Literature Review Childhood Obesity

Childhood Obesity in the U.S. 1

A Literature Review of Childhood Obesity in the United States

Jean Galiana


A Literature Review of the Childhood Epidemic in the United States

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers childhood obesity to be one of

the most serious public health challenges of the 21st Century. The United States Surgeon

General considers obesity to be a national epidemic (Satcher, 2001). The United States

Task Force on Childhood Obesity claims that obesity is a national health crisis. For the

first time in U.S. history, if the epidemic is not reversed, parents will be healthier and live

longer than the generations that follow (Olshansky, Passaro, Hershaw, Layden, Carnes,

Brody, Hayflick, Butler, Allison, & Ludwig, 2005).

The physical suffering and chronic diseases that obese children are likely to

experience are two of the negative outcomes of the obesity epidemic. . The healthcare

costs, and reduced economic productivity associated with obesity represent a major

economic cost for our nation. Older interventions of childhood obesity focused on

individual responsibility and education about the harmful physical effects of being obese.

Newer and more successful interventions involve collaboration of community, regional,

public, and private organizations with state and local governments. This collaboration

brings a united vision of changing the environments that lead to obesity and enacting

policy that supports healthy active lifestyles. This paper reviews the recent literature and

describes the repercussions of the prevalence of childhood obesity in the U.S. In addition,

this paper identifies and explores the main focus of interventions for childhood obesity.

Two case studies addressing these interventions will be presented.

A systematic literature search was conducted from February through April of

2015. The principle sources used include: Health Source: Nursing/Academic Medline

Complete, PubMed, and ProQuest Public Health were the databases used. Search terms


included: childhood obesity, after-school nutrition, after-school physical exercise, school

meals, school physical education, built environment, food deserts, and social

determinants of childhood obesity. Medical journals were the predominant source used

for this paper; 19 were cited. Research institutions were a useful source of information

for this literature review. The Institute of Medicine, the Brookings Institution, the Milken

Institute, the Rand Corporation, the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the Pew

Charitable Trust, the California Endowment, the Center for Collaborative Solutions, and

the Central Valley Policy Institute were all referenced. Also referenced is one U.S.

government report and several governmental websites including the Department of

Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Center

for Disease Control; 8 were cited. Eleven independent research studies were cited as was

one independent data website, (Mayo Clinic), and two newspapers.

Childhood Obesity Facts

The rate of childhood obesity in the United States has more than tripled since

1980 (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, & Flegal, 2014). For adolescents, this rate has grown four

times (National Center for Health Statistics, 2012). Out of twenty-three million children

aged two to nineteen, (31.7%), are obese or overweight (Center for Disease Control;

Oldgen et al., 2014). Over one half of the children who are obese today were overweight

when they were two years old. One fifth, or 20%, of American children are obese or

overweight by the time they are six (Office of the Surgeon General, 2010). For youth

ages twelve to nineteen, the obesity rate is 20.5% (Skinner & Skelton, 2014).

Childhood obesity occurs when a child is far above the average weight for his or

her height and age. Obesity is defined as having an excessively high percent of body fat


or adipose tissue in relation to lean body mass (Stunkard & Wadden, 1993). The body

mass index, (BMI), is a screening tool for determining whether a child is obese or

overweight. Height, weight, age, and gender are all factors in BMI calculations:

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers a child

overweight if he or she ranks from the 85th to the 95th percentile of children his or

her age, and obese if he or she ranks equal to or greater than the 95th percentile

(CDC, 2015). A child over two years of age is considered severely obese when they

have a BMI at least 20% higher than 95% of children with the same age and gender.

Severe childhood obesity in the U.S. increased 300% from1976-‐2005 (Flores, 2005).

Childhood obesity rates grow with age. Between 2011-2002, the obesity rates

were as follows: children aged two to five, 8.4%, children six to eleven, 17.75% and

adolescents aged twelve to nineteen, 10.5% (Ogden, et al., 2014). Childhood obesity for

those aged two to nineteen is more prevalent among African Americans, and Mexican

Americans ethnic groups. From 2011-2012, obesity disparities among these population

segments were as follows: 42.5% of Hispanic youth were obese, 47.8% of non-Hispanic

black youth were obese, and 32.6% of white youth were obese.

BMI = ( !"#$%& !" !"#$%&(!"#$%& !" !"#$%&)!(!"#$%& !" !"#$%&)

) x 703


Table 1. Obesity Rates Among Black, Hispanic, and White youths aged 2-19.

Year Black Hispanic White

1999 - 2002 34.9% 32.6% 29.4%

2003 -2004 45% 38.8% 30.6%

2011 - 2012 47.8% 42.5% 32.6%

Source: Wang & Beydoun, 2007.

There is a critical need for obesity interventions in childhood. Obese adolescents

are significantly more likely to be severely obese adults (Suchindran, North, Popkin, &

Gordon-Larsen, 2010). An adult is considered severely obese, also referred to as

morbidly obese, when he or she is 100 pounds or more overweight. Obese children are

more likely to be obese adults (Freedman, Kettel, Serdula, Dietz, Srinivasan, & Berenson,

2005). However, this likelihood is not uniform across ethnic groups. In the Bogalusa

Heart Study, 83% of obese Black children and 68% of obese White children became

obese adults (Freedman, et al., 2005).

Obesity among children aged two to four is more prevalent in households with an

income-to-poverty ratio of 100% or less. The income–to-poverty ratio reflects a family’s

income in relation to the poverty threshold (May, Freedman, Sherry, & Blanck, 2013).

