sb-505-11w 1 running head: school-based obesity
TRANSCRIPT
SB-505-11W 1
Running Head: SCHOOL-BASED OBESITY INTERVENTIONS
Problem Solving Proposal:
Using School-Based Environmental Policy
To Prevent Childhood Obesity
University of California, San Francisco
SB-505-11W 2
Childhood obesity has become more prevalent in the United States over the last 30 years
(Ogden & Carroll, 2010). The prevalence rate across all age groups has increased two- to three-
fold since the 1970s. For instance, the obesity prevalence rate in young children, ages two to five
years old, increased from 5% between 1976 and 1980 to 10.4% between 2007 and 2008 (Ogden
& Carroll, 2010). Obesity prevalence rates have more than tripled in grade school children and
adolescents during the same time period. For example, the rate increased from 6.5% to 19.6% in
children ages 6 to 11 years old and from 5% to 18.1% in adolescents ages 12 to 19 years old
(Ogden & Carroll, 2010). Between 2005 and 2006, the childhood obesity prevalence rate for
children and adolescents, ages two to 19 years old, was 16.3% (Ogden, Carroll, & Flegal, 2008).
Without effective intervention, the prevalence rate is expected to increase to almost 23% by 2015
(Wang & Beydoun, 2007).
Childhood obesity is defined as a condition that affects children and adolescents who
have excess body fat. One way it is measured is by using the body mass index (BMI). According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a child or adolescent whose BMI is
greater than the 95th percentile is obese. Childhood obesity is seen as a problem in various ways,
from an individual health problem to a social problem. Since the U.S. Surgeon General issued a
warning about the national obesity “epidemic” (Office of the Surgeon General, 2001), the
problem is now defined as a major public health concern. Solutions have been proposed by
clinicians, public health advocates, policy makers, and politicians in various settings such as
homes, schools, clinics, and community centers all over the country. Different groups of people
are working to achieve the same desired outcome of decreased childhood obesity prevalence
rates. Obesity prevention efforts are typically targeted at normal- and over-weight children,
regardless of age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES).
SB-505-11W 3
Why Childhood Obesity is a Policy Problem
Childhood obesity is problematic at the individual level primarily due to negative health
outcomes across the lifespan. These include adulthood mortality and morbidity related to
diabetes, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and stroke (Reilly & Kelly, 2010). Other obesity-
related health consequences are decreased cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) (Gidding et al., 2004)
and increased risk for Type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome (Biro & Wien, 2010). Aside from
negative health-related outcomes, childhood obesity may also contribute to increased school
absenteeism (Geier et al., 2007) and decreased academic performance (Hollar et al., 2010).
Children may also experience emotional distress due to weight-based teasing and social stigma.
Unlike normal-weight children, they are more likely to be victims and perpetrators of bullying
(Janssen, Craig, Boyce, & Pickett, 2004).
At the population level, the issue is problematic due to increased rates of mortality and
morbidity (Bjorge, Engeland, Tverdal, & Smith, 2008; Reilly & Kelly, 2010). Examples include
increased death and disease rates due to stroke (Reilly & Kelly, 2010) and some forms of cancer
(Fuemmeler, Pendzich, & Tercyak, 2009). The social costs are high due to increased rates of
disability, absenteeism, and lost work productivity (Finkelstein, DiBonaventura, Burgess, &
Hale, 2010; Gates, Succop, Brehm, Gillespie, & Sommers, 2008), which may result in a smaller
workforce and possibly a smaller tax revenue base. The economic implications are significant as
childhood obesity costs the American public about $14.1 billion annually (Transande &
Chatterjee, 2009). These high costs are associated with medications, emergency room visits, and
outpatient care services. According to Brownell and Frieden (2009), half of the annual costs of
childhood obesity are paid for by the government through public assistance programs like
Medicare and Medicaid.
SB-505-11W 4
Childhood obesity is problematic at the global level because of health disparities.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2006) more than 20 million children less
than five years old were obese in 2005. Recent changes in socio-political and economic trends
have promoted the spread of the childhood obesity epidemic from developed countries to
developing countries like Vietnam, Thailand, and Algeria (Dieu, Dibley, Sibbritt, & Hanh, 2009;
Likitmaskul et al., 2003; Oulamara, Agli, & Frelut, 2009). This is problematic because these
countries have neither the health care infrastructure nor do they have the financial resources to
effectively address major public health concerns like childhood obesity. Some would argue that
this is an issue of human rights and social injustice because childhood obesity disproportionately
affects people of low SES (Coogan et al., 2010; O’Dea & Dibley, 2010; Voorhees et al., 2009).
Another cause for concern is that developing world markets are being flooded with less
nutritious “junk foods” produced by multinational corporations (i.e. Kraft, Pepsi-Co) based in
developed countries like the U.S. (Leatherman & Goodman, 2005; Taylor, Satija, Khurana,
Singh, & Ebrahim, 2011). As a result, the WHO has recently recognized obesity as a global
health problem.
Childhood obesity has been studied extensively by individuals from various disciplines
like the health, social, and political sciences. Research activity on this topic has generated
numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As a result, the body of knowledge on
childhood obesity is wide and ever-expanding. Nevertheless, uncertainty remains regarding how
to best intervene in order to provide the greatest amount of health benefits for the greatest
number of people. One option attracting more interest is school-based obesity interventions
(SBOIs). Although results from intervention studies have been mixed, SBOIs have numerous
advantages: they provide an opportunity to affect many students at one time; they influence
SB-505-11W 5
students’ behaviors before diseases develop; they use a comprehensive approach that combines
multiple components like healthy nutrition, physical activity, and education. The purpose of this
paper is to apply research evidence, literature analysis, and agenda-setting theory in order to
propose a policy solution to the childhood obesity problem. The next sections of the paper
include an overview of the problem’s contextual factors, a critical review of the literature, and an
application of Kingdon’s multiple streams theory. The paper will conclude with a school-based
policy proposal, including plans for implementation and evaluation.
Environmental Context
The environmental context includes the physical, socioeconomic, cultural, and political
factors that contribute to the childhood obesity problem. Physical factors include those in the
human body like fat distribution, metabolism, muscle mass, genetics (Veiga et al., 2011), and
food addiction (Liu, von Deneen, Kobeissy, & Gold, 2010). Socio-economic factors include
those in the environment like health care infrastructure, access to resources, and neighborhood
safety. Studies have shown that childhood obesity disproportionately affects minorities of low
SES (Singh, Kogan, Van Dyck, & Siahpush, 2008). For example, while the childhood obesity
prevalence rate between 2007 and 2008 for non-Hispanic white (NHW) boys was 16.7%, the rate
for African American (AA) boys was 19.8% and the rate for Mexican-American boys was 26.8%
(Ogden & Carroll, 2010). Another important factor is “residential segregation,” which refers to
the distribution of housing, schools, and retail outlets based on the race/ethnicity and SES of
inhabitants (Kwate, 2008). For example, an AA girl living in the inner city may have more
access to liquor stores and fast food restaurants than grocery stores, parks, or playgrounds. In
contrast, a NHW girl who lives in an affluent suburb may have easy access to grocery stores,
SB-505-11W 6
farmer’s markets, and hiking trails. As a result, the AA girl is more likely to eat an unhealthy diet
and lead a sedentary life, thus increasing her risk for obesity, compared to the NHW girl.
Cultural factors related to childhood obesity are infant feeding practices (breastfeeding
vs. formula feeding), parenting practices, and body image issues. Another factor is whether
obesity is framed as a matter of personal responsibility or environment (Kersh, 2009). While
supporters of the personal responsibility frame argue that obesity is caused by one’s failure to
make the correct lifestyle choices, supporters of the environmental frame argue that obesity is
caused by external forces. Kersh (2009) describes the “obesogenic food environment” as a place
where people are surrounded by increased portion sizes, increased access to junk food outlets
and vending machines, and increased advertising from fast food restaurants. Political factors
include policy development, constituency building, and coalition building. Another factor is
deciding between conservative and liberal ideals. Conservative policies, which promote
decreased government involvement in favor of business interests, appeal to proponents of the
personal responsibility argument who value choice, freedom, and consumerism. One example
was the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 which proposed to prohibit
individuals from suing members of the food industry (Kersh, 2009). Liberal policies, on the other
hand, promote increased government regulation, at the expense of some personal freedoms, in
order to protect a greater majority of the citizenry. Such policies, like the subsidization of healthy
foods and the ban on children’s advertising, appeal to those who share the environmental
argument (Kersh, 2009). Finally, corporate influence on childhood obesity is another factor that
will be discussed later in the paper.
