Commercialism in US Elementary and Secondary School Nutrition Environments: Trends From 2007 to 2012 | Adolescent Medicine | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Molnar  A.  School commercialism and adolescent health.  Adolesc Med Clin. 2005;16(2):447-461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Brent  BO, Lunden  S.  Much ado about very little: the benefits and costs of school-based commercial activities.  Leadership Policy Schools. 2009;8(3):307-336. doi:10.1080/15700760802488619.Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Ben-Ishai  E.  School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues. Washington, DC: Public Citizen; 2012.
4.
Federal Trade Commission. Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-regulation. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2008. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2013.
5.
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services. Perspectives on Marketing, Self-regulation, and Childhood Obesity: A Report on a Joint Workshop of the Federal Trade Commission & the Department of Health & Human Services. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2006. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/05/PerspectivesOnMarketingSelf-Regulation&ChildhoodObesityFTCandHHSReportonJointWorkshop.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2013.
6.
Alliance for a Healthier Generation. Competitive Foods Guidelines for K-12 Schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for a Healthier Generation; 2007. https://schools.healthiergeneration.org/_asset/5zj25d/07-141_CFGuidelinesChart.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2013.
7.
Alliance for a Healthier Generation. School Beverage Guidelines. Washington, DC: Alliance for a Healthier Generation; 2007. https://schools.healthiergeneration.org/_asset/wgrpk6/07-267_BeverageGuidelines.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2013.
8.
US Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative Program and Core Principles Statement. Arlington, VA: US Council of Better Business Bureaus. https://www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/Enhanced%20Core%20Principles%20Third%20Edition%20-%20Letterhead.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2013.
9.
Federal Trade Commission. A Review of Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: Follow-up Report. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2012. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2013.
10.
O’Toole  TP, Anderson  S, Miller  C, Guthrie  J.  Nutrition services and foods and beverages available at school: results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006.  J Sch Health. 2007;77(8):500-521.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Chriqui  JF, Resnick  EA, Schneider  L,  et al.  School District Wellness Policies: Evaluating Progress and Potential for Improving Children’s Health Five Years after the Federal Mandate. School Years 2006-07 through 2010-11.Vol 3. Chicago: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago; 2013.
12.
Briefel  RR, Crepinsek  MK, Cabili  C, Wilson  A, Geason  PM.  School food environments and practices affect dietary behaviors of US public school children.  J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(2)(suppl):S91-S107.Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Johanson  J, Smith  J, Wootan  MG.  Raw Deal: School Beverage Contracts Less Lucrative Than They Seem. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest; 2006.
14.
Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Terry-McElrath YM, Colabianchi N. School Policies and Practices to Improve Health and Prevent Obesity: National Secondary School Survey Results: School Years 2006-07 through 2010-11. Vol 3. Ann Arbor, MI: Bridging the Gap Program, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research; 2013.
15.
Johnston  LD, Delva  J, O’Malley  PM.  Soft drink availability, contracts, and revenues in American secondary schools.  Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(4)(suppl):S209-S225.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Turner  L, Chaloupka  FJ, Sandoval  A.  School Policies and Practices for Improving Children’s Health: National Elementary School Survey Results: School Years 2006-07 through 2009-10.Vol 2. Chicago: Bridging the Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago; 2012.
17.
Adachi-Mejia  AM, Longacre  MR, Skatrud-Mickelson  M,  et al.  Variation in access to sugar-sweetened beverages in vending machines across rural, town and urban high schools.  Public Health. 2013;127(5):485-491.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Turner  L, Chaloupka  FJ, Chriqui  JF, Sandoval  A.  School Policies and Practices to Improve Health and Prevent Obesity: National Elementary School Survey Results: School Years 2006-07 and 2007-08.Vol 1. Chicago: Bridging the Gap, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago; 2010.
19.
Johnston  LD, O’Malley  PM, Terry-McElrath  YM, Freedman-Doan  P, Brenner  JS.  School Policies and Practices to Improve Health and Prevent Obesity: National Secondary School Survey Results, School Years 2006-07 and 2007-08.Vol 1. Ann Arbor, MI: Bridging the Gap Program, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research; 2011.
20.
National Center for Education Statistics. Common core of data. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/index.asp. Accessed January 27, 2013.
21.
Block  JP, Scribner  RA, DeSalvo  KB.  Fast food, race/ethnicity, and income: a geographic analysis.  Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(3):211-217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Cheyne  A, Gonzalez  P, Mejia  P, Dorfman  L.  Food and Beverage Marketing to Children and Adolescents: Limited Progress by 2012. Minneapolis, MN: Healthy Eating Research; 2013.
23.
Lesser  LI, Zimmerman  FJ, Cohen  DA.  Outdoor advertising, obesity, and soda consumption: a cross-sectional study.  BMC Public Health. 2013;13:20. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-20.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Powell  LM, Szczypka  G, Chaloupka  FJ.  Adolescent exposure to food advertising on television.  Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(4)(suppl):S251-S256.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Harris  JL, Brownell  KD, Bargh  JA.  The food marketing defense model: integrating psychological research to protect youth and inform public policy.  Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2009;3(1):211-271.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Harris  JL, Graff  SK.  Protecting children from harmful food marketing: options for local government to make a difference.  Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(5):A92.http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2011/sep/10_0272.htm. Accessed November 25, 2013.PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Johanson  J, Wootan  MG.  Sweet Deals: School Fundraising Can Be Healthy and Profitable. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest; 2007.
28.
Molnar  A, Boninger  F, Harris  MD, Libby  KM, Fogarty  J.  Promoting Consumption at School: Health Threats Associated with Schoolhouse Commercialism—The Fifteenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercializing Trends: 2011-2012. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center; 2013.
29.
Nestle  M.  Soft drink “pouring rights”: marketing empty calories to children.  Public Health Rep. 2000;115(4):308-319.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
US Census Bureau.  Public Education Finances: 2011 (G11-ASPEF). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2013.
31.
Oliff  P, Mai  C, Leachman  M.  New School Year Brings More Cuts in State Funding for Schools. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 2012.
32.
Molnar  A, Boninger  F, Wilkinson  G, Fogarty  J, Geary  S.  Effectively Embedded: Schools and The Machinery of Modern Marketing—The Thirteenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercializing Trends: 2009-2010. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center; 2010.
33.
Molnar  A, Boninger  F, Fogarty  J.  The Educational Cost of Schoolhouse Commercialism—The Fourteenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercializing Trends: 2010-2011. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center; 2011.
34.
California Project LEAN.  Captive Kids: Selling Obesity at Schools: An Action Guide to Stop the Marketing of Unhealthy Foods and Beverages in School. Sacramento, CA: California Project LEAN; 2007.
35.
Institute of Medicine.  Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
36.
Swinburn  B, Sacks  G, Lobstein  T,  et al; International Obesity Taskforce Working Group on Marketing to Children.  The “Sydney Principles” for reducing the commercial promotion of foods and beverages to children.  Public Health Nutr. 2008;11(9):881-886.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Chapter 156: An Act to Protect Children’s Health on School Grounds. S.P. 67, L.D. 184 (2007). http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_123rd/billpdfs/SP006701.pdf. Accessed November 25, 2013.
38.
Polacsek  M, O’Rourke  K, O’Brien  L, Blum  JW, Donahue  S.  Examining compliance with a statewide law banning junk food and beverage marketing in Maine schools.  Public Health Rep. 2012;127(2):216-223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Shin A. Removing schools’ soda is sticky point. Washington Post. March 22, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101966.html. Accessed June 4, 2013.
40.
Han-Markey  TL, Wang  L, Schlotterbeck  S,  et al.  A public school district’s vending machine policy and changes over a 4-year period: implementation of a national wellness policy.  Public Health. 2012;126(4):335-337.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Wharton  CM, Long  M, Schwartz  MB.  Changing nutrition standards in schools: the emerging impact on school revenue.  J Sch Health. 2008;78(5):245-251.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.  National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: nutrition standards for all foods sold in school as required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010: interim final rule.  Fed Regist. 2013;78(125):39067-39120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7th ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; December 2010.
Original Investigation
March 2014

Commercialism in US Elementary and Secondary School Nutrition Environments: Trends From 2007 to 2012

Author Affiliations
  • 1Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 2Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago
JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(3):234-242. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4521
Abstract

Importance  Schools present highly desirable marketing environments for food and beverage companies. However, most marketed items are nutritionally poor.

Objective  To examine national trends in student exposure to selected school-based commercialism measures from 2007 through 2012.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Annual nationally representative cross-sectional studies were evaluated in US public elementary, middle, and high schools with use of a survey of school administrators.

Exposures  School-based commercialism, including exclusive beverage contracts and associated incentives, profits, and advertising; corporate food vending and associated incentives and profits; posters/advertisements for soft drinks, fast food, or candy; use of food coupons as incentives; event sponsorships; and fast food available to students.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Changes over time in school-based commercialism as well as differences by student body racial/ethnic distribution and socioeconomic status.

Results  Although some commercialism measures—especially those related to beverage vending—have shown significant decreases over time, most students at all academic levels continued to attend schools with one or more types of school-based commercialism in 2012. Overall, exposure to school-based commercialism increased significantly with grade level. For 63.7% of elementary school students, the most frequent type of commercialism was food coupons used as incentives. For secondary students, the type of commercialism most prevalent in schools was exclusive beverage contracts, which were in place in schools attended by 49.5% of middle school students and 69.8% of high school students. Exposure to elementary school coupons, as well as middle and high school exclusive beverage contracts, was significantly more likely for students attending schools with mid or low (vs high) student body socioeconomic status.

Conclusions and Relevance  Most US elementary, middle, and high school students attend schools where they are exposed to commercial efforts aimed at obtaining food or beverage sales or developing brand recognition and loyalty for future sales. Although there have been significant decreases over time in many of the measures examined, the continuing high prevalence of school-based commercialism calls for, at minimum, clear and enforceable standards on the nutritional content of all foods and beverages marketed to youth in school settings.

×