less obesity. But the study authors said they found stronger laws in states that had high levels of obesity.
The authors accounted for gender, race, income and school location.
Taber noted that several Southern states have been the most aggressive at targeting school junk food, "probably because they have the highest rates of obesity."
Ludwig, the Boston obesity specialist, praised the researchers for trying to "tackle a complicated question."
"The challenge is that there are a great many factors that coalesce to influence body weight," Ludwig said. "Disentangling these influences and looking at the independent effects of just one is a methodological nightmare."
Put the snack machines back in, soda pop too. Eliminate school buses and put the lockers two blocks away. Do they even have lockers anymore?Â
I think its up to the parents to teach their children what is healthy to eat vs. what is not healthy. At the same time though I feel like that when a person enters high school, then they should have a choice of eating unhealthy vending food or healthy alternatives.Â
Â
From my personal experience when I was in high school, there used to be vending machines that dispensed junk food during my freshman/sophomore year, but my junior/senior year they replaced the vending machines with healthy stuff. The healthy stuff was usually very disgusting and unappetising.  Even the school cafeteria was horrible because the vegetables were usually dried out and not ripe anymore.
Â
School districts should provide healthy food that actually tastes good and not try to drown out the disgusting flavor is heaping amounts of salad dressing.
I'm glad laws are going into place, but let's not forget how much the school is responsible for feeding our kids at school. Lunch programs are a joke across much of the country, and "extras" available at lunch have our kids fatter than ever. You should see the chunky monkey's in our elementary school, where there is NO access to pop or snack machines. The problem is the chocolate or strawberry milk offered three times per day, along side PB&J sandwiches if they finish their meal. The smallest changes could make the biggest difference, if only the schools were paying attention.Â
Soon in the news... Students busted for use of illegal substances. Nurses got suspicious of high cholesterol counts.
Â
Psst! Wanna buy a Twinkie? How about a nice bag of Lay's Potato Chips? The first one is free. You'll be hooked in no time.
Â
I really think there should be a little more parental guidance and personal responsibility here.
a kid spends 7-8 hours or more at school. At home the kid spends probably only 4-5 hours awake and the rest of the hours sleeping. The school has about 7-8 hours to teach kids one thing for 5 days maybe even 6 days IF the school has Saturday Schooling. adding that up let's see here... the school influences your kid for about 35-40 hours a week while a parent influences their kid for about 20-25 hours Monday-Friday. On the weekends most of the time kids will go to a friend's house which than will be influenced there. The parent lacks to have time to actually educate their kid compared to schools and friends. Thus these laws should be in placed. At first in the short run we will see little improvements but in the long run we will see healthier drastic results. ENOUGH said
Just having laws curbing sales of junk food are useless in the long run. More importantly, they are a SERIOUS waste of taxpayers money. Â Kids will still get their hands on junk food some other way. Â Why do these laws not work? Just look at many recent high school graduates in college throughout America. The Freshman 15?
Â
What is more important is for the kids to learn the ingredients like aspartame or corn syrup inside the junk food. Basic cooking, nutritional and health class(es) will help kids decide if they wish to grow up looking what our society deems as healthy or unhealthy.  Even one day of nutritional class in Physical Education will help. I think these classes are necessary as parents, in many uneducated areas in America (e.g., South LA), do not have the ability to teach their kids on how to properly eat healthy food.  Come on, are parents going to teach their kids what Pink Slime is in hamburgers? Or what companies like Tyson Foods feed their animals before they are slaughtered?Â
Â
If these classes were actually taught in grade school, I think the laws curbing sales of junk food will be more effective in ending obesity. Â Otherwise...America is still going to end up with obese adults in the future.
 @sabbametta Actually these classes are taught. It is called health class. They learn about Aspartame and corn syrup and the effect of the human body. Just took that health class 3 years ago. also grade schools teach basic cooking. How old are you and how much do you know about our schools? We get taught these things but just because you get taught something doesn't mean you will change your ways. Something must motivate you to change your ways. That is where the laws, and parenting both work together to motivate the kid to change their eating habit.
Â
 @Josh Hensley The health classes you took are actually not taught in every school district around America.  Based on your posting, I assume you think I am a Seattle native. Well,  I am not a Seattle native. I have taught in middle and high schools in different districts around California.Â
Â
If you actually read my original postings, it was not directly targeting Seattle schools. The study released did not just examine schools in Seattle. This article writes:
"The authors of the study, released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics, analyzed data on 6,300 students in 40 states." Â (40 states does not equate to only "Seattle")
Â
For my posting, I was talking about school districts around America. Did you read I even wrote (e.g., South LA)? I never mentioned once about anything relating to "Seattle." I clearly stated classes AND laws are needed to motivate kids to change their ways. Â Â
Â
More importantly, I do not appreciate your questions about how old and how much I know about "our schools."  Even though we are hidden under fake appellation, directing an ad hominem attack against me does not bolster your points.  I could potentially flag your comment(s).  If you wish to make further comments, I hope you actually begin to address my points...and not make any personal comments about me. Â
Sure, let's give parents absolutely no reason to be parents! Probably the stupidest example of the government protecting us from ourselves. So how's the economic recovery comin'?
My middle school (early 90s) had 2 soda machines and a snack machine. One sold water and juice, the other sold Pop. The other one sold beef jerky, gum, notebook paper, pens and pencils. They were only turned on before school, during lunch and after school/during sports games. That was it. My high school had a soda machine, a machine that sold water and juice and a snack type vending machine. They were only turned on during lunch. There was a vending machine inside the lobby of the gym that sold water and juice that was on all the time. You either ate what you packed from home, the mystery food the lunch lady served or went hungry.
Â
Parents: Laws won't make your kids stop eating ho hos and diet soda for snack time. Only offering them water and healthy options to drink at home. Either eat a healthy home cooked meal or go hungry will. Being offered fresh grapes or apple slices and a glass of water to snack on or go hungry sends a powerful message. Yes it's true you can't control what your kids eat when you are not around but the message of healthy eating, exercise/play time and limiting junk begins with you, their parent, at home.
When I went to school there were no snack or beverage machines. You ate your sack lunch or you bought a hot lunch. Period. There were no opportunities to munch between classes. I sometimes wonder if young people today actually experience the growling tummy phenomenon in school. ; )