Stakeholders
SB-505-11W 7
Stakeholders who are highly interested in solving the problem are people who are
personally invested, like obese children and their parents. Stakeholders who are not directly
affected by childhood obesity are teachers, school administrators, clinicians, researchers,
lobbyists, and consultants. The most powerful stakeholders are those with financial resources and
political clout. These include elected officials, school board members, policy makers, and
members of the food industry. Stakeholders interact in many settings like schools, city halls, and
clinics. The reasons for the interactions include sharing personal experiences, expertise, and
feedback. Productive interactions result in plans for action, policy development, or program
implementation and evaluation. Unproductive interactions result in an ambiguous course of
action and policies that lack specificity, objective measures, and evaluation criteria. More details
about stakeholder interaction will be discussed in the theoretical application section of this paper.
Nurses play a central role in the fight against childhood obesity. First, at the frontlines
nurses are providing direct patient care, surveying the environment, and collecting data. Second,
in local and state jurisdictions nurses are collaborating with public health officials, coordinating
advocacy activities, and persuading elected officials. Third, at the national level nurses are
sharing research findings, raising public awareness, and providing expertise for policy makers.
Nurses have the ability to make positive contributions to the cause as a result of their training,
skill set, and unique perspective. Because nurses are among some of the most trusted
professionals in society, they can use their influence to not only attract attention to childhood
obesity but also to inspire change in policy to benefit public health.
Review of Literature
Research on school-based obesity interventions
SB-505-11W 8
Three research studies were reviewed to examine the evidence about the effectiveness of
SBOIs. These studies were obtained by searching the PubMed database. Search terms like
“childhood obesity intervention, “school-based intervention,” and “obesity prevention” were
used. Inclusion criteria for the studies were: the use of experimental or quasi-experimental
design, the use of school setting, the use of BMI, and the use of subjects who were students.
Exclusion criteria for the studies were: the use of non-experimental designs, the use of settings
outside of school, and the use of subjects who were not students.
Purpose. First, the HEALTHY Study Group (2010) used a quasi-experimental design to
measure the effect of a multi-component school-based intervention on diabetes risk factors like
obesity. The SBOI consisted of four parts: school nutrition, physical activity, behavioral
knowledge and skills, and communication and social marketing. Second, Peralta, Jones, and
Okley’s (2009) pilot study used a quasi-experimental design to assess a school-based
intervention’s feasibility, acceptability, and possible efficacy. The SBOI, also known as the
Fitness Improvement Lifestyle Awareness (FILA) program, combined one hour per week of
health education class and 40 minutes per week of physical activity. Third, McMurray et al.
(2002) used an experimental, 2x2 factorial design to examine the effect of a school-based
intervention on blood pressure and body fat. The SBOI involved exercise and education.
Sample. The Healthy Study Group (2010) had the largest study sample with 4,603
students in grades 6 through 8. Cluster sampling was used and schools were randomly assigned
to intervention and control conditions. Inclusion criteria were 6th grade status in Fall 2006 and
availability of baseline height, weight, and sex data. Exclusion criteria were diabetes diagnosis or
inability to participate in physical activity. McMurray et al.’s (2002) study sample included
1,140 students, between 11 and 14 years old, who attended one of five schools in rural North
SB-505-11W 9
Carolina. Students were included in the study based on the following criteria: previous
participation in the Cardiovascular Health in Children and Youth Study (CHIC) II, “good” health
status (defined as being free of chronic disease), and ability to exercise. A participation rate of
38.2% was reported. Students who met the inclusion criteria were then randomly assigned to one
of three intervention groups (IGs)--exercise only [ExO], education only [EdO], or combination
of exercise and education [EE]--or to the control group (CG). Peralta et al. (2009) used the
smallest sample: 33 Australian boys in the 7th grade who were randomly assigned to intervention
and comparison groups.
Method. All three studies utilized a quasi-experimental, longitudinal design. The
HEALTHY Study Group (2010) collected data at baseline and at three years. The independent
variable was the SBOI and the dependent variables were diabetes risk factors. Outcomes
included the combined prevalence of overweight (BMI equal to or greater than the 85th
percentile) and obesity, obesity prevalence, waist circumference (WC), fasting glucose level, and
fasting insulin level. Peralta et al. (2009) collected data at baseline and at six months. The
independent variable was the SBOI and the dependent variables were weight, CRF, and health
behaviors. Outcomes included BMI, WC, percentage body fat (%BF), CRF, physical activity,
television viewing activity (TVA), and consumption of sweetened beverages and fruits. By using
a two-arm parallel design, the researchers were able to assess members of the IG, who
participated in the FILA program over the course of 16 weeks, and members of the comparison
group, who participated in the general fitness program as per the school’s curriculum. McMurray
et al. (2002) collected data at baseline and at eight weeks. The independent variable was the
SBOI. Using a 2x2 factorial design, the researchers compared differences between the CG and
the three IGs. Members of the ExO group were exposed to 30-minute aerobics classes three
SB-505-11W 10
times per week while members of the EdO group were exposed to health and nutrition classes
two times per week. Members of the EE group were exposed to a combination of the two
interventions described previously. The dependent variables were blood pressure (BP), BMI,
skin-fold thickness (SFT), and maximal oxygen uptake (MOU).
Similar measures were used among all three studies. One example was BMI. However,
the studies utilized different procedures to obtain their measurements. Peralta et al. (2009) used
height and weight data that were obtained by blinded research assistants (RAs) who measured
subjects according to standardized protocols. McMurray et al. (2002), on the other hand, used
data obtained by RAs who participated in inter-rater reliability testing and measurement training
prior to beginning the study. To ensure the accuracy of height measurements, RAs used a
Stadiometer and rounded to the nearest 0.5 cm. Weight was obtained via a balance-beam scale
and measurements were rounded to the nearest 0.1 kg. The HEALTHY Study Group (2010),
however, did not provide information about measurement procedures because the article was the
second in a series of articles related to the same intervention. Readers were instead referred to
the supplementary appendix and the authors’ previous reports for more specific information.
Other physiological measures included: WC and fasting glucose and insulin levels (The
HEALTHY Study Group, 2010); BP, SFT, and MOU (McMurray et al., 2002); and WC, %BF,
CRF, and physical activity (Peralta et al., 2009). BP was measured via sphygmomanometer and
SFT was measured with calibrated calipers. MOU was measured by monitoring subjects’ heart
rate while exercising on a cycle ergometer. McMurray et al. (2002) used Mocellin, Lindemann,
Rutenfranz, and Sbresny’s (1971) method for measuring MOU because it was highly correlated
(0.807) with actual measurements of MOU. Although McMurray et al. (2002) used study
protocols based on guidelines from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
SB-505-11W 11
(NHANES) and the American Heart Association (AHA), they did not provide information about
the validity of their other measurement tools. Percentage body fat was measured via a body fat
analyzer, CRF was measured via a 20-meter Multistage Fitness Test, and physical activity was
measured via an Actigraph accelerator (Peralta et al., 2009).
Non-physiological measures were also used: TVA, consumption of sweetened beverages
and fruits, and parental SES via questionnaires (Peralta et al., 2009; McMurray et al., 2002).
Both McMurray et al. (2002) and the HEALTHY Study Group (2010) used process measures
like enjoyment scales, semi-structured interviews, and observations to assess fidelity and
intervention acceptability. However, information about the tools’ reliability or validity was not
provided.
