A Preliminary Evaluation of “Food Fight”: A High School Curriculum on Media Literacy, Nutrition,...

O19 (continued)

S8 Oral Abstracts Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior � Volume 43, Number 4S1, 2011

working with the target audience was incorporated in pro-gram development.Target Audience: Third-grade students in North Caro-lina public schools with 50% or more students participat-ing in the National School Lunch Program.Description: The program consists of 9 interactive ses-sions. Sessions include discussion, hands-on activities,cooking demonstrations, and taste tests designed to edu-cate and facilitate behavioral change by engaging all thesenses. The program is delivered by agents with the NorthCarolina Cooperative Extension Service.Evaluation: Changes in knowledge and behavior areevaluated with (1) pre-post knowledge and behavior sur-veys, (2) parent feedback forms, (3) classroom teacher feed-back forms, and (4) Cooperative Extension agent feedbackforms.Conclusions and Implications: During each fundingcycle, the Steps to Health third-grade program has met orexceeded program objectives related to student knowledgegain and behavior change. In fiscal year 2010, 68.9% ofparticipants improved their overall nutrition knowledge.As reported on feedback forms, 90.4% of classroomteachers observed positive change in their students' behav-ior related to eating and physical activity, and 75.8% ofparents observed their child eating more fruits and vegeta-bles. This program provides a model for SupplementalNutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) andCooperative Extension networks serving a similarpopulation.Funding: North Carolina State University and USDASNAP-Ed; LH reports a potential conflict of interest as sheis affiliated with the North Carolina State University.

Continued on page S9

O20 Parental Perceptions of School MealPrograms in Guilford County, North CarolinaSara Himmelrich, BS, sshimmel@uncg.edu, University ofNorth Carolina, Department of Nutrition, PO Box 26170,Greensboro, NC 27402-6170; David Ribar, PhD;Lauren Haldeman, PhD

Objective: To assess parental perceptions of school mealprograms and the extent to which school meal participa-tion helps meet monthly household food needs.Design, Setting and Participants: Focus groups andindividual interviews using a semistructured questionguide were conducted with stakeholders (n ¼ 2) and par-ents (n ¼ 38) of elementary school–aged children in 10 se-lected Title 1 schools.Outcome Measures and Analysis: Content analysis oftranscribed audiotapes was conducted to identify themesaround perceptions of school breakfast and lunch pro-grams and strategies for meeting monthly food needs.Results: Participants were primarily low-income, mar-ried African American women. Most children were en-rolled in the school breakfast program (89.5%) and theschool lunch program (92.1%), with half receiving themeals free. Qualitative findings revealed that parents val-ued breakfast and the school breakfast program; how-ever, they believed that the quality of food offered was

poor, which was underscored by the statement thatthey [schools] are ‘‘trying to turn school into a fastfood restaurant.’’ Despite concerns of food quality andother program administration barriers such as lack ofsufficient time to eat, parents agreed that school mealparticipation helps meet their monthly household foodneeds.Conclusions and Implications: School meal programsare used as a strategy for meeting household food needs.Parents questioned the healthfulness of food provided,which may support the need for increased educationfor parents regarding the nutritional quality of menuoptions. Schools may also benefit from conducting eval-uations of school meal program administration to en-sure that they are readily available to those most inneed.Funding: USDA Economic Research Service.Grant Number: Cooperative Agreement no. 58-5000-8-0124.

O21 Healthy Foods First: Students Take theFirst Lunchroom Food 11% More Often Thanthe ThirdBrian Wansink, PhD, wansink@cornell.edu, CornellUniversity, 109 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853;David Just, PhD

Objective: Does the order of food in a lunchroom mat-ter? If it does, it would be best to use this bias to guidechildren to take healthier school foods than the lesshealthy ones.Design, Setting and Participants: Three hundredforty-seven college freshman and sophomores who werepresented with 3 different vegetables (broccoli, greenbeans, and peas) in 3 different orders. A second field studywith healthy (bean burritos) and less healthy (tacos) foodwas also conducted in a middle school.Outcome Measures and Analysis: Selection of thefoods based on their order in the line.Results: The ordering of vegetables influenced sales by11%, regardless of the vegetable and regardless of its order.In the field study, placing bean burritos ahead of tacos dra-matically increases burrito sales and decreased taco sales by28%.Conclusions and Implications: First foods are morelikely to be taken in cafeterias than the foods that comelater in line. The best rule of thumb would be to simplyplace the healthier foods first and let the serving biaswork in the favor of healthy eating.Funding: None.