Table 2 shows the prevalence of obesity for various levels of low-income households.

Table 2. Obesity Rates of Children Related to Poverty Level

Income-Poverty Level Measure Percentage of Obese Children

Less than or equal to 50% 14.2%

51-100% 14.5%


101-130% 13.4%

131-150% 12.4%

151-185% 11.8%

Source: Wang & Beydoun , 2007

Finkelstein and Mr. Bilger (2012), found that childhood weights are not

positively affected until a household is five times below the federal poverty level, which

represents 18.9% of American youths. Their findings state that even if the income

quadrupled for those 18.9% children, they would not experience a substantial change in

obesity rates.

Obesity rates for children have remained the same for the past ten years, while

obesity among low-income children aged two to four declined for the first time in years

and extreme obesity decreased in all racial groups except American Indians (Pan, Blanck,

Sherry, Dalenius, & Grummer-Strawn, 2012). One possible explanation is that adults are

consuming less fast food. In 2007-2008 fast food consumption was 12.8% of total food

consumption and in 2009-2010 it declined to11.3% (Rehm, & Drewnowski, 2015). There

are no recent comparable data for children’s consumption of fast food.

Health Complications of Childhood Obesity Obese children and teens are at a higher risk for developing serious illnesses

including heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, and stroke (Office of the Surgeon

General, 2010), along with various types of cancer including breast, colon, gall bladder,

kidney, endometrium, pancreas, thyroid, endometrium, esophagus, Hodgkin’s lymphoma,

thyroid, ovary, myeloma, cervix, and prostate (Kushi, Byers, Doyle, Bandera,

McCullough, & Gansler, 2006). Other health complications include metabolic syndrome,


high cholesterol and high blood pressure, asthma, sleep disorders, nonalcoholic fatty liver

disease, (NAFLD), and early puberty or menstruation. The social and emotional

complications of childhood obesity include low self- esteem and bullying, behavior and

learning problems, and depression (Mayo Clinic Staff).

Socioeconomic Implications

The physical suffering that obese people incur over a lifetime due to obesity

related illnesses is not the only price paid for the epidemic. The human and economic

costs of childhood obesity are significant and have wide-ranging socioeconomic

repercussions. Obesity drastically increases the occurrences of preventable chronic

diseases. Annual obesity-related healthcare direct costs are an estimated $192 billion

(Cawley & Meyerhoefer, 2012). The total cost of childhood obesity is estimated at

around $14 billion per year, which very likely will lead to higher lifetime healthcare costs

(Marder, Chang Wang, & Chyen, Lee, 2010). Research by the Milken Institute shows

that the leading risk factor of chronic disease is obesity (DeVol, Bedroussian, Charuworn,

Chatterjee, Kim, & Klowden, 2007). Their analysis concludes that if by 2030, the United

States could bring obesity rates back to 1998 levels, healthcare spending would decrease

by $60 billion and productivity would increase by $254 billion (DeVol, et al., 2007). One

half of the U.S. adult population suffers from at least one chronic disease (Nolte &

McKee, 2009). Obesity related chronic illnesses make up 75% of total annual healthcare

costs in the Untied States (Chatterjee, Kubendran, King, & Devol, 2014). By 2011, the

national obesity rate is forecasted to reach 29.9%, and the total healthcare costs

associated with obesity is expected to reach 20% of the U.S. gross domestic product

(Chatterjee et al., 2014).


The costs of obesity driven chronic illnesses extend beyond human suffering and

healthcare costs. A healthy workforce is a more productive workforce, which is essential

to growth and a strong economy. An unhealthy workforce negatively affects labor

productivity (Chatterjee et al., 2014). Presenteesim (lower production while at work)

related to obesity costs U.S. employers on average $506 per obese person per year

(Gates, Succop, Brehm, Gillespie, & Sommers, 2008; Chapman, 2008). Obese men and

women miss more days of work than their non-obese counterparts (Aldana & Pronk,

2001). Obese employees have 21% higher health care costs (Anderson,Whitmer, &

Goetzel, 2000), and make a higher number of worker compensation claims (Østbye,

Dement, & Kraus, 2007). General Motors estimates that it pays $1,500 in healthcare costs

for employees and retirees for every car it manufactures. This is more than the cost of the

steel to produce one car. The buyer absorbs these additional costs by the price they pay

for the vehicle. For example, in 2005, General Motors claimed that their mounting

healthcare costs were an influence in their decision to cut 25,000 jobs. This job reduction

impacted 175,000 jobs in other sectors (Lazarus, 2005: Appleby & Carty, 2005). “ The

average fortune 500 company will spend as much on health care as they make in profit.

How can we possibly compete in the global economy with that kind of burden?” (Stern,

2006).

Research from the Brookings Institution found that the total societal lifetime cost,

in 2013 dollars at a discount rate of 3%, of an obese person to be $92,235.00 higher than

those of a non-obese person. They predict that if the 12.7 million children carry their

obesity into adulthood, the total societal costs of their combined lifetimes could exceed

$1.1 trillion. (Kasman, Hammond, Werman, Mac-Crane, & McKinnon, 2015). Obese


people die up to 14 years earlier than non-obese people, (Fontaine, Redden, &Wang,

2010; Hammond & Levine, (2010); Printz, 2014). The Brookings Institution research

finds that lifetime costs of obesity are not nearly covered by shorter life expectancy

(Kasman et al., 2015).

