Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Chemicals, cans and factories: how grade school children think about processed foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2020

Rachel Bleiweiss-Sande
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA02111, USA
Jeanne Goldberg
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA02111, USA
E Whitney Evans
Affiliation:
Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI02903, USA
Ken Chui
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA02111, USA
Caitlin Bailey
Affiliation:
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA02111, USA
Jennifer Sacheck
Affiliation:
Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC20052, USA
Corresponding

Abstract

Objective:

To determine how children interpret terms related to food processing; whether their categorisation of foods according to processing level is consistent with those used in research; and whether they associate the degree of processing with healthfulness.

Design:

Qualitative data were collected from ten focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted.

Setting:

Four elementary and afterschool programmes in a large, urban school district in the USA that served predominantly low-income, racial/ethnic minority students.

Participants:

Children, 9–12 years old, in the fourth–sixth grades (n 53).

Results:

The sample was 40 % male, 47 % Hispanic with a mean age of 10·4 ± 1·1 years. Children’s understanding of unprocessed foods was well aligned with research classifications, while concordance of highly processed foods with research categorisations varied. Five primary themes regarding the way children categorised foods according to their processing level emerged: type and amount of added ingredients; preparation method; packaging and storage; change in physical state or sensory experience; and growing method. Most children associated processing level with healthfulness, describing unprocessed foods as healthier. The most common reason provided for the unhealthfulness of processed foods was added ingredients, including ‘chemicals’ and ‘sugar’.

Conclusions:

The current study demonstrated that children have a working knowledge of processing that could be leveraged to encourage healthier eating patterns; however, their understanding is not always consistent with the classification systems used in research. The vocabulary used by researchers and consumers to talk about processing must be reconciled to translate findings into actionable messages.

