These spheres of influence are multifaceted and include factors such as income, ethnicity and cultural values and settings such as schools and retail food establishments. Consequently, measurable progress in reducing childhood obesity requires a multifaceted approach: a coordinated, comprehensive program that integrates messages regarding nutrition, physical activity and health with a child’s immediate environment and surrounding community . Adequate access to healthy food and physical recreation opportunities is essential to promote sustained behavior changes . Schools and after-school programs provide a unique setting for this approach, as they provide access to children, parents, families, educators, administrators and community members . The purpose of this article is to examine garden-enhanced nutrition education and Farm to School programs. Further, a questionnaire was developed and distributed to UC Cooperative Extension advisors and directors to assess their role in garden-enhanced nutrition education and Farm to School programs. Results from this questionnaire highlight UCCE’s integral role in this field.School gardens were first implemented in the United States at the George Putnam School in Roxbury, Massachusetts, in 1890, and by 1918 there was at least one in every state . During World Wars I and II, more than a million children were contributing to U.S. food production with victory gardens, which were part of the U.S. School Garden Army Program . More recently, incorporating gardens into the educational environment has become more popular worldwide,plastic pots 30 liters due partly to the appreciation of the importance of environmental awareness and integrated learning approaches to education .
As the agricultural powerhouse of the nation , California is poised to serve as a model for agriculture-enhanced nutrition and health education. Within California, the impetus to establish gardens in every school gained momentum in 1995, when then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin launched an initiative to establish school gardens as learning laboratories or outdoor classrooms . Assembly Bill 1535 created the California Instructional School Garden Program, allowing the California Department of Education to allocate $15 million for grants to promote, develop and sustain instructional school gardens. About 40% of California schools applied for these grants, and $10.9 million was awarded . It has been repeatedly shown that garden-enhanced nutrition education has a positive effect on children’s fruit and vegetable preferences and intakes . For example, after a 17-week standards-based, garden-enhanced nutrition education program, fourth-grade students preferred a greater variety of vegetables than did control students.For example, students learned that plants and people need similar nutrients. Many of these improvements persisted and were maintained at a 6-month follow-up assessment . In a similar study of a 12-week program combining nutrition lessons with horticulture, sixth grade students likewise improved their vegetable preferences and consumption . In addition, after a 13-week garden-enhanced nutrition program, middle school children ate a greater variety of vegetables than they had initially . While garden-enhanced nutrition education is one innovative method to improve children’s vegetable preferences and intake, researchers and educators consistently call for multi-component interventions to have the greatest impact on student health outcomes. Suggested additional components include classroom education, Farm to School programs, healthy foods available on campus, family involvement, school wellness policies and community input .
Moreover, the literature indicates that providing children with options to make healthy choices rather than imposing restrictions has long-term positive effects on weight . Taken together, it is reasonable to suggest that we are most likely to achieve long-lasting beneficial changes by coordinating a comprehensive garden-enhanced nutrition education program with school wellness policies, offering healthy foods on the school campus, fostering family and community partnerships and incorporating regional agriculture.Farm to School programs connect K-12 schools and regional farms, serving healthy, local foods in school cafeterias or classrooms. General goals include improving student nutrition; providing agricultural, health and nutrition education opportunities; and supporting small and mid-sized local and regional farms . Born through a small group of pilot projects in California and Florida in the late 1990s, Farm to School is now offered in all 50 states, with more than 2,000 programs nationwide in 2010 . The dramatic increase in the number and visibility of Farm to School programs can likely be attributed to factors including heightened public awareness of childhood obesity, expanding access to local and regional foods in school meals, concerns about environmental and agricultural issues as well as the sustainability of the U.S. food system. Farm to School programs provide a unique opportunity to address both nutritional quality and food system concerns. From a nutrition and public health standpoint, these programs improve the nutritional quality of meals served to a large and diverse population of children across the country. From a food systems and economic perspective, Farm to School programs connect small and mid-sized farms to the large, stable and reliable markets created by the National School Lunch Program .
Farm to School programs require partnerships that include a state or community organization, a local farmer or agricultural organization, a school nutrition services director and parents. Historically, Farm to School programs are driven, supported and defined by a community. Because they reflect the diverse and unique communities they serve, individual Farm to School programs also vary from location to location, in addition to sharing the characteristics described above. The first national Farm to School programs were initiated in 2000 and soon gained momentum in California, with support from the USDA Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems as well as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. In 2005, Senate Bill 281 established the California Fresh Start Program to encourage and support additional portions of fresh fruits and vegetables in the School Breakfast Program. This bill also provided the California Department of Education with $400,000 for competitive grants to facilitate developing the California Fresh Start Program . Concomitant with the growth of Farm to School programs, the National Farm to School Network was formed in 2007 with input from over 30 organizations and today engages food service, agricultural and community leaders in all 50 states. The evolution of this network has influenced school food procurement and nutrition/ food education nationwide .Evaluations of Farm to School impact have been conducted since the program’s inception. A 2008 review of 15 Farm to School evaluation studies, which were conducted between 2003 and 2007, showed that 11 specifically assessed Farm to School–related dietary behavior changes . Of these 11 studies, 10 corroborated the hypothesis that increased exposure to fresh Farm to School produce results in positive dietary behavior changes. In addition, a 2004-2005 evaluation of plate waste at the Davis Joint Unified School District salad bar showed that 85% of students took produce from the salad bar and that 49% of all selected salad bar produce was consumed . Additionally, school record data demonstrates that throughout the 5 years of the 2000-to-2005 Farm to School program, overall participation in the school lunch program ranged from a low of 23% of enrollment to a high of 41%, with an overall average of 32.4%. This compared to26% participation before salad bars were introduced. Overall participation in the hot lunches averaged 27% of enrollment . While Farm to School evaluations generally indicate positive outcomes ,round plastic pots conclusive statements regarding the overall impact of such programs on dietary behavior cannot be made. This can be attributed to the substantial variation in Farm to School structure from district to district, and variation in the study design and methodologies of early program evaluations. Methods for evaluating dietary impact outcomes most commonly include using National School Lunch Program participation rates and food production data as proxies for measuring consumption.