The public health crisis of obesity causes human suffering in the form of disease

and social discomfort. The economic effects of obesity spill over to the rest of the

economy, primarily in the form of higher health care costs and reduced labor

productivity. While the epidemic seems to have stopped growing at the fast rates of the

past, our society and economy stand to gain significant socioeconomic benefits and cost

savings if we are able to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity in the United States.

Areas of Intervention

A focused national effort is essential to successfully combat childhood obesity in

the United States. The initiatives in place are multi-sectored and cover a variety of

environments. Local and state governments, and non-profit organizations partner with

communities to create a healthier culture. Childhood anti-obesity incentive programs are

directed toward the major factors contributing to obesity. Interventions are focused on

areas where children live, work and play. This section examines selected cases that

address the areas of community access to healthy affordable foods, healthy school

environments, and built environments that facilitate access to safe physical activity as

strategies to reduce childhood obesity rates in the U.S.

Access to Healthy Foods

The 2010 White House Task Force Report on Childhood Obesity determined that

there is a positive relationship between a lack of access to healthy, affordable foods and


higher levels of obesity. Neighborhoods and communities that lack availability of

affordable healthy food choices are referred to as food “deserts”. According to the Task

Force report, food deserts create food insecurity in some instances and that food insecure

children are hungry more often than children in food secure homes. The same report

claims that there is now research suggesting that hunger can lead to obesity (2010). In

food insecure homes, family members lack access to enough food to maintain an active,

healthy lifestyle. It is estimated that 14.3% of American households experienced food

insecurity in 2013, (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, & Singh, 2014). An estimated 29.7

million lower-income people, representing 9.7% of the total U.S. population, live over a

mile away from a supermarket (Ploeg, Michele, Breeman, Dutko, Williams, Snyder,

Dicken, & Kaufman, 2010). People in communities that lack access to grocery stores tend

to rely on convenience stores or smaller stores that do not sell affordable, high quality,

fresh food (Plog, Brenman, Farrigan, Hamrick, Hopkins, Kaufman, Lin, Nord, Smith,

Williams, Kennison, Orlander, Singh, & Tuckermanty, 2009).

The availability of local grocery stores may contribute to a healthier diet and

healthier body weight (Lamichhane, Puett, Porter, Bottai, Mayer-Davis, & Liese, 2012;

Swinbrun, Egger, & Raza, 1999). Similarly, the close proximity of supermarkets is

associated with a lower prevalence of obesity (Lamichhane, et al.; Morland, Diez-Roux,

& Wing, 2006). Those who live closer to grocery stores have healthier diets including

more fruits and vegetables, (Larson, Story, & Nelson, 2009; Rose & Richards, 2004) and

a healthier diet may prevent obesity or lower its occurrence (Keener, Goodman, Lowry,

Zaro, Kettel, & Kahn, 2009). One study concluded that having supermarkets in close


proximity to communities is an effective strategy to fight the obesity epidemic

(Drenowski, Aggarwl, Hurvitz, Monsivais, & Moudon, 2012).

However, a study by the Rand Corporation found that distance to a supermarket

had no affect on BMI because residents did their food shopping outside of their local

communities (Dubowitz, Zenk, Ghosh-Dastidar, Cohen, Beckman, Hunger, Steiner, &

Collins, 2014). Another study found that the price , rather than access, of foods was a

more important factor contributing to unhealthy body weight. Lear, Gasevic, and

Schuurman (2013), determined that there is a direct negative relationship between

grocery total prices at checkout and the shoppers BMI. This study suggests manipulating

food prices could be a more effective intervention than providing access to healthy

affordable foods The authors also indicate that interventions in a child’s school, outdoor,

or food access environment are not enough to combat the obesity epidemic without

thoughtful financial incentives (Lear, Gasevic, & Schuurman, 2013). . Finkelstein and

Bilger recommend a tax/subsidy policy aimed to incentivize families, schools and

governments, (Finkelstein & Bilger, 2012). A 2010 American Institute of Nutrition study

supports a tax/subsidy policy of taxing unhealthy, calorie-dense foods at a higher rate

healthier selections and lowering the price of healthy foods through government subsidies

(Powell, Han, & Chaloupka, 2010).

The School Environment

Because children and teens spend most of their day in school, it is important to

focus on that environment as a means to reduce obesity rates. Children and teens

consume close to 50% of their daily calorie intake in school (Briefel, Wilson, & Gleason,


2009). Nutritious school meals are likely to reduce the prevalence of obesity. This is

more pronounced in children who receive free or reduced-priced school lunches (Taber,

Chriqui, Powell, & Chaloupka, 2013). This is particularly effective because children from

lower income households have a 2.3% higher rate of obesity (Ogden, et al., 2014). In the

2012-2013 school year, 30.7 million children participated in a daily school lunch

program; 21.5 million, or 70%, received free or reduced-priced lunches (Woo, Hewins,

Bruke, Fitzsimons, 2015). During that same year, 13.2 million children ate school

breakfast; 11.2 million, or 85%, received a free or reduced price (Woo, et al., 2015).

Research indicates that children and teens do not drink enough water and are

drinking higher calorie, beverages instead (Patel et al., 2011). Drinking sufficient

amounts of water can contribute to maintaining a healthier weight (Patel, & Hampton,

2011). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), requires that schools

participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), provide free, unflavored

drinking water to schoolchildren wherever lunches are served.