Analysis. Data was analyzed in a similar fashion among the three studies. The
HEALTHY Study Group (2010) used descriptive statistics, general linear mixed models, and
odds ratios while Peralta et al. (2009) used descriptive statistics, analyses of covariance
(ANCOVAs), and Cohen’s d to measure effect sizes. McMurray et al. (2002) used descriptive
statistics, change scores (pre- and post-tests), Chi square tests, ANCOVAs, and analyses of main
and interaction effects. The HEALTHY Study Group (2010) made no adjustments to account for
differences in school site, sex, or race/ethnicity while McMurray et al. (2002) used Bonferroni
corrections to detect differences between the IGs and the CG. Only Peralta et al. (2009) provided
information about which statistical software program (SPSS version 16) was used in data
analysis.
Findings. The HEALTHY Study Group (2010) found no statistically significant
differences in overweight (p = 0.92) and obesity (p = 0.05) prevalence between the intervention
and control groups. However, the IG experienced greater reductions compared to the CG in
SB-505-11W 12
obesity prevalence, BMI, WC, and fasting insulin level. No significant differences in fasting
glucose level or adverse events were reported. A case of suicide, unrelated to the study, was
reported. Findings from Peralta et al.’s (2009) pilot study included differences in effect sizes
between the IG and comparison group: the IG had smaller increases in BMI, greater reductions
in WC, %BF, and TVA, and greater improvements in CRF and total weekday physical activity.
Although the intervention produced only a small effect (0.05) on the primary outcome of
decreasing BMI, it produced larger effects (0.72-0.99) on the secondary outcomes related to
physical activity. Peralta et al. (2009) reported that screening, recruitment, and retention goals
were met and that the intervention was found to be both feasible and acceptable. McMurray et al.
(2002) found no statistically significant differences in BMI between the three IGs and the control
group. However, they reported that the intervention was associated with significantly smaller
increases in BP (p = 0.001). Other findings were as follows: the ExO and EE groups had
significantly smaller increases in SFT (p = 0.0001) compared to the CG and the EE group had
significantly greater increases in MOU (p = 0.0001) compared to the EdO group.
Based on these findings, the authors of the three studies concluded different things about
the effectiveness of SBOIs. Because the intervention did not produce any statistically significant
difference in the desired outcome of decreased obesity prevalence as measured by the BMI, none
of the studies were able to conclude definitively that SBOIs were effective. However, many
improvements in anthropometric measurement and physical fitness were reported. For example,
the HEALTHY Study Group (2010) found that the SBOI was effective in producing greater
reductions in BMI, WC, and fasting insulin level. McMurray et al. (2002) reported that the
intervention was associated with significant improvements in BP, SFT, and MOU. Peralta et al.
(2009) used a study design that lacked sufficient power to detect statistically significant
SB-505-11W 13
differences between the IG and comparison group. Based on effect sizes, they concluded that the
SBOI was minimally effective in decreasing BMI and moderately effective in improving
physical fitness. Peralta et al. (2009) concluded that findings from their pilot study could be used
to inform larger future studies because the intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable.
Limitations. Several threats to reliability and validity existed in the three studies. In the
study about diabetes risk factors (The HEALTHY Study Group, 2010), the following threats
existed: interaction and maturation (threats to internal validity), nonrandom and non-
representative sampling (threats to external validity), and the lack of a true control group.
Another threat was the use of an intervention with a broad scope and multiple components,
which opened the study to multiple confounding variables like SES, English literacy, health
literacy, parental participation, and socio-cultural health behavior. In the study of adolescent
boys (Peralta et al., 2009), the following threats existed: small sample and effect sizes (threats to
statistical validity); interaction, diffusion, and rivalry (threats to internal validity); non-
representative sampling, excluding girls (threats to external validity). As a result, findings may
not be generalizable to other populations. The following limitations were also noted: the lack of a
true control group, the short study duration, and the lack of sustainability. The authors reported
validity information for most of the measurement tools but no information was provided about
reliability via calibration or inter-rater testing. In the study about hypertension and obesity
(McMurray et al., 2002), the following threats existed: small sample and effect sizes (threats to
statistical validity), nonrandom sampling (threat to external validity), and experimenter bias due
to lack of blinding (threat to construct validity). Several limitations--such as short study duration,
use of low intervention dose/intensity, and use of self-reported SES data--and confounding
variables also existed. Some examples of confounders included seasonality, decreased access to
SB-505-11W 14
health care (due to rural location), and socio-cultural norms (different perceptions about body
image).
Strengths. To minimize threats to reliability and validity, the studies utilized several
strategies: the use of specially trained RAs, blinding, randomization, unannounced direct
observations, and strict adherence to study protocols. The HEALTHY Study Group (2010)
reported compliance rates to be between 84% and 97%. McMurray et al. (2002) provided
reliability information for MOU and BP testing and used calibrated calipers for SFT. They
reduced interaction effects by selecting geographically isolated schools. Overall, the three studies
shared the following strengths: use of high quality methodologies such as randomized control
trials (RCTs) that compared differences between groups over time, use of objective data to assess
adiposity, and use of valid obesity measurement (BMI).
Findings from these three intervention studies indicate that the evidence in support of
SBOIs is moderately strong. Using criteria like quality, quantity, and consistency, one can assess
the strength of this body of evidence to guide decision-making. First, the body of evidence was
strengthened by the studies’ use of high quality methodologies. This involved study designs that
were randomized and quasi-experimental. Several other factors contributed to quality: use of
specially trained RAs, blinding, inter-rater testing, adherence to protocol, use of objective data,
used of valid measurement tools, and use of process measures. Second, the strength of the body
of evidence was diminished by the small quantity of studies used. This resulted in a combined
sample of 5,773 subjects from only three studies. In addition, the magnitude of the intervention’s
effect was low as all three research groups reported statistically insignificant changes and small
effect sizes. Third, the strength of the body of evidence was enhanced by the consistent nature of
some of the study findings. Although different samples (African Americans, Hispanics, and
SB-505-11W 15
Australians) and settings were used, the findings were relatively similar. In fact, all three
research groups reported that SBOIs were associated with improved anthropometric
measurements like BMI, SFT, and WC. In spite of differences in specific treatment effects, the
findings from the three studies did not contradict one another.
Background on childhood obesity policy
Federal policies
At the federal level, several policies have been enacted to address the childhood obesity
epidemic. Some examples are the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) of 1946 and the 1975
authorization of the national School Breakfast Program (SBP). In exchange for federal subsidies,
schools provide meals that meet nutritional standards, known as the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans (DGAs), established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Competitive
foods (i.e. foods sold in vending machines or during fund raisers), on the other hand, are not
required to comply with any nutritional standards. The regulation of school meals and the
promotion of healthy nutrition play an important role in the fight against childhood obesity as
more than 30 million students participate in the national school lunch program and 10 million
students participate in the SBP (Story, Nanney, & Schwartz, 2009).
Another federal policy is the 2002 Farm Bill, which provided funds for a pilot healthy
snacks program to 25 schools in six states. The program, implemented by the USDA, gave
schools grant money to purchase fruits and vegetables for students to receive free healthy snacks
in addition to school breakfasts and lunches. Other examples of federal policy are the Child
Nutrition and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004, which
mandated the creation of school wellness policies, and the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act. The NCLB Act provided funding for the Carol M. White Physical Education Program
SB-505-11W 16
(PEP), which gave grants to schools for exercise and sports equipment and staff training.
However, some criticized the Act for omitting physical and health education from the list of core
academic subjects (Dietz, Benken, & Hunter, 2009). As a result, some states now offer little to
no physical education (PE) in schools. In fact, in 2007 less than one quarter of all states had any
policy for students’ physical fitness testing (Story et al., 2009).