Additional evaluation methods include using self-reported measures of consumption such as parent and student food recalls or frequency questionnaires, and direct measures of consumption such as school lunch tray photography and plate waste evaluation. There are relatively few studies using an experimental design to evaluate the impact of Farm to School programs on fruit and vegetable intake, and even fewer of these studies use controls. Moreover, the Farm to School evaluation literature has no peer-reviewed dietary behavior studies using a randomized, controlled experimental design, which is undoubtedly due to the complex challenges inherent in community research. For example, schools may view the demands of research as burdensome or may question the benefits of serving as control sites. Due partly to its year-round growing season, California has more Farm to School programs than most, if not all, states. UC Davis pioneered some of the early uncontrolled studies quantifying Farm to School procurement, costs and consumption. UC ANR is now conducting new controlled studies to collect more rigorous data, which will differentiate outcomes of Farm to School programs from those due to other environmental factors. To clarify the role of UC ANR in garden-based nutrition education and Farm to School programs, a questionnaire was developed and administered through Survey Monkey in November 2011. This survey was sent to 60 UCCE academic personnel, including county directors; Nutrition, Family and Consumer Sciences advisors; 4-H Youth Development advisors; and others. For the purposes of this questionnaire, Farm to School was broadly defined as a program that connects K-12 schools and local farms and has the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias; improving student nutrition; providing agriculture, health and nutrition education; and supporting local and regional farmers. Survey. A cover letter describing the purpose of the survey and a link to the questionnaire was emailed to representatives from all UCCE counties. The questionnaire was composed of 26 items that were either categorical “yes/no/I’m not sure” questions or open-ended questions allowing for further explanation. An additional item was provided at the end of the questionnaire for comments. Respondents were instructed to return the survey within 11 days. A follow-up email was sent to all participants after 7 days. This protocol resulted in a 28% response rate, typical in a survey of this kind. Respondents represented 21 counties, with some representing more than one county; in addition, one was a representative from a campus-based unit of ANR. Questionnaire respondents included three county directors, six NFCS advisors, four 4-HYD advisors, one NFCS and 4-HYD advisor, and three other related UCCE academic personnel . The responding counties were Riverside, San Mateo and San Francisco; San Bernardino, Stanislaus and Merced; Contra Costa, Yolo, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado and Tuolumne; Mariposa, Butte, Tulare, Alameda, ShastaTrinity, Santa Clara, Ventura and Los Angeles. Farm to School and school gardens. All 21 counties responding to the survey reported that they had provided a leadership role in school gardens, after-school gardens and/or Farm to School programs during the previous 5 years . Five out of 17 respondents reported that their counties provided a leadership role in Farm to School programs. Fourteen out of 17 respondents indicated that they individually played a leadership role in school garden programs, including serving as a key collaborator on a project, organizing and coordinating community partners, acting as school/agriculture stakeholders and/or serving as a principal investigator, coprincipal investigator or key collaborator on a research study. The most frequently reported reasons for having school and after-school gardens were to teach nutrition, enhance core academic instruction and provide garden produce . Additional reasons cited in the free responses included to study the psychological impacts of school gardens, enhance science and environmental education, teach composting, increase agricultural literacy, teach food origins, participate in service learning and provide a Gardening Journalism Academy. Reasons for success. The factors most frequently cited as contributing to successful school and after-school garden and Farm to School programs were community and nonparent volunteers, outside funding and enthusiastic staff . The 17 respondents indicated that the success of these programs was also aided by the multidisciplinary efforts within UC ANR , Farm Bureau, Fair Board and 4-H Teens as Teachers. Barriers. The most common factors cited as barriers to school and after-school gardens and Farm to School programs were lack of time and lack of knowledge and experience among teachers and staff . Additional barriers included lack of staff, cutbacks, competing programs for youth and lack of after-school garden-related educational materials for mixed-age groups. With regard to the Farm to School programs, one respondent perceived increased expense to schools, absence of tools to link local farmers with schools, a lack of growers and a lack of appropriate facilities in school kitchens.