Programs intended to increase physical activity in children are often focused in

schools. The Institute of Medicine studied school programs that aim to provide physical

activity and made recommendations on how to improve the outcomes of those programs.

In their report, Educating the Student Body. Taking Physical Activity and Physical

Education to School, the Institute of Medicine made 6 recommendations:

• Children should have 60 minutes of physical activity during school hours.

• When creating all school policy decisions, take into consideration the need

for physical exercise.

• Make physical education a core subject.


• Monitor physical activity and create data for evaluation and examination.

• Train teachers to teach the benefits of physical exercise and education across

the curriculum.

• Insure there is no ethnic, gender, education level, or personal characteristics

disparities in access to physical activity and physical education (Institute of

Medicine Staff, 2013).

After-school programs are important contributors to physical activity in children

(Trost, Rosenkranz, & Dzewaltowski, 2008). After-school programs can lead children to

the path of more productive, healthier lives (Geishirt, Hinkle, Casey, Miller, Samuels,

Schwarte, & Stiffler, 2009).

The Built Environment

Built environments are man-made, socially constructed surroundings that provide

a setting for human activity. A report by the National Physical Activity Plan Alliance and

the American College of Sports Medicine found that only 42% of children ages 6-11 and

8% of children ages 12-15 meet the recommended amount of 60 minutes of physical

activity daily. This report finds that only 25% of children ages 6-15 meet the

recommended 60 minutes of daily exercise (National Physical Activity Plan staff, 2014).

Communities that do not have the spaces to safely walk around, ride bikes, and play

outside are contributing factors to sedentary lifestyles of children. Sedentary behavior

refers to activities that do not take energy expenditure. Sedentary behavior is defined as

any behavior with an energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents, (METs) while

being in a sitting or reclining posture (Pate, O’Neill, & Lobelo, 2008).

Policies that designate safe routes for cycling or sidewalks for walking to and


from school offer children the opportunity for increased physical activity. The Safe

Routes National Center for Safe Routes to School has programs throughout the United

States. Parents, schools, and local, state and federal governments support their programs.

One study states that urban planning that encourages physical activity is an effective

method of addressing the obesity epidemic (Day, 2006).. In addition, the author

highlights the importance of active planning in areas where obesity rates are higher and

income levels are lower (Day, 2006). Some communities have made arrangements to

keep school playing fields and other recreational areas open for longer hours. In 2004 the

National Complete Streets Coalition was formed. This coalition supports the design of

safe communities that enable the residents to spend time outside walking, running,

biking, playing on playgrounds or relaxing in parks. Offering the opportunity for free and

local physical activity promotes a healthier lifestyle for children. The study, “Walking,

Obesity and Urban Design in Chinese Neighborhoods”, presented evidence that a built

environment, which is conducive to walking, increases the amount of walking time that

residents walk (Alfonzo, Guo, Lin, Day, (2014).

Case Study I

The first Case Study included in this report is the Healthy Eating, Active

Communities (HEAC) program. HEAC was a five-year initiative launched in 2005 by

The California Endowment Foundation. The mission of HEAC was to create

environments and policies that change the social determinants that contribute to

childhood obesity. HEAC combined the strength of community involvement, including


youth ambassadors, with local institutions to work toward the common goal of lowering

obesity rates among children and increasing overall health of communities and regions.

HEAC worked in selected California neighborhoods that had the highest rates of

childhood obesity. Interventions were specific to each community’s needs. HEAC

maintained a strong focus on school and after school programs for school children

because after school programs in California serve almost one million low-income

children; creating the possibility for effective anti-obesity prevention (Fletcher, 2010).

Other areas of HEAC intervention included neighborhood design, healthcare and

marketing/advertising. The HEAC pilot project was located in six ethnically diverse, low-

income communities: Oakland, South Shasta, Baldwin Park, South Los Angeles, Santa

Ana, and Chula Vista. These communities span 4 school districts. The California

Endowment funding went equally to all six communities and was directed toward the

environments that affect childhood obesity rates: school/after-school,

marketing/advertising, and the built environment.

HEAC methods include:

• Encouraging schools to adopt healthier food selections in accordance. with the

state nutrition standards for schools, (SB12).

• Encouraging schools to adopt healthier beverages in accordance with the state

beverage standards, (SB965).

• Promoting the nutrition standards of California state for childcare programs.

• Supporting local policy that limits food and beverage marketing and

advertising to children.


• Implementing sugary drink bans.

• Partnering with grass roots community groups.

• Educating communities on the benefits of breast-feeding.

• Implementing programs that enable better access to healthcare.

The HEAC initiative was independently evaluated at the midpoint and the

endpoint of the projects. The evaluation team included, Dr. Robert C. from University

California Berkeley, Samuels & Associates, University of California Los Angeles Kaiser

Permanente Center for Health Equity, Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health,

Field Research, Inc. and Abundantia Consulting. Their findings are presented next.

Participating school food and beverage outcomes:

• Adherence to the state competitive food standards increased by 38% by

the end of the program in 2010.

• Adherence to the state competitive beverage standard increased by 46%.

• Healthier food options in schools were offered to 885,000 students.

• The increase in food sales covered the loss of sales of less healthier food

and beverage options.

• All but four participating schools discontinued serving chips and cookies

with the prepared meals.

• Adherence to the state snack foods standard increasd by 26% by the end of

the program.

• Adherence to the state beverage food standard increased by 10%.

• Policy guidelines were amended to require all after school programs to

adhere to the state snack and beverage standards.