Type
Research paper
Copyright
© The Authors 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Hales, C, Carroll, MD, Fryar, CDet al. (2017) Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief 288.Google Scholar
Banfield, EC, Liu, Y, Davis, JSet al. (2016) Poor Adherence to US Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Population. J Acad Nutr Diet 116, 2127.10.1016/j.jand.2015.08.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mozaffarian, D & Ludwig, D. (2010) Dietary guidelines in the 21st century— A time for food. JAMA 304, 681682.10.1001/jama.2010.1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, CA (2009) Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing. Public Health Nutr 12, 729731.10.1017/S1368980009005291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fardet, A, Rock, E, Bassama, Jet al. (2015) Current food classifications in epidemiological studies do not enable solid nutritional recommendations for preventing diet-related chronic diseases: the impact of food processing. Adv Nutr 6, 629638.10.3945/an.115.008789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, S, Alexander, N, Almeida, Net al. (2011) Food science challenge: Translating the dietary guidelines for Americans to bring about real behavior change. J Food Sci 76, R2937.10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01973.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogden, CL, Lamb, MM, Carroll, MDet al. (2010) Obesity and socioeconomic status in children and adolescents: United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief 51.Google Scholar
Fahlman, MM, McCaughtry, N, Martin, Jet al. (2010) Racial and socioeconomic disparities in nutrition behaviors: Targeted interventions needed. J Nutr Educ Behav 42, 1016.10.1016/j.jneb.2008.11.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frederick, CB, Snellman, K, Putnam, RD (2014) Increasing socioeconomic disparities in adolescent obesity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 13381342.10.1073/pnas.1321355110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y & Beydoun, MA (2007) The obesity epidemic in the United States--gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiol Rev 29, 628.10.1093/epirev/mxm007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poti, JM, Mendez, MA, Ng, SWet al. (2015) Is the degree of food processing and convenience linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am J Clin Nutr 101, 12511262.10.3945/ajcn.114.100925CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poti, JM, Mendez, MA, Ng, SWet al. (2016) Highly processed and ready-to-eat packaged food and beverage purchases differ by race/ethnicity among US households. J Nutr 146, 17221730.10.3945/jn.116.230441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez Steele, E, Popkin, BM, Swinburn, Bet al. (2017) The share of ultra-processed foods and the overall nutritional quality of diets in the US: Evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Popul Health Metr 15, 6.10.1186/s12963-017-0119-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martinez Steele, E, Baraldi, LG, Louzada, MLet al. (2016) Ultra-processed foods and added sugars in the US diet: Evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 6, e009892.10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009892CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eicher-Miller, HA, Fulgoni, VL & Keast, DR (2012) Contributions of processed foods to dietary intake in the US from 2003–2008: A report of the Food and Nutrition Science Solutions Joint Task Force of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Food Information Council. J Nutr 142, 2065S2072S.10.3945/jn.112.164442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, C, Levy, R, Claro, Ret al. (2010) A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cad Saúde Pública 26, 20392049.10.1590/S0102-311X2010001100005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moubarac, JC, Parra, DC, Cannon, Get al. (2014) Food classification systems based on food processing: Significance and implications for policies and actions: A systematic literature review and assessment. Curr Obes Rep 3, 256272.10.1007/s13679-014-0092-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poti, JM, Braga, B & Qin, B (2017) Ultra-processed food intake and obesity: What really matters for health-processing or nutrient content? Curr Obes Rep 6, 420431.10.1007/s13679-017-0285-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moodie, R, Stuckler, D, Monteiro, Cet al. (2013) Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet 381, 670679.10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poti, JM, Duffey, KJ & Popkin, BM (2014) The association of fast food consumption with poor dietary outcomes and obesity among children: Is it the fast food or the remainder of the diet? Am J Clin Nutr 99, 162171.10.3945/ajcn.113.071928CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacInnis, B & Rausser, G (2005) Does processing contribute to child obesity disparities? Amer J Agr Econ 87, 11541158.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00801.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eicher-Miller, HA, Fulgoni, VL & Keast, DR (2015) Processed food contributions to energy and nutrient intake differ among US children by race/ethnicity. Nutrients 7, 1007610088.10.3390/nu7125503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, JT, Fulgoni, VL 3rd, Clemens, RAet al. (2012) Is “processed” a four-letter word? The role of processed foods in achieving dietary guidelines and nutrient recommendations. Adv Nutr 3, 536548.10.3945/an.111.000901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, VS, Popkin, BM, Bray, GAet al. (2010) Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 33, 24772483.10.2337/dc10-1079CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reedy, J & Krebs-Smith, SM (2010) Dietary sources of energy, solid fats, and added sugars among children and adolescents in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 14771484.10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malik, VS, Pan, A, Willett, WCet al. (2013) Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 98, 10841102.10.3945/ajcn.113.058362CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimes, CA, Riddell, LJ, Campbell, KJet al. (2013) Dietary salt intake, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, and obesity risk. Pediatrics 131, 1421.10.1542/peds.2012-1628CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zanovec, M, O’Neil, CE, Cho, SSet al. (2010) Relationship between whole grain and fiber consumption and body weight measures among 6- to 18-year-olds. J Pediatr 157, 578583.10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.04.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrosini, GL (2014) Childhood dietary patterns and later obesity: A review of the evidence. Proc Nutr Soc 73, 137146.10.1017/S0029665113003765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, C (2010) Eatertainment and the (Re)classification of children’s foods. Food Cult Soc Int J Multidiscip Res 13, 539553.Google Scholar
Elliott, C (2011) “It’s junk food and chicken nuggets”: Children’s perspectives on ‘kids’ food’ and the question of food classification. J Consum Behav 10, 133140.10.1002/cb.360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornwell, TB, McAlister, AR & Polmear-Swendris, N (2014) Children’s knowledge of packaged and fast food brands and their BMI. Why the relationship matters for policy makers. Appetite 81, 277283.10.1016/j.appet.2014.06.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slining, MM, Mathias, KC & Popkin, BM (2013) Trends in food and beverage sources among US children and adolescents: 1989–2010. J Acad Nutr Diet 113, 16831694.10.1016/j.jand.2013.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heary, C & Hennessy, E (2002) The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care research. J Pediatr Psych 27, 4757.10.1093/jpepsy/27.1.47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, M, Gibbs, S, Maxwell, Ket al. (2002) Hearing children’s voices: Methodological issues in conducting focus groups with children aged 7–11 years. Qual Res 2, 520.10.1177/1468794102002001636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, JE (2012) Interviews and focus groups with children: Methods that match children’s developing competencies. J Family Theory Rev 4, 148159.10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00119.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J (2008) Children as respondents: The challenge for quantitative methods. In Research with Children, pp. 87108 [Christensen, P. and James, A., editors]. London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Patton, MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Patton, M (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Hubbard, KL, Must, A, Eliasziw, Met al. (2014) What’s in children’s backpacks: Foods brought from home. J Acad Nutr Diet 114, 14241431.10.1016/j.jand.2014.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V & Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3, 77101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desjardins, E (2013) “Making Something Out of Nothing”: Food Literacy Among Youth, Young Pregnant Women and Young Parents who are at Risk for Poor Health. Ontario, Canada: Public Health Ontario.Google Scholar
Murimi, MW, Moyeda-Carabaza, AF, Nguyen, Bet al. (2018) Factors that contribute to effective nutrition education interventions in children: A systematic review. Nutr Rev 76, 553580.10.1093/nutrit/nuy020CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monteiro, CA, Moubarac, JC, Cannon, Get al. (2013) Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the global food system. Obes Rev 14, Suppl. 2, 2128.10.1111/obr.12107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popkin, B (2006) Global nutrition dynamics: The world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases. Am J Clin Nutr 84, 289298.10.1093/ajcn/84.2.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 15
Total number of PDF views: 78 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 18th February 2020 - 24th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-2sjx4 Total loading time: 0.493 Render date: 2021-01-24T03:02:09.162Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Chemicals, cans and factories: how grade school children think about processed foods
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Chemicals, cans and factories: how grade school children think about processed foods
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Chemicals, cans and factories: how grade school children think about processed foods
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *