Examining changes in school vending machine beverage availability and sugar-sweetened beverage intake among Canadian adolescents participating in the COMPASS study: a longitudinal assessment of provincial school nutrition policy compliance and effectiveness

Abstract

BackgroundSchool nutrition policies can encourage restrictions in sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) availability in school food outlets in order to discourage students’ SSB intake. The main objective was to examine how beverage availability in school vending machines changes over three school years across schools in distinct school nutrition policy contexts. Secondary objectives were to examine how students’ weekday SSB intake varies with time and identify longitudinal associations between beverage availability and SSB intake.MethodsThis longitudinal study used data from the COMPASS study (2013/14–2015/16), representing 7679 students from 78 Canadian secondary schools and three provincial school nutrition policy contexts (Alberta – voluntary guidelines, Ontario public – mandatory guidelines, and Ontario private schools – no guidelines). We assessed availability of 10 beverage categories in schools’ vending machines via the COMPASS School Environment Application and participants’ intake of three SSB varieties (soft drinks, sweetened coffees/teas, and energy drinks) via a questionnaire. Hierarchical regression models were used to examine whether: i) progression of time and policy group were associated with beverage availability; and, ii) beverage availability was associated with students’ SSB intake.ResultsOntario public schools were significantly less likely than the other policy groups to serve SSBs in their vending machines, with the exception of flavoured milks. Vending machine beverage availability was consistent over time. Participants’ overall SSB intake remained relatively stable; reductions in soft drink intake were partially offset by increased sweetened coffee/tea consumption. Relative to Ontario public schools, attending school in Alberta was associated with more frequent energy drink intake and overall SSB intake whereas attending an Ontario private school was associated with less frequent soft drink intake, with no differences in overall SSB intake. Few beverage availability variables were significantly associated with participants’ SSB intake.ConclusionsMandatory provincial school nutrition policies were predictive of more limited SSB availability in school vending machines. SSB intake was significantly lower in Ontario public and private schools, although we did not detect a direct association between SSB consumption and availability. The findings provide support for mandatory school nutrition policies, as well as the need for comprehensive school- and broader population-level efforts to reduce SSB intake.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12966-018-0754-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contemporary Trends and Habits in the Consumption of Sugar and Sweeteners—A Questionnaire Survey among Poles

“…What is more, they would add 3 or more teaspoons of sugar to their coffee and tea and use sugar while cooking. The similar situation accompanying increased consumption of sweetened coffee/tee among Canadian adolescents was reported by Godin et al [28]. In the group of Polish respondents, sugar intake exceeded the level recommended by WHO [4], i.e.…”

Can the school environment influence oral health–related behaviours? A multilevel analysis of the Brazilian National Adolescent School‐Based Health Survey 2015

“…12,16 Considering the pivotal role of reducing sugar consumption in caries prevention, 32,33 healthy food policies in schools are needed. 16,17,18 To our knowledge, this is the first study to consider, besides the frequencies of toothbrushing and consumption of soft drinks and sweets, the variables 'frequency of annual dental visits', 'cigarette experimentation' and 'alcoholic beverage experimentation' from the perspective of the oral health-promoting school environment. The low 'frequency of annual dental visits' was considered a risk situation in this study and may indicate low access to oral health care, due to its importance for the prevention, diagnosis and early intervention in diseases.…”

“…Schoolchildren and adolescents in schools with structural, organizational, curricular or processual characteristics that are more favourable to the oral health promotion have a lower prevalence of caries, [7][8][9][10][11][12] dental trauma, 7 dental pain 8 and a better oral health-related quality of life. [13][14][15] Oral health-related behaviours among schoolchildren such as toothbrushing, 2,12,16 consumption of foods with added sugar, 2,12,[16][17][18] tobacco consumption 2,[19][20][21][22] and alcohol intake 2,22 have also been investigated. The results vary, depending on the context, highlighting the need for further research involving these factors.…”

Are closed campus policies associated with youth eating behaviours?

“…Lunches prepared at home are generally considered the most nutritious option, relative to meals purchased from fast food, restaurants, and convenience store outlets (24,23). In Canadian secondary school students, those who bring a home-packed lunch report better total dietary quality, and consume fewer SSBs (25) and more fruit, vegetable (26), and whole grain servings, compared to their peers who purchase lunch from school or off campus (24,27). For purchased lunches, most studies support the school cafeteria food as the healthier alternative to food purchased at fast food outlets or other restaurant and retail options.…”

“…For purchased lunches, most studies support the school cafeteria food as the healthier alternative to food purchased at fast food outlets or other restaurant and retail options. Students who eat lunch or snacks purchased at fast food outlets or restaurants report higher consumption of SSBs (25,26,28) and fried foods, and have greater sodium, sugar, and total caloric intakes than their peers who eat lunch prepared at home or by the school cafeteria (23,24,28). However, some evidence suggests school obtained lunches are generally equivalent to food purchased off-school property (24,27).…”