HEAC communities added thirteen farmers’ markets and produce stands.

Residents were able to pay with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, WIC

coupons and electronic benefits transfers (formerly Food Stamps) at some of the of the

participating farmers’ markets and produce stands, thereby giving lower-income residents

access to healthy fresh foods.

HEAC worked to influence local food stores in the inventory they carry and what

they advertise. From 2007-2009, the percent of healthy food advertising to unhealthy

food advertising increased from 15%-46%. Only minor improvements were shown in the

increase of healthy food offerings.

HEAC was successful at teaching physical education (PE) teachers to focus on the

importance of higher activity levels during PE class. The state education code and the

CDC recommend that 50% of PE class time be spent doing moderate to vigorous physical

activity (MVPE). Participating schools improved somewhat in this area moving from 6 to

10 schools in compliance. More improvement is needed. Community advocates, policy

makers and schools have now made MVPE in PE class their focus. After school

programs increased the time their students were active. The HEAC after schools add an

average of 42 minutes of physical activity daily.

Access to safe parks, mixed-use spaces and policy directed toward a healthier

built environment showed small improvement. These initiatives will likely take more

time to take hold and to show measurable change in residents’ physical activity related to

the improved access.

At the onset of the HEAC initiative, healthcare providers were hesitant to discuss

obesity with children and parents. The HEAC training gave healthcare providers the


motivation and tools to have these necessary discussions. By the end of the HEAC

initiative, the percentage of healthcare providers taking BMI measurements in their

clinical practices increased from 43%-68%. All of the healthcare providers within the

HEAC communities reported higher rates of obesity prevention advocacy.

From the program outcomes, we can conclude that the HEAC initiative was

successful in making healthy affordable foods available, providing increased access to

areas that are conducive to physical activity, and increasing awareness of the benefits of a

healthy lifestyle in the communities it served. The HEAC initiatives lead to state policy

changes that facilitate urban planning to include safe available outdoor activity spaces

and the availability of affordable healthy food. HEAC was not able to become self-

sustaining after the pilot initiative but programs like Public Matters and Market

Makeover are active in the same areas of Los Angeles and are carrying on the HEAC

model of policy-driven community based approach to obesity prevention.

Case Study II

The second case study examined in this report is the Central California Regional

Obesity Prevention Program (CCROPP). The College of Health and Human Services at

California State University Fresno, teamed with the Central California Public Health

Partnership to identify the need for intervention in the obesity epidemic of the central

region of California. The California Endowment developed CCROPP in 2006. The $10

million regional pilot program ran from 2006-2010. CCROPP was administered by

California State University Fresno’s Central California Center for Health and Human

Services under the oversight of the Central California Public Health Partnerships.


CCROPP is funded by The James Irvine Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, and The California Endowment.

The Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program was designed to

address the social determinants that contribute to the high rates of childhood obesity and

their related illnesses in the San Joaquin Valley region of California. The CCROPP

mission is to change the political and environmental constraints in underserved counties.

CCROPP has a central hub that coordinates efforts with regional and community public

health organizations. From this structure, relationships are formed with grassroots

community members, local and regional policy makers, parents, teachers, schools, local

merchants, farmers, city planners, local law enforcement, and local businesses. Their

mutual goal is to create sustainable regional and community infrastructures that support

physical activity and healthy eating.

In 2010, the California childhood obesity rate was 38%, which is 6% higher than

the national average (Babey, Wolstein, Diamant, Bloom, & Goldstein 2011; CDC).

CCROPP operated in eight counties within the San Joaquin Valley that had high rates of

childhood obesity. Table 3 presents the childhood obesity rates of the CCROPP counties.

Table 3. The 2010 Childhood Obesity Rates within the CCROPP Communities

County Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislauss Tulare

% Obese 40.41 41.43 45.11 44.71 44.50 39.29 41.60 43.03

Source: Babey et al. 2011.

These agricultural counties are primarily inhabited by poor Hispanic immigrants

and migrant workers, (Bengiamin, Capitman, & Chang, 2010). Public health outcomes in

these counties are worse than in the others in California and in the United States as a


whole (Bengiamin, Capitam, Paul, Riordan, Curtis, 2010). CCROPP has established

partnerships with public health departments, community organizations, and grassroots

leaders. CCROP uses a regional model of environmental and policy change. The areas of

intervention by CCROPP include community access to healthy foods, school foods and

beverages, and the built environment. CCROPP methods of fostering healthier

communities include:

• Encouraging small community stores to stock healthy food and beverage

selections.

• Expanding supplemental nutrition programs for infants, children and women

(WIC).

• Bringing Farmers markets, produce stands, community gardens and farm to

school programs into low-income communities.

• Shifting policies to enable residents to pay with food stamps at farmers

markets.

• Promoting the adaptation of universal school breakfast programs.

• Limiting access to sugary beverages in school environments.

• Supporting increased levels of physical education and physical activity in

schools and in after-school programs.

• Collaborating with school officials to keep schools open after hours and on

weekends so the community can use their amenities to stay active.

• Establishing better and safer walking and biking routes, walking trails, parks,

and other outdoor areas that encourage physical activity.

• Creating media campaigns that encourage healthy eating and exercise.


At the end of the CCROPP initiative, community awareness of the need to focus

on the factors contributing to the high rates of childhood obesity was high. 53% of the

CCROPP community residents believe that policy measures supporting healthy food

environments is very important. The details community support can be seen in table 4.