O22 A Preliminary Evaluation of ‘‘Food Fight’’:A High School Curriculum on Media Literacy,Nutrition, and Food Policy in New York CityDeborah Grant, EdD, dgrant@foodfight.org, Food Fight,285 Riverside Drive, Suite 15C, New York, NY 10025;Carolyn Cohen; Isobel Contento, CDN, PhD, Teachers

O22 (continued)

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior � Volume 43, Number 4S1, 2011 Oral Abstracts S9

College Columbia University; Pamela Koch EdD, RD;Heewon Lee, PhD, RD

Objective: To determine whether ‘‘Food Fight’’ changedstudents’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.Design, Setting and Participants: This is a pretestand posttest study without a control group, conductedduring the first half of the 2010-2011 school year.Mostly black and Hispanic students from 7 schools (1class per school) participated (75% eligible free/reducedlunch).Intervention: Food Fight is a half-year elective course.Most students received lessons daily or most days. The cur-riculum has 3 sections: (1) media literacy, in which stu-dents examine their current food environment and howmedia influence choices; (2) nutrition, in which studentslearn basic nutrition facts and cooking skills and make ac-tion plans for healthful change; and (3) food policy, inwhich students learn about food policy and how to get in-volved in system change work.Outcome Measures and Analysis: A pre-post paper-and-pencil survey measured students’ curriculum-specificknowledge and attitudes, as well as food intake. Paired Stu-dent t test determined significant changes. Because of thesmall sample size, an independent-sample t test was alsoperformed.Results: Paired Student t test showed that students’ sodaconsumption decreased 2.7 days/week, (P < .05). Withthe independent t test, processed, packaged snack con-sumption decreased 1.1 snack/week (P < .05). There wasno significant change found in knowledge and attitudes.Conclusions and Implications: Food Fight showssome positive eating-behavior changes and is a new initia-tive. Few nutrition education interventions with a broadcontent have been studied for their ability to change eatingbehaviors. With youth being a target for food policychange work, this is important research. Elective coursesin high schools provide an excellent venue for nutritioneducation.Funding: None.

Continued on page S10

O23 Using the Health Belief Model to ExamineFood Handling Beliefs, Knowledge, andPractices among Families with Young ChildrenAdeline Lum, MA, adeline_lkm@hotmail.com, Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln, 10 Home Economics Building,Lincoln, NE 68583; Julie Albrecht, PhD, RD;Christina Perry, PhD, University of New Mexico;Ruth Litchfield, PhD, RD, Iowa State University

Objective: To determine food handling beliefs, knowl-edge, and practice of families with children (< 10 years).Design, Setting and Participants: Four surveys weredeveloped according to FightBac!Outcome Measures and Analysis: Descriptive and in-ferential statistics with multiple regression analysis wereused.

Results: Respondents (N ¼ 514) were women (68%),white (79%), aged between 30 and 49 years (82%), andhad 1 to 2 children (82%). Half the participants (54%)reported high perceived severity for foodborne illnessfor their children, whereas 46% reported high suscepti-bility. Many (79%) changed their food-handling prac-tices if they or family members experienced foodborneillness. Barriers to safe food handling were insufficienttime, environmental distractions, and lack of controlfor others at home. Average knowledge scores wereclean, 5.1 � 1.1 (0-6 scale); cook, 8.0 � 2.9 (0-10); chill,9.7 � 1.8 (0-15); separate, 8.3 � 1.9 (0-12). Only 1‘‘clean’’ practice (washing hands after handling rawmeat), 1 ‘‘cook’’ practice (stir/rotate food in microwave),2 ‘‘chill’’ practices (egg storage; refrigerate food within 2hours), and 1 ‘‘separate’’ practice (using different platesfor raw/cooked meat) reached the Healthy People 2010goal.Conclusions and Implications: Survey results indicatethat participants (91%) were confident of their food-han-dling practices. However, low knowledge and incorrectpractices demonstrate that they may put their family atrisk for foodborne illness. Unique ways to educate familieswith children about safe food-handling practices need tobe explored.Funding:USDA Food Safety for Families with Young Chil-dren.Grant Number: USDA-CSREES Project 2008-51110-19237.

O24 4 Day Throw AwayKatie James, MS, RD, katiejames@unlnotes.unl.edu,University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 55CREC, CampusRecreation, Lincoln, NE 68588; Julie Albrecht, PhD, RD;Carol Larvick, MS; Carol Schwarz, MS, RD; Cindy Brison, MS,RD; Ruth Litchfield RD, PhD, Iowa State University;Christopher Weishaar, MS, Iowa State UniversityExtension; Jan Temple, MS

Objective: To conduct a food safety social marketing cam-paign based on results of focus groups and survey con-ducted with families with young children.Use of Theory or Research: Focus groups and a surveyexamining food-handling beliefs, knowledge, and prac-tices based on the Health Belief Model indicated that fam-ilies with young children were unsure/unaware of leftoverfood safety.Target Audience: Parents of young children were tar-geted via social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and In-ternet).Description: Based on USDA recommended storage timefor leftovers, a slogan was developed: 4 Day Throw Away.Socialmarketingdrove thedevelopment of the socialmediacampaign. Social media (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter) wereused to direct parents of children to the campaignWeb site.Campaign messaging included 4 videos for YouTube,Facebook, Web site, and iPhone Application, interactivepolling, and food safety myths on http://www.