State and local policies
Increased policy activity has been reported at the state and local levels. According to
Story et al. (2009), 25 states have policies that limit students’ access to competitive foods during
the school day, 27 states have policies regarding the nutritional content of competitive foods that
are stricter than the USDA regulations, and 11 states have policies for more nutritious school
meals. A specific example of a state policy was the 18% “obesity tax” on non-diet sodas
proposed by then-governor, David Paterson (D-NY), in 2008 (Powell, Chriqui, & Chaloupka,
2009). Another policy option to reduce the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) is
an excise tax on the sugar in sodas and sports drinks (Brownell & Frieden, 2009; Sturm, Powell,
Chriqui, & Chaloupka, 2010). Other examples of state and local policies are the 2008 menu-
labeling ordinances introduced in New York and California, the 2008 prohibition of sugar
sweetened beverages (SSBs) in Colorado schools, and the restriction of vending machine sales
on school campuses in Chicago and Philadelphia.
Examples of physical education policies include Mississippi’s Healthy Students Act of
2007, which set minimum standards for PE, and California’s Public Health Law and Policy of
2006, which required cities and counties to adopt a General Plan for creating “healthy and
sustainable” communities (Dietz et al., 2009). Another example is Arkansas’ BMI assessment
program which requires all public school students in even-numbered grades to be weighed and
SB-505-11W 17
measured unless parents submit a refusal in writing. Since the policy was implemented in 2003
obesity rates in Arkansan school children have reportedly stopped increasing (Justus, Ryan,
Rockenbach, Katterapalli, & Card-Higginson, 2007).
Policy analysis
Policies, whether implemented at the federal, state, or local level, are most effective in
providing the greatest amount of health benefits for the greatest number of people when they are
based on an environmental approach rather than a personal responsibility approach. For example,
a policy mandating nutrition education will likely have little impact on students’ health behaviors
and outcomes if the school food environment remains toxic. Characteristics of a toxic food
environment are unregulated competitive food sales, unlimited access to vending machines, and
decreased access to healthier alternatives like fresh fruits and vegetables. In order to establish
healthy school food environments, policies must be in place to limit students’ access to
competitive food sources like vending machines (Fox, Dodd, Wilson, & Gleason, 2009; Wiecha,
Finkelstein, Troped, Fragala, & Peterson, 2006). An analysis of the socio-political and economic
factors related to obesity indicates that several threats to public health exist as a result of undue
corporate influence from the food industry. Economic policies are intended to preserve the
solvency of the dollar and stimulate growth in a free market but they often protect business
interests more than they protect those of the public. For example, one disadvantage of the Farm
Bill was that it subsidized corn production. As a result, there was a surplus of corn-based, high-
fructose syrup, and the market became flooded with products like sugary foods and beverages
(Cawley, 2006). This is problematic because increased access to SSBs has been associated with
increased BMI and obesity (Collison et al, 2010; Denova-Gutierrez et al., 2010).
SB-505-11W 18
Public health advocates using an economic perspective recognize that government
intervention is warranted when a “market failure” occurs, resulting in imbalanced production and
consumption (Brownell & Frieden, 2009; Cawley, 2006). This failure is characterized by three
features: information asymmetry, high-cost externalities, and irrational consumers (Cawley,
2006). First, Brownell and Frieden (2009) and Cawley (2006) argue that the information
provided by the food industry through marketing and direct-to-consumer advertising is
financially motivated and not always factual. Second, the social costs of obesity are incurred not
just by obese individuals but by members of the public who pay taxes. According to Brownell
and Frieden (2009) and Dietz et al. (2009), public insurance programs like Medicare and
Medicaid pay for about half of all obesity-related treatment costs. Finally, government action is
needed to protect children who cannot yet participate in rational decision-making. The food
industry recognizes children as potential consumers and spends billions of dollars annually in
advertisements that appeal to a younger audience. In 2007 forty-four food and beverage
companies disclosed their marketing practices as mandated by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC, 2007). Findings were as follows: $870 million was spent on marketing to children, $1
billion was spent on marketing to adolescents, and $300 million was spent on marketing to both
age groups (FTC, 2008).
According to Brownell and Warner (2009), the food and beverage industry, also known
as Big Food, bears an uncanny resemblance to Big Tobacco in its use of deception and lobbying
to maximize profits at the expense of public health. One example of an industry tactic is making
promises about self-regulation. In 2006 the American Beverage Association (ABA) issued a joint
statement with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (AHG) that encouraged limiting the sale
of non-diet sodas in middle schools. However, the contents of the agreement made no mention of
SB-505-11W 19
sports drinks which contain high levels of sugar (Wiecha et al., 2006). Other tactics that Big
Food copied from Big Tobacco’s “playbook” (Brownell & Warner, 2000) were the use of front
groups (Americans Against Food Taxes, Center for Consumer Freedom), the use of corporate
social responsibility (CSR), the use of legislative preemption, and the use of harm reduction
strategies. Like Big Tobacco, Big Food uses its money and influence to hire consultants and
researchers, dispute scientific findings (labeled as “junk science”), and block important
legislation (Brownell & Warner, 2009). Failing to recognize the power, influence, and financial
resources of the food industry may severely damage the movement to end childhood obesity.
In spite of advancements in public policy and health science, more research is needed to
identify the most effective obesity interventions. Future research should examine how socio-
political, economic, and cultural factors affect obesity prevention efforts. An especially
important focus of future research should be social determinants of health considering the fact
that health disparities continue to affect many obese children and adolescents who are low-SES
racial/ethnic minorities (Singh et al., 2008).
Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory
Theory overview
Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams theory describes how policy development is
comprised of two interdependent processes: agenda-setting and alternative specification.
Agenda-setting refers to how issues are pushed up and down the political agenda by
entrepreneurs like elected officials and industry leaders. Alternative specification refers to how
different policy options are identified as possible solutions to a given problem. The theory is
useful in addressing why certain issues are a hot topic of discussion one day, then ignored the
next day.
SB-505-11W 20
Kingdon’s three streams are distinct and independently flowing. First, the problem stream
is where an issue is identified as a dilemma or crisis. Problems differ from conditions in that they
violate values and break social norms (Kingdon, 1995). Participants in this stream, like
clinicians, public health advocates, and media personalities, are known as entrepreneurs who
attract attention to the issue, garner support, and provide feedback to decision-makers. Natural
disasters and public controversies are “focusing events” because they attract attention and push
the problem up the agenda. Second, the policy stream is where an issue is investigated to identify
solutions to the problem. It is known as a “primeval soup” where ideas are exchanged and
hypotheses are developed. Participants in this stream, like academics, researchers, and analysts,
are known as hidden participants who work behind the scenes, identifying and testing possible
solutions. Deciding which solution to adopt occurs during alternative specification, where only
the “fittest” policy option survives selection. Fitness refers to a policy’s “technical feasibility,
congruence with the values of community members, and the anticipation of future constraints”
(Kingdon, 1995, p. 200). Participants also “soften up” the environment by issuing press releases
and conducting public forums so that people are more welcoming of future policy change.
Finally, the political stream is where the issue becomes a decision maker’s pet project
and is actively pushed to the top of the government agenda. Participants in this stream are
politicians, policy aides, and other staff members who build coalitions and use bargaining
techniques to reach a consensus with other decision makers. Other components of the political
stream are the national mood and the liberal or conservative nature of the administration.
Additional concepts of Kingdon’s theory include coupling, recombination, mutation, and
spillover. Kingdon’s theory also discusses problem and policy windows which are opportunities
to push attention or solutions to certain issues.