Table 4. HEAC and CROPP

Resident Support of Policy Measures Supporting Healthy Eating and Physical Activity

Policy Focus Support

Making parks, streets, sidewalks, and playgrounds safe 96%

Keeping parks and public open spaces clean 97%

Improving access to walking and biking paths 89%

Requiring joint use of school facilities to the community for after hour

use of physical activity areas 86%

Changing infrastructure to reduce the need for a car 83%

Adding more farmers’ markets 76%

Creating community gardens 79%

Attracting supermarkets to smaller, low-income communities 72%

Using soda tax revenues to support childhood anti-obesity programs 69%

Source: Samuels & Associates, 2010

Local health providers in HEAC and CROPP sites are more committed to obesity

prevention. They have become powerful advocates of healthy food and built

environments on the local and regional level. Both HEAC and CROPP initiatives

recognize the importance of youth engagement in rebuilding and redirecting the health of


their community. From the community level, information moved to the regional level,

which then had the power to influence state policy, and possibly federal policy. The

HEAC and CCROPP bottom-up development model can be replicated by grass roots

organizers in marginalized, low-income African American, Latino, and American Indian

communities with high rates of childhood obesity throughout the country. Their model

framework for using policy and environment to prevent childhood obesity includes:

• Engaging both public and private community, regional, and state sectors in

interventions.

• Maintaining a strong focus on community and youth engagement.

• Facilitating collaboration of community and institutional stakeholders to

create larger impact and sustainability.

• Implementing policy strategies on a local and state level.

CCROPP became self-sustaining after the funding and the initiative ended and

remains a vibrant powerful program.

Conclusion

In 2010, when the Healthy Eating Active Communities and the Central California

Regional Obeisty program initiative ended the U.S. Government created the Healthy,

Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Turner, Chaloupka, 2015). In the same year, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture updated the national nutrition standards for school meals and

required implementation during the 2012-2013 school year. These standards require

schools to offer more fruits and vegetables, whole grain products and low-fat or fat-free

milk. Since these updated standards went into place, more elementary are serving more

healthy foods and fewer unhealthy foods in their lunches (Turner, et al., 2015). The


updated standards also required schools to stock their vending machines with healthy

snacks and water.

In 2014, Hart Research Associates and Ferguson Research trust conducted

surveys targeting parents who had children in elementary school. Their findings show

that parents support the U.S.D.A. healthier standards and are concerned with childhood

health. Table 4 shows the survey results.

Table 5 Parental Opinion of School Foods, 2014.

Subject % Support % Disapprove

National standards for kids meals 72%

National standards for school snacks 72%

Schools serving a fruit or vegetable with each meal 91%

Limiting the amount of salt in school meals 75%

Concerned with the general state of children’s health 80%

Concerned with childhood obesity 74%

Nutritional quality of foods old al la carte in school 69%

Nutritional quality of foods sold in school stores 72%

Nutritional quality of foods sold in school vending

machines

81%

Source: Hart Research Associates/Ferguson Research, 2014.

It is encouraging to report that childhood obesity rates have stopped growing, but

this is only the first step. Childhood obesity remains a national epidemic and a public

health crisis. Both the HEAC and CCROPP initiatives have proven successful in creating


models that improve the quality of food served in school and in after school programs

and physical exercise, provide safe streets, parks, sidewalks, and mixed-use

environments, along with facilitating access to affordable healthy foods. Policy

leadership from the community, state, and federal level should acknowledge and support

the community-driven efforts to prevent childhood obesity. For profit and not for profit

organizations should support community-driven programs like HEAC and CCROPP.

When designing policy, local, state, and federal governments should consider creative

uses of financial incentives as a key tool to reduce the incidence of childhood obesity in

the United States.


References

Aldana, S., & Pronk, N. (2001). Health promotion programs, modifiable health risks, and

employee absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, 43(1),

36-46.

Alfonzo, M., Guo, Z., Lin, L., Day, K. (2014). Walking, obesity and urban design in

Chinese neighborhoods. Journal of Preventive Medicine 69, s79-s85.

Appleby, J., & Silke Carty, S. (2005, June 24). Ailing GM looks to scale back generous

health benefits. USA Today.

Anderson, D., Whitmer, R., Goetzel, R., Ozminkowski, R., Dunn, R., Wasserman, J., &

Serxner, S. (2001). The relationship between modifiable health risks and group-

level health care expenditures. Health Enhancement Research Organization

(HERO) Research Committee. American Journal of Health Promotion, 15(1), 45-

52.

Babey, S., Wolstein, J., Diamant, A., Bloom, A., & Goldstein, H. (2011). A patchwork of

progress. Changes in overweight and obesity among California 5th, 7th, and 9th

graders, 2005-2010.

Bengiamin, M., Capitamna, J, Paul, C.M., Riordan, D.G., & Curtius, K.A. (2005).

Healthy People 2010, A 2005 Profile of Health Status in the San Joaquin Valley.

Central Valley Health Policy Institute, California State University Fresno.

Briefel, R., Wilson, A., Gleason, M., & Wilson, A. 2009). Consumption of low-

nutrient,energy-dense foods and beverages at school, home, and other locations

among school lunch participants and nonparticipants. Journal of the Academy of

Nutrition and Dietetics, 109(2), S79-S90.


Cawley, J., & Meyerhoefer, C. (2012). The medical care costs of obesity: An instru-

mental variables approach. The Journal of Health Economics, 31(1), 219-230.

