SCHOOL FOOD (IN) SWEDEN Emma Patterson, PhD, BSc Hum. Nutr. Project manager...
-
Upload
bailey-yard -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of SCHOOL FOOD (IN) SWEDEN Emma Patterson, PhD, BSc Hum. Nutr. Project manager...
SCHOOL FOOD (IN) SWEDEN
Emma Patterson, PhD, BSc Hum. Nutr.
Project manager ”SkolmatSverige”/”School Food Sweden”- Center for Epidemiology och Community Medicine, Stockholm County Council- Karolinska Institutet
Sweden vs Canada
Important background/context
◊ 9 year compulsory school system (ages 6-15)◊ National law, national curriculum◊ Completely free – incl. books, school meals◊ Funded predominantly by local government taxes◊ Some (16%) are “private” but must follow the same law
◊ 290 municipalities (3-150 schools)◊ Many have dietary managers
◊ Welfare state
◊ Plus a general tendency to trust/obey authorities!
History of the Swedish school lunch
◊ Late 1800s – targeted at very impoverished children
◊ 1940s – more widespread◊ 1970s – almost all schools◊ 1997 – enshrined in
Education Act– “free school meals” *
◊ 2011 – updated– “free and nutritious school
meals”
1970s
What is the Swedish school lunch like today?
◊ National guidelines from the National Food Agency– A hot lunch (half of schools offer a choice of main
dishes)– A salad buffet (usually with 5+ components)– Milk and water– Bread and spread
A few pictures to illustrate:
A few pictures to illustrate
A few pictures to illustrate:
A few pictures to illustrate:
A few pictures to illustrate
What sets it apart?
◊ No competitive foods◊ No packets, no cartons, no tinned vegetables◊ Self-served, proper plates, cutlery◊ No soft drinks or desserts◊ No “combinations” required◊ No strict standards?
How much do school meals cost?
◊ On average, 10 SEK per day ($1.50 CAD)– Ingredients & personnel (not rent)– Large variation between municipalities
History of www.SkolmatSverige.se
◊ In 2010 we had– A new law with demanding requirements coming in 2011– No national data (but reports of varying quality)– No plans for monitoring or for the evaluation of new law– A risk of too much focus on nutrition at the expense of
“the bigger picture”
Aims
◊ Web-based instrument◊ Free, easy to use, available to all schools◊ Instant tailored feedback◊ No commercial interest◊ Database for research
ChoicesAccompaniments
Other meals
DishesChoice of productsServing frequency
Amounts
RoutinesTrainingDietary
requirements
Nutrition
Safe foodLeve
l 1
Lunch provision
Level 1
Food-based nutritional criteria for vitamin D, iron,
fat quality and fiber
SchedulingService & milieuPedagogic lunch
Student involvementIntegration
WastageProduct choice (e.g. meat,
fish)Organic products
Nutrition
Safe foodLunchLeve
l 1
Environment
Service & pedagogy
Leve
l 2
Level 2
Organisation
Leve
l 3
Goals and guidelinesResponsibilities
Training and resourcesAttendence and consumption
Leve
l 1
Leve
l 2
Nutrition
Safe foodLunch
Environment
Service & pedagogy
Level 3
Organisation
Leve
l 3
Leve
l 1
Leve
l 2
Nutrition
Safe foodLunch
Environment
Service & pedagogy
+ Staff questionnaire+ Student questionnaire
+ G
uest
s
Is the food tasty?Do you have enough
time?Is the ambience
pleasant?Do you throw away
food?
Guests’ opinion
Automatic results
Is it being used?> 75 %51-75 %26-50 %5-25 %<5 %
31 % of all schools,in 85 % of municipalities
”Finally a tool to use that is easy to explain and use and which takes into account the entire
school meal!” - Municipal dietary manager
Has the new law had an effect?
◊ Between 2011 and 2013:– Yes, but modest
◊ Since 2013, bigger improvements have been seen
Has SkolmatSverige had an effect?
◊ Preliminary analysis suggests it has! – Nutritional quality
• Improvement over time AND between frequent users cf. one-time users
– Service and pedagogy• Between frequent users cf. one-time users
◊ Analysis ongoing
Future challenges
◊ Star chefs vs processed foods◊ Nutritional quality still not optimal◊ Meal environment/lack of time◊ Incomplete/unbalanced meals
We plan
◊ Study of instrument’s effects◊ Study of meal quality and socioeconomic deprivation◊ Study of meal quality and school performance◊ Adaption to other areas (food provision for the
elderly)?
Förbättringar 2011-2013 2011 2013 P1
% %Råd om utbud
En alternativ rätt dagligen 50 50 1.000En vegetarisk rätt dagligen (till alla) 18 34 0.001En saladsbuffet dagligen med minst 5 komponenter 76 83 0.307
Råd om val av livsmedel
Salt ej tillgänglig för elever 23 27 0.556Sötade drycker mindre än 1 gg/månad 90 96 0.070Bakverk mindre än 1 gg/månad 95 99 0.125Fisk 4 ggr/4 v 71 85 0.049Fet fisk 2 ggr/4 v 18 23 0.458Korv max 3 ggr/4 v 86 89 0.549Lättmjölk erbjuds dagligen 57 66 0.035Nyckelhålsmärkt smörgåsfett erbjuds dagligen 44 42 0.874Blodpudding minst 1 gg/4 v 40 49 0.280
Några signifikanta skillnader (<0.05)
Utbud
◊ Alternativ huvudrätt:– finns i 55 % av skolorna
◊ En vegetarisk rätt:– erbjuds till alla elever 4-5 dagar i veckan i 45 %
◊ Söta drycker och bakverk:– förekommer nästan aldrig till lunch
◊ Ett bra salladsbord med minst fem sorters grönsaker:– finns dagligen i 88 %
Säker mat
◊ Resultat generellt bra!◊ Tydliga rutiner finns hos det mesta, med
undantag för– hur eleverna ska tvätta händerna innan lunch – hur eventuella tillbudsrapporteringar ska följas upp
Service och pedagogik
◊ Vad eleverna själva tycker om skolmaten – 40 % gör minst varje läsår en undersökning för att ta
reda på detta
◊ Servering: – På 77 % har majoriteten av eleverna minst 25 min
schemalagd lunchtid
Service och pedagogik (fort.)
◊ Skolrestaurangens miljö: – Ljud och buller upplevs som ett problem på 41 %
◊ Vuxennärvaro: – På 65 % där pedagogiska luncher förekommer finns det
skriftliga riktlinjer för vad det innebär
Miljöpåverkan
◊ Skolorna källsorterar avfall och material
◊ Matsvinn i produktionen mäts i 15 % av köken (under minst en vecka per termin)
◊ En vegetarisk rätt erbjuds så gott som dagligen till alla elever i nästan hälften av skolorna (45 %)
◊ Mjölk är livsmedlet som skolor oftast väljer ekologiskt
Organisation och styrning
◊ I 75 % av kommunala och 50 % av fristående skolor är kökschefen en kvinna*
◊ Utbildning:– I 50 % har kökschefer utbildning inom ledarskap – I 63 % har samtlig kökspersonal utbildning inom
matlagning i storkök
◊ 78 % av skolorna har tillgång till någon form av kostkompetens utanför köket*
Organisation och styrning
◊ Påverkan– Nöjda med hur de kunde påverka matsedelns
utformning (79 %) – Nöjda med hur de kunde påverka inköp av livsmedel (51
%)*
◊ Hälften av skolorna (55 %) har en kostpolicy.