State Regulations to Support Children's Cultural and Religious Food Preferences in Early Care and Education

被引:10
作者
Ayers Looby, Anna [1 ,2 ]
Frost, Natasha [2 ]
Gonzalez-Nahm, Sarah [3 ]
Grossman, Elyse R. [3 ]
Ralston Aoki, Julie [2 ]
Benjamin-Neelon, Sara E. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Sch Med, Duluth Campus, Duluth, MN 55812 USA
[2] Publ Hlth Law Ctr, Mitchell Hamline Sch Law, St Paul, MN 55105 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Behav & Soc, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Lerner Ctr Publ Hlth Promot, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
Child care; Culture; Policy; Regulations; CHILDHOOD OBESITY-PREVENTION; DIETETICS BENCHMARKS; NATIVE COMMUNITIES; NUTRITION; PROVIDERS; ACADEMY; HEALTH; POLICY; SETTINGS; POSITION;
D O I
10.1007/s10995-019-02833-1
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective In July 2018 the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics released a benchmark encouraging early care and education (ECE) programs, including child care centers and family child care homes, to incorporate cultural and religious food preferences of children into meals. We examined the extent to which states were already doing so through their ECE licensing and administrative regulations prior to the release of the benchmark. This review may serve as a baseline to assess future updates, if more states incorporate the benchmark into their regulations. Methods For this cross-sectional study, we reviewed ECE regulations for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (hereafter states) through June 2018. We assessed consistency with the benchmark for centers and homes. We conducted Spearman correlations to estimate associations between the year the regulations were updated and consistency with the benchmark. Results Among centers, eight states fully met the benchmark, 11 partially met the benchmark, and 32 did not meet the benchmark. Similarly for homes, four states fully met the benchmark, 13 partially met the benchmark, and 34 did not meet the benchmark. Meeting the benchmark was not correlated with the year of last update for centers (P = 0.54) or homes (P = 0.31). Conclusions Most states lacked regulations consistent with the benchmark. Health professionals can help encourage ECE programs to consider cultural and religious food preferences of children in meal planning. And, if feasible, states may consider additional regulations supporting cultural and religious preferences of children in future updates to regulations.
引用
收藏
页码:121 / 126
页数:6
相关论文
共 33 条
[2]  
[Anonymous], CHILDC TRANS INN REP
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, CURRENT POPULATION R
[4]  
[Anonymous], QRIS RESOURCE GUIDE
[5]  
[Anonymous], NAT DAT CHILD CAR LI
[6]   State and Regional Variation in Regulations Related to Feeding Infants in Child Care [J].
Benjamin, Sara E. ;
Taveras, Elsie M. ;
Cradock, Angie L. ;
Walker, Elizabeth M. ;
Slining, Meghan M. ;
Gillman, Matthew W. .
PEDIATRICS, 2009, 124 (01) :E104-E111
[7]   Obesity prevention in child care: A review of US state regulations [J].
Benjamin, Sara E. ;
Cradock, Angie ;
Walker, Elizabeth M. ;
Slining, Meghan ;
Gillman, Matthew W. .
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2008, 8 (1)
[8]   Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Benchmarks for Nutrition in Child Care [J].
Benjamin-Neelon, Sara E. .
JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS, 2018, 118 (07) :1291-1300
[9]   Westernizing diets influence fat intake, red blood cell fatty acid composition, and health in remote Alaskan Native communities in the center for Alaska Native health study [J].
Bersamin, Andrea ;
Luick, Bret R. ;
King, Irena B. ;
Stern, Judith S. ;
Zidenberg-Cherr, Sheri .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION, 2008, 108 (02) :266-273
[10]   From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-Being [J].
Block, Lauren G. ;
Grier, Sonya A. ;
Childers, Terry L. ;
Davis, Brennan ;
Ebert, Jane E. J. ;
Kumanyika, Shiriki ;
Laczniak, Russell N. ;
Machin, Jane E. ;
Motley, Carol M. ;
Peracchio, Laura ;
Pettigrew, Simone ;
Scott, Maura ;
Bieshaar, Mirjam N. G. van Ginkel .
JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY & MARKETING, 2011, 30 (01) :5-13