SB-505-11W 21
Theory application to childhood obesity
Problem stream. Entrepreneurs in this stream include First Lady, Michelle Obama,
professional athletes, Drew Brees and Tony Hawk, and celebrity chef, Rachel Ray. Mrs. Obama
launched the “Let’s Move!” campaign in 2010 to raise public awareness about the importance of
nutrition and exercise in ending the childhood obesity epidemic. Brees and Hawk appeared in
public service announcements (PSAs) for the “Fuel Up to Play 60” physical fitness campaign
sponsored by the National Dairy Council and National Football League (NFL). Ray spoke at a
press conference to support Rep. George Miller’s (D-CA) child nutrition bill. Examples of
indicators are the increasing childhood obesity prevalence rates and the rising social costs of
childhood obesity. According to Cawley (2010), obesity costs the public over $14 billion in
medical expenses and $4.3 billion in job absenteeism every year. Obesity also contributes to
decreased work productivity, which costs society about $506 per obese worker per year (Cawley,
2010). Examples of participant feedback in the policy stream are findings from cost-
effectiveness studies about specific childhood obesity interventions. A study by Wang, Yang,
Lowry, and Wechsler (2003), for instance, found that a SBOI implemented in Boston saved
$15,887 in medical costs (from cases of overweight averted) and $25,104 in labor costs (from
cases of lost productivity averted). Other types of feedback may be obtained from discussions
with advocacy groups and reports from international agencies like the WHO. A comparison
between countries is useful in highlighting the need for change. While the childhood obesity
prevalence rate for boys was 35% between 2003 and 2004 in the U.S., it was only 22.7% in
England in 2007 and 13.1% in France between 2006 and 2007 (International Obesity Taskforce,
2007). Examples of focusing events are news stories featuring obese children and TV shows like
“The Biggest Loser” and “Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution.” Another example was when (Ret.)
SB-505-11W 22
Major General Paul D. Monroe (2010) appeared at the hearing for H.R. 5504, the Improving
Nutrition for America’s Children Act, and testified that childhood obesity was a threat to
national security.
Policy stream. Entrepreneurs like researchers, Kelly Brownell and Marion Nestle, are
known as specialists because of their expertise in the field. Brownell is the director of the Rudd
Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale while Nestle is the chair of the Council on Nutrition
Policy at the National Association for Public Health Policy. Examples of policy solutions that
may be “tested” include family-based obesity interventions, school gardens, and anti-obesity
drugs. Entrepreneurs soften up the environment by commenting on blogs, appearing on talk
shows, and creating press releases. The process of alternative specification helps narrow down
the list of possible solutions to those that are most feasible, affordable, and congruent with the
values of community members (Kingdon, 1995). For example, distributing treadmills to every
school in the country is not affordable and providing every student a personal trainer is not
feasible. Also, while mandating that all obese families enroll in Weight Watchers is not likely to
be congruent with the values of the majority of the community, mandating that school
environments be safe and accessible is more likely to be appealing.
Political stream. One example of an entrepreneur is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY),
who proposed a federal law in 2009 to increase the regulation of all foods (including competitive
foods) provided at schools. Other examples include Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who proposed a
national menu labeling policy, and former president, Bill Clinton (D), who helped create an
agreement between the ABA (2006) and the AHG to limit students’ access to SSBs. Perhaps one
of the most active entrepreneurs is Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who proposed a national menu
labeling policy, an update of the list of Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value (FMNV), and a shift
SB-505-11W 23
of authority for defining foods of “minimal nutrition” from the USDA to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) (Kersh, 2009). Entrepreneurs face opposition from figures such as former
Rep. Ric Heller (R-FL), who proposed to ban lawsuits against fast food companies in 2004, and
former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson (R), who urged the Grocery
Manufacturers Association (GMA) to oppose increased government regulation and who
attempted to block the release of a report by the WHO on obesity (Brownell & Warner, 2009).
An example of how the national mood influences agenda-setting is when an expensive childhood
obesity proposal introduced during an economic recession fails to gain the public’s support.
Other concepts. Examples of recombination, which modify existing policy, include
increasing funds to support the NSLP and SBP and updating the list of FMNV. An example of a
novel policy option, also known as a mutation, is a federal policy mandating BMI assessment.
Coupling takes place when streams intersect. An example is when a figure from the problem
stream like celebrity chef, Rachel Ray, collaborates with a figure from the political stream like
congressman, George Miller (D-CA), to speak publically about the importance of healthy
nutrition in preventing childhood obesity. However, an issue is more likely to be pushed up the
agenda if all three streams are involved. One example would be if media personality, Oprah
Winfrey, invited first lady, Michelle Obama (from the problem stream), researcher, Kelly
Brownell (from the policy stream), and senator, Tom Harkin (D-IA) (from the political stream),
on her talk show to discuss childhood obesity. An example of a problem window is a news story
that attracts a lot of public attention like when boxer, Mike Tyson, talked about being bullied as a
child because he was overweight. Another example would be if a proposal mandating menu-
labeling resulted in protests or labor strikes. Examples of policy windows include the transition
from a Republican to a Democratic majority in Congress and the replacement of a key cabinet
SB-505-11W 24
member from a pro-business politician to one with a background in public health. Success in the
childhood obesity movement may spill over into other areas like improved academic
performance and decreased rates of teen pregnancy.
Proposal: Healthy School Environment Policy
The Healthy School Environment Policy (HSEP) is a novel policy proposal that has not
yet been established. It would combine elements of the Pennsylvania School Nutrition Policy
Initiative (SNPI) (Foster et al., 2008) and the Arkansas Act 1220 of 2003 (Justus et al., 2007). It
consists of four components: Environment, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Social Marketing.
First, Environment refers to maintaining a safe, accessible space with athletic fields, gym
facilities, and playgrounds. Access to and from school will be clearly marked and students will
receive incentives for using walking and biking paths as part of the Safe Routes to School
program. Food and beverage advertisements and corporate sponsorship will not be permitted so
as to protect vulnerable children from targeted marketing. Second, Nutrition refers to providing
students with healthy food choices. This includes adopting evidence-based nutritional guidelines
for school meals and competitive foods. If vending machines are present, then the items for sale
must meet a stricter set of nutritional guidelines and access must be limited to two hours per
school day. Students will receive vouchers for good behavior or volunteer work to purchase fresh
fruit and vegetable snacks. A “healthy eating” learning module will be developed for use in
classrooms.
Third, Physical Activity refers to promoting vigorous exercise and mandatory BMI
assessment. Schools will need to update their PE and athletic programs to meet the standards
established by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) (Story et al.,
2009). Grades in PE will count towards students’ GPAs. Students will participate in physical
SB-505-11W 25
fitness testing annually and BMI assessment biannually. Confidential reports will be mailed
home to parents. If a student earns an “unsatisfactory” grade, then a parent-teacher meeting will
be arranged to create a plan for improvement. Fourth, Social Marketing refers to using
multimedia to engage with the greater community. This includes using social media to send
students and parents health reminders via email and text message, creating a health-themed
website, and hosting public health fairs. School staff will be required to collaborate with others
in the community like faith-based organizations, cultural groups, and health care organizations.
Schools will also host a design competition where students create posters about health promotion
for use on campus and in the community.
Expected outcome. The primary outcome of the HSEP is decreased obesity prevalence
as measured by BMI. For Environment, the outcomes are increased student and parent
satisfaction with campus physical activity facilities, increased student participation in the Safe
Routes to School program, and 100% compliance with the advertisement and corporate
sponsorship ban. For Nutrition, the outcomes are compliance with nutritional standards for
school meals and competitive foods, decreased number of and access to vending machines,
decreased consumption of SSBs, and completion of the learning module. For Physical Activity,
the outcomes are compliance with the NASPE standards, satisfactory performance in PE and
fitness testing, and decreased rates of overweight and obesity. For Social Marketing, the
outcomes are increased student and parent use of social media tools, increased number of health
website views, increased participation in health fair, and increased collaboration with community
partners.
The defensibility of the proposed intervention lies in its potential to make improvements
in the childhood obesity epidemic compared to alternative policy options. First, the HSEP uses a
SB-505-11W 26
comprehensive approach that reflects an appreciation for the complex, multi-factorial nature of
the problem. Others (i.e. Summerbell et al., 2005) have reported on the ineffectiveness of
interventions that focused solely on education. In contrast, the HSEP combines nutrition and
physical activity in order to achieve proper energy balance, which others (Jiang et al., 2007;
Nemet et al., 2005) have identified as a key factor in obesity prevention. This comprehensive,
multi-component approach has already been effective elsewhere (Kriemler et al., 2010; Simon et
al., 2008; Spiegel & Foulk, 2006). Second, the HSEP uses an approach that recognizes the
central role that schools play in health promotion. Evidence from previous studies supports the
use of SBOIs in preventing childhood obesity (The HEALTHY Study Group, 2010; McMurray
et al., 2002). Third, the HSEP uses an approach that promotes capacity building, sustainability,
and inter-organization collaboration. By working with stakeholders to develop culturally
competent program materials, the policy is more likely to be adopted by members of the
community, even those not directly affected by the problem. The realism of the proposal lies in
its feasibility to be implemented within a specified environmental context.