CDC (2012). Childhood obesity facts prevalence of childhood obesity in the United

States, 2011-2012. CDC.gov. Retrieved February, 5, 2015

CDC. (n.d.). Healthy weight – it’s not a diet, it’s a lifestyle! Retrieved February 12, 2015.

Chapman, L. (2005). Presenteeism and its role in worksite health promotion. American

Journal of Health Promotion, 19(4), 1-8.

Chatterjee, A., Kubendran, S., King, J., & Devol, R. (2104). Checkup time: chronic

disease and wellness in America – charting a new course to save lives and

increase productivity and economic growth. Milken Institute Review, 618, 7-15.

Coleman-Jensen, A., Gregory, C., & Singh, A. (2014). Household Food Insecurity in the

United States in 2013. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service, ERR-173.

Day, K. (2006). Active living and social justice: Planning for physical activity in low

income and black and Latino communities. Journal of the American Planning

Association, 72(1): 88-99.

DeVol, R., Bedroussian, A., Charuworn, A., Chatterjee, A., Kim, K., Kim, S. &

Klowden, K. (2007). An unhealthy America: The economic burden of chronic

disease. Charting a new course to save lives and increase productivity and

economic growth. Milken Institute Publications, 2.

Drewnowski A., Aggarwal A., Hurvitz P.M., Monsivais P, & Moudon A.V. (2012).

Obesity and Supermarket Access: Proximity or Price? American Journal of Public

Health. 102(8), 74-80.


Dubowitz, T., Zenk, S., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Cohen, D., Beckman, R., Hunter, G.

Steiner, E., Collins, R., 2014. Public Health and Nutrition, DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980014002742. Retrieved February, 2015.

Finkelstein, E., Bilger, M., (2012). Hard truths and a new strategy for addressing

childhood obesity. Childhood Obesity, 8(2), 106-108.

Fletcher, A.J. (2010). Combating the childhood obesity crisis: After school programs,

The socioecological model, and the health behaviors initiative. Three case

Studies. Sacramento: CA Center for Collaborative Solutions; California

Afterschool Network.

Flores, G. (2005). Factors predicting severe childhood obesity in kindergarteners.

International Journal of Obesity, 37(1), 31-39.

Fontaine K.R., Redden D.T., & Wang C., (2010). Years of life lost due to obesity.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(2):187–193.

Freedman D.S., Kettel L., Serdula M.K., Dietz W.H., Srinivasan S.R., & Berenson G.S.

(2005). The relation of childhood BMI to adult adiposity: the Bogalusa Heart

Study. Pediatrics, 115(1), 22-27.

Freedman, D.S., Khan, L., Serdula, M., Dietz, W. Srinivasan S., & Berenson, G.

(2005).Racial differences in the tracking of childhood BMI to adulthood. Obesity

Research, 13(5), 928-935.

Gates, D., Succop, P., Brehm, B., Gillespie, G., & Sommers, B. (2008). Obesity and

presenteeism: the impact of body mass index on workplace productivity. Journal

of Occupational Environmental Medicine 50(1), 39-45.


Geishirt, B., Hinkle, A., Casey, M., Miller, J., Samuels, S.E., Schwarte, L., & Stiffler, K.

(2009). Promoting healthier after school environments: Opportunities and

challenges. Los Angeles: The California Endowment.

Guo, S., & Chumlea, W. (1999). Tracking of body mass index in children in relation to

Overweight in adulthood. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70(1), 145-148.

Heart Research Associates, Ferguson Research (2014). Nationwide polling regarding

parents’ views of school meal and smart snack standards. The Pew Charitable

Trusts, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, & the American Heart Association.

Institute of Medicine Staff (2013). Educating the student body. Taking physical activity

and physical education to school. The Institute of Medicine of the National

Academies, 1-3.

Kasman, M., Hammond, R.A., Werman, A., Mac-Crane, A., & McKinnon, R.A., (2015).

An in-depth look at the economic cost of obesity. Brookings Institution, 1-29.

Keener, D., Kenneth, G., Kahn, K., L., Lowry, A. & Zaro S. (2009). Recommended

Community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the United States:

implementation and measurement guide. Department of Health and Human

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Kushi L., Byers T., Doyle C., Bandera E., McCullough M., & Gansler T. (2012).

American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer

prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical

activity. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 61(1), 30-67.


Lamichhane, A.P., Puett, R., Porter, D.E., Bottai, M., Mayer-Davis, E.J., & Liese, A.D.,

(2012). Associations of built environment with body mass index and waist

circumference among youth with diabetes. International Journal of Behavioral

Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(81), 217-224.

Larson, I., Story, T., & Nelson, C. (2009). Neighborhood environments: disparities in

Access to healthy foods in the U.S. American Journal of Preventative

Medicine,36(1), 74-81.

Lazarus, D. (2005). Costs of health dare drag America Down. The San Francisco

Chronicle. Retrieved April 1, 2015.

Lear, S., Gasevic, D. & Schuurman, N., (2013). Association of supermarkets with the

body mass index of their shoppers. Nutrition Journal, doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-

12-117. Accessed February 2015.

May, A., Freedman, D., Sherry, B., & Blanck, H. (2013). Obesity—United States, 1999-

2010. Morbidity and Mortality, 52(3), 120-128.

Mayo Clinic Staff (n.d.). Diseases and conditions childhood obesity complications.

Retrieved March 10, 2015.

Marder W., & Chang S. (2006). Childhood obesity: costs, treatment patterns, disparities

in dare, and prevalent medical conditions. Thomson Medstat Research Brief.

