Researchers studied how different types of nutrition education programs affected what kids eat in California schools. They compared schools that only taught students about healthy eating to schools that combined teaching with changes to the school environment (like healthier food options available). Students in schools with both education and environmental changes drank less soda and ate more fruits and vegetables. However, students who only received education without environmental changes actually drank more sports drinks and sweetened beverages. The study suggests that teaching kids about nutrition works best when schools also make it easier to choose healthy foods.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether teaching kids about healthy eating works better when combined with changes to school food options and environments, compared to just teaching alone
  • Who participated: About 3,200 fourth and fifth grade students from 69 California public schools that participate in federal nutrition assistance programs. The schools served low-income families.
  • Key finding: Students who received nutrition education plus school environment changes (like healthier cafeteria options) drank about 1/8 less soda per day and ate significantly more fruits and vegetables. Students who only received education without environmental changes actually increased their sugary drink consumption.
  • What it means for you: If your child’s school combines nutrition lessons with actual changes to what’s available in the cafeteria and vending machines, those changes are more likely to help them eat healthier. Teaching alone may not be enough to change eating habits.

The Research Details

Researchers compared two groups of students in California schools over time. One group attended schools that received nutrition education plus environmental changes (like offering more fruits and vegetables in the cafeteria), while another group attended schools with no special programs. They measured what students ate and drank before and after the programs. The study included 51 schools in the education-plus-changes group and 18 schools in the comparison group. This type of study is called ‘quasi-experimental’ because researchers couldn’t randomly assign students to different schools, but they still tracked changes over time in similar groups.

The nutrition education came from SNAP-Ed, a federal program that teaches low-income families about healthy eating. The environmental changes included things like adding more healthy food options in cafeterias, removing sugary drinks from vending machines, or making fruits and vegetables more visible and accessible to students.

Researchers collected information about what students ate and how active they were through surveys and food records. They looked at specific foods like soda, fruit juice, sports drinks, whole fruits, and vegetables. They also examined whether the results were different depending on whether schools were in cities or rural areas, and whether schools had more or fewer low-income students.

This research matters because many schools teach kids about healthy eating, but students don’t always change their habits just from learning. By testing whether combining education with actual environmental changes works better, researchers can help schools spend their money more effectively. Understanding what actually changes kids’ eating habits is important because childhood eating patterns often continue into adulthood.

This study has several strengths: it included a large number of students (over 3,000), tracked them over time, and compared groups that were similar to start with. However, the study has some limitations. Researchers couldn’t randomly assign students to different programs, so some differences might be due to other factors. The study only looked at California schools, so results might be different in other states. Also, researchers relied on students reporting what they ate, which might not be completely accurate.

What the Results Show

Students who received both nutrition education and environmental changes showed the most improvement. They drank about 1/8 cup less soda per day compared to students with no program. They also ate about 1/6 more servings of whole fruit per day and nearly half a serving more vegetables per day. These improvements were meaningful because they moved students toward the recommended daily amounts of fruits and vegetables.

Interestingly, students who received only education without environmental changes had mixed results. They actually increased their intake of sports drinks and energy drinks—drinks that are high in sugar and caffeine. They also drank more fruit juice. This suggests that teaching kids about healthy eating without making it easier to access healthy foods might not be enough, and could even backfire if students choose other sugary beverages instead.

The results were different depending on the type of school. In urban schools, students who received education only increased their consumption of sweetened fruit drinks more than students in rural schools. In schools where more than the state average of students qualified for free or reduced-price meals, those receiving education plus environmental changes showed the biggest increase in eating beans, which are a healthy protein source.

These findings suggest that the combination of teaching and environmental change is more effective than teaching alone, and that different types of schools might need different approaches.

The study also looked at physical activity, though the results for exercise were less dramatic than for food choices. The research found that environmental changes in schools appeared to support healthier overall behaviors, not just eating. Schools with higher percentages of low-income students showed different responses to the programs, suggesting that programs might need to be tailored to different communities. The fact that beans consumption increased in certain school populations is encouraging because beans are nutritious and affordable.

Previous research has shown that education alone often doesn’t change eating habits in children. This study confirms that finding and goes further by showing that combining education with environmental changes produces better results. Other studies have found similar patterns—that making healthy choices easier (through environmental changes) works better than just providing information. This research adds to growing evidence that schools need a multi-pronged approach to improve student nutrition.

The study only included schools in California, so results might not apply to other states with different school systems or populations. Researchers couldn’t randomly assign students to different programs, so some differences might be due to other factors not measured in the study. The study relied on students self-reporting what they ate, which can be inaccurate. The study measured changes over a specific time period, but we don’t know if these changes lasted long-term. Also, the study didn’t measure all possible foods and drinks students consume, so there might be other dietary changes not captured.

The Bottom Line

Schools should combine nutrition education with environmental changes to be most effective (high confidence). This means teaching students about healthy eating while also making sure healthy foods are available, visible, and appealing in cafeterias and vending machines. Simply teaching about nutrition without environmental support may not work and could even lead to increased consumption of other sugary drinks (moderate confidence). Schools serving low-income communities should consider tailoring programs to their specific student populations (moderate confidence).

School administrators and nutrition directors should care about these findings because they show how to spend nutrition education budgets most effectively. Parents should care because it shows that school nutrition programs work better when schools make environmental changes. Teachers and school staff should care because they can support these changes. Students benefit directly from healthier food options. Policymakers should care because this research shows that combining education with environmental changes is more cost-effective than education alone. People who don’t work in schools should be cautious about applying these findings to home settings, as the results are specific to school environments.

Students in the education-plus-environmental-change group showed improvements in their eating habits within the study period (which appears to be one school year). However, the study didn’t track whether these changes lasted beyond that time. Realistically, students might need ongoing reinforcement of both education and environmental changes to maintain healthier eating habits long-term. Changes in soda consumption appeared relatively quickly, while increases in vegetable consumption took more time to develop.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track daily servings of fruits, vegetables, and sugary drinks consumed. Set a goal to reduce soda intake by one serving per week and increase vegetable servings by one per week. Log what your child eats and drinks each day to see patterns.
  • Use the app to help your child set specific, achievable goals like ‘drink water instead of soda at lunch’ or ’eat one extra vegetable at dinner.’ Create reminders for healthy choices and celebrate small wins. If your school is implementing nutrition changes, use the app to track how those changes affect your child’s eating.
  • Monitor weekly trends rather than daily fluctuations. Track which environmental changes at school (like new cafeteria options) correlate with your child’s improved eating habits. Use the app to identify which types of healthy foods your child prefers, so you can reinforce those choices at home. Share progress with school nutrition staff to support their efforts.

This research shows associations between school nutrition programs and eating habits in California schools, but individual results may vary. These findings are most relevant to school-age children in low-income communities. Parents should consult with their child’s healthcare provider or a registered dietitian for personalized nutrition advice. School nutrition programs should be implemented under the guidance of qualified nutrition professionals. This study does not replace medical advice or treatment for any dietary or health conditions. Results from California schools may not apply to all regions or populations.