The role of the school food environment in obesity prevention is not yet fully understood.
One common misconception is that school meals cause children to become obese. Gleason and
Dodd (2009) found no such association in a study of 2,228 students in the 1st through 12th
grades. Another misconception is that schools need vending machines for the revenues they
produce. Story et al. (2009) cite findings from a systematic literature review which suggest that
improving the nutritional value of competitive foods does not hurt school revenue (Wharton,
Long, & Schwartz, 2008). The HSEP is feasible for the following reasons: it uses the existing
infrastructure of schools, it relies on in-house instructors and their leadership instead of hired
consultants, and it requires minimal investments in new technology. The HSEP is legal, low-
SB-505-11W 27
cost, and culturally-competent. Nevertheless, the proposal’s feasibility may be limited by
difficult program coordination, long implementation schedule, and backlash from stakeholders.
Implementation
The proposed intervention is intended to be implemented at the county level due to the
overwhelming political, financial, and bureaucratic barriers at the state and federal levels. Santa
Clara County may be the ideal setting because the Board of Supervisors recognizes childhood
obesity prevention as a top priority. In fact, several policies that are consistent with the
proposal’s environmental approach are already in place: the 2005 regulation of vending
machines in county buildings, the 2008 menu-labeling ordinance for chain restaurants, and the
2010 ban on using toys as incentives in kids’ meals. Kingdon’s multiple streams theory can help
to describe how the HSEP could get on the policy agenda at the local level. For example, local
celebrities like former football player, Steve Young, or Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg,
could hold a press conference about childhood obesity at San Jose’s City Hall. Then nurses and
community leaders could provide testimony at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Finally,
county supervisor, Liz Kniss, a registered nurse and public health advocate, could use her skills
as a political entrepreneur to push the issue up the local government agenda.
After the proposal is accepted, the implementation procedure will consist of two phases,
one involving the greater community and one targeting the specific school environment. Because
of the large number of changes planned, a gradual transition is necessary to facilitate acceptance
and obtain buy-in. The first phase will involve the Environment and Social Marketing
components. The steps of implementation are as follows: (1) launch multimedia campaign (hang
posters, create PSAs, launch website) to inform the community about the HSEP; (2) introduce
the Safe Routes to School program and provide incentives for students who walk or bike to
SB-505-11W 28
campus; (3) host design competition for students to design posters about health promotion; (4)
host school clean-up day where volunteers remove food and beverage advertisements from
campus; (5) host public health fair and invite members of different community organizations to
participate in open forum. The second phase of implementation will involve the Nutrition and
Physical Activity components. The steps are as follows: (1) transform school food environment
by adopting new set of stricter nutritional guidelines for school meals and competitive foods and
by eliminating or limiting access to vending machines; (2) provide students with vouchers to
purchase fresh fruit and vegetable snacks on campus; (3) revise curriculum to include mandatory
nutrition and PE classes; (4) conduct biannual BMI and annual physical fitness testing and send
confidential reports to parents; (5) provide parents with the option of removing their children
from BMI testing by submitting paper refusal form.
The following material resources will be required: incentives for the Safe Routes to
School program and poster design competition; fresh fruit and vegetable snacks; sports
equipment; textbooks for nutrition and PE classes. The following human resources will be
required: volunteer staff to patrol along Safe Route to School; artists to create posters and
produce PSAs; staff to develop and maintain website; training for school staff members.
Financial resources will be needed to cover the program costs related to the media campaign,
healthy snacks program, student incentives, and staff training. The following constraints will be
anticipated: serious opposition from the food and beverage industries (Brownell & Warner,
2009), opposition from pro-business politicians, lack of buy-in from school staff, and decreased
parental participation. Another possible constraint is the inability to effectively coordinate all of
the components in an efficient and timely manner. Designated coordinators and program
“champions” will be needed for successful program delivery. Other constraints include the lack
SB-505-11W 29
of political will, inadequate financial resources, and insufficient evidence about the
intervention’s efficacy. It is also uncertain whether or not the policy will produce adverse effects
on students (i.e. disordered eating, negative body image, social stigma).
Evaluation
The four main evaluation criteria correspond to the four components of the HSEP. First,
the Environment component will be evaluated for compliance with safety, accessibility, and
health promotion standards via an environmental assessment. Second, the Nutrition component
will be evaluated for compliance with nutritional guidelines via random, unannounced
inspections, tracking of food and beverage sales, and food intake surveys. Third, the Physical
Activity component will be evaluated for compliance with BMI reporting requirements and
compliance with standards from the NASPE via fitness testing and student and teacher
questionnaires. Fourth, the Social Marketing component will be evaluated for acceptability,
cultural competence, and sustainability via process measures like surveys, interviews, task force
and stakeholder meetings.
The policy will also be evaluated by cost-effective analyses. According to Brown et al.
(2007), interventions with a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) less than $30,000 per quality of life
years (QALYs) saved and a net benefit (NB) greater than $0 are considered to be cost-effective.
This proposal uses a school-based model that has been assessed for its cost-effectiveness in a
variety of settings. A review of three such studies (McAuley et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2003;
Wang et al., 2008) found that SBOIs are moderately cost-effective, with CERs between $900 and
$4,305 and NBs between $7,313 and $68,125. The evaluation criteria for costs will include:
educational and promotional materials, incentives, website development and maintenance, sports
equipment, healthy snacks, and staff training costs. The evaluation criteria for efficacy will
SB-505-11W 30
include: decreased prevalence of overweight, decreased prevalence of obesity, decreased
consumption of SSBs, increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, improved academic
performance, and improved fitness scores. Overweight and obesity prevalence data will be
collected by the school nurse or advance practice nurse at the public health department. Food
intake data will be collected via questionnaires and academic performance and fitness testing
data will be collected by school staff.
Pros and cons. The proposed HSEP has the following advantages: use of comprehensive
approach that addresses the complexity of the problem; use of evidence-based guidelines for
nutrition and physical activity; use of low-cost incentive programs and social media to promote
student participation; use of objective measurement tool for obesity; use of collaborative
approach that facilitates communication between schools and communities; use of process
measures to ensure fidelity, promote acceptability, and maintain sustainability. Collaborating
with stakeholders will help to obtain buy-in from important groups like student councils and
parent-teacher associations (PTAs). Furthermore, the proposal is based on a SBOI model that has
been used successfully (i.e. The HEALTHY Study Group, 2010) and cost-effectively in other
settings (i.e. Wang et al., 2003). However, there are disadvantages to the HSEP: the use of a
broad scope with multiple components may complicate program delivery; the use of a policy to
decrease students’ access to competitive foods will likely incite opposition from the food
industry or inspire backlash from consumer rights/personal responsibility proponents; the use of
a policy that mandates fitness testing and BMI assessment may result in adverse effects.
Discussion
Childhood obesity is a serious public health concern that threatens the well-being of
individuals, communities, and entire societies. Its negative impact on health is as severe as its
SB-505-11W 31
high social costs and significant economic implications. The issue is too complex to solve with a
one-size-fits-all approach. Too many physiological, socio-cultural, and political factors are
involved in the development and perpetuation of the obesity epidemic to be ignored. Instead, a
policy approach that is as comprehensive as the multi-component HSEP should be considered as
a possible solution. It is based on a SBOI that has already been reported as effective in other
settings (The HEALTHY Study Group, 2010; McMurray et al., 2002) and similar policy
proposals are currently being adopted in states like Pennsylvania (Foster et al., 2008).