Morland, K., Diez-Roux, A.V., & Wing, S. (2006). Supermarkets, other food stores, and

obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. American Journal of

Prevantative Medicine, 30(4), 333-339.


Nolte, E., & McKee, M. (2008). Measuring the health of nations: updating an earlier

analysis. Health Affairs, 27(1), 58-71.

Office of the Surgeon General (2010). The Surgeon General’s vision for a healthy and fit

nation. Rockville, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Ogden, C., Carroll, M., Kit, B., & Flegal, K. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult

obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. Jama, 311(8), 806-814.

Olshansky, J., Passaro, D., Hershow, R. Layden, J., Carnes, B., Brody, J., Hayflick,

L.,Butler, R., Allison, D., & Ludwig, S. (2005). A potential decline in life

expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. New England Journal of

Medicine, 352(11), 1138-1144.

Østbye, T., Dement, J., & Kraus, K. (2007). Obesity and worker's compensation. Results

from the Duke health and safety surveillance system. JAMA Internal Medicine,

167(8), 766-773.

Pang, L., Blanck, H., Sherry, B., Dalenius, K., & Grummer-Strawn, L. (2102). Trends in

the prevalence of extreme obesity among U.S. preschool-aged children living in

low-income families, 1998-2010. The Journal of the American Medical

Association, 308(24), 2563-2565.

Patel, I., & Hampton, E., 2011. Encouraging consumption of water in school and child

care settings: access, challenges, and strategies for improvement. American

Journal of Public Health,101(8),1370-1379.


Plog, M.V., Breneman, V., Dutko, Williams R., Snyder, S., Dicken, C., & Kaufman,

P.(2010). Access to affordable and nutritious food: updated estimates of distance

to supermarkets using 2010 data, Err-143, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service.

Plog,M.V., Breneman, V., Farrigan, T., Hamrick, K., Hopkins, D., Kaufman, P., Lin,

B.H., Nord, M., Smith, T., Williams, R., Kinnison, K., Olander, C., Singh,

A., & Tuckermanty, E. (2009). Access to affordable and nutritious food—

measuring and understanding food deserts and their consequences: Report to

Congress. ERR-036. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service.

Powell, L.M., Han, E., & Chaloupka, F., (2010). Contextual factors, food consumption

and obesity among U.S. adolescents. The Journal of Nutrition, 140(6), 1175-

1180.

Printz, C. (2014). Extreme obesity may shorten life expectancy by up to 14 years.

Cancer, 120(23), 3591.

Rehm, C., & Drewnowski, A. (2105). Trends in energy intakes by type of fast food

Restaurant among U.S. children from 2003-2010. Journal of American Medicine

Pediatrics. Retrieved April 6, 2015.

Rose, D., & Richards, R. (2004). Food store access and household fruit and vegetable use

among participants in the U.S. Food Stamp Program. Public Health and

Nutrition7(8), 1081-1088.


Samuels & Associates, 2010. Healthy Eating, Active Communities and Central

California Regional Obesity Prevention Program. Final Evaluation Synthesis

Report, 40-140.

Satcher, W. (2001). The Surgeon General’s call to action to prevent and decrease

Obesity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. government printing office.

Skinner, A., & Skelton, J. (2014). Prevalence and trends in obesity and severe obesity

among children in the United States, 1999-2012. Journal of American Medicine

Pediatrics, 561-566.

Stern, A. (2006). Horse-and-Buggy Health Coverage. Retrieved April 2, 2015.

Stunkard, A. & Wadden, T. (1993). Obesity: Theory and Therapy (Second ed.)

New York, New York: Raven Press.

Taber, D. R., Chriqui, J. F., Powell, L., & Chaloupka, F. J. 2013. Association between

state laws governing school meal nutrition content and student weight status:

implications for new USDA school meal standards. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(6),

513–519.

The, N., Suchindran, C., North, K., Popkin, B., & Gordon-Larson, P. (2010). The

association of adolescent obesity with risk of severe obesity in adulthood. Journal

of American Medicine, 304(18), 2042-2047.

Trost, S.G., Rosenkranz, R.R., Dzewaltowski, D. (2008). Physical activity levels among

children attending after-school programs, Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 40(4), 622-629.


Turner, L., Chaloupka, F.J. (2015). Improvements In School Lunches Result in Healthier

Options for Millions of U.S. Children: Results from Public Elementary Schools

Between 2007-07 and 2013-14. A BIG Research Brief. Chicago IL: Bridging the

Gap Program, Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy,

University of Illinois at Chicago.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services

(2010). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 7th edition. Washington D.C. U.S.

government printing office. Retrieved January 25, 2015.

Wang, L., Chyen, D., & Lee, S. (2008). The association between body mass index in

adolescence and obesity in adulthood. Journal of adolescent health, 42(5),

512-518.

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. Epidemiology Review 29, 6-28.

White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity staff (2010). Solving the problem of

childhood obesity within a generation. White house task force on childhood

obesity, Report to the president,let’smove.gov. Retrieved January 28, 2015.

World Health Organization (WHO) staff. Global strategy on diet, physical activity, and

health. Childhood overweight and obesity. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2015.

Woo, N., Hewins, J., Burke, M., &Fitzsimons, C., 2015. School breakfast scorecard:

2013-2014 school year. Food Research and Action Center.

Literature Review Childhood Obesity

Documents

Transcript of Literature Review Childhood Obesity