Government intervention is warranted when populations are left vulnerable against the
threat of death and disease. Clearly, the market has failed and promises made by members of the
food industry to improve public health have been left unfulfilled. The escalating prevalence rate
of childhood obesity is a call to action for clinicians and politicians alike. It is especially
important for health professionals like nurses to respond to the call by drawing attention to the
problem and persuading policy makers to act in the best interest of the general public. Regardless
of what perspective one uses to analyze the situation, it cannot be denied that the argument in
support of personal responsibility has its limits. Thus far, policies based on such an argument
have failed to adequately protect people from the harmful, deceptive, and exploitative practices
of an industry that is more concerned about profits than public health. Therefore, a different
approach is needed, one that uses an environmental perspective in solving the problem. Although
personal freedoms may be restricted, greater benefits will be provided for a greater number of
people. As a social problem, addressing childhood obesity should be no different than promoting
immunization or smoking cessation. Failing to recognize the parallels between these public
health issues will not only push childhood obesity off the political agenda, it will also delay
action, interfere with progress, and cause harm to current and future generations of Americans.
SB-505-11W 32
References
Biro, F. M., & Wien, M. (2010). Childhood obesity and adult morbidities. The American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 91(5), 1499S-1505S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.28701B
Bjorge, T., Engeland, A., Tverdal, A., & Smith, G. D. (2008). Body mass index in adolescence in
relation to cause-specific mortality: A follow-up of 230,000 Norwegian adolescents.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 168(1), 30-37. doi:10.1093/aje/kwn096
Brownell, K. D., & Frieden, T. R. (2009). Ounces of prevention--the public policy case for taxes
on sugared beverages. The New England Journal of Medicine, 360(18), 1805-1808.
doi:10.1056/NEJMp0902392
Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big tobacco played
dirty and millions died. How similar is big food? The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259-294.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x
Cawley, J. (2006). Markets and childhood obesity policy. The Future of Children / Center for the
Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 16(1), 69-88.
Cawley, J. (2010). The economics of childhood obesity. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 29(3),
364-371. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0721
Collison, K. S., Zaidi, M. Z., Subhani, S. N., Al-Rubeaan, K., Shoukri, M., & Al-Mohanna, F. A.
(2010). Sugar-sweetened carbonated beverage consumption correlates with BMI, waist
circumference, and poor dietary choices in school children. BMC Public Health, 10, 234.
doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-234
SB-505-11W 33
Coogan, P. F., Cozier, Y. C., Krishnan, S., Wise, L. A., Adams-Campbell, L. L., Rosenberg, L.,
& Palmer, J. R. (2010). Neighborhood socioeconomic status in relation to 10-year weight
gain in the Black women's health study. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 18(10), 2064-2065.
doi:10.1038/oby.2010.69
Denova-Gutierrez, E., Jimenez-Aguilar, A., Halley-Castillo, E., Huitron-Bravo, G., Talavera, J.
O., Pineda-Perez, D., . . . Salmeron, J. (2008). Association between sweetened beverage
consumption and body mass index, proportion of body fat and body fat distribution in
Mexican adolescents. Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism, 53(3-4), 245-251.
doi:10.1159/000189127
Dietz, W. H., Benken, D. E., & Hunter, A. S. (2009). Public health law and the prevention and
control of obesity. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 215-227. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0009.2009.00553.x
Dieu, H. T., Dibley, M. J., Sibbritt, D. W., & Hanh, T. T. (2009). Trends in overweight and
obesity in pre-school children in urban areas of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, from 2002 to
2005. Public Health Nutrition, 12(5), 702-709. doi:10.1017/S1368980008003017
Finkelstein, E. A., DiBonaventura, M., Burgess, S. M., & Hale, B. C. (2010). The costs of
obesity in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine / American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 52(10), 971-976.
doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181f274d2
SB-505-11W 34
Foster, G. D., Sherman, S., Borradaile, K. E., Grundy, K. M., Vander Veur, S. S., Nachmani, J., .
. . Shults, J. (2008). A policy-based school intervention to prevent overweight and obesity.
Pediatrics, 121(4), e794-802. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1365
Fox, M. K., Dodd, A. H., Wilson, A., & Gleason, P. M. (2009). Association between school food
environment and practices and body mass index of US public school children. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 109(2, Supplement 1), S108-S117. doi:10.1016/ j.jada.
2008.10.065
Fuemmeler, B. F., Pendzich, M. K., & Tercyak, K. P. (2009). Weight, dietary behavior, and
physical activity in childhood and adolescence: Implications for adult cancer risk. Obesity
Facts, 2(3), 179-186. doi:10.1159/000220605
Gates, D. M., Succop, P., Brehm, B. J., Gillespie, G. L., & Sommers, B. D. (2008). Obesity and
presenteeism: The impact of body mass index on workplace productivity. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine / American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 50(1), 39-45. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31815d8db2
Geier, A. B., Foster, G. D., Womble, L. G., McLaughlin, J., Borradaile, K. E., Nachmani, J., . . .
Shults, J. (2007). The relationship between relative weight and school attendance among
elementary school children. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 15(8), 2157-2161.
doi:10.1038/oby.2007.256
Gidding, S. S., Nehgme, R., Heise, C., Muscar, C., Linton, A., & Hassink, S. (2004). Severe
obesity associated with cardiovascular deconditioning, high prevalence of cardiovascular
SB-505-11W 35
risk factors, diabetes mellitus/hyperinsulinemia, and respiratory compromise. The Journal of
Pediatrics, 144(6), 766-769. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2004.03.043
Gleason, P. M., & Dodd, A. H. (2009). School breakfast program but not school lunch program
participation is associated with lower body mass index. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 109(2 Suppl), S118-28. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.10.058
HEALTHY Study Group, Foster, G. D., Linder, B., Baranowski, T., Cooper, D. M., Goldberg,
L., . . . Hirst, K. (2010). A school-based intervention for diabetes risk reduction. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 363(5), 443-453. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1001933
Hollar, D., Lombardo, M., Lopez-Mitnik, G., Hollar, T. L., Almon, M., Agatston, A. S., &
Messiah, S. E. (2010). Effective multi-level, multi-sector, school-based obesity prevention
programming improves weight, blood pressure, and academic performance, especially
among low-income, minority children. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and
Underserved, 21(2 Suppl), 93-108. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0304
International Obesity Taskforce. (2007). Overweight children around the world. Retrieved 3/20,
2011, from http://www.iaso.org/iotf/obesity/?map=children
Janssen, I., Craig, W. M., Boyce, W. F., & Pickett, W. (2004). Associations between overweight
and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113(5), 1187-1194.
Jiang, J., Xia, X., Greiner, T., Wu, G., Lian, G., & Rosenqvist, U. (2007). The effects of a 3-year
obesity intervention in schoolchildren in Beijing. Child: Care, Health and Development,
33(5), 641-646. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00738.x
SB-505-11W 36
Justus, M. B., Ryan, K. W., Rockenbach, J., Katterapalli, C., & Card-Higginson, P. (2007).
Lessons learned while implementing a legislated school policy: Body mass index
assessments among Arkansas's public school students. The Journal of School Health,
77(10), 706-713. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00255.x
Kersh, R. (2009). The politics of obesity: A current assessment and look ahead. The Milbank
Quarterly, 87(1), 295-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00556.x
Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Wrapping things up. In Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd
ed., pp. 196-208). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Kriemler, S., Zahner, L., Schindler, C., Meyer, U., Hartmann, T., Hebestreit, H., . . . Puder, J. J.
(2010). Effect of school based physical activity programme (KISS) on fitness and adiposity
in primary schoolchildren: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical Research
Ed.), 340, c785. doi:10.1136/bmj.c785
Kwate, N. O. (2008). Fried chicken and fresh apples: Racial segregation as a fundamental cause
of fast food density in black neighborhoods. Health & Place, 14(1), 32-44.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.04.001
Leatherman, T. L., & Goodman, A. (2005). Coca-colonization of diets in the Yucatan. Social
Science & Medicine (1982), 61(4), 833-846. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.047
Likitmaskul, S., Kiattisathavee, P., Chaichanwatanakul, K., Punnakanta, L., Angsusingha, K., &
Tuchinda, C. (2003). Increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Thai children and
SB-505-11W 37
adolescents associated with increasing prevalence of obesity. Journal of Pediatric
Endocrinology & Metabolism : JPEM, 16(1), 71-77.
Liu, Y., von Deneen, K. M., Kobeissy, F. H., & Gold, M. S. (2010). Food addiction and obesity:
Evidence from bench to bedside. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 42(2), 133-145.
McAuley, K. A., Taylor, R. W., Farmer, V. L., Hansen, P., Williams, S. M., Booker, C. S., &
Mann, J. I. (2010). Economic evaluation of a community-based obesity prevention program
in children: The APPLE project. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 18(1), 131-136.
doi:10.1038/oby.2009.148
McMurray, R. G., Harrell, J. S., Bangdiwala, S. I., Bradley, C. B., Deng, S., & Levine, A.
(2002). A school-based intervention can reduce body fat and blood pressure in young
adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for
Adolescent Medicine, 31(2), 125-132.
Mocellin, R., Lindemann, H., Rutenfranz, J., & Sbresny, W. (1971). Determination of W 170 and
maximal oxygen uptake in children by different methods. Acta Paediatrica
Scandinavica.Supplement, 217, 13-17.
Monroe, P.D. (2010). U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor.
Written testimony of: Paul D. Monroe, Major General (ret.), U.S. Army, on behalf of
MISSION: READINESS. Retrieved 3/20, 2011, from http://missionreadiness.org
/Testimony.pdf
SB-505-11W 38
Nemet, D., Barkan, S., Epstein, Y., Friedland, O., Kowen, G., & Eliakim, A. (2005). Short- and
long-term beneficial effects of a combined dietary-behavioral-physical activity intervention
for the treatment of childhood obesity. Pediatrics, 115(4), e443-9. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-
2172
O'Dea, J. A., & Dibley, M. J. (2010). Obesity increase among low SES Australian schoolchildren
between 2000 and 2006: Time for preventive interventions to target children from low
income schools? International Journal of Public Health, 55(3), 185-192.
doi:10.1007/s00038-009-0079-x
Office of the Surgeon General (2001). The Surgeon General’s call to action to prevent and
decrease overweight and obesity. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US),
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), & National Institutes of Health (US).
Rockville, MD.
Ogden, C. & Carroll, M. (2010). Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents: United
States, trends 1963-1965 through 2007-2008. Retrieved 3/20, 2011, from
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_child_07_08/obesity_child_07_08.htm
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., & Flegal, K. M. (2008). High body mass index for age among US
children and adolescents, 2003-2006. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 299(20), 2401-2405. doi:10.1001/jama.299.20.2401
Oulamara, H., Agli, A. N., & Frelut, M. L. (2009). Changes in the prevalence of overweight,
obesity and thinness in Algerian children between 2001 and 2006. International Journal of
SB-505-11W 39
Pediatric Obesity : IJPO : An Official Journal of the International Association for the Study
of Obesity, 4(4), 411-413. doi:10.3109/17477160802596163
Peralta, L. R., Jones, R. A., & Okely, A. D. (2009). Promoting healthy lifestyles among
adolescent boys: The fitness improvement and lifestyle awareness program RCT. Preventive
Medicine, 48(6), 537-542. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.04.007
Powell, L. M., Chriqui, J., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2009). Associations between state-level soda
taxes and adolescent body mass index. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official
Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 45(3 Suppl), S57-63.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.003
Reilly, J. J., & Kelly, J. (2010). Long-term impact of overweight and obesity in childhood and
adolescence on morbidity and premature mortality in adulthood: Systematic review.
International Journal of Obesity (2005), doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.222
Simon, C., Schweitzer, B., Oujaa, M., Wagner, A., Arveiler, D., Triby, E., . . . Platat, C. (2008).
Successful overweight prevention in adolescents by increasing physical activity: A 4-year
randomized controlled intervention. International Journal of Obesity (2005), 32(10), 1489-
1498. doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.99
Singh, G. K., Kogan, M. D., Van Dyck, P. C., & Siahpush, M. (2008). Racial/ethnic,
socioeconomic, and behavioral determinants of childhood and adolescent obesity in the
United States: Analyzing independent and joint associations. Annals of Epidemiology, 18(9),
682-695. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.05.001
SB-505-11W 40
Spiegel, S. A., & Foulk, D. (2006). Reducing overweight through a multidisciplinary school-
based intervention. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 14(1), 88-96. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.11
Story, M., Nanney, M. S., & Schwartz, M. B. (2009). Schools and obesity prevention: Creating
school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. The
Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 71-100. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00548.x
Sturm, R., Powell, L. M., Chriqui, J. F., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2010). Soda taxes, soft drink
consumption, and children's body mass index. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 29(5), 1052-
1058. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0061
Summerbell, C. D., Waters, E., Edmunds, L. D., Kelly, S., Brown, T., & Campbell, K. J. (2005).
Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(Online), (3)(3), CD001871. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub2
Taylor, F. C., Satija, A., Khurana, S., Singh, G., & Ebrahim, S. (2011). Pepsi and Coca Cola in
Delhi, India: Availability, price and sales. Public Health Nutrition, 14(4), 653-660.
doi:10.1017/S1368980010002442
The American Beverage Association. (2006). Memorandum of understanding regarding a new
school beverage policy. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 3/21, 2011, from
http://www.ameribev.org/files/336_MOU%20Final%20%28signed%29.pdf
The Federal Trade Commission. (2007). Food industry marketing to children report; orders to
file special report: FTC matter no. P064504, August. Retrieved 3/21, 2011, from
http://www.ftc.gov/os/6b_orders/foodmktg6b/index.shtm
SB-505-11W 41
The Federal Trade Commission. (2008). Marketing food to children and adolescents: A review
of industry expenditures, activities, and self-regulation. A report to Congress. Retrieved
3/21, 2011, from http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf
The World Health Organization. (2006). Obesity and overweight fact sheet number 311.
Retrieved 3/22, 2011, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html
Trasande, L., & Chatterjee, S. (2009). The impact of obesity on health service utilization and
costs in childhood. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 17(9), 1749-1754.
doi:10.1038/oby.2009.67
Veiga, L., Silva-Nunes, J., Melao, A., Oliveira, A., Duarte, L., & Brito, M. (2011). Q192R
polymorphism of the paraoxonase-1 gene as a risk factor for obesity in Portuguese women.
European Journal of Endocrinology / European Federation of Endocrine Societies, 164(2),
213-218. doi:10.1530/EJE-10-0825
Voorhees, C. C., Catellier, D. J., Ashwood, J. S., Cohen, D. A., Rung, A., Lytle, L., . . . Dowda,
M. (2009). Neighborhood socioeconomic status and non school physical activity and body
mass index in adolescent girls. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 6(6), 731-740.
Wang, L. Y., Gutin, B., Barbeau, P., Moore, J. B., Hanes, J., Jr., Johnson, M. H., . . . Yin, Z.
(2008). Cost-effectiveness of a school-based obesity prevention program. The Journal of
School Health, 78(12), 619-624. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00357.x
SB-505-11W 42
Wang, L. Y., Yang, Q., Lowry, R., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Economic analysis of a school-based
obesity prevention program. Obesity Research, 11(11), 1313-1324.
doi:10.1038/oby.2003.178
Wang, Y., & Beydoun, M. A. (2007). The obesity epidemic in the United States--gender, age,
socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: A systematic review and meta-
regression analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29, 6-28. doi:10.1093/epirev/mxm007
Wharton, C. M., Long, M., & Schwartz, M. B. (2008). Changing nutrition standards in schools:
The emerging impact on school revenue. The Journal of School Health, 78(5), 245-251.
doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00296.x
Wiecha, J. L., Finkelstein, D., Troped, P. J., Fragala, M., & Peterson, K. E. (2006). School
vending machine use and fast-food restaurant use are associated with sugar-sweetened
beverage intake in youth. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(10), 1624-